Sitting of 18 March 1889

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (LORD ARTHUR HILL)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address, and for your assurance that you will take into your careful consideration the Measures which any be submitted to you.
You may rely on My cordial co-operation in your endeavours to promote the well-being of My People in all parts of My Dominions.

QUESTIONS.

  POSTAL FACILITIES IN INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire)asked the Postmaster General why the postal facilities demanded by the residents above Findhorn Bridge, in Inverness-shire, on the South Bank of the River Findhorn, have been refused; whether the residents on the North Bank of the River Findhorn have a regular post; whether complaints have reached the Department that the post office at Tomatin, situated under the same roof with a building holding a

  7
  licence for the sale of spirituous liquors, is by the South Bank residents held to be a snare and danger to the persons, generally young, who have to be sent to Tomatin to post and call for letters; and whether, by a small expenditure, the post runner who performs the circuit from Tomatin, by Freeburn and Corrybrough, could overtake a daily delivery in the South Bank district?
  SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigtonshire, a LORD OF THE TREASURY): The Postmaster General does not feel justified in sanctioning an extension of the post to the South Bank of the River Findhorn, because the letters are very few in number—about three a day only—and the expense necessary would be out of all proportion to the revenue. The residents on the North Bank of that river have a regular post. As regards the post office at Tomatin, no complaints such as those referred to by the hon. Member have reached the Department. The sub-postmistress resides with her brother, who holds a licence for the sale of liquors not to be drunk on the premises. I believe the inhabitants generally are very well satisfied with the management of the office. The last suggestion of the hon. Member is not practicable, on the score of expense.

  SALMON FISHING IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has observed that a notice has been issued by the Solicitor in Scotland to the Woods and Forests, warning the public that fishing for salmon without a Crown grant is illegal; what is the object of this notice at the present time; and whether it is the fact that rights of salmon fishing can be acquired otherwise than by grant referred to?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The notice in question was published because representation was made to the Commissioners of Woods that a paragraph in the Dundee Advertiser purporting to express the views of the Fishery Board on the subject would otherwise encourage fishermen in the belief that they were entitled to fish for salmon in the sea beyond one mile from the shore. A similar notice was published in 1886. It is not known that salmon fishings can be acquired otherwise than by grant from the Crown.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSONasked if there had not been a persistent and deliberate misrepresentation of the rights of the fishermen to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and whether the claim of the fishermen with respect to fishing for salmon was not a perfectly legal one?
  MR. JACKSON: Outside they have no rights.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: intimated that he would take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.

  THE SHERIFF OF NOTTINGHAM.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by Mrs. Grundy, landlady of the "Green Man Inn," and the remarks of Mr. Justice Stephen thereon (as reported in the Nottingham Daily Erpress of 6th March), at the Nottinghamshire Assizes, on the 5th March, in a case where James Low was indicted for killing Joseph T. Taylor at Nottingham on 21st February:—
  "The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence, said that if the jury believed that prisoner killed Taylor by throwing him down in the course of a struggle it was manslaughter. The witness, Mrs. Grundy, landlady of the 'Green Man Inn,' was recalled, and asked by his Lordship whether beer had been given to these people who were in the house on the night in question? Witness: Yes. His Lordship: How much? Witness: 36 gallons. His Lordship: Who gave it them? Witness: The landlord. His Lordship: Out of his own pocket, I suppose? Witness: Yes. His Lordship: Who is the landlord? Witness: Mr. Robinson. His Lordship: Who is Mr. Robinson? Witness: A brewer Do you (witness) mean to say that 36 gallons of beer were supplied without stint to all people?—Witness: Yes. His Lordship: I think it is a most improper thing. Have you a licence?—Witness: Yes. His Lordship: I think it is a matter which should be brought before the licensing justices. I think it is a very discreditable proceeding. I think a person In a superior position of life, who has the opportunity of distributing quantities of beer to a number of labouring men going into a public house of that kind, acts with great want of common sense and real good nature to the people whom he supplies in this way with liquor. This is the kind of way in which a thing of that kind is not unlikely to end,"
  Whether the Mr. Robinson referred to is at present Sheriff of the borough of Nottingham; and whether he proposes to make any investigation into or take any action in the matter?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONalso asked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to a trial for manslaughter before Sir FitzJames Stephens at Nottingham on March 5th, where, according to the accounts in the Nottingham papers, the Judge made severe comments on the conduct of Mr. Robinson, Sheriff of the county of the town of Nottingham; whether his Lordship described the conduct of the Sheriff in
  "Distributing quantities of beer to a number of labouring men going into a public house as a very discreditable proceeding,"
  and added that he considered the person who supplied the ale gratis to be greatly responsible for what occurred—namely, the manslaughter; whether, if this be the case, the right hon. gentleman intends taking any steps towards censuring or otherwise dealing with the Sheriff for what the Judge described as his very improper conduct; and whether it is the case that this Sheriff of the county of the town of Nottingham owns upwards of 100 public houses in the town of Nottingham?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The facts are correctly stated. The case occurred at a time when there were general festivities, incidental to Mr. Robinson's son coming of age, and the Sheriff, wishing not to exclude the poorer classes from a share in the rejoicings, distributed refreshments gratis at certain places. All the facts were not known to the learned Judge when he used the expressions quoted, and when the circumstances were made known to him he took occasion on a subsequent day, as no doubt both hon. Members are aware, to express publicly his sorrow at having spoken as he did, and thereby given pain to a gentleman whose real wish was to be kind and friendly to his neighbours, and especially his poorer neighbours. The learned Judge informs me that, had he known the facts, he would have considerably softened the severity of his remarks, and while he is of opinion that the distribution of beer was incautious, he cannot say on reflection that it was directly connected with the offence in question. After this expression of opinion by the Judge, I do
  10
  not intend to take any steps towards censuring or otherwise dealing with the Sheriff, whose only fault was a mistaken kindness, and who, I am sure, must regret the deplorable fatality which marred the general rejoicings. The Sheriff informs me that he owns 37, not 100, public-houses in the town of Nottingham.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Did not the learned Judge, in the explanation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, use these words—
  "I still think, and I cannot withdraw the words I used, that to take the course of distributing beer to a set of labouring men who entered a public 'house in the ordinary way was misdirected benevolence."
  MR. MATTHEWS: In the report I have of the Judge's expression those words occur. I may observe that the hon. Gentleman, when he put his question without noticing the expressions of the learned Judge, was aware of them.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Oh, I was quite aware of them.

  SIR W. MARRIOTT AND SIR EDGAR VINCENT.
  MR. JENNINGSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the correspondence which, according to reports in the Press, has passed between Sir William Marriott and Sir Edgar Vincent has been forwarded to the Foreign Office by Sir Evelyn Baring; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to its production?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The correspondence between Sir W. Marriott and Sir Edgar Vincent has only been forwarded privately and unofficially, and cannot be presented.

  THE IRISH PRISON BOARD.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I have a question on the Paper to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Is it a fact that the Prison Board in Ireland has refused to hold communication with prison chaplains in relation to prisoners except through the medium of the governors of the prisons; under what rule is this practice enforced; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the prison chap-

  11
  lains are virtually independent of the governors, he will direct the Prisons Board to entertain communications from the chaplains without this intervention of the governors? As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not present, I will defer the question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am prepared to answer it.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to defer it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! As the Solicitor General is prepared to answer it, I call upon the Solicitor General.
  *MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board informs me that the governor of a prison being responsible for its discipline, it is the practice to require all the officers of the prison, including the chaplain or chaplains, to forward communications on ordinary matters, or on matters for which the governor is responsible, through that officer, whose report on such matters is obviously necessary. At the same time, the Board always receives any confidential report or remarks of the chaplains regarding the welfare of prisoners of their own denomination whenever they see fit to make such communications. The Board adds that the chaplain is not virtually independent of the prison governor, either in Ireland or, so far as the Board is aware, in England.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the chaplain be required to report to the governor on a matter affecting the governor himself?
  *MR. MADDEN: That I imagine would be an exceptional case, but the right hon. Gentleman had better put a question on the paper.

  IRISH PRISON SURGEONS.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether his attention has been directed to an article in the Medical Press, reprinted in the Irish Times of the 7th March, complaining that Irish prison Burgeons are made the scapegoats for the acts of the Government whenever these acts may create uproar or involve adverse criticism; is it a fact that the Prisons Board requires a weekly return of extra diets and remissions of prison discipline ordered by the surgeons, with the reasons for which they are granted, to prisoners under the Criminal Law
  12
  and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and have prison surgeons been reprimanded by the Prisons Board for the granting of such indulgences and remissions to such prisoners?
  *MR. MADDEN: There is no truth in the statement that the Irish prison surgeons are made the scapegoats for the acts of the Government.

  IRELAND—POLICE PASSES.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether it is a fact that Sergeant Mahony, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, issues passports to the inhabitants of Gweedore, of one of which the following is a copy: "Pass—Signed, Owen Mahony, Sergeant, R.I.C.;" under what authority is Sergeant Mahony empowered either to give or to withhold permission to the inhabitants of Gweedore to go or come in pursuance of their lawful avocations; and is it a fact, as stated in the Derry Journal of March 4th, 1889, that
  "Sergeant Mahony, R.I.C., is arresting and discharging at will peasants in Gweedore, and that he and certain other members of the constabulary have fired on persons flying through bogs to escape being hurried off as handcuffed suspects to gaol, &c.?"
  *MR. MADDENexplained that Sergt. Mahony had given the documents in question to certain persons to save them from inconvenience. It is not true that Mahony was arresting and discharging at will peasants in Donegal.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Blackburn, at the present moment in charge of a detachment of the Irish Constabulary, recently presented a revolver at the head of a man?
  *MR. MADDEN: That question does not arise out of my answer.
  MR. SEXTON: Are the police entitled to limit the freedom of the Irish people by issuing passes? Where do they get their authority?
  *MR. MADDEN: I stated in my answer that no officer of the Irish Constabulary has power to limit the freedom of the people by issuing passes. In the case of two persons passes were given to show they were free from suspicion.
  MR. SEXTON: Does it not follow that other persons in the district were suspected?
  *MR. MADDEN: No, Sir.

  THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. WILLIAM CRAWFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is in keeping with the provisions of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," to compel workmen to descend and ascend the shaft of a coal mine with loaded tubs in the same cage, or the companion cage running in the same shaft, as it is now done at the Wearmouth Colliery, in the county of Durham?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is nothing in the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1887, to forbid the practice in question, which is regulated by special rules in the different collieries. In the Wear-mouth Colliery there is a special rule (established after discussions in which the men were represented) against Allowing men to descend or ascend with or against a loaded tub without permission; and I am informed that the permission given is in accordance with a practice which has prevailed there many years without accident.

  ZANZIBAR.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the trade of British Indian subjects in Zanzibar has been nearly ruined by the action of the Germans on the mainland, putting a stop alike to the coastwise and the interior trade; that the main result of the bombardment of coast ports by German war ships has been the destruction of the property of Indians; that in one case an Indian merchant and his wife were shot in their house by German sailors; and that within a space of two months upwards of 1,000 Indians left Zanzibar for India, the majority being utterly ruined; and, whether he will take any steps to ascertain the extent of the injury done, and to obtain compensation from the German Government for the losses sustained by British subjects?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is true that on that part of the coast which is the scene of disturbances British Indians have suffered great losses from the stoppage of trade and destruction of property, though a large number are still residing and carrying on business within the sphere of German influence. I cannot say that the destruction of the
  14
  property of the Indians has been the main result of the action of German ships, although incidentally they have suffered by the state of war. In September an Indian and his wife were unfortunately killed in the firing which followed on an attack upon the German Company's people by some natives from the interior. Indians have returned home in a destitute condition, but we have no actual account of their numbers. Deeply as the losses of these British subjects is to be regretted, there is no principle of international law on which compensation can be demanded from the German Government.
  MR. BRADLAUGHgave notice that, in consequence of the exceeding gravity of the facts and the answer which had just been given, he would at the earliest opportunity raise the question before the House.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked whether it was true, as stated in the Times of to-day, that Colonel Euan Smith had publicly warned all British subjects to withdraw from Saadani, in consequence of an official announcement by the German Admiral of his intention to punish that place?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is true that the British subjects have been warned to withdraw from Saadani in consequence of the official announcement of the German Admiral of his intention to punish that place. The Admiral, in the notice he has given, has observed the forms of war, and Her Majesty's Government would not be entitled to object to his proceedings.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Have memorials been received at the Foreign Office claiming compensation?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member had better give notice of that Question.

H.M.S. SULTAN:
SIR EDWARD REEDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any truth in the report that the grounding of the Sultan was due to a defective chart of the Maltese Islands; and, in view of the crucial test to which surveys are subject in these days of deep draught, high speed, and torpedo operations, whether he will consider the advisability of encouraging naval officers possessed of the necessary aptitude to join the surveying branch of the profession,

15
by permitting promotion to operate as freely in that as in other branches, such as that of gunnery and torpedo work?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Commander-in-Chief reports that the Sultan grounded on a patch of rocks unmarked on the chart and where deep water is shown. Whether this is due to defective survey or recent volcanic action cannot at present be stated. The Commander-in-Chief has been instructed to cause every inquiry to be made locally, from fishermen and others, as to any previous knowledge of the existence of these rocks. The channel where the accident occurred was surveyed in 1857 and 1860. The circumstances attending the stranding of the Sultan will be fully investigated by a Court Martial that will be held at Portsmouth under the presidency of the Commander-in-Chief at that port. The Admiralty fully recognize the valuable work done by the surveying officers, and it is their wish to encourage officers with an aptitude for this class of work to join that branch of the Service. The pay they get while surveying is considerably higher than that of other officers of their rank, and their claims for promotion are considered equally with those of their brother officers.

H.M.S. SULTAN:

  THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Empire of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy hold themselves to be bound by the Declaration of Paris, April 16th, 1856, respecting neutral maritime rights in time of war, to which the Kingdoms of Prussia and Sardinia respectively agreed?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Both Germany and Italy in recent Treaties with foreign Powers have declared that, with regard to those Powers, they accepted the principles of the Declaration of Paris.

  RICHMOND PARK.
  SIR JOHN ELLIS: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any large number of oak trees have been felled in Richmond Park; whether a formal avenue of trees
  16
  has been planted; and, whether representations have reached him that a single avenue of trees is out of keeping and will seriously interfere with the picturesque character of the park?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I think I can best answer the question of my hon. Friend by quoting a few lines from a Report which has been made to me on the subject of the new avenue of horse-chestnuts in Richmond Park by Mr. John Clutton, whose name is well known as that of one of the best authorities on the subject of park plantations of the present day, and who has been our adviser on the management of the timber of Richmond Park for the last twenty five years, with, I think, very satisfactory results. Mr. Clutton writes as follows:—
  "I advised in 1885 that the avenue of chestnuts referred to should be planted, and so far as I could ascertain it was thought at the time that such an avenue would be an improvement to the park. The chestnut trees, having been most carefully planted and cared for by the woodman in the park, have made good progress. In carrying this avenue in a direct line from the Ladder Stile to Ham Cross (where four roads meet), two oak trees and 16 old oak pollards stood between the two lines of young trees, and thus destroyed the effect intended to be produced. The old pollards were, for the most part, mere shells, fast passing into decay, and near them are many others in a similar condition. My reasons for recommending an avenue were, first, that it would form a shady walk of about half a mile in the line of a much-frequented footpath leading from Richmond to Coombe and New Malden by the Ladder Stile Gate; secondly, that there are many of the finest avenues (fast falling to decay) in several of the Royal parks, such as Bushey Park (horse-chestnuts), and Windsor Park (elms and other trees). The avenues and rides in Windsor Park are numerous and extensive. In Richmond Park also there is the Queen's Ride, on either side of which the trees are old and becoming decayed."
  I may add that the two oak trees and the 16 old oak pollards which have thus been removed, formed a corner of a wood in which there still remain several hundreds of similar trees.

  IRELAND—MR. CREAGH, J.P.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Creagh, J.P., of Quin, county Clare, who was wounded on Sunday, the 10th instant, has been three times fired at since 1872; whether

  17
  his attention has been called to the fact that on one of these occasions the man who fired at him blew off his own finger owing to the bursting of his gun, and was arrested, but acquitted by a Clare jury, although the finger which had been picked up on the spot was produced in Court, and found to be the finger of the prisoner; and if Mr. Creagh and his sister are under police protection?
  MR. COXasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention had been directed to a statement made at the local branch of the National League to the effect that Mr. Creagh was a kindly, good-natured gentleman, with all the qualities necessary to entitle him to the popularity he enjoyed, and that he was known to have supported many poor people out of his own pocket in times of distress?
  *MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member must give notice of that question. It is the case that Mr. Creagh, J.P., has been fired at on three occasions since 1872. When fired at in 1872, he was about to evict the father of the man who was subsequently charged with the offence. The man was arrested as he was about to get his hand, which was in a shattered condition, amputated. It is the fact that medical evidence was given at the trial to the effect that a finger found at the scene of the outrage, where the blunderbuss used had exploded, belonged to the amputated hand, and that, notwithstanding this evidence, the jury acquitted the accused. Since the recent firing at Mr. Creagh and his sister, they are receiving police protection, and a police hut is about to be erected near Mr. Creagh's house.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a public meeting has been held in the locality to protest, in the strongest manner, against the outrage in question?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am not aware of it.

  WESTMEATH EXTRA POLICE.
  In answer to Mr. DONAL SULLIVAN,
  *MR. MADDENsaid the Constabulary authorities report that, with the exception of one murder of an agrarian character, the county of Westmeath is fairly quiet, though, unfortunately, it is still necessary to afford police protection to a large number of persons, in connection
  18
  with which 15 policemen are constantly employed. The question of the extra police force in the county has been recently inquired into, with a result that a reduction of five in the number was effected from February 1 last. No further reduction is at present possible.

  DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. LANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland under what circumstances the position of divisional magistrate was abolished and that of divisional commissioner instituted; and whether the salaries and duties of the present divisional commissioners are the same as when these gentlemen were called divisional magistrates?
  *MR. MADDEN: said that it had been long felt that the title of Divisional Magistrate was misleading, and the title of Divisional Commissioner had been adopted as more appropriate, inasmuch as the duties of the officers in question were purely executive.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did they retain and exercise the functions of magistrates?
  *MR. MADDEN: They did not exercise any judicial functions; their functions were neither more nor less after the change of name.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the attention of the Lord Lieutenant be called to the fact that, being no longer magistrates in name, they should not be allowed to be so in fact?
  MR. LANE: May I ask whether, since the change in name, the Lord Lieutenant has not conferred upon these gentlemen Commissions of the Peace for the same districts over which they acted as divisional magistrates?
  *MR. MADDEN: I must ask for notice of that question.

  THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AT MERTHYR.
  MR. DAVID THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and in the Police Force of which county adjacent to Glamorganshire, Captain Lindsay had been employed; if he would state on what previous occasions the office of Superintendent of Police for Merthyr has been filled by appointment from

  19
  outside the ranks of the police force of the county; whether Captain Lindsay had any knowledge of Welsh, a language which is very extensively spoken in the district; what is the salary attaching to the office of Superintendent at Merthyr, and what are the salaries of the superintendents of other districts in Glamorganshire; whether he had reason to believe that the Chief Constable was unable to discover among the police of the county a man qualified to discharge the duties of Superintendent of Merthyr efficiently; if he could state what qualifications Captain Lionel Lindsay, the son of the Chief Constable, possessed for the office; whether the satisfaction evinced by the police force of the county in general at Captain Lindsay 's appointment was shared by those who in the ordinary course might have expected promotion upon the retirement of Superintendent Thomas; whether the joint committee of magistrates and county councillors will have any power to revise this appointment; and whether he would exert his influence with Colonel Lindsay with a view to making the latter see the propriety of cancelling the appointment of his son to the remunerative public office in question?
  COLONEL HILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask him in relation to the same subject whether, the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire has for 22 years continued to discharge the difficult duties of his office with singular ability; whether it is the fact that such appointments have never been questioned, though the officers did not always possess a knowledge of the Welsh language; whether with respect to the force under his command the appointment of officers does not rest absolutely with the Chief Constable; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the gentleman who is the subject of the question has so rapidly made himself acquainted with German, French, Italian, and Arabic, as to warrant the belief that he will soon acquire a competent knowledge of the Welsh language?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Captain Lindsay's previous police service has been in Egypt, not in this country. The office in question has hitherto been filled by promotion from the force. Neither Captain Lindsay nor his predecessors in
  20
  the office had knowledge of the Welsh language. I am not acquainted with Captain Lindsay's linguistic accomplishments, mentioned by my hon. Friend, but no doubt what he says is accurate. The salaries of superintendents in this force are £160, rising to £200 after five years. The Chief Constable considered that Captain Lindsay was better qualified than anyone else. The selection was approved by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions and the Justices of the Petty Sessional division. Captain Lindsay has a good record of police service in Egypt, and has received excellent testimonials from the chief officers of police in that country. I have no reason to doubt that the appointment is popular in the force. I am not aware of any provision in the Statute for the revision of an appointment such as this, which has been properly made in accordance with the law. It is not my intention to make any representation to the Chief Constable on the subject.

  THE CORK SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. LANE (on behalf of Mr. MAURICE HEALY,)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many unions are at present included within the circuit of the County Cork Sub-Commission, including the Waterford unions recently added to it; what is the average number of Poor Law unions at present included in the circuit of a Sub-Commission; how many fair rent applications from the county Cork were unheard up to the end of February 1889; how many of the county Waterford unions are included in the circuit of the Cork Sub-Commission, and how many unions lie partly in the County Waterford and partly in the county Cork; whether the Chairman of the Sub Commission and the Registrar have, under the present arrangement, to act with the Waterford Lay Commissioners as well as with the Cork Lay Commissioners, and sit alternately in the county Waterford and in remote parts of the county Cork; whether, within the past month, in consequence of this state of things, the Chairman and Registrar had to go from a sitting in Bantry, county Cork, to one in Lismore, county Waterford, then to one in Skibbereen, county Cork, then to one in Dungarvau, county Waterford, and next to one in Mallow, county Cork; and,

  21
  whether he was aware that the effect of these inconvenient arrangements had been to greatly hamper the Sub-Commission and to lessen its capacity for the disposal of business?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners inform me that there are 15 unions wholly within the county of Cork, three unions partly in that county and partly in other counties, and three unions wholly within the county of Waterford, and four partly in Waterford, and partly in other counties. There is, therefore, a total of 18 unions and parts of seven unions in the circuit of the Cork Sub-Commission. The average number of unions included in the circuit of a Sub-Commission is 16. There are about 5,041 fair-rent applications from the County Cork which were undisposed of by the Land Commission at the end of February, 1889. The necessity which exists for the Chairman and Registrar of the Sub-Commission to travel backwards and forwards to each of the pair of lay Assistant Commissioners is one which must exist where there are three pair of lay Assistant Commissioners presided over by them, unless the three pair were to work in adjoining unions, which would cause parties in distant unions to be dissatisfied. The necessity which exists does not hamper the Sub Commission or lessen its capacity for work, although it does throw additional labour on the Chairman and Registrar.

  MRS. HINDS' TENANTS.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that Mr. Henry A. Robinson, J.P., of Roundstone, county Galway, who is agent for Mrs. Hinds, is in the habit of serving on the tenants, year after year, ejectment notices for practically one half year's rent, the other half year being the running gale, which are habitually withdrawn on payment of 10s., solicitor's costs; can he state who Mr. Robinson's solicitor is; whether he is aware that, within the past few days, Mr. Robinson has had a number of tenants served with such notices; and whether there is any way for protecting these tenants from such treatment?
  *MR. MADDEN: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member any information in regard to the matters of
  22
  fact referred to in the question, the matter being one of which the Government have no cognizance.

  PROCESS SERVING IN KILCAR.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was a fact that for some days past a process-server, on behalf of Mr. Musgrave, had been going through the parish of Kilrea, in the county of Donegal, serving ejectment processes on the tenants of Mr. Musgrave's estate in the said parish; whether the process-server was accompanied in his work by two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, under whose directions were the services of the said constables so employed?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph, with the exception of the name of the parish, which should be Kilcar. Also that it is the case that the man was followed by two constables. These constables were sent as an ordinary precaution by the police officer in charge of the station.

  THE POTATO CROP IN DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention had been directed to the fact that in the parishes of Gweedore, Cloughaneely, the two Rosses parishes, the parish of Kilcar, and several other districts in the County of Donegal, the failure of the potato crop last autumn was as complete as in the autumn of 1879; whether some of the inhabitants of these parishes had been compelled since last Christmas to live on Indian meal in order to preserve the potato seed, while others had no money to buy Indian meal, and had been compelled to live on the potato seed; whether he will make inquiries whether the inhabitants of the districts in question were in many instances without potato seed for the coming spring, and without the prospect of food; and what steps the Government were taking, or proposed to take, to avert from these districts the approach of actual famine; also, whether the parish priest of Gweedore was Father M'Fadden, so well known?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that, in the parishes of Cloughaneely and the

  23
  Rosses' potatoes are not as bad as in the year 1879, while in the parishes of Gweedore and Kilcar the crop is as bad as in that year. However, generally throughout the county the potato crop, though not up to the average, has been by no means a failure. It is the fact that some of the inhabitants of those parishes have been living on Indian meal since Christmas. I am imformed that there is no appearance of famine in any part of the county this year, and that very few (if any) of the people are without potato seed for the forthcoming spring. I do not see that the Government can, under the circumstances, take any steps in the matter.
  MR. MAC NEILL: If the facts I put forward are vouched for by the Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Catholic Bishop of the diocese, will the Government take steps to avert the threatened calamity?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Government will welcome any information and suggestions. Further than that I cannot go.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the potato crop as bad in Gweedore as in 1879?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes; that is one of the places where the crop is as bad as in that year.

  TRALEE ASSIZE COURT.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it had been brought under his notice that, at the Tralee Courthouse on Tuesday, a local Roman Catholic clergyman sought admission into the Assize Court, which was not more than half filled at the time, whereupon a young policeman roughly seized the reverend gentleman by the coat and forced him into the outside corridor; and whether he would inquire into the truth of the complaint; and, if it was well founded, prevent the recurrence of such behaviour?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the constable endeavoured to keep the reverend gentleman out of the Court. A disturbance had occurred at the door immediately before, and the constable, who had recently joined the force, acted through inexperience. The constable is now aware of his duty in such cases.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say if a general instruction will be given to the Constabulary
  24
  to prevent the recurrence of such an incident?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have told the hon. Member that in this case the constable has been informed of his duty. The incident is not one which is likely to occur sufficiently often to necessitate the issue of a new general instruction.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say if the constable was reprimanded?
  *MR. MADDEN: My information is that he was informed of his duty, and I take that to be an euphemism for being reprimanded.

  THE POLICE AT FERMOY.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention had been called to the reports of the Cork papers of the 6th just., to the effect that a meeting of the Young Ireland Society, of Fermoy, being held in their own rooms, to congratulate Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., a member of the Society, on his release from Cork Prison, where he had been imprisoned under the Crimes Act, two sergeants of Constabulary, named Kelly and Black, and two constables (one of whom refused to give his name) entered the room, and, though called upon by the officers of the Society to leave, refused to do so; that Sergeant Black gave as an excuse, that he believed it was intended to hold a meeting of the "suppressed" branch of the National League, but, though informed such was not the case, the police persisted in remaining on private premises despite the protest of the members, and the Society thereon resented this intrusion by passing a condemnatory resolution in the presence of the constables; if he could state under what statute or authority the police committed what appeared to have been a trespass upon private premises; and if he would call for an explanation of their conduct upon this occasion?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the police entered the room in which the meeting was about to be held under the belief that the meeting was to be one of the Land League. Inasmuch as the League had been proclaimed in that district, a meeting of that body would have been an unlawful assembly. The sergeant reports it as his belief that a meeting of the League would have been

  25
  held on that occasion had it not been for the presence of the police.
  MR. FLYNN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that the belief of the sergeant was a justification, that it entitled him to trespass upon private property?
  *MR. MADDEN: I do not understand from the information before me that any trespass was committed, but if there was a trespass committed, of course, there is a remedy at law.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make further inquiry whether the police acted upon belief only?
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that this very sergeant, only last year, was fined by the Fermoy Bench of Magistrates for deliberately and wantonly breaking an unfortunate man's head?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have no information.
  DR. TANNER: That was the case.

  BOOING MR. BALFOUR.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention had been called to the statement of his secretary, that "no person had ever been prosecuted either for cheering a popular patriot, or booing Mr. Balfour"; that at the last Petty Sessions in Newmarket, County Cork, a number of young men were summoned for being "guilty of conduct directly tending to scandalize the authorities, and to create contempt and disrespect for the law, and provoke a breach of the peace"; that the sole evidence given of a criminatory character was that two or more policemen swore that the defendants "cheered for Mr. O'Brien," and "booed for Mr. Balfour"; and if he would inform the House fully of what occurred at the Newmarket Petty Sessions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My attention was called to this statement by the hon. and learned Member for Longford. It is, I believe, accurate. While the police were conveying a drunken man to barracks, a mob collected and began to hiss and boo the police and call them names. They made use, among other expressions, of those mentioned in the Question. The sentiments uttered were innocent, and possibly even laudable;
  26
  but this does not of itself render legal an attempt to bring the law into contempt, or provoke a breach of the peace under the circumstances which I have described.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it was the case that a number of young men were returning from a football match, and on entering the village, accompanied by a band, one of them in a moment of hilarity called out "Cheers for O'Brien" and was promptly arrested by two policemen; that he walked quietly to gaol and was kept in custody until the day of the prosecution; that the District Inspector proceeded to state the case; but the Resident Magistrate who was present or—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a counter statement: if he wishes to elicit further information he should give notice of a question in the usual way.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if there was a crowd, why were only two proceeded against? Were the booing and cheering the gravamen of the offence?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No; certainly not the gravamen of the offence. I answered the particular question on the Paper.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular case the prosecution was withdrawn?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member calls it a prosecution. I believe it was simply binding over to good behaviour.

  AUSTRALIAN POST CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether he was aware that since the 1st of January last, the Australian Governments had issued 2d. post-cards for England; why 2d. post-cards for Australia were not yet on sale at the post-offices in this country; and, pending the issue of special post-cards for Australia, what arrangement had been made to enable the public to take advantage of that facility for cheap correspondence?
  *SIR H. MAXWELL: I have seen specimens of the Australian post-cards. Twopenny post-cards are already on sale at all post-offices in the United Kingdom, and are available for Australia by the long sea route. The design of a 3d.

  27
  post-card has just been approved, and orders have been given for its manufacture. Pending the issue of these new cards, the present cards used for inland and foreign transmission are being used, the postage being made up by attaching additional stamps. A post office notice on this subject was issued in December last, and the public avail themselves freely of the arrangement.

  LOANS UNDER THE CROFTERS' ACT.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether the conditions on which loans were made to fishermen under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act had recently been changed, so that instead of nine-tenths of the price of fishing boats being advanced as formerly seven-tenths only are now advanced; and, if so, whether it was intended to revert to the former condition of nine-tenths; and, whether applications for loans made as long ago as October of last year are still not disposed of, thus causing much inconvenience to applicants?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): Some delay has taken place in dealing with these applications. The Fishery Board suggested there should be a modification of the existing rule as to the proportion of amount advanced. The proposal was that seven-tenths instead of nine-tenths should be the maximum. But the Secretary for Scotland has now decided that no such alteration shall be made, and the Board will now proceed to dispose of the applications, exercising their discretion under the existing rule. It is hoped that no further delay will occur.

  IRELAND—THE FALCARRAGH PRISONERS.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was proved, at the recent trial of the Falcarragh prisoners before Judge John son, that a scandalous riot took place at the evictions in the presence of military and police, lasting over an hour, in which the emergency men, led by the agent of Mr. Olphert, kept up a fusilade of stones at the defenders of the houses whenever any of them appeared near a window opening; if it was also proved that the
  28
  emergency men on the same occasion took possession of the mail car, turning off the passengers, and throwing the parcel post baskets on the road; whether these evictions were carried out by irresponsible bailiffs, without the intervention of the sheriffs; and, were these evictions carried out with the sanction of the Government; and, if not, would he withhold the forces of the Crown in all such cases, unless the decrees for possession were entrusted to the sheriffs?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it was proved at the recent trial of the Falcarragh prisoners at the Assizes that a riot and unlawful assembly took place on the part of a body of men who had assembled in a house in which a decree for possession was about to be carried out; that they stoned and otherwise assaulted the bailiffs and Seriously wounded a police sergeant with a pitchfork. It was also proved that some of the special bailiff's assistants threw stones at the barricaded windows to keep back the men inside from stoning one of their comrades who was endeavouring to effect an entrance. The agent, I understand, took no part in the stone-throwing. It also appears that it was not true that the emergency men took possession of the mail car, or interfered with it in any way. The evictions appear to have been carried out by a special bailiff and his assistants under decree issued by the magistrates. The landlord, under the Land Law Act of 1887, is entitled to have the warrant addressed to the Sheriff of the Court, or to a special bailiff, at his option.

  FOYNES PIER.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Foynes Pier having silted up, is unapproachable by vessels except at high water; whether the Railway Company and the Steamship Company between them provided a barge connected with the pier by a landing stage which enabled passengers and goods to embarked and disembarked at all states of the tide; whether the barge and landing stage have recently been removed by the peremptory order of the Board of Works; whether he is aware that a large traffic is carried every summer by railway to Foynes, and thence per steamer to the Lower Shannon ports, which will be put a stop to

  29
  by the absence of the appliances which have been removed; and, will those appliances be restored, or will the Board of Works add to the pier a suitable jetty carried into deep water?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the pier is unapproachable except at high water. The landing stage and barge were placed at the end of the pier by the Railway and Steamship Companies entirely for their own passenger and goods service and was removed by the Board of Works solely because these Companies declined to enter into a reasonable agreement to protect the Board's rights and those of the public. If they execute such an agreement for the coming season the barge and stage can be replaced by them, and the considerable traffic by which these Companies benefit will be fully accommodated. There are no harbour funds available for placing a jetty at the and of the pier for the benefit of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company.
  MR. MURPHY: May I ask whether the arrangement, said to be a reasonable one, and which the Railway Company refused to enter into, had relation to a portion of the property—the large net—which did not belong to the Company, and over which they had no control. Was that a reasonable arrangement?
  *MR. JACKSON: I cannot answer that question without further inquiry, but I am informed that the Company removed the pier and barge of their own motion on a previous occasion, and it was only when they sought permission to put them back that the Board of Works called attention to the matter. I believe it is a matter that might easily be settled by arrangement.

  THE SHERIFF DEPUTE OF CAITHNESS.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate whether it was the case that Mr. Thorns, Sheriff Depute of Caithness, while sitting on the Bench at Wick and dealing with a case, Weir against Weir, which had been appealed to him from the Sheriff Substitute, abstracted 18 pages or thereby of the written evidence taken before the Sheriff Substitute in the case; whether Mr. Thorns cast said pages aside and destroyed them, stitching up the remaining evidence; if so, was Mr. Thorns entitled to act in such a way; and, if he was not so entitled to act,
  30
  what steps did the Lord Advocate intend taking in the circumstances.
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the Sheriff that the statements in the question are not correct. The Sheriff Depute considered that a certain part of the evidence was so irrelevant to the action, that it ought not to form part of the proceedings, and as this evidence was comprised in one sheet of four pages, an amendment was effected by the excision of the sheet. It is within the competence of the Sheriff to remove from the record palpably irrelevant matter, and this is generally done by deletion; but I do not consider that the method adopted in this case was illegal.
  MR CALDWELL: I suppose it is not denied that these pages were destroyed. May I ask, is it competent for a sheriff or a judge to take out and destroy part of the proceedings in a case so that it cannot be used in a Court of Appeal?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am informed that the sheriff did not destroy the portion taken out. As I have said, the ordinary, method of effecting a formal removal is by deletion, and I think that is preferable.
  MR. CALDWELLagain asked if the portion abstracted would be available?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not quite know what is meant. Does the hon. Member wish to know if the paper is in existence? I am informed that it is missing, but that the sheriff did not destroy it.
  DR. CAMERON: If there should be an appeal to a Court of Session, what is to be done in such a case?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That is one of the inconveniences from which I consider it is preferable to delete.

  TROOPS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for War, what were the numbers of Her Majesty's troops in Ireland on the 1st of March 1887, 1888, and 1889?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. STANHOPE,): In March, 1887, there were 25,933 men of Her Majesty's troops stationed in Ireland of all ranks; in March, 1888, there were

  31
  27,546; and in the present month, 27,010. The variation in numbers has resulted only from the greater or less degree in which recruiting has replaced the drafts for foreign service.

  POLICE PASSES IN GWEEDORE.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in addition to the "passes" issued by Sergeant Mahony, R.I.C., in the district of Gweedore, others have been issued by Head Constable C. M. M'Carthy; and, by whose authority this head constable is acting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed by the Constabulary Authorities that Head Constable M'Carthy did issue some passes to persons proceeding from an island where there was reason to believe persons implicated in the murder of Inspector Martin were concealed. The constable acted upon his own authority.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: If I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I do, that I hold in my hand a number of such passes, granted on several days in Donegal, will he make further inquiry and stop these proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that nobody denies that such passes were issued, and I do not know that the hon. Member advances the matter by showing the actual pieces of paper. I will make any further inquiry desired.
  MR. SEXTON: What has become of the right of freedom of movement in this part of the kingdom for Her Majesty's lieges who have not received these passes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman can adduce instances of people who have been stopped in any lawful movement, he will have some ground for asking the question, but as far as I know, no such case can be adduced.

  LIABILITY FOR POOR'S RATE.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board in Ireland has a discretionary power to amend the existing regulation, that when premises were occupied on the day when the Poor's Rate was struck, the owner of such premises, or any subsequent occupier, became responsible for a full year's rate, though
  32
  the said premises might have been vacant for nearly the whole of the period for which such rate was charged; and whether, if the law as it now stands establishes this liability of vacant premises, he would undertake to introduce a measure which would conform the incidence of liability to that which regulates the payment of Income Tax and municipal rates, which are only collectable for such periods as the owners or occupiers have enjoyed a beneficial interest in the premises liable to the payment of such rates and taxes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board has not any discretionary power as to the rating liability of vacant premises. The rating and the liability to pay the rate are regulated by statute, under which (unless where the lessor is rated) the actual occupier at the time of the rate is liable, and on his default the person subsequently in occupation, who, however, if the payment is made by him after two months from the making of the rate, may deduct the entire amount from the rent payable to his landlord. I do not know that it is desirable to introduce legislation such as is suggested.

  SHERIFF CLERK DEPUTES AND PROCURATORS FISCAL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate the advisability of taking steps to secure that in future, so far as practicable, especially in a district such as Lanarkshire, Sheriff Clerk Deputes be either enrolled law agents or have served apprenticeships, and have attended, or are attending, law classes with the view of qualifying for being law agents, and whether he will see that in the appointment of Procurators Fiscal the same rule is observed when the Fiscalship at Hamilton was to be filled up; and, if there was any truth in the rumour that such an important place as Airdrie was to be amalgamated with a minor burgh such as Hamilton, and an assistant Procurator Fiscal only be appointed for Airdrie, the principal Fiscal being at Hamilton?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON): I fully concur with the hon. Member that Sheriff Clerk Deputes and Procurators Fiscal should, so far as practicable, be

  33
  qualified in the manner suggested in the question. As regards Sheriff Clerk Deputes, their appointment and the responsibility for the proper performance of their duties rest with the Sheriff Clerk, who, for his own sake if for no other reason, would take care, when it is practicable, to appoint a qualified person. As regards Procurators Fiscal, I am not aware of any instance of an appointment being made when the person appointed was not properly qualified. The Procurator Fiscalship of Hamilton will, it is expected, be filled up within a few days. There is no truth in the rumour that the Fiscalship of Airdrie and Hamilton are to be amalgamated.

  PICKETING AMONG SCOTCH MINERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate if he could give any information as to the arrest of John Wilson, miners' agent, of Broxburn, and of John Nichol and Patrick Holmes, miners; and if the practice of "picketing" well known among Scotch miners is against the law; and, if so, which law?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: These men were arrested by the police on a charge of intimidating workmen. The facts were inquired into and found not to sustain the charge. Picketing is against the law in cases in which the pickets act in contravention of the 7th section of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.

PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.
MR. NORRISasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations were, or had been, going on with the Chilian Government as to their retention of territory hypothecated to the Peruvian bondholders; and, if so, whether he could state if a satisfactory result was likely to be arrived at?
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of Chili with respect to the interference by the latter with the proposed settlement by Peru of her liabilities to the Peruvian bondholders; but Chili has not yet consented to the commencement of negotiations with reference to the obligations of Chili to the bondholders arising from
34
the cession to that country by Peru of the province of Tarapaca, in which are situated the deposits of guano hypothecated by Peru to the bondholders?
MR. ISAACSON: Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to a question I put last year relating to a loan then being brought out by the Chilian Government, and the hypothecation of the guano contained in this identical district already hypothecated to the Peruvian bondholders. I wish to ask whether the Chilian Government has paid any attention to representations made? I withdrew the question at the time on a promise that the Chilian Government would do everything they possibly could to facilitate arrangements with the Peruvian bondholders.
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think my hon. Friend had better give notice of his question.

PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.

  THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT AT LIVERPOOL
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mr. Murray, deputy chairman, Board of Customs, recently visited Liverpool, and reprimanded certain officers, and ordered their removal to other ports; whether the same gentleman subsequently attempted to pursue a similar course with the officers at London; and, if so, was the legality of his action on that occasion challenged; whether the Board of Customs were compelled to acknowledge the legality of the officers' agitation in London, and to withdraw from the position they had taken up; if the action of the Liverpool officers in connection with the agitation against the extension of hours in any way differed from that of their brothers in London; and, if so, in what manner; whether the order reprimanding the Liverpool officers had been cancelled, and all those who were removed under it returned to their respective stations at. Liverpool; and, if not, would they he restored to their places, and at whose expense had these officers been removed; if Mr. Murray, when in Liverpool, promised the officers interested a copy of a document, read by himself to them and conveying the Board's censure, &c.; if the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Customs, afterwards, when applied to, refused the copy of the said document,

  35
  and if the Secretary to the Lords of the Treasury would be good enough to lay the original document upon the Table of the House or state its contents; and whether, considering the serious conflict that had arisen, the Treasury would order an independent inquiry?
  MR. JACKSON: The question at issue with regard to the action of the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Customs and that of certain members of the staff at Liverpool has been not one of law but of discipline, and I would respectfully represent to the House that it is not a matter which can he properly discussed in an answer to a question of details such as the hon. Member's question contains. The matter in dispute, I am informed, has been settled by the Board of Customs, with due regard to the interests of the Service, and, I believe, of the staff itself.

  THE SAMOAN CONFERENCE.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he tad seen the statement in the Times of Friday, March 15, that Messrs. John A. Kasson, William Walter Phelps, and George H. Bates, had been appointed Commissioners for the United States to the Conference on Samoan affairs; whether this information was correct; and whether he could now state the names of the Commissioners who would represent this country at the Conference?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have seen the statement, but we do not know that these nominations have been confirmed by the Senate, which is necessary.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last paragraph of the question.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he had answered the same question several times. The Commissioners were not yet appointed, but the hon. Gentleman might rest assured that they would be appointed in good time.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. FINCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Companies had cancelled the rates for the carriage of Foreign as well as of Home produce, which appeared open to objection on the ground of undue preference; and if the
  36
  cancelling of these special rates has had the effect of raising the charges paid for the carriage of goods which were imported from abroad?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): Yes; I assume, from the answers I read to the House the other day, these rates have been cancelled. If not; of course the Railway Commission will have power to adjudicate.

  DR. BARR'S LETTER TO THE "TIMES."
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he bad any cognizance of the letter of Dr. Barr before its publication in the Times newspaper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I had cognizance of the letter, which, indeed, was sent to me on its way to the Press. I did not do more than make myself generally acquainted with its contents until after it appeared in print; but if I had read it in detail, I should equally have refrained from interfering with its publication, as I was under the impression that there was no impropriety in any gentleman refuting, in such manner as he might think right, errors or calumnies respecting which he has been called upon to deal, not in connection with his ordinary duties as a servant of the Government. It appears that in so doing Dr. Barr has not acted in strict accordance with the rules governing his department. In so far as there is blame attaching to him for this, it is evident that his reference to me may well have contributed to his incurring that blame.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: After that answer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I will ask the Home Secretary whether he has reproved Dr. Barr for his conduct in publishing this letter, which appears to have been corrected by the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Dr. Barr was, no doubt, guilty of a breach of official etiquette in publishing this letter referring to matters in his department without the sanction of the head of the department. There is no connection whatever between this and the communications that passed between Dr. Barr and my right hon. Friend. The Chief Secretary had neither the power nor the inclination to absolve Dr. Barr from

  37
  compliance with the official rule that governs this matter.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the the Table the correspondence now in the Home Office on the subject of this letter; and will the right hon. Gentleman state what communication has been made to Dr. Barr, and what communication he has received on the subject from Dr. Barr? I may state that I addressed a letter on this subject to the Home Secretary some days ago, and that I have received no acknowledgment or reply.
  MR. MATTHEWS: My apologies are due to the right hon. Gentleman. I thought my answer in the House would be accepted as an answer to the application. I have already informed the House of the nature of my communication to Dr. Barr—namely, that I have called his attention to the official rule, and requested him to observe it in future. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how contrary it would be to all practice to lay upon the Table of the House communications between a Department and its officers.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will move for that correspondence, and call attention to the conduct in this matter of the Home Office with reference to the discipline of the Home Office, on the Vote for the salaries of the medical officers of the Home Department.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to correct a very singular lapse on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I stated as clearly as I could articulate that I had not even made myself accurately acquainted with the contents of the letter, and yet the right hon. Gentletman, with that reply ringing in his ears, described the letter as one which I had corrected.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he received Dr. Barr's letter, what did he do with it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I sent it on.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To the Times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  ANNEXATIONS IN THE PACIFIC.
  DR. CAMERONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to an extract from a letter dated Tahiti,
  38
  the 14th January, and published in the Standard of the 15th instant, stating that Her Majesty's ship Hyacinth had just arrived there; that
  "She came from the Hervey group, where they had hoisted the English flag on every island in the group; that the Union Jack was hoisted, 21 guns fired from the ship, 'God Save the Queen' played, and the islanders became British subjects;"
  whether that statement was true, and, if so, how many islands had been annexed; whether the captain of the Hyacinth acted on instructions from the. British Government in annexing the islands; and whether papers on the subject would be laid before Parliament?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The statement as represented in the question is substantially correct in these particulars. Between the 26th of October and the 4th of November, 1888, the captain of Her Majesty's ship Hyacinth declared a Protectorate over the islands composing the Cook group, which includes the Hervey group. The Union Jack was hoisted and saluted in the usual manner. There are in all nine islands included in the Protectorate. The captain was acting under instructions from the Government.

  SAMOA.
  DR. CAMERONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any report had yet been received at the Admiralty concerning the seizure of Mr. Gilan. a British subject, on board the British ship Richmond by an armed guard from the German warship Adler at Samoa?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: A telegraphic report has been received from the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian Station from New Zealand, dated February 19, to the effect that the Germans had proclaimed martial law at Samoa, and claimed the right of search over British ships, and that British subjects (no names given) had been removed from the British ship Richmond, by armed boats from the German ship Adler.They were subsequently released on the demand of the captain of the Royalist.A further telegram on February 21 states that the captain of the Calliope, which ship has replaced the Royalist, had informed the German authorities at Samoa that he could not acknowledge the establishment of martial law or the

  39
  jurisdiction or rights so claimed over British subjects or Courts. The claims so advanced were abandoned. No report has been received with reference to the statement quoted in the second part of the question. With regard to the latter part of the question, Captain Hand reports that a cutter belonging to the German ship Eber chased a boat containing unarmed natives, and fired fired upon them as they were escaping into the bush. Captain Hand, of the Royalist, was on the beach at the time, and hailed the German boat to call their attention to his being there, and to his being exposed to their fire. On his remonstrating with the captain of the Eber, that officer expressed his regret at the occurrence which had taken place contrary to the instructions he had given as to firing, and repeated the same to Captain Hand on the following day on board the Royalist.He further sent the officer who had committed the breach of orders to Captain Hand to apologize, and to explain that he had acted contrary to his instructions.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION EXPENSES.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would grant a Return of the expenses of returning officers in connection with the County Council elections in England and Wales?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE,): The expenses of returning officers incurred in connection with County Council elections in many instances have not as yet been taxed. At a later date I shall have no objection to assent to a Motion for such a Return as that referred to.

  DOVEY FISHERY.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked what were the private interests which the Chief Inspector of Fisheries on the 3rd of January last stated as likely to oppose successfully a by-law of the Dovey Fishery Board to extend by a fortnight the time for net fishing in the waters within the Board's jurisdiction?
  *SIR M. H. BEACH: The hon. Member is not quite accurate in stating that the Chief Inspector of Fisheries made any reference to private interests.
  40
  What he did say was that the views of the fishermen would be much opposed by the more important Fishery Boards, the preservation of whose districts might be affected by further extension of the season for the capture, and consequently the sale, of salmon.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the powers conferred by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, upon the Commissioners, upon application to review the action of railway companies who had raised their rates during the passage of the above Act, and prior to its coming into operation, a case is now being heard before the Commissioners; and whether it is a fact that certain railway companies have in some cases increased their rates subsequent to 1st January last; and, if so, whether it is the duty of the Board of Trade to see that no contravention of the Act takes place?
  SIR M. H. BEACH: I have communicated with the Registrar to the Commissioners and am informed that there is no such case before the Commissioners. In two cases only have the Board of Trade received information of increase of rates subsequent to the 1st of January last. If any such increase is made without the giving of the prescribed notice, the company making it is liable to a penalty of £5 for each offence. Any question or dispute involving the legality of any toll, rate, or charge, or portion of a toll, rate, or charge may be brought before the Commissioners, who have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same under section 10 of the Act, and under section 31, whenever any person receiving or sending goods by any railway is of opinion that the railway company is charging him an unfair or unreasonable rate, such person may complain to the Board of Trade, who will thereupon endeavour to settle the matter amicably. The operation of clauses 10 and 31 is not suspended pending the settlement of the maximum rates under section 24.
  MR. WATT: May I ask whether the 58th clause of the Act confers retrospective powers on the Commissioners only in cases where litigation was pending prior to 1st January last?
  SIR M. H. BEACH: The hon. Member has given me no notice of this question.

  IRELAND-COMMITTEE ON PRISON TREATMENT.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the statement in the Birmingham Post is well founded, to the effect that the small Committee on Prison Treatment will include Mr. Bourke, Chairman of the Irish Prisons Board, Dr. McCabe, and Dr. O'Farrell; and, if the statement is not accurate, can he inform the House who are the parties who have been selected, and will he undertake that the Committee will contain members other than gentlemen who have been or are connected with prison administration in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no truth in the report. I shall, of course, endeavour to make any committee or commission representative in its character.

  FEMALE ATTENDANTS. AT POLICE STATIONS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what appointments have been made of female attendants at Metropolitan Police Stations so as to secure for women charged during the night, and detained in custody, the protection of persons of their own sex?
  MR. MATTHEWS: At all police-stations there are female attendants, who are not resident on the station premises, but who reside close by, and at night can be summond by the inspector if their services are required. There are about 200 police stations in the metropolis, and to provide quarters for resident female attendants would involve considerable structural alterations and a large expenditure of money. The hon. Member will bear in mind that Mr. Justice Wills's Committee dealt only with police courts and not with police-stations, to which none of their recommendations apply.

  RESULTS FEES.
  MR. CRILLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the results fees have yet been paid the national school teachers
  42
  in the Ballaghaderreen, County Mayo, District (No. 21), whose schools were examined before the 31st January last; and whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have acted in accord with the pledges given on their behalf by him, that payment of results fees would be made within four weeks subsequent to date of results examination to teachers against whom no complaint had been made by the district Inspector?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in all cases in the district named, in which the Annual Results Examinations were held before the 31st January last, the results fees have been paid with four exceptions, due to irregularities in the returns or other exceptional circumstances, but payment in these four cases will shortly issue. The Commissioners add that, in all cases, except those in which a necessity arises for special investigation, the results fees are issued within about a month from the date of the examination of the school.

  CLERKS OF UNIONS.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN ()asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Government mean to bring in the Bill, as promised last Session, to provide for the service of clerks of unions and poor rate collectors in Ireland under the Franchise Act?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension in supposing that a promise had been made to introduce a Bill to meet the cases of the Poor Law officials where they are at present insufficiently remunerated for their duties in question. I am, however, quite ready to introduce a Bill on the subject, if assured that it will meet with the general assent of the House.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Colonel King Harman stated last year that the question had for some time occupied the attention of the Government and that a Bill would be brought in on an early date?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that the introduction of a Bill was promised. But it is the case that the matter has engaged the attention of the

  43
  Government. A Bill has been actually drafted; but there would be no use in introducing it unless with the general assent of all parties.

  PEMBA AND ZANZIBAR.
  SIR J. KENNAWAYasked whether the Government had consented to unite with the German Government in a blockade of the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar in substitution of a blockade of the coast?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No. The blockade on the coast is still in force; but, by a proclamation issued on the 19th of February, the Sultan prohibited the importation, exportation, and trade in arms and ammunition in Zanzibar and Pemba. He further delegated his Sovereign rights of search over Arab vessels in the territorial waters of the islands to the British and German Admirals.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. J. MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what date Mr. Home and Mr. Joyce began to examine papers and tabulate statistics with the view to elucidate subjects of inquiry before the Special Commission; by whose authority those Resident Magistrates undertook that work; to whom they furnished the result of their labours; whether Mr. Home, Mr. Joyce, or Mr. Shannon had at any time taken the evidence of any persons with a view of its being used by, or submitted to, the Times; and whether Mr. Home obtained leave from his ordinary duties for the purpose of engaging in the work of tabulating statistics for the Times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Messrs. Home and Joyce began the duty in question immediately after the passing of the Special Commission Act, before it was known what course the Court would direct in regard to the production of information before it. These Resident Magistrates undertook the duty by order of the Government, and furnished the results to the Government. As regards the inquiry in the fourth paragraph, my reply of the 6th of March to a question put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool equally applies to the case of the Resident Magistrates referred to and all other
  44
  Government officials in Ireland. The reply to the inquiry in the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. The right hon. Gentleman tells the House that the Resident Magistrates furnished the results of their labours to the Government. Will he tell us how that information from the Government reached Mr. Soames?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information suggested in the Question was the tabulated statistics in relation to crime. If the Times applied for information of that kind, it would be supplied to them.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Then the Timer did apply to the Government for this information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose so, if they got it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: How did they know it existed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that they were aware that tabulation had taken place; but they probably knew that information of the sort was in the hands of the Government.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether it was by instructions from the Government that Mr. Shannon held a sworn inquiry into the conduct of the convict Delaney in the prison cell, and whether there was any legal authority for the holding of such an inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about the matter, which is not relevant to the question before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has not Mr. Home, a Resident Magistrate of the third class, been promoted over the heads of a score of others in consequence of the assistance he rendered to the Times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. CLANCY: Are we to understand that the tabulating of statistics for the Times is among the ordinary duties of a Resident Magistrate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I deny that statistics were tabulated for the Times.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that Mr. Home has been recently promoted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I do not. What I denied was the account given of

  45
  that promotion by the hon and learned Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What promotion has Mr. Horne received, when die he receive it, and over whose heads has he been promoted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must be aware I cannot possibly answer the question.

  A LICENSING IRREGULARITY.
  MR. CAINEasked the Attorney General whether he had received a memorial stating that Mr. Thomas Sowler, a Justice of the Peace for Manchester, had committed a breach of the 60th section of the Licensing Act of 1872 by sitting on the Bench at a licensing session, when application was made for the renewal or transfer of a licence for a house belonging to a limited company in which he was a shareholder; and what steps he proposed to take in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): A memorial was received substantially to the effect stated in the question of the hon. Member. In consequence, I directed proceedings to be taken for a penalty, since which I have received a statement from Mr. Sowler stating that he acted from inadvertence and ignorance of the law. I have been in communication with the solicitor of the petitioner, and the matter is having my most careful consideration.

  ROYAL GRANTS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury when he would place on the Paper the terms of the proposed reference to the Committee on Royal Grants?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I will place on the Paper the terms of the proposed reference as soon as the condition of business affords me a reasonable prospect of being able to proceed with the Motion for the Committee.

  INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONVENTION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Spanish Government had formally invited the International Industrial Convention to
  46
  hold its Session at Madrid as proposed; and if the date of its assembly has been fixed?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: NO formal invitation has yet been received, and the date has, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, not yet been fixed.

  LONDON EXCISE.
  MR. DIXON HARTLANDasked whether there was any truth in the statement that some of the London Excise collectors' offices are to be abolished, and the duties of the clerks merged in the office of the Receiver General of Inland Revenue; and whether that arrangement would result in any economy?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: A scheme is under the consideration of the Board of Inland Revenue to transfer part of the work now done in the London collectors' offices to the Receiver General. Nothing is definitely settled; but economy is the object of the proposed arrangement.

  PRISON TREATMENT OF MR. W. O'BRIEN.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, a direct issue of fact having been raised between the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Lord Mayor of Dublin in relation to the prison treatment of Mr. W. O'Brien, and an inquiry into this matter by Committee of the House having been proposed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin and rejected by Her Majesty's Government on the ground, not that the inquiry is improper, but that the organ is inappropriate, Her Majesty's Government will propose an inquiry by what they may deem an appropriate organ?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The inquiry by Committee was rejected on the ground that the instrument was inappropriate; but even if an appropriate instrument were provided (not a very easy matter) it would not follow that the inquiry should be grauted. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that conflicts of this kind on matter of fact have been frequent under many Administrations, and that the mere occurrence of such a conflict has not been, and could not be, thought in most cases an adequate reason for setting in motion the

  47
  elaborate machinery necessary for an inquiry on oath. But in order that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of estimating the evidence on which my statements were founded, I propose to lay Papers on the Table of the House, which I feel sure he would wish to see before asking for an inquiry, or otherwise associating himself with the doubts expressed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin.
  MR. SEXTON: With reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether the machinery necessary for inquiry is not already created by the 11th section of the Irish Prisons Act, 1877? I for one do not intend to suffer him again in my presence to impute untruths to the hon. Member for North-East Cork and others, including myself, with regard to statements which we know to be true, and which we have offered to prove. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is willing, as the Prisons Board is bound by statute, to direct them to hold such an inquiry as contemplated by the section, upon oath, and to allow each of the prisoners to be represented by counsel, and the Press to be admitted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must correct one statement of the hon. Member. He appears to think that whenever I make an assertion in this House upon information given to me with regard to matters of fact, and whenever hon. Members opposite happen to differ from that statement, I am giving them the lie. I made no such statement against the hon. Gentleman or his Friends below the Gangway. With regard to his request that there should be an inquiry on oath, I was not aware that the kind of inquiry granted by the section would satisfy hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, or was the inquiry to which the question of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian pointed. If it would satisfy them, that would put an entirely different complexion on the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: Our side of the case rests upon the statement made by the hon. Member for North-East Cork to my hon. Friends the Mayor of Clonmel
  48
  and the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I, therefore, ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to go on imputing untruths to hon. Members of this House? [Cries of "Order."]
  *MB. SPEAKER: A charge of imputing untruth is in itself un-Parliamentary.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry? [Cries of"Order" and "Withdraw."] I am quite in order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will grant an inquiry. [Renewed cries of"Withdraw" and "Order."] Withdraw what? I withdraw nothing. Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the propriety of the remark which I made to him from the Chair. All I said was that a charge of imputing untruth is not Parliamentary.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry under the Prisons Act (Ireland), 1877? Will he make such an inquiry effective by having it on oath, with both parties represented by counsel and the Press admitted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course I cannot off-hand answer a proposal of that kind. Before I give an answer to that question I should like to know whether an inquiry of that kind would meet the views which I understand are held by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by hon. Members below the Gangway.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Although I entirely dissent from the grounds upon which the objection has been taken to an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee, yet, undoubtedly, any inquiry which fully brings out the facts will meet my views, and, I believe, those of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. As reference has been made to conversations which took place, I may ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is in his recollection—as it certainly is distinctly in mine—that he described statements made by the Lord Mayor of Dublin by the phrase "calumny."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My memory does not carry me back to that particular speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; but I think it is very likely that I have in this House—certainly out of it—described the attacks to which I

  49
  have been subjected on the question of prison discipline as calumny.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  COLONEL LAURIE: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office a Question of which I have given him private notice—whether he is correctly reported in the Daily News of Saturday last, under the heading "More Ministerial Bribes," to have given the details of orders to be issued under the new Naval Programme, and to have stated that more than £1,000,000 worth of stores would be ordered, including Messrs. Armstrong £360,000, Messrs. Whitworth £257,000, Messrs. Vickers £114,000?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): I fear, Sir, that the Daily News has been wilfully misled. The report is wholly inaccurate. I made no allusion whatever to orders which may hereafter be given under the proposed naval expenditure. The figures which I cited were those of orders at present current, which have been given out in the past, and were a quotation from the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on Thursday night, which was public property 24 hours before I spoke on Friday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is acquainted with a paper called the Manchester Courier, and whether he acknowledges the accuracy of this report of his speech—
  "They believed very much in stimulating private trade. In 1883–4 the Liberal Government gave to private firms orders for big guns to the value of £23,000; in 1886 such orders were given to the extent of £67,000, but in this year orders for big guns were given to Messrs. Armstrong to the extent of £381,000, to Messrs. Whitworth to the extent of £258,000, and to Messrs. Vickers, of Sheffield, to the extent of £114,000. In all, the War Office have given orders for £1,063,000 worth of warlike stores to private firms."
  MR. BRODRICK: The right hon. Gentleman has not had the courtesy to give me notice. I have no report of the speech with me. I certainly read very cursorily the quotation which he has read, and the citation which I made was to the effect that these orders were at present current. But if the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is any
  50
  difference between the two Governments in that respect it is not due to any fault of mine.

  THE GENERALS' LIST.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: With reference to a Motion which I have on the paper for to-morrow, and with reference to the statement made last week, as to the Generals' List, I would ask in what state of maturity that proposal of the Government is, because if it is very near production I would not trouble the House with my Motion.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I informed the House last week that I had a scheme in preparation, and I hope to be able to lay it before the House in the course of a few days, certainly in the course of a week, and, therefore, I may say in answer to the right hon. baronet that it will be produced, almost immediately.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. GATHORNE-HARDY ()asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was true, as stated in the public Press, that the authorities of the National Gallery were applying a new and fanciful nomenclature to the pictures there; and, if so, whether he would direct that the old and well-known names of the painters be also affixed to them?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The changes which, in a very few instances, have been made on the labels of pictures in the National Gallery consist merely in the substitution of the true name of the painter for the colloquial nickname. This has been done in anticipation of the appearance of the forthcoming catalogue, in which the system of nomenclature will agree with that now almost universal in the great Continental galleries and in their catalogues. It would, no doubt, have been better in all cases where an alteration was necessary to have left the old name also standing, and in some instances this has been done. The sole reason for not doing it in every case was the desire to avoid the expense of new labels, and it was hoped that no great inconvenience would be felt from the omission, since it has been made solely when the painter's surname was as perfectly well-known to the general public as the

  51
  Christian name or the nickname. It is, however, intended to restore the more familiar names to the labels, so as to save any inconvenience.

  INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he has received copies of the resolutions passed at the Indian National Congress held at Allahabad in December 1888, embodying a tentative scheme of election of a moiety of members of legislative councils; and (2) whether be will lay the same upon the Table, together with such portions of the despatch from the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, relating to the reform of the legislative councils in India, as contain proposals, suggestions, and observations on the modifications in the existing system?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): answered the first question in the negative, and, as regards the second said that no Papers on the constitution and functions of the legislative councils in India could, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be at present laid upon the Table with advantage to the Public Service.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can they be laid upon the Table before the Indian question comes on for discussion in this House?
  *SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that I Cannot name any day when the papers will be laid on the Table.

  INDIAN HONOURS.
  MR. CAINEasked the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether Mr. Josiah Whymper, who was gazetted as Companion of the Indian Empire in the recent distribution of honours, was the manager of a brewery company at Murree. If so, what were the services rendered by him to the Indian Empire which induced the Government of India to recommend him to the honour; and(2) whether it was a fact that Sir Frederick Roborte, the Commander-in Chief of the forces in India, a short time ago recommended Mr. J. Gelson Gregson, lately the secretary of the Soldiers' Total Abstinence Society, fur a similar honour, expressing the, opinion that Mr. Gregson's great services had resulted in an increase of sobriety and good conduct
  52
  among the soldiers stationed in India, equal in its results to the addition of a regiment to the forces in India?
  *SIR J. GORST: My answer to the first question is, yes; he was recommended for honours by the Viceroy—
  "On account of his public spirit in developing the local resources in the Rawul Pindi district, and on account of his services to the military department."
  (2) As regards Mr. Gregson, the Secretary of State is not aware of any such recommendation having been made by Sir F. Roberts; nor has any such recommendation been made to the Secretary of State by the Viceroy.

  THE POLICE AND THE UNEMPLOYED
  MR. C. GRAHAMasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to a statement in this morning's Press to the effect that after a parade of Jewish unemployed to hear a sermon by Dr. Adler on Saturday last, the police broke into the Jewish Socialist Club in Berners Street, and arrested four men and severely beat the steward?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen the statement in the Press, but have received no official information.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?

  THE KENNINGTON ELECTION.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to ask a question affecting the position of a Member of this House. An election took place on Friday last for the borough of Kennington, when a Member was returned to this House, and the poll was declared on Friday night. Under the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872, the duty of the Returning Officer is forthwith to declare as the Member elected the candidate to whom the majority of votes has been given, and to return his name to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Now, inquiries have been made by the Member returned of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, in order that he might obtain the writ and take his seat as being returned by the constituency of Kennington, but it appears the Clerk of the Crown has received no return from the Returning Officer, the consequence of which is that the Member re-turned is unable to take his seat or to discharge his duties in this House. I would ask you under these circumstances

  53
  what steps ought to be taken in order that the Member for Kennington may enter this House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask me the question, but I recollect that a case occurred in 1848, when the question arose as to whether the absence of the writ would invalidate the hon. Member's being a Member of the House. The Committee decided that it would not affect the election nor invalidate his being regarded as a Member of the House, but the Committee added—I speak from recollection—that they were strongly of opinion that the practice of obtaining the writ should hold in the future before an hon. Member could take his seat. Why the writ has not been returned in this case has not come to my knowledge, and I have only heard of it within the last five minutes. Until the writ arrives, it will not be competent for the hon. Member to take his seat, the practice being for an hon. Member to bring the writ with him from the Clerk of the Crown. I may say that I will call on the Clerk of the Crown to explain any irregularity that has taken place, and ask him why the writ has not been returned.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understood that some half hour ago steps were taken to communicate to you, Sir, that a Question would be asked on this subject and I have to apologize to you that that has not been done. I do not understand, however, from the information which reaches me, that there is any fault on the part of the Clerk of the Crown. It is the duty of the returning officer to send the writ to the Clerk of the Crown. The Clerk of the Crown has not got the writ, and I do not see what the Member is to do in the circumstances.
  *MR. SPEAKER: My first duty would be to ask the Clerk of the Crown the circumstances of the case, and then to take action through Chancery, if any irregularity has been committed. That I will certainly do at once.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the event of the writ arriving in the course of the evening, will the hon. Member for Kennington be able to take the oath?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Not until the close of the business. When the Orders of
  54
  the Day are commenced it is not allowable to interrupt the public business for the purpose of allowing a hon. Member to take the oath or his seat.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether contracts for the supply of the public service are not made in accordance purely with the public convenience and not from political considerations; and if that be so, whether the First Lord of the Treasury will consider it his duty to stop the growing practice on the part of the supporters of the Government of asking the support at contested elections of the constituency, on the ground of the selection of the constituency for the supply of the public service?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware, Sir, that any supporter of the Government has asked for the support of any constituency on the ground that a special contract has been given out to any particular district. Undoubtedly contracts are given out in the interasts of the public service, and of the public service alone. There would be no justification for giving out any contract unless the public service required it. In all these cases the parties concerned were obviously the fittest persona to execute the contract.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Following upon the answer of the right hon. Gentlemen, I would ask whether he is not aware that in the election at Govan another subordinate Member of the Government did give forth, as a reason for supporting the Tory candidate, that the Government intended to give a large amount of orders to the shipbuilding firms of the country, including those of Govan, and whether he is not of opinion that the mention of this fact, as well as of the similar fact mentioned by the Financial Secretary for the War Department in the course of a political address at a contested election, did not hold out the idea that their selection of a candidate would regulate the selection of contracts by the Government.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I would venture to suggest that the conduct of any hon. Member of this House, be he a Member of the Government or not, is called in question, it would be well to give him notice.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that my Question, with regard to the Financial Secretary, followed upon the Question put to him by one of his colleagues on the Tory side.

  IRELAND-VISITS TO PRISONERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, before there is any Vote taken for the Civil Service, whether he can give us any information as to any permits which may have been issued, since the passing of the Special Commission Act, to visit a prisoner in Chatham Prison, namely, John Davey, convicted of a dynamite outrage. Has he issued any permit to any person, not connected with the public service, to see that prisoner?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will put the Question upon the Paper?

  THE COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to make a statement to the House with reference to the course of public business. There stands on the paper for to-night the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account for the Civil Service. I have been informed that it is not probable that the Vote on account will be taken in a single night, and in these circumstances, as we have some important Supplementary Estimates to consider this evening, which, however, ought not to occupy the whole of the evening, it will be my duty to move to-morrow at 2 o'clock that Supply for these services take precedence of all other Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day until it be concluded. We are under the necessity of concluding the Vote on Account at the latest on Thursday, in order that it be included in the Financial Bill for the current year. As I stated in the House a few days ago, grave irregularity would occur if the provision for the Civil Service were not included in the Statute passed before the end of the financial year, and that view has been since confirmed by the remonstrance of a high financial authority, the Controller and Auditor General.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to say, in consequence of the
  56
  notice which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, and in view of the fact that the Navy Vote for money was delayed by the action of the Gentleman's own supporters on Thursday evening, I shall oppose his Motion and take a Division upon it.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it was delayed?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I was present when the Vote on the Navy Supplementary Estimates was taken unchallenged; and I was present when the Vote for the men was taken unchallenged; and I was present when the Vote for money was delayed by four speeches from the Conservative side; I was present when they were made—before any kind of opposition was made on this side of the House.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I, too, was present, and after 11 o'clock, when there was plenty of time to have proceeded, Member after Member rose below the Gangway opposite. Hon. Members will remember the protest that I made. [Interruption.] I am replying to a challenge made by the hon. Member for Northampton—
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Well, the right hon. Gentleman—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the House that there is no Question before the House.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any representations from Ballincolig with reference to the widespread destitution which will ensue in consequence of Army Contracts going elsewhere?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Member had better put the Question down for to-morrow.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to know whether these representations, pressed upon him by all classes of the community, and by clergymen of all denominations in reference to the contracts going elsewhere, and the distress which will come, will be considered?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not the slightest idea what the Question is

  57
  about. Will the hon. Gentleman put it down for to-morrow?

  THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE BAHAMAS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to ask the learned Attorney General, whether he was correctly reported in the statement attributed to him, that the Chief Justice of the Bahamas had been removed from his office.
  *SIR E. WEBSTER: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for affording me the opportunity of giving an explanation of what I said. I was not aware of the statement attributed to me until to day. What I stated to the House—although I daresay I was not correctly heard—was that the Chief Justice was removeable, not removed. I really referred to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies in which he said that the Chief Justice could be suspended by the Governor and Council until the Home Authorities had considered the case. I did not intend to say he had been removed.

MOTIONS.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Measurement of the Tonnage of Merchant Ships, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach and Baron Henry De Worms.
  Bill presented and read first time. (Bill 162.)

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, the sum of £110,091, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  2. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, the sum of £9,267,300, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow at Two of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1888–9.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1888–9.)

    CLASS III.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, for certain Expenses of the Law-Agent in Scotland for Government Departments."

  THE SKYE DISTURBANCES-CONDUCT OF SHERIFF IVORY.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is a matter in connection with this Vote to which I desire to call the attention of the House, especially with regard to the action of the Government who, first of all refused to allow the payment, and then, without any change in the circumstances, authorized it to be made. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in assenting to this course on the part of the Government, referred with something like bitterness of feeling to the action taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) in regard to this matter, and the leading organ of the Government in Scotland—the Scotsman—also took up the subject matter. Alluding to the speech made by the Lord Advocate upon the subject the Scotsman says—
  "The Lord Advocate in replying to Dr. Cameron told him pretty flatly, that if he said outside what he had said inside that Chamber, he would have been open to an action for defamation. It is not a very manly or straightforward proceeding for a Member of the House of Commons to shelter himself under the privilege that his Membership confers to slander an honest public official. There was gross lawlessness in Skye. Dr. Cameron and some others were giving their approval to the men who were guilty of that lawlessness, and when it was checked by the firm action of Sheriff Ivory they turned their anger upon him…A more dastardly and mean proceeding was never witnessed."
  When attacks of that kind are adopted by the Government after having been made by the organs of the Government, it need hardly be wondered at if debates on the subject dealt with are entered

  59
  upon by the Scotch Members with considerable earnestness. I may here say that I do not call in question the statement of the facts of the case made by Sheriff Ivory. I will assume that every statement of fact he has made is correct; and, further, I will not add to the facts which he himself has introduced. The case I have to bring forward is one which has been characterized, by most unconstitutional action on the part of Sheriff Ivory, and has led to a good deal of discussion both at public meetings and in the Press throughout Scotland. There can be no question as to the illegality of the course adopted by Sheriff Ivory, the result being that the parties who felt themselves aggrieved adopted the Constitutional course of bringing his conduct before the tribunals of the country by actions against him for damages. The law has, as we all know, provided the greatest possible protection for what is done by any Scotch official in the discharge of his duty, and this, of course, fully covers anything legally done in the discharge of the duty of a Sheriff or Judge; and I venture to say that no more prudent advice could be given in a question such as this than to throw aside anything in the nature of bickering or agitation, and to have the question of the legality of the Sheriff's proceedings made the subject of discussion in a Court of Law. In this case there were two action for damages founded on the alleged illegal action on the part of the Sheriff. One of these, brought by a person named Beaton, was successfully defended by the Sheriff, who succeeded in traversing the suit by a plea of privilege; but in the other action, which was brought by a person named Norman Stewart, the Sheriff, finding it prudent to compromise the matter, did so by paying £5 damages, and the expenses, amounting to £200, which payment has now been sanctioned by the Treasury. Now, I wish to ask, is the Treasury prepared to aver that the Sheriff in this case had not acted outside his duty and functions? My own opinion is that the position of the Crown in this matter is very clear. When they were asked to defend the action brought against Sheriff Ivory they said—
  "I am to inform you that the Crown cannot undertake your defence in this civil suit, such a suit would not he relevant unless the pursuer
  60
  can aver that you, as a sheriff, in ordering his arrest had either gone outside the law in some flagrant manner in matter of procedure, or had, though within the law in procedure, acted maliciously and without probable cause. The Lord Advocate has no doubt that you will be able to defend yourself against either of these charges, and, if so, you will gain your case and be found entitled to expenses. It would be matter for consideration whether, if the expenses so awarded proved irrecoverable from the pursuer, the Treasury should not reimburse you; but it would not be regular for the Crown to take up your defence or in any way to guarantee your costs at present."
  That is the course that was then adopted and it amounted to this—
  "You, as sheriff, if your action has been regular, will succeed in defending the case, and if you are unable to recover the costs you are put to from the pursuer, the Crown will pay."
  But the action brought by Norman Stewart was on account of the Sheriff having published a confidential report or letter from the Lord Advocate, which contained a serious reflection on one of the parties to proceedings then pending, that party being spoken of as a "Ringleader of the mob." The right hon Gentleman opposite now represents the case as simply one of the mode of publication, and says that it would have been competent to the sheriff to have published that report in some other manner. In all such actions for damages the same thing might be said; it could always be said that the defender might have gained the end sought by some legal and Constitutional method. But I assume that in the action against the sheriff, that official adopted an illegal and un-Constitutional course whereby he subjected himself to the consequences, and I ask whether, when a legal and constitutional course was open to him, the Crown and the country are to pay for the consequences of his having adopted an illegal and unconstitutional one? Is this money to be paid to a Sheriff who knows the law, or who gets a large salary for being supposed to know the law he administers, and yet who acted without excuse in adopting a course that was neither legal nor constitutional? This is not the case of a Government subordinate having by a technical misconstruction of the law done that which amounts to a breach of the law; it is the case of one who is in the position of a judge, and who, therefore, ought to know what the law is. It has also been stated by the right hon. Gentleman op-

  61
  posite that the document I have referred to as improperly published by the Sheriff might have been laid on the Table of the House by the Home Secretary. But this House naturally expects that the Home Secretary will act like a man possessing something like prudence and common sense, and I venture to say that, looking at the character of the document, no Home Secretary would ever have laid it on the Table of the House. But beyond this, we have the fact before us that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who was then Home Secretary, refused to lay the document on the Table, and it is, therefore, no argument to say that he might have done so. It is also said that the document might have been sent to the Commissioners of Supply and there seems to be some doubt as to whether it was or was not so sent. The Lord Advocate seems to imply that it was not; though I understand that it was. But just look at the facts. This man Norman Stuart was under the charge of having been the ringleader of a mob, and this charge was pending against him at the time Sheriff Ivory caused the statement to be published in the newspapers that he was the ringleader of the mob; and, that being so, and the charge being one that was pending in Sheriff Ivory's own Court, the man being acquitted in March, the right hon. Gentleman now argues that the Sheriff might have published the report in April—which was after the trial had taken place and the man had been acquitted. Our case is, however, that Sheriff Ivory, knowing the charge was pending against the man, goes and publishes a report stating that he was the ringleader of the mob. Did the right hon. Gentleman ever see a grosser piece of irregularity than that? I venture to say that the Judge who did an act of that kind, who published that which he was not entitled to make public, ought not to receive approval at the hands of any Government. But that is not all the illegality complained of. Sheriff Ivory told the Lord Advocate he would not have the case tried summarily, but that he would send it to the High Court of Justiciary. Surely that was an unwarrantable interference with the course of justice. We know that if a Highland case is sent for trial at Edinburgh, the accused person is deprived
  62
  of his proper means of defence and is most likely to be convicted, for he cannot afford to bring his witnesses all that distance. I think that Sheriff Ivory showed he was persecuting this man when he thus interfered in the province of the Lord Advocate, and suggested that the case should go for trial to the High Court. Still that is not all the illegality I complain of. The Sheriff in his judicial capacity sees the precognition of certain witnesses, and now the Crown refuse to allow him leave to plead these precognitions in his defence of the action brought against him. But what does he do? He publishes details of these private documents and he accuses the man of deliberate perjury. But there is still worse behind. When the case came before the Sheriff Substitute, and the man had a verdict of not guilty returned in his favour, Sheriff Ivory wrote to the Judge and asked him how in the world he came to let the man off? Was there ever a grosser or more lawless proceeding? What was the answer of the Sheriff Substitute? It was that the Crown witnesses' evidence did not come up to the precognitions. Yet this is not all. Certain charges were made against Sheriff Ivory in the newspapers. Now, if a Judge is slandered in a public newspaper there is a constitutional way open to him to defend himself, but Sheriff Ivory, instead of adopting that course, rushed into print, and published the contents of private documents. Certainly, he claimed that he had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan-shire, in so doing, but the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he gave no such authority whatever, and if we refer to the Minute of the Lords of the Treasury on the subject it will be found that the Sheriff had no ground whatever for his belief. Mr. Balfour certainly wrote that he was confident that Sheriff Ivory acted in a bonâ fide, though mistaken, belief that his Lordship had approved the publication; and the Lords of the Treasury express an opinion that the publication of the documents without the express official sanction of the Lord Advocate was an act of imprudence on the part of the Sheriff. But even assuming, for the moment, that the Lord Advocate had sanctioned the publication, this House has a perfect

  63
  right to object if any official of the Government sanctions a lawless course. Now, let me point out that Sheriff Ivory published these documents while legal proceedings were pending against the man. He was an accused party, yet the Sheriff published a Report denouncing him as the leading ringleader of a mob, and he thereby did that which was calculated to prejudice this man in his trial, which was about to take place before a Criminal Court. The result of the trial was a verdict of not guilty; it was proved that Norman Stewart, instead of doing an illegal act, did his best to turn the mob back, and prevent them molesting the officers of the law. I am surprised that any hon. Member on the Government Benches should stand up for one moment and defend the conduct of Sheriff Ivory in trying, first, to influence the Lord Advocate to change the venue of the trial to Edinburgh, in making public charges against the man before the trial was held, in making use of precognitions to formulate a charge of perjury against another person, although he documents were private ones, and were only in his possession in his official capacity, in denouncing the accused before his trial as the leading ringleader of a mob, and finally, in calling on the Sheriff Substitute to give any explanation for his acquittal of the man. It is quite true that the Government in a matter of this kind will be able to outvote Scotch opinion. There is no doubt that numbers of Members who never even take the trouble to sit and listen to Scotch debates will be found to come when the division bell rings in and outvote the Scotch Members; but can the Government wonder that there should be a feeling arising in Scotland in favour of Home Rule when Scotch business is treated in this way? It is easy to vote down the Scotch Members, but it will not be found so easy to beat down the voice of the constituencies in Scotland, and I warn the Government that they need not be surprised to find Scottish opinion going against them. You wonder why it is that Scotch opinion is Liberal instead of Conservative; the explanation is that, whenever Scotch Questions arise in this House, Scotch Members are promptly outvoted by English Representatives.
  MR. W. A. HUNTER: I think that the whole of this discussion has shown the great inconvenience which arises in Scotland from the combination in the same individual of the functions of a police officer with those of a judge. That I consider to be the mischief of the whole matter. In this particular case the Chief Constable of Inverness was perfectly willing to do the police work, but so enamoured was Sheriff Ivory of his executive functions that he preferred to carry it out himself. I trust the Government will give their attention to this matter, and endeavour to make some arrangement by which, while the executive functions of the Sheriff may be retained to some extent, the police work shall be performed by the Chief Constable. Now, Sir, there have been two cases brought before the House. In that of Beaton I fully admit that the Government have made out a primâ facie case, though I think it has been rebutted and destroyed; but, with regard to the case of Norman Stewart, no possible justification has been found for the action of a person who happens to be a judicial officer having of his own motion gratuitously published a libel in an ordinary newspaper upon a private individual. I think he ought to be made to pay the costs which he incurred in his own defence in this matter. Now, what are the facts of Beaton's case? I remember them very well. Some few years ago the disturbances out of which this case arose took place in the form of what is called deforcement of the Sheriff; in other words, 30 or 40 stalwart Highlanders stood in the road and invited the Sheriff to return home without serving his writs. That was no doubt an illegal act, and shortly afterwards a number of warrants were issued for the arrest of parties who were supposed to be implicated in the deforcement of the Sheriff. But considerable difficulty was experienced in serving those warrants and affecting arrests, and finally, Sheriff Ivory had to get up a man-hunting expedition. He took a large police force with him, he concocted a plan of campaign of his own, he had scouts in various parts of the district, he surrounded the village about which his attack was to be directed, he searched above and below the beds with warrant and

  65
  without warrant, and he did not find the persons whom he was seeking. The expedition proved a failure. We know that, in whatever form of sport mankind indulges, the sportsman never likes to go home with an empty bag. Neither did Sheriff Ivory. So, as he was going home, he happened to spy a shepherd on the hills. He ordered a constable to fetch the man, and when the poor fellow was brought to him he was found to be half-witted. He bad not been named by any person as having taken part in the deforcement of the Sheriff; nevertheless Sheriff Ivory, rather than go home with an empty bag, arrested this man on his own responsibility, conveyed him into Portree, and, after keeping him in custody a day or two, was obliged to dismiss him. Now this was the most absolutely gratuitous and unfounded arrest which it was possible for any man to make. I will tell the Government frankly why it is that the conduct of Sheriff Ivory exeites such bitter indignation amongst the Scotch Members; it is that the Sheriff would not have dared to arrest Beaton if he had been a rich man; but because he was a poor man with no friends Sheriff Ivory arrested him, as his expedition had failed. It so happens, Sir, that a public subscription was got up in this case, to enable Beaton to bring an action against the Sheriff for wrongful imprisonment. I have no hesitation in saying that if that action had been tried in England exemplary damages would have been awarded. But, so far as I can gather from the judgment of the Court of Session, the law of Scotland differs from that of England, for the Court of Session held that the Sheriff, acting as a police officer, had the same privileges as if he was acting as Sheriff. If that be the law of Scotland, and for my purpose I must assume it is so, the conduct of the Government comes to be a very serious matter, because, although Beaton could not get a remedy in the Court of Session, the very least the Government might have done when a wanton abuse of power of this character had been perpetrated, or at all events when an absolutely groundless arrest had been made, would have been to leave Sheriff Ivory to suffer the natural and probable consequences of his action, namely, to pay the costs of the action which he was not able to recover. It
  66
  comes to this, that it does not matter how unfounded, how irrational, how unreasonable, how improbable are the grounds upon which a police officer in Scotland acts, if he is sued the Government will pay his expenses. And now, the second case, that of Norman Stewart, is of an entirely different character. When the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) spoke the other night, he said that the Government were bound to defend officials in the due performance of their duties. If this had been an act performed by Sheriff Ivory in the due performance of his duty, no one would have raised any question either as to the amount allowed Sheriff Ivory or as to the principle involved. What are the facts of the case? Sheriff Ivory prepared a report for the then Lord Advocate in regard to the then state of the country. In that report he made a statement with reference to Norman Stewart. It is impossible for anyone to read that report without perceiving that the remark which Sheriff Ivory thought fit to make about Norman Stewart was not only unfounded, but wholly irrelevant to the statement made to the Lord Advocate. The defence set up the other night by the present Lord Advocate was most amazing; it was that by gratuitously publishing this document in the Scotsman newspaper, Sheriff Ivory exposed himself to an action for libel, although there were two other ways in which he might have published the document. As Sheriff Ivory had been so generous as to expose himself to the full brunt of an action for libel, the Lord Advocate thought it was only proper that the Government should save him from the consequences. It was said that Sheriff Ivory could have published the document through the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary might have published it as a Parliamentary Paper, but Sheriff Ivory could not have done so. Then it was said he might have published the document through the instrumentality of the Commissioners of Supply. He might by adopting the latter means have escaped responsibility, but the newspaper which published the statement would not have escaped responsibility. This libel was not only wanton and gratuitous, but monstrous. It was published by Sheriff Ivory in defiance

  67
  of the fact that the gentleman accused had been acquitted by the Sheriff Substitute himself. Is it possible to justify the conduct of the Government in paying the costs of Sheriff Ivory in a private libel suit? It is perfectly true that the publication referred to acts which Sheriff Ivory had performed as a public officer, but that is no justification for shielding him in his private libels. There is one point in regard to which I cannot help thinking misconception has prevailed in the minds of the Government officials who are responsible for the expenditure of this money. At the end of 1887 the former Lord Advocate (Mr. Macdonald) wrote a memorandum, and in it he recommended the Government not to pay the money which had been expended in respect to this libel suit. But the ground upon which the former Lord Advocate justified that view was an erroneous ground. The ground the right hon. and learned Gentleman took was that Sheriff Ivory had published this official document without the approval of his official superior. That may or may not have been the case, but it had nothing to do with Sheriff Ivory, in his private capacity, publishing a libel. When Sheriff Ivory published an official document in the Scotsman he committed an offence. In the first place, he committed an offence against Stewart, because he libelled him; and, in the second place, he committed an offence against discipline. I will not go at length into the question of the recollection of Sheriff Ivory with regard to this matter, but it is a very remarkable fact that Sheriff Ivory comes as near giving the Lord Advocate the lie direct as it is possible. He says, in his report, that immediately the publication took place the then Lord Advocate, the present Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour), distinctly informed the House that the publication had taken place without his knowledge. Sheriff Ivory challenged the statement, but not until two years had elapsed. If the Bill which has been proposed by the Attorney General (Sir R. Webster) had been at the time law, it is just possible that Sheriff Ivory might have been committed for misdememeanour; but whether he acted without the authority of the Lord Advocate or not is wholly immaterial. No authority from the Lord Advocate could justify
  68
  Sheriff Ivory in publishing a libel about a private individual, and that was the offence of which he was found guilty. The case, therefore, is one of the simplest and strongest character. Here is a man who published to the world an official document of a confidential character, without the authority of his official superior. In that document he made statements wholly unnecessary for the purposes for which the document was written, statements affecting the personal character of a private individual. Besides which, the statements were wholly false, and the Government steps in and pays the man's expenses because he happens to be a Judge. It is monstrous that Sheriff Ivory should be allowed to act as a chartered libertine, so to speak; and under the circumstances, I trust the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division will go to a division.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Caldwell) complained of the absence of a great many English Members while he was speaking. I think he might also have complained of the absence of Scotch Members who usually sit on the front Opposition Bench. I missed the ex-Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour), under whose auspices Sheriff Ivory was employed, and who had got a good deal to say upon this question. Now, the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), will not expect me to follow him into the very intricate questions of Scotch law which he has raised. I will not do so, neither will I follow him into the question whether an English jury would have acquitted Beaton had they had to deal with his case. [MR. HUNTER: Would have given him damages for wrongful imprisonment.] As the hon. Member spoke of the views of Scotch Judges on this question, I should like to put the view of Scotch Judges in regard to Sheriff Ivory's conduct before the Committee. It is not only Members of successive Governments who have dealt with this question, but a Scotch tribunal not only dismissed the case against Sheriff Ivory on behalf of Beaton, but uttered some very strong and significant words on the subject. These discussions on Sheriff Ivory date back a very long time. The case has

  69
  been brought up over and over again, and it is very remarkable, that while both in the Press and in the House, the moat violent charges are continually being made against Sheriff Ivory, affecting not only his judicial but his moral character, the moment Sheriff Ivory calls someone a ringleader in a riot hon Members opposite rise up and assert that he has committed the greatest sin and the greatest imprudence. [HON. MEMBERS: "He paid damages."] These actions against Sheriff Ivory are part of a Plan of Campaign announced in advance. Let me remind hon. Members that it is not during the lifetime of the present Government that these transactions in regard to which this action was brought occurred. They took place under the benignant rule of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) and his friends, and if Sheriff Ivory is accused of brutalities and indecencies—I think these were the words used by the hon. Member for the College Division—
  DR. CAMERON: The indecencies and brutalities I referred to were committed in connection with the expedition conducted by Sheriff Ivory under the present Government.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The persecution of Sheriff Ivory began before the advent of the present Government. It was determined to ruin him, and the hon. Member for the College Division, speaking of the course which had been adopted, said:—
  "Now all this was grossly illegal…Assaults and entering houses without warrants were criminal offences, but, if they were only criminal offences, they should obtain as little redress as they did, in the telegram business; but the harrying of dying men, the frightening of ailing women into swoons, and the striking of boys with sticks were happily offences for which the civil as well as the criminal law afforded redress."
  Those words Sheriff Ivory might perhaps consider malicions. The moment Sheriff Ivory took any action which exposed him in the slightest degree to attack, the hon. Member announced that he was prepared to subscribe in order to punish him. The action of Norman Stewart was simply part of a general campaign against Sheriff Ivory. Sheriff Ivory had described Norman Stewart as a ring-leader—as taking part in a lawless proceeding. Norman Stewart was acquitted of the charge made against
  70
  him. Two years afterwards Norman Stewart brought an action and laid his damages at £1,000, but Sheriff Ivory paid £25 into Court, and the action was allowed to drop. The £1,000 was a bogus claim, £25 being considered sufficient compensation for the wrong Norman Stewart had suffered. Now, concerning the case of Beaton, this is what the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) said—
  "He (Beaton) went to a lawyer, and wanted to raise an action for wrongous imprisonment, but was told he had better not. By all means let him raise an action, and by all means let him carry it from Court to Court; aye, up to the House of Lords. For such work cash was needed. But such a method was the only way in which they could vindicate directly the course of law and order in the Highlands; and so important did he consider the adoption of such a course in the interests of the Highlanders at the present moment, that he would rather give £100 towards a fighting fund than subscribe £5 to the support of the prisoners or their dependents."
  DR. CAMERON: For the purpose of vindicating civil rights.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I have no doubt the funds so generously subscribed were used for that purpose. It was thus that this action for libel was brought two years after the publication on which the libel was based; two years the alleged libel had been before the world and no one took the slightest step until the Fighting Fund of the hon. Member was raised. The Lord Ordinary, a man in whom I presume Scotchmen have confidence, said, in regard to Beaton's case—
  "The Sheriff in this case evinced firmness and resolution, and if he had not done so he would not have done his duty. If the Chief Magistrate of a county responsible for its peace were to be liable to an action of damages for what he did in the bonâ fide execution of his duty, the result would he that his powers to quash tumult and insurrection would be altogether paralyzed."
  Dismissing the case, on appeal, the Lord President said:—
  "There is a very special protection surrounding the defender in the execution of his duty as Sheriff of the County, and responsible for the peace of the County; and that protection, I think, extends to this, that he will not be liable for anything that he does in the performance of that duty, unless it can be shown that he was actuated by a malicious motive of some kind, and the mere use of the word malice in a case of this description, I think, is quite insufficient to fulfil the condition upon which alone such an action can be entertained. The presumption in favour of a public officer, that he is doing no more than his duty, and doing it honestly and

  71
  bona fide, is a very strong one, and certainly ought not to be overcome by a simple use of the word 'malice' It is for the benefit of the public, it is for the interests of justice and good Government, that public officers acting in the execution of their duty should be surrounded by a very considerable protection. The cries brought out in this third article of the Condescendence, I need hardly say, are not such as to warrant any inference of malicious motive, and therefore, in that respect, I conceive the Record to be irrelevent."
  Sheriff Ivory was not only acquitted in the case of Beaton, but acquitted with compliments. I now come to the details of the second case, the case of Norman Srewart, which is more especially before the House, because it is in respect of this case that the payment of expenses is to be sanctioned. Sheriff Ivory published a Report which he had made, and the only point in the Report to which exception was taken before the Court was that he had called Norman Stewart a ringleader in a riot. Stewart suffered no damage thereby; indeed, the only motive there could be in bringing the action for libel was to carry out the intention announced when the fighting fund of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow was formed. It was a bogus action for libel, and the Sheriff only failed to make a good defence owing to a technical point. He was unable to bring forward his proofs, as has been shown by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The Sheriff paid £25 into Court in satisfaction of damages of £1,000 which had been claimed, and the action was allowed to drop. It must be patent to everyone that there was no question whatever of real injury done by the alleged libel; but that it was a question how far Sheriff Ivory should be mulcted and punished, on the ground of a technical offence, for subsequent conduct which was displeasing to a certain Party in this House. The whole object now is to obtain the assent and sanction of the House to the views of hon. Members opposite as against Sheriff Ivory. It is the conduct of Sheriff Ivory that is really at stake. A question has been raised as to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour). It was asked in the first part of the discussion what he had really said as to the payment of these expenses. Well, this is what he said—
  72
  "I consider that the conduct of Sheriff Ivory throughout the Crofter troubles was such as to entitle him to the favourable consideration of the Treasury in the matter of costs incurred in Stewart's case."
  I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman opposite to these words by his own Lord Advocate.
  DR. CAMERON: As a point of order, Mr. Courtney, I asked the Secretary to the Treasury the other day to produce that letter, and he would not. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quoted the letter, should he not—
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Lay it on the Table—certainly.
  DR. CAMERON: Or rather, read the whole of it.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly. My hon. Friend the other night had not got the letter—which was marked "private and confidential"—with him. We now have the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan to make the letter public, as it shows how the misunderstanding may have arisen between himself and Sheriff Ivory.
  DR. CAMERON: What is the date of the letter?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: March the 20th, 1888. It says—
  "(1) I have no doubt whatever that Sheriff Ivory sent the report to the newspapers for publication is bonâ fide, and that he is speaking truly when he says that he believed he had my authority for doing so, although he is mistaken in this."
  This is testimony that, at least, Sheriff Ivory was acting bonâ fide, and I accept the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman to that effect, as against the malicious suggestions which have been made that he was not so acting. Sheriff Ivory's action may be called imprudent, but, at any rate, it cannot be suggested that the Sheriff did not act honestly. The letter goes on to say—
  "The only conversation which I could in 1885 or can now recollect having had with him, in which reference was made to the publication of official Reports, related to his transmitting copies of such Reports to the Police Committee of the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Inverness. He had been feeling acutely certain unfounded charges which had been made against him."
  and I may here assure the House that it is not only hon. Gentlemen opposite who feel the charges brought against

  73
  them. It is often forgotten that officials of the Government can feel as keenly as other people, and that some little share of sympathy is due to them in their difficulties even when brought on by imprudence. It is not pleasant to be vehemently and incessantly accused, as Sheriff Ivory has been, without any opportunity of reply, and it is not surprising that, when such is the case, an official should be betrayed into somewhat hasty action. The letter continues—
  "In certain newspapers, and he was desirous that these should be contradicted by the official Report from Skye being made public. I deprecated such publication, and he said something as to the Police Committee (and the Commissioners of Supply) being entitled to see the Report relative to the action of their own police, and I assented to this view that they were so entitled. In the course of the conversation I remember that he spoke of Reports which so numerous a body as the Commissioners of Supply were entitled to see becoming virtually public, and the only surmise I can make is that he had interpreted an assent to the view that the Police Committee were entitled to have the Reports relative to their police, even though this might lead to their becoming public through the Commissioners of Supply, as an assent to the direct publication of the Report in the newspapers."
  That is precisely the version of the matter given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate the other day, showing how the misunderstanding arose. I now come to the second part of the letter—
  "(2) I consider that the conduct of Sheriff Ivory throughout the Crofter troubles was such as to entitle him to the favourable consideration of the Treasury in the matter of the costs incurred in Stewart's case. The duties which he had to discharge were of the most difficult, delicate, and anxious character; and I may refer to the opinion expressed by Mr. Arthur Balfour on the 16th of February, 1887 (when Secretary for Scotland), as to the manner in which he (Sheriff Ivory) had discharged these duties ("Hansard," vol. 310, page 1,696), and to my concurrence in what Mr. Arthur Balfour said (page 1,705).
  "Hoping that the Treasury may decide to relieve Sheriff Ivory of the costs in question,
  "I remain, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
  "J. B. BALFOUR."
  Therefore it seems that the late Lord Advocate, under whom Sheriff Ivory served, knowing the whole affair and having had all the circumstances brought before him, thought it right to recommend his case to the favourable consideration of the Treasury. I do not wish for one moment to put the case
  74
  before the House solely on the recommendation of the late Lord Advocate but I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will be glad to know that, at all events, in the course we are taking we have the concurrence of the Lord Advocate under whom Sheriff Ivory served. There has seldom been a more violent attack made upon any public officer than has been made upon Sheriff Ivory. The way in which his conduct has been viewed, not by his present judicial superiors only, but by the late Government, is patent from what I have read to the House, and the Committee will agree with me, I think, that we owe something to public officers who discharge difficult and delicate duties. These gentlemen should receive the support of their official superiors; and, under these circumstances, we do not think that the Plan of Campaign of the Member for the College Division of Glasgow will succeed, the object of which is to punish Sheriff Ivory pecuniarily for the way in which he has discharged his public duties.
  *SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The right hon Gentleman who has just sat down seems to me, to a certain extent, to have forgotten the character in which he appears here during the discussion of the Estimates. He appears here as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he maintains the position with great ability; and we are here in the character of private Members and custodians of the public money. We attend to the Estimates for the purpose of discussing them without passion. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this being a question of passion from first to last; he has spoken of the violence of the strife that has raged round Sheriff Ivory, but it seems to me that he himself has contributed to that strife in no small degree. He speaks of motives having all along been imputed to Sheriff Ivory. Well, I certainly am not going to impute any motives to Sheriff ivory, but I must observe that the right hon. Gentleman himself imputed motives very freely across the House.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I read the extract.
  *SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: Yes; the right hon. Gentleman read it out, but he afterwards repeated it in his own words when he said that the object of the present action was to punish Sheriff for his conduct in the Highlands. I, however, say that the motive of our

  75
  action to-night is to protest against that which we believe to be a proposed misapplication of public money. I pass over, without remark, the case of John Beaton. I do not think it necessary to enter into the case, as I believe this vote may be taken solely and simply on the case of Norman Stewart. Now, what is the case against Sheriff Ivory as against Norman Stewart? It is that he published an official Report which he was not justified in publishing—a Report which contained a very serious statement which, before an important Court, was proved in evidence to be an incorrect statement. That is the simple case. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has used a great many words, but he has refrained from reading any of the vital points from the Memorandum before the House, and certainly he has refrained from reading the passage which appears to me absolutely to settle this question in the course of twelve lines. The Dean of Faculty, speaking on behalf of Sheriff Ivory, said the statement made by his client in a Report to the Lord Advocate was that Norman Stewart was the ringleader of a certain mob. Nothing can be more simple than that. The statement, he said, was made by the Sheriff on information contained in an official document transmitted to him by the Crown authorities, and Sheriff Ivory had no reason to doubt the correctness of the document, and accordingly repeated the statement which it contained; but he subsequently found that the facts did not justify the statement, and, consequently, he made a tender which was now before their Lordships. "I understand," said the Dean of Faculty. "that the tender has been accepted, and your Lordships are now at liberty to grant a decree on the terms of the tender or to dismiss the action as the other side may ask." Now, what had occurred to bring this about? Why, it had been shown before the Sheriff's Substitute that Sheriff Ivory's description of Norman Stewart in his Report to the Lord Advocate was entirely erroneous. It was proved to the satisfaction of the judge that Norman Stewart had not taken that course which Sheriff Ivory had attributed to him. That was the first branch of the grievance under which Mr. Norman Stewart was suffering, and it was the first branch of the malfeasance of Sheriff Ivory.
  76
  That, I conclude, is undenied. The other point is whether Sheriff Ivory was justified in publishing an official paper. I listened very carefully to the letter of the late Lord Advocate the Member for Clackmannan, and I do not gather that he goes back from his original opinion that he gave no authority whatever to Sheriff Ivory for the publication of the Report. But he does make a sort of half-expressed plea for mercy for Sheriff Ivory; and I am bound to say—speaking as a Member of Parliament responsible for the disposal of the public money—that there is no ground for that appeal whatever, and we have no right to listen to it. This case was decided previously, not on ad misericordiam grounds, but on official grounds, in accordance with the precedents of the Treasury. It was decided, after consulting the late Lord Advocate, Mr. Macdonald, and the opinion expressed by that Lord Advocate—who was exactly as much the Lord Advocate of the present Government as the Member for Clackmannan was the Lord Advocate of the late Government—was that he was able to recommend that the costs of the action of Beaton should be refunded to Sheriff Ivory in full, but that the case of Stewart presented much greater difficulty. He said that under the circumstances he could not recommend that these costs should be paid, and the Treasury decided not to pay. After that, by the great powers of importunity which Sheriff Ivory possessed, an appeal was again made to the Treasury. Sheriff Ivory thought he had at last got a high official who was sure to take his view of the facts. He appealed from the officials of the Treasury and from Lord Advocate Macdonald to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, he declared, looked at things not in detail, who looked not to the points of the case, but who looked broadly to see whether a public official was acting on one side or the other, and who "was intimately acquainted with the work I had to do in Skye." Hon. Members know what the views of the Chief Secretary for Ireland are with regard to the agrarian difficulties in the Highlands, and also that when the Crofters' Bill was before the House of Commons the Chief Secretary for Ireland opposed it on the ground that, though there might be grievances about

  77
  rent in Ireland, there were in Scotland no landlords who over-rented their tenants. That was the opinion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland then, and it may be now; but the opinion of the Land Commission, which has gone deeper into the matter than the Chief Secretary for Ireland, has come to a different conclusion, for while the reductions on rents have been largely in excess of Irish reductions, the reductions in arrears has been frequently double the reductions in rents. It was while the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary for Scotland that Sheriff Ivory appealed to him against the judgment of Lord Advocate Macdonald, and, above all, against the judgment of the Court of Justice in Scotland.
  MR. GOSCHEN: When my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was Secretary for Scotland I do not believe this concession had been made. The whole point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely chimerical to the last degree.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have made no statement except that Sheriff Ivory appealed to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. What I look to is the conduct of Sheriff Ivory when he finds himself face to face with Members of Parliament trying to do their duty as Members of Parliament. I will read some passages from Sheriff Ivory's most recent Memorandum—
  "The enemies of law and order will, no doubt, rejoice that the Government should have changed their views and censured me as they have done. But I venture to predict that the law-abiding public will be of a different opinion when they learn the true state of the facts, If executive officers, after doing their best to discharge their duties honestly and fearlessly, are to be treated in this manner, no Government can expect them to act in the future with the necessary promptitude and decision…I think I have some reason to complain that my claim for repayment of the expenses of a lawsuit prompted by political animosity should in the circumstances have been referred for decision to the Law Officer of the Crown as if it depended on a technical question of law—to one, too, whose conduct in regard to this very case had been so much complained of by me in my printed Memorandum. Had it been referred to Mr. A. J. Balfour, who was intimately acquainted with the work I had to do in Skye, who knew the danger of allowing false and unfounded statements regarding the conduct of a Government expedition to remain unanswered, and who would have dealt with the matter in a broad and statesmanlike manner, I should have been perfectly satisfied."
  78
  The question is whether an individual did act in an unbecoming and riotous manner towards the expedition to which Sheriff Ivory referred. Sheriff Ivory says he did; but he was proved not to have acted in that manner, and Sheriff Ivory was himself obliged to acknowledge that it was so, and then he appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland against "false and unfounded statements." I have thrown no passion into this question, and have attributed no motive to Sheriff Ivory. I blame him for one thing only, and that is for the indecorous statements in the last Memorandum he has sent, a Memorandum upon which, I am sorry to say, the Government has made a concession which it ought never to have made, and has reversed its previous opinion—an opinion founded upon reasons which I believe it is absolutely impossible to answer except by high-sounding generalities.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that to night, at all events, he has had a patient hearing from the Scotch Members. I venture to think that the complaint with which he began his speech on this subject was somewhat disingenuous. We all know that he is a master of debate, and no one admires his debating powers more than I do; but his chief weapon is his remarkable power of repartee, and it seems to His that he rather courts interruption than otherwise. At all events, the Scotch Members tonight, after his complaint on that score, abstained from interfering with him, and I think the result was that he sat down somewhat crestfallen, because he had lost his usual opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me, has confused the issues on this question, or has tried to do so. The case is a very simple one, but the right hon. Gentleman has repeated in the House the misrepresentation that is being made outside—I mean the misrepresentation that this controversy is a mere incident in a personal feud between Sheriff Ivory and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow. I wish to say for myself that I, for one, know nothing whatever of that feud. I know next to nothing of Sheriff Ivory himself, and my judgment on the matter is based

  79
  entirely on the materials laid before the House. I decline to go into the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this is all the result of a "Plan of Campaign"—of a conspiracy to promote bogus actions, and to punish, by vindictive damages, an official who had deserved well of his country. I think we must go back to simple facts, and, if I may be allowed to say so, to the only defence that has yet been made—namely, that submitted the other night by the Lord Advocate. I assume that we are dealing entirely with the case of Norman Stewart. The fact is that Sheriff Ivory libelled one of Her Majesty's subjects, and that he was sued in an ordinary action for libel on that account. He made no defence—he pleaded guilty; he was cast in damages, and now the Government ask us to pay his bill of costs. Only two reasons have been assigned, that I can see, why we should pay the bill of costs of Sheriff Ivory. One is that the delinquent is a Judge, and that it was his business to enforce the law. Well, we have all known cases in which ignorance of the law has been set up as a good moral, if not a good legal, excuse; but I have never before known of a case in which knowledge of the law was put forth in defence of a delinquent in such a position. Another reason was assigned, that these might have been Parliamentary Papers, and, if they had been, the Sheriff would have run no risk of prosecution. But the privilege, in such a case, would have been the privilege of Parliament, not of Sheriff Ivory—not of the person making these slanderous communications. The privilege of Parliament is based on great Constitutional reasons; but they have no application to a case in which a judicial officer goes beyond his duties and breaks the law he is bound to administer, and libels a subject of the Crown. I can see nothing in these reasons to justify the position the Government have taken up. Let me mention, also, this is not an ordinary case of litigation. There is a curious relationship between the parties in this little drama. The solicitor who ran up this bill of costs to an amount that seems to be beyond all precedent was not an ordinary solicitor, but the eon of Sheriff Ivory, and one may admire
  80
  the filial piety of this pious Eneas iu running up a bill to an amount no ordinary Attorney would have reached, because in his view the Government were bound to pay it. I think the whole circumstances of the case show that instead of it being a bogus action, Sheriff Ivory had to defend it as a bogus claim made upon Her Majesty's Government. The claim was condemned by the Law Officers as one that ought not to have been submitted, and, if I am within the limits of Parliamentary propriety in using the term, it is a piece of colossal impudence on the part of Her Majesty's Government in submitting this demand to the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must say a few words on this case, because the publication of these documents took place, as I am reminded on looking at the dates, when I was the official superior of Sheriff Ivory. I do not wish to say much about that Gentleman. The Sheriff used to address a great many letters to me very much in the tone of that published on page 15 of the correspondence; and if Sheriff Ivory treated his inferiors as he did his superiors I was very sorry for them. The claim made by him in the case before us has been refused by the late Lord Advocate and the Treasury authorities, who said that the Bill ought not to be paid. What did Sheriff Ivory do thereupon? He set to work and abused the Government of the day', telling them that they did not deserve to have such an admirable Sheriff, and that if they did not support him all sorts of terrible things would happen to them, and the enemies of law and order would triumph. The Sheriff said, "I do not care for the Lord Advocate or the Treasury. Give me A. J. Balfour." The idea of Sheriff Ivory was that if he only raised the cry of "the enemies of law and order" he would see the Chancellor of the Exchequer overruling the Lord Advocate and the Treasury, and paying his bill. Accordingly we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer imploring, and even threatening the Committee, and bullying the Scotch Members in this matter, in order that he may waste £200 of the public money which the Treasury has refused to pay. That is the political situation of the Government. If you only whisper into the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer "the enemies of

  81
  law and order" he will come down and spend £200, or £200,000, or even £200,000,000, and defend it in the passionate way he has done this evening. It is a very bad thing to allow the Government to be bullied in the way they have been by Sheriff Ivory. I do not know what I should have done if I had had "Mr. A. J. Balfour" for a colleague. Perhaps I should have been like the present Home Secretary, whose subordinate sent letters to "Mr. A. J. Balfour" for publication in the Times.That was the way the Home Office is carried on. The Home Secretary is a cipher in his own office. Sheriff Ivory did not look to the Lord Advocate nor to the Treasury, but to "Mr. A. J. Balfour," and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer implores the House of Commons to waste the money of the country in the way now proposed. I cannot vote for the payment of this money. Sheriff Ivory incurred the penalty by doing a grossly improper official act, for which he deserved to be rebuked and punished; and at the present time these acts on the part of subordinate officials are encouraged so long as they raise the cry of "the enemies of law and order." What is being done now all round the Civil Service? Look at the state of things at the Home Office! The Home Secretary is not recognised; he is a cipher. We find Mr. Anderson handing over confidential Home Office documents without the leave of the Home Secretary, and then "Mr. A. J. Balfour" insists upon the right hon. Gentleman coming down and saying that that was quite a proper proceeding. How do the Government expect their subordinates to behave if they encourage them to become violent political partizans and to utter libels, and then pay the damages? A more thorough picture of the demoralization of public servants than that which had been shown up within the last few weeks I have never seen. We see prison doctors sending proof-sheets of letters to the Secretary for Ireland for publication in the Times newspaper, the Secretary for Ireland acting as a sort of sub-editor. We see Sheriff Ivory publishing confidential documents of this kind, and at the very time when the trial was pending of the man against whom he made these false statements. The Report was published, I am told, in the month of February, and the man
  82
  was tried in March. He was acquitted, and naturally he complained, and there need be no surprise that he brought the action. The late Lord Advocate, and with him the Treasury, express the opinions that the money ought not to be paid, but after Sheriff Ivory has sufficiently rated the right hon. Gentleman, and held "Mr. A. J. Balfour" in terrorem over them they yield and agree to this waste of public money. I suppose we may assume that at the close of the financial year the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be bursting with a surplus, and he wants to expend a portion of it upon Sheriff Ivory. If the right hon. Gentleman has a surplus I congratulate him, but I advise him not to spend the public money in the way proposed. I think this was a most improper proceeding on the part of Sheriff Ivory. I think the action brought against him resulted in a just verdict, that to publish the Report as he did was a breach of discipline, and that the publication at the time when the man was about to be tried was much worse than an official indiscretion, and I think the payment of these damages will be an extremely good lesson to Sheriff Ivory and other officials who are disposed to take the law into their own hands and do as they think fit without regard to their official superiors.
  DR. CLARK: I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have thanked us for the "Plan of Campaign" we have adopted towards Sheriff Ivory, instead of reproaching us. I should like him to say what other course we should have taken. Would you have us shooting behind a hedge? We found, or thought we found, a Sheriff acting illegally, and we ventured to try the case in a court of law. This is a course which I should have thought would have had the approval of the Party of law and order. I think the Lord Advocate should withdraw his incorrect statement regarding his predecessor, Mr. J. B. Balfour. He told us that the late Lord Advocate wanted these letters of Sheriff Ivory published. His words were, "They both wanted them published." Now, it appears from the letter read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the late Lord Advocate did not want them published; he deprecated the publication.
  MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan did not deprecate the publication of the letters. What he deprecated was the publication of the attacks upon Sheriff Ivory.
  DR. CLARK: The Lord Advocate said that both wanted the letters published.
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I said that the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and Sheriff Ivory were at one in desiring that a refutation should be given to the calumnious charges which had been made against Sheriff Ivory.
  DR. CLARK: I understood him they both wanted the letters published. As a matter of fact, he did not want the publication, and this is one of the many misrepresentations that have been weaved about the facts. We are told that the Government must protect public servants even when they err; but if we are going to have men riding rough-shod over our people, coming at midnight into homes without warrant, whether women or invalids are there or not, taking prisoners without warrant, if they have been doing such things and we bring them into Court to answer and they are mulct in damages, are we then to vote the money here? If that is to be so we must have recourse to another Plan of Campaign. If your Law and Order procedure is thus of no avail, if the Law is to punish, have the Parliament to find the money we must have recourse to the prisons. Sheriff Ivory published this lie for the purpose of biassing the Court and getting a man punished, and what was the evidence of the Sheriff's officer who was deforced? He was mobbed, he said, and the man who came forward and tried to protect him from violence was this man, Norman Stewart. The officer swore that Stewart interfered and he got away unhurt. Here was a good citizen who came to the protection of an officer of the law, perhaps, getting himself into trouble, making himself unpopular in the neighbourhood, and he is made the subject of Sheriff Ivory's attack, and yet we are to pay Sheriff Ivory's costs! Let me suggest to the Attorney General that he should look upon this case of Sheriff Ivory as that of a brother in affliction; let him with his colleagues pay these expenses from their own pockets. The First Lord, who has made considerable profit
  84
  from the sale of a libellous pamphlet, might join with the Attorney General in subscribing from these ill-gotten gains and the assistance of Sheriff Ivory. The case of the Times is exactly on a par with this of Sheriff Ivory. Suppose the Time, defeated in an action for libel by those which had maligned and slandered, were to come and ask for Parliamentary assistance. You may whitewash Sheriff Ivory, you may condone his illegal action, and if you do it will not be the first time the cause of law and order has been directed with favours of illegality.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not take the extreme view put forward by some of my friends. I quite admit the duty of supporting public officers in the bonâ fide discharge of their duties, even when they may err, unless, indeed, you pay them in such a way as to guarantee them against the consequences of a mistake. I differ then from the view put forward by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and had it been necessary I should in the Beaton case have supported the Government, because I believe the Sheriff, occupying his responsible position, did what he did in the performance of a public duty in what he considered to be the public interest. But when we come to the other case—that of Stewart—then I look at it from an entirely different point of view. Here Sheriff Ivory was mulct in damages because he published a libel against Stewart. Apart from the question whether he was right or wrong, I am willing to believe that the Sheriff acted bonâ fide, from passion and prejudice perhaps, but not from malice. But he did not publish this report as part of his official duty, he published it in a newspaper, which was a grave official fault. It is hardly worth while considering that if he had made the Report to his official superior the paper would have become public property and the Sheriff would have been protected; it is not pretended that in publishing it in a newspaper Sheriff Ivory acted for the public interest; no public interest was involved; he acted simply because he was irritated and aggrieved by assaults upon his personal character. There is excuse for Sheriff Ivory. I admit he was greatly irritated; and if it were a question of punishing him or dismissing him for a grave error of judgment

  85
  we might accept the excuse, but this is not a question of punishing him, the proposal is to punish the taxpayers by levying the damages the Sheriff is called upon to pay, and I must say I do not think we are justified in doing that. So I must vote in the Lobby with my hon. Friends.
  *MR. WALLACE: I have no feeling against Sheriff Ivory, and do not know much about him; he has done me no harm and I wish to do him no harm, the object of my displeasure is Her Majesty's Government, and what I complain of is their alternative negative and affirmative action. I am at a loss to understand how they succeeded in refuting their own arguments against this claim. The old adage that second thoughts are best has been falsified in this case; the first thoughts of the Government were good, their subsequent thoughts worse and worse. I am surprised at the clumsy and discreditable manner in which they have "turned their backs upon themselves," certainly, if I had to perform the feat I would try to do it in a more graceful way. What did Sheriff Ivory do? An attempt has been made to make light of the libel; but it was in fact a libel published upon a man about to be tried by himself or his representative. He declared this man to be a ringleader of a mob, and promoter of lawless proceedings. I should like to ask English Members to put such a case as this before themselves for one moment. This Judge is going to try this prisoner for being a ringleader of a mob, for being a promoter of lawless proceedings, yet two months before the trial comes on he publishes, on his own authority and without any special provocation, a statement of his opinion in a newspaper that the person whom he was going to try was the leading ringleader of a mob and the principal promoter of the lawless proceedings in the district. What would hon. Members for English constituencies feel if any one of their own Judges, with respect to a prisoner whom he was going to try four weeks hence, were to print in the Times, or any other journalistic receptacle for mendacious and defamatory garbage, a statement that the man awaiting trial was the principal promoter of burglaries or murderous proceedings in the district? I think that
  86
  steps would be taken to remove such an unjudicial man from the Bench. What are the defences that have been made for Sheriff Ivory in this matter? It has been said that he had the sanction of a gentleman whom I may be allowed to call Lord Advocate Balfour—by reason of his position in a former Parliament—His authority has been adduced as justifying the action of the Sheriff. But we, who know the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Clackmannamshire, believe it to be perfectly unconceivable and utterly impossible that so eminent a jurist as he is, should have ever given his authority or advice to any person in the position of a judge to libel an untried prisoner. That Sheriff Ivory could imagine that he had any such authority goes far to convince me that he is not a person suitable to continue in the exercise of judicial functions. The person Sheriff Ivory libelled was acquitted; he was proved in Court to be innocent, yet after he had retired from the action, which the accused person naturally brought against him, by paying the costs of the plaintiff, he actually continued to defend the publication of the libel, and maintained that it was true. The accusation was published in Feburary; the man was acquitted in March, in June the libel action was disposed of, and on the 26th August, Sheriff Ivory sent a long and elaborate statement to the Treasury, in which he continued to maintain that the man to whom he had paid damages was still guilty of the thing of which by paying the costs, he had previously tacitly admitted that he was innocent. Now, Sir, with respect to the case of Norman Stewart What does Sheriff Ivory say in respect to him?—
  "That he showed consciousness of his guilt in absconding to the hills on the approach of the police to his dwelling, and in doing his utmost to evade the law."
  But how could he show consciousness of guilt when he was proved in a Court of Law to be innocent? What he did do was to show his consciousness of the extreme danger under which he would be if he fell into the hands of Sheriff Ivory. For myself, if I were wanted for judicial purposes by Sheriff Ivory, I would retire not only to the hills, but to the valleys and to all the "rocks, caves, lakes, fens, bogs, dens, and

  87
  shades of death" I could think of, before I would entrust my character into the keeping of a magistrate who has shown that he does not possess even the most rudimentary vestige of the elementary principles of justice. Then we have the Lord Advocate coming forward voluntarily in opposition to his predecessor in office, in order to defend Sheriff Ivory. I was sorry to see him take rather a light view of this matter. He speaks lightly of a £200 subject—with his nose in the air—but is that all? He said it was merely a technical error of which Sheriff Ivory had been guilty. He pointed out that the Sheriff could have secured publication of his version of the matter under privilege if he had only waited for the issue of the Report of the Commission of Supply, so that he committed a mere formal offence in publishing it in anticipation of the trial of this unhappy crofter. But is it a right thing—is it merely a technical error to libel an innocent man even under privilege? Is there only a technical distinction to be drawn between a publication by your own act in defiance of your duty, and a publication through the act of others consequent on the compulsory discharge of your duty? I think it is a substantial, and not a technical distinction. Was it a mere technical wrong that was done to this unfortunate crofter? Would it not have been safer for him if Sheriff Ivory had waited until his Report had been issued by the Commissioners of Supply in April? The trial and acquittal took place in March, while Sheriff Ivory published the Report in February, and so this unfortunate man had to fight against tremendous odds, of the public denunciations of the official superior of the Judge who was to try him. This is a strange revelation of judicial life in the North of Scotland. Sheriff Ivory, in the most ingenuous way, shows the ideas of justice which prevail in his mind by writing to his substitute for the reasons for the partial breaking down of the case. The reply was that the Crown witnesses did not come up to the precognitions at either of the crofter trials. That is to say, when these poor people were examined in secret before the Procurator Fiscal they were willing to say a good deal so long as they were not
  88
  on oath; but when they came to be put upon oath, they shrank from the statements which they had previously been tempted into making by the intolerant swagger and overbearing demeanour with which we are too well acquainted. The Sheriff next brings in a Deus ex machinâ in the shape of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then Secretary for Scotland. He says—
  "I furnished Mr. A. J. Balfour with notes on a speech of Dr. Cameron containing innumerable charges against me, for the purpose of enabling him to answer those charges in the Crofters' Debate in the House of Commons, which was then about to take place."
  Later on, he says—
  "But in consequence of the turn which the debate took, Mr. A. J. Balfour, fortunately for me, considered it necessary to supplement the observations of the Lord Advocate, and was pleased to adopt a very different line of conduct in reference to the charges made against me. Mr. Balfour answered conclusively one by one the numerous charges that had been brought against me "—
  having been previously primed by this gentleman himself. Later still this document continues that Mr. A. J. Balfour observed—
  "The truth is, in my judgment, very scant justice has been done to Sheriff Ivory in this matter."
  "Our law," he continued—
  "is administered, after all, not by angels, but by men; and if you impose upon men a most difficult, laborious, and delicate task, some slight failure there must necessarily be."
  I am not going to enter into a controversy with the Chief Secretary on a question of angels. A philosopher who having first written a successful Pyrr-honistio treatise proving that science is as baseless as theology, has afterwards elicited rapturous applause from bishops, archdeacons, and honourable women in Church Congress assembled, by apologizing for Christianity on the ground that it is the best working creed for this world if one can only believe in it, is not a person with whom ordinary inquirers should risk a controversy. But I had always understood that even angels suffer for their offences for the sake of maintaining law and order in the universe; and from this it would seemingly follow a fortiori that men in general, and sheriffs in particular, should suffer for their blunders in the interests of the public good. I therefore

  89
  think Her Majesty's Government perfectly justified in their first purpose of making Sheriff Ivory suffer a little inconvenience in order that he might be made a sadder, if not wiser, man and Sheriff. Now, I will ask the indulgence of the Committee while I turn to the second position assumed by Her Majesty's Government in March, 1883. What are the reasons that they assign for the remarkable reversal of their position six months before? "Taking note of the opinion of Lord Advocate Balfour," that "the Sheriff had acted on the bonâ fide though mistaken belief" that the Lord Advocate had approved of the publication, they sanctioned the payment of the costs and damages. But that the Sheriff persisted in thinking that he was in the right is just what makes him all the more objectionable. The more a fanatic of injustice believes he is right when he is indefensibly wrong the more unfit he is for his position. If a man's ideas are totally wrong and outrageous, then the greater his bonâ fides the more mischief he is likely to do. Let me point out that Lord Advocate Balfour takes very good care to intimate that he never gave Sheriff Ivory any reason to suppose he had his approbation for the outrageous act of which he had been guilty. But, even if Sheriff Ivory had that authority, still the act was glaringly wrong. Lord Advocates may be very great officers, but they cannot possibly give authority to a sensible man to contradict his own common sense, or rather to do that which he knows—or ought to know—to be utterly unjudicial or anti-judicial. We are told to lay great stress on the fact that Lord Advocate Balfour was pleased to say he considered the general conduct of Sheriff Ivory in his work was such as to entitle him to favourable consideration as regards the costs in question. But the opinion of "Lord Advocate Balfour" was written by him when he had ceased to be Lord Advocate, and when he was simply a private member of the Scotch Bar; and a Government which contains the philosopher who teaches that law is administered not by angels but by men, might have remembered the popular—I do not say the accurate—impression that lawyers, upon questions of costs and fees, are not only not angelic, but barely human, and even accipitral
  90
  in their nature, and in such a matter not disposed to pick out each other's eyes. A brilliant mister of antithesy signalized the difference between Bacon seeking for the truth and Bacon seeking for the Seals, and similarly there is a vast difference between Sheriff Ivory seeking for the crofters and Sheriff Ivory seeking for the costs; in the document seeking for costs there is an evidence of skill and capacity which is sufficient to dumbfound anyone who has read only his first Memorandum. The whole of his trust is wisely reposed upon the name of Mr. A. J. Balfour, who is declared over and over again to be responsible for his actions. From what I know of the feeling which exists in Scotland upon this matter it is regarded as a shameless job. It is thought that it has been wrung out of the good nature of one wearer of the name of Balfour, and by flattering the imperiousness of another wearer of the same name; and that though the man who tries to support himself on two stools is certain to come to grief and to the ground, the man, and especially the Sheriff, who succeeds in supporting himself on two Balfours is equally certain to come to cash and victory.
  *MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I desire, Sir, in speaking on this subject, to call attention to what the Scottish Members on this side of the House feel with regard to it. What we complain of is that Sheriff Ivory in February, 1885, having reported a confidential communication, containing slanderous matter to the Lord Advocate, took upon himself to issue it to the newspapers. When Sheriff Ivory published that letter he started by stating that he had communicated it to the Police Committee at Inverness, and gave that as a reason why it might be published in the newspapers. From my point of view it does not matter whether the Lord Advocate gave his consent to the publication or not, and I would point out that the document was never published by the Police Committee of the Commissioners of Supply, although the Sheriff implies that when communicated to them, it would necessarily have been made public. No authority given by the Lord Advocate or Commissioners of Supply could privilege slander, and the effect of any such authority would

  91
  thereby be to make them accessories, and liable in the consequences. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very severe in his remarks to-night on what was said on a former occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), whose exertions on behalf of the people of the Highlands and Islands will never be forgotten in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman also said that Sheriff Ivory was not guilty of anything in the nature of malice in regard to the man Norman Stewart. I do not want to impute to Sheriff Ivory more than is necessary under present circumstances; but I will take the case against that official from the documents that are before us, including the Memorials to the Treasury, and I will say that though the statements they contain are; to a large extent, inaccurate, if they do not also convey the idea of bias or malice, then one is at a loss to know what malice is. Let us deal in illustration with one inaccuracy. The Sheriff says, in one Memorandum—
  "These proceedings, and also the Conduct of the Government in Skye generally, have frequently been brought under the notice of Parliament, and repeated Motions hare been made by Dr. Cameron and others for public inquiry in regard to them, as well as for the stoppage of my salary and my dismissal from office; but these Motions have, after full and ample discussion, invariably been refused by both Conservative and Liberal Governments."
  Now, it is not correct to say that any Motion has ever been made in this House for the stoppage of Sheriff Ivory's salary. No such Motion could be made, as the salary does not fall under the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) has commented with just severity on the conduct of Sheriff Ivory after the trial of the men who were charged with a breach of the law, and has pointed out that he being the Sheriff of the County, communicated with the Sheriff Substitute by whom Norman Stewart was acquitted, and demanded to know how it was that he, the Sheriff Substitute, had acquitted that person. The Sheriff Substitute, being obliged to report to his superior, replied that it was because "The Crown witnesses did not come up to their precognitions at either of the crofters' trials." I corroborate to the fullest the statement that such
  92
  an interference on the part of the Sheriff with the Sheriff Substitute in the administration of justice is not only unjustifiable, but such as has never before been brought under the observation of the public. The publication was made in February, 1885, and the trial took place in March; and, this being so, on what ground was the statement published by the Sheriff to the whole of the Highlands, before the man was tried, that Norman Stewart was a ringleader of the mob? One of the reasons put forward by Sheriff Ivory for the publication of the document was his wish to clear himself from the charges-brought against him by the Rev. Mr. M'Callum, of Waternish. How was Mr. M'Callum treated subsequently? Some time after these charges had appeared, Mr. M'Callum was going to preach for a friend on Sunday, and having to go a considerable distance from his home, travelled on the Saturday night, when he was arrested and taken a great number of miles to Portree, being only released on the following Monday on a bail of £100. And, what happened after this? Why, no further proceedings were taken against Mr. M'Callum. The proceedings of Sheriff Ivory and his subordinates stand condemned by the documents on the Table. I may add that I have great fault to find with the Treasury. I refer to the Treasury Minute, dated 23rd March, 1888. In it the Permanent Secretary states to the Board—
  "At the same time, my Lords fully recognzie the trying nature of the work with which the Sheriff was entrusted, and his great and natural sense of irritation at the serious and unfounded charges of misconduct then made against him. Moreover, their Lordships desire to give full support to any public officer who acts to the best of his judgment in the discharge of his duty."
  Now, what right has the Treasury to say this? I do not think my language too strong when I say that it is an audacious thing for the Treasury to support Sheriff Ivory in this way, when it is known that public inquiries into his conduct have been made over and over again and refused. With regard to what the people of the Highlands think of Sheriff Ivory, they know that though he has been whitewashed over and over again—they cannot but recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has more than once

  93
  stopped the sending of troops and gunboats that might have done a great deal of mischief in the Highlands. I say of Sheriff Ivory that, by many things he has done, he has lost the confidence of the Highland people. They say that if there be one name more obnoxious to them than another it is that of Sheriff Ivory, and this not because he happens to be Sheriff of the county, but from the high-handed way in which his proceedings were over and over again carried out in matters which affected the minds of the people. And I would point to the course the debate of to-night has taken. When the case used to come before the House years ago there were very few who took notice of it, but on this occasion we have hon. and right hon. Members taking the matter up, not only on these benches, but on the front bench above the Gangway, and, for my part, I beg to thank those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have been induced to aid our action. As far as the people of the Highlands are concerned, it is to them inexplicable how the present Government should mix themselves up in a matter with which they have no concern whatever; and, although they have a right to stand up for any official who has done his duty, they will, in passing the Vote now before the Committee, do that which those who are most affected by it will hear of with deep regret.
  *MR. W. H. SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  DR. CLARK: We can bring it up again. One illegality follows another.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 67.—(Division List, No. 22.)
  Question put accordingly,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for certain Expenses of the Law Agent in Scotland for Government Departments."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 77.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
  (2.) £24,690, Supplementary, Public Education.

  THE ADMINISTRATION OF SWAZILAND
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £28,310, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, Bechuanaland, the Island of St. Helena, and the High Commissioner for South Africa."
  DR. TANNER: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  The House was counted, and 40 Members were found to be present.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have given notice of several reductions of this Vote; but as they refer to totally different subjects, I hope you, Sir, will allow me to move them separately. In the first place, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £250, the cost of Missions to Tongaland and Swaziland, and I do so for the purpose of obtaining information as to those Missions, and also as to the state of things existing in those countries. I want to know what has been the result of the Missions? I want to know whether we have a Resident or an Adviser in Swaziland? I want to know who is Mr. O. Shipstone, who I see mentioned in the papers? I want to know who he is, and what his present position there is? We have been told that by the Convention of London we have bound ourselves to maintain the independence of Swaziland; but my impression is, that that Convention has been broken in a good many particulars since it was made. At all events it seems to me there is no use whatever in guaranteeing the independence of Swaziland, if we really leave the country a prey to adventurers. If any sort of independent Government is to be maintained there, some civilized Power must protect it. If we are not prepared to protect it properly, we had better leave it alone altogether. Swaziland is much in the same position as Lord Salisbury has said Samoa is in—that is to say, the native Government cannot stand alone. If there is any interference it would be better it should be on the part of one Power. In the case of Swaziland there is not the serious quarrel between great Powers which there is in the case of Samoa; indeed, I think we are probably in a position to deal with the native

  95
  Government if we are so wishful. I am not for annexation of any kind, for we have enough on our hands already, but I have always thought that if we are to extend our interests in Africa, it is better we should do so in districts near the sea—not in the far interior of the country, where we are altogether shut in by other territories. Now, as to Swaziland, I think we ought either to thoroughly, effectually, and practically protect the native Government in the independence we have guaranteed them, or wash our hands altogether of any responsibility. I confess the affairs of Swaziland have no great interest for me, and that probably I should not have thought of bringing them before the Committee if it had not been for something I read the other day in the newspapers. It seems that a Committee of white traders have established themselves in the country, and that they have passed a tariff of import duties, with what authority I do not know. I see it was unanimously resolved by this Committee—and this is what I most strongly object to—"that no Asiatic shall be allowed to trade in Swaziland." I do not wonder that they were unanimous; traders generally like to exclude rival traders. If the Government profess to exercise any influence in the country, I want to know whether they will permit this gross monopoly on the part of the white traders; whether they will allow our Indian subjects to be shut out of that country? I am afraid the Resolution I have quoted is only a symptom of a feeling which is growing very widely in the South of Africa, and especially in our own Colony at Natal. There is no objection in Natal to the Indian community as long as they are represented by men acting in the capacity of hewers of wood and drawers of water, but the moment Indians by their own industry and their own talent begin to accumulate property and to rise in the world—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is travelling beyond the item. The item his Motion refers to only justifies discussion as to our relations with Swaziland.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: I only referred to the state of things at Natal as illustrative of that at Swaziland, the traders in Swaziland being a kind of overflow from Natal. I want some assurance that the interests of the
  96
  Swazies will be cared for, and that if we Lave any influence in the country it will be exercised most strongly in favour of the natives. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £250.
  Motion made, and Question proposed: "That Item D. 3, £250 for High Commissioners' Travelling, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS): The hon. Member proposes to reduce the Vote in connection with the Missions to Tongaland and Swaziland.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: Swaziland.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Also Tongaland.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: My observations applied to Swaziland only.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Then, with regard to Swaziland, I have to say that the money set down was expended in defraying the expenses of Colonel Martin, who went to Swaziland to meet the Portuguese Commissioner and also the Commissioner of the Transvaal with regard to the question of delimitation respecting Delagoa Bay. That question was satisfactorily settled at the time, and the Portuguese Government accepted the award, although it was not very favourable to the views they put forward. The hon. Member asks me what we intend to do with Swaziland, and he said we had either a Protectorate or we had not. I can inform the hon. Gentleman we have no Protectorate, and that, therefore, we are not responsible for what takes place. It is perfectly true that a Committee of 15 members exists in Swaziland; but those gentlemen are not in the slightest degree, directly or indirectly, connected with the British Government, and we have no control whatever over them. The hon. Member alluded to Mr. Shepstone. Mr. Shepstone Is simply a private individual, who is the head of the White Committee of 15, and the principal adviser of King Umbandine. I do not know whether this Committee has made a stipulation that no Asiatic shall trade in Swaziland; but if such, a restriction exists Her Majesty's Government have nothing to do with it—it depends entirely on the will of King Umbandine and his European advisers. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to pursue the subject further. Neither in

  97
  Tongaland nor Swaziland have the Government any direct or indirect influence whatever.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I should be obliged if the Under Secretary will say whether any portion of this £250 represents expenses incurred by Sir Hercules Robinson or by Sir Sydney Sheppard?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: No portion of it.
  DR. CLARK: Last year I asked my hon. Friend (Sir G. Campbell) not to discuss this question upon the main Vote, in the hope that Her Majesty's Government would do something in South Africa, and that this year we would know what their South African policy is. But, as far as we know, Her Majesty's Government have no policy in South Africa, but that of drift. We are spending money foolishly in Swaziland, just as we are in every other portion of South Africa where we can get a chance to do so. The Under Secretary tells us the Government have no control over the whites. That is perfectly true, but it is a fact of which the Government ought to be ashamed. Although you repudiate control, you are morally responsible for the condition of things in South Africa. To repudiate control in Swaziland is to my mind dishonourable on the part of the Government. Swaziland is a portion of the Transvaal; it was cut away from the Transvaal when we gave that country back to the Boers, because it was principally inhabited by natives themselves. I thought at the time the arrangement made by the Convention was a very wise one, for it gave the people an opportunity of developing their own civilization. If Her Majesty's Government had aided and abetted the Swazies in keeping Swaziland for themselves, we might have witnessed an improvement there similar to that which has taken place in Basutoland. King Umbandine has granted mineral concessions over nearly the whole of his territory, and sometimes the same concessions have been given to different persons, so that the strongest bold what was given to them against their weaker competitors at present. Swaziland is nearly parcelled out amongst white men, principally from Natal, the bulk of them being British subjects. These men control the country; they have set up a Custom House, and they levy blackmail on all
  98
  goods passing through the country into the native territory and into the Transvaal. The result is that the Swazies have no chance at all in their own country. The Government will not even carry out the policy of their own High Commissioner. Sir Hercules Robinson has pointed out to them that a condition of anarchy exists in the country, and has strongly recommended them to modify the treaty. You will allow the thing to go on until you have a row between the King and his White Councillors, and then somebody will have to step in, and you will have to spend, perhaps, half a million of money. It will be the old story of Bechuanaland over again. You are spending a little money now, and you will probably be compelled to send a big expedition by and by. I do not know what on earth Her Majesty's Government intend to do, but the poor unfortunate natives are being driven away from their own territory and the condition of things is truly deplorable. From what I have seen myself, I know that the people are being demoralized by that great engine of civilisation, grog—that is to say, bad Hollands gin, and a species of Scotch whisky which is called rum. You may shirk responsibility as much as you like; but you are morally bound either to take over Swaziland yourselves or to let the Transvaal take it over. I do not expect that you will offer it to the Transvaal; and the difficulty will be how you are going to get there, as you cannot do so through your own territory. Some of my hon. Friends think that the Transvaal Government does not behave very well to the native races. All I can say is that the natives who live under that Government have more comfort and a higher degree of civilization than in any British Colony in South Africa.
  *SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I should like to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms) why this particular item comes in the High Commissioner's Vote. There is, I believe, to be a considerable agitation in this country respecting our rule in South Africa, and it is news to me to find Swaziland and Pondoland placed under the Vote for the Commissioner, I should have expected to find them under the Special

  99
  Commissioner's Vote. No doubt, however, the High Commissioner is now the representative of Imperial authority in South Africa, and I am one of those who are determined to see the Imperial policy in South Africa made consistent and strong, and to prevent its drifting. I think my right hon. Friend, the Under Secretary, has explained the official view of this Vote, but I do not think he has yet stated the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the consequences of the mission. I suppose we should not have sent a mission to Swaziland if we had not felt that we had a duty to perform to the Swazis. We are bound by duty and honour to look after them, and are also bound from the point of view of our material interests to do so. There are many hundreds of thousands of British capital invested there. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has heard that a foreign nation is supposed to be buying up concessions in Swaziland, with a view to putting an end to the independence of the Swazi nation? We are also bound to look after the Swazis by the tie of honour. Not only did we originally guarantee the independence of Swaziland, but we are bound by the Convention of 1884 to uphold and maintain its independence. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the Government are considering the policy of placing in Swaziland a resident Commissioner to represent the Imperial Government. We cannot, looking at the matter either from a business point of view or from the point of view of our own honour, allow the Swazis to pass under the control of adventurers, and I think the first step we ought to take is that of appointing a Resident or Commissioner in the country.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: There is much force in what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and also by the hon. Member opposite (Sir G. Baden-Powell), but I must say I am not aware that we have entered into any obligations towards the Swazis which should bind us to protect them against invasion. I am not prepared to object to the policy stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, when he told us that the Government had no influence in Swaziland. At the same time I want to know
  100
  why it is, if the Government have no influence in Swaziland, we are asked to vote this money for the demarcation of the boundary line. If we can do nothing there to protect either our white or our coloured subjects, should this House be asked to pay this £250? It seems to me that if Her Majesty's Government are really determined consistently to follow out the policy of non-interference which has been announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to night, all we can do is to say to the Swazis, "Be independent if you can; we are not going to protect you." The only interference we can exercise is to say to Germany and other Foreign Powers that we think we may fairly claim that they should not interfere in the country. As the Under Secretary has given no reason why we should pay this £250, I feel compelled to divide the House Committee against the item.
  *MR. BEADLAUGH: I shall certainly support the Motion to reduce the Vote, because the explanation which has been given to us is of the vaguest and most unsatisfactory character. It is quite clear that if we have nothing whatever to do with Swaziland we ought not to be called upon to pay anything for it; and if we have anything to do with it we need some further explanation. It is quite clear that, under cover of these missions to different parts of South Africa, during the past six months, there has been an amount of disgraceful jobbery, which the Government has not been perfectly straightforward about in its answers in this House. The answers to questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) and myself, with reference to the High Commissioner, have been absolutely contradictory in terms. Probably a modification was made in the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because of his greater influence in this House, but it was a modification of an exceedingly serious character, and, unless some further explanation is given, it will not only be my duty to divide on this Vote, but to take every opportunity of getting at the truth of the matter. When you find the High Commissioner figuring in connection with transactions such as that

  101
  to which the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has alluded, it is time something was done in this House to prevent the recurrence of scandals of so disgraceful a character.
  *SIR W. BARTTELOT: No one who has read the papers or who has known anything about South Africa during the last year or two can feel that the Government has taken up as strong a position in regard to that part of the world as we have a right to expect. If we are to hold these territories, many of which I believe to be all important to this country, we must know precisely on what terms they are to be held. Our High Commissioner ought to be a Commissioner over all our interests in South Africa, and should not be mixed up with any particular Colony. How can a man who is Governor of the Cape Colony do justice to the great imperial interests we have in South Africa?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entering into too large a subject. The Question must be restricted to the missions.
  *SIR W. BARTTELOT: Of course. Sir, I obey your ruling, though I would point out that at the head of these Estimates appear the words: "High Commissioner, travelling." Well, I may say I look on these questions of Swaziland and Delagoa Bay as being of the greatest importance to this country. We might have had Delagoa Bay, which would have formed, an admirable connecting link between Natal and Swaziland, and in my judgment we ought not to have left a stone unturned till we had obtained Delagoa Bay. I know the views and opinions of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary; I do not think his poliey would be in unison with the policy which he has expressed to-night. My belief is that if he was in charge of the Colonial Office he would adopt such a poliey that we should hold our own in South Africa, and I hope he will be able to express an opinion more in consonance with the views held in this country than he has done up to the present.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and another hon. Member said they could not understand why, if we bad nothing to do with Swaziland, we
  102
  should be called upon to pay £250 for a mission there. The explanation is very simple. The Convention of London of 1884 provided that the independence of Swaziland within the boundary line should be fully recognized. The mission of Colonel Martin is simply for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of that treaty by arranging with the Portugese Commissioner that the limits there laid down should be strictly observed. As to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), his arguments were extremely ingenious. The hon. Member was very indignant that we should do nothing in Swaziland, and went on to say that if we did anything we should be violating the Convention of 1884. But he blamed the Government all the same. Therefore, we are blamed for not doing that which he considers we could not by any possibility do. Having told us that we ought to do it, and having satisfiel himself that by the Treaty of 1881 we could not do it, he then most ingeniously suggests that we should allow Swaziland to pass into the hands of the Transvaal Republic. Now, Sir, the hon. Member is a very able advocate of the interests of the Transvaal Republic, and I cannot always in my own mind divide the hon. Member for Caithness from the Consul-General of the Boer Republic. It is somewhat difficult for me to do so on an occasion of this kind, when I find that under guise of an attack upon the Government he suggests that we should be parties to assisting the Transvaal to take Swaziland, notwithstanding the Convention of 1884. If his argument means anything it means that. Well, Sir, I say that Her Majesty's Government will enter into no such arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Sussex (Sir. W. Barttelot) said he hoped we would pursue a firm and just policy in South Africa. It is because we feel it necessary to have a just and firm policy that we conceive our first duty to be not to violate international Conventions, but to respect them to the utmost. If the course of events should render it necessary either for the protection of the natives or for the security of British interests generally to modify those Conventions, Her Majesty's Government will not shrink from the responsibility of so doing. But between modifying them and breaking them, as

  103
  was suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness, there is a vast and important difference. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked me a question with regard to the mission to Tongaland. That mission was undertaken by Colonel Martin for the purpose of cementing the friendly relations which exist between us and the Queen of Tongaland. I hope now the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) will withdraw his Motion.
  DR. CLARK: Of course, we have got the usual reply from the Treasury Bench. It is the old story. The Government have nothing to say as far as the facts or arguments are concerned; but they always talk about the Member for Caithness being Consul General for the Boer Republic, and they also give me the credit of being the author of the policy recommended to them by Her Majesty's High Commissioner and which they published a couple of years ago. All I say is that you should either carry out the advice of Her Majesty's Commissioner or take Swaziland yourself. It is said that by the Convention of 1884 our hands and the hands of the Transvaal are tied; but it is perfectly well-known that the Transvaal is quite willing that the Treaty should be modified, because the conditions are changed. The Treaty was made at a time when there were very few white men there. Now there are many white men, and the land chiefly belongs to white men.
  MR. CONWAY: The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has not seen fit to give the House any assurance whatever with regard to protection being afforded to Indian traders in connection with exploiters from Natal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not encourage people from Natal in using these Indians as hewers of wood and drawers of water, as remarked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell).
  *SIR G. BADEN POWELL: I think we ought to support this Vote, in order to enable Her Majesty's Government to carry out their existing policy. Those who oppose the Vote oppose a consistent policy in South Africa.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 156.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
  Original Question again proposed.

  THE ADMINISTRATION OF BECHU-ANALAND.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: The next reduction I have to submit to the Committee has relation to a larger question—the grant of £28,000 in aid of the administration in Bechuanaland. The first complaint I have to make is that such a very large question should be shoved through Committee at the tail end of a Supplementary Vote, and that it has not been submitted to us at a proper time. The Vote really raises the whole question whether Her Majesty's Government ought to undertake on the part of, and at the expense of, the people of this country, the administration of a vast territory in Central Africa running up to the Zambesi. I do not even know that the Government purpose to stop at the Zambesi. I believe they purpose to claim navigation up to the district where the Militant Missionaries are now carrying on operations on Lake Nyassa, seeking to extend their influence over the series of great lakes in Central Africa. Whether we look at the ulterior prospect or the present extent of territory, the question is a large one indeed, and it comes before us for the first time in the form of a challenge to a Vote in Supply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted us the other day with wasting upon such small items as the allowances of gamekeepers in Windsor Park the time we might devote to the elucidation of great Colonial questions; but I think the fault lies with the Government and their arrangement of these Votes, putting those that raise important questions of Colonial policy last. Last Session, too, the time of private Members was appropriated, and we had to find such opportunities as we could in Supply, and, in consequence, important Votes were rushed through in one sitting. An attempt was made in a manner I will not describe, to rush the Supplementary Vote through after midnight. We defeated that intention, and now we have to decide upon this Vote, and give a decision on the policy of the Government, or rather, I should say, the want of policy, that has allowed us to drift as we did in relation to Swaziland, and as we now appear to be drifting in relation to this great territory between Cape Colony

  105
  and the Zambesi. This great territory was in the first instance taken, as the Colonial Secretary told a Deputation, on the understanding that Cape Colony would take it, and the noble Lord went on to say—"I will not pledge myself that it will not be offered to Cape Colony again." This is an illustration of our indefinite Colonial policy. This Vote, remember, does not represent the whole expenditure. The Colonial Secretary was frank in his declaration to the deputation. He said—
  "I hope you will support those Members of Parliament who will be prepared to vote a very large increase that must appear in the sums upon the Estimates for the Colony."
  I am afraid Members do not realize the enormous burden we are laying on the country by this Vote to-night. We pass a Vote for £28,000 for Police in Bechuanaland, and that for only a portion of the year. I understand that the whole year will not be less than £66,000; and with the indication of further expenditure thrown out by the Colonial Secretary, hundreds of thousands of expenditure will result from our accepting the position in which we find ourselves placed. I hope the Under Secretary will, at all events, explain what the expenditure of the year will be, and tell us how far the extension of territory is to go. I maintain we are not justified in passing these Votes and simply allowing the Government to drift with the course of events, while still the British taxpayer has heavier burdens put upon him. If this great burden must be imposed, why should the Government endeavour to smuggle the Vote through at the fag end of the financial year; why do they not boldly and frankly come forward, explain their policy and invite the decision of the House? Hitherto the Government have drifted in these South African transactions into taking more territory, without any definite idea what to do with it, and the result has been a continuously increasing strain on the resources of the mother country. The Government have taken territory they had much better have left alone. I cannot understand why they should annex these vast territories in Central Africa. It is no advantage to our self-governing colonies to have their attention diverted from their own resources to the administration of native territories.
  106
  If we take over these territories we should face the administrative as well as the financial question. In the Bechuanaland territory we have no success to the sea, we have the Germans on one side the Portugese or another, and an independent colony or another. We are at the mercy of Cape Colony in regard to roads and railway for communication. If we do take over the territory we are bound to protect the Natives and not make administration a cover for scandalous concessions to speculators. We are bound to prevent the land and minerals of the country being disposed of to land jobbers and concession mongers. What is the distinction I would ask in these matters, between British Colonies, or British Protectorate and British influence? If British influence becomes a British Protectorate and perhaps annexation follows then the British people are deprived of their rights through this system of concessions. What is the meaning of these great concessions made by Lo Bengula to Mr. Rudd? What is the political reason why Sir Hercules Robinson approved of them? The result is that with concessions here and concessions there the whole conntry is a prey to concession mongers. I want some explanation as to the political reasons why it is desirable to encourage this annexation, and in order to elicit some opinion as to whether or not it is right that we should sanction these proceedings, I move to reduce the Vote by £20,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item E, Grant in Aid of British Bechuanaland, be reduced by 420,000."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  *MR. BAUMANN: Though this is only a supplementary Estimate, and though the sum the Government ask for is a very small one, I think the discussion is of great importance, from the fact that I understand the High Commissioner is shortly coming home, and that a new High Commissioner Governor of Cape Colony will be sent out. I think that before we vote another shilling to be spent in Bechuanaland we are entitled to ask the Government three questions, and we are entitled to get plain answers to these three questions. We are entitled, I think, to ask, in the first place, do Her Majesty's Government intend to extend

  107
  the British Protectorate in Bechuanaland northward to Matabeland and Kamaland? The second question I think we are entitled to put is, does the Colonial Secretary intend to hand Bechuanaland over to Cape Colony; and, thirdly, I wish to know whether the Colonial Secretary intends to continue the present absurd and mischievous combination of the two offices of High Commissioner and Governor of Cape Colony? In connection with the first question as to the extension of the Protectorate, I think we have seen the disastrous effects of that shadowy abstraction which nobody knows the meaning of, "the sphere of British influence," in the concession made by a native chief to Mr. Rudd, by which mining rights have been given over a vast tract of territory to the sum of £1,200 a year, and with regard to which the Secretary to the Colonies tells us the Colonial Office has no right to interfere. What is the meaning of this sphere of British influence, and how comes it that in 1838 an Englishman applied for a similar concession and was snubbed by the High Commissioner, and was told that no such grant could be given without the sanction of the High Commissioner, and now, nearly a year afterwards, Mr. Rudd, an Africander, the partner of Rhodes, has obtained that concession without difficulty and with the sanction of the High Commissioner? It is a singular circumstance in this connection that Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Rudd's partner, a short time ago appeared at a meeting of the De Beers Mining Company holding the proxy of Sir Hercules Robinson, the High Commissioner himself. I will not dwell upon the influences brought to bear upon the High Commissioner at the Cape; but certainly, under the circumstances, it doe not appear to me a very dignified position for the High Commissioner and Governor of the Cape to occupy. We can trace from beginning to end in the record of the opinions of Sir Hercules Robinson the sinister influence of Cape politics. The second question we ought to have answered is this: Is Bechuanaland to be handed over to Cape Colony or is it not? By deputations and by questions in this House nothing can be got out of Lord Knutsford, except that it is not the present intention of Her Majesty's Government
  108
  to hand Bechuanaland over to the Cape. We want to know not only the present, but the ultimate, intention of Her Majesty's Government, for already £1,250,000 has been spent upon Bechuanaland to which Cape Colony has not contributed one sixpence, and before we vote any more money in this direction we are entitled, I think, to an explicit avowal from the Colonial Office as to their intentions. After the disgraceful story of Basutoland, I for one protest against Bechuanaland being handed over to Cape Colony seeing that by a lavish expenditure of British sovereigns and British troops we have rescued the country against anarchy. The keynote of Lord Knutsford's Colonial policy is a feverish anxiety, if not a fixed resolve, to escape responsibility at all costs; and it is that policy which has brought about the Zulu wais, the Boer war, the Bechuanaland expedition, and the Basutoland fiasco. Then, as to the third question, is the Colonial Secretary going to continue the present junction of the High Commissioner and the Governor of Cape Colony? That junction has proved most disastrous to Bechuanaland. In 1884 Sir Thomas Scanlen, then Prime Minister, was in favour of the Cape contributing to cost of Bechuanaland, but he was driven out of office, and Mr. Uppington, who acceded to power, proposed that England should pay the cost and Cape Colony should administer the Protectorate, and now Sir Hercules Robinson grows bolder still and advocates the annexation of Bechuanaland to the Cape. The fact is, it is quite impossible for one man to serve two masters—namely, the Cape Parliament, with an occasional Dutch majority, avowedly hostile to and jealous of British influence, and the Imperial Government at home. You might as well expect the Governor of Quebec to act as Viceroy of Canada. The whole thing reminds me of nothing more than a servant in one of Moliereé's plays, who did the double duty of coachman and gardener, and who requested his master, when he had anything to say about the stable, to speak in his right ear, and when he had anything to say about the garden to speak in his left ear. The junction of these two offices is anomalous and mischievous in its results. The ultimate question which

  109
  we have to face in South Africa is whether the English or the Dutch are to be masters. Of course, the Cape Government are in favour of maintaining the present junction of the two offices, because it places the key of the situation in their hands and makes them masters of the destinies of South Africa. I am certain of this that if the Colonial Secretary continues to allow his Imperial policy to be dictated by the Dutch majority of the Cape Parliament, we shall have a civil war upon us before we know where we were. Young Englishmen who are flocking into South Africa will not submit to have their destinies controlled and to be tyrannized over by a Dutch majority in the Cape Parliament.
  DR. CLARK: I think I may ask to be allowed to draw the attention of the Committee back again to the Vote before the House, that is £28,000 for extra police in Bechuanaland. As far as Bechuanaland is concerned the Government seem to have a policy, and it is a policy of police. The hon. Member who has just sat down advocated a policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government which I should be very glad to support if I thought that in the future the South African States and territory would be governed on principles of common sense, but as I find that our Crown Colonies now are governed on principles entirely different from that, I am not in a position to support the proposal that will be made by-and-bye, and I think I will say something on the other side. But I want to tell you what you are voting the money for and why you are doing it. I have here from Her Majesty's Governments omething in defence of this policy. Since we occupied Bechuanaland the population, white and black, has become reduced, the revenue is not increasing, the country is not progressing in any sense of the term, and that is because the Government have only one policy—a policy of police—and the one thing that is preventing the development of British Bechuanaland and makes it the laughing stock of the whole of South Africa is this policy of police. I should like to bring before the House some figures with reference to this Grown Colony. In 1886 the revenue was £6,700 and the expediture £110,000, of which £84,253 was spent on the police.
  110
  In 1887 the estimated revenue was £10,000, but alas! there was a decreasing population, and the revenue fell to £9,690; and the expenditure was £105,650, of which £79,000 was pant on the police. Last year the estimated revenue was to be £13,000, but during the first five months only £3,163 came, and under pressure the outlay on the police was to be reducedto£59,929. This round £60,000 has been spent and now £20,000 more is asked for. I want to ask the Government what they want the police for? They have a large armed police force in Bechuanaland, like the Irish Constabulary, and, as a military force, it can only affect two powers, either the Boers in the Transvaal Republic or the Matabeles. Well, your police force to deal with the Transvaal Republic would be utterly useless—you would require an army—and if you are going to keep this as a Crown Colony, and desire to keep it secure from aggression, I would strongly urge upon the Government the desirability of having a much stronger force than these police to deal with the Matabeles. Well, if a military force is required in Bechuanaland, will the Government tell me why, when they can get men at a shilling a day to serve them, they should prefer to pay six shillings in South Africa? Bechuanaland, so far as climate is concerned, is one of the finest countries in the world. It would be a splendid place to send your young soldiers to for, say, twelve months, on the way out to India. It would thoroughly set them up and fit them for their duties in India, and then, again, if your men, coming back from India could remain a couple of years or so in Bechuanaland, it would thoroughly refresh them after the fatigues of India, and the climate, being a medium one, would fit them in some degree for facing the climate of a cold country like ours. The country is from four to six thousand feet above the level of the sea, and in the summer time you have there a splendid rain and a cool wind—what you may call a champaign air. I maintain, therefore, that instead of paying police 6s. a day we might very advantageously employ our Indian troops here at a 1s. a day. I contend that Bechuanaland is as much a part of the British Empire as the Isle of Wight, and that if it is aggression

  111
  you fear you could prevent it more effectually by Imperial troops. If you keep men in Bechuanaland for warlike purposes you want an army. All the money thrown away in this country is spent upon the police. There was a school for white children, and land was given to support it; but the school ceased to exist because the Government took the land away, and the condition of things now in this big British Colony is this, that throughout the length and breadth of it there is not a single school for white children. Sir Sidney Sheppard begs and prays you to give him a school, but you will not give him that—you give him 200 more police at a cost of £28,000. On page 5 of the last Blue Book issued, Sir Sidney Sheppard urges you to give favourable consideration to the proposal for making some expenditure on education. Again, your sanitary arrangements are as bad as they can be. In the capital of the country your prisoners in gaol are dying of gaol lever, and yet we learn that the only medical man in the country is a hundred miles from the capital. What is the character of the police force in Bechuanaland, and what is it used for? I have been asked to bring this matter before the House by the Rev. Mr. Brown, the successor of Dr. Moffatt, in the Kuru country. In a letter he has sent me, the whole of which I cannot read, as I do not wish to make the House blush, he says:
  "When I think of the British taxpayer having to pay a large sum of money every year to keep up Bechuanaland, I am thoroughly disgusted, and if you were here your blood would boil with indignation, as mine does."
  He goes on to say that crimes are committed by the magistrates, but as those persons would have no opportunity of replying here, I will not read what he says. He declares that the only work the men of the police force seem to do is that of seducing the native women, and leaving behind them numbers of half-caste children. He says that two blots stain the country, namely, drunkenness and fornication, and he declares that to his mind this is a shameful waste of British money. He says that the Chief of Police does no thing that he knows of but hunt, and usually takes an escort of police with him to beat the bushes, and that as a consequence the men go by the name
  112
  of Carrington's rangers. The men boast of being able to procure as many native girls as they please for brandy. Now, I myself am prepared to say that to a certain extent there is some truth in these statements. I have heard complaints from Montsoia similar to those made by the Rev. Mr. Brown. I maintain that if you spent the money you are squandering on the police for the purpose of giving educational facilities in the Colony and of making a land survey, and would make provision for bringing emigrants into the country instead of carrying out those bogus schemes which we saw last year, where we saw people taken out to places where six or eight months in the year there is no water, you would be doing praiseworthy work. I would ask the Government what they intend to do with regard to Bechuanaland as a whole. There are five tribes between the Matabele River and our colony. We take in two-and-a-half of the tribes, and another tribe is north of our Protectorate, but that portion of the territory is practically worthless, the wood having been cut down. That portion which is under our Protectorate is really the finest country in South Africa. It is a land where you can have splendid farms and good colonies, and not occupied by any game. There are very few natives in the whole territory—not 30,000, I believe. This is the place where concessions are being given, and where you have the same thing being carried out in our British territory that you had in Swaziland. I will tell you how the rights of the natives have been protected. In the last Report of Sir S. Sheppard, we are told that a question arose between a native chief, Kama Sechele, and certain Commissioners, and that it had been referred to an assistant Commissioner to report. Then the Report says—
  "A form of mineral concession has been carefully supplied with a view to protect the interests of the Chiefs in the Protectorate, and that in future it be recommended for adoption in all cases."
  After Sir S. Sheppard left, Mr. Woolatt' his surveyor, remained behind, and go the concession from the Chief without the missionaries knowing anything at all about it, and without the Council knowing anything at all about it. The man drinks and is in his dotage, and, without his son knowing anything of it,

  113
  MR. Woolatt got this concession from him. Mr. Williams, a missionary, told me the whole of the particulars 18 months ago. By this concession, this man Woolatt gets 400 square miles, and all the wood and water, for £400 a-year, and there is no limitation of time. I have seen woods sold for £20 where £40,000 worth of wood could he taken out, not to speak of the mineral rights. But here is the 400 square miles granted to an individual under the British Government. The same thing has occurred to old Sechele, but the son of Sechele says he does not intend to carry the transaction out. And you will have considerable difficulty whenever these men come to attack these concessions, because the chiefs and the head men are opposed to them. That is how you have been guarding the interests of individuals in the Protectorate. As for the Colony itself, well, go there, and you will find nothing but complaints. The unfortunate Montsoia had been put into territory not sufficient for his people, and the head chief, or the king, was telling me when I was up there, 18 months ago, that he had only water for his cattle once in three days; that all of his best lands were taken away from him; and now they have granted locations to bubble companies who write misleading statements, and gull the British public to buy the land taken from those native chiefs. I frankly admit that, as far as some of the farms were concerned, you could not help this; but there were other portions of the territory that might have been made native settlements, and you could have bought out some of those farms for £3,000 or £4,000—here is one that has been got for £400; but, instead of that, you spend £28,000 over this absolutely useless and pernicious police. I want to know, again, having called the attention of the Colonial Secretary to it before, why, when gold was discovered in the land of Montsoia, you did not give him the same rights as are granted to other farmers? His son-in-law, who is in the Transvaal, got £700 a year for prospecting, and you give to every man in Bechuanaland on whose farm gold is discovered the right to peg out 20 claims. When Montsoia wanted to peg out 20 claims, the Crown said, "No; this is Crown land." And this is how the British Government protects
  114
  the natives! Questions have been raised as to the future. I frankly say that, if you want to have a direct British policy in South African, then you must have somebody to carry out that policy. If you intend to keep Bechuanaland as a Crown Colony, do not throw away £80,000 on useless police. Send a body of soldiers there, and keep the peace with a dozen Europeans and a hundred natives; and if you only spend proportionately as much as the States round about you are spending on education, you will find that you will spend almost as much as you are now paying for police. But, if the present system is to continue, then the best thing would be to hand the territory over to the Cape Colony. The first thing that we ought to do would be to annex the whole of Bechuanaland. You are asking settlers out there because you have decent lands to give them where they can live comfortably. I think the sooner the Protectorate is abolished the better; and the whole of these people would, I know, at once come under the Colony. I daresay that Sechele and Montsoia would stand on their rights. Seven-eighths of the tribes would be very glad to come under our control. Then beyond there is a portion of territory which I do not know whether it would be wise at the present time to take in. Probably it would be better to take it than merely have a Protectorate over it. I think you ought to have power as well as responsibility, and that you ought to be able to prevent in the future in those countries under your control those anarchic methods by which they have been taken by the whites. You ought to serve the interests of the natives, and to prevent the Chiefs selling their lands to white adventurers, and the poor people being eaten up, as they say in South Africa. One thing I would like to say to hon. Gentlemen and to the Colonial Office, and that is that you may require your armed police, unless a more definite policy is carried on regarding the conditions which now subsist betwean Matabeleland and Kamaland. I believe Kama to be one of the ablest of the chiefs; but since he has come under our Protectorate his action is to try and force all the natives who do not own his sway across to the Transvaal; and claims have been made which, if persisted in, will probably bring about a war between

  115
  Matabeleland and Kamaland, which is under our Protectorate. If the claim is supported, then there will probably be war in South Africa, and we will be required to fight the Northern Zulus. In regard to the policy pursued in South Africa, it was at first to keep certain people back. There were a number of people going to the Cape Colony to get concessions, and the High Commissioner sent them back, and what the Government ought to do is, to determine the boundary between the Matabeles and the Manwattas—the latter being of weak, and the former a powerful tribe, and unless something of this sort is done we may have trouble in a country 1,500 miles north of the Cape—whither an army would have to march over nearly 700 miles of desert. As to their future policy the Government should determine either on acting on their own responsibility and appointing a Royal Commission, as was promised two years ago by Lord Knutsford, or they should determine on handing the Cape over to the white men and letting them govern it in their own way. If the Cape were thus handed over, the white men there would have to pay the piper, instead of, as at present, the people of this country. The policy hitherto pursued at the Cape is the same bad policy as has been carried out in New Zealand, and will produce wars in South Africa, as it has done in New Zealand, if continued. Let them adopt one policy or the other and adhere to it.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I cannot but express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baumann) for having brought before the Committee the concession made nominally to Mr. Rudd, but really to Mr. Rhodes, in the territory to which this Vote refers. An hon. Member has expressed a hope that the Under Secretary for the Colonies will contradict the statement that Mr. Rhodes acted as proxy for the High Commissioner at a company's meeting; but I should be sorry to hear that contradiction, because if it were contradicted I should have to submit proof to the Committee of the actual fact. When we are asked for £78,000 grant for this territory, and influence is being used to put mining/lands in the hands of speculators, we have a right to ask, what is the attitude of the Government on the
  116
  matter? Last May their attitude was clear. Lord Knutsford said the Government would give no countenance to any concession unless concluded with the knowledge and approval of the High Commissioner. That is, that the Government would and did determine what should happen in regard to these concessions; but, in answer to myself, we are practically told that the Government have nothing to do with it—that they are not in a position to express any opinion on it, and now, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, they disapprove part, and determine to interfere. This is a sudden change.
  *SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: There is one point which seems to me to have been forgotten, and that is that in Bechuanaland there are lands for which the British taxpayer has paid dearly, to the amount of £1,500,000, and which it is proposed to hand over to the Cape Colony. I do not fear either Party at the Cape; I believe both are loyal to the Imperial connection. But what I do object to is handing over these lands without due consideration to a Colony which can place obstruction in the way of our countrymen going there. If we hand over these lands to the Cape, I hope it will be on the express condition that British emigrants are to be freely admitted to them. In my opinion, we have not needed so large a police force, except as a frontier force against the Matabeles. I do not believe the Transvaal intend to let the frontier be violated in any way. We are in this dilemma. If the House declines to vote £78,000 now, the idea must at once arise that the British House of Commons is throwing up its Imperial responsibilities. I hope, however, the Government may see its way to reduce this large expenditure on police, but at all costs for this year we must assert our Imperial responsibilities and duties in South Africa.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: It will be admitted by alb who have listened to this debate that it has travelled over a very wide area. The simple question before the Committee is a Supplementary Vote for 200 policemen for service in Bechuanaland and its Protectorate. The remarkable statement has been made and repeated that this is a very large force of police; but hon. Members 'who made that statement

  117
  seem to ignore the fact that between 1885 and 1886 the force consisted of 150 men more than now. Every successive speaker, but especially the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), has charged the Government with enormously increasing this force, whereas the fact is that, while a short time ago it amounted to 500, it is now only 350. It seems to be thought that this is a very large force; but have hon. Members any idea of the extent of the territory? British Bechuanaland, the Crown colony, contains 40,000 square miles, the Protectorate 120,000, aud the sphere of influence 120,000. That would give one policeman to every 800 square miles of territory. I should like to remind the hon. Member for Caithness of what happened in July, 1884 In that case Montsoia and his country had been declared to be under British protection, but no police force had been sent, and before one could be organised Montsoia was over-thrown by filibusters, and the Warren Expedition had to be sent out at an expense of £700,000 in order to restore British prestige. It seems strange that, considering this, so many Members of the House should be anxious to deprive the Government of the vote for 200 extra police. In the autumn of last year the High Commissioner considered it necessary to augment the police force, and his view of the question was strengthened by the Grobler incident in November of that year. The police force is solely for the purpose of protecting the natives themselves against unscrupulous filibusters, and those who, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness, profess to be so anxious for the welfare of the natives must find better arguments than those the hon. Member has adduced to prove that the Government are acting wrongly in increasing the police force for the purpose I have stated. The hon. Member for Peckham has taken a singularly wide survey of the whole position of affairs in South Africa. For my own part I am not prepared, nor do I think that the Committee will consider it necessary to enter into a discussion of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South Africa on the question of voting £28,000 to increase the police force by 200 men, but I will answer one or two questions put to me by the hon. Member. The hon.
  118
  Member asked whether the Government intend to extend the protectorate over Lo Bengula's land. The answer which I have given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) completely covers that question, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government have hitherto abstained from interfering with any concession granted by Lo Bengula as he is not under British protection; he is independent, and has not, until lately, asked for advice; that he has now, by his messengers, asked for advice, and for someone to be sent to him by the Queen, but that it is not certain whether he wishes a Resident to be always with him, or merely to advise him on the present state of affairs. Then the hon. Member asked whether it is intended to hand over Bechuanaland to the Cape. My answer is, that there is no intention of handing it over in existing circumstances. A third question was, whether the Government intends to keep the two offices of Governor of the Cape and High Commissioner of South Africa together. It is the intention of the Government to keep these two offices together, and the reasons why we think that it is an advantage that those two offices should be kept together are various, but the principal one is, that we are of opinion that, first of all, the question of expense is a very material one, and if the two offices were separate the expense would be greatly increased. Another residence would also be necessary, and as the High Commissioner would have to reside at Cape Town there would be some difficulty with regard to his position. He would have to be provided with a Government House and an adequate staff, and instead of £1,600 the Government would probably have to ask for £50,000. I do not know whether I am justified in going into the further questions raised by the hon. Member for Northampton and others, relative to the concession of Lo Bengula's territory. There again, I can only repeat the answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I may say emphatically that I do not think that the charges, direct or indirect, made against the Gentleman who has filled for so many years, and so ably, the post of Governor of the Cape should have been made in this House. I have before stated in answer to the hon.

  119
  Member for Northampton that there is not a shadow of foundation for supposing that any undue influence has been offered by Sir H. Robinson with respect to the concession of Lo Bengula's country. I have read a letter in this House absolutely denying that statement on behalf of Sir H. Robinson, and for my own part I absolutely deny that Sir H. Robinson exercised any sort of improper influence with regard to the concession by Lo Bengula.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to deny that Mr. Rhodes represented Sir Hercules Robinson, and that he held his proxy at the De Beers Mine meeting?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I stated that Mr. Rhodes acted as proxy for Sir II. Robinson at the meeting of the De Beers Mine, but that connection existed long before the concession. I have the the permission of Sir H. Robinson to read a letter from him with regard to this matter. He says—
  "I have never embarked in either diamond or gold speculations, and have never made one single sixpence. All I have done is this. Some time ago I shifted a portion of some money I had in Colonial Pour per Cents, into De Beer shares, having reason to think well of the matter as a permanent investment. I have not sold a share, and consequently have never speculated. Having bought in when the shares were low, my investment has returned me nearly 12 per cent., and I shall be well content if it continues to give such a result in future. You must bear in mind that the diamond mines of Kimberley have long passed the speculative age, and now represent a capital of £17,500,000 paying nearly £1,000,000 a year in dividends, and may be looked upon in pretty much the same light as British railways. In my view there is no more harm in my putting my spare capital into it than there would be in a Minister at home investing in Great Western Preference Stock. If I thought the thing wrong I should not do it at all, but as I do not I have no concealment. As to gold mines, shares, syndicates, and concessions, over which people in London as well as here seem to have simply gone mad, I have never touched one of them, and I am, neither directly or indirectly, interested in anything of the kind. In the furious scramble that has taken place the wildest falsehood has been rife."
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: When Sir H. Robinson wrote that, had he or the administrator under his charge any knowledge that that concession to Rudd was being negotiated?
  *BARON DE WORMS: I am not aware that either of those persons knew of or exercised any influence, direct or
  120
  indirect, in the matter. As I pointed out the other day, the Administrator was more than 100 miles away from the Kraal of Lobengula, where the concession was granted. It is said that we ought to extend our Protectorate, but not to enlarge our police force. Such a proposal as that is manifestly absurd. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always professing the greatest anxiety for the welfare of the native tribes. If they mean anything at all, how do they imagine that we can protect those tribes without police? We are told that certain concessions ought not to be made, though hon. Members know as well as I that the only power the Government possess is to give good advice. The Government are obliged to send police, not only to protect our own interests, but to prevent the native chiefs from quarrelling among themselves. That is one reason why we are extending the police at present. In the British Protectorate the Government will do all in their power to prevent concessions being improperly granted, and within the sphere of British influence we shall do all we can in the way of giving good advice to prevent the granting of concessions which are ridiculous in themselves and a fraud upon the persons to whom they are granted and the public who invest in them. The Government have no soldiers in that territory, and an adequate police force is, therefore, required, not only for the protection of our interests, but for the well-being of those natives whose interests hon. Gentlemen opposite have so much at heart.
  *SIR R. FOWLER: I do not wish to detain the House for any time, because I believe this question is to be raised by an eminent Member of the House-namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), but I desire to express the great disappoinment with which I have listened to the statement of my right hon. Friend, especially when he said it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the question of separating the Government of Bechuanaland from that of Cape Colony. I hope on another occasion to have an opportunity of expressing my views to the House as regards the Vote itself. I think this country owes a great deal to the Bechuanaland people. The House will

  121
  remember that the interests of this people were very eloquently advocated by an honoured Member, the late Mr. Forster. I certainly think it desirable that we should not grudge money to advance the interests of those who in the hands of past British Governments have been placed in positions of great difficulty.
  *SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I moved my Amendment to reduce this Vote in order to elicit an expression of policy from Her Majesty's Government, and up to three minutes ago, I must say, I thought that my efforts were all in vain. Within the past three minutes, however, I have been somewhat comforted on hearing that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to discourage by every means in their power the granting of these wild concessions. I was extremely glad to hear that, especially, as I have an extract here from a speech of the Under Secretary made in Liverpool the other day, in which the hon. Gentleman says that it is a great mistake to suppose that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to these concessions. On the contrary, he said so long as they were fairly entered into, Her Majesty's Government were anxious to encourage them. I regret that we have not had anything more definite from the hon. Member, but although I feel that most of us disapprove of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Bechuanaland, and feel that it would have been much better if we had never gone there at all, after the statement of the hon. Member the Under Secretary I think I shall be justified in refraining from pressing the matter to a division.
  DR. CLARK: I was glad to hear the last words of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, because I would call his attention to the fact that the form in which all these concessions are granted—which concessions he so eloquently denounces—was drawn up by Sir Sidney Sheppard. It is the official form, and if the House will turn to Sir Sidney's letter of September the 30th, 1887, they will find it there stated that the form had been drawn up to protect the interests of the Chiefs, and would be recommended for adoption in all cases. It has been the adoption of that form which has brought about all these concessions which we now deplore,
  122
  and I trust that Sir Sidney Sheppard will be made aware of that circumstance. I have not yet heard a single word in favour of this £28,000 extra for the 200 police. The only thing the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary can tell us was that in 1883 there was trouble on the frontier. From 1881 to 1883 there was a war going on there, and during the time that it was going on the Government proclaimed a Protectorate and sent out an unarmed missionary, without even a single policeman, to declare it to be a British Protectorate. This missionary was unable to fulfil that object. But there is no war in Bechuanaland now, and it is as much a British possession as the Isle of Wight; and if anybody attacks it, the whole force of the Crown will be used to overthrow them. Information on these subjects has been kept back from us by the Government, and I protest against such a proceeding. I ask again why the Be ports which have been referred to have not been given? In conclusion, I must express a hope that the Government will be able to develop some kind of real policy in South Africa rather than that of drift, which pleases nobody.
  *MR. A. M'ARTHUR: I must say I feel much disappointed at the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to the effect that the High Commissioner must continue to be the Governor of Cape Colony. No doubt, if any man can satisfactorily serve two masters that man is Sir Hercules Robinson; but I do not think that anyone can perform that Herculean task. So far as the ultimate settlement of the Bechuanaland Question is concerned, I trust that the territory will not be banded over to Cape Colony or to the Transvaal; and I hope the Government will re-consider the decision to which we are informed they have come.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Progress reported.
  House resumed.

MOTIONS.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Nolan, Bill to amend "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885,"

  123
  and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Nolan, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. T. M. Healy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 163.]

  NORTH DUBLIN UNION.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move for a copy of correspondence between the Board of Governors of the Poor of the North Dublin Union and the First Local Government Board in reference to the tenure of the office of Treasurer of the Union by the Bank of Ireland.
  AN hon. MEMBER: I object.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if there is any use in allowing this Motion to remain on the Paper? On Thursday last I gave notice of the Motion, and on Thursday at the request of the Chief Secretary for Ireland I put it down for today. Surely I am entitled to move for it now, as I have received no intimation of opposition.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I have communicated with the Chief Secretary on the subject of the Return, and he informs me that the Local Government Board see objection to laying this correspondence on the Table, and he also states that it has practically become public already, so that no advantage would be gained by laying it on the Table.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it the cost of the paper?
  MR. SEXTON: We have seen it in fragments in the newspapers, but we cannot get it altogether, which is extremely inconvenient. I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Vote on Account.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

  THE KENNINGTON ELECTION.
  *MR. CHILDERS: May I ask you, Sir, if you can now give the House any information respecting the return of the Writ for the Kennington election?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I may say that, after what took place this afternoon in the House, I at once sent to ascertain what were the facts of the case regarding the non-receipt of the return of the Kennington Writ, and the information I have obtained I will, with the pleasure of the House, lay before it at once. It is this. The return of the Writ was delivered to the Clerk of the Crown at 9 p.m. this
  124
  day. A telegram has been received from the returning officer, Mr. Abbott, to the effect that the Writ was left at the Kennington Post Office on Saturday morning. The Clerk at the Post Office at Kennington says, in a telegram, that the return of the Writ was sent in a registered envelope, addressed to the Clerk of the Crown, House of Lords, by the 1.45 p.m. despatch on Saturday. The postman whose duty it is to deliver letters to the House of Lords received it from the south-west district at 3.40 on Saturday. He left it for custody in the Central Post Office of the House of Commons in order to deliver it on Monday morning, he thinking that the Crown Office was closed. That was certainly a reasonable mistake, the closing hour of the Crown Office on Saturday being, I believe, two o'clock, by which time the clerks leave the office. It so happened, however, that the office was open as late as five o'clock last Saturday, and there were officers present until that hour, so that, if the Writ had been delivered there, the difficulty which has arisen would not have taken place. He took it out of the Post Office at five minutes to nine o'clock this evening to take it to the Crown Office, where, as I have already stated to the House, it was received at nine o'clock—five minutes later. That is all the information I have been able to obtain, and, if I may say so, it appears that there was certainly some failure in not sending the return of the Writ earlier on Saturday morning. As the House is aware the result of the election was announced in this House at 11 o'clock on Friday night, and an earlier hour on Saturday morning might have been chosen for the despatch of the Writ through the Kennington Post Office. It is the duty of the Returning Officer to deliver it at the Post Office either personally or by his clerk. Many of the Returning Offices in London return the Writs to the Crown Office personally, though there is no statutory obligation on them to do so. That is all the information I am able to give the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN THE METROPOLIS-PERSONAL EXPLANATION-LORD LAMINGTON.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I have received a letter from Mr. Pearson, the architect engaged in connection with the alterations at Westminster Hall, in consequence of which I desire to correct a mis-statement I made in calling your Lordships' attention on Monday last to the general question of public buildings in the Metropolis. I stated that there was only one entrance to the upper floor. Mr. Pearson informs me that there are three entrances to the rooms on the upper floor, and two entrances to the rooms on the lower floor. I did full justice to the exterior architecture of the building; but, in spite of this letter from Mr. Pearson, who seems rather aggrieved at what I said, I still
2
think that it is a great pity that the alterations should have been so carried out as to render some of the rooms practically useless. In saying this, of course, I do not wish to impute any fault to Mr. Pearson; it is the design adopted by the Select Committee on Westminster Hall of which I complain.

H.M.S. SULTAN.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: Seeing in his place the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty in this House, I beg to ask whether any definite information has been received respecting the disaster to H.M.S. Sultan?
LORD ELPHINSTONE: The Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean reports that the Sultan grounded on a rock or patch of rocks unmarked on the charts, and where deep water is shown. In fact, she is on the ten-fathom line, and 400 yards from the shore. Of course, whether this is due to defective survey or to recent volcanic action cannot at present be determined. The Commander-in-Chief has been instructed to cause every inquiry to be

3
made locally, from fishermen and others likely to know, as to whether anything was known of the exact position of this rock. The channel was surveyed in 1857. The circumstances of the stranding of the Sultan will be fully investigated by a court-martial that will be held at Portsmouth under the presidency of the Commander-in-Chief at that port.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: May I ask whether any hopes are entertained of raising the vessel?
LORD ELPHINSTONE: We have no further information of any kind beyond the telegraphic despatch which I have read; but we expect to get fuller information to-morrow morning.

DURATION OF SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT BILL (No. 21.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
*LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this is a measure the object of which I have had the honour to explain to your Lordships on former occasions. I have to apologise for naming the House of Commons, but your Lordships may in Committee strike out those words, and if the Bill should be in Committee in another place, the words might be re-instated. It is directed especially against the practice of speakers in Parliament of speaking against time according to orders, similar to the orders given by the owner of a racehorse to his jockey, which is a practice unworthy of Parliament, and one which greatly impedes public business. I would urge upon your Lordships that, at least, this Bill can do no harm. We have many instances of assemblies in which there is a time limit, and it is always found that those who address the meeting conform to the time prescribed, with very few exceptions. If your Lordships doubt the necessity for such a measure, I need only refer you to the pages of Hansard for 1887–8 to prove the existence of the evil against which the Bill is directed. I am afraid anything I could say would have very little influence with your Lordships, but I have determined to do my duty in a straightforward way; and, without wearying your Lordships with a long speech, I now move the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Denman.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of): My Lords, I do not think the time has arrived for, at any rate, this House to take up such a measure as this. I certainly have not noticed here the evil of undue prolixity to which the noble Lord has referred. If ever that evil arises, and business should get into the position in which we are told it is in another place, I should be glad to accept the assistance of my noble Friend in coping with the difficulty. I think if the noble Lord would go over the way and propose his measure there, it might have some beneficial effect; but, so far as this House is concerned, I feel I shall be carrying your Lordships' consciousness with me when I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and add at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question whether the word "now" stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative.
Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL (No. 22).
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD DENMAN: With regard to this proposal, it is again one which your Lordships have had before you on more than one occasion. In the Representation of the People Bill, the noble Marquess, then Leader of the Opposition, secured me four days in order for the insertion of my Amendment as to Women's Suffrage, without which the Bill seemed to me to be imperfect. It seems to me not only a ludicrous anomaly, but a great hardship, that whilst labourers and others employed on a certain estate have the franchise, the owner of the estate, if she happens to be a widow or a spinster, should not be on at least equal terms. In the House of Commons the Second Reading of a Bill similar to this has once been carried, although in a manner not very creditable to that House. If your Lordships grant the Second Reading of this Bill it will be a gracious act; it will commit

5
you to nothing, and the details of the measure can be thrashed out in Committee.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read2a"—(The Lord Denman.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to appear in any way obstructive, especially on a question as to the main points of which I am in general agreement with the noble Lord, But, my Lords, I hold that it is a very important principle that each House should look after its own constitution. I would not encourage any proposals by the House of Commons as to the constitution of the House of Lords, and nothing would be more calculated to have that effect than if your Lordships were to consent to this proposal. On this short ground, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and add at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL GRANVILLE: I understand that, on a previous occasion, the noble Marquess expressed himself in favour of the principle of the measure. It would no doubt, have greater weight if Her Majesty's Government introduced a Bill on the subject in the other House of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When I uttered the opinion to which the noble Lord refers, I was very careful to say that it was only my own personal opinion that I was expressing, and I did not in any way speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, That the word "now" stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative.
Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

LAND TRANSFER BILL (No. 8).

  APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  The Lords following were named of the Committee—

  L. Chancellor

  L. Arundell of Wardour

  M. Bath

  L. Thurlow

  E. Stanhope

  L. Hartismere (L. Henniker)

  E. Milltown

  L. Watson

  E. Morley

  L. Hobhouse

  E. Beauchamp

  L. Esher

  E. Kimberley

  L. Herschell

  E. Feversham

  L. Thring

  E. Selborne

LICENSING ACT, 1872, AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 25).
A Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1872, as to the granting licences for sale of intoxicating liquors at railway stations—Presented by the Earl Beauchamp; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, the 26th instant.

COMPANIES RELIEF BILL (NO. 26).
A Bill to set at rest questions affecting certain shares issued under contracts filed under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1867—Presented by the Lord Wigan (E. Crawford); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, the 26th instant.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.