CONFISCATION OF LANDS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CAPE COLONY. (Hansard, 18 February 1898)

§ MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, S.W., Leigh)
, who had on the Paper the following Amendment to the Address:— But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that this House regrets that the consent of Her Majesty's Government should have been given to the confiscation by the Government of Cape Colony of lands reserved to certain sections of the Bechuana people, thereby depriving them of their means of subsistence, and humbly prays Your Majesty to take such steps as may be most effective to undo this wrong, and put an end to the indenturing of the men, women, and children removed from these lands under conditions amounting to temporary slavery, said: I also, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, have no objection to withdrawing my Amendment. The subject with which it deals I hope to find an opportunity of raising on the Estimates.

§ *MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
, who had on the Paper the following Amendment to the Address— And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the frauds which have been recently proved to have been perpetrated in connection with the revision of the list of voters for the St. Stephen's Green Division of the City of Dublin constitute a gross and scandalous violation of the spirit and letter of the Law, and indicate the existence of a serious conspiracy against the just representation of the people in this House, and that, in view of the fact that there is good reason to believe that a similar system of fraud has been carried out, and a similar conspiracy exists for the same object in two other contiguous constituencies, it is the imperative duty of the Government, not only to vindicate the Law by bringing the guilty parties to justice, but by taking such other administrative and legislative steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of those or similar crimes, said: I do not feel at liberty to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, 1180 and I think I must say something on the Amendment which stands in my name.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is aware that his Amendment is out of Order, I do not say that that debars him from addressing the House on the Main Question, but the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member is out of order.

§ *MR. CLANCY
I would not venture to address the House, especially as you, Sir, tell me that my Amendment is out of order, except that I have in my mind that this very evening you have allowed the hon. Member for South Monaghan to move an Amendment, to the Address under precisely similar circumstances. A Bill dealing with the subject of the Amendment had actually been introduced and read a first time.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
If so, it entirely escaped my notice. Upon what day was that Bill set down in the Order Book?

§ *MR. CLANCY
I am not quite sure what the date was, but the Bill was actually circulated to Members this morning, and I presume every Member has read it.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I find that the title of the Bill is one that would give me no guidance; it is The Poor Law Settlement (Scotland) Bill. That certainly did not indicate to me that the Bill had any relation to the subject-matter of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Monaghan. If I had known that it had, I should certainly have ruled his Amendment out of Order. But whether I was right or wrong in that matter, I hope the hon. Member will take my ruling now.

§ *MR. CLANCY
May I put my point in one sentence? The memorandum prefixed to the Bill actually stated that the object was to regulate the law relating to the deportation of paupers from Scotland.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I do not doubt that that is so, but I am only pointing out that the title of the Bill did not even put 1181 me on inquiry. It is not my practice to read every Bill as soon as it is printed. However, I have ruled that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Dublin is out of Order.

§ *MR. CLANCY
I bow, Sir, to your ruling, and I shall not discuss the Question raised by my Amendment. But, Sir, I propose to make a statement, and it will be only a short statement, in speaking to the Main Question which I understand is now before the House. I desire to refer to the action of the Government in filling up——

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
I move that the Question be now put.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I understand that the hon. Member only wishes to make a short statement.

§ *MR. CLANCY
Certainly, Sir; I stated that, and I will keep my word. I will only make a short statement, but it will be a very plain one, indeed, after the Motion just made by the right hon. Gentleman. In September last Mr. Justice Warren, the judge of the Probate Court in Dublin, died. According to the Judicature Act, the vacancy thus created ought to have been filled up forthwith. In England, about the same time, two judicial vacancies occurred, and they were filled up immediately. Strange to say, although a whole month or six weeks elapsed between the time when the vacancy occurred and the commencement of the legal year in Dublin, there was no appointment made during that period, and no appointment was made for two months afterwards. The late Solicitor General in the Irish Government was kept dangling between earth and heaven in the Library of the Four Courts between the date of Judge Warren's death and the 24th December. Those are very suggestive dates, because by the 24th December it is obvious that the election that would take place in the St. Stephen's Green Division could not take place on the Register of 1897. What I charge now—and I put it very plainly—is this: that the Government delayed the 1182 appointment of Mr. Justice Kenny with the express purpose that they might not have an election on the old Register; and I say that because of the facts that I am aware of, and also because of the answer given the other day by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he was asked what the reason was why the vacancy was not filled up sooner. Sir, it would be impossible to imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had any answer to give, would not have given it at once. He was not able to give any reason whatever. I charge, and I charge it plainly, that the Government knew that they would be beaten on the Register of 1897, and that they deliberately delayed the appointment of Mr. Justice Kenny for the purpose of securing that the election should take place on the Register for 1898. I call that a prostitution of executive power. I say it was an exercise of power for base Party political ends, and that it is entirely unworthy of any Government, no matter what Party might be in power. But, Sir, there is a deeper significance to be attached to this matter, and that is this: we know now, as a matter of fact, that the Register in the St. Stephen's Green Division was of a very curiously constituted character for the year 1898, and I say here, very plainly, that the Government knew how that Register was constituted, and, for that reason amongst others, deliberately delayed this appointment. Sir, I said that I was only going to make a short speech; I could make a longer one; but I will keep my word, and I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the action of the Government in this matter is a scandal; that it is calculated to give a bad example to all Ireland; and that it is no wonder that, in the face of such procedure, the people of Ireland spit at your law and despise your Administration.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
I do not intend to prolong the Debate, but I will just say this. The Government now know the facts concerning this abuse of the Executive power; they have heard the charge that has been publicly made in Parliament; and I say they are bound 1183 not to let the matter rest there. They know that the law has been violated, and we demand its vindication. Matters of considerably minor importance as compared with this have before now occupied Select Committees of this House. I remember an occasion when, at Leicester, two bye-elections had taken place at the game time, and Lord James, who was then a Member of this House, moved for a Select Committee on the action of the Sheriff in not holding two separate elections. That was the case of an English borough, and it was thought to be a sufficient matter to be sent to a Select Committee. I will not detain the House now, but I do think we are entitled to be assured by the Government that either by a prosecution or by an inquiry before a Select Committee of this House this foul and unpleasant matter should have some ventilation.