Commons Sitting of 15 August 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Newcastle under Lyme, v. Sir Edmund Buckley, baronet, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS — Third Reading — Territorial Waters Jurisdiction [137], and passed.
Withdrawn—Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) [178]; Election of Aldermen (Cumulative Vote) ✶ [71].
The House met at Three of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—THE TITHES AND TAXES.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINS (for Mr. RYLANDS)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Daily News," of August 12th, that the Turkish Government has forestalled the collection of the tithes and taxes in Cyprus for the current year, selling the yield to the farmers and collecting the tithes in advance; whether there is any provision in the Convention of the 4th June which meets this case; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  MR. BOURKE: No, Sir; we have no reason to believe that the statement
  2016
  quoted in the Question of the hon. Member is correct. The taxes have been collected up to the time that the Island of Cyprus were taken over by Her Majesty's Government; but there is no reason to believe that the collection of the taxes has been forestalled.

  ITALY — DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE POPE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOLTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether a statement recently made in the newspapers, to the effect that
  "difficulties have arisen temporarily delaying the re-establishment of relations with England desired by the Vatican,"
  has any foundation in fact; and, whether there have been any direct or indirect Communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Pope or his Representatives on the subject of diplomatic relations with Rome?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; there have been no communication with the Pope or his Representatives on the subject.

  TERRITORIAL WATERS JURISDICTION BILL.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in accordance with the view expressed by the Attorney General last Session, any communication had been made by the Government to any foreign Government regarding the Territorial Waters Bill; and, whether any communication had been received from any foreign Government on that subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand, Sir, that there has been no communication between the Foreign Office and any foreign Governments on the subject of the Bill to which the hon. Member refers.

INDIA—THE MISSION TO CABUL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, before it was decided to send the mission to Cabul, the matter was referred to the Secretary of State for India in Council, and, if the mission has been approved of by the Secretary of State in Council, whether any Members of the Council dissented; and, if so, whether there will

  2017
  be any objection to lay their dissents upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; this is not a matter that would come before the Secretary of State in Council. It is one of those matters which are of the same character as those which in former times, under the old Court of Directors, went through the Secret Committee. According to the provisions of the Indian Government Act, all matters which would have gone through the Secret Committee do not go to the Secretary of State in Council, but to the Secretary of State personally; and that, Sir, is the case in this instance.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the mission which is about to be sent to Cabul under Sir Neville Chamberlain has been undertaken at the invitation or with the consent of the Ameer of Cabul; and, whether he can give the House any information as to the causes that led to the cessation of friendly communications with the Ameer in the early part of 1877, and as to the reason for our ceasing to maintain an agent at Cabul?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have communicated with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and he tells me that we do not at present know whether the Ameer has yet been asked to receive this mission. He did not invite it; but a communication will be made to him from the Indian Government proposing it. With regard to the cessation of friendly communications, that arose from the Ameer himself. It was on his part, not on ours, and it has never been fully explained by him. There were negotiations between Sir Lewis Pelly and an Envoy of the Ameer's, who died in the course of them. "We have never had a European Agent at Cabul, nor have we asked for one.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. My inquiry was with regard to the Native Agent we maintained there for many years, and which we ceased to do after 1876.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot give a better answer than the one I have given, which was that the cessation of friendly communications arose on the part of the Ameer, and I presume it was in connec-
  2018
  tion with that that we ceased to maintain an Agent. The Agent we originally had there died at that time.

  COAL MINES—THE HOMER HILL COLLIERY ACCIDENT—CASE OF THOMAS SHAW.—QUESTION.
  MR. SHERIDANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Petition presented to this House, and signed by many hundreds of persons living in the borough of Dudley and its neighbourhood, asking for some further inquiry on the part of the Government into the practicability of recovering the body of Thomas Shaw, which lies in a coal mine called the New Homer Hill Colliery at Cradley, Staffordshire, where he was killed in the performance of his duty; and, whether he will endeavour to give effect to the wishes of the Petitioners, and to the prayer for a speedy and searching inquiry into all the facts of the case?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the last information he had received from the Inspector on this subject was that the mine was in a dangerous state, so that it was not safe to open it. He had directed the Question of the hon. Gentleman and also a Petition he had received on the subject to be laid before the Inspector, in order that further inquiry might be made.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—BATOUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information respecting the position of affairs at Batoum, specially with relation to the report contained in the "Daily News" of the 13th inst. to the following effect, viz.:
  "That Dervish Pasha has under his command 25 battalions, including one of Zeibeks. The town itself contains 12 battalions, and two field batteries. The last steamer brought 60 fresh artillery horses. The hills round the town are held by Turkish troops. One ironclad and one wooden frigate are anchored close inshore;"
  and, whether the English Consul at Trebizond has informed Sir Austen Layard that the Lazes persist in declaring that they consider themselves under British protection, and that they will hoist the

  2019
  British flag on the advance of the Russians against Batoum?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, we are aware that Batoum is still held by Dervish Pasha and the troops under his command; but negotiations are going on between the Turkish Government and the Russian Government for its surrender. That is all the information I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to that part of his Question. Of course, we do not know how many troops Dervish Pasha has under his command. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I have to say that we have received a telegram respecting a Petition which the Consul at Trebizond has received from the Lazes, stating that if the Russians attacked them they would unfurl the British flag and consider themselves under British protection.

SPAIN—CASE OF GEORGE WHITE.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will be good enough, by telegraph, immediately, to cause inquiries to be made of the authorities at Havannah, Cuba, under what circumstances George White, an English sailor, of Gravesend, was imprisoned there now upwards of five months ago; whether any charge has been formally preferred against him; whether, if so, he was confronted with his accuser, or allowed professional advice or assistance; how long the imprisonment, with or without trial, is likely to last; and if the Foreign Office will make a speedy and complete investigation into the case, with a view to the early release of George White?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have simply to state that we have no details with respect to this case; but we are quite certain that Her Majesty's Consul at Cuba will take all the steps that are necessary in the matter. That being so, we do not think it necessary to send a telegram as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend; but we will forward to the proper quarter a despatch upon the subject.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL—THE LORDS' AMENDMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MELLORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether, after this
  2020
  House had insisted on its disagreement to the Lords' Amendments to the Poor Law Act 1876 Amendment Bill, it would have been in accordance with the Rules of Parliament for this House to demand a free conference with the Lords regarding their Amendments to that Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe, Sir, that it would not have been in accordance with the Rules of Parliament that this House, after having declared that it insisted upon its disagreement to the Lords' Amendments should have demanded a free conference with the Lords regarding those Amendments. I do not, of course, profess myself to be an authority on the subject; but I understood that you, Sir, the other day distinctly laid down the law upon that point. I observe that in some of the public journals there seems to be some confusion in the report of your rulings; but I apprehend I state them correctly now—that if, in the first instance, before insisting, or instead of insisting upon disagreement to the Lords' Amendments, this House had sent back the Bill with some slight Amendments of its own, it would have been possible then to have proceeded further; but that, having once insisted upon that disagreement, it became impossible afterwards for this House to demand a free conference with the Lords.

  TURKEY—CRETE.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any agreement has been entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Sultan with respect to the future Government of Crete; and, if so, whether he will inform the House as to the nature of the reforms proposed to be introduced into the Government of that island, and state what guarantee will be given that those reforms will be effectually carried out?
  MR. BOURKE: I think, Sir, I had better remind the hon. Member and the House of the paragraph in the Treaty of Berlin which refers to this Question of the reforms in Crete, as I think the House might be misled by the question of the hon. Member, for he mentions the word "agreement." It does not follow from that paragraph that any agreement should be come to between the Porte and Her Majesty's Government

  2021
  on the subject. The words of the paragraph in the Treaty are—
  "The Sublime Porte undertakes scrupulously to apply in the Island of Crete the organic law of 1868, whilst introducing into it the modifications that may be considered equitable."
  That is the undertaking on the part of the Sublime Porte, and therefore there is no agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte on the subject. We have, however, received information from Sir Austen Layard that he has had several conversations with the Grand Vizier on the subject, who had shown himself disposed to give full and fair consideration to the representation of the Cretan Assembly on the affairs of Crete.

  NAVY—THE "GANGES" TRAINING SHIP.—QUESTION.
  MR. COLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as reported, that it is the intention of the Government to remove the "Ganges" training ship from Falmouth to Portland; and, if so, what are the reasons for such removal?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the Admiralty have had under their consideration proposals for the removal of the ship from Falmouth; but having received memorials from the local authorities against the proposed change, they have decided to postpone any decision until after the inspection in September. The grounds for the proposed change are that the boys in the ship are nearly all London boys, Cornwall affording scarcely any; that the position itself in which the ship lies is very exposed in bad weather, and the expense of keeping her there is probably larger than it would be at Portland.

TURKEY—ASIA MINOR—THE LAZES.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question with reference to the last part of his answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter). He has said that the English Consul at Trebizond has informed Sir Austen Layard—[Mr. BOURKE: I said he had received a Petition.]—that the Lazes persisted in declaring they considered themselves under British protection. I beg to point out to the hon.
  2022
  Gentleman that if he leaves it there, it will have a very injurious effect; because it will appear as if the English Government accepted that situation contrary to the stipulations of the Berlin Treaty; and therefore I venture to ask him, Whether the English Government have sent any answer to the telegram? Otherwise, it will appear from his answer, as it now stands, that they are encouraging the belief that the English Government is supporting the Lazes in that pretension.
  MR. BOURKE: I cannot think that my hon. and learned Friend, or anyone else, would believe for a moment that the British Government have undertaken any responsibility with regard to the Lazes. The fact that the Lazes sent a Petition to Sir Austen Layard, saying that they will unfurl the British flag on the approach of the Russians to Batoum, and consider themselves under British protection does not, in my opinion, constitute any obligation whatever on the part of the British Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: That is not exactly an answer to the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. I suppose no one in this House, whatever may be felt elsewhere, would, for a moment, think that the Government would accept this responsibility; but what I wish to ask is, Whether the Lazes have been informed that the responsibility will not be accepted, otherwise these poor men may be misled?
  MR. BOURKE: I must remind the House that the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) was—
  "Whether the English Consul at Trebizond has informed Sir Austen Layard that the Lazes persist in declaring that they consider themselves under British protection, and that they will hoist the British flag on the advance of the Russians against Batoum?"
  Therefore, the House will see that the answer I gave was a complete answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and my hon. and learned Friend will admit, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, that the Question they have asked is a totally different Question. I think they may rest perfectly certain that Her Majesty's Government will take those steps with regard to this position which will be equally just to the Lazes and will save the Government against any misapprehension that may arise upon this

  2023
  subject. They will not encourage the Lazes to believe that they are under British protection; and the House may be perfectly certain that Her Majesty's Government will undertake no obligation of the character indicated by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am afraid I must ask this Question. What was the date at which the information was received that the Petition had been sent from these men, and whether any answer has been sent or not?
  MR. BOURKE: It is impossible for me to answer that Question off-hand. If Notice had been given, I should have been glad to answer it. The communication was received within the last few days, but I have not got it here.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Surely, Sir, it is a very simple Question. Has any answer been sent? We will not ask any date, but simply whether any answer has been sent?
  MR. BOURKE: We have only received a telegraphic message from Sir Austen Layard stating that this Petition had been received by the Consul at Trebizond. We have not yet got the Petition itself, and, therefore, we could not have answered it.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—HEALTH OF THE TROOPS.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to communicate the figures contained in the very important statement which he made yesterday to the House with regard to the health of the British troops at Cyprus? He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) observed that those figures did not appear in any of the Reports in the morning papers to-day; but he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had said that from 180 to 190 were on the sick list, of whom 56 were attacked with fever and ague. He should also be glad to know, Whether there would be any objection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to communicate to the Press from time to time as they arrived any statements in detail as to the health of the troops?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he wished the hon. Baronet had given him Notice of the Question. He endeavoured, as far as possible, yesterday, to
  2024
  give the House the fullest information in his possession in regard to the health of the troops at Cyprus, and, in so doing, he was obliged to read from Papers which had only been put into his hands after he came into the House. He gave the figures as correctly as he could; but a subsequent perusal of them led him to think that they required to be corrected by comparison; and, therefore, to prevent misconception, he thought it best to communicate with the authorities of the Press, and to request that until these figures could be verified, they should be left out. He had not referred the previous day to any private document. He found, however, that the answer he gave yesterday was substantially correct; that although there had been numerous outbreaks of fever of a mild character, there had been nothing severe, and, as a matter of fact, only three deaths had occurred since the troops landed out of a force of 7,000 men. He would be happy, as far as he could, to make public such information on that subject as reached the War Office from time to time.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Privy Council will issue the Orders stating from what countries cattle will be allowed to be imported into the interior?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he believed that those Orders had been prepared, and would be issued very shortly. He would take care to communicate with the Privy Council on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a meeting of the Privy Council was summoned for tomorrow to prepare the issue of such Orders.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT —THE REPORTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to ask a Question with regard to the Report on Educational Inspection which was issued every year. This was the first time, he thought, that the full Appendix had not been received during the Session, He

  2025
  should be glad to know when it was likely to be presented?
  VISCOUNT SANDON,in reply, said, he would make inquiries at the Privy Council Office, and do all he could to have the Appendix issued as soon as possible.

  TREATY OF BERLIN, ARTICLE 18— REFORMS IN TURKEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the European Commission, constituted under Article 18 of the Berlin Treaty to perform certain duties in East Roumelia in three months, will, notwithstanding that limit of time, have to be prolonged, inasmuch as the Porte is bound under the 23rd Article of the Treaty to consult that Commission upon all schemes of organization which are promised to be made for Crete and various other parts of Turkey in Europe?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that the hon. Member had not quite correctly interpreted the Treaty, particularly with regard to the paragraph which he (Mr. Bourke) had already read to the House with respect to Crete. He thought that paragraph was complete in itself, and the Commission established with respect to Eastern Roumelia had nothing to do with that paragraph. With regard to the other paragraph, which applied to the other Provinces of Turkey where reforms had not been introduced, schemes of organization and reform were to be introduced under the authority of Special Commissions, which would afterwards have to report to the European Commission. It was quite true that if these Special Commissions were not in a position to report to the European Commission at the end of three months, it would be for the Powers to consider whether it was necessary to prolong that Commission.

  POST OFFICE, DUBLIN—PAY OF TELEGRAPH OFFICIALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'BYRNE (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Postmaster General a Question, of which he had received private Notice, Whether he has received a Memorial from the Telegraph Clerks in Dublin Post Office, handed to the authorities in Dublin on the 23rd of last month, com-
  2026
  plaining of the inadequacy of their pay, and asking to be placed on the same footing as similar clerks in Manchester and Liverpool; and, if so, when a reply may be expected?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, no such Memorial has been received in London.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TERRITORIAL WATERS JURISDICTION BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 137.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER,in rising to move that the Bill be read the third time that day three months, said, it was one which made a most material alteration in the law of England, and which greatly affected the rights of foreign countries over a portion of the seas. He was rather surprised that such a measure should have been read a second time on the previous Saturday, when it was understood that the House was to meet solely for the purpose of discussing the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. It must have been unexpectedly read a second time on that occasion, because his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who had charge of the measure, was not present. He (Sir George Bowyer) had also to complain that it passed through Committee when discussion was absolutely impossible—he meant at 3 o'clock in the morning. They were now upon the third reading; and he thought the House would allow him, very briefly, to state certain points of law, which, he thought, ought to be considered by the House before the Bill was passed. In doing so, he would endeavour to take up as little time as was compatible with the importance of the subject. He would divide what he had to say under two heads. First, he should show that the Bill was not necessary; and, secondly, he would endeavour to show that the Bill was a contravention of the law of nations, and was unnecessary, because the law of England, as it

  2027
  stood at present, was fully sufficient without any fresh legislation. He would begin by stating what the law of England on the high seas now was. That portion of the sea between high and low water mark, when not covered with water, was within the jurisdiction of the ordinary coroner; and all that portion of tidal ports, estuaries, and rivers, which was partly inclosed by the territory of England, was within the counties to which it belonged, and was a portion of the realm of England. Beyond the low water mark, and over the whole of the high seas, there was the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty; and offences committed at sea were triable by the Court of Admiralty and the Central Criminal Court. Speaking generally, this was the chief jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty. The Court of Admiralty, of course, had jurisdiction over all British ships and also in cases of piracy, which were offences against all nations. But the Admiralty Court had never claimed jurisdiction over foreign ships outside those parts of the sea which wore partly inclosed by land, and which he had described. He said that the jurisdiction already vested in the Admiralty was fully sufficient to punish all offences committed on the high seas—that was to say, below high water mark—and therefore the Bill was unnecessary. He should be told, perhaps, that the Franconia case rendered it necessary that some legislation should take place. That he positively denied. What was the case? It was one of collision between an English and a foreign ship on the high seas—that was to say, within three miles of the English shore; and therefore, under the ordinary law of nations, would be within the international jurisdiction of the country off whose coast it occurred. In that collision an Englishman lost his life, and the captain of the Franconia was indicted for, and convicted of, manslaughter. A point, however, was reserved for the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and the majority of the Judges held that the conviction was bad. He was now told that, on account of the decision, some legislation was necessary—that it showed a defect in the law of England—that it showed a wrong which wanted remedying, as offences might be committed which England could not punish. He entirely differed from such an opinion. If a Frenchman killed an
  2028
  Englishman in Calais, the offence would not be within the cognizance of the law of England, and the Frenchman could not be tried in England, even if brought here. Then it might just as well be argued that the state of the law in that instance was a reason for bringing in the Bill for the purpose of extending English jurisdiction to Calais, or the whole of the French coast, as to say it was necessary to make an alteration because of the Franconia case. Instead of, in such cases, trying to extend the law of England, the proper course to pursue was to represent to a foreign country that a British subject had been injured out of the jurisdiction of the English Courts, and call upon the foreign country to deal with the person who committed the offence. It was a well-known principle of International Law that if a citizen of one country committed an offence against a citizen of another, and which could not be considered by the Courts of the country to which the injured person belonged, that was a reason for applying to the Government of the country to which the offender belonged, and requiring the Government to see that he was properly punished. If justice were refused in a case of that sort, that would be a sufficient justification for war. Let the House look at the Franconia case. After the conviction had been quashed in England, he believed the captain was tried in Germany, and his impression was that he was convicted. But what was complained of was that he could not be convicted in England. He (Sir George Bowyer) agreed that he ought not to have been, and he insisted that the proper remedy in the case was by representation to the German Government, and not by proceeding in the English Courts. Wherever the English Courts ought to have jurisdiction on the high seas the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court was fully adequate for such cases; and where the criminal law of England did not apply now, there should be no alteration made, as proposed by the Bill; but recourse should be had to the country to which the offender belonged. He maintained that the law was perfectly clear. From time immemorial the law of England had been as he had stated it, and he could not conceive how in 1878 it was only just found out that it was insufficient, and that fresh

  2029
  legislation was necessary. Having disposed of that question, having shown that the law of England was at present fully adequate for the administration of justice on the high seas, he came to his second point, which was that the Bill was inconsistent with the law of nations, and with the rights of foreign countries. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) brought in a Bill which, in substance, was the same as that now before the House, and in a debate which took place on the Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General spoke. He found, in Hansard, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was reported as follows:—
  "He admitted that owing to the state of the law, it had teen declared by the Court of Appeal, it might be desirable to legislate on this subject; but he thought that before such legislation was embarked upon, it would be wise and politic to consult the principal States of Europe."
  In a subsequent part of the speech, quoting again from Hansard, he found the hon. and learned Gentleman said—
  "He thought that before we embarked upon legislation it was essential that there should be some sort of agreement among the principal nations of the world with regard to the subject."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiii. 1402.]
  No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman saw very clearly that the Bill was one which might be held to infringe the rights of foreign subjects and the liberties of the seas, and therefore he said it ought to be a matter of international arrangement before England attempted to make a law which would be binding upon foreigners. He was ready to admit that there was a general concurrence amongst the nations of Europe that the three-mile zone was within the jurisdiction of the country off whose shores the ships then were. But the question was what that jurisdiction consisted of, and what the nature of that jurisdiction was. That jurisdiction was of a very peculiar nature, and not such as was sought to introduced by this Bill. It was not such jurisdiction as existed in the country, or as might be exercised in ships lying in ports, or creeks, or other partially inclosed portions of the sea. It was such a jurisdiction as might be exercised on the high seas— that was to say, the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty which existed now, and which had always been found sufficient for the purposes in-
  2030
  tended. That jurisdiction must be taken and interpreted as subject to the rights of other countries, and as subject to the freedom of the sea. According to the law of England, every foreigner who was in this country owed what was called a qualified allegiance to the Crown. He owed that allegiance in consideration of the protection which he received from the Crown while he was in this country. If the present Bill passed, it must follow that the crew of every foreign ship passing within three miles of the shore would hold that qualified allegiance to the Crown. It could not be said that the Crown gave them any protection, and yet they would be in the same position as if they were within the realm of England. No doubt, every country had jurisdiction over the seas so far as was necessary for the defence and security of its dominions; but it did not appear that the jurisdiction which this Bill created over foreign ships and foreigners on board them was necessary for the defence and security of the realm. If it could be shown that the defence and security of the realm required that the Courts of England should have criminal jurisdiction over the ships of foreign countries and the subjects of foreign countries on board them, he should then say his hon. and learned Friend had made out a case, and he would offer no opposition to the Bill. But could it be said that if, on board a foreign ship passing within the three-mile zone, a foreign sailor committed murder, the defence and security of England required that the offender should be tried by the law of England? Certainly not; and the real remedy for such an offence was that the man should be tried in his own country. There was a principle established that on the high seas every foreign ship was ex-territorial—that was to say, the persons on board were governed by the law of the mother country. That being so, he said there was no authority, and he defied his hon. and learned Friend to show any authority of International Law, much less of the law of England, to support the jurisdiction sought to be created by the Bill before the House. He would call the attention of the House to what was said on this subject by the Lord Chief Baron in the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, in reference to the Franconia case. The Lord Chief Baron said—

  2031
  "The right to seize and try in England for an offence committed on the high seas by the foreign commander of a foreign vessel, can, in my opinion, no more exist than the right to seize and try in England any foreigner for an act done in his own country."
  Of course the House would not for a moment entertain the idea of passing a law making a man who had committed an offence against a British subject in Calais liable to be tried in England, and yet the Lord Chief Baron said that was exactly the same as trying a foreigner for an offence committed on the high seas on board a foreign ship. If an Englishman and a Frenchman fought a duel in France, and the Englishman was killed, there was no jurisdiction to try the Frenchman in England for duelling. He would only be liable to his own country. The same, if a fatal fight occurred on board a ship within the three-mile zone. The only course to pursue if an Englishman was killed would be for the English Government to make a representation to the French Ambassador, and the man who killed the other would be dealt with by the law of his own country. The Lord Chief Justice laid down very much the same principle as the Lord Chief Baron. The Lord Chief Justice said that by the law of every nation, a ship, when on the high seas, carried the law of its own nation with it; and his Lordship showed that, in such cases as that of the Franconia, the three-mile zone was part of the high seas. His Lordship added that the right contended for—that was to say, the jurisdiction of the Courts of England over foreigners and foreign ships—never was the subject of any International Treaty, and there never was a Treaty which gave England the jurisdiction which the Bill before the House would give. Well, as part of his argument against the Bill, he must refer to an answer given to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether any communication of the contents of the Bill had been made to foreign Governments, or vice versâ? He was told that no communication had been made to, and no communication had been received from, any nation on the subject. He (Sir George Bowyer) considered that a serious matter for the attention of the House. Here it was proposed to give the Courts of England common law jurisdiction over foreigners and foreign
  2032
  ships within the three - mile zone, as they were passing along, exactly the same as if those foreigners were on shore in England. Could the Government legislate in that way? Could they pass a Bill binding upon foreigners? He questioned whether foreigners would acquiesce in or submit to such a law. The Lord Chief Justice of England had said that even if we legislated for the three-mile zone, the law would not be binding upon the foreigner; and he (Sir George Bowyer) thought there was great danger and inconvenience in passing a law which, after all, people would not be liable to. We could pass laws for English people, but we made a mistake in trying to deal with foreigners. The Bill would actually make the three-mile zone British territory—as much as any county in England—and that being so, England could even, under the Bill, prevent foreign ships passing within the three-mile zone. But if we did that, it would be a gross violation of the liberties of the seas, and every nation in the world would protest against it. He had no doubt that if a case came before any of the Courts under the Bill, that they would say the effect of it was to make the three-mile zone English territory. The three-mile zone was a considerable portion of the sea, and to deprive foreign countries of the use of such a portion would never be tolerated. Were we prepared to allow the same jurisdiction in the case of other countries all over the world? Were we prepared to allow, even in the case of China, that a British ship, going within three miles of the shore, was liable to the laws of the country, and for some offence, real or pretended, an Englishman might be dealt with by the laws of the country? We had no right to make any distinction in these matters between civilized France and China or Japan. It might be either of them, and the law given by consent to one country must be meted out to all alike; because, for certain, if England claimed jurisdiction over foreign ships within three miles, foreign countries would do the same over British ships. But he was told that no prosecution was to be commenced under the Bill save with the authority of the Secretary of State, and that was supposed to be an answer to the difficulties he had urged. It seemed to him, to say the least, a novel way to legislate—to pass an im-

  2033
  portant Act, and then say the Secretary of State should consent to everything done under the Act. Was it right or proper that the House should relegate its authority to the Secretary of State, give him the power to do that which was wrong, and then say he acted on his own responsibility, and might take proceedings or leave them alone, as he pleased? If the thing was wrong, the Secretary of State ought to have no authority; and if the Bill provided that which was in accordance with the law of England and the law of nations, let it be passed without any discretion vested in the Secretary of State. But the House must be careful not to pass an Act which was a contravention of the law of nations and of the liberty and freedom of the seas, and then say no harm would be done, as the Secretary of State was to have a veto under the Bill, and nothing could be done without his consent. This was a law affecting third parties—foreign countries—and he insisted that no discretion ought, in such a matter, to be given to the Secretary of State. Then there was another point under the Bill, with which he must trouble the House, as it was one of great importance. He had given his opinion on the point to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; but he did not agree with him, nor did the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), who coincided with the Solicitor General. Of course, he (Sir George Bowyer) had the deepest respect for the opinion of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and for that of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; but, at the same time, he must confess that his opinion remained unchanged. He had come to the conclusion that the provisions of the Bill would include foreign ships of war as well as merchant ships. A ship of war was exterritorial everywhere; because, if a vessel of war was in a British port, and an offence was committed on board her, the law of England would have no authority over the offender. The offence so committed on board a foreign ship of war must be dealt with by the law of that country and not by the law of England. What did the Bill provide?—
  "Any offence committed by a person, whether he is or is not a subject of Her Majesty, on the open sea, within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's Dominions, is an offence within the
  2034
  jurisdiction of the Admiral, although it may have been committed on board or by means of a foreign ship."
  His impression was that the clause would include a foreign ship of any kind, whether it be a man-of-war or merchant ship. He found, by the Interpretation Clause, that "offence" was denned as any offence within the law of England, and ship as every description of ship. What could be wider than that? And as to a foreign ship, it was defined as "any ship which is not a British ship." Could anything wider be conceived? A foreign ship of war was not a British ship, and, therefore, it must come within the meaning of the Act. He could not see how his hon. and learned Friend could get out of the difficulty. If he entered into any argument on the point, notwitstanding his legal acumen, he would not alter his (Sir George Bowyer's) opinion. He had consulted his noble and learned Friend (Lord O'Hagan), who was one of the highest authorities on the matter, and his noble and learned Friend had said it was quite clear that a ship of war belonging to a foreign Power would be included within the meaning of the Act. That being so, he thought he was justified in mentioning these objections to the Bill to the House; and he hoped, after hearing what the hon. and learned Solicitor General had to say on behalf of the measure, that the House would agree to his Amendment. The hon. and learned Baronet concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir George Bowyer.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, that the hon. and learned Baronet had had an opportunity of fully explaining his views on this subject the other night, when he (the Solicitor General) believed he had used the same observations that he had done on the present occasion.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: The case came on at 3 o'clock in the morning, and there were only seven persons present.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, although that

  2035
  might be the case, it was not his intention to detain the House by any lengthened statement in reply to his hon. and learned Friend. He would only say that the Bill was urgently demanded, that it was a very simple one, and it was rendered necessary in consequence of the decision of the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved in the Franconia case. He (the Solicitor General) had had to argue that case before that Court for several days, and probably the House would not desire that he should repeat his arguments to them at this period of the Session. The conviction in that case was quashed by a majority of 1; but Mr. Justice Lush pointed out that Parliament had full powers to legislate with regard to offences committed within the three-mile zone. The measure did not interfere with the principles of International Law in the smallest degree; on the contrary, its object and effect would be to bring their municipal institutions into harmony with International Law, and enable them to exercise a jurisdiction which was absolutely necessary for the safety of the inhabitants of this country. By the decision in the Franconia case, which must now be accepted as the law of England, the waters washing the shores of this country below low water mark must be taken to be out of their jurisdiction, and consequently the life and honour of any British subject bathing at the sea side —say, of a schoolgirl at Brighton or elsewhere—would be at the mercy of any foreigner on board a foreign ship who chose to take it. But the hon. and learned Member for Wexford had said that in such cases we must apply diplomatically to the country of which the foreigner was a subject, and get that country diplomatically to interfere. Anyone who had paid attention to the decision in the Franconia case would see that a foreigner committing a crime one inch below low water mark was out of the jurisdiction of this country. In order to create a jurisdiction, the person committing a crime in the neighbourhood of these shores must be a subject of this country; and the Bill had, therefore, been introduced for the purpose of affording proper protection to British subjects. As to the remark that foreign nations would interfere if this Bill passed, he held in his hand instructions which had been given by the German Govern-
  2036
  ment to the commander of a gunboat to take into custody any person not a German who ventured to fish within a distance of three miles from territory of the North German Confederation. That was a proof that that country claimed, like every other, the jurisdiction that was to be made unmistakeable by the Bill This Bill would effect a proper and wholesome alteration of the law, and considering that the noble and learned Lords who had discussed the question in the Upper House had expressed their opinions very strongly in its favour, he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend should have stated that it violated all principles of International Law.
  MR. MUNTZapprehended that the passing of the Bill might lead to serious difficulties and complications between this country and foreign Powers; but, at the same time, he thought that some measure should be passed on this subject. The only redeeming feature in the measure, and one he hoped which would be strictly observed, was the provision enacting that no action with regard to the Bill would be taken without the sanction of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, that it was much to be lamented that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had not condescended to answer the powerful legal arguments of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer). Nobody could suppose that it was from want of skill or ability. His silence, therefore, remained without explanation. He had, indeed, spoken a few words, but had not in the least grappled with the subject; apparently taken it for granted, as had been so often done on the Treasury Benches, that to bring in a Bill was enough, and that it would be carried through the House, no matter what was said against it. He (Dr. Kenealy) begged very briefly to put the matter before the House as it presented itself to his mind. From time immemorial the law as to the three-mile zone had existed, and not a single instance had been cited where the law had worked any inconvenience. By the comity of nations, if any wrong was done within that zone, for which our own law did not provide, it had only to be referred to the foreign Kingdom of which the wrong-doer was

  2037
  a subject, and the wrong was redressed as a matter of course. In the case of the Franconia, it had been stated by the hon. and learned Baronet and not denied, that the sailor who by the law of England was acquitted here for want of jurisdiction, had been tried, convicted, and punished by his own tribunals; and that had always, as he (Dr. Kenealy) understood, been so, and, no doubt, would continue. That being the state of things, of what possible use was that new law? Laws were passed to provide against wrongs; but here there had always been a remedy afforded by foreign States. It was not wise to load the Statute Boob with laws that were not needed. The Government, however, seemed to have set their hearts upon that new measure. They passed the second reading at 3 o'clock in the morning, when only seven hon. Members were present; and now they would hardly discuss it, on the plea, of which he did not see the force, that despatch was requisite. He (Dr. Kenealy) was wholly opposed to legislation conducted on such principles. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had offered, as almost the sole apology for his Bill, that Mr. Justice Lush had thrown out some suggestion to that effect, when the case was argued before the full Court. But Mr. Justice Lush could not be regarded as being responsible for that particular measure, which he had probably never seen; and whose provisions might at any time involve them in dangerous complications with foreign States. The hon. and learned Baronet had proved unanswerably that the words "foreign ship" included a ship of war. No legal tribunal could decide otherwise, if the matter were before them. They would decide according to reason and the English language, and shift all responsibility from themselves by throwing it on to this House. Let them suppose, then, an outrage on an English subject, a breach of criminal law, committed by a sailor on board a Russian or United States ship of war, within the three-mile zone. Were they prepared to board that ship of war, and. arrest the foreign sailor by force? That was what that Statute authorized them to do. He viewed with apprehension the difficulties into which they might plunge, if they were to carry out such a provision. Yet the hon. and learned Solicitor General
  2038
  had not even alluded to that dangerous possibility. He regretted that the hon. and learned Baronet had promised not to divide the House; if he had done so, he (Dr. Kenealy) should certainly have voted with him.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was quite at a loss to understand upon what sort of a foundation the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) made an objection to the Bill. The Bill was simple enough, and he believed that any person who had read any International Law would know that it would carry out principles perfectly well settled, and on which no doubt ever existed in the mind of any international lawyer. The effect of the decision in the Franconia case was not that the jurisdiction did not exist, but that there had not been a proper machinery created by our municipal laws to carry it out, and this Bill was merely intended to cure that defect. He did not believe that any nation in the world had ever entertained the smallest doubt as to its jurisdiction within the three-mile limit.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL.— [BILL 178.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Secretary Cross.)

  COMMITTEE. ORDER DISCHARGED. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he understood that it was intended to discharge the Order for going into Committee on this Bill; but before that was done, he wished to make a few remarks with reference to the Notice given by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). It was understood that if the Bill were withdrawn, the Government would refer it to a Royal Commission. That was a course which he thought everybody highly approved. Speaking for himself, he did, and he hoped the Commission would be one whose recommendations might be confidently accepted. The codification of the Criminal Law not only embraced legal questions, but dealt with a number of questions which involved political principles of the highest importance— such as matters relating to religion—

  2039
  Sabbath observance, the law of conspiracy affecting labour, and many others. It was unnecessary for him to bear his testimony to the admirable work which his friend, Sir Fitzjames Stephen, had accomplished in the draft Bill before the House. Nobody respected that gentleman's ability, or rated it more highly than he did; but in a work of that character they must have the help of different minds; it must be looked at from various points of view, and not exclusively in a legal aspect. In the case of the Common Law Procedure Act, great benefit was gained from having distinguished laymen like Mr. Henley and Sir James Graham on the Commission. In the present instance, he would warn the Government that if they persisted in constituting a purely legal Commission, they would entirely fail in the object they had in view—namely, of inducing Parliament to accept that Bill without discussion, and they would next Session be as far as they were now from any chance of passing it.
  MR. HOPWOODalso impressed upon the Government the absolute necessity of having a Commission large enough to necessary; for without that it would be represent every view, even lay views, if hopeless to pass any such measure as this. It was due to the working men of the country that the Bill had first been drawn up. They were in favour of getting the measure soon; but he was doubtful whether they would be satisfied with the Commission as it was proposed to be constituted.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERalso thought that the Commission ought to be wide enough to include men of different views. Instead of that, however, the Commission was to consist of two Judges and the author of the Code himself, Sir Fitzjames Stephen. The Judges would have to do with their judicial duties, and the author of the Code, instead of being a Member of the Commission and voting in reference to the Code, should have appeared as a witness before the Commission. If they wanted men to do useful work, they ought to pay them for it. The Commission ought to have the undivided attention of one or more persons experienced in the practice of the Criminal Law. With regard to the question of the Criminal Court of Appeal, it was proposed to take three Judges from the Common Law Courts to constitute
  2040
  that Court of Appeal. Now, the Judges of the Common Law Courts were already over-worked; and if they wanted a Court of Appeal, they ought to have Judges who had nothing to do but to hear appeals.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, that Mr. Justice Barry was to be added to the Commission in addition to the other gentlemen mentioned. The observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentlemen in that discussion would receive due consideration; but as to Sir Fitzjames Stephen, whether he appeared as a witness before the Commission, or as a Member of it, his opinion would receive great attention. No doubt, the absence from the Commission of the Lord Chief Justice of England might have been observed. It might naturally have been thought that Sir Alexander Cockburn should have been at the head of the Commission; but it was found that the public duties which he had to discharge were inconsistent with the continuous work which this Commission would have to discharge, seeing that it would sit at the beginning of November and proceed de die in diem until its work was completed. The appropriate task of the Commission would be that of getting the Bill into "shipshape" order that it might be presentable to Parliament. The wide questions mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be properly discussed by Parliament. Parliament would be saved by the Commission from having a number of technical Amendments barring the progress of the Bill; but he did not see why Parliament should abrogate its functions with regard to the questions embraced by the Bill. He begged to move the discharge of the Order for going into Committee on the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Government would never succeed in carrying the Bill next Session, unless they considerably modified the Commission in the direction suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. He, therefore, hoped they would give effect to the suggestions that had been thrown out.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order for Committee read and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Bourke.)
NAVY—H. M. S. "EURYDICE."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHARLES BERESEORDrose to call attention to the circumstances attending the raising of H.M.S. "Eurydice."
  CAPTAIN PIMasked, if the noble Lord was in Order in referring to this subject, seeing that a court martial was about to sit upon it.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the noble Lord was quite in Order.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he was extremely sorry to detain the House, even for one minute, at that late period of the Session; but the subject he wished to speak about was really so important a matter to the Navy generally that he must ask the House kindly to listen to him for a moment. He had been purposely keeping the matter back till the vessel should be floated; but it was obvious there could be no further delay. The universal feeling, both at home and abroad, was, first of all, that the naval people had been much longer than they ought to have been about the raising of the ship; and, secondly, that a private firm could have done the work much better and quicker. It was to defend the naval authorities against those accusations that he brought the subject forward; for they naturally felt very sore upon the point, as, in fact, did the whole Service. The point the court martial had to inquire into was the loss of the vessel, and did not not touch the one he was bringing before the House— namely, the raising of it—therefore, the slur would remain all the same. The Eurydice went down on March 24. Almost immediately it was decided to raise her, and the Press started the theory it was a very easy matter. Any amount of suggestions were offered by many people, nearly all theories. The Admiralty left the whole matter in the hands of the Dockyard Admiral at Portsmouth (Admiral Foley), and gave him an order to raise the vessel. He called together all the heads of Departments at his disposal at the Yard—
  2042
  namely, the Chief Constructor, the Master Attendants, the Chief Engineer, and others. The matter was talked over, most carefully considered, and thought out. The Admiral decided on a plan of lifting her with jewels and toggles; and from that day to this, with the exception of the first temporary lighter trial, the plan had remained exactly the same in every particular. Since the first attempt was made, there had been 17 failures, and what did a failure mean? A failure meant detaching the wreck from the lifting vessels altogether, all the pendents and purchases to be brought to afresh for putting down again—in fact, the whole of the laborious and delicate plan to be re-commenced. It was enough to break all their hearts, everything to be got ready so often. Everything was calculated most accurately; but it wanted one thing to make certain success — fine weather. On no single occasion did they get fine weather till she came out of the hole. The whole of the delay was simply an accident of weather. The wreck lay about three-and-a-half miles from the shore, in mid-ocean, in 75 feet of water, in a tideway that only ceased running one way or the other for 27 minutes each turn. The tide ran at the rate of 5 knots an hour. The divers who had to place the toggles and jewels could, consequently, only work 54 minutes out of the 24 hours, and that only with the weather permitting. The tide rise was only 12 feet, and the hole the ship had made was 12 feet, so she had to be actually lifted from the ground over 12 feet to clear her from the bank she had made. This was done by sinking the lifting vessels. The draught of the lifting vessels had to be increased 4 feet, and after pinning down and pumping them dry, the difficulties were enormous. They had 400 tons to lift over 12 feet to raise her out of her bed, and they were entirely dependent upon the weather, as she was in the open sea. The slightest breeze, not even a fresh one, would cause a swell, and as there were four vessels employed as lifters, it would raise one before the other, so that the immense strain would not come equally among them, and something must part, either pendent, purchase, or toggle. Therefore it was imperative to have quite calm weather and a perfectly smooth sea, He had now, he hoped,

  2043
  shown that the Eurydice could not have been raised out of her bed one minute before she was. After once getting her out of her bed, it was easy enough to float her along by shifts and shortening the pendents; but even after she was in 22 feet of water in Sandown Bay bad luck nearly overtook them again, as a gale sprung up from the southward and eastward, which, if it had continued, must have broken her up. The Admiral lifted her again and brought her round to St. Helen's, which made a total distance of six miles. The last part of the distance she was carried; she must have weighed nearly 600 tons, as she was more than half out of the water. Naval officers considered that the raising of this ship was one of the most remarkable things ever accomplished. A wreck had never before been raised in 12 fathoms of water with a five-knot tide. Now, as to the point as to whether a private firm could have raised the wreck, which was generally preached as a better and a quicker expedient. The wreck was within 11 miles of the largest and best found Dockyard in the world, the Admiralty had at their command not only the Admiral and all his most experienced officials and heads of Departments, but everything that could possibly be wanted, both in skill and appliances. The total value of the plant that was used, and without which the Eurydice would be now where she foundered, he made out to be over £150,000. There were six tugs, a steam lighter, four lighters, two corvettes, four coal hulks, and 230 men, all under discipline, consisting of fitters, shipwrights, riggers, seamen, engineers, and divers, all working under their different heads of Departments under the Admiral. What private firm or six private firms could have placed such a plant on the spot? There was no narrow-mindedness in the matter either; as in the most important matter of all—that was, the divers—out of the seven employed—and they were the men who really brought the wreck to the surface—three were from the private firm of Siebe and Gorman, so that, in the only matter there might have been a doubt about, men were used foreign to the Service. He was there himself nearly all the time from the day the wreck was first lifted till yesterday, and he could testify to the immense difficulties, the laborious, and even revolting,
  2044
  work the officers and men engaged had to go through. There was no doubt that a popular sentiment prevailed in favour of endeavouring to raise the ship which rendered it absolutely necessary that everything should be done by the authorities to get her up; when once it was undertaken, it became a national anxiety that it should be raised. One word about the loss of the unfortunate ship. It was generally believed that it was caused by want of seamanship. He ventured to say it would have occurred to any man under the same circumstances. Captain Hare, poor fellow, was one of the best seamen England had. He was specially picked for his duties on that account; while, with regard to what had been said as to the rest of the officers not being so good as they might have been, they were also all picked men. Then, again, it was said that the ship was crowding on too much sail; but as the ship was under the lee of the land the squall was never seen, else the usual precautions would have been taken, such as letting go sheets and halliards. She was hove at once upon her beam ends, and the men could not get up from the too scuppers to let go the necessary ropes. A good deal had been said about the lee ports being open and too much sail on the ship. The lee ports were always left open in a smooth sea. It was the weather ports that were closed, as the wash and spray all came from the windward side. Any officer would have cracked on also under the circumstances with a smooth sea and a falling glass, and his port close by. Captain Hare wanted to drop his anchor before the gale came on, and before night set in, instead of beating about all night in such a dangerous locality. He (Lord Charles Beresford) had his own idea as to why the sail was not shortened before. To speak plainly, the very painful affair was a pure accident, just as much as would have been the running off the line of an express train. The deck clock was stopped at one minute to 4. The ship's company were piped to supper at seven bells. They never in the Navy turned the men up in their meal hours. He himself, as officer of the watch, had lost spars and sails by holding on a few minutes because the men had not finished their time. The men were at supper, as would be seen by their mess

  2045
  traps and the tea leaves in the basins, and all the bodies were in their right rig. Captain Hare meant, he believed, to turn the hands up, and shorten sail at 4 o'clock. The few minutes lost the ship, in his opinion. The squall, an awfully heavy one, struck her, and she took a tremendous quantity of water over her lee gunwale. It hove her under water. She was going at a great pace, and he believed she sailed to the bottom; she certainly was moving at a great pace when she struck the bottom, as her false keel was astern of herself on the bottom. He himself saw the bits and the belaying pins, and not one single rope was let go. He was sorry to hear, a few nights ago, a slur cast upon Captain Hare by the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins). He could assure the hon. Member, although there was no doubt that what he had said he felt to be in the performance of his duty, that his observations would cause far more pain to the old messmates and shipmates of Captain Hare that he would ever know. From his own personal experience, he (Lord Charles Beresford) could state that Captain Hare was a splendid seaman; there could be no better; nor was there one who had more consideration for his men or for the lives the Admiralty intrusted to his keeping—in fact, it was, in a roundabout way, his kindness to them that really prevented him turning the hands up before their time, and so the ship foundered before he could do anything.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he was very far from intending to give any just offence to anyone in the observations he had made on this subject. He had brought forward the matter simply from a sense of public duty. He must, therefore, express his regret that anything he said had wounded the feelings of any officer in Her Majesty's Navy. Nothing was further from his intention than to express any direct opinion on the immediate cause of the catastrophe. He agreed in most that had been said by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford); but having carefully listened to his remarks, he could not understand how the accident could have occurred under the circumstances he had related to the House; and he adhered to the opinion that Captain Hare was not on deck at the time the squall struck
  2046
  the Eurydice, nor was any experienced officer there at the time. He had been shipwrecked himself on two occasions, and each time he had found his recollection of what had happened to be so confused, that it was in no way to be relied on. He, therefore, thought that the two sailors who were saved, and who had said Captain Hare was on deck, were mistaken. The primary cause of the loss of the ship was, he believed, that she was not sufficiently ballasted when she left Portsmouth Dockyard on her last voyage. They depended exclusively on water ballast, and the ship was notoriously a very crank one. Unless she was sailed with the greatest skill and caution, in carrying canvas disaster was sure to follow. He only hoped, upon investigation, it would be found by the court martial that he (Mr. D. Jenkins) was in error, and that the ship was an inevitable loss through perils of the sea; but he was certainly of a contrary opinion.
  MR. BENETT-STANFORDbelieved that the cost of raising the Eurydice would very far exceed the value of her carcase, and he thought it would have been much better, and certainly much less painful to the feelings of friends, if she had been blown up and the bodies collected before they were in the state in which they were discovered. With regard to any blame which might be thrown on Captain Hare and the other officers, he trusted that the public would reserve their judgment till after the court martial. He believed no blame attached to anyone, least of all to Captain Hare.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, that the Admiralty ought to feel deeply indebted to the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), who had come forward to whitewash its numerous officials. The Admiralty itself, like the unfortunate ship, had got into "a hole," and the noble and gallant Lord, with all the courage and chivalry of his country, was working hard to drag them out of it. He thought, however, that the whole of the proceedings connected with the Eurydice had been disgraceful to the Admiralty, and were not calculated to raise their Navy in the eyes of foreign nations. What were the facts? At 3 or 4 o'clock, on a bright afternoon in the month of March, the Eurydice, sailing within sight of land, all of a sudden went

  2047
  to the bottom with 500 men on board. She was not alone on the waters; there were many other vessels around her; but no accident happened to any one of them. Sailors in those ships, landsmen in the Island, saw her, and wondered what she was about. She was loaded with sails; all her ports were open. The weather had been squally, and almost everyone anticipated danger for the ship. Only those who were on board seemed fool-hardy, and defied the elements. Well, she sank. And what then happened? The noble and gallant Lord had told them, and he was willing to accept his version, though there was a different impression abroad. The Portsmouth officials met, and all agreed upon the proper and best mode of raising the sunken ship. But a whole month passed before they actually did, or even attempted to do, anything. During this time, the ship made for herself that 12-foot hole, of which the noble and gallant Lord had so plaintively told them in his elaborate speech. Was not that a proof of the greatest negligence? Could anything, in fact, be worse? An attempt had been made to account for, or defend it, on the plea that the winds and waves and hurricanes were so prevalent that nothing could be done. He himself had no personal knowledge of the locality; but he had spoken with several naval men, and all ridiculed the idea of the continual bad weather which it was pretended prevailed in Sandown Bay. He himself did not believe in the existence of typhoons all the summer round, in that particular bay, though if he were to credit the Admiralty reports that appeared in the papers, there was hardly ever anything else. But did the misconduct of the Admiralty end there? By no means. After a considerable lapse of time, the officials set to work, and all their hawsers snapped like threads. Now, the Admiralty had all the means and appliances of England at their back. They received unlimited sums of money; yet it would seem that they had no hawsers of any value when they thus failed on trial. What would foreign nations think of them, or of their Navy, when they learned these things? Five months and more had passed, and they had accomplished hardly anything, but to pull the ship to pieces; and hence the tales of storms and tornadoes, which in his judgment
  2048
  were merely fables, invented to cover our shame at failure. Allusion had been made to Captain Hare, and he did not wish to say anything against him. He had been praised highly as an almost perfect officer; and this must, of course, be accepted, for it was a well-known historical fact that jobbery, corruption, nepotism, and ignorance had never prevailed at the Admiralty. It was an Establishment with which all who were connected were absolutely without fault. This thing, however, he could not avoid saying—that all the mercantile captains who were making for land at the time when the Eurydice went down, saw danger before them, and made ready to meet it. Forewarned, they were also forearmed; but Captain Hare alone failed to see danger, or to take precaution. He sailed along in a stiff wind with all his ports open. In the tropics, it was usual to have all ports open, for the sake of air; but surely to do so last March, on the coast of England, was wholly rash and reckless! It was like the conduct of the Portsmouth officials in raising the wreck, who sought to drag her out of "the hole" by attaching toggles to the masts—which they pulled out in no time. This was as if they sought to remove a house, en bloc, by attaching hawsers to the chimnies. They had now raised the ship, at an expense, perhaps, of £15,000; and when she was broken up, as she must be, for fire-wood, she would not fetch £150. He considered that a public scandal, and a national disgrace.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure, Sir, the House will acknowledge that honour and credit are due to the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) for the spirit in which he has spoken of this lamentable catastrophe. I feel, notwithstanding the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the work which has been done by the authorities at Portsmouth is a work which reflects great credit upon them. It was a work of extreme difficulty, the like of which had not been attempted by any men, or any body of men, possessing resources at all approaching to those of the Admiralty. As to the time that has been occupied in raising the Eurydice, the House will probably remember there was a case in which a ship went down in smooth water in the harbour of Holyhead, the depth being nine fathoms, or 54 feet. The

  2049
  Edith was the property of the London and North-Western Railway Company, which possesses resources second only to those of the Government, and was not hampered by routine, or any other considerations, as to the use of the best means to raise the vessel; and yet it took the Company two years to raise it. I refer to this, because the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Kenealy) has stated that he had no personal knowledge, and I am sure he would not wish to make a misrepresentation of the facts; but he has spoken in a manner which he will probably regret when he becomes acquainted with them. No person who had a knowledge of what he was speaking about could have used the terms the hon. Member has. It is not a fact that hawsers have given way, nor that sailors who really have a knowledge of what they are speaking have used the term which the hon. Gentleman has made use of. I wish to say that we do thoroughly and cordially appreciate the work which has been done in the Dockyard; it is a work which has been accomplished under circumstances which have been unusual. Although there have been no typhoons, there have been very high winds at the Isle of Wight, and it is a fact that divers, who are used to work of this kind, and whose lives are of some value, and those who employ them, did think there was danger, and we did not think it necessary to insist on the divers going down when the state of the sea would have endangered their lives, and added to the catastrophe we all deplore. Persons who are competent to express an opinion, and who know the circumstances, admit that the work could not have been done more rapidly. It is not a work which is undertaken every day; it is not a usual thing to raise ships from the bottom of the sea; and I hope, so long as I am at the Admiralty, I may never have such a task to undertake again. As to the question whether the vessel should have been raised or not, I could not have undertaken the responsibility of blowing it up with the remains of gallant men in it. There was a universal feeling that we ought to make the attempt to raise it; it might be called a mere sentiment; but, whatever it was, I think, out of regard for the friends and relatives of the deceased in a grievous national misfortune, that it ought to have been
  2050
  complied with, and we cannot say that the labour and the money spent in raising the vessel have been thrown away. It is probably a fact that the vessel will be worth less than the money spent in raising it; but the feeling which has been satisfied deserves consideration on the part of this House; and I believe I have done no more than my duty in sanctioning the expense. I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins) with pain. I cannot believe that anyone would desire to cast a slur on Captain Hare; but there cannot be a doubt that the remarks which fell from him would have that effect upon the minds of some men. We have it on the best authority that Captain Hare was on deck when the ship was struck; it certainly was his duty to be; and there is no ground for saying he was not where he ought to have been at such a time and in such circumstances. [Mr. D. JENKINS: I said in charge of the deck.] I think the captain must have been in charge of the deck at the time. It would be his duty to be there, and to suppose that he was not there is to suppose something exceedingly injurious to his reputation. I endeavour to avoid expressing any opinion at all on the circumstances of the disaster. It is our duty to investigate them in the best way we can by a competent court of naval officers, and we have waited until we have the ship up to find out precisely the position she was in when she was struck. I, therefore, do not think it right to express any opinion either as to the officers or the circumstances themselves; but I repeat, with the most complete confidence, I am justified by his service as a whole, by all who knew Captain Hare, in asserting that, up to the time of this accident, he was an officer on whom the most complete reliance could be placed—a man of great ability, knowledge, judgment, and discretion in the handling of his ship and in dealing with men. Rightly or wrongly, he was selected by my Predecessor—rightly, as I believe—because he had peculiar qualities for dealing with boys. When I had the pleasure of seeing him, six months before the accident, I was struck with the great intelligence he displayed, with the happy condition of the ship, and with the most cordial relations which appeared to exist between him and the officers. So far as

  2051
  I know, no ship ever left these shores with a better crew, with a more experienced captain, or with better men qualified to work together in the training of seamen.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—PAUPER CHILDREN IN WORKHOUSES — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE,in rising to draw attention to the condition of Pauper Children in Irish Workhouses, and to the necessity of taking steps to improve their condition, especially in the matter of industrial training, said, that a Report had recently been presented to the Government, and he presumed they would take action on that Report during the Recess. In "another place," a noble Lord introduced a Bill in which he was much interested, which related to the Commission. He presumed that some consideration would be given to the matter during the Recess, and that was why he now troubled the House with a few facts. He did not wish to attack existing Boards of Guardians. His belief was that in Ireland the Boards of Guardians did their duty as fairly as they could, and he had always found thorn willing to do all they could for the children. The fact was that thousands of children were distributed in small numbers through the Irish workhouses. The effects of that system were these. He believed that under the present system of workhouses, self-respect and self-reliance were destroyed, and that idleness and debasement and a lowering of the moral tone were the results. Before he proceeded further, he must admit that there was a great difference in the workhouses in Ireland. He believed that some were upon the whole pretty well managed; but he was sorry to say, from his own experience as one who had watched the question somewhat closely, that there were very great difficulties to contend with, which, he hoped, in time would be removed. He wished to draw attention to the history of these Irish workhouses. The first thing that happened when a man entered was that he was supplied with a suit of clothes, and they might read a mile off, on his jacket or on his cap " pauper " of such-
  2052
  and-such an Union. This was an unnecessary aggravation. He believed it did not exist in this country, and it was very objectionable to the lower classes who were obliged from poverty to seek those places. The pauper was then thrust into a common bath used by many, and, judging from the amount of opthalmia that prevailed, it was fair to infer that many came out not so well as when they went in. The pauper was fed from a common plate with many others, and he had seen them without any plate at all. In some workhouses, he believed, there still existed the practice of requiring them to drink out of a vessel chained to the table, as if they were robbers. They were kept a little short of starvation; they could not be allowed to starve, because the Guardians would render themselves amenable to the law; but short of that, the means of life were dealt out in a most niggardly way. In some workhouses, indeed, the food was so bad that it could not be of any service to the children. At some of the workhouses, he had heard that it was the custom to turn the children out at the early age of 10 years, when the harvest came on, to any farmer who would take them and give them their food. They would stay with him a short time until he did not care to keep them any longer, and then they would go to some other farm. They spent the winter in the workhouse, and endeavoured to re-learn what they knew before; so that really no one had any care or regard for them, and there was no practical supervision over them when they were out of the workhouse. He knew that, theoretically, the relieving officer was supposed to exercise supervision; but he knew also that, practically, those overworked officers could not exercise any supervision. The child returned to the workhouse, where, he feared, the system that prevailed would not contribute much to his welfare. It was a system where there was no proper supervision, where they mixed and mingled a number of boys and men, and where the examples were such that they might corrupt the whole lives of these boys. It was, therefore, perfectly necessary to have proper supervision. On one occasion a small boy, seven years old, had been severely flogged. He was brought before the Guardians, who could not discover by any means who had flogged

  2053
  that boy. He might have committed some offence, and he might have deserved it; but the Guardians ought to have had some knowledge of who had performed that punishment on the boy. It was done in the middle of the night, and no information could be got on the subject. The reason of that was that the whole supervision of these boys, in common with the teaching, was left to one man who, when wearied and exhausted by the work of the day, was unfit for the supervision of them at night. Under these circumstances, they ought to give an industrial training to these children to fit them for their future life. He had looked in every direction, but he found that in no sense were boys and girls in Irish workhouses prepared in any way for their future. Six might be learning the trade of a shoemaker and two tailoring, making 2, 3, or 4 per cent. He had no hesitation in saying that industrial training did not exist. He did not see why this system should prevail. It was nothing short of a penal system; it was not relief. He considered the whole system was a mistaken one. He could well understand that the system should be made disagreeable to the adult pauper who was an idle vagabond; but in the case of a child, pauperism was his misfortune rather than his fault. There was another side to this question that was thoroughly recognized by the naval authorities, and that was the absolute necessity for the separation of children from adult paupers. Another of the evils of Irish workhouses was this—that a great many of these young children were contaminated from mixing with adult paupers. In many cases their parents were quite unfit to associate with them. He would read three or four lines from the able Report of Mr. Lentaigne, himself a Guardian of the poor since 1838, and Inspector of Reformatories and Industrial Schools, whose name would be received with respect on all questions connected with destitution. Speaking to the Statistical Society in 1877, he said—
  "My knowledge of the working of the Poor Law, since its introduction into this part of the United Kingdom, has convinced me that the cheerless gloom, and degrading influences and habits found in the great majority of our workhouses, are not surroundings proper for the reclamation and training of those children whose infant life has been contaminated and passed in the haunts of vice.
  2054
  "The pauper, whose adversity or misuse of life has driven him to end his days in a workhouse, is not the proper companion or instructor to form the character of youth. Broken down by adversity or degraded by vice, to him should not be intrusted the duty of imprinting on the weak but impressible mind of childhood a spirit of industry. He is unfit for such an office, and can never teach youth to do otherwise than to cling to charity for support. To prevent the vagrant and friendless child from degenerating into the criminal, far other and higher influences must be brought to bear, and no system short of that pursued in the Irish schools can ultimately be successful."
  It was not alone in Ireland that this opinion prevailed. A few weeks ago a most valuable Report was presented to the English Local Government Board by Mr. Henley, Local Government Board Inspector. He was sent out to America to learn what was done for the pauper children in that country. The first State he visited was the State of Massachusetts. He said—
  "The children of this school are by law not treated as paupers, though they come from the pauper classes."
  He would read two or three more short extracts as to the necessity for separation. Mr. Henley said—
  "The Legislature of New York, on the 24th of April, 1875, passed an Act to provide for the better care of pauper and destitute children, which made it illegal to commit any child over 3 and under 16 years of age to any poorhouse, unless such child be an unteachable idiot, an epileptic, or paralytic, or be otherwise defective, diseased, or deformed, so as to render it unfit for family care. But such children were to be sent to some orphan asylum, or other charitable or reformatory institution as now provided for by law. And the officers charged with the support and relief of indigent persons were to cause the removal of all children between the ages of 3 and 16, not exempted as above, from their respective poorhouses, on or before the 1st of January, 1876, and to provide for their support and care in families, orphan asylums, or other appropriate institutions, as now provided for by law. This Act was passed at the suggestion of the New York State Charities Aid Association. The reasons which influenced them are stated in the first annual Report of the Committee of this Association on Children, from which I will make a quotation—
  'The fact that the door of a poorhouse must be open to every person in need of its shelter makes it easy to see that it can be no fit place to bring up a child, for it is impossible to separate the different classes of its inmates. The children of a tramp and casual lodger cannot be kept apart from the resident children, and girls just growing from childhood are exposed to bad language and worse example from the vicious of their own sex, who are too often but little older than themselves.'

  2055
  "To the same effect as the above quotations is the following, referring to Massachusetts, from the twelfth Report of the Board of State Charities:—
  'That the best poorhouse is but a bad place for children, no right thinking person will deny. The fact that they have been in such an institution tells against them whenever they go out. The enforced association with older inmates tends to corrupt them and nurture in them vicious habits. It breaks down their sense of self-respect and lessens their sense of self-dependence. Their minds are plastic and easily moulded. They naturally and inevitably come to look upon themselves as a class set apart for support at the public expense. Pauperism breeds pauperism. Through these children, who pass two or three or half-a-dozen years in the poorhouse, the line of pauperism is sure to be extended into the next century. From among them the ranks of the criminal classes are certain to be largely recruited, the road from the almshouse to the prison being one that is easily found.' "
  He was not an advocate for detaining the House by copious extracts from Blue Books; but these were so entirely pertinent, that he might be excused for making them. He had spoken of the contamination from mixing the young with the adult classes. Another fact had come across his experience, which would hardly be credited when he mentioned it in that House, and which only need be mentioned to be put an end to. In some of the workhouses, women of the lowest class were employed as select nurses in the hospital. It was not the woman who had one or two illegitimate children; she was sent out to harvest. But it was she who had so many illegitimate children that she had to keep near them all day to attend to them. She was retained, when all other able-bodied paupers were turned out; and to her hands old men and children, and the sick members of the brave Irish Constabulary, who had no other hospital, were committed. In some work-houses, when children arrived at the age of 15, and owing to delicacy, or some other reason, had to stay in the workhouse, they were transferred to the elder ward, where every sense of decency they might have was soon wiped out through their being brought in contact with the vilest paupers. Every temptation was held out to them, by designing emissaries of their own sex, to apply for their discharge at as early an age as the rules would permit, and, when at liberty, without friends to advise or help them, without skilled knowledge to earn an independent livelihood, their ruin was speedily completed. He met with a most extraordinary instance in a rural workhouse. Three years ago, the
  2056
  Guardians of a certain Union made their inspection of that Union, and found it necessary to turn out a great many old and young, on the ground of their being able to earn their own living, instead of being a burden to the nation. Amongst them, they turned out three girls 15 or 16 years of age. These three girls went straight away to the house of the Roman Catholic priest and asked him to get them work, something to enable them to earn their livelihood. He said that was rather short notice; but if they would give him a little time, he would do the best he could. They left the priest's house and applied themselves to infamy and vice, and they remained common prostitutes in the streets for the last 13 years. A friend of his happened to go to a certain Board of Guardians in the North of Ireland. While he was seated in a room, 12 girls came into the room, all of whom were seeking the shelter of the house during their confinement. He trusted these cases were exceptional; but there was one thing quite certain, and that was —whereas, when boys were sent to a reformatory or industrial school, the results of those schools were tabulated; but with the Guardians, the moment the door was closed on an unfortunate child, their responsibility was then at an end. Why should not Guardians be called upon to furnish Returns? He held in his hand two letters; one was from the Chairman of a Board of Guardians in Ireland, who, speaking of his own Union, said that as a general rule, the children brought up in the Union workhouse did not turn out well; they had a tendency to crime of various kinds. That was a gentleman of good position, Chairman of the Union, and a wealthy gentleman. In another letter, a Roman Catholic clergyman, who had been connected with workhouses for 25 years, wrote that he had not known more than half-a-dozen children brought up in workhouses turn out well, and that they were idle, indolent, and unwilling to earn their bread by honest sweat. Now, he would appeal to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) to take some steps to stop this, what he might call, waste of national strength. The existing practice was something like going to a shop to buy an article that they did not want, because it was at a low price.

  2057
  He had the honour of introducing a Bill on this subject. Eighteen Boards of Guardians in Ireland petitioned in favour of that Bill. He did not say it was a satisfactory measure. He looked for something much better; but this Bill drew attention to the facts, and showed that some change was required. A resolution was sent from the Roscommon Board of Guardians, which ran thus—
  "That this Board, without committing itself to an expression of opinion as to the merits of Mr. Moore's Bill, desires to put on record that it considers that children who are dependent on public funds for their daily support are by right entitled to such industrial training as is calculated to make them useful members of society in after life; and. that it further considers that their retention in workhouses, subjected necessarily to association of a more or less intimate character with persons whose lives, from a social point of view, have proved failures, is calculated to exercise a prejudicial effect on their future career."
  This brought him to the two points he wished the House to see. What he asked was, for the Government to support the system of separation of the young from the adult paupers. It would be all very well if they could get a voluntary committee of ladies to carry out internal inspection. That was an admirable system, and he believed that when inspection was properly carried out the Boards would derive considerable benefit. What he asked the Government to do was what had been done in the United States, and what had been done to a less extent in England—namely, to establish large district schools, and take the children out of workhouses, and give them an industrial training. Under present circumstances, a grand opportunity was offered to the Government. Such a change would lead to the amalgamation of Unions and to some reduction in the number of workhouses. Accommodation was provided in Irish workhouses for 147,000; while the average number of paupers was 143,000. This gave as much accommodation as was necessary. In Connaught there was four or five times as much accommodation as was necessary, and in Ulster four times exactly. In a district of the county of Cavan there was eight times as much accommodation as was required. In another workhouse there was 10 times as much as was necessary. The workhouse in
  2058
  the county of Donegal had exactly 15 times as much accommodation as was necessary. These workhouses were kept open at great expense. In the workhouse at Ballycastle the average number on the list was 12 boys and 13 girls; they had to keep a heavy staff for 25 children. It was a monstrous waste of expenditure. In another workhouse there were six boys last year and 11 girls, making a total of 17. In the whole county of Monaghan there were 80 boys distributed over four workhouses. Then, he came to the county of Tyrone, where they had seven workhouses for 150 boys. He would not detain the House by going through the whole of the Return; but what he wanted to ask was that they should collect, in reasonable numbers, of course, the children in those industrial schools, and should give them the same opportunities for learning trades that he had seen given in the industrial schools of the English Metropolis. Let them be prepared for the Army and Navy; a very large contingent of the band boys in the Army were now furnished from the district schools, and he believed in that way a very large number of children were rendered useful members of society. Then, he should like to see the entire penal system abolished. He would treat the children as if they were Christians. Let them have amusements; make them happy and contented, and keep them until they were 15 or 16. They would never be content to fall back upon the old workhouse, after having experienced the happiness and comfort of those district schools. He believed that the most beneficial results would be attained. He would now come to the question of expense, and, in dealing with it, he should be very short. He did not think that the Guardians in Ireland would object to some increase of expenditure, if they saw a good result obtained from it. There might be some additional expense, but he did not think it would be very great. It had been calculated that the amalgamation of Unions would create a saving of £60,000 a-year. He did not know whether these figures were quite correct; but, nevertheless, there would be a very considerable saving. He had estimated the whole cost of bringing up these children on a different system. At present they were costing 2s. 11½d.

  2059
  per week per head, and he believed that for 2s. per week per head additional, they could be brought up on the system he advocated. That would entail an additional expenditure of £67,000 upon the 13,000 children now in the workhouses. But he believed that the question was one far above expense. He believed the real way to look at it was this—they had a grave obligation laid upon them with regard to these children, and the real question was— Were they discharging that responsibility well, either on behalf of the children themselves, or on behalf of the country of which they were members? He thought he had said enough to show that, so far as the children themselves were concerned, much more might be done. He believed that for the country it would not be a little thing if these children could be made producers as well as consumers, instead of being as they now were, consumers alone; and he believed it would be an economy in the long run to teach these children some means of earning their own livelihood. He appealed upon these grounds to the hon. Gentlemen present, and to the Government, to rescue these children from the career of idleness and worthless-ness, if not misery and crime, into which they were going, and to take them by the hand and lead them into paths of honour and self-reliance, and make them a strength to their country instead of a weakness.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsupported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore). He thought that a fine field for recruiting for the Army and Navy was to be found among the pauper boys; but he must express the hope that if the Government agreed to direct their attention to the point raised by his hon. Friend, they would be careful to prevent any tampering with the religion of the children, which he knew had. taken place, in some instances, with Catholic boys.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he believed the House was under an obligation to the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) for the very able manner in which he had brought that very important question before it. Anyone who took as much interest in the pauper children of Ireland as the hon. Member
  2060
  deserved well of his country, for the extreme importance of the subject could not be over-rated; but it should never be lost sight of that Boards of Guardians were the parties who on the whole had control in this matter, and they could only have suggestions made to them. He ventured to hope that some of the extreme cases mentioned by the hon. Member were altogether exceptional in the administration of the Poor Law system, and that the attention he had directed to the matter would have a beneficial effect. The only Department over which the Government had any control was the Local Government Board, who, after examination, he thought it would be found had certainly not neglected the moral, physical, and educational welfare of the workhouse children. They had always desired that the children should have proper recreation and employment; and in the instructions given to the Inspectors they had directed that special attention should be paid to their condition, and every Inspector, on going the rounds of the workhouses, had to report to the Board how the children were employed, and how many of them were occupied in the various trades. It was also the duty of the Inspectors to see to the girls as well. The House would perceive, therefore, that the Local Government Board did everything in their power to alleviate the condition of the workhouse children; though, of course, if a child was obliged to go into the workhouse, it could not be expected that he would have the same comfort and excellent surroundings of other children. In one of the largest Unions in Ireland—the North Dublin Union—it had been found that a very large percentage of the children brought up there were readily and rapidly absorbed into the general population of the country, and engaged in proper and suitable employments. In very few instances had it come to the notice of the authorities that those children, when so absorbed, had misconducted themselves. The whole question—and especially that of industrial schools — was very important; but in the vast majority of cases it seemed impossible to exclude the children from all communication with the adult paupers, considering that in nine cases out of ten the parents of the children were in the workhouse with

  2061
  them. The Local Government Board had always given the closest and most anxious attention to the subject, and he had no doubt they would continue to do so.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE CORRESPONDENCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. COURTNEY,in rising to call attention to the recent Correspondence between the Transvaal Delegates and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, apologized to the House for bringing the matter forward at that period, and said: There are reasons why I think my course is inevitable, and why I have been unable before this evening to introduce my Motion to the House. In the first place, we have been unable to discuss this question of the Transvaal; because, until yesterday, the Papers on the subject were not printed and in the hands of Members. Had we had the pleasure of receiving them before, I should have hoped we might have discussed the matter at greater length, and in the presence of more Members. I may be asked, why we are not content with the circulation of these Papers? but I am sorry to observe that the journals who have taken any notice of these Papers have contented themselves with printing an extract, or extracts, from the answer of the Colonial Secretary, and have not given their readers any idea of the outside views of the question; so that, if we depended upon that alone, the country would get a very inadequate view of the situation. I think it will always be admitted that the question has gained importance from the fact that the Delegates have come over to this country to lay their case before Parliament; and that it would be, to say the least, impolitic, if they were to be allowed to go back to their own country saying that they were obliged to go back without having any discussion of their grievances in the Houses of Parliament. It would be desirable, on account of the relations between them and ourselves, that there should be some reference to the subject in the House of Commons; and although I promised I would be as brief as I possibly could in introducing my view of the case, I think I should be neglecting altogether my duty if I showed
  2062
  any unwillingness to enter upon a consideration of the question. Now, I do not propose to re-open the exciting controversies that occupied us last year. I do not propose to enter into the fundamental questions of policy which are at the bottom of the action taken last year; but I wish to direct attention to the actual state of things as now existing in the Transvaal, and to ask hon. Members to inquire of themselves what ought to be done in the present state of affairs? In April last year the Transvaal territory was re-annexed to England. I say re-annexed, because, at the Sand River Convention of 1852, we claimed then to exercise control over it. But by the Convention, which was ratified by those whom we may call the ancestors of the present Government, we acknowledged the independence of the Transvaal. But this annexation was justified on these grounds. It was said that the Government of this country was, in the highest degree, dangerous to its neighbours; that the Natives of the territories contiguous to the Transvaal had discovered, for the first time, the feebleness of the Government of the Transvaal; and that it was, therefore, dangerous to our Colonies at the Cape that the Transvaal Government should be allowed to exist in that state of feebleness. Now, as to the question of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. In the Commission given to him authorizing him, under certain conditions, to proclaim the annexation of the Transvaal, he was told to do it with the concurrence of certain authorities. The Lord High Commissioner at the Capo was to be satisfied of the concurrence of the inhabitants of the Transvaal themselves. Well, he did not obtain any formal act of sanction from the Lord High Commissioner, and he had no proof to offer that the inhabitants of the Transvaal themselves were friendly to the annexation; but he certainly assumed that they were thus friendly. Without that the annexation was incomplete, and the first thing that ought to have been cleared up was the action of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. Well, last year a Deputation came over from the Transvaal to see the Earl of Carnarvon, to remonstrate upon what had been done, and to beg that it might be undone. They saw the Earl of Carnarvon, who received them in the most friendly

  2063
  manner, snowing them that the Act could not be revoked; but expressing his strong opinion that it was approved by the inhabitants of the Transvaal. He did not assert that that was the condition upon which his approbation of the Act depended, or that if it were disproved he would be content to give back to the inhabitants of the Transvaal their independence. But he did strongly assert that the inhabitants of the Transvaal were willing to assent to the annexation. Well, Sir, the Delegates who came over here were taken aback by that declaration. They themselves were firmly persuaded of the contrary; and when the Earl of Carnarvon offered them some kind of evidence in establishment of his case, they did not know what to do. At all events, they did not complete the instructions given to them when they left the Transvaal. They did not go to other Powers, as they had been desired to do if they failed in England. They went back to the Transvaal, and there reported the result of their mission. Well, when they got back, they were received with some sort of anger, and even suspicion. I rather think there was a feeling among the Dutch inhabitants of the Transvaal that their Delegates had deserted their duty. They could not understand how it was possible for Delegates to come over here and honestly fulfil their duty, and could have failed of success. In fact, there was some sort of belief that the Delegates had been bought over. There was a good deal of anger and suspicion felt; and I think that is an element which must be taken into account in forming a view of the present condition of the Transvaal territory. Well, the Delegates, I think, had no great difficulty in removing that suspicion; but it was at once resolved to take steps to disprove that assertion which the Earl of Carnarvon had made, and upon which he relied strongly, though he did not make it a condition upon which the annexation had depended. They took steps, by canvassing their countrymen and acting by means of a Memorial to the present Secretary of State, to show that, so far from there being a majority in favour of annexation, the vast preponderance of fooling was strongly against annexation. The Delegates met their countrymen, reported the condition of affairs,
  2064
  and, after a discussion, it was resolved to get up the Memorial. Of course, it was necessary that it should be circulated throughout the Transvaal, in order to obtain the signatures of the Dutch farmers. Thereupon the Administrator —Sir Theophilus Shepstone—issued a Proclamation, which shows, I think, in a very marked light, the attitude of his mind in regard to the administration of this country. I should have thought it would have been the clear right of the inhabitants of the Transvaal to have got up such a Memorial, so as to have represented what their views and wishes were. There is no allegation at present of their taking any steps beyond that of demonstrating their views. There is no suggestion of any action of a hostile nature being contemplated in order to enforce their demands. But Sir Theophilus Shepstone issues a Proclamation, which begins with this Preamble:—
  "Whereas the return from Europe of the Transvaal Deputation has been made the occasion, by designing persons, of creating and fostering agitation and alarm by imposing upon the credulity and ignorance of the quietly disposed inhabitants of this country, and of endeavouring, by the illegal use or assumption of authority—such as banding together of themselves into committees for the purpose of misleading the public, and coercing individuals by false representations, threats, and seditious utterances—to cause disturbances in the land, and to bring misfortune upon an innocent people."
  The grammar of the Proclamation is a little obscure. There are the beginnings of a number of sentences, and no endings. But the Proclamation goes a little further—
  "And, whereas the setting on foot of the said Memorial and other documents was promoted by a spirit of sedition, and their obvious object at the time known by those who permitted it to be; Now, therefore, I do call upon, enjoin, and strictly charge all peaceably disposed and orderly persons to aid the officers of the Government in maintaining order, and in bringing to justice the seditious agitators who have endeavoured, and are still endeavouring, to mislead the people of the Transvaal to commit a breach of the public peace and acts of sedition against Her Majesty's Government, thereby bringing serious misfortune upon the country and its inhabitants; And I do further hereby warn all such mischievous and evil-disposed persons as may he found to be fomenting or instigating any such unlawful agitation, and who, by threats, seditious words, whether spoken, written, or printed, or by any other means, are engaged in inciting the people of this country to acts of disloyalty, sedition, resistance to or rebellion against the

  2065
  Government, that they are hereby made and held liable, and subject, under the law and this my Proclamation, to imprisonment, fine, and such other and further punishments as the law may direct."
  Now, Sir, I will pass on to the result which, ensued. It is to be found in page 9—
  "To us were handed over 157 distinct Memorials, of which 125 were signed by enfranchised burghers, who were against the annexation, and thus against British rule, and 31 signed by enfranchised burghers of the South African Republic, who were in favour of annexation, and therefore satisfied with British rule; while we have found one Memorial signed by enfranchised burghers of the South African Republic, who were against annexation, but further signed as a true copy. On the 125 distinct Memorials handed over to us signed against the annexation, we have found 6,591 signatures; on the 31 Memorials signed for the annexation, 587 signatures; while on the Memorial signed as a true copy, 85 signatures were found."
  Well, there you have 125 Memorials against annexation, and 31 for it—say, a majority of about 4 to 1. To the 125 distinct Memorials which are against annexation, we have 6,591 signatures; while to the 31 Memorials in favour of annexation, there are only 587 signatures. So that the actual signatures against annexation are in a majority of nearly 12 to 1. It must be added that the 6,591 signatures are those of the adult males of the Transvaal—the total number of adult males in the Transvaal being 8,000. Thus, out of a total of 8,000, you have nearly 6,600 declaring their total unwillingness to annexation. Well, Sir, that being the case, those Memorials were sent over here to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Secretary has given a reply to them. In that reply, I understand the right hon. Gentleman threw away altogether this question of the proportions. I admitted last year that the Earl of Carnarvon stated that he would make the annexation dependent upon the consent of the majority; but when it was no longer possible to maintain it on that ground, it was thrown over, and the annexation was justified for other reasons. The prospect is very vague and uncertain, when you come to consider what is to be the future of your government of this country you have annexed; for you have 6,600 adult males out of a total population of 8,000 adult males, strongly protesting against annexation. The other
  2066
  ground on which the annexation is justified is stated to be that the weakness of the Transvaal was an encouragement to the Native tribes in the adjoining territories to assume a warlike attitude, not only to the Transvaal, but to the English Settlements. To those allegations the inhabitants of the Transvaal have given a very firm and, I confess, for my own part, I think, a very conclusive reply. I do not propose to go through it; but I wish I could persuade hon. Members to look through it, for I think then they would agree with me, that a strong case is made out against the position of those who advocated annexation. But that has reference to a point of policy which I do not wish now to re-open. I am still of opinion that that policy was wrong; but I desire now to go to the more practical question of what is now to be done. In 1852, the English Government, in a very solemn way, recognized the independence of the Boers of the Transvaal, and allowed them to manage their own affairs. That was not done rashly, but after a great amount of consideration of the policy to be adopted. I was looking the other day at a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in 1852, in which he said—
  "Our policy in South Africa has been one of changes, as a sick man changes from side to side, in the endeavour to find relief."
  In 1852, after a long period of vacillation, the Government of the Earl of Derby recognized the propriety of drawing the line in South Africa, and respecting the independence of those on the other side of the line, so as to keep a State interposed between ourselves and the uncivilized inhabitants of the territories beyond. That was recognized as our best policy, and was adopted until 1877, when it was entirely reversed. The Delegates who come before us now, bringing this protest from twelve-thirteenths of the inhabitants, wind up the Letter which they have sent to the Secretary of State by setting forth and protesting against divers grievances. They say—
  "We know that as a subject-people who have been deprived of their independence by such means, there will be before us many years of bitter heartburnings, of ill-feeling, of desertion of homes, and of wild and objectless wanderings; while, on the other hand, with justice

  2067
  and with freedom, there is every reason to hope that the Transvaal may join hand-in-hand with the neighbouring States and Colonies to work together for mutual prosperity and happiness, and for the extension of civilization and Christianity into the far interior."
  I beg to draw the attention of hon. Members to the future which these men hold out for the Transvaal. That is a future of which many of them have had a precisely similar experience, and the memory of it is fresh with them. They went into the Orange River Territory, and we followed them there; and they then went into the Transvaal, which we have now re-annexed. In reference to the prospect which this Memorial now holds out, as to still further emigration, I will read what Sir Harry Smith wrote to Earl Grey, 30 years ago, with regard to the Boers—
  "On my arrival at the foot of the Drachensberg Mountains, I was almost paralyzed to witness the whole of the population, with few exceptions, emigrating. Rains on this side of the mountains are tropical, and now prevail, and these families were exposed to a state of misery which I never before saw equalled, except in Massena's invasion of Portugal, when the whole of the population of that part of the seat of war abandoned their homes and fled—the scene here was truly heartrending."
  That was 30 years ago, and the lads that then took part in that immigration are now the adult males of the Transvaal territory; while the younger men have had the story of that immigration told them and now realize the truth of it, and entertain feelings of animosity towards the English nation. They have now revived in them this grievance, for they have again the prospect of being driven out into the wilderness. If I could convey to hon. Members here anything of the impression which I have derived from intercourse with the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory, I think they would be impressed, as I have been, with the very serious nature of the future before these people. The Delegates have come here to appeal to your justice and your sense of humanity; but it does not appear that they have a very hopeful prospect, but will have to go back with feelings of gloom and of oppression. The gloom is caused by the thought of what may happen in the Transvaal if they are forced to leave that territory. They remember the anger and rage which was excited last year among their fellow Boers; and when they go
  2068
  back the same feeling of anger will be again excited, only to a greater extent. Probably they will resolve once more to take themselves unto the wilderness. These are men with whom it is difficult for us altogether to sympathize. Their education and their position are so entirely different from our own; they are so like our ancestors of many years ago. They are honest, healthy men— simple in manner and simple in their mode of life—resolved to go forth into the wilderness, if they must go, in defence of their rights. It struck me that a typical illustration of the tone of these men and of the two Delegates who have been sent over to England, was to be seen in the parting words addressed to those Delegates, that they might, like Joshua, the son of Nun—
  "Be strong and of a good courage, for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee."
  They have already received some grounds for apprehension; but I must read something more to enable the House to form a true idea of what the actual condition of the Transvaal now is. There has been another Memorial, I may mention, which has been drawn up in the Transvaal and laid before Parliament, coming from those who were strongly in favour of annexation. Most of the Memorialists were English settlers who had strayed over the Border, and who would make a considerable profit in the event of annexation. The Memorial is, therefore, from men who are not averse to British Sovereignty; but are strongly averse to the way in which British Sovereignty has been maintained. I will now read something to show what British Sovereignty in the Transvaal now is. The Memorial begins by saying—
  "Upon the faith of which [the Proclamation and Address of Sir Theophilus Shepstone of 12th April, 1877] and in order to avoid civil strife and confusion, many of your Petitioners assisted or acquiesced in the annexation and military occupation of the late Republic.…. That it was distinctly promised to your Petitioners by Sir Theophilus Shepstone when he deprived them of their independence that in view of an alleged inherent weakness of the Republic, the British Government would afford the inhabitants of the State that security and protection which they were unable to obtain by themselves; that all legal Courts of Justice in existence at the time of the annexation should be continued; that the Transvaal should remain a

  2069
  separate Government with its own laws and Legislature; that the laws then in force should be retained until altered by competent legislative authority; that all private bonâ fide rights to property guaranteed by the late Government and all bonâ, fide concessions and contracts should be honourably maintained and respected;"
  And, furthermore—
  "That, as soon as it might be convenient, some of Her Majesty's troops would enter this country, although they were not to do so to coerce the people; but to show those by whom they wore surrounded that with the changes in the form of ruling the country, would also come a great and necessary accession of strength to enable Her Majesty's Government to discharge the obligations it had undertaken."
  They go on to say—
  "That in direct violation of the aforesaid promises, upon the strength of which the inhabitants of the late Republic were willing to give a peaceable trial to the new order of things, your Petitioners find that after twelve months' experience of the Government of Theophilus Shepstone, the following are among the most prominent of his breaches of faith:—That, in the first place, he has utterly failed to give to the people the promised protection against the Natives, and is even now compelled to call for Volunteers to do the work which ought to be done by the Imperial troops in the settlement of the still pending Secocoeni revolt, for the suppression of which it was stated that the mere entry of British troops into this country was sufficient. And your Petitioners say generally, as regards the Native question, that the present position of the country is far more critical than under the old régime. That, in violation of the promise to retain all legal Courts of Justice at the time of annexation, Sir Theophilus has, by arbitrary Proclamation, abolished the system of trial by jury as exemplified in the old Courts of Landdrost and Heemraden of this country, and instituted a new High Court and a totally unfamiliar system of legal procedure, administered under the supervision of only one Judge in place of a bench of three (as agreed upon by the late Government), and in disregard of the acceptance of office of a second, if not a third Judge; and your Petitioners further complain that the duties of the civil gaol officials and of the civil police, even on the floor of the High Court itself, have been usurped by the military authorities, under orders of the Administrator. That the Legislature (Volksraad) of this territory has been dissolved, and no deliberative Representative Assembly of any kind substituted for it, although promised in his Excellency's Proclamation of 12th April, 1877. That the laws of the country are being altered by mere Government Proclamation or Notice, and this without any prospect of the granting of any political Constitution to the country. That with reference to the promised non-coercion by the British troops or authorities, your Petitioners respectively complain that at a meeting which was held at Pretoria on the return of their Commissioners, Messrs. Paul Kruger and Jorissen, from Europe, certain artillery was trained upon the meeting, and the troops were held in readiness to overawe the meeting."
  2070
  This is a Memorial, be it remembered, from those who are not disinclined to annexation, and it plainly shows that at present there exists in the Transvaal a system of despotism such as ought not to exist. It is a most material question for your consideration what you will do with the Transvaal if it is recognized as a necessity that the authorities should have despotic power, and that the Commissioner may, of his own free will, make and unmake laws and keep the whole country in subjection, and may dispose of the rights of property and liberties of the people, in what may be the well-considered determination of his own breast, but which may be but the mere result of a whim? That is the man who announced that the people of the Transvaal were not within their right in getting up a Memorial. It is the undoubted right of every competent person in a free State to memorialize the Government; but Sir Theophilus Shepstone warned the inhabitants of the Transvaal that they would be guilty of seditious acts if, in some Petition or other, they manifested their dissatisfaction with the annexation. The question for Her Majesty's Government to consider is, what will be the future of a country you have annexed, in which you find 6,600 adult males out of a population of 8,000 repudiating your authority, and your High Commissioner, so inflated with a sense of his position, that he is of his own will abolishing the legislative and financial systems, and bringing the whole country to such a state of irritation that it is only retained in your grasp by the power of the High Commissioner? If we conduct the government of a territory in that manner, it will inevitably become, not only a troublesome, but a most burdensome and most costly task. For the mere sake of economy, you must wish that the revenues of a country should pay for the costs of its government; but the condition into which you have reduced the Transvaal hardly renders that feasible at present. What would be the nature of the government of the Transvaal, even if all the inhabitants of the Transvaal were contented with it? Let hon. Members consider that problem. The extent of territory in the Transvaal is about the size of France, with a population of 8,000 adult males. They are so scattered about the country that, with the exception of a few villages

  2071
  and large parts containing about 200 inhabitants each, the farms are distant from one another 10, 20, or 30 miles. That is a country which can exist without almost any Government, if it is left alone. The Transvaal did so exist; and in the Memorial presented to the right hon. Gentleman, it is stated that for many years it practically existed without any Government. If undisturbed, all that has to be done in such a country is to keep order and repress robbery. And in a population of that kind the amount of disorder and robbery is not great. Those matters were easily looked after by the Boers, and the country practically existed without any Government at all. But if you take that country into your own hands and make it an English Colony, you have to give it a scientific form of government, and even if the inhabitants were perfectly willing subjects, you have to keep up an organization totally disproportionate to the end proposed. In fact, it would be impossible, on the part of any Government, to organize the government of this part of Africa according to English ideas, even if the inhabitants of the territory were willing to accept it. The United States, who have tried this sort of thing over and over again, would never have undertaken the task we have set ourselves in South Africa. You have sent out, as Commissioner, Mr. Sergeaunt, to make a Report upon the financial condition of the Transvaal. Where is the Report? It has not been laid before Parliament.
  SIR. MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: That Report will be presented to Parliament with the next batch of Papers relating to the subject of the Transvaal.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am glad to hear that, because we shall then be able to estimate for ourselves what probability there is that the Colony will pay its own expenses. When it is before us, I am satisfied that it will show us that the government of the Colony must be exceedingly expensive; and, indeed, that it is impossible to govern the Transvaal out of its own resources, if you are going to govern it on the same footing as though it were an English Colony. And that would be the case, even if the people of the Transvaal were willing that you should govern, and lent you all the assistance in their power. But you have, on the contrary, the assurance that they
  2072
  are unwilling that you should govern them. Out of the 8,000 males in the territory, 6,600 have protested against your going there. On this point, let me read to you an extract from a pamphlet, which was printed for private circulation, which a friend—I do not quite know who, at this moment—sent me yesterday. It is a most admirable paper, and it contains the materials for a speech that was never delivered, collected by the late Sir William Moles-worth, who devoted his great powers, in a large measure, to the consideration of the method of governing our Colonies, especially those of South Africa. In 1852, Sir William Moles-worth did make a speech, in which he gave expression to some of the ideas set forth in this pamphlet; but these materials were collected for a speech which he conceived in 1854, and proposed to deliver in Parliament, in approbation of Lord Derby's policy of abandoning the Orange River Territory. In the course of his argument, he entered into the consideration of what would be the expense of governing that territory. In adverting to the probable cost of governing the Colony, he says—
  "When I consider that 100,000 warlike savages inhabit the mountain fastnesses of the Orange River Territory; that its frontier is open for 400 miles to the incursions of the Zoolahs, and other fierce Tribes of the great South African race; that there are, beyond the Vaal, 20,000 independent Boers, sympathizing with their 10,000 disaffected kinsmen in the Orange River Territory; when I reflect upon the difficulty of procuring succour from the distant military posts of the Colony of the Capo of Good Hope, I feel convinced that Sir George Cathcart has not over-estimated, at 2,000 men, the military force which would be required to retain possession of the Orange River Territory. I should also observe that this estimate was made by Sir George Cathcart before we had learnt, from experience, the surprising efficiency of the Basuto Cavalry, both in number and equipments. Let us next consider the cost of maintaining a body of 2,000 troops in the interior of South Africa. In addition to the ordinary military expenditure, we should have, in the first instance, to provide barracks for them. But building in the Orange River Territory is excessively expensive—three or four times as much as in this country—for the territory is destitute of materials for building, scarcely a stick of timber grows on it. The cheapest wood used is the Norway pine, which is brought 400 miles, from the nearest seaport, over a country without roads; and when buildings are erected, they soon become dilapidated, their walls decaying under the ravages of ants, which swarm in all the soil and through all the flooring. Secondly, we should have to import into the

  2073
  Orange River Territory all military stores, clothing, and every commodity required for the use of the soldiers, with the exception only of beef, mutton, and grain. The cost of conveying goods to the Orange River Territory is very great, for they have to be brought, either from Port Elizabeth or from the Cape of Good Hope, in waggons, each of them drawn by a span of 14 oxen. The journey from Port Elizabeth occupies, at least, six weeks, and from Cape Town, at least, two months. To add to the difficulty of these journeys, during the dry season, water near the road is scarce, and wood, either dry or green, sufficient to boil a camp-kettle, must, at all times, be carried for distances of several days' journey; and in seasons of drought, which are of common occurrence, the country is impassable. For instance, the surgeon in charge of a detatchment at Bloen Fontein was, for a year, very short of medicines, in consequence of the drought rendering the country so impassable that the periodical consignment of these supplies remained, for many months, at a distance of 150 miles, without a possibility of his getting them conveyed to Bloen Fontein. For these reasons, I am convinced that I have not overestimated, at £200,000 a-year, the cost of maintaining a body of 2,000 troops in the Orange River Territory; one-fourth of them to be Cavalry. At this rate of expenditure, the Orange River Territory would cost us about £20 per head per annum for every person of European descent in it; and about £400 per head, per annum, for every British settler. No wonder that these gentlemen, both store-keepers and land-jobbers, are so vehement in their assertions that the honour of England requires us to retain possession of the Orange River Territory. In all probability, the military expenditure would decuple their trade."
  Now, that is just our position with regard to the Transvaal. These figures might apply equally well to that territory; and, indeed, the case of the Transvaal is even more striking, because that territory is further off than the Orange River Settlement, and the difficulty of governing it would be correspondingly greater. I ask—"How do you propose to work out the problem of governing the Transvaal from its own resources?" The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his reply to the Delegates from the Transvaal, merely gave them the advice to return home, and keep quiet, and accept the situation. I have already shown the state of feeling in the Transvaal, and there is much to show that if the Delegates are dismissed with a few smooth words, while, practically, they obtain nothing, it will be difficult to appease those feelings, and to repress the disaffection, which we have good reason to believe exists throughout the territory. I have already admitted fully that if
  2074
  it is absolutely necessary to do so to protect ourselves, we are justified in annexing this territory by the doctrine which holds good in politics as well as in morals—that extreme necessity justifies all things. That doctrine, however, ought to be acted upon with extreme caution, because it involves the sacrifice of others for our own benefit; and if we are going to sacrifice the Transvaal for our own benefit, we should make some allowance for the feelings of the inhabitants, and stretch a point in their favour if we can possibly do so. When you compel a householder to give up possession of his house, you give him a bonus for turning him out; but in this case, when you take possession of territory against the will of the inhabitants, you appear to be willing to give them nothing but soft and empty words, and to do nothing to prevent the ripening of that danger, the elements of which at present exist in the Transvaal. I have myself seen the Delegates from that territory, and I confess that I was very much impressed by the way in which they stated the position in which they were placed. I asked them whether there was any possibility of coming to an agreement on this very important question; but they informed me that they had no authority to accept any terms of settlement, and that they had a difficulty in understanding why England should not withdraw from the steps which she had taken, and recognize the independence of the Transvaal. Of course, they have a difficulty in understanding that; but those who keep their minds free on this question must see that for us to withdraw the step, and to reestablish the independence of the Transvaal, would be scarcely practicable—and, indeed, I myself should almost shrink from recommending Her Majesty's Advisers to restore the independence of the Transvaal which has been taken away; but, at the same time, I think that we should give the Delegates some message which they might take back to those who sent them, which would remove the elements of disaffection to which I have alluded. We have told the inhabitants of this territory that we were obliged to undertake its control in order to maintain peace in South Africa, and we say that the misgovernment or the weak government of the Transvaal was a danger not only to themselves, but to us, which we were bound to

  2075
  guard against at any cost. Now, if we could take the necessary steps to insure peace in South Africa, and, at the same time, satisfy the aspirations of the inhabitants of the Transvaal for freedom and for self-government, I hope that we shall see gradually disappear from their minds the idea of a forcible attempt to re-assert their independence, which, at present, is undoubtedly simmering in the territory. The Delegates appeared to believe in the possibility of our recognizing their independence, and of our entering into an offensive and defensive alliance with them. That, of course, I feel is an impossibility. There is, however, a plan which appears to me to be worthy of consideration. We want to secure peace, and, at the same time, we ought to give the inhabitants as much freedom and self-government as possible. It occurs to me that something of this kind might be agreed upon. Why not say to these men who have been sent over to this country as Representatives of the Transvaal—"You are bent upon having your own institutions and self-government; but, at the same time, we must be protected against the danger which may spring from your quarrels with your neighbours, or with the Natives; and, therefore, we propose that troops under English command should be stationed at two or three points, where they would be able to operate most conveniently, and that the Transvaal should pay a certain proportion of the expense of keeping those troops, upon the understanding that the legitimate desire for freedom on the part of the inhabitants of that territory should be satisfied." We should not wish to throw the whole expense of keeping those troops upon the Transvaal, because they would be stationed in the territory not only for their own benefit, but for ours. Neither would it be necessary that those troops should consist of Her Majesty's Regular troops. They might be a force locally raised, but under the command of the Lord High Commissioner. If some proposal of this kind were made so that it might he discussed, we might fairly hope that the relations between this country and the Transvaal might be placed on such a footing, that while we might be secured against all the danger which was apprehended, the inhabitants of the territory might, at the same time, be made con-
  2076
  tensed with their position. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies were to say a word in this direction to the Delegates before they depart, which would give those who sent them a fair hope that local autonomy would be conceded, things might easily be put straight, and the inhabitants might be satisfied; but to send the Delegates back with no more than the Letter before us will be to prepare a great deal of trouble for ourselves in the future. I cannot help thinking that some plan of this kind might be adopted, and that it would lead to excellent results. I am bound, however, to say that there is another consideration that we cannot overlook. You have at present as Special Commissioner and Administrator of the Government of the Transvaal, Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Sir Theophilus Shepstone is described as being an indispensable man. But he has been discredited by his actions in that part of the world, as no public man has been discredited before, upon questions involving precisely the same issue as those before us; and it was he who pursuaded Lord Carnarvon to adopt the line of policy which led to the annexation of the Transvaal. I have heard it said that an indispensable man is one who ought to be at once dispensed with; and my opinion is, that unless you get rid of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, you will have no peace in South Africa. This is the man who is raising the passions which are making their presence felt in the Transvaal. In the Notice of Motion which I gave yesterday, I stated that it was my intention to conclude with a Motion to the effect that it is desirable that steps should be taken to restore local autonomy in the Transvaal Territory. That Motion does not appear in the Paper today; but by way of putting upon record my views on this subject, I propose, if it is in accordance with the Rules of the House; to make a Motion, although, of course, I shall not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the question. I, therefore, beg to conclude by moving—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that steps shall be taken to restore local autonomy to the Transvaal."
  MR. SPEAKER: As the Question before the House is the adjournment of the House, no Amendment can be moved,

  2077
  except one having reference to the time at which the House shall meet.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I quite admit that a question of this importance is one that ought to be discussed in this House, and I also freely acquit the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) of all blame in not bringing forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session. But I think that he has trespassed to a great extent upon the patience and the forbearance of the House by the manner in which he has brought this subject under their notice. I do, however, trust that what has passed this evening will have this good effect—that it will convince those gentlemen who are now in this country as Delegates from the Transvaal, that even at this period of the Session, and under existing circumstances, the House of Commons, or at least that portion of it which is left in London, is willing to give to their case the best possible attention. The hon. Member for Liskeard appears to have based all his argument upon the objection he has always entertained to the annexation of the Transvaal. But that matter was fully discussed, and was finally decided, last year; and it seems to me that it was not only unnecessary, but even absolutely mischievous, that it should be again raised this evening by the hon. Member. In my judgment, the greater portion of his speech can only have the effect of exciting hopes in the minds of the Delegates and of those whom they represent which it is utterly wrong to excite, because it is absolutely impossible that they can be gratified. And the line that the hon. Member for Liskeard has taken is the more to be deprecated, because, not only does he know perfectly well that when the question of the annexation of the Transvaal was discussed, he was one of the very few hon. Members in this House who did not agree in the wisdom and propriety of that policy; but he must also be aware that if he were now to propose that we should recede from the policy we have pursued, he would scarcely find another hon. Member who would agree with him on the subject. It has been admitted, almost unanimously, that the annexation of the Transvaal was a necessary step for us to take. I entirely agree that it is a step which entailed a grave and serious responsibility upon
  2078
  this country, which ought not to have been taken, unless it was absolutely necessary, and which we did take most reluctantly. I freely admit that there are difficulties before us in the matter, though I think that they have been exaggerated by the hon. Member for Liskeard—if, indeed, some have not been entirely invented by those from whom he derived his information. In the first place, I must say that there was nothing whatever in Lord Carnarvon's expression of opinion last year, either in "another place," or in his conversations with the Delegates from the Transvaal, which could justify the latter in assuming that the question of the annexation of that territory could be submitted to a vote of the majority of the people. The Delegates, however, appear to have conveyed that impression on their return; but it was utterly without foundation; and it is to be regretted that they had not a little more moral courage, and did not state what they must have known was the case— that the question of annexation was one which had been decided by Lord Carnarvon, and could not be re-opened. That decision of Lord Carnarvon met with the practically unanimous approval of the people of this country; and any idea that the annexation was to be subject to the popular vote of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, or could be affected by signatures to a Memorial, was one which Lord Carnarvon could not have entertained for a moment. The Delegates, as the hon. Member for Liskeard says, have returned to this country with this Memorial. That is the sole new fact in the case. In my reply to the Memorial, I stated some reasons to which the hon. Member for Liskeard did not refer, to show why I was unable to attach the importance which the Delegates did to the number of signatures to that Memorial. The hon. Member has animadverted upon the line of action taken by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and upon the terms of the Proclamation which he issued. It is not my office to defend the grammar of the Proclamation, or even the precise terms in which it is couched; but I must say that, looking at the condition of the whole of South Africa at the time, and at the danger of disturbance on the frontiers, I think that Sir Theophilus Shepstone was justified in adopting the

  2079
  principles of action upon which his Proclamation is based, and the result was, that certain persons to whom the Proclamation was addressed saw the danger of the course they were pursuing, and desisted from it. Well, the Memorial was signed, as the hon. Member states, by a considerable number of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, and it has been brought over to this country and has been presented to me, and I have replied to it in the Letter which is now upon the Table of the House. I do not want to go through the Letter, neither do I wish upon this occasion to re-open the whole history of our South African Colonies. In that Letter, however, I felt it to be my duty to enter into the arguments which the Delegates brought forward in support of their request for the re-establishment of the independence of the Transvaal. I will only say, with regard to this matter, that when the hon. Member for Liskeard refers to the policy which was adopted in 1852, and suggests that it should be reverted to, that the events which have occurred since then have most clearly proved that that policy was wrong and. dangerous, and it is for that reason that it was reversed by my Predecessor in Office last year. The hon. Member for Liskeard appeared to suggest that it was possible that the people of the Transvaal should be, what he calls, left to themselves. But the result of adopting such a course was the condition of things that was fully discussed last year, and which was well known to the House. The hon. Member says of my reply that it does nothing but advise, in vague and smooth words, the people of the Transvaal to be quiet. I will just venture to read to the House the last two paragraphs of that reply, because I think they will show that I have not met this request on the part of the Delegates from the Transvaal by empty words; but have expressed my anxiety that, as far as possible, the policy which we have adopted, and which the hon. Member himself appears to think must now be followed, shall be carried out in a manner that will conduce to the prosperity and to the welfare of the Colony. I say—
  "I gladly leave this subject in order to assure you of the warm interest felt by Her Majesty's Government in the moral and material welfare of the Transvaal, and their desire to promote it
  2080
  by every means in their power. I am anxious to secure your co-operation, and that of those on whose behalf you have addressed me, in an endeavour to arrive at some full and satisfactory understanding respecting the future of your country; and especially as to the principles upon which it may be possible to base a Constitutional and Administrative system which may preserve many of the most valued institutions of the Transvaal, under the protection and supervision afforded by the Queen's Sovereignty.
  "The people of the Province were clearly informed by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, in his Proclamation, that 'the Transvaal would remain a separate Government, with its own Laws and Legislature; and that it was the wish of Her Most Gracious Majesty that it should enjoy the fullest legislative privileges compatible with the circumstances of the country and the intelligence of its people.' You are aware that the present system of government, though continued, in consequence of the unsettled state of the country, for a longer term than had been contemplated, is altogether temporary and provisional."
  The hon. Member has referred to the personal action of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. I do not intend now to enter upon the particular charges which are contained in passages which he has quoted from the Memorial addressed, not to me, but to Sir Bartle Frere, and which the latter believes to be entirely without foundation. I am at present merely dealing with the opinions which I have myself expressed. I go on to say—
  "It is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that no time shall be lost in carrying out the promises given in the Proclamation, so as to satisfy the wishes of those who deprecate any avoidable departure from the old Constitution of the country; whether it will be in their power to proceed at once with that policy depends in a great measure upon you, and upon all over whom you have influence. I earnestly recommend you, and those on whose behalf you act, to turn your attention from that which is impossible to those much-needed reforms and undertakings on the necessity of which all are agreed, and to co-operate loyally and heartily with Her Majesty's Government in concerting such measures as may make the Transvaal a prosperous, contented, and self-supporting country."
  If I were to emulate the length of the hon. Member's speech, I could say nothing more than is included in the words I have read. It was necessary, for reasons fully stated last year, to extend the Sovereignty of the Queen over this territory. It is necessary to retain control over the Native policy there pursued—that necessity exists in the interest of the whole of South Africa—I may say, in the interest of the whole of the

  2081
  White and Native races. But, saving Imperial questions, and matters directly connected with them, I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard can be, that the people of the Transvaal shall manage their own affairs. I will devote—indeed, I have already devoted —much serious consideration to the manner in which that may best be done. I have instructed Sir Bartle Frere to visit that part of South Africa, and, in concert with Sir Theophilus Shepstone, to suggest to me a mode by which that object may be carried out; and I will only say, in conclusion, that if the Delegates, when they return to the Transvaal, will co-operate with the Government here, and with the Government in South Africa, in regard to this matter, they will find that, subject to the points which I have named, it is our great anxiety to deal with them and with their country so as to give them, as fully as possible, that self-government which they desire.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock.