Page images
PDF
EPUB

Preliminary Report and Tables of the MR. MAC IVER said, he did not wish Population and Houses enumerated in England and Wales and in the Islands in the British Seas on 4th April 1881: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

FRENCH COMMERCIAL TREATY.

PETITION FROM BRADFORD.

MR. MAC IVER said, he had been intrusted with a Petition to present from Bradford of a somewhat remarkable character. It was, in the main, a workmen's Petition; but it represented alike the demand of the employer and of those who wished for work and wages, but which they said were denied them by the pressure of unfair foreign competition with those industries on which the prosperity of Yorkshire depended. He was told that the Petition was nearly 250 yards long, and bore about 21,000 signatures, and that it had been signed in the streets of Bradford by persons of every shade of political opinion. He trusted the House would not turn a deaf ear to the cry for justice, which those who sent the Petition asked him to raise, humbly and respectfully, on their behalf. They saw no reason why French looms should be at work while theirs stood idle; and they asked that honourable House to renew no Treaty with France which allowed France to tax our manufactures, while we received theirs duty free to the displacement of our own industries.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be quite aware that he is not entitled to debate a Petition.

to debate anything, but merely to urge the Prayer of the Petition. The Petitioners asked for equal treatment-for fair play. They saw no reason why the working men of France should receive the wages which ought to be spent in this country. They asked, therefore, that no Commercial Treaty with France should be entered into which had not been submitted for the approval and consent of that House; and, further, that no engagement should be entered into which should bind the country for more than 12 months, without an opportunity being afforded of retiring from such engagement if they found it did not suit them. He had no desire or right to enter into matters of argument. There was much, however, that he could wish· to say Cries of "Order!"

MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member to confine himself to the Prayer of the Petition.

MR. MAC IVER said, he most heartily and cordially concurred in the Prayer of the Petition. The day had come when that House could no longer turn a deaf ear to the working population of these lands, or look on coldly while each industry was in turn destroyed. Why had not the people of Bradford intrusted the Petition to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Illingworth)? Because they wished to protest emphatically against such views as his, and because they no longer believed that a system of free imports and of restricted exports was entitled to be called Free Trade.

MR. CHILDERS: I rise to Order, Sir. A Petition cannot contain a protest.

MR. SPEAKER: I have already called to the hon. Member's attention twice the fact that he is not in Order.

MR. MAC IVER said, he begged humbly and respectfully to ask that the Petition be read by the Clerk at the Table.

Petition read; and ordered to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

100

TUNIS-TREATIES OF 1662, 1716,

AND 1875.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in the Treaty between

there about one month, in consequence of the Roman Catholic priest of the parish having demanded that a head constable of his own persuasion should be sent in his place; and, whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between the priest and the authorities?

England and Tunis of October 5th 1662, | bridge, after having been stationed there is not the following provision:"Article 8. Le Consul ou tout autre Anglais résident à Tunis ne sera forcé de s'adresser à aucune autre cour de justice qu' au Dey lui-même par lequel seul justice lui sera rendue;" whether the same stipulation does not occur in Article 8 of the Treaty of 13th August 1716; whether analogous provisions do not exist in the Treaties of other Powers, which are still in force; and, whether in consequence the privilege of access to the Bey is not a privi-moval was this - Catholics and Prolege and immunity conferred by Treaty on Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General, and confirmed by Articles 11 and 5 of the Treaty of 1875?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the reason of the head constable's re

testants were about the same number in the district, and there appeared to have been some arrangement that if an officer was of one religion the head SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the constable should be of the other. He Treaties of 1662 and 1716 were abro- could not say that he liked such an gated by the Treaty of 1875, which was arrangement; but he disliked still more substituted for all existing previous the condition of things that seemed to Treaties, and in which the Article in make it necessary. The Government, question was not repeated. I may, however, thought it was better that it however, point out to the hon. Member should be practically put in force; and for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond that was the reason why the head conWolff) that even if this Article were stable was removed. For his own constill in force, it would give no privi-venience his removal was delayed for lege of access" to the Consul any more than to any other British subject who might present himself before the Bey for the purpose of seeking justice; and its effect is entirely annulled by the 24th Article of the Treaty of 1875.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, the hon. Baronet had not stated whether analogous provisions did not exist in the Treaties of other Powers which were

still in force.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I shall be glad if the hon. Member would state what those Treaties are. I have on four or five occasions informed the House that the most careful search has failed to find any Article of the kind in any Treaty, and Lord Granville has made a statement to this effect in "another place." That statement has been elaborately contradicted, especially in a letter in The Times; but in none of these contradictions have Articles in Treaties been quoted to upset the statement.

some months.

In reply to Mr. MACARTNEY,

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, the re

moval was not occasioned by the interference of the Catholic priest; but it was a fact that the priest reminded the Government of the arrangement made some time since.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR asked the

Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether an
equalization of the persuasions of magis-
the religious difficulty in Ireland?
trates would not still further get rid of

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he should
require Notice of the Question.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND)—AD-

MISSION OF REPORTERS.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE asked the Lord

Advocate, Whether his attention has

been directed to the circumstance that in two recent cases in the Court of Session the representatives of the press have been denied access to interlocutors issued by the Lord Ordinary; and, whether the THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY- Clerks of the Court have power to preREMOVAL OF HEAD CONSTABLE

FRAZER FROM BANBRIDGE.

LORD ARTHUR HILL asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Head Constable Frazer has been removed from Ban

Sir H. Drummond Wolff

vent the judgments of the Lord Ordinary being made public; and, if they have, whether he will take steps to deprive them of that power?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, it is quite clear that, in

some form, the public are entitled to be put | state why not; and, whether, if persons in possession of the opinions and decisions not policemen were similarly to impress of the Judges of the Court of Session in horses, &c. the Law would be put in contentious cases. In consequence of force against them, and what is the the difficulty referred to in the Question, statute under which such powers are exthe Lords Ordinary have resolved, in ercised, and whether they invest in each future, to deliver their judgments viva individual policeman in Ireland? voce in open Court, instead of in writing; and the Press will, in future, have the same facilities for reporting the judgments in such cases as exist in the other Superior Courts of the United Kingdom.

INTERNATIONAL LAW DETENTION
OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ON A RUSSIAN
WAR-SHIP.

MR. J. STEWART asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances under which, on the 25th ultimo, two British subjects were detained for one night on board the Russian war-ship "Peter the Great," then at anchor in the Clyde; and, if he can state whether such detention was justifiable and in accordance with International Law?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, in the case referred to, one of two boatmen hired by the Russian naval officers to take them on board their ship, being intoxicated, assaulted one of the officers without provocation, and attempted to prevent him going on board. The Russian commander had to send a launch after the boat to rescue the officer; and, as the hour was late, he detained the two boatmen over night and brought them before the police magistrate next morning, by whom Gemmell, the man who committed the assault, was tried and convicted. The Russian officer, in so doing, did not exceed the power which the law accords to every private citizen to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence, and bring him before a magistrate with the least possible delay.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law), in reply, said, he presumed the case to which the Question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) referred occurred a few days ago in the county of Louth. What happened was this. A party of Constabulary hired a number of cars to convey them six or seven miles. After proceeding part of the way some any furof the drivers refused to drive ther, and the police accordingly drove the cars themselves. He did not see any offence in that. It was quite true that there was no law authorizing the police to forcibly seize cars.

BULGARIA-PRINCE ALEXANDER OF

BATTENBERG.

MR.LABOUCHERE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to a conversation between Prince Alexander of Battenberg and a correspondent of the "Standard," in which the Prince is alleged to have said that "for the Great Powers, Bulgaria c'est mer" (meaning thereby apparently himself), and that when he asked the Emperors of Austria, Russia, and Germany, what he ought to do in consequence of having sworn to maintain a Constitution, which he terms a "half Republican Constitution," they each replied, "do what you and like, but do not leave Bulgaria; if the Government have received any confirmation of the alleged conversation; whether Her Majesty's Government, as one of the Great Powers, accepts the assertion of the Prince that Bulgaria is a mere diplomatic expression, meaning neither the country nor its inhabitants, but Prince Alexander of Battenberg;

STATE OF IRELAND-REQUISITION OF whether communication has been reHORSES AND CARS.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. HEALY) asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, in those cases where the Irish police have recently seized horses and cars by force, the Crown will, on a charge being duly preferred against them by the owners, undertake a prosecution; and, if not, if he would

ceived from any foreign Government leading to the conclusion that, in the event of the Bulgarians declining to grant to Prince Alexander a dictatorship, or seeking to hinder him from exercising such a dictatorship, a foreign occupation of Bulgaria would ensue; whether any complaint has been received respecting the manner in which the

elections to the Grand National Assembly have been conducted; and whether, considering the great losses that have accrued to investors by lending money to foreign countries on imperfect security, Her Majesty's Government will make public the fact that, by the Articles 123-125 of the Constitution of Bulgaria, the Prince can under no circumstances decree a loan of above 1,000,000 francs, nor authorise expenditures from the public Treasury, which taken together shall exceed the sum of 300,000 francs, and that consequently, if he acquires dictatorial power by unconstitutional means, no loan incurred by him for more than 1,000,000 francs would be valid as against Bulgaria?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have not received any confirmation of the language alleged to have been used by Prince Alexander in the conversation referred to. The view of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the meaning of the term "Bulgaria" is that which may be drawn from a perusal of the Treaty of Berlin. We have not heard that any foreign occupation has been proposed or is probable. We have not, since the holding of the elections, received any complaint as to the manner in which they were conducted. The Constitution of Bulgaria has been laid before Parliament, and does not, therefore, seem to lack publicity.

ITALY-FRANCE AND TUNIS. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Italian Government have refused to recognise the French Protectorate in Tunis, and the appointment of Monsieur Roustan as intermediary for their official communications with the Government of the Bey; and, whether the Italian Government have more than once since the commencement of the French hostilities against Tunis pressed Her Majesty's Government to act in concert with them, particularly with respect to the appointment of Monsieur Roustan, and what answer Her Majesty's Government have made to those proposals?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it is not the fact, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, that the Italian Government have refused to recognize the French Protectorate in Tunis, or the

Mr. Labouchere

appointment of M. Roustan. The Italian Government have inquired of Her Majesty's Government, through the Italian Ambassador in London, what are the views of Her Majesty's Government on certain questions arising out of the position of France in Tunis, and Lord Granville has, in reply, informed his Excellency of the communications which Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris has been instructed to make to the French Government on these questions.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The hon. Baronet has not answered the last part of my Question. Is it true that the Italian Government have more than once pressed Her Majesty's Government to act in concert with them, particularly with respect to the appointment of M. Roustan?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Question will be best answered by the Papers before the House. No such phrase as "acting in concert" was used. Her Majesty's Government has been asked its opinion on certain points, and our opinion has been communicated to the Italian Government.

TUNIS-BRITISH COLONISTS AND

TRADE.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of British Colonists, and the extent of British trade, at Susa, Monastir, Medhia, Sfax, and Gabes, in the territory of Tunis; also a Return giving the same information with respect to Tripoli and Bengazi?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the Reports furnished yearly by Her Majesty's Consular Officers in Tunis and Tripoli; but these give all the information which Her Majesty's Government are able to supply.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL : I would point out that my reason for asking the Question is, that the public might be made aware in a short and easy manner of our interests in North Africa?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think, as regards the figures up to a recent period, that they could be laid before the public in a shorter form.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL gave Notice that, on an early occasion, he would move for those Returns.

TUNIS AND FRANCE-BOMBARDMENT

OF SFAX.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has reason to believe that the French Government have any intention to proceed to a bombardment of Sfax, or to take any hostile measures towards the town and people of Sfax; and, whether they will intimate to the French Government that any damage to British property arising out of such hostile measures will entitle the owners thereof to full compensation to be demanded by the Government?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, as a French Consul and several French naval officers appear to have been attacked and wounded at Sfax, it is possible that such measures as the noble Lord contemplates may be taken by France. It is not usual to make beforehand any such intimation as the noble Lord suggests; and if the occasion arises, Her Majesty's Government will, of course, strictly follow the precedents in similar cases of destruction of neutral property.

FRANCE AND TUNIS (POLITICAL
AFFAIRS).

THE EARL OF BECTIVE asked leave to postpone the following Question which he had upon the Paper-namely, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the public press, that M. Roustan directs not only the Foreign Office of Tunis but also all the Government Departments, and claims by the municipality and other bodies. against Europeans are made by M. Roustan; whether he can inform the House what guarantees for the protection of British interests exist under such a system; and if he is aware that in one of the aforesaid capacities M. Roustan has adjudged a portion of ground adjoining the English Church, and secured in perpetuity to the British colony by an ancient deed of the Beys of Tunis, to a French subject who never set up any claim to the land prior to the French occupation?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I will ask the House to excuse me if I inform the noble Earl that I have already, on several occasions, stated to the House that questions arising out of the two

fold nature of the functions discharged by M. Roustan were under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and were the subject of communications with the Government of France. These communications will be laid before Parliament. We have no information up to the present time as to M. Roustan having adjudged a portion of ground adjoining the English church to a French subject. I must be allowed to point out that a Question of this nature requires a search through the Papers in the French and Turkish Departments of the Foreign Office, and may require consultation with the Secretary of State and the Permanent Under Secretary. This Question was placed upon the Paper at the close of the Sitting of last night, and reached me for the first time at half-past 11 o'clock this morning. I may add that it is not always possible to accept, without inquiry, the statements of fact in the questions relating to Tunis of the noble Earl, for one which he put to me on Thursday last has been the subject of correspondence between myself and the principal gentleman named in it, and I am assured that, as far as he is concerned, there is no foundation for the statements referred to.

THE EARL OF BECTIVE: With reference to the remarks just made by the hon. Baronet, I beg to give Notice that I will repeat my Question of Thursday last, to which he has referred, and, on information subsequently received, I will make a statement which I am not without hope may induce him very considerably to modify the remarks he has made.

FRANCE AND TUNIS-REPORTED

INSURRECTION.

THE EARL OF BECTIVE asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If Her Majesty's Government, in consideration of the probability of the present serious insurrection caused by the French invasion spreading to the immediate neighbourhood of the city of Tunis, intend sending some ships of war to Goletta in place of those sent towards Tripoli in order to protect British subjects resident in Tunis and its neighbourhood?

MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Condor has been ordered back to Goletta. It is evident that the danger of which the noble Lord is apprehensive is not regarded as imminent, because the French

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »