Commons Sitting of 7 August 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —NAVY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICES REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, PACKET AND POST OFFICE SERVICES—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—Resolutions [August 6] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Consolidated Fund (£14,938,668) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Public Record Office* [182]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hyde, &c.)* (re-comm) [263]; Fisheries (Dynamite) * [273].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Colonial Stock * [228], and passed.
Third Reading — Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings)* [277]; Winter Assizes Act (1876) Extension* [276], and passed.
Withdrawn—Valuation of Lands and Hereditaments* [256].

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—PUBLIC HOUSES.—QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN (for Mr. WATKIN)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament to provide for the closing of public houses during the hours of polling at Parliamentary Elections?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No, Sir, I am not prepared to introduce a Bill for the closing of public-houses during

  535
  polling hours at Parliamentary elections. By the 23rd section of the Licensing Act the justices of a locality in which, in any case, tumult is expected, have power to close public-houses during any time they may think fit—not with reference to polling especially, but in all cases in which tumult is likely to arise. This subject was much considered by the Select Committee which sat in 1870, and they reported to the House that although the witnesses examined naturally looked upon the question entirely from the point of view of order and tranquillity, the Committee felt that the inconvenience to the public generally of such a measure would be so great as to outweigh its advantages.

  NAVY—ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADMIRALTY.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will, before filling up the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, take into consideration the advisability of making such changes in the administration of that department as, after due deliberation, shall be deemed best to ensure for the Nation the possession of an efficient Navy, whereon the wealth, safety, and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depends?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government are always anxious to do what they can to improve the administration of all Departments of the Government, and, undoubtedly, the Admiralty is one of such importance that the attention of the Government is constantly directed to any question that may arise with regard to improvements in its administration; but we do not think that there would be much wisdom in undertaking to make changes at the present time while the office of the First Lord is vacant. We think it would be better to wait until that office is filled, and to have the advantage of the First Lord's experience and advice in making them.

  TURKEY—PARTITION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information of an understanding be-
  536
  tween Russia, Austria, and Germania for the partition of the Ottoman Empire; and, if so, whether this is the cause of our present inaction where British interests are so seriously imperilled?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: No, Sir, Her Majesty's Government are not in possession of any information upon this subject which I could communicate to the House.
  DR. KENEALY: The Answer of the right hon. Gentleman not being satisfactory, I shall repeat the Question tomorrow.

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSIONERS—SALE OF LANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the statement made in page 4 of the last Report of the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners—" that 4,536 small proprietors had, up to the end of 1876, been created by the operation of the Irish Church Act"—is intended to imply that 4,536 separate and distinct persons became, by the sales to them of their holdings under the Irish Church Act, possessors of real property, not having been so before such sales; and, if not, what qualification, and to what extent, must be placed on the above statement; and, whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the names of these 4,536 persons, with such details as may identify them, and the sales made to each of them, or any other Returns by means of which the exact number of persons who, up to the end of 1876, were created proprietors by the operation of the Irish Church Act, may be ascertained?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am informed by the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners that, in a few cases out of the 4,536 holdings reported by them as sold to tenants up to the end of 1876, there was a consolidation of holdings; and therefore the number of proprietors created may not possibly have been more than 4,400. About 10 per cent. or 450 holdings, were conveyed to persons not tenants, the tenants having paid the purchase-money and directed the conveyances to be made to those other persons. The tenants were consenting parties, and signed the deeds. The names of all purchasers of Church

  537
  lands up to the first of July, 1876, were given in August last, in pursuance of a Return made to an order of the House of Lords. The Commissioners propose to give a continuation of this Return in their next Report, bringing the sales and the names of the purchasers up to the end of 1877.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES — FRANCE AND ITALY.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a commercial treaty has been concluded between France and Italy; whether he can now lay it upon the Table of the House; whether Italy was not informed that this Country was prepared to negotiate a new treaty with Italy at the time any treaty between France and Italy was negotiated, in order that the interests of England might be duly considered; and, if he can inform the House whether any peculiar circumstances prevented this being done?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, a Commercial Treaty had been signed between France and Italy. He was not prepared to lay it upon the Table, as it had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government in confidence. With regard to the other two Questions, they seemed to have been asked under a misapprehension. The existing Treaty between England and Italy had been prolonged for another year. Italy was very well aware, as all the world was aware, that they were quite prepared to negotiate a new Treaty. The last Question, therefore, fell to the ground.

THE SPANISH CUSTOMS TARIFF.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that, while the Colonial Office, with the consent of the Foreign Office, has still under its consideration an ordinance for aiding at Gibraltar the maintenance by Spain of its high protection tariff, the Spanish Government has been concluding a special Customs tariff, by which productions imported from Germany and Switzerland are charged at lower rates than those imported from England in
  538
  some cases to the extent of 100 per cent; whether this change in the tariff was first communicated to the Government on the 24th of July only, while the new rates came into operation on the 1st of August; whether the intention of con-eluding this arrangement with other countries was concealed from the British Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Spain; and, whether the Foreign Office will not at once obtain in England translations of the new tariff for the information of the commercial community rather than wait till a translation can come from Spain?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, there was no such Ordinance as that mentioned in the Question before the Colonial Office —[Mr. RYLANDS: Oh, oh!]—but there was, as the House was perfectly well aware, an Ordinance for the regulation of the collection of the customs at Gibraltar. The Spanish Government had lately promulgated two tariffs which came into force on the 1st of August, and the first of those tariffs was a general tariff; whilst the second was one which regulated the import of all articles from those countries with which Spain had special Treaties. There were two countries with which Spain had Treaties of that: kind—Germany and Switzerland. Those Treaties were made in 1868 and 1869, and under them those two countries would be entitled to have their goods imported into Spain at a lower rate than other countries placed under the general tariff. Sir John Walsham, our Chargé d'Affaires at Madrid, had been instructed to make a representation upon the subject to the Spanish Government, and to remonstrate against England being excluded from the advantages of the Most Favoured Nation Clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked whether there was any Favoured Nation Clause in any of our Treaties with Spain?
  MR. BOURKE, speaking from memory, thought there was; but he would give a definite answer if the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if there was a Favoured Nation Clause it would certainly seem to prevent any goods imported into Spain from Germany or Switzerland being received upon a lower tariff than goods from England.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he had already stated that Sir John Walsham had been directed to remonstrate against Eng-

  539
  land being excluded from the Most Favoured Nation Clause.

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) —COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, At what time and place during the recess the inquiry into the administration and constitution of the Irish Board of Works will be held; if such inquiry is to be private; and, if so, will Irish Members of Parliament be permitted to attend; and, will the proceedings of said inquiry be laid before Parliament at some early period of next Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the administration and constitution of the Board of Works in Ireland will meet at Dublin during the autumn. I cannot say if it will be private, but that will be the case in all probability. It will rest with the Commission to determine, in consultation with the Irish Government and the Treasury, the exact conditions under which it will be held. If they decide it shall be private, Irish Members of Parliament who may not be members of the Commission will not have the privilege of attending; but the proceedings of the inquiry will be laid before Parliament early next Session.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF PAUPERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MELDON (for Mr. DOWNING)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Why it is that, since he became President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, there is no reference made in any report of that Board to cases of removal of paupers from England and Scotland to Ireland, which was previously done in almost every report?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think if the hon. Member for Cork county had looked at the Report of the Irish Local Government Board, he would have found that the last reference to the removal of paupers from England and Scotland to Ireland was made in the Report for 1871, three years before I was in any way responsible for these Reports. I presume that the reason for discontinuing any reference to this subject was
  540
  that the Irish Local Government Board found that the repetition of their views with regard to it had little or no effect.

  THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—THE PROSECUTION—WITNESSES.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the detective officers Druscovitch and Palmer, whose conduct is now under inquiry, were not continuously employed on the Tichborne prosecution; whether there is any objection to state the amount paid to them for and in respect of such services; and, whether Jean Luie, a witness on the trial, and since convicted of perjury, is now in this Country; and, if so, in what prison?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the detectives, Druscovitch and Palmer, were not in any way employed in the case. They had no connection with it at all.
  MR. WHALLEY: Are you sure? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As to the witness Luie, I really do not know where she is. [Several voices: Jean, Jean!] Oh! Jean Luie. I do not know where he is confined.
  MR. WHALLEY: May I be allowed to address the latter part of the Question to the Home Secretary, and to ask whether the prisoner is in this country or not?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am sorry to say I really do not know. I was not aware that this Question was to be put to me; but if the hon. Member will repeat it to-morrow I shall be very happy to afford any explanation I can.

  SOCIETY OF THE HOLY CROSS—THE REV. J. LYLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOLTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Reverend John Stevenson Lyle, of Saint Thomas' College, Colombo, whose name appears in a list of the members of the Society of the Holy Cross, recently condemned by the English Bishops in Convocation, is chaplain to the Bishop of Colombo; and, whether the duties which Mr. Lyle has to discharge, in connection with Saint Thomas' College, render him in any way responsible for the theological education of native candidates for Holy Orders?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I am afraid I can give my hon. Friend no information

  541
  upon this subject beyond the fact that no person of the name and description referred to in his Question holds any office under Government. The chaplain of the Bishop of Colombo is not appointed by Her Majesty's Government, and neither the Bishop nor his chaplain are in any way under our control. On a somewhat similar subject the other day I remarked that it was not advisable to bark when one is unable to bite; and therefore my hon. Friend will understand why I express no opinion upon the subject he alludes to.

JUDICATURE ACTS—SURREY ASSIZES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYDERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to the statement in the "Times" of the 30th July, pointing out the great inconvenience which has resulted to suitors in consequence of the Judges at Croydon having declined to try there any but Surrey Causes; and, whether their so declining is not in contravention of the rights of suitors both at Common Law and under the Judicature Act?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, every suitor had a perfect right to name any county where his action might be tried; but, on the other hand, there was another right on the part of the Judge, and if he found an action set down for trial in a county which had no connection with the case he had a perfect right to send it back to the county to which it really belonged. "What had been done with regard to Surrey was this—Before the present arrangements were made the practice was that all sittings in London and Middlesex for the trial of jury cases came to a close towards the end of June, and, the Judges being on Circuit, from that time until the following November there were no means of trying causes in London or Middlesex. The result was that where there was any case pressing for trial the plaintiff set it down for trial at Guild-ford, Croydon, or any other place near London. One of the great objections to that practice was that from 100 to 300 cases were set down for trial which had nothing to do with the county of Surrey, and would have been tried in London if there had been means of trying them. That practice involved great expense
  542
  through the cost of sending witnesses down; and it was suggested that Surrey being so near London the Surrey assizes might he dispensed with and Surrey cases be sent to London. That, however, was objected to, and it was then arranged that two of the Judges should sit in London and Middlesex and go down to Surrey for the purpose of trying Surrey cases. It was found that solicitors put down a great number of London cases for trial at Croydon, and an order was therefore made to get rid of that abuse.

CEYLON—THE INDIAN FAMINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. B. POTTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, "Whether, considering the large capabilities of Ceylon for the production of rice, and the prospects of continued scarcity and famine in Southern India, the Government is prepared to abolish, without further delay, the restrictions on the cultivation of rice and the system of revenue farming in the Island of Ceylon?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The whole question of food supply and taxes in Ceylon is at the present time under the consideration of a Commission appointed for that purpose in the Island, and until its Report has been considered by Her Majesty's Government it is impossible to arrive at any decision upon the question. I may, however, relieve my hon. Friend of any anxiety as to any effect upon the Indian Famine resulting from this matter, since it is the fact that the consumption of rice in the Island of Ceylon is more than double its production.

  PARLIAMENT — PRIVILEGE. — NOTICE.
  MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as a question of Privilege needs to be brought before the House at the earliest possible moment, I came down this afternoon intending to call attention to a breach of Privilege in the alleged language of a Member of this House in reference to other Members of the House as to their conduct in the House; but, as I find the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) is not in his place, I can only in his absence give Notice that on Friday next I shall call attention to the

  543
  following language, as a breach of the Privileges of this House. In a speech alleged to have been delivered by Sir James Elphinstone, M.P. for Portsmouth, one of the Lords of the Treasury, at the annual dinner of the Garioch Farmers' Club, near Insch, East Aberdeenshire, on Saturday, the hon. and gallant Member is reported to have said—
  "Five or six Members of the House of Commons had set all the actual Executive Government of the country at defiance. The obstruction, too, had been conducted with a degree of ability and pertinacity that made it certain that, if it was not curbed, the affairs of the country would be absolutely brought to a deadlock. It was perfectly impossible that five or six ruffians should be permitted to bring the Government of this great Empire to a standstill. There were certain things which it was possible to tolerate, but this was a matter which it was impossible to tolerate any longer. Not only did they propose Amendments to a variety of Bills, but to measures which did not involve Party questions."
  I have, Sir, endeavoured to communicate with the hon. and gallant Member; but I find he is out of town, and I now beg to give Notice that on Friday I shall call attention to this matter as a question of Privilege.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

CASE OF MR. JOHN CLARE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BIGGARmoved—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, no further sums of money should be voted for the Navy until the case and claims of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of metal shipbuilding on life-preserving principles for the State Navy, and plaintiff in ' Clare v. the Queen,' are rigidly investigated by a Select Committee of this honourable House, and, if found correct as per records of the Admiralty since 1853, to be liquidated."
  As Mr. Clare was a very persevering gentleman, he (Mr. Biggar) suggested to the Admiralty that a Committee be appointed to investigate his claims, and if they were found to be just to pay them and get rid of the case altogether.
  COLONEL BERESFORDseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " in the opinion of this House, no further sums of money should be voted for the Navy until the case and claims of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of metal shipbuilding on life-preserving principles for the State Navy, and plaintiff in ' Clare v. 'the Queen,' are rigidly investigated by a Select Committee of this honourable House, and, if found correct as per records of the Admiralty since 1853, to be liquidated," —(Mr. Biggar,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Cavan was actuated by a generous sentiment in urging the claims of Mr. Clare upon the House; but as he (Mr. Reed) had known of the matter for several years, he might be permitted to state his impressions of the case. Mr. Clare was without the smallest particle of a claim to have originated any inventions for the Royal Navy, and he had persuaded himself into a state of mind which was entirely inconsistent with the facts. In other words, Mr. Clare being, in his opinion, unacquainted with almost every principle which regulated the construction of ships, had persuaded himself into the belief that he had done something, and had sent in claims for what were really the inventions of men who were competent masters of their profession. Mr. Clare had gone to the length almost of claiming the whole construction of the Warrior, yet he (Mr. Reed) believed he never had had a correct idea of how the Warrior was framed. In point of fact, Mr. Clare's claims were without the slightest foundation, and if Committees of Inquiry were to be granted in such cases they would be always sitting as long as the House lasted. When he (Mr. Reed) first went to the Admiralty they received inventions there at the rate of 90 per week, and no doubt one half of the inventors persuaded themselves in course of time that they had contributed something valuable to Her Majesty's Navy. If Committees were to be granted to satisfy such individuals they would be entering upon an endless task. Mr. Clare's claims had been gone into over and over again, and had received the greatest personal attention on the part of the Board of Admiralty, but without the slightest foundation for them being discovered.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, it was quite out of the question to submit questions of this kind to the consideration of Select Committees of the House. Similar questions had been so referred on several occasions, and the decisions arrived at invariably showed that there was no ground for the claims which were made.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he had seconded the Motion because on examining the Papers he entertained some doubt whether the claim had been fairly settled.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, under the circumstances, he should be willing to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no! "]
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. COURTNEY, who had given Notice to call attention to the circumstances of the annexation of the South African Republic; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the annexation of the South African Republic is unjustifiable, and calculated to be injurious to the interests of the United Kingdom and of its Colonies in South Africa,"
  said, that though in all probability the House had heard almost enough on this question, there were some points which he thought deserved attention. One of the principal points was that the action which had been taken seemed to have been indicated, if not dictated, by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, who, having been concerned in African politics for many years, had become possessed by certain fixed ideas which were unsound in their character, and which certainly could not be regarded as dealing with the question from a calm and judicial point of view. The war which resulted in the annexation of the Transvaal originated in a dispute connected with land, and the present measure was founded upon some apprehended danger of its renewal; but there was no real foundation for that apprehension. [The hon. Member proceeded to read numerous extracts from the Blue Book to show the groundlessness of the fear that a fresh outbreak of hostilities might occur
  546
  between the inhabitants of the Transvaal and the Natives.] It had been suggested that the Natives might prove most formidable not only to the inhabitants of that State but to ourselves; but that idea was not entertained by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and, in fact, the Natives under Secocoeni had already shown their inability to contend with the small force of the Transvaal before we annexed the latter territory. It had been denied that the annexation had been secured by force, and much had been made of the alleged peaceable consent of the Transvaal Republic; but the facts did not bear out that view of the case. When Sir Theophilus Shepstone went to the Transvaal he was received with great cordiality, because the people all thought that he came to negotiate a Treaty offensive and defensive which might be mutually beneficial; but they had no conception that he came to override the feelings of the inhabitants and annex the Republic by force. It was known that Sir Theophilus Shepstone kept on negotiating, and then, to the surprise of the Transvaal Republic, he issued his Proclamation annexing the Transvaal. He had been told to obtain the concurrence of the Governor General before proclaiming annexation, but he obtained no such concurrence. The Proclamation was received in Natal with astonishment, and the opinion of the English Press there was strongly condemnatory of the manner in which the annexation had been made. He contended that there was no justification for what had been done by Sir Theophilus Shepstone. The annexation would be injurious to the interests of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies of South Africa. It would be injurious to the interests of those Colonies for this reason—we had formerly agreed not to carry our arms into the middle of Africa and to allow the Dutch Boers themselves to go into the interior. We had reversed that policy. We had taken upon ourselves the immense burden of administering the affairs of the Transvaal. We had made ourselves responsible for what that Republic had done, and would have to take up its quarrels with the Native Chiefs. The cost would not be borne by the Colonies, and would have to be borne by us at home. The Vote of to-night was the first symptom of the considerable expenditure which this country

  547
  would have to bear for many years to come in connection with this matter. That was not the worst of this annexation. It would entail upon us recurrent war, for we must have all the wars and dangers of war hitherto arising between the Dutch and the Natives. At this moment there was a rumour of war with a Native Chief who had become irritated at the annexation of the Transvaal, and who had threatened to quarrel with the British; and it was the opinion of Englishmen at Natal that it would be advisable for us to begin the war rather than allow the Native Chief to commence it. He must confess that at the present moment he did not understand how the Government of the Transvaal was to be maintained. The danger which was great in the event of its annexation to Natal would be very much greater if it were to be left alone. Perhaps the Under Secretary for the Colonies would tell the House how the Transvaal was to be governed. It appeared to him (Mr. Courtney) that the government of it would be nothing less than a despotism. Sir Theophilus Shepstone, or somebody else, would probably introduce there the extreme defects of rule which existed in Natal. For these reasons, he (Mr. Courtney) ventured to submit to the House that this annexation was not justifiable on any plea of danger to the Transvaal. Not only was it not justifiable, but it was likely to be injurious to the interests of the South Africa Colonies and of this country.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENwas anxious to lose no time in stating the reasons why he was prepared to give Her Majesty's Government a candid and cordial support in the matter of this annexation. His hon. Friend would have moved, if the Forms of the House had permitted, that the annexation was unjustifiable and calculated to be injurious to the interests of the United Kingdom and of its Colonies in South Africa; and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) very much regretted that the Forms of the House did not allow him to move that, so that the opinion of the House might be fairly taken. He had a perfect conviction that when this subject was calmly and deliberately considered the House would by a large and overwhelming majority support the policy of the Government. The Under Secretary for the Colonies, under the weight of responsi-
  548
  bility which must attach to him, might well feel some delicacy and difficulty in speaking of past transactions, and in alluding to the slavery which had been practised by those who had now become British subjects, and over whose past misdeeds he would doubtless be glad to draw a veil. But as he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) spoke without that official responsibility, no such feeling would prevent him from stating the impression which the whole narrative in the Blue Books had made upon his mind. It had been said, and might be said again, that this annexation had been made in violation of Treaties. Now, he was anxious to show—first, that there had been no violation of Treaties at all; and, secondly, that annexation had become absolutely necessary. The question of slavery bore on the violation of Treaties in a very direct manner, and could not therefore be ignored. We had guaranteed to the emigrating Boers the right to manage their own affairs without interference. That was one Article of the Convention of 1852. Another Article was that no slavery should be permitted or practised by the emigrating Boers. But it was well-known that from that time the system of slavery had been going on ever since. There could be no doubt that the Treaty had been violated in that respect, and being violated by the one party its correlative obligations were no longer binding on the other. The existence of slavery had been vainly denied. No remonstrance on the part of the British Government had availed to check it. There had been public sales of slaves in Potchefstroom, the chief town of the Transvaal State. In a debate which took place during the last Parliament, upon a Motion of Mr. Fowler, Member for Penrhyn, allegations were made without contradiction as to the slavery prevalent in the Transvaal Republic, and Mr. Monsell, Under Secretary for the Colonies, corroborated the fact of its existence. But there was other evidence which he would adduce, and which came from a quarter nearer to the Transvaal. On the 10th August, 1868, the Legislative Council of Natal passed resolutions setting forth that ever since 1848 the emigrant farmers who had formed the South African Republic
  "Have carried on a system of slavery, under the guise of child-apprenticeship; such children being the result of raids carried on against

  549
  Native tribes, whose men are slaughtered, but whose children and property are seized… That the existence of this system of slavery is a notorious fact; that the attendant evils were fully admitted by persons officially cognizant of them, at a public meeting held in Potchefstroom, the chief town of the Republic, in April, 1868,"
  and the whole subject was brought before the High Commissioner; but that he replied he could not interfere, that—
  "There can scarcely be a doubt that the President, if referred to, would strenuously deny the existence of such traffic—a bonâ fide inquiry would be almost impracticable; and, moreover, it would be beyond the power of the Transvaal Republic, admitting it to have the inclination, to put down a trade which the Boers must find to be very tempting and profitable."
  They went on to say—
  "That so long as this traffic in children was suffered to exist there could be no hope for the progress of civilization in the Native tribes living in the Transvaal Republic, while the prevalence of such practices in the immediate neighbourhood of independent and Colonial tribes had a most pernicious and injurious effect, and tends to lower the position and influence of the whole race."
  An address, containing these resolutions, was presented to the Lieutenant Governor, but no answer was made by the Boers to these charges. Sir Philip Wodehouse called the attention of the then President of the Republic, Pretorius, to the practical slavery, and sale of slaves, then existing, and pointed out that it was—
  "A clear violation of one of the most important stipulations of the Treaty between the Transvaal Republic and Her Majesty."
  He demanded the repeal of the laws permitting the sale of these "apprentices;" but Pretorious evaded the question, and no satisfaction was given. Now, some hon. Gentlemen talked as if the South African Republic, as it at present existed, had been established and recognized in 1852. It was no such thing. All that was done was to give a licence to the Boers to manage their own affairs. He quoted a remarkable document presented by the President of the Transvaal Republic himself to the Earl of Carnarvon, which would be found in the Papers relating to South Africa, presented to Parliament 6th August, 1875. It was entitled, A memorandum relating to the condition of Natives in the South African Republic. In this statement, put forward in vindication of his Government, he
  550
  made some admissions worthy of notice In the first place, he said that—
  "When, in 1852, the South African Republic was recognized by Her Majesty's Government, in the Treaty of Sand River, the emigrant farmers to the North of the Vaal were not united under one government, but followed their respective Chiefs in three different parts of the Transvaal territory."
  This, therefore, further established the position (if, indeed, it required additional evidence), that what the British Government did in 1852 was not to recognize any definite Government with defined territorial boundaries, but to simply give to the emigrant farmers "the right to manage their own affairs and to govern themselves without interference." But President Burgers went on to admit in so many words that two out of the three parties of emigrant farmers did permit and practise slavery, and the inhuman traffic in "black ivory"—that was, in Native children—was carried out until the third party, that of Pretorius, was finally triumphant in the civil war of 1865, and all parties united under one Republic. But note his language. He said—
  "Ever since the final union of these parties with the Republic these illegitimate and inhuman practices have been to a great extent suppressed."
  But, he said further—
  "However good the intention of Government, experience soon proved that something more is required in a country than good laws in order to prevent evil practices, and with their best endeavours Government could not always prevent abuses of the apprenticeship system."
  However, he said, things have been better since the amalgamation, and—
  "in a late inquiry made by the Government of the South African Republic to ascertain the truth of the accusation of slavery against themselves, not a single instance could be named in which slavery was carried on in the Republic with the sanction of the Government."—(June 5, 1875.)
  It must be remembered that this was the statement of the accused parties them-selves. He would, however, give still later evidence, and refer to page 15 of the last Blue Book presented upon this subject, which, under date 12th December, 1876, contained the following passage in a letter from the Special Correspondent of The Cape Argus:—
  "The whole world may know it, for it is true and investigation will only bring out the horrible details, that through the whole course of this

  551
  Republic's existence it has acted in contravention of the Sand River Treaty; and slavery has occurred not only here and there in isolated cases, hut as an unbroken practice has been one of the peculiar institutions of the country, mixed up with all its social and political life. It has been at the root of most of its wars. It has been carried on regularly even in the times of peace. It has been characterized by all those circumstances which have so often roused the British nation to an indignant protest, and to repeated efforts to banish the slave trade from the world. The Boers have not only fallen upon unsuspecting kraals simply for the purpose of obtaining the women and children and cattle, but they have carried on a traffic through Natives, who have kidnapped the children of their weaker nèighbours and sold them to the white man. Again, the Boers have sold and exchanged their victims among themselves. Waggon loads of slaves have been conveyed from one end of the country to the other for sale, and that with the cognizance of and for the direct advantage of the highest officials of the land. The writer has himself seen in a town situated in the south of the Republic the children who had been brought down from a remote northern district."
  According, then, to his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) opinion, it was proved to demonstration that, either from their unwillingness or their inability to prevent it, the Transvaal Boers had, in violation of the Convention of 1852, "permitted and practised" slavery, and had thus caused an irritation in the minds of the independent tribes which could not but be productive of serious consequences, and had directly led to the present result. So much for slavery; but there was something else to which attention must be called. His hon. Friend had talked of "some inevitable dispute about land." They could not read these Blue Books without coming to the conclusion that annexation had become absolutely necessary, and that it was really the Boers' own policy of annexation which had recoiled upon themselves, although he believed that very many of them heartily rejoiced at the result, which afforded them better hope of secure and peaceful lives. It appeared from the Papers that the Natives desired to live free from molestation on their own lands, but that a process of encroachment and appropriation was continually carried on by the Dutch Boers, so that it had become impossible for the Natives to have any sympathy with them and their Government. If that Government had been satisfied with a moderate portion of land, quite sufficient for its people, it might have got on well enough with the surrounding tribes of Natives, but its per-
  552
  petual encroachments had produced a spirit of hostility to the Boers, which had resulted in the recent war and in our annexation of that State. Now, he would state to the House the general method of procedure on the part of the Boers with respect to this annexation. In a despatch of Sir Henry Barkly, dated October 2, 1876, would be found the first extract which he would venture to read—
  "17. The following graphic description of this process is extracted from a letter in the Transvaal 'Advocate' of a few weeks ago: 'Frontiers are laid down, the claim to which is very doubtful. These frontiers are not occupied, but farms are inspected (guessed at would be nearer the mark), title deeds for the same are issued, and, when the unlucky purchaser wishes to take possession, he finds his farm (if he can find it) occupied by tribes of Kaffirs, over whom the Government has never attempted to exercise any jurisdiction.' 'Their Chief,' it adds, 'is rather bewildered at first to find out that he has for years been a subject of the Transvaal.'"
  He would read the House another extract (page 196 in the Blue Book) from an able letter written by Mr. Osborn, resident magistrate of Newcastle in Natal. He said—
  "From all I have been able to learn, it seems that the natives have no wish to prosecute the war or to avail themselves of advantages derived by them since its commencement. Their only desire appears to be left unmolested in the possession of their land, which the Boers are endeavouring to deprive them of.
  "I would point out here that this war arose solely out of dispute about land. The Boers— as they have done before in other cases and are still doing—encroached by degrees upon native territory, commencing by obtaining permission to graze stock upon portions of it at certain seasons of the year, followed by individual graziers obtaining from native headmen a sort of right or license to squat upon certain defined portions, ostensibly in order to keep other Boer squatters away from the same land. These licenses, temporarily extended as friendly or neighbourly acts by unauthorised headmen, after a few seasons of occupation by the Boer construed by him as title, and his permanent occupation ensues. Damage for trespass is levied by him upon the very men from whom he obtained right to squat, to which the natives submit out of fear of the matter reaching the ears of the paramount Chief, who would, in all probability, severely punish them for opening the door to encroachment by the Boer. After a while, however, the matter comes to a crisis, in consequence of the incessant disputes between the Boers and the Natives; one or other of the disputants lay the case before the paramount Chief, who, when hearing both parties, is literally frightened with violence and threats by the Boer into granting him the land. Upon this

  553
  the usual plan followed by the Boer is at once to collect a few neighbouring Boers, including a field cornet, or even an acting provisional field cornet, appointed by the field cornet or provisional cornet, the latter to represent the Government, although without instructions authorising him to act in the matter. A few cattle are collected among themselves, which the party takes to the Chief, and his signature is obtained to a written instrument alienating to the Republican Boers a large slice of or all his territory. The contents of this document are, so far as I can make out, never clearly or intelligibly explained to the Chief who signs it, and accepts of the cattle under the impression that it is all in settlement of hire for the grazing licenses granted by his headmen.
  "This, I have no hesitation in saying, is the usual method by which the Boers obtain what they call cessions to them of territories by native Chiefs. In Sikukuni's case, they allege that his father, Seguato, ceded to them the whole of his territory (hundreds of square miles) for 100 head of cattle."
  But, to come from the general system of the Boers to particular cases, the Blue Books were perfectly full of them. In 1868 President Pretorius quietly issued a Proclamation annexing to the Republic the whole country to the East up to Delagoa Bay, giving him an outlet to the sea, and an enormous tract of land to the West. The Duke of Buckingham immediately wrote a despatch telling him that England would not recognize the validity of this Proclamation, and at the same time warning the Boers that if they continued to violate the anti-slavery Article, Great Britain would hold herself discharged from her obligations under the Convention. But the Blue Book last presented teemed with instances of this annexation policy, to some of which he would briefly refer. At page 54 was the case of the Amaswazi, who, being treated with by an officer who had formerly been in the service of the Natal Government, but had afterwards entered that of the Transvaal Boers, were led to sign a document which they believed to be the renewal of an old Treaty with Natal, and were afterwards told that it was a cession of their country to the Republic! At page 37 would be found the complaints of the Barolongs and Bataplins. At page 40, the complaint of Lopenguela, chief of the Matabeles. At page 65 that of Montsora; and at page 50 was told Cetywayo's case, how the Dutch Boers had claimed land for alleged gifts of cattle, and had "on several occasions tried by misrepresentations to get documents signed for grants of land." One letter from a Native Chief he could not
  554
  refrain from reading to the House, as a sample of the complaints and wishes of the Natives, and he would commend it to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), as it touched on a question which he had made his own. It was dated August 5th, 1876, and ran as follows:—
  "I, KHAME, King of the Bagamangwato, greet Victoria, the great Queen of the English people.
  "I write to you, Sir Henry, in order that your Queen may preserve for me my country, it being in her hands. The Boers are coming into it, and I do not like them. Their actions are cruel among us black people. We are like money: they sell us and our children. I ask Her Majesty to pity me, and to hear that which I write quickly. I wish to hear upon what conditions Her Majesty will receive me and my country and my people under her protection.
  "I am weary with fighting. I do not like war, and I ask Her Majesty to give me peace. I am very much distressed that my people are being destroyed by war, and I wish them to obtain peace. I ask Her Majesty to defend me as she defends all her people.
  "There are three things which distress me very much—war, selling people, and drink. All these I shall find in the Boers, and it is these things which destroy people to make an end of them in the country.
  "The custom of the Boers has always been to cause people to be sold, and to-day they are still selling people. Last year I saw them pass with two waggons full of people whom they had bought at the river at Tanane (Lake Ngate).
  "Again, I have made a law against the sale of drink; and, although I have made it known to the Boers, they continue to bring it, and thus destroy the law in my own town."
  But perhaps as bad a case as any was that from which arose the late war with Sikukuni. The President of the Republic alleged that this Chief's father had sold his land to the Boers in 1846, and had owned that he was no longer an owner of land. Yet it was admitted that the Republic made a Treaty with him in 1857, which they would have hardly done if he no longer possessed land. Sikukuni's country was shown by maps published in the Republic in 1868 to be outside the territories of the Republic. Thereupon the President repudiated these maps and said they were not official. Yet it was clearly shown that one of the two gentlemen who prepared them was at the time Postmaster General of the Republic, the maps were on the face of them stated to have been prepared from surveys and reports of the Surveyor General of the Republic, and the Parliament of the Republic voted

  555
  each of the two gentlemen who had prepared them 6,000 acres of land as a recompense. Now, this annexation policy was fraught with danger to South Africa, and this view Lord Carnarvon had taken from the first. He had not acted hastily, but had written and spoken throughout as a British Minister ought to speak and write, and had fairly warned the Boers of the consequences of their acts. What could be more fair and open than his despatch of January 25, 1876—page 15 in the Blue Book? He said—
  "I would strongly press upon the attention of the Republic that extension either of territory or influence (whether by way of protection, such as purports to be extended to the Amaswazi, or by way of the assertion of adverse rights, as appears to have been notified in the message and Proclamation to the Zulus) made without the previous concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, cannot be recognized by it.
  "4. As long as South Africa continues, as at present, split up into several Provinces having no common bond of union between them, Her Majesty's Government cannot accept or be a party to any extension of territory by the South African Republic, more especially any appropriation of lands now ruled over by Cetywayo, with which the Colony of Natal has so many direct and indirect relations. Any such action on its part, tending, as it undoubtedly would, to produce a Native war on our frontier, could not but have a dangerous and disturbing effect upon the enormous Native population of Natal. The Kaffirs of Natal being of the same race as the Zulus, would probably sympathize with their kinsmen in Zulu-Land, and a war between the Republic and the Zulus would inevitably draw this country and its South African dependencies into serious complications, the character and extent of which could not be foreseen, and might endanger the lives and property of the European settlers not only in Natal but probably in every part of South Africa."
  And again at page 46, under date 12th July, 1876—
  "4. Her Majesty's Government deem it necessary that the President of the Transvaal Republic should be informed without delay that they cannot consent to view passively, or with indifference, the engagement of the Republic in foreign military operations, the object or necessity of which have not been made apparent; and they desire that he should be strongly warned that in adopting an aggressive policy he is subjecting Her Majesty's possessions to the danger of very grave evils, for which, if they arise, the Transvaal Republic must necessarily be held responsible."
  And further on in the same despatch came a clear and emphatic statement—
  "6. The freedom and independence conceded in 1857 by Her Majesty to the two Republics in
  556
  South Africa has necessarily been limited by considerations affecting the welfare, and possibly even the existence, of those British communities. Her Majesty's Government have had no desire to interfere with their absolute independence and freedom of self-government within their boundaries. But they have been, and are compelled to reserve the right of objecting to any alteration or extension of those recognized frontiers which may affect the British Colonies, and to any proceedings or policy interfering with territory or tribes not heretofore under the Government of the State, which thus enters upon a new line of action."
  But now let the House ask what was the actual cause of the recent war, and what was the conduct of the Boers in waging it? They went to war to establish their claim to Sikukuni's country, and they began by attacking his relative Johannes, who was very probably in a place where he had no right to be. But what did the Boers do? They stayed behind and sent their allies, the Swazis, forward to the attack, in which a number of women and children were killed. The Swazis, disgusted at their cowardice, retired to their own country, and the Boers then attacked Sikukuni's stronghold and were ignominiously repulsed. During the war there were frequent instances of women being killed, and although the captain of the Transvaal forces, Von Schlickmann, denied the charge, the evidence went to show that women were killed by his express orders. He himself had fallen in fight, and the President had appointed in his place one Aylward, who had been concerned in lawless opposition to British authority in the Diamond Felds. At page 217 was given another account of the capture of women and children, and the distribution of the latter as slaves by the Boers, and at page 17 of the Blue Book last presented was to be found an account of the attack of Meld Cornet Erasmus upon a kraal of friendly Natives, when he killed three old men who were sitting round a fire, and whom "he stalked like partridges,'' and captured six women and 18 children. The President, in his defence of his government against these and similar charges, admitted the cruelty practised in the slaughter of women in the attack upon Johannes, but excused it as owing to "the neglect of the commanding officer," and attempted to make out that there had been in this war less cruelty towards women and children than in former Native wars. But evidence to the contrary was strong,

  557
  and one account given by an eye-witness, writing, it was true, anonymously, but whose statement had not been contradicted, spoke of cruelties perpetrated in the sight of the President himself. Here was the account, given in a letter to a Transvaal newspaper—
  "Mr. Editor.—This is a true account of how two prisoners were murdered by the Transvaal Commando, under President Burgers.
  "The prisoners (one a Zulu, the other one of Sikukuni's men) were sentenced to be shot. They were taken out of the laager handcuffed, and chains on their legs, and each had a long rein tied to his wrists, the rein being held by a Boer, when some Kaffirs, who were in readiness, stabbed them to death with assegaies. Each man had no less than twelve stabs, and every time he tried to rise he was pulled on his face by the man who held the rein. The General, President, and members of the Council of War were within thirty yards of the murder—you can call it nothing else. After the men were dead our Kaffirs had orders to chop their feet off to get the chains off, which they did.
  "This is a true, unvarnished account by myself, who saw the whole thing.
  (Signed) "AN AFRIGANDER."
  Pretoria, August 20, 1876.
  He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) did not wish to weary the House with quotations, or he could greatly amplify his case. These proceedings of the Boers had excited against them the bitterest feelings of animosity on the part of the Natives. Let it be noted, moreover, that these feelings did not only exist among the warlike and powerful tribes of the Zulus. The Natives dwelling in and around the Transvaal were mostly of a peaceful and quiet character, and would have lived quietly enough with the Boers if they had been well treated. But, as it was, there was a general hatred and distrust of the powers, contrasting strongly with a favourable and friendly feeling towards the English. He would not deal with the precise manner of the annexation, because that would doubtless be fully dealt with by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whose official duty it would be to defend it. But as to the condition at which the Transvaal Republic had arrived, he would simply quote two passages from despatches of Sir Theophilus Shepstone (pages 107 and 125). He said, March 6th 1877—
  "5. It was patent, however, to every observer that the Government was powerless to control either its white citizens, or its native subjects; that it was incapable of enforcing its laws, or of collecting its taxes; that the Treasury was empty; that the salaries of officials had been and
  558
  are for months in arrear; that sums payable for the ordinary and necessary expenditure of Government cannot be had; and that payment for such services as postal contracts were long and hopelessly overdue; that the white inhabitants had become split into factions, that the large native populations within the boundaries of the State ignore its authority and laws, and that the powerful Zulu king, Cetywayo, is anxious to seize upon the first opportunity of attacking a country, the conduct of whose warriors at Sikukunis mountain has convinced him that it can be easily conquered by his clamouring regiments."
  And in his second despatch he more fully set forth the financial bankruptcy and hopeless condition of the Republic, beginning as follows:—
  "March 12, 1877.
  "My Lord, I think it necessary to explain, more at length than I was able to do in my last Despatch, dated 6th instant, the circumstances which seem to me to forbid all hope that the Transvaal Republic is capable of maintaining the show even of independent existence any longer, which induced me to consider it my duty to assume this position in my communications with the President and Executive Council, and which have convinced me that if I were to leave the country in its present condition I should but expose the white inhabitants to anarchy among themselves, and to attack from Natives, that would prove not only fatal to the Republic, but in the highest degree dangerous to Her Majesty's possessions and subjects in South Africa."
  This was the opinion of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and no one who read the Blue Books with unbiased judgment and impartial mind could arrive at any other conclusion than that the Transvaal Republic had drifted into such a condition as to render it impossible that the existing state of things should be allowed to continue. It was no answer to say that Sir Theophilus Shepstone might have made some mistake. The state of things was such as to render interference an absolute necessity in the interests of the Colonies themselves. Nor was it true to speak of these Colonies as being almost entirely Dutch. According to the best information he could obtain, the Dutch, some two years since, numbered as something less than four out of six of the White population in the Transvaal, and two out of seven in Natal. And it must be remembered that as the English were the great emigrating nation of the world, this proportion was annually diminishing. Moreover, he held in his hand a Transvaal newspaper containing addresses to Sir Theophilus Shepstone proving that many of the inhabitants heartily rejoiced

  559
  at the annexation. It was a mistake to say that the annexation in question had been accomplished only for the sake of British interests; it had been accomplished for the benefit of the whole of South Africa, and in the interests of civilization and humanity. It had been said by the hon. Member for Liskeard that there was danger from Cetywayo. No doubt — there always would be danger from savage and uncivilized tribes, and that danger might have been increased by the defeat of the Boers by a Chief of far inferior strength to the Zulu King. But it would soon be known throughout the length and breadth of South Africa that the policy of England had replaced that of the Boers. There might be outbreaks from time to time among the savage tribes of South Africa; but from the course which the British Government had adopted it would be known to the Native population that the policy to be pursued towards them would no longer be one of cruelty and annexation, and that the nation which would henceforth rule the Transvaal country was a nation which steadfastly set its face against slavery. He trusted that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter would have the result which he believed they had in view from the first—not of the aggrandizement of the British Empire, but of the consolidation of South African interests, the promotion of the welfare of the South African Colonies, and the general advancement of civilization in a country where Europeans had a great duty to perform.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had put his case on rather narrow grounds. Perhaps the House had not yet realized the vast number of Natives who would be brought into direct and indirect relations with Her Majesty's Government under this Bill. He would endeavour briefly to describe the position of affairs at the end of the year 1874, when the difficulties began. The relations between the Zulus and the Amaswasi tribe were of an unfriendly character, and the Boers, taking advantage of that circumstance, behaved with extreme cruelty towards the Natives, and committed great excesses in the territory of Secocoeni. These Boers were the persons from whom his hon. Friend expected so much. He could not
  560
  understand those hopes; for, though there were outward signs of Christianity among them, their policy towards the Natives was characterized by an utter disregard of humanity. It was impossible for us to have allowed that state of things to continue, and, at last, the crisis came, in which the Government had not acted too strongly, though they were anxious not to interfere unnecessarily with the freedom assigned to the Boers. Considering, then, the facts adduced and the circumstances he had mentioned, there could be no doubt that the situation was grave enough to require the interposition of Her Majesty's Government. When the Boers came into collision with the Natives it was absolutely necessary for their existence that they should conquer. At least 80,000 guns had been distributed among the Zulus at the Diamond Fields, and very possibly there were not so many Whites in the Colony capable of bearing weapons. One of the Native Chiefs had even had the audacity to ask for a brass cannon, as he (Mr. Jenkins) supposed, to do more mischief. In short, the more he considered the circumstances in which the war was begun, the more certain he felt of the necessity for some stronger measures from without. In his opinion, the circumstance that 300 or 400 Englishmen had been left untouched at Pilgrim's Rest proved that the Natives, however much they might hate the Boers, were on good terms with our countrymen. He would, however, take broader grounds, and argue that, according to all our advancing notions of national duty, we could not let a civilized population be neglected by the Empire from which it sprang. Our position compelled up to recognize our responsibilities; and he could not but feel that the course taken by the Government was not only expedient, but also just and lawful.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the question was whether Her Majesty's Government were in their South Africa action and legislation actuated by a sound policy? He considered that the Government should have proceeded not hastily, but cautiously, and not on a haphazard policy. The Empire of Britain and the Empire of Borne were the theme of frequent comparisons, but questions of this kind would have been tried in old Borne, so that the injured parties should have a fair hearing and fair

  561
  consideration. The South Africans sent over their delegates to London to represent their ease, and after having been referred from one Minister to another, they left England without having had a single opportunity of representing and making their grievances known. He felt, if only out of respect for the Transvaal Government, there should have been more consideration and due attention manifested in reference to their case. There was a despatch of Lord Carnarvon's in which it was stated that no annexations would be tolerated on the part of the Transvaal Republic in the unconfederated condition of South Africa; but as soon as the pet scheme of the Colonial Office came to be accepted and confederation was agreed to, the Government would be perfectly ready to waive all their delicate scruples on the subject. The history of British scruples in dealing with South Africa was, in short, one of the greatest illustrations of political casuistry which had ever been known. The Colonial Office had raised some questions of disputed boundaries to cover their designs of annexation; but he was sure that it was not the Transvaal Republic which had refused to have those questions decided by a fair Board of Commissioners, consisting of Members appointed on each side. The Government, however, did not, it seemed, care about arbitration except where the aggrieved nation happened to have some 40,000,000 of people at its command, and could appeal to other modes of settlement. The history of the British position in South Africa was one of annexation on annexation. With one exception every foot they had had been annexed, or, as it would be perhaps called by the lawful proprietors of the soil, robbed from them. They had not refrained from arming the Natives so long as they had thought the arms would be used against the Transvaal Republic. Their policy had been one of studied hostility and systematic bad faith. Did hon. Members choose to recall the history of the Transvaal Republic? A very large number of Dutch farmers left the Cape territory and settled in the neighbourhood of Natal. They were welcomed by the King or Chief of the Zulus, who invited them to a banquet, which the Natives made the occasion to fall upon them treacherously with their arms and as-
  562
  sassinate them. Was it to be wondered at that bitter traditions had come down? All the territory occupied by those Boers had been declared British territory. Our Colonial Office was loud in denouncing the seizure of Native lands by the Boers, but the British had thought it to be quite compatible with British honour to be the receivers of the stolen goods. The emigrant farmers had removed again, and again the British had followed them. Instructions had long ago, in Lord Grey's time, come out from the Colonial Office recommending the British Governor to enter into a confederation with the Natives urging them to unite among themselves to check the advance of the Boers. That was the way in which they had carried out the previous Convention by which they had bound themselves to the emigrant farmers at the Sand River. The hon. Member criticized the conduct of the Colonial Office in supporting Cetywayo, the Zulu Chief, in his acts of oppression towards neighbouring tribes. This noble savage, the especial protégé of the Colonial Office, rewarded his Native bodyguards by allowing them to choose wives from the subject people without any regard to the feelings of the intended brides or their families. It was stated in a despatch of Sir Henry Bulwer of last year that in order to avoid these compulsory marriages various devices were resorted to by the women, upon discovering which the King ordered a large number of them to be killed, and their bodies placed along the highways in order that his displeasure might become known. Sir Henry Bulwer said he had despatched a remonstrance to Cetywayo; but the Colonial Office confined themselves to the remonstrance only. They reserved their vigorous action for the Boer Republic; but Cetywayo was spoken of with almost affectionate reverence, and had licence to slay and oppress at will, and one of the main charges against the Boers was that they had ventured to interfere with his proceedings. He complained that the Sand River Convention, entered into in 1852 between the Colonial Office and the emigrant farmers beyond the Vaal River, had been violated by Her Majesty's Government. They had permitted the Natives to arm themselves, and had thereby forced the Transvaal Republic to take measures of self-

  563
  defence. He contended that they had no right to condemn the Transvaal Legislature for passing severe vagrant laws against the Kaffirs, who came from British territory carrying with them arms to be used in some frontier war, or in wanton aggression on the Boers. 70,000 or 80,000 stand of arms had been sold within Natal to the Native opponents of the Boers. It was at the moment when the Republic was driven to despair by the state of things due in a great measure to the policy pursued by the Colonial Office, that Her Majesty's Government determined to break their plighted faith and annex the Transvaal territory. A mass of incredible things had been forced on the House by Her Majesty's Government; and if the rights of the case were understood, if instead of the matter being left to a few volunteer Members, it had been thoroughly discussed, and if the decision were left to an independent tribunal, instead of depending on the crack of the Government Whip, the Transvaal Republic would come out in a very different light from that in which it had been represented by the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and in which it would be presently represented by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. This was not the case of Her Majesty's Government forcing the Transvaal Republic to enter into a treaty of peace with the neighbouring tribes, which they might properly have done, but it was the wiping out of an independent Government which had been solemnly guaranteed before Europe. He thought that at the very least the people of the Transvaal Republic ought to be allowed to carry out their Republican institutions in all domestic and internal affairs as far as was compatible with connection with the British Government.
  MR. J. LOWTHERacknowledged that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had done good service in bringing forward this important subject at a time when the House could approach it without those sentiments of languor which might have prevailed when the Vote was called on in the ordinary course. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that it was unadvisable to go into the original causes of the separation of the Transvaal from the British Colonies. The question of race was also
  564
  one about which he did not think it well to enter into any controversy at the present moment, when the Dutch and the English might be expected to lay all animosity aside and unite in advancing the civilization of South Africa. The first part of the hon. Member's speech to which he would refer, therefore, was his contention that the present Bill was a reversal of the policy of 1854. Now, as he (Mr. Lowther) said on a former occasion, he did not look back with any feeling of satisfaction to the policy of 1854. The policy of the abandonment of our Colonies, which was at that time fashionable in some quarters, was not, in his opinion, a really popular one, but was merely put forward by a small minority, which, in the absence of any distinct expression of popular opinion, was supposed to represent the country. That policy had been distinctly repudiated by Her Majesty's Government, and whatever criticism might be passed upon their conduct, they were certainly not open to the reproach of having diminished the possessions of Her Majesty the Queen. Well, the hon. Member for Liskeard commenced by discrediting the testimony of his (Mr. Lowther's) principal witness, Sir Theophilus Shepstono. As to the antecedents of that distinguished public servant, he would only say that the opinion formed of him by his noble Friend the Secretary of State, and by all those associated with him in the government of South Africa, was precisely the opposite to that arrived at by the hon. Member. So far from Sir Theophilus Shepstone having mismanaged the affairs entrusted to him, he had, in the opinion of the Government, throughout his long career, been a most valuable and estimable public servant, and had performed his duties in a manner which entitled him to the thanks, not only of the Government, but of the House and the country; and that opinion was shared by Sir Henry Barkly, Sir Bartle Frere, and all those most capable of arriving at a just conclusion on the subject. A good deal had been said on the subject of slavery. Now, with the internal affairs of the Transvaal Her Majesty's Government had no concern, and his contention was that the policy of the Government was in no shape founded on the internal transactions of the Transvaal, but on those measures which tended to interfere with

  565
  Her Majesty's Possessions. The external policy of the Transvaal State was the sole cause of the difficulty which was felt by Her Majesty's Government; and all the authorities showed that throughout South Africa the inevitable result of the policy of the Transvaal was calculated to lead to a Native war, which must have extended to Her Majesty's Possessions. In fact, to make the internal misgovernment of that State a pretext for intervening and acquiring territory or political influence would have been a most unjust policy, and would have constituted a grave international crime. The idea that we should invade a friendly State upon a pretext of that kind was one which he most distinctly and emphatically repudiated. The position of the Transvaal had long been a subject of consideration by Her Majesty's Government. The Committee would remember that 40,000 Whites were confronted by an innumerable body of Natives, and that to oppose threatened invasion there were not more than 5,000 or 6,000 men available. This was a danger to which the Government could not be indifferent, because if successes were gained over this handful of Whites it would be the duty of the Government to take steps to protect the interests of British subjects in that part of the world. The excitement which prevailed along the frontier and also in Natal produced great depression of trade and industry and great want of public confidence. These were circumstances which the Government were bound to consider. Her Majesty's Government could not avoid taking steps—it was their duty to do so—to restore commercial stability and public confidence. The Transvaal State was in a condition of complete bankruptcy. They had no means of equipping a force for their own defence, nor were they in a condition to carry on the government of the country, and it was high time that some efficient steps should be taken. A good deal had been said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) as to the delegates who came to this country and entered certain protests against the annexation of the Republic; and he added that it was greatly to be regretted that further time was not given to those delegates to place their opinions before the House in a tangible form. He was happy to be able to inform the hon. Member that his noble
  566
  Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, had received the delegates most cordially, while he informed them that he could not receive from them any communication which would open up any question as to actually accomplished facts, but was prepared to consider any matter that could be urged or laid before him as to the future government of the country. The delegates altogether assented to that condition, and brought forward practical suggestions, couched in the most temperate language, as to the future government of the Transvaal. Those representations, he could assure the House, had not been lost upon Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member had said that the delegates had left London dissatisfied. Such was so far from being the case that one of those gentlemen had been in friendly communication with his noble Friend that day. Well, he had been asked what was to be the future government of the country. That was a subject which should manifestly and would assuredly receive the most careful attention of Her Majesty's Government. If the hon. Gentleman thought that on that important subject the feelings of those who were most deeply interested in it would not be consulted, he was entirely wrong. All the information which they had received, and were continually receiving, led them to the conclusion that a general feeling of satisfaction prevailed in the Transvaal—that it was going on increasing—and that a most friendly feeling existed towards Her Majesty's Government. Then, as to the finances of the country, he could say that it was matter of considerable congratulation that its condition in that respect was not unsatisfactory. It was not possible to fix with perfect accuracy the sum that would be required in connection with the annexation scheme; and the figures he was about to give as to details must, of course, be taken as merely approximate; nor was it necessary to ask the House to vote a sum for the discharge of the liabilities under which the Transvaal lay. The Vote of £100,000 for which the Government intended to ask was made up in the following way:—£25,000 to meet the expenditure for the movement of troops necessary for taking over the country; £25,000 for salaries and to maintain the Government in working order; £20,000 already incurred by the late

  567
  Government of the Transvaal in the war with the Native tribes; £10,000 debt upon railway loans, which become due in the course of the current year; £9,000 interest on bank advances; £15,000 repayment of capital to the bank, and a few other items. The resources of the Transvaal State, which were considerable, were pastoral, agricultural, and mineral, and quite adequate to warrant us in looking forward to a time when the Transvaal would be not only self-supporting, but able to extinguish its own debt, and repay us the £100,000.
  MR. WHALLEYcharacterized the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) as one that might be listened to, if not with amusement, at least with indifference. It exhibited the extraordinary licence with which hon. Gentlemen who represented Fenian sentiments had thought fit to assume on this question. He (Mr. Whalley) defended the conduct of Sir Theophilus Shepstone as a diplomatic servant of the Grown, and denied that his policy had been actuated by desire for personal aggrandizement. For 80 years peace and prosperity had been secured to the South of Africa by the conduct of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. The time had come when Her Majesty's Government might fairly assume the position of preservers of the peace in South Africa, and it was hoped their policy would encourage the introduction of capital for the promotion of legitimate trade in that country. He warmly supported the proposal of the Government.

  PERU — THE PERUVIAN IRON-CLAD " HUASCAR."—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAY SIR JOHN HAY rose to call attention to the collision between Her Majesty's ships Shah and Amethyst and the rebel Peruvian iron-clad Huascar. The right hon. and gallant Baronet, who was prevented by the Rules of the House from moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice—namely,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable whenever there are a sufficient number of iron-clad ships, to revert to the practice of stationing one of them in the Pacific,"
  said, that he was certain the House would pardon him, even at that late period of the Session, for occupying their
  568
  attention for a short time by bringing under their notice this very important subject, affecting as it did the reputation of a very distinguished and gallant friend of his who was now in command of our Naval Forces in the Pacific. That gallant officer had recently had some very difficult matters to deal with, and the public mind had been satiated with information in reference to them, some of which, looking at the Papers which had been laid upon the Table that night, was not quite accurate. It appeared to him that the conduct of the gallant officer throughout these matters was marked by great judgment, discretion, and gallantry, and therefore he was glad to have that opportunity of calling attention to the Papers which had been laid upon the Table that night. He believed that when all the circumstances of the case came to be known and examined it would be found that Admiral de Horsey, whose services for many years had proved him to be a gallant and an energetic officer, had acted in this matter without being guilty of the indiscretion with which the public newspapers had charged him. It appeared that in May last Admiral de Horsey was lying off Callao when one of the revolutions frequent among the South American Republics occurred. At the same time the Huascar, one of the most formidable iron-clads of the Peruvian Fleet, was also at anchor there. The captain of the Huascar having gone on shore, his first lieutenant, who was a relative of the leader of the revolution, delivered the vessel over to the latter, and the ship steamed away on some mission connected with the revolution. Thereupon the Peruvian Government proceeded to denounce the act of carrying off the vessel, the acts of which they disowned, and also published a proclamation offering a reward to any person who would restore her to the legitimate authority. In the course of her voyage the Huascar made four separate attacks upon British subjects and property, which were all duly recorded in Admiral de Horsey's despatches, which were contained in the Papers which had been laid upon the Table. She attacked, in the first place, an English ship called the John Elder, which she detained for 65 hours; she boarded another ship called Santa Rosa, demanding despatches from her; from a second English vessel—the Imuncina—she took 69 tons of coal, and

  569
  stopped an English steamer, the Columbia, taking out of her a Peruvian officer who belonged to the regular Government. Hon. Members would doubtless recollect the excitement that had arisen in this country at the time of the Trent affair, when Messrs. Mason and Slidell were taken from that vessel, and would perceive its bearing upon the present case. In addition to these acts, those in possession of the ship had compelled, at the point of the bayonet, an English engineer who was on board the Huascar to work her engines when she was engaged in conflict with Her Majesty's ships. These flagrant acts fully justified Admiral de Horsey in endeavouring to arrest this pirate — for such she had most undoubtedly proved herself to be by preying upon our vessels. Of course, if the Peruvian Government had not disowned all responsibility for the acts of this vessel it would have been the duty of the English Admiral to call upon that Government to make reparation for the injuries inflicted upon our vessels. He would have been liable to censure if he had not taken the steps he did. Now, Admiral de Horsey, after endeavouring to find the Huascar at the port at which she was said to be, lighted upon her with the Shah and the Amethyst. He stopped the rebel. He endeavoured to persuade the rebel captain to give up his ship, promising him that, as he did not intend to interfere in the quarrel between the two parties in Peru, he would land him and his crew on any neutral territory on which he might desire to be placed. Upon that the Huascar determined to resist, and after several warnings commenced action with the Shah. He (Sir John Hay) honoured the gallantry and bravery of the Huascar in the fight which she made; but that did not at all do away with the justice which Admiral de Horsey sought to carry out by staying the depredations of this vessel upon English commerce. He would not go into the details of the action. He would only say he regretted extremely that, contrary to the custom which had prevailed 10 years before, we had not at the moment an iron-clad on the Station to perform the duty which it had previously performed, because it must be in the recollection of many Members of the House that in 1866 there was in Chili a large Spanish iron-clad which threatened to bombard the town of Val-
  570
  paraiso. An effectual remonstrance could not be made, and a vast amount of property was destroyed in Valparaiso; and from 1866 until last year, he thought, it had been deemed advisable to have an iron-clad on that Station to protect the British flag and British commerce from the constant revolutions and dangers which occurred. The best proof of the advantage of having an iron-clad there until 1876 was that the small iron-clads of these various Republics never dared to offer any resistance to any command any English Admiral pleased to make. Of course, European occurrences might have occasioned the removal of our iron-clad from this Station; he was not mentioning this as a matter of blame, but merely pointing out how inconvenient it was that a ship of 6,000 tons should not have been able at once to arrest this disturbing ship of 2,000 tons, similarly mounted with guns. He had private communications on this subject which he would not further allude to except to say that he had from Admiral de Horsey himself the fact that, fortunately, the fuse with which the Huascar was fired was damp. If it had not been so, no doubt Her Majesty's ship Shah would have been very severely handled. He felt quite certain his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give the House distinct information as to the opinion of the Law Officers of Her Majesty's Government as to the justice and the international legality of the acts of the gallant Admiral, and would be able to assure the House that he still continued to be the trusted representative of the British flag in those seas, and that all the stories which had been spread about by public papers to his disadvantage were entirely inaccurate and untrue.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, he was very glad that his right hon. and gallant Friend had introduced the subject of the encounter between the Shah and the Huascar to the notice of Parliament. He did not propose to follow his right hon. and gallant Friend, because he had sufficiently vindicated the conduct of Admiral de Horsey. But he ventured to trespass upon the attention of the House because he thought the incidents of the encounter between the Shah and her antagonist afforded an illustration of the truth of the views which he had endeavoured on more than one occasion to

  571
  present to the House. It had been acknowledged, he believed, by all competent authorities that the Shah was not an equal match for the rebel Peruvian iron-clad. At the same time, it was to be borne in mind that the English ship was a more costly vessel than the Peruvian. He believed that she cost at least £300,000 before she was finally equipped for sea. And not only was she more costly, but she was manned by a far more numerous complement, her crew consisting of about 600 men, all told. A vessel such as the Shah seemed to him quite unnecessarily large for destroying an enemy's commerce; and, at the same time, being unarmoured and very weakly armed, she was inevitably a weak antagonist for a man-of-war. It was an unsatisfactory application of the public money to expend so large a sum on a vessel of inferior fighting qualities, and of such exaggerated strength, for the suppression of piracy or the destruction of defenceless merchantmen. It was an error in policy to employ a ship of the Shah type as the flagship on the Pacific Station. The power of the Shah consisted mainly in her numerous crew. But desertions were always numerous on that Station. It would, therefore, have been more judicious to rely on superiority in materiél, in armour plates, and guns, rather than on a superiority in personnel in those distant waters to which the Shah had been despatched. The reports which had reached us showed that, as compared with the Huascar, the Shah was necessarily inferior in facility for the use of that formidable weapon, the ram. The reason of that inferiority was sufficiently obvious when they knew that the Shah was 300 feet in length, whereas the length of her antagonist did not exceed 200 feet. The reports also showed that the Shah was placed in a position of great difficulty on account of her draught of water, which was 27 feet, while that of the Huascar was only 14 feet. The great difficulty of penetrating armour with the light guns with which the Shah was furnished went to show that the views so often expressed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) were just and sound. His hon. Friend had always contended that it was unnecessary to deprive those large and costly vessels of the offensive power they might otherwise possess by arming them with guns of such very light calibre as those
  572
  supplied to the Shah. As for the Amethyst, he believed that vessel did not possess one single armour-piercing gun. He ventured to hope that in the future armament of all vessels, designed to engage an enemy in battle one, or more armour-piercing guns would be included. Considering the impossibility, in the present state of naval warfare, of an unarmoured vessel engaging an armed vessel with success, and the limited scope for the enployment of unarmoured vessels, we should, he thought, in no case exceed the dimensions of the Iris and Mercury class, of which such high expectations were entertained in regard to speed. The type known in the Navy as the Gem class was most useful. Several vessels of that class had not been satisfactory on account of the breaking down of their machinery; but he believed the failures were caused by our accepting tenders at the lowest price. The employment of competent contractors would remove the objections hitherto taken to vessels of the Gem class. On a recent occasion he had an opportunity of seeing a very successful vessel of the French Navy. It had always been stated that the extreme dimensions and cost of vessels of the Shah type were necessary in order to obtain adequate speed and ample coaling capacity. But the French had succeeded in obtaining these results with dimensions very much more limited than those of the Shah. The vessel to which he alluded was the La Clocheterie, of 2,000 tons displacement, and 450 horse-power. That vessel was said to have gone over 14½ knots. The draft of water was 18 feet. She carried 206 men, sailed well, having performed 10½ knots under sail, and carried 300 tons of coal, which was a sufficient supply for steaming two months at five knots, and 30 days at eight knots. She carried ten 14-centimetre breechloading rifled guns, two en barbette forward and aft, and eight on the broadside, while little inferior, as a fighting vessel, to the Shah; in coaling capacity — which was a most important consideration—the La Clocheterie showed a very marked superiority over the vessel now employed for our flagship. We wanted for our Pacific Station a sufficient number of vessels of an improved Alabama type, to be employed on the duties usually described as the police of the seas. For

  573
  fighting purposes we required effective second-class iron-clads, not ships like the Inflexible, which would find no worthy antagonist in those distant seas. It was enough that our squadrons should be able to contend with those of the foreign nations in whose waters they might be stationed. The Chilians possessed two efficient iron-clads designed by the hon. Member for Pembroke, protected by 9-inch armour, and powerfully armed. Their dimensions did not exceed 2,000 tons. The Portuguese had one vessel, the Vasco di Gama, of not more than 1,500 tons, armed with 18-ton guns, and protected in vital places with 10-inch armour. These were illustrations of what could be done to produce great powers of fighting in vessels of limited dimensions. The Chilian iron-clads were capable of cruising on the coasts of America, though their coal-carrying capacity was not sufficient to enable them to undertake extensive ocean voyages. In conclusion, he desired to express his high sense of the courage displayed by the British Admiral in the recent encounter. The Papers were not sufficiently complete for the discussion of those points of International Law which were involved in the case; but we were sufficiently informed of the details of the encounter to be assured that our officers and men had bravely imperilled their lives in the discharge of what they believed to be their duty to their country.
  DR. CAMERONprotested against its being imagined that the discussion in which they were then engaged disposed of the whole question of the encounter between the Shah and the Huascar. The naval aspect of that event was important; but its international aspect was more so. A collection of Papers had been published, and copies of them had been put into the hands of hon. Members; but it was impossible to discuss the matter on the basis laid down in them, and they contained a very one-sided statement of the case. The Peruvian statement had not yet been made; and though he could not question the gallantry of the action, its international morality was still uncertain, and the merits of the question were by no means exhausted. He thought it important that he should call attention to the telegram of the Admiral, in which he threatened that if British interests were
  574
  interfered with, he would take possession of the Huascar and deliver her over to lawful authority.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he also deprecated any general discussion on an international question of such great importance, as Papers connected with it had only been in the hands of hon. Members within a few minutes. It was impossible, therefore, to express any opinion upon the matter. It would, no doubt, be interesting to the House and the country if the Government were to express any general decision they had come to on the subject. It was satisfactory to know that Admiral de Horsey did not succeed in blowing up the Huascar by the use of torpedoes, in which case greater complications might have arisen. Many naval questions arose out of the action, and the House might now consider what kind of squadron was necessary for the Pacific Station. In the year 1876 both the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in the late Ministry (Mr. Goschen) and himself had questioned the expediency of sending the Shah to the Pacific; and the right hon. Gentleman had asked, prophetically as it turned out, whether the vessel was intended to fight the Chilian iron-clads, and had remarked that she was sure to lose a large proportion of her men by desertion, as all vessels did on that Station. Probably it would be better to keep the vessel in reserve till she should be wanted in time of war. The vessels to be sent to these distant Stations should be of the Alabama class, or second-class iron-clads.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that he would have preferred to lay on the Table, not fragmentary, but complete Papers on the subject, because no one was properly acquainted with the whole story of the action between the two vessels; but, as that had not been in his power, he had judged it right, at all events, to put the House in possession of a few of the facts of the case. The main part of the Papers before the House consisted of Admiral de Horsey's statement of facts, and it would be obvious that the Admiralty was not the only Department concerned in the matter. The Foreign Office had a great deal to say about it, and it would have been very unfair if the Admiralty, who had to decide on the discretion of Admiral de Horsey, had stated their decision

  575
  before the legality of the case had been submitted to the Peruvian authorities and to the Law Officers of Her Majesty's Government. When their answer would be received he could not say; but as soon as they received a communication from the Peruvian Government he should be prepared to say what the Admiralty thought of Admiral de Horsey's conduct. His right hon. and gallant Friend had stated that the John Elder had been detained for 65 hours. The fact of it was, however, that she had only been detained 65 minutes. No doubt his right hon. Friend the late Mr. "Ward Hunt would have been only too glad to send an iron-clad to the Pacific, but we had not one to spare. If anyone was to blame for it, it was the late and not the present Board of Admiralty. The demand on our Fleet during the last few years was abnormal, and they had been obliged to keep our powerful naval force near this country; and it was thought, in 1876, that a ship of considerable power should not be sent away to a distant part of the world. Still, he quite agreed that, considering the iron-clads which Chili and Peru possessed, we ought to have an iron-clad on the Pacific Station. The Shah was a very large frigate. She had 64-pounders, and two 12-ton guns, and therefore he could not concur in the statement of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Brassey) that she was lightly armed. Nevertheless, he quite agreed that it was not desirable, if it could be avoided, to send a ship of that class, with so many men, as a flagship on the Pacific Station. He hoped it would soon be possible to relieve her with some more suitable class of ship. The hon. Gentleman had given the House some interesting information respecting a French ship. That information, he hoped, was already in the hands of the constructive branch of the Admiralty. If we could build vessels of that size and that speed, it would be most desirable to do so; and he trusted that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would be laid to heart by the Admiralty and the Constructive Department. In discussing these fragmentary Papers he felt he should be needlessly occupying the time of the House if he made any further remarks; but he might state, in conclusion, that the Admiralty had at present no intention whatever of recalling Admiral de Horsey.
  MR. BENTINCKcould not help thinking that good service had been done by the introduction of the Motion. While he did not blame the Admiralty for declining to give an express opinion on these incomplete Papers, he thought it was clearly demonstrated by the Papers already in the possession of the House that Admiral de Horsey had to deal with a piratical vessel, and that he exhibited the highest possible amount of gallantry and seamanship. The real question for consideration was whether we at present had a sufficient number of iron-clads for the service of the country; and, if not, who was responsible for the deficiency? His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that we had not an iron-clad to send to the Pacific. This fact proved that our Navy was in a most insufficient condition. It was owing to the previous Government having neglected their duty with regard to the Navy, and quite as much blame attached to the late as to the present Administration for having allowed the Navy to be reduced to so low a condition that when, as everybody admitted, an iron-clad ought to be sent to the Pacific, we had not one to send. It was not an agreeable state of things that when we might be on the eve of a great European war we had not a single spare iron-clad to send to the Pacific, having been compelled to send every available ship to make up our Mediterranean Fleet. Let him remind the House that they could tell no tales out of school, that every foreign Government knew the exact strength of our Navy to a man, a ton, and a gun, and that the only people who were in the dark on the subject were the British House of Commons and the British nation. But he asked, if we had no spare ironclads to send to the Pacific, where was our reserve of ships? Iron-clads were apparently of the most fragile character and seemed to go down almost of themselves, and we should be in a very critical position if, after a naval engagement, with its inevitable casualties, we had no reserves of ships to make good our losses. At the moment when Parliament was about to be prorogued, and when we might be at war in a few days, we should have some further information from Her Majesty's Government as to the strength of our

  577
  naval resources. He had no hesitation in saying that the present Government had not been equal to their duty in maintaining the strength of the British Navy, and that the British Navy as it now existed was not equal to maintain the honour and defend the interests of the country.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTregarded the question before the House as being of a most serious character and as one which called for further explanation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It was very unfortunate that the most important of all the Papers on this subject which had been laid upon the Table—that of the statement of the Government of Peru—should be printed in the Spanish language without any translation being attached to it. The course pursued by Admiral de Horsey involved acts of most extraordinary force and violence, and Her Majesty's Government ought to have declared whether they adopted and justified them. It appeared from the Papers that a vessel of war belonging to the Peruvian Government was taken possession of by certain rebels, and it was alleged that she committed acts of outrage against British vessels, whereupon the British Admiral on the Station proceeded to attack her. Now, it did not appear that the acts attributed to the Huascar were acts of extreme violence. The earlier cases which were alleged had broken down. It appeared that some men from the Huascar had gone on board British ships and demanded to see certain mails; but when these were refused they went away without using violence. They also asked for coals on another occasion, but without using threats, and they obtained them. It was stated that a British subject was forcibly detained on board the ship; but the strange fact appeared that this man was allowed to go before the British Consul and make a statement on the subject. The question then was, what was there in this transaction to justify the extreme violence which had been pursued by the British Admiral? Upon the face of these Papers it seemed to him that they were entitled to ask the Government for much more information than they had before them. They had the despatch from the Admiral, which contained some general propositions of law, and of a nautical kind; and he gave a description of the acts of the
  578
  Huascar, and said they ought not to be tolerated; but he (Sir William Harcourt) would ask whether those acts justified putting a torpedo under the vessel and destroying her and all on board? If this was the case of the Peruvian Government disclaiming all responsibility for the acts of the vessel, what question was there between Her Majesty's Government and the Peruvian Government upon the matter. If that Government had disclaimed responsibility there could be no question. If there was a question it must be because the Peruvian Government had some relations with the vessel. The Admiral, in his despatches, had said that if the Huascar was not a pirate, she was at least a rebel ship that had committed piratical acts. The fact that she was a rebel ship most certainly would not have justified the Admiral in trying to sink her; and he much doubted whether the acts she had been guilty of could be correctly described as piratical. However, the Admiral said he hoped that after what had occurred British interests would be protected for many years to come, and in his despatch dated the 3rd of June he said he trusted that his proceedings would receive their Lordships' approval. The document which it was important for the House to have was the reply of the Admiralty to that despatch.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONrepeated that no decision had been come to, the question being one for the Foreign Office as well as for the Admiralty, and it being necessary to consider both the legality and the expediency of the proceedings.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there appeared to be a question between the Foreign Office and the Peruvian Government; but if the latter Government had nothing to do with the vessel, he could not understand what question was open. He hoped that an early opportunity would be given for a full discussion of the matter. He did not think this extraordinary exercise of strength— to use no other word—could be allowed to rest on the explanations which had as yet been given to the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, when the right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) brought up the question he confined his observations as to whether they ought to have an iron-clad in the Pacific; but the hon. and learned Member for Oxford

  579
  (Sir William Harcourt) had introduced the legal element, which he thought was unfortunate, because everyone confessed that the legal point was not ripe for discussion. He was not there to give an opinion upon the subject whether what had been done was legal or not, because they could not decide anything upon the mere statement of Admiral de Horsey. It was necessary to wait for all the statements and evidence which could be given on the other side. Primâ facie, however, and judging from the materials before the House, he maintained that they were certainly not in a position to condemn the action of Admiral de Horsey, and he did not think the House would think it fair and right to condemn in the slightest degree the action of the Admiral. What were the facts of the case as far as they had come to our knowledge? A powerful armour-clad vessel belonging to the Peruvian Government was seized by a mutinous crew, and having gone out to sea began immediately to take action against British vessels. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford sneered at the idea of protecting British interests; but was it not the first and foremost duty of a British Admiral in the Pacific or in any part of the world to regard British interests? Well, the Huascar—a vessel of no nationality, for whether the Peruvian Government intended to make any claim against the British Government or not, it was beyond all doubt that they had clearly and distinctly disclaimed at the time any responsibility for the acts of the vessel—the Huascar fired a shot across the bows of a British vessel, and having stopped her asserted a right to search for despatches. She detained another British vessel, asserting the same right. Out of a third British vessel she took a passenger, and from a fourth she took by force 69 tons of coal. The hon. and learned Member shook his head; but when the most powerful vessel in the Pacific, armed to the teeth, demanded coal from a small collier and obtained a supply, what did it amount to? The hon. and learned Member had a curious idea of force; perhaps he thought it would have been better to blow up the collier and pick up the coals as they fell. But, in fact, to call it anything else but force was idle declamation. It was true that the captain gave a receipt for the coal. Having taken the coal he sailed away.
  580
  In addition to all this a British subject —an engineer—was detained on board the Husacar. He tried to get away, and asked that he might be allowed to communicate with a Consul of his nation. He was not permitted, and when he threw a note into a boat where there were some British seamen, an officer of the Huascar got into the boat and tore up the letter. This British subject became, therefore, a prisoner on board the Huascar, and he had to do the bidding of the captain. Now, were they to tolerate these things? Was a British subject to be kept a prisoner? Were British vessels to be searched and robbed of coal? Whether the Admiral was strictly right or not he was not prepared to discuss. They were now dealing with the matter upon an ex parte statement; but, looking at that, there was reason for the Admiral acting as he had done, and if he had acted in any other way, he would have done so regardless of British interests. It had been alleged, however, by some hon. Gentlemen that Admiral de Horsey had been acting in some way in favour of the Peruvian Government. It was not to be expected that Admiral de Horsey, brave and gallant seaman though he was, would exhibit in his despatches and communications that strict legal accuracy which he would no doubt display if he acted under the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. He took a correct view, but a sailor's view. In the note or memorandum which he gave to the officer whom he sent on board the Huascar he said—
  "Acquaint the commander of the Huascar that I have come to take possession of that ship in the name of Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. That I am adopting this course in consequence of the Huascar having committed certain illegal acts against British subjects, ships, and property. That I am not acting on behalf of the Peruvian Government. That if the Huascar's colours are at once hauled down, and the ship peaceably delivered up, the lives, liberties, and personal property of all on board will be respected. That in such case I shall not deliver them up to their Government, hut will land them at such neutral place (within a reasonable distance) as the commander may desire."—[Part. P. 369.]
  What, then, was the question before them? The Huascar had been taken possession of by a mutinous crew. She was not a belligerent vessel. She was not a vessel for which any nation was responsible, as the Peruvians had dis-

  581
  claimed all responsibility. The captain demanded the British mails, and robbed British ships, and imprisoned British subjects. Was the Admiral to levy war upon the vessel or not?—and if he was, was it to be in the ordinary way or not? He (the Attorney General) quite as much disliked to resort to torpedoes as the hon. and learned Member; but those who levied war took a different view, and the Admiral, not being able to reduce the Huascar by the fire of his guns, was just as much entitled to resort to torpedoes as the Russians were. But he did not, on the part of the Government, in the least pronounce any opinion upon the matter; but he had as much right as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to give his view upon the ex parte statements. The information which they had before them was as yet only fragmentary, and might be materially modified by the statements of the Peruvian Government or of those interested in the Huascar. The House, therefore, ought to suspend its judgment for the present, and he, for one, would not have risen to say a word had not the hon. and learned Member, after confessing that the subject was not ripe for discussion, proceeded to discuss it.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not know the distinction which the hon. and learned Attorney General drew between expressing his opinion and expressing his view. He stated that he could not express his opinion, but that he had as great a right as his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) to express his view. He had done so with considerable force and warmth, and, whether his views were right or wrong, they would go forth to the world, and every British officer would know in similar cases, if they should unfortunately occur, what was the opinion of the English Attorney General upon the course taken by Admiral de Horsey on this occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, clearly and boldly, that no British Admiral would have acted otherwise than Admiral de Horsey had done; and, no matter what the technical opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown might ultimately be, Admiral de Horsey would be thoroughly satisfied with the view expressed by the Attorney General. The House would have been glad to have learned from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in his opinion, the
  582
  Huascar was a pirate and had committed piratical acts or not, but upon that point he had not said a word. He merely stated not that what the Admiral did was right and legal, but that the circumstances would justify a British Admiral, in defence of British interests, in proceeding to act as Admiral de Horsey did in this case. The hon. and learned Gentleman tried to sneer—not very successfully—at his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) for what he said about British interests, and many hon. Gentlemen cheered the Attorney General when he spoke of the alleged contempt for British interests which had been shown by his hon. and learned Friend. He (Mr. Goschen) would venture to say that British interests would most seriously suffer if the Admiral had committed an act which the Government would ultimately be obliged to disavow, and that was the point put before the House. Both sides of the House were equally anxious that the action of the British Admiral should prove to have been legally right; but if he had made a mistake and resorted to a course not justified by International Law, no greater blow could have been struck at British interests. It was not prudent or cautious on the part of the Attorney General, whilst admitting that the House had not the facts fully before it, to attack the hon. and learned Member for Oxford for criticising the action of the Admiral, and to use language which practically did prejudge the case and would be accepted by all who read it as justifying, from the point of view of British interests, what the Admiral had done. Supposing the technical opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown should ultimately be that Admiral de Horsey had done wrong according to International Law, what would be the effect of the Attorney General's speech? Why, that every Admiral who had to act upon a similar occasion would say—"Never mind the technical opinion of the Attorney General; the general effect of his first speech, which was cheered by hon. Members of the House of Commons, and by the Government themselves, was to justify that plucky action on the part of the British Admiral, whether it is legal or not to proceed against a hostile ship." He (Mr. Goschen) would ask the House to dismiss from its mind entirely the ques-

  583
  tion of the relative forces which were engaged, or that of the Power of Peru, for International Law was the same in regard to small Powers as to great ones. He regretted that the Attorney General had been led by a natural disposition— in which, indeed, all hon. Members were inclined to share—to vindicate the action of Admiral de Horsey. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone further than he ought to have gone upon this occasion. They would all be agreed in the hope that Admiral de Horsey had proceeded according to International Law; but their admiration for the pluck with which this action had been conducted must not lead them to lay down rules which would not be sound in International Law. He (Mr. Goschen) believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have made the speech which he did to-night, unless he was going to decide in favour of Admiral de Horsey. It was true that he said he had only got an ex-parte statement; but he would not have committed the imprudence of saying what he did unless he felt that he was able to vindicate the action of the Admiral. Nothing could be more deplorable than that the House, without the whole of the Papers before it, should give a kind of moral approval to what Admiral de Horsey had done, and afterwards be unable on international grounds to justify it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfelt that this conversation was not of a very convenient character, but wished the House to take note that the origination of it did not lie with the Government, but with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), whose conduct was certainly surprising, considering his experience and character. What was the state of things which the House had to consider? There had been a conflict in some distant seas, and there were circumstances in connection with it which were, no doubt, very interesting, both from a naval and legal point of view. It was obviously impossible that the legal part of the question could be fairly decided upon without considerable time being spent and without inquiries being made for which time was required; but there was an express desire that the facts of the case should be laid before the House, that those who took an interest in the question from a purely naval point of
  584
  view should have the opportunity of asking questions or discussing the subject; and the Secretary to the Admiralty explained that he had laid the facts on the Table without expressing any opinion to enable those who took an interest in the matter from a naval point of view to make what comments seemed desirable. That was done on the question put by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay). But what happened? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford got up and said that was all very interesting, but there was another question of the highest importance—a question of International Law, which must be considered, and he claimed for the House of Commons that they should be in a position to discuss it. The Secretary to the Admiralty interrupted him and explained that they had not been able to come to a decision, and that it was necessary to make further inquiries. Was the hon. and learned Member for Oxford content with that? No, he said he had nothing to do with that, but he would give his view upon the facts as they stood on the Papers. He said that the Admiral had taken a line which was very questionable indeed, and that it was very doubtful whether he had any right to express the opinion he did in applying the term "piratical" to the Huascar and in talking of the forcible seizure of coal. It being admitted that the Government had not got the facts sufficiently before them to form an opinion, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford must express an opinion with all that power and dignity which belonged to him. He expected that they were to sit still and let his opinion, expressed ex catkedrâ, go forth unanswered till next Session, perhaps as a condemnation of the conduct of Admiral de Horsey. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) said the Attorney General was to blame for starting the question; but the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the hon. and learned Member for Oxford started it. His hon. and learned Friend would never have thought of getting up or saying a word about the matter but for the dicta laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did feel that this conversation was inconvenient. They had not got the facts, which must be carefully considered be-

  585
  fore an opinion was expressed, and he hoped they were not going to be led into a discussion; but he repeated, in all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend, he had been guided by a desire to set right the position which had been taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had reiterated the complaint as to the words which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had used as to British interests; but his hon. and learned Friend was not the originator of the phrase or of this discussion. They were originated by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, for no earthly reason that he could conceive except to deal a blow with one side of his hand at Admiral de Horsey and another, with the back of his hand, at Her Majesty's Government. He had said—"I observe that Admiral de Horsey has taken up a phrase greatly in use in this country, but which has now gone over to the other side of the Pacific, and he has talked about 'British interests.'" He seemed to think it was almost intolerable on the part of Admiral de Horsey to use that phrase. After all, what was the particular sin in a British Admiral who was in command of a distant Station having some regard for British interests? His hon. and learned Friend made use of what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought a natural observation, and that was that British interests were rather an object for the Admiral to look to, and then up jumped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) and said they must remember that when they were talking about British interests they were giving a name to a transaction which might not be supported by law, and which they might afterwards have to disavow. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. It was inconvenient for them to talk about these matters, but it was not the Government who originated it. It would have been absolutely unjust to the character of a gallant officer to have left the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford without a reply.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY —NAVY ESTIMATES.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered, in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  (1.) £537,715, New Works, Buildings, &c.

  (2.) £759,940, Military Pensions and Allowances.

  (3.) £142,385, Greenwich Hospital and School.

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS I.
  (4.) £8,025, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police Courts.
  CLASS IV.
  (5.) £82,490, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEexplained that the amount was the same as that asked for last year.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether, now the Natural History Collection was about to be removed to South Kensington, the Trustees would be able to make some provision for a refreshment-room, which was greatly needed at the Museum?
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, a refreshment-room had not been established before for want of space; but now the Natural History Collection was about to be removed he hoped—and, he might say, he believed—the Trustees would see their way to provide the necessary accommodation.
  Vote agreed to.
  CLASS V.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £53,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on. the 31st day of March 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the financial position of Fiji had been improved by questionable means. We had copied the Dutch "culture" system of exacting labour in lieu of taxes, which we had formerly condemned, and which

  587
  had been abandoned, at a great sacrifice, by the Dutch Government. He was disappointed that Papers explaining the financial position of the Colony had not been produced, and, for the purpose of eliciting information, moved the reduction of the Vote by £30,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £23,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had promised, not to lay the Papers on the Table, but to state on this occasion the income and expenditure of Fiji. For 1877, the estimated expenditure, including £28,000 for irrigation works, was £71,000, and the revenue £40,400, not including the Imperial contribution of £35,000. The actual revenue was £37,138. For 1878 the expenditure was estimated at £67,000, and the revenue at £40,000. It was well known that the deficit was mainly caused by the great calamity by which the Islands had been visited, and which upset all the calculations on which the estimates were based. Sir Arthur Gordon, the Governor, had been pressed to keep down the expenditure as much as possible, and he had succeded in reducing his original estimate of the deficiency by a considerable amount.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the Committee was entitled to some explanation of the "culture system," which had been, according to the hon. Member for Chelsea, adopted in Fiji. There seemed to be a probability of the charge of £100,000 on account of Fiji becoming an annual charge, and he cautioned the Committee against the increase of charges on behalf of the Colonies on the British Treasury. With regard to the present Governor of Fiji, Sir Arthur Gordon, who had had much experience in reference to the Colonies, he must say he was always a friend of the Natives in every Colony with which he was officially connected.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwas sorry no explanation had been offered, because the Colonial Office must be acquainted with the facts. He did not suggest that the system involved any
  588
  oppression of the Natives; it was probable they preferred it to direct taxation; but it was admitted to be a bad system, and we had so often condemned the resort to it by other Governments, that some explanation ought to be given of its adoption for the first time in a British Colony. He and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) divided the House against the annexation, believing that the Colony would not pay its expenses. So far that view was borne out by facts, and the matter was the more serious, because we were year by year increasing the number of Colonies that were dependent upon us, and he was afraid the present Vote was likely to become an annual one.
  MR. ERRINGTONbore testimony to the ability with which Sir Arthur Gordon had dealt with two different systems of Coolie labour in the Colony. There were Coolies in the Island of Mauritius who, it appeared, were not entitled to be restored to their country, who might possibly be brought to Fiji, where labour was much wanted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the question of imported labour was engaging the attention of the Governor of Fiji, who would also report upon the system of Java culture. Sir Arthur Gordon took the deepest interest in the welfare of the Native races.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought that the surplus population of the East Indies might be advantageously employed in these Islands if fair laws were passed for their protection.
  MR. ALDERMAN M'ARTHURbelieved that the House might safely leave the welfare of the Native races in the hands of the present Governor, who had acted with great ability and judgment. The Colony had made great strides in trade and prosperity during the last few years. Unfortunately its progress was arrested by the death of 30,000 of the Natives from the epidemic of the measles, but it was now recovering, and trade was much more flourishing.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONdid not see how the prosperity of the Colony was compatible with the demand made every year upon the Imperial Exchequer. Fiji ought to be a lesson against these annexations. He should support his hon. Friend if he divided the Committee.
  MR. WHALLEYobserved that the Fijians regarded the hon. Member for

  589
  Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) as the father of the Colony; and it was perhaps the most important spot on the whole globe for the purpose of British traffic, as it was the only point at which vessels could touch between Vancouver's Island and New Zealand. He believed that no money could be voted for a better purpose than that which was asked for by Her Majesty's Government. He considered the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) unpatriotic.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought that Her Majesty's Government were engaged in running an extensive slave-holding business in Fiji, and the Committee should not assist the Colonial Office in obtaining the Vote of £30,000 from the House to carry on the system.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that no such system as the hon. Member had described was in force.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsupported the Vote, but expressed a hope that next Session the Government would give full explanations as to what had been done in this Colony, and state what its prospects were.
  MR. PARNELLobserved that the House had always understood that when the present Government came into office they would carry out a spirited policy. The Government, however, appeared to have found out that that was not so easy, and that it was not safe to go to war with Russia. [Cries of "Question!"] So, in order to make the people of this country feel that they were carrying out a spirited foreign policy, they devoted their attention to a system of foreign annexations—that was to say, they had annexed a variety of small States and countries which were unable to take care of themselves. They had had the Transvaal, and now they had the Fijian Islanders, who, as far as he could make out, were getting on tolerably well without our rule, and he thought it was always better in the long run to allow people to follow out their own ideas with reference to their government. Our government appeared to be more disastrous to those Islanders than the Colorado potato beetle was likely to be to this country, for almost as soon as we set foot on their shores the measles swept off thousands of the inhabitants. The idea entertained by some missionaries seemed to be that the Fijians were
  590
  not being converted to Christianity fast enough, and they had induced the Government to convert the ruling power of the Island into a gigantic Church Missionary Society. The Government having failed to convert the people of Ireland, were trying to convert the inhabitants of a smaller Island, although it was further off. He thought that in addition to this Vote there should be a Vote for a Bishop of Fiji, or at least a dean, or a junior dean, for Fiji. He did not know whether the Government contemplated that arrangement within the scope of their ideas; but all he could say was he should be glad to encourage them as far as he could in any such extravagant purpose. The Government after having annexed the Fiji Islands, proceeded, in pursuance of their usual policy, to stir up savages to fight against other tribes, and the prisoners who were taken were executed after a mere mockery of a trial. If it was necessary to make an example of those poor men, it ought to have been done in a legal and proper manner. He did not believe that on the evidence which was given against them any Member of the Government would hang a hound in his kennel.
  MR. RYLANDSthought the Committee should bring back their attention to the point under discussion. The proposal made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) was to reduce the amount of this particular Vote by £30,000, and this was by way of a protest against the policy of Her Majesty's Government. There was no doubt that the Papers on the Table of the House presented the financial position of Fiji as almost helpless. The other night the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was unable to give information as to the finances of Fiji; but the Committee was now in possession of all the particulars to frame a Budget, for they were in the Papers published. And a most melancholy statement it was, for it showed that there was no prospect of Fiji being able to pay more than half the expenses of Government. Not only was the country now going to the bad at the rate of £40,000 a-year, but there was an indebtedness which there was no expectation of paying off. Out of a loan of £209,000, £100,000 was not to be paid until Fiji had more prosperous days; but still there was £109,000 without any assurance that the revenue

  591
  would meet it. This position was almost unprecedented in the history of any Colony under British rule; and in order to raise a revenue there was introduced a principle so near to that of slavery, that a most careful consideration was called for before it was adopted. He had only risen to bring back the Committee to the point from which they started. He supported the rejection of the Vote, because there was no satisfactory assurance upon which to form any expectations that the burden would be lightened. They had been told that having lent a sum of £100,000 they would not be called upon for further Votes. But, notwithstanding that assurance, the Committee was now called on for this Vote, and probably would have to make larger Votes in future years.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 133: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PARNELLwished, before the Vote was agreed to, to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, how the Court was constituted which tried these 37 persons, some of whom were executed and others sentenced to long periods of imprisonment? He wished to know, whether these trials took place before juries, and whether any opportunity was afforded to the prisoners for obtaining evidence for their defence? He also wished to know, how many hours or days the trial of these persons lasted, and also the class of persons who were witnesses, whether they were Natives, and whether they understood the obligations they entered into in giving testimony?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not say what the witnesses understood. He presumed that they gave evidence in a proper manner, and that the Court was constituted in the regular way.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wanted to know what the "regular way" was. He complained that the hon. Member had not answered his Questions, and therefore he should repeat them.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was full information to be found in the Papers before the Committee.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not find it there. The information was of the most meagre character. The Committee was entitled to the fullest information, and he should, therefore, move to reduce the Vote by £29,000.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call the attention of the Committee to the inconvenience that would arise if Motions were to be made without any apparent distinguishing characteristic from Motions already made in Committee. The object of moving the reduction of a Vote was either to challenge the Vote entirely or to challenge a certain item in it; and it would not be in accordance with the practice of the Committee to submit a series of Motions, each of them raising the same issue which had been practically decided by Motions previously submitted to the Committee.
  MR. PARNELLthought the matter to which he had directed attention was of a different nature from that on which the Committee had voted. He referred to the trial of certain Islanders, and the insufficiency of the information given with respect to those proceedings.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that an Amendment had been submitted to the Committee by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), and he was unable to see that this proposition raised a separate question.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would be glad to be guided by the judgment of the Chairman as to the reduction which he ought to propose.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was no part of his duty to do that.
  MR. PARNELLproposed to reduce the Vote by £28,000.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that that was the same sort of Amendment, and therefore could not be put.
  MR. PARNELLasked for further information as to the expenses of trying the savages mentioned in the Vote. He objected to them.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he had given all the information he could, when the hon. Member was not present in the House. The item under which these expenses were included amounted to over £13,000.
  MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL moved the reduction of the Vote by £13,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £39,532, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

  593
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether further information could not be obtained by next Session?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had given all the information which the Government possessed, but he would endeavour to procure more by next Session.
  MR. PARNELLupon that understanding would withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLproposed to reduce the Vote by £25,000. He said that the information before them was very scanty. He feared that this was only the first instalment of the expenses of this annexation. He understood that the Government in the Colony had sweetened the operation of annexation by the bribery of persons called "winklers" and land jobbers, and other Colonial adventurers who had an interest in the transaction. ["Oh, oh!"] This was an important question, and though late at night, and late in the Session, he would not be deterred by interruptions from having a fair discussion upon it. He had the authority of a gentleman for saying that Sir Theophilus Shepstone was in great danger, and was 600 miles from any support whatever, with no communication behind except bullock roads. ["Name!"] He was not at liberty to give the name; but we had taken upon ourselves great responsibilities, great dangers, and great difficulties. He held that the £25,000, of the sum of £100,000 should not be applied to paying off the speculators who had chosen to pay their money to this bankrupt State.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, no payment would be made out of the Vote without due inquiry. All claims put forward against the Government would be rigorously investigated, and none would be acknowledged, unless it could be proved to have been fairly incurred. Of the total sum, £25,000 was required to pay the interest on the debt of the Colony; a similar sum for the removal of the troops, and the other items of expenditure were all set out in the Papers which were before the House.
  MR. COURTNEYsupported the reduction of the Vote, on the ground that £25,000 was the amount expended on the removal of the troops. He maintained that they were not bound to put the Transvaal State in a better financial condition with respect to its creditors than it was before annexation. He believed that they were embarking on an undertaking which would cost this country annually a considerable sum of money, and should like to have some information as to the system of government which was to be established in the Transvaal State.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURstated, that everybody of his acquaintance who was connected with South Africa heartily approved the annexation of the Transvaal.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, Her Majesty's Government of course expected the Colony to pay its own way in future; but they were bound to take special steps to meet the emergency which had arisen. In answer to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), he could only say that the question of the future government of the State was receiving the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that they were desirous to consult as far as possible local feeling.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought the Colonies in South Africa ought to have been invited to contribute to the expense of the annexation.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that he had never known of any case in which a Govern-

  595
  ment supplanting a preceding Government by force, as in the present case, refused to acknowledge the principal and interest of the debt due by the annexed territory.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 121: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved the rejection of the whole Vote, contending that the policy of annexation as carried out by the Government was a mockery of a constitutional form.
  MR. PARNELLspoke against the annexation of the Transvaal.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 2: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 309.)

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, PACKET AND POST OFFICE SERVICES.
  (8.) £733,315, to complete the sum for the Customs Department.
  MR. PARNELLobjected to the system now in existence in the Customs, where, for example, in various ports throughout the country a sum of £13,000 was expended for collection, and the amount collected was only £3.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,338,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
  MR. BRUENmoved the reduction of the Vote by £84, to be saved by abolishing the Carlow district.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,338,766, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department." —(Mr. Bruen.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he could not accept the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (10.) £2,511,461, to complete the sum for the Post Office.
  (11.) £525,877, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.
  (12.) £823,814, to complete the sum for the Post Office Telegraphs.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  (13.) £5,969, Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
  (14.) £16,000, Public Offices Site.
  (15.) £15,000, Clockmill Estate.
  (16.) £2,194, House of Lords Offices.
  (17.) £13,000, Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments.
  (18.) £5,450, Prison Commissioners (England).
  (19.) £3,000, Learned Societies.
  (20.) £315, Arctic Expedition.
  (21.) £2,580, Board of Education (Scotland).
  (22.) £3,500, Commutation of Annuities.
  (23.) £126,689, Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, the sum of £14,938,668 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1875–6.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1876, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Navy Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £82,888 0s. 8d.
  2. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of the said sum of £82,888 0s. 8d. to provide in part for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Navy Services for the said year.
  3. Resolved, That the said application be sanctioned.
  4. Resolved, That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1876, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Army Services for the said year amounted to the sum of

  597
  £335,831 5s. 2d. and that the sum of £15,613 13 s. 7d. has been realised in excess of the estimated Appropriations in aid; amounting together to the total sum of £351,444 18 s. 9d.
  5. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of £181,199 17*. out of the said total sum, to provide for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Army Services for the said year.
  6. Resolved, That the said application be sanctioned.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.