Commons Sitting of 1 August 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Mr. Goffin's Certificate [No. 334].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
Resolutions [July 30 and 31] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 31] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 31] reported—Ordered—First Reading—East India Loan(Annuities)* [275].
Ordered—First Reading—Agricultural Holdings(Scotland) (Warning to Remove)* [277].
First Reading—Metropolitan Public Carriage Act Amendment* [276].
Second Reading—Public Offices (Fees)* [266].
Committee—Report—Mungret Agricultural School, &c* [213].
Third Reading—Land Tax Commissioners Names* [109], and passed.
Withdrawn—Occupation Roads* [241].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTLAND—THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH—THE PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

  1843
  ment, Whether the Professor of Church History in the University of Edinburgh accepted his commission to that office on the condition that the charge held by him as a Minister of the Church of Scotland would be relinquished by him before Whitsunday 1879; and, if so, whether any sufficient reason has been assigned for his still holding the office and performing the duties of parish minister in a populous and important charge in the Church in contravention of the conditions referred to?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the duties of the Professor of Church History, if rightly performed, are quite sufficient, in my opinion, to occupy the whole time of the Professor. Accordingly, when the present Professor was appointed, it was made an express condition that he should resign his Presbyterial charge before Whit Sunday, 1879. He has complied with that requirement by resigning the office which he holds as parish minister, and his resignation has been accepted by the Presbytery of Edinburgh. No successor has as yet been appointed to him; but that is due, not to any neglect on the part of the Professor of Church History, but to the fact of some of the parishioners having appealed to a higher court. All I can say is that of course the Professor must give up his charge if he intends to keep the Chair.
  MR. M'LAREN: Might I ask, If the only person who has appealed is a solicitor, and whether he is not supposed to be acting in accordance with the wishes of the Professor?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have only had a short conversation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate; but I understand that the Professor is quite willing to carry out the arrangement that was come to.

  REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND (IRELAND)—LOANS TO CLARE FISHERMEN.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that Thomas Enright and Michael Scanlan, inhabitants of Clare, creditors of the Irish Board of Works for moneys advanced from the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, were, after payment of part of their loans, sued for the entire original amounts and
  1844
  compelled to pay them in the month of February last; whether these poor men have since been repaid the sums thus overpaid, and, if so, when they were so repaid; whether one Stephen Collins, also of Clare, a creditor of the Board under similar circumstances, tendered the balance he actually owed with costs to the solicitor acting for the Board, and whether the solicitor refused to accept the sum, and proceeded to sue Collins; and, whether Thomas Banfill, an inhabitant of Clare, similarly circumstanced, having repaid part of his loan, was sued for the whole, tendered the balance in court, with costs, when his offer was refused by the solicitor?
  MR. J.LOWTHER: Sir, these parties obtained the money in the manner referred to for a specific purpose, and afterwards applied it to another. This, of course, was gross irregularity, and the sessional Crown Solicitor, with whom the duty rested of recovering this money, interfered, and applied for the whole sum due, notwithstanding that some payment had been made on account. His object in doing that was to read them a lesson against committing a breach of their engagements. The Board of Works, however, directed that the money should be restored which had been paid on account. The repayment to these two men was ordered on the 10th of June; but in consequence of the death of the clergyman who was referee they did not receive it until the 20th. The order was made in Collins' case, and there was no refusal to receive what he tendered.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Did Collins tender the money?
  MR. J.LOWTHER: Neither Collins nor Banfill offered to pay the balance.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to give Notice that I will, on an early day, call attention to the unjust and arbitrary conduct of the Crown Solicitor for County Clare in sueing Enright and Scanlan for sums of money, a part of which had already been paid by them.

  KINGDOM OF SIAM—ACTION OF MR. KNOX, BRITISH CONSUL GENERAL— THE GUNBOAT "FOX."

    QUESTION.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, after the explanation which had been given in regard to this matter the other night, he would not trouble the hon. Gentleman the

    1845
    Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the Question on the subject which, stood upon the Paper in his name as follows:—
    "To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will explain to the House the circumstances under which the British Consul General in Siam ordered up the gunboat "Fox" from Singapore to Bangkok, and for what purpose the vessel has been detained there until the present time; whether it is the fact that, under the orders of the Consul General, the Commander and Officers of the British gunboat have been prevented from paying visits to the Siamese, or giving them invitations to the vessel; and, whether these proceedings' on the part of the Consul General have the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?"
    but he should like to know, If, when the Consular Report was received, the Government would be prepared to come to any decision on the subject, and lay Papers on the Table?
    MR.BOURKE,in reply, said, he must express his obligations to the hon. Member for putting the Question in this form. An inquiry was still going on at Bangkok, and the Foreign Office would, no doubt, before long arrive at a conclusion upon it; but he was afraid he could not say that the Papers would be laid upon the Table of the House until that conclusion had been arrived at. However, the hon. Member would not be able to see the Papers until next Session, and therefore the Question had better be postponed until that time, seeing that he would be in no worse position by so doing.

  LUNACY AND POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION (IRELAND)—THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, "Whether it is the case that a Memorandum was supplied to him by the Commission of Inquiry into Lunacy and Poor Law Administration appointed in 1877, in addition to the Report supplied to this House; and, if so, whether he has any objection to having it also printed and delivered to honourable Members?
  MR, J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Report referred to by the hon. Gentleman is a document of alarming length; but the Commissioners have furnished me with a Memorandum expressing their views in a more handy shape, and I have no objection to its being printed.

  VACCINATION ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. G. E. BROWNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to proceed further with the Vaccination Acts (Ireland) Amendment Bill?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir, the Bill would have been brought forward, and passed long ago, but for some Amendments which have prevented it being heard. I hope, however, an opportunity will shortly occur to proceed with it; and meanwhile, if the hon. Gentleman can prevail upon his political Friends to withdraw their opposition, it will greatly facilitate matters.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL—PUNISHMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When he will introduce the promised Naval Discipline Bill; and, whether, considering that, by the Army Discipline Act, which has now become Law, the punishment of solitary confinement to the soldier has been abolished as a part of the original sentence, he will stay the execution of all sentences that have solitary confinement as a part of the original conviction until the Naval Discipline Bill has been dealt with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, he was afraid it was now too late to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Naval Discipline. Act this Session, looking to the importance of the subject and to the lateness of the period which had been reached; but he had been for some days in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to securing that the punishment under the Naval Discipline Act—the special and particular punishment to which the hon. Gentleman referred—should be carried out in the same way as similar punishments under the Army Discipline Act. Under these circumstances, he hoped the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view would be practically accomplished.

  ARMY—COMMISSARIAT OFFICERS— THE WARRANT.—QUESTION:
  COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to fill up the vacancies in the several ranks of the officers of the Commissariat

  1847
  which, have occurred, and may occur, owing to the late compulsory and voluntary retirements before the Warrant expected is published; whether it is intended to fill the said vacancies by placing military officers over the heads of officers at present serving in the Commissariat according to date of Commissions; whether a great number of the present officers will be compelled to retire; and, if so, what compensation will be granted to them; and, what will be the position and future prospects of those who will be retained?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL,in reply, said, that in view of the approaching publication of the Warrant there were many points that would have to be considered between the Treasury and the War Office, and it would be impossible at the present to answer the Question categorically. The vacancies which formed the subject of the Question would not be filled up until the number of officers to be retired had been settled.

  EGYPT—THE PAPERS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. OTWATasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to Egyptian affairs will be delivered; and, why the Copies of the Firman promised, at Whitsuntide have not yet been delivered? He should like also to take this opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman, Whether the Government have yet received any intelligence as to the prohibition of Nubar Pasha's return to Egypt?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, he must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the latter part of the Question, which he should be happy to answer on Monday. In reference to the Question on the Paper, on the 30th of June, in answer to a Question put by his hon. Friend, he said he thought it would be better to present the Firman as a separate Paper, and he requested his hon. Friend to confer privately with him on the subject; but he had not had the advantage of that conference.
  MR. OTWAY: You told me not to come.
  MR. BOURKE,continuing, said, he thought it would be better to publish the Correspondence with respect to the Firmans at the same time; but this had involved him in a search through 30 or 40 volumes of Correspondence relating
  1848
  to Firmans since 1841, and the task had occupied him longer than he had anticipated. They were, however, now ready, and would, he hoped, be in the hands of hon. Members by Tuesday or Wednesday next, and the other Papers in the course of next week.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to put two or three Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to Egyptian affairs. He had put several Questions upon the same subject on a former occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman said he was unable to answer them, because England was acting in concert with France in the matter. He now desired to ask, Whether the statement made by M. Waddington in the French Legislative Assembly was made after consultation with the English Government, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared some time ago that he was not in a position to make any statement himself until he had consulted with the French Government; and, whether the contradiction that was apparent between the statement of M. Waddington and what had been stated on the part of the British Government in the House of Commons could be explained? The statement of M. Waddington was that the French Government were obliged to insist on the abdication or deposition of the Khedive in the interests of the French creditors of the Khedive, whereas the statement on the part of the English Government was that action had not been taken in the interests of those creditors at all. Could he explain how those very different statements could be made to agree? He should also like to know, whether, considering the importance of the subject and the pledge of the Government with regard to it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not disposed to afford some other opportunity for the discussion of these matters than that which had been suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, on the stages of the Appropriation Bill; whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it right that under the circumstances which had occurred, and after the very full explanation which had been offered in the French Legislative Assembly, a more favourable and earlier opportunity than that should be given before the House dispersed for the Recess?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think it would be more convenient if Notice were given of Questions like that relating to the speech of M. Waddington. I have only seen a short account of it in the newspapers, and my experience is that these accounts are not always reliable. With regard to the opportunity the hon. Gentleman desires to have, I should be very glad indeed if opportunity could be given for discussion of this or any other subject; but we are asked for so many opportunities that really it is difficult to fix them at all. But as we are now, I hope, coming within sight of the Appropriation Bill, I think that the stages of that measure would furnish convenient opportunities enough for such discussion.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDgave Notice that he would repeat his Question on Monday, with the addition of two or three others. As, from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there seemed to be a prospect of completing Supply in a few days, and as, therefore, the Appropriation Bill was not so far off as he had at first supposed, perhaps he had better bring forward the matter on that occasion; and, therefore, he would be glad to know when the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to take the last Vote in Supply and to bring in the Appropriation Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that having been taunted on the point he had no desire to express too sanguine an opinion on the subject, and did not like to make rash speculations, but thought it was within the power of the House to close Supply next week. Whether the House would exercise that power or not he could not say.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—IMPRISONMENT OF MILITARY OFFENDERS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: I beg to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of which I have given him private Notice, As to whether measures will be adopted to carry out the undertaking given by him, in connection with the Army Discipline aad Regulation Bill, to provide that military offenders shall be kept in prisons separate from those occupied by ordinary criminals?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, my undertaking was to do so not as quickly, but as far as possible, and some steps have already been taken in that direction. I have appointed a small Committee to act in concert with a small Committee appointed by the War Office in considering the question. I hope they will be able to do that during the Recess, and let us know what can be done in the matter.

  SHIPPING CASUALTIES INVESTIGATIONS RE-HEARING BILL—AMENDMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAC IYERasked, Whether it is intended in Committee on the Shipping Casualties Investigations Re-hearing Bill to introduce Amendments in conformity with the views of the Mercantile Marine Association of Liverpool; and, whether the Board of Trade intend to introduce Amendments providing for appeals to the Court of Admiralty at Westminster?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT,in reply, said, he had only received Notice of the Question since he came into the House. He would communicate with his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the subject. Meantime, it would be open to the hon. Member to put down such Amendments as ho might think proper, in which case he (Mr. Talbot) would assure him they would be duly considered by the Government.
  MR. MAC IVERgave Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, he should move that the House go into Committee on it that day three months.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL—THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. HERMONasked, Whether the Regulation of Railways Acts Continuance Bill, which had been introduced, was merely a Continuance Bill, or whether it contained any alteration whatever of the present Act, under which the Railway Commission existed, or sought to establish any Court of Appeal? He also wished to know, whether it would not be possible to continue the Commission for one year instead of three?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT,in reply, said, the Bill was merely for the continuance of the Railway Commission for three

  1851
  years from the 1st of January next. It was not intended to make any alteration whatever in the present Act; but the Government desired to give plenty of opportunity for consideration of the whole question by giving what he might call temporary permanence to the Railway Commission.
  MR. CALLANasked, Whether the new Bill for the continuance of the powers of the Railway Commission would give the Commission power to sit in Ireland upon matters affecting Irish interests exclusively?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT,in reply, said, he could not undertake to answer the Question without Notice; but the subject was one which would be carefully considered by the Government.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  In reply to Mr. MAC IVER and Mr. BERESFORD HOPE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government were compelled to put down Supply as the first Order for the Evening Sitting that day, and the first Motion that night was one by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), in reference to the condition of Malta. The Government proposed to take Supply, if the House went into Committee at a reasonable hour. He was sorry to have to ask the House to make an exception to the pleasant rule of a Saturday half holiday" to-morrow. He proposed that the House should meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and it was not intended that the Sitting should be prolonged beyond 6 o'clock. The Bankruptcy Bill would not be taken to-morrow; but it was proposed to take Supply, which it was desirable at that period of the Session to advance as rapidly as possible. He would, therefore, appeal to hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper not to stand in the way. It might be possible, also, to take the second reading of the Regulation of Railways Acts (Continuance) Bill tomorrow.
  MR. RYLANDSintimated that, after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he would defer the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper.
  MR. FAWCETTalso consented to the postponement of his Motion.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  AUSTRALIAN DEFENCES-THE REPORTS.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTmoved an Address—
    "For Copies of Official Reports on Australian Defences, by Sir W. F. D. Jervois and Colonel Scratchley, R.E.; and of Correspondence relating thereto between those Officials, the Governments of New South "Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the Colonial Office."
    The Papers referred to had been laid before the Colonial Legislature, and had been published and commented on in the Colonial newspapers; and he protested against the principle that Papers connected with Imperial subjects presented to the Colonial Parliament should not be presented to the Imperial Parliament.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of Official Reports on Australian Defences, by Sir W. F. D. Jervois and Colonel Scratchley, R.E.; and of Correspondence relating thereto between those Officials, the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the Colonial Office,"—(Colonel Arbuthnot,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped the hon. and gallant Member would not think him wanting in courtesy, or in interest in the subject of this request, if he said he could not assent to the Motion. Sir William Jervois and Colonel Scratchley had been sent out to Australia, at the request of the self-governing Colonies, to inquire into the state of their defences, and to report to the various Governments as to the measures that should

    1853
    be taken to put them in a proper condition. The Reports in question were made to the Colonial Governments, with a view to action and expenditure on their part, and not on the part of the Imperial Government. Some of them were, no doubt, presented to the Colonial Legislatures, because those Legislatures were asked to vote money in order to carry out the proposals which they contained. Having seen these Reports, he thought there were reasons for regretting that they had been published at all. They entered into particulars as to the deficiency in the present system of defences, and the means of remedying those deficiencies, which had better not have been made public in any way. Such Reports, so far as they had been presented to the Colonial Parliaments, were forwarded, in accordance with universal rule, to the Library of the House of Commons. He understood that the Reports in question had not yet all arrived, and he had given directions that any deficiencies should be supplied from the copies in his hands; but he did not think it was advisable that they should be collected together and published for the general information of the world. He also considered it would be detrimental to the Public Service to publish the Correspondence on the subject.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

    SOUTH AFRICA—ADMINISTRATION OF NATIVE AFFAIRS.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in rising to call attention to the administration of Native Affairs in South Africa, especially in connection with the origin and conduct of the late War with the Galekas and Gaikas; and to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire on the spot into the policy which has led to these and other wars in South Africa, and which has resulted in large annexations of territory and increase of responsibility, in spite of repeated protests from successive British Governments;"
    said that, looking at the importance of the subject, he hoped the House would consider a few hours passed in the discussion of the question time not wasted, even at that late period of the Session.
    1854
    At the outset, he might say that he was aware he could not put his Motion for a Royal Commission; but, even if he could, he had no intention to press it to a Division; so that if the Motion which had just been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot) had been negatived with the object of preventing a vote from being taken those tactics had been quite unnecessary. He did not propose his Resolution as a Party one, or with a view of making it a vehicle for any attack upon the Government; neither did he intend to bring the Zulu War within the discussion, with the exception of saying that it did not stand alone, but was only an incident, an illustration of a whole course of policy—bad fruit from a bad tree, which, if not cut down at the root, would bear more bad fruit in future. The history of our rule in South Africa, and of the proceedings of the Colonial Government, was really the history of periodic Native Wars; originated, in many cases, in direct opposition to the instructions of the Government of the day, and ending in results which the Home Government and the British Parliament had over and over again deprecated. The present war, which all agreed in deploring, he hoped would soon be terminated. It was a war commenced in injustice, and prosecuted in disaster, and would have a termination only to be considered satisfactory, because it was the end of a war which should never have been begun; but it was a war that, unless we went deeper than there had hitherto been an inclination to go, would soon recur again. The history of these Native Wars was not unlike the course of zymotic disease. Medical scientists told of outbreaks of scarlet fever and smallpox as recurring at periodic intervals. They came in waves, they reached their maximum, and at last subsided—to be followed, after a term which could almost be exactly predicted, by fresh outbreaks. In regard to these outbreaks, we dealt with each as it occurred; but the present state of our knowledge did not permit us to discover the underlying causes, so that they might be dealt with in a way to insure their extirpation. So, also, with these South African Wars; we had dealt with each as it arose, not making a provision against the recurrence of future wars. A brief review

    1855
    of the history of the Colony would show similar causes continually producing the same results, and would show the Home Government, under different Administrations, powerless to prevent the execution of a policy which it constantly disapproved, against which it had repeatedly protested, and of which it foresaw the fatal consequences. In 1806 we took final possession of the Colony, a most unfortunate acquisition, as it turned out. Never had it become a Colony in the ordinary sense of the word—in the sense of such Colonies as those in America or Australia, where many millions of our own blood had founded homes and lived out prosperous and useful lives. At the present time, all the vast territory belonging to the Crown in South Africa was inhabited by a mere handful of men and women of English blood. The latest Return showed only 120,000 of English descent in. the whole of the Colonies; while, on the other hand, the Dutch population was three to one of the English, and the Native population five times as numerous as the English and Dutch together. Therefore, all that had been done, and all the money spent in these Colonies by us, had not been so much for the benefit of our English fellow-subjects, but partly for the advantage of the Dutch, with whose views on Colonial policy in many respects we could have no real sympathy, and chiefly, we must suppose, for the good of the millions of Natives brought under our rule. The House would soon see how far this last presumption had been justified in the event. We had hardly taken possession of the Colony before we found ourselves in hot water, and squabbles broke out—the first of a series—with the Kaffirs in 1811. That war broke out, as most of them had, from the greed of the Colonists, leading to a land dispute; and it ended, as all these wars had, with a large annexation of territory, with increased responsibility, sowing the seeds of new and increasing troubles. In 1811 the Native Tribes were driven across the Great Fish River, and that river was established as our line of boundary; but in 1819, after a second Kaffir War of some importance, as he learned from subsequent debates in the House, the Great Fish River was considered an unscientific Frontier, and it was said that, owing to the banks being lined
    1856
    with thick bush, Native inroads were encouraged, and it was necessary to carry the Border line further North and East. Accordingly, that was done, with the promise, or the anticipation at least, that we had, with the new Frontier, come to an end of our troubles. But a third war, more serious than the two preceding it, broke out in 1834, and on that occasion Cape Colony was invaded by the Kaffirs, who committed great devastation and outrages. Well, the command of the troops was intrusted to Sir Harry Smith, and, after various vicissitudes, the Natives were defeated, and Sir Harry Smith, not satisfied with the scientific Frontier, annexed the country to the Kei River, and declared the Tribes subject to Great Britain. This was not done, however, with the approval of the Home Government, and Lord Glenelg, then Secretary for the Colonies, declared that the Kaffirs were amplyjustified in the rebellion into which they had been driven, and directed that the country which had been annexed should be evacuated, and the independence of the Tribes restored. And here he (Mr. Chamberlain) would just refer to an astounding statement attributed to Sir Bartle Frere, on the occasion when the Boers had met to hear the opinions of the High Commissioner. Sir Bartle Frere told them that never in the history of the country had any territory over which the British flag had ever waved been restored to independence. Now, here, he (Sir Bartle Frere) spoke in ignorance of, or in direct contradiction to facts, for not only was there the restoration of this territory on the side of the Kei; but, on another occasion, there was the Orange River Free Territory restored to independence. An hon. Friend near him mentioned the Ionian Islands; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) preferred to confine his observations to South Africa merely. The opinion of the Government and of Lord Glenelg was confirmed by that of the House; and a Committee, upon which sat many distinguished men, among others the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), reported that the war had arisen from "systematic forgetfulness of the principles of justice on the part of the Colonists." The next step in this sad, eventful history was reached in 1846, when war again broke out—and here he

    1857
    would urge the House to observe how past experience showed all through the history the constantly fruitless efforts on the part of the British Government to control the action of their servants in the Colony, who were, as Sir William Moles-worth said, "possessed with an insane desire for worthless empire." Lord Grey wrote to Sir Henry Pottinger, who was in command of our troops, that it was not desirable
    "To extend the dominions of the Crown in South Africa, fresh acquisitions being not only worthless, but pernicious."
    It was like the irony of fate that, 33 years later, we found similar instructions being sent out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, it was to be feared, with as little good result. What happened in 1846? It was all very well for Lord Grey to send private instructions to Sir Henry Pottinger; but that war ended as all wars to come seemed likely to end, and as its predecessors had ended, in annexation. The scientific Frontier of 1819 was found to be unscientific, and the land which had been restored after the war of 1834 was once more taken possession of. The Colonial Administration forced the hand of the Government at home, and 200,000 square miles of additional territory were annexed—a country as large as the whole of Germany, the greater portion a mere desert, and thousands of miles without a White inhabitant. The natural result of what occurred in 1846 was a fifth war, which broke out in 1850, when Lord Grey, apparently still sanguine, again declared that Great Britain had no interest in further acquisitions. In spite of that declaration, however, the war ended in fresh annexations. One good result, at least, followed the outbreak of 1850. The nation was alarmed at the constant succession of petty wars involving a continuous drain on its resources, both in men and money. Public attention was directed to the subject, and there were frequent debates in Parliament, in the course of which our whole policy was reviewed and criticized. It was curious, in reading the debate of 1851—in which one found the names of so many well-known Members, most of whom had since passed away—to see how strictly it applied to the present circumstances. Mr. Adderley (now Lord Norton) said-—
    "The circumstances are these—An apparently needless and hopeless recurrence of Native wars
    1858
    on the frontier of the Colony, equally destructive to the lives, liberties, and prosperity of the Colonists themselves, keeping up a state of hostility with the Native Tribes, and ending neither in their civilization, nor subjugation, and causing enormous waste and extravagance to this country, and great perplexity to the Imperial Government."—[3 Hansard, cvi, 230.]
    Still more strongly did Sir William Molesworth condemn the policy in South Africa which fomented little squabbles—mere matters of police interference—into wars; and he pointed out how the aggression of the Colonists provoked reprisals, until British troops had to be brought on the scene. These debates produced a great effect on public opinion, both at home and in the Colony; and the result was that, thanks to them, and, perhaps, also to the prudence and wisdom of successive Governors and Administrators, for some 20 years the Colony enjoyed comparative peace and tranquillity. But now all this had been reversed. Once again they were in the midst of a war cycle; once more the war wave had raised its crest; and, with the advent to office of Sir Bartle Frere, the old causes of war were brought into prominence, with the old unfortunate results. In fact, since that advent, there had been six or seven petty wars, to every one of which he might apply almost the same words as those used, by Lord Glenelg, in regard to previous Kaffir wars, and say that the Natives were not without some justification in the quarrels in which they found themselves involved. Without referring to the Zulu War, as to which public opinion was sufficiently informed, he would call the attention of the House to others less known, because less disastrous in result and less expensive in prosecution, but not, on that account, less unjust in their inception. If the whole circumstances of any one of these wars could be stated fully in the House by one who had sufficient influence to secure, not only a patient, but a favourable hearing, then the simple narration of the horrors which had been committed in the British name would create such a feeling that, once for all, the recurrence of such things would be put a stop to. If English Gentlemen knew what was being done in South Africa under the British flag in the English name, by men protected by British soldiers and provided with British money, there would go forth such a cry

    1859
    as would be a warning to all Colonial Governors in the future, and would, once for all, bring the Colonial Administration to book. There had been two wars in Griqualand, East and West; but of those he would say nothing in detail, but would simply quote the words of a responsible official—namely, Mr. Southey, late Lieutenant Governor of Griqualand West, who, speaking in his place in the Cape Legislature on June 6, said—
    "He could not undertake to say why the Griquas had rebelled; but he thought that if he had been treated as the Griquas of Griqualand West had been treated he would have rebelled himself, although he was a loyal man, and had a high respect for the British Government."
    He must not either say anything about the astounding aggression committed on the St. John's River Territory in Pondoland; but he would call attention to the Transkei War with the Galekas and the Gaikas. Although it was not the worst of these wars, it was important, having regard to the expenditure which it involved and the results which followed it. He would, first, state to the House the cost of this outbreak—both in money and in life. It was stated by Mr. Gordon Sprigg, the Prime Minister, to have cost the Colony the sum of £1,250,000 sterling; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that in that amount was included the ordinary military expenditure which a State must expect to have to bear as a provision for defence and the preservation of internal order. There was, however, in addition to that sum, a charge of £611,000 paid by this country. Therefore, assuming the accuracy of Mr. Sprigg's estimate, the total cost of the war was close upon £2,000,000 sterling. But it would be a mistake to suppose that that sum represented the whole military expenditure in the South African Colonies, exclusive of the Zulu War. Prom 1871 to 1879 this country had paid £3,316,000 for wars in the Cape, Natal, and the Transvaal, and against that had only received back £163,000. The total expenditure by this country in South Africa was of such a character and of such a magnitude that he did not wonder in the least at a statement made by a Colonist to a special correspondent of a newspaper that, as far as the class to which he belonged was concerned, war beat sugar cultiva-
    1860
    tion into fits, and that as long as war continued the Colony was sure to be prosperous. In 1851 the same idea was expressed in different language. It was then almost a proverb in the Colony that war would never end till the price of wagons fell." In our most recent experience the price of wagons had exceeded anything known before, and it was not surprising that the High Commissioner's policy was popular with those who found their profit in it. Looking, then, at these wars solely in reference to the amount of money which they cost, it was worth the while of Parliament seriously to consider the causes which had led to them. He should like to know how much of this expenditure the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to recover? The ordinary Revenue of the Cape Colony was only about £750,000 a-year, and that of Natal £250,000, and he did not see how the £3,000,000 now overdue, and the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 for the Zulu War, was to be re-paid out of that. Coming next to the expenditure of human life, he found that 193 Europeans were said to have lost their lives in the Transkei, and, in addition, 3,680 Natives were known to have been killed, and there were others of whom no account could be gathered. That was the result of the philanthropic and beneficent rule of which we had heard so much. Now, let the House consider what was the origin of that war. A party of Galekas invited a party of Fingoes to a beer-drinking. One of the Galekas was killed in a dispute with a Fingo, and several petty frays ensued, in which two or three Natives on both sides lost their lives. The quarrel was one of no serious importance, and might have been put down by the police. But it was not to the interest of our Colonial Governors that causes of war should be dealt with in that summary way. One of the Galeka Chiefs, Kreli, was summoned to his presence by Sir Bartle Frere; but he declined to surrender, although he implored that a messenger might be sent to him, and promised that he would receive him and listen to anything he might say. Mr. Eustace, however, to whom the conduct of the matter was left by Sir Bartle Frere, again summoned Kreli, who again refused to surrender himself. Mr. Eustace complained that Kreli had not restrained

    1861
    the Galekas, upon which Kreli retorted that the British Government found difficulty in restraining the Fingoes, and it was to be expected that Kreli would find it difficult to restrain the Galekas. That statement was not made without good foundation, for Mr. Eustace himself admitted that, on two occasions at least, the Fingoes had been the aggressors, and had made raids on Kreli's territory. The Government, however, deposed Kreli from his position as Chief, and confiscated the whole of his lands—a proceeding which seemed to him (Mr. Chamberlain) like that of selling the skin of the lion before the lion was himself taken. The proclamation to that effect was issued on October 5; and on November 13 it was followed by public advertisements, offering Kreli's land in allotments of 3,000 acres and less to intending settlers. It was impossible not to connect this eagerness to dispose of Kreli's land with the arbitrary haste by which Kreli had been almost driven into rebellion. In fact, all our dealings with the Native Tribes of late had been characterized by indifference to the necessary consequences of such proceedings. The idea of our true policy, expressed by Sir Bartle Frere in one of his despatches, was the idea which found favour with the Colonists. Sir Bartle Frere wrote, on December 14, 1878—
    "Experience in every part of the world, but especially in India, proves that it is quite possible for a Native and comparatively uncivilized Power to co-exist alongside a European Power, and to be gradually raised by it to a higher stage of civilization, without losing either its individual existence, or such natural customs as are not inconsistent with civilization. But it is undoubtedly necessary that the two Powers should settle from the first which is to be the superior, and -which is to be subordinate."—[Parl. P. C. 2,222, p. 211.]
    No doubt the Colonists were honestly persuaded of this necessity—they were anxious to settle this question of supremacy—and assuming, as they did, that war must come, they were altogether indifferent to the justice of the pretexts which led up to a foregone conclusion. Kreli having been driven into rebellion, the mischief did not end there. We soon found ourselves committed to a struggle with Sandilli also, who was the Chief of a still more powerful Tribe called Gaikas. What drew Sandilli into the contest was not quite clear; but
    1862
    it was stated that he was induced to join the rebellion by the representations of a Galeka Chief named Mopassa, who had come into British territory when the dispute with Kreli began, and had been immediately disarmed, with his Tribe, in pursuance of Sir Bartle Frere's policy in this matter. This question of disarmament was a very difficult and important one, and deserved more consideration than it had hitherto received. In the first place, it should be borne in mind that the Colonists themselves had connived at the arming of the Native population till very recent times. In six years the Cape Colony had received £750,000 of Revenue from the importation of arms and ammunition. In Gri-qualand West, under the administration of Mr. Southey, the Natives were tempted to work in the diamond mines by the expectation of obtaining guns and powder. At that time the idea was that it was good policy to put the Natives in. a position to hold their own against the Dutch in the Transvaal; but when we annexed that Republic we found ourselves "hoist with our own petard." After paying the Natives with arms, as a kind of truck, thinking they would be used against the Boers, the Colonial Government suddenly turned round and threatened openly to disarm all Natives, loyal or rebel alike, as soon as they found that these arms might be turned against the Colonists. The whole thing appeared to be illegal; but that did not much concern the authorities at the Cape. Arms were taken from the Natives in districts which were not disturbed or proclaimed in accordance with the provisions of the Colonial Act; and, although the rifles were taken, no compensation was given as the Act provided. No wonder there was a general feeling of discontent and disaffection among the Native Border Tribes. The Cape Argus said—
    "In the wars which have hitherto taken place the disaffection may have been "widespread; but the grievances of each Tribe were local. Disarmament affects all; the Government makes no distinction—every black man, Fingo or Galeka, loyal or rebel, must give up his arms."
    He hoped the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State would be directed to these proceedings, and that he would take care that they were conducted with some reasonable show of discretion. It was this that led

    1863
    to the rebellion of Moirosi, the Chief whose submission it had since been attempted to compel, by the use of dynamite, to drive him from the caves, in which, with his women and children, he had taken refuge—aproceedingunknown in civilized warfare, and which brought lasting disgrace on the perpetrators. He had spoken of the policy of the Colonists as having been constantly directed to enforcing British supremacy on the Native Chiefs without much regard to the justice of the case. He would now take one illustration, out of several with which he had been furnished, of the method and spirit in which this policy was pursued. The instance which he desired to bring before the House was that of Tini Macomo, a Gaika Chief, whose forefathers had possessed a portion of the land on the south side of the Kei, which was now British territory. This man, some years ago, bought back from the Colonists a considerable portion of the land formerly owned by his Tribe, and settled upon it with many of his people. His presence in their midst was distasteful to the surrounding settlers, most of whom were of Dutch origin. There ensued a series of angry disputes; and it was alleged that Macomo's people stole the cattle of their neighbours, and this, added to their refusal to work for the farmers as day labourers, exasperated the Europeans, who established a post of Fingo police on Macomo's land. The Fingoes were the hereditary enemies of the Gaikas, and Macomo protested in strong language against the proceeding. Thereupon, he was immediately served with a warrant to appear at the Circuit Court, and to answer a charge of rebellion. To show what sort of danger was to be anticipated from this Chief, he (Mr. Chamberlain) might mention that the warrant was served personally by the Deputy Sheriff, who went down alone to Macomo's location for the purpose. Macomo, however, refused to obey the warrant, from a fear, which was not unnatural under the circumstances, that he would be detained as a prisoner. His own father had been imprisoned by the Colonial Government on a somewhat similar occasion, and had been killed in trying to make his escape from confinement in Robben Island, a punishment almost worse than death to a savage accustomed to a free life in the open air. No attempt was made by the Colonial
    1864
    authorities to re-assure the Chief or to settle the quarrel amicably; but a large armed force of 1,200 men, consisting of soldiers, free lances, Fingoes, and others, went at night, burnt all his huts, shot down his people right and left, and carried off women and children to gaol. They were not particular as to the ownership of the cattle they stole, nor as to the particular Tribe of the Black men they killed. In this expedition, not a single man on the Colonists' side was killed or wounded. He had seen a letter from a Colonist on the spot, in which, speaking of this affair, he said—
    "Our proceedings in the Fort Beaufort district have been disgraceful in the extreme. True, there were cattle thieves there; but why go with soldiers and the riff-raff of the country, in the night, to make war on innocent and guilty alike, burn their houses, steal their cattle, and shoot them down like vermin?"
    It was an act of bloody, brutal, barbarous murder, and it was time the right name should be applied to an action which almost made a man ashamed to be an Englishman. After this exploit of the Colonial Forces Macomo became a rebel, in fact, and joined Sandilli. He was taken prisoner, and sentenced to be hanged. The sentence had been since commuted to a long term of penal servitude. He might multiply instances of the kind, for he found them throughout the Papers which had been sent home, and considered that they were due solely to the fact that the Colonists knew they were protected from the consequences of their own acts by the presence of the British troops. Sir William Molesworth, in 1851, said—
    "The presence of the troops encouraged, facilitated, and hastened the encroachments of the Europeans on the lands of the Caffres, and on various pleas we took possession of their territories and claimed authority over their chiefs. The Caffres resisted, stole the cattle of the Colonists, and committed numerous depredations. The Colonists retaliated; the troops were called out, and a Caffre war ensued. With the termination of each war we added to our territories, and thus sowed the seeds of more cattle stealing and more wars."—[3 Hansard, cxv. 1386.]
    He had something more to tell the House than these facts concerning the injustices connected with the commencement of the war. He had to speak now of the cruelties and excesses which had accompanied the prosecution of the

    1865
    war. He was glad, however, to believe, both, from information he had received from individuals and from what he had read, that none of these excesses had been committed by British troops. They were due entirely to Colonial troops, and to a class of adventurers almost peculiar to unsettled Colonies, who always came to the front in connection with lawless deeds of the kind he had to narrate. It was one of the most distressing consequences of these wars with inferior races that they had a tendency to brutalize all who were concerned in them, and practices unheard of in civilized warfare were openly avowed and defended in the course of these miserable contests. A good number of Questions had already been put and answered in the House in reference to alleged outrages by British and Colonial troops. In some cases the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had been able to contradict the statements which had been made; and, no doubt, there were often great exaggerations. But having carefully looked through the Papers, and having conversed with several gentlemen who had lately returned from the Colony, he (Mr. Chamberlain) was afraid that where there was so much smoke there was some fire, and even if the worst stories were untrue, yet the state of feeling among many of the Colonists was such as at least to make these outrages possible. No doubt, there were some men of a curiously depraved imagination, who actually boasted of offences they had never committed, and took a strange pride in making themselves out to be worse than they really were; but, making all allowance for this perverseness, he did not see how the cases he was going to quote could be satisfactorily explained away. Thus, he found that Mr. Justice Dwyer, in his address to the jury, on opening the adjourned Circuit Court at King William's Town in April last, stated that—
    "They all knew that the Kaffirs were often fired on in a most wanton manner. He mentioned as an instance that, as he was coming from Grahamstown, just after passing the Kieskama, he noticed an old Kaffir in a red blanket going along the side of the road quite harmlessly, and without any arms. Directly afterwards they heard firing, and, looking back, saw that one of the passengers in Thomas's cart, and one, if not more, of the police had fired at this old man without any provocation or reason."
    1866
    In another case, a coloured corporal, named Jackson, went out with a detachment of men, and coming across a party of Kaffirs, a party much smaller than his own, shot one of them dead without more ado. Those Kaffirs turned out to be loyal men, and Jackson was sentenced to three years' hard labour. So far there was nothing very remarkable, save that the retribution for the offence was altogether insufficient. What, however, called for comment was the way in which the conviction was received in the Colony. Numerous meetings were held, attended by persons of alleged influence, and, in reference to the point, he would read the following extract from The Port Elizabeth Telegraph, dated July 23, 1878:—
    "A public meeting was held with the view of obtaining a remission or commutation of the sentence passed on Charles Jackson for shooting a rebel. Commandant Sprigg (brother of the Colonial Secretary) said—'I might be brought up on a similar charge to-morrow. If I do not go out of the corps in which I have served, I could go and swear information against five officers who are as bad or worse than Jackson. The five officers would include Commandant Brabant and myself. If these prosecutions are to be, let us have some of the big ones in. Here are five men who are guilty of very similar crimes for which Jackson has been sentenced. I defy, I dare, the Government to prosecute all those five; and I am ready to supply all the information requisite.'"
    If this was the spirit in which the Colonists treated such a question, was it not likely that many similar outrages were perpetrated of which no one in England ever heard? Here was a Commandant in the Colonial Forces, a brother of the Prime Minister, publicly accusing himself of crimes for which another man was justly undergoing a felon's punishment, and. clamouring to stand beside him, and to be written down a scoundrel. He would next quote an extract from a Correspondent's letter, dated January 11, 1878, which appeared in one of the Colonial papers—
    "If the men marching against Sandilli will take my advice, they will shoot every black face they come across; let the expression 'cold blood' be cast from your minds; shoot every Kaffir you see, whether he shows fight or not, always remembering the deaths of those three good and valued men who were so murdered and mutilated at the Kwelegha. Don't listen to the cry of 'We are "school" Kaffirs fighting for government;' depend upon it they are as bad as the rest, if not worse, as their education ought to teach, them better, the uncivilized barbarians."

    1867
    He did not desire to press too far the conclusions which might be drawn from such a letter as that, but it must be assumed that the writer knew something of the public he was addressing; and if a statement of that kind could appear in a newspaper without a universal cry of horror and indignation, did not the House think it was possible that men might be found bad and base enough to take the advice thus given? He would give two other instances, with the view of showing what value was attached in the Colony to a black man's life. A Swede, named Mark, was brought up at the King William's Town Circuit Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, and charged with shooting a Kaffir, who was out on an errand from an English magistrate. His defence was that he thought the man was a rebel. He was found guilty, recommended to mercy, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. At the same Assizes a man of Dutch extraction, when passing some Kaffirs, who were going quietly along the road, turned round, and, without the slightest provocation, shot one of them. The Judge told him he had been guilty of an act of pure devilment, but only sentenced him to three years' hard labour. At the same time, a son of the Chief Sandilli was charged with rebellion, and sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude. He pleaded guilty, and said, in his defence, that he had only obeyed the commands of his Chief. He added that he had killed no one, neither man, woman, nor child. Therefore, for shooting a Kaffir without cause, a man was only sentenced to three years' imprisonment; whereas another man, for the simple act of rebellion, was sentenced to 20 years. These things, although, perhaps, not done by men of our blood, were done by people under our authority, and we were morally responsible for them, so long as English soldiers were employed, and English money expended in protecting the Colonists from the consequences of their injustice and wrong-doing. And our responsibility did not cease even with the termination of the war. At that moment the English flag was covering a system of openly taking men, women, and children belonging to the Native Tribes and placing them in what was called forced labour, but which, he ventured to say, the House would be unable to distinguish from Slavery in its worst form as it once ex-
    1868
    isted in the Southern States of America. It was pretended that the object of these arrangements was to save the women and children of rebels who had been slain in the war from starvation; and the right hon. Baronet opposite the Secretary of State for the Colonies had, until recently, been under the impression that the system was purely philanthropic; but he thought that within the last few days the right hon. Gentleman had seen very good reason to doubt the accuracy of his opinion. It was undoubtedly the fact that while the men were in the Bush their wives and children were kept separated from them by the act of the Colonial Government, and others were kept in actual slavery—being allotted out to different districts. In the Papers just presented to the House there appeared a copy of a Proclamation, signed by the Secretary for Native Affairs, declaring that it was inexpedientto grant passes to Kaffirs for the purpose of fetching their wives and families who were indentured in the Western Province, and directing all commissioners and magistrates to refuse such passes accordingly. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had only recently had the pleasure of conversing with a gentleman, representing an American newspaper at the seat of war, and that journalist had told him that he had himself seen a cargo of women and children, many of the latter not more than two years old, brought down to be placed out in the East London district. Their husbands were fighting or fugitives in the Bush; the elder children had been stopped and placed out with the farmers on the Frontier, while they themselves were going to work many miles away. In 1878, thousands of Native men, women, and children, some of whom were the families of men in rebellion, and others were starving, consequent upon a severe drought and political disturbances, were sent by shiploads to Cape Town, and moved by other means to the Northern and Western districts of the Colony. Government called upon all persons who wanted servants to apply for them to the several magistrates or special officers, and this invitation was very freely accepted. Men, women, and children were allotted to applicants at a very low rate of wages, and in many cases for no wages at all, by the officers of Government, who always stipulated for clothing

    1869
    and rations—the clothing clause was a dead letter from the very first, excepting in a few rare instances; and the rations were so poor and insufficient that Government had to publish a notice on the subject, and to fix the amount of food the people ought to get. The compulsory indenture of these people was not provided for by law excepting in this way—there was an Act rendering it penal for them to be in the Colony without a pass, unless in service; so, after being conveyed into the Colony, they had to choose between going to gaol, or going into service on terms and for periods in which they had no voice whatever. Families were in this way divided, children torn from their parents, and husbands from their wives. The young were treated as destitute children, and indentured accordingly, as farm servants, for longer or shorter periods, according to ages in most cases, till they were grown up, in opposition very often to the letter and spirit of the law; and, in all cases, to the spirit of it. Even when the letter was observed the system was exactly the same as that which was prevalent in the Transvaal, before annexation, and with which we found so much fault. The Cape Dutch said, and their sentiments had been echoed by the majority of English Colonists—
    "At last the English Government is adopting our plan; they see that schwart schapsals (the black creatures) were meant to be the white man's slaves, and they are acting accordingly."
    Was there anything to distinguish such a system from the worst form of South American slavery? When the Boers practised it we had no words strong enough to express our horror, and it was even made one of the grounds of our interference in the affairs of the Transvaal. But it was openly and un-disguisedly carried on under English authority. He would admit that the right hon. Gentleman had called the attention of Sir Bartle Frere to the question; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) feared that was poor satisfaction. They would get replies which would probably tell them of the beneficence of the law which he had shown was constantly evaded. Unless there was somebody on the spot intrusted with the duty of putting things straight, in spite of all opposition, he was certain the present state of affairs would continue until such time as a reform would come too late for some of the
    1870
    poor creatures to profit by it. The Prime Minister of the Colony, the Hon. Mr. Sprigg, in a recent speech at Cape Town, remarked that no good impression could be made upon the old people, but that it must be made upon the young; and for this purpose he actually proposed to bring the children from their families, and to put them out to compulsory service. In a succeeding passage the hon. Gentleman said—
    "I quite agree with Dr. Ross that it would be a good thing to bring down every year a certain number of young people from the locations and put them out to compulsory service. But if we do that, we must be prepared to meet with strong opposition from home. During the late war we brought down some 5,000 or 6,000 people from the Frontier, who were settled down here, and, in consequence of that, the attention of the House of Commons is to be called to the great cruelty we were guilty of in bringing them down here and sentencing them to compulsory service in Cape Town. I myself should be very glad to carry out the scheme suggested by Dr. Ross; but it would be said if we did so that we were endeavouring to set up slavery in the Colony. But that charge ought not to be a sufficient reason to prevent our doing so. We are not to be dismayed by public opinion in England, for we have the government of the Colony in our hands, and understand better how to manage Natives in this Colony, how to administer the government for their benefit, and how to lead them on step by step to civilization than any man in England."
    He asked the House whether it was tolerable that this thing should continue to go on, and be covered, as it were, by their English responsibility, and that millions of money should be taken from the British taxpayers for the benefit of gentlemen who publicly repudiated any deference to English opinion? Let him just recall the fate which had befallen these so-called rebels. Thousands of Natives in the Transkei War had been killed; thousands more had died of starvation; the survivors bad had their lands taken from them, and had seen their huts burnt, and their women and children enslaved. Surely those wretched people had suffered more than sufficient retribution. But what had been the treatment of the loyal Natives? After submitting themselves to English authority, they were ruthlessly deported to a new location which was totally inadequate for their support. Government sent Mr. Brownlee to "make known its word" to the loyal Gaikas of Sandilli's Tribe, and this was what Mr. Brownlee was reported to have said—

    1871
    "If you do not go willingly, you will get yourselves into trouble and force will be used. Government says go, and you must go. Place no difficulties in the way as to invalids or cattle. I say again, the sooner you go the better for you."
    Fifteen thousand Natives, loyal and rebel alike, were driven into a territory 26 miles by 12, which, as he had said, was quite insufficient to support them. A correspondent of The Cape Argus, who said it was heartrending to know that half-starved people were driven like slaves from their homes, which were then committed to the flames, and that the sick were abandoned in the open air, asked whether these things were done by a Christian Government? The question for the House was, whether they were approved by a Christian Government? In the Resolution he had placed upon the Paper he invited the House to resolve that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that an impartial Commission should be sent out to investigate the allegations which had been made. Commissions had been appointed on previous occasions with a like object in view—notably, in the case of Jamaica—and it appeared to him that he had made out, at all events, a sufficient case for a careful, impartial, and an immediate inquiry. If they did not do that, what alternative was suggested? We could not leave things as they were, nor could we adopt Sir Bartle Frere's policy, which would involve us in war with the Native Tribes until we had reduced them to slavery to prevent them "festering in idleness." He said, on page 1,447 of the Papers, C 2374—
    "It must be a fundamental principle that the supremacy of the British Crown as representing civilized government should be unquestionable in any Native State, surrounded as the Zulus are by British subjects and their Allies."
    And, again—
    "Large masses of uncivilized Natives must not be left within our own dominions to fester in idleness."
    Sir Bartle Frere in his latest despatch still urged on Her Majesty's Government his old policy—still unchanged by what had happened, still unconverted by the unhappy results we had experienced; and he (Mr. Chamberlain) was of opinion that unless this headstrong Governor was either recalled or controlled by a most stringent
    1872
    instruction, sent to him by Her Majesty's Government, we should find that shortly we should be involved in further troubles. Her Majesty's Government appeared still to incline to the policy of Confederation; but a Confederation would lead to a policy in which Dutch influence would be predominant, and what that meant we knew from Sir Bartle Frere's earlier despatches, which stated that the Dutch Boers derived their notions of the rights of the Natives from accounts in the Old Testament of the dealings of the Hebrews with the Tribes whom they encountered. He admitted that the question was an extraordinarily difficult one, and that was why he did not desire that his Motion should be considered a Party Resolution. It seemed to him that the question was one upon which all Parties might fairly combine, in order to endeavour to prevent the recurrence of the evils which all persons alike deplored. One thing he, however, hoped the British Parliament would not do—namely, that it would not sit down in the spirit of Mahommedan fatalism and accept as the manifest destiny of this country that, in spite of repeated protests, headstrong officials at the Cape, or circumstances of any kind, should be too strong for us, and should prevent the execution of a policy upon which we had determined. The hon. Gentleman concluded by reading the Motion of which he had given Notice.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member could not now move his Resolution as an Amendment.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he would have seconded the Motion, if the Forms of the House had permitted his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to move it. In the consideration of questions of Imperial interest, there was some danger of a subject of this kind being lost sight of; and, therefore, his hon. Friend had done well in calling attention to the matter. The condition of the Colony was very unsatisfactory when it was described by Mr. Froude, and he (Mr. W. H. James) believed that it had. got much worse since. It would appear, from the statements of Judges made upon the Bench, that Natives were wantonly murdered; in consequence of which retaliatory proceedings were taken by the Natives, as appeared from an article in The Revue

    1873
    des Deux Mondes, the writer of which dwelt upon the dangerous condition resulting from the uncomfortable feeling that prevailed between the White and the Black races in South Africa. On the occasion of a disturbance in Griqualand East, which arose out of a squabble in a booth or tent, two Chiefs were arrested. One of them escaped into Pondoland, returning some time afterwards with a Pondo Chief and a number of Griquas. They were met near the capital by a force of Colonial police. The Pondo Chief hoisted a flag of truce, but it was disregarded. The police attacked, and a number of Griquas were killed. The prisoners taken were, it was said, to be tried as prisoners of war; but now it was understood they were to be treated as rebels, as others had been who were now working as Colonists, which was exceedingly unjust and unfair. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the question some attention, and, if he found it possible, permit these poor people, after the war was over, to return to their homes. He threw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, if he were anxious to redress the wrongs and woes which had sunk deep into the minds of the Native population, whether it would not be advisable to take that course, and by an act of justice grant free pardon to all who had been implicated in the late rebellion. He did not wish to claim any monopoly for those who sat on that side of the House for humane sentiment, and he appealed to hon. Members opposite to aid them. There was no doubt that the Colonists were in favour of war. The speeches made by them at public meetings in aid of Sir Bartle Frere's policy proved that. He earnestly hoped that a new start would now be made, that a new policy would be adopted, and that all who were concerned in the late rebellions would be amnestied. He would be surprised if we ever got a penny from the Colony for the expenses of this war. The remedy which was required was very plain and practical, and, as a part of the new policy, he trusted that no assistance of a military kind would in future be given to the Colonists. A promise to that effect had been given by Lord John Russell, in reply to a Question put to him by Sir De Lacy Evans as far back as the year 1851, and it had frequently
    1874
    been mentioned since. In future, that policy ought to be strictly given effect to. They might take a useful lesson from what had happened in the case of New Zealand. If they were to deal with the Cape Colonies in the same way as they had dealt with New Zealand, the recurrence of those Native wars would be most improbable. In the old days of the Colonies of America, the Colonists used to drink to "The Memory of the Last War, and the Success of the Next War;" and he much feared that some such sentiment existed among the inhabitants of South Africa. He disapproved of the policy of Sir Bartle Frere, who had encouraged the sending of troops to the Colony, instead of discountenancing the practice; and he was satisfied that unless the Government should write in the very strongest terms to the effect that England would not be willing in the future to incur the expense involved by the employment of her soldiers in South Africa, there would be an indefinite prolongation of such wars as that which we were now waging. He contended that it was hard upon our soldiers that they should be engaged in filibustering wars, and would conclude by expressing a hope that the Government, in order to promote a policy of peace in South Africa, would remove, as soon as possible, all the Imperial Forces which had been sent out to our Colonies in that part of the world.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that a more interesting and instructive speech than that delivered by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had seldom been made in that House. The most noticeable point about the speech to which he referred was the significant manner in which the hon. Member was able to show that these South African wars had all begun, been carried on, and ended in the same way. The lesson which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) desired should be drawn from the present state of affairs was that the Government should now open a new chapter in connection with our rule in Africa; that they should either form a policy of their own and adhere to it, insisting upon its being carried out; or they should allow the Colonists to form a policy of their own, and carry it out at their own responsibility and risk. So long as we sustained the Colonies in any policy in which they chose to indulge, so long

    1875
    hould we find ourselves engaged in incessant and constantly recurring wars. The wars of South Africa always began in the eagerness of the Colonists to obtain the land of the Natives. It was time, he thought, that we should put an end to what was the most shocking chapter of our history; but the chapter would not be closed until a radical change of policy should have been effected in our African Colonies. He feared that no such change could be expected from Sir Bartle Frere, for what indication was there of an intention on his part to treat the Imperial Government as a master instead of a servant? There was a passage in Shakespeare which said—
    "You know the man;
    How unremovable, and fixed he is In his own course."
    Well, he hoped that, however fixed the policy of Sir Bartle Frere might be in his own mind, the Government would be able to show that they were stronger than the High Commissioner, and that he was not unremovable. He confessed that there was nothing he dreaded more in connection with their Colonial affairs than, a Clive in a wrong place, or a Warren Hastings out of time. He was not, however, without a certain admiration for that tenacity of purpose and faith in himself which Sir Bartle Frere had shown. No one could read through his despatches without feeling a certain regard and admiration for that power and resolve; but he thought it would be a great mistake if the Government were to allow that kind of personal policy to prevail, since it must lead to nothing But constantly recurring wars in South Africa. Now, it was time to put a stop to that, or if they would not put a stop to it, then to accept that as their national policy, and once for all drop their hypocrisy on the score of Russia and other Powers who believed in their manifest destiny to fulfil a certain civilizing mission. He hoped that, from that time at least, this country would start a better chapter of South African history; but that could only be done by the Government either maintaining a policy of their own, or leaving the Colonists to their own policy and to their own responsibility. He would earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government to be strong and just in their policy towards South Africa in the future.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he thought it was clear from what had been said in the course of the debate that many things had been done in regard to the Native races, not only in South Africa, but also in other Colonies, of which this country had cause to be ashamed. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), that the withdrawal of the Imperial troops from the Colonies had a good effect. He was certain, from his own observation, that it had caused the cessation of hostilities in New Zealand, and he believed the same result would follow their withdrawal from the Cape. It must, however, be borne in mind that in the former case the Maories, though brave and warlike, were comparatively few in number, and that the Colonists were able to defend themselves. It would, therefore, be unfair to compare South Africa with New Zealand owing to the overwhelming number of Kaffirs and other tribes to be dealt with in the former country. He considered that the present war should be brought to a speedy close at any sacrifice, and at any cost—he did so in the interest of humanity; and that the Government should then give the Colonist to understand that in future they must, under all circumstances, defend their own Frontiers and conduct their own wars; and if that were done he believed that we should have fewer wars on hand than we had at present.
    MR. HERMONdesired to say that the feelings which had been expressed on the other side were, to a certain extent, shared by hon. Members on that side. He had listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who had placed the facts before them in such a forcible manner, and with such great moderation and ability. He must, however, admit the grave difficulties encountered by the Government in dealing with the question. He thought when they remembered that in the case of Colonies such as the Motion referred to they were dealing with a White population which numbered only some 20,000, while the Natives were, perhaps, a hundred times that number, they could but be right in taking some opportunity of impressing upon Her Majesty's Government the extreme caution which they ought to exercise in selecting the people to un-

    1877
    dertake the administrative duties. It was true they could not dispute the facts as brought for ward by the hon. Member; and he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the desirability, not only of speedily terminating the present war, but also of taking steps to prevent the recurrence of a similar outbreak.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he was gratified at the pleasant character of the debate, and he believed that on both sides of the House there would be found a unanimous expression of opinion with regard to the case so ably put before them by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He understood that the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Government were placed in a very difficult position with regard to the serious problem which existed as to our relations with the South African Colonies. He was sure that all of them had sympathized with the Government in the dilemma in which they were placed by recent events, and he hoped that in making any criticism upon the action of the Government he would not be supposed to entertain any Party feeling in the matter, for he honestly desired to make every allowance for the difficulties which the British Government had had to encounter. His hon. Friend had pointed out in his speech, which was not historically correct, but exhibited a perfect appreciation of the position, what was the nature of the policy which had been forced on Her Majesty's Government by the combined efforts of the local Legislatures and the Representative of the Government of England in the administration of the Colony. Well, they had a right to criticize the Government with regard to its policy, and the first question which arose was, how was it possible for such a state of things to come into existence, when they had the Colonial Office in constant communication with the Colonies, provided with constant information on every act which took place, and keeping a sharp lookout—f or if they did not they would soon be reminded of their duty by outsiders on all that took place—how was it that in these circumstances these successive wars had been allowed to arise, and that a very strong amount of repression had not been placed upon them by the Go-
    1878
    vernment at once? He did not blame the Colonial Office for not being able to force their will on the authorities of the Colonies. The real difficulty was the inability of the Colonial Office to force their will on the local Legislatures, particularly when that influence was combined with the influence of a headstrong Representative of the Home Government. There was no doubt as to the facts, and the Government would have been almost free from blame if they had not accepted Sir Bartle Frere's policy, and backed him up and supported him with almost Party virulence. If it had not been for that, he (Mr. Jenkins) would not have attached any direct responsibility to the Government in the matter. In spite of the views held upon the subject by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), he (Mr. Jenkins) was not one of those who believed that what had taken place was a necessary consequence of the annexation of the Transvaal. If a correct policy had been followed after that act, he did not think the facts which were now complained of would have happened. This, as the hon. Member for Birmingham had pointed out, was only the culmination of a principle which had inspired the policy of the various Governments of the Cape up to the present time. Well, now the House had not only to consider the frightful results of the events of the last few months, but something more. In spite of the remonstrances of the Government, they found there still remained at the Cape a High Commissioner, who referred in his last despatch to his views formerly expressed, and seemed to give an indication of his intention to carry out a policy which the majority were anxious to repudiate. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham had proposed to send out a Commission to take information on this subject, as they were thoroughly convinced that they could not rely on the official information with which they were supplied. As to the correctness of his view on the subject of the information furnished there could be no mistake. Anyone who examined their Blue Books, and compared them with the information they got outside, would at once see the truth of that view. Attention had again and again been called to the fact that if information was wanted it was not to be had from official sources, and

    1879
    that they had to resort to extraordinary means in order to obtain it. But the question here was, what was the use of sending out a Commission, when they knew the exact nature of the problem they had to solve? What hope was there that it would show them any way out of their difficulties? It had been suggested that they should carry out the New Zealand policy with regard to the Cape Colonies; but he was sure the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies would repudiate that idea. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to withdraw the troops from the Cape, and allow a war of extermination to go on between the Whites and the Native races? That must be the inevitable result of withdrawing the troops, and they could not do that. Every humanitarian sentiment in the country would revolt from such a course. We were responsible as a nation for the position of our fellow-countrymen there, and we could not allow them to commit any acts which, would be discreditable to the nation. Then, what was the alternative? If the troops were withdrawn, and they threw the responsibility on the Cape Legislature, then they must give to that body the right to do as it pleased. If not, if we supplied them with troops, we must at the same time limit their right. We must do one thing or the other; that the House should distinctly understand. In this case, he thought they could not pursue the New Zealand policy; or, at all events, not for some years to come. It might be gradually introduced, but it was not practicable now. Well, that being impossible, the country ought to know that the responsibility rested on us, and would rest upon us. The only alternative was for a while, at least until we had succeeded in tiding over present difficulties, to increase the power of the High Commissioner—he hoped another one would be appointed—and to restrict to a certain extent the powers of the local Legislatures. We must not continue to be hurried into wars by petty Legislatures. The House quite appreciated the difficulty of the situation. He could not conceive of anyone coming forward, whatever his influence or authority, and saying what should be the policy of the Government. Therefore, all they could do was what had been done by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham that day. He
    1880
    had shown them the frightful results of the policy which had been pursued, and asked them, at all events, to give some sort of assurance that they felt the gravity of the circumstances, and that steps would be taken to tide over the period, which must be, for many years to come, one of difficulty and trouble.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was sure he could not in the slightest degree complain on his own part, or on the part of the Government, of the course of the debate, or of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). They all appreciated the fact that the problem before them was one of exceptional difficulty, a problem, perhaps, unique in the history of Colonial administration. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman had very properly treated this as by no means a Party question—a question with regard to which, though he felt it to be his duty to bring it before the House, he did not attempt to lay down any definite line of policy; but he was anxious to express, from his own point of view, his desire to support the Government in their attempts to deal with it. There were two points which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wished to dismiss with a few words. First of all, the suggestion that the Native question in South Africa was identical with the same question in New Zealand. All those who had looked at the matter would see that, owing to the respective numbers of the White and Native population in South Africa and in New Zealand, the circumstances were as distinct and as dissimilar as any two cases could be. The second point was the suggestion—for it was no more—of the hon. Member for Birmingham that a Commission should be appointed to go out to South Africa to deal with this question. The hon. Member did not press this himself, and the speakers who followed him had not treated it as a practical proposal. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought that it could not be so treated, because it must be remembered that they were dealing, not with a Crown Colony like those to which previous Commissions had been sent, but with a Colony to which responsible government had been given by Parliament; and whether he looked at the proposal as viewed from the effect which the appointment of such, a Com-

    1881
    mission might have on the Black races of South Africa, and the excitement that it might cause in their minds, already sufficiently excited by what had passed; or whether he looked at it from the point of view which the Colonists, to whom had been intrusted the management of their own affairs, would be disposed to take, he thought that from neither point was the proposal one which could be considered as a satisfactory solution of the present difficulty. No doubt, in the view of some hon. Gentlemen, a Commission of Inquiry might be desirable merely to obtain information; but, speaking on behalf of the Government, he would venture to state that he had complete confidence in the information supplied by the High Commissioner—he might say the two High Commissioners—now in South Africa; and, so far as any inquiry was concerned, he was convinced that no inquiry would be conducted more effectively by any Commission than it would be by the High Commissioners. He must refer now to the main arguments of the able and eloquent speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who said that the history of South Africa was a history of periodic Native wars. That, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) feared, was too true. But as that had been the history of South Africa long before Sir Bartle Frere went there, it did not appear to him to be fair of the hon. Member at the same time to blame Sir Bartle Frere as the cause of it, and to accuse Sir Bartle Frere of having begun six or seven wars, as to every one of which the Natives had justice on their side. The hon. Member said that, in his opinion, all these wars to which he referred had arisen from the greed of the Colonists leading to land disputes with the Natives, and that the Colonial Administration had forced the hand of the Government at Home; but that our state of knowledge did not allow us to go to the underlying causes of these outbreaks. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the origin of these incessantly recurring wars in South Africa, and he might put forward a view with regard to this point which was not merely his own, but the view of men to whose knowledge and authority everyone would defer. So far from agreeing with the
    1882
    hon. Member, that those wars had been due to the greed of the Colonists for the land of the Natives, he believed they were due to two facts, in which the history of South Africa among our Colonial possessions was unique. The first was the movement of the Whites to the North, and the second was the movement of the Blacks to the South. There had been constantly, ever since the British annexation of the Cape Colony, a desire on the part of a certain number of White inhabitants of that Colony for political reasons to push forward into the wilderness to the North. What had that led to? It had led to contests between them and the Native Tribes in whose territory they found themselves—contests attended by circumstances which all regretted and deplored. He could not blame the emigrant settlers for the circumstances which occurred: they were few against many, and were fighting for their lives. But the contests arose, and then the attention of Parliament was from time to time called to the facts; the danger arising from them to our settled Colonies was urged, and a further extension of our Dominions was found to be necessary. But these wars had sometimes arisen without any action of this kind on the part of the Whites. Look at what occurred in the years between 1885 and 1846. In 1835 Lord Glenelg repudiated the action of Sir Benjamin D'Urban, who had annexed the territory between the Kei and the Keiskamma, and directed withdrawal within our former boundary, giving the land from which we withdrew over to the Native Tribes under their Chiefs. What was the result? The result was repeated acts of cattle stealing on the Border by those very Native Tribes, in spite of the Treaties with the Chiefs to whom the land had been restored. No redress could be obtained from those Chiefs. Treaties of a more stringent character were tried; but they were also broken. Prisoners were rescued and murdered within the Colony, and at length the necessity arose of taking measures for the restoration to the Colony of the authority over the land, and thus Lord Glenelg's policy was reversed. That was an instance of the working of the second cause to which he had referred. The extension in this case was not due to any greed on the part of the Colonists; it was due to the

    1883
    pressure from the North, of the Black Tribes, who, pursuing pastoral rather than agricultural habits, increasing largely in numbers from the comparative peace which they enjoyed, owing to the neighbourhood of the Colony, and pressed on the other side by Tribes from the North, desired, on their part, an extension of their boundaries to the South. He would return to the other point—the desire of the Colonists to press to the Northward. There was a strong instance of that in the case of Natal. "What occurred? Some considerable bands of Dutch Colonists migrated from the Cape to Natal, being mainly led to do so by the reversal of the policy of Sir Benjamin D'Urban, and certain restrictions which had been placed upon their relations with their Native servants. Disputes arose between the Dutch and the Natives, and disturbances followed, there being cruelty on both, sides. Danger arose to our organized Colonies, and the Home Government had to interfere, and how was that interference brought about? In 1840, after authentic information had been received of the massacre of some of the Dutch pioneers by the Zulus, the position of those who remained was regarded as so dangerous, not only to themselves, but to the safety of the whole European element in South Africa, that the Government was obliged to extend its possessions by the military occupation and annexation of Natal. That extension was absolutely advocated at the time by the Aborigines Protection Society, in the interests of humanity, against the reluctance of the Imperial Government. Such instances as these which he had given showed the real causes which had been at work in our connection with South Africa, and that the cause of the various extensions of territory was not, as the hon. Member for Birmingham had stated, the greed of the Colonists for the land of the Natives. The hon. Gentleman went at great length into the circumstances which accompanied and followed the Transkei War, and he referred to the policy of disarmament of the Natives, which had been adopted after the conclusion of that war. The hon. Member told the House that it brought about not only Sandilli's outbreak, but also Moirosi's in Basutoland. Judging so far as he could from the statements he
    1884
    had received and laid before the House, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not believe the policy of disarmament had anything to do with either of these outbreaks. Then the hon. Member said that this policy was carried out illegally, and without any discrimination. On the contrary, it had been carried out, he believed, with the utmost care and caution by the Cape Government, and if there had been any breach of the law it would, no doubt, be questioned by the Opposition in the Assembly at Cape Town. He did not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member, that the possession of arms generally by the Natives of South Africa was a desirable thing. He thought it was an extremely undesirable thing; and to the confidence in their own strength, which the Natives had derived from it, was, in his opinion, mainly due the late series of wars, at the conclusion of which, he hoped, the country had now arrived. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the question of indenturing Natives; but he did not quote the despatch of July 3 to Sir Bartle Frere. In that despatch, which had been laid on the Table, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had expressed the views of the Government on that subject; and they were, he thought, in accordance with those held by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the notice issued by the Cape Government was accurately reported, it was a notice which was not justified by anything which had been reported to him, and he had taken such steps as were in his power to deal with the matter, remembering that although it appeared to be authentic its authenticity had not yet been ascertained, and it was, in any case, only right that an opportunity for explanation should be afforded. The hon. Member had also referred to the speech of Mr. Sprigg, the present Prime Minister of the Cape of Good Hope. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should receive with reserve the reports of speeches made at dinners in the Colony, unless he knew from what source the speeches were quoted. The report which had been quoted might have been obtained from an Opposition newspaper, and he was afraid that Opposition newspapers in the Colonies were often not more scrupulous in their treatment of Members of the Government than Opposition newspapers in other

    1885
    countries. No doubt, if the report quoted were correct, the sentiments enunciated were entirely objectionable; and he did not doubt that in that event the influence of the Governor of the Cape Colony ought to be, and would be, exerted in the direction which they would all desire. Hon. Members opposite attributed to Sir Bartle Frere grave misconduct with reference to the Zulu War; and on this they seemed ready to heap any number of other charges. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), however, did not know any charge which, could be made against Sir Bartle Frere with less justice than that of attributing to him, as the hon. Member for Birmingham had done, a desire to introduce forced labour into South Africa, or indifference to anything which could be characterized as similar to slavery. Any such conduct would be contrary to the whole history of Sir Bartle Frere's life and action. The hon. Member next dealt with the way in which the Gaikas had been removed to Galekaland, and he referred to the correspondence of an Opposition newspaper, The Cape Argus, containing certain opinions on that point. It was only right to hear also the story as told by the Ministry themselves; and he would read two paragraphs from the speech of Sir Bartle Frere at the opening of the Cape Parliament. Sir Bartle Frere said that he was glad to be able to state, on the testimony of the magistrates and of the Gaikas themselves, that their removal was carried out without hardship, and had been attended with the happiest results. The sale of intoxicating liquors was strictly prohibited, and, instead of indulging in idleness and dissipation, they had settled down to agricultural labour, and promised to be distinguished as a peaceable, orderly, and law-abiding people. As to the allegation that the number of the Galekas had been reduced from 80,000 to 15,000, it was to be remembered that the higher calculation of their number was anterior to what was known as the cattle-killing madness in South Africa, in which, by the mad action of the Kaffirs themselves, there was a large destruction of their supplies of food, and numbers of them perished. In addition to that, they had to bear great suffering from drought. Sir Bartle Frere stated that most of those who objected to the removal of the Gaikas at first now ad-
    1886
    mitted that it was good for the Gaikas themselves, and they unanimously approved the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and of the system, of giving individual titles to the land. The hon. Member related—and a painful relation it was—the stories which had reached him of the cruelties committed in these wars. He should be the last to defend any such actions as those which had been described; they were a disgrace to any who perpetrated them, and they reflected disgrace upon us in this country. But he must again remind the House that many of these stories, coming from the correspondence—often, of course, anonymous—of Opposition newspapers, were liable to, at any rate, the suspicion of exaggeration. When the hon. Member composed the sentences passed on White men for crimes committed against Natives and the sentences passed on Natives for crimes committed against White men, it was impossible to follow him in such a comparison without a knowledge of all the circumstances of each case; and, in fairness to the Colonists, statements of the kind ought not to be too readily believed. He was bound to say that some of them, into which it had been his duty to inquire, had been proved to be unfounded; and with regard to others, as the hon. Member admitted, the Colonial Government had discharged its duty by dealing with them promptly and satisfactorily. He feared it was but too possible that there had been actions in these wars which would be liable to the strongest epithets which had been used with regard to them by the hon. Member for Birmingham. But we must remember that this Parliament, some years ago, gave to the Cape Colony the benefit of responsible government; and it was the duty of the Government of the Cape Colony, with which alone it rested, to deal with these matters as they occurred and properly to punish the authors of these crimes. How was it that any circumstances of the sort could have occurred? We ought, he thought, to picture to ourselves precisely the position of affairs at the Cape. There was, unquestionably, a general rising among the Native races, or, if not a general rising, a general feeling of dissatisfaction against the White population of the Colony, who were comparatively small in number, and were often so scattered

    1887
    among almost innumerable Natives as to be comparatively powerless in the event of an outbreak. We were bound to make allowance for men placed in this position; and while we ought to expect from them that, as British subjects, they should be guided by feelings of humanity, he should be disposed to attribute any cruelties that might have occurred to the position in which they were placed, and not to blame the Colonists themselves so much as the system that had been pursued. We had given to South Africa responsible government, and when we gave it we did not accompany it with that which would have secured proper administration with regard to the Native races. We did not take measures to secure that, with the responsibility of administering their own affairs, the Cape Colonists should also undertake their own defence against Native aggression or insurrection. If he had time to go into the circumstances, he could prove that there were real outbreaks on the part of the Natives, not provoked by any action of the Colonists, and when these outbreaks had occurred the Colonists had found themselves without any organized force to deal with them. Volunteers were called for, temporary levies were raised; and he would venture to say, if any of these stories could be traced out, it would be found that they were true only of persons who had not been accustomed to discipline and had not been placed under proper regulation for the conduct of war. It seemed to him. that the proper remedy for this was not that suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James)—merely to tell the Cape Colonists that you would never send any more troops to South Africa, without taking any other action at the same time. He feared that that had been said by his Predecessors on more than one occasion. We ought to endeavour, if we could, to take such steps as would induce and enable the Colonists to make a permanent provision of organized force for their own defence. That was the way in which we might lighten the responsibilities which hitherto had pressed so heavily upon this country. That was the way by which we might secure the successful and humane conduct of future Native wars, should any unhappily arise. We must impress upon the Colonists that it rests with them to provide for the
    1888
    management of Native affairs, and to protect themselves against the consequences of mismanagement. In that way, we should give them the strongest possible inducement for the proper management of these Native questions. We must induce and enable the Colonists to provide a permanent force, properly disciplined, for their own protection—a force with which they could deal with any emergency that might arise, and deal with it humanely, and at the same time so promptly as to prevent the outbreak from spreading so as to endanger the Colony. The hon. Member for Birmingham had very rightly attributed to Her Majesty's Government a desire to press forward the Confederation of the South African Colonies. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) believed that such a policy would be the right solution of this great question. He believed that such a policy might be made to effect the results he had indicated; it would enable the Colonists themselves to deal with Native affairs, subject, of course, to that general control by the Imperial Parliament which was reserved by the provisions of the South African Act passed by this House two years ago; and it would give so much local self-government to those who were anxious for it as would enable them to obtain that real independence which they professed to desire. It would enable them to base their general policy with regard to Native questions on a uniform and coherent system; to encourage the civilization of the Natives not by forced labour for others, but by leading them from a pastoral and barbarous life to the cultivation of their own property as freeholders; and by the very means discouraging the barbarous customs inseparable from their former mode of life, which, in some cases, had been tolerated too long. In that way, the Natives would be trained by degrees to the restrictions, as they would at first appear to be, of our civilization. Such a policy, by bringing the Native population within the Colonies under what would be, to barbarous tribes, the irksome control of civilized law, would do not a little to discourage that great migration Southwards of the Native Tribes—one of the causes which had led to these constant and repeated wars. That was the policy Her Majesty's Government would, wish to pursue, and which they had already im-

    1889
    pressed upon those who were intrusted with the administration of affairs in South Africa; and he thought he might venture to hope after the discussion of that day, and the desire shown by hon. Members of opposite political opinions to assist the Government as far as they could in the solution of this great problem, that it would command the support of the country.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was not easy to over-estimate either the ability of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) or the obligation the House was under to him for having brought forward and initiated a debate which he trusted would be of real use. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) very much agreed with the tone of it and the intentions which it discussed. It was only by such a policy as he had indicated, based on the principles of justice and humanity, that they could hope for any amelioration of the present state of things. Although that was the case, it was with great pain that he heard his hon. Friend's (Mr. Chamberlain's) remarks on the present condition of our South African Colony. Many years ago, it had fallen to his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) lot to study the state of the Cape Colony carefully, in order to become convinced of the extent to which the spirit of slavery and the spirit of oppression prevailed against the Coloured race by the White population. He had hoped for a great change for the better; but from much which his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham had stated, it would appear that he was too sanguine in that hope. Nevertheless, he could not but trust that, in spite of what they had heard, there were facts also on the other side. There was one hope for the future of the Cape Colony, especially in relation to the Coloured race, which contrasted most favourably with the condition of that race 20 or 30 years ago, and that was that there was now, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said, a strong Opposition Party. It was a fact that such a Party now existed, comprised of men of great influence in the Colony, and not only men of philanthropy and benevolence, but also men of position and property who advocated a policy of justice and humanity towards the Black man as
    1890
    essential to the prosperity of the Colony. It was the existence of that Party more than anything else that made him more hopeful that the result of the Federation scheme would be accomplished. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman did not give up his hope of a Confederation. He agreed with him that it was only by a Confederation the Cape Colony could be made to feel its responsibility, and give men of justice and humanity in the Colony a chance of their views being carried out. Now they came to the question—What could be done for the future of the Colony? There had been a general feeling throughout the House of sympathy with the Government for having to deal with a very difficult question like this—one of the most difficult questions a Government could have to deal with. No one could rest contented with the present state of affairs, or bear with any kind of equanimity, or even forbearance, what had happened so often, and what would happen now in South Africa. Enormous sums of money and loss of life were being spent in wars which many in that House thought ought never to have been undertaken; while upon the policy which led to these wars, they had hitherto had but little control. How, then, were these things to be stopped? The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) came forward with a very strong and a very drastic remedy. He said—"Withdraw all your troops." He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not think we could do that. On the contrary, he thought that meant dissolving our union with the Cape. The time might possibly come—he trusted it would not—when they might be compelled to do that; but they ought to do all they could to prevent it. It had been said that that policy had been successful in the case of New Zealand; but the case of New Zealand was far different from that of the Cape, where the Native element was stronger. It was quite time we could leave the Colonists of New Zealand to deal with the Natives; but if we were to leave, entirely and absolutely, the Colonists in South Africa to deal with the Natives, one of two things must happen—very likely both. Either we should hear terrible stories of the mode in which the war was being carried on—stories that would make us feel we could hardly bear further connection with the Colonists, who would probably

    1891
    wage war after the manner of the Native population—or we should hear also that the White men and women were in danger of being utterly destroyed by the Natives. The country would resist an act like that. The hon. Member for Gateshead would not get the English people to approve of that policy. They would say—"After all, these are our fellow-countrymen, of our own race and religion, and we cannot absolutely leave them to themselves." In these circumstances, we should be obliged to come to their rescue; but even if the possibility of the dissolution of the union were admitted, he did not think it could be admitted this country was, after all, irresponsible for the present state of things in South Africa. His conviction, was that we ought to have given up our control over the Boers and their incursions northward. Still, they could not do that as matters now stood. He was delighted to hear that the Government intended to insist on the Cape taking its share of its own defence; and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was by the Colonists organizing themselves, and bearing their own part in the defence of the country, that we should be most likely able to prevent those acts of cruelty which they were so sorry to hear. They had now a responsible self-governing community to deal with at the Cape. Whether it was a mistake to give self-government to the Cape was a grave question. For his own part, he did not think it was a mistake; at all events, they could not now take that self-government away. The problem of the Government was a fresh departure. They must ask themselves—"What terms shall we make with the Governments of the South African communities generally for the future?" That was to say—on what terms should they consent, in any case in the future, to assist the South African Colonists with our own troops? He thought the time had come when the Government ought to say, with the greatest possible determination, that the terms must be different from what they had been. They must say—"They shall be definite terms. You shall not find the policy, and we find the money and men to carry it out. We must have our share in the policy. We shall have an alliance; but on such terms that we shall be able to hear our voice guiding you, asking you about your
    1892
    frontier policy and your treatment of the Natives, and as to the mode in which you conduct your war. We also claim the right to demand from you, for our own and for your sake, that you shall take a share in your own defence." He was not at all surprised at the Government seeing very great difficulty in sending out a Commission; but he thought it was a suggestion that ought not to be dismissed as an impossible alternative. A very strong Commission, sent out not for the purpose of inquiring into the past, but for the simple purpose of reporting to the Government their views as to the terms of our future relations with the Colony, would, he thought, be attended with, great advantage. At the same time, he thought there was something in the remark of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that a Governor was not the best mode of obtaining information. He did not wish to make any charge against individuals. Deeply as he (Mr. W. E. Forster) regretted the policy of Sir Bartle Frere, he did not wish to make a remark personally as regarded him. What he would say was, he thought they now saw that a Governor of a Colony—a Governor of even so strong a will as Sir Bartle Frere—was liable to be influenced by the Party in the Colony which held the reins of power; and he doubted if the Government would be able to make their terms, in the future, with the Colony through the High Commissioner, or through any Governor of Cape Colony. They might, however, be able to do so through Sir Garnet Wolseley. That was a responsibility which must be left with the Government. He was very hopeful when a man like Sir Bartle Frere went out that they were going to have a new era in the Cape Colony. He knew him personally, and knew also how anxious he was for a just and true consideration of the Natives. Well, the argument in favour of the annexation of the Transvaal was this—that the Boers were engaged in a policy which was unjust, and which brought them into quarrels with their neighbours, and that we could not let them take the consequences of that policy and be massacred, because there was reason to believe that before their destruction their policy would have brought on a general Native war. He did not blame Sir Bartle Frere; but what was done was, that the policy

    1893
    which the Boers were performing in the Transvaal was carried out by our Government, but with greater power and force, and therefore, in one respect, with more evil consequences. They now saw the result. He might make the same remark as to the Zulu War, as to which they would be obliged to admit that the Opposition Party in Cape Colony had almost as much ground to complain against the Representative of the British Government as against the Colonists themselves. However, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) believed there was really one feeling in the House of Commons and the country on the question, which was, that our relations with the Cape Colony must be put on a different footing; that we would not join in unjust wars; and that we would not be responsible for the ill-treatment of the Natives. It should also be made known that we did not think it right that the Colonists should not take their full share in their own defence, and, at the same time, that, if they were willing to agree with us as to equitable terms, and showed that they meant to conduct their policy upon principles of justice and humanity, we should not refuse to give them the assistance that they absolutely required.
    MR. A. MILLSsaid, that the principle had been referred to that all Colonies should be protected to this extent by the Imperial Government—that that Government should be responsible for wars which were undertaken to carry out Imperial policy. It would, however, be difficult to apply that principle in all cases. That was not the case as to New Zealand. Our troops were withdrawn, and Maori wars ceased. The case of South Africa was, however, exceptional. There were something like 2,000,000 Natives in British South Africa, while the White population did not number more than one-seventh of that amount. Again, a very large proportion of the White population was of Dutch origin. Within the three-quarters of a century during which we had possession of the Cape Colony they had been engaged in six Cape wars, almost all of which were occasioned by the circumstance that the Dutch population had trecked from the old Colony and settled beyond its borders. The Transvaal was so settled; so, to a large extent, was Natal. The troubles to which he referred arose, to a great extent, from the quarrels of the Boers with the Native population, and
    1894
    England found herself engaged in wars occasioned by those who had trecked away from her rule. They had not been able to apply the principle to which he first referred to South Africa, for this reason—that we had been meddling and making in those wars from time to time, and the Colonists, therefore, fathered upon England the cost incurred. What he should like to see was encouragement given to the formation of Colonial levies. Such a policy would tend more to the creation of a spirit of self-defence than any other course which could be adopted. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), in his Motion, had suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission. He (Mr. A. Mills), however, hoped the suggestion would not be adopted; for he thought it would be a very great misfortune if another set of Commissioners were to be sent to South Africa to advise, and, perhaps, to contradict, Sir Bartle Frere and Sir Garnet Wolseley. He, therefore, hoped that course would not be followed; but that the principle suggested by the Committee of 1861 would be adopted, in accordance with which the Colonists should be told that they must fight their own, battles and pay their own bills.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    (1.) £1,030,000, Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet, &c, agreed to.

    (2.) £842,000, Machinery and Ships built by Contract, &c, agreed to.

    (3.) £566,749, New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs, agreed to.

    (4.) £75,710, Medicines and Medical Stores, &c, agreed to.

    (5.) £7,985, Martial Law, &c, agreed to.

    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £140,530, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense

    1895
    of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he had on a previous Vote drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to the necessity of making provision for the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in connection with the Naval Service. He had been informed that the question would be more properly raised on the present Vote, and, therefore, he took that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman what course he intended to take with regard to the subject? He did not ask for the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains to each of the large iron-clads, but that Roman Catholic seamen might be supplied with chaplains at the chief naval centres at home and abroad, and at those parts which were not exactly naval centres, but at which, from time to time, a large number of ships called having on board Roman Catholics. As an instance of these, he would mention Lisbon as having, for many months standing off the port, a large squadron of ships. He would also draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the sick on board the invalid vessels, as he felt very strongly that something might be done to meet the grievance of those persons, who might never see their native land again, and who were anxious that they might have the ministrations of religion on their way home. He believed that chaplains were appointed at Portsmouth, Sheerness, and Plymouth; but, even in those cases, they were without the proper facilities for the discharge of their office. He believed that the commanding officers of ships liked to see the chaplain come on board, using his influence upon the men, simply because it reduced punishment, and tended to good order. But the chaplains in those cases had no locus standi; and, consequently, not so much real influence over the men as they would otherwise have. The Coastguards on the West Coast of Ireland, in cases where sometimes there was only one man with his wife and children, had the ministrations of the local Protestant clergyman, who received a certain sum per annum. Ample provision was made for them, and he thought that the Catholics had a right to the same advantages in respect to their religion. Again, it was
    1896
    only fair to appoint one Catholic teacher in training ships where there were a number of Catholic boys. The chaplains ought, in his opinion, to be commissioned officers. He had, he thought, placed these claims on a moderate and friendly footing, in the belief that the time had come for remedying the grievances which he had indicated. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £139,530, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Mr. Arthur Moore.)
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was the wish of the Admiralty that every facility should be given to clergymen of all denominations in the discharge of their duties. There were Roman Catholic chaplains receiving salaries at Sheer-ness, Devonport, Haslar, Plymouth Hospital, and Portsmouth. There were also chaplains at nine other places abroad to whom capitation allowances were paid, and at every place where a Fleet might happen to be Roman Catholic sailors and Marines had the services of ministers of their religion, to whom allowances were paid. He assured the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) that the most anxious care was taken to see that the seamen and Marines had the ministrations of clergymen of the religion to which they belonged. It would not be possible to place Roman Catholic chaplains on board the troopships returning from India.
    MR. M'LARENrose, not to express any opinion upon the subject under notice, but to suggest that it was of far too great importance to be taken up at that period of the Session. Toss the matter about how you would, it came to this—It was a proposal for a new religious endowment; for chaplains to be established at a number of ports on the Continent visited by the ships of the Navy. He objected to any extended application of the principle of endowment, and thought that all sects of Christians might well spend their benevolence to provide for such casual visitors. If such a thing were to be seriously proposed, it ought to be done by

    1897
    a Vote subsequently brought forward, at a time when everyone had an opportunity of fully considering the principle which it involved.
    MR. PARNELLwas sorry to interrupt the Vote, in order, on a Motion to report Progress, to refer to a matter of importance. He did so, not with any intention of impeding the Vote, but because it was important to have an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty as to whether he was going to introduce the same modifications in the naval law as had been made in the military law?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not be justified in entering into the question of martial law. The proper time for that would be on the Report of the Vote.
    MR. PARNELLproposed to refer to the administration of the Navy as regarded punishment and discipline, and wished to secure that the discipline in the Navy should be the same as in the Army, and that those modifications introduced into the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill for the alleviation of punishment should also be introduced into the discipline of the Navy. He did not know whether this could be done by Parliament or by directions or orders issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    It being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till the Evening Sitting.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  MALTA (COST OF POLICE, &c.)

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. PLIMSOLL,in rising to call the attention of the House to the condition of Malta; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the cost of maintaining the Police, and of draining, repairing, lighting, cleaning, and watering the streets, &c. in Malta, should he paid out of a rate upon house and other property (upon which, at present, no rates or taxes of any kind whatever are levied), and not, inter alia, out of a tax upon wheat and other grain for food, and upon potatoes and other vegetables, which, as a matter of fact, actually takes more per head from the very poor who live in cellars than it takes per head from those who live in the best houses in the streets and squares; and the House is therefore further of opinion that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as may he necessary to secure the abolition of the taxes on food in Malta on and from the 1st day of January 1881;"
    said, that the Resolution embodied his whole case, and was in strict accordance with the facts, the statements it contained being rather under than over the real facts. They referred to a case of injustice and hardship, which was so gross in its circumstances, so cruel in its incidence, and yet so easily capable of remedy, that he had great hope it would not survive its exposure to the House. The Maltese people, although oppressively, were very lightly taxed. The whole of their external defence was paid for by a contribution of £5,000 to the Imperial Exchequer, or about 8d. per head of the population; whereas we paid £1 per head for the maintenance of our Army and Navy. The total taxation per head of the population for all purposes was only 13 s. 7d., as against at least four times that sum in this country. And yet, from the mode in which the taxes were levied, they were paid with far less ease than the heavier taxes in this country; and as to three-fourths of the people, they were crushing in their effects. No rates or taxes of any kind were levied directly, except about £3,000 raised by licences to wine and spirit dealers. Much the larger portion of the taxation of the country—£62,827—was derived from the taxes upon wheat and solid food; £41,624 from beer, wines, and spirits; £1,773 from oil and vinegar; for the rest, the income consisted of rents and harbour dues. An examination of the tariff showed that the term "solid

    1899
    food" was very wide, and included wheat, barley, and corn of all kinds, besides lentils, peas, and beans; and, lest the poor should take to vegetables in their inability to afford even the inferior kinds of corn, there was also a tax on potatoes and other vegetables. No more astonishing way of raising an income had ever been discovered, though the case of Malta was somewhat analogous to that of the Ionian Islands, where advantage having been taken of our English ignorance of the language, it had now and then happened that extreme severity had marked the proceedings of the authorities. In a Parliamentary Paper of the year 1878, Mr. Rowsell had said, that the Maltese upper and middle classes paid 10 s. 10 d. per head per annum in taxes, while the working classes contributed as much as 15 s. 7d. The incidence of the wheat tax was such, that the richer classes paid 5s. and the poorer 10 s. per head per annum. The beggars paid more per head than those who rode in carriages. People who swept the streets, and went without shoes and stockings, paid more per head for the making of those streets and the sweeping and cleaning than the noblemen and gentlemen who swept past them, in their carriages. An Englishman might imagine, judging from the absolute amount of taxation per head, that it was so trifling that it could not possibly have the crushing effect complained of by the Natives; but it was to be remembered that wages were very low in Malta, the daily average being, perhaps, not much more than 1s. Mr. Rowsell's schedule of wages showed that to be the case; and the American Consul, who had long personal experience of the Island, had mentioned that the great number of the poor was the effect of the high price of bread. Consequently, the amount of mendicity in Malta was something appalling. The poor seldom had more than the bare means of relieving their hunger, and they had the additional misery of living in dwellings that were utterly unfit for habitation. He could speak on that point from his own personal observation, as, in his curiosity to know how men could possibly live on the current small wages, he had visited the houses of the poorer classes. The whole city was built upon white freestone, making what miners called "good roof," and advantage had been taken of the
    1900
    material to sink deep cellars under the houses, so that one might see palatial piles of buildings with cavernous cellars, tier upon tier underneath, the lowest of which might be fully 40 feet below the level of the street. These places were damp, unventilated, foul—dreadfully foul—and the stench appalling. He spoke only of what he had seen, and he believed that at least a quarter of the city was underground. It would easily be supposed that such damp, ill-ventilated, and foul lodgings had their effect on the death-rate. That it had a deleterious effect was proved by the fact that the Governor had appointed a Commission of six medical men to inquire into the subject, the death-rate being 45 per 1,000, although Malta, per se, was naturally a healthy place. Dr. Giulio, in his Report, had said that those who had seen only the best parts of Malta could form no adequate notion of the bad hygienic state of the other parts. In particular, the drainage was exceedingly defective, and so highly charged was the atmosphere of many of the houses, that the inmates ran the risk of being poisoned by hydro-sulphide of ammonia. If any other evidence was needed as to the deplorable condition to which the poorer Maltese had been reduced by excessive taxation, it would be found in a Petition that had been presented to the House, and which recited "the heartrending misery which prevails already among the poor." Now, he wished to know why that misery had been inflicted, incurred as it was for the purpose of paving and lighting the streets, draining the town, and doing many other things, simply, as he believed, for the benefit of the upper classes? In very many cases the proceeds of the taxation seemed to be misapplied—as, for instance, in the maintenance of a University, where the sons of the rich received a semi-gratuitous education, paying only in fees, at the rate of 2s. 6d. monthly per family, the sum of £248 a-year, whilst £4,397 came from the people's food; and the building, at a very considerable cost, of an opera-house. He might mention that the opera-house had been built on land belonging to the community, and that £48,000 had been spent on its erection. On a careful examination of the expenditure upon the Island, he found that a sum of £71,000 was spent which in

    1901
    England, or elsewhere, would be paid out of local taxation. Why, he desired to know, should there be no rates or taxes in Malta? There were no better cared-for or more copiously watered streets than those in Valetta—equal in all respects to the best looked after streets in the West End of London or the fashionable districts of Brighton; and all this was done without any householders' tax; but it should be clearly understood, out of the taxes on solid, food. He should like to know why the people who lived in good houses in the town should not pay for that which cost money, and which they enjoyed? In no other place in the world with which he was acquainted were these things, as well as gas, police, sewage, obtained without the payment of a single sixpence by those whom they chiefly benefited—the householders; and he might add that it seemed also that these existing evils were only coincident with our occupation of the Island; for previously to that the owners of property had to pay their share of the general taxation. Now, a rate of 2s. 6d. on the house property would, according to Mr. Rowsell, give £40,000 a-year, and if the rate were made general it would realize £70,000 a-year, which would enable the Government of the Island to abolish the taxes on food and the harbour dues, so as to make Valetta a free port. Mr. Rowsell said that the upper classes in Malta had an "hysterical objection to pay money;" but if they had money's worth, why should they have it paid for out of the most miserable class of the population? It was no doubt said that if the taxation were altered it would affect the selling value of property; but even if this were so, it only showed that the owners of property had hitherto derived more than they ought to do from it, because they were allowed by our neglect to rob the poor. If the value of property were diminished by a rate, Malta by being better governed would enjoy greater prosperity than it had ever enjoyed. It was said that nine-tenths of the people were perfectly content with things as they were; but it was impossible to suppose that people would be content to be robbed in this way. It was said that no public meetings had been held to complain of bad administration; but the people were threatened, and warned not to hold public meetings.
    1902
    It appeared to him that the upper classes were robbers of helpless infancy and stealers from street beggars. Malta had two cardinal wants—the first was indicated in the terms of his Motion, and the second was that of a Governor whose sole business should be the good government of the population of the Island. If Malta were made an absolutely free port, the number of ships that would call there would be very considerably increased, and there would be an increase of work for the population of the Island. Malta, alone of all the Colonies that he knew, owed absolutely nothing. It had £80,000 in the Funds, and the estates of the Knights of Malta, which successive English Governors had recognized as State property, were worth not less than £1,300,000. If there were a Governor who would put the saddle on the right horse, he might, by seeing that the population of the Island was fairly and justly dealt with and that the latent industries of the country were developed, initiate a period of prosperity the like of which had never been known before in the Island. He (Mr. Plimsoll) thought he had proved the existence of a grievous wrong and a terrible injustice, that the remedy was easy, and that the objections were selfish and frivolous. But with energy and determination they could easily be overcome. The injustice was so terrible that he hoped the House would lift the burden off the shoulders of those unfortunate people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
    MR. ISAAC,in seconding the Resolution, said, he would not offer any apology rising to support the hon. Member for Derby, nor would he follow him through all his remarks. He (Mr. Plimsoll) had, no doubt, been carried away by his excessive kind-heartedness and sympathetic feelings; and although he (Mr. Isaac) could not go to the same extent, he considered the Resolution was one which not only deserved, but demanded the consideration of Parliament. His hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had referred, in the course of his speech, in terms of condemnation to the action of a gentleman with whom he (Mr. Isaac) had been acquainted for many years, General Straubenzee. He would tell his hon. Friend that a better man did not exist in. the British Army than the gentleman whom he had charged, he had almost

    1903
    said, with crime. He would ask his hon. Friend whether the fault did not rest with the laws the Governor had to put into force, rather than with any action of the man himself? The points which ought to be considered were the appointment of a civil, in addition to a military Governor, the re-adjustment of taxation, the sanitary condition of the whole Island, and the education of its people. The re-adjustment of taxation was imperative, because the present system pressed unequally on the people. The poor and working classes were heavily taxed—the idle, the rich, and the noble paid, comparatively, no taxes—the duties levied upon grain, food, and alcoholic liquors were, indeed, a serious hardship upon those who were compelled to pay them. With regard to the first point, it might be said that no change could be made which would be satisfactory to the people. We had heard that said of other places greater and smaller than Malta; but had always found, when the changes had been made, that they proved to be beneficial, not only to those who had at one time been oppressed, but equally so to those who had been considered oppressors. Considerable changes had been made in the government of the Island, both before it was ceded to this country and since the cession. In 1800, when the Island was taken by this country, we had to inaugurate some system of government. After 1814 we made great changes. In 1816 a change was made; in 1834 another change; in 1838 another; and in 1849 the Constitution of the Island was entirely altered. Not taking his information from what had been said in the House by the hon. Member for Derby, or from the letters he had written, but from persons who had been employed in the government of the Island, or had resided there for many years, he believed that though his hon. Friend had put his case very strongly, he had not exceeded the bounds of reasonable complaint as to the way in which Malta had been governed, and the unfortunate poor of the Island had been treated. During the last half-century we had made great, strides in carrying Free Trade principles into operation in this country; we had removed from the edibles used by the poor all taxation; and he saw no reason why, according to justice and common sense, we should not
    1904
    do the same for the poor of the Island of Malta. As to the necessity for the re-adjustment of taxation, it could be proved that the lower classes in Malta were much more heavily taxed than the nobles and other classes. The principal kinds of food which the people had to subsist upon were bread, macaroni, with occasionally a few olives, a fish sandwich, and a little garlic. He had been told by a gentleman who had lived four years in the place that in the old capital of the Island, with over 3,000 inhabitants, they killed butcher's meat only one day in the week, and the demand for it was so small that they had to send the greater part to Valetta to be disposed of. The people were, therefore, obliged to use grain and those things which were taxed by the laws of the Island. That was a system of taxation which ought not to exist in any Dependency or Colony of the Crown. The question had also been mooted with regard to a land tax. What country in the Empire did not pay a land-tax, or a house tax, and a large number of other taxes? Why should Malta be the only place in Her Majesty's dominions which did not pay the land tax? He thought there would be no difficulty in raising a fair and reasonable rate of taxation for Imperial purposes from all the property in the Island, and that these changes, if carried, would be for the benefit of all parties, and were not without precedent. He believed that if Her Majesty's Ministers were to take this matter into consideration, so that some great reform was made, they would do that which would redound to their credit as much as anything they had done in the course of their Administration. In the first place, then, he would abolish the tax upon food, and supply the deficiency by a tax upon the property of the Church, and all other property, which at present enjoyed an immunity from taxation. He would, too, have the sanitary condition of the dwellings of the poor better ventilated and drained. The necessity for this was more than proved by the statement made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Plimsoll), from the experience he had gained on the spot; but if those statements needed additional arguments to impress them on the House, he (Mr. Isaac) could state, from the best possible authority, that during the general drainage repairs in Valetta the stench from the open roads was fearful—the soil,

    1905
    super-saturated with, sewage and gas leakage, caused an epidemic of the measle type amongst adults, as well as children, along the whole route of the excavations, and caused the loss of many lives. Another instance of the serious effects of want of proper sanitary reforms was in 1865–6, when upwards of 200 deaths occurred amongst the inhabitants of ground Mezzanine and underground floors before any case occurred to the occupants of the proper houses. Lord Clarence Paget, when at the opening of the new Hydraulic Dock, in January, 1873, said, that according to the last Census, the population of Malta was 124,000, being about 1,200 to the square mile, and, therefore, denser than any other part of the globe; and, that what was still more striking and appalling was its rapid increase, being something like 1,000 in every year. He suggested the Maltese should colonize the shores of the Mediterranean, and particularly pointed out Cyrenica, formerly one of the principal granaries of ancient Rome. That surely and clearly proved that emigration was the only way of providing for the population; and if they had to emigrate, it must be to a place where they could speak the language of the people. He thought, then, that they might establish elementary schools in the Island, in which the people might be taught English; it was highly desirable that they should learn to speak some other language than the mixture of Italian and Arabic which was their vernacular. He should rejoice if the glory and honour of improving the condition of the Island of Malta belonged to a Conservative Government. If, instead of holding Malta for the Maltese, they regarded it as an English Colony, the effect would be to make the nobles feel they were Englishmen, and thus would be infused into the society of the Island a more truly English feeling, and a belief that it had been left, amongst other important duties, to a Conservative Government to reform the laws and the government of the important Island of Malta, that had been so long neglected by the masterly inactivity of their Liberal predecessors.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the cost of maintaining the Police, and of draining, repairing,
    1906
    lighting, cleaning, and watering the streets, &c. in Malta, should be paid out of a rate upon house and other property (upon which, at present, no rates or taxes of any kind whatever are levied), and not, inter alia, out of a tax upon wheat and other grain for food, and upon potatoes and other vegetables, which, as a matter of fact, actually takes more per head from the very poor who live in cellars than it takes per head from those who live in the best houses in the streets and squares; and the House is therefore further of opinion that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as may be necessary to secure the abolition of the taxes on food in Malta on and from the 1st day of January 1881,—(Mr. Plimsoll,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. MAC IVER,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
    "To call the attention of the House to the condition of Malta; and to move, That, with respect to local administration, no outlay of public money should take place, no taxes should be imposed, nor any law be passed, except with the consent of a majority of the elected Members of the Council of Government;"
    said, he should not have thought that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) ever had been in Malta, had he not seen the hon. Gentleman there. It certainly did not appear, either from his speech or from the speech of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Isaac), that they knew anything about the Island. Let him (Mr. Mac Iver) remind the House how Malta became a part of the Empire. In 1798 the Maltese bravely withstood the French and maintained, their independence, and afterwards they willingly placed themselves under British rule. Therefore, they owed something to the Maltese. The Maltese were a deeply religious Roman Catholic people, and he (Mr. Mac Iver) had a letter from their Archbishop, who was certainly not in favour of the views of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. For himself, having spent years of his life in Malta, and still maintaining his associations with the place, he now spoke on behalf of the Maltese; and he was supported by a Memorial from the elected Members of the Council in the views he ventured to urge. There was not the smallest pretence for saying that the elected Members of the Council did not represent the feelings of 999 out of every 1,000 of the inhabitants. Acknowledging the perfect sincerity of the hon.

    1907
    Member for Derby, he yet thought that hon. Gentleman was apt at times to take an exaggerated and distorted view of facts. The undisputed facts in this matter were, that the entire revenue of Malta derived from any kind of taxation was about £100,000, and that of this amount some £50,000 was raised by those taxes to which the hon. Member for Derby was opposed. The hon. Gentleman evidently thought that the whole of the deficiency in regard to that £50,000 might reasonably be recouped from a charge of some kind or other on house property. Now, the population was about 150,000, and the number of houses perhaps something like 30,000. Nine out of ten of the houses in which the people lived were rented at £2 or £3 a-year; and if they put a tax of 20 s. or 30 s. on each of those houses, that would be very like adding 40 or 50 per cent to the house rent which the people had hitherto paid. That was, practically, what the hon. Member's proposal came to. There were in Malta no rich persons, or not more than about half-a-dozen, and the great bulk of the revenue required to meet local needs must be obtained from the great mass of the population. The real question, therefore, was, how could that be done with the least inconvenience and distress to the Maltese people? Surely, the wishes of the people themselves ought to have some weight, and they were averse from any material change of their system, of taxation. Although a few agitators had done their best to stir up discontent, the inhabitants of the Island were not dissatisfied; they were a law-abiding, well-conducted community, who desired ever to remain a portion of the British Empire; but they did feel that sometimes the House of Commons forgot the circumstances in which the Island became a part of our Empire and did not sufficiently regard the wishes of the Maltese people. Malta enjoyed the reality of an unrestricted commerce with all parts of the Mediterranean, and was, practically, almost a free port, Customs duties being levied on only one or two articles. The general prosperity of Malta depended upon its continuing to be the cheapest port of that part of the Mediterranean; but the Free Traders had proposed changes in the finances of the Island which threatened to destroy its trade altogether, and that had been
    1908
    the occasion of the riots which had occurred there. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) complained that the taxation of the Island was in favour of the rich, as against the poor; but this statement was based upon imaginary data. Much stress had been laid upon the fact that extensive drainage works had been undertaken by the Government in Malta; but the truth was, that those drainage works had been executed, not for the advantage of the Maltese, but of the British Fleet and of the troops who were quartered there. The demand of the Maltese people was that, with respect to local administration, no expenditure should be incurred, that no taxes should be imposed, and that no law should be passed, except with the consent of a majority of the elected Members of the Council of Government; and, in his opinion, that was a most reasonable proposal. Malta and Cyprus were both on the high road to India—the former was over-populated, the latter was thinly-populated—and, therefore, the best thing we could do was to induce the surplus population of Malta to emigrate to Cyprus.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERrose to second the Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that it had already been seconded.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had expected, after listening to the first portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), that it would be shown that his (Mr. Anderson's) hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had no case, for he set out by promising to demolish it entirely; but after hearing the remainder of the speech, and particularly the remarkable conclusion at which the hon. Member for Birkenhead had arrived, he thought that the arguments of the hon. Member for Derby were unassailable. What was it that the hon. Member for Birkenhead proposed to do for the people of Malta? Why, his proposal would be to send them from the frying-pan into the fire. The only thing he had to offer for their good was to deport them to Cyprus. Malta, he (Mr. Anderson) believed, was hot; but no one would venture to compare it to Cyprus. The hon. Member wished to induce the people of Malta to consent to be deported from an uncomfortable Island into a still more disagreeable place. He did not suppose the hon.

    1909
    Member's Maltese friends would be very grateful to him for that proposal. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mac Iver) compared the proposal to impose a house tax on Malta to the Chancellor of the Exchequer adding 30 per cent to our own house tax; but the analogy was quite in another way, the present system at Malta was just as if the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken the paving and cleansing and lighting of the Metropolis, all of which were to be paid for out of the general taxation of the country. In Malta the Customs dues were used for those purposes; and, not only that, but in Valetta a University was kept up and an opera-house had also been erected, at great cost, by the same means, and it was not right that the lower classes of the Islands generally should have to provide for the maintenance of the buildings there. Malta, in fact, was made pleasant and gay, at the expense of the people, for the officials sent from England. It was complained that the poor people of Malta were taxed on food for the sake of keeping the upper classes free from taxation, and making the place in every way pleasant to them. In all the taxes which affected the poor people, they were made to pay much more heavily than the upper classes. The hon. Member for Birkenhead had questioned the figures of Mr. Rowsell, who said that, while the working class were taxed at the rate of 15 s. 7d. per head, the officials and wealthier classes who had £500 or £1,000 a-year or more paid only 10 s. 10 d.; and he had asserted there were no figures in the Report to sustain that argument. But Mr. Rowsell had figures, and these showed that there were 27,000 of the official and wealthier classes in Malta, and 112,000 poor persons whose average wages were 1s. a-day. He showed how the amount was made up, and his figures were incontestable. [Mr. MAC IVER denied there was any calculation of the kind.] He would refer the hon. Gentleman to page 15, where the calculation was clearly set out. Mr. Rowsell showed that in the matter of bread duty alone the rich class contributed 5s. and the poor class 10 s. per head. The hon. Member for Birkenhead also went on to show that a tax on house property would prove inoperative, and that it would not be possible to raise the required amount in that way. But Mr. Rowsell proved to the contrary.
    1910
    He proved that 6d. in the pound of rental would yield £8,000 a-year; but in this country 2s. 6d. was a low rate for local purposes, and that rate in Malta would yield £40,000 a-year. He (Mr. Anderson) felt that the House would accept the statements of Mr. Rowsell in preference to the opinions of the hon. Member for Birkenhead; for they showed, to the satisfaction of most hon. Members of that House, that Malta, after being for nearly a century in our possession, was about the worst-governed spot in Her Majesty's Dominions. We governed the Island not for the good of the people there, but entirely with a view to the fortress. He suggested that a civil Governor, to be paid by Malta, should be appointed, as well as the military Governor, whose salary, reduced from £5,000 to £3,000 a-year, ought to be paid by us. For the last 25 years the Government of Malta had been a dictatorship, for the military Governors had been very much under the influence of the permanent officials, and Sir Adrian Dingli was the real Dictator at Malta. Some of the Governors we sent out were very weak, and entirely in his hands. The late Governor, Sir C. Straubenzee, had been of this class, an amiable well meaning man, but as weak as water, as was proved by his conduct in the riots of last year, when he had been censured by the Colonial Secretary for allowing the mob to enter the corridors of the Palace. There was another difficulty in connection with Malta, and that was the state of the franchise. The hon. Member for Birkenhead had a Resolution on the Paper, recommending that there should be no outlay of public money, except with the consent of the majority of the elected Members of the Council—a rule that had been enforced for some time by Lord Cardwell, but had been abandoned of late years, with the result that the votes of the eight elected Members were usually swamped by those of the nine official Councillors. So flagrant was this system that in one case the casting vote of an official had made an addition to his own salary. That swamping of the elected Members' votes, however, would be a greater grievance, if the elected Members represented a larger constituency than the 2,000 persons who composed the electorate. At first sight the franchise seemed liberal enough, being based on the principle

    1911
    of a £4 occupancy; but it was too severely restricted by the absurd stipulation that no one should vote who did not understand English or Italian, both of which were foreign languages in Malta. In this country we sanctioned even the illiterate voter; but on the Maltese system we would not only abolish him, but require every voter to understand Welsh or Gaelic. That was a point on which reforms were urgently needed and might be very usefully introduced in Malta; as if that restriction were removed, the constituencies would be largely increased, and the Members of the Council would be more truly representative. The widening of the franchise, and the appointment of a civil Governor to attend to the civil business of the Island, were the two subjects with respect to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies would, he hoped, take immediate action. In conclusion, he would say that the lower classes, he thought, had been compelled to pay taxes which should have been put on the wealthier classes through property taxation; and he urged, in the strongest manner, that the Resolution should be adopted, and the taxes on food in Malta should cease from the 1st of January, 1881.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had been so comprehensive and had gone into so much useful detail that his own observations need not be long. He fully admitted the good intentions and benevolent objects of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), a well-known instance of which, in the case of our merchant seamen, would be familiar to the House. It had struck him, however, that the part played by the hon. Member in the present case was a little Quixotic. The circumstances of the hon. Member's Motion reminded him of the celebrated reply given by the Needy Knifegrinder in The Anti-Jacobin—
    "Story, God bless you! I have none to tell, Sir,"
    for, in fact, though they had heard how the Maltese were starved and ill-treated, that unhappy people had not told their own story or pleaded their own wrongs. Had the hon. Member come to the House with any Petition from them, and could he mention any public meeting that had been held in support of his
    1912
    views? He (Sir George Bowyer) had in his hand a pamphlet written by the hon. Member, and would ask the attention of the House to two extracts from it, which would show the exaggeration and absence of exact thought and argument that had characterized his statement. In one of those passages, he had attributed the insanitary condition of the place to the import duties on corn; in the other, he had hotly attacked the Government of the Island, of course, including in his denunciations the Secretary of State. In that second passage he had written that he had seen in London portraits of the great brigands of Palermo, and among them those of Leoni and his gang, with whom, he said, he had rather stand at the Judgment Day than with the men who had inflicted on Malta the terrible evils of which he complained. He (Sir George Bowyer) did not mean to assert that the condition of things was perfect in Malta; but he did say that, if modifications in the taxation were to be made, they ought to spring from the wishes of the people themselves, and not to be imposed on the people by the Free-traders of this country. The Maltese said they were used to the fiscal system they possessed, and that any substitutes that might be proposed for the existing taxes would be far more grievous than those in force at present. They thought their system was not one to be complained of, and they asked to be let alone. This was a very reasonable view for them to take, and he hoped the House would be disposed to accept it. Without Protection, the cultivation of cereals, which, from a military point of view, was of great importance, would probably cease altogether in the Island. He had had Maltese affairs passing through his hands for a number of years; and he believed the Government would do wisely in refusing to adopt any large scheme of alteration in the financial system of the Island, and confining themselves to the consideration of political details. He strongly deprecated the slighting manner in which the hon. Member for Derby and others had referred to the Maltese nobility. They were an ancient and honourable class, possessed of education and high attainments, and holding a distinguished position in the Island. The hon. Member for Birkenhead had pointed out what

    1913
    was the real defect in the mode of government in Malta—namely, the constitution of the Legislative Council. Hon. Gentlemen who wished to benefit the inhabitants would be taking a much more useful course if they applied themselves to the remedy of this political grievance. The opinions of the Representatives of the people ought to have the greatest possible weight; but their voice was stifled. The people of Malta were loyal—in fact, there were no more loyal subjects of the British Crown and they deserved great consideration. He maintained that Gibraltar, Malta, and Cyprus were most important to this country for military and political purposes, and it was important that we should cultivate the goodwill of the inhabitants of those places. If they were friendly to us, half the battle was gained. Although Malta was a small place, we were bound to hear its case. There was a military Governor. He was a most gallant officer, and deserved the greatest respect in a military and in every other point of view; but his chief work was the care of the garrison. A civil Governor would be employed in other ways. In Ireland we had a Lord Lieutenant and a Commander-in-chief. Why should there not be the same arrangement in Malta? The people of Malta paid £5,000 a-year out of their pockets for this Governor, who was chiefly employed as commander of the English troops. They said—"We do not think it is fair that we should have to pay the salary of a Commander-in-chief for Imperial purposes and not for the purposes of the Island." That point deserved consideration, with a view to its being remedied.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that it was possible to live in a place, and to come out of it, without any very accurate perception of the condition of its inner life. Now, although he had never been in the Island of Malta, he knew something of the state of things which existed there, and had no difficulty, basing his opinion even on the speeches of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver)—and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was not sure that he would take the views of that hon. Member on any social or political question—and the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), both of whom had lived at Malta, in
    1914
    coming to the conclusion that the system of taxation which prevailed in the Island was not entitled to the approval of the House. In his opinion, neither speech had touched the fringe of the question before the House. There was on the one side a great degree of penury and squalor; while upon the other there was a class who, though perhaps not rich in the sense in which people were said to be rich in this country, were well off; and yet the greater portion of the taxes of the Island were raised on the food on which the poor for the most part lived. Surely, that could not be an equitable state of things; and it was, under those circumstances, absurd, he thought, to speak of the people of Malta as being contented, with their squalor and underground cellars, in the way the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford had done, considering the abject condition in which they were placed; and he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had paid the Island a visit and was able to tell the House—what the official Reports did not do—the real facts of the case. He should like, he might add, to see some system of real representation established in Malta, so that reforms might be instituted from within; but by whatever means the end was effected, the present unjust—he had almost said ridiculous—system of taxation, which operated so unjustly, ought to be abolished. In conclusion, he thought they owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Derby for bringing this subject under public attention.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was in the unfortunate position of not being able to agree either with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) or his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver). Though sympathizing with much in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, he could not but think it somewhat exaggerated, and that the hon. Member made rather too much of the bread tax in attributing to it all that was wrong in the condition of the Island. The bread tax was not even the main source of taxation, for only one-half of the taxes raised came from that source. He acknowledged that was a large amount; but it was less than would he inferred from the speech of the hon. Member for Derby. The hon.

    1915
    Member represented the tax as a burden imposed by the richer classes in Malta upon the poorer. That was hardly correct, for the hon. Member was unable to bring forward any instance to show that the poorer classes were themselves opposed to the tax. And, surely, the mendicancy of the Island was to be attributed to the poorness of the soil and the scarcity of employment rather than to that cause. The hon. Member also thought that the insanitary condition of the Island was due to the tax; and he instanced houses he had himself seen in some of the worst quarters of the city. There was, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would admit, a block of buildings, containing about 1,600 persons, which ought certainly to be swept away in any sanitary improvement which might be made; but that particular place was no more a fair sample of the whole of Malta, than a slice from the Seven Dials would be of the state of London. We had, in this country, for many years freedom from taxation on bread; but in spite of that we had found it necessary to pass Artizans' Dwellings Acts, and we had to meet no slight opposition to the taxation required for sanitary purposes. He understood that even in the town which the hon. Member represented, though there was no bread tax, there was a certain amount of disinclination, on the part of the Corporation, to adopt the provisions of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, though it was very necessary that it should be done. He quite admitted that this tax on food was objectionable for many reasons; and he had stated those reasons in the despatch he addressed last year to the Governor of Malta. He quite admitted, also, that the sanitary condition of the Island was capable of improvement, and he had done a good deal since he came into his present Office to promote that improvement. The drainage of what was called the "Three Cities" had been under consideration in Malta; and, finding that by the existing system, which was described as "a system of elongated cesspools," the sewage of a city with 50,000 persons was discharged into the harbour, and remembering that this country, on account of our Naval and Military Departments, was prepared to contribute liberally to the expenses, he felt himself justified in directing that the proposed scheme
    1916
    should be passed through the Council, in spite of the opposition of the elected Members. That step had occasioned much complaint on the part of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford and others, who said that Malta had been taxed for the benefit of this country. But Malta would pay only four-sevenths of the cost of a work which was very much for her benefit. The passing of a measure similar in its provisions to our Public Health Acts, which might enable the Government to deal with the insanitary condition of some of the worst places in the Island, had been pressed for some years past upon the Council of Malta, but had been stopped by the opposition of the elected Members. There, again, the question arose whether it would not be in the interest of the Island that the opposition of the elected Members should no longer be allowed to prevent the necessary reforms? When he came into Office, he found that his Predecessor had directed an Inquiry into the system of taxation, and a Report had shortly before been received at the Colonial Office. The subject was new to him; but he had considered it as far as he could; and last summer he addressed a despatch to the Governor of Malta, proposing that one-half of the bread tax should be taken off. It appeared to him that was as far as it was possible to go, considering that there was a heavy burden on the Revenues of Malta for drainage and other matters, and it would be necessary to provide from other sources what was lost by taking off that portion of the tax. The question was necessarily postponed to the present year, and the matter was then brought forward by the Members of the Government in Council, and debated. He was now waiting for the Report of the debates in the Council; because, before proceeding any further, he wished to have before him the views, not only of the official, but of the elected Members of the Council, on this important subject. Some years ago, one of his Predecessors in the Colonial Office—Lord Cardwell—addressed a very well-known despatch to the Governor of Malta, wherein he stated his views as to the weight which should be attached to the opinions of the elected Members of the Council in these and similar questions. Lord Cardwell stated that great consideration should be shown to the

    1917
    opinions of the elected Members of the Council in matters of local interest, and that no vote of local taxation or expenditure should be passed against a majority of the elected Members, unless in very exceptional circumstances, when the public credit was immediately at stake, and never without an immediate Report to the Secretary of State. Having regard to that view, which had been expressed so solemnly by one of his Predecessors at the Colonial Office, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had thought it was only fair and right that he should pay every consideration to the opinions of the elected Members of the Council on such a subject. He should have failed to pay that consideration if he had, without even hearing the opinions of the elected Members, pressed on the Council of Malta so great a change in their system of taxation as would be involved in the abolition of half this bread tax. As soon as he received those opinions, he should give them the consideration to which they would be entitled; and it would then be his duty to take such action in the matter as the circumstances seemed to him to demand. He trusted, however, that the House would not, that evening, fetter his action upon this question by adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby. That Motion amounted to an expression of opinion that, whatever might be the views of the Maltese, who were the people concerned, at a certain date—namely, in the year 1881—the whole of this bread tax should be repealed, and the whole fiscal system of the Island changed; and that, with regard to certain items of expenditure—such as drainage, lighting, paving, and so on—they should be paid for by the imposition of a rate. But he was assured that the imposition of a rate would be, of all things, the most distasteful to the Maltese: and not merely to the wealthier classes, but to all the householders of Malta. Was that House not merely to alter the whole system of Maltese taxation, but to insist on the householders of Malta declaring a rate for certain purposes, whether they liked it or not? Moreover, would such a proceeding really carry out the views of the hon. Member for Derby? The most telling part of the hon. Member's speech was his account of the wretched habitations in which some of the poorer classes
    1918
    of Malta had to live. Did the hon. Member suppose that if the taxation were divided into two portions, as he would recommend, sanitary reform would become more popular in Malta, if it were to be effected by the levying of a rate, instead of being paid for by the present system of indirect taxation? He was afraid that the adoption of the hon. Member for Derby's proposal would defeat the hon. Gentleman's own object. There was force in the remark of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), that reform should come from within rather than from without. Surely, even the hon. Member for Derby would wish that there should be a proof given of the desire of the people, or some portion of it, for a change before it was made. At present, the mass of the people were not represented by the small electorate of Malta; and he thought it a matter which was deserving of consideration whether, in this and similar questions affecting the Island, the first and wisest step would not be to increase in some way the electorate? For these reasons, he would ask the House not to pass the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby; but to leave the matter in his hands, and allow him to try to deal with it on the principles which he had indicated.
    MR. PLIMSOLLrose to reply, but—
    MR. SPEAKERinformed him that he was not entitled, by the Rules of the House, to make a second speech.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 62: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 201.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £140,530, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880,"

  1919
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £139,530, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Mr. A. Moore.)
  MR. A. MOOREsaid, that they were not asking the Government to increase the salaries, but only to make inquiries with regard to the Roman Catholic chaplains. They asked that the Roman Catholic chaplains might be granted proper facilities to discharge their functions. He thought that that was a very reasonable request. He should also like to know whether the Minute of the 7th of June last had been carried out? for the evidence as to the manner in which it had been carried out was anything but satisfactory. Unless they received a satisfactory explanation on these points, he should certainly move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman move to report Progress?
  MR. A. MOORE: No, Sir.
  MR. W. H. SMITHcould assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Moore) that every possible facility was given to the chaplains of every denomination to discharge their duties. He thought that an assurance to that effect had been given when the Vote was last under discussion. He was not aware that there was any absence of those facilities of which the hon. Gentleman complained; and he was under the impression that the gentlemen occupying the position of chaplains were satisfied. He need not refer to communications that passed between those persons and the Admiralty, further than to assure the hon. Gentleman that no complaints had been made by any gentleman holding that position that he had not received every facility in the discharge of his duties. If the hon. Member would bring to his notice any case in which proper facilities had not been given, the matter would receive his attention, with a view to remove the grievance complained of. It was his duty—and it must be the duty of every person occupying the position he had the honour to hold—to afford assistance to the clergymen of every denomination to visit members of their Church, and properly perform their duty.
  MAJOR NOLANwished to bring before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains on board troopships. Occasionally, it might happen that there were as many Roman Catholics on board a troopship as members of.the Established Church. Sometimes 25 per cent of the regiments were Catholics, and some regiments contained a great many more Catholics than others. It must occasionally happen that there were more Catholics on board a troopship than Protestants; the number of Catholics must sometimes amount to between 400 and 500. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would not think it desirable to send Catholic chaplains with troopships containing that number of Catholics? The right hon. Gentleman very fairly promised that where the number of Catholics exceeded 300 or 400 on board a troopship, then a Roman Catholic chaplain should be sent. Of course, if there were no Catholics, or very few, on board, he saw no reason why the regular custom should be departed from. But, on the other hand, if the number of Catholics on board was great, he did not see why a Roman Catholic chaplain should not be sent as a regular thing.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he was anxious to ascertain what had been done between that year and the last to remedy the grievance which the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged to exist? He should like to be informed what changes had been made between last year and the present in accordance with the promise which had been made to the House. He did not mean to impute to the right hon. Gentleman any intention not to carry out his promise in an entirely bonâ fide manner, and, doubtless, it had been carried out to the best of his ability. But, still, he should like to ascertain exactly what changes had been made to remedy the grievance which was admitted to exist?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Admiral commanding-in-chief in the Mediterranean had acknowledged the receipt of the Circular from the Admiralty requesting him to provide religious ministrations for any considerable number of men of the Roman Catholic religion when they were for a long time

  1921
  away from port. The Admiral said that he would
  "Carry out the directions of the Admiralty; but that necessity had not arisen for providing special services for the Roman Catholics on board the squadron."
  No doubt, it was exceedingly rare for a vessel to be long away from a port where the services of a Roman Catholic priest were not available; but the orders which had been issued by the Admiralty would, no doubt, be faithfully carried out. The hon. Gentleman would see that the undertaking that had been given on the part of the Government had been fulfilled. Of course, it was impossible to place a second chaplain on board the same ship. With regard to the troopships, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) must remember that the accommodation for officers on board them was limited. The troopships running between England and India, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew, called at Gibraltar, Malta, and at Suez, where the Roman Catholic soldiers could be landed, if they expressed a desire to do so, and could receive the ministrations of their religion. Whether soldiers or sailors it was the duty of the Admiralty to afford them every proper facility for attending the ministrations of their religion. But he could not undertake to provide a Roman Catholic chaplain for every ship and for every troopship that sailed. Everything that he could, do to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen to provide for the faith of their fellow-countrymen he would do; but he did not wish to create false impressions, and he did not think it possible to carry Roman Catholic chaplains on board troopships.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that on some troopships there might be 400 or 500 Catholics on board, and he thought that they were entitled to a chaplain. He did not propose putting a chaplain on board a troopship as a permanancy; but it would be possible to send them on board whenever required. Many chaplains would be quite willing to go for nothing, if they were given the passage. The Government had only to hold up its finger, and plenty would offer themselves. With regard to accommodation, there was no difficulty, because every troopship accommodated from 120 to 150 officers. If the right hon. Gentleman
  1922
  was anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Members, he (Major Nolan) thought that it would be easy for him to provide services for troops on board ship, where 400 or 500 of them were Roman Catholics. Probably, where there were less than that number on board, it would not be possible to provide the chaplains. With regard to what had been said about troops obtaining the ministrations of Catholic priests at places where the vessel called, it would be impossible for a large number of troops to be landed, or, if landed, it would be impossible to get them back again. They must either have services on board, or they must do without them altogether.
  MR. PARNELLwished to know whether any chaplains had been appointed under the Order issued by the Admiralty? The right hon. Gentleman informed them that the Order directed a chaplain should be provided in certain circumstances; but he did not say whether any chaplains had been provided under those circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had also said that he could not undertake to provide chaplains for troopships in any case; but would he say that it was his intention to provide chaplains for troopships in certain cases?
  MR. GRAYsaid, that the meaning of the despatch of the Admiral was, that he would be ready to obey the directions, but there was no necessity for them. On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman had said that owing to the want of accommodation—a very extraordinary reason, considering the size of the ships—he could not undertake to provide chaplains for every ship; but he used the expression that he would provide chaplains for every squadron. He (Mr. Gray) was anxious to ascertain what chaplains had been provided, under the Order which had been issued; or, if any had been provided at all? It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to give them an assurance that something should be done; but they would like something a little more definite. It was a very simple matter to give them the information which they required.
  MR. W. H. SMITHobserved, that the Commander-in-chief had orders to embark a Roman Catholic chaplain with the squadron, under circumstances which

  1923
  were indicated in the Circular. In reply, the Admiral had said that—
  "The Minute of the 17th June, 1878, had been carried out, but that the squadron had never teen absent from a port where the services of a Roman Catholic priest were available except for a very short time, and it had not been necessary to embark the Roman Catholic chaplain."
  He (Mr. W. H. Smith) had distinctly said in that House that he would provide Roman Catholic chaplains for the Fleet when they were away from places where the services of Roman Catholic priests were available. An Order to that effect had been carried out, but the circumstances had not arisen in which the squadron were away from the port for any considerable period; and it had not, therefore, been necessary to embark a Roman Catholic chaplain. If the circumstances had arisen in which it had been directed that a chaplain should be embarked, then the Admiral would have been liable to severe censure for not carrying out the Order; but that had not been the case.
  MR. SULLIVANcould understand that the circumstances exactly contemplated in the Admiralty Minute had not arisen; but he should like to know what arrangements were made by the Admiral for the spiritual needs of the Roman Catholic seamen when the Fleet was in the Black Sea? Did he arrange for the services of the chaplain, and was the payment of that gentleman included in the Vote for the services of those gentlemen who performed chaplains' duty on board ship? He was unable to understand the Vote. They found a Vote for chaplains' services rendered by Catholic clergymen somewhere in the East. With respect to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), he (Mr. Sullivan) might observe that he had received letters from persons who had gone out to India by the transport ships, which letters spoke very strongly of the necessity of having some such provision on board large transports as the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommended. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would, perhaps, do him the justice to say that he had abstained from appearing unreasonably to press him about the matter ever since he had given the House the undertaking, on which, personally speaking, he had the most implicit reliance—that accommodation should be provided for the
  1924
  Roman Catholics in certain cases. That implicit reliance in the right hon. Gentleman he still had; but he would suggest to him that it might be necessary to see that the Orders which he had issued were carried out.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas willing to give the right hon. Gentleman every credit for his good intentions; but, so far as the facts went, they found that there had been no Roman Catholic chaplain appointed to the British Fleet during the recent emergency in the East, although there would have been a war if certain contingencies had arisen. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty did not propose to place Roman Catholic chaplains on board transport ships going out to India, although there might be 500 to 600 or more Catholic soldiers on board. So far as results went, it must be admitted that, up to the present, the promises made had not come to anything. He thought it very desirable, both in the interests of discipline and for the good of the men, that Catholic priests should be placed on board transports when many Catholic soldiers were carried. It was a total misconception of the Catholic religion to suppose that the whole matter ended with going to church on an occasional Sunday. When there was such extensive accommodation for officers on board the transports, he could not see a shadow of reason for refusing the services of a Catholic priest to 400 or 500 Catholic soldiers when going to and from India. The fact was that there was something like prejudice to the presence of Roman Catholic chaplains on board these ships on the part of those who were responsible for the management of the vessels. For his part, he could not see why the services of Catholic chaplains should be refused. The services of a Catholic priest might often be required by the Catholic soldiers on board the ships, and he did not see why they should not be at their disposal. Between the two cases of religion and of the cat, it seemed to him that the influence of religion would be a better deterrent from misconduct, and that it ought to be preferred. He entered into the spirit of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and he was prepared to give the Government credit for wishing to deal fairly with the

  1925
  Catholic soldiers; but, beyond all question, they would not deal fairly with, them with respect to the services of a Roman Catholic chaplain if they refused the services of a Roman Catholic priest to 500 soldiers going out to India.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYthought that they required some system by which the ministrations of Catholic clergymen to Catholic sailors should be better secured than at present. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to appoint five or six Catholic chaplains to the Navy, and to send them out when necessity arose. If he did that, he would give the Roman Catholics a much greater confidence than they at present possessed in the impartiality of the system. He did not think that such a provision would involve great expense. If the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Roman Catholic Bishops of this country, they would place at his disposal, at short notice, four or five gentlemen who could perform the duties, and who he might be able to dispense with when not required. They should draw some pay when not on active service, and be placed on full pay when on active service. That system would give the Roman Catholic clergyman some status. If their services were recognized as a part of the religious service of the Navy, it would go far to meet the desires of all concerned.
  MR. A. MOOREsaid, that the information which he had received led him to a different conclusion to that which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had put before the House. Apart from the question of troopships was the question of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains on invalid ships. Ships were sent home to England laden with sick men, and it was a hardship to them not to have the services of a chaplain of their religion in their last hours. It was not a question of appointing new chaplains, it was only a matter with regard to the existing Roman Catholic chaplains, who had at present no means of exercising their functions. On Sunday men were sent to church; but no facilities were afforded to the priest to visit and attend to their flocks. In other religions, the Queen's Regulations gave facilities and prescribed the duties of the chaplain. The chaplains of the Royal Navy of the Established Church
  1926
  were distinctly recognized, and given facilities for exercising their functions; but no corresponding facilities were given to Roman Catholics. He thought that the Roman Catholics were treated in a very high-handed manner. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was very anxious to take Supply; but he thought that, before the Vote was taken, they ought to have an assurance that further facilities should be given and further means taken to remedy the grievance of which they complained. He was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to facilitate the progress of Public Business, and so were his other hon. Friends; but unless the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance, or appoint a Committee to consider the matter, he must move to report Progress.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that if something were not done in the direction of removing their grievance they would have an opportunity of discussing the question again. He could see no difficulty in appointing Roman Catholic chaplains to large vessels carrying 800 or 900 troops, of whom some 500, as in the case of the 88th and 83rd Regiments, were Catholics. If a vessel were going a long distance, men were not allowed to land for the reason mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) did not see what possible objection there could be to allowing them to receive religious ministrations on board. He thought it was a matter of right on the part of soldiers in large troopships to have the services of a priest of their religion. They knew that there was ample accommodation on board these vessels, and that question did not need, therefore, to be considered in the matter. He could see no reason why the Admiralty should not accede to the suggestion which had been made.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was clear that Roman Catholic soldiers going out to India, or sailors serving on board ship, had had no additional facilities for obtaining the services of ministers of their own religion. Under these circumstances, they could only say that the Order issued by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was entirely illusory, and that it was not calculated to meet the exigencies

  1927
  of the case which, had been put forward from time to time. But he thought that they were entitled to something more than mere general promises from the right hon. Gentleman. It was obvious that the plan he proposed had been a failure, and did not meet the requirements of the case, and he thought they might fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman to propose some new scheme. They urged that there ought to be Roman Catholic chaplains on board the large troopships going out to India, on which great numbers of Roman Catholics were carried. In Ireland the services of the priest were much valued, and it was usual, if a man were ill or met with an accident, for the priest to see him before the doctor. They knew what extreme importance many of the humbler classes of Irish attached to the ministrations of a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church; yet they sent these men out long voyages, and many of them must die without the benefits of the last consolations of their religion. It was much harder for Roman Catholics to die without the consolations of their religion than it was for members of other Churches. In these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would see that the mere stoppage of a vessel at such a place as Aden did not give sufficient opportunity for the men to obtain the ministrations of their religion, which they ought to have as the voyage proceeded. Perhaps, at the very time that the services of the priest were available, they were not required, and vice versâ. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman perfectly understood the position, otherwise he would secure the ministrations of their religion to Roman Catholics on board troopships. He begged to move that Progress be reported, and that the Chairman ask leave to sit again. It was manifest that they could not proceed until they had given the Government an opportunity of considering the matter. By the time that the Committee sat again, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would have had time to investigate the question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell)
  MR. SULLIVANbegged to repeat exactly what it was that they did require, and what it was they thought should be carried out. They asked that whenever there were 300 men, or thereabouts, in the squadron belonging to the Catholic religion, the men in the different ships should have the advantage of the services of a Catholic chaplain so long as the squadron remained together. He might point out that he and some of his hon. Friends were not quite clear about the statement from the Admiral. His statement was, that they were never away from a port where the services of a local Catholic clergyman were available. If he was to understand by that, that immediately on the arrival of the squadron at any port a clergyman on shore was communicated with, and put at once into the position of chaplain to the squadron, they would be quite satisfied, and thought that was a reasonable carrying out of the promise given to them. But if, on the other hand, it only meant that the Admiral, or one of his captains, was in a position to send on shore for a priest, if his services were required, that was very different. He did not quarrel at all with the Instruction; all he wished to know was as to the way in which it was carried out. They did not merely want that if a man fell from the mast-head, for instance, and injured himself, that a priest should be sent for for him; but that these 300 or 400 Catholic seamen should have a clergyman attending them in the position of chaplain, ready to attend men, even in health, if they required it. They all knew, whatever their religious views, that the visits of their ministers, even if they were not in any immediate danger of death, was something to which they, as Christian men, attached extreme importance. If the chaplain did thus attend the men, he thought, as far as he was concerned, that the Instruction of the First Lord had been very fairly carried out. But if, on the other hand, there was merely the power, or the intention, to send for a priest from the shore, when he was required, that was a totally different thing. He hoped, however, that, in any case, they might not need to report Progress; but that the Vote would be finished at once. This religious question, he might say, was a very sore question with the men actually on service. He had no desire to en-

  1929
  cumber the Votes with Motions; but he might mention that he had had letter upon letter from men who complained of the absence of a chaplain on board the large transports, for instance, which were constantly going to and from India. There were very often 600 or 700 Catholics on board, and then the absence of a chaplain was most sorely felt. He could not forget, however, the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met him when he last brought the question before the House. He could not forget that he was met most readily, and in the fairest possible way; and, therefore, he hoped that this question of the transports would be satisfactorily considered.
  MR. W. H. SMITHacknowledged the extreme fairness of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and said that, to the best of his belief, the arrangement made last year had been carried out in the sense and in the manner he had suggested. He would, however, make further inquiry, in order to test the fact; because it was the desire of the Admiralty, and of every officer in the Navy, that the consolations of their religion should be afforded to men of the Roman Catholic faith just as they were afforded to men of any other religious faith, whenever they desired to have them. He might just say for himself that, some time ago, a case came to his knowledge in which an officer was severely censured for not having sent for a Roman Catholic priest when a man who was ill desired it. The vessel arrived in port, and circumstances rendered it probable that the man would not recover, and it came to the knowledge of the Admiralty that a Roman Catholic priest was not sent for. The Admiralty, therefore, severely censured that officer. As to the transports, he had said over and over again that he desired to afford facilities to these men for the performance of their religious duties; but he must point out that this was the first time the question had been definitely brought before him with regard to the transports, and that he had not absolute control over them. The ships themselves belonged to the India Office. The men, or rather the soldiers on board, were under the control of the War Department, and the men who worked the ships were, of course, sailors under the Admiralty. He did
  1930
  not know whether it would be possible to put a chaplain on board any of those ships; but he would only repeat that he would do everything in his power to meet any necessities which existed, honestly believing that the men had a right to demand that these desires of theirs should be complied with, and that their religious aspirations should be met. He could not, as the hon. and learned Member would see, give an absolute engagement, which he might not be able afterwards to perform; but he would do all that was in his power, and he would consider, with his Colleagues, how what was desired could be done.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that, for his part, he would be quite content if the right hon. Gentleman would say that where there was a certain number of Catholics on board a ship—say 250, or some such number—an endeavour would be made to procure chaplains. He would not suggest any number; but he would say about 300. Whenever, however, there was a sort of approach to a definite number, an effort should be made to send a chaplain on board. The difficulties raised by the First Lord of the Admiralty really did not exist, because, as a fact, the whole of the management of these transports was exclusively in the hands of the Admiralty. The only difficulty would be to get a return of the number of Catholics going in a particular ship, and he could get that with the greatest ease from the War Office. He knew, of course, that a chaplain could not always be sent, because a draft might be ordered at the last moment, or a larger number of men than was expected might arrive; but they would all be satisfied if he would do his best for sending a Roman Catholic chaplain with a certain number. There were often very much smaller congregations than 250 persons in England very fully provided with religion. These five regular transports, too, were very well known, just as well known as any five parishes in London, and quite as much before the country. He therefore hoped something definite would be done in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The difficulty of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty I take to be this—that this Question which is put to him he is unable to answer, because he speaks for his own

  1931
  Department only, and he is unable or unauthorized to speak for other Departments. But I can say for myself and my Colleagues in the Government that we regard the proposal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan), and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), as framed in a spirit decidedly fair and reasonable, and we shall do our best to get it carried out.
  MR. A. MOOREdid not wish to press his Motion unduly. He was certainly received with a certain amount of indifference and hauteur the other night; but after the candid manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met him, with that courtesy, also, which he always showed, he should not wish to press the matter further.
  MR. PARNELLalso felt very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very candid statement he had just made, and thought the Motion should be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £139,530, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out that there was a considerable increase in the loss by exchange. It had increased from £300 last year to £2,000 this, and next year it was £1,700. Had any change been made in this matter? He should be glad, also, if the First Lord of the Admiralty would explain the increase in the passage monies?
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that no change whatever had been made in the mode of paying the men; and, in this matter, his hon. Friend was aware they followed the directions of the Treasury. He believed that the fall in the price of silver had considerably affected the payments in China and Japan. The increase in the passage money was due to the fact that ships had been re-commissioned abroad rather more than was usual. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, there was a considerable saving in re-commissioning ships abroad, especially when they were at distant stations
  1932
  like Hong Kong. That was the reason for the increase in the passage monies.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREobserved, that he had no objection whatever to this re-commissioning of ships abroad, and thought, on the contrary, it was a very good system. He understood, however, that it had been given up in consequence of objections which, in his opinion, were very improperly raised to it.
  MR. WHITWELLasked, if the First Lord of the Admiralty would explain the amount granted for Portsea Pier? Was that the first of a series of charges, or was it one amount?
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that this amount was asked for in pursuance of a very old arrangement.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £210,250, for Freight, &c. on account of the Army Department.
  (3.) £145,836, Greenwich Hospital and School.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £222,409, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
    MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he had given Notice to reduce this Vote by the sum of £500, which he understood to be the salary of the Professor of Chemistry in the College of Science and Art, Dublin. This matter arose from a very painful circumstance which had occurred in that College, which had resulted in the dismissal of the Professor of Chemistry. The College of Science in Dublin was one of two or three institutions which was connected with the Science and Art Department in London; and, certainly, they could not complain that any faults in the management were due to want of complete and full inquiries. There was a departmental inquiry in 1862; and the remarkable thing was, that that inquiry resulted in a recommendation that

    1933
    this College should, practically, be disestablished. Then there was, shortly-after, another inquiry, the recommendations of which were directly opposite to those of the Committee of 1862, for that Committee recommended that this College should be very considerably extended. A good deal of money was consequently expended; but the result was not very satisfactory, and in 1868 another Commission, of a very influential character, was appointed, presided over by the Duke of Leinster. That Commission had on it some very distinguished men, and it came to a very important decision. It was their recommendations which were now being carried into effect, and, so far as the Department would allow, that should be done. The point which he now wished to raise was that, owing to the manner in which this College was controlled, the results of the money spent in Dublin were totally inadequate and insufficient. The cost of the College of Science and Art in 1876 and 1877 was £7,798, and yet, for all that sum, they could only show 56 students, 3,600 visitors to the Museum, and 840 attendants at the evening classes; whilst the analogous School of Mines in Jermyn Street cost only £6,818, while it had 160 students, 47,000 visitors, and 17,000 attendances at the evening classes. He admitted that the money voted for the Department was amply sufficient; but he was very much, afraid, if attention were called to this matter in these days of economy, that they would not continue to grant the money for such an unsatisfactory and inefficient result, and that the amount would be reduced, and possibly entirely withdrawn. The inefficient results of the existing system were due almost entirely to the system of management; and he ventured to hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Department would see the justice, before any step were taken to diminish the grant, of doing something to enable the College to become more efficient. He had just mentioned that a very painful case had recently occurred at the College, and he thought it was one of the causes why it had been so inefficient. Professor Galloway was a most distinguished man, the Professor of Chemistry, who had by far the most successful class in the whole College. He was respected universally; his pupils had been exceed-
    1934
    ingly successful; and his was the one class which redeemed the College from the charge of very great inefficiency. But while the similar Colleges in Edinburgh and elsewhere had some sort of local directors, or some sort of local head, this Dublin College had none at all; and although the affairs were mainly directed by the Professors, one of whom was supposed to act as Dean, they really had no local control, and all the details of the arrangements had to be reported to London. As a result, there had been all sorts of irregularities going on, and there was a chronic state of complaint and dissatisfaction among the Professors. Professor Galloway had been exposed to a petty system of espionage and outrage, and he (Mr. Errington) could not help thinking that Professor Galloway had fallen most unfairly and unjustly a victim to it. His dismissal had caused a very great sensation in Dublin, and he had the sympathy of persons in very good position. Those acquainted with Professor Galloway's merits were entirely in his favour; and he could not help thinking there could be no stronger illustration of the bad system of management than this which had resulted in his dismissal. He did not propose in any way to bring forward this particular case; but he hoped the noble Lord would consider it at some future opportunity. He could not help thinking it did illustrate the necessity of some great and complete change in the management. At the recent Commission, over which the Duke of Leinster presided, the question was raised, why a system which worked well in England did not work well in Dublin? and it was very clearly shown that in England it had been rather regulated in order to make the most of a College, and of the motive power which already existed in the country, where there was a great demand for scientific and art learning. In Ireland, the case was totally different, and he could not help thinking that the people there required some stimulus to interest them in this work, and that it was not sufficient merely to pass Resolutions. He would really suggest to the noble Lord that there should be some sort of local control, in the sense of a director appointed by South Kensington, who should be responsible to the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government; and that there should be, also, some

    1935
    local committee assisting in the direction of this College in Dublin. An experiment had been recently tried which, he ventured to think, would be successful. The Museum of Science, in which his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin had taken very great interest, had a system which he hoped might be made available to the College of Science and Art; and, at any rate, he did hope that some assurance would be given that this matter should be carefully considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £221,909, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."—(Mr. Errington.)
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRbelieved there was an anxiety for inquiry in regard to this institution, because it was a very unfortunate thing that a distinguished Professor of Science, who had succeeded in establishing a system of laboratory instruction such as no other Professor had, as yet, succeeded in establishing in Dublin—a man whose work was of great importance to the progress of chemistry and the industrial arts—should, after 23 years' of service, be suddenly dismissed, although he was, at that very time, enjoying the confidence of the people of Ireland, and was teaching, and had previously taught, a great many important pupils. It was clear to him, therefore, that there must be something wrong in the discipline of this institution, and he hoped the noble Lord would not only look into that, but would consider whether Professor Galloway had not been very hardly treated.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, that there was much in the speech of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) with which he could agree. Originally, as he had shortly and clearly pointed out, the Commission appointed to inquire into the matter made certain specific recommendations, among which was one that it would not be desirable to set up in Ireland a Science and Art Department distinctly separate from South Kensington, as, if that were done, Irish students would be shut out from the larger competitions and the prizes now open to them. His noble Friend who preceded him in Office,
    1936
    the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, met in Dublin on this matter, and held a consultation with the Royal Dublin Society, in order to see how the recommendations of that Commission could best be carried out. At the present time, there were a very considerable number of institutions connected with the Science and Art Department in Ireland. He did not think it was a very good arrangement that the Department in London should have the regulating of every minute detail of all these institutions; but, at the same time, it was not easy to suggest the sort of local authority which should be set up. He quite agreed that the case of Professor Galloway was a very sad one, and it was with very great reluctance that he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to dispense with his services. If that step had not been taken, he believed the efficiency, if not the very existence, of the College would have been imperilled. He proposed, presently, to go personally to Ireland to see the various Educational Bodies and Colleges there, and, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to endeavour to see if some local authority could not be set up which would deal with these administrative details. The chief control must, of course, remain at South Kensington, in order to prevent a separate system being set up; But these and. other points he would undertake to look into during the Recess, in order to see what could be done in the matter.
    MR. BIGGARthought this question would require very considerable discussion, and as it was a very late hour he would move to report Progress. He heard the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), and he would undertake to say not a single Member on that side of the House had any idea of what it was all about. There were several points he wished to raise on this Vote, especially in regard to the new system of management of the Dublin Society, which had never yet been explained. They also wished to know something about the management of the Royal College, and as it was then half-past 1 it was unreasonable to ask them to sit any longer, more especially as they had to meet at 12 the next day. They had, therefore, only 10 hours in which

    1937
    to get whatever sleep they were to have, and it was very unreasonable to ask them to go on.
    Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONhoped the Motion would not be pressed. As to the Royal Dublin Society, the arrangements made were set forth in detail some years ago, when a Bill on the subject passed through Parliament, and he should be very happy to lay before the House any Papers giving any further information as to the other points. With regard to the College of Science and Art, as he had already stated, between now and next year he would undertake there should be a full inquiry into the matter, with a view of trying to settle the whole question.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYregretted they had not had a fuller statement as to the relations between South Kensington and Dublin. The Science and Art Department had done good work in this country, and, perhaps, if it were represented in Ireland by local institutions, it would succeed there; but, certainly, up to the present time, it had not succeeded. Yet there was a vast amount of public money expended through that Department in Ireland, and, for the sake of the taxpayers, he thought it would be desirable to discuss the matter. As to the promises to do something in the course of 12 months, he did not look forward to that with much hope. They had had three or four Commissions dealing with this question; and now the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), after being at the head of the Department for some time, was unable to tell them what plans had been settled. The Royal College had been going back for eight or ten years, and they could not allow another year to go by without something being done. They were expending £7,000 a-year upon, it, and they could not permit it to dwindle to nothing without some protest. In England, there were Schools of Art all over the country, under the control of South Kensington, and they were doing a very great work; but in Ireland they had not felt the benefit which had resulted from them in this country. He thought they would not be
    1938
    justified, without further discussion, in passing the Vote. An immensity of public money was being spent in Ireland for nothing—["Oh, oh!"]—and it would take more than the inarticulate sounds from the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir William Edmonstone) to make him forego his right to see that public money was properly spent, and that great institutions were properly managed. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) was quite right in insisting upon his Motion, for at that hour there were no reporters present to tell the people of Ireland what was being done in this matter. He believed they took the very greatest interest in it. There was no subject upon which he received more communications than upon the gross mis-management of all the institutions which existed in Ireland under the patronage of South Kensington.
    MR. GRAYsincerely trusted that the Motion to report Progress would be persevered in, for this matter ought to be fully discussed at a time when the Irish people would be likely to know something of the result, especially as the greatest discontent existed all throughout Ireland with the management of South Kensington. Art work in Ireland had been strangled by South Kensington. The noble Lord had said that propositions for improvement had been shadowed forth two years ago. He could only reply that those propositions were just as shadowy to-day. The original Commission suggested that there should be in Ireland a Science and Art Department, sister to, but not subordinate to, South Kensington. That which was a really proper foundation for the scheme was overridden, and it was determined in London that the Irish Department should be a merely subordinate institution to South Kensington. The Royal Dublin Society allowed themselves to be entangled in that scheme, and ever since they had deeply regretted that they had ever become connected with South Kensington at all. So much alarm had been excited by the way in which they had been treated, that the Royal Agricultural Society had come to the conclusion to have nothing to do with a scheme of amalgamation at all. Another plan was to disturb one of the prettiest spots in Dublin by the erection of some buildings in connection

    1939
    with this proposed new institution. But though South Kensington was determined to have this ground, the people of Ireland were determined they should not, and, as far as he could ascertain, there was a great deal of well-founded discontent as to the management of their affairs by South Kensington. He knew, at any rate, there was much discontent at the treatment of Professor Galloway. There was nothing unreasonable in asking that the Vote should be postponed, especially as the people of Dublin were determined to secure that this matter should be dealt with in a satisfactory way.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, hon. Gentlemen were under some misconception as to this Vote; but if there were a wish that the discussion should be more full than was possible at that hour, of course, he would postpone it. There were several Votes, however, now before the Committee, and he hoped hon. Members would consent to take them.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYhoped, when they came down next day, the noble Lord would be able to tell them something about the constitution of the Royal Dublin College. It was not enough to put down a Motion on the Paper on the subject, for that gave no opportunity for discussing all the pros and cons of the affair, while a word from him would enable them to see exactly how the matter stood.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Motion to report Progress would be withdrawn. He did not know whether there would be any opposition to taking the Vote for the British Museum, especially as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole) had been waiting there all the evening for it.
    MR. WHITWELLthought they might take that Vote, but he hoped no others would be asked for.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he wished to make a statement in reference to the British Museum, and he had a Notice on the Paper on the subject; but he should have no objection to make that statement on the Report, if the Government would undertake to take it at a time which would make it possible for him to do so.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion, on the
    1940
    understanding that the Vote was postponed, and that only the British Museum Vote was taken.
    MR. PARNELLasked, if the Government would say if they would not take another Vote? If he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends understood that they were only going to take the British Museum Vote they would like to go home.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Whereupon Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £221,909, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries in course of payment during the year ending and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (4.) £82,249, British Museum.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 250.]
  (Mr. James Lowther.)
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 250.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will resolve itself into the said Committee upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he wished very much to oppose this 2 o'clock Sitting. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a suggestion on the previous day, that it might be convenient to have an Afternoon Sitting and to resume at 9 o'clock; but no other announcement was made, and he was not aware anything had been done since, in pursuance of that hint till this Motion, although, he believed, something had been said to several hon. Members privately. On the subject of the convenience of a day

    1941
    debate, he was very much in favour of a continuous Sitting; and he begged to propose as an Amendment, that the words at 2 o'clock be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'at Two of the clock' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that a suggestion was made that it was thought they would gain time in that way; and he believed, from what he had heard, that a great many hon. Members interested in the Bill would find it convenient to take a discussion on the Bill and the first series of Amendments moved on the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair in the Morning Sitting, and then they might be able to make progress in the Committee in the evening. He did not himself see any disadvantage in the arrangement. He thought it would be convenient to many hon. Members.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 2: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 202.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House will resolve itself into the said Committee upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 143.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 143.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will resolve itself into the said Committee upon Monday next."
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsuggested that as there was no opposition to the Bill it should be taken on the present occasion, as it could be run through in a few minutes, and he did not know when the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate expected a proper time for it to be reached, if it was not taken when an opportunity occurred like the present.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish the Order postponed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

    EAST INDIA LOAN (ANNUITIES) BILL.
    Resolution [July 31] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. RAIKES.
    Bill Represented, and read the first time. [Bill 275.]

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolutions [July 31] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) (WARNING TO REMOVE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to extend the time of warning to remove in the case of Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. M'LAGAN, and Mr. JAMES BARCLAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 277.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.