HC Deb 19 September 1893 vol 17 cc1600-16

Resolutions read a second time.

Resolutions 1 and 2 agreed to.

Resolution 3. That a sum, not exceeding £84,066, 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 1894, for sundry Colonial Services, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1875,' and certain Charges connected with South Africa.

MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)

moved a reduction of the Vote by £100. He was, he said, reluctant to trouble the House on this occasion; but there was a matter connected with this Vote, and was recorded in the Blue Book issued the previous day on South Africa, which directly concerned the interests and the honour of this country. He wished to explain how he connected the matter with the Vote before the House. The case to which he desired to call the attention of the House was the conduct of an officer in the employment of the British South Africa Company. His conduct had come under the notice of the High Commissioner, Sir Henry Loch. The High Commissioner, whose salary was on this Vote, had expressed his opinion on this conduct, but had not taken any action, as he (Mr. Paul) contended he ought to have done; therefore, he submitted the subject was material to the Vote. He would tell the House in a few words what were the facts. It appeared that some time in the Spring of last year there were some thefts committed on a farm of Mr. Bennett, in Mashonaland. Bennett suspected that these thefts had been committed by the inmates of a kraal of a native Chief called N'Gomo. He remonstrated, and demanded his property back, but was roughly treated by the natives. His property was not restored, and he appeared to have been assaulted, but not seriously injured. Thereupon, Captain Lendy, of the Royal Artillery, who was in the employment of the British South Africa Company, issued a Proclamation calling upon this Chief, N'Gomo, to surrender himself before sunset in order to be taken to Salisbury. There was no evidence that that Proclamation was ever brought to the notice of N'Gomo. On the contrary, Captain Lendy was told that N'Gomo was absent in the fields; but without further preliminaries Captain Lendy proceeded to the kraal with a seven-pounder and a Maxim gun, opened fire upon the kraal, killed the Chief, his son, and 21 other natives, and carried off 47 head of cattle. There were several accounts of this transaction in the Blue Book, but he thought the clearest and most impartial was that contained in a Despatch written from the Colonial Office, by the direction of Lord Knutsford, to the Directors of the British South Africa Company. If the House would permit him to read the Despatch they would be placed in possession of all the material facts. The Despatch, which was signed Edward Fairfield, was as follows:— I am directed by Lord Knutsford to inform you that he has received from the High Commissioner for South Africa copies of correspondence relating to an attack made by a party of the British South Africa Company's police and certain volunteers under Captain Lendy, upon the kraal of a native Chief named N'Gomo. It appears from the Reports embodied in this correspondence that certain natives belonging to N'Gomo's kraal were accused of stealing from the farm of a Mr. Bennett, and of assaulting him and his boy; that after an unsuccessful attempt to induce Manguendi, to whom N'Gomo is tributary, to send the latter into Salisbury for trial as responsible for these offences, Captain Lendy sent two messengers to N'Gomo directing him to surrender himself to be taken to Salisbury; that the messengers returned reporting that N'Gomo was away in the fields, and that Captain Lendy left word that the Chief was to come to Bennett's farm by sundown, and that if he did not do so he, Captain Lendy, would look upon it as a direct defiance of the white man, and that N'Gomo might draw his own conclusion from that. N'Gomo not appearing to surrender himself, it is reported that a force of police and volunteers were organised and proceeded with a seven-pounder and a Maxim gun to surprise N'Gomo's kraal. That after disposing his party for attack Captain Lendy opened fire upon N'Gomo's kraal without further summons or warning, and that after a short bombardment with shell and general firing the kraal was cleared, the Chief, his son, and 21 natives being killed. Sir Henry Loch, on receipt of the first Report of this affair, pointed out to the Secretary of the British South Africa Company at Cape Town the importance of keeping within the law in all dealings with the natives, and expressed his opinion that the punishment inflicted in this case was utterly disproportionate to the original offence. The full Report by Captain Lendy, subsequently received and forwarded, would, in Lord Knutsford's opinion, have justified much stronger terms of remonstrance than were used by the High Commissioner. There is nothing in the information now before his Lordship which affords any justification of Captain Lendy's proceedings, and, after making full allowance for the difficulties attending the establishment of a European Administration in a country such as Mashonaland, Lord Knutsford cannot avoid the conclusion that Captain Lendy acted in this matter with recklessness and undue harshness. It appears to his Lordship that proceedings of this character are likely to do incalculable injury to the British South Africa Company in public estimation in this country, and he would suggest that stringent instructions should be addressed to the company's administration in Mashonaland as to the steps to be taken for the prosecution and arrest of natives charged with offences in respect of which the Territorial Magistrates have jurisdiction. It appeared that Lord Knutsford had been approached on the question of the censure with the object of showing him that he was wrong, but he declined altogether to modify his opinion. Nothing had been done in consequence of that opinion; and when Lord Knutsford said circumstances would have justified Sir Henry Loch in speaking more strongly than he did, he (Mr. Paul) thought the House of Commons might feel inclined to say the circumstances would have justified Lord Knutsford in using stronger language than he did. The Report of Captain Lendy showed clearly that there was no danger, and that he made no serious attempt to arrest this man. The offence which Captain Lendy took it upon himself to punish was that of theft, and what did he do himself? He stole 47 cattle. These were not his property, nor the property of the South Africa Company which was alleged to have been stolen. He thought it was time that something more than a mere censure or protest should be directed against proceedings of this kind. The mild censure of Sir Henry Loch was far too strong for the superior officers of the company, and Dr. Jameson made an able defence of Captain Lendy's proceedings. It was stated that the punishment inflicted had no reference to the original offence. A more extraordinary statement he had never heard in his life than that this cold-blooded slaughter had no reference to the offence committed. Dr. Jameson, the Administrator of the company, issued a circular, the substance of which was that the natives might cut each other's throats as much as they liked, but it was only when a white man was attacked that the company were to interfere. He hoped they should have from the Under Secretary some stronger and fuller information than had yet been given as to the view Her Majesty's Government took of this transaction. He did not know whether there could be an insurrection against the Queen in Mashonaland. He did not know that the Mashonas were subjects of the Queen. But, in any case, nothing occurred which could be dignified with that name. The people who were shot down by Captain Lendy were not the warlike Matabeles, but the peaceful Mashonas. But the question had a legal aspect. Captain Lendy, he supposed, was subject to British law, and he supposed if that officer killed people who had done nothing to deserve it he committed some sort of crime. The blood of these people called not for vengeance, but for justice. Captain Lendy should be put upon his trial before a jury of his countrymen, and then they should authoritatively know whether these things could or could not be done under the shelter of the British Flag, and whether it was or was not a capital offence to be suspected of stealing from a farm in Mashonaland, or of not obeying the orders of a Captain of Artillery. A more serious state of things he could not imagine. He hoped that in every part of the Queen's dominions, and in every part of the world where this country had obligations to meet, there remained unrestricted and unimpaired as the last restraint of the powerful and the last refuge of the oppressed the sanctity of British justice and the supremacy of Imperial law. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£84,066," in order to insert "£83,966."—(Mr. Paul.)

Question proposed, "That '£84,066' stand part of the said Resolution."

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

said, he would not follow the hon. Member into the details of the case he had brought forward. The hon. Member belonged to a class of Radicals who took delight in seeking to attribute some evil conduct or malicious motives to British Administrators when they were placed in a perilous position. At this moment Captain Lendy was in very high command in Mashonaland, and upon his courage and skill largely depended the safety of 1,500 of our fellow-countrymen who were colonists in that country. Surely this was not an opportune time for the delivery of so bitter an attack on Captain Lendy and others who were guarding British interests. The situation in Mashonaland was becoming graver every day. Only that day the following news from Cape Town had appeared in The Standard:— Mr. Colenbrander has received serious news regarding the movements of Lo Bengula's forces in Matabeleland, and has left Palapye to obtain further information. He has, however, already reported to Dr. Jameson, the Chartered Company's Administrator, that the Matabele impis are slowly advancing, and that Lo Bengula himself is taking up a strong position near the Matoppo hills. The British authorities in Mashonaland were under orders from the Government not to make an attack upon Lo Bengula without first consulting Her Majesty's Ministers. The whole country was, therefore, exposed for the present to these Matabele raids, and all the property of the colonists was in jeopardy. What was being done by the Government? The Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) said the other day that they did not wish to be rushed again into a South African War.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets, Poplar

Not rushed.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, the hon. Gentleman could substitute any synonym he liked. Such statements were to be deprecated. Ministers gave replies in the House for the purpose of pleasing the peace-at-any-price Party, but it was not to be forgotten that disastrous consequences might result from answers of this description when they were repeated to foreign, perhaps savage, potentates. If at the beginning of these troubles the Government had only given a firm reply there would be no prospect of war. This country was committed to the protection of British interests and British colonists in South Africa, and they could not go behind their past policy. He had received letters which showed the deep anxiety felt by the colonists in Mashonaland as to the position of affairs. He was not going to express an opinion whether a successful movement could be directed against the Matabele; but until the Government made themselves distinctly responsible for the safety of the colonists in Mashonaland, they had no right to tie the hands of our officers and administrators there, and tell them they should not make an offensive movement against Lo Bengula without first obtaining permission from Her Majesty's Government. The action of the Government was without precedent, and unjust to the interests of the colonists and the Empire. Either the Government must allow the representatives of the Chartered Company to attack Lo Bengula if they thought it necessary, or they must protect them in carrying out the purely protective policy which was forced upon them by Her Majesty's Government. If Lo Bengula was to be allowed to advance so as to be able to strike, the loss of life and property would fall upon Her Majesty's Government. There were 1,500 colonists out there; and he had received a great number of letters lately from persons who had relatives in Mashonaland, expressing the greatest anxiety respecting the present condition of affairs. The Under Secretary for the Colonies, in one of his statements, had rather led the House to think that the raids of Lo Bengula and the Matabele impis had ceased, or almost ceased, during the last few mouths. But it was not so; for as recently as July 19 the chaplain at Victoria found his church and parsonage surrounded by a Matabele impi who were massacring and mutilating the natives of the locality without mercy from a mere lust for blood. Were they to stand this?—were they to allow it to go on? What were the Government to do to provide for the in- terests of the Empire and the country? The Government had one of two courses before them. Either they could give the representatives of the Chartered Company and the officers in command of our armed Volunteers a free hand and attack Lo Bengula, if they thought it necessary to do so, or they must undertake to protect them in carrying out a purely defensive policy. If the present policy was continued, and Lo Bengula was allowed to advance closer to Mashonaland, and to seize a favourable moment for attacking and destroying the settlement, the responsibility for the loss of life and property that would ensue must fall on Her Majesty's Government. If our colony in Mashonaland were maintained in its strength, it was certain to become the centre of a vast region of civilisation. The countries to the North and West of Mashonaland were amongst the richest and most fertile in the world, and trade with them ought to be protected; for no one could say that the opportunities for developing British trade nowadays were too numerous. He trusted, at all events, that in the circumstances the Government would not refrain from making a clear and definite statement on the matter, which, considering the progress that had been already made in the country, the great prospects of future development in regard alike to commerce and civilisation, and the important interests at stake, was one of Imperial importance.

MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)

said, he had had some experience years ago of the way in which we treated savage tribes with which we came into contact, but he had never heard or read of a more outrageous case of cruelty than that which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh in relation to Captain Lendy. If they took simply the facts of the case as stated by the acting Secretary of the British South Africa Company, and as given in the Report of Captain Lendy himself, it was impossible to come to any other conclusion than that a shameful act of butchery had been committed in the name of the United Kingdom. From whatever point of view they looked at the matter, it was unfortunate and humiliating, and the act was ill calculated to advance our interests in the country. He hoped the Govern- ment would take steps to mark their sense of indignation at what had occurred. The hon. Member for Sheffield rode off on what people of his political opinions were so fond of riding off on—namely, an attempt to show that the Radical Party desired to disintegrate the Empire. The Radical Party did not want to do anything of the kind. They did not wish to support the Government in anything more than that which was well done. They certainly did not wish to support them when they were wrong. He thanked the hon. Member for having brought the subject forward. When he read the Report his blood had boiled, and he submitted that it would be to the eternal disgrace of this country if we did not attempt to put down these things.

MR. MAGUIRE (Clare, W.)

said, that as he had been directly challenged in regard to the matter, he felt bound to say that while he regretted the loss of life that took place at N'Gomo's kraal, yet it should be remembered that Dr. Jameson was bound to take some such measure as he did to try to restore order in Mashonaland. The hon. Member who introduced the subject had read to them a letter from the Colonial Office, which was written before they were in possession of the incidents which led up to the attack on N'Gomo's kraal, and, with the permission of the House, he would read some extracts from the letter of the Company's Administrator of Mashonaland and the comments made on that letter by the Secretary to the High Commissioner. On page 32 of the Blue Book Dr. Jameson wrote that— I would ask you to explain to His Excellency that the punishment inflicted had no reference to the original offence. The hon. Member seemed to think that that was an extraordinary circumstance, but the punishment was inflicted for resistance to the law as exercised in Mashonaland, and he believed that Mashonaland was not the only country in which resistance to the law was punished. Dr. Jameson's words were— The much-to-be-regretted loss of 23 lives occurred in consequence of the armed resistance to the law on the part of the natives. He would suggest that it was no answer to say that the law would be considered unreasonable and unnecessary in England. But the circumstances of life in Ma- shonaland were very little in advance of those in Cape Colony in 1837, at the time the Cape Statutes Ordinance was passed by the Cape Parliament, and the hon. Member seemed not to be aware that the Cape Statutes to a considerable extent, and including the Ordinance, were in force in Mashonaland. It would, therefore, be found that the statement of the law by the Administrator was correct. Dr. Jameson went on to point out that the first serious trouble was in the neighbourhood of M'Gwendi's and N'Gomo's kraal, where a coloured driver of one of the Company's waggons, was killed, and a full Report of this murder would be found in the Blue Book— The next disturbance reported was from the Victoria district, where, on the death of a Chief, his successor refused to acknowledge the white man's authority, and raided another friendly Chief, killing some of his people. He maintained that Dr. Jameson was bound to take into account the general disorderly state of the country and to consider what steps should be taken to meet resistance to the law. The Despatch he had quoted went on to describe the unruly state of the natives in the neighbourhood of N'Gomo's kraal after the murder of the Company's driver, but for which Dr. Jameson was unable to bring anyone to account. A party was sent to investigate, and Captain Lendy visited the paramount Chief M'Gwendi to try to insure a peaceful legal investigation of the charge. Captain Lendy conveyed to N'Gomo a message from Dr. Jameson that his safety would be guaranteed, and that after investigation only the culprit, white or black, would be punished. Dr. Jameson further pointed out that the death of the natives was due to their armed resistance to the carrying out of the law; Captain Lendy was warned that N'Gomo intended to fight, and Captain Lendy, Captain Williams, and Major Browne certified that the kraal was in such a strong position that to attempt to enter it in the face of a force of armed natives prepared to fire, and who did fire, would have been to court certain casualty. Dr. Jameson said— Therefore, I think that His Excellency will agree that the course taken by Captain Lendy was the only one open to him. Dr. Jameson added— I may say that I consider the relations at present existing between the white population and the natives in the country to be in a most satisfactory state. That was the authoritative statement of these transactions by the Administrator of Mashonaland. He would read the reply to this Report by the Acting Imperial Secretary under the command of the High Commissioner. Writing on July 4, 1892, Mr. H. L. Sapte said— I am directed by His Excellency the High Commissioner to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, enclosing a Report from Dr. Jameson upon the causes leading to the loss of life at the late N'Gomo insurrection. His Excellency, after carefully perusing the Report and the previous Papers with which you have furnished him, is of opinion that, having due regard to the difficulties inherent to the occupation of a new country, and to the necessity for promptly checking any act on the part of the natives that might, if disregarded, lead to further trouble, the explanation by Dr. Jameson of the course adopted appears satisfactory, though it is much to be regretted that measures entailing a serious loss of life were unavoidable. His Excellency still entertains doubt as to whether the fire of Captain Lendy's force was not maintained much longer than was absolutely necessary, for, from the description of the engagement supplied to His Excellency, there seems good reason to suppose that Captain Lendy must have been early aware that the resistance offered by the natives was feeble in the extreme. Though he was not prepared to support every detail of Captain Lendy's conduct, he drew the attention of the House to the fact that Captain Lendy, though he may not have acted on every point in a judicious manner, was still carrying out the orders of his superior officer the Administrator, and that those orders were, in the circumstances, in the opinion of the High Commissioner, unavoidable.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

considered it a humiliating spectacle that an Irish Nationalist Member should stand up in that House to defend the action of Captain Lendy, when Sir Henry Loch, on receiving the first Report of this affair, disapproved of it. On receipt of a full Report it was thought that the circumstances justified the use of stronger terms of remonstrance than were used by the High Commissioner. He felt that the hon. Member who had just sat down had not represented the views of his constituents.

MR. S. BUXTON

said, he did not deny, and he never had denied, that the position in Mashonaland was very grave, and day after day it was probably becoming graver. The hon. Member said that the speeches of the Under Secretary for the Colonies in the House were, and would be, reported to Lo Bengula, and that probably they would aggravate the circumstances by encouraging the Chief to resist. He thought it was much more probable that the speeches of the hon. Member were reported at Fort Victoria and Fort Salisbury, and the warlike speech which he had delivered that afternoon was calculated to further excite people on the spot who were already excited. Every hon. Member deeply sympathised with those who, situated as they were, were either suffering in body or in property; and the position was no doubt a grave and serious one for them. But if the position was a grave and serious one for these persons, it was still more necessary for the House of Commons to take care that no inciting action of theirs—no prospective action—should involve them and the House in what might be a very serious and dangerous war. The Government had said that the Chartered Company were responsible for law and order and for the protection of the colonists in Mashonaland. They had never repudiated the obligation, and they were ready to accept it; but they had also said that no precipitate and aggressive action should be taken without the assent of the High Commissioner. They had said that they did not believe that an aggressive war would have been in any sense justifiable, and they were pretty certain that it would not have been successful. The Government could not take the risk, in regard to Bechuanaland and other possessions, of allowing those on the spot, naturally excited and in a state of irritation, to rush them into a war. That was the position which the Government had taken up. They were prepared to undertake any responsibility which devolved upon them in consequence of that action; and their anxious desire was, if possible, to tide over the present state of tension, so that they might bring about a peaceful state of affairs. Lo Bengula himself was certainly in no sense anxious to go to war, and in present circumstances a war would not be successful on his part. The Company had now taken considerable trouble to make their position infinitely stronger than before. They had sent up forces of men, and now they had a force in that territory which was certainly capable of defensive action, and, if necessary, of offensive action. There was no doubt that if Lo Bengula chose to attack the Company's forts and to take aggressive action, the Company would be perfectly justified and right in making an offensive movement against his forces; but they must not do this without being morally certain of success in any action they might take. The House, he was sure, would feel that it was too serious a risk for them and this country to run not to be quite certain that in any operations undertaken this country should have success on its side, and he should certainly like to feel that it had justification also on its side for any aggressive action. He had more than once endeavoured to lay down the position they had taken up, and the House, he hoped, would feel satisfied that the object of the Government was, if possible, to maintain peace, but if they went to war to be certain of success. With reference to the case of Captain Lendy, it had been said that this was an unfortunate moment to raise the question; but he did not agree with that, seeing that Captain Lendy was in command at Fort Victoria. While, to a large extent, the safety of the inhabitants at Fort Victoria depended on that officer's courage and skill, the question also of peace and war would largely depend upon his tact and discretion. He was sorry to say that one of their difficulties at the present time was lest those on the spot who were not so discreet as the Government should desire might unwittingly or wittingly, get this country into war before the people here knew how they stood in the matter. As to Captain Lendy and the slaughter of the Mashonas, he, for one, should wish that that class of Radicals to whom reference had been made were more numerous. The hon. Member sneered at those Radicals because they wished to limit and reduce our Imperial interests. He could not conceive that because Radicals desired that a man in the exercise of great authority intrusted to him should carry out his duties with humanity, and with an absence of cruelty, they should be sneered at as endeavouring to reduce our Imperial interests. He was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward this question, because he thought that, in such a case as this—no doubt there had been cruelty, and there had been murder in connection with the attack by the Chartered Company's troops, commanded by a British officer, against the natives—publicity ought to be brought to bear in regard to those matters, because he believed that publicity did a great deal to diminish and prevent them. This particular case far exceeded the bounds of any possible discretion that ought to be placed in the hands of an officer in such a country as this, and the punishment was out of proportion to the offence for which it was inflicted. He was not going to re-state the case. He was bound to say that he did not agree in the attempt which had been made by the hon. Member for Clare to whitewash Captain Lendy. He thought it was quite clear that this action was a wanton attack on a native tribe. There was no question of assault upon or murder of white men—

An hon. MEMBER: How about the unpunished murder?

MR. S. BUXTON

That could not justify the slaughter of a Chief and 22 of his men. Captain Lendy was probably justified in going to this man's kraal and endeavouring to secure his person. What was desired was the person of the Chief, in order that he might be tried for theft; but Captain Lendy went with an armed force and Maxim guns and seven-pounders to the kraal.

An hon. MEMBER: There was armed resistance.

MR. S. BUXTON

At the last moment no summons was given. The evidence went to show that there was no fresh summoning. At the last moment they did not even read the native Riot Act. Captain Lendy had been censured, and in that censure he (Mr. S. Buxton) entirely and cordially concurred. The censure passed on him was the mildest that ought to have been passed. But when he was asked what further action was to be taken he replied that these events had occurred 18 months ago, and could not now be re-opened, as all the circumstances were considered at the time. He thought this Debate and the censure which had been inflicted would be of great value, and would prevent a similar thing occurring again. He knew that if he had to deal with such an offence again mere censure would not be considered sufficient.

MR. G. BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

thought the late Government had acted wisely in what they had done. But he did not think this was an opportune moment for re-opening the question. But he wished to ask the Government if they had taken due steps for preserving the peace of the country in case the Company failed to do so? He thought they were under a moral obligation to the natives of the country, just as much as they wore towards the white men who had settled there. He also thought they should have an explanation, before Parliament rose, whether the Government were adopting sufficient means for the preservation of peace. They had, in the conduct of Captain Lendy, an example of what might occur, and he thought it was necessary that all precautions should be taken to prevent an outbreak of hostilities. He would like to hear if the Government were contemplating sending an armed force into Bechuanaland to meet the present necessity there. He knew from personal experience that African potentates were very much interested by what took place in that House, and any statement made by the Government even now would have a far-reaching influence.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, he protested against the treatment of Captain Lendy in this discussion, and especially against the charges of cruelty and murder brought against him. He did not for a moment wish to defend Captain Lendy for what had actually occurred. Action of the kind described was very much to be reprobated, and, so far as censure went of what actually took place, he certainly agreed with the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) and his predecessor; but cruelty there was not, and murder there was not. He knew what took place on these occasions. The kraal was surrounded; there was an outbreak, and then, without realising what was about to occur, an order was given to fire, and, to the surprise and dismay of the officer in command, there were found to be more men inside than was expected. He admitted the justice of the censure, but he did not think anything had been proved which would justify hon. Members in bringing such serious charges as cruelty and murder.

MR. LITTLE (Whitehaven)

remarked that, in his opinion, if the facts had been correctly stated, Captain Lendy could be found guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was as satisfied of this as of the fact that he was standing in the House of Commons. If anyone would read the life of General Picton, he would see that an officer who acted contrary to the law when he was abroad was not beyond the reach of the law when he returned to England. Justice must be done to our officers or representatives if they transgressed the law, and no British officer should assume for a moment that he had a right to go and murder 21 persons. He used the word "murder" deliberately in its legal sense, after reading the papers and forming such an opinion as a barrister of 20 years' standing could form. The fact that the Government had censured Captain Lendy did not necessarily end the matter. Proceedings might still be taken against him on his return home. He (Mr. Little) only stated this view of the case, because he wanted to impress upon the House that, in his opinion, the language used by hon. Members who attempted to mitigate and almost excuse the action of this officer was, to his mind, exceedingly ill-advised. If there was anything which would induce the people of England to insist upon the prosecution of this officer, it would be the fact that any great number of Members of the House had attempted to excuse his conduct.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, that no one who had looked at the morning papers could fail to see that matters in Matabeleland and Mashonaland were of a somewhat serious character. There were 20,000 fairly armed warriors of good physique in the Matabele tribe, and there were only a few thousand British settlers scattered about Mashonaland. It seemed to him that it would be very advisable for Her Majesty's Government to arrange for a massing of troops at Frieburgh, or some other accessible point, so that should an emergency arise, which the Chartered Company were unable to deal with, we should not have to deplore a repetition of the disaster that took place some years ago at Khartoum. Such steps certainly ought to be taken as would place beyond doubt the safety and security of British subjects in Mashonaland.

MR. S. BUXTON

The hon. Member for Liverpool asked what we had done in regard to Bechuanaland. In order to be quite safe as regards our defences there, we have sent up a considerable number of reliefs, and have authorised Sir Henry Loch to increase the Police Force by 100 men. I may say, in reference to some remarks that have fallen from gentlemen opposite, that I did not use the word "murder" with regard to Captain Lendy, but I said that gentleman's action showed a palpable disregard for human life which was deserving of great censure.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

Will a Supplementary Estimate be necessary for the extra 100 police? I know that the police of Bechuanaland is extremely expensive.

MR. S. BUXTON

The Police Force of Mashonaland is very expensive indeed, and until the House allows us to have our railway it will continue to be expensive. The money will have to be provided in the form of Supplementary Estimates, or it may be possible to utilise savings from this year's Vote, and to include it in the Vote for next year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, that last night he had asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether the Swaziland Convention would be laid upon the Table of the House before it was signed, so that Members might have an opportunity of considering the nature of the obligations we were liable to incur, and he received a very laconic reply. If the negative answer he received was to be regarded as the final decision of the Government, he protested against any Convention being entered into with regard to Swaziland until it had been submitted to the judgment of the House. Conventions and Treaties had been made in past years without Parliament having been consulted, and when difficulties arose Governments interfered, and justified the interference, by saying that they were bound to do so by the conditions of the Treaty. That was the way in which many of our little wars had been entered upon. The chances were that we should be landed before many years in a similar difficulty in South Africa, and the House had a right to know what obligations this country was about to incur there. The present Government were pacifically disposed, but they would not always remain in Office. At some time or other a less pacific Government might be in power and inclined to the opinions just expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. He hoped, however, that the Lord would deliver us from a Government entertaining the selfish, warlike views of the hon. Member.

MR. S. BUXTON

I hope my hon. Friend did not think I wanted to be uncivil in giving him a short answer on this point last night. I am afraid the only answer I can give now is that, under the present Constitution, the Government must take the responsibility on themselves of making such a Convention. If my hon. Friend wants to upset that system he must upset the Constitution, and not the Government. We have no power to alter it. It is for the House generally to decide whether this is the most convenient course for carrying such a Convention through.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 4 agreed to.