§ MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT, in rising to call attention to recent events in Madagascar, said, that if he was obliged that night to intervene between the House and the consideration of other Business, which might be more interesting to some Members than the subject he was about to bring forward, the House would feel that it was no fault of his. On a previous occasion he was able, at a con- 1221 venient time, to invite attention to that question, when it would have been disposed of hut for the unusual and unfair action of the Government in depriving him of a House that had been made. His position in regard to the matter which he was now bringing under consideration might be summed up under these three heads—first, that a wanton and unprovoked attack had been made on a friendly and innocent State by the authorities of the French Republic; secondly, that the attack and the operations subsequent had inflicted very serious loss on British subjects and very grave injury on British commerce; and, thirdly, that those proceedings had been accompanied by grievous insults and affronts offered on the part of the French Commanders to British officials and British subjects. To those three he might add, as a fourth, that no satisfactory apology, and no reparation worthy of the name, had been made to this country for the insults offered to our flag and the losses and injuries inflicted on British subjects. He could not better describe the natural feelings of indignation and shame with which these facts affected those who were acquainted with them than in the language used by a Member of the Liberal Party. In September last, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), speaking at Weston-super-Mare, said—
We find France indulging in such a spirit in distant posts, where British commerce is overwhelming, and our influence almost unchequered, that it is impossible to say what the outcome may be. Certainly, the case of Mr. Shaw is not one that should be overlooked. Are we always to remain passive under insult and wrong? Has the fire gone out that once burned in Englishmen's breasts?The hon. Member then proceeded to recapitulate the main facts as to the French Admiral's treatment of Consul Pakenham, of Commander Johnstone, of Her Majesty's ship Dryad, of the officers of the British mail packet on its arrival at Tamatave, of Mr. Shaw, the English missionary, and other incidents connected with the French operations in Madagascar. He would not go into the details fully, because he had already referred to them on other occasions. He mentioned that a trade of £750,000 sterling had been destroyed by those operations, the loss thus produced ahving fallen almost entirely on British subjects, many of whom 1222 had been ruined. Besides a number of British merchants and Natives of Mauritius, a visitor to Madagascar stated that—At Mojanga, and along the Western Coast of the Island, are over 500 Chorah merchants from Bombay, regarding whose fate during the past six months their friends in India have learned little. Although British subjects, they have apparently been altogether abandoned by their Government.The Government had been inaccurate as well as secretive. In referring to those events on a former occasion, the Prime Minister informed the House that Commander Johnstone was in no respect acting in a civil capacity, and had no authority to do so; and yet, three weeks before that statement, the Foreign Office issued a letter to that officer formally thanking him for the part he had taken as Acting Vice Consul, and another letter appointing him as Vice Consul after Consul Pakenham's death; and the Prime Minister had also stated, on August 21, that he had no reason to believeThat Mr. Shaw had not free access to, and means of, providing himself with legal defence,when despatches were in his possession proving that Mr. Shaw was a close prisoner, and not allowed to communicate with anyone. The hon. Member went on to complain that, in the Blue Book which had been presented by the Government, the despatches of Commander Johnstone, which stated the whole case against the French authorities, were wholly suppressed, together with the Memorandum that was sent by the British Cabinet to the French Government asking for reparation. He expressed his belief that if Her Majesty's Government had dared to present the despatches of Commander Johnstone to the House, they could not have remained on the Treasury Bench, the indignation of the country would have been roused so strongly against them on account of their pusillanimity in regard to those transactions. The Government, by the way in which it had prepared that Blue Book, had been guilty of a breach of faith with the House and the public. The only person who came with credit out of this painful and humiliating affair was Commander Johnstone, whose intrepid courage, firmness, and tact deserved the highest praise. He would quote a statement which appeared in 1223 The Daily News on the 25th of last September—Captain Johnstone throughout behaved admirably, and did all that the rules of international courtesy permitted. Nothing could induce Admiral Pierre to grant Mrs. Shaw an interview with her husband, from whom she had been two years separated, and of whose probable fate, or even the charges on which he was detained, she was ignorant. Admiral Pierre, in his despatch to his Government, speaks of the pain of having had to harden his heart against a lady's entreaties. But he adopted an easy method of hardening his heart, for he would not even see her himself, and gave all his answers in writing and through his officers, keeping Mr. Shaw below, so as to prevent his being ever seen from the deck of the Dryad, or from the town by the aid of a glass.The only fact upon which the Government could rely by way of defence was that Mr. Shaw obtained £1,000 from the French Government. The great majority of the English people, however, did not look upon that sum as adequate compensation for a man who was imprisoned unjustly, treated like one of the lower animals, and denied all access to his friends for two months. The craven conduct of the Government on the occasion to which he was referring would encourage foreign nations to go great lengths in future in their behaviour towards Englishmen. The insults to the British flag did not cease with the withdrawal of Admiral Pierre, and the movements of the British vessels had since been dogged by the French ships. A reliable witness, Captain Cameron, the Correspondent of The Standard, whose brilliant description of the recent Soudan campaign was so well known, had stated—From the officers of the Euryalus and Dragon we had confirmation, and more, of all that has appeared in the Home Press regarding the insulting attitude of the French Fleet towards the British vessels. On more than one occasion the latter were threatened with active hostilities. Both sides went to quarters; the respective crews stood by their guns, and thus faced each other, broadside to broadside. The Dryad and Dragon were, of course, greatly overmatched, and had arranged, should the French have opened fire, to slip their cables, and ram—the one the Flore, the other the Forfait—the two largest of the opposing ships. The insults did not cease with Admiral Pierre's departure. This wanton display of unfriendliness has been reported home.With regard to the Island of Madagascar itself, it was worthy of remark that our trade with it amounted to £750,000 a-year, and was steadily increasing. In 1224 addition to this, it was very important to the Colony of Mauritius, which derived the greater part of its meat supply from the Island. Many of our fellow-subjects from Mauritius had made large investments of capital in Madagascar. As far as its physical features were concerned, it was one of the richest, as far as its soil was concerned, most fertile, and most promising countries in the world. The Correspondent of The Standard newspaper, who had visited that Island, drew a remarkable picture of its soil and products. He said—The virgin soil is rich and deep—on an average from 6 feet to 8 feet of the special loam required for the sugar-cane. The wealth of tropical growth displayed here cannot be matched all the world over, not even in the richest portions of India, The rivers are wide and navigable. Not only sugar, but tobacco, cloves, pepper, cinnamon, and all the spices can be grown in profusion. Palms of all the different species, magnificent groves of mango trees, the coffee, indigo, and bread-fruit plants are to he seen, while the slender and graceful bamboo tones down, with its delicate green, the more flaunting colours of the robuster growths. There is no country in the world where live stock is so cheap as in Madagascar. Fine bullocks can be purchased for two or three dollars each. Cattle are cheap in Madagascar because there are no droughts, and the grazing grounds are practically inexhaustible. The indiarubber trade is rapidly increasing. But the sugar plantations are the most promising source of wealth.Again, the same able observer, writing of the brisk trade between Madagascar and England, says—Forty-one British vessels cleared from this port (Tamatave) alone during the past year. The consumption of Lancashire cotton prints and fancy cloths is steadily increasing. Hardware goods come almost entirely from England.The Malagasy people had largely adopted the Christian religion, and were far from being the barbarous race which some had described them. As a proof of the advance of the Malagasy people in civilization and Christianity, he would like to quote the evidence of a recent eyewitness who had visited the capital—Around us were numerous villages clustered on the hill slopes. There were no trees, only rolling veldt, like that peculiar to South Africa. But the villages were not mere collections of bamboo-built huts. Strong and substantially-built houses of brick they were, not lacking ill pretensions to architectural design, and superior in comfort and appearance to those which many a villager in Britain and Ireland can boast of. And here, too, the townships had each its detached building, trim and neat, whose style and architecture at once indicated the other chapel. 1225 There were, moreover, indications of missionary work in the land. As we passed through the streets we could hear the hum of children busy at their lessons, and singing sometimes the Morning Hymn, so well known in many an English school. There could be no question that, so far as outward appearances went, the people of Tonerina had reached a high level of civilization. It was difficult to imagine that this peaceful country, with its pretty cottages, its innumberable chapels, whose bells were then calling the people to worship, and its troops of white-robed men and women answering the summons, was the barbarous Madagascar of 20 years ago.He would particularly commend these interesting descriptions to the attention of hon. Members opposite who were attached to the Nonconformist Bodies. This good work had mainly been done by Methodist missionaries, and it was confessedly against these Wesleyan converts that the aggression of French fanatics and Chauvinists was now aimed. He hoped the Government would not admit the claims of France to supremacy in the Island. He dared say the Government would meet him by the statement that they had done the best to defend British interests in Madagascar, and to promote the interests of the people of that Island. They would, probably, further say that any intervention on their part could only be satisfactorily carried out by active military operations, and by a display of force which might have involved them in a war with France. That might be their defence; but he would ask Ministers whether they had really done all in the power of a great country like England, with special interests and duties to maintain, to protect the people of Madagascar from unjust attack? He would ask them if they had made those distinct and emphatic remonstrances with the French Government which, at all events, in his humble opinion, they ought to have made? He would further ask them whether, at that moment, they stood in a dignified position with regard to France, or the other Powers of the world? Whether they were less likely to have further advantage taken of them, and less likely to be pushed further down the hill of insult and injury, than if they had taken a bold line at first? It was but too evident that the tame acquiescence of the Government in those grievous affronts had brought this country a great deal nearer to active hostility with regard to other Powers, and 1226 especially France. Such weakness must lead to still further insults and still more grievous affronts being offered to them. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He would repeat that that was so, in spite of the indignant gestures of the Prime Minister. It was perfectly evident to the whole world that, so far from Her Majesty's Government being on satisfactory terms with the French Republic, for whom they had sacrificed so much, they had now drifted into such antagonism that even their own supporters in the Press warned them that they were drifting into war. The more they conceded, the more was demanded of them. They began by basing their policy on the French alliance; but they had given way to France point after point. He was not going to discuss those points, and he only referred to them as links in a chain of which this Madagascar question formed one. The British Cabinet allowed the French Government to deceive them in regard to Tunis, and they took pride in concealing the facts of the case from the House. In regard to the Commercial Treaty, they had also been cajoled by France, and they had allowed themselves to be dragged into a political and military intervention in Egypt, with the result which the country was now witnessing. The fatal and irretrievable position now occupied by Her Majesty's Government was the consequence of the Joint Note; and, at this moment, the one Power which was thwarting, embarrassing, and opposing us in every way in regard to the Egyptian Question was the French Government, for whom they had sacrificed so much. His opinion was, that if they had taken a firm stand at first with regard to Madagascar and other questions, so far from involving the country into war, they would have saved the people of Madagascar and their own credit. What course would Lord Palmerston have taken in a case like this? Lord Palmerston, having long been concerned in matters connected with the foreign policy of the country, was not approved of by the present Prime Minister. He would remind the Prime Minister that Lord Palmerston was regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as the Prince of Jingoes, and on more than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman had deprecated the foreign policy of that statesman.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTadmitted that he had not the statements of the right hon. Gentleman in his hand; but if the House would take it from, him, he was perfectly prepared to prove, at the proper moment, that the Prime Minister, on more than one occasion, had deprecated the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston. The strained relations between himself and Lord Palmerston prior to the Crimean War were notorious. But Lord Palmerston, al though he always firmly maintained the honour and power and dignity of the country, never involved England in a single great war; whereas the indecision and weakness of the right hon. Gentle man, and the Cabinet of which he was a prominent Member, had caused the country to drift into the Crimean War—
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTNo; Lord Palmerston was not a Member of the Cabinet at that time.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, if he was wrong in that assertion, he regretted to have made it. He had forgotten for the moment that Lord Palmerston, after resigning his position in the Cabinet at the close of 1852, on account of differences with his Colleagues, and especially with the right hon. Gentleman, afterwards had been persuaded to return. This was, at any rate, the fact, that the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister was, at that time, a more prominent Member of the Cabinet than Lord Palmerston. ["No, no!"] If the Prime Minister objected to that statement he would withdraw it; but he was justified in assuming, in view of the recent policy of the Premier, that it was more likely that the present Prime Minister was the cause of the Crimean War—that was, of the weakness and vacillation which led the Government to drift into that war—rather than Lord Palmerston. He believed that a policy of firmness and resolution was the best preservative against war. He believed that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in regard to Madagascar and in regard to other questions of difficulty into which 1228 England had been drawn, had, as was too apparent at the present time, drawn upon this country the contempt of other nations. He used the word with the greatest reluctance. If, however, they judged the opinion of other countries, as other countries judged the opinion of this country at this moment—namely, from the expressed views of the public Press—then, from the almost unanimous expressions of opinion on the part of the public Press of other countries, hon. Members on both sides of the House must be bound to admit that what he said was fully justified. He deeply regretted to find that the public Press of every nation on the Continent, at that moment, was crying shame on England and her present Ministry for the weakness and inconsistency of their policy. He knew that the Prime Minister said that the great majority of the Press upon the Continent were in the pay of the great financiers. That was a perfect myth. It was only the other day that the Prime Minister, while admitting the fact of this universal censure, said the reason why the Foreign Press was constantly condemning his policy was that the wires were pulled by the great financiers. No doubt, the great financiers of Europe possessed considerable power; but he absolutely denied that the financiers of Europe, or any other body of men, had power to form a combination against Her Majesty's Government that would extend from St. Petersburg to Rome and from Paris to Bucharest. In conclusion, he would apologize to the House for having taken up so much of its time.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had said, very truly, that there was on the Paper for consideration that evening some very important Business which hon. Members on his own side of the House were very anxious to reach, and, therefore, the hon. Member proposed to curtail the observations he would otherwise have addressed to the House. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) hoped the House would not consider him disrespectful if, animated with the same feeling, he were also to curtail the observations he would otherwise have made, because he knew the great interest which the other Business excited in the minds of many hon. Members on his own side of the House. The hon. 1229 Gentleman began by complaining of the action of the Government the other night in regard to this question, and of the manner in which the debate he then attempted to raise had terminated. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) absolutely denied that there was any cause of complaint against Her Majesty's Government for the manner in which the debate terminated. It was only through him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), personally, that the hon. Member was able to speak at all, or that there was a House. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BAKTLETT: No, no!] It was quite true that the House was formed; but. 20 minutes afterwards, it was not continued owing to the action of the Friends of the hon. Member himself, who left the House. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was in his place upon that Bench, and he was, at a critical moment, joined by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He was glad to find that the hon. Member had not favoured the House with a repetition of the statements he had made during the winter.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWhat statements?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEHe referred to the statements of the hon. Member during the winter, in connection with the Pritchard affair. The account which, however, the hon. Member gave of the history of the Pritchard affair was only on a par with the statement he had made just now in regard to the formation of the Aberdeen Ministry. He hoped the House might not deduce from that fact that the hon. Member had altogether discontinued his historic researches.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWhat were they?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEIf the hon. Member would only examine them, he would find that the statements he had made were altogether inaccurate, and he would also discover in the history of the different Governments who had ruled the country in the past that Lord Palmerston was a Member of the Government which began the Crimean War.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked what were the statements referred to by the noble Lord?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he referred to the statements of 1230 the hon. Member in regard to an Ultimatum, and to a large sum of money having been paid. Both statements were absolutely incorrect.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he rose to correct the statement of the noble Lord at once. He had never made any assertion, either in that House or elsewhere, in regard to an Ultimatum, or to a large sum of money having been paid. What he had said was that a demand for reparation was made by Sir Robert Peel, and that reparation was made fully, and without delay.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that that statement of the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate also, but not quite so inaccurate as the one he had read in the reports which appeared in the newspapers. The hon. Member had directed his observations to three points, which he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would very briefly touch. He had spoken of the attack of the French on Madagascar, and said he hoped that, on behalf of the Government, no attempt would be made to justify that attack, or to support the claims of France upon Madagascar. Now, he was not concerned in any way to enter into the merits of that dispute. Her Majesty's Government naturally regretted that war should have been entered into between two friendly Powers, and the attitude which had necessarily been observed was one of strict and impartial neutrality. He was not called upon at that moment to enter into the nature and history of the Treaties put forward by the French Government as a justification of their attack. He would do no more than express a hope that the French Government and the Government of Madagascar would soon find some method of composing their differences; and he would repeat what was already in the Blue Books—that should an opportunity arise in which Her Majesty's Government could usefully offer their services for the arrangement of those differences, that opportunity should not be lost. Then the hon. Member proceeded to speak in detail of the incidents which happened nine months ago at Madagascar, and which occasioned a great deal of feeling at the moment both in that House and in the country. He was quite sure that the House would feel that there was a time for all things, and that it was not wise or desirable, when a quarrel had 1231 been happily arranged by the diplomatic skill of the French Ambassador and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to go back upon it now, and rake up the various incidents, and even to exaggerate those incidents, and run the risk of exciting ill-feeling, which it had been the object of Her Majesty's Government to allay. Perhaps the hon. Member would be glad that he should say so; but he believed it very possible that, if Parliament had been sitting while those delicate negotiations between Lord Granville and M. Waddington were going on, and if it had been in his power to come down to the House three or four times a-week, and ask the most irritating Questions about the progress of those negotiations, and to have pressed the Government to give inconvenient explanations which might have thwarted the progress of the negotiations, it was possible that the hon. Member might have succeeded in exciting such an amount of ill-feeling in France as would have rendered the friendly settlement of the question impossible.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI did not do so.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member had not done so because Parliament was not sitting; but, as far as the hon. Member could do so, he did it, in going all over the country giving an inaccurate account of the matter. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had no doubt that, if the hon. Member could have done so in that House, he would have availed himself of every opportunity of doing it. Fortunately, through no merit of his own, the hon. Member was not able to do so, because Parliament was not sitting at the time. The hon. Member had stated that there was no expression of regret on the part of the French Government of any kind about Mr. Shaw.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI did not state that.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had taken down the words of the hon. Member, and he wished to call the attention of the House to the facts of the case. On page 61 of the Blue Book, in a despatch of M. Challemel-Lacour to M. Waddington, written to be communicated to Earl Granville, there was a passage in which it was said that, whatever the facts might have 1232 been, it was certain that an innocent man, who was the subject of a Foreign. Power, had been deprived of his liberty and unjustifiably detained under painful circumstances. The despatch went on to say that the Government had therefore decided to offer a sum of 25,000 francs, as an evidence of their wish to lighten the consequences to Mr. Shaw. The despatch added that Her Majesty's Government would see, in this decision, a proof of the motives by which the French Government were animated; and he hoped they would be animated by the same spirit in securing the settlement of the difficulty. For a great nation like France frankly to come forward and state that the conduct of her Agents was not justified—for that was the phrase—was an expression of regret; and would it have been desirable, or wise, or just, or dignified oil the part of Her Majesty's Government to have insisted upon the use of stronger terms, when the negotiations on both sides were being conducted in a friendly and conciliatory spirit, having due regard to the mutual dignity of both countries? That was the reason why the negotiations had been successful.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTVery successful indeed!
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member had also dwelt on the insult to Consul Pakenham; but he had carefully avoided referring to the facts which were not known to the House when the question was raised last year. Now, on page 61 of the Blue Book, in a despatch of October 29th, 1883, from Lord Granville to M. Waddington, Lord Granville said that Her Majesty's Government had no desire, after the communications received from the French Government, to dwell upon the events which had occurred; and he added that he had great pleasure in receiving a letter, which he annexed, from the French Ambassador, in reference to Consul Pakenham, which showed that Admiral Pierre would not have carried out the order for the Consul's expulsion. That was most satisfactory, because the course taken by Admiral Pierre was said at the time to be unjustifiable. He desired to speak in terms of respect of Admiral Pierre as a gallant sailor, who, having served his country well in many ways, was now dead. But as to the orders given in regard to Consul Pakenham, 1233 those orders were felt to be unjustifiable, and the French Government had made that acknowledgment. He was glad to find, although at the last moment, that that fact had been recognized—that, considering the painful circumstances in which Consul Pakenham, a dying man, was placed, the orders of the Admiral would not have been carried out. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was also glad to have that opportunity of paying a tribute of respect to the memory of Consul Pakenham, who had served Her Majesty's Government faithfully for many years, who was a man of great knowledge, intimately acquainted with the Island of Madagascar, in which he had long lived, and who was so much respected by all the inhabitants, French as well as English. Consul Pakenham was viewed with the highest respect, not only by the French Colony, but by traders and naval men who had occasion to visit the Colony from time to time; and there could be nothing more distasteful to the French in that part of the world than that any disrespect should be shown towards Consul Pakenham himself. The hon. Member had also dwelt upon the alleged insult to Commander Johnstone, and to the order he was supposed to have received to send the mails on board the French steamer, before placing them on board the packet. It was, no doubt, true that Captain Hay believed he was speaking accurately when he told Commander Johnstone that such an order had been issued; but it was quite evident that Captain Hay, although he believed that such an order had been issued, had misunderstood what the order was. The order was intended to apply to private letters going in by the ship of which Commander Johnstone was himself the captain; but there was no intention whatever on the part of the French Commander to extend the order for his examination to the official mail bags of the Government going out in Commander Johnstone's own ship. He would not enter more fully into this matter, because he felt quite sure that the common sense of the House and of the country would not sanction an attempt to go into the past and rake up all these old matters which had been settled some time ago, and settled with the happy result of re-establishing a good and friendly feeling between England and 1234 France. The hon. Member had also touched upon the trade of Madagascar. He congratulated the hon. Member upon not having used the figure of £2,000,000 in relation to the trade of that country, which he had so frequently used on other occasions. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member had always hitherto used the figure of £2,000,000 in regard to that and several other subjects. The trade between England and Madagascar, and between this country and various other parts of the world, was always estimated by the hon. Member at £2,000,000. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Never.] Now, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) believed that the trade of England was constantly increasing in all parts of the world; but he protested against the attempt of the hon. Member to introduce in regard to Madagascar the £2,000,000 which weighed so greatly upon his mind, and was as difficult to keep out of it as the head of King Charles, in the famous Memorial of Mr. Dick, mentioned by Mr. Dickens in David Copperfield. The hon. Member said the trade of Madagascar had been very much affected by the cowardly conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Of, course, when war was going on, trade necessarily suffered. The hon. Member chose to say that it was owing to the action of the Government, although he made no attempt to prove it; and he also chose to say that the devastation which had occurred in the Island, and of which he said there appeared a faithful account in The Times, was the work of the French. Now, there was no proof of that at all. Some parts of the Island of Madagascar had been deserted, and it was much more likely, in such a case, that the Natives had gone down into the interior and devastated the rich plantations. So far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, they could have but one wish. The Island of Madagascar h ad excited much interest in this country, on account of the progress the inhabitants had made in Christianity and civilization. They would only be too glad to see the people of Madagascar restored to the position they occupied a short time ago, and they fully hoped and believed that the magnanimity of the French Government would arouse itself, and that they would feel they were dealing, with an important and interesting community—a community in no sense a 1235 savage community, but enjoying, to a large extent, the advantages of civilization and Christianity. If any opportunity occurred such as occurred about a year ago, when, unfortunately, they were refused, that would enable Her Majesty's Government to use their friendly offices in order to bring about that condition of things which all desired to see restored, the House and the country might rest assured that the opportunity would not be lost.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to correct two statements which the noble Lord had made with regard to himself. ["Oh, oh!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member desire to make a personal explanation?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTreplied in the affirmative. He had never used any other figure in regard to the trade of Madagascar than £750,000. Nor had he said, in his speech, that no apology was made by the French Government in connection with the case of Mr. Shaw. His words were that no apology was offered for the insults of the Commanders and others, except in the case of Mr. Shaw.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 55: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 82.)
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.