§ MR. ANDERSON
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he has seen in the "Daily News" of the 12th, that the statement is repeated by Cape Town correspondents that Sir Garnet Wolseley has put a price on Cetewayo's head; and, if he can yet say whether there is any foundation for the statement?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I can only say that this statement does not appear in any communication that I have received from South Africa. Sir Garnet Wolseley has stated that he thinks Cetewayo's continued presence in Zululand undesirable, a view which appears to be shared by the Zulus themselves, and I do not doubt that he will do his best to take Cetewayo prisoner if he can.
§ MR. ANDERSON
I feel very reluctantly obliged to make some remarks to the House, and in order to put myself in Order I shall conclude with a Motion. ["Oh!" and "No!"] I am compelled 973 to do so in consequence of the extraordinary answer which has been given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I can assure the House that I shall be exceedingly brief in what I have to say. We are now about to separate, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies will soon be out of reach of being asked any Question, and out of reach of being called on to give an explanation; I, therefore, feel bound to ask the Government what their views are as to offering a reward for Cetewayo's head? [Interruption.] I will not detain the House above three or four minutes. Sir, I think the country generally will agree with me in the opinion that this country has already reaped a sufficient crop of infamy out of the Zulu War, and we do not want to be dragged down to the lower depth of infamy still by the employment of brigands and assassins to take away the life of the man opposed to us. Cetewayo is no criminal—he is no criminal to have a reward set upon his head. I do not think such a course of warfare has been adopted by this country since the time when £30,000 was put upon the head of Charles Edward Stuart, the Pretender, and that was a very evil example, which I should not like to see followed now. The verdict which history will pass upon Cetewayo will be that he was a gallant Monarch, defending his country and his people against one of the most wanton and wicked invasions that ever could be made upon an independent people. That will be the verdict of history; and if we go down to the depth of infamy of offering a reward for his head, the country will condemn any Government that does it. I think we are entitled to hear from the Government before we separate some explanation of what their views are on the matter. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answering my Question, has given a reply which seems to show not only that he does not know, but that he does not care, whether the statement that was made, and has now been repeated by the Colonial papers, is true or not, and that, probably, Sir Garnet Wolseley would adopt that course; because, he said, Sir Garnet Wolseley had sent word home that there would be no peace in the country so long as Cetewayo was there. We see what he is doing, and that, although the country is not yet conquered, he is send- 974 ing home troops, as if he were now going to trust to some other means than honest warfare for the attainment of his ends. These things will excite suspicion in this country; and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us the assurance that such a course as has been stated to have been taken will meet with the strongest disapproval from Her Majesty's Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know the opinion of the Government on this important point, and I beg now to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Anderson.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I think the House will be of opinion that I need not trouble it at any length on the subject. What I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question was, that I had no doubt that Sir Garnet Wolseley, having expressed his opinion that it was undesirable that Cetewayo should continue in Zululand—an opinion which is shared, it appears, by a very large number of Cetewayo's late subjects—would do his best to take him prisoner. I should like to know how what I have said, or what has appeared anywhere else, justifies the hon. Gentleman in charging Sir Garnet Wolseley with hiring assassins and murderers to put an end to Cetewayo's life? If we cannot trust the people we send out to a distant country to manage the affairs of this great Empire better than the hon. Member for Glasgow appears to trust them, we shall do the gravest injustice to those who are serving us.
§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the right hon. Baronet seemed to have misunderstood the Question. He (Mr. Courtney) did not know what was the intention of the hon. Member for Glasgow; but he assumed it was this. He utterly disbelieved that any English commander, in the position of Sir Garnet Wolseley, would ever put a price on the head of his enemy; and as the statement had been made and repeated in the Colonial papers, he desired to receive from the Secretary of State for the Colonies an indignant denial. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not deny it. He did not even say it 975 was impossible to suppose it to be true. He treated it as a thing that might possibly happen to be within the policy of Sir Garnet Wolseley. What he certainly expected to hear from the Secretary of State for the Colonies was an indignant statement that such an imputation as this could not be cast on the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces engaged in a warfare which we must conduct with some regard to the maxims of war among civilized nations.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
had understood the hon. Member for Glasgow to ask a simple Question—namely, whether the statement in a morning journal was correct or incorrect; and, if it was correct, whether Her Majesty's Government would send out a telegram to the Cape expressing their disapproval of such a course? He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was not aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow had exceeded his right as a Member of that House.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
The Government have no information of anything of the kind, nor of any such statement that Sir Garnet Wolseley has put a price upon the head of Cetewayo. They do not believe it. But how are we to answer Questions of this sort put to us upon information in Colonial newspapers which we have not seen? The hon. Baronet says—"Why don't you telegraph out?" and to that I must answer, because the telegraph has not yet been completed.
§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought the hon. Member for Glasgow was quite right, and added that there was a precedent much later than that of Charles Stuart, for the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico put a price upon the head of Juarez, and issued an order that all men found fighting under him should be shot as rebels. Under that order, when Juarez became the stronger, the Emperor Maximilian was himself shot. This country certainly ought not to follow such a precedent as that.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, that he would not have risen except to remove an aspersion which his hon. and gallant Friend had incautiously cast on the memory of the Emperor Maximilian. The Emperor never set a price on the capture of those who were in arms 976 against his Government. What he really did was this. He issued a Proclamation that the war was at an end, and that he would treat those thenceforward found in arms against the Empire, not as prisoners of war, but as rebels. Shortly after this Proclamation certain Mexican leaders were taken in arms, and were shot. It was done on the assumption that they were criminal disturbers of the peace. The war, however, was not over. Juarez was simply at bay. He, subsequently, resumed active operations, and eventually took the Emperor prisoner, and brought him to trial by court martial for having issued the Proclamation under which the Mexican leaders had been condemned and shot. They all knew that the Emperor Maximilian was found guilty and shot, not, however, for having set a price on anyone's head, but for what his captors held to be a capital breach of the laws of war.
§ MR. ANDERSON
If the Secretary of State for the Colonies had answered as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done—that he did not believe the statement—I should not have troubled the House; but his reply led to the impression that he did believe it, and would not condemn it. After the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to be allowed to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.