RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 04 August 1874 vol 221 cc1264-301

MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR

rose to move— That this House is gratified to learn that Her Majesty's Government have yielded to the unanimous request of the Chiefs, Native population, and White residents of Fiji, for annexation to this Country, so far as to direct Sir Hercules Robinson to proceed to those Islands, with a view to the accomplishment of that object. The hon. Member said, he had no hesitation in declaring that the decision which Her Majesty's Government had arrived at would give great satisfaction not only to a large majority of the people of this country, but to the colonists of New South Wales and the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands. He asked the House to excuse him for referring in the first place to a matter which was personal to himself. A few weeks ago, when, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he gave way in favour of a measure of great importance then before the House, exception was taken to the statement he made on that occasion as to what he understood to be the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue on this subject. In explanation he must now say that, in listening to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, it seemed impossible for him to come to any other conclusion than that which he drew from it. What was the language of the noble Lord? On this general review of the circumstances, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that it is the feeling of Her Majesty's Government that they cannot decline the duty of accepting these Islands. If we do not decline them, we accept them; and it then becomes important to know how this is to be done. The noble Lord then proceeded to state that they could not accept the conditions laid down by Mr. Thurston, the so-called Prime Minister of Fiji, but that they had come to the determination of sending Sir Hercules Robinson to place the matter "fully, fairly, and candidly before the Chiefs and the White population." That was the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. For his own part, he regretted exceedingly that the cession was not made free of all conditions; but, nevertheless, he had no fear of the result. The King, the Chiefs, and the White population would, no doubt, agree to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, and trust to the honour of England to carry out such arrangements for the future government of the Islands as would be just and fair to all parties. The Government had acted wisely in deciding to send out Sir Hercules Robinson, and the country was laid under great obligations to the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department for the straightforward and states-manlike course he had taken in the matter. He trusted the House would approve the measure of the Government for the extension of British authority to the Fiji Islands; and he appealed to the House with more confidence because it could not be alleged that the subject had been prematurely brought forward, or that it had not been sufficiently discussed. On the contrary, no question submitted to the Imperial Parliament had occasioned a more protracted discussion. He would remind the House that the proposal to annex Fiji dated as far back as the year 1859. At that time Mr. Pritchard, our Consul at Fiji, came to this country armed with powers to make a cession of the Islands to the British Crown. Lord Russell was then Colonial Minister. He sent out Colonel (now Major General) Smythe to report on the state of the Islands and the feeling of the population. When he returned he reported against the cession, and the Government approved and acted upon the terms of his recommendation. Since then Colonel Smythe had acknowledged that he had been in error, and had expressed his regret at the course he had then taken. His belief latterly was that it was to our interests to annex the Islands. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had also opposed the annexation, but only a short time ago he had acknowledged that his former opinion was wrong, and that it was our duty to accept the Sovereignty of these Islands. He (Mr. M'Arthur) contended that the objections against the annexation had never been based upon the merits of the question at all, but had been urged upon altogether false issues. In the course adopted by the late Government, doubts were suggested as to whether the inhabitants of the Islands really desired the establishment of British authority. Hopes were expressed that the attempt to found a Fijian Kingdom under European control might prove successful; a fair trial was asked for Cakobau, and his nondescript Government; and finally, when it was considered necessary that some definite steps should be taken, Lord Kimberley sent out a new Commission of Inquiry. Commodore Good-enough and Mr. Layard had since made their Report, recommending the annexation of the Islands, a recommendation which Her Majesty's Government had wisely thought it right to adopt. In the accounts of their interviews with the Fijian authorities no pressure of any kind appeared to have been employed, and the circumstances actually attending the offer of the Islands to Great Britain proved the bona fides of the cession. In the first instance, the King declined to cede Fiji; but soon after he expressed a wish to re-consider the matter, and the result was, that on the 26th of March last, a conference both of Chiefs and Consuls was held at Nasova, and then and there the King and Chiefs unanimously ceded the Government of Fiji to the Queen of England. These accounts showed that, in offering to become British subjects, the Native authorities acted solely upon their own sense of what was best for the interests of their country, and without any improper pressure being brought to bear upon them. It was clear from the Report of the Commissioners that Her Majesty's Government had no honourable alternative but that of annexation. The policy of the late Government led directly up to that point, and we could not now recede from it. If the Government had repudiated all responsibility and left the Fiji Islands to their fate, such a policy, though to the last degree un-English and antinational, would, at least, have been intelligent and consistent. But such was not the policy actually adopted. Her Majesty's Government did not act on the theory of maintaining a neutral position; but, on the contrary, perpetually interfered with the affairs of Fiji. During the last two years there had scarcely been a day on which a British cruiser was not anchored in the Bay of Levuka. The presence of that cruiser of itself constituted an act of intervention; but the interference assumed a much more positive political character. It was stated by the Commissioners that the Fiji Government was only able to keep its position by the aid which it received from one of Her Majesty's Ships. Was this a policy which could be justified? It was one which carried with it all the disadvantages which were said to be involved in annexation without any of its attendant benefits. Let not the House, however, suppose he was arguing that as between intervention and non-intervention it would have been better not to interfere at all. On the contrary, he thought it was better that a British cruiser should save the Islands from anarchy than that the peace of the country should be sacrificed by hostile factions; but the wise and just course, in his opinion, would have been to establish British authority in Fiji some years ago, before civil strife and the fear of bloodshed and massacre had driven the planters into bankruptcy, compelling them to mortgage their lands to absentees. There was therefore no alternative left but for the Government to accept annexation. "Were they to leave the Islands as they were now, there would remain no authority capable of preserving public order and of carrying on a Government sufficient to keep society together. He would, with the permission of the House, refer to the opinion of the Commissioners, who, when asked whether there was a reasonable prospect of that end being accomplished in the event of our withdrawal, replied— There is no reasonable prospect that a Native Government can continue to preserve order; it is, indeed, impossible for them to do so. For his own part, he should be greatly alarmed at the prospect did he not feel that Her Majesty's Government fully realized the responsibility of accepting the duties which devolved upon them. It was therefore with no little satisfaction that he had read the concluding sentence of the Earl of Carnarvon's admirable speech, in which the noble Earl said— I believe the difficulties, when boldly faced, will not be found to be so very formidable, provided the cession comes to us untrammelled by unworkable conditions; and although I am quite aware of the magnitude of the task, I, for one, shall not be afraid to encounter it. The Report of the Commissioners corroborated the opinion of Captain Washington, the Government hydrographer, as to the position of the Fiji Islands. Anyone looking at the map must be struck with the fact pointed out by Captain Washington of the entire want of Great Britain of any advanced position in the Pacific Ocean. While on the one side we had Australia, and on the other Vancouver's Island and Columbia, we had not an islet or rock on the 7,000 miles that separated those territories, and we had no island on which to place a coaling station where we could insure fresh supplies. Was that the position in which a great maritime Power like Great Britain should be placed in the Pacific? Recent events had rendered these Islands still more important. A line of steamers now ran between Australia and San Francisco, calling at Fiji on their way, and thus bringing it within 40 days' sail of England. France was about to establish a line of steamers to New Caledonia on the one side and Tahiti on the other, making Fiji its central depôt. The United States had secured an admirable harbour in the Navigators' Islands, and a movement had lately been set on foot—which he had little doubt would be successful—to annex the Sandwich Islands to that country. Surely, therefore, our interests in the Pacific imperatively demanded such a port as the Fiji Islands would give us, not only because of its strategic importance, but in connection with the trade which was likely to be developed. On this subject, the Report of the Commissioners was most satisfactory. They confirmed Dr. Seeman's Report, and said his predictions had been amply fulfilled by experience. These Islands might be regarded as the home of the cotton plant, but a new branch of industry had sprung up, which was likely to make Fiji the Mauritius of the Southern Hemisphere—namely, the cultivation of sugar; its hills also were well adapted for the growth of coffee. Persons who could speak with authority on Fijian matters bore testimony to the great capabilities of the country. There were two or three considerations in favour of annexation which he was anxious to impress upon the House. In the first place, the present depressed state of affairs rendered the time a favourable one for a bold change of policy. With property changing hands, and the prospect of the advent of a new proprietary, there was reasonable hope that the turbulent elements which had hitherto existed in Fiji might have left the country before the establishment of a new Government. At all events, now that a portion of the community was itself in a state of transition, we might confidently expect that a British Governor would have less difficulty in carrying out his measures than if he were surrounded by men whose passions, lately excited to fever heat, had hardly yet had time to cool. There was, however, another argument to which he had not adverted. Without annexation, was it possible to put down slavery or regulate the labour traffic? If Fiji was to remain a separate kingdom, it would be impossible for Mr. Layard to enforce those measures for the protection of the Natives which he had already instituted. We should stultify ourselves in the most extraordinary manner, because we should be compelled to abandon the duties which we knew to be essential to the successful prosecution of the national policy on the subject of the slave trade. He was not aware that in taking over Fiji that question would have to be considered. In the interests of civilization and humanity that consideration was not entitled to much weight on the part of a great country like England. But there was no reason to believe that the Government of Fiji might not be made self-supporting, and would not require one shilling to be taken from the pockets of the English taxpayer. A Crown Colony could be established at a moderate cost. Moreover, it would be fair to ask, what was the expense of the existing system? He should like to move for a Return showing the actual expense which had been entailed by the presence at Fiji for months and years past of every man-of-war stationed there, and also of those employed in the effort of suppressing kidnapping throughout the Pacific. On the ground, therefore, of economy as well as humanity, he advocated the annexation of Fiji. He had stated to the House some of the reasons which induced him to ask it to support his Motion. He now came to the Amendment placed on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), to the following effect— That this House considers that, having regard to the existence in the case of Fiji of difficulties caused by a heavy debt, by the necessity of 'subjugating and removing' 20,000 ferocious mountaineers, and by the fact that domestic slavery is pronounced by Commodore Good-enough and Consul Layard, in their official Report, to be 'the foundation of social order' in Fiji, it is necessary that great caution should be used in approaching the subject of annexation. That Amendment divided itself into three heads—first, the debt; secondly, the existence of domestic slavery; and thirdly, the necessity of subjugating and removing 20,000 ferocious mountaineers. As regarded the first, there was really no difficulty in the way; for, only let confidence be established by annexation, and capital would flow in from all quarters. The cost of a Crown Colony might be estimated, at the very utmost, at £15,000 a year. He had very little doubt but that the revenue would soon be at least £40,000. This would pay all demands, and leave a good sinking fund. Besides, New South Wales and New Zealand had offered to take their fair share of any burdens that might press upon the Islands. As to domestic slavery, they knew it did exist, and they had it recorded by the Commissioners that prisoners taken in war were sold by the Fijian Government, and the money paid into the Treasury. But did any one imagine this would be tolerated, even for a day, when the British flag floated over the Island? Commodore Goodenough had already denounced the practice. The most effectual mode of putting it down was by annexation. Then with regard to the "20,000 ferocious mountaineers," he had reason to believe that the number was greatly exaggerated. The Commissioners stated that the Rev. Mr. Langham, who was a very good authority, had estimated the number to be about 7,000. It should be remembered, however, that a generation had already passed over since all the inhabitants of Fiji were in the same state. What was now the Report of the Commissioners? That of the 140,500 which constituted the outside limit of the Native population, 120,000 of them "lotued"—that meant they professed a wish to become Christians, and accepted a Christian teacher, and that the atten dance at Church worship numbered 113,000. They were also informed through the same document— Fiji is blessed with a most virtuous native race, who, aided by the good teaching of the missionaries, have managed to keep themselves wonderfully free from the contamination of the vices of civilization. The same influence brought to boar upon the mountaineers would, he believed, produce similar results; and he concurred in the testimony of the Commissioners with regard to those devoted men who had been the means of accomplishing such great results, but who had been unjustly assailed in certain high quarters. He was content to set off the testimony of Her Majesty's Commissioners against the reckless assertions of a noble Earl (the Earl of Pembroke) and his doctor, who, after visiting the Pacific, foolishly rushed into print, and sent out to the world a book, bearing the singularly appropriate title of South Sea Bubbles. In conclusion, he would again congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the policy they had adopted in regard to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in a speech delivered some two years ago, justly remarked— No Minister in this country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of re-constructing, as much as possible, our Colonial Empire and of responding to those distant sympathies which may become a source of incalculable strength and happiness to this land. In those sentiments he fully concurred, and he rejoiced to know that the Colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government was Based upon those great principles, and that they were endeavouring to carry out that policy, not only on the Gold Coast, but now in relation to Fiji. Such a policy, he was convinced, would meet with the approval of the people of this country, because it was in harmony with those glorious traditions of the Empire which had encircled the globe with free communities of Englishmen. It was a policy in accordance with the sentiments of those noble Australian Colonies which had so largely contributed to the wealth of this country—a policy which, while it effectually crushed that cursed slave trade, hitherto our humiliation and disgrace, gave us, at the same time, the finest group of islands in Polynesia, and secured to England the maintenance of her maritime power; and ascendancy in the Pacific. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE,

in seconding the Motion, agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth that the Government had taken the wisest course which could be adopted in regard to the Fiji Islands. Their policy would be agreeable not only to Fiji, but also to the whole of the Australian Colonies. It would put down that sentiment which had existed for some time among some of the people of this country—he did not know how that sentiment originated, whether with the late Government or with the late Under Secretary for Colonial Affairs—that it was our interest, as soon as possible, to shake off connection with our Colonies. The position of these Islands was of vast importance to England. There was a distance of 7,000 miles between the Australian Colonies and the continent of America, and it was highly desirable we should have some intervening place for coaling our war steamers and for provisioning our Navy in case of war. He agreed with the account which Commodore Goodenough and Mr. Consul Layard had given of the character of the Natives of Fiji, and he believed there would not be many difficulties or dangers in carrying out the wise policy of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman had, however, cast an undeserved reflection upon the work of Lord Pembroke, which was very interesting, and gave a clear notion of the disposition and character of these people. Nothing which the Wesleyans might have done in this country in the past century could surpass the remarkable results of their efforts in Fiji. All the people of the Islands were cannibals 33 years ago. The present Chief, whom it was ridiculous to call a King, had himself been a cannibal; and he could narrate one or two disagreeable anecdotes to show what the Chief had been guilty of. The Returns of the Fijian Mission for the year ending April, 1867, gave the following statistics:—Chapels, 481; other preaching places, 238; missionaries, 12; Native assistant missionaries, 38; catechists, 591; day school teachers, 1,351; local preachers, 474; church members, 17,829; attendants on public worship, 90,442; day schools, 1,215; Sabbath schools, 750. Considering the character of the people, and the dangers and difficulties of the work, this result of only 33 years' labour could not but be considered as most successful and surprising. Agreeing generally with the policy of the Government, he wished with great submission to offer them one or two suggestions. He had greatly admired the perspicuity of the speech of the Colonial Secretary in "another place," showing, as it did, a thorough knowledge of the subject; but the Government must look fairly in the face the fact that 20,000 mountaineers remained cannibals. In 1869, Mr. Baker, a missionary, and seven teachers who accompanied him, were killed and eaten by these mountaineers. The first difficulty to be encountered would be the land question. It appeared that every inch of land in Fiji was occupied under such laws and regulations as existed; and there was a Polynesian Company which set up a claim to 200,000 acres of land. He thought that before Her Majesty's Government hoisted the British flag they should distinctly know what was the position of the land question, so as to avoid getting involved in difficulties. He would make a suggestion on the subject. A gentleman well acquainted with the Islands said, that in taking possession of them they should at once assert a right of preemption—he did not say in what proportion—paying one-fourth more than its value. The effect of that would be that if the Government made an advance, or guaranteed a loan of, say, £50,000, for the purchase of the land, it would repay them not 10, or 20, but one hundred-fold, and immediately. In this way not only would capital be given to the settlers, which could be laid out upon the land, but the Government would be in a much better position to promote emigration. A good deal had been said about organizing a Native force. Before we attempted to colonize a country which a short time since was in a state of barbarism, we ought to do everything we could for the safety of the people. He would suggest that for four or five years we should send out a portion of an English regiment, as we originally sent troops to the Australian Colonies. We had withdrawn our troops from those Colonies because they had attained to a state of civilization which rendered it unnecessary for us to keep them there any longer; but he did not know of any Colony where we began our work with a purely Native force. Three or four companies of Home troops would give due protection to the settlers who would resort to these Islands. It was desirable we should not begin this work in a too economical spirit—that we should not look too closely at pounds, shillings, and pence. It was proposed that the Governor should receive £1,200, and that the other salaries should be in proportion. In this country, gentlemen of great ability could be found to give their services for £1,200 or £800 a-year; but an opinion of the importance of the new Colony would be formed from the position of the Governor, and no gentleman who engaged in such arduous duties as would have there to be performed should receive less than £4,000. As to the Legislative Council, and "his Majesty the King," "his Excellency the "Viceroy," and "his Majesty's Ministers," that was all nonsense and a mere burlesque, and must be abolished. Her Majesty's Government would do quite right to make this a Crown Colony of a rather severe type. Annexation would be most gratifying to the Australian Colonies; it would afford us a basis of operations for putting down the disgraceful Polynesian slave trade, and it would add to the stability of our Colonial Empire; and for these reasons he seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House is gratified to learn that Her Majesty's Government have yielded to the unanimous request of the Chiefs, Native population, and White residents of Fiji, for annexation to this Country, so far as to direct Sir Hercules Robinson to proceed to those Islands, with a view to the accomplishment of that object."—(Mr. William M'Arthur.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said: Mr. Speaker, my Amendment says— That having regard to the necessity 'of subjugating and removing' 20,000 ferocious mountaineers, and to the fact that domestic slavery is pronounced by Commodore Goodenough and Consul Layard, in their official Report, to be 'the foundation of social order' in Fiji, it is necessary that great caution should be used in approaching the subject of annexation. I have not spoken of annexation as being decided upon; but I have assumed that it is in view, and possible at an early date, and that, I fear, without fresh reference to Parliament. In fact, there is no cession as yet; but there may be one to-morrow if Sir Hercules Robinson pleases. It is unusual that Parliament should delegate the power to an individual of accepting the annexation of a now colony. But I do not dwell upon this point. I only mention it, and I pass on at once to my reasons for believing, that while there may be some hurry in this matter, there possibly may be too great a hurry, and that in the face of special circumstances, which make caution more than usually desirable. I have not named in my Amendment the debt of the Islands, with which I would couple the general expense of annexation, but have pointed only to the possibility of war with the mountain Tribes and to slavery. I will treat those subjects in that order, after first saying a few words as to the expense and the debt. With regard to the debt of Fiji, and to the cost of organizing its Government, the Earl of Carnarvon, in the course of his official statement, said that— There was not only the greatest possible difficulty in Fiji on the question of the land titles, which were inextricably confused, and as to which, I might add, our New Zealand wars ought to be to us for ever a warning; but he also went on to state, that the debt of Fiji would form another tremendous difficulty— In the course of two years," he said, "so reckless was the financial administration of the Government there that £124,000 was spent, and a debt of £87,000 remains as a legacy.…. The calculations of the Commissioners are not as satisfactory as I could have desired—indeed, I think, they are illusory—.… The first few years will be years of difficulty. These last words, if I may make a comment, seem to show that annexation is looked upon as certain by the Earl of Carnarvon, and that the mission of Sir Hercules Robinson is really intended to alter the conditions upon which it is to take place—the fact itself being considered as settled. Now, what is this debt? It is a debt that was contracted by persons who have been called in this House, by a Member of the present Administration (Sir James Elphinstone), "a set of the most unmitigated ruffians in the world;" but whom I will only describe as adventurers. Mr. Burt and Lieutenant Woods contracted a large portion of this debt in Sydney, at 90 per cent. by pledging lands which they never owned, and which they would have had to steal before they could sell them for State purposes. I am not going beyond the words of the official Report, as will be seen by an examination of page 3, of pages 8 and 9, and of the Appendix. I believe that even the existing Government of Fiji has a Minister of Public Lands at a salary. Certainly, it has accepted a loan raised on the security of public lands; but there are no public lands in Fiji—not a single acre. In addition to this strange debt, we must look forward in contemplating annexation to a great expenditure; even putting out of sight the possibility of a war with the Mountain tribes, to which I will presently allude. When the late Government declined to accept the cession of Fiji, but proposed to New South Wales, that that colony should annex the Islands, the Government of Sir James Martin, in refusing, gave as their chief reason the very great expense of converting Fiji into a British colony; and they are near the spot and know what the expense would be better than we can know. The Earl of Carnarvon himself, however, in his official statement said— I do not mean to say that the Report of the Commissioners is, in my opinion, an altogether satisfactory one. I do not think the calculations of the Commissioners are so reliable that we can trust to them on all important points. And in other words which I have already read he explained to us that the estimates of the Commissioners as to the probable revenue and expenditure are "illusory." So much for the first head of my case which deals with the necessity of caution arising out of the undefined—not to use a harsher word—nature of the Fiji debt, and the danger of great expense which would be caused by the annexation—leaving aside for the moment the bearing upon this point of the possibility of land riots, slavery riots, and war with the Mountain tribes, to which I will presently advert. I come now to the case of these Mountain tribes. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M' Arthur) in 1872 said that the abominable existing Government of Fiji, of which he was at the time complaining, positively intended— to bring the Mountaineers under subjection by military force and to occupy their land. If Fiji were under this country nothing of the kind would occur."—[3 Mansard, ccxii. 196.] Nothing of the kind would occur! Why our Commissioners, Commodore Good-enough and Consul Layard, actually inform us that this course will be of the first necessity, and that our very first act in assuming the government of these Islands, must be to "subjugate and remove" 20,000 mountaineers, whom I have ventured in my Amendment to style "ferocious," inasmuch as the Commissioners also inform us that amongst them "cannibalism, strangulation of widows, and infanticide," extensively prevail. The first statement will be found at page 10 of the Report and the second statement at page 15. Those persons it is proposed to "subjugate and remove"—where to, I do not know—by the use of a portion—for most of them will be needed to keep order in the settlements—a portion of the native police force of 300 men; and if a single man beyond that were needed, the estimates of revenue and expenditure made by the Commissioners, would become as the Earl of Carnarvon says "illusory." In 1872 the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) said that— there existed among the Mountain tribes many barbarous practices, which it would be impossible to tolerate in a British possession, but which could not be eradicated without great difficulty and no inconsiderable labour and expense."—[3 Hansard, ccxii. 206.] But the present Commissioners are so well aware of the necessity of eradicating them, that giving up, it appears, all idea of reforming those mountaineers they propose to eradicate the mountaineers themselves and to remove them to a future place of residence unknown. I have been told by a gentleman from whom, I believe, the hon. Member for Lambeth gets his information that a gratifying spread of civilization is observable among these Mountain tribes; but I believe that it does not go further than this point—namely, that now they eat only their enemies, whereas formerly they used to eat their friends. I come now to the third and principal of the points which force me to beg for caution—namely, slavery. The Earl of Carnarvon did not mention in his statement the question of domestic slavery in Fiji but he said— It has, curiously enough, been my lot this year to propose to Parliament two Colonial policies, one with regard to the Gold Coast, and the other with regard to Fiji, …. which, if they differ in many respects, yet agree in this. I thought he was going to have added that domestic slavery exists in both countries; but he did not—he made no reference whatever to that point, which I should have thought deserved some reference. At page 4 in the official report, it is stated that the Natives are already in many cases the temporary slaves of English planters, and that they are habitually in the relation of domestic slaves to the Chiefs. At page 14 of the Report we are told that the "existing system" of domestic slavery— can only be altered very gradually, and that any abrupt general change in this direction would weaken the authority of the Chiefs, who are now, and should be for some time to come, the Rulers of their own people under the Central Government. The old system should, in short, be allowed to exist on sufferance, unacknowledged, but, except in the case of extreme exactions, not interfered with. To abolish it, would be to take away the foundation of social order. Now, I do not wish to use strong language—I will be very careful in what I say; but it must be remembered that this is not a Protectorate, like the Gold Coast—indeed, we are told that a Protectorate is out of the question. What is proposed is cession. This is to be an integral part of the British dominions—a Crown Colony governed directly from Downing Street in the name of the Queen; and we are told, by English Government Commissioners that in this integral portion of the British dominions, slavery must be "allowed to exist on sufferance un-acknowledged, not interfered with;" and that in this portion of British soil it is to continue to form the foundation of social order. I am able to remember the outcry that there was in this country when the most eloquent of the orators of the Southern Confederacy spoke of slavery as the corner stone of that Empire which they wished to found. I will add no words of mine, except that we now find the same phrase employed by the official Commissioners of the British Crown in reference to the formation of a new British Empire in the Pacific. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur), and Sir Charles Wingfield, who were the chief advocates of annexation in 1872 and 1873, rested their case mainly upon their wish to put an end to the kidnapping of the Natives in the Pacific; now if we seriously wished it, we could stop the kidnapping by an additional expenditure upon our naval force, without the still more costly policy of annexation; but I want to know with what face, after annexation, we should be able to put down kidnapping for the benefit of the colonies of other nations, such as those of France, when, according to our own Commissioners, slavery will be the foundation of social order in our own Colony of Fiji, and cannot be put an end to there. I remember the attacks that were made last year upon the adventurers who form the present Government of Fiji—attacks made in the supposed interest of the Natives and on a Government which it was said was "based upon the slave trade." According to our Commissioners our Government of Fiji is to be based not upon the slave trade, but upon slavery. I am not speaking against annexation—it may be shown to me to be wise—it may be shown to be necessary. I am only trying to demonstrate that the matter is not sufficiently clear for us to allow Sir Hercules Robinson to visit the Islands with power—without further reference to us—to annex them. Either we ought to see his instructions, or else we ought to let it be understood that Parliament is to be consulted before annexation is positively resolved on. Those who without consulting Parliament would bring to pass the cession, would be incurring a tremendous responsibility. You have in Fiji 4,000 White settlers well armed, some of them holding slaves, many of them occupying large tracts of land, to which they possess no title. You must either govern through these men or against them. If you govern against them, you must keep there a great military and naval force, you must incur vast expense, and very possibly to no purpose. If you govern with them, you run the risk of still worse things, inasmuch as you may find, that you are committed to a policy which will produce the destruction of the bulk of the Native population, at the hands of a small body of slave holding White planters, governing the Islands in the name of the British Crown.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID,

in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend, said, he would confine himself to two points. In the first place, there had been no such cession as the Resolution of the hon. Member for Lambeth asserted; so that if they adopted that Resolution they would be affirming what was distinctly contrary to the fact. The Resolution declared that there had been a unanimous request on the part of the Chiefs, Native population, and White residents of Fiji, for annexation to this country. That the Whites desired annexation he had no doubt; but there was no semblance of a request from the Natives, except so far as the Chiefs affected to act for them. And, further, it seemed very doubtful whether the Chiefs themselves clearly understood what was conveyed by the cession of their territory. The form of an instrument could be found, but it was executed by Mr. Thurston. Well, who was Mr. Thurston? Before he was Minister he was Her Majesty's Consul, and an instrument from one who had recently ceased to be our agent and which made a cession of territory to us would not be of much more validity if tried by the law of common sense than an analogous deed would be if tried by a Court of Law. The Commissioners stated how far the Chiefs understood the cession. The Commissioners say—"We have taken the greatest pains to insure our obtaining a real record of the actual wishes of the Chiefs and people, and we consider the above-named document is as accurate a representation of that wish as can possibly be obtained." But then the Commissioners go on to admit that the Chiefs had not sufficient intelligence really to know what was meant. The record referred to was styled "a paper showing the express wish of Cakobau and the other Chiefs as to annexation to Great Britain." But the Commissioners, in fact, did not ascertain anything from the Chiefs, but took it all from Mr. Thurston, by whom, and not by the Chiefs, the paper was signed. The whole of this cession on the part of the Chiefs was, in truth, something that they did not understand, nor did they know the effect that the change would have upon them. As to the ordinary Natives, there was not even this miserable pretence of assent. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) could not, therefore, as an honourable man vote for this. Resolution, which asserted that there was an unanimous cession, and which assertion was made without any proof of it in the printed documents. If it was wished to do a high-handed thing, and to take a territory which was supposed to be valuable, let it be done; but, at all events, let them not add something like meanness to high-handedness, by pre tending that that was a cession which, in fact, would be a capture by force. The hon. Member for Lambeth had pointed out the advantages of these Islands as a coaling station and as cotton growing territory. That might make it more desirable for England to possess it; but it did not add any strength to those pretences which the hon. Member thought lit to dignify by the name of cession. In the second place, he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) would ask whether the hon. Member was not struck by the incongruity between what was now proposed to be done and what was taken for granted in the Gold Coast debate. It was then admitted that slavery could not be allowed to exist in any part of the British Dominions; and this was given as a reason for not annexing the territory on the Gold Coast, and for being satisfied with establishing a Protectorate. Now, a Protectorate had also been proposed for Fiji; but Lord Kimberley in a Despatch pointed out in the strongest terms, that a Protectorate would not do here, and that, by setting one up, we we should make ourselves responsible for the acts of the Native Government without having the right to control them. The same objections were made in the debate on the Gold Coast, but were overruled, because it was said that we had in that case entered into engagepments from which we could not retreat. In the present case, however, where we had at present entered into no entangling engagements, the House was asked now to enter into them; and when once that had been done, the Government could not afterwards retreat. Why should we do here what we were unwilling to do there? The only reason seemed to be that the advantages of slavery were heightened and diversified in the present case by the charms of cannibalism. The course proposed was not only un-wise, but almost grotesque, and he should, therefore, second, with the ut-most confidence, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House considers that, having regard to the existenee in the case of Fiji of difficulties caused by the necessity of 'subjugating and removing' 20,000 ferocious mountaineers, and by the fact that domestic slavery is pronounced by Commodore Goodenough and Consul Layard, in their official Report, to be 'the foundation of social order' in Fiji, it is necessary that great caution should be used in approaching the subject of annexation,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

I was in hopes that we should have heard at the stage of the discussion which we have now reached the opinions and views of Her Majesty's Government. It is my own conviction that it would have been well if the Government had at an earlier period themselves brought this subject before the House. It was duo to the Government, and due to the House, that they should do so if they contemplate during the Recess any step of a nature which may commit this country with regard to its future policy. But that is a question for the Government, and not for me to judge of. All that I have to say is that I have no desire to take the responsibility out of their hands. I have every desire that they should have a clear stage open to them, without any pre-judgment of questions upon which they ought to be better informed than we can be. I shall hold them entirely and absolutely responsible for the steps they may take in regard to this very important question. I will not attempt to forecast this policy of the Government, an explanation of which in this House has not boon conceded to us; but I will state very briefly the position in which I stand with regard to the Motion now before us, for which the Government are not responsible, and with which we are obliged to deal. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) requires me to concur with him in stating— That this House is gratified to learn that Her Majesty's Government have yielded to the unanimous request of the Chiefs, Native population, and White residents of Fiji, for annexation to this country, so far as to direct Sir Hercules Robinson to proceed to those Islands. The limitation, so far as the Islands are concerned, maybe a very important one; but, on the other hand, it may be no limitation at all. Sir Hercules Robinson may go with instructions to say—"You must make the best of it. Get rid of as many difficulties as you can. But the extension of the British Empire, so limited as it is in territory and population, and with the enormous surplus power of governing it which we feel ourselves to possess—the extension of that Empire is of such vital importance that you must not miss an opportunity of making some addition to the scanty share of the surface of the earth that we possess." That may possibly be the substance of the instructions given to Sir Hercules Robinson. But I treat this as a Motion in favour of annexation, committing this House to annexation, and committing it, not at the request of the Government, and without any concurrence on their part, but by a voluntary and gratuitous act of our own, by our rushing in to assume a responsibility which they have not sought to impose upon us. I object altogether to such a mode of proceeding on the part of my hon. Friend as a private Member. The Government have an entire right to make known their counsels to us, if they please, and either to make us parties to them, or to give us an opportunity of rejecting them; but I altogether object to a person like my hon. Friend, who is a private Member, relentlessly determining that we shall become sharers in the responsibility of the Government—nay, more, that we should direct them in their course, even without their own request. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth talkes of the "unanimous request" of the inhabitants of Fiji for annexation. No such "unanimous request" exists. From the speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken it appears to me a mockery to speak of unanimity among the inhabitants of Fiji on this subject. These is a power of gilding facts, and especially facts at a distance, and of transmuting them by the magic art of eloquence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth evidently possesses in a remarkable degree; but to a plain, prosaic understanding I find nothing in these Papers which partakes at all of the nature of an "unanimous request." Then my hon. Friend administers to me this most severe demand—that I am to declare that I am gratified with this "unanimous request," which does not exist. But I have a great difficulty in doing so. I am not "gratified to learn." I am vexed "to learn." This step appears to me a most unwise proceeding, and if it is an unwise proceeding, I cannot profess to feel any gratification at all. I have looked at this Report and I wish I could com mend it. It is sufficiently long, is rather meagre, and I must say it is one of the most chaotic public documents I ever read in my life. Even this Report, if I read it aright, does not contain the terms on which annexation of these Islands should be made. It is said that if we do not annex them there will be very awkward consequences to the people on the spot, ruin to the English planters, and confusion to the Native Government. These are rather serious facts; but, assuming that the facts are as thus stated, there are no reasons at all why we should annex, unless the Commissioners had shown us a state of facts in which we can proceed safely and wisely, and charge the British people with the great responsibility which it is proposed to lay upon them. There is not a single point in the Report of those Commissioners on which they have made a satisfactory answer. And for the truth of that I may refer to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, but much more naturally to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. We are encountered at the threshold with a controversy with the United States. We are to annex these Islands, and to take upon ourselves the conduct of that controversy in respect of a very large sum. That sum must be dealt with on the principles of international right, and I my-self have had some experience in discussing such a question with the United States. I own I am not very greatly attracted by this first vision which meets me on the very threshold of the subject. With regard to the debt, the Commissioners were instructed to obtain for us most satisfactory information, and the reply is that the White residents have declared, more or less formally at different places, their willingness to acknowledge their responsibility for it, as well as for the expenses of the future Government. "More or less formally declared!" I think when dominion has been assumed, and when these acknowledgments come to be examined and tested as to their value, we shall then find that they have less formally, and not more formally, admitted that they have recognized this responsibility. It is quite plain that if anything is to be done in regard to this debt, if we are to make them really responsible, the acknowledgment ought to be more formal and not less formal. And then there is the difficulty of getting a recognition from the Chiefs, because they cannot understand what they have to recognize. This, I must say, is an extraordinary case. Here is a country in which the Commissioners announce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea correctly stated, that there is a distinction between serfdom and slavery, and that is a distinction which is unknown to the British Constitution. The distinction between slavery and serfdom is sometimes a very important distinction indeed. It is an important practical distinction in a case like the serfdom which prevailed in. Russia until, to his everlasting honour, the present Emperor of Russia abolished it by one of the noblest legislative acts in the world. But the Commissioners, if I recollect right, say that it is an undefined serfdom which exists in Fiji. I think that undefined serfdom is only another name for slavery. Well, we are to annex Fiji and become Sovereigns of those 72 Islands with this un-defined serfdom, which I contend to be slavery, and the philanthropists of the country are to hug themselves with the idea that that is the most delightful thing in the world, because all we have to do is to put down slavery in that country. But we are to go in upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, who, instead of saying that slavery is to be put down, tell us distinctly that it is to be maintained and allowed, and left to take its own course. We are to wink at it; we are to know and allow it to exist, and allow those interested in it to use every means in their power to maintain it, and allow it to exist upon this basis—that this slavery which we are to go in and recognize is in these Islands the foundation of social order. If you accept the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, it will bind you to place the Crown of England in relation of sovereignty over a savage race, among whom slavery exists, and with respect to whom our own Commissioners inform us that that slavery is the basis of social order. Then we are to buy them over. Their Chiefs—there is a very large number of them—are to become salaried officers of the British Government; and we are to enter, after all the warnings we have had in New Zealand, upon the same complicated questions of land tenure in Fiji, which in New Zealand cost us many wars and many millions of money, and which made us responsible for much that has occurred in that Colony which we have great cause to regret. We are to have reproduced in Fiji, first of all, the questions we had to deal with in New Zealand-namely, those between White purchasers and Native vendors. But if I understand this rather obscure Report, we are to have in Fiji what was not in New Zealand—that is different sets of Native rights to the same soil—rights of families who are the proprietors, together with certain rights of the Chiefs, but there is no single proprietorship. It is quite clear that there is a division of rights to the soil between the Chiefs and the people, so that we have complications of the most formidable kind to contend with, and what assistance does the Report give us? Then comes the case of the mountaineers, whose case is, I think, sufficiently set forth by my hon. Friend. I own I am astonished at the demand made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. My hon. Friend is a courageous man. When he last proposed the annexation of Fiji, he was so pleased with his speech, and with the impression it made, that he published a corrected report of it, and in that corrected report last year, or last year but one—I am not sure which—he made a triumphant reference to the case of the Gold Coast. He said—"Look at it! What can be more satisfactory?" He boasted of the firm, solid foundation of the peaceful relations and the freedom from entangling engagements on the Gold Coast; but before the ink was dry came the war upon the Gold Coast, from which we have happily—at any rate for a time—escaped. Well, are we really now to be driven on by such a passion of eagerness for augmented responsibility under the guidance of my hon. Friend, whom we cannot call to account for any defect? If the Government does it, we can call them to account; but my hon. Friend's proposal is one which may lead us into dangers which we can never settle effectually upon him, if under his unfortunate counsels we go wrong. We cannot move to expel him from the House merely because he loads us into all manner of international difficulties. He is not responsible, and I object to marching under the leadership of irresponsible persons. My hon. Friend points out to me a noose, and he says—"Will you be kind enough to put your head into that noose?" I object. By degrees, I believe, that noose will be tightened round the necks of those who have deliberately committed the acts of folly, to which my hon. Friend invites us. There ought to be most careful and deliberate examination of this subject by the responsible Government of the country on their responsibility. The embarrassments of British planters, and even the confusion of the Native Government, are not reasons why we should commit the British nation to engagements which are not well-defined, and with respect to which we do not see the way of working them out effectually. I see disagreeable and distorted phantoms stalking across the stage of this House before my eyes. I see new Votes in the Estimates—new Votes for future wars in Fiji—new Votes for future engagements—a reproduction in aggravated forms of all we have had to lament in New Zealand. And, Sir, believing that we are an Assembly of sane Gentlemen, against not one of whom a writ de lunatico inquirendo can justly or ought reasonably to be taken out, I say upon that basis that I will urge the claims of prudence against the real, but at the same time, I think, sadly deluded, philanthropy of my hon. Friend, and I distinctly decline to utter the gross untruth of which I should be guilty if I were to say that I would be gratified with stops virtually amounting to the premature annexation of Fiji.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, there was one portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he cordially agreed, and it was that in which he recommended the hon. Member for Lambeth not to persevere with his Motion. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for the annexation of the Fiji Islands or otherwise should properly attach to Her Majesty's Government, and he certainly did not seek to throw any portion of that responsibility from the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government to those of the House of Commons. He could not so heartily endorse some other portions of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman, following up what had fallen from the hon. Member for Chelsea, proceeded to argue that the institutions of Fiji were founded upon a system of domestic slavery. That was an expression we had heard before during the present Session. It was a red herring which had been previously drawn across the floor of the House of Commons. When he first saw the expression in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, he anxiously re-read the Report of the Commissioners to see what he had on an attentive perusal failed to detect. He was bound to confess that he still failed to detect these words. It was quite true the Commissioners said—" The old position of the great body of Natives towards their Chiefs is one of undefined serfdom, moderated by certain customs. A Chief has food brought to him and to his followers, and has always been accustomed to exact contributions of mats, oil, &c, from those who look to him as their head. He failed to see in these words "undefined serfdom," for they distinctly stated in what the serfdom consisted. There was no reference made to personal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman would see that it bore a close resemblance to local taxation paid in kind. The next sentence confirmed that view of the case, for the Report went on to say— These contributions, which are necessarily vexatious because uncertain and arbitrary, have been and are still made at the present time, and are greatly valued by the Chiefs as, perhaps, the greatest proof of superiority they can show. Now, if the greatest proof of superiority was that certain payments in kind were made to the Chiefs by those who looked up to them, that answered the objection of the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt, the Commissioners said that they found the Chiefs on this subject by no means open to argument in the direction they contemplated, and that some time might be required before the Chiefs could view matters in a practical light; and he admitted he was far from seeing a termination to the system which had been sketched by the right hon. Gentleman and others. He objected to personal service in any shape or form, though if there was any form of servitude less open to objection it was one in the shape of payments. But the matter might be cut short by saying that, under no circumstances, would Her Majesty's Government consent to administer the affairs of any territory in which domestic slavery in any shape or form was recognized by the law. A great deal had been said with regard to the financial position of Fiji. It was perfectly true that the financial arrangements of the present Ministry of Fiji had not been particularly satisfactory, and that the debt was now estimated at "£87,000. He was not concerned, at present, to defend either the action or the individual character or capacity of the members of the Fiji Ministry. He was afraid those gentlemen could not, perhaps, lay claim to any very great moderation, and he could not say that their past history was any guarantee of their capacity for the administration of the Government. But with regard to the question of the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of the cession of the Fiji Islands upon the terms suggested by Commodore Goodenough and Mr. Layard, he would say at once that it was out of the question. The Commissioners, in the first place, sought to commit us, without further inquiry or investigation, to the acceptance of the debt, which was estimated at £87,000, but we had no guarantee that it might not exceed that amount. The Government would never think of entering blindfold into an arrangement of that kind, which would commit them to an unknown liability. But there were still more formidable objections in another portion of the Report. If the House would turn to page 20 they would see some conditions attached to the cession of a nature far more serious than any financial considerations. In Article 9 this extraordinary paragraph occurred— Every native executive officer to draw the aforesaid allowances contingent upon the actual performance, in respect to Fijians, of the duties confided to him. Should any high native officer be removed from his post, his place to he filled by the next man of his family entitled to succeed him by Fijian law or customs. Such a condition would be scouted as impossible. The next Article said— The Government of Her Britannic Majesty to concede and preserve to the Chiefs and people of Fiji, under any form of British Government, an equitable share in the Councils of State, and, in the event of Fiji becoming a Crown Colony, to appoint not less than four Fijian Chiefs to seats in the Executive Council. The only possible form of government for Fiji, if annexed, would be that of a Crown Colony. It had been already mentioned that Sir Hercules Robinson had been despatched by Her Majesty's Government personally to conduct an investigation into the proposal of the Fiji Government. Sir Hercules Robinson, as the House was well aware, was a gentleman eminently qualified to conduct an inquiry of that description. It was felt by the Government that some officer of higher rank and consequently greater authority than the Commissioners would be in a position which would enable him to approach this question with a greater chance of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. Sir Hercules Robinson, though acting under instructions from the Secretary of State, would be required to exercise his own discretion with regard to a great number of details. Without waiting for his Report, the Government had determined that in the event of all the difficulties in the way being overcome, the cession must be a purely, or at any rate, a virtually unconditional one. Notwithstanding the fact that a so-called responsible Government had been for some time in existence in Fiji, he could not hesitate in recommending the House of Commons to approve the policy of the Government if it should be found necessary to adopt the more original system of a Crown Colony. An idea had prevailed with some that an exact pattern of the British Constitution would be suitable to every description of population. That idea had been taken up by these persons without waiting to inquire whether the nucleus existed round which the forms of Constitutional Government might grow. But the House would agree with him that if a cession should be finally decided on the only form in which the Government of Fiji could be carried on was that of a Crown Colony. A good deal had been said about the difficulties attending the ownership and occupation of land, and this was among the first subjects that would require the anxious attention of the Government. It must receive prompt attention, and no claims would be recognized without the fullest inquiry. There was one circumstance which would call forth the hearty approbation of Members on both sides of the the House, and that was the proffered co-operation of New Zealand and New South Wales in any arrangement which the Government might see their way to adopt. He did not wish to be thought to attach undue importance to the acquisition of these Islands, nor to the sovereignty of Her Majesty in those seas. He did not advocate a policy of annexation, and by annexation he meant the acquisition of territory contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants, and without due regard to the circumstances of the communities and the desirability of the acquisition in itself. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Greenwich in deprecating the idea that because a country was badly governed and might appear to be ungovernable, or because certain practices might prevail there which we might disapprove, we were therefore to rush in and take possession of it. But he must enter a protest against a doctrino which found favour in certain quarters, according to which all annexations or additions to British dominions would be sternly discouraged. He did not admit that the colonizing mission of Great Britain had come to a close. He ventured to hope not only that we should not abandon our Colonies, but that we should not abandon colonization, for such abandonment had usually been, if he read history aright, the precursor of a period of national decay. He did not for one moment admit that our Colonies were to be regarded merely as a source of weakness and a danger in time of war, or that they involved us in serious responsibility without adequate return to the Home Government. He did not deny the very serious and grave responsibility which attached to the possession of colonial Empire; the Government were fully alive to the responsibility which its retention involved, and they were by no means disposed lightly to regard the addition it made to their labours. He must demur to the idea, which found favour in many high quarters, that our Colonies entailed upon us all these responsibilities without giving to us any sufficient return. Although the retention of our Colonies, if we were unhappily engaged in war, might throw certain burdens on our resources, we must place as against them the fact that any Power which thought fit to engage in a life and death struggle with us, which he hoped might never be the case, would not have to reckon merely with the 30 odd millions of the British Isles, but with many other millions of the Anglo-Saxon race, who looked on the mother country with feelings of veneration and regard, and were by no means indisposed to accept the duties and obligations which attached to them as members of a great Colonial Empire. It had been asserted that there was a desire on the part of this country to be rid of the responsibilities of her Colonies; and therefore he should not be doing his duty if he did not avail himself of this, and, indeed, of every occasion, to repudiate on behalf of the Government any sympathy with what was called "the abandonment policy." The Government viewed the retention of our Colonial Empire as a subject of the greatest importance. He was happy to say it was no longer a question of retaining the allegiance of unwilling populations; he would say, without fear of contradiction, and without in any way underrating the loyalty of the British Islands themselves, Her Majesty had no more loyal subjects in any of her dominions than she had in the British Colonies. These Colonies were fully prepared to discharge their duty, whatever it might be, and to reciprocate the feelings of confidence with which they were regarded by the Home Government. He had no fault whatever to find with the suggestions of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles Dilke), who, no more than the right hon. Member for Greenwich, wished to interfere with the policy of the Government, and only wished to impress upon them the necessity of caution and care. In reference to the question, whether annexation would be completed without further reference to Parliament—[Sir CHARLES DILKE: Previous to the actual cession]—he had aiready said no decision had been arrived at; indeed, the elements for forming a decision were still wanting; but if, in the opinion of the Government, annexation should be desirable, that annexation would be determined upon, on the responsibility of the Government, without seeking to throw on the shoulders of Parliament any portion of that responsibility. He hoped, under these circumstances, the hon. Member for Lambeth would be satisfied with the discussion which had arisen, and would not press his Motion to a division, and that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea would be satisfied with the assurance that the utmost caution and care would be observed by the Government, and would consent to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

thought that in the Motion and Amendment before the House, and in the speeches delivered in support of each, the House would be able to perceive a fair representation of the two schools of thought which existed upon the general question of the annexation, or acquisition by England of new territory. The one school—represented by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur)—looked mainly to the advantages to be derived from such acquisition in the way of increased trade, extended commerce, the development of the resources of the annexed country, and the consolidation of our Colonial Empire. The other school—represented by the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich—looked rather to the disadvantages, and were disposed to magnify the difficulties which stood in the way of annexation. They brought into view the probable expense to the British tax-payer, the possible complications with Native tribes, and the undesirability of increasing our responsibilities and creating materials for possible trouble here-after. It was impossible, however, to lay down any general rule by which the British Government should be inflexibly bound; and in the present instance, considering the position which he (Mr. Knatchtghbull-Hugessen) had occupied under the late Government, he felt bound to express his satisfaction with what had fallen from the last speaker, and his opinion that, so far as he was able to judge, the Government had exercised a wise discretion, and might be trusted to proceed with the caution which was necessary. It must not be forgotten by hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) side of the House that the late Government sent out the Commissioners whose Report had been scrutinized, and that Lord Kimberley, in his letter of instructions to them, dated August 1.5th, 1873, pointed out only four possible modes of action for the British Government, three of which were repudiated by this Report—namely, the investing the British Consul with magisterial powers, recognizing the Government of Cakobau, which had confessedly failed, and the establishment of a Protectorate. There remained, then, only annexation, unless we were prepared to abandon altogether any interference with the affairs of Fiji. In considering this question, it must be remembered that the sending of Messrs. Goodenough and Layard to Fiji to make inquiries naturally raised expectations and hopes on the part of the people which it would not be fair and honourable to disappoint. Moreover, he felt bound to say that there had been a disposition to magnify the difficulties of acquisition. As to the statement that there had been no offer of a cession, he would call attention to a passage in the Report, on page 6, which stated that the Commissioners enclosed a Paper expressing the distinct wish of the Chiefs for annexation, and stating— They have full power and authority to make the cession: and, were we to add anything to this, we should say the lesser Chiefs and people are more anxious for annexation than the high Chiefs. The Report also stated that the Commissioners— had taken the greatest pains to insure obtaining a real record of the actual wishes of the Chiefs and people, and we consider the above-named document is as accurate a representation of that wish as can possibly he obtained.' This was also "the unanimous wish of the White settlers." The dangerous mountain tribes called the Kai Colos were confined to the mountains of Viti Levu only. In another part of the Report it was stated that those mountaineers only numbered about 7,000, that they were— scattered, had continual quarrels among themselves, and wove not in the least degree dangerous, though their depredations might be annoying. This, therefore, was a very different state of things from that which we had to encounter in New Zealand. He was glad that his hon. Friend had made so explicit and satisfactory a declaration on the subject of slavery. The Government must know that no slavery in any shape was legal in British territory, nor would the House or the country permit such a state of things for one moment. If he had risen before his hon. Friend's speech, he should have expressed his confidence that the noble Lord at present at the head of the Colonial Department and the present Government would never have sanctioned the negotiation for any territory in which the continuance of domestic slavery was to form a part of the bargain. His hon. Friend had failed, though from mere omission probably, to notice the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea that one of the great slave markets was our Colony of Queensland. That state ment was incorrect. All the evidence was against it, and the authorities of the Colony did everything in their power to discountenance slavery in any form. He thoroughly endorsed the wisdom of the course that the Government proposed to pursue, and concurred with his hon. Friend opposite in believing that this matter was one with which the Executive Government ought to deal, and upon which the House of Commons had no responsibility whatever. It was a case in which Parliament must of necessity repose confidence in the Executive Government, and must not take the responsibility off their shoulders. Of course, however, he and other hon. Members who took this view held themselves perfectly free and open to criticize the action of the Government hereafter if they should see reason to disapprove it. The doctrine, too, of maintaining our colonial possessions infact was one upon which he had, during the throe years he was at the Colonial Office, insisted, he feared, usque ad nauseam, having always loudly protested against those who appeared to undervalue our Colonial Empire. As to increasing that Empire, he would only say that a country in the position of Great Britain could not avoid the responsibilities of that position, nor refuse addition to her territory from merely selfish considerations. Questions of this kind, however, must be dealt with according to their particular merits, and he believed that the present Government—or, indeed, any Government of British gentlemen—might be trusted to deal wisely, justly, and cautiously in those matters.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

observed that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down apparently possessed more faith in any Cabinet composed of English gentlemen than he did in his own Leader, who sat beside him; and his speech afforded only another proof that it was absolutely impossible for any two Gentlemen to rise upon the front opposition Bench without diametrically contradicting one another. The question before the House was not as to whether it was advisable to adopt a policy of abandonment, against which the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) had so strongly protested, but whether we should give our sanction to a policy of annexation. That was a matter which demanded the most careful consideration. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) would probably excuse him if he designated him the patron saint of the Fiji Islander, and his hon. Friend appeared that evening not solely as an independent Member advocating the cause he had at heart, but as the confederate of Her Majesty's Ministers. This was a great question, and he was sorry that it had come on at the fag-end of the Session, when they were all exhausted, their energies having been expended at the beginning on the regulation of public-houses, and at the end on the regulation of public worship. However, the matter was too important to be passed over without some comment. The Islands proposed to be annexed were admirable as far as natural advantages went. Man only was vile in them; but it appeared to him that man there was very vile indeed. Altogether, the inhabitants numbered about 150,000, and until lately, they were the most horrible cannibals that existed on the face of the whole earth. Since this question had first come before them, he had obtained a book upon Fiji written by a Wesleyan missionary. The writer referred to one of the inhabitants who was in the habit of adding a stone for every fresh victim to a certain line of stones which indicated the number of men he had eaten. There were 172 stones in all; but as, no doubt, a great number of stones had been removed, this man had probably killed and eaten about 900 people. Another, again, had a line of stones which reached the number of 58 before he became a Christian. All this was, however, now changed, and of these 150,000, no less than 107,000 regularly attended a place of worship. It was gratifying to find that they had not yielded to the vices of civilization, and if he could prevent it, he would do his best to prevent their being further civilized. But in addition to the 150,000 people who attended church in such enormous proportions, there were 20,000 mountaineers, who retained their original practices, and there seemed to be some fear lest those 20,000 should come down from the mountains and eat the 150,000 Methodists. Therefore, they were called upon to agree to this annexation. In the Report it was stated that those 20,000 mountaineers were scattered, and it was recommended that they should be "visited by soldiers," sum moned to give in their allegiance, and that "teachers" should be sent among them. So that we were first to kill them and burn their villages, and then to send them teachers, in conformity, probably, with the old notion that the British Army should be regarded as one of the branches of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge. In addition to the Natives, there were about 2,000 Europeans in the Islands, nearly all of whom were escaped convicts, and these were the pious founders of the new Crown Colony. These convicts had set up a Government which had been described by the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Elphinstone) as "a set of the most unmitigated ruffians in the world." The Appendix to the Report, at page 59, told them— Worthless adventurers driven from other countries by their evil habits and other faults, have sought a refuge among these islands in numbers out of all proportion to the rest of the settlers, and by their example and influence too often lead their weaker minded neighbours in their footsteps. They drink kava, which— Producing a partial paralysis of the muscular system, together with a lethargic state of the sensibility, without the excitement, coma, and following discomfort of drunkenness, has recommended it to many when alcohol cannot be got. He begged to recommend this to the Home Secretary when he next meddled with Intoxicating Liquors Bills— Its taste has been compared to that of Gregory's Mixture combined with soapsuds, and its appearance to that of dirty dish water, &c. Of the presence of delirium tremens there is no lack of evidence. But in addition to all that, Fiji had incurred a debt of .£80,000 within two years. There must surely be some great and good object to be gained by taking those people over. They were told the proper thing was a Crown Colony—a despotism tempered by the advice of the House of Commons. But what did they know about these people? They were in almost total ignorance respecting them. He had ascertained that the name of these Islands was pronounced in 15 different ways, and whereas the Prime Minister called them the Fiji Islands, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) pronounced it Fee-gee. The hon. Member for Lambeth said this subject had been much discussed both in the House and in the Press; but his hon. Friend was wrong on that point. The question had been discussed only twice, and really the Press could not know much about it, whatever the papers might say. In fact, nobody knew anything about it but the hon. Member for Lambeth. His hon. Friend had talked about an unanimous request for annexation; but he thought that had been exploded. If it was really desirable to adopt this policy, was it not curious that the great boon of annexation should have been reserved for this country? Both Germany and the United States had had these Islands offered to them, and those nations were sharp enough to know what was a good bargain. They had refused, however, to accept them, and had left us to make the bad bargain. We made a bad bargain with reference to the Gold Coast. It had already cost us £1,000,000, and it would shortly cost us another if we did not speedily get rid of it. The Gold Coast should be a warning to us. There was an indescribable simplicity in the people of this country in mixing themselves up with such transactions. For himself, he actually shuddered when he heard of an adventurer or a geographer going hunting about the world and discovering a fresh island in some barbarous sea. That meant sooner or later the establishment of a Crown Colony, and the imposition of fresh taxes upon the people of England. Philanthropy had unfortunately been mixed up with this question. Now, he was of the same opinion as Mr. Albert Grant, who had lately left that House, very much to the regret of himself. He objected to unite business and philanthropy. He should like, therefore, to know whether the taking over of these Islands meant business or philanthropy? It was said annexation was necessary to put down the slave trade; but, in his opinion, they might put a stop to the slave trade without annexing the Islands. The case of New Zealand should be a warning to us. What occurred there? Simply because we did not clearly understand the titles to land in that country, we had been involved in a war which cost us £11,000,000. It would be cheaper to send ships to bring over or take elsewhere the 2,000 sufferers from delirium tremens and leave the Methodists and the cannibals to settle matters between themselves. But the Colonial Minister let the whole truth out when he said the moment English sovereignty was acknowledged, the value of land in the Islands would be—not doubled, but quadrupled for those in behalf of whom we were about to pledge our credit, and possibly our blood and treasure. Something had been said of the blessing of our rule and civilization to the Natives of Fiji. The blessing we conferred on Native tribes of any country we colonized was their extermination. If always ended so, except in the case of India. He had heard lately of a tribe of North American Indians. It was once a noble tribe, but was now almost extinct, for nothing remained but one old chief, two worn-out horses, and three gallons of whisky, and as when last seen the Chief was engaged in drinking the whisky it was believed that shortly nothing would be left. Did the hon. Member think that we were such excellent governors that our rule abroad must be perfect? Was the state of this country an absolute Paradise? He could not think so when we had a standing army of 1,000,000 paupers, and while our gaols were filled in the midst of our civilization. We talked of spreading our national religion abroad, but he would tell the House what our practice was. We raised about £30,000,000 a-year by encouraging people to drink, and we spent nearly that £30,000,000 in weapons, men, and war. Our gods might thus be said to be Bacchus and Mars—the God of Battles and the God of Bottles. But he would put the ease on rather lower, although, perhaps, stronger grounds. Had not this Parliament enough to do? What a Session they had had of it? How many harassed and worried classes, and individuals, and trades had they put right during the Session? During the last five months they had been engaged in legislating for enthusiastic Ritualists, plundering publicans, indiscreet Bishops, aggrieved Commissioners, and bonâ fide drunkards. Parliament had been overburdened with work, and he entreated it not to add to its anxiety by annexing the "King of the Cannibal Islands," and those interesting savages who had wound themselves round the heart and affections of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that as no independent Member had supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he wished to say a few words on the subject before the House. His hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had reminded the House that we had a standing army of 1,000,000 paupers; but how many would there be at this moment but for our Colonies, and the emigration which they had enabled us to carry out. We had the grandest Colonies in the world. He, for one, deprecated the tone in which our Colonies were sometimes spoken of by some of his hon. Friends on that side of the House; and he rejoiced that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had spoken in such a manly tone as to the colonial policy of the Government. So far from feeling the distrust in the Colonial Office which had been expressed that night, he would say, without making any invidious comparisons, that he felt the fullest and most implicit confidence in the wisdom, humanity, and patriotism of the noble Lord who presided over the Colonial Office. There never was a more general wish in a Colony than there was in Fiji that the British Government should take over the Colony. The Commissioners stated that the lessor Chiefs were even more anxious for annexation' than the great Chiefs. With regard to the debt, our Australian Colonies had expressed their willingness to take any reasonable share of it that might be allotted to them. The question was, whether these Islands were to have British rule and justice, or British lawlessness and civil war. The Islands were in a state of anarchy, and in the interests of civilization and humanity it was our duty to accept the cession. There was nothing like the "lust of territory" which had been spoken of. The people had invited us to rule over them, and if we failed to do so, some other Government would probably stop in. The French had taken possession of New Caledonia as a penal settlement, and it was a disgrace to us that we had allowed them to do so. The Secretary of State had refused to accept the cession unless it was made unconditionally, and Lord Carnarvon and the Government had done the only wise thing that could be done by sending Sir Hercules Robinson to inquire into the circumstances. We might get rid of all our difficulties by shirking our obvious duties; but it would be a case of absolute cowardice if the Government were to shirk herein the duty that was plainly and obviously before them If the Government were to allow the United States to obtain these Islands, because Great Britain refused to take them, they would be regarded with scorn and contempt by our Australian Colonies.

MR. WILLIAM M' ARTHUR

said, he was satisfied with the debate, and, as he had full confidence in the Government, he was willing to withdraw his Motion.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

was un-willing to withdraw his Amendment until a division had been taken.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 28: Majority 53.

Main Question put, and negatived.