Sitting of 15 June 1883

Preamble
The House mot at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered—First Reading — Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) * [229].
Second Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [220].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Fourth Night]— R.P.
Considered as amended—Tramways Provisional Orders * [167]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [169].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) * [193]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * [196]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * [201]; New Forest (Highways)* [225], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF SUB-CONSTABLE WALSH.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. BIGGAR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it was a fact that Constable Kilcummins, of Rosslea police station, in the county Fermanagh, had brought a charge against Sub-Constable Walsh, at Rosslea Petty Sessions, of indecently assaulting his (Constable Kilcummins) servant girl; that the servant girl, whose age is fourteen years, on cross-examination admitted that the whole case was a concoction of Kilcummins and his wife to destroy the character of Walsh; that the case was dismissed by the magistrates; and, if so, what reason did the authorities of the Royal Irish Constabulary assign for refusing to allow Sub-Constable Walsh to recover from Constable Kilcummins the expense he had undergone in defending himself from this charge; and, further, had the matter been investigated by the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and had Constable Kilcummins been punished for conspiring with his wife to coerce this little girl to swear lies for the purpose of destroying the character and means of livelihood of Sub-Constable Walsh; and, if so, what punishment had been inflicted on Constable Kilcummins; were the Government aware that two years ago six policemen were stationed in a shooting lodge in the townland of Eshnadarra, on the Shove Beagh mountains in the county Fermanagh, belenging to John Madden, of Rosslea Manor, in said county, for the purpose of preserving the game for Mr. Madden; and, if so, from what source was the money drawn for the maintenance of this force; and, did the Government intend continuing so many policemen in this place, considering the fact that there never

  689
  was a single agrarian outrage committed in the district?
  TREVELYAN: It is the case that Constable Kilcummins brought the charge mentioned against Sub-Constable Walsh, and that the magistrates refused depositions; but it is not true that the girl who was alleged to have been assaulted admitted that the case was concocted by the constable and his wife. There is no ground whatever for that allegation. It is not the fact that Sub-Constable Walsh was refused permission to recover his expenses from the constable. He made no application to that effect. Ho did apply to get his expenses from his own authorities; but, as his conduct on the night in question, even on his own showing, was by no means free from suspicion, his County Inspector refused his application. There was nothing in the conduct of Constable Kilcummins to call for punishment. The police at Eshnadarra were not placed there for the purpose stated in the Question. The station was established for general purposes on the recommendation of the Lieutenant and Magistrates of the county. It is an ordinary county station involving no charge to the district, and it is not intended to abolish it.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS — MAGHERAFELT UNION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board has decided that the vote of John M'Oscar at the recent Poor Law election for the Salterstown division of the Magherafelt Union was wrongfully rejected by the returning officer, thereby causing a tie between the two candidates; whether, nevertheless, the Local Government Board has refused to ratify the election of Mr. Larkin, the candidate for whom M'Oscar's vote was given, and, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the Board of Guardians, has by sealed order directed a new election to be held; whether a sworn inquiry has been called for with respect to several other acts of illegality charged against the returning officer and the collecting officer, in connection with the elections for the Carnamoney and Iniscarn divisions of the same union; and, whether these charges will be investigated, and the officials, if found culpable, censured?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Report which I have received on the case to which the hon. Member refers shows the case to be one which calls for further inquiry. It may take some time to examine; but the examination will be thorough.

  THE ROYAL MILITARY HOSPITALS— THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Royal Hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham, the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea, and the Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin, presided over by Lord Morley, is yet ready to be laid on the Table of the House; whether it has been for nearly a year in the hands of the Secretary of State for War; whether, since its production was promised early this Session by his predecessor in office, ho will state for the information of the House what recommendations contained in the Report have been accepted and adopted by the War Office authorities; and, whether there is any cause for the unusual delay which has taken place in the presentation of the Report?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: In the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State for War on duty, I shall be happy to answer the Question put by the hon. Member for Sligo. The Report alluded to in his Question is that of a Departmental Committee, and for the information of the Secretary of State. It was not in his hands until nearly the end of last year. The Report dealt with several important Institutions, enumerated in the hon. Member's Question, and the first step which had to be taken was to consult the Governing Bodies and other authorities of the Institutions concerned on the recommendations of the Committee which affected them, and also to have the financial and other bearings of the Report carefully examined in the Department. It would not be convenient to make the Report public until some decisions had been arrived at on the principal recommendations of the Committee. The Secretary of State hopes to be in a position very shortly to come to these decisions, and there will then be no unnecessary delay in presenting the Report to Parliament.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 10—THE VARNA RAILWAY—THE BRITISH AGENT AT SOFIA.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the British Diplomatic Agent at Sofia has ceased to hold relations with the Bulgarian Government; and, if so, for what reason?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEMr. Lascelles, Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Sofia, informed Lord Granville that he proposed to hold no further communication on the subject of the Varna-Rustchuk Railway with the Bulgarian Government until he had received a reply to the two notes referred to in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) on Monday last. Mr. Las-cellos was approved. The Report alluded to by my hon. Friend has, no doubt, grown out of this circumstance. It is, I need hardly add, entirely incorrect.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the period for which special resident magistrates were appointed for will not terminate on the 30th instant; if so, when the Right honourable gentleman will bring in his measure relating to this matter; and, whether it is intended to prolong the present system of special magistrates, and in the persons of the present holders of these positions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is the case the period referred to will terminate on the 20th of this month. Authority has been obtained from the Treasury to continue the present system for three months longer. The intention of the Government is to continue it pending the legislation to which the hon. Member refers.
  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENS-LAND.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether ho can now lay upon the Table the Despatch from the Governor of Queensland with respect to the annexation of New Guinea, and in-
  692
  form the House of the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject; and, whether the recent Correspondence with other Australasian Colonies, with respect to the annexation of certain other islands in the Pacific, will be presented to Parliament?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Despatch from the Governor of Queensland has arrived, and is being prepared with other Parliamentary Papers to be shortly laid on the Table. The Government have not yet arrived at any final decision on the matters dealt with in that Despatch. As to the telegraphic correspondence with respect to certain Islands in the Pacific, the shortness of Notice has prevented me conferring with the Secretary of State; but I have no doubt they will, before long, be presented to Parliament.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I shall repeat the Question in a day or two to the Head of the Government, for it is a very important matter.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BRITISH RESIDENT IN ZULULAND.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that Mr. Fynn, the resident with Cetywayo, has expressed a desire to resign his office?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: It is perfectly true that Mr. Fynn has expressed a desire to resign the office. The main reason alleged is ill-health.

  TREATY OF BERLIN-ARTICLE 61—ARMENIA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a deputation of Armenians was received on Wednesday by the Earl of Dufferin, Her Majesty's representative at Constantinople, now on leave in this country, and that expressions derogatory to the Turkish Government, and menacing to the security of the Ottoman Empire, were used both by members of the deputation and by Lord Dufferin in his reply; and, whether he can give any precedent for such a proceeding on the part of an Ambassador accredited to a friendly state?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Seeing the Question of the hon. Gentleman on the Paper, I have commmunicated with

  693
  Lord Dufferin, and I learn from him that he received a deputation of Armenians, as it was called in the newspapers, with none of the formalities attending a public deputation, and that the reception was not the subject of any previous communications with Her Majesty's Government. Lord Granville is out of town, and I have had no opportunity of communicating with him. Lord Dufferin says that, so far from his reply having the character of a menace, it consisted of an exposition of the strong motives of self-interest which guaranteed the loyalty of the Armenians to the Turkish Empire, and that it notified the fact that the Sultan had returned a gracious answer to Lord Dufferin's representations. What Lord Dufferin said in addition was merely what he conceives to be a repetition of that which has been already repeatedly stated on the part of Her Majesty's Government in Parliament.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The last portion of the Question turns upon an assumption of the accuracy of the previous portion of the Question—that there was in Lord Dufferin's statement a menace or expressions derogatory to the Turkish Government. I am aware of no precedent of that character; and, undoubtedly, I do not think this is a case of that kind.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that in the newspaper report it was stated that Lord Dufferin said that the Turkish authorities, instead of protecting the Armenians, seldom lost an opportunity for subjecting them to every kind of injustice and oppression, and that the upshot might prove extremely disastrous to the Porte? Is there any precedent for an Ambassador using language of that sort with regard to a friendly Power?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As to the persons who constituted the deputation, I have no knowledge. With regard to the statement that there was frequent oppression by the Turkish authorities, and that they were trying patience which might come to an end, those Turkish authorities are the local authorities of whom Lord Dufferin speaks;
  694
  and, no doubt, it has been his constant duty, as it has been the constant duty of the British Government, for many years past, to bring to the notice of the Turkish Government, sometimes with advantage, the fact that there are very great abuses in connection with the acts of the local authorities in various parts of the Turkish Empire. Lord Dufferin, I know, is loyally attached to the Turkish authority, always assuming that it is an authority to be exercised, as the authority of every Government should be, for the benefit of its subjects; and his desire is to see it so exercised.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF SPECIAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether there would be a Supplementary Estimate brought forward for the salaries of Special Resident Magistrates in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That course was adopted before, and it will be followed again.
  MR. DAWSONasked when the Chief Secretary would bring in the Bill dealing with this matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will bring it in as soon as I can.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I gave an engagement to the House yesterday that I would endeavour to learn what was the prevailing sentiment of the House with reference to the general progress of Business in regard to precedence between the Committees on the two Bills—one relating to Corrupt Practices and the other to Agricultural Holdings. I have been able, I think, to ascertain quite conclusively to my own mind, and to the minds of my Colleagues, that the prevailing desire of the House is, with a view not to the progress of one Bill in particular, but to the progress of both, that we should proceed in the course in which we are now engaged. We shall, taking it from day to day, as far as is in the power of the Government, proceed with the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Il-

    695
    legal Practices) Bill, and we shall subsequently pursue a similar course with regard to the progress of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. The main object which we believe the great mass of the House very sincerely desires to obtain is to have an opportunity of sufficiently deliberating upon the provisions of both these measures.
    MR. J. HOWARD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any estimate has been made by the Government of the time which will be consumed in Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill?
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not know whether I am in Order; but I cannot conceal my great disappointment at the announcement the right hon. Gentleman has just made. I am bound to say I do not know by what means he has ascertained the general feeling of the House.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTalso regretted the decision of the Government not to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings Bill at once.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I can assure the hon. Member that I have been quite impartial in the examination I have made; and I sincerely regret not being able to meet the wishes of various Members who think with him, and his wishes in particular, because he has eminently and laudably interested himself in this cause. With respect to the estimate of how long the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill will be in Committee, my opinion is that a great many estimates have been formed —probably one by every Member; but it would be very difficulty to give effect to any of those estimates; and I think it would be a daring thing on the part of the Government, and, moreover, would not conduce to the end in view, if we were to announce any estimate we have formed.

    SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
    In reply to Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT,
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not in a position to state en what day the Army Estimates would be taken; but he would communicate with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War upon the subject.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th June.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Corrupt Practices.
  Clause 2 (What is corrupt practice).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "and bribery, undue influence," in order to insert the words "using any violence, or threatening any damage, or resorting to any fraudulent contrivance to restrain the liberty of a voter so as to compel him or frighten him into voting or abstaining from voting otherwise than as he freely wills, and also bribery,"—(Mr. Parnell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and bribery, undue influence,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to explain to the Committee the course he should ask their permission to take with regard to the Amendment which was under discussion yesterday evening when Progress was reported, and also his reasons for wishing to take that course. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, during the course of the discussion last night, pointed out that a definition that they had adopted was so much less extended than the definition contained in the Act of 1854; that several species of undue influence, which he desired to check, would escape; and that it might be possible, under certain circumstances, to exercise undue influence under the Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) last night asked the Committee to accept. After consultation with several of his hon. and learned Friends, he (Mr. Parnell) had come to the conclusion that it would be proper for him to request that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that he should draft a fresh Amendment, including all the definitions of undue influence which, in the course of the debate last night,

  697
  the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General desired to include, and excluding that portion of the definition of undue influence which he (Mr. Parnell) had adverted to more particularly yesterday as being most obscure. Therefore, during the interval between the termination of the deliberations of the Committee last night and now, he had drafted a fresh Amendment, which now appeared on the Paper. The Amendment was to leave out, in page 1, line 26, "and bribery, undue influence," and insert—
  "And the making use of, or threatening to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or the inflicting, or threatening to inflict any injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or the impeding or preventing by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance the free exercise of the franchise of any voter, so as thereby to compel or prevail upon any voter either to give or refrain from giving his votes at any election, and also bribery."
  He proposed to ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment which was under discussion in favour of the one he had just read, and upon that new Amendment he intended to take the opinion of the Committee. The new Amendment followed verbatim the definitions contained in the Act of 1854, with the exception of one paragraph, which paragraph was the most objectionable to him and his hon. Friends. The words left out were as follows:—"or in any other manner practice intimidation." He had held all along, during the discussion upon this question, that the paragraph to which he had just alluded left it open to Judges to put a very wide and strange interpretation on the law. It was unnecessary for him to go into the arguments which wore used to the Committee last night; but he felt that a very large amount of his objection to the retention of the words "undue influence" as a corrupt practice would be removed if the Government would agree to this small alteration in the definition of undue influence contained in the Act of 1854. He left the argument of the definition untouched. He left the Common Law, and the law of Parliament regarding undue influence, untouched; and it must be borne in mind that under the Common Law spiritual undue influence and intimida-
  698
  tion could be reached, and had been reached. He (Mr. Parnell) hoped the Committee would be kind enough to allow him to withdraw his Amendment, and to take their opinion upon the Amendment which he had just read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment he proposed last night was a very reasonable one. That Amendment was evidently not drawn up with the same amount of care with which the present Amendment had been drawn. The present Amendment too, he (the Attorney General) thought, stated the hon. Gentleman's case very much better than the former Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "and bribery, undue influence," and insert "and the making use of, or threatening to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or the inflicting, or threatening to inflict any injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or the impeding or preventing by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance the free exercise of the franchise of any voter, so as thereby to compel or prevail upon any voter either to give or refrain from giving his votes at any election, and also bribery."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had just stated that the Amendment now proposed, in his opinion, more carefully set forth the intentions of the hon. Member than the Amendment which had just been withdrawn. Though this was the fact with regard to the drafting of the Amendment, still objection to the subject remained, and he (the Attorney General) was sorry he could not accept it. Ho would be very glad to accept the Amendment if it were not one which involved principle, and which ought not to be accepted. He would explain, as well as he could, the views he entertained in respect to the Amendment. The hon. Member stated that his Amendment contained verbatim the definition in the Act of 1851, with the exception of the

  699
  words "or in any other manner practices intimidation." The hon. Member, however, further down struck out the words "or otherwise interfering," and also proposed to omit the words "so as thereby." The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the difficulty as to spiritual influence untouched. He (the Attorney General) had referred to some of the cases mentioned, and he had consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), and it seemed to both of them that such would be the result of striking out the words "or in any other manner practices intimidation." They would, in fact, by striking out these words give legislative sanction to spiritual influence either in favour of or against any particular candidate. Could they wish to take such a course? Were they to say it should not disqualify a Member if spiritual influence wore used in order to coerce votes? He (the Attorney General) could not be a party to such an arrangement. It would be a most dangerous thing for Parliament to do, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment. Then, again, the words "or otherwise interfering with" came in the same category, and the effect, too, of omitting the words "so as thereby" would be that before they complained of undue influence they would have to show that the undue influence had actually interfered with voters, and unless they could prove that voters had been thereby influenced the persons who had used the influence would go scot-free. That, unquestionably, would give a great licence to persons to exercise undue influence. On that ground, also, he could not assent to any alteration of the law. He listened very carefully to the statement of the hon. Member; but he really at that moment could not understand for what purpose the hon. Gentleman desired the alteration. The hon. Member pointed out that the word "intimidation" occurred in the Prevention of Crime Act of 1882, and he feared that the definition given of this word might be applied to the electoral law. That could not be the case, because in this Act it was distinctly set forth that undue influence should be undue influence as defined in the Act of Parliament of 1854. He (the Attorney General) wished, however, the Bill to be perfectly clear on
  700
  this subject, and he saw there was an Amendment lower down in the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), to the effect that the expression "intimidation" in the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854 should not, in Ireland, mean intimidation within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, or otherwise than intimidation within the meaning of this Act as affected England and Scotland. If hon. Members had any doubt as to the interpretation that would be put upon the word, he would have no objection to accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny with a slight alteration, which would make it run in this way—
  "That for the purposes of this Act the expression 'intimidation' in the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854, shall not be otherwise than intimidation within the meaning of the same in the Acts affecting England and Scotland."
  Now that would relieve every doubt as to the definition of intimidation; and, having made that concession, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) would not press his Amendment.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, the statement made by the Attorney General showed the advantage gained by the discussion of last evening. It had been stated that, if the clause passed as inserted in the Bill, it would have left the law the same in England and in Ireland. Now, he was glad to perceive, on consideration of the effect of the passing of the Act for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland, the hon. and learned Attorney General admitted the mistake made in thus leading the Committee to believe such would have been the legal effect of the words used in the clause. But though the insertion of the words proposed in the Amendment on the Paper would, it was true, remove to a great extent that ground of objection, yet on higher and more serious grounds did he feel bound to oppose this clause. Was it right to leave in an Act of Parliament words capable of so many varying meanings as these—" or in any other manner practise intimidation?" The wise and just rule to be adopted in all legislation was that new offences should only be created in clear and distinct terms. Penalties should be imposed only where there had been a willful violation of the law. It was no answer to say these words were permitted to remain in the

  701
  Act of 1854. Parliament was now framing a new Code. The question really was, ought the Committee to now again sanction the use of vague words? He could not help thinking that this question had been somewhat prejudiced by the observations made respecting Irish Judges. It was not the first time he had said in the House that the decisions of Irish Judges had, as a general rule, been quite as good as those given by their English brethren on the Bench. But Judges, of all men, were, as a general rule, the very worst at coming to conclusions on matters of fact and common sense. They had been trained to view matters on certain fixed lines and principles, and they had not been accustomed to deal with matters as men of common sense and men of the world. That was the effect of their training. Public opinion in England as well as in Ireland had been ill-satisfied with the decisions of its judicial tribunals in election matters. The decisions in the Launceston case, as those in the Galway case, shook public confidence in the estimate which had been placed on the sense and discretion of Judges. Therefore, he asked the Committee to be slow in permitting the introduction of such general and vague words. The hon. and learned Attorney General made another unintentional error in his statement of the law in respect to persons who might be held to be agents for candidates. He (Mr. Martin) submitted it had been held by Election Judges that if a candidate convened a meeting, those who spoke at that meeting on behalf of the candidate were the candidate's agents for the purposes of his election; and for every act done and word spoken by those agents the candidate was responsible. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Porter) dissented.] He noticed that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) appeared to doubt that this proposition was correct. Let him refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to what was laid down in express words in the Galway County Election case by Mr. Justice Keogh. Mr. Justice Keogh held that—
  "Every bishop and every priest, from the highest to the lowest, who acted at those meetings as called into existence by Major Nolan's own acts, became his agents for the purposes of his election, and by their acts, words, and writings he must be bound."
  702
  And, in point of fact, as they all knew, Major Nolan was held bound by every word spoken, and by every act done by each and every one of those gentlemen, many of whom, it was clearly shown in the evidence given at the trial, had never conversed or written to Major Nolan; and some of them, he (Mr. Martin) believed, had not even seen him during his hurried canvass. Having regard to the clearness and preciseness of the words thus used in that Judgment, he asked the Committee not to hastily accept the exposition of the law, which, for the purposes of this Bill, were laid down by the Attorney Generals for England and for Ireland. Of course, in discussing matters of this kind, it was difficult, in hurriedly addressing the Committee, for either of the learned Attorney Generals to state quite accurately and explicitly the extent and meaning of those legal propositions they laid down for the guidance of the Committee. But it was right for him to remind them that a decision given by one Judge was to a great extent binding on other Judges when deciding future election cases, and that the opinion on statements even of an Attorney General in the House was a matter of no moment, and could not be accepted as a guide in their constructions upon Statutes. But it was not alone in the Galway case that judicial dicta was to be found of this character. As Mr. Justice Keogh mentioned, when giving judgment, he only followed the decisions previously given by several English Judges. Under these circumstances, let the Committee consider the position and liabilities of a candidate, especially in Ireland. He was responsible for every act done, and for every word spoken, by any Bishop, priest, layman, or indeed by anyone at all, who attended any of his meetings, and who spoke on his behalf. A candidate who did not take measures to check the utterances of those speeches, inevitable during the excitement of an election contest, might be hold, on very insufficient grounds, to have been guilty of intimidation. Each Judge would, he feared, unconsciously frame a different rule for the decision of what constituted the class of speech and language used which would amount to an offence within the meaning of this clause. Judges, though he did not question their desire to do justice, had widely divergent views

  703
  as to the right claimed by public men to denounce what they considered abuses in strong and emphatic language. What one considered permissible and fair, another held as an abuse and violation of the right of free speech. Let the Committee separate this case as much from Ireland as possible. Let him instance a case in England. Only yesterday he was reading a report of the speeches delivered in Birmingham, and he was confident that a great number of Judges would say that speeches such as those of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham (Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain) were amongst the strongest specimens of intimidation that could be exercised on voters. From the manner in which, as a general rule, judicial appointments were made in Ireland, the evil tendency of the clause would be even greater than in England. True, it was said by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England that "no penal consequences" wore inflicted. He (Mr. Martin) challenged the accuracy of that statement. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would only look at the 3rd section of the Bill, he would there find penal consequences were provided. For what did the section say? Why, that if a Judge—
  "Reports that any corrupt practice has been proved to have been committed in reference to such election, by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, that candidate shall not be capable of ever being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for the said county or borough."
  If a candidate was present at, or even sanctioned the convening of, a meeting, was not a Judge bound to hold that the words spoken and acts done were, if they constituted any corrupt practice, committed with the knowledge and consent of the candidate, unless an active dissent therefrom on his part was shown? It was perfectly well known that the words "and in other manner practise intimidation," had been inserted in the Act of 1854 as mere general words to cover offences of the same character and description as those previously specified. But, in Ireland, as had been shown by the cases mentioned, the loose verbiage of the draftsman had, by judicial interpretation, been extended to create offences and impose disabilities for acts which Parliament did not show they intended to prohibit. Judges, under the
  704
  powers of the measure, would, if the words objected to were permitted to remain, be coerced to act in accordance with the interpretation given to them by previous Judges. It would be no answer to say that had not been the intention of the Legislature, or that the Attorney General had stated in the House he did not approve of the principles laid down in those cases. In accordance with custom, a judicial tribunal in their construction would be governed by previous precedents. Why then, he asked, should they be called on to make acts and speeches now a criminal offence, which Parliament in 1854 did not contemplate or intend to come within the meaning of the clause inserted in the Act of 1854? Under the circumstances, he did ask the Committee to be clear, precise, and definite. It was of the greatest importance that when intrusting a task of this character to the discretion of the Judges, they should be guided, in pronouncing judgment, by clear, precise, and definite words. The vagueness in the words would lead to unpleasant and injurious comments as to the motives which influenced those election tribunals in their decisions. If the hon. and learned Attorney General was so anxious for the reputation of Irish Judges, about whom so much had been said, he would take care to show to the public that the Judges were bound to come to their conclusions by the precise words used by the Legislature, and that their decisions were not arrived at by straining vague and general words. He hoped the Attorney General would not ask them to assent to loose, vague, and indefinite words of that character remaining in this clause. He (Mr. Martin) trusted the Attorney General, if he refused to accept the words of the Amendment as a correct definition of undue influence, would favour them by showing in what respect they failed. It was unreasonable to ask the Committee to re-enact a clause which had caused decisions, now admitted to have been ill-founded, on the simple ground that it had, on a previous occasion, passed through the House without discussion or comment.
  MR. MARUMendorsed all that had been said by his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. P. Martin). He (Mr. Marum) contended that too much latitude ought not to be allowed to the

  705
  Judges, who were subjected to prejudices, like the rest of mankind. As to spiritual intimidation, he heartily adopted the definition given by Mr. Justice Keogh in the celebrated Galway case, for he said that a priest—
  "May not appeal to the fears, or terrors, or superstitions of those whom he is addressing. He must not hold out hopes of reward here or hereafter, or use threats of temporal injury or disadvantage or of punishment hereafter. He must not, for instance, threaten to excommunicate or to withhold the Sacrament, nor should he denounce voting for a particular candidate as a sin."
  He (Mr. Marum) thoroughly coincided in those words, and he would be quite willing to accept any definition of spiritual influence which would be in accordance with those words. He and his hon. Friends objected to let the matter go blindly to a Judge, especially when there was no jury to assist him. They objected to a Judge being a Judge of matter of fact as well as of law; but if the hon. and learned Attorney General pointed out any particular disadvantage in the definition, they would be very satisfied to meet him. When his (Mr. Marum's) Amendment—namely,
  "That for the purposes of this Act the expression 'intimidation' in the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854, shall not in Ireland mean intimidation within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, or otherwise than intimidation within the meaning of this Act as affecting England and Scotland,"
  came on for discussion he should have something to say about it; and he believed he should be then able to show distinctly that it would be a most grievous matter, indeed, if intimidation under this Act were to be considered like the intimidation under the Prevention of Crime Act. If the hon. and learned Attorney General objected to the definition of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would frame a definition of his own. The present Amendment was only put forward tentatively. They wished, as they said last night, the hon. and learned Attorney General would formulate a definition himself; and they were quite prepared to accept anything he (the Attorney General) would bring forward in reason—they would be prepared to accept anything that would put an end to real spiritual undue influence.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERcongratulated the Committee that they had to-day
  706
  arrived at the definition they had not arrived at last night. They were then discussing only half a definition, and if they had come to a division upon it, they would only have made a complete mess of the matter. The issue which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had raised to-day was this. Ho was quite willing to accept and incorporate in this Bill every species of undue influence which was mentioned specifically in the Act of 1854; but he proposed to omit the words "or in any other manner practises intimidation." Now, the question the Committee had to decide was, whether they were prepared to insist upon the retention in the clause of the words "or in any other manner practises intimidation." There were two singular facts connected with this sweeping clause. The first was that he could find no reported case in England or Scotland on these words. The only cases that had been raised had been in Ireland. And the second fact was that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in defending the retention of these words, defended them exclusively and solely on the ground of maintaining some check on what he called spiritual interference in elections. Therefore, that brought them face to face with this. Wore they to prevent—for it came to that—were they to prevent the clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church exercising in Ireland that influence which the constituency, from religious motives, yielded to them, and which they could not possess without the consent of the constituency? They must go a step farther, and ask themselves, were they prepared to put a Bishop or a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, who spoke at an election meeting on behalf of an election candidate, in the position of running the risk of being committed to prison, with or without hard labour, for 12 calendar mouths? He asked the Liberal Party in the House of Commons whether they were prepared, in the present condition of Ireland, in the present state of public affairs, to endorse that proposition? Just let them see what this spiritual interference was. The hon. Member who preceded him read an extract from the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh in the Galway case. That Judgment was law in Ireland. It was a Judgment which every Judge in Ireland respected—" He

  707
  must not hold out hopes of reward hero or hereafter." A clergyman must not say to his congregation—"If you vote for a particular man you will commit a sin, the punishment of which hereafter will be of a certain character." That was held to be intimidation. Let them apply this to their own politics. There was a measure which he hoped would come down to that House very shortly—he must not allude to what had passed in "another place;" but there was a measure which was on its way to this House—which was exciting the fears and indignation of a large number of the clergymen of this country. In a borough, about which ho knew something—but the name of which he would not mention, for fear of wounding the feelings of the Representatives of that borough—he noticed that the rector of the town had lately delivered a sermon upon the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, in which he told his congregation that a man who married his deceased wife's sister would commit an act of adultery, and that a clergyman would be bound to refuse him the Sacraments of the Church. And the rev. gentleman hinted, in language which he (Mr. Fowler) would not quote, the dreadful consequences that would follow such a marriage. The rev. gentleman gave his opinions conscientiously; and it would be his duty, if he believed the Legislature was going to legalize incest, so to tell his congregation, who, of course, might take his opinion for what it was worth. That, however, was not undue influence. It was one of the results of their ordinary public life. It was not one bit worse than what the Nonconformists had done. In 1874 they put the then Liberal Government out of Office, and it could not be denied that in 1880 they re-instated them in Office; and they used in 1880 their religious influence. They then thought, and he still thought, they were discharging a religious duty in doing so. Men held religious opinions much more strongly than political opinions; and he held that if they allowed the right to use religious influence in England they ought to do so in Ireland. By this Bill they were making it a corrupt practice, which involved the loss of his seat to a candidate, involved his disfranchisement for a period of 10 years, and involved actual punishment, with or without hard labour,
  708
  to a man who made a speech at a public meeting. If the Attorney General could point out any possible act of undue influence, which the other words of the clause did not include, well and good. He (Mr. Fowler) contended that the words "infliction of any injury, damage, harm, or loss" covered any mortal thing that could be conceived. The words "in any other manner practices intimidation" put it in the sole and uncontrolled power of a Judge to maintain that a certain act, or a certain speech, was intimidation. And it must be recollected that, under this Bill, there was no appeal. A Judge's decision was final; it was irrevocable; it was stated the other day it might be possible to put the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) out of Parliament for 10 years, on account of a speech made on his behalf by a priest in Ireland. He (Mr. Fowler) was not prepared to observe a pedantic adherence to the words of the Act of 1854. To repeat those words would, he contended, be a palpable injustice to the Irish constituencies, and it would raise a strong feeling in Ireland against that measure. Unless they were intending to cripple the legitimate influence of the pastors and priests over their flocks, unless they were intending to cripple political agitation, which was as justifiable in Ireland as in Mid Lothian, ho asserted that they ought, in honesty, to be consistent to their Liberal principles, and strike out the words "or in any other manner practises intimidation." He (Mr. Fowler) hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork would press this matter to a division; he trusted to find that the Liberal Party would go with the hon. Gentleman into the Lobby.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that reference had been made during the debate to the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. In that Judgment the learned Judge laid down most clearly the distinction between the religious influence, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had spoken, and clerical intimidation. In the Longford case a meeting was held which the Judge spoke of in terms of censure, but which he held to be a perfectly legal proceeding. It was a meeting of the clergy of the county, in which they selected a candidate, and in which they resolved to pro-

  709
  mote his interest with all their power. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald decided that this was a perfectly legitimate use of their power; arid he maintained the election could not be declared void on account of such a meeting. The learned Judge, however, laid down the general principle, which ought to guide them in the consideration of what was the law. He said—
  "In considering what I there call undue clerical influence, it is not my intention in any way to deprecate the proper influence which the clergy have, or by one single word to lessen its legitimate exercise. We cannot forget its wholesome operation, and how often even recently it has been the great bulwark of the community against insurrection and attempts to rebellion. A Catholic priest has, and ought to have, great influence—his position, his sacred character, his superior education, and the identity of his interest with his flock, insure it to him; and that interest insures tenfold force in the conviction of the people that it is exercised for their benefit. A priest may counsel, advise, recommend, entreat, and explain why one candidate should be preferred. to another, and may, if he think fit, throw the whole weight of his character into the scale; but he may not appeal to the fears, or terrors, or superstition of those whom he is addressing. He must not hold out hopes of reward here or hereafter, or use threats of temporal injury or disadvantage, or of punishment hereafter. Ho must not, for instance, threaten to excommunicate, or to withhold the Sacrament, nor should he denounce voting for a particular candidate as a sin."
  He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought it was impossible in clearer, more dignified, or statesmanlike language to lay down what should be the law on this point.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that it was a mistake to suppose that this clause would be confined to spiritual intimidation. They all recollected the well-known rabbit case. The proprietor of a largo estate had been in the habit of allowing persons connected with the town which he represented to shoot rabbits without paying anything for the privilege. He attended a public meeting during his canvas, and he intimated very strongly that that was an advantage he had been in the habit of conferring on the town; and he made a kind of promise that, if elected, the advantage would be continued. The Judge decided he should lose his seat. He (Mr. Lewis) would put the converse to that case. Suppose, instead of saying what he did, the proprietor of the estate had said —" Well, I wish it to be understood that if my interest in the town is dis-
  710
  turbed by my not being returned, I shall withdraw that permission from the persons who have hitherto enjoyed it." That, instead of being bribery, would have been the exercise of undue influence; a far better case of undue influence than any spiritual influence they could imagine. Was the Committee prepared to give that general jurisdiction and power to Judges? Why was it they were discussing, day after day, and week after week, those questions of interpretation? Why was it that, on the one hand, they were continually asking the Government to explain different words which appeared in the Bill? It was that, instead of having small or moderate penalties attaching to the commission of these minor election offences, they had all sorts of heavy penalties, and therefore they were obliged to be more careful. Take the question of undue influence, and look at the state of the law as it now was. A person other than the candidate who committed the offence of undue influence was liable to a fine of £50. The penalty under this Bill was increased greatly, for a man who committed a like offence could be sent to prison with or without hard labour. Was not that a reason why the Legislature should be careful before it sanctioned these heavy punishments? The Attorney General had said there was no interpretation of the present Act of Parliament—the matter was left to the Judges. But that was a greater reason why they should be careful, when the penalties were so heavy, and when not only the liberties, but the lives, of people were at stake. As to spiritual intimidation, everybody who knew the place from which he (Mr. Lewis) sprang, and who know his relations in the House, would not for a moment suppose that he would be inclined to take a tender view of the subject. But he had never been satisfied—in point of fact he had been shocked—with the decision of Mr. Justice Lawson in the second Galway ease, in which the present hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was un-seated. He (Mr. Lewis) ventured to say, that anyone looking at that case would like to draw a veil over his mind politically, when ho considered the extraordinary terms of that Judgment. As a Protestant, he (Mr. Lewis) had never been satisfied with the result of the second Galway trial, and he regarded

  711
  the law as one which ought to be most carefully looked into. He was delighted to hear the noble burst of liberty which had just come from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) for the first time from the Liberal Benches. He did not think it would be the last. If the Attorney General put on his coat of mail and buckram, if he insisted upon the stringency of this Bill, he would find many bursts of liberty, even from his own side of the House, before that Bill was passed. They heard many grandiloquent expressions from the Treasury Bench, as to the impossibility of putting down bribery and treating without a stringent measure. If they wanted to have their law respected, it must be moderato and sensible in its terms as well as provisions. He (Mr. Lewis) intended to support the Amendment, not in respect of spiritual intimidation, but in connection with the general law; because, as the penalties wore increased, it was necessary to have clear and definite law laid down. With all respect to the Judges, he was not disposed to place this matter unreservedly in their hands.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had informed the Committee that one of the reasons why he supported the Amendment was wholly unconnected with spiritual influence; and because at present the offence was finable to the extent of £50 only. If the hon. Gentleman had read the section carefully, he would have seen that the offence was punishable with two years' imprisonment in addition to the fine.
  MR. LEWIS: But not with hard labour, at all events.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, they had added hard labour, it was true; but they had reduced the term of imprisonment from two years to one year, and the question of hard labour was left to the Court to decide. With regard to the fine, the law would remain unchanged. The case the hon. Gentleman put was that of a person who was canvassing a constituency, and said to them—" I have been in the habit of allowing you. to shoot rabbits on my estate. If you don't vote for me and elect me, you shall shoot my rabbits no longer." He
  712
  (the Solicitor General) thought that that was a most unhappy illustration, for a more gross, improper, and unjustifiable act of intimidation could not be imagined. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was nothing wrong in threatening to withdraw a privilege, if the man who had been in the enjoyment of the privilege did not vote for a particular candidate. Such case he (the Solicitor General) believed would be met by the existing provision. On the strength of such a case as the hon. Member had put, he (Mr. Lewis) intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Gentleman might find, however, that his illustration would be met by other provisions of the Act, and that his voting for the Amendment would not affect the matter at all. Certainly, the argument used by the hon. Gentleman ought not to induce the Committee to support the Amendment.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the word "otherwise" would come back to "undue influence;" and as for the quotation read from Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, the Committee would rightly understand that the use of the word "superstition," spoken ill regard to the Catholic clergy by a Catholic Judge, would be of no value. It was a most infelicitous quotation on the part of the President of the Local Government Board to the Committee. The word "superstition" was far more insulting coming from a Catholic Judge and applied to Catholic clergyman than it would have been coming from anybody else. He considered it a most unfortunate moment, when the Government were really seeking to renew their relations with Rome, to talk so much about ecclesiastical influence in Ireland. If they were anxious to get rid of ecclesiastical influence, one would have thought that they would not have entered into the negotiations about which hon. Members had heard so much of late. But it seemed, as a matter of fact, that when it was to their interest to use priestly influence, they were only too glad to avail themselves of it; and when it was not to their interest to do so, they would use every endeavour to put a stop to it. He sincerely hoped that Catholics would take note of this. The Irish Members were not afraid of priestly influence—they were not afraid of Catholic influence; and it was most incon-

  713
  sistent to appear afraid of it after what had taken place recently in Rome.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, his hon. Friend did not stand upon the mere words of his Amendment, but more upon the sense of it. The main point under discussion was this—the Bill, if it became law as it now stood, would practically have the effect of unseating every Member in the House, from the Prime Minister to the humblest Member; but it would especially apply to hon. Members from Ireland. These hon. Gentlemen held a very anomalous position in the House of Commons; they were not identified with either Party. They had an assurance from a right hon. Gentleman, who was recently a Member of the Government (Mr. John Bright), that they were rebels. Both the Constitutional Parties in that House were against them; and the action of these Irish Gentlemen then was, to a very large extent, opposed to the two Constitutional Parties. Well, if this Bill became law, and the two Constitutional Parties applied it to the Gentlemen from Ireland, it would practically bring about their political annihilation. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] The hon. Gentleman says why? The law, as it now stood, applied with greater severity than it used formerly to Irish Representatives. The Irish Members belonged to one or other of the Parties in the House, but now they were independent; and with the powerful machinery that the Executive possessed for manufacturing evidence, now that the Irish Members were separated from the Executive, from whatever Party that Executive might be taken, it would be the easiest thing in the world to find opportunities for removing the Irish Members from the House. Hon. Members might say that was a strong interpretation of the clause; that was true, but it was clear to his mind that the provision could be so applied; and he would urge upon the Committee that that was a sufficient reason why they should refuse to accept the proposal. The Judges who had to decide Election Petitions had attained to their present position owing to the political services they had rendered to the Party in power. These Gentlemen were, more or less, connected with the Administration in Ireland; and they were called upon under this clause to deal with purely political offences. Surely it was a great stretch
  714
  of the imagination to suppose that the class of Gentlemen who had obtained their position through their political services and their political views would deal impartially when called upon to decide political cases. He could easily account for the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who strongly insisted upon this Amendment. From the English point of view, he thought it would be quite possible, even in this country, for this clerical and religious influence to be exercised. In the future it was very likely that they would see a much greater use of political power through sectarian agencies than they had seen in the past. Unquestionably, power of this kind could be exercised in England, although, perhaps, not to the same extent that it could be in Ireland; and he would be very glad if the Attorney General could accept either the words proposed or some modification of them.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had put this case so plainly that there was little else to be said on the subject. The hon. Member had referred to the natural and proper influence that a Catholic priest would exercise on an election question in Ireland; and the best way to illustrate the view of the hon. Member was to take an individual case. Suppose that in connection with the next General Election a Catholic priest, being a friend of one of the candidates, should go upon the platform at one of the candidate's meetings, and say that it would be fatal to the spiritual well-being of the voter if he were to vote for any other candidate. He (Mr. Macfarlane) could conceive a case in which that might be said by a priest with great propriety, and with great truth. Well, to say that which might be fatal to the interests of the other candidate would really be intimidation. The priest would be prophesying evil consequences to the electors, and would in that way be influencing them from voting, or to refrain from taking that course which they might otherwise be inclined to adopt—and surely that would be intimidation—and if the Bill passed in its present form, it would be perfectly possible for an Election Judge to construe an action of this kind into undue influence, and to unseat the Member in consequence of it. It was of no use comparing the case of England with that

  715
  of Ireland—it was no use to say peace, peace, whore there was no peace. If the English people chose to accept the law as laid down in the Bill, well and good; but the Irish people, through their Representatives, very strongly objected to the law as it stood. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had sat in that House many a day during the last three years, and many a night, to listen to long arguments from the Front Ministerial Bench, to show why the law in Ireland should be different to what it was in England; but that was only when it suited hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen to show that the laws of the two countries should be dissimilar. Now, the Irish Members were urging what had often been urged by Members of the Government—that the law in this case should be different to what it was in England; that was to say, that while the English people insisted upon the Bill standing as it was for themselves they should have their way; but that as the Irish constituencies were of another opinion the Bill should be altered to suit them. The Government, however, with remarkable inconsistency, objected to the two countries having different laws in this respect; and numberless cases had been produced to show the need for having a uniform law. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had referred to a statement made by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald in the Longford case, which really had no bearing on this matter whatever. The learned Judge's remarks had reference to a private meeting of priests, at which the candidate was not present; and on that occasion no statement whatever was made that it was in the presence of the candidate. Then, with regard to the opinion of the Judge, everybody knew that the candidates who professed strong political feelings, though perfectly honest in all their actions, were greatly prejudiced by their political views; still, would not this be the case with the Judges also? Would not they be honest in the same way? As human beings, and as men who had probably taken a deep interest in political questions, they would not be able to get rid of their political prejudices, even if they wanted to. What affected every voter and every candidate who held strong views upon political questions must also necessarily affect Judges similarly situated. Every
  716
  candidate, particularly if he were unsuccessful, was apt to think every influence used against him was an undue influence. Every Member of the Committee must be aware of this—that after every election there wore misgivings and complaints, either on this side or that, of undue influence having been used, and rumours were always set on foot to the effect that there was going to be a Petition. It was always an undue influence, even when the influence exerted on behalf of the successful candidate was as right as right could be. In fact, one was reminded of the lines—
  "All is right as right can be,
  That turns a vote from you to me;
  The power is wrong, and most undue,
  That turns a vote from me to you."
  There was one undue influence which was not noticed in the Bill, to which the attention of the Committee might very properly be drawn; and that was the promises given by right hon. Gentlemen as to what they would do when they got into Parliament. Could anyone deny that the statements of Cabinet Ministers during their struggle for power at the General Election was a very powerful influence in the country? No doubt it was a powerful influence, and an undue one; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General knew it perfectly well. He would not refer to the undue influence exercised by the Prime Minister on the historic constituency of Mid Lothian; but the difficulty in dealing with undue influence of this kind was that it could not be tested until after the person guilty of it had attained to Office. The promises of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform "that were made by the Prime Minister on the platform before the General Election could not be shown to be unfulfilled until years after the Election—it could not be shown within any reasonable time after the Election. If the Attorney General would introduce a clause into the Bill disqualifying all Cabinet Ministers who had made use of this undue influence at as election from ever sitting for the same constituency again, and from sitting for any constituency for 10 years, he would be glad to give it his support.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, the Nonconformists of this country had always declared that the same freedom which they claimed for themselves should

  717
  be conceded to Ireland and to all religious communions. To debar the Irish priests from a moderate and duo exercise of their religious influence during election times would be altogether opposed to the feelings of the English Nonconformists. They had always recognized the religious influence exercised by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, equally with that exercised by Nonconformist ministers. He would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), whom he saw in his place, whether any sufficient reason could be urged why a very eminent Nonconformist minister in Birmingham should not exercise the political influence he did exercise at the present moment? He would go further, and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that no candidate could go into the borough of Birmingham without the approval of this Nonconformist minister? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any reason to debar the Roman Catholic priests from using the same influence at election times on behalf of those candidates whom they considered best fitted to advance the interests of their parishioners?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend having made a direct appeal to me, I rise to answer, in a very few words, the question he has put. He asks me whether it is not the fact that in my borough, as probably in many other boroughs, great influence is not exercised by a distinguished minister belonging to the Nonconformists? No doubt he referred to Dr. Dale, who is a minister whose high character, whose eloquence, and whose learning have undoubtedly obtained for him very great influence—social, political, and religious—in the borough of Birmingham — an influence which no man is better entitled to. I would answer him at once, and say frankly that there can be no doubt in any election in Birmingham the opinion of Mr. Dale would have a great and deserved weight in every portion of the constituency. I have been sometimes taunted with being the Representative of Dr. Dale, and I have answered that by saying that I am very proud of my constituency. I cannot see the slightest parallel, however, between the influence exercised by Dr. Dale and the kind of
  718
  clerical influence from which we are trying to protect the electors. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), when he first proposed his Amendment, very candidly stated that there were, no doubt, cases of undue clerical influence.
  MR. PARNELL: I said that there had been such cases, but that they had entirely disappeared.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: They may have disappeared; but the hon. Member will admit that what has been may be again. Surely we shall not be told that Ireland has become so virtuous that this kind of thing will never be practised there again, although it may occur in England. I would ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to bear in mind that there is no comparison between the kind of influence to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the bon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Stewart Macliver) referred and the undue influence exercised by a priest at the altar, when he tells his flock that their future state altogether depends upon their following his instructions; and it is against that that we wish to protect the voter.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought the Committee was under some obligation to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) for giving them the opportunity of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of his relations with the very eminent clergyman who had been referred to. He must say that from the experience ho had had of the right hon. Gentleman's performances in that House, and of his mode of speaking of men and things, he had come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman stood very much in awe of this distinguished divine; and that if the right hon. Gentleman was attracted to the minister by love, that love was tempered somewhat by terror. The Amendment which was now introduced to the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one which, no doubt, he had never expected the Government to accept. It would be almost impossible for the Government, having regard to the Resolution appearing after this Motion, and to the reasonableness of retaining some such words as those which they were asked to eliminate, to assent to the Amendment. It could not, therefore,

  719
  be wondered at that the Attorney General, and his distinguished Colleagues who had taken part in this discussion, had argued with considerable force and power against the desirability of their acceding to the Amendment presented to their notice. What was the Amendment? It was all very well to make general statements, and to point to what had happened in particular cases, and what might happen in other eases; but it seemed to him in the highest degree desirable that they should deal with the question in the light of common sense, and consider what were the words that were sought to be excluded from the law, and recognize the description of things which, it was boldly asserted, it was desired to recognize in the future as being no longer illegitimate. That was the real way to look at the question. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork practically asked the Committee to affirm that spiritual intimidation should be excluded from all classes of undue influence. [Mr. PARNELL: No, no !] If he was wrong in that statement, he would like to ask, if these words referred to were excluded, what words that remained could be pointed to as being those which could be relied on to exclude illegitimate spiritual influence? [Mr. PARNELL: The Common Law.] He would come to the Common Law in a moment; it seemed to him to be the favourite plank for drowning men. It included all cases which wore not grasped within the wide category of temporal violence or temporal loss. He (Ur. Gibson) did not go in for minute refinements of spiritual intimidation; he took up two descriptions of it that appeared in the great Judgments that were so well known to many who were not lawyers. One of these was the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald in the Longford case; and he would ask—Did anyone think it would be reasonable to exclude from the category of undue influence the intimidation and action of anyone who denied—it might be to the sick or moribund member of the family of a voter—the consolation of the Sacraments of his Church, or threatened him with excommunication if that voter did not give his vote? Speaking broadly, anyone with the sentiment of religion within his breast would not be so devoid of common sense as to say that such action as that was not action
  720
  that should be legitimately taken into account. [Mr. PARNELL: It is within the Amendment.] He had read the Amendment with care, and he had devoted considerable attention to the words sought to be excluded from the existing law; and he should like to know what were the words in the Amendment which would cover the particular points to which he had referred. It came to this —that the Committee was asked to exclude from the law words which had held good in the past to prevent persons being threatened with spiritual consequences if they did not vote in a particular way. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had said that he (Mr. Parnell) had left the Common Law definition of intimidation untouched. What was the meaning of intimidation under the Common Law? Surely the hon. Member's argument was one that was destructive of his main contention, because he sought, practically, to get rid of particular consequences that were sought to be attached or expressed in the Electoral Law to spiritual intimidation; while he hesitated to say that it was not right distinctly to retain in the general Common Law of the land such definition. Why did it stop short of that? If it was right to retain in the general Common Law of the land some of the consequences that must attach to undue influence of a spiritual character and undue spiritual intimidation, was it not reasonable that the remaining part of the Common Law of the land should be put in black and white in a Statute which indicated what were to be the classes of undue influence that were to govern in the future, as in the past, the Election Law? For himself, looking at it as reasonably as he could —he was aware that the hon. Member for the City of Cork considered that was an argument for him; and, therefore, he (Mr. Gibson) considered it as much as he could from the hon. Member's point of view—if the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was carried to its logical extent, he ought to propose that spiritual intimidation should be excluded from the Bill in express terms. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), to whom he always listened with great attention when he rose to address the House, had asked whether it was desirable or proper to exclude the influence of the clergy and religious influence from the conduct of electoral

  721
  affairs; but that was not the question at all; they were on the word "intimidation," or undue influence. He accepted —as everyone must accept—what had been called by right hon. Gentlemen op-opposite the statesmanlike Judgment of Lord Fitzgerald in the Longford case. No doubt, the influence of a clergyman might be used legitimately, as everyone had a right to use a certain amount of influence at an election; but there was a point beyond which they must not go, which would bring them within the Common Law to which the hon. Member for the City of Cork alluded, which could be put in an Act of Parliament, and which everyone who ran could understand. He did not wish to say anything at all disrespectful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but it seemed to him, he must say, as if in some of his sentences ho desired to convey that everyone, no matter what his religion might be, or what his religious character, might use all the religious influence at his disposal, in any manner his intelligence might suggest, on the right side. As the Conservative Members knew the views of the hon. Gentleman, they must be excused for just suspecting that there might be a wrong side also to that question. Ho could understand the argument of hon. Gentlemen who said that Ireland should have been excluded from the Bill on the ground that the nation was pure. That was a perfectly intelligible position to take up; but it could not be urged that it was desirable to exclude Ireland from the definition of undue influence and intimidation, in consequence of special innocence with reference to those offences. He would not go fully into that question; but he desired to point out that it was possible there might be in Ireland undue influence of the character that had been mentioned in the course of the discussion, and that there was nothing which rendered it absolutely impossible that such undue influence might be found to exist in future. Moreover, without going into any matter of special controversy, he was of opinion that the last few years had shown that the ingenuity and inventive power of the distinguished race that dwelt in Ireland had been able to produce forms of influence which were hardly to be distinguished from terrorism; and, therefore, he was disposed
  722
  to think that the reasons advanced in favour of the Amendment were not such that Parliament should put into the Bill any definition which did not recognize the coincidence of law and common sense in this matter. Surely, it would be wise and expedient, in face of recent history in Ireland, that they should recognize the possibility of undue influence and intimidation eluding very nearly any definition which might be put in, if they confined themselves to special classes of intimidation. For his own part, he would think very little of the ingenuity and unrivalled intelligence of the Irish nation, which he was bound to hold in high regard, if they could not, with very little difficulty, create a state of facts which would exercise the skill of a future Administration in providing a new definition to cover it.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had never listened to a more inconsequent speech than that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The contention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was that they should not give up a definition of these offences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, following generally the view of the Government, had alluded to the case of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald; but he would point out to the Committee that if that case had any connection with the matter at all, it was a strong argument in favour of a definition of undue influence. Why was a definition of spiritual undue influence not proposed? Because it was absurd to estimate damage in the world to come; they might estimate the damage which a man received hero; and it was the very essence and substance of the legislation they were now engaged upon to consider whether a man was damaged or injured by being prevented from recording his vote or otherwise? But it was complained that those words were too vague. Now, last night both the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the same Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said—" When we come to the subject of agency we must take great pains to have a very clear definition." It appeared that there were many Members in all parts of the Rouse who were extremely anxious about clearness in the matter of agency, but who cared no-

  723
  thing at all about the same distinctness in the matter of undue influence. Reference had been made to the interference of the clergy with electoral affairs in this country. It was well known that they were in the habit of addressing themselves in their sermons to the relative merits of Parliamentary candidates; and he had himself, on one occasion, drawn the attention of the Bishop of the diocese to the conduct of the London clergy in this respect; and the reply of the Bishop was—
  "I am not aware of any law which restricts the clergy of the Church of England in the selection of their hortatory topics."
  Although he regarded this as a clear impropriety on the part of a Church which enjoyed Establishment in connection with the State, he was not prepared to say that the clergy of a Church otherwise placed should be prevented from using their legitimate influence in matters in which they had such great concern. With regard to the case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who asked whether any man in that House would stand up and say that so gross, wicked, and abominable an interference as that cited on the part of a Roman Catholic clergyman should be protected by the law, his answer to that was, no; but there should be no liability unless the man influenced could prove temporal damage. It was sad that such things should exist; but, undoubtedly, less of Church membership, for instance, or some other form of temporal damage, would have to be suffered in order to bring it within the law.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rejoiced that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had stated his objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork in such precise terms. He had not been quite able to understand the meaning of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), whom he had always supposed to have an inclination to the study of history, because the hon. Member seemed to have accepted the dictum which the President of the Board of Trade laid down the other day at Birmingham—namely, that the study of history was a vain pursuit beyond 100 years anterior to the present age. Tho hon. Member, also,
  724
  did not seem quite to understand that there was any difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in regard to the exercise of spiritual influence in temporal matters. He (Mr. Newdegate) had been a very anxious supporter of the Public Worship Bill, introduced in order to restrain the tendency, on the part of some of the clergy, to imitate the licence which recognized spiritual interference in temporal matters, and he continued to congratulate himself on the fact that that Act became law. He would not detain the Committee further than to say that he regretted the hon. Member for the City of Cork had not been more happy in the selection of the terms of his Amendment, which made it so open to the fatal objection urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) that he should heartily support Her Majesty's Government in their objection to it.
  MR. GORSTsaid, it appeared to him that a great deal of time had been expended unnecessarily in considering the Amendment before the Committee; because the question they had to determine was, whether they were satisfied with the definition of undue influence under the present law, and whether they wished to have it altered? The offence of undue influence was very seldom committed in England under the Ballot Act; because any attempt at it would be almost certain to drive a man to vote, out of spite, in the opposite way to what was wanted. He believed, also, that with regard to Ireland undue influence at elections had almost ceased to operate for the same reason. They were, therefore, dealing with a matter of no great practical importance. Well, then, what fault was there found with the definition in the Act of 1854? He confessed that, having listened to the discussion with great attention, he had been unable to find out what fault was found with it. An hon. Member said it applied to spiritual undue influence; but he would point out that it did nothing of the kind. The law at present applied to spiritual undue influence only when that influence resulted in some temporal consequence. The refusing to a dying person of the Sacrament would be undue spiritual influence, because it would not only be a spiritual terror, but it might be fraught with temporal conse-

  725
  quences. Therefore, he again asked why any hon. Member objected to the present definition of undue influence —what the objection was? because at present he did not understand it. Then, in the next place, words ought to be proposed to the Committee which would state that objection clearly. It was confessed that the words proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork would not do, because they did not meet the case of undue spiritual influence. On the other hand, there was the definition which had lasted for 30 years without any fault being found with it. Under these circumstances, unless any specific form of definition were forthcoming, he thought the Committee would do well to pass on to the other clauses of the Bill, without attempting to amend the present portion of it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to two aspects of the clause. He wished the Committee to observe that the English Judges, when they unseated any Member of Parliament, did so generally on one of the baser forms of corruption —namely, bribery or treating. These were the offences which nearly always formed the subject of Election Petitions in this country; they were unmistakable in their character, and could be easily defined; and, that being so, the Judge was left to the exercise of his judgment with regard to them without any complaint, because he had no greater freedom of interpretation than belonged to him justly as the interpreter of the law. But in the case of Ireland the offence on account of which elections were generally voided was undue influence; it was not alleged that bribery had been, to any large extent, resorted to in that country. Therefore, while the Englishman was protected, owing to the definable character of the offence most frequently committed in England, the Irishman was left at the mercy of the Irish Judge, by the Legislature refusing to define the offence on account of which Members for Ireland were most generally unseated. He could not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) upon this point, and he had frequently found himself at variance with him in that House with reference to it. He would only say that the Irish Judges were a body of poli-
  726
  ticians; and, whatever might be their views with regard to each other as Whigs or Tories, they all hated and detested the ideas of those who composed the Irish National Party, and in the case of an Election Petition coming before them they would, no doubt, be irresistibly biassed by their political views. He asked whether they were tamely to submit to the imposition of a law which placed their political existence at the mercy of a set of partizans as thorough and extreme as were to be found in Ireland? It was not at all certain that the effects of this system in Ireland would be such as would meet with the approval of the Government. If the Members of the Irish National Party were excluded from political life by the operation of the present clause in its unamended form, he had no doubt whatever that the Government would regret that no concession had been made to the reasonable demand of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). What was the punishment inflicted on a person guilty of the offence? He was liable, if an elected Member, to be displaced from his seat during his life, so far as the representation of his constituency was concerned, and he was disabled from entering that House as a Representative of any constituency for 10 years. With regard to agency, they had from the Attorney General a statement that a person who happened to speak on behalf of a candidate was not necessarily an agent. But, on the other hand, they had the statement of one of the Irish Judges that any speaker who concerned himself at an election on behalf of a candidate made that candidate practically responsible for the language he used, and took upon himself the capacity and responsibility of an agent. Would anyone say that a candidate for a Parliamentary seat, in England or Ireland, was able to govern the personnel of these speakers, or that he was able to control their sentiments, or the language in which they expressed them? Such a thing was impossible. And yet this undefined offence of undue influence committed by an agent was sufficient to deprive an elected candidate of the right of presenting himself as a candidate for a county or borough for a period of seven years. Now, if the person guilty of this offence wore not a Member of Parliament or a candidate, but only an

  727
  elector, in that case he lost his right of voting at any election, Parliamentary or otherwise, for seven years; and if he held any office ho lost that office, and was deprived of the right of holding any other for a period of seven years. In addition to this, two classes of penalties, which referred specially to candidates and electors, ally person whatever, whether a candidate, a Member of that House, an elector, or any ordinary citizen, by falling within any of these categories of the Bill, rendered himself liable to be sent to gaol for 12 months, with or without hard labour, and also to be fined a sum of money not exceeding £200. Now, the sole claim which his hon. Friend and his supporters made on the Committee was that, in regard to the offence upon which Election Petitions in Ireland were chiefly founded, some definition should be included in the clause, in order to protect candidates of the Irish National Party from the straining of the law on the part of Judges who detested their political views —who were willing to force the provisions of the law to the utmost extent against them. All they asked for was that this undefined provision should receive some definition in the Act, so that candidates and others interested in Parliamentary elections should understand what they were entitled to say, and what the law permitted them to do. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork had last night submitted to the Committee a definition framed in the language of the eminent Judge—Justice Willes—who tried the Lichfield case. He (Mr. Sexton) had listened to the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, and he was unable to discover that he found any fault with the definition of his hon. Friend, except that it did not include corrupt promises or inducements; but these, he believed, could be fairly dealt with under the head of bribery. However, his hon. Friend, conscious of the importance of satisfying the Committee, and anxious to meet any objection, even though it might seem to be irrational to the minds of everyone except the occupants of the Treasury Bench, presented a new definition; and, instead of using the language of the learned Judge, he used the language of the Act itself, to which the learned Judge had referred. His hon. Friend proposed to leave out from line
  728
  26 of the Bill the words "and bribery, undue influence," in order to insert—
  "And the making use of, or threatening to make use of, any force, violence, or restraint, or the inflicting, or threatening to inflict any injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or the impeding or preventing by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance the free exercise of the franchise of any voter, so as thereby to compel or prevail upon any voter either to give or refrain from giving his votes at any election, and also bribery."
  He conceived that any form of spiritual intimidation against which it was necessary to provide was included in the terms injury, damage, harm, or loss. What was the meaning of those words? They meant what was conceived to be injury, damage, harm, or loss in the mind of the person who experienced it; because if a man did not consider in his own mind that he had suffered injury he was not injured. Ho thought that such intimidation as related to the fear of hell, or the loss of salvation, which might result from threats held out by clergymen, would be included in that definition; if not, they should be dealt with in a separate Act. The Attorney General had made three minor objections to the Amendment of his hon. Friend; and he was bound to express his astonishment at the language which the hon. and learned Gentleman had employed. He thought it wrong for the Attorney General, on the part of the Government, to take up the position of irreconcilable critic, and confine himself to cold criticism as to the incompleteness of the definition of his hon. Friend. He had listened attentively to the powerful speeches of the hon. Members for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), Salford (Mr. Arnold), and Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), all of whom seemed to think that the duty of the Attorney General lay in applying a definition, rather than picking holes in that which had been submitted to the Government. If anyone in that House would find him a fifth noun, other than the four he had cited, which would offer any new idea, he, on the part of his hon. Friend, would be happy to introduce it into the Amendment. The four nouns, which to his mind included every conceivable form of injury which could

  729
  be sustained by any man, had been inserted in the Amendment of his hon. Friend by lawyers as able as the Attorney General himself; and he invited the hon. and learned Gentleman to furnish another description of intimidation which those words left uncovered. If the intention was to send to prison with hard labour priests who used the influence which legitimately belonged to them, and which differed essentially from the influence which belonged to an ordinary layman, he could tell Her Majesty's Government that they would find the game not worth the candle. And he said, further, that if the priests of Ireland chose to exercise what the Government considered to be undue influence—if they chose to go beyond a fair appeal to the conscience of the voter, and apply themselves to the limitation of his free will, they would be punished; but, in restricting the use of this legitimate influence, the Government would find that they wore legislating to deal with the impossible—that was to say, they were endeavouring to deal with a state of things which could not be dealt with by any secular law. They would find that the tie between the influence of the priest and the conscience of the lay Catholic was such that if the priest chose to exercise what was called undue influence he could exercise it in spite of the law. Would it be denied that the influence of a priest was different and superior to the influence of a layman? The Government must satisfy the people that the law was opposed in no respect to their spiritual advisers. He repeated, that the offences on which Election Petitions in England were principally founded were strictly defined; that the Judges wore left in strict discharge of their duty; while in Ireland any violent partizan now on the Bench, or who should be appointed hereafter by an unscrupulous Ministry, could, by a dishonest use of the law, dispose of political opponents whom the Government themselves might not be able to get rid of. He considered that the Government resembled the famous race of the Bourbons, in that they learnt nothing. But they differed from them in respect of forgetting everything. He should have thought that the lessons recently learnt in Ireland would have taught them the deplorable effects which followed upon any attempt to take away the thoughts of the peo-
  730
  ple from Constitutional and peaceable action.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, ho hoped every Member of the Committee had heard the very remarkable speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had given up the whole case, and had abandoned every argument that had been used in favour of the Amendment. What did the hon. Gentleman say? He had taken up the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and expressed the opinion that under the words as they stood—"injury, damage, harm, or loss "—every case of undue spiritual influence could be ranged. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said that undue spiritual influence ought not to be dealt with by legislation.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I said spiritual influence, not undue spiritual influence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, according to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, spiritual influence ought to be left out of the definition. But what were they discussing, if the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo were correct, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork dealt with the case of undue spiritual influence; why had they been discussing at such length whether or not there ought to be words to deal with it? The whole thing had now become a question of words. The hon. Members for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), Salford (Mr. Arnold), and Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), had been saying that they ought to leave such cases undealt with by legislation. Ho himself thought that the words "injury, damage, harm, or loss," meant temporal injury, damage, harm, or loss; but that they did not mean what a man would suffer hereafter; and, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Sligo said that undue spiritual influence ought to be deal with, if the Committee left in the words as they existed in the Act of 1854 it would he dealt with. He could not consent, on the part of the Government, to say that they should declare by express legislation that undue spiritual influence should remain unchecked. Just one word as to what the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had said. Let the Committee recollect that it was the present law—the Act of 1854, in fact—that was being

  731
  attacked, and which would still remain the law even if this Bill did not pass, and not the law that was proposed by the present Bill. When this law was last discussed not ono word fell from any Irish Member by way of objection to this part of the Act. What had occurred since then to give rise to the present opposition to the words of the Act? The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) interrupted by saying that at the time time Leaders of the Irish Party were in prison. But that, he thought, was a mistake. They discussed this Bill on the 15th of May last year; and he was not aware that any Member of the House was at that time absent from any such cause as the hon. Member stated. No objection was raised to this provision notwithstanding; and yet, for some reason, now, for the first time, objection was made to it.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked what it was they objected to in the old definition? He thought they had already explained more than once what their objection was to the definiton in the Act of 1854. They objected to the old definition, inasmuch as they considered it wider and more vague than the necessities of the case required; and because it would enable the Irish Judges, as it had enabled them in the past, to interfere with the Constitutional and legitimate rights both of candidates and electors. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked thorn whether they would not desire that the refusal to administer the Sacrament should constitute undue influence? He was perfectly willing to say that it should, although ho did not think it was a kind of undue influence that had ever been used in Ireland, or would ever be used in Ireland. Irish Members, as they had always a right to do, said to the Government—" Insert in your clause that the refusal to administer the Sacrament, or any threat of spiritual terror or spiritual intimidation, shall be undue influence in this Act, and then we shall know where we stand." They asked for a definition in this matter of spiritual intimidation. The Act 17 & 18 Vict. was full of definitions, until it came to the point of restricting the rights and privileges of Irish electors and Members. There it was studiously vague; and their objection was to retain such vague expressions as had enabled Judge Keogh.
  732
  in the case of Major Nolan, and Judge Lawson, in the case of Mr. O'Donnell, to strain the law to an extent that would be impossible in England; Mr. O'Donnell having been debarred from sitting for his constituency for three years, because some young priest took a banner and waved it over his head in the public street. When the hon. and learned Gentleman found fault with his first Amendment he withdrew it, and substituted another. The only forms of spiritual intimidation that could occur wore threats of excommunication and threats of spiritual terror; and these were matters which they were willing should be inserted in this Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had no other object in view than to make this matter quite clear. In his opinion, it would be the duty of the Attorney General to place a clear definition in the clause; it was not his business to make the matter ambiguous and unintelligible, and to leave Irish Members entirely in the hands of the Irish Executive. This was a matter of life and death to the popular Representatives of Ireland. They did not stand there for the purpose of defending anything like influence, whether it wore undue, temporal, or spiritual influence. But what use had been made of the ambiguous wording of the Act of Parliament, "or in any other manner practice intimidation? "Why, no man who had read the Galway case in England knew more about that matter than the hon. and learned Gentleman, for it was he who defended Judge Keogh in that House about 10 years ago. They wanted to prevent the recurrence of what happened in the case of the Galway County Election, which, unless they introduced a clear definition into the Bill, was, perhaps, more likely to occur now than it was at the time referred to. The same use was made of the words in question in the case of the Galway Borough Election; and because they asked for a definition of the words the hon. and learned Gentleman threw upon them the whole responsibility in the matter, instead of undertaking it himself. He was not there for the purpose of casting any imputation upon the Irish Bench. It was unnecessary for him to do so; but he must say that the Irish Bench was not under the influence of public opinion so much as the English

  733
  Bench. An English Judge would no more violate the public opinion of the country by giving such a Judgment as that of Judge Keogh than he would by vacating his seat altogether. It was because the English Judges considered themselves amenable to public opinion that their Judgments were respected. On the other hand, in Ireland, political opinions ran high; the Judges belonged to a small minority, and they thought that the popular Party were injurious to the Party interests of that minority. He and his hon. Friends were willing to accept a definition of the words from the Attorney General or anybody else; and ho thought the best course would be to make the words ejusdem generis with those which preceded them. When intimidation in any form was dealt with they desired to know what constituted that offence, so that everyone who ran might read, and be alive to the consequences of their acts; and so that if a popular candidate in Ireland received priestly support, the priest might know the length to which he might go, without injuring the popular cause, or the candidate in whose favour he came forward. He did not see what difficulty there could be in the way of this. Where there was a will there was a way; and he did not think that the Attorney General would have to spend much time in shaping these general words so as to control and limit them in a manner which would render the recurrence of what took place in the Galway cases impossible in future. Ho would leave the Government to solve the matter in their own way but they were resolved that these words should not stand undefined, as they were at present, for the purpose of placing in the hands of the minority in Ireland an engine to crush the rights of the Irish popular Representatives.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he thought that the aspect of the whole question had changed since hon. Members opposite had expressed approval of the introduction into the clause of a definition of spiritual influence. As he understood the matter, hon. Members opposite only wished the clause to be definite. Their contention was that, although the words had done no harm in England, they had done great harm in Ireland; and that, he thought, was evidence that there was inconvenience in the words, and that the
  734
  priesthood had not had that amount of freedom in regard to political influence which it was considered they ought to have. It seemed to him that there was not so very much difference between hon. Members on this point; and he hoped the Attorney General would bring forward something to get them out of the difficulty.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, the Attorney General seemed to remain obstinate because, as he had said, he thought there was something behind this proposal. That was exactly the opinion he had formed of the Attorney General's attitude; that there was something behind all this which he could not see; and the long consultations that had taken place between the Members of the Treasury Bench to-day confirmed that opinion. Ono peculiar characteristic of this debate was this—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) made a speech which received great attention from the whole Committee. Three right hon. and learned Gentlemen got up to answer that speech—the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who, as usual, resorted to his old tactics, which meant nothing. He merely described a gross case, and called upon the Committee to assume that everything else was equally gross. Those were the old tactics, which had been seen so well during the discussions on the Coercion Bill. Then the President of the Local Government Board got up with an air of settling the whole question, and argued against the lion. Member for Wolverhampton, saying it was impossible to give a better definition of these words than the definition of Lord Justice Fitzgerald. Then the Solicitor General rose to explain the matter; and certainly his speech was one of the most extraordinary speeches, perhaps, made in that House for a very long time. There was only point in that speech, and he must again call attention to it—namely, that, ill his opinion, if some Gentleman being a candidate, having allowed an elector to shoot rabbits on his estate, withdrew that permission in consequence of the election, that would be intimidation within the meaning of the Act. If the Attorney General would just state his view, that would shorten this debate very much. If he had done that last night the Committee would probably

  735
  have come to a conclusion; but during the whole discussion he had fenced with the subject, and had declined, for an instant, to face the only difficulty which was involved. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr.W. Fowler), and another hon. Member sitting behind the Government, rose and told the Attorney General, in distinct language, what was the point at issue; but the Attorney General declined to take any notice, and, like the Solicitor General, treated the Committee to a disquisition upon something else, in order to avoid—and they had avoided with considerable success — the sole point in dispute. Would the Attorney General now state what he meant by the clause ho proposed, or not? Until he did so this debate would be continued. He meant that he and his hon. Friends must continue to call upon the Attorney General to give the explanation ho had promised on the previous day. For the sake of peace, and in order that they might arrive at some conclusion and make progress, he again invited the Attorney General to explain, in simple language, what, in his mind, was the definition of this clause.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was sure he should he supported by the Committee when he expressed his regret that so much time had been occupied by this matter; and he would venture to submit to the Government, in order that this Bill might be passed and no more time be wasted, that they should show a disposition to meet, as far as possible, reasonable objections. If this Bill was to make progress, there must not be this evident disposition to occupy an unyielding position. He believed there was a general feeling in favour of some modification of the Bill; and it would be a great misfortune if the Government refused to come to some arrangement. Ho had considered this matter in a perfectly impartial manner and he could not help feeling that while this clause, as it stood, was entirely unobjectionable, so far as England was concerned, yet experience had shown that latitude of interpretation allowed to the Judges in Ireland only excited alarm among Irishmen. He appealed to the Attorney General to meet the point raised by the Irish Members, if possible, by using words which would satisfy them without destroying the value of the clause, which
  736
  would not strike at what was fair and legitimate action on the part of the electors, and yet would not enable a Judge, who might be actuated by strong Party feeling, as in the case of Mr. Justice Keogh, to misuse the clause. They must ho careful not to allow the clause to enable a future Judge to act in that way.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he thought it well that the Committee should see exactly how they stood. There wore, at the outset, an imposing series of penalties which were not imposed when the present Act was passed. When this definition of undue influence was given in the Act of 1854 the Ballot Act did not exist, and there was a great variety of undue influence and intimidation; but, as everybody knew, the Ballot Act had, completely freed the electors from all chance of intimidation. Under the Ballot Act, no matter what influence might be exercised beforehand, the voter went to the ballot box perfectly free from any kind of intimidation. There was no kind of intimidation which he could not set at naught, and vote as his conscience or his conviction dictated. Practically, therefore, the only species of intimidation now in existence was physical force — making a voter drunk, or by some other physical means preventing his exercising his free vote. That being so, this provision was a great deal wider than was required; and it was, therefore, proposed to adopt a definition of undue influence. The definition in the Act of 1854 was really no definition. It included all the instances which were enumerated in the 5th section of that Act, and was framed by probably the greatest lawyer who had sat on the English Bench in modern times—Mr. Justice Willes; and he gave that not merely as part of a definition, as the Attorney General seemed to think, but as the true definition of the offences created under the Act. What the Irish Members wanted was not only to prevent undue influence by those who wished to influence votes, but undue influence by the Irish Judges. It had been quite conceded that there had been undue influence in the Galway decision; that the Judgment could not be sustained in coalmon sense or in law, and that it was revolting to the whole moral sense of the people. It was easy to understand how Judges might abuse their power; and

  737
  the Irish Members wished to take away from them not only the temptation, but the facilities to use that power. The Attorney General said he wanted to provide not against spiritual influence as it was known, but against some unknown terror which he was not able to describe, and know nothing of. That was the strangest principle of legislation ever laid down—that they were to make provision by Act of Parliament, not against known dangers which could be described, and of which instances could be cited, but against some unknown and mysterious danger which was incapable of definition, and which it puzzled even the acute mind of the Attorney General to imagine. They must not legislate against imaginary dangers, but against actual dangers which might occur; and if this definition was not sufficient to cover spiritual influence, they should have words which would, at least, enable them to understand what spiritual influence was. Would the Attorney General accept the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald? Ho thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was too wise to do that; but that showed the danger of having general words that rounded off the middle of a period, or filled up a blank in the drafting, when they could be turned to such use as they had been by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. In the Longford case, that Judge laid it down that it was undue influence to hold out hopes of reward hereafter to an elector, as a consequence of the way in which he might exercise his vote. Would any hon. Member, or man of common sense outside the House, say that that was a thing which could be prohibited under penal consequences in an Act of Parliament—that a priest, whose duty it was to direct the morals of his flock, should not say what was the action which would entail consequences hereafter? Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, however, went further, and said it could not be allowed to direct anyone that voting for a particular candidate was a sin which would bring down punishment hereafter. It was such a definition as this—which had been so often spoken of, and with approval—that would render it impossible to give advice to any man as to his duty. That Judgment showed clearly enough the difficulty of adopting the words which were in the Act of 1854 without augmenting the powers of the Judges to
  738
  an undue extent; but the words now proposed were, he thought, enough to cover every act of spiritual intimidation that might occur. What was an act of spiritual intimidation? It not only did harm and damage, but harm of a most serious kind; and it was recognized that mental torture and pain came within the cognizance of the Courts quite as clearly as physical and bodily pain. Any act which inflicted mental pain, such as excommunication, or any act which exposed a man to the contempt of his fellow-subjects or co-religionists, clearly came under the words of the Act of 1854, and under the definition now offered. They inflicted injury, harm, and damage; they inflicted mental torture, and exposed the man to odium and contempt; and any act which did that must come within the definition. But to make advice and instruction acts of spiritual intimidation was nothing more than the re-introduction of religious disabilities of a most offensive kind—and in a covert way. He hoped the Committee would accept the definition of undue influence offered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork; but if the Attorney General was able to produce any better words, which would include undue spiritual influence, and would, at the same time, say what that influence was, he would give him his vote, for he was as desirous of seeing undue spiritual influence put down quite as much as any other sort of undue influence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that, up to the present time, the Government could not be reproached with having wasted any time at their disposal. To the view that undue spiritual influence should remain unchecked they entirely dissented, and to that they would remain consistently opposed. He understood the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to say that he was desirous that such spiritual influence should be checked by legislation, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork to say very distinctly that he would be willing to insert words, saying that not only temporal but spiritual intimidation should be repressed by legislation. But those were not the views presented up to the time when the Government spoke upon the point; but if hon. Members meant what they seemed to mean the Government were at one with them. What, then, were they now dis-

  739
  cussing, except a mere form of words? The hon. Member for the City of Cork sought to strike out general words. He had thought this matter out; and, under the general words, it did not seem to him that there was any intimidation other than spiritual intimidation, while every other kind of intimidation was left to the express words of the Act of 1854. If they were of one mind, ho could not possibly accept the proposed words. It required most careful consideration to say how the intention to meet every kind of intimidation was to be carried out; but until he heard something to the contrary it seemed to him that they were discussing nothing but mere words.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had stated distinctly that, whatever was undue influence, an attempt to intimidate a voter, no matter from what source it proceeded, should bo checked.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, of course they were dealing with what was undue — what was not undue would be no offence. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had admitted that he was willing to check undue spiritual influence; and if he and the Government were now in agreement, ought they not to demonstrate that agreement and make it clear and decided? If there was anything in the general words besides spiritual influence some hon. Member would, perhaps, suggest it; but, at the present moment, he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland could only see that those words covered spiritual intimidation, and that the two hon. Members opposite were willing to check.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Undue influence in the estimation of the Judge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not know what that meant. The Judge had to determine all through these clauses what was undue. They had now had a great deal of discussion upon this matter, and he hoped they might agree. The only course which occurred to him was this—he would ask the hon. Member for the City of Cork to withdraw his Amendment for the present; he would ask the Committee, on the other hand, to insert the words "undue influence," striking out the first words "treating and," so that the clause would read. "undue in-
  740
  fluence as defined by this Act." A clause could then be brought up defining "undue influence;" and if the hon. Member was sincere in allowing all undue spiritual influence to be dealt with, a new clause should be brought up in which undue spiritual influence as well as undue temporal influence could be dealt with. If hon. Members were sincere that arrangement could be carried out; and he hoped the Committee would make an attempt to come to an agreement.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, although he was glad to take any course which would expedite the passing of the Bill, the Government could not expect him to give an undertaking to pursue any particular course until he saw the words of the Amendment, which they now understood would be put on the Paper by the Government themselves. He and his hon. Friends must reserve their judgment upon the Government's proposed Amendment until they saw it in black and white.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he must also reserve to himself the same right that the right hon. Gentleman had just reserved to himself—namely, to see what the words were which the Government brought up before expressing any judgment. He accepted the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; but he would make one suggestion for his consideration, and that was that, instead of introducing the definition as a new clause, he (the Attorney General) should insert it as a sub-section to that clause. That would enable the Committee to take the matter up while the debate was fresh in their recollection; whereas, if it were postponed until the time for new clauses, some time would necessarily elapse before they were ready to deal with the matter. Of course, in the proposed new clause, they would expect the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to define undue influence, both spiritual and temporal.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he thought it desirable it should now be definitely stated whether the Government Amendment would be brought up as a subsection or as a new clause? If the proposed Amendment was presented as a new clause, he feared the benefit of the recent discussion would be in great part lost. There had been a good deal

  741
  of misunderstanding during the course of the debate. At last, however, a proposition had been made that, by plain and definite words, the wide discretion of the Judges should be restrained, and that they should be prevented in the future from holding that the exercise of legitimate spiritual influence amounted to undue influence. The statements made were now fresh in their recollection. It was right that there should be as short an interval as possible in proceeding to consider the words which it was suggested would give effect to the understanding in accordance with which the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was to be withdrawn.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it was reasonable that they should have an understanding, before parting with the subject, as to whether the Amendment would be brought up as a sub-section or as a new clause? They certainly ought to decide on what the actual crime was before they dealt with the penalties. It was quite clear they could not deal with the penalties until they knew to what crimes they were attached.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that, so far as he could judge, this was a mere dispute about words. They were laying down what should be an offence and what should not; and, therefore, words were a very great element in the case. What was objected to was that the words should be left so loose that any Court or Tribunal might interpret them as it liked. They wanted such a description of the offence which would vitiate au election, or subject a man to the severe pains and penalties under the Bill, as would commend itself to the common sense of the House. If this Amendment were withdrawn, on the understanding that something that was not yet before them—and which might not have the character they hoped it would have—was brought in, he should like to know what position they would be placed in? Undue spiritual influence was a very vague expression; and it certainly ought to be understood that the Attorney General would, in his new clause, provide a proper definition of the term.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he quite saw the
  742
  force of what had just been said. They had had a very long discussion, and it would be a pity that its effect should be lost. He would, therefore, accede to the wishes of hon. Members, and would prepare a clause for insertion as a subsection. The time was short before Monday morning; but he would do his best to draft a clause and put it upon the Paper by that time.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought it was well that they should know exactly where they were. The Amendment was practically to leave out "or in any other manner practises intimidation." He considered that the words" in any manner practises intimidation" allowed the Judge to interpret legitimate spiritual influence and legitimate political agitation as undue influence. The President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in his very fair and temperate speech, in answer to his (Mr. H. H. Fowler's) remarks, quoted the words of Lord Justice Fitzgerald. Lord Justice Fitzgerald said it was undue influence for a clergyman to say to a man, if he voted for a particular candidate, it would be a sin. Now, upon that point, he (Mr. II. H. Fowler) could have no common ground with the Attorney General, if that was what the Attorney General meant; because ho (Mr. H. H. Fowler) considered that a clergyman of the Church of England, or a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, or of any other Church, was perfectly right in saying to a man that, in his opinion, it was a sin to vote for any particular candidate. It was one of the conditions of English public life, both religious and political; and to attempt to prohibit it, and make a clergyman liable for 12 months' imprisonment if ho said such a thing, was what he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not prepared to assent to. He hoped that the Attorney General, in preparing the new clause, would take care to see that a clergyman should not be liable to punishment for the inevitable influence which religious teachers would exercise upon elections.
  MR. BIGGARsubmitted it would be a legitimate thing for any clergyman to say to a man that if he supported the Affirmation Bill, for instance, he would be liable to certain penalties, not only in this world, but certainly in the next. It was perfectly plain that, under the

  743
  Bill as it now stood, a clergyman would be precluded from offering any opinion at the time of an election.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)then moved, in order to carry out the views he had expressed, to insert, after the word "treating," in line 25, "and undue influence as defined by this Act."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, after the word "treating," to insert the words "and undue influence as defined by this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)then moved to omit the words in line 26, "undue influence, and."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "undue influence, and."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "'That the words undue influence, and,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment which he had to propose was one of some importance. It was very inconvenient that the offences which were made serious and grave under this Act should be brought to the mind of people by reference to other Statutes. All he (Mr. Gibson) asked to do by this Amendment was, that the offences of bribery, personation, aiding and abetting, counselling, and procuring the commission of such offences, which were offences within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, as amended by this Act, should be set out in the Schedule of the Act. In that case, anyone turning to the Schedule could find out what were the offences referred to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "Act," to insert the words "and as set out in the Schedule hereto."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. and learned
  744
  Gentleman was a very valuable one. He, however, was not disposed to accept it in its entirety; but, to meet the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would propose to leave out the words "by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts," and say "in the sections of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act set forth in the third Schedule of this Act." He thought that would be a more useful way of referring to the Schedule.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the words "by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That the words by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "Act," to insert the words "in the sections of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act set forth in the third Schedule of this Act." — (Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. LEWISproposed to move the omission of the words, in page 2, lines 1 and 2, "or are recognized by the Common Law or the law of Parliament." It seemed to him that it was necessary to omit those words, in order to fit in with the words the Attorney General had just now moved. At all events, he should like to hear from the Government what offences there were, plus those stated in the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, which would come in the definition which had already been passed by the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had no objection to strike out the words "or the law."
  MR. LEWISsaid, it was a very common practice for lawyers, when they could not find any particular Act under which an offence came, to say—" Oh, it is against the Common Law." What the Committee was anxious to know was, what the offences were with which they could possibly be charged under this beneficent and magnificent Bill, as the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) described it the other day at Shepherd's Bush. He (Mr.

  745
  Lewis), however, considered this a Bill of which every Member of the House of Commons ought to be ashamed. [Cries of "Question!"] Was there any credit in passing such an Act of Parliament? The introduction of the Bill was, practically, an admission by 658 English Gentlemen that they could not conduct their elections properly; that it was necessary to tie their hands, in order to keep them out of their own pockets. As a matter of fact, that was a degrading operation they were going through. The Commons House of Parliament had relegated the trial of Election Petitions to the Courts of the country; and, therefore, they ought to be particularly careful about what they were doing. With all these pains and penalties hanging round their necks they ought to avoid all vagueness under which punishment and evil consequences might ensue. He considered there was every reason why his Amendment should be adopted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words "or are recognized by the Common Law or the law of Parliament."—(Mr. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Committee would retain these words.
  MR. PARNELLdoubted whether it was worth the while of the Attorney General to keep to these words, or attach very much importance to them; and observed that, as the clause had been constructed by the Amendments made to it, the question of the offences which were to be recognized by the Common Law of England or the law of Parliament would be narrowed to the three offences of bribery, personation, and aiding, abetting, and counselling personation.
  MR. MARUMsaid, there were two distinct and separate questions involved in this Amendment. One was as to the question of offences as recognized by the Common Law, and that was the one now in dispute. That was very vague; but, on the other hand, it would include possible corruption, and that might be desired by some who wished to extend the scope of the Bill. The second point was with regard to the law of Parliament. Minors, according to the Common Law of Parliament, could and did
  746
  sit in that House by virtue of statute Law, and it was by Statute Law that they were excluded. He had an Amendment down defining the law of Parliament, because he took it that a Resolution of the House was not the law of Parliament, and certainly not the law of the three Estates of the Realm. A Resolution had not the force of an Act, and could not be relied upon as Statute Law. He would request the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to bring his Amendment to bear on the words "as are recognized by the Common Law," and allow the words after" law of Parliament" to be retained, because, otherwise, his Amendment would be cut away.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Attorney General would run some little risk by retaining these words of injury to what he wished to preserve. He was quite aware of the Judgment of Baron Bramwell, and of the fact that that House had chosen to delegate to the Judges a certain amount of jurisdiction, although it still retained jurisdiction over elections. But he was prepared to hold that there was some kind of Common Law of Parliament still existing; but the way in which the section had been drawn would inflict some harm on the Common Law of Parliament which still existed. They had now got two groups of offences. The first consisted of treating and undue influence, as defined by this Act; and the second consisted of bribery, personation, and aiding and abetting personation, as defined in the Act of 1854. As the section now read, it seemed to him that it was only this last group that could be considered in any way to have checked Parliament; and he was afraid the anxiety of the Attorney General to keep in "Common Law of Parliament" would have the effect of showing that there was no Common Law.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought there was some justice in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, and he would agree to strike out the words in question, and, if necessary, put in other words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MARUMmoved, in page 2, line 2, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words—

  747
  "And for the purposes of this Act it shall be deemed to be undue influence ' within its meaning for any Lord of Parliament, or Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough in Great Britain to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland at such election in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself or any others be proposed to be elected, or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his commission to influence the election of any Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, his main object was to make the action indicated in the latter clause of this Amendment a statutable offence. At present the matter was only dealt with by Sessional Order; and the Sessional Order having declared that any such action would be an infringement of the Privileges of that House, he was not driven to the necessity of making out a case, though, if necessary, he could make out a very distinct case. A Lord Lieutenant was the political nomination of the existing Government, and it was not unnatural that he should dispense in the same way any political patronage he could exercise. The very fact of the Sessional Order established the necessity for this provision. What was the present law? That it would be a breach of the Privileges of this House for a Lord Lieutenant to interpose in an election; but the question was, whether this section brought that in under the title of the "law of Parliament?" He hoped the Attorney General would take the proposal upon its merits, and not allow it to be thrown out upon a mere technicality.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was not a matter of technicality, but of substance. As far as he knew, there was no law on the subject. The House of Commons asserted its rights and privileges by Sessional Order; but it had never received any assent from the other House to assert those rights. He thought it would be better to be content with the Sessional Order, and so avoid any collision with the House of Lords. To treat Peers who might concern themselves in
  748
  elections as they proposed to treat persons guilty of corrupt practices would be a serious innovation.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Sessional Order was inoperative and useless, and ought to be removed from the Orders of the House. The Order had never been put in force, although there had been notorious breaches of it. Last Session he attempted to bring forward the case of a Lord Lieutenant of a county, and a distinguished Indian official, who telegraphed home an order for a subscription to an election; but the House refused to concern itself with the matter.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think that now the Ballot Act was in operation it was not justifiable to object to Peers taking part in elections; but the case was very different with regard to the Lord Lieutenant of a county. A Lord Lieutenant held an essentially official position, and through that had very great power, especially in regard to appointing magistrates; and if he influenced an election ho acted in a very corrupt manner. He suggested that the hon. and learned Member should confine his Amendment to Lord Lieutenants of counties.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he had thought it his duty to bring this matter forward; but, looking at the feeling of the Committee, he did not wish to press the matter any further. Ho hoped, however, that the Attorney General would take into consideration that portion of the Amendment relating to Lord Lieutenants of counties.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had an Amendment to propose; but as it would be impossible to explain its object in the few minutes now remaining he would move that Progress be reported. When he did move the Amendment he should show that circumstances had arisen in this country which were, in a certain degree, analogous to circumstances which had long prevailed in the United States, and which had led to great confusion in the American electoral system.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hewdegate.)
  Motion agreed to.

  749
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday next, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
  MR. CHAPLINrose to protest against the precedence given to this Bill over the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Unusual as it was for private Members to force the hand of the Government, the course pursued by the Government had been so unusual that they had strong grounds for protesting. There was a very long delay, in the first instance, in the introduction of the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill; but it was introduced before the Whitsuntide Holidays, and read a second time on the 29th of May. The Committee was then fixed for the 11th of June. In consequence of the fixed intention to take the Committee with as little delay as possible, many Members declined to express their views upon the second reading. When his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposed that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, for the purpose of incorporating several clauses of the old Agricultural Holdings Act, the Chanceller of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) replied that so anxious was he to proceed with the Bill without any delay that he objected to the proposal on account of the loss of time that would be involved.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.

  MOTIONS.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 7) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to Barnes and Mortlake, Hackney, Islington, Saint Pancras, and. White-chapel, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Bill presented, and, read the first time. [Bill 229.]

    NAVY COURTS MARTIAL.
    Copy presented,—of Returns of the number of Courts Martial held upon Seamen of the Royal Navy during the year 1881, the offences for which the men were tried, the sentences awarded and the punishments inflicted at home and abroad, of the number of summary punishments
    750
    inflicted; and similar Returns relating to the Royal Marines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    LONDON BANKRUPTCY COURT.
    Address for "Return from the Messenger of the London Bankruptcy Court of the number of warrants he has received for the arrest of absconding debtors under the 33 and 34 Vic. c. 76, since the passing of that Act up to the present time, and the number of debtors arrested under such warrants."—(Mr. Samuel Morley.)
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nino of the clock.

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    POOR LAW (IRELAND)—WORKHOUSE SCHOOLS.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. MOORE, in rising to draw attention to the state of the workhouse schools in Ireland; and to move—.
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the condition of the workhouse schools calls for the immediate attention of Government,"
    said, that his only wonder, in bringing the matter before the attention of the House, was that the state of things he was about to describe should have lasted so long. They had in Ireland a system which had been abandoned in England, and exploded in Scotland; and he was glad to say that in the greater portion of the British Islands it was a thing of the past. He did not think if the Irish Government were represented in sufficient numerical strength in the House of Commons that that state of things could have existed. The right hon. Gentleman who presided so ably and courteously at the Irish Office was the most overworked official in Her Majesty's Service. He combined in his Office a variety of Departments, each of which required the concentrated energy of a Minister in itself. The result was that the working of the Poor Laws in Ireland was left entirely to a Board out of harmony with the sympathies of the

    751
    people, and in its policy dogged and dictatorial.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lord Alcester's Grant * (95); Lord Wolseley's Grant* (96); Registry of Deeds (Ireland) * (97); Forest of Dean (Highways)* (98); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) * (99); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) * (100).
Second Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders * (76); Water Provisional Orders* (77); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3)* (81); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) (80).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) *; Municipal Corporations (Unreformed)* (59), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA — THE TRANSVAAL CONVENTION OF 1881 —A SPECIAL COMMISSIONER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) in his place, he wished to ask him a Question of which he had given him private Notice, relating to an important statement made by the Prime Minister in "another place" last night. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
  "Her Majesty's Government, therefore, with reference to the question of the Transvaal Convention, have determined to advise the sending out of a Special Commissioner to South Africa. The business of that Special Commissioner will be to consider our present relations with the Transvaal Government, and the terms and conditions of the Convention, now that they have been illustrated by the working of a certain time, and by the experience thus afforded. The functions of the Special Commissioner will, of necessity, bring within his view the state of Bechuanaland, which it will be his duty to consider in concert with the High Commissioner at Cape Town."

  655
  He (Earl Cadogan) had no desire, in putting a Question on this subject, to enter upon any controversial matter, and that more especially as his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) had a Notice of Motion on the Paper in regard to South African affairs generally. He might, however, be permitted to remind their Lordships that it was two years since the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) announced to Parliament and the country that Her Majesty's Government had determined to re-cede the Transvaal to the Boers, under the Convention signed and ratified in October nearly two years ago. Considerable discussion took place in their Lordships' House upon the course which the Government then determined to adopt, and that course was viewed with considerable anxiety and interest all over the country. The noble Earl opposite the late Secretary of State for the Colonies himself would admit that the Opposition had not endeavoured to hamper the action of the Government in the very difficult position in which they found themselves at the critical period of the conclusion of the Boer War; but it could not be denied that the Government had taken a course which had originally excited apprehension; and, since then, the matter had been watched, and it was now viewed with alarm. Several attempts had been made this year in the other House to obtain from the Government explanations as to the policy they intended to adopt in the present position of affairs in the Transvaal. The Secretary of State for the Colonies in the late Government (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had made repeated attempts in the other House to elicit from the Prime Minister a promise to give them a day for the discussion of this question; but all of them had resulted in failure. One discussion, no doubt, had taken place, by which his right hon. Friend had elicited a certain amount of information; but he had not been able hitherto to obtain from the Prime Minister a day for the discussion of his Motion. On the previous evening his right hon. Friend had addressed another Question to the Prime Minister on this subject; and the result had been the announcement to which he (Earl Cadogan) had already referred. He must confess that, without entering upon any speculation or
  656
  prophecy as to the nature or results of the Commission which was foreshadowed by that statement, he could not but think that before it was sent out Parliament and the nation were entitled to more information as to this resolve of the Government; and he had, therefore, given Notice that he would ask the noble Earl whether he would have any objection to stating to the House and the country the Instructions which would be given to this Special Commissioner? He (Earl Cadogan) thought they ought to know the scope of the powers of the Special Commission. His business, as stated by the Prime Minister, would be to consider our present relations with the Transvaal Government and the terms of the Convention. He (Earl Cadogan) should have thought that that would have been the business of the Secretary of State. Nothing, it would be observed, was said by the Prime Minister as to any communications with the Transvaal Government. Therefore, he thought it right to ask whether the Colonial Secretary could give them any information as to the Instructions that would be given to the Special Commissioner? He had, besides, given the noble Earl Notice of another Question. He would be glad to know if the decision to send out a Special Commissioner had been arrived at after consultation with the Transvaal Government, or with the concurrence of that Government; and, if that Government had been consulted, he should like to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could give them any hope that he would be able to lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence that had passed between the Home and the Colonial Governments upon the question? He asked these Questions with a sincere wish that the Transvaal Question might be settled satisfactorily; but he must confess that he had no very sanguine anticipation of this result. He must say that he did not look with much hope or with much pleasure on the steps the Government were now taking. With regard to the Convention, there were only two courses which could be adopted. It would be necessary for the Government either to drop the Convention altogether, or to enforce the observance of its terms. Any modification of the Convention would be entirely fruitless and nugatory. The only re-

  657
  sult, therefore, which he could anticipate from this course was one that he viewed with considerable regret—namely, that further delay would take place in this matter, and that all those evils which had now been accumulating clay by day over the whole of the South African Possessions and Dependencies of Her Majesty would go on increasing, and the remedies would be more difficult of application.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in reply, said, he was surprised at the course taken by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Cadogan), as the noble Earl knew that his noble Friend, a former Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon), was about to bring the whole question before the House; but the noble Earl had not waited for an opportunity to be given to answer any Question as to the Mission to the Transvaal. He must also observe that it was not customary to discuss in that House the proceedings of the other; they had nothing to do with the question whether the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had, or had not, succeeded in obtaining a day for the discussion of this question in "another place." In regard to the Question asked by the noble Earl, the Government would be prepared, in due course, to lay upon the Table a copy of the Instructions to the Special Commissioner about to be sent out to the Transvaal; but it would not be to the public advantage to lay them on the Table in the present state of the negotiations. But another difficulty was in the way; the Instructions did not exist in any formal shape at present, as they had not yet been drafted, and, in any case, it was necessary that they should be in existence before they could be produced. With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, as to whether there had been any consultation with or concurrence of the Transvaal Government, he need hardly remind their Lordships that, during the last two years, frequent dissatisfaction had been expressed by the Transvaal Government with the present state of things, and that there had been many expressions of desire on the part of that Government for a revision of the Convention. His noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), who had preceded him at the Colonial Office, had refused to hold out any hope
  658
  to them that their demands would be acceded to, his view being to wait a while and see how events were likely to proceed. That being the case, the Government had, under the circumstances, very little doubt as to the feelings of the Transvaal Government in regard to the Convention. The Government were informally acquainted with their views, and understood that they were willing to meet Her Majesty's Government half way in any attempt which might be made to settle the question; and, therefore, considering the Correspondence that had passed the last two years between the Government and the Transvaal authorities, he had not thought it necessary to consult the Transvaal Government, nor to ask its concurrence in regard to the sending out of a Special Commissioner. As he had said, he would be prepared, but not at the present time, to lay the Instructions on the Table.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL CONVENTION OF 1881—THE NATIVE STATES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I desire to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies or extracts of any engagements subsisting between this country and any States or Native Tribes in South Africa; and to call attention to the execution of the Transvaal Convention of 1881."
  In doing so, I may observe that we are in the habit of speaking of South Africa as a place with one nation and one Government, though, as a matter of fact, there are in that portion of that great Continent several nations, and at least four different forms of Government. There is the responsibly-governed Colony of the Cape of Good Hope; the Colony of Natal, which possesses a Government that may be said to stand midway between that of a Crown Colony and a responsible Government; and there are also the Dutch Republics of the Orange River Free State and the Transvaal Government, however they may be described, and a great variety of forms of administration in the Native territory. We have thus to deal with a very complex system of politics to which we are bound by a network of Treaties. I will not now enter into the subject of these Treaties; but it will be for the convenience of the House on future occasions

  659
  if Returns are made, showing the different engagements to which we are parties in South Africa. There are, in the first place, those which we have entered into with such States as the Transvaal and the Orange River Free State; there are also the engagements which we have exacted from Chiefs in the position of Cetewayo and Usibepu; and, lastly, there are such obligations as those which we have entered into with the Bechuanas and the Basutos. I desire chiefly to call attention to the Convention with the Transvaal Government made in 1881. It was imposed at the end of a not very successful war; but it was represented as a Treaty of very great importance by the Prime Minister, who said of it—
  "Under the Convention we felt it our duty to take the best securities for the welfare of these Native Tribes, counted by hundreds of thousands, who inhabit the Transvaal, and towards whom we could not forget the responsibility we had assumed. We provided that power should be retained for that purpose. … I must now speak to you in few, but I trust clear words. We have great duties to perform; we have made large concessions. We have been censured and vituperated for these concessions. … We never for a moment forgot what was due to other considerations, to the rights of the Native Tribes, and to the general peace of South Africa... And those men are mistaken, if such there be, who judge that our liberal concessions were the effect of weakness or timidity, and who think that because we granted much it was only to encourage them to ask for more."
  I do not care to make any comments on that statement; I take it in its naked and unadorned simplicity. But a few nights ago my noble Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) gave us an instructive comment on the statement of the Prime Minister. He was questioned with regard to the Convention; and, in substance, he said that the Convention gave us little power, and that its success depended on the sincere good-will and cooperation of the contracting parties in the Transvaal. That, I think, is a now doctrine to introduce into the history of Conventions by the Power assumed to be the stronger. He further gave us the important information that negotiations were pending for the revision of this Convention, and that they might end in the withdrawal of the Resident in the Transvaal at Pretoria. I wish to ascertain how and why it is that the Convention has failed altogether; and,
  660
  if not, what portion of it is so valuable that the Government think it worth maintaining; and, above all, if that be so, what guarantees we are to take in order to prevent the revised Treaty becoming as ineffective as the existing Treaty? I will next consider the Articles of the Convention — there are 33 of them. Article II. provides for the appointment of a British Resident, with certain duties and functions. I wish to ask whether there has been anything in practice which corresponds to the theory of this Article; and as two years have passed since the Convention was signed, and this official has been appointed, I should also like to ask whether he has done anything more than simply to send home some Correspondence upon the question of revising the Articles? All we know of him is that, on one rather remarkable occasion, he was present at a banquet at which the name of the Queen was not treated with the respect which is its due, and that he was called to account for his conduct on the occasion. We know nothing further of him, except that he has, from time to time, made various remonstrances, which are recorded in these Blue Books, and those have been treated with the most absolute contempt. All this had been predicted by us; we had asked what powers you were going to give the Resident; and had said that, without them, the arrangement would end in complete failure. It has so happened, and I do not believe you can point to any one case in which he has interfered with success. Article V. provides, so far as it can, for the due and proper punishment of all offences committed contrary to the rules of civilized warfare; and, in reference to the point, I have repeatedly drawn attention to the committal of several disgraceful murders; there was no question as to the facts; they were committed in broad daylight; and, although some of the offenders were brought into Court, I do not think that one has met with punishment; or, if they have, it has only been in the shape of a very light and altogether inadequate penalty. The next Article to which I will refer, and some others connected with it—Article VII.—relate to the liabilities of the Transvaal Government. A Commission was appointed, on which, with ingenious inequality, there was but one Englishman to two Boers; but it did its work in a

  661
  fair spirit, and it divided the obligations into two categories. The first charge included Debts which were a charge upon the Transvaal at the time of annexation. We did not pay them off, and the Transvaal could not be justly censured for leaving them in the position in which we found them. There was a second charge of £261,000 representing the legitimate expenses of the Government during the time we were in the country, or the excess of expenditure over income. The Transvaal agreed to pay this off, and partly, by the payment of a lump sum. In addition, there was £130,000, which represented compensation awards charged against the Transvaal. The total Debt was £400,000, which was due to us, and which the Transvaal was reasonably and fairly bound to pay, and they were to have paid £100,000 within 12 months. Has any part of that been paid? I apprehend not. Then there were awards made by the Commission against us and against the Transvaal—this country had to pay £30,000, and the Transvaal Government £130,000, and we paid our £30,000 at once. We have also advanced the Transvaal the money to meet the awards against it, and nothing has been repaid; nor has anything been paid towards the salaries and expenses of the Commission, amounting to £4,100. I will not go into particulars of the counter-claim, as Sir Hercules Robinson sums up its character in these words—
  "I need hot attempt to do more than offer a few general remarks on each item, which I may preface by observing that it is difficult to conceive that such a claim could have been seriously put forward."
  It was for the enormous sum of £175,000. Indeed, the terms of the counter-claim were so preposterous that Sir Hercules Robinson said he could only imagine that they were advanced in order to cover the contemplated failure of the Transvaal State to meet the claim of £100,000 under the Dutch Convention. Then I come to the next Article—No. XII.—which says that no person who has remained loyal to Her Majesty's Government during the recent hostilities shall suffer any molestation. How has that been carried out? There were, no doubt, three parties concerned. There were the English, there wore the loyal Boers, and there were the Natives. As regards the English, I apprehend that
  662
  a good many of them sold their property some time before the crisis at forced prices, and left the country. That was probably the wisest course they could take. I do not care to go into the case of the loyal Boers. That has been discussed on former occasions, and I think the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted that there had been great hardship in certain instances. As regards the Natives, however, it is a much harder case. To the North of the Transvaal they have not been much persecuted, because there they were in greater numbers, stronger, and more capable of taking care of themselves. They are, in fact, reserved for a later fate. To the South, however, where they were more isolated and much feebler, the Natives were exposed to the attacks of filibusters. They have been exposed to robbery, the seizure of their land, and very great oppression. I will take one single case within the Transvaal as it is recorded in the Blue Book of last year. A Chief of the name of Ikaniki, who lived within the Transvaal boundary, was stated to have erected walls at his kraal, but was not shown to have taken any active part in the hostilities beyond the Border. Nevertheless, it was urged that ho had given notice of his intention to take part in the disturbances. A Boer Commando was sent to the station, and a clean sweep was made of the property of the Chief, who was completely impoverished. I call that a disgraceful and wanton act; for, although this man had never been accused of any greater act than "intention," he was so far impoverished that he was obliged to proceed to Pretoria to sue for mercy and assistance. This, your Lordships will observe, was within the Border of the Transvaal. As to what has occurred outside the Border, we know a little more. There you come upon such tribes as those presided over by Mankoroane and Montsioa. They have been driven from one point to another on account of their tried and devoted loyalty to us. It should be remembered that it stands recorded, beyond doubt, that, at a most critical time, they were loyal to us; and that, when they were attacked, we practically abandoned them to their enemies. And here I may say that I desire to draw a distinction between the Boers of the Transvaal and the rascaldom gathered on the Border, under the name of

  663
  filibusters and marauders. They come from all nations and races, and are probably as disgraceful a set of men as were ever drawn together. Mr. Hudson has shown that it was no exaggeration that tribe after tribe was pushed back on the other tribes, or actually perished altogether during the hostilities. Did Sir Hercules Robinson give any better account? No; he simply says—
  "The condition of this country is deplorable; and I am unable to hold out any hope of inducing the Transvaal Government to restrain those of its subjects who are engaged in the acts of brigandage referred to."
  And he adds, in another despatch—
  "After carefully perusing those Papers, it appears to me to be difficult to resist the conclusion that the Transvaal Government is morally responsible for these proceedings."
  I come now to the next Article, with regard to which there is one point which successive English Ministers and Governments, no matter what their politics might be, have insisted on in their dealings with the Transvaal—namely, the suppression of slavery. One of the Articles of the Convention of Pretoria provides that no slavery or "apprenticeship" shall be tolerated by the Government. In the strict sense of the former term, I should not be prepared to affirm that such an institution existed in the Transvaal; but under the latter term there has existed for years a species of veiled slavery which is called by another name, but which is in reality the same thing. Can anyone who has held the Seals of the Colonial Office doubt or deny that? Our traditional policy in this country has been to preserve ourselves absolutely clear from the slightest taint of slavery. The Boers, on the other hand, held an entirely different view. They looked upon a Native as being in the position of au intelligent animal, to be kindly treated in the same way as a horse or an ox is treated, but nothing beyond that. If he is alive he best discharges his human function as a bondsman; and if he is inconvenient, it is well to remove him out of the way. It is a matter of history that that has been the practice and view which the Boors have entertained. And when you come to "apprenticeship" it differs very little from veiled slavery. Till within a very recent period it was the practice in storming a Native town to
  664
  kill husband and wife, and to take the child and train him up as a so-called apprentice. Then there are Articles XIII. and XXI., which provide for the creation of a Native Location Commission. I believe that Commission has been in existence for some time, and has sat and done business; but I do not agree that it has ever done anything of a practical nature; it is so encumbered with forms. Then there is an Article—No. XVIII.—which provides that the British Resident shall always be a medium of communication with the Chiefs outside British territory. The object of that is very obvious. It was necessary and essential to the safety of the position of the Resident—essential, also, to the protection of the adjoining tribes. My Lords, that Article has been not only infringed, but distinctly violated. There has been a cession of territory from these Chiefs outside. They were remonstrated with, first, by Mr. Hudson, and then by my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), who was then Colonial Secretary. What was the answer of the Transvaal Government? It is so remarkable that I must trouble your Lordships with it. I find that I am compelled to read many extracts to your Lordships; but it is inevitably necessary to enable mo to discharge, even in a most imperfect way, the task which I have undertaken. I pray your Lordships to mark, not merely the substance, but the tone of that answer. My noble Friend had remonstrated against the violation of this Article. In reply to that remonstrance the Transvaal Government said, in effect, that what they had done was, at the worst, a breach of the form of the Convention rather than an actual contravention of its terms; what they had done was simply to send a messenger to the Native Tribes outside their boundaries. That was the very thing from which they are debarred by that Article of the Convention. Then they go on to say that they are perfectly convinced that the Queen's Government will be satisfied with the explanation which they had given. My Lords, I do not think so insolent an answer has ever been sent to this Government for generations and generations past. Now, what was the answer which my noble Friend made? Well, he observed with surprise and regret that his representations as to the infractions of the Convention had not

  665
  been answered in a more satisfactory manner. He further expressed a hope that, if the Transvaal Government desired to be relieved of its obligations, it would make proper representations on the subject to the Agents of the Crown. I think that is an indication which the Transvaal Government have not been slow to accept; for they have, ever since the date of that letter, shown themselves less and less disposed to fulfil the duties to which they wore solemnly pledged. Now I pass from that to almost the last point to which I need call attention—that is, the question of the boundaries in Article XIX. Now, if there was any one part of this Convention which possesses value it is the Article that regulates boundaries. Almost all our South African difficulties have arisen out of this question of boundaries. At the time of the Pretoria Convention, we made great sacrifices in order to satisfy the Boers. If there, then, is any value in this Convention, it is in the observance of those Articles which deal with boundaries. I will not go into the case; but there is one question which deserves the careful attention of the House. On the South-West Frontier of the Transvaal there is a new settlement which is said to have sprung up, composed, I believe, originally of some 300 or 400 families, of whom some 60 families are represented by English deserters, the scum of the earth. They have established a form of Government and Executive, appointed a President, and, I think, they have issued an official Gazette. They have imposed taxes, and have afforded every possible facility for the introduction of spirits into the district. They have plundered the Natives and seized their lands. We have, I believe, remonstrated; but the answer of the Transvaal Government is, that they have no power themselves to restrain these robbers. I will come to them presently. But I beg your Lordships to observe, in passing, that there are some ominous precedents of the establishment of these settlements in South Africa. The Transvaal itself is the aggregation of three separate Republics, which were subsequently amalgamated when they had settled their differences, and the seat of Government was removed. In the same way, this settlement may be embodied as an independent Republic for a time, and then be merged in the Transvaal. There are two points to
  666
  which I would call attention. As to the alleged inability of the Transvaal Government to control those men, I think two instances of what occurred quite recently will dispose of that argument. When Sir Bartle Frere was at Kimberley certain Boer freebooters made raids into Bechuana territory. Sir Bartle Frere sent about 150 policemen, and those ravages were immediately stopped. What Sir Bartle Frere did then the Cape Government did only a few months ago. Two or three hundred police put an end to the incursions of bodies of marauders, and quickly restored order. None are so blind as those who will not see, and none are so weak as those who will not use force. I must point out to the House the very serious relations which arise from the existence of this Republic, which is called Stellasland. It fills up the whole space intervening between the South-West corner of the Transvaal and the great Desert beyond, and commands the great line of road running North and South in Africa. Lines of roads are generally lines of watershed; and along those lines generally travel all the civilizing influences of missionaries and commercial enterprize. But immediately you have that Republic thrown across your road you lose control of it. You enable them to seal up the country, and to prevent the spread of all those social, political, and civilizing agencies which would otherwise be at work. Before I end, I wish to say one word more as to this recent Blue Book which has been laid. on the Table, and it is that I have never read a Blue Book which has given me so much pain and so much humiliation. From first to last there is not one redeeming feature in the despatches recorded therein. We call upon the Transvaal Government to keep their obligations. Their statement that they are unable to do is unworthy of credit. They communicated with the Chiefs outside the Transvaal territory behind our backs, and without our consent. They annexed territory. A deputation of Native Chiefs waits upon Sir Henry Bulwer to make complaints. They resent this, and they use language as arrogant and as insolent as any that I have ever read, and they call upon us to justify our proceedings; and they threaten to seize and imprison both the Whites and the Natives who formed the deputation. Mr. Hudson, Sir Henry Bulwer, and Sir Hercules

  667
  Robinson, all agree with one voice in viewing these transactions from a common point. There were several things provided for in the Convention—there was the payment of the Debt, there was the punishment of offences, there was the protection of the Natives, there was the observance of the boundaries, there was the control of foreign relations; but in every one of these matters—except, perhaps, in the last case—I will take upon myself to say there has been a most dismal failure to observe the terms of the Treaty on the part of the Transvaal Government. And now, in conclusion, I wish to ask what is the course which Her Majesty's Government really mean to adopt in this matter? I understand my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) has confirmed the statement of the Prime Minister that a Special Commissioner has been appointed to carry out the terms of the Treaty. I do not ask who that Special Commissioner is; but I must, however, express considerable sympathy with him, for I will venture to express my doubt as to the success that that Commissioner will meet with; because I am afraid that he will have a task before him that no human individual can accomplish, unless he is supported in a manner very different from that in which it has been the custom of Her Majesty's Government to treat its Representatives abroad, and especially those exercising its authority at the Cape. If the Commissioner is not to be backed up, I think that a very serious step is being taken in reopening the Convention, and thereby inviting the Transvaal Government yet more and more to break its terms. It seems to me that, as usual, there are three courses which may be followed by Her Majesty's Government. They may, in the first place, give up the Convention altogether, and swallow all the promises and threats in which they have indulged. They may, in the second place, find some terra firma on which to stand, which, for my part, I fail to find. They certainly look for the good-will and the co-operation of the Boer Government. In the third place, they may do that which no one who respects the honour and credit of the country would desire to see them do—namely, to permit the Treaty to rest in its present condition. The simple effect of that Treaty, up to the present, has been to delude the Natives to their
  668
  ruin, and to associate us with discreditable and disgraceful proceedings. The result of our past policy in South Africa has been to create a complete want of confidence on the part of the English population in the Home Government. They say, and feel, that what is done one day is undone the next; and unless confidence on their part is renewed by a steady policy I am afraid that a very great catastrophe will occur. I believe there is only one process that can be safely adopted by Her Majesty's Government by which this conflict can be averted, and that is to cease from this drifting and sliding policy, and to be firm both in speech and action; and I believe, also, that we must accept our position, and be prepared to discharge the duties of a great paramount Power in South Africa. I will move the Address of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies or extracts of any engagements subsisting between this country and any States or Native tribes in South Africa."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, there are very few of the statements in the interesting speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) from which I am prepared to differ. The noble Earl has evidently studied this subject with great care and diligence, and he has laid his view of it before your Lordships with no unnecessary expenditure of words, or of time. I agree in some of the general propositions which he has laid down. I agree with him as to the variety and complexity of the questions that have arisen in South Africa. I agree that the affairs of that country are in a critical condition; but, at the same time, I would observe that they have been in that condition not only ever since I have had the honour to be appointed to my present Office, but almost ever since I can remember. I agree, also, that the complications the noble Earl has referred to have been aggravated by a bitterness of feeling, erected by the difference of race between the English, Dutch, and Native inhabitants. I cannot follow my noble Friend from point to point through his speech; but, while agreeing with some, and dissenting from others of the general statements which he has made, I certainly cannot admit that the majority of the Articles of the Conven-

  669
  tion have been useless, or that the Convention, as a whole, has been a failure. In reference to the quotation which the noble Earl has made from a speech of the Prime Minister two years ago, I think that my right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in the language he then used. The noble Earl has found fault with the declaration which I made the other night in this House, to the effect that it was impossible to work an arrangement such as that made by the Convention, without the goodwill and the co-operation of all parties. I made that declaration deliberately, and I am not now inclined to retract or to modify one word of it. We need not go as far as South Africa to discover the extreme difficulty, even in a thoroughly civilized and organized country, of enforcing and maintaining a law which is contrary to the feelings of the population. If the object of the Convention is admitted to be the facilitation of order and good government, and of friendly relations between the Natives and the White population, that object cannot be accomplished over a country of immense extent, thinly populated and without a centralized Government, by any mere exercise of force. The only power we can employ to assist us is the cooperation of the people themselves. If this is to be treated, as my noble Friend seems inclined to treat it, not as an arrangement to which two parties are to be freely consenting, and in which both are to operate, but as an arrangement to be upheld by military force, it is not a Convention that is wanted; it is not a Resident; it is a military occupation, and the administration of the country by English officials. The noble Earl has complained that the Resident has not done enough under the Convention; but it was perfectly well understood that he was not appointed as an official charged with the duties that would belong to a Resident in an Indian State. He was not appointed to direct and practically control the administration of the country. His instructions were expressly laid down in the Convention; and, in my opinion, so far as I know, the present Resident has discharged his duties in a very satisfactory manner. Those duties are to advise and report; and it is not fair to blame him for not doing that which he has no power to do, or for not
  670
  exercising authority which is not entrusted to him. I do not agree with the noble Earl that the power of the Resident to report what is done amiss by the Transvaal Government is of no great value, because I believe that the fear of European public opinion which would thus be invoked is extremely powerful in a country like the Transvaal; and the knowledge that cases of cruel oppression of the Natives would be brought to the knowledge of the British Government through their Resident, and for that reason made public in Europe, would exercise a considerable deterring influence upon abuses. The noble Earl has referred to an alleged failure of justice in certain cases of murder, by which certain persons have managed to escape punishment. As this happened before I had any personal connection with the Office I now hold, I must confess I am not acquainted with the minute details; but, as far as I can learn, there were a few cases in which the evidence was really doubtful, and where, therefore, the acquittals were just. In nearly every case the offenders were, I believe, brought to justice before the regularly constituted Courts of Justice; but in some instances it is understood that the prisoners escaped the justice they deserved, in consequence of the sympathy of the witnesses, and possibly of the jury also. If that is so, it is, no doubt, a lamentable fact, and one to be much regretted; but it is a fact with which we are acquainted nearer home. We ourselves have not found that occasional sympathy at home of juries with prisoners so very easy to deal with that we should be justified in making it a subject of report or complaint to the Transvaal authorities. It may be very unfortunate that such a feeling should exist among the people of the Transvaal; but, under the circumstances, I do not see what the Transvaal Government could have done in the matter. My noble Friend then raised the question of the Debt that is owing to us from the Transvaal. I am not going into that question in detail, for I have not the figures before me; but I believe the general fact is that a certain amount of pecuniary liability has been discharged by the Transvaal Government, though the full amount promised has not been paid.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Has any part of the capital sum been paid? My contention and belief is that nothing whatever has been paid except the interest.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: They have paid the interest on the Debt. I am not sure if they have repaid any part of the capital. I quite agree with one remark made by the noble Earl. He spoke of the counter-claim which the Transvaal Government has set up against us as one that is unjustifiable, and altogether unreasonable. I am bound to say that I quite agree with him in that respect. It was a very foolish thing on their part to put forward a counter-claim of this kind; but I can hardly think that it was done seriously, or with any idea that it would be allowed. The position of the Transvaal Government, I believe, is one of utter impecuniosity; and, with respect to their Debt, they have a much better defence than they have chosen to put forward. You cannot enforce payment of a debt when the debtor has no means to pay it. The noble Earl then went on to quote the Article of the Convention, which provides that no person living in the Transvaal should be made to suffer in consequence of having sided with us in the war, or in any political quarrel; and he spoke of that Article as having been broken by the Boers in the case of English residents. I dare say it is true that certain English residents there, who disliked the change that had taken place, and who felt their position among the Dutch population to be unsatisfactory, and perhaps even unsafe, have consequently sold their estates and whatever they could not remove, and have left the country. That is very likely to have happened. It is impossible to protect men against the consequences of local unpopularity; but the authorities are not responsible for the state of local feeling; and, as far as my recollection goes, I am unable to call to mind a single case in which complaint has been lodged against the Government of the Transvaal by a British subject, on the ground that this Article has been violated. I do not actually pledge myself so far as to say that it has not happened in any case; but, if it has, I am certain that it has been in some isolated case only, and that there has been no habitual violation of that engagement. With regard to the Na-
  672
  tives, I was rather surprised to find by what a scanty supply of evidence my noble Friend justified his allegations and the strong language which he used. We do know of one case in which a Native Chief was treated, as I believe, with undue hardship; but there is no reason, as far as I am aware, to suppose that he was so dealt with because he had been friendly to England. It is easy for anyone who may be involved in a difficulty with the Transvaal Government to put forward that statement, and to say that he is ill-used because he is a Friend of the English; but, in the case referred to more especially by my noble Friend, the man was supposed to be contemplating insurrection. I do not know what evidence the Transvaal Government had to justify their action; there can be no doubt that they proceeded with undue severity; but there is no reason to suppose that their motive was that which has been imputed. I believe there is one other case of a similar character; but I would submit that, bearing in mind the vast number of Natives within the Transvaal, and the unsettled condition of the country, the fact that two men, who were supposed to be actively displaying disaffection to the existing Government, were punished more severely than they ought to have been, does not establish, even in general terms, a charge of oppression, and that still less does it establish a charge of the violation of this particular Article. With respect to the question of the Bechuana Frontier, that is a by no means pleasant subject, which has been fully discussed on a previous occasion, and I do not wish to repeat what I then said; but it practically comes to this—that I do not believe the Boer Government encouraged the marauders in that matter. Certainly, I do not contend that they did all that they ought to have done to prevent incursions into Bechuanaland. But it is only just to the Boer Government to say that, if they had had the best will in the world, it would have been utterly impossible, considering the condition and organization of the Transvaal State, for them to have opposed any effectual resistance to the system of filibustering with which they had to deal. They have no Regular Army, or organized Force of Police, but only Volunteers, who are called out for special service. They did, on one occasion, call

  673
  out a number of Volunteers to prevent the marauders from crossing the Frontier and I believe the result was that the Volunteers themselves, sympathizing with the marauders, joined the very parties whom they were sent to repress. It was no easy matter, therefore, for the Transvaal Government to enforce the law. My noble Friend next turned to the question of slavery. He said, what was perfectly true, that the Boers took a lower view of the position and claims of the Native races than is taken by the English Government, or by English settlers. I am not quite sure as to the English settlers; but, undoubtedly, the Dutch and the English views of their relations to the Native races are not altogether the same. I should be very sorry to hold the Transvaal Government in any manner responsible for all the acts which the Boers scattered over South Africa may commit; but the question is, whether the noble Earl has laid any ground for the charge which he brings against the Government and the people of the Transvaal—that they have, in an indirect and covert way, restored slavery? In my opinion, there is no evidence to support that charge. Neither Mr. Hudson nor Sir Hercules Robinson have been particularly reticent, or particularly disposed to speak with reserve, where the shortcomings of the Boers are concerned; but as far as I eau recollect, speaking from memory, there is not one word in the despatches of these gentlemen which goes to prove that there has been any attempt on the part of the Transvaal Government to restore slavery. The noble Earl has also stated that the reply given by the Transvaal Government, in answer to a communication from us, calling their attention to an alleged violation of the Article of the Convention relating to their intercourse with the Native races, was of a very uncourteous character. He spoke of it, in fact, as insulting; but that appears to me to be an unnecessarily serious way of looking at the matter. The answer was certainly not particularly courteous in style; but I put that down to ignorance more than intention, for we can scarcely expect any great degree of refinement in South Africa in this respect. The question as to the manner in which the Transvaal authorities are to hold communication with the Native Chiefs is, it seems to me, precisely one of those points that
  674
  may very properly be considered with a view to establish a mode of working that will be satisfactory to both parties. My noble Friend has alluded to, and laid some stress upon, the fact of the foundation of two so-called Republics by adventurers outside the Transvaal. I am not defending these adventurers, or justifying their action towards the Natives; but I do not think that the foundation of these small Republics is to be imputed to the Government of the Transvaal. They took no part in it; and, undoubtedly, they would very much have preferred, as they stated from the first, that they should be allowed to include these boundaries within their own Frontiers and to establish order there. As I said before, I am not here to fight the battle of the Boers, or to contend that their conduct has been what it ought to be in all respects. But I think my noble Friend has put a very black construction upon some matters which are not important, and which might bear a different interpretation. I have never contended, nor is it my business to contend, that the present state of things with respect to the Transvaal is satisfactory. If it were, we should, probably, not be debating the matter here, and there would be no question as to the Convention. But what I think my noble Friend really objects to is our desire, if possible, to act with the Transvaal Government instead of acting against them; and, if it be possible—and I believe it is—to settle the disputes that have arisen in a conciliatory manner. What is the other alternative? It is to to employ force. If you threaten the Boers with coercion, you must be prepared to act on your threats—to send up a force to Pretoria and re-occupy the Transvaal. There is not the slightest doubt that we can do that if we think fit. It would be an easy thing, no doubt, to find a cases belli in what has taken place as regards breaches of the Convention. Having declared war, there is no military resistance to be apprehended that need make us hesitate to take that course. But suppose we had done that, and suppose we had reconquered the country, and held it, what next? That is the real question. You are not dealing merely with the present; you will have to consider what you are to do in the future. When we discussed the question some months ago,

  675
  I ventured to say I could not conceive how anyone could desire to establish another Ireland in South Africa. But that is necessarily what would be the result. We could hold the country; but we should do so against the will of the inhabitants. We should hold it by a military force; and, apart from the question of expense, on which, I think, the British taxpayers would probably have something to say, it is a very serious consideration whether we should be justified in locking up in that distant and remote country what would be not a very inconsiderable portion of our numerically small Army. I cannot conceive a greater source of military weakness, for all other purposes, than to be obliged to maintain a strong military garrison in the interior of South Africa. Really, these are the only two alternatives—either to take the people and Government of the Transvaal as we find them, and establish a modus vivendi with them as we best can; or else to accept that alternative which my noble Friend may not be indisposed to accept, and to re-establish the state of things that existed after 1876. I do not think that in 1876 there was the smallest suspicion of what the real opinion of the Transvaal people was as regarded British connection. If that feeling had been known, I do not think anybody would have desired to take possession of that territory; and I cannot conceive anyone so foolish as to say that we ought to do it now, not because any advantage would be gained by it which could not have been gained then, but simply because it seemed to to us that we had been defeated, and it was necessary to show our power. I have a much higher belief in our power, and of the opinion entertained of us throughout the world, than to suppose that any measure of that kind is necessary either for our reputation or our influence. With regard to the Motion which my noble Friend has made, I do not think that the number of engagements and Treaties into which we have entered with South African States and Chiefs is considerable. I believe that all these engagements are already in print; but I agree with my noble Friend that it may be convenient that they should be put before the House and the public in a form in which they can be more easily referred to; and, therefore, I have no objection to their being laid on the Table according to the terms of the Motion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I did not intend to take any part in the debate; but, after the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Derby), I must make a few remarks, as I really think it calls for some comments. We have been told that we have a Suzerainty over the Transvaal, and that we have entered into a Convention. That being the case, I must ask, then, what does that Suzerainty mean, and whether we did not take upon ourselves any obligations with regard to the Convention? So far as the noble Earl is concerned, it makes very little difference. When the people and Government of the Transvaal say they will do nothing, Her Majesty's Government simply submits; and when they say they cannot pay anything, Her Majesty's Government submits to that also. What I want to call the attention of the House to is this—that, by the Convention of 1880, obligations were undertaken by this country, and an engagement was given by the Prime Minister, on the part of the Government, that care should be taken of the Natives both within the State and beyond the Borders—a duty which has been entirely neglected, and which is admitted to have been neglected. Take the despatches and Reports made by the Residents, I do not wish to refer to them further than to say that their duty has been discharged by those on the spot. But the way in which these authorities in the South African Colonies are treated is sufficient to make any man who is placed in the responsible position of a Governor in those Colonies feel that he is thrown over and neglected by those whom he represents. Look at the Blue Book which has been put into our hands, and you will see how Sir Henry Bulwer was treated with respect to Cetewayo, and how his advice was neglected. And so with regard to Sir Hercules Robinson and Mr. Hudson. Her Majesty's Government have done nothing to maintain the Convention to which they have put their signature. It is not a question of what is to be done in the future. If you are to allow the Transvaal to enter into a Convention upon the terms which the noble Earl has just now laid down—namely, that under no circumstances would you use force to maintain principles which it is essential to the honour and good faith of this coun-

  677
  try to maintain, then I say you had better let the Convention go altogether and say the Transvaal shall be an independent State, and wash your hands of all interference with its concerns; for you are undertaking now a responsibility which you will throw over when any difficulty occurs. As to Bechuanaland, it is not a question of terms; and when the noble Earl talks of diplomacy, I say it is not a question of diplomacy. Whatever Suzerainty may be, it is Sovereignty of some kind; and, therefore, to speak of diplomacy is wholly inconsistent with the facts of the case, and with the relations which exist at present between the Transvaal and this country. The people of the Transvaal were treating with the Suzerain; they were, in fact, subjects of this country. You have had the Convention discussed by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Carnarvon) Article by Article. I will not say that the Transvaal Government have violated every Article; but the noble Earl himself admits that they have violated several.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: No, no!
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The agreement to pay was part of the Convention, and they have not paid.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I said they could not pay.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: But, nevertheless, it is a breach of the agreement not to pay. If you sign a Treaty with a State which you know to be impecunious, and one of the terms of the Treaty is that it shall pay a certain sum which you know it can never pay, you are treating the country you represent with dishonour. When the Transvaal was annexed it had 12s. 6d. in its Treasury, and you knew it. If a few days had been allowed to elapse, the country would have fallen into your hands, because there was no money in the Treasury, and therefore no one was able to discharge the State obligations. The Transvaal cannot pay, and yet it insults you by sending in a bill, calling upon you to pay a sum of money you do not owe, and which they know you do not owe. Then, when they send to negotiate with the Chiefs over the Border, to whom you were bound by obligations irrespective of those which bound you to the Transvaal, the noble Earl says, in the tone of one who is employed as the Attorney for the Trans-
  678
  vaal—"It is true they have done something wrong, but it is not as bad as you say; it is only a breach of the Convention that they entered into these negotiations; but, poor fellows, even if they wished to keep the Frontier clear of these marauders, they could not do it." The fact is, you have made a Convention which is a shadow and a sham, though it was held up to this country as a kind of counter-balance to the dishonour which had been inflicted on your arms, and you do not dare to enforce a single one of its provisions. That is the position to which you have reduced the country. Having, first of all, submitted to a military success on the part of these people upon your own soil, within the limits of Natal, then, when the Government had to enforce the rights, duties, and responsibilities which this country had undertaken, and to show that the country was in earnest, not for the retention of the Transvaal only, but for your position as the paramount Power in South Africa, it was reduced to nothing, and you have now still further reduced the position of the country by what I cannot but call the ignoble speech to which we have just listened on the part of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, for my part, I can see nothing ignoble in the speech of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) as alleged by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook). It may be said, I think, that there is nothing more ignoble in the speech of my noble Friend than in that of the noble Viscount. I suppose the speech of the noble Viscount means that if the noble Viscount was responsible ho would take steps—and therefore he thinks the Government ought—immediately to despatch an Army to the Transvaal.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: If I was in Office.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It is all very easy to make a grand speech when men are not in position of responsibility; but I want to know what the noble Viscount would have done if he had been in power? I suppose he would have taken all the steps which he has pointed out. The noble Viscount's arguments simply come to this—that he would have done something else if something else had happened; but the question before us is the present state of

  679
  affairs in South Africa, and the failure and breach of the Convention. That is a fair enough subject to discuss, and it is important to find a remedy. But does the noble Viscount help us to find one? If he merely meant to sound the loud trumpet and the drum, he means nothing, and I have nothing to say; but if he meant anything, it was that we should proceed to force, and compel the Transvaal Goverment to observe the conditions of the Convention. My noble Friend behind me took the ignoble course of showing that that would have been an extremely foolish thing to have done. We embarked some years ago upon a very foolish course when we annexed originally the Transvaal; but for that we were indebted to noble Lords opposite.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You agreed to it yourself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I said was, that if the information before the Government proved that the Transvaal people were desirous of accepting our rule, then I thought the course defensible. But I had not the means of judging whether the people of the Transvaal would accept our rule. I thought that if there were evidence enough to satisfy my noble Friend opposite that the Transvaal people were willing that we should take over the country, the late Government were justified in the policy of annexation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) agreed to it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was anxious to give a reasonable support to the Department with which I had been connected; but I am not responsible for the error of judgment which was made by noble Lords opposite, who, upon the facts before them, annexed the Transvaal. However, we are now called upon to explain what course we mean to take with regard to the Convention, and my noble Friend has, I think, sufficiently answered the points to which our attention was directed. It has been said that the Convention was directly violated in more than one particular, and I admit, as my noble Friend admitted, that the non-payment of the promised money was a distinct violation of the engagements of the Transvaal Government; but the fact was they had no money. A great deal, however, that is wholly erro-
  680
  neous has been said as to the other Articles of the Convention. It is generally supposed, and many people believe it, that there has been a general violation of the Convention as regards the Natives in the Transvaal. Now, there is no proof of that. I entirely admit the importance of the case of the Natives outside the Frontier; but the main objects of the Convention were directed to the condition of the Native inhabitants of the Transvaal itself, and the most important question is, how the Transvaal Government behaved to them. There have been one or two cases mentioned as to Natives inside the Frontier, in which the punishment inflicted by the Transvaal Government on disobedient Chiefs may have been too severe. I must remark, however, that severe treatment of Natives is not a peculiarity of the Dutch, for there is the recent case of the treatment of Langalibalele by British Colonists; and it has not unfrequently happened that the apprehensions of White settlers of danger from Native Chiefs has led them to treat the Natives with what we consider undue severity. The contest of the Dutch with Mapoch has been mentioned, and, as regards him, he was an important Chief who distinctly refused submission to the Transvaal Government. What, then, could the Transvaal Government do? They must either acquiesce in the defiance of their authority by a Chief in their own territory, taking as an inevitable consequence the rebellion of other Native Chiefs, or they must take forcible measures to compel his submission. They did exactly what we ourselves did with Secocoeni. He was a Chief near Mapoch's country; he defied the Government, and was compelled by Lord Wolseley to submit; and I always understood that, if we had remained in the Transvaal, it was exceedingly probable that Mapoch, who never paid taxes to us, would have defied us also, and we should have had to attack him, and compelled him to submit himself to our authority. I do not go into the merits of the quarrel between Mapoch and the Transvaal Government; but I do say that, in compelling him to submit, the Transvaal Government have not violated the Convention. As regards the Natives outside the Frontier, we have heard over and over again the state of affairs in Bechuanaland, which I know is very deplorable. The

  681
  Frontier is a matter of dispute which has never been settled in my recollection, and I admit fully the failure of the Convention in doing what we had hoped it would do—namely, by defining a new boundary to establish a settled state of things. That, however, is a matter which my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) is now endeavouring to deal with. But, however much this may distress us, it is not reasonable to confuse the state of the Natives in Bechuanaland with that of the Natives in the Transvaal, and, because the spirit of the Convention has been violated in Bechuanaland, to assume that it has been broken everywhere. My noble Friend opposite has made a slight mistake in saying that the Convention was signed under protest because Sir Evelyn Wood had withdrawn his men beyond striking distance.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: That is not the meaning of what I said.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I accept my noble Friend's explanation; but I wish to say that, in point of fact, there was great hesitation in ratifying the Convention, and it was ratified because we gave the Transvaal Government to understand that we would not withdraw the troops. It was ratified, then, under pressure; and it is not an altogether unnatural consequence that, on a Convention so ratified, a disposition to rescind it should now be found to exist, or that there should be considerable difficulty experienced as to carrying out all its provisions. The Transvaal Volksraad, in fact, complained of certain provisions of the Convention, and asked me whether I would consent to a reconsideration of it? I answered, however, that one could not reconsider a Convention directly it was signed, and that it would be time enough to do so when we had had experience of the working of it. You are in this dilemma—either you must reconquer and occupy the country, knowing the deep-seated hostility of the inhabitants, and that the disaffection of our own Dutch population would be aroused, perhaps, to a dangerous extent —a course which seems to me absolutely impossible; or you must find out whether there is not some reasonable arrangement that can be made with the Transvaal Government by which some of the provisions of the Convention may
  682
  be carried into effect. That is a reasonable course. I do not think that because Her Majesty is called Suzerain, it is therefore necessary she should employ force. Is that the case with any Treaty or Convention? Is it always the case that the instant you have to complain that some provision is not carried out as you wish, you are to use an army to enforce it? Is the Porte carrying out its obligations with regard to Armenia, and are we absolutely compelled to send an army to compel the Sultan to fulfil his engagements? We do not take such a view of the matter; and it is the same with regard to this Convention. It deserves fair consideration with the Transvaal Government in the way indicated by the course my noble Friend intends to take. As to the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, unless he is prepared to recommend that this country should embark in a series of expensive and warlike operations in South Africa, his speech comes to nothing at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not understand that our discussion was to be limited to the question as to what we are to do now. I thought we were also to inquire as to the wisdom and justice of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. What Her Majesty's Government have done, as I understand it, is this. They had to retreat—at least, they thought that was the policy which they had to pursue—in the presence of a victorious foe. They might have done so frankly and simply, if that was the view which they took of their position, and the obligations imposed upon them by the honour of this country. But they did not do so simply. They did not face the unpopularity which would have resulted from a concession —from yielding in the face of rebellion, and giving way, after a defeat, upon their own territory. They would not abandon those Native races, for whom so many in this country feel so deeply, and whose cause is so especially dear to the classes and interests on which Her Majesty's Government themselves so greatly rely. Therefore, they interposed a screen—they adopted a Convention, which some of us told them at the time was mere waste paper, but which we then believed they fully intended to try to make an effective document. By the avowals made this evening, we are now, I am sorry to say, forced to the conclu-

  683
  sion that no such intention was entertained. At that time, Mr. Gladstone—some of his words have been quoted tonight—dwelt with the utmost emphasis on the protection this Convention, or Treaty, was to afford to the Natives beyond the Frontier—not the Natives inside the Transvaal. That was what Mr. Gladstone said in his speech of the 25th of July, 1881; so that it was not the protection of the Natives inside the Transvaal that he had in view, at least at that time, but the protection of those beyond the Frontier. That he considered to be one of the most important objects to which, in the judgment of the Government, the Convention was principally to apply. The same view was taken by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. Now we are told that the Treaty was accepted by the Boers under pressure. Well, that sounds to mo rather a strange admission, because we are told that pressure is the one thing that must not be applied now. We are asked to contemplate the most terrible prospect that can be held out to us—that of having another Ireland in the Transvaal. I think the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) is rather hard on our relations with Ireland. If we had there 500,000 people passionately fond of our rule, and 40,000 adverse to us, my impression is that our task would be easier than it is. If the fear of establishing another Ireland, with all the terrors which the noble Earl has conjured up, as the consequence of a military intervention, could not originally prevent the application by us of pressure, then, when the Government were ready to threaten to use the sword, in the shape of Sir Evelyn Wood's troops, in order that the Convention might be passed, and are not prepared to use the slightest military pressure for the purpose of insuring that the Convention shall be observed, it follows that Her Majesty's Government attached immense importance to the passing of that Convention, which was to have an immediate influence on the opinion of the people at home, but that they attach little, if any, importance whatever to the observance of the provisions of which they were then so earnest in procuring the adoption. I thought the noble Earl had somewhat forgotten the character of the duties which were imposed on the British Resident. He represented that the Resident had nothing to do but to
  684
  advise and report—that he was a sort of cross between a Missionary and a Special Correspondent. But nothing so absurd was put into the Convention at that time, or I think some of us would have noticed it. Other duties were imposed upon him, for, according to the 3rd sub-section of Article XVIII., the Resident was enjoined, in regard to Natives not residing in the Transvaal, to report to the High Commissioner and the Transvaal Government any encroachment reported to him as having been made by the Transvaal residents on the lands of such Natives, and in case of disagreement between the Resident and the Transvaal Government as to whether any encroachment had been made, the decision of the Suzerain was to be final. I want to know what was the intention with which those words were put in? Was it, as we are told, that we are to depend upon the goodwill and co-operation of the Transvaal Government as to whether the decision of the Suzerain should be accepted or not? What was the use, then, of setting up this arbitration? I wonder what, in the noble Earl's mind, are the prospects of the Commissioner he designs to send out to the Transvaal? He has announced, in the most distinct terms, that he has an insuperable objection to the use of military force; he has pointed out that it involves us in the most serious embarrassment, even one so great as the possession of another Ireland; and with that announcement, speedily telegraphed to South Africa, the noble Earl sends out a Special Commissioner to negotiate. What arguments is the Commissioner to use in negotiating; what motives can he appeal to? Is he going simply to preach, merely to enlarge on the ethical value of the Convention, to impress on the Government of the Transvaal, by means of lectures, the moral duties they have forgotten? The noble Earl represents that the Convention rests for its sanction, not upon the prospects of any enforcement by the British Government, but upon the sensitiveness of the inhabitants of the Transvaal in general, and of the filibusters on the Frontier in particular, to European public opinion. That is the one sanction he recognizes and is prepared to enforce. So this Commissioner is to go out to induce the Transvaal Government to revise its engagements inasense favourable to those poor Natives who have been so betrayed and mal-

  685
  treated, and the only argument which will be placed in his hands will be the assurance that the public opinion of Europe will condemn them if they do not accede to our wishes. I fear that the Special Commissioner, though he may enjoy a pleasant trip, will return empty-handed, unless he is to receive a hint from the Government that they would not be sorry to wash their hands entirely of the interests of all those Native races whom they have hitherto undertaken to protect. My Lords, I confess that I entirely agree with my noble Friend who spoke on this side (Viscount Cranbrook), that if there is to be nothing more definite or more determined in the interference of Her Majesty's Government, they had far better wash their hands of the whole territory altogether. This nerveless diplomacy, these feeble negotiations, this helpless policy—they confer no advantage upon anyone of the parties to whom they are applied. They leave the Natives, who may be still simple enough to trust in you, to expose themselves, without a chance of protection, to the deadly hostility of their hereditary foes; and they leave a slur upon the good name of England, both for valour and good faith, in the minds of all the inhabitants of South Africa, which may be dangerous to our power in many parts of the Empire, and more especially to our South African Colonies.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I can say, as the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) said, that I had not the slightest intention of taking part in this discussion; but, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), I should like to say one or two words. I quite agree that it is the duty of an Opposition to criticize—and a very useful duty it is—the acts of the Government. Most Oppositions carry that useful operation rather further than is sometimes necessary; and I am bound to say that no Opposition I ever remember deserves such credit as the noble Marquess and his Friends for finding fault with everything which Her Majesty's Government do, and for never allowing that, in any one particular point, Her Majesty's Government are in the slightest degree right. The noble Marquess has, to-day, stated, in the most definite manner, what is the intention of this discussion. In the long, elaborate speech of the
  686
  noble Earl the former Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) and the fiery speech of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) very severe critical observations have been made in addition to the nobly Marquess's own severe remarks. Ha entirely disdains giving the Government or the country the slightest assistance as to our future policy, and as to what we ought to do at this moment; but he expressly states that the object of all this discussion is merely to see whether any dirt has adhered to Her Majesty's present Government in struggling out of that slough of mire into which we were led by the noble Earl the former Secretary of State for the Colonies and his Colleagues by their act of annexation of the territory. We are told that it was done under mistaken information, and that they would not have gone so far if they bad had the slightest idea of the real facts of the case. But now, with all this disclaimer, the noble Marquess not only gives us no assistance in our policy, but attempts at once to damage, as much as he can, the measure we propose to take of sending out a Special Commissioner. "How can you expect any results," he asks, "if you announce beforehand that you are not going to war under any circumstances? "That is very much the position in which the noble Marquess himself was once placed, when he went to Constantinople, after the declaration of Lord Beaconsfield and others that we were on no account to go to war.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no!
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think the noble Marquess exaggerated what has been said by Her Majesty's Government. We have no intention of going to war; we see every possible reason against it. Therefore, we are against going to war; but we have never said that there are no conceivable circumstances in which force may not be resorted to. The noble Marquess said he would not give us advice; but he ended by giving us most distinct advice, for ho said—" If you will not exert your force in order to establish a right state of things in South Africa, I advise you to do nothing at all, but to wash your hands of the whole affair." I do not think that is good advice; and I hope Her Majesty's Government will not follow that advice,

  687
  But the whole inference from his own speech, and still more from the speech of the noble Viscount, is that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers, for the honour—I do not think anybody could say it would be for the interests—of the country that we should use forcible means. I remember a speech of the noble Marquess, at a public meeting a short time since, in which he said that when he heard of the bombardment of Alexandria it added six inches to his stature. But a scalded dog sometimes fears cold water; and I cannot help feeling, supposing we came to the same opinion as the noble Marquess and his Friends, that it is a judicious thing, either for our interest, or for anything else, to go to war with the Boers on this occasion. I venture to differ from that opinion. I am afraid that it is possible that, when the war was begun, if it was carried on favourably, we might expect, as in the case of the bombardment of Alexandria, that, for months after that, we should hear peace speeches from the Opposition, and the denunciation of the bloodthirstiness of her Majesty's Government in undertaking the war. I do not regret the present discussion. I think the speeches of both the noble Earls who have been closely connected with the Colonies will be useful in enlightening the public on the real merits of the question; but I hope the discussion will not induce the country to believe that we are not, on the one hand, going to war with the Boers at all, or that, in a state of hopelessness, we entirely wash our hands of the whole question.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.