Commons Sitting of 11 May 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [10th May] reported.
PUBLIC BILL—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Fraserburgh Waterworks) [2]*.

QUESTIONS.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS—THE BOARD OF TRADE—RESIGNATION OF PROFESSOR TYNDALL.
  MR. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Did the Irish Lights Commissioners agree to the proposals of the Board of Trade as to the constitution of the Committee on Lighthouse Illuminants?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Professor Tyndall, D.C.L., resigned his position as Scientific Adviser to the Board of Trade because a Committee was forced on the Commissioners of Irish

  521
  Lights which they repudiated, and on which, in consequence of its constitution, he refused to serve; and, whether any effort will be made to prevent the services of this eminent man being lost to the Country?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, in reply to these Questions I would refer to the Correspondence which has been presented to-day, and which will show very fully the circumstances attending Professor Tyndall's resignation. In the meantime, I may say that it is not true that any Committee has been imposed upon the Irish Light Commissioners. A Committee was suggested, and the three Lighting Boards were all asked to send representatives to it. They were requested to nominate their own representatives, and they all agreed to do so. The Irish Light Commissioners made some objection to the constitution of the Committee; but they now state that they will abstain from pressing their objections, and have acceded to the request of the Board of Trade to appoint two members to serve on the Committee. I may add that in the course of these proceedings I had a personal interview with Professor Tyndall, in which I endeavoured to overcome his objections to serve on the Committee, but without success.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUTDOOR RELIEF.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as President of the Local Government Board, he will take steps to make known to all Boards of Guardians that they have power to issue outdoor relief in cases of sickness in a family, even if the head of the family be not himself sick, and that these powers are not confined to cases of occupiers of land referred to in Circular of February 7th 1880?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I take my hon. and gallant Friend's point to be that, because no mention is made in the Circular referred to of the cases of persons not in any way connected with the occupation of land, misapprehension may exist on the part of Boards of Guardians as to their powers with respect to the grant of outdoor relief in such cases. I will take the opportunity, when in Ireland during the Recess, of ascertaining whether there is reason to
  522
  believe that any such misapprehension exists on the part of any Boards of Guardians.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: My right hon. Friend has misapprehended my Question. My object was to convey to the Guardians an expression of opinion that families may be given outdoor relief even though the head of the family may not be sick.
  MR. TREVELYAN: In the view of the Local Government Board the Circular to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is sufficient; but if my hon. and gallant Friend will point out to me any particular in which he does not think it sufficient, I will have inquiry made into the matter.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: Have the Boards of Guardians acted on the Circular?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The question is whether they understand it.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: As Chairman of two Boards of Guardians, I beg to say that they have acted on it.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—WATERFORD CO.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that, on May the 4th, the Sub-Commissioners for hearing Land Cases in the county of Waterford adjourned their Court until September next; if it is the fact that a considerable number of cases from that county, in which originating notices were served as far back as December 1881, are still undisposed of; and, whether arrangements will be made to enable the Sub-Commissioners to take up the hearing of cases at an earlier date than September, and to sit more frequently than hitherto, and for longer periods?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question, which only appeared on the Paper yesterday, was telegraphed to the Sub-Commission yesterday, but no reply has yet been received, owing, it is presumed, to the interruptions caused by bad weather. I am, however, informed by the Land Commissioners that, according to the arrangements made for the Water-ford Sub-Commissioners, they were to sit at the City of Waterford until the 6th of this month, unless all cases listed had been previously disposed of. All cases from County Waterford lodged during 1881 have been listed, but some

  523
  of them stand adjourned. It is not the oase that the Sub-Commission will not again sit in the county until September. They are appointed to sit at Dungarvan on the 30th of July to hear cases from the Unions of Waterford and Dungarvan.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS IN CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution adopted on the 16th ultimo by the Tobercurry (county Sligo) Board of Guardians, condemning the conduct of certain local landlords in evicting nineteen families, after the parish priest, the Reverend J. Conlon, bad several times proposed terms of settlement which he considered fair; whether the families in question have been obliged to resort to the Board of Guardians for assistance; and, whether the Irish Government will consider the expediency of refusing to grant the aid of the armed forces of the Crown in carrying out evictions, in cases where there is proof that fair terms had been offered on the side of the tenant, and that the landlord had refused to entertain them? He also wished, in putting the Question, to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the report made by Mr. N. Devine, who visited these poor people on the 19th ultimo, and described their condition as wretched and miserable in the extreme; and whether any steps would be taken to prevent the loss of life amongst them from exposure and starvation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the resolution referred to, and also the report of Mr. Devine. I am informed that the families in question have applied to the Board of Guardians, and are getting outdoor relief. I am not prepared to recommend legislation with the object of carrying out the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. The Sheriff is entitled by law to call for the protection of anyone, including military and police, in carrying out the process of the law.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the period during which the Guardians can legally give outdoor relief to these families is now expired?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case during the Recess, and see what can be done.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 14—SEARCHES FOR DOCUMENTS—MR. JOHN CULLEN, OF MANORHAMILTON.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. John Cullen, of Manorhamilton, denounces as a calumny the statement that he wrote a letter suggesting to the police the searches made in his own and his friends' premises; whether he is aware that Mr. Cullen, by his active part in the Land League agitation, has incurred the enmity of landlords, bailiffs, and policemen in North Leitrim; and that he has been in a special manner brought into collision with a bailiff named James M'Cullagh, who is in possession of specimens of Mr. Cullen's handwriting; and, what opportunity Mr. Cullen will be afforded of vindicating his character from an odious imputation or of satisfying the public of the nature of evidence on which the imputation was based?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am aware, Sir, that Cullen has made the denial referred to; but this does not influence the opinion of the authorities, which is very well-founded. I am also aware of the position once occupied by Cullen in connection with the Land League. The particular circumstances referred to in connection with a bailiff named M'Cullagh are not before me, nor do I think them material, though I suppose it is intended to imply that the bailiff having specimens of Cullen's handwriting in his possession imitated it so successfully as to deceive experienced officials and a professional expert. The Government has no intention of taking any stops in the direction suggested by the last paragraph of the Question. If there is any sense of grievance on account of the publicity given to the views of the authorities on this case, I must remind the hon. Member that that publicity has arisen from the action of Mr. Cullen's friends, and not through any desire of the authorities to give prominence to the matter.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Is a grievance never to be exposed for fear it would be

  525
  utilized to make anonymous charges against the person aggrieved?
  MR. TREVELYAN: If in every case in which the police took action in England and Scotland Questions were put to the Home Secretary, explanations would have to be made which would be unpleasant and uncomplimentary to some persons concerned. I think that is the real state of the case. The authorities arrived at conclusions on certain grounds which satisfy them that they are well-founded, and if Questions are asked those grounds may be stated.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to or withdraw the statement that Mr. Cullen wrote the letter which caused the police to search his premises?
  [No answer was given.]

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended that the office of Chief Superintendent of the Dublin Metropolitan Police (included in Schedule 3 of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions) Bill, will be filled up from the ranks, in the same manner as all grades in the force under that of Commissioner, have hitherto been filled up, or whether it is intended that a person not already a member of the force shall be appointed to the office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the office referred to is not vacant, and, therefore, the question as to how it is to be filled has not arisen. No doubt, in the event of a vacancy, the appointment would, as heretofore, be made from the ranks, if there is a properly qualified man for the post. I hope such a man will be found.

  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government intend to introduce into the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill, a Clause excluding Ireland from the operation of that measure?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, this was the first time he had ever heard the suggestion that this Bill should not be made applicable to Ireland. An Irish Judge
  526
  was placed upon the Commission which considered that Bill in order that the Commission might derive benefit from his knowledge of Irish law and procedure, as it was the desire of the Government to assimilate as much as possible the law of Ireland and England. Though he should be glad to modify what he anticipated would be the severe criticism of the Bill by the Irish Members, he could not at present see his way to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER LANDS ACT, 1855—COUNCIL OF THE DUCHY.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he would explain on what grounds he stated that when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sits by himself he is the Council of the Duchy; and, on what grounds afforded by Charter, Act of Parliament, or otherwise, it is considered necessary that the members of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster should be convened for the purpose of exercising the statutory powers conferred by "The Duchy of Lancaster Lands Act, 1855?"
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the practice in question rests upon usage of 200 years and upwards, The matter was investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons, who stated in their Report, in 1857, two years after the passing of the Act in question, that it appeared by the evidence of the Law Officers of the Duchy—
  "That the absolute power rests in the Chancellor; that he is not obliged to consult his Council on any matter, and that a minute passed by him alone is equivalent to a minute passed by the Chancellor and Council."
  They further stated—
  "That certain persons were added to the Council by the advice of Lord Campbell, but that they have no independent power, and are consulted only by the Chancellor when he desires their advice. This opinion is confirmed by the researches of the Clerk of Records."
  The Law Officers of the Duchy at that time were that erudite lawyer, Mr. Ellis (Adolphus and Ellis), and Mr., after Lord Justice, James—and the Clerk of the Records referred to is Mr. Hardy, the present well-known Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. The evidence of the Law Officers and of Mr. Hardy will be found in the Blue Book and is

  527
  most full and explicit. I find that Lord Campbell during the four years that he was Chancellor of the Duchy, on 21 different occasions, sitting alone as Chancellor and Council, dealt with land by sale or purchase; and on cursorily inspecting the Minutes of the Duchy Court I find that in the four years immediately succeeding the passing of the Act of 1855 no fewer than 22 cases of sales of property were sanctioned by the Chancellor sitting alone.

  EMIGRATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that the Board of Trade have issued a Minute to the Emigration Officials at Liverpool to refrain from furnishing the Press with any information respecting the movements of emigrants from that port; and, if so, what is the reason for withholding this information, so valuable to the public?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the value of this information to the public is fully recognized, and in consequence it is now published officially, not only for Liverpool, but for all other ports. It was thought undesirable that the local officers should communicate with the Press without the knowledge of the Board of Trade, as the information which had been given was not altogether accurate.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I suppose there will be no delay in publishing it?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: None at all.
  MR. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of the information that the Board of Trade have directed the emigration officers to suppress?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The information is with reference to the movements of emigrants. There is no intention to suppress information; but it has been thought advisable that the same information which has hitherto been given unofficially and inadequately by the local officers shall now be published officially.

  PARLIAMENT—LORD ALCESTER'S AND LORD WOLSELEY'S ANNUITY BILLS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now inform the House by what
  528
  means he proposes to substitute lump sums for heritable pensions in the Annuity Bills relating to Lords Alcester and Wolseley?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I feel, Sir, that in answering this Question I ought to treat it as a dry matter of fact, and to refrain for the present from explaining the reasons which have influenced Her Majesty's Government in coming to the decision they have arrived at. After full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and after consulting various public interests, the Government have come to the conclusion that they ought to alter the basis of their Bills from an annuity, which has been the usual course, to what is called in the Question a lump sum, and the lump sum which they propose to offer, having regard to the fact that this is a new development of the proposal laid before the House, will be £25,000 for Lord Alcester and £30,000 for Lord Wolseley. The course of proceeding would be this. In order to be perfectly regular, it would be right to set up Committees in order to vote these lump sums, because from the nature of the case contemplated in the original proposal with regard to the pensions, which had not reference simply to lives in existence, it is impossible to say with that certainty which the House is ordinarily entitled to exact that these lump sums are within the value of the annuities, or that the precise actuarial value can be stated. We shall, therefore, set up these Committees and take the Report of the Resolutions, and then I shall move to instruct the Committees on the Bills to insert these lump sums, and upon that Instruction a convenient opportunity for making a statement will arise.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman name a day when the Bill will be brought forward?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot state this at present; but I propose to take the preliminary stages on the very first day that Parliament re-assembles; but I will take care to make some convenient arrangement for the discussion of the matter when I move the Instructions.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask whether there is any necessity for legislation, and why the lump sums should not be voted in the Estimates, as in the case of Sir Frederick Roberts and Sir Donald Stewart?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the consideration which has weighed with the Government is one which I think the noble Lord will appreciate. This proceeding grew entirely out of a Message from the Crown sent not to the House of Commons only, but to the House of Lords; and the House of Lords, in answer to that Message, expressed its willingness to take the matter into consideration. Were we to proceed by a Vote in Supply, although it would have to us very great recommendations, inasmuch as it would be a far simpler method of proceeding, the House of Lords would be entirely ousted from all consideration in the subject. That would not be, I think, consistent with the respect which is due to an independent branch of the Legislature.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I presume the Resolutions will be so framed that any proposal to reduce the Vote can be moved in Committee; and, in that case, I imagine there would be no disposition in this part of the House to obstruct the preliminary stages?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly it would be open to any Member to move to reduce the sum.

  PARLIAMENT—GRAND COMMITTEES—REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What arrangements have been made for reporting the proceedings of the Grand Committees; and, whether these proceedings will be reported in Hansard like the proceedings on Bills in Committees of the whole House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the state of the case is this—the Government has really no primary part to play in regard to this matter. We shall be guided in a very great degree, first of all by the wishes of the Committee as made known to us by the Chairman and Members; and, secondly, by the authorities of the House. From neither quarter have we received any information which would lead us to believe that the time has come for taking any measures on the subject, and I do not think it would be for us to initiate any. My own personal opinion is that a little experience and the proof from experience of what amounts to a public desire would alone be a safe guide.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Hansard did not take any notes of the proceedings of the Committees?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think that circumstance should lead me in any respect to vary my answer. It is only experience that can guide us in the matter.

  REGISTRATION (IRELAND) ACTS—REGISTERED CHARGES ON ESTATES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will furnish a Return showing, by Counties and Provinces, the amounts of the Registered Charges on Estates in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that the Registration Acts do not require the nature, or amount, or other particulars of the charge to be stated in the memorial registering it. The date of the instrument creating the charge, the names of the parties, and the particular lands charged are all that need be stated, and it would, therefore, in a vast number of cases in which charges are registered be impossible to ascertain the amounts. Many charges may get paid off or satisfied, or may fail to take effect without there being anything whatever on the registry to show that they are no longer charges. It would be wholly impossible to prepare such a Return. The Registry Acts were drawn, and the machinery of registration devised, without any intention that the particulars of such charges could be ascertained in the Office. It is the business of the solicitors of the individual client to obtain those particulars.

  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—THE DERBY DAY.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that a paragraph had appeared in The Times that morning stating that a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) intended on Tuesday week to move the Adjournment of the House until Thursday, and that the proposal had the tacit approval of the Leaders on both sides of the House. He wished to put a Question to the Prime Minister on this subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that the Question which the hon. Mem-

  531
  ber desires to put does not relate to any Bill or Motion before the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONwished to know whether he might ask the Prime Minister whether he tacitly approved the proposal? [Cries of "No!"]
  Subsequently,
  SIR WILFEID LAWSONasked whether any Member of the Government intended to move the Adjournment of the House over the Derby Day?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. That matter is one which, I am happy to say, has by custom passed over to the care and charge of independent Members, and there I hope it will always remain.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it was in Order for a Member, who was not a Member of the Government, to make a Motion for the adjournment of the House at half-past 4 o'clock? Two years ago he wished to move at half-past 4 that the Business of the House was not urgent, and the Speaker then ruled that it was not competent for private Members to move such a Motion at that hour.
  MR. SPEAKER: Such Motions could not, as a general rule, be made by a Member not being a Member of the Government; but the occasion in question is exceptional, and I should not feel authorized to refuse to put a Motion of that kind, regard being had to the usual practice of the House on this particular question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not refused to recognize the practice since the last time when such a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)?
  MR. SPEAKER: My course has been uniform in the matter. If the question of the hon. Member contemplates a Motion without Notice, I may add that the Motion could not be brought forward without Notice.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that when in the Session before last he consulted the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, with regard to his right to put down a Notice of Motion for half-past 4, to the effect that the Business of the House was no longer urgent, the right hon. Gentleman then represented to him that it was not competent to a private Member to put such a Notice on the Paper, and when he (Mr. Arthur
  532
  O'Connor) brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice the fact that it was a private Member who put the Notice on the Paper with regard to the Derby Day, the right hon. Gentleman said that the case of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was not one which he could recognize as a precedent.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion with regard to the Derby Day is, as I have already said, exceptional. It has been allowed for many years, by myself and my Predecessors in this Chair. Any Motion not relating to that matter could not be allowed.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONgave Notice that he should oppose any Motion for adjournment over the Derby Day.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Prime Minister, Whether, considering the immense importance of the National Debt Bill to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, he would undertake that due Notice should be given of the Motion for the second reading, and that it should be made the first Order of the Day?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would promise that due Notice should be given of the second reading; but he was afraid that, in the present state of Public Business, he could not give a pledge that the Bill would be taken as the first Order.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN MURDER TRIALS.
  MR. BIGGAR: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private Notice, and it is, Whether, seeing that in the recent criminal trials in Dublin, the juries have been invariably and systematically packed—["Oh, oh!"]—and the witnesses for the Crown—[Loud cries of "Order!"]—the Government would not, under the circumstances, undertake to commute the punishment of the prisoners now lying under sentence of death? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  MR. MACARTNEY: I rise to Order, and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether any Member is entitled to ask a Question containing such debateable matter as this?
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not catch the whole burden of the hon. Member's

  533
  Notice; but it certainly did strike me that the Question was irregular.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. MOOREasked whether the Irish Votes would be taken in Supply on the days immediately following the Recess, or whether the Government would postpone them?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed there would be no difficulty about the postponement of the Votes referred to.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us what the course of Business after the Recess will be; what class of Supplies will be taken; and what will be done in the case of the Corrupt Practices Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Corrupt Practices Bill is a Bill of primary importance; and with probably a fortnight's work in Supply before us after the Recess, I must reserve any further statement with regard to that measure until the House meets after the Holidays. Among Bills which cannot be called primary Bills, but which are of importance, we are very anxious to get forward with the Police Pay and Pensions Bill (Ireland), and we must endeavour to make progress with it during the first fortnight after the Recess. With regard to the branches of Supply which will be taken, I have to say that we shall take Civil Service Estimates other than Irish on the first day (Monday), and on the Thursday my noble Friend will proceed with the Army Estimates. On the following Monday we shall again consider the Civil Service Estimates. I ought to Bay one word in explanation of a matter referred to last night. With regard to the question of the Transvaal and the Chiefs of Bechuanaland, I should wish the exact position of the Government to be understood. The Government do not themselves perceive any public advantage to be derived at the present moment from the discussion of the Convention relating to the Transvaal, because, in their opinion, the facts are not sufficiently clear for that purpose. But we cannot say that a discussion would entail a distinct public mischief; and, therefore, being willing to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have gone so far as to say that, for the purpose of discussing this question, we
  534
  must endeavour to find a Government night as soon as the state of Public Business would permit. But, with regard to the question of the Chiefs of Bechuanaland, my opinion is—although I have not the least disposition to deprecate any opinion of the House on the question—that we should not be justified in appropriating any further portion of the Government time for its discussion, it having been already debated through one whole Evening Sitting and on two Morning Sittings. In the information which has indirectly or casually reached us since the debate took place, there is nothing, in our view, to justify us in appropriating more Government time for the discussion. I believe there is no other matter of Public Business on which I have anything to state at the present moment.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Perhaps, Sir, I may be allowed to read the words of the Prime Minister in his speech in the debate on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Referring to the Bechuanaland question, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We do not think that the House should leave the question without some expression of opinion."
  The right hon. Gentleman also placed a Notice of Motion upon the Paper; and I am bound to say that I can scarcely reconcile the statement which I have read with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, I can reconcile the two statements very easily, and also remove the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman appears to feel. I placed a Motion upon the Paper on the subject now under consideration; but it was not at all intended as an original Motion. We had no intention or desire to put forward an original Motion on the subject; but, after the debate that had taken place, it did appear to us that it was the general wish that some opinion should be recorded. I have no disposition to object to taking the sense of the House upon that Motion. If it is thought fit to take it, by all means let it be done. What I do object to is the appropriation of the Government time for the further discussion of a subject which appears to me to have been discussed, I will not say

  535
  excessively, but certainly on a scale which is very ample, relatively to the pressure of other matters awaiting consideration.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Government intended to give precedence to the Corrupt Practices Bill or the Agricultural Holdings Bill after Whitsuntide?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must ask a little time to consider that matter.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "LONDON."
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Mr. SLAGG)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any report has reached the Admiralty as to the condition of the depot ship "London" in Zanzibar Harbour; whether that vessel is unhealthy and unfit for service; and, what steps the Admiralty intend to take in regard to it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: There is no doubt that, during the unhealthy season of the year, the London has had a good deal of sickness on board. It is now intended to pay her off before the beginning of the next unhealthy season; and an arrangement is being made for other measures being taken for the suppression of the Slave Trade on the Zanzibar Coast.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked if any other ship would be sent to replace the London?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: No, Sir.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUN RECESS).

    SPAIN-EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR—EGYPT—AHMED KHANDEEL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday the 21st instant."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he rose to call attention to the surrender of the Cuban refugees at Gibraltar. He much regretted that neither before Easter nor since had he been able to obtain a day to press the Motion of which he had given Notice to a position in which he would have been able to obtain the decision of the House upon it. His only
    536
    chance of bringing it on was on the Motion with respect to the Easter Recess, and he had then refrained from doing so on the appeal of the Prime Minister, who represented that to bring it forward at that time would be greatly inconvenient to the Public Service. The story which he had to tell was a very simple and a very short one; but he must say that if it were simple, it was sad, and if it were short, it was shameful. He knew of no case in modern times where the British Government had been guilty of such gross neglect as in this. The facts of the case he would tell in the words of the persons most concerned. These Cuban refugees came to Gibraltar, believing that they were coming under the protection of the British Flag. There could be no doubt they were political refugees, who trusted themselves to the protection of that Flag, but did not obtain it, though entitled to it. Senor Castilio's own account, as set forth in the Memorial of the refugees, was that on the night of the 15th of August Maceo and two other prisoners confined for participation in the Cuban insurrection succeeded in escaping from Cadiz and took refuge at Tangiers. On the 20th of August they left Tangiers on the British steamer Hercules bound for Gibraltar, where they arrived on the afternoon of the same day. On landing they applied to the Inspector on the wharf for tickets to enter the city, and they were requested to wait. Subsequently three policemen conducted them to the police-station, where they were kept for some hours. When the Chief Inspector came he gave them to understand that they would be handed over to the Spanish authorities. Maceo protested, saying that they were political and not criminal refugees, and requesting that they should be kept in Gibraltar Prison until the truth of their story could be ascertained. Notwithstanding these protests, they were conducted by policemen outside Gibraltar across the neutral ground and handed over to the Spanish authorities, who were waiting to receive them. In a Petition from Maceo's brother he described what took place, and how they were handed over in spite of their strong protestations, and amid the loud lamentations of the women and children by whom they were accompanied. They were mercilessly given over to their enemies and conducted to a

    537
    fate worse than death. If this story was true, and there was no reason to doubt it, there had been the most flagrant neglect on the part of someone and the most grievous injury had been done to these men. They were entitled to the protection of the British Flag, and the right of asylum—one of the most cherished—had been grossly violated entirely through the neglect of our own Government. He could not understand the Notice given by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to move the Previous Question unless it indicated that the Liberal Party had so changed its principles that it was a matter of entire indifference to them whether the right of political refugees to asylum on our shores was violated or not. It was clear that in this case there was an arrangement made between the Spanish officials—he did not speak of the Spanish Government—and the English officials at Gibraltar that these persons should be received and handed over. Nothing more disgraceful to either party could be conceived. They might have been sent back by the steamer and not permitted to land. That was within the province of the English officials; but, knowing what they were doing, the English authorities enticed them from beneath the protection of the British Flag, and then, with deliberate treachery, handed them to their enemies. On the 2nd of October, Lord Napier, in answer to a question from the Colonial Office, explained how it was that the Gibraltar police came to act in this way. It appeared that the Spanish Consul wrote to the Colonial Secretary at Gibraltar informing him of the escape of the prisoners, and requesting that the English authorities would insure the expulsion of the refugees in the event of their entering the port of Gibraltar. Thus there was a direct invitation from the Spanish Consul to the English authorities to act in this manner. The Colonial Secretary then wrote to the acting police magistrate at Gibraltar, transmitting the letter of the Spanish Consul and requesting him to give the necessary instructions "to facilitate the apprehension" of the refugees on their arrival. The acting police magistrate reported to him subsequently that the men had arrived, and being without passports had been placed without the line. He added that the Spanish autho-
    538
    rities had been communicated with, and at once arrested the prisoners. After that the Spanish Consul wrote back to the Colonial Secretary thanking him for what had been done. Although the English officials were very much to blame in this matter, yet the Spanish authorities were quite as blameworthy. They must have known that the Extradition Treaty between the two countries related only to criminals; they must also have known that criminals meant criminals and not political offenders. They must have known that in trying to induce the English officials to facilitate the apprehension of these men they were doing what they had no right to do, and were, therefore, just as guilty as this country was for handing them over. That was the view practically of Her Majesty's Government. It was perfectly clear that the Spaniards were as much in fault as ourselves, and the shameful treatment which the ladies of the party had received was an aggravation of the case. These refugees—Maceo, at any rate—were put into a horrible dungeon, and up to the present time they bad not been released. He did not wish to say a word disrespectful to the Spanish Government. His remarks would apply to the Spanish officials simply. But what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter? Inquiries were made by the Colonial Office, and the officials in Gibraltar, who were to blame, had been very properly and justly punished for their flagrant breach of duty. So far as that went, Her Majesty's Government was right; but, if our people were wrong, so were the Spaniards. He would be able to show clearly that Her Majesty's Government had been guilty of the grossest neglect of duty in this matter, and that there had been such delay in action and such unquestionable indifference to the whole story as was perfectly inconceivable. On the 7th of September a paragraph appeared in The Times giving an account of what had taken place on the 15th of August, and adding that if the facts were as narrated, and the English authorities had been misled, there was reason for a most searching investigation. That paragraph was sent to Lord Napier, who replied in the letter to which he had already referred. On the 11th of October his despatch was received, and on the 16th a Petition came from

    539
    one of the prisoners. It was referred by the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, which sent back a letter in which the Correspondence was laid before Lord Granville. That letter contained all the letters of the Spanish Consul, the Colonial Secretary, and the acting police magistrate. Lord Kimberley observed in that letter that the acting police magistrate must have been aware that, although nominally removing these persons from the garrison under an Order in Council, he was in effect arranging for a surrender of political prisoners, who, as such, were protected from surrender by the Extradition Act. The Foreign Office, in reply, expressed surprise that an Order in Council, intended to meet a different matter, should have been used for such a purpose. All these facts were known to the Foreign Office on the 19th of October. They know that the men had been handed over by our own police on the invitation of the Spanish authorities. It was quite right that there should be an investigation to discover the guilty parties on our side; but what did the Foreign Office do? They did not utter a single syllable, but sat with their hands folded until a Question was asked in the House of Commons on the 30th of October. The first communication was evidently not from the Foreign Office, but from the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office telegraphed to Sir Robert Morier. Nothing more happened so far as the Colonial Office was concerned, except telling Sir Robert Morier not to take any steps till he received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry. On the 29th of October the Report of the Committee was received. That Report stated that the surrender was deliberately arranged between the Spanish authorities and the officials at Gibraltar. The Spanish authorities were told that the prisoners would be brought to the line and prevented from going back to Gibraltar, and that there would then be an opportunity for their arrest. What action was taken by Her Majesty's Government? Instead of writing to our Minister at Madrid, they referred the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown. That was certainly most extraordinary action. They should have consulted the Law Officers before, if they desired their opinion. On the 26th of December the British Government received another
    540
    Petition from Maceo, complaining of the treatment he had endured, and of the gross insult and injury inflicted upon him; and to that complaint the only answer vouchsafed, on the 26th of December, was that "the Government had had the matter laid before them, and that it was under their consideration!" It was not until the 29th of January, five months after the transactions took place, that the Foreign Office made any official communication to their Representative at Madrid on the question. During all that five months the men had been confined in a most horrible prison. He thought he had made out this at all events, that not only had there been unwarrantable delay on the part of the Government in this case, but that there had been most unaccountable indifference to the sufferings of these people. If their delay was unwarrantable and their indifference unaccountable, certainly the mode of procedure of the Government, when they did take action, was even more extraordinary. On the 30th of October a Question was asked in Parliament, and the answer given was to the effect that—
    "The surrender of the prisoners having taken place by reason of a gross mistake on the part of our police authorities, their re-delivery by the Spanish Government, with a view to the case being dealt with in accordance with the Extradition Treaty between Spain and Great Britain, would be regarded as a graceful and friendly act, which Her Majesty's Government would highly appreciate, but which, in their opinion, must be left to the generosity and chivalry of the Spanish Government."—(3 Hansard, [274] 373.)
    On the 4th of November Sir Robert Morier received a telegram to this effect, and also a letter recommending him to make an unofficial communication to the Spanish Government. Sir Robert Morier, in his answer to that communication, stated that the way in which he viewed the transaction was this. He commenced by saying that it was not the intention of the English Government to make any representation to the Spanish Government on this subject. He explained to the Spanish Government that there was no question of any interference in the matter, for the surrender had taken place by the fault of their own police authorities, and the Government did not intend to take any step, but would leave the question to the generous and chivalrous initiative of the Spanish Government. He

    541
    admitted at once that, in view of what had taken place, no question of the re-extradition of these prisoners could be raised. Surely that was a very curious way of putting forward a request. If you were going to ask for something, was it wise to give up your whole case beforehand, and to admit that the action of your opponent had been altogether right? All this was done before the Government received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry; and surely that formed an additional reason for not abandoning the whole of their own case in making their application to the Spanish Government. On the 29th of January, however, they made their first official communication, being in no better position as regards information than they had been for months previously, and having had a despatch of the Spanish Minister on the question in their pigeonholes for two months. They deserved the bitter irony of that Minister's reply of the 28th of February, 1883, pointing out that, inasmuch as the British Government had admitted that their own officials were entirely at fault, they were hardly in a position to criticize the action of the Spanish authorities. But the question was then raised before the House of Commons, and then, and not till then, did matters take a different turn. In view of the pending action of the House of Commons, a small concession was granted, and Maceo was interned. Sir Robert Morier never even asked for his release But the Government, on hearing of that small concession offered by the Spanish Government, wrote to Sir Robert Morier informing him that he was authorized to accept the proposal of the Spanish Government, and, although he was not to say that the Government were actually satisfied with what had taken place, he might say they were much gratified by it. Sir Robert Morier, however, did more than this. He telegraphed that Her Majesty's Government approved of the solution, and wore much gratified at it, and the Foreign Office never disclaimed this message. Her Majesty's Government had given up the whole case from the very commencement; they had gone on their knees to the Spanish Government and told them they had not a right to claim in any formal shape, and that anything that might be done must be entirely upon the will and motion of the
    542
    Spanish Government. There was one other point that he must allude to, and he did so with considerable pain. In the long course of Questions which were asked on this matter, the House—he admitted unintentionally—was misled as to what was going on between the English and Spanish Governments. He quoted the answers given by Ministers from time to time in answer to Questions about the fate of the Cuban refugees. Although at an early stage Ministers had deprecated any questions being raised, he had never seen anything in the early communications from Sir Robert Morier to the effect that no representations should be made in the House of Commons. On the 9th of November it was stated that it was difficult for our Minister at Madrid to approach the Spanish Government, and yet he had done so. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Unofficially.] He (Sir B. Assheton Cross) did not care whether it was officially or unofficially. If the Government, through its Representative, went to the Spanish Minister and told him we had not a leg to stand upon, and that it was entirely our fault, and if they afterwards went back and withdrew those expressions, how would the Spanish Minister treat them? Our Representative at Madrid made no distinction between official and non-official words. On the 21st of November the right hon. Gentleman said it "was too soon yet to make a statement as to the steps taken to secure the release of Maceo and his companions," and added that "it was impossible to state what correspondence had passed." Why it should have been impossible to state what correspondence had passed he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid was desirous that no statement should be made until the matter was completed by inquiry. But these or any such words were not, as far as he could find, in the official Papers. At this time they had had a distinct intimation through Sir Robert Morier from the Spanish Minister that as to giving up these people there was no hope whatever. If the whole Correspondence had been on the Table at the time these answers were given the House would have been extremely astonished. That was really the whole case. The Government wore in this position—they must stand on one leg

    543
    or on the other. They must either say that they did make communications to the Spanish Government, in which case they made them with full knowledge of the facts contained in the letter of Lord Napier in October, or they must say they took no action and made no representations until after they had received their Report, and that the first action they took was on the 29th of January. If they chose to take that line, all he could say was, that the delay was so great and the case so palpable that they were guilty of a gross breach of duty in not taking action before. They had their Report before them on the 28th or 29th of November, and not one single word of official representation was made to the Spanish Government till the 29th of January. He was bound to say that if the Spanish Government had relaxed their action more than they had done, they would have been exceedingly generous and chivalrous. What was now to be done? The whole case was given up by the English Government. They could not address the Government of Spain again, and the only possible chance for these men lay in a generous expression of opinion from all sides of the House. It appeared to be too late now to address any further remonstrance to the Spanish Government; but he hoped there would be such an expression of opinion from all sides of the House, even from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) himself, showing that there was unquestionably a deep feeling that the right of asylum had been violated, and a strong trust that we should never again see such a gross violation of it.
    MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he was not astonished that a subject which had excited so much interest should have been brought before the House of Commons; but, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman had in the course of his remarks made statements and allegations which were not on all fours with the facts as revealed in the Papers. The allegation was that, not only had a wrong been done, but that there had been a miscarriage of justice consequent on the action taken by the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman had really evaded the main point—namely, to show on what grounds of International Law action of a different kind
    544
    could have been justly, fairly and equitably pursued. The right hon. Gentleman's allegation was that not only had a wrong been done in equity, but that there had been gross neglect and delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government; and the right hon. Gentleman quoted dates in support of his contention. He did not, however, quote all the dates, because there were some that tended to give a different colour to the facts referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Now, the first notice ever brought to anyone in this country of the arrest of these men was on the 7th of September in a paragraph in The Times. Within 48 hours the Government took action by calling for an immediate Report in reference to the statement in the public newspapers. When the right hon. Gentleman was making so grave an indictment of negligence against the authorities, it was odd that, as he had studied the Papers, he passed over entirely the only serious instance of omission in the whole case— that was the omission of the Governor of Gibraltar to have any knowledge of what had happened within his own government. It was not the case that there was negligence on the part of the Foreign Office. It was the Foreign Office that called on the Colonial Office to press for full inquiry; but still the matter dragged with almost inconceivable dilatoriness at Gibraltar, until, on the 24th October, Lord Kimberley had to write to Lord Napier urging him peremptorily to hasten the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why the Government did not take action without such a full inquiry being made; but it would have been unwise to take action without a full knowledge of the facts of the case; and he would remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that if they had done so, they might have been afterwards compelled to recede from positions they had taken up; whereas, having waited for full information, they had not been required to recede from a single point, but had, on the other hand, been able to drive the Spanish Government from positions which they had taken up. It would have been unwise also if our Representative at Madrid had made any representation to the Spanish Government before official data were obtained in reference to the case. With all the facts before the House, it was evident that the blame rested with those who, with

    545
    grave and unaccountable ignorance of their duty, had made at Gibraltar a surrender which was contrary, no doubt, to what was right in equity, though not contrary to the technicalities of law; and, therefore,' all that Her Majesty's Government could do at this time, the 4th of November, was to make an appeal to the generosity of the Spanish Government, with a view to the liberation of the men. If the right hon. Gentleman read the Papers with a candid mind, he would see that the statement he had made to the effect that Sir Robert Morier showed a tendency to soften down the appeal he was authorized to make to the Spanish Government—to be subservient to the exaggerated pretensions of that Government—was very unjust. On the contrary, Sir Robert Morier made the communication fully in the sense of his instructions, and carried out the duty intrusted to him firmly and with great energy, and induced the Spanish Minister to concede points which he had previously refused to do. The Spanish Minister, mounting the high horse, had said that nothing on earth would induce him or his Colleagues, in view of all the facts and surroundings of the case, to entertain the idea of the men being liberated; nevertheless, Sir Robert Morier, by perseverance and by firm language, succeeded in inducing him, in view of the strong feeling which existed in this country on the matter, and in view of the preservation of friendly relations between the two countries, to concede the point and to entertain the idea. Sir Robert Morier treated the matter as one in which a positive claim arising out of existing International Law could not be made, and asked, by way of compromise, that Maceo should be interned. This the Spanish Minister was at first unwilling to accede to, proposing to release merely the companions of Maceo; but Sir Robert Morier intimated that in no sense would this be regarded as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and by his good temper and persistency he gained for Maceo the large concession, the benefit of which he was then enjoying. According to his (Mr. Cartwright's) information, Maceo was at the fortress with the rank of a General Officer, and was permitted the society of his wife and family. Now, what more could have been done, seeing that the whole
    546
    difficulty was created by the negligence and blunders of our own officials? These were the facts of the case, and he believed, notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no foundation for the charge of supine-ness and indifference brought against Her Majesty's Government, or for saying that they did not value the right of asylum to purely political refugees, which always had been and still was most highly considered among Englishmen.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that he did not perceive, as the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) had inferred, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had made any attack whatever upon Sir Robert Morier, nor did he, indeed, conceive that any such attack was possible under the circumstances. The duties of a diplomatist were to carry to a successful issue, so far as he was able, the policy intrusted to him by the Government. It must, however, in his (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) opinion, have been exceedingly difficult for Sir Robert Morier to have carried out what the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had termed the weak and cringing policy of Lord Granville. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had challenged them to produce an authority showing their legal right to call upon the Spanish Government to surrender these prisoners. He accepted that challenge. He believed the Government overlooked, and probably purposely overlooked, facts which, if properly urged, would have placed us in a position to have demanded the surrender. It appeared that Sir Robert Morier, on the 12th of November, 1882, wrote to Lord Granville adverting to the fact that he had been charged to make the Spanish Government a strictly unofficial communication with reference to the Cuban refugees, and that his instructions were to do so in the most amicable terms, and in the spirit of one friendly Government to another. His own contention, on the contrary, was that the blunders of the English officials were not the only grounds on which they had a right to approach the Spanish Government, for it was through a want of candour on the part of the Spanish Consul, so gross as to almost amount to a false pretence, that the prisoners were ever

    547
    surrendered at all. It would have been absolutely impossible for any circumstance of this character to have occurred in this country. It simply occurred because the Spanish Consul took advantage of a local ordinance to play a trick upon the local Government at Gibraltar. But what right had the Spanish Consul to make use of an existing amicable arrangement between his Government and the authorities at Gibraltar, for the purpose of obtaining the surrender of political and not civil offenders? By Article II. of the Extradition Treaty between Spain and this country, it was laid down that extradition should be granted only for the certain specified offences, and Article IV. declared that no person should be surrendered for any political offence. By a later Article it was provided that application for the extradition of prisoners was to be made to the Secretary of State, and that, where the case arose in the Colonies and other places out of the country in question, the same procedure should be gone through by the Consul. If the Spanish Consul had made application under the Extradition Treaty, the matter would have been inquired into by the Judges, and Maceo and his companions would not have been delivered up. But the Consul evaded that course, and carefully led General Baynes to believe that these unfortunate men were not political criminals. On the 16th of August application was made by the Consul, and a letter was forwarded to the Colonial Secretary, in which it was stated that he had been informed that the Governor of Cadiz had made representations with regard to the apprehension of the transported Maceo. The translation said "exiled," but that was not a correct rendering. Then there was a letter sent to the Governor of Cadiz, in which it was stated that Maceo had arrived there en route for Ceuta. In this letter was the extraordinary expression, "It is inferred that he was undergoing his term of imprisonment." If that wore so, what was it for? The Consul and others saw General Baynes—whom the Government had now sacrified to clear themselves—several times on the subject, and they never informed him that this man was a political prisoner. It was positively certain that, had application been made under the Treaty, the matter would have been inquired into by the Judges,
    548
    and a habeas corpus might have issued or proceedings been taken to prevent the surrender. The only application that was made was under a local ordinance, to which there was no analogy in this country. The fact was—although Sir Robert Morier had stated in one of his despatches that he had no desire to make any charge against the Government—that the Spanish Government had not acted in good faith, for they had entrapped General Baynes by making a fraudulent use of the local ordinance to which he had referred. But, strange to say, Her Majesty's Government had kindly accepted the interpretation of the Spanish Government, and had unnecessarily exculpated the Spanish Consul from all blame. By the extraordinary action of Her Majesty's Government, the rights which they possessed of affording a political asylum had been surrendered, and he could not but think that the Flag of England had thereby been disgraced. If this were the only instance in which we had been insulted by the Spanish Government it would not be so important, but there were several similar cases. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had lately brought the case of the Leon XIII. before the House; there was also the case of the Tangier; and that now under discussion was additional evidence that the Spanish Government meant to act offensively. Surely we had a right to complain of such conduct? Lord Palmerston had stated that if there was one rule more than another which was observed by all independent States, both great and small, it was the rule not to deliver up political refugees, unless bound to do so by the positive obligations of a Treaty. The general feelings of mankind forbade such proceedings, and persons making such a surrender would be regarded as degraded and dishonoured.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he perfectly agreed with the words of Lord Palmerston with which the hon. Member for Portsmouth had concluded his speech, and also with much of the speech itself; but he entirely failed to see how either Lord Palmerston's words or the words of the hon. Member himself had any relevancy to the matter before the House. He always thought that, however good a case might be, it was spoilt by a different line being taken by the Mover and those who supported him. The hon.

    549
    Member for Portsmouth had made an attack on the Consul.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I said his conduct was almost fraudulent.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should like to read what Sir Robert Morier had written about the action of that official. He wrote that nothing could be more straightforward or loyal than the action of the Consul. He never pretended that Maceo was a convict or a criminal. The hon. Gentleman then went on to complain of the conduct of Sir Robert Morier.
    SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he did not blame Sir Robert Morier, but the Government.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they were perfectly prepared to support Sir Robert Morier in the whole of his action. The hon. Gentleman had then made a series of charges against the Government which were quite unworthy of him. He accused them of mistranslating a despatch in their own interest. The hon. Member ought to have hesitated before making such a charge. He further insinuated that they sacrificed General Baynes, an innocent man, and were entirely deceived by this most wicked Consul, and that they had thrown over General Baynes to exculpate themselves. Surely the conduct of General Baynes was deserving of the censure passed upon him, as he took none of the steps which he ought to have taken in reference to this matter. He never inquired whether the offence charged against this man was a political offence or not. It was his business to have asked certain questions relating to the nature of the man's offence and the reasons for which his surrender was demanded. So far he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had agreed with the hon. Gentleman on his own basis. The hon. Gentleman assumed that a surrender was asked for.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFexplained that he had never said so. What he said was that the Spanish Consul had asked not for the man's surrender, but that the procedure should be taken against these people which was usual under a local ordinance.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman in another part of his speech to use the word surrender. General Baynes did what he was not asked to do by the
    550
    Spanish Consul. He handed these men and the ladies who were with them to the Spanish Government when he was not even asked to surrender them; and yet the hon. Member said they had sacrificed General Baynes in order to clear themselves. He now came to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross). One of the main portions of his case was that great delay had occurred. It was necessary, however, to act in this doubtful matter on the highest legal advice obtainable in this country, and the result was that in the months of December and January constant correspondence was passing between the Foreign Office and the Law Officers of the Crown and the Colonial Office respecting the final answer to be given to the Spanish Government. On the 5th of December they received the first main document from the Law Officers of the Crown, giving their opinion on this question. In the latter part of December they communicated with the Colonial Office as to the answers to be sent to Spain. All through the early-part of January communications were passing between the Colonial and Foreign Offices, and he was bound to say that he could not see that there had been any undue delay. The right hon. Gentleman also made somewhat of a personal attack on himself in regard to answers given by him in the House on this subject in November and December. He followed the right hon. Gentleman carefully with the answers in his hand, and while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he only thought there was one point on which he was at all on the face of things open to the charge of having misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that on the 21st of November he stated that Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid had asked the Government, in the interests of this question, not to make any statement till the inquiry was completed. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that no record of that communication appeared in the Papers. The telegram in which the request of Sir Robert Morier was contained was dated the 11th of November, and the substance of it was in the despatch of the 12th of November. The last paragraph of the telegram was not, according to custom, expanded, and was not contained in the

    551
    despatch. The reason why the telegram was not laid before Parliament had reference to a matter which greatly confused this question for a considerable time, and on which most careful inquiry was necessary—namely, the question as to the exact spot on which the arrest of the men by the Spanish authorities took place. That was the reason why he stated that the Government could not at that time make any communication. The main charge brought against the Government by the right hon. Gentleman was, that in the first days of the transaction the Government gave up their whole case, as our Minister at Madrid, in approaching the Spanish Government unofficially, put the case so gently and mildly as to invite the refusal they afterwards met with. His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) view of the case was this. Either we had a right to demand the surrender of these men or we had not. Our contention throughout was that we had no such right. There had been no conduct on the part of the Spanish Consul or Government to give us an international right to demand that these men should be handed back to us. That being so, was it not in the interests of these men—and that, after all, was the real question at issue—was it not advisable for the sake of saving them from prolonged confinement in a dungeon, that the Government should take the course which was pursued, and which had had the effect of extricating two prisoners from imprisonment altogether, and of greatly ameliorating the severity of confinement of the other prisoner? Having nothing like an international right, the Government appealed to the generosity of the Spanish nation; and he believed that Lord Palmerston, who had been referred to in the debate, would have adopted that course under the circumstances. The demand of the Consul, which was put forward as the ground for the Government taking another course, was a demand which he had a right to make, and the Government had no reason to suppose—indeed they had a distinct statement from Sir Robert Morier to the contrary—that the demand was made in bad faith. The main charge brought against Sir Robert Morier by the right hon. Gentleman was that our Minister did not, in these unofficial communications, pretend he had a case when he had not a case.
    552
    The right hon. Gentleman really contended that the Government, having no case, ought to have bragged and blustered on this occasion.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that that was not his allegation. What he maintained was that the Government had put the case too mildly to the Spanish Government, and that Sir Robert Morier really invited a refusal.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to contend, although the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had done so, that the Government had an international case. Having no international case, they were to go with a bad case and pretend that they had a good one.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS,again interposing, said, what he contended was that the Government did not put their case in October as they put it in January.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had already dealt with that matter of delay. The ascertaining of the facts and the taking of the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown had caused the delay of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. In regard to the main case, he believed the House would agree that if there were one thing worse than having a bad case, it was that, having a bad case, we should go to a Foreign Government and pretend that we had a good one.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had quoted the despatch of the 12th of November, in which Sir Robert Morier described the conduct of the Spanish Consul as being straightforward, and worthy of all praise. But what was the foundation of that opinion? It was that Maceo and his companions were convoyed outside the British lines, "where they fell into the hands of the Spanish Municipal Guard." Here the statement was that they "fell" into the hands of the guard. But it turned out afterwards that instead of their falling into the hands of the guard, there was a preconcerted arrangement between the British officials and the Consul, and that made all the difference. So long as it was supposed that there was a blunder on the part of the English authorities to which the Spanish authorities were no parties, and that it was not a precon-

    553
    certed arrangement or conspiracy, he could understand Sir Robert Morier's expression of opinion; but it could not be justified when it was known that the Consul had induced an English subordinate officer to exceed his authority. He put it to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether it was consistent with International Law that the Representative of a Foreign Power should induce the Representative of another Power—a subordinate officer—to exceed his authority, and to be guilty of a fraud on the law well known to both of them, and that the Government of that Foreign Power should decline to retract the action of their Representative, and so far adopt it as to keep persons in prison who were handed over to them by that preconcerted arrangement, and then say they were not guilty of any international offence? Did the case submitted to his hon. and learned Friend and the Solicitor General assume as one of the facts on which they were to advise that the Spanish Consul was altogether innocent of any guilty participation in this transaction? That would make a difference to the whole transaction. When it was discovered that there had been a preconcerted arrangement the whole situation was changed. It could not be denied that there had been a preconcerted arrangement, for in Lord Granville's despatch it was said that the surrender was effected in the manner suggested by the Spanish Consul, "by way of preconcerted expulsion and arrest." These refugees were to be expelled out of British territory, and it was arranged by the Spanish Consul that the moment they were expelled they were to be arrested by the Spanish authorities. That was a discreditable arrangement of which there was every reason to complain as a violation of International Law, seeing that a subordinate officer was induced to exceed his authority. It was a totally inadequate answer to say that at the time when the communication was made it was unofficial. The Government wanted to take credit for their immediate action, and what they did was to give up the whole cause of complaint. It might be true that there had been no demand made under the Extradition Acts; but the charge was, that the authorities had connived at this transaction because
    554
    they knew, there could be no proceedings under the Extradition Acts. For having induced a subordinate English officer to exceed his authority, the Spanish Government ought to have been addressed in a very different tone as soon as the facts became known to Her Majesty's Government, instead of which the Government went down to the dust and entreated them humbly to do something for them as an act of grace.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the charge was that there had been trickery on the part of the Spanish Consul, and that English officials entered into conspiracy with him, and that as the expulsion of these men was the result of the trick and of the conspiracy the English Government ought to have assumed a different tone. The question was whether there had been trick, fraud, or conspiracy?
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to Sir Robert Morier's despatch of the 16th of August.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the passage referred to was one dealing with the whole transaction; but he was now speaking of the foundation on which the British Government could have alleged fraud, trickery, and conspiracy. British officers were parties to everything that was done. It was by their acts alone that this unpleasant situation had been brought about. He could conceive nothing weaker than for a nation represented by its own officials to throw them over, to repudiate what they had done, and to ground upon that repudiation a grave official demand for reparation because the officials of another nation had acted wrongly. It was admitted that the conduct of the British Government towards their own officials had been perfectly correct, and that they were right in throwing the blame on their own officials instead of endeavouring to cast the responsibility on the Spanish Government.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the following passage in the despatch of Sir Robert Morier on the 9th of March:—
    "The point specially insisted upon in my note was that the expulsion thus suggested on the 16th of August was the initiatory step to the carefully considered measures jointly taken by

    555
    our authorities and the Spanish Consular employés on the 28th of the month, by which the police agents of the two countries, acting under common preconcerted orders, were able to carry out the desires of the Spanish authorities that the fugitives should be replaced in their custody."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was nothing in that inconsistent with what he was endeavouring to say. The Spanish Consul knew that the British officials at Gibraltar had legal powers of expulsion vested in them by Order in Council, and he made no misrepresentation on any point. He did not represent the persons to be criminals, but only stated that he had been charged with the capture of Maceo and his companions, and he requested that they might be expelled from the garrison. When the Consul appealed to the English officials to expel the fugitives, he asked them to do it if they could. It was impossible for the English officials, who knew what extradition meant, to suppose that that was a demand for extradition, or that it meant an appeal to a legal tribunal, and an order by such a tribunal. Therefore, they adopted a mode of putting these unfortunate men outside the lines. But that was the fault of the English officials, who misconceived what was their duty; and it was not because they misconceived their duty that the blame should be thrown upon the Spanish Consul. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and himself had most anxiously tried to see whether they could find cause of blame in the conduct of the Spanish Consul, and if they did they would have pointed it out. But they felt that, for them to torture acts ingeniously, and to endeavour to create an unfounded impression, would have been very wrong when they were called upon to advise the Government whether a claim could be framed against the Spanish official. It was not for them to take up a position which could not be maintained. Therefore his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and himself gave their attention to the proper construction to be placed upon the demand of the Spanish Consul, and, finding no misrepresentation in them, they did not think they could say, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, that there was treachery on the part of the Spanish Consul, who only stated what was perfectly accurate, and
    556
    did not make illegal demands which could not be supported. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) knew the distinction between representations made in an officious and an official manner. It often happened that a Minister, in order to obtain the desired end, thought that his duty would be better fulfilled by means of non-official representation rather than by official demands. Sir Robert Morier, knowing the Government with which he had to deal, thought that the proper way to approach thorn was not by making demands in a peremptory tone, but by saying—"We make no charge of treachery or fraud, but we do say that the English officials having wrongly given up those men, and placed them where they ought not to have been placed, you ought to put them in the same position as they were before." It was a happy thing, considering the tone of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston, that no threat was used towards the Spanish Government, and that they were not told that their officials had been guilty of treachery and fraud. If that had been done what would have become of these men, one of whom had been released from custody, while the other was kept in honourable confinement? It was because they thought the end they had in view would be better accomplished by making friendly representations, and even by understating the case, that they had arrived at a conclusion which would never have been reached if the tone of his hon. and learned Friend had been assumed. If they made their demand on insufficient grounds, and insisted that the Spanish Government should release the men, how could they enforce that demand? And if they made it officially they should have either to retreat from it or to enforce it. To have retreated would have provoked something of the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon the Government—it would, as he had said, have been "discreditable;" and if a Vote of Censure was asked for, that vote would have been well deserved if they had made a peremptory demand which they did not intend to enforce.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, there was one line in the Correspondence which proved clearly that the authorities at Gibraltar were misled by the representations that

    557
    were made to them by the Spanish Consul. On this line rested the whole case against Her Majesty's Government. The translation of this line in the despatches was inaccurate in the English version. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to the Spanish despatch he would see in the last line the words—"Estoc suppone que fue svfriendo cadena." The clear meaning of that phrase was that Maceo was a convict. The English Government were more to blame in this affair than the Spanish Government. After having surrendered, upon the faith of the promise given by a British Consul that he would be allowed to become an exile, Maceo was pursued by a Spanish ship-of-war, and made prisoner in violation of that agreement. The English Government, however, thought that its honour was not involved in the transaction and took no notice of it. Yet if the Government had remonstrated, he believed that they would have succeeded in procuring the liberation of the captured officers. Up to the 6th of this month Maceo was a close prisoner in a Spanish fortress. That was the fact, although he had been told by the spokesman of the Government here that the arrangements made by the Spanish Government had been carried out, and that Maceo had been given a limited liberty. It was possible that the continued ill-treatment of Maceo was due to the fact that the Commandant of the fortress in which he was immured did not understand the real nature of the arrangement which this Government had made. The Spanish War Minister, he felt convinced, would not be a party to any breach of faith in the matter, and he believed that if the Government would take the trouble to put Maceo's case before that Minister the arrangement that had been made would be carried out. In the name of the great principle of the right of asylum he demanded that this man, who had been surrendered to the Spanish Government, should be given absolute unconditional liberty.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was of opinion that the words of the Correspondence to which the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had referred could not be held to substantiate the charge of fraud and conspiracy made by some hon. Members against the Spanish authorities. He agreed with the Attorney General that
    558
    it was well that this debate was not raised earlier, for it might have influenced materially the conduct of the Spanish Government towards the prisoners. If accusations of conspiracy and fraud had been made while the negotiations were still pending, the chances of the liberation of the two prisoners who had been set free would have been greatly lessened, as well as the chances of better treatment for Maceo himself. Not having abandoned the hope that before long Maceo might be liberated by the exercise of the clemency of the Spanish Government, he felt bound to say that he did not think that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) and of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would assist the Government in obtaining the liberation of the prisoner whose liberation they had so much at heart. He was astonished to hear the charge of delay made against Her Majesty's Government. When he became Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in December last, the first question with which he became acquainted and which was pressed upon his attention was that of the Cuban refugees. No neglect whatever could be shown against anyone in the Foreign Office, and the President of the Local Government Board would bear him out in saying that Lord Granville had given the most careful attention to the subject. Therefore the Foreign Office had a right to complain of the disagreeable charges that had been brought forward against it by the right hon. Gentleman—charges which he had not been able to substantiate. He said there were no despatches on the question.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I never said that. On the contrary, I quoted them.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The right hon. Gentleman said there were no representations on this question, and lie subsequently said there were no official representations.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had pointed out that there was no dispatch from Lord Granville between that of the 28th of November, 1882, in which his Lordship stated that Her Majesty's Government could take no further action in the matter until the Commission of Inquiry had reported, and that of the 29th of January, 1883.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that, as stated in one of the earliest despatches, there had previously been representations not of an official character, a course which, as the right ton. Gentleman was aware, was frequently adopted in very delicate questions such as this. Then the right hon. Gentleman said there was a variation in the form of the representations made by Her Majesty's Government at different periods. That allegation had been already fully dealt with by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. There had been no variation. But it had unfortunately happened that the Colonial officials at Gibraltar had placed themselves in the wrong, and the Government had been obliged to make the best of it. If the right hon. Gentleman had no more to say than that, what became of his demand for a full-dress debate? He ventured further to say that even assuming the right hon. Gentleman was right in his statement that there was a variation on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he was not entitled to come and ask for such a sacrifice of the time of the House. All through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he never ventured to impugn what he might call the centre of the position of Her Majesty's Government. Neither did the hon. and learned Member for Lunceston venture to say that the Government were wrong in the view they took of the position of these officials and of the conduct of the Spanish authorities. He hoped the House would pardon his occupying their time at such length. He had made these explanations because it was important that the public should know that there had been no variation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Robert Morier, writing to Lord Granville, quite at the commencement of the controversy, on the 12th of November, said that "nothing could be more straightforward or loyal than the action of the Spanish Consul." Then he proceeded to admit that the British authorities had been in the wrong. In almost the last despatch Sir Robert Morier said that the Spanish Consul—
    "Was so well up in his business that, knowing that if he demanded their extradition he would, on the plea of their being political refugees, he probably refused … he suggested their expulsion instead. On their arrival at Gibraltar the expulsion on the land side and
    560
    the immediate arrest beyond the British line by the Spanish police was, as stated above, and fully proved by the evidence, pre-arranged and preconcerted between our authorities and the Spanish Consular authorities. In all this I gee no act of bad faith on the part of the Consul, but only great zeal in obeying the orders of his superiors, and great savoir faire and ingenuity in availing himself of the excessive readiness of our officials to render themselves agreeable to him. If they, through ignorance were ready to act against the spirit of the Treaty of Extradition, it was not for him to point this out to them."
    There was no variation on the part of the Government. Their conduct was perfectly consistent. On reference to Lord Granville's despatch of the 29th of January, it would be found that Her Majesty's Government recognized the situation and had to mark their disapprobation of the conduct of their officials by the dismissal of those most immediately responsible for the error committed. Anyone listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have thought that the refugees were in prison, for he only stated parenthetically that some of them had been released. Anyone hearing the right hon. Gentleman would have thought that the Government had made a terrible fiasco. The simple fact was that they had asked the Spanish Government to accede to their demand for the release of the refugees in the manner most calculated to obtain the desired result. They had succeeded in the main in obtaining that result by the release of two of the refugees, and they did not despair, notwithstanding the imprudent speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston, of inducing the Spanish Government to release Maceo himself. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had asked the Government to take advantage of their own wrong. He would add that using the language of bluster and threatening was not the line Her Majesty's Government were in the habit of taking. The matter had been fully considered in all its bearings. If the Government were to use strong, unnecessary, and violent language when they were in the wrong, they might do themselves injury in cases in which they had the law on their side. He believed he had satisfied the House that there had been no delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and that the line and attitude taken by them had been successful, for it had resulted in the release of two

    561
    of the prisoners, and the promise of the release of the third, without departing in any way from those doctrines as to the immunity of political prisoners which were always treated as of the highest importance in this country.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he thought the subject that had been under discussion was now pretty well threshed out, therefore he would call attention to another question, which was a matter of some urgency. He was glad to learn that the Government had been successful in preserving the rights of asylum and yet had got rid of the old plan adopted by Lord Palmerston of backing up their Agents abroad in all they did, whether right or wrong. He was glad that the Government had set an example in the course they had adopted; it was much better than indulging in an empty display of bluster. As regarded the right of asylum, there was another political offender—Arabi Pasha—who had not been fairly dealt with. The Government sent a force to catch him and handed him over to his enemies, and everyone concerned in the matter had had a sword or a dinner given him. Then there was another political offender being tried on the same charges as Arabi—Ahmed Khandeel—in whose case there seemed to be a very great danger of a miscarriage of justice. Lord Granville, in his despatch of November 23 with regard to Arabi and his companions, required as the conditions of their trial that the trial should be a public one, and that the prisoners should have the assistance of counsel. Khandeel, the Prefect of Police at Alexandria, was said to have been implicated in the massacre, but he was not receiving a fair trial, and the conditions required by Lord Granville had been ignored. Was it fair that the prisoner should be convicted on a preliminary trial when the evidence was not taken in his presence? It was altogether unjust. Mr. Mark Napier, his counsel, had lately returned home because the facilities given to other prisoners had not been given to this prisoner. If the evidence were taken in open Court, it would have a material bearing upon the Egyptian Question. There was positive danger to the lives of this man and his companions if something was not done. His only reason for interposing at this point was because he thought the Government were bound, in the interests of justice and humanity,
    562
    to send out immediate orders that this man should have a fair trial equally with the other prisoners.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he desired to strengthen the case put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The Prime Minister, in replying to a Question of his the other day, said that counsel would be allowed to Ahmed Khandeel when the trial began. He did not think, however, that the Prime Minister was aware that the dossier to which he alluded was the actual trial. He had heard that this was so from Mr. Mark Napier himself. What was called in England a trial was in Egypt called a preliminary proceeding. Nothing was done in the way of calling witnesses; all the Court did was to read the depositions, debate about them, and then give its decision. It was impossible that a man could have justice done him under the most favourable circumstances, because it was open to the Court to accept evidence of any kind they chose. He was certain justice would not be done to this man, because nothing was so difficult in Egypt as to secure an open trial. It appeared that Ahmed Khandeel was the only man who could throw any light on the real origin of the massacre of the 11th June. It was stated—and the statement could be substantiated—that Omar Lufti, the present Minister of War, who was Governor of Alexandria at the time of the massacre of the 11th of June, was the agent of the Khedive in getting up that massacre. It was a Palace intrigue on the part of the Khedive and Omar Lufti for the purpose of injuring Arabi Pasha. Arabi Pasha said that he would preserve order; but to bring him into collision with Foreign Powers, and to show that he was unable to preserve order, Omar Lufti was employed as an agent of the Palace to concoct these massacres. Omar Lufti wanted Ahmed Khandeel to assist him; but Ahmed, a nervous retiring man, was taken conveniently ill, and remained in bed during the time in order to be out of the way. Were we going to support the Egyptian Government in the efforts they were making against Lord Granville's despatch, and against the instructions we had given to the Egyptian Government? Were we prepared to make ourselves parties to the suppression of evidence for the sacrifice of a man who was perfectly innocent? The only way in which we could do justice to Ahmed Khandeel was to treat the

    563
    whole proceeding by the Egyptian Government as utterly invalid, and to insist on the preliminary proceeding being commenced de novo in the presence of Ahmed Khandeel's counsel. He was certain the Prime Minister would not lend himself to a foul intrigue of the lowest and most despicable kind on the part of Egyptians, compared with whom Arabi Pasha was purity itself, for the sacrifice of an innocent man because he might damage their present position. He asked the Prime Minister to put aside the ordinary traditions of the Foreign Office, which were unfavourable to this man, to look at the matter broadly, and to allow this poor man to have justice done to him, for by so doing he would really strengthen the position of the British Government in India.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am in one respect sorry and in others glad that I have heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. I am sorry because of the reference that speech contained to the Khedive, upon whom, as an obiter dictum, and not as a main part of his speech, the noble Lord has cast the most grave charges that can possibly be advanced against any man—that is to say, that in the view of the noble Lord the Khedive had employed other instruments for getting up the massacre of the 11th June.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said it was believed by competent authorities that Ahmed Khandeel would be able to prove that in his own defence.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is difficult to be prepared, and I do not think the House would conceive it possible for anyone to be prepared, to meet a charge of this kind. Some credit is due to a man who has been the Chief of the Egyptian community for several years in very difficult times, in a very imperfectly organized country, who has had to confront danger in a hundred forms, and who has never down to this moment to our knowledge been guilty of any proceeding inconsistent with the character of a benevolent and an upright Euler. ["Oh!"] Well, that is the result of our experience of the Khedive, and it would be monstrous on our part readily to give ear to any imputation of that kind, and I thought it my absolute duty to protest strongly against the provisional acceptance of such a charge.
    564
    Passing from that I come to the more material part of the speech of the noble Lord and the demand of my hon. Friend. The noble Lord has placed before us in a very clear form the nature of the evil which he wishes to provide against, and he likewise explicitly stated the remedy which he thinks ought to be offered. The evil against which he wishes to provide is that the preliminary process, as it has been called—without any opportunity to the prisoners to have the advantage of counsel—is really and virtually the substantial trial—that, in point of fact, if I understand the speech of the noble Lord, it does not appear to him that there is any power on the part of the prisoner to bring in rebutting evidence against that advanced by the accusers. I am bound to say that information, considered as information, is quite at variance with that we have received. The distinct account given to us by Lord Dufferin is that the Egyptian procedure is in essential the French procedure, that this preliminary process and the formation of the dossier, as it has been called, is the process that prevails in the French Courts, and though it may be alien to English notions it i3 familiar and prevalent in a great part of the countries of Europe. But what we understand is, that when in that preliminary process there is gathered together the particulars that form the case of the accusers, that evidence may go before the Court, and it goes there to be examined and sifted, to be cross-examined, to be rebutted, and to be contradicted by counter evidence.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: There is no cross-examination in the higher Court.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am simply stating what was the information given to the Government. I do not hesitate, however, to say I agree with the noble Lord thus far, that if the preliminary proceeding and the calling of evidence on what we look upon as the real trial is simply the arrangement of that written evidence by the Judges, that is not in accordance with our ideas of a trial, nor of the French procedure, nor of the procedure, though alien to ours, which exists in many countries in Europe. That statement having been made, I admit it is one that deserves the attention of the Government; and not only so, but I will say it is not now for the first time the subject has received the attention of

    565
    the Government, for immediately upon Laving reason to believe that suspicion existed on the subject, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) took means to make communications with the Egyptian Government in order that we might be possessed of the whole state of the facts. I cannot agree with the noble Lord the Member for "Woodstock in saying that our request ought to be that the preliminary proceedings should be recommenced. There is the objection to that course that it would tend to bring into grave disrepute and disparagement all proceedings in Egypt if there was to be a cancelling of what has been done, and a recommencement of the whole question; but what has been done should be sifted and examined, and be liable to be rebutted. That I quite understand, and that seems to me what we should all think among ourselves should be the main object in view, and we shall do all that we believe we are entitled to do. I am not at liberty to say in what cases hereafter we should be justified in interfering with the administration of justice in Egypt—it requires a grave case to warrant it, and our constant interference even for good might end in producing a balance of mischief. In this instance the promise has been given that counsel shall be employed, and we understand that distinctly to mean that the employment of counsel shall mean the bringing out the whole facts of the case without fear or favour. That is the end we shall keep in view, and with that assurance I trust the House will be satisfied.
    Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he desired to say, with reference to the Question he had put on the Paper the day before, respecting the Viceroy of India, that he did not withdraw it, as had been insinuated on the other side of the House, from any fear of asking it, but because he was advised by those who were acquainted with India, that it was better not to press the Government on the subject. They were, he understood, disposed to recede so far as possible from the unfortunate position they had taken up, if not publicly pressed. The challenge of the Prime Minister, the day before, as to the facts stated in his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) Question, compelled him now to make a few observations. They would be very brief, as the House was anxious to rise for the Holidays. He did not wish to criticize
    566
    what the Prime Minister said in defence of the Viceroy; but he believed the present state of India was graver and more serious than it had been since the Mutiny. The introduction of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill had produced exasperation between the two races such as had not been known for 20 years. There had been meetings, Petitions, and protests from the European inhabitants, in every part of India. And now a counter agitation was being fomented among the Natives. It was said to be anomalous not to give the Native magistrates certain powers; but, as a great statesman had said, if we took our stand against anomalies, the real anomaly was in our being in India at all. Let us give the people liberty and good administration; but it was perfectly impossible and ridiculous, so long as we retained our hold on India, to give Native races full equality. This Bill was one affecting 2.00,000,000 of people, the commerce of India, and hundreds of thousands of Englishmen. Why, the loss of India would represent a deduction of 5s. or, perhaps, even 10 s. from the wages of every able-bodied working man in the country. He charged the responsibility for this against Lord Ripon, the present Viceroy. Lord Ripon was an amiable and well-intentioned official, but he was a crotcheteer, a sentimentalist, and a pseudo-humanitarian. It was, he maintained, quite true that the Viceroy had been publicly slighted. He had several letters from India to prove it, and these he would adduce when he got authority to quote them. Moreover, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, who opposed the Bill, had been everywhere feted, in marked contrast to the reception of the Viceroy. It might be that Lord Ripon was about to come home, and that the extravagant eulogy of the Prime Minister was meant to cover his retreat with some show of public appreciation. He only hoped that was so, and he would not grudge the Viceroy such praises. Indeed, he would suggest that, as the present Advisers of Her Majesty made Lord Ripon a Marquess for one of the most unfortunate transactions in English diplomacy, the Alabama Negotiations, some 16 years ago, so they should now recall him from India at once, and reward his conduct there by bestowing upon him the honour of a Dukedom.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have no right to address the House again; but

    567
    with its permission, I wish to say a word or two in reply to a speech of the nature of that which we have just heard with respect to a man like Lord Ripon serving his country in a most arduous Office. I do think, Sir, that both sides of the House will agree with me when I say this—that nothing can be more clear than the title of Members of this House to bring charges and accusations against all the persons employed in the service of the Grown; and so far am I from thinking that the eminent position occupied by Lord Ripon exempts him from the application of that rule, that I think, on the contrary, the higher the position the more necessary it is that the freedom of this House and the Members of this House to canvass their conduct should be maintained without limit or stint. But there is a correlative consideration, and that is that in proportion to the gravity of the circumstances there should be care and conscientiousness, and the production of evidence of a trustworthy kind on which these charges are made. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I have not had time.] The hon. Member says he has not had time; but if he has not had the time to obtain evidence, then he ought not to make these charges. I do not know that in this case there will be any very great disadvantage to anyone, for T cannot pretend to express the apprehension that Lord Ripon will suffer in the estimation of any man from what has just been said. The hon. Gentleman said that Lord Ripon was made a Marquess for the conclusion of a most unfortunate negotiation. I am not going to open a chapter which would require time which is not now at our command; but Lord Ripon was not the only person concerned in that negotiation; and when I refer to the participation of other men in it I do so, not for the purpose of casting the burden upon them, but simply of doing them honour for a most patriotic course in bringing about a result with respect to which we, who were the Advisers of the Crown, undoubtedly had the full and ultimate responsibility. But Lord Ripon, according to the hon. Gentleman, is a crotcheteer, a sentimentalist, and an ultra-humanitarian. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BABTLETT: A pseudo-humanitarian.] A pseudo-humanitarian! I am sorry that the artistic touches of the hon. Member should be so marred and blurred when his picture comes to be manipulated by a person like my-
    568
    self. He says Lord Ripon is a pseudo-humanitarian, a crotcheteer, and a sentimentalist; but, unless I am very much mistaken, I am accustomed to hear language of this kind applied to every Member who sits on this side of the House. What are we all who sit on this side of the House but a set of crotcheteers, sentimentalists, and pseudo-humanitarians? If that be so, I think the hon. Member will see that his time and his breath are wasted in making an appeal to us, because we are absolutely disabled, by internal defects, from appreciating the truth and justice of the charges brought by the hon. Gentleman. Why, Sir, so far from being able to discuss even the first elements of the truth in this matter, we rather believe that Lord Ripon is both a just and a wise man, that Lord Ripon, in the course of a public career which has now reached not very far short of 40 years, has more and more approved himself to the judgment of his Sovereign and his country; that no part of the career of Lord Ripon has been more honourable or more beneficial than the three years which he has spent in India; and that, if the time be approaching—and I know nothing specifically of the approach of Lord Ripon's return—if, unfortunately, according to the tenure of Office, or according to the necessity of health, to be considered particularly in regard to a man of advanced years, the time be approaching when Lord Ripon will have to make over to some as worthy, but not worthier, person the high Office he holds, I believe he will come back to be held in honour among the people of this country, and I believe that he as much as any Viceroy that ever lived has written his name upon the hearts of the people of India.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would not detain the House more than a minute; but after the elaborate eulogy which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon Lord Ripon's Administration, he felt bound to say, with a full sense of responsibility, that there never was a more foolish or ill-advised measure introduced by the Government of India than that denounced by the hon. Member for Eye. It had done what every prudent statesman had been careful to avert; it had brought about a conflict and antagonism between the White man and the Black man. He only wished to enter his protest against

    569
    the concluding words of the Prime Minister's eulogy of Lord Ripon, for he was perfectly convinced that the Indian Government and the Government at home would have the greatest difficulty in extricating themselves from the dilemma in which they had been placed.
    MB. O'DONNELLpraised Lord Ripon's Administration, and referred to the Indo-European Press as ridiculing the pretended danger from the Ilbert Bill. He knew as much about India as either the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) or the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), and he utterly repudiated as unfounded the statement that Lord Ripon had been slighted by the European population of India. On the contrary, the Government House was never more popular than at present.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he desired to express his concurrence in the eulogy passed by the Prime Minister upon the conduct of Lord Ripon in India. He was not one of those who were enthusiastic about Lord Ripon when he went out to India; but he knew something about India, and he had been a careful observer of what had been going on, and he wished just to say that Lord Ripon had gained not only his admiration but the admiration of many others who had watched the noble Lord's career in India.
    Question put and agreed to.
    House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Monday, 21st May.