§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ CLASS II.
§
Motion made and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,286, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration.
§ *MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)I rise for the purpose of moving the formal reduction of the salary of the Colonial Secretary by the sum of £100, in order to challenge the decision which 1096 has been given by Lord Knutsford on an important matter which came within his jurisdiction. My complaint is that Lord Knutsford has not adequately dealt with very serious misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas. A man named Thomas Taylor, after receiving sentence on the 27th July last, for an offence of which he had been duly found guilty, committed a serious assault on the Chief Justice in open Court. On the 31st of July he was again brought into Court, when the Chief Justice, after reciting that he had been guilty of contempt of Court, sentenced him to receive 30 lashes and to undergo penal servitude for life. I have no hesitation in saying that the outrage committed by the Chief Justice on Taylor, was as lawless as the outrage committed by Taylor on the Chief Justice. The matter seems to have attracted the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir H. James) who put a question in regard to it to the Under Secretary on the same night upon which a question by myself appeared on the Paper. The Under Secretary admitted the substantial accuracy of the facts, and the Attorney General acknowledged the illegality of the sentence of the Chief Justice. But I think I can carry the matter a good deal further. It is part of my case that the Chief Justice must have known he was acting illegally when he made the order. It is not a case, however oppressive such cases may occasionally be, of the revival of an obsolete Statute or of an obsolete practice or doctrine of the Common Law. I think I may say with some confidence, having looked carefully into the matter, that such conduct as this would have been as lawless as it is to-day at any time since the passing of Magna Charta. There are many cases recorded in the law books of contempt of Court, and of punishment for such contempt, but I will only mention one which occurred in the reign of Charles the First, when Mr. Justice Hutton was accused by a man named Harrison in open Court of high treason, that distinguished Judge having incurred the odium of the Court party, because with splendid courage and integrity he had maintained the illegality of ship-money. It was a gross outrage committed in the face of three Judges, but Mr. 1097 Justice Hutton did not take on himself the punishment of the offender for contempt. The man was indicted, tried, and found guilty, and even then he was punished not with imprisonment, but with a heavy fine. Then, I would ask, how does the Attorney General endeavour to explain or tone down the conduct of the Chief Justice in this case? He says that the offence of Taylor was a very serious offence. I am surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman did not see the danger of the argument he was employing, because the more serious the offence the more imperative was the claim which Taylor had to be tried by his Peers. The hon. and learned Gentleman dropped one very significant statement—namely, that the Attorney General had intended to indict Taylor. Now that was precisely the course that ought to have been taken, and any candid-minded man must come to the conclusion that the Chief Justice interposed because he was afraid that if this man were put upon his trial he would not have been able to punish him with flogging, and he was determined to have him flogged, with law or without it. The Attorney General quoted a local Act of the Bahamas which provides that in case of a man being convicted of felony after a previous conviction he may be punished with flogging. As to that I have only to say that it seems to me very probable that if this man had been put on his trial the jury might have found that the wounding, serious as it was, was, after all, only an unlawful wounding, and therefore the punishment of flogging would not have been applicable. And how has the Colonial Secretary dealt with the case? The Under Secretary has informed the House that a letter has been written to the Chief Justice informing him that very serious consequences may happen to him if this kind of thing should occur again. But the question is not what is to happen to the Chief Justice if the offence is repeated. My complaint is that no punishment has been inflicted upon him for the offence that he has actually committed. Of course this question must be considered on its merits. It would not be right that the conduct of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas should in any way be prejudiced by scandals in connection with other Colonial Judges; 1098 but when, in any particular case, it has been shown that punishment has been justly incurred, it is quite fair, and in many cases it is very necessary, to consider whether the public interest, public policy, and the public honour require that a serious example should be made. Now it happens, and I regret it very much, that during the last few years there have been many very serious indications that Colonial Judges are getting a little out of hand. There was a case brought before this House only last year of Mr. de Souza, a gentleman favourably known to some Members of this House, and I regret very much that Mr. de Souza has died within these last few weeks; and it is said that his death was caused, in part, by the hardships be suffered during his imprisonment. That imprisonment was consequent upon an alleged contempt of Court committed by Mr. de Souza, for which he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but the peculiarity of the case was that the contempt was committed in respect to a matter that was not then pending before the Court. The Attorney-General says in this case the action of the Court was legal, and if we are to be guided by the strict letter of the law, I am disposed to think that it was; but, at all events, it was a harsh and oppressive straining of the law that would not for a moment have been tolerated in this country. Then there is one other case I should like to refer to, a case which came before the Privy Council on Appeal from the Supreme Court of British Honduras. In that case a man named Dillet, a barrister, had been convicted of perjury, and consequently an order was obtained to strike him off the roll of the Court; but the point of the case is the tone of the observations which were made on the conduct of the Judge by the Privy Council in this country. Lord Watson, in pronouncing judgment, after some very strong remarks on the conduct of the Judge in the Colony, proceeded:—"The Chief Justice converted himself into a witness and, without being sworn, made statements to the jury regarding a visit of the accused to his house and other matters which are not to be found in the record nor in the evidence; "and then he added, "A conviction obtained by such unworthy means cannot be permitted to stand."
§ *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS, Liverpool, East Toxteth)When was this; what is the date?
§ *MR. PICKERSGILLThe appeal came before the Privy Council in March, 1887. Now, in conclusion, let me say that I believe Thomas Taylor is not, in fact I know he is not, an Englishman. I believe he is not even of our race or of our colour; but I am sure that that will not be permitted by the Committee to prejudice his case for a moment. Moreover, let me say that I do not rest my case upon sympathy with Thomas Taylor. He had undoubtedly committed a very gross offence indeed, for which he ought to have been properly put on his trial. My point is that there has been, in the circumstances I have briefly put before the Committee, a gross outrage committed in the name of law, and in such a case we look to the Colonial Secretary—because I may mention this Judge holds office during pleasure—we look to the Colonial Secretary to vindicate the law. In this case I have submitted we have looked to him in vain, and therefore it is that I appeal from the Colonial Secretary to the Committee of this House and move the reduction of which I have given notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £36,786, for Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Mr. Pickersgill).
§ BARON H. DE WORMSI think it would be well to recall to the Committee, in answering the statement of the hon. Member the facts of this case. On September 3rd last the Secretary of State received a despatch dated July 31st from the administrator at the Bahamas reporting that upon sentence being passed on a prisoner named Thomas Taylor, an old and hardened offender, by the Chief Justice, before whom he was tried for housebreaking and larceny, the prisoner, seizing a policeman's staff, made a desperate attempt to murder the Chief Justice. The first blow was broken by the intervention of a screen and the second blow by the Clerk of the Crown seizing the prisoner's arm, the Chief Justice escaping with an abrasion of the skin of the right arm. It is well to recall these facts to the Committee because the hon. 1100 and learned Member seemed rather to minimize the nature of the assault and to come to the conclusion somewhat prematurely that it was not an assault with intent to murder. Certainly on the face of the evidence it was an assault with that intent, and it probably would have been attended with that result but for the prompt intervention of the Clerk of the Crown.
§ *MR. PICKERSGILLThe right hon. Gentleman uses the word "evidence." What is the nature of the evidence? So far as I know no evidence was given.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSThe official statement to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member does not contradict that?
§ *MR. PICKERSGILLIt is not evidence.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSNot in the legal sense of the word, but it was evidence that enabled the Secretary of State to form a judgment. The Chief Justice then, acting far beyond the powers vested in him, did alter the sentence he had passed of seven years'' penal servitude to a life sentence, and he did order the prisoner to be flogged. In answer to various questions put to me in the House, I have explained that the moment this came to the knowledge of the Secretary of State, and before any question was raised in the House the Secretary of State immediately telegraphed to the Bahamas, reversing the sentence and strongly censuring the action of the Chief Justice. It was not possible to prevent the sentence of flogging being carried out, because it had already been inflicted when the Secretary of State heard of the matter. As the hon. Member has said, the Attorney General himself expressed some doubt as to whether, under an old Statute, it might not have been within the power of the Judge to inflict for such an offence as contempt of court the sentence of flogging, and that may perhaps be pleaded to some extent in extenuation of the action of the Chief Justice in this matter. I do not say that he ought not to have known, but possibly he believed he had the power under an old Statute to pass a sentence of this kind.
§ *MR. PICKERSGILLIt is rather important to clearly understand what the Attorney General said, which was that if a man was convicted, that is found guilty after trial, of felony after pre- 1101 vious conviction he might be whipped. The Attorney General did not for a moment suggest that the whipping which actually took place was legal.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSThe Attorney General said that under the old statute the punishment might have been inflicted for a gross offence on indictment before a Court of Law. The Secretary of State took a strong and very proper view, and immediately sent a despatch to the Bahamas warning the Chief Justice that on any such gross case occurring again, most serious consequences would follow. Now I must point out teat any action in this case against the Chief Justice must originate not from the Secretary of State, but in the Colony itself. If the Governor, acting by the advice of his Legislative Council, were to suspend the Judge, the case would come before the Secretary of State, and be by him submitted to the Privy Council for confirmation. No such action was taken in the Colony although when the Governor returned, and prior to any action of the Secretary of State, a notice appeared in the Government Gazette of November 3, that the Governor had annulled the sentence of imprisonment for life; therefore both the Secretary of State and the Governor of the Colony were fully alive to the unfortunate occurrence and the mistake made by the Chief Justice, and immediately set about rectifying it as far as they could. The only other step that could have been taken, would have been for the Governor acting with the Legislative Council to suspend the Chief Justice from his functions, and to report the case to the Secretary of State who would lay it before the Privy Council. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, it was not thought necessary to adopt this step. I may mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who also put a question on this subject, and asked to see all the papers in relation to it, after I had put the papers before him and he had read them attentively, agreed with me, that justice in the case had been fully met by the action taken by the Secretary of State.
§ *Mr. G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)After what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman as to the opinion of my right hon. Friend, I do not wish to press the 1102 subject further. I will only simply say that the very idea that at this time of day a man may be subjected to flogging for a mere contempt of court under the authority of some old statute which the Attorney General does not even venture to quote, does seem to me perfectly monstrous. After the light thrown on the subject, and the sensation created here as well as in the Colony, I hope we shall be saved from a repetition of one of the most highhanded and despotic acts I have ever heard of in these modern times.
§ *MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I regret that Lord Knutsford did not think it right to emphazise his condemnation of the conduct of the Chief Justice more than he did. Since about 40 years ago, when there was a discussion in the House of Lords on this subject of contempt of court, the feeling has been growing in favour of minimizing as much as possible consistently with preserving the authority of the court the power of a Judge to pass indefinite sentences for this offence, and this case seems to me to indicate a return to a barbarous fashion of old days, and which should not escape notice by this House.
§ *MR. PICKERSGILLI propose to go to a division, for I think the action of the Colonial Secretary was wholly inadequate, and that the case is made considerably worse by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 106. —(Division List No. 93).
Original Question again proposed.
§ *MR. BRADLAUGHIn moving the reduction of the Vote by £500 my object is—and I trust the answer I may receive will save me from the necessity of putting the Committee to the trouble of division—is to call attention to the exceedingly shocking state of the prisons both in Cape Colony and other portions of our South African dominions under the authority of the High Commissioner. I will not go into matters which are in any fashion disputable —
THE CHAIRMANIt would be greatly extending the scope of the functions of Committee of Supply to enter upon a discussion of the action of responsible 1103 authorities in a Colony having responsible self-government.
§ *MR. BRADLAUGHThere is, Sir, a large portion of our South African dominions which is not included in Colonies having self government, and it is to this portion I intend to confine my remarks, only using the Cape Colony jails as illustrations, and only so using them because we have evidence carefully taken which will save the Committee and myself from having to rely on vague and difficult statements. I will show how vague and difficult by the fact that in cases where the evidence is very conclusive the man who made the complaints was ordered by the prison authorities not to give evidence, and on his giving evidence was put into chains and kept in chains for a period of several days, notwithstanding that the investigating magistrate held the opinion, and it was ultimately so reported that this man had good ground for his complaint. The state of these prisons is simply shocking. In several of the prisons there is not room for the prisoners to lie down at full length at night, and men and women are confined together under circumstances which are perfectly horrible. There are cases in which lunatics and and persons suffering from contagious diseases are confined with the other prisoners.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSWill the hon. Member specify the names of the colonies?
§ *MR. BRADLAUGHI would be only too glad to do so, but my difficulty is that I am afraid of bringing myself under the censure of the Chair if I specify the particular prisons as to which I have actual evidence. But I can assure the Under Secretary and the Committee that what I am stating is unfortunately still more true of the whole of the prisons outside the jurisdiction of Cape Colony. The way in which the unfortunate Kaffirs are huddled together is perfectly shocking. In one case a child born in the prison contracted a loathsome contagious disease from the prisoners. In another case it has been shown on investigation that cats, having their knots intertwined with wire taken from soda water bottles, had been used as a method of punishment. When I called attention to these things some time ago, the Under Secretary gave two 1104 reasons for not expressing an opinion—first, that Cape Colony had its own responsible Government; and secondly, that an Act of Parliament had been lately passed dealing with this state of things. I quite agree that this is true. So far as Cape Colony is concerned, an Act of Parliament has been passed; I hold a copy of it in my hand; but the latest reports by the last mail show that alike in Cape Colony and in the Colonies under the direct jurisdiction of the Colonial Office, and not under the Cape Parliament at all, the same evils are now existing, and. that no attempt, except a paper attempt, within the limits of the Colony has been made to redress them. I trust hon. Members will deem it right to say that in no part of Her Majesty's dominions, whether with intermediate Parliaments existing or not, there shall be—at any rate without their very strong expression of disapproval—a state of things allowed to exist which would be a disgrace to any civilized country in the world. If the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary makes a statement of that kind, I shall not think it necessary to take up the time of the Committee further; but if he does not, I shall have to ask for the sense of the Committee upon my Amendment.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI am sure the hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that I am not in a position to challenge any statement of fact, because no distinct charge has really been made. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any case relating to the bad treatment of prisoners, I will inquire into it.
§ *MR. BRADLAUGHI am sure the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I say that in the colonial papers the state of colonial prisons has been justified on the ground that those under the direct control of British Government were in a much worse state.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI know there have been charges made, but the hon. Gentleman is far too logical and fair to make a general and sweeping charge without giving any details, and to think that I could deal with such a charge. If the hon. Member will give the Secretary of State any details of prison treatment bearing out the description he has given, the cases will certainly be immediately investigated, and, if possible, immediately remedied. 1105 We have no right to interfere in the case of the self-governing colonies, as they have their own Parliament and their own Ministers, but I think I have a right to say that the principles of humanity, prevail in all our Colonies whether they he self-governing or not.
§ *MR. BRADLAUGHI feel I could not give the details of cases this afternoon without committing a breach of your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and I also quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that the cases which are proveable are the cases in which, unfortunately, there is a responsible government, over which the Secretary of State has no control, and in regard to which, therefore, I shall not be entitled to ask the opinion of the Committee. But I may put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that, when in the papers circulating in South Africa the conditions of these prisons is justified and excused on the ground that those under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government are in a worse state, it ought hardly to be required of a private man that he should furnish the Committee with details of the cases, and that common humanity would prompt the Secretary to the Colonies to send some letter of inquiry to the Colonies on the subject.
§ *MR. G. OSBORNE MORGANI may point out that, although in the self-governing Colonies it is impossible for the Government to interfere, still, if such cases as my hon. Friend has alluded to can be proved to exist, it would be possible for the Colonial Office to make representations to the Colonial Governments on the subject which would not in all probability be without effect.
*SIR G. BADEN POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)I think that if inquiries are made, it will be found that the Colonial Governments are already taking steps to remedy the evils complained of.
§ *MR. BRADLAUGHI think my information up to the receipt of the last mail was that the Government had taken no step except that of the paper Act of Parliament.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)I desire to move the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State by £1,000 in regard to a very important matter relating to the lands of Western Australia. I find fault with the Secre- 1106 tary of State not only for what he has-done on this subject, but for refusing to give the House any sufficient detail in regard to what he is doing. He tells us that he proposes to alienate the temperate portion of Western Australia altogether from the authority of the House of Commons, and that, before the measure is finally adopted, a Bill on the subject must receive the sanction of this House. But before it can come before this House, Her Majesty's Government will have given it their imprimatur and approved of the scheme in all the stages of the negotiations with the Colonial Authorities. That, I say, is not a proper way in which to deal with a matter of this great and supreme importance. I have not strong views with regard to emigration. I have my doubts whether what is called State emigration is quite required by this country; but I am of opinion that, if any system of emigration is to be aided by the State, it is most unfair to-the country that the best people—the cream of the country—should be sent away, whilst the dregs are left to be a drag upon the ratepayers. If it is desirable that emigration should be promoted, it is most objectionable and undesirable that we should be deprived of promoting it in a form that is fair to this country. If we look round the world we find that not only are the United States and other countries very much disinclined to receive people who have no means, but that our own Colonies are taking that line to a very great degree. The other day a very remarkable Paper, which seems completely to prove my case, was circulated. It contains correspondence from the Colonial Governments in answer to the Memorandum of the Parliamentary Colonization Committee of the 1st of May, 1888. The Parliamentary Colonization Committee was composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament who, with the highest and most patriotic motives, formed a plan for State-directed colonization. Her Majesty's Government so far received their overtures with favour as to consent to circulate the plan through the Colonies, and to ask the opinion of the Colonies upon it. It was not a scheme of the character of which the Colonies could reasonably complain. It was one under which, I think, only the cream of our 1107 population would be sent to our Colonies, while the poor would remain behind. Preference was to be given to the colonists who contributed towards the outlay. The money was to be advanced not by the colonists, but by this country, to be recovered in a moderate time; and, altogether, one would have thought it was a plan which was as favourable to the independent colonists as could possibly be conceived. Well, all the Colonies which had anything approaching to responsible Governments rejected the scheme.
THE CHAIRMANI do not quite see how this comes under the Vote. The plan was proposed by an irresponsible Committee.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLI merely wish to show the inexpediency of alienating Western Australia, whilst all the other Colonies refuse to receive our emigrants.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLWell, Sir, I have said all I desire to say about the scheme. I may state, in general terms, that every colony rejected the scheme except Western Australia; and it is clear that every other colony but Western Australia will accept those of our emigrants who are not endowed with some means of their own. Western Australia is an enormous country. It contains something like 1,100,000 square miles—that is to say, it is as large as all Europe, without Russia. The present colonists are a mere handful of between 30,000 and 40,000 people. I have reason to believe that there are immense tracts of temperate land there extremely well-fitted for colonization, and I find that this is amply borne out by a Report on the subject, which I hold in my hand. Under these circumstances it would surely be utter madness to give over this enormous territory to the small handful of colonists who now occupy it, and deprive ourselves of all power of dealing with it. The result of adopting a policy of that kind must be that those who have the monopoly of land will turn round on their poor fellow countrymen and refuse to receive them. This House is entitled to express an opinion before the thing goes too far, and ought not to be put off with the promise that the complete scheme will be laid before the House in 1108 the shape of a Bill brought in at the end of the Session. I therefore wish to move the reduction of the Vote. I may say I have every respect for Lord Knutsford. He is a man of great colonial experience, and I know it is a good thing that such a man should be at the head of the Colonial Office. I am afraid, however, he is too old a colonial official, and too ready to follow the common policy of getting rid of all difficulties by pleasing the colonists and hoodwinking this House. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £36,786, for Salaries, be reduced by £1,000, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ *SIR R. N. FOWLER (London)I have some sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and I am rather curious to hear from the Under Secretary how much land is to given up. I was in New South Wales and South Australia a little more than two years ago. I asked several persons in those Colonies whether the colonists would not raise objection to the scheme of handing over Western Australia to a responsible Government. As far as I could ascertain, no objection was entertained. All those with whom I conversed seemed to think it was a matter in which they could not interfere. They all had plenty of land, and they seemed to think it was no business of theirs. Under those circumstances, although I have some sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend, I cannot support the reduction of the Vote.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)I have a Motion on the Paper for the reduction of the Vote, and I had the same object as my hon. Friend (Sir G. Campbell) in putting it down. The question of disposing of the waste lands of the Empire is one of very great public importance, and I think it is time that a protest was entered against the policy of handing over vast areas of territory to scanty populations. That has been done in several cases in the past. The question of Western Australia has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), but the case of Bechuanaland might also be considered. The Australians themselves 1109 have spoken against the policy of handing over these vast areas unless they have a sufficient number of colonists to undertake responsible government. Sir Thomas M'Illwraith, when interviewed by a correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, said he thought that a vast expanse of land which had been handed over ought never to have been so handed over. In Western Australia there is an area of a million square miles, with a population of something like 48,000. In Bechuanaland it is really impossible at this moment to estimate what is the area of the land that we control. But in neither case is there any sufficient ground for alienating the country from Imperial control. To take an analogy elsewhere, Dakota, which is about to attain to the position of a State, has an area of 100,000 square miles, and a population of from 6,000 to 8,000. There are special reasons why attention should be given to this important subject of waste lands. The world is filling up at a very rapid rate, indeed, in these days, and almost all the great waste areas in the world belong to the British Empire or the United States. All the Colonies except Natal are beginning to object to emigration. The pressure of population is becoming greater within these islands, and both in America and elsewhere restrictions are being placed upon emigration, which will make it very difficult in the future for intending emigrants to find homes beyond the sea. These waste lands of the British Empire represent a vast expenditure both of blood and money, and what we maintain is that until they are occupied by a sufficient number of persons to undertake the duties of responsible Government, they should remain under Imperial control. I should like just to touch on the question of Bechuanaland. A recent article by Sir William Metcalfe in the Fortnightly Review shows that that country will form an admirable field for settlement. I wish to know whether the Government approve of the extraordinary speech reported to have been made by Sir Hercules Robinson before he left the Cape Colony. The first extract published reflecting Colonial expansion is one which it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to understand. There is, however, no difficulty in understanding the second extract, in which he 1110 says that preparation is being made for handing over native territory to the Cape and Natal. The interesting part of the statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies is that it must be accepted as a declaration of policy, and it is upon those terms, I suppose, that he will accept the re-appointment as Governor of the Cape. This is the more interesting that there is a further report that the Governorship of the Cape has been refused by a very large number of persons, and the Imperial Party will have to take what it can get in South Africa. And if Sir Hercules Robinson goes back to South Africa upon his own terms, it is to be supposed that this policy of handing over those areas to the Government of Cape Colony, and taking them out of the control of the Imperial officers, is the policy that is followed by Her Majesty's Government. It is very unfortunate, no doubt, that the Imperial Parliament can find no one fit to act as Governor in those parts of the Empire. If we are unable to find pro-Consuls to go abroad for us, the sooner we cease to have an Empire the better, and we will probably follow this policy of alienation on which the Government seem to be embarking. Now, the question of Bechuanaland was discussed in a Blue Book issued not long ago, and the expense of British government was there put down at a million sterling. The cost the first year was £100,000, and the amount gradually diminished to £50,000; and that fact is used by Sir Hercules Robinson as an argument for handing over the sooner this land to the Cape Colony Government. I think that is a very peculiar argument. What we really desire on this side of the House to know is whether these vast areas of land are to be maintained for the benefit of the population and not handed over to a few of the residents who are not yet in a fit state to undertake their efficient administration.
§ *MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON (Eye)Mr. Courtney, I hope the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will press this matter to a division, in order that we may protest against the attempt on the part of the Government to alienate so large an area to so comparatively few settlers. I pass to Western Australia, by far the largest of the Australian Colonies, and with by far the smallest population, and 1111 if responsible government were granted to that Colony in its naked form, the result would be that some 40,000 would have absolute control over the lands, which comprise an area of over a million miles. The right hon. Gentleman says that a certain portion of the area has been reserved for Imperial purposes, but we are not told exactly what that area is to consist of. The statement has been made that the land which is worth having is to be handed over to the responsible Government, whereas that portion of the area which is not worth having is to be reserved to the Imperial Authority. It is highly desirable that any measure dealing with the subject should not be relegated to the fag end of the Session, when only a small number of Members could possibly deal with it, but that it should be introduced at a time which will admit of thorough discussion. My hon. Friend referred to Bechuanaland. I am far from conceding that these two questions stand entirely on the same footing. Still, there are certain lessons which may be drawn from the analogy of Bechuanaland. The Government intend to reserve a certain portion of the territory of Western Australia. In what way has control to be exercised? The Governor would act in two capacities, as the High Commissoner does in South Africa. We all know there has been a considerable difficulty in South Africa in consequence of two offices being united in one and the same person. The fact of the High Commissioner of Cape Colony uniting in himself two distinct offices has created considerable difficulty. In one respect, the Governor of Cape Colony acts on the advice of the Cape Ministry and is responsible to the Cape Parliament; and it is very difficult for him to dissociate his action in that capacity for his feelings and modes of thought as the Representative of the Imperial Parliament. As Bechuanaland extends to the Zambesi, it is desirable that Imperial control should be retained, at any rate, for the present. Not very long ago the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking at Gloucester, gave a very distinct pledge on the subject. In view of the expression of opinion since by the Cape, and in view of the telegraphic Report of Sir Hercules Robinson's speech, I hope that pledge will be given by the Government in a 1112 more marked manner than has hitherto been the case. I hope the point will be emphasized, so that we may have an opportunity of protesting against this alienation of Crown lands from Imperial control.
*SIR GEORGE BADEN POWELLMr. Courtney, hon. Gentlemen who urge a division on this Amendment are really criticizing the Secretary of State for doing something which he has not yet done. It is well known that nothing with regard to the alienation of these areas has yet taken place, and what is the use of taking a division on a point upon which the Secretary for the Colonies has not yet told us he has come to a decision? I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to explain exactly what portions of Western Australia are to be handed over to responsible government. I know as a matter of fact that a large portion of the residents in the South Eastern corner of Western Australia are very anxious that their portion of the Colony should not be placed under responsible government, but should continue under the control of the Imperial Government. The case differs with regard to those districts in which white labour is impossible; and, in my opinion, this country will always do well to retain some control over those portions in. which European labour is not possible. I hope the Secretary of State will give due weight to the opinions of those who do not desire responsible government. As regards South Africa, I think we have plenty of lands there admirably suited to European colonization. I venture to think that some of the Governments in South Africa would be quite willing to take over territories on condition that emigrants to that country were admitted freely, and arrangements made for giving them lands. The Colonial Office have not yet told us what they are going to do in Bechuanaland and Western Australia, and those who do not desire to see the alienation of white lands without conditions would stultify themselves by passing judgment on that which has not yet been decided.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLI should have said that, as a matter of fact, a Bill has been brought in to the Western Australian Legislature by the Representative of Her Majesty's Government, 1113 that being a Crown Colony, and, as I understand, it has been passed by the Local Legislature, making over to responsible government the whole of the temperate portions of Western Australia.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement. A Bill has passed, but we are not aware how its provisions now stand.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLWho introduced it?
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI am not aware. I am not prepared to accept without reservation the statement of the hon. Member. A Bill has finally passed the the Legislative Council, and it is expected to arrive here in the first week in June. I will lay before the House all the correspondence on the subject, so that it will be in the hands of hon. Members before any Bill to give effect to this measure can be introduced. As my hon. Friend (Sir G. Baden-Powell) remarks, it is extremely difficult to discuss a question with which we are not acquainted, and it would be still more remarkable to pass a Vote of Censure on a scheme without knowing what that scheme is.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLI asked for the Bill, and was refused it.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI have not got a copy of the Bill as passed; I have not seen it myself. That shows how impossible it is to discuss questions of detail which are not before the Committee. Numerous representations have been made against the control of the Crown lands of Western Australia by a Parliament elected by the present population, and controlled by those who are said to be anxious that emigration from this country should not be increased. It is really in deference to those views that we stipulate that the Legislature should not have the power of alienating Crown lands north of the 26th parallel of south latitude. That is the stipulation which the Government have made; and the territory so preserved represents the greater part of the colony. That being the case, and those views being known to the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, the Bill is understood to contain provisions in that sense; but should the contrary be found to be the case, the measure will have to be amended. Power is reserved to erect a 1114 new colony in course of time to the north of that line. The portion so reserved is mainly within the tropics, and, therefore, much of it is not desirable as a field of labour for British emigrants, but it would not be possible to withhold from the future Legislature the control of the southern lands within which most of the present population reside; because if a responsible Government is to be given at all, it must be given to that part of the colony in which the civilized population chiefly resides. If the Bill should arrive at a period of the Session that would not permit of a full discussion of it, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it should not be postponed to some future time, when it can be adequately considered. There need be no doubt that time will be given for the purpose of raising any objections that may be entertained to the scheme. It is impossible at the present moment to give the full scope of the measure, as I am not yet in a position to state the details. There was one question put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that was whether, in the event of a responsible government being granted, the Governor of Western Australia would occupy towards the reserved portions of the colony the same position as the High Commissioner at the Cape. I am not at present in a position to give an answer to that question, and can only say that there is not at the present moment any such intention. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson) asked the question whether there was any intention to surrender the Imperial control in Bechuanaland. I have to say that there is no such intention, and I do not understand on what ground the hon. Gentleman could have based his question.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONI based my argument on the speech of Sir Hercules Robinson, and I asked whether the speech has met with the approval of Her Majesty's Government.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI pointed out yesterday that the only information the Government had received on that subject is exactly the same as that which anyone else possesses, and the hon. Member must be aware that it would be rather dangerous if we were to base our views of an important statement on a telegraphic summary in a 1115 newspaper, which may not be accurate. I must therefore decline to express an opinion on the statement of Sir Hercules Robinson until I have had an opportunity of looking at an authentic report of it. As to South Africa and the general policy of the Government, I would appeal to the Committee not to press questions now, because Sir Hercules Robinson is coming home, and we shall then be able to obtain every information from him that may be desired. When, hereafter, the Estimates come before the Committee, I shall be in a better position to give full information to the House than I possess at the present moment, and I think it will be far better to wait until the Secretary of State has had that opportunity of completing his information.
§ *MR. G. OSBORNE MORGANI have waited to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say, and I find it comes to very little. He has told us that a Bill is to be brought in, presumably by the Government, which is to reserve, or cut and carve out of the whole of this large province of Western Australia everything south of 26 degrees of latitude; that is, to take away from the Imperial Government every portion of the colony of Western Australia in which Europeans can work and live; in other words, he is taking all the plums out of the pudding. Let us look at the position in which this matter stands. In an area of a million square miles, there is a population of between 30,000 and 40,000; that is to say, there are about 40 square miles for every man, woman, and child. Can it be said that a country with so sparse a population as that is fit for self government? Now, I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite who knows the Australian colonies well, will say that in the older Colonies there is a large Labour Party, who practically control legislation, and who are opposed to emigration from this country because a large influx of labourers necessarily affects the labour market and depresses the price of labour. Now in view of the fact that, every day new countries are being closed against our colonists, this subject is becoming one of great importance, and, When the Bill comes before us, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to insist on the insertion of some provision which would prevent 1116 self-governing colonies from objecting to, and placing under restraint, emigrants from this country.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)I am in the position of being able heartily to support the Government proposal in regard to Western Australia, which has made so little progress as a colony because of the way in which it has been controlled by Downing Street. I think the best thing that can be done for Western Australia will be to carry out the plan of Lord Knutsford, because it would enable the people of that part of the world—where there are, fortunately, neither Dutchmen nor Frenchmen, but merely Englishmen and Scotchmen—to bring out emigrants who would spend their money in their own fashion. I believe the limitations laid down by Lord Knutsford to be very wise, and that instead of the northern portion of the territory being cut off as the least valuable, it will be the most valuable, for it is well watered, and contains no poison bush. If this new scheme be succesful we shall, I believe, see in that portion of Western Australia as big a population as we now find in other parts of the country. This is an attempt to scientifically divide Australia. What is called South Australia runs the whole extent of the continent for thousands of miles in each direction, and the fact is that the northern portion of Western Australia, together with the northern portion of South Australia, may throw in their lot with Northern Queensland, in which case you will have a grand colony possessed of great local resources, with splendid cattle runs and sheep tracts, in which there is no poison bush, and splendid opportunities for rearing horses for the Indian market. Therefore, the policy of the Government in the Bill they are going to bring in is, in my opinion, a very wise one, and I do not think the criticisms we have had passed on it here will be sustained. As far as I can understand the scheme, I I thoroughly approve of it, as I think it will give the colony a fillip and enable it to ensure a due share of emigration while giving it full control of its own destinies. With regard to Bechuanaland I should like the Government to make up their minds as to the policy they intend to pursue. It is one of the best portions of the country, being for the most part well watered and offering 1117 plenty of room for Europeans and other people; but at present nobody will go there except a number of land speculators who are endeavouring to get from the native chiefs concessions of land as well as facilities for gold mining. We have had no enunciation of the policy of the present Governors of Bechuanaland, and have been told of the unfair terms on which land and mining concessions are obtained. I hope the Government will do something to stop this. I do not want to press the matter now, because Sir Hercules Robinson is coming home very soon and we shall then be able to decide the Parliamentary questions that have to be settled, one of which is whether the Governor of the Cape should continue to be the High Commissioner, or what form our Government shall assume. We have splendid interests in South Africa, and if we only take care we may have a magnificent colony out there. After you have spent a million or two will you then hand over the Crown lands and everything else as has been the policy of the past, or will you adopt the wise policy of keeping a High Commissioner at the head of the Government and allowing the country to be ruled at the cost and according to the wishes of the Cape people? What do we find to be the history of the colonies governed from Downing Street? Why, in the case of New Zealand, so long as it was governed from Downing street, there was nothing but war. We spent the money, and they fought and gained by the wars; but when the colonists have to pay for their own wars, then war generally ceases, and there has, as a fact, been no war in New Zealand since they have had to act on their own responsibility. And so, if you give Natal responsible government, there will be no wars there. I know something of South Africa, and I say that during the three years we held the Transvaal there was more bloodshed than during the 30 years the Boers held it. Under the Boers there were no wars, because they were not strong enough to be aggressive, and they had to temporize. I hope that the result of Sir Hercules Robinson's visit will be to induce the Government to adopt some policy and stick to it, for it will be better than the present condition of things. As to the 1118 telegram from South Africa, my opinion is that nine-tenths of these telegrams are untrue, and I have therefore come to the conclusion that probably Sir Hercules said the very reverse of what is stated in the telegram which has been referred to. I, at any rate, shall refuse to believe the telegram until I see it verified.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSWith regard to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire, I must say I sympathize with them. The matter of the possible exclusion of emigrants from the colony is a matter worthy of very serious consideration.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONIf the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not seen the Bill passed by the Legislature of Western Australia, he showed to the Committee that he understood the provisions sufficiently well. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Bill is well within the knowledge of the Colonial Office. The fact is, that the southern part of Australia is going to be given up to the administration of this particular class of people. Of course, where there is a sufficient population, we cannot deny for a moment that it is desirable that those resident in the Colony should manage their own affairs, but I contend that there is not a sufficient population in Western Australia to constitute it a self-governing colony. I should not be prepared, either, to hand over Bechuanaland on the same grounds. The telegram as to Sir Hercules Robinson may be wrong, but surely-the correspondence relating to the High Commissionership in South Africa represents his views. If he goes back to South Africa, we know perfectly well what the policy of the Government will be. It is because of the distrust with which we view in some measure the proposals of Sir Hercules Robinson that we protest. I hope we shall be allowed to go to a division against this Vote.
§ *SIR G. O. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness has mixed up with Western Australia the question of Bechuanaland, because in my opinion the two cases stand in a different position. Now, the state of things in Western Australia is admitted on all hands to be that a population of some 40,000 1119 people is in some sort of technical and apparent possession of a territory of, roughly, 500,000 square miles, and the feeling both on this side of the water and in Australia is that this small population is to have absolute power over this great territory. Just as in Queensland the Colony is not willing to encourage immigrants because all the valuable lands not in freehold are underlease to pastoral tenants, so will the condition of Western Australia be in the future if it is handed over to a population of some 8,000 families without restriction. I cannot conceive anything more deliberately inexpedient not only in the interests of possible emigrants from Queensland or from our own shores, but in the interests of the Colony itself, than deliberately to set up a community of possessors of large tracts of territory who, under the somewhat ignoble and unaristocratic title of squatters, have made the great difficulties of our Australasian fellow-countrymen. The right hon. Gentleman has promised that full information shall be laid before Parliament, and that conditions shall be laid down under which Colonists shall be able to pass into the country; but that is not nearly enough. What we want is that, if those 8,000 families are put in possession of 500,000 square miles, a definite limit shall be put to the power of dividing the lands among themselves, which those who then will have the full authority will possess. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not give the Committee a guarantee that Government will introduce this Bill to the House, give it their sanction, and press it forward, unless it contains conditions that land-grabbing and land-jobbing on a big scale shall be impossible, and that the land shall be divided only in limited portions to those who are fortunate enough to be citizens of the new community. I would recommend the Committee to divide with my hon. Friend.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLI beg to say I believe that the Government are wholly and absolutely responsible for this Bill. I would rather discuss the question with the full knowledge that the Bill will be brought in at a proper time, and full opportunity afforded for discussing it; but we know that late in the Session the closure is applied, and Bills are rushed through the House. Unless, therefore, I have 1120 some assurance from the Government that opportunity will be given for discussion, I shall take the sense of the Committee as a protest against the course which has been followed by the Colonial Office in this matter. This is not a case in which we are likely to find ourselves embroiled in war with a native population, but I wish to point out that in regard to self government in the United States, the Central Government always retains a full and ample control over unoccupied land; whereas in all British Colonies, without exception, land jobbing has prevailed. In South Africa millions of acres have been jobbed away, and money made out of the transaction. That is a system which I wish to see done away with.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSOf course it will be necessary to introduce a Bill into this House to give effect to the Bill which has been passed by the Legislature of Western Australia. Full power will be retained by the Imperial Parliament to lay down in the Bill what conditions they may think fit both as to immigration and as to the principles on which unoccupied land in the colony shall be dealt with.
§ *SIR G. O. TREVELYANAfter the very definite pledge which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman that the condition on which unoccupied land is to be taken shall be laid down in the Bill, I do not think my hon. Friend would be justified in pressing the Motion to a division.
§ *SIR J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)I should like to know, in reference to Bechuanaland, whether the Government intend to hold their hands until the arrival of Sir Hercules Robinson, before deciding whether that country is to be left under the Imperial Government or handed over to the Cape Colony. So far as the native races are concerned, it is important that we should know, once for all, what is the policy to be pursued in regard to the government of that part of Africa.
§ MR. JAMES ELLIS (Leicestershire, Bosworth)I am afraid that the Committee are locking the door after the steed is stolen. I believe that the demand for self-government in Western Australia is more in consequence of the way in which land has hitherto been dealt with than anything else. The people of Western Australia, when they have had 1121 self-government, have managed their affairs much better than the Colonial Office would have managed them, and we are wrong in stopping them now. It is for the purpose of putting a stop to land-grabbing that the people of Western Australia demand self-government, and I believe that almost the whole of the land that is sufficiently watered and fit for settlement has already been let on long leases to persons who intend to speculate in land. I imagine that the best thing we can do is to allow the people to manage the land in their own way.
SIR G. GAMPBELLI do not think that the assurance which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfactory, but I am willing to withdraw the Motion on the understanding that a full opportunity will be afforded for discussing the Bill.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI can give the hon. Member an assurance that the Bill will be brought in in time for a full discussion to take place upon it.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLUnder those circumstances I will not press the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original question again proposed.
§ *MR. PICTON (Leicester)In moving to reduce the salary of the Colonial Secretary by the sum of £50, said: The matter which I desire to bring before the Committee is one which, in my opinion, justifies me in asking for the earnest and serious attention of the Committee. To put it briefly, the case is this: On the 18th of June last year, a day generally supposed to be bright in the military annals of this country, a terrible massacre was perpetrated in a district of the Gold Coast by a force of native soldiers employed in the interests of the British Empire. In that massacre 700 poor people were slaughtered or otherwise done to death, 200 of them being women and children. I am sorry to say that this massacre has received the approval of the Colonial Secretary, I hope with an insufficient understanding at the time of what the facts were. More information has come to light since. But on the 3rd of August Lord Knutsford wrote these words, "I have to express my entire approval of your action "—that is the action of the Governor—" under the circumstances, 1122 and my satisfaction at the good work which has been done by the Colonial Secretary and the other officers concerned." It may be thought that at that time full information had not reached this country as to the extent of the slaughter, and, indeed, that was the case, but those facts were fully known in September. And yet on the 29th of that month Lord Knutsford wrote a despatch deploring the great loss of life, but again expressing his approval of the action of the Governor. It is this letter of which I ask the Committee to express its disapproval in the manner my Motion indicates. In order to justify the Motion I must ask the permission of the Committee to lay the facts of the case before them in a little detail. The district in which the massacre occurred is very remote and has very little communication with anybody but officials. The newspapers of this country know nothing whatever about it. It lies inland from the sea and is upon the border of the notorious kingdom of Dahomey. This Crepi country is divided into a number of little communities which appear to have been organized more or less on the feudal system—or a savage imitation of the feudal system. There is a Chief named Quadjoe Deh supreme over that district. Under him there are subordinate chiefs, one of whom is placed over the settlement of Tavieve, and then there is another district and settlement called Shave. Between Tavieve and Shave there have been for 15 years' past many unpleasantnesses and much disturbance. It is well known that when once a quarrel breaks out in these districts, it is only by a wise and most careful exercise of diplomacy and the moral weight of superior civilization that peace can be preserved. But in this district we have adopted a very different method, as I shall presently show. On the 3rd of April, Quadjoe Deh, the Chief or King, reported to the District Commissioner, who is, of course, an official of the Government of the Colony, that an attack had been made by the people of Tavieve, under their Chieftain, upon the district of Shave. Accordingly, as reported in the Blue Book, Mr. Frederick Evans, the Colonial Secretary, directed the Assistant Inspector, Dalrymple, to proceed with an armed force to Akuse, and thence operate upon the disturbed district, and endeavour to 1123 restore peace. I suppose that this officer, whose lamentable death followed, was zealous in the service to which he had given himself, and was anxious to take the shortest road to distinction. His ardour must have forewarned his superiors that some kind of caution was necessary, for I find in one of the papers a letter from the Colonial Secretary to this, I presume, young man, in which he is urged to be very careful how he proceeds. He is told that—
The Tavieve people are reported to be the most virulent and quarrelsome in the whole of Crepi, and are given to blocking the trade roads from the interior to the sea coast.Then a recitation is given of the previous disturbances they have had with the neighbouring King, and he is told that they have recently made peace, and the Government hopes that this peace will be confirmed. Then the letter goes on:—You will remember that the policy of this Government is not to irritate or engender a spirit of disaffection, but by peaceful and conciliatory measures to establish harmony among the peoples under its protection and teach them to look to the Government for advice and guidance. It is in this case especially important that no measures which may embarrass the Government, or bring it into discord with any part of Crepi should be allowed to take place. In this connection I must point out to you that the force placed at your disposal must not be used as a menace to the people with whom you have to deal, and it is required that you will not take offensive measures under any circumstances, or resort at all to the use of arms unless absolutely compelled to do so in the interests of the safety of yourself and Party. As already stated, a peaceful solution of the difficulty is what is required—conciliation, not agression.That is admirable advice, and no doubt if the proceedings had been carried on in that spirit, I am convinced that this frightful massacre to which I refer never could have occurred. But when Assistant Inspector Dalrymple came to the borders of the district from which the raid had been made upon Shave, he seems to have arrived at the conclusion that the people there ought to be severely punished. Let me say here that he had great difficulty in inducing the Superior King Quadjoe Deh to submit to his persuasion, and to refrain from attacking his rebellious feudatories. They might have been made to submit in a peaceable manner, but in a letter that he addressed on the 24th of April to the Colonial Secretary, he says:— 1124I am of the opinion that unless the Tavieves be severely punished in a practical manner before the eyes of all Crepee, my mission must be a failure. I look to the Government for instructions as to the mode of chastisement to be dealt out to them, I may mention that I have rockets to burn villages.This last illustration of the weapons, of civilization is akin to the battering ram used in Ireland. It is a great pity we cannot carry out the Christian principles we profess by our Established Church a little more consistently than we do. This letter was not cordially received by the authorities of the Colony, and Assistant Inspector Dalrymple was warned that this was not quite the thing for which he had been sent out. On the 2nd of May a letter signed. by the Colonial Secretary was dispatched to him in which these words occur:—In reference to the proposed punishment of the Tavieves, I am to recall your attention to the instructions given to you on leaving Accra, and to say that the relations which the Governor desires to see established between this Government and the Tavieves are not likely to be advanced by the means you suggest for adoption.In conclusion the Colonial Secretary says:—Should you find that it is not possible to bring about a satisfactory understanding between the Tavieves and their enemies, or to procure the arrest of the parties most concerned in the attack and firing upon the Chaves, without resorting to force, you are to report at once to me by special messenger, giving me full information as to the general disposition of the offending parties, their strength, &c., &c., &c., but his Excellency the Governor anxiously hopes that you will be able to bring your mission to a successful issue at an early date by the use of conciliatory measures only. You are not, however, on any pretext to resort to forcible measures without receiving the Governor's permission in that regard.Could any officer sent out on a responsible duty receive stricter orders than this young man received? But he was not content to obey his orders. He was determined, apparently, to act on his own responsibility. Accordingly, when he came to Tavieve he met the subordinate Chief there, who is called Bello Kwabla. He told this Chief—what? That he must submit to the superior Government of Great Britain? No. That he must go to Peki, the seat of his superior lord. There was a blood. feud between the two peoples. Bello Kwabla was afraid to go to Peki because, some fifteen years ago, a subor- 1125 dinate King of Tavieve had been, as he alleged, treacherously murdered by the Chieftain of Peki, and he naturally feared that if he was put in the power of his savage superior he would suffer the same fate. Accordingly, he and his colleagues pleaded earnestly with the young Assistant Inspector that he might, instead of being sent to Peki, be taken down to Accra, and then the case between Tavieve and Shave might be tried by the English authorities, in whom they stated they had confidence. This young man would not yield to this appeal. He was staying in the house of the Chief, but he would not listen to the voice of sympathy and of justice. District Inspector Burnett, who ought to know the district very well, wrote a letter after the death of this unfortunate and misguided young man, in which he said that no other result but his death could have been expected by the course Assistant Inspector Dalrymple took. Unfortunately, the words of Mr. Burnett were not written until after the death of yong Dalrymple. When Bello Kwabla refused to go to Peki, Dalrymple put his hand upon him—with no violence, I am bound to confess, but apparently in a friendly manner—and stated, "I arrest you in the name of the Queen"; and he called upon his men to arrest the subordinate Chiefs, with the result that eleven of them were taken into custody. Bello Kwabla, however, asked permission to go into his house to obtain some cloth; he availed himself of the permission granted to him to escape, and he was not for some hours afterwards seen. In a few moments Mr. Dalrymple, wisely thinking he ought not to wait under these circumstances, put his soldiers on the march, placed his ten remaining prisoners amongst them, and proceeded, it is believed, towards Crepi. After going some miles—I cannot ascertain the exact distance—it was observed that the bush on either side of the road was thronged with natives belonging to Tavieve. There was no concealment on the point. The jury before whom the trial subsequently took place declared that it was the custom to escort a Chief in this way, when he was going from one place to another, that the openness of the action of these people was a proof that it was not an ambush, and that they only intended to do 1126 homage to the subordinate chieftains. However, when they had marched some miles, one of the Chiefs positively refused to go any further. The evidence then becomes conflicting, but the balance of evidence certainly seems in favour of what appears very likely in itself—namely, that Assistant Inspector Dalrymple, like a brave man, determined to have his orders carried out, and that he drew his pistol and shot the Chief. At any rate the man was shot and was killed.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Can he point to any despatch in which such a statement is made?
§ *MR. PICTONI can only point to the memorial of the jury, signed with their names, in which they summarize the evidence given at the trial, and give their reasons for believing the evidence that Dalrymple shot the prisoner. I do not say this is proof positive; I am saying that it is a case for inquiry. Well, then, of course, there was more shooting, and poor Dalrymple was shot from the bush. Some of the witnesses have it that he was shot without any previous shot being fired. Instantly there was a general skirmish in the road and in the bush, and a considerable amount of murder was effected, the Tavieve' people suffering more than the Houssas. I do not deny that this occurrence was an outrage upon British authority, and that it had to be dealt with. None of us would permit murder to be perpetrated in any part of the British dominions if it could be prevented. But. there are different modes of preventing such an occurrence, and of dealing with. it after it has taken place. What I. wish to refer to is the mode of vengeance adopted, a mode of vengeance which has since been approved by the Secretary for the Colonies. As soon as this lamentable and terrible event was known orders were given at Accra to Assistant Inspector Akers to take a force of 50 Houssas—afterwards increased to 63—to obtain allies from Chief Quadjoe Deh of Peki and to march upon Tavieve. That place was taken without resistance on May 29th. Then Assistant Inspector Akers went down to Accra, leaving 50, Houssas and 50 Crepi allies to watch the town. Then arose another disturbance. The Peki people were 1127 driven off and the Houssas were withdrawn. Subsequently Mr. Akers came back and recaptured the town of Tavieve. For a week afterwards the Houssas and their allies were pursuing the unfortunate people all about the bush, and the number slain, at first reported at 167, was afterwards ascertained to be between five and six hundred. Here I must read what Mr. Akers says:—
I also enclose a correct list of all casualties that have occurred in Tavieve since the 11th of May last. So far as I have been able to ascertain, about 500 to 600 of the Tavieve men have been killed, and about 200 women and children have died of exposure and starvation, or been accidentally shot during the fighting. The population of Tavieve was some 2,000 souls before any fighting took place, and so I shall leave here about 1,200 men, women, and children.It is easy to reconcile ourselves to events of this kind when they take place in a remote and savage land, the conditions of existence of whose people we can hardly understand. But suppose that a skirmish took place, say in Ireland, and between 500 and 600 of our fellow-countrymen were shot down by the police and military, and 200 women and children were injured or exposed to such privations that they died. Why everyone knows that a revolution would take place in popular opinion, that the whole population from south to north would rise and insist that this diabolical wickedness should come to an end at once, and Home Rule would undoubtedly be carried in the course of three months. But of course when things take place at such a distance from home we do not take them so much to heart. We shall be told of course that a murder had been committed. No doubt that was so, but we are obliged to look at the events that preceded it as well as the events which succeeded it. The Secretary of the Colony in one letter acknowledges that Mr. Dalrymple had somewhat exceeded his discretion. He was told to act in a conciliatory manner and to refer back to his superiors if further arrests were to take place. He acted, however, on his own authority, and therefore, although I cannot but profoundly regret his fate, I cannot help thinking that he was himself largely responsible. No doubt it was necessary to avenge the murder that was perpetrated, but it should have been avenged in a legal way. Surely 1128 there was no need for a campaign among a weak people, so badly armed as they were and so ready to submit to the exercise of the British jury system. What do the jury say in their memorial to the Secretary of State for the Colonies? They ask why neither a Judge nor a District Commissioner was sent to the Crepi country for the purpose of dealing with the alleged murder. Two prisoners, Bello Kwabla and Napael Seheh, were taken down to Accra and put on their trial before a jury. We glory in the institution of the British jury and offer it as a precious boon to backward races. Well, a jury was called together. Whether the jury was packed or not we have no proof. But certainly it was not packed in the interest of the prisoners. At any rate, the case was tried before the Acting Chief Justice of the Colony, Mr. Smith, and the charge was for conspiracy to murder Mr. Dalrymple. The evidence was exceedingly discordant, and it would puzzle a good lawyer to make out the truth from the contradictory statements. According to the report which I have seen the judge in his charge told the jury in effect that they could not possibly convict this man for the offence alleged. For it should be particularly noted that he was not in the first instance charged with murder, but with conspiracy to murder. The acting Chief Justice informed the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to substantiate the accusation that was made. Accordingly this man and his fellows in misfortune were acquitted. They were then brought forward upon a new accusation for murder and being accessory before the fact, whereupon the Attorney General entered at once a nolle prosequi, and the case was presumed to be at an end. But it did not end there. The Governor called together his Council and informed them, the Chief Justice being present, that the acquittal in the first trial was entirely against the evidence. He then persuaded the Legislative Council to pass a most extraordinary ordinance giving power to him to imprison these poor people without any trial at all simply at his discretion. I do not know what the law may be in the Colonies, but I cannot conceive that, such a thing could take place bill. What would be thought of a Bill of Attainder being introduced in Parliament 1129 to punish a man who had been acquitted of murder? Yet this is what took place in the Gold Coast Colony under the ægis of the British Empire. The matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is; but there must be some further inquiry. I have no wish to divide the Committee unnecessarily if we have a distinct and frank assurance that an effort will be made to secure an impartial inquiry into what has actually taken place. That would be a strong reason for not dividing; but certainly things cannot remain where they are. In dealing with these unfortunate people it is not for a great Power like this, trained as it is in arts and civilization for centuries, to point to deeds of violence and say that these are a sufficient justification for indiscriminate vengeance. We are bound to treat the races which are subject to us sympathetically, and to show them a better example than that of their own savage life. Yet, upon the borders of this awful kingdom of Dahomey, we, a Christian nation, in order to punish fanatics for a casual act of murder, actually massacred 700 people, including 200 women and children. We are told that it is better that two guilty persons should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. In this case we have pursued a contrary principle. We have assumed that it is better to massacre hundreds of innocent people than to allow one guilty man to escape. I ask the House to realize its responsibility; and unless we have some satisfactory assurance that a searching and impartial inquiry will be made, I trust the Committee will mark its sense of the wrong done by reducing the salary of the Secretary of State and insisting that we shall be set right before the nations of the world. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £50.Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £36,786 for Salaries, be reduced by £50, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State." — (Mr. Picton).
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSThe hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) concluded his remarks by saying that be hoped an impartial inquiry will be made into the unfortunate occurrence to which he has drawn attention. I hope that if such inquiry be made, that it will be in a more impartial spirit than 1130 has been shown by the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member said that a jury was empanelled to try the case, but that we were not told whether it was packed or not. That is a specimen of the impartial spirit in which the hon. Member considers that an inquiry of this sort should be conducted. The hon. Member has been only too anxious to agree with the finding of the jury, whether it was correct or not.
§ *MR. PICTONI said there was a strong case for inquiry, but I did not undertake to say whether the finding of the jury was correct or not.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSThe hon. Gentleman said the jury indicated that there was a possibility of one of the natives having been shot by Mr. Dalrymple, and he satisfied his own mind that such a possibility existed. But when he turned to the other jury who had to try the alleged murder of Mr. Dalrymple, he was not so satisfied. He did not come to the conclusion that the finding was incorrect, nor did he talk of the jury being packed. That is an example of the spirit of fairness displayed by the hon. Member. He began his observations by saying that the late Mr. Dalrymple had rockets with him, and he went on to insinuate that Mr. Dalrymple had used those rockets. Nothing of the sort. Mr. Dalrymple used no more force than was necessary. But having opened his case by saying that Mr. Dalrymple had rockets with him, the hon. Member said nothing further in regard to them. He simply drew conclusions as to what might have occurred if Mr. Dalrymple had used the rockets. Now what really occurred? There was a dispute between the King of Krepi and the people of Tavieve. The Colonial Governor sent Mr. Dalrymple with a small force to compose the quarrel. Mr. Dalrymple succeeded in allaying the quarrel, and after some trouble he induced the King of Crepi to dismiss his force. He then continued his march to Tavieve. But on his return, according to a letter from Mr. Burnett, a District Commissioner, the chief of the Tavieves laid an ambush for him, and a native Tavieve shot Mr. Dalrymple and killed him, and then pursued Mr. Burnett, and overtook some of his carriers, who dropped their loads and ran away to save their lives. Mr. 1131 Dalrymple was shot before the Houssas who accompanied him fired. Two Houssas were killed and five missing. In the despatch which was written some time after Mr. Dalrymple's death. Mr. Bennett seems to have attributed Mr. Dalrymple's death, in part, to his own conduct. But there is no evidence in support of this view, and Mr. Bennett himself escaped death by discreetly running away. After the news of Mr. Dalrymple's death measures were taken for the arrest of the murderers. It is easy to arouse sympathy by calling attention to the great number of natives killed; but in order to vindicate the principles of justice it was necessary that Mr. Dalrymple's murderers should be punished. The spurious humanitarian views of hon. Members opposite would lead to more bloodshed than what may appear to be a sterner policy. Mercy and humanity are excellent things, and they ought to be carried out, but we owe something to those who are under our flag, and whose lives we are bound to protect Surely we are bound to punish severely those who resort to murder?
§ *Mr. PICTONIn this case, 200 of the victims were women and children.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSThey perished from hunger and exposure. They were following the army—for it was an army—which attacked our small force. I protest against the word "massacre" being used. There can be no excuse for murder, and in this case there was no provocation whatever given by Mr. Dalrymple.
§ *MR. PICTONYes there was.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI defy the hon. Member to show that there was any real provocation given by Mr. Dalrymple.
§ *MR. PICTONI am sure the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to misrepresent me. It was not a case of wanting these people to go down to Tavieve. They would have gone gladly, but Mr. Dalrymple wanted them to go to Peki, the residence of their incensed enemy.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSWhat was Mr. Dalrymple sent there for? He was sent to prevent two hostile tribes from fighting, and how could he do it? One tribe had already separated peacefully, but the other was contemplating a raid 1132 which would have resulted in great bloodshed. What could he do but arrest the ringleaders and try to prevent bloodshed? It was in the execution of that duty that Mr. Dalrymple was wantonly and treacherously murdered. The following two telegrams from the Colonial Secretary to the Governor confirm this:—
Accra, May 19, 1888.A man brought to me by Riby Williams says that a man who was present when Dalrymple was shot told him that when Dalrymple arrested the Chiefs, he marched alongside Chief of Tavieve, that an ambush was made. Houssas saw and gave warning, but warning was disregarded, a man sprang out of bush and pointed his gun at Dalrymple a few paces off. Dalrymple waived him off, man fired and hit him in the stomach, a running fire ensued, Houssas bearing the body.Accra, May 22, 1888.Letter from Bennett, dated Ho, 14th May, received. It would appear that Mr. Dalrymple unfolded his plans to Chief of Tavieve, who was enabled to lay an ambush for him; that Taviewe, having shot Mr. Dalrymple, pursued. Mr. Bennett, overtook some of his carriers, who, dropped their loads and ran to save their lives. Mr. Dalrymple was shot before Houssas commenced firing; two Houssas killed and five missing.''I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not express any sympathy with this unfortunate man who was murdered in the execution of his duty, but tried. rather to show that he was to blame.
§ *MR. PICTONNo.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSAll the sympathy expressed by the hon. Member has been for the savages, and he tried all in his power to show that Mr. Dalrymple's murder was through his own fault. Why did the hon. Gentleman say that Mr. Dalrymple had rockets with him, unless he meant to imply that Mr. Dalrymple used them? As a matter-of fact he never did use them. Does the hon. Member mean to say that Mr. Dalrymple was not entitled to take with him the ordinary means of defence? If the hon. Gentleman meant nothing, why did he say anything about rockets? If he meant something, he ought to have said what it was. The hon. Gentleman would have the Committee believe that a large force under Mr. Akers suddenly came upon a number of unfortunate men and shot them down. Surely he cannot have taken the trouble to investigate the facts of the case. Does not the hon. Member know that this is a most warlike and treacherous tribe, 1133 and when Mr. Akers went to arrest the murderers he was met by the savages, who were very well armed, and who engaged in a pitched battle with the force under his command. The result was that the more civilized and better armed force had the advantage. It is very much to be regretted that in this unequal strife a great number of these people, as I admit, were killed. But the object was a necessary and a legitimate one—that of arresting and punishing the murderers of Mr. Dalrymple. These are the plain facts of the case. I regret, and the Secretary of State regrets, that so many of these people were killed, but when we have said that we have said all we can say, because it was necessary for those under the protection of our flag that every effort should be made to bring the murderers of Mr. Dalrymple to justice. It is impossible to put the case more fairly than the Secretary of State has done, when he says that, while he regrets very much this unfortunate loss of life, he acquits Mr. Akers of doing anything beyond that which he was entitled to do under the circumstances. I hope the Committee will not be misled by what has fallen from the hon. Member for Leicester, who has overstated one part of the case and understated another.
§ *MR. G. O. MORGANThere can be no doubt that this was a most unfortunate affair, and, as usual in such cases, there is a good deal of difficulty about it. As I understand it, putting the statements of the hon. Member for Leicester and the Under Secretary together, it comes to this that Mr. Dalrymple was sent on a conciliatory mission at the head of a small number of persons. Well, Mr. Dalrymple is dead, and I do not want to say a word against him. He is not here to defend himself. It is only fair to him to say that he did nothing with which I can find fault with, except that he acted somewhat injudiciously. He has been shot, perhaps treacherously. But assuming that he was treacherously shot, without having given any provocation to his murderers, can it be said that it was necessary, in order to avenge his death, to kill 800 people. To say that would be perfectly monstrous.
§ *BARON DE WORMSWhat I stated was that it was necessary to arrest his 1134 murderers, and that the endeavour to arrest them led to resistance and to this unfortunate bloodshed.
§ *MR. G. O MORGANWas it necessary, in order to arrest the murderers, that out of a population of 2,000 some 800 should be killed, including 200 women and children? It is a most unprecedented thing, and in my opinion this unfortunate matter calls for inquiry. At present we have had none. Unless some sort of impartial inquiry is conceded to my hon. Friend, I shall support his Motion.
§ DR. CLARKI was astonished to hear the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not often astonished, because it is rarely that right hon. Gentlemen opposite attempt to reply to the arguments adduced on this side of the House, or to give reasons for their action. The right hon. Gentleman sat down without having said a single word in defence of Mr. Akers' action, nor has he given a single reason why this chief, after having been tried by a jury and acquitted, should be tried again and kept a prisoner for life, a Bill having been brought in and carried in a single morning for that purpose. Not a single word has been said in defence of that policy. We are always fighting with these savage tribes on the Gold Coast, and we are fighting now as we used to fight in the Highlands 200 years ago. A mission appears to have been sent out for the purpose of trying to conciliate two native tribes. Mr. Dalrymple said the object of the mission was to endeavour to effect a peaceful reconciliation. But what did Mr. Dalrymple do? He disregarded and disobeyed the instructions of his superior, the Governor of the Gold Coast and his own Commissioner Mr. Burnett, and he wrote that he was of opinion that the natives of Tavieve ought to be punished. He added these words "I may mention that I have rockets with me to burn the village." You have Mr. Dalrymple going on a peaceful mission to reconcile two hostile tribes, but Mr. Dalrymple like many others in such a position being ambitious of distinction, and wanting promotion, having his Houssas around him, thought he would try warlike operations on his own account and wipe out the Tavieve chief. Despite the warning of his superior officer, he resolved to carry on a war 1135 on his own account. In the sixth paragraph of Mr. Burnett's Report, the Commissioner said it was his deliberate opinion that the troubles arising with the Tavieves after his departure arose in a great measure from the fact that Mr. Dalrymple very unwisely expressed his intention of making the chief a prisoner, and he (Mr. Burnett) strongly advised Mr. Dalrymple not to attempt it, but Dalrymple laughed at his fears. So here was a young man in authority who laughed at the advice of his superior officer the Chief Commissioner, disregarded the orders of the Governor as to the object of his mission, and there is the result that as one of the consequences he is killed. You have had the evidence from both sides. The Chief was being taken a prisoner into the camp of his hereditary enemy—why, it is similar to taking a Home Rule leader to Belfast to be tried by Orangemen. There was a blood feud between the tribes of the bitterest character, and it had existed for years, but instead of sending the Chief of Accra to be brought to trial before judges in whom he would have had some confidence, he was being taken among his hereditary enemies, and some of the more active members of his tribe seeing their Chief about to be taken away, as they would think to death, planned a rescue. The result was that Mr. Dalrymple met his death through his own folly and disobedience to orders, having laughed at and scorned the objections of his superior officer. A force was then sent to avenge his death, and some 800 of these Tavieves were murdered while only five Houssas were killed and wounded. Naturally this was the result when a force armed with breech-loading guns fought with natives armed with old guns and spears. Mr. Dalrymple's murder was avenged by the death of 800 Tavieves, some killed at once, others dying from wounds and starvation. The Chief and head man were tried and found not guilty, Judge and jury both being against conviction. More vengeance, however, was wanted, and so a Bill was rushed through the Legislative Council, a Council principally composed of members subservient to the will of the Governor, and the Tavieve Chief, though acquitted by Judge and jury of the crime imputed to him, is detained a prisoner. Even the 1136 Attorney General refused to go on with another indictment. And yet the Colonial Office is satisfied with the perversion of justice by which this unfortunate Chief is detained in prison.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSThe men are detained in the interest of the public peace, and because a renewal of disturbance is apprehended were they to be sent back at the present time. There is another matter I did not wish to allude to, but as I am challenged with it I must. Great stress has been laid upon the observations of Mr. Burnett, and the hon. Member for Leicester attached great importance to the blame imputed by Mr. Burnett to the unfortunate Mr. Dalrymple. Mr. Burnett has been compelled to resign his appointment in consequence of his cowardice on the occasion, and the evidence given to the Committee by the hon. Members opposite is that which Mr. Burnett gave against the man whom he did not support. Mr. Burnett is no longer a Member of the Civil Service of the Colony, because of his conduct on the occasion, and I think hon. Members would have done well to have omitted these references.
§ MR. W. JAMES (Gateshead)I should like to say a few words upon this matter if only to bear testimony to the terms of studied moderation in which the hon. Member for Leicester referred to the action through which Mr. Dalrymple forfeited his life, and to contrast the language with that employed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. The matter and form of the latter speech are not calculated, I think, to improve future trade relations, British credit, British prestige, or the honourable name of this country, in this dark corner of the earth or in other parts of the world. The right hon. Gentleman in defending the course taken, sustained a part, played a role we have heard and seen again and again. The proceedings complained of, he says, were not a massacre — well, as a matter of fact, every battle is more or less a massacre —but the whole tone and spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend, he said, were likely to engender more difficulties. and bloodshed, and then the Under Secretary gave expression to what I may call the "British Lion" view, calculated to precipitate party feelings and 1137 to prevent impartial discussions of this matter. For my part I think these transactions on distant coasts are as distasteful to our political opponents as they are to us. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is not for the credit of this country, and is calculated to repeat the difficulties into which we have been brought by "prancing Pro-Consuls" in different parts of the world. In the growth of our Colonial Empire we have found that before the conquering spirit of British enterprise aboriginal races disappear, and our humbler fellow creatures, such as the Indians in Canada, the Maories in New Zealand, and the natives of Australia cease to exist; but that is not so in Africa, where the black tide of humanity is ever before us. We only occupy a small fringe of the coast line, and are ever liable to troubles, which the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman is not likely to mitigate. The right hon. Gentleman thought he produced an effect by stating that Mr. Burnett was dismissed for cowardice, but it is quite conceivable that the officials who take an exaggerated view of what should be our policy towards the natives, are likely to condemn for cowardice those who do not entirely approve of their conduct. On all these points a full and impartial inquiry is necessary; the reply of the Under Secretary is eminently unsatisfactory, and thanks are due to the hon. Member for Leicester for bringing this matter forward.
§ *SIR R. N. FOWLER (London)It is, I think, the feeling of the Committee that everybody must deplore the very sad events that have taken place, but the question is, what is to be done? The hon. Gentleman opposite, who has rendered a service in bringing the question before the House, recommends that a Commission of Inquiry should be sent out, and I should be very glad to see that done if it were possible to get a good Commission to go out. I do not think the hon. Member for Leicester would be disposed to leave his duties here, or even in the Recess would care to go out on such a mission to the Gold Coast. There would be great difficulty, I fear, in finding impartial men to go out. Now, I do not like the new principle, the new practice which is springing up of making Votes on Supply an opportunity for moving Votes of Censure 1138 upon the Government. Such a practice did not exist when I came into the House, and I do not like it now. If the hon. Member for Leicester had made these events the foundation of a substantive Motion for censuring the local administration in this part of the world, I should have been glad to support him, but the form the Motion now takes is a Vote of Censure on Lord Knutsford. Now, I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen on either side, do they know a more humane man than Lord Knutsford? I do not see how we can have a better tribunal to investigate the case. Lord Knutsford may have erred in his decision, but I am not prepared to censure him for that in the manner proposed.
§ *SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLI agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), the saddest, most dangerous point in reference to this matter is the answer we have had from the Under Secretary, though I cannot agree with him as to the necessity of an inquiry. I do not see that much good would be done by that, for the facts are patent. We have two tribes engaged in a quarrel in the neighbourhood of a small British settlement; a British officer is sent out to interfere, and he is killed in a scuffle; the term murder is not well applied, practically it was a scuffle in which the officer was killed. This unfortunate occurrence arose out of some indiscretion on the part of the officer, but not out of any great breach of duty. Then we sent out a force which took a merciless revenge in the slaughter of some 800 human beings, and this part of the transaction is to be regretted, to be deeply deplored, to be spoken of with bated breath, and in such a tone as will not encourage other officers in other Colonies to adopt such a course without the direst, most absolute necessity. I would speak with strong feeling on this subject, for I am inclined to think that this is not the worst case, among many such cases we have from time to time heard of from the coast of Africa, or distant isles in the Pacific. Disputes arise between traders and natives, the British Consul is appealed to, and takes the part of the traders, a man-of-war and an armed force sent for, and a merciless massacre helpless natives follows. Scarcely 1139 year passes without such incidents. It is to be deplored that the Under Secretary for the Colonies should have attempted not to excuse or mitigate what has happened, but to justify it out and out in the manner he has.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)I think the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir R. Fowler) throw a very important light on this discussion. I quite agree with him that this is not an occasion for passing a Vote of Censure upon Lord Knutsford, but we ought to take note of this, that throughout the debate the opinion which has been expressed on both sides and well presented by the hon. Baronet is that of these very deplorable events serious notice ought to be taken, and measures should be adopted to prevent the recurrence of such circumstances. Now I have long had the means of knowing the humane part which the hon. Baronet has always taken in discussions affecting natives of far distant lands, and it is worthy of him to express the opinion that if there had been an opportunity for moving a Vote of Censure upon the authorities on the spot who are responsible for these transactions, he would have voted in support of it.
§ *SIR. R. N. FOWLERHear, hear.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThat is a very different thing to what has been urged by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. With the exception of that right hon. Gentleman, there is no man who has not spoken in a tone of condemnation of the manner in which the unfortunate death of Mr. Dalrymple was followed up. This is really the point of this discussion, and in regard to what the hon. Baronet has said as to making this a substantive Motion, it must be remembered that Tuesdays and Fridays have been practically appropriated to Supply, and the manner in which the subject is now brought forward is the only manner open to the House to express an opinion which as the hon. Baronet says he would himself desire to express. I do not think that if it had been Lord Knutsford who had to answer for the Colonial Office in this discussion, he would have answered as the right hon. Gentleman has. What I imagine is desired on this side of the House is to convey an opinion to Lord Knutsford, who is the Minister respon- 1140 sible for the government of the Colonies, the desire that measures should be taken to prevent a recurrence of such transactions as these. I do not know whether it is possible to send out a Commissioner or not, but if it is not it shows that we are unable to fulfil the duties we have undertaken. We have great responsibilities, and we have a great power which we have to guard against abusing. I believe that with the single exception of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, there is hardly a man in the House who thinks that in this case the giant's power has not been abused. The object of the debate will be accomplished by making known to the Government the opinion of the Committee that these transactions ought not to have taken place, and that some measures ought to be taken to prevent a repetition of them. The case is not satisfactorily met by the hoity-toity tone of the Under Secretary, conceived not so much in the tone of the British Lion as in the vindictive spirit of the British Tiger. The object of the debate will have been accomplished if it is known that the House of Commons condemns the manner in which this matter was dealt with, and conveys to the Government its view that measures ought to be taken to prevent a recurrence of such transactions.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI must protest against the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to imply —and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) took the same line—that I was in no way struck with the terrible result of these unfortunate transactions. I repeated over and over again in relation to this matter that I deplored the terrible result as much as anybody could, though I expressed my belief that under the circumstances it was unavoidable. There is a great difference between regretting what has taken place and blaming those who took part in these transactions, though the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) does not appear to appreciate or understand the distinction. There was no massacre in the sense that hon. Members would have us understand it. All that Mr. Akers had to do was to arrest ten men guilty of a most barbarous murder, a murder of the most treacherous kind, by savages in ambush. The Governor of the English 1141 Colony on the Gold Coast rightly thought it was his duty to bring the murderers of Mr. Dalrymple to justice, and it was through resistance to the process of law that the unfortunate result happened which I as well as everybody in the House deplore.
§ *MR. PICTONAfter the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, I feel bound to take a Division, however few may be those who intend to vote in the cause of humanity. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and after what I cannot but take to be the intentionally unfair manner in which he has treated the motive and manner of my address to the Committee, I may be permitted a word or two of explanation. The right hon. Gentleman evidently does not include me or the natives of West Africa in his very cosmopolitan sympathies, and thinks it necessary to impute to me motives and a lack of sympathy with the victims of crime which I hope most of my friends know are far from my disposition. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the hackneyed story of the solicitor who gave advice as to the mode of conducting a bad case, but in his endeavour to affix some stigma upon me he has betrayed ignorance of affairs in which he is supposed to have some subordinate authority. He said that Mr. Dalrymple was about to take the murderers to Accra, but this was just what he would not do, and what the so-called murderers wanted him to do. If hon. Members will refer to the Blue Book they will see that these chiefs and head-men wanted to be taken to Accra, and were willing to stand their trial at Accra; but Mr. Dalrymple decided they should not go there, but that they should be taken into the power of their ancient bloodthirsty enemies the Crepis. I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little unjust in his forgetfulness of this most important item in the facts. Then the right hon Gentleman says I displayed no sympathy for the fate of Mr. Dalrymple. Well, I need not reply to that, for I am sure my hon. Friends interpreted my observations in a very different sense. As to what the right hon. Gentleman considered the very conclusive fact that Mr. Commissioner Burnett was dismissed for 1142 cowardice, of course I am not in a position to defend Mr. Burnett, but my argument does not depend apon this gentleman's valour or cowardice, but simply on this, that the authorities at the Colony and the Colonial Secretary warned Mr. Dalrymple in emphatic words that he was not going on a warlike errand, and that he was not to exercise coercion, and that if violence appeared necessary, he was again to apply to headquarters before taking any such measures. The officer thought violence was necessary; he did not refer to headquarters; he made a violent arrest, and hence the result we deplore. Why, does the right hon. Gentleman expect that any savage would be content to be taken like a lamb and delivered to his hereditary enemy? He did not come under British dominion for that; he claimed to be tried by impartial Judges and an impartial tribunal. Something has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Fowler) about the undesirability of passing a Vote of Censure on Lord Knutsford. I propose nothing of the sort; it is a Vote of Censure on the system pursued towards the native races. I do not want specially and personally to make Lord Knutsford responsible for this series of blunders and crimes. It is not to be expected that any man, however humane and enlightened, can suddenly desert the current of your bad policy. Do not be misled; it is not a Vote of Censure on Lord Knutsford. I ask for support to a protest in a well-known form, expressing a reprobation of what has been done, and on our part I desire that this policy shall be amended in the future. Therefore it is that I move this reduction.
§ DR. CLARKIn addition to our own forces—of whom only two were killed and three wounded—we were assisted by 3,000 natives belonging to a tribe between whom and those we were attacking existed a blood feud. For these natives we could not be responsible, and I protest against the horrible system of employing the services of such people on an occasion of this kind as I protested last year in regard to the Zulus.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. J. NOLAN (Louth, N.)I desire to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to a rather unfortunate condition of affairs existing in the Falkland Islands. I believe some friction has arisen between the Governor of the colony and the Colonial Surgeon in regard to some quarantine regulations, and I am informed that an application has been made by the Governor to the Government to have the Colonial Surgeon dismissed. I desire to know whether the Government will inquire into this matter. The residents on the Falkland Islands are well pleased with the surgeon, and seeing that there is only one medical man there, it is desirable that he should always be a gentleman acceptable to the families. I mention this matter now as I do not think another opportunity will arise before the mail leaves.
§ *BARON H. DE WORMSI will inquire into the matter.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again this day.