Lords Sitting of 14 February 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Limitation of Actions*(5); Settled Land*(6); Conveyancing and Law of Property*(7); Consolidated Fund*.

CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether it was true that in 1876 a communication was made by the Russian Government to the Government of this country in which it was proposed to divide Central Asia between Russia and England?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I see by the newspapers that the impression of the existence of such a document exists in seine quarters. The Press has a very natural and very laudable desire to obtain possession of all information; but in some instances it obtains information which is not correct, and which is given by persons who commit a breach of faith in furnishing it. With regard to this case, I do not know how the knowledge of a private Memorandum could be supplied to a newspaper; but as far as I am aware the statement is not true. My attention was called to the matter by seeing in a newspaper the statement referred to by my noble Friend. I have had a diligent search made, and I find, as regards the Foreign Office, that in the archives there is no record of such a communication. Neither is there any recollection of it among the permanent staff of the Office; and I believe the same statement will apply to the Department over which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India presides. I give an answer to the Question which my noble Friend thus put; but, at the same time, I hope my doing so will not be regarded as a precedent that when any statement appears in a newspaper there should at once be a communication on the subject to Parliament, irrespective of any consideration as to whether it may be to the public advantage that such communication should be made.

IRELAND—PASTORAL LETTER OF DR. GILLOOLY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the concluding paragraph of the pastoral letter of Dr. Gillooly, the Bishop of Elphin, to his clergy, communicating to them the recent letter of the Pope to the Archbishop of Dublin—
  "Whilst we express this confidence in the religious and peaceful dispositions of our people, we feel it a duty to declare that should the Government and Legislature fail to satisfy in the present Session of Parliament the just demands of the cultivators of the soil, they shall at once forfeit all further claim on restraining influences, which the hope of remedial legislation has hitherto induced a large section of the clergy to exercise in their favour;"
  and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has brought, or intends to bring, this language under the notice of the Holy See? The noble Lord said: I should commence by reminding your Lordships that the recent letter from the Pope to the Archbishop of Dublin contained an injunction to Irishmen to maintain their hereditary probity. It was impossible for a document of the nature of a Papal letter to be more outspoken or more plainly opposed to the teaching of the Land League, which enjoined the withholding of rent, advice which has been followed all over Ireland, as much in unscheduled as in scheduled districts. The importance of the Papal letter, and its value on the side of order, will be still more apparent when it is remembered that a short time before the Archbishop of Cashel had written a letter in favour of the Land League doctrine of holding the harvest, in which he used the words—"The husbandman that laboureth must be the first partaker of the earth's fruits," to support their teaching. Great efforts were also made to lead the Irish people to believe that the Catholic Church had given its sanction to the Land League; and, indeed, the tone of some of the Catholic newspapers in Germany and France at one time might countenance such an opinion. The Pope's letter was published in the newspapers, and ordered to be read out in the Dublin churches; but it was not generally published throughout Ireland, and, according to the public prints, the Pope was dis-

  749
  pleased at this, and again gave instructions for the publication of his letter, After this the Bishop of Elphin communicated the Pope's letter to his clergy, with a pastoral letter. In this he entirely omits all notice of what, under the circumstances, was the principal point of the Pope's letter—namely, adherence to honesty; and he concludes his letter with a threat to the Government and Legislature that unless they pas a Bill in this Session, which shall satisfy what the cultivators of the soil are pleased to think just demands, the clergy of his diocese shall not be expected any longer to exercise their influence in restraining their flocks from outrage. I shall refrain from expresing any opinion of my own as to this language; but will leave it to your Lordships to consider whether it is right for a Christian Bishop to make a matter of bargain and sale of the obligations of his clergy to oppose outrage and wrong on all occasions, even though some popularity might be temporarily lost by so doing. With such an example of the state of mind of an Irish Bishop, it cannot be a matter of surprise that the language and conduct of a large part of the clergy should have been what it has been. A large number of priests have presided at Land League meetings, and have used language there altogether unsuitable to their sacred calling; in still more numerous cases they have allowed language inciting to outrage and assassination to be used in their presence, and under their presidency, or have feebly protested when they ought to have closed the meeting or retired from it. Having complained of the conduct of a portion of the Irish priests I feel bound also to state what there is to be said in excuse for them. In the first place, some of them honestly believe that they have had a moderating influence upon the Laud Leaguers, who, but for their presence, would have gone to greater lengths. Then it must be remembered that the Irish priests are taken from the sons of the smaller farmers, and that they are the brothers and cousins of the persons whose interests they have been pleading for. I was told by a Catholic gentleman, not a landlord, that the Galway priests were the worst. I asked why, and he said because they were the sons of occupiers smaller than in other districts. Formerly many of the Irish
  750
  clergy were educated at St. Omer and Salamanca, where they were able to acquire more extended ideas and get rid of Irish prejudices. The greatest difficulty, perhaps, that impairs the position of the Irish priests is their dependence on their parishioners, and the necessity they are under of resorting alternately to cajolery or threats to obtain the moans of subsistence. Many of those who in 1869 took an opposite view, and who prevented the vote of your Lordships in favour of bestowing glebes and manses on the Irish priests from being carried out, must now regret that so good an opportunity was lost and thrown away of taking a stop half-way towards securing the independence of the priests, and of putting them less in the way of temptation to take up the part of political agitators. The Irish Bishops are much in the same case as their clergy as regards position. It was remarked at the Council of the Vatican, in 1869, that if a prize were given to non-Catholic Governments for their Bishops the Ottoman Government would have been first, for the Turkish Bishops all had the appearance of persons well to do in the world and accustomed to hold their own, whilst the English Government would have been last on account of the appearance of the Irish Bishops. If your Lordships admit that the conduct of a considerable portion of the priests has been bad, and if you admit the validity of the excuses for this conduct, it would follow that there must be blame for the present status and condition of the Irish priests, and that blame must be divided between the Government of this country and the Papal Court for not having approached one another, and concerted together in order to secure a better state of things. At the end of last year there was a great outcry from the North of Ireland against the language of the priests and the apparent indifference of their ecclesiastical superiors; but now even the Orangemen, who would refuse to the Pope the title of Vicar of Christ, must admit that he has acted in that spirit, and endeavoured to check agitation and to restore peace to Ireland. I now come to the Question to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, of which I have given Notice, with regard to the language of the Bishop of Elphin. I have no fear that it will be said that this or the language of the priests is a matter

  751
  of indifference; but the answer necessarily will be that my noble Friend has no means of communication with the Holy See. Why is this the case? Lord Odo Russell long tilled the post of unofficial agent at Rome with great credit to himself and utility both to his own and the Papal Government. Mr. Jervoise succeeded him, and I believe was equally successful in giving satisfaction. He was, however, recalled in the October of 1874. It is not generally known why this was done. It is to the credit of this country that I never heard it attributed to Protestant bigotry; it has generally been supposed that his recall was dictated by economy. I was informed at the beginning of last year at Paris that the reason for it was in order to please the Italian Government, in consequence of the bad relations then existing between that Government and the late Pope Pius IX. This reason, however, no longer exists, for the relations between the present Pope and the Italian Government are on an amicable footing. I will, therefore, venture to hope that the Secretary of State will be able and willing to inform your Lordships that he will take into his consideration the re-appointment of an agent like Mr. Jervoise at the Holy See. Unless this is done it will be impossible to do that which there is the greatest necessity for doing—namely, to improve the position and condition of the Irish clergy, in order that they may be better able to moralize the Irish people, and to eradicate the unfortunate tendency to resort to outrage and assassination. At the present day, and when the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is invited to take part in every public movement, it seems unnecessary to offer any arguments against unreasonable fears of Papal interference in this country. At the same time, I may state my belief that there is very much too little instead of too much attention given at Rome to Irish affairs. A conversation with the late Cardinal Antonelli gave mo the impression that he did not know much of Irish affairs, and that he was nearly as much tired of them as Her Majesty's Ministers may now well be. At that time also an almost incredible mistake in The Civilta Cattolica showed how little attention was being paid to Irish affairs, for that monthly official organ stated long after the Irish Church Act
  752
  had passed that the property of the Disestablished Church had been restored to the Roman Catholics; the mistake was probably owing to some telegram announcing the vote of your Lordships' House for bestowing glebes and manses on the Irish clergy, which was so unfortunately frustrated. I believe that the present agitation in Ireland will shortly subside; but if, unfortunately, that should not be the case, Her Majesty's Government have already been warned and threatened that they would have to lock up every priest in Tipperary and the Archbishop of Cashel, who would put themselves at the head of the Land League and carry out its operations. If such an event were to happen, and the priests so far forgot their sacred calling, it would be far better in the interests of religion and order that Her Majesty's Government should be in a position to obtain the deprivation or suspension of such priests from Rome than that they should be driven to proceed against such misguided priests in the manner contemplated by the agitator.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have not the honour of knowing Dr. Gillooly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Elphin; but in consequence of the noble Lord's speech the other day, and of the Notice of the Question which he has just put, the right rev. Prelate has addressed to me a letter, dated the 8th of this month. It would have been a more convenient course if this letter had been addressed to some Irish Peer, who could have freely discussed with the noble Lord the bearing of Dr. Gillooly's Pastoral Letter on the previous letter addressed by the Pope to the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland. As it is, though the letter is rather long, I may as well read it without comment to your Lordships. It is in these terms—
  "Sligo, Feb. 8, 1881.
  "The Right Rev. Dr. Gillooly presents his compliments to the Right Hon. Earl Granville, and takes the liberty of enclosing to his Lordship a copy of the Pastoral Letter to which reference was made, a few days ago, in the House of Lords, by Lord Stanley of Alderley, and to which the same noble Lord proposes to call the attention of the House on the 14th instant.
  "This letter, when read in its entirety and in connection with the letter of His Holiness the Pope, will, it is hoped, supply abundant evidence that the writer condemned in the future, as in the past, all violent and unlawful means of effecting the reform of the Land Laws

  753
  of Ireland; that he approved only such as were peaceful and Constitutional; and that 'the restraining influence of the clergy,' to which he says the Government and Legislature may forfeit their claim, must refer, not to any lawless acts of the people, hut only to the Constitutional agitation which the refusal of remedial measures may still necessitate.
  "This meaning and purport of the Bishop's observation will he made still more evident and unquestionable by the fact that up to the present time, and chiefly in expectation of the promised Government Land Act, the Bishop of Elphin and his clergy have refused to take part in the Land League organization or Land League meetings, although sympathizing most cordially with the people in the main objects of the League. The Bishop wished to intimate that their abstention from active co-operation with the people, and the restraining influence which such abstention had to a large extent undoubtedly exercised on their flocks, should not be reckoned on for a day in the event of adequate remedial measures being refused by Parliament. And he considered it his duty to hold out to his flock this hope of active guidance and co-operation, being convinced that the refusal of the expected Land Reform Bill would necessarily lead to a well-sustained Constitutional agitation, as being not only the safest and speediest means of bringing the Legislature to grant that reform, but as the only means of saving this country, if saved it can be, from the terrorism and crimes of secret associations.
  "The Right Rev. Dr. Gillooly begs to apologize for troubling Earl Granville with this communication; he docs so in the hope that it will enable his Lordship to satisfy the House as to the true meaning and purport of the misinterpreted letter, and in the hope, too, that the feeling expressed in that letter, and which he knows to he the common feeling of the body he has the privilege to belong to, may be taken into account by those who, under God, hold in their hands the destinies of the Empire."
  I have to add that I have not brought, nor is it my intention to bring, the language of the Pastoral Letter of Dr. Gillooly under the notice of the Holy See.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE COLONY—MEMORIAL OF "DUTCH BOERS."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CADOGANasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the memorial contained in Blue Book [C.—2695] South Africa, stated to have been addressed by the Boers to Mr. Gladstone, was ever received by the Prime Minister; whether it was signed, and, if so, by whom; whether any answer was returned to it by the Prime Minister, and, if so, whether there was any objection to laying on the Table of the House such answer and any further corre-
  754
  spondence on the subject? The noble Earl said he should be able in a very few words to explain the character of the Memorial. It was sent by Sir Bartle Frere to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 8th of March, 1880, and was received on the 31st of March, before the late Government left Office. The document sent was only a copy of the Memorial which was proposed to be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was stated in one of the newspaper criticisms inclosed in the despatch that the Memorial was still lying for signature. It contained this language—
  "To the Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., &c.—We, the undersigned, who venture to address you, are men of European extraction living in the Cape Colony, and, with few exceptions, belong to the class generally known by the name of 'Dutch Boers.' Living scattered over great stretches of country, far removed from the busy centres of population and civilization, and occupied with the care of our flocks and herds, we have but a scant opportunity of becoming acquainted with the names and deeds of the great men of the British Empire. But yet, from time to time, the name of William Ewart Gladstone has reached even our isolated South African farms. We heard of him as one of those famed statesmen and orators across the water who, by the power of their genius, exercise so marked an influence on the destinies of their country. We heard of his magnificent eloquence, of his splendid services rendered in the cause of human liberty without distinction of race or creed, and of his undeviating loyalty of conscience, not only as a private Member of Parliament, but in that most difficult of all positions, a political Party Leader and a Cabinet Minister. We were told how he carried the first rays of hope into the hearts of a cruelly oppressed Italian people, how he had aided the cause of the poverty-stricken Irish peasant, and how he had made the whole of England ring with his indignant denunciations of the nameless atrocities perpetrated by a barbarous soldiery on a Christian population in the Turkish Empire. Sharing the feelings of a common humanity, we could not learn of these, your services in the cause of liberty, without feeling some responsive chord touched within us. And yet we would have hardly thought of addressing you, if we had not heard of late how the wrongs of even some few thousands of Dutch Boers—as many thousands of miles away—had called forth your sympathy and a decided expression of your disapproval and condemnation of the treatment to which they have been subjected."
  The Memorial gave their views of the annexation of the Transvaal—views which, he confessed, so far as he was able to judge them, might be described as erroneous. It referred to the speech uttered at Edinburgh by the right hon. Gentleman and another on the 70th,

  755
  anniversary of his birthday; and, having stated that they felt they would not appeal to him in vain, concluded by hoping that he might be spared for many years. When he read that Memorial—a copy of which was forwarded to them at the Colonial Office—he imagined that the original would have been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, and duly acknowledged. In the meantime, however, a change of Government took place, and the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister of England. Five months after the receipt of this Memorial he found it presented to Parliament, and in September last it found its place in a Blue Book circulated among Members of both Houses of Parliament. He could hardly believe that if it had not reached the Prime Minister duly signed and authenticated it would have found a place in a Blue Book of the character to which he alluded. It was quite evident that in discussions which might take place, and which must take place on the subject of the annexation of the Transvaal, they should have to be guided in the opinions they formed of the policy of the late and the present Government by the expressions which might from time to time be received of the opinions of the inhabitants of the Transvaal themselves. He could not but think, therefore, it would be unwise and prejudicial to the interests of the country that ex parte statements, such as those contained in this Memorial, should find their way into official Papers and Blue Books intended for the instruction of their Lordships' House, without anything being said as to whether they were duly signed, by whom they were signed, whether they were received by the person to whom they were addressed, and, if so, whether any answer had been returned, he had omitted to mention that in the same despatch which inclosed this Momorial were numerous criticisms upon it sent by Sir Bartle Frero. Here was one—
  "Our readers will find in our Dutch columns the text of an address to Mr. Gladstone to be signed by the people of the Cape Colony' in behalf of our Transvaal brethren, The idea was first started by The Patriot and supported by The Zuid Afrikaan; and seeing that the address makes a fair statement of the case of the Transvaal, without containing- anything calculated to make a wrong impression in England about the sentiments of the Colonists as regards the manner in which Native affairs have of late been conducted, we
  756
  cordially recommend our readers to sign it as readily as, in former days, they signed Memorials to Her Majesty the Queen in favour of the repeal of the annexation. We should rather like the present Imperial Ministry to rescind the annexation than to have the matter left to a Liberal Cabinet; but Mr. Gladstone may prove a most useful ally to the Capo Africanders."— Het Volksblad, February 28, 1880.
  Here was a criticism which showed that a different view had been taken—
  "Cape Town, Saturday, March 6, 1880.—Ministerial.—It was a happy thought to address to Mr. Gladstone that composition in choice English with which Dutch Boers, living scattered over great stretches of country, far removed from the busy centres of population and civilization, and occupied with the care of nocks and herds,' propose to enlist the sympathies of the English Opposition in behalf of the restoration to the inhabitants of the Transvaal of their so-called independence. Mr. Gladstone, when he undertakes a cause, undertakes it with all his might. He is as 'thorough' as the hapless Wentworth.…The Transvaal annexation may provide him with another article of impeachment, and although the surrender of the territory might be found to involve some sacrifice of Liberal principle, any stick will serve to boat a dog; and so the promoters of this remarkable document may have good hope of securing the great man's countenance. That it is a remarkable document no candid person who has taken the trouble to read it through will deny. It is remarkable, considering its asserted origin, in its literaryaspect. Seldom are scattered Boers occupied in simple pastoral pursuits found to possess such mastery of the English language as the Memorial exhibits. It may be answered that the original document was composed in the vernacular Dutch of the rural districts. But even thus the literary achievement would be no less remarkable. For the Colonists who use the vernacular Dutch are not generally credited with the copiousness of thought exhibited in the Memorial, or with the fervid interest it displays in the career of English statesmen. They are a homely people, and, like English folks of the same class, limited in their range of ideas. Travellers who visit them at their homesteads find them kindly, inquisitive, and loquacious; but their talk is of oxen and kindred subjects. They are not apt to discuss the characteristics of famed statesmen and orators across the water, the power of their genius, their influence on the destinies of nations, their magnificent eloquence, their splendid services rendered to the cause of human liberty. It is truly a remarkable document in its now revelation of the breadth and depth of inquiry and reflection, hitherto unsuspected, in the class of Dutch Boers living scattered over great stretches of country, and far removed from the busy centres of population and civilization. Remarkable also is it in some of its representations."—cape Time's.
  The main result, however, was that this Memorial had been presented to Parliament. It was forwarded in the month of March, and presented to Parliament in

  757
  September. He might add that another Memorial, written in May, and addressed to Mr. Gladstone, was duly answered by him in a letter of which they all approved, and was published and given to their Lordships' House in August. He did not understand why the other Memorial was detained a month later. It was to be hoped that the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, would kindly inform the House whether any Correspondence had ensued upon this Memorial. He trusted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman received it, and either committed it to the waste-paper basket, or, perhaps, laid it on one side with the intention of making use of it at some time or other when the occasion should arise.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have communicated with my right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone, and he says that, so far as he can remember, during the hurry of the Election, this address did not reach him, and that also, so far as he can remember, he did not send any answer to it. The reason that it appears in the Blue Book is that it was sent as an in closure in a despatch from Sir Bartle Frere; and as it was necessary to present that despatch, of course, the in closure was published with it. My noble Friend is anxious to know what value should be attached to it. He is as able to judge of that as I am. The document was received during the time that he was in Office, and when the information of the Colonial Office was at his complete disposal. It was transmitted by Sir Bartle Frere; and I apprehend that it is a document which expresses the opinion of a certain number of persons in South Africa. I am really quite unable to give my noble Friend any further information on the subject.
  EARL CADOGAN: I hope the noble Earl will clearly understand that the point I wish to put is this—that when it was received by us it was the copy of a document which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. When the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, and my noble Friend opposite became Secretary of State, they were able to ascertain the importance to be attached to it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was not able to form any opinion of its importance. The importance to be attached
  758
  to it is exactly that which may be ascertained by any person who reads it. It was a document prepared for the purpose of being sent home to Mr. Gladstone, and I do not attach any importance to it further than Sir Bartle Frere did. He has considered it as of sufficient importance to transmit it to this country; and Sir Bartle Frere having so regarded the document, I considered that his despatch being laid before Parliament this ought to be laid before Parliament with it.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE.—QUESTION.
  LORD NORTONasked the Lord President of the Council, When this year's edition of the Education Code will be laid on the Table; and, whether it will include the alterations he indicated as under his consideration last year, or some of them; and, if it is as yet only partially revised, when we may expect its complete revision?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that the Education Code had been laid on the Table of the House. It was being printed, and would be circulated either to-morrow or Wednesday. With regard to its contents, he had to state that, in accordance with the promise he gave their Lordships last year, he had, during the Recess, carefully considered the whole subject; but, considering that the Session last year was later than usual and this year it had commenced earlier, the Government had not had sufficient time to complete their inquiries. As their Lordships were aware, the Code was required to be laid on the Table within a certain number of days of their meeting, so that it was impossible that any material changes should have been made; and, as a fact, it only contained certain changes that were required by the Act that was passed regarding education last year. Their Lordships would remember that that Act contained certain important clauses for the purpose of reconciling the Factory Act with the Education Act, and which made it necessary to modify some of the regulations, and those had been made; but no other alterations had been made. The Government hoped to be able, in considering this important subject, to simplify the Code, and also to make it more effectual for the education of the people.

  759
  Having regard to the largo annual expenditure now voted by Parliament for elementary education, the Department thought it right that any change they made should be prefaced not only by experiment, but a very minute inquiry with regard to its financial effect; and they would eventually have to consult the Treasury on this important matter. All they desired was to improve the Code; and he did not think that they should have proposed many changes this year, even if they had been able to do so, because he thought it very undesirable to make frequent changes in the Code, which affected, more or less, all who were engaged in the great work of education. It was desirable, moreover, that notice should be given as long as possible before changes wore made; and, therefore, he should, before the close of the Session, lay upon the Table a Minute showing what alterations the Department proposed to make, so that they should have an opportunity of being considered, not only by their Lordships, but by all the various bodies interested in education.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.