Commons Sitting of 30 July 1877

MINUTES
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report —Lunacy Law. [No. 373.]
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment* [264].
Committee—South Africa [195]—R.P.; Prisons (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [219]—R.P.
Committee—Report — Police Expenses Act Continuance * [259]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Board) (re-comm.) * [248–269].
Considered as amended—East India Loan * [215].
Third Reading—Contingent Remainders * [152]; Exoneration of Charges * [151], and passed.
Withdrawn—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [214]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment* [234]; Post Office Money Orders* [212]; Factories and Workshops* [123]; Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment* [199].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE LEINSTER CIRCUIT.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government were aware at the time Serjeant Armstrong was appointed Judge of Assize for the Leinster Circuit he had held briefs in railway traverses which were to be tried at Waterford as remanets from the last assizes; whether it is a fact that by reason of his incompetency to try these cases in which he had been counsel, the county business was transferred to the city, and a great delay consequently arose, so that the business of the assizes was left unfinished; and, whether it is a fact that Mr. Justice Lawson directed the jurors of the city of Waterford to attend at ten o'clock on Monday morning the 23rd inst., and did not come to the court, but left without sending either message or explanation?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the Government had no knowledge of the private business engagements of Mr. Serjeant Armstrong at the time he was appointed Judge of Assize; but these engagements caused no inconvenience, as Mr. Justice Lawson tried the railway traverses, the only cases referred to in the Question. No delay whatever was caused by this, and all the business of the Assize was disposed of except cases postponed, with consent of counsel. It is not a fact that Mr. Justice Lawson directed the jurors of the city of Waterford to attend at 10 o'clock on Monday, the 23rd. On the contrary, the Commission was closed on Saturday evening, and not adjourned till Monday. The county jurors were apprised that they were not further required; but in consequence of the City Sheriff not giving a notice to that effect, a few of the City jurors came to the Court House on Monday morning, but the sub-Sheriff immediately gave them notice, and they returned to their homes, which are near the Court House.

  OFFICE OF WOODS—APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR.—QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWTNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the appoint-
  162
  ment of solicitor to the Office of Woods has been recently conferred upon a barrister; whether this office has not heretofore been invariably given to a solicitor; whether the emoluments of the office are £1,500 a-year, rising to £1,800 a-year, or whether there has been any change in the scale; whether on the vacancy in the office being declared the President of the Incorporated Law Society, on behalf of that body, addressed letters to the Prime Minister urging that as heretofore the appointment should be given to a solicitor in preference to a barrister; and, whether from 1872 to 1876, inclusive, the barrister who received the appointment was in practice or kept chambers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERin reply, said, it was quite true the office of Solicitor to the Office of Woods had recently been conferred upon a barrister. From 1812 to 1851 the legal business of the Department had been entrusted to a firm of solicitors, who were also in private practice. In 1851 a member of that firm was appointed sole solicitor, retaining his private practice. In 1855 Mr. Watson, the gentleman who had recently resigned, was appointed, and was required to give up private practice. Mr. Watson was appointed solicitor, except as to the Royal forests, at a salary of £1,000 a-year, increasing to £1,300 after five years, and to £1,500 after two years' further service; but on being appointed solicitor to the Royal forests his salary was increased to £1,800. On the recommendation of the Commissioners of Woods, the salary of the office, on the occurrence of a vacancy, was fixed at £1,200 for the first five years, and £1,500 a-year afterwards. It was quite true that the President of the Incorporated Law Society did address the Prime Minister with a view of obtaining, for a solicitor, the appointment of solicitor, not only to the Woods and Forests, but also to the India Board, which had not yet been settled. From 1872 to 1876 the present holder of the office was in practice as a Parliamentary barrister, and had chambers at Westminster. In 1876 he resumed business at the Bar. The Commissioners of Woods had given their advice, that it was immaterial whether a solicitor or a barrister was appointed, so long as they obtained an efficient man. He

  163
  had also ascertained that since the present Government had been in power the Prime Minister had filled up seven legal offices—two by promotion, two by appointment of solicitors, one by appointment of a barrister, one, a Scotch office, by the appointment of an advocate, and one, Queen's Proctor, conferred on the Solicitor to the Treasury without salary.

ROUMANIA—OUTRAGES ON THE JEWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state to the House what official accounts, if any, have been received at the Foreign Office respecting the outrages recently committed by the Roumanians upon the Jews in Darabina and Jassy?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, according to the accounts which we have received from our Consular authorities, on the evening of the 5th of June a band of about 200 persons paraded the town of Jassy and broke the windows of from 200 to 300 Jewish houses, and severely beat about 20 Jews whom they found in the street; and in one street 10 houses belonging to Jews were destroyed by fire, said to be caused by an incendiary. Several persons were under arrest for this and other outrages. At Darabina, on the 8th of June, a lady, a Roumanian by birth, instigated the peasantry to attack the Jews, of whom we hear three were killed and many seriously injured; and all their shops were sacked. The lady and her husband, who is a Greek, have been subsequently arrested.

  METROPOLITAN STREET IMPROVEMENT BILL—NEW STREET FROM CHARING CROSS TO TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, Whether he will explain to the House the circumstances which led to the abandonment by the Board of the scheme for the construction of a new street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, which was approved by this House?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to inform him that the freeholder (the Marquess of Salisbury)
  164
  of considerable property in the line of the street indicated petitioned against the Bill, and in effect sought to limit the powers of the Board, as regards his own interests, to the acquisition of the property actually required for the public way of the new street, whereas the Board, in accordance with the ordinary practice, desired to take sufficient property to give frontages to the street when formed. The Select Committee of this House declined to accede to the prayer of the Petition, but a Committee of the House of Lords inserted the clauses asked for. Having regard to the inconvenience of the precedent, and to the heavy loss which the ratepayers would sustain by the diminution of the recoupments, the Board came to the unanimous conclusion that it could not carry out the improvement upon the prescribed conditions, and therefore, upon the third reading, asked that the Bill might be amended by striking out this improvement.
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, as the circumstances connected with the presentation of this Petition by the owner of considerable property, who is notoriously a Member of the House of Lords, require some further elucidation, I beg to give Notice that to-morrow, at the time of Private Business, when this House is asked to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Metropolitan Street Improvements Bill, I shall call further attention to the subject.

CHINA—THE CHEFOO CONVENTION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to state to the House the decision which has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the ratification of the Chefoo Convention; and, whether any further Papers on this subject will be presented before Parliament rises?
  MR. BOURKEin reply, said, Her Majesty's Government had at length received a Report from Sir Thomas Wade upon the whole question of the Chefoo Convention; but it would be impossible to present it until the Government of India had had an opportunity of perusing it.

  SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE "LARK" AND THE "OCTAVIA."—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to afford any further information respecting the claims against the Spanish Government arising out of the seizure of the "Lark" in 1872, and of the "Octavia" in 1875; and, whether there is any prospect of any early settlement of these claims?
  MR. BOURKEin reply, said, that with regard to the Lark, our Representative at Madrid (Sir John Walsham) had been instructed on the 18th ultimo to direct the attention of the Spanish Government again to the claim made, and to call attention to the statement which had been before made of the claim for compensation of the owners of the Lark and the destruction of the vessel, and for the detention of the crew. He was desired to recapitulate the case to Senor Calderon Collantes, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was not in office when the last appeal was made and rejected by the Spanish Government. With regard to the Octavia, Her Majesty's Government had heard from Madrid that it had been delivered to the British Consul at Porto Rico. They had no information as to the number of the crew who were wounded, and the question of compensation as regarded the Octavia had not been raised.

TURKEY—THE FLEET IN BESIKA BAY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that the British Fleet has left the central position of Besika Bay; and, if so, whether he has any objection to inform the House as to its latest destination?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, it is not true that the British Fleet has left its position in Besika Bay. It went out for a day or two's exercise, but it has probably returned before this.

THE FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  166
  ment, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Factories and Workshops Bill during the present Session; and, if so, if he can inform the House when they propose to move the Second Reading of the Bill?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice that he would that day state the intention of the Government with regard to certain Bills, among which, he was sorry to say, the Bill named would find a place. It would be brought forward at an early period next Session.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE "WAR— ALLEGED RUSSIAN OUTRAGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any reply to the statement made by Lord Derby to Count Schouvaloff, and contained in the despatch of the Earl of Derby to Lord A. Loftus of July 17th 1877, on the subject of outrages alleged to have been inflicted by the Russian troops upon the Mahommedan population of the Turkish provinces in Asia and Europe; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature of such reply?
  MR. BOURKE: No reply, Sir, has been received on the subject.

ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT —THE LATE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNBARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the India Office has as yet arrived at any decision on the subject of the promotion and retirement of Officers of the late Indian Army; and, if so, when the Warrant relating thereto will be published?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No, Sir. All officers of the late Indian Army, who, though transferred to the Imperial Army, remain under Indian pension regulations, are governed as regards pay and promotion by the Royal Warrants issued by the War Office, subject to such provision as the Secretary of State for War may consider necessary to preserve any rights secured to them on their amalgamation with the Imperial Army. The Royal Warrant before the House was prepared in consultation with the Secretary of State for India.

ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT —STATEMENT ON THE WARRANT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYANwished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice—namely, Whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that before issuing the Estimate for the Promotion and Retirement scheme the Government intended to initiate a discussion in "another place" on a matter the importance of which turned on the question whether the House of Commons was or was not prepared to sanction certain expenditure; and if such was the intention of the Government, whether it was the case that the Estimate of that expenditure had not been laid before the House of Commons?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. The same explanatory Papers which have been laid on the Table of this House were laid on the Table of the House of Lords; and on that occasion my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (Earl Cadogan) promised to make a statement respecting them today. I am not aware that he has changed his intention, and the other House, having the Papers before them, have a right to discuss the subject. It is quite true that the Estimate has not yet been laid on the Table of this House, and that the House of Lords cannot discuss that point; but there are many other questions connected with this scheme which they may fairly discuss. I may state that on Monday next, if the Business of the House proceeds with ordinary prosperity, I propose to call attention to the subject.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was intended that the Estimate on this subject should be proposed on Monday, when the discussion might be held.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— THE RESOLUTIONS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. WHALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask permission of the House to make a short personal explanation. In the debate on Friday last, on two occasions, I had the misfortune to be called
  168
  to Order; and on the first Resolution you, Sir, were pleased to say my conduct afforded a very strong argument in favour of that Resolution. On the second occasion, I was called to Order when I was replying to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that Resolution was also mainly attributable to myself, acting in conjunction with some other hon. Members in keeping the House waiting uselessly through the night on a recent occasion. I would only ask permission —without in the slightest degree presuming to offer any observation upon, much less objection to, your ruling, Sir, —to say that in both cases when I was out of Order I was venturing to ask— having regard to the special circumstances of the case, and that the responsibility to some extent of these two changes in our Rules was thus cast upon me—to be allowed to state, with regard to the first, that I was saying at the time that it was not right that the rights of minorities in this House should be fettered by the action of a few Roman Catholics. ["Oh, oh!"] My object, I would venture to state, is not to offer any sort of objection, or to make any special observation other than to show that my action on these occasions was, I may say, bonâ fide, and that I was endeavouring to the best of my ability, my judgment, and my conscience —["Order, order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member and the House generally that it would cause great inconvenience to the House if every hon. Member who had been called to Order was on a future occasion allowed to explain.
  MR. WHALLEY: And as regards the second occasion and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: After the intimation from the Chair, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Should he continue his observations I must declare him out of Order. I call upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue).

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION BILL—NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. — THE O'DONOGHUE AND MR. BIGGAR.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, it has been intimated to me from a source the accu-

  169
  racy of which. I cannot doubt, that on Saturday a statement was made in this House by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in reference to me which is liable to a very injurious interpretation. I beg to inform that hon Member that I am now in my place, prepared to meet any charge that he may have to bring against me.
  MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) I beg to state that on the next occasion on which his name appears on the Paper as nominated as a Member of a Committee, if he will then attend, I will give my reasons why I object to it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think the House must feel somewhat embarrassed by the few words that have been spoken just now by the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I think it would be right and satisfactory to the House that we should have, in the first place, a statement of what it is that has reached the hon. Member for Tralee, and that then, if he has cause to complain, or to desire an explanation of the hon. Member for Cavan—to whom I presume he has given some Notice—we shall have some statement from that hon. Member. I was not myself present on the occasion; but I understand that words were used by the hon. Member for Cavan relating to the hon. Member for Tralee, of which the hon. Member for Tralee not unnaturally desires some explanation; and I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Tralee would, in the first place, state what the point was of which he complains, and that we should then have some explanation.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I merely wish to say, Sir, that on coming down here to-day, at the very first opportunity I came to you to say that I felt myself called upon to notice statements which I had heard had been brought against me in this House by the hon. Member for Cavan. I also said that I thought it would be better to put a Notice upon the Paper, as, not knowing where a letter would reach the hon. Member for Cavan this morning, I had not had time to communicate to him my intention to refer to the matter in the House. You, Sir, said that you thought I had better allude to the matter at once. I said I
  170
  had heard a great deal about what had been said, and that I had also taken down from the fullest report I could find the observations attributed to the hon. Member. I found it in The Morning Post, where the hon. Member was reported to have said that
  "he objected to the nomination of the hon. Member for Tralee, and said there were weighty reasons against his appointment, but that he did not wish to state them in public in the absence of the hon. Member for Tralee."
  Sir, I now call upon the hon. Member to state those reasons.
  MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, of course the reasons which would pass through any speaker's mind would naturally be very various, and, of course, I do not now pretend to name them all, but I may refer especially to one. In the last Session, or the Session before, a very warm discussion took place in the House, in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) were speakers. On that occasion, several quotations from former speeches of the hon. Member for Tralee were read and discussed in this House and in his presence; and those speeches which were quoted from the public prints satisfied me, and I think satisfied a very large proportion of hon. Members then present, that the hon. Member for Tralee did not come very pleasantly out of the discussion. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not pretend now, of course, to remember the exact words which were used. ["Oh, oh!"] I really cannot pretend to remember a discussion which took place two or three years ago of a personal nature. I have got no notice of this question being brought forward to-day, and I have therefore had no opportunity of referring to the reports; but this I can say, that the impression left upon my mind was of a very marked nature— that a Gentleman who then appeared as the hon. Member for Tralee did, was not a fit Gentleman to be appointed on a Committee. That is one of the reasons, and I think a very material and proper reason. Of course, there are a number of other loose reports, which I cannot now refer to, because I do not know whether they are true or not. You must, of course, in a case of this sort depend upon the general character of the Gentleman who is nominated; but I do specifically refer to the discus-

  171
  sion which took place in this House on the occasion on which the hon. Member for Tralee was replied to by the hon. Member for Mayo.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I should like to call the attention of the House to the statement that has just been made. A Member of this House makes a deliberate statement against another Member of the House on Saturday, that that Member, in consequence of conduct which he only abstains from then stating on account of the absence of that Member, is unfit to sit on a Committee of this House. A graver charge which one Member could bring against another it is impossible to conceive, and that any man could deem himself fit to sit as a Member of this House who makes such a charge and is not able or willing to substantiate it I cannot entertain. Talk of having had no Notice! Why, what right has a man to make a charge of that kind unless he knows what he is about, and has foundation for the statement which he makes? If a man makes a statement of that kind, he requires no Notice at all. He ought to have all the materials fresh in his recollection before he brings a charge against another Member. What has the hon. Member for Cavan told us? He has told us there is something or other which he cannot recollect, and the words of which are not fixed in his memory—
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg leave to ask if the hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in saying that I stated something which I could not remember. I stated that there were a number of speeches made in this House, and the details of those speeches I could not remember.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I say that a man who does not recollect the details upon which a charge of that kind is founded has no right to make it. He ought to know the details, and he ought to be prepared to state them; and when a Gentleman—a Member of this House—comes down two days afterwards, at the earliest moment he can, and calls upon the Member who has made so grievous a charge against him, and receives such an answer as has been given by the hon. Member for Cavan, I think the House will know what judgment and what opinion to form upon the conduct of that hon. Member.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I am quite sure, Sir, I need hardly add anything to what has fallen from the hon. and learned. Gentleman opposite; but if the hon. Member for Tralee thinks it worth while, after what has been said, to take further notice of the matter, the House will support him.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER SIR GEORGE BOWYER rose, but—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: I must point out to the House that the proceeding that has now taken place is in the nature of a personal explanation, and any general discussion of the matter would at the present time be out of Order. If the House thinks proper that any notice should be taken of the matter, it should be done in the form of a substantive Motion; but any discussion now would be irregular.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Sir, I do not propose to enter into any general discussion on this occasion; but, as I felt it my duty on Saturday last to call the hon. Member for Cavan to Order for the insinuations he had cast against my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee, I must say this, after hearing the explanation of the hon. Member for Cavan, that that explanation appears to me to be totally unsatisfactory. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER interposed, but—
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I shall move the adjournment of the House. The hon. Member for Cavan stated that the hon. Member for Tralee was not qualified to serve on a Committee because he was not identified with the Irish Party. Well, that I have nothing to say to. But he went on afterwards to say that there were reasons which disqualified the hon. Member for Tralee from serving on a Committee, which reasons he did not choose to state in public. Now, I maintain that in saying that he conveyed a grave charge against the hon. Member for Tralee, almost a worse charge than if it had been specific, because it was an insinuation. I say now that the hon. Member for Cavan ought either to state his charges or withdraw them. I move that this House do now adjourn.
  There being no Seconder, Question not put.

  PARLIAMENT—STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I understood it to be stated on Saturday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day would be prepared to make some further statement with regard to the measures with which it is proposed to proceed, and also with regard to those which the Government would abandon for the present Session. I do not wish to make a long statement; but I may mention that there are still on the Order Book 32 or 33 Government Orders of the Day more or less. Some of them are of no great importance, but there are others of considerable importance, and which will require time for their discussion, and the whole of them will require consideration from the Government. That consideration will, I should think, make it necessary for the Government to make up their minds to make a further sacrifice of these measures if this House is to adjourn within a reasonable time. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is something still to be done in Committee of Supply, and that there are several important Motions on going into Committee of Supply. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make some announcement which will give the House some reasonable prospect of being able to finish its Business about the time he named.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has observed, that there are a considerable number of the measures introduced by Members of the Government which are still on the Paper, and that some of these are measures which may be expected to take a considerable time in discussion. On the other hand, there are a good many of the 32 or 33 measures which are either so far advanced in their progress, or are of such moderate dimensions, that, although they may be important, yet I do not think they would take a great deal of time to consider. Taking the Paper for to-day, I would observe that we shall, of course, proceed with the first Order —the South Africa Bill; with the second Order — the East India Loan Bill; and with the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill, which has made
  174
  considerable progress. I should hope that we may also be able to proceed with the Canal Boats Bill, and with the Police Expenses Act Continuance Bill. The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill must either be passed, or continued in some shape or other for one year. The Prisons (Ireland and Scotland) Bills, which are both already in Committee, are, no doubt, large measures; but it may be hoped that, under the circumstances, they will not take an inordinate time in discussion. There remains on the Paper the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, which we do not think it will be possible to go on with this Session. I may say the same with regard to the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill, and also the Factories and Workshops Law Consolidation Bill. I am afraid also that, in consequence of the difficulty raised with regard to the Post Office Money Orders Bill, it will evidently take more time for discussion than can now be given to it. Accordingly, although we believe it to be an important measure, we shall not proceed with that Bill, and we shall, therefore, drop to-night these four measures —the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill, the Factories and Workshops Law Consolidation Bill, and the Post Office Money Orders Bill. There are several other measures which come after these on the Paper, and which, considering how far they have advanced, ought not to take any length of time, and may be disposed of rapidly. On Wednesday we propose to proceed with the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill, and also with the Board of Education (Scotland) Continuance Bill. I think that these, with the Votes of Supply, and the questions referred to by the noble Lord on going into Supply, with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Universities Bill, constitute the work that remains for the rest of the Session. And I am not without hopes that we may be able to get through that work by Wednesday, the 15th, or the 16th of August.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONwished to know, whether he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill would be dropped, or whether it would be dealt with in the Continuance Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We will consider whether it shall be dropped, or proceeded with in the Continuance Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKasked the Leader of the House, whether it was his intention to proceed with the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, if it was intended to proceed with the Summary Jurisdiction Amendment Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made no remark on the 8th Order of the Day, the Local Taxation Returns Bill, which was a measure, though perhaps of little interest to the House, still of great interest in the country. Was that Bill to be proceeded with?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, in regard to this Bill, the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the President of the Local Government Board would remove any objections which might have been felt in regard to it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped before the end of the Session to be able to pass the Summary Jurisdiction Amendment Bill, which was a very useful measure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should have to communicate with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the Bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, before he could give an answer. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill would, of course, be proceeded with.

  THE LATE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY, MR. WARD HUNT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may take this opportunity, in speaking of the Business of the House, to mention one other class of Business which will have to be finished, but which must be finished under circumstances which I am sure none of us can regard without a feeling of pain. I refer to the Navy Estimates. I mentioned some time ago that a particular question likely to cause some discussion will not be brought forward; but still there are some Votes, being all that remain of the Navy Esti-
  176
  mates, which it will be necessary to have before us. I am quite sure we all share the deep feeling with which the country has heard of the loss we have sustained in the death of one who for many years was an active and honoured —may I not say a beloved Member of this House; one who, I am sure, never had an enemy, and who I know had a very great number of friends. It is very difficult for us with whom he acted to speak of him as others would do; but this I cannot doubt—that the whole House sympathizes with us in the feeling I have endeavoured to express.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before the House proceeds to consider the Orders of the Day, I think, perhaps, I may be allowed to say a word with reference to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish to say how fully those who sit on this side of the House share the feeling the right hon. Gentleman has expressed with reference to the melancholy event which was announced to us this morning. The right hon. Gentleman whose loss we have this day heard of, and are deploring, has for a considerable number of years taken a prominent part in the proceedings of this House; and I am sure I may say that though many of us differed from him in opinion, we all regarded him as a generous and worthy political opponent. We have all been witnesses of the zeal which he brought to bear on the discharge of the official duties that fell upon him during the present Parliament. I am sure it will only intensify our feeling of regret for his loss to think that the end of the right hon. Gentleman has been hastened by the pertinacity with which, in his failing health and with his physical infirmity, he resolved to remain at his post and to do his duty. I can only again say how much we on this side share the feeling of regret expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SOUTH AFRICA BILL.— [Lords.]
  [BILL 195.]
  (Mr. J. Lowther.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th July.]
  II.—UNION.
  Clause 3 (Declaration of union and provision for its completion.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, to insert the words ''not being more than six months after the passing of this Act," the object of which was to limit the time within which the Act should be carried out to six months. He had taken the words from the Canadian Act, and thought they would be equally applicable to the present case, and that both should be made alike.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 4, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "not being more than six months after the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that six months was the time mentioned in the Canadian declaration; but he must remind him that in this case the difficulties of communicating between the Mother Country and the South African Colonies, and between the Colonies themselves, were very much greater than in Canada. He proposed later on to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), who proposed after Clause 35 to insert a new clause providing that no Order in Council made under this Act should be operative unless published on or before August 1, 1882.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that would not meet his objections.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDquite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther). He submitted that the case of Canada had really no bearing upon the proposal under discussion, because in that instance the details of the scheme had been arranged beforehand, previous to the passing of the Confederation Bill. In this case it was a permissive Bill, and it was impossible to say whether the details could be settled in six or twelve months. Those details would have to be settled locally; therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member was impracticable, and should not be pressed.
  MR. COURTNEYthought that a sufficient time should be allowed for the purpose of ascertaining the opinions of the Colonists, and he, therefore, suggested that a period of two years should be substituted for the six months proposed by the hon. Member for Meath. He did not think it was any argument against a six months' limitation to say
  178
  that telegraphic communication was defective in South Africa; still, he hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford would say that the limitation should not extend beyond two years, that the hon. Member for Meath should not press his Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsupported the Amendment, and expressed his intention of opposing the Bill unless the Government would fix some shorter time than five years as the limit of time within which the Colonies might avail themselves of the Act. He could not understand the logic of the Government. The other night they were told there was reason to fear that unless the Bill were pressed forward the Native tribes of South Africa might become a source of danger, and now they were willing to leave the matter floating in the void for five years.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was a feeling in Africa that the Government wanted to compel the Colonists to adopt a policy of Confederation. If they were to have a Confederation of these Colonies, he thought that it was extremely desirable that it should be understood that the British Legislature did not intend to compel Confederation. No doubt it would be thought a sufficient answer for the Government to say that this Bill was permissive. It was really a permissive Bill. Had it been anything but a permissive Bill, it would have been a mistake. But then they had to consider that, if the Colonies of South Africa were disposed to accept Federation, and if there was good reason to believe that this action of the Legislature would strengthen the hands of those in favour of Federation, the House ought to know whether that was so or not. They ought to know whether the Government had any reason to believe this measure would promote Federation, as the course hitherto adopted by the Government had been full of mistakes, and instead of promoting Federation, it had led to opposition in South Africa. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had not taken the House sufficiently into his confidence with reference to this measure. They understood the hon. Gentleman to intimate the other day that the Government had some private information which induced them to press this Bill forward. [Mr. LOWTHER: No, no!] Well, then,

  179
  if the Committee were in full possession of information, then there was no justification for the Bill. If there was no immediate prospect of Federation, there was no reason for pressing the Bill that Session; but if there were anu urgency, it must be on account of the probability that the provisions of the Bill would be taken advantage of. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to let them know what were their reasons for pressing the Bill with such determination at the expiring moments of the Session.
  MR. GOLDNEYthought the proposal of the Government would allow to the Colonies sufficient time in which to decide upon the proposals contained in the Bill. The question was what process of confederation was to be adopted, and as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies was going to propose an Amendment by which the local Legislatures were to be invited to discuss the question, a limitation of six months would simply negative the whole thing.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to receive from Her Majesty's Government some further information than was contained in the Bill. As at present advised, he was of opinion that the Government possessed little, if any, information beyond that which was in possession of hon. Members who criticized the measure. There was a very large party among the South African Colonies in favour of confederation, and he should be glad if the Government were in a position, which he doubted, to give the House any further information on the subject of the feeling of those Colonies on the matter. The principle of the Bill was to ask the House to support Her Majesty's Government in two things— first, to let the Colonies know that we should be very glad if they would confederate; and, secondly, to make them the offer of enabling them to confederate if they wished to do so. The hon. Member for Meath said that these Colonies must accept that offer within six months; but, for his own part, he conceived that that would be placing them in an awkward position, because it was too short a time to allow them to consider whether they should federate or not. If it was honestly intended to give those Colonies the opportunity of federating, according to the bargain they might make with one another, they should not be pressed too closely as to time. It
  180
  would be better, he thought, to defer this question until his own clause was reached.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that the information he had from South Africa was that considerable difference of opinion prevailed as to federation. If the Bill were not permissive he should oppose it. Altogether, he thought this question of time had better be discussed on the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bradford.
  MR. PARNELLcould not agree to postpone this discussion until the clause of the right hon. Member for Bradford was brought before the Committee. He had no objection, however, to the limit of time for confederation being extended to two years, if the Government would agree to that period. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), who had shown that he possessed considerable knowledge of Colonial affairs, had pointed out that this Bill was not an exact copy of the Canadian Bill, inasmuch as it entirely disregarded the wishes of the Colonial Legislatures.
  LORD ESLINGTONreminded the Committee that this Bill had been before Parliament for many months, and, therefore, it was unfair to treat it as though it had been thrown upon the Table without a word of explanation. We had never had a Secretary of State more anxious to consult the wishes of the Colonies than the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies. He had mixed a good deal with persons connected with the South African Colonies, and they had informed him that the majority of the people of those Colonies were anxious to confederate.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbelieved from the authorized testimony of the South African Colonists, that they were not, as a body, in favour of confederation. As the hon. Member for Meath had declared himself willing to accept two years instead of six months, he would move to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting two years.
  Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "six months," and inserting the words "two years."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment. After full consideration

  181
  of the whole subject the Government had considered that five years — the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)— would meet all reasonable requirements. He did not say that there was an immediate necessity for the confederation of all the Colonies; but what he did say was, that it was necessary that prompt steps should be taken to enable such of the Colonies to confederate as thought fit to do so. Her Majesty's Government left it to the Colonies themselves to say what the nature of the confederation should be—whether of a closer or a looser character. He hoped the Committee would not put any unnecessary constraint upon those who had to carry the scheme into effect, as would be the case if the limit of two years were imposed.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford would apply only to the latter portion of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would apply to all the provisions of the Bill, and, therefore, it would be very much more convenient to discuss this question when the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford was before the Committee. Whether the Colonies were anxious for a confederation or not, it was desirable to give them power to do so.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERremarked that the proposal to lay down a limit of six months was simply and absolutely absurd. Two years appeared to him almost as objectionable. With regard to five years, circumstances might arise which might render a Colony unwilling to join the confederation within that or even within a longer period, and he did not see why any limit at all should be proposed. Seeing that this was merely a permissive Bill, he objected to any limitation of its powers. If a division took place he should be prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea.
  MR. DILLWYNwas glad that the Government had agreed to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, which he did not doubt would be carried. But the two questions were distinct, and that under discussion involved the first step towards the carrying out of that Act.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the period of five years proposed was not an unreasonable one. He hoped it would not be forgotten that while this was a permissive Bill as regarded the Colonies, it was irrevocable so far as regarded this country. Sufficient time should, therefore, be given for considering the clauses fully and deliberately. He hoped the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea would be withdrawn.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that he was sorry to see that the right hon. Member for Bradford was not in his place. If the Members of the late Government got in again they would have to take a Colonial Secretary from below the Gangway. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, however—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment referred to, not touching the clause, could not be discussed.
  MR. E. JENKINSonly meant to reserve to himself the right of moving the Amendment. He was of opinion that the period should not be allowed to run out at the end of five years. If the Amendment of two years were accepted, they might as well not pass the Bill at all. It was chiefly valuable as a formulation of the confederation scheme. That would be of little use if it was to lie before the Legislatures of the South African Colonies for only two years. He should vote with the Government.
  MR. PARNELLwould be happy to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. Clauses 3 and 60 were entirely different from one another. Clause 3 provided for the admission of the first two or more States which might desire to be admitted; Clause 60 for the ultimate admission of States not admitted at first, but which might afterwards desire to be admitted.
  MR. BIGGARthought that the Committee should agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was not too much to ask that the Government should be reasonably certain that at least two States were ready to confederate. It was of less importance to say when the Bill should cease to operate, than when it would begin to operate. Was it really necessary that an enabling Bill should be passed? Had not the Cape of Good Hope and Griqualand

  183
  West already entered into a legislative union?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it would be out of Order to answer the question, which had nothing to do with the matter under consideration.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFbelieved that Griqualand West was not yet annexed.
  Question put, "That the words 'not being more than two years after the passing of this Act' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 23; Noes 180: Majority 157.—(Div. List, No. 263.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 2, line 5, after "Africa," to insert, "the majority of whose elected representatives shall so declare and." The hon. Member said, the object of his Amendment was to secure that no State should be joined with any other State or States, either by confederation or any other form of union, unless the people of that State desired it. The Amendment, he observed, was of a very important character, and raised the whole principle of confederation—namely, that it should be voluntary and for the benefit of the people. The Bill was singularly deficient in these respects, and he believed the Amendment he proposed would supply the deficiency. The necessity of such a provision was sufficiently proved by the experience of the United States and Canada.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 5, after the word "Africa," to insert the words "the majority of whose elected representatives shall so declare and."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. E. JENKINSagreed in the necessity of plenty of time being given to the inhabitants of the Colony to consider any proposal of confederation. It was important that the opinion of the people should be ascertained; but the manner in which that could be arrived at required further consideration than it had yet received. There was also the fact that in some of these Colonies the official Members of the Legislature were numerous enough to swamp the other Members on such a vital question as that of confederation.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he had himself already given Notice of an Amendment on this point, which he trusted would be accepted by the hon. Member for Meath. It was after the words "South Africa," to leave out "which," and insert "Whose respective Legislatures." He believed that the elective element was in the majority in those Legislatures and was not swamped, as had been alleged, by the official votes. It would weaken the authority of those Legislative Bodies if any attempt were made to go behind their decisions.
  MR. O'DONNELLin supporting the Amendment, quoted the authority of Locke for saying that Legislatures derived no power from their constituencies to delegate to others the function of making laws which they were created to exercise themselves. He should be willing to accept the Amendment of the Government if they would consent to insert words to the effect that the Legislatures should have the special authority of their electors for considering and deciding upon the question of confederation.
  MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that the adoption of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Dungarvan would create consternation in the Colonies. It would give the Government the power of inflicting a penal dissolution on any Legislature which refused to join in confederation.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERentirely disagreed with the argument of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The broad principle of the Constitution was quite competent to deal with matters of this sort, and although the various Legislative Bodies in South Africa were not sovereign for all purposes they were for some. They might, he thought, under the supervision of the Colonial Secretary and the Parliament at home, be taken to have power to settle the question.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsupported the Bill, believing it to be a just and necessary one; and he had arrived at that opinion after hearing the able and eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). That there seemed to be some danger of collision between European and Native races appeared to him to be evident; and, to avert such a calamity, confederation

  185
  seemed to him to be at once politic and necessary. Although the question of Transvaal annexation had been imported into the discussion, anyone who had read the Bill would observe that it had nothing to do with the subject under consideration, which was merely a permissive Bill, allowing districts in Southern Africa to confederate, under certain circumstances, of their own free will, without any interference from the Government. Hon. Members like himself (Sir Patrick O'Brien) were told by some of the hon. Members opposing this Bill that they knew nothing about the question. No doubt, he did not pretend to the universal knowledge which those hon. Members seemed to attribute to themselves. He read the morning journals and the articles referring to questions like this. He communicated with friends, and listened to the opinions of persons informed on the subject, and thence drew his deductions. He would not presume to claim any but a very imperfect knowledge, not only of this, but of many questions coming before the House—indeed, upon many of them he had no knowledge at all; and his position in this regard was not singular. Yet he ventured to think, that, upon many matters meeting with the determined opposition of the hon. Gentlemen behind him, he possessed as much knowledge as they did. He believed that this Bill was a good one, and calculated to promote the interests of such Irish emigrants as were domiciled in Southern Africa, and he should cordially support it.
  MR. COURTNEYfeared that the Amendment of the Under Secretary would not effect the result contemplated, and they must be very careful, in dealing with this question, not to bring about such a scandal as had taken place in Nova Scotia at the time of the Canadian Confederation. He should propose to move at the proper time an Amendment which would refer the question of confederation to the Members of all those respective Legislatures which should be elected after the Bill became law.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath was a very proper one for the consideration of the Committee, although he was unable to accept it himself, be-cause he thought that the present Legis-
  186
  latures would be more fitted to determine the question of confederation than one specially elected to determine the matter. The noble Lord the Colonial Secretary, acting not only with justice, but with wisdom, had properly decided that the question should be discussed by the existing Legislatures, who had been elected for the purpose of managing the general affairs of the Colonies.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that so far as he could understand, the Government desired that confederation should only take place with the assent of the White population, and with that view they proposed to require the assent of the Legislative Councils. But the Legislative Assemblies of the different Colonies were of very different kinds. In the Cape of Good Hope they had a really Representative Body, and their action might very well be allowed to bind the Colony. But in Griqualand the Legislative Council was practically nominated. It was quite clear that the opinion of the Legislative Council would be guided by the opinion of the Government at home or the Lieutenant Governor in the Colony. They must, however, take the Constitution of the country as it existed, or else it would be utterly impossible to proceed with this Bill. It was quite possible there might be an improvement in the Government of Griqualand; but what they would do with the Transvaal he declared he did not know. He did not think, however, that the Amendment was the best means of effecting the object the hon. Gentleman had in view.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that if the question were decided by Legislatures partly elected and partly nominated, it would carry no moral weight, because the opinion of the people of the different States would not be taken on the subject. It must be remembered that a great portion of them were Dutch, and not at all friendly to the English nation.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Member for Bradford had shown that there were no representative Assemblies in the South African States, and argued that we should therefore not allow the people to express an opinion on the subject of confederation. The statement of fact was no doubt true; but the right hon. Gentleman's argument was most illogical. Were the Government going to press this Bill without taking steps to consult the wishes of the people? It was

  187
  said confederation was for the interests of the Empire; but nothing could be for the interests of the Empire which was not for the interests of the States it was proposed to confederate. If the people were fit for Constitutional Government, their own wishes ought to have been consulted; and, if not, he could not think them in that case fit for confederation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that he had not suggested or sanctioned the argument that the confederation should be indefinitely put off.
  MR. PARNELLrejoined that the difference of race would explain many of the difficulties of confederation, and the relations between the two races ought to have been defined before the House proceeded with the Bill.
  MR. BIGGARwanted some expression of opinion from the Colonies themselves.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government desired to ascertain from the various Legislatures the opinions of the Colonies; he could not, however, argue the question whether or not those Legislatures were the most perfect possible.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 95: Majority 88. — (Div. List, No. 264.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out " which," and insert " whose respective Legislatures." The question had been already discussed, and he therefore did not intend to occupy the time of the Committee by travelling over the same ground.
  MR. O'DONNELLproposed to amend the Amendment by adding the words, "and the elective part thereof after the opinion of the electors has been consulted." He did not think this Act would conduce to the growth of those feelings of confidence which Her Majesty's Government assured the House they were desirous of fostering if they allowed a clause of this kind to pass without appending to it such precautions as the Government in their speeches said ought to be attached to it, but which they were nevertheless slow in putting into the Bill. He did not desire to press his Amendment if the Government would propose a better; and all he and those with whom he acted wished for the various races was that the spirit of the
  188
  British Constitution should be infused into their Legislative institutions.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the most regular course would be to dispose first of the Amendment of the Under Secretary of State. That having been done, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) could propose the addition of any words which he deemed desirable.
  Amendment (Mr. J. Lowther) agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLformally moved the Amendment which he had just proposed.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved an Amendment requiring the election of a new Legislature after the passing of the Act.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be advisable to dispose of the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Dungarvan before discussing any other proposal.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought he was justified in appealing to the Under Secretary or to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) for some information so as to enable hon. Members to vote intelligently on this question. He would like to know what portion of the Legislatures were nominated and what portion was elected; and if they had the opinion of the elected legislators, how far they could regard their decision as the wishes of the people who were the electors?
  MR. E. JENKINScontended that the adoption of the Bill, if passed into an Act, should not be permitted unless its adoption was supported by not less than two-thirds of the " elected" Members of the Colonial Legislature. He suggested this in order that the opinions of the elected Members—that was, of the electors—might have due weight as against those of the "nominated" Members in the decision of a matter so vitally important to the interests of the Colony.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcould not accept either the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo or the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee. If any distinction were made between the two classes of Members of the Legislature he thought it would have a disturbing, unsettling effect. There was no desire on the part of the Government to act contrary either to the opinion or wish of the elected.

  189
  Members of the Council or of the population generally.
  MR. T. CAVEsupported the view-taken by the Under Secretary of State, remarking that for the House to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) would be equivalent to saying that in this country the House of Lords could not be credited with any desire to protect the interests of the people.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the cases were not parallel, because in the Colonies many of the nominated Members had claims on the Government, and were by no means fit for the office.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsupported the Bill.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to insert, in page 2, line 11, after "agreed," the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, That no union of Colonies or States shall take place under the provisions of this Bill, unless the Cape Colony is included in such union."
  The Boers could not be trusted to govern fairly, having already been guilty of great oppression towards the Natives. As to Natal, Mr. Froude said that the oppression there had been far greater than in the Transvaal. The nominative Members were the only people who ought to be the guardians of the rights of the Native inhabitants. In the Cape a fair share of the elective system had been given to the Natives, and he hoped that, perhaps in the course of a generation, a system of that sort might be extended to the Transvaal and to Natal. They were not yet, he thought, ready for it. It might be said that the laws had to receive the sanction of Her Majesty. He believed that that would not be effectual; and who was to alter the unjust laws already existing? In Natal and the Transvaal a grossly unjust law prevailed, for the Natives were not allowed to hold land in their own country. The Cape Colony had done more than any other community in the world towards bringing Christian, Mahomedan, and Pagan populations into amicable and friendly political relations. Without uniting these Colonies with the Cape, he could not consent to the Bill as it
  190
  stood, and therefore hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word " agreed," to insert the words " Provided, That no union of Colonies or States shall take place under the provisions of this Bill, unless the Cape Colony is included in such union." — (Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member had fairly raised a question of extreme importance. He hoped that he would not think that in opposing the Motion he (Mr. Lowther) entertained any reasonable doubt that Cape Colony would be the first to adopt the Bill. But it would be unwise to adopt a method which the hon. Member for Meath would call an act of coercion. Natal and the Transvaal should not be bound to enter into an arrangement, nor, on the other hand, precluded from entering into such, from the mere fact that another Colony outside their boundaries was of a different opinion as to its advantages. Every wish existed on the part of the Government to meet the other difficulties to which the hon. Member had alluded. But they could hardly be discussed on that Amendment; and he (Mr. Lowther) had placed on the Paper, at the end of Clause 25, words which might meet those difficulties, and which he hoped would satisfy the hon. Member.
  MR. RYLANDSexpressed his surprise that it could be seriously proposed to confederate the South African Colonies, leaving out the Cape. If hon. Members would look at the Returns from South Africa, they would realize the enormous difference between these various States. Hon. Members talked about the confederation of these various States as if it were possible for them to enter upon confederation upon equal terms. They had Cape Colony, with a very large White population of 236,783, with wide exports and imports to the amount of several millions, and with all the other evidences of civilization; and alongside this great State with a large revenue and a large White population, they had two or three smaller States— Griqualand and the new annexation of the Transvaal, with a few thousand Whites, and, he supposed, in the case of Transvaal, a million Blacks, and also

  191
  in the case of Griqualand, a large number of Blacks. To attempt to carry out confederation without Cape Colony at the head of it was a delusion and a snare. What was the object of the Bill? Why, that there should be a certain amount of mutual support amongst these various States for protection against the inroads of the savages. But if they allowed these small and weak States to confederate, leaving out the Cape Colony, they did nothing to solve the problem; they probably raised a difficulty in the way of the problem being solved. If they had the Transvaal, Griqualand and Natal confederated, leaving out Cape Colony, any further step forwards, to bring Cape Colony into the confederation, would be a very difficult one. The confederation of these weak States would be like the mutual support of two drunken men, who, in the end, would be obliged to appeal to the support of the Imperial Parliament to assist them out of their difficulty. To pass such a Bill, without including the Cape as a sine quâ non, would be converting a serious measure into something like a farce.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDcould not see why, if the Confederation were good in principle, it should not be useful even if the Cape Colony did not come in. It would be most injudicious to elevate the Cape to the " dog in the manger " position of being able to spoil the Confederation if it did not choose to become a member of it. He did not, however, agree with those who thought that Cape Colony would not come in. On the contrary, Sir Henry Barkly, who was the person most competent to speak upon the subject, stated that there was a strong feeling at the Cape in favour of Confederation. He should, therefore, oppose the Amendment, believing that Confederation was desirable for these South African States, as it would greatly strengthen them and put them in a better position to deal with the Native question.
  MR. CHILDERSbelieved that it would be impossible to assent to the Amendment. To say to one out of five members of a proposed Confederation— " Unless you come in there shall be no Confederation," would enable that particular Colony to make what terms it pleased. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. COURTNEYwas surprised to hear hon. Members discuss this question of confederation as if it were an abstract one and apart from the circumstances of the States which were invited to unite. To lay down the principle that confederation was in itself desirable amounted almost to a disqualification of the authority of the Member who uttered it. That was, no doubt, a strong statement on his part, but he believed it was true. Would they talk of confederation between such Colonies as Natal and the Transvaal? The Transvaal was, in his opinion, incapable of confederation in its present condition, and to leave the Cape out of the proposed body would be absurd. The greatest evils would result from the exclusion of the Cape Colony from the scheme of confederation. The confederation would consist of States in which 60,000 Whites would rule over 1,500,000 Natives. Did the Committee know that there existed in the Colony of Natal a system of slavery, as odious as was ever sought to be put down at any time or in any country, under the name of wife-purchase? The hon. Member proceeded to read an extract from a work on the subject of slavery in Natal, when—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he desired to point out that, although the hon. Member was quite in Order in alluding to customs and laws prevailing in Natal, he was not in Order in entering into an elaborate discussion of those customs or laws, these not having reference to the question before the Committee.
  MR. COURTNEYwished to show by reference to the state of affairs in Natal what would be the result of allowing the Transvaal to be confederated with Natal without the addition of the Cape Colony. [" Order! "]
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order, Sir. Do I understand you to say that an hon. Member is entitled to refer to a question in his argument, but that he is not in Order in making an elaborate disquisition on it? ["Order!"] Are we to be told that he is to be allowed to refer to a question, but that if he makes an elaborate disquisition on it he is out of Order? I say that that is an insult to the common sense of the House. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must leave that observation to the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is impossible that such an observation as that made by the hon. Member for Dundalk can be allowed to pass, or permitted to remain unchallenged. As I understand the observations of the hon. Member for Dundalk, he has said that your ruling, Sir, is an insult to the common sense of the House—
  MR. CALLAN: I have made no such statement. [" Oh, oh! "] I rise to explain—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If I am misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman he can explain when I have done. What I understood him to say was that a ruling of yours, Sir, was an insult to the common sense of the House. [Mr. CALLAN: No, no!] That was certainly what I understood. Of course, if the hon. Member demurs to the expression I have attributed to him I have nothing more to say; but it certainly seemed to us here that the hon. Member stated that a ruling of yours, Sir, was an insult to the common sense of the House.
  MR. CALLAN: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not quite sure of my words. Perhaps he has been taught a lesson by recent events; but as to my words, he can move that they be taken down, and repeat the blunder that he made last week ["Order! "] I am perfectly within my right. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) made a statement which the Chairman ruled to be within his right to make; and what I said was that because the hon. Member elaborated that statement, that fact did not put him out of Order; and I added that it would be an insult to the common sense of the House to say that the elaboration of a statement which was not out of Order could be out of Order.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is exactly what I have said. The hon. Member has stated that the ruling of the Chairman is an insult to the common sense of the House—
  MR. CALLAN: Not the ruling, but that observation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then I can only move that the words of the hon. Member be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule of the House in Committee is, that words complained of must be taken down immediately after they are uttered. It is not competent to take them down after a discussion has arisen upon them.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcertainly understood the hon. Member for Dundalk to use the expression which had been adverted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that the hon. Member was bound to withdraw that expression as applied to the Chairman of Ways and Means. It might not be competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move that the words should be taken down, but they reached him quite distinctly, and he did not remember ever to have heard such expressions used before, and having been used, they ought to be withdrawn. At the same time, he (Mr. Newdegate) felt, when the Chairman called the hon. Member for Liskeard to Order for entering into too elaborate an argument, that that was a difficult point of Order for the Chairman to settle. According to the custom of the House when a Member, without being absolutely out of Order, trespassed too long on one point, it rested with the endurance of the House whether they would submit to having their time so occupied. The habit of the House in former days was to refuse to hear such arguments by rendering them inaudible, and if any hon. Member should abuse his power of speaking, he (Mr. Newdegate) would be prepared to take part with other hon. Members in making him inaudible. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the expression he had used.
  THE CHAIRMAN: After what has fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain the circumstances under which the interruption arose. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in possession of the Committee, and was speaking in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and in the course of his argument he entered into a lengthened description of, among other things, slavery in South Africa. I pointed out that, although the hon. Member was in Order in referring to slavery as existing in South Africa, he was not in Order in discussing the question at length, that not being the sub-

  195
  ject before the Committee, and more particularly for this reason—that if he did so other hon. Members might reply to him and so lengthen out an irrelevant discussion. I pointed out to the hon. Member that the course of his observations was so protracted as to involve a departure from Order. It was then that the hon. Member for Dundalk used words which I deeply regret were ever uttered in a Committee of this House, and which have placed me in a position in which I am sorry to say it will be impossible for me to conduct the business of the Committee with anything like self-respect if the words are not withdrawn.
  MR. DILLWYNunderstood the words in the same sense as they were understood on the other side of the House, and hoped they would be withdrawn, because if such expressions were allowed the authority of the Chair could not be supported.
  CAPTAIN NOLANdid not understand the hon. Member to have been controverting the decision of the Chair, but rather to have been referring to hon. Members opposite, whose interruptions had thrown him out. He thought the proper course would be for the hon. Member simply to say that he had not meant to use the words as against the ruling of the Chair.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought that everyone who had had some experience of the House must see that the ruling of the Chairman was one which might be open to discussion. At the same time, he thought that the hon. Member for Dundalk had been merely expressing an opinion on the question whether the hon. Member for Liskeard was in Order or not.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLpointed out that the question was whether the hon. Member for Dundalk had really intended to use the words which were imputed to him; and he expressed surprise that the hon. Member sat still in his place without offering an explanation.
  MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN, begging the hon. Member's pardon, said he was quite ready to get up. ["Order! "]
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that before the hon. Member for Dundalk stated what he really said he wished to point out the very unpleasant position in which the Committee was placed. The fact that the Chairman had understood the hon. Member for Dundalk to apply the
  196
  words to his ruling was very much due to an inconvenient habit, which hon. Members on the other side had fallen into, of indulging in interruptions to an almost unprecedented extent. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by repeating his performance of the other evening, had thrown everything into confusion, and deprived the hon. Member for Dundalk of the opportunity he ought to have had at the time of explaining his words, which, no doubt, he would have been willing to explain at once if he had not been treated in such an exceedingly sharp way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [" Oh! "]
  MAJOR DICKSON MAJOR DICKSON rose to Order. Was the hon. Gentleman speaking to the question before the House?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the House was a point of Order.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped, as an independent Member, that the Leader of the House would re-consider the action which he seemed determined to pursue on every occasion, and would not submit the House to a recurrence of those scenes which would not have arisen except for the uncalled-for interposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would have risen before this to explain if it had not been for the threat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that self-respect had prevented him from rising then. He had hoped that the occurrences of the past week had taught the Chancellor of the Exchequer some discretion— ["Order!"]—some discretion in the manner in which he treated Members of the House, and taught him to avoid the blunders of the past week. [" Order! "] It might be disagreeable to hon. Members to hear this, but it was perfectly in Order. He (Mr. Callan) had not used the words " insult to common sense" with reference to the ruling of the Chairman, because the ruling of the Chairman had been to the effect that the hon. Member for Liskeard was fully in Order. He had used the words with regard to other matters, and he was quite prepared to defend them, but he hoped that would not be considered necessary. ["Oh, oh!"] If hon. Members wished to carry this scene any further, he was quite prepared unflinchingly to say what he alluded to. With reference to the readiness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others to seize upon points of Order,

  197
  he would remark that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had said that if a certain course was pursued he would prevent the Members from being heard, by means of some of those noises that were often raised, or other means—a threat which had passed without that reprobation from the Chair which it deserved.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Member for Liskeard, in addressing the Committee, proceeded to show why there should not be an amalgamation of certain customs that related to the Colony of the Transvaal. The Chairman ruled that he was perfectly in Order in alluding to the matter, but that he was not entitled to go into an elaborate discussion on the subject. On that the hon. Member for Dundalk got up in his place and distinctly stated, as he understood, that such a ruling was an insult to our common sense.
  MR. CALLAN: The Attorney General was not present when I used the words. Am I correct in saving that he was not present?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I was present all the time, and I was listening to what the hon. Member said with great attention.
  MR. CALLAN: I merely asked whether the hon. and learned Member was in his place. I did not use the words as attributed to me, and I regret that the House is falling into great disorder. I have stated that I did not apply the words to the ruling of the Chairman; but the Attorney General, with that delicacy of feeling which is his remarkable characteristic, has in his place stated that I did use the words imputed to me in a sense which I repudiate. I ask whether, after I have made that assertion, it is competent to the Attorney General to get up and assert that I did use them in that sense?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I do not wish to take any notice of the personal remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Dundalk. I believe it to be my duty to call attention to anything that appears to be a reflection on the ruling of the Chairman; because it is absolutely impossible that the proceedings of the Committee of this House can be conducted at all if respect is not paid to the ruling of the Chairman. Certainly I was not alone in supposing that the hon. Member for Dundalk, in making those observations, was
  198
  casting reflections upon the ruling of the Chairman; but as the hon. Member has stated that in using those words it was not his intention to reflect upon the ruling of the Chairman, I may remark that it has always been the practice of this House to accept such an explanation by an hon. Member; and I now therefore beg to suggest that this incident should come to an end.
  MR. CALLAN: I cannot accept pardon in that way. I wish to be judged exactly by the words I have used. I have already said that I did not reflect upon the ruling of the Chairman, because I approved that ruling. The reflection I made had reference to other matters.
  MR. LAINGremarked that after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundalk he thought that hon. Members who were sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and who had listened to what he had said, should bear their testimony to the correctness of the statement of the Attorney General. He appealed to hon. Members near him whether the hon. Member had not said that the ruling of the Chairman was an insult to common sense? The hon. Member was evidently not quite aware of the exact words which had fallen from him; and therefore he would now have an opportunity of doing that which every Gentleman in such circumstances would do—of admitting and of withdrawing those words, instead of meeting the matter by denying that he had used them, when every hon. Member in that House had heard him utter them within the last few minutes. If the hon. Member declined to withdraw the words, it would be the duty of the Leaders on both sides of the House to take strong measures and assert the authority of the Chair.
  MR. BELLsaid, that he had been sitting next to the hon. Member for Dundalk at the time he used the words, and he had taken down the words of the hon. Member, which were to the effect that the ruling of the Chairman was an insult to common sense.
  THE O'CONOR DONthought that a good deal of misapprehension appeared to exist as to the exact words which the hon. Member for Dundalk had used— [" No!"]—well, as to what he intended to say. The hon. Member had said that he did not say—and certainly that he did not intend to say—anything to

  199
  cast reflection on the Chairman's decision; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that in those circumstances the matter ought to come to an end, and should not be pressed any further. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would proceed with the question before it.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYstated that it was perfectly understood upon that side of the House that the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be taken. The hon. Member by denying that he had used the words at all or if he had used them with the intention imputed to him had satisfied the Committee, and they were prepared to let the matter drop. The ton. Member, however, declined to allow that course to be adopted. If the hon. Member were prepared to let it drop upon that ground, there would be an end of the matter.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that he had three times stated that he did not use the words complained of with reference to the Chairman's ruling. On the contrary, he concurred in the Chairman's ruling that the hon. Member for Liskeard was in Order.
  MR. CHILDERSthought the Committee was bound to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had declared that the incident ought to terminate. The hon. Member for Dundalk was understood to have impugned the decision of the Chairman, and he (Mr. Childers), in common with other Members of the House, at once cried "Order!" and was quite prepared to support whatever was necessary to maintain the authority of the Chair. He expected the hon. Member for Dundalk would have risen at once, and have stated what every Gentleman in the House usually did— ''I used certain words not intending to attach to them a certain meaning; "or, "I have been misunderstood, and I express my regret." But the hon. Member did not think fit to do that, and in consequence they had had a long and painful discussion. The hon. Gentleman had now three times disclaimed the words, and had at last distinctly stated that when he used the words "insult to common sense" he did not intend to apply them to the decision of the Chairman. But when the hon. Gentleman stated that he applied it to them and not to the Chair, he thought they were bound to support the Chancellor of the
  200
  Exchequer, and he earnestly hoped this discussion would cease.
  MR. CALLAN: I cannot allow this discussion to stop after the speech which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers). [An hon. MEMBER: Not ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer.] Well, no matter, I believe he has been in almost every office. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I did not pursue the course which would have been followed by every Gentleman in this House in not distinctly and at once withdrawing, whilst in the next breath he states that I have withdrawn. I think if a Member of the House states at least three times that he did not use words imputed to him there is no necessity for the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Childers') interference at this stage of the debate. ["Order!"] Well, that is my opinion. Logically I could not have used the words, for I fully concurred in the ruling of the Chairman in reference to the hon. Member for Liskeard.
  MR. DILLWYNasked what was the real ruling of the Chairman. He understood the Chairman to have ruled the hon. Member for Liskeard to be out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Swansea has asked me a question which I shall have no difficulty in answering. I ruled in the first instance that, although the hon. Member was quite in Order in alluding to the customs and laws prevailing in Natal, he was not in Order in entering into an elaborate discussion on those customs and laws, they not having been referred to by the question before the Committee. It was in reference to the last part of this ruling that I understood the words of the hon. Member for Dundalk to refer.
  MR. GOLDSMIDurged that much time had been lost in this discussion, and he hoped that the Committee would make progress.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, if there was anything which a Member of the House had. a right to expect, it was on an emergency of this kind the Leader of the House should exhibit some little presence of mind. [" Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Meath will see that the matter into which he is now entering has no reference to the point of Order

  201
  raised with regard to the words of the hon. Member for Dundalk.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he would endeavour to explain the social evils which would result from Confederation, without the presence of the Cape Colony as a member of the Confederation. Slavery in its worst form was to be anticipated, unless a much larger civilized population were introduced, for 60,000 Whites could not maintain a proper balance in the midst of 1,500,000 Natives. That was the invariable difficulty wherever the White population was very small.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcould not see the immediate connection between the Amendment and the remarks of the hon. Member. The House would listen with respect to his arguments; but they would have been more appropriately urged on the second reading of the Bill. The details into which he had entered might, perhaps, be a reason for the alteration of any form of Government such as he had described; but they did not tell against the policy of confederation. He could only repeat, that it would be most impolitic to allow any one Colony to set itself against the wishes and the interests of all the others; and he hoped the Committee would grant powers for the formation of the necessary union.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, while the House was considering a very delicate point of abstract politics the Cape Colony was steadily pursuing a policy of annexation, and that was a very strong reason in favour of the Amendment. Already he understood that Griqualand West had ceased to exist as a separate Colony, having been annexed by the Cape Colony.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLin reply, contended that a Constitution which was not fitted for these Colonies separately would not be fitted for them combined.
  MR. PARNELLimplored the House to consider the immense responsibility of the step they were taking. As the discussions on this Bill went on he began to get wiser as to what it really meant, and now he found that, instead of confederation, it was centralization which was contemplated. He trusted that the Government would withdraw the Bill, or at least would give it its proper name, and would call it a scheme for the union and junction of one or more Colonies in South Africa for the advantage of the Government itself.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to report Progress.
  MR. J. LOWTHERexpressed a hope that the hon. Member was not serious in making that Motion. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Meath had already oftener than once expressed their opinion fully on the subject. He had listened with the greatest attention to the expression of their views, and they should have due consideration. Time, however, was valuable, and the Session was by no means young.
  MR. O'DONNELL, withdrawing his Motion to report Progress, said, he only wished to ask how far the Cape Colony was pursuing a policy antagonistic to that of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. J. LOWTHERassured the hon. Member that there was no such antagonism in the policy of the Cape Colony.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 173; Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
  MR. O'DONNELLon rising to move an Amendment to the same clause, providing that the vote of the Legislature should only take place when the Legislature or the elected part thereof should have consulted their electors on the question of legislation, said, that his Amendment only sought to embody the expressed intention of the Government. If the Colonies had been in the full possession of the franchise it would not have been necessary to introduce any distinction between the Legislature and the electoral part thereof.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member appeared to be identical with one which had been rejected by the Committee.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask what hon. Member moved that Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood that the Amendment in question had not come before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment was put from the Chair and negatived in the absence of the hon. Member.
  MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion of the words, "Provided also that the aforesaid union shall be a federal one."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word " agreed," to insert the words " Provided always, That the

  203
  said Union shall be a Federal Union."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that what the Government desired to do was not to establish any union or to force it on the Colonies, but to provide a machinery by which the Colonies could form an union of any kind which they desired.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTin criticising the Amendment, said, the hon. Member for Meath seemed not to understand the distinction between the words "Confederation" and "Federation." The difference of meaning was very great. Federal union, in common parlance, meant no definite form of Government.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford seemed not to understand the distinct meaning of the words which he criticized and failed to define. The distinctive difference was not that which the hon. and learned Gentleman with so much confidence assigned. The real object of the Amendment was to prevent a legislative union such as existed between England and Ireland; to make the union of these Colonies like that of the United States.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Federal union was not what lawyers called " a word of art." The United States at first were a federal union; but it was found so inconvenient, that they changed it to a confederation of States.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFexplained that the Bill proposed to establish a state of things similar to that in Italy, where the old States were changed into préfectures or Provinces, in each of which there was the Conseil Général for local affairs, distinct from the Imperial Parliament.
  MR. PARNELLconceived that in the case of only two of the South African Colonies adopting the Federation scheme there would be as many Legislatures there as in Austria-Hungary—namely, three—but that while the number of Legislatures might be the same, there would be a great difference with regard to the powers. He was opposed to forcing on these Colonies a legislative union such as had existed with such disastrous effects between England and Ireland.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwould repeat what he had stated several times. They did not contemplate forcing upon the Colonists any one particular system. All that they asked Parliament to do was to place these Colonies in a position to choose any form of union which they themselves might determine on. It might happen that the Cape Colony and Griqualand would choose confederation, while the others might choose another form. What was intended was to leave them to themselves on that point.
  MR. PARNELLobserved that a new light had been thrown on the subject. He was obliged to the hon. Member for the plainness of his answer. He knew now that instead of being a Bill for the federation of the South African Colonies this measure ought to be called by an entirely different name; and he should oppose every stage of its progress until the Government could make up their minds as to what powers they were going to give to the South African Colonies. We had already in the case of Ireland an example of federalism, in which union was forced upon the weaker by the stronger party, and it was necessary to guard against such a result under this Bill. He thought the Chairman ought to re-port Progress.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been present for two hours. For the first hour and a-half hon. Members opposite had been arguing that Cape Colony would certainly reject this measure; and for the last half-hour they had been in a state of alarm because they thought Cape Colony would immediately adopt the measure. The object of the Government was to extend to the Colonies generally by this Bill the widest choice in their form of government, and he knew that the Colonies would be very grateful for the passing of this measure, which would give them the means of uniting for mutual defence.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 4; Noes 179: Majority 175.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 2, line 17, after "Order in Council," to insert—
  " Provided always, That such alterations or amendments be submitted for ratification to the Confederation Parliament."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had another Amendment, which would take some time, but they had been working hard, and he thought he would be in order to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be as well to finish the 3rd clause, and they would report Progress before proceeding to the next clause.
  MR. PARNELLthen moved, in page 3, line 23, after "Union" to leave out from "and," to end of clause, and insert—
  "with the consent of the majority of the elected representatives of any State or Colony concerned, or of any Committee duly appointed by the elected representatives of any two or more of such States or Colonies jointly to consider the subjects mentioned in this Act."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.— [BILL 215.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Lord George Hamilton, The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he should not oppose the Bill, but he took the opportunity to complain that any new charge should be thrown, as was evidently contemplated, upon the revenues of India, in order to carry out the new Army promotion and retirement scheme of the Secretary of State for War. He asked for information on this point from the Under Secretary of State for India, and wished to know, if an extra charge was to be levied, where the money was to come from? He was afraid it would have to come out of the loan which the House was asked by this Bill to raise.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONreplied that it was not intended to raise any extra expenditure that might be required for military purposes by borrowing.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.