§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade one or two Questions with reference to the documents which he read to the House last night. I wish to know whether I am right in understanding that he is in possession of other documents than those which he quoted of the same character? I do not know whether I should call them sworn documents, as they were of a doubtful nature. Has the right hon. Gentleman any more of them besides those which he quoted to the House? If so, can he say how many they are, and give the names of the parties who fabricated them? I would also ask him whether he will cause me to be furnished with legally-attested and certified copies of all the documents of that kind which he possesses, in order that the parties who are aggrieved by the statements made in them may be enabled, without the slightest loss of time, to take immediate criminal proceedings against the parties concerned in fabricating and procuring those documents?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI think, Sir, that, in the course of my speech last night, the noble Lord made an interruption, and I replied that I would be very happy to place at his disposal copies of any documents I read.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLLegally-attested copies?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINIf the noble Lord interrupts me it is impossible that I can answer his Question. I said that I would furnish him with copies of any documents that I used, or was going to use, in the course of my speech. The noble Lord, after my speech was concluded, 666 communicated with me, and asked me to carry out my promise and furnish him with copies of those documents. I told the noble Lord that the documents that I had used had gone to the Reporters' Gallery; that probably they would appear verbatim in the Press, and that that might be sufficient for his purpose; but that, if it was not, on hearing from him again, I would give him copies. I observe that the reports in the Press are not quite verbatim; and I, therefore, understand that he would like to have actual copies. I have already directed that copies shall be made, and they will be at once forwarded to the noble Lord. He asks me now whether I will let him have legally-attested copies. I can assure him that I will not throw the slightest difficulty in the way of any legal investigation into these matters. Beyond saying that I am not inclined to go at the present moment. The noble Lord will know when he receives the copies whether any more is necessary. He asks me whether I have any other evidence of this kind.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLNo; pardon me. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether I. was right in understanding him to say that he had other documents of a similar nature to those quoted, but that there was not time to read them to the House.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThat is exactly what I say. The noble Lord asks me whether I have other documents, whether I will say how many they are, and whether I will give the names of the persons who, as he says, fabricated them. The question whether they are fabrications or not is one which I hope will shortly be tried. But, in answer to the noble Lord's other Questions, I say that I have in my possession a good deal more of similar evidence; but I do not think it desirable or necessary, under the circumstances, and with the probability of a further inquiry being held, to furnish him with copies of that at the present time. I am sure that he will have quite enough on which to base the investigation which he has promised.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI think that the right hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the Question that I have put to him. The reason why I have asked him for legally-attested copies of his documents is because by no 667 possibility could legal proceedings be founded on them unless they were so attested. Then I further ask him whether the documents which he quoted were the actual original documents, or were only copies; and, if they are only copies, who are the persons who are at present in possession of the originals? Again, I ask him whether it is correct that he has other documents of a similar nature, implicating members of the Conservative Party in Birmingham in offences of a like character; whether or not he will produce, for the purpose of inquiry into this whole matter, all the documents which he has in his possession, and will keep nothing back from the House and the public?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINIn reply to the noble Lord's Questions, my answer, in the first place, is, that I think it a most extraordinary thing that the noble Lord, who has made charges himself, and has never produced one tittle of evidence in support of them, should ask me to disclose, not only all the evidence on which I rely for the statements that I made in this House, but also all the additional evidence I may have for other charges, which, at some future time, it may be my duty to make. Sir, I decline that altogether. In regard to the Question whether I will supply the noble Lord with legally-attested copies of these documents, I have to say I do not think it necessary that I should be put to the expense and trouble of doing that at the present time. I am not a lawyer; but if the noble Lord or his friends institute legal proceedings in this matter, I believe they will be able to get an Order of Court, or whatever it may be called, to obtain the documents in the formal shape which is necessary to base proceedings upon them. But I can assure the noble Lord that, as far as I am concerned, no technical difficulty shall be allowed to stand in the way of any legal investigations that may be instituted.
§ MR. LEWISI would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether the originals of the documents he produced yesterday are in his possession?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINSome of the documents which I quoted were copies, and others were originals.
MR. GORSTgave Notice that on Monday next he would ask the Attorney General, Whether his attention had been 668 called to the conduct of Messrs. Horton, Hooper, and others, who had taken the depositions of J. Walsh, Enoch Bird, T. Hadley, Peter Leverson, and others, at Birmingham; and whether the administration of oaths for the purpose of providing sworn documents to be produced in that House was not prohibited by Section 13 of the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 62, for the suppression of unnecessary oaths; whether such disobedience to a Statute was not a misdemeanour; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government would take to bring these offenders to justice, and revoke the commissions to administer oaths which they had thus abused? In consequence, however, of what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, if there was any reason to suppose that this subject would be a matter of judicial inquiry with regard to the conduct of the Commissioners, of course he would not put such a Question?
§ MR. LEWISgave Notice that on Monday he would ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he would be good enough to specify which, if any, of the originals of the documents mentioned on the previous day had been in his possession?