Lords Sitting of 21 July 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Customs Buildings (146).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Army Discipline and Regulation (156).
Committee—Report—Public Loans Remission* [144].
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation* (135); Highway Accounts (Returns)* (143), and passed.
Royal Assent—Dispensaries (Ireland) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 25]; Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 47]: Salmon Fishery Law Amendment (No. 2) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 26]; Convention (Ireland) Act Repeal [42 & 43 Vict. c. 28]; Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Interments) [42 & 43 Vict. c.

817
31]; Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment [42 & 43 Vict. c. 30]; Marriages Confirmation (Her Majesty's Ships) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 29]; Local Government Provisional Order (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings) [42 & 43 Vict. c. clviii]; Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation [42 & 43 Vict. c. clix]; Wormwood Scrubs Regulation [42 & 43 Vict. c. clx]; Cork Borough Quarter Sessions [42 & 43 Vict. e. clxi]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common) [42 & 43 Vict. c. clxii].

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—LATEST TELEGRAMS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLasked if the Government had received any fresh intelligence from South Africa?
VISCOUNT BURY, in reply, said, the following telegrams from Major General Hon. H. Clifford to the Secretary of State for the Colonies were received yeterday from St. Vincent:—
"PIETERMARITZBURG, July 3.
"General left here July 1, 7 a.m., for Durnford viâ Durban, at which place Chelmsford's despatch in answer to Wolseley's orders reached him. General arrived Port Durnford, July 2, but not yet able to land, surf too high. Euphrates, with drafts, arrived Durban to-day; was to have disembarked everything at Port Durnford, but Commodore cannot anchor. No direct news from Chelmsford since 29th June; information given had been anticipated by officers who arrived from his camp and gave news. Newdigate advancing on Ulundi; force of 500 whites, with surplus waggons, in laager, left about 10 miles from Ulundi; expected to be at Ulundi 1st July. Crealock still at Napoleon Hill; ground in front difficult; no roads; transport required; have sent up four sections mule transport, 48 wagons; native carrier corps being formed for transport of Crealock's Division 2,000 strong at first, if found to answer will be increased to 5,000.
"JULY 4, 8 a.m.
"Have not heard that Wolseley has landed at Port Durnford. Chelmsford's message to Wolseley of June 30 says, 'Five miles from Entanguin, 10 from Umvolosi River; King's messengers have just left with message from me that I must advance to position left bank of river; I do so to-morrow, but will stop hostilities pending negotiations if demands communicated are complied with by July 3; these demands are, that Indunas come with cattle and guns. I have consented to receive 1,000 captured rifles instead of regiment laying down its arms. As my supply will only permit of my remaining here until July 10, it is desirable I should inform you of conditions of peace to be demanded. White man with King states he has 20,000 men; King anxious to fight; Princes not. Where is Crealock's column? If Wolseley lands before 12 this day, which is last moment for telegraphing you by Olympus, you will be informed. English horses have arrived safe at Cape. Wolseley not able land Port
818
Durnford; returns in Shah to Durban to-day; proceeds by land to 1st Division immediately.
"NOON.
"No further news from Chelmsford has reached me; Wolseley not yet arrived at Durban from Port Durnford.
"2.35 p.m.
"No further news has reached me from Chelmsford, or of Wolseley having landed at Durban."

SLAVERY IN CUBA.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD SELBORNE, who had given Notice to call attention to the question of slavery in Cuba, and to move for—
  "Copies of all despatches and papers containing any communications on that subject which have passed between Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Government, and which have not already been laid before Parliament;"
  said: It may be in the recollection of those of your Lordships who take an interest in the subject of Slavery, that, on the 21st of March last, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government were taking any steps with a view to obtain the fulfilment of the assurances which had been given by the Government of Spain as to the total abolition of Slavery in the Spanish Possessions? My noble Friend put no undue pressure upon the Government: he would have been content if he had only learned that something was really being done. But the noble Marquess, after referring to the change which had then lately taken place in the Spanish Ministry, said that it must be remembered that the matter was one entirely of internal regulation, and that, but for the promise which the Spanish Government had volunteered, we should have no right to mention the subject. That answer occasioned both disappointment and surprise—disappointment, because it was very different in its tone from a letter received less than a year before from the Foreign Office by the Anti-Slavery Society, in reply to a Memorial which it had presented; surprise, because it was impossible to reconcile it either with the tenour of the language held by the Predecessors of the present Secretary of State, or with the real facts on which the right of this country to remonstrate with Spain rested. I can only suppose that the noble Marquess had been too

  819
  much, occupied with the affairs of Turkey and other countries, which are still the strongholds of Slavery on the shores of the Mediterranean, to be able to refresh his memory as to what had previously occurred on this subject. That answer makes it necessary for me to remind your Lordships, that the promises of Spain were not volunteered in such a sense as to make them the sole foundation of our right to remonstrate. We have two Treaties with Spain relating to this question, the one entered into in 1817 and the other in 1835. By the Treaty of 1817, in consideration of a sum of £400,000 then paid by this country, Spain entered into a positive and absolute engagement totally to abolish the Slave Trade throughout her Dominions from the end of the year 1820. By the Treaty of 1835, that engagement was solemnly renewed; the Slave Trade was declared, so far as Spain was concerned, to be wholly abolished and illegal; and each of the contracting States then bound itself to cooperate with the other to suppress it, and Spain entered into a very explicit and positive engagement with us to give absolute freedom to all those negroes who might be taken out of vessels which were found carrying on the trade; to insure to those negroes good treatment in every way; and, likewise, to communicate information to us on the subject. In what manner were those engagements fulfilled? They did not, it is true, bind Spain to abolish within her Dominions the institution of Slavery: but they bound her not to add, by any means resulting from the Slave Trade, to the number of the unhappy beings who were already subject to it. It appears from the Returns made from time to time by the British Consul General and Commissioners in Cuba, and laid before Parliament, that in the 20 years between 1822 and 1842, no fewer than 200,621 slaves were introduced into Cuba by ships sailing from, and returning to, Spanish ports. I have not been able to ascertain the exact numbers for the next 16 years; but, during that interval, instead of the trade diminishing, it largely increased, and in the five years from 1858 to 1862, no fewer than 100,560 were likewise imported into Cuba, against the stipulations of the Treaties. The total number imported during the 42 years from
  820
  1820 to 1863 could not have been under 500,000. On the 8th of June, 1860, Lord John Russell, speaking in the House of Commons, said—
  "I believe from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves are annually brought into that Island from Africa, and it is perfectly true that this trade is carried on in contempt and violation of Treaties between this country and Spain."—[3 Hansard, clix. 205.]
  In a despatch of September 30th, 1860, Consul General Crawford estimated that the total number of slaves in Cuba was then 400,000, the excess of deaths over births being 8 per cent per annum. Those figures substantially justify his conclusion, in a despatch of March 23rd, 1876, that every able-bodied African then in Cuba under 55 years of age must have been imported clandestinely, and was legally entitled to his freedom at once. Every, or almost every, able-bodied negro in Cuba under 55 years of age was, in 1876, a living monument of the breaches of Treaty committed by Spain, and we had a clear Treaty right to remonstrate against the retention in Slavery of nearly the whole slave population of Cuba at that time. With regard to the negroes who had been intercepted by the Spanish cruisers in slave-trading vessels, called, in the language of the country, Emancipados, and whom the Spanish Government was bound by the Treaty of 1835 to restore to perfect freedom, as well as to insure them the best possible treatment, Consul General Crawford, in his Report of August 28th, 1863, said—
  "The Emancipado is the most wretched of human beings, for he is neither more nor less than a Government slave; and he is condemned to drag out a life of hopeless misery, being constantly re-assigned from one master to another at the caprice of the authorities, and being subjected to all the hardest labour and discipline of the slave without any adequate remuneration, and without even the privilege which is accorded to the slave of purchasing his own freedom. The treatment which these poor creatures receive at the hands of their masters is, generally speaking, of the very worst kind. They are cheated out of their wages, and are subjected to every species of punishment. They are sold, or rather they are transferred from one master to another, for a consideration generally amounting to from 170 dollars to 204 dollars; and terrible abuses are committed with the friendless Emancipado, such as reporting him dead, whereas he has been substituted for a defunct slave."
  Thus, both with respect to the continuance of the Slave Trade, and to the treatment of those who were ostensibly rescued from slavery, the Spanish Go-

  821
  vernment, for a long course of years, systematically disregarded its direct Treaty engagements. A Convention for better securing the performance of the Treaties was proposed by this country in 1840, and another in 1850; but both were rejected by Spain. These things did not take place without continual remonstrances by the Predecessors in Office of the noble Marquess, who certainly did not take the view that the subject was one which, except by some voluntary concession of the Spanish Government, we were not entitled to mention to them. I will mention a few of the instances which are scattered over the Slave Trade Papers of many years. In 1841, Lord Palmerston urged, the Spanish Government
  "To take steps for restoring to freedom all those negroes who have been introduced into Cuba as slaves in violation of the laws of Spain, and who, therefore, not being the legal property of any man, are ipso facto free by the law of the country itself."
  In June, 1870, Lord Clarendon sent to Mr. Layard, for communication to the Spanish Government, a Memorial which he had received from the Anti-Slavery Society, with his answer, in which he stated that—
  "It was impossible not to acknowledge that the slaves introduced into Cuba, in violation both of the Spanish laws and of the international obligations of Spain towards this country, were properly entitled to their freedom."
  And Mr. Layard was then instructed to express a hope that the question would be dealt with in a "complete and satisfactory manner." It was in that year that those promises were made to this country by Spain, which the noble Marquess opposite in March last declared to have been volunteered. While those promises were still recent, the language of my noble Friend behind me, who asked the Question in March last, was very explicit as to the right of this country, founded upon Treaty engagements to be heard upon the subject. In 1871, Mr. Layard wrote that Senor Martos had admitted to him that
  "pledges had been given to Her Majesty's Government;" to which he had replied, that—
  "Her Majesty's Government, after the assurances given them, would have just grounds for remonstrance if something were not done to prove the intention of the Spanish Government to carry out those measures for the eventual
  822
  total abolition of Slavery, which they had publicly pledged themselves, not only to Spain, but to Europe and the United States, to adopt."
  On the 24th of November, 1871, my noble Friend wrote to Mr. Layard—
  "Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in maintaining any longer the silence and reserve which they have hitherto observed upon a question in which they have a Treaty right to interfere;"
  referring, at that time, more especially to the case of the Emancipados. In December of the same year, he told the Spanish Ambassador that—
  "With us it was not a question of merely making a representation on a matter which we had at heart, but was one, also, of insisting on the execution of positive Treaty engagements."
  If the noble Marquess opposite had remembered the terms of those communications, when he answered the Question addressed to him on the 21st of March last, he would hardly have replied that it was a matter entirely of internal regulation, and that but for the promises volunteered we should have no right to mention the subject. I wish the House now to consider what has been done, to make reparation for the long-continued breach of Treaty engagements in this matter, and also what steps have been taken to fulfil those promises, which were really not volunteered, but resulted from a frank recognition by the Spanish Government of our right to be heard upon this subject. The facts are these. The Slave Trade went on constantly increasing till about 1862, but afterwards diminished; and within a few years of that time, before the commencement of the Cuban insurrection in 1869, it had come entirely to an end. That, no doubt, was a great gain; but those who had, down to that time, been illegally reduced into servitude, were still deprived of their freedom. During the insurrection, the insurgents proclaimed the total and immediate abolition of Slavery wherever their power extended, and the question became complicated with the difficulties arising out of that insurrection. In 1870 a declaration was made in the Cortes that the Spanish Government had at last determined to put an end to Slavery. General Prim requested the British Minister at Madrid to communicate that declaration to Her Majesty's Government, with an assurance of their sincere intention to carry it into effect. In the same summer a law was

  823
  proposed by Senor Moret, and passed the Cortes, upon the subject; but it was very far from carrying out the declaration; it only provided for the liberation of slave children born subsequent to the promulgation of the law after they should have undergone a period of forced service, absolutely undistinguishable from slavery, till they were 18 years of age, and very little better till they were 22; and for the emancipation of slaves above 60 years of age. It also declared that the Emancipados should be put into full possession of the rights of freemen; but it left the execution of that provision to local boards. Mr. Layard was, however, requested to communicate assurances that this measure would be followed by others providing for the complete abolition of Slavery. Six years afterwards, Mr. Consul Crawford said that the practical working of that Act would be
  "To maintain slavery, not for 22 years, as some persons suppose, but for an indefinite period. In fact," he continued, "it is the Emancipado system revived on a sweeping scale. The traffic in Emancipados still continues."
  Now, so far as Cuba is concerned, this is the last step that has been taken. Nothing has been done for Cuba in the nine years since the passing of that most imperfect law. A debate occurred upon the subject in the House of Commons in 1872, and an Address to the Crown was proposed; but as the answer given by the Government of that day justified the expectation that they would lose no favourable opportunity of moving in the matter, a Division was not then taken. Since that time, I am happy to say, one step has been taken by Spain in the right direction, though not in Cuba. The slaves in Porto Rico were emancipated in March, 1873. I mention this with great satisfaction, as it shows that there are statesmen in Spain who are perfectly sincere in their desire to fulfil the promises which have been made. I have every reason to believe that this great step has been successful, and is found to have inflicted no practical injury upon the Colony. The obstacles which existed in Cuba during the time of the insurrection have been removed long enough to entitle us to ask that no more time should be lost in the complete accomplishment, there also, of
  824
  this great object. It is now considerably more than a year since the insurrection has been suppressed, and nine years since the original assurances were given by General Prim and Senor Moret. I can assure your Lordships that it is from no want of friendly feeling towards Spain that I now bring this question forward; on the contrary, I am fully convinced that those who desire to persuade Her Majesty's Government to bestir themselves in this matter are among the best friends of Spain. There is not one of your Lordships, I am sure, who does not desire that we should be on the best terms with Spain, who has not felt sympathy with her in the manifold troubles and difficulties through which she has passed, who does not rejoice in the happier prospects which seem to be now before her, or who would not be inclined to condone the great forbearance which the British Government has manifested. I have a right to call it forbearance; remembering, as all your Lordships must remember, the very different course taken by this country with Brazil, a nation bound to us, on the subject of Slavery, by obligations not more stringent than those of Spain—remembering, also, what the result of the course so taken with Brazil has been. I cannot, however, and I do not, regret that our attitude towards Spain has been uniformly friendly, forbearing, and considerate. But for the sake of Spain herself, and for the credit of this country, there ought to be some limit to inactivity and silence. The influence of the British Government is very great; it cannot be used in a better cause. Cuba is now in a state of comparative tranquillity; but it is impossible to expect that the present state of things in that Island can long continue undisturbed, if the promises so solemnly given for the complete restoration of its coloured population to that freedom which is really their right should very much longer remain unfulfilled. The true interest of Spain, in Cuba itself, requires the fulfilment of those promises. And not her interest only, but her honour. It is surely for the honour of Spain not to be the last nation to fulfil the great work of emancipation. One by one other countries have put down, first the Slave Trade, and then Slavery—first England, then the United States, then Portugal. Spain is the only civilized nation now

  825
  left in Europe—for Turkey is essentially an Oriental Power—which has not wiped off from her escutcheon that foul stain. It is now for her, I trust at a time not far distant, to put the finishing stroke to this great work, and to crown, by the emancipation of the negro population in Cuba, this great series of the triumphs of liberty.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "Copies of all despatches and papers containing any communications on that subject which have passed between Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Government, and which have not already been laid before Parliament."—(The Lord Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with respect to the Question of my noble and learned Friend, I do not think there will be any difficulty in laying on the Table the despatches which have passed since the last Papers were presented; and when my noble and learned Friend sees them he will be able to form a more competent judgment than at present as to the position of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this subject. In the course of his speech my noble and learned Friend referred to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the case of Brazil. That reference appears to be singularly opportune; because it reminds your Lordships that in dealing with engagements, whatever their character, whatever binding force you may attribute to them, which concern the internal government of a country, it is always necessary to ask yourselves which of two lines of conduct you contemplate pursuing. It is, perhaps, an inconvenience, resulting from our national habit of discussing foreign affairs in the open forum of debate that in regard to questions which we ask ourselves we also inform foreign nations of the answers. But, nevertheless, we shall never come to a clear idea of our policy on such a question as this, unless we draw in our own minds the distinction between those matters which we can push to the ultima ratio, and those other questions where we should employ the moral influence of England, but not think of going beyond it. My noble and learned Friend will forgive me for saying that I do not think it is my business in this place to interpret
  826
  Treaties. Any interpretation which my noble and learned Friend may give from the Bench opposite he is at liberty to modify if he were to migrate to the Woolsack; but I can hardly repudiate the interpretation of a Treaty given by me in this place, and I might inadvertently make use of some inaccurate word or phrase, which did not express my real meaning, but which might be construed afterwards as binding Her Majesty's Government to a particular interpretation. Therefore, I shall avoid the snare which the noble and learned Lord seems to have laid for me, of speaking too confidently and distinctly of the precise character of the obligations which bind Spain to us in respect of this question of Slavery. Whatever their extent may be, it seems clear that it is by moral influence only that they can be enforced. I ask my noble and learned Friend to place himself in the position of a Spanish statesman before he determines the precise vigour and rapidity which the English Government should use in putting these obligations into action. There is no matter upon which all nations are so sensitive as any interference with their internal government; but if you may distinguish between nations, those which are ruled by popular Assemblies are infinitely more sensitive than those ruled by a despotic Power. There is no action of diplomacy that is so difficult as urging upon a nation governed by a popular Assembly, or in which a popular Assembly bears a large share of the government, any change in its internal laws. The slightest appearance of undue concession on the part of the Ministry of the country is at once seized upon by the Opposition as truckling to the foreigner. In Spain the Opposition has a characteristic which distinguishes it from Oppositions in other countries—they are singularly sensitive of the honour of their country. There is no charge likely to be more fatal to a Government—no charge against which it feels itself bound to provide with greater care—than that of submitting its internal legislation to the requirements, or even to the importunate advice, of any foreign critic or Ally. These considerations must be well borne in mind by anyone who forms an opinion on the action of the Spanish or of the British Government in pressing this matter upon them. I will venture to

  827
  read to your Lordships an extract from a speech of General Martinez Campos, about a month ago, in which he showed the precise attitude Spain is taking. He said—
  "The Government must see that the scales are equally weighted, must take into account the social problem, must declare at once that it never had the intention of immediately emancipating the slaves. The intention of the Government is to hasten the freedom of every slave; but it was never stated that immediate emancipation was to he declared, that all Cuban slaves were to be at once considered free from all control; for this is neither just nor feasible in the interest of the slaves themselves, for, in order to grant their liberty, some preparation, which does not exist, is necessary. Granting them their freedom is equal to casting them into the fields and into licentiousness. They are very numerous, and we would not go and lose the Island of Cuba by virtue of a decree."
  Take yourself back in history some 50 years, when Slavery was still in force by law in the English Colonies, and imagine that Trance had then shown some great interest in urging the emancipation of slaves upon the consideration of England—had pressed for the abolition of Slavery on all occasions, and had discussed the motives of England freely in debate—would it not have been the case that the Ministry of the day would have shown great doubt, difficulty, and hesitation in yielding to the demands of foreigners in that respect? And if the Ministry had shown any slackness, would not the Opposition have made it one of the capital charges against them that they had not been sufficiently careful of the national honour? Supposing, again, there was any institution of ours to which foreigners had a conscientious objection—capital punishment, for instance—and were to urge upon us the policy of remitting the penalty in each case—I do not place this quite on the same footing, because there is an absense of Treaty obligations—I am sure noble Lords opposite would be the first to denounce the dishonest and unpatriotic Ministry which modified its internal policy in compliance with the dictates of a foreign Government. I have made a statement with reference to the present intentions of the Spanish Government, and have pointed out that they maintain as strongly and distinctly as ever their intention ultimately to emancipate the slaves. I have shown that—according to their own statement at least—it is merely a question of time,
  828
  mode, conditions, and precautions; and I can only end by saying that Her Majesty's Government do not yield to my noble Friend in the least degree in their desire to get rid of Slavery. If we do not press the matter as rapidly and as vigorously as you desire, it is from the conscientious belief that we should retard, instead of accelerating, the object we have in view. If you once admit that an object of this kind is to be obtained by moral influence, you must, at the same time, admit that it can be obtained only by paying a careful and most respectful regard to the property, sentiments, and rational feelings of the persons whom you address on the subject. It is only by restraining our natural anxiety to get rid of one of the greatest evils that has ever cursed humanity, and our natural wish to add, if it might be in our time, one more achievement to the many which England has already won on this great field—it is only by restraining ourselves in this respect that we believe we shall bring the matter to a speedy issue, and enable the Spanish Ministry to persuade those whom they are obliged to convince to follow in what we sincerely believe to be their own high-minded and humane instincts upon this great question. I can assure my noble and learned Friend that the matter has engaged the careful attention of the Government; and that, so far as we are concerned, we shall lose no opportunity of exerting such influence as we possess towards attaining the object he has in view.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Marquess that there were judicious and injudicious ways of pressing a subject of importance upon a foreign Government; but it was not right to say that because a country had representative institutions other countries were not to press for a fulfilment of Treaty engagements which that country had made. He repudiated such an idea altogether, so far as England was concerned. He was afraid that both in this country and in Spain the speech of the noble Marquess would not convey the impression of any great desire to abolish Slavery—he had, in fact, made a speech that sounded like a defence, not of our Treaty engagements, but of the Spanish Government. The noble Marquess asked what we should think if foreign Governments made representa-

  829
  tions to us with regard to capital punishment in this country? But the fallacy in that argument was that on the subject of capital punishment a foreign country would have no Treaty engagements with us. That appeared to him (Earl Granville) to make the whole difference in the matter. The noble Marquess deprecated remonstrances which might excite the feelings of the Spanish people; but the fact was that at this very moment there was a debate going on in the Spanish Chambers, in which the Opposition were pressing the Government to do exactly that which his noble and learned Friend beside him desired to see done. He accepted the assurances of the Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government were in earnest in this matter; and he hoped that the Papers to be produced would show that the Members of the present Administration had done a little more than the speech of the noble Marquess indicated.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I feel convinced, from long experience now on this question of Slavery and on communications with foreign Powers, that it is not wise to rest too literally upon the terms of a Treaty; but rather that we must begin upon friendly and, comparatively speaking, private representations to foreign Courts. What my noble Friend has said is perfectly true—that there is in every State, and especially where there are free and representative institutions, a great deal of jealousy as to any interference with what are called "domestic institutions." The noble Earl who has just spoken has reminded your Lordships—and I believe there is not the slightest doubt as to the accuracy of his statement—that at this very time the Government of Spain are pressed by the Opposition in favour of the very view which both the Government of England and the noble and learned Lord are anxious to support; but would the Opposition in Spain have been pressing the Government of that country for a suppression of Slavery in Cuba if there had been that systematic pressure from a foreign Government on the Spanish Government? I venture to say that had we taken any extreme step upon the subject with the Government of Spain the Opposition at Madrid would not have advocated, as they do at present, the views which they now hold. I do not mean to say that they are advocating
  830
  them now with insincerity; but they must have felt that they were not appealing with success to their own Government if they were merely echoing and supporting the claims of any foreign Power on the same question. I feel that the course which the Government in this country have taken at all times—by the noble Lords now in Opposition, and by those sitting at present upon this Bench—has been almost identical on the particular matter before us. There has been, I think, perfect consistency in the conduct which this country has pursued for the suppression of Slavery. It has taken every opportunity of binding foreign Powers by Treaties; but it has never, in entering into those Treaties, contemplated that they were, as a matter of course, to be enforced in the particular manner to which the noble and learned Lord has referred if there were any apparent reluctance on the part of a foreign Power to fulfil its engagements. Her Majesty's Government have trusted as much as they can to moral influence, and they must continue to trust to moral influence in order to gain the desired end. At the same time they are always in favour, if an opportunity is given them, of binding by Treaties foreign Governments to the completion of an object which is not only dear to this country, but which, it must be satisfactory' to feel, is one that interests almost every civilized State.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.—(No. 156.)
(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.—(No. 156.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that for a long time there had been a pretty general opinion that the old Mutiny Act, which was an accretion of various enactments since 1689, was a somewhat inefficient instrument for the government of the Army; and in recent years those who had charge of passing it through the other House of Parliament were well aware that many parts of it were difficult to defend, and ultimately it was agreed that the subject should be referred to a Committee, Our Army had

  831
  been governed by various Acts of Parliament, by Articles of War, by Royal Warrants, and by General Orders and Circulars issued from the Horse Guards. Under those various documents it was sometimes difficult to ascertain by what rule the Army should be governed, and more especially questions arose between the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act. A Commission in 1869 recommended that the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War should be carefully re-drawn; and when his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Cardwell) became Secretary of State—he believed as early as 1871 or 1872—he referred the question to the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Davison, a man very eminent in his Profession, highly qualified for the work, and whose untimely death was a great loss to the Public Service. Subsequently, the subject was carefully and repeatedly considered by the Parliamentary draftsmen and the authorities, including Mr. Ayrton, who, while Judge Advocate General, gave great attention to the subject with results which he was happy to have the occasion to acknowledge. When, therefore, he (Viscount Cranbrook) entered into Office he inherited a great amount of information which had been accumulated by his Predecessor. He was too much occupied during his first year or two of Office to pay much attention to the subject; but last year a Committee was appointed in the House of Commons, over which Sir William Harcourt presided. No one was better qualified than Sir William Harcourt to enter upon the question; and it was only right that he should, on the part of the Government, thank him for the pains he took in the Committee and for the support which he gave in the other House to the main portions of the Bill. He should come at once to the Bill, and in dealing with it he had to apologize for the shortness of the time their Lordships had for the consideration of it, and for the request which he had to make—a matter of still greater moment—that no Amendment should be made in the Bill—because, otherwise, the Bill could not be passed before the time at which it was necessary to obtain the Royal Assent. He felt sure that, however much their Lordships might wish to discuss the Bill, or to change some particular details in it, they would patriotically abstain on this occasion, in order that
  832
  the Army might be placed immediately under the government of an Act which was manifestly a great improvement on that law which had existed heretofore. The Bill was divided into five Parts. The first Part dealt with;
  "Discipline"—which included "Crimes and Punishment," "Arrest and Trial," and "Execution of Sentence." The Bill defined the persons who were subject to it—officers and soldiers, and—which was an important change, assimilating the operation of the law to the Indian Act—camp-followers and sutlers. In future, as in India, camp-followers and sutlers would be brought under military law. The next point was "Military Offences." Military offences were grouped in the order of their importance. There was a distinction made between offences committed on active service and offences committed in time of peace—because an offence which might be a simple one in time of peace might in time of war lead to the destruction of an Army or to the serious injury of a strategic movement. With regard to the punishments that might be inflicted under the Act, though there was a maximum punishment laid down for offences, it by no means followed as a necessary result that the maximum punishment would be inflicted. Power was now given to every kind of court martial to try every kind of offence, in order to prevent the system hitherto adopted in the Army of minimizing offences so that they might be tried by the lower courts martial. At the same time, care would be taken that none of the most serious offences should be tried by the lower courts martial. It was not necessary to take special notice of these punishments save one. He referred, of course, to corporal punishment, which had given rise to a good deal of discussion in the other House of Parliament. There had been an impression in the country—quite an erroneous one—that corporal punishment existed in the Army for all sorts of offences in time of peace. That was not the case. Corporal punishment existed in time of peace for offences on board ship—not on board Her Majesty's ships, because there soldiers came under naval discipline—and ceased to be under military discipline; for troops on board ships not belonging to Her Majesty there was a power given under the law, as it now existed, to inflict corporal punishment. By the present Bill

  833
  this power ceased to exist. Then, with respect to the amount of punishment to be inflicted in the Army, when the Bill, was first introduced it was limited to 50 lashes; but, by an Amendment which was made in the other House, 50 lashes was reduced to 25. For his own part, he did not think that the question of degree was the question of importance in this matter. The question of the necessity of punishment could be decided only by those who had the charge of exercising it; and until the country came to a more satisfactory state of things in the Army he believed, in the interest of the soldier himself, it was better that this sharp and decisive punishment should be inflicted at the moment and on the spot than that an attempt should be made to drag a number of prisoners, soldiers, or camp-followers in custody with the Army. The question was now brought to this point. The power to give corporal punishment was no longer vested in the provost marshal of his own will; but the provost marshal had power to take immediately into custody an offender and summon a regularly constituted court martial, composed of officers on the spot, who would order the infliction of the punishment which they might adjudge. That seemed to him a protection to the soldier and the camp-follower, and he hoped that it would not too much weaken the power of the provost marshal. The punishment of flogging was in future to be inflicted only for offences which rendered the man liable to sentence of death, and those offences were limited to the breach of the laws of the Army in the field on active service. Having begun with no corporal punishment in time of peace except on board ship, they had done away with it in that case, because on board ship they had the power of custody; but in the field in time of active service, the Bill still left the power in the hands of the courts martial that where the maximum punishment was death they would be able to inflict the lesser punishment of the lash. For his own part, he quite admitted that corporal punishment had an unpleasant and disagreeable sound when applied to adults; but when it came to a question of the bullet or the lash, how much better was it that, under strict regulation, and under the care which would now be exercised, the lash should be
  834
  used instead of putting a man to death for an offence which, perhaps, it was felt did not deserve that penalty? They had always a certain number of men of bad character in the Army, and the camp-followers were certainly not of the highest type, and it was essential that they should have the power of keeping such persons in order. In time of war, in the case of passing through a country where it was most necessary to respect the feelings of the population, the stealing of an egg from a hen's nest might be a most serious offence; and camp-followers or others who would take an egg would not stop there—they would more likely take anything they could lay their hands on if they had the opportunity. It was thus essential to the discipline of Armies that there should exist a power to inflict punishment upon offenders with the utmost promptitude. He had heard it suggested that persons offending should be handcuffed and taken on with the Army; but he would venture to suggest that no Army which carried with it an indefinite number of handcuffed soldiers and camp-followers could possibly perform those strategic movements which were from time to time necessary to success. Having looked carefully through the Bill, he was unable to admit that, as far as the punitive portions of it were concerned, there was much difference between it and the Mutiny Act, which it was intended to supersede; but such differences as there were between the two sets of provisions would not tend to the disadvantage of the soldier. Several of the provisions would be strongly in favour of the soldier—as, for instance, as regarded arrest, it was provided that the trial of a man must take place within eight days after his arrest, unless sufficient reasons were given for delaying it—the power of commanding officers to inflict imprisonment for absence without leave was extended to 21 days, but power of appeal was given to the soldier. Again, formerly, when a man was acquitted by court martial, the decision was not made known for some time; but, under this Bill, it was necessary at once to announce the acquittal and order the discharge from custody of a soldier who had been charged with offences against military law and declared not to have been guilty of the offences imputed to him. The only other remark which he

  835
  felt called upon to make, as far as this branch of the Bill was concerned, was that ample power of appeal was given, alike to officers and soldiers who thought they had been wrongfully accused of offence. The part of the Bill which related to "Enlistment" would make some slight alterations, principally in reference to the transference of men from the Army to the Reserve. The 3rd Part, which related to "Billeting and Impressment of Carriages," required no special notice. The 4th Part consisted of "General Provisions," in which he might refer to the clauses which related to Military Prisons. In dealing with military prisons, care would be taken that soldiers should not be associated with bad characters. That was really the whole Bill; and their Lordships would be surprised, as he had himself been, when he went through the Bill in connection with the old Mutiny Act, to find how slight were the changes effected, and yet, at the same time, upon how different and how firm a basis military discipline and military law generally were established. It would be a great advantage to have this measure, instead of being obliged to go every year through clause by clause of the Mutiny Act. Everything concerning the discipline of the Army was now brought into definite shape, and so clearly set forth, that every man must understand his duties and obligations. In passing this Bill hastily, which he asked their Lordships to do, he thought he might promise that their Lordships would find that, in making great haste, they had also made good speed.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I may be permitted to say a few words in reference to this Bill, speaking entirely from a professional point of view, and without reference to any other observations which may be made from either side of the House. I wish to say, in the first place, that we—the military authorities—are in entire accordance with the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject-matter of this Bill, and the mode in which it is dealt with. It is to be deplored that it should have been stated, as I have sometimes seen, that a difference of opinion exists between Her Majesty's Government and the military authorities with regard to certain points in this Bill. I can only say that I earnestly hope that the time
  836
  will never arrive at which the deliberately formed opinions of Her Majesty's Government on military questions, no matter to which Party in politics it may belong, will receive any other than full and due support from the military authorities in this country. There may be difference of opinion at first when important points are raised; but when they have been decided, the decisions are accepted by the military authorities with that loyalty and determination which they are bound to show, whatever Party may be in power. As regards the question of discipline, with which I am principally concerned, I agree with the noble Viscount who has moved the second reading that there is very little to be found in the present Bill different from the old Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, which the measure is intended to supersede. The principal difference is that the law is put down in such a shape that it will be much more simple and much more easily understood. All changes of this kind must take a little time to be appreciated by those who have to deal with them. This is a large and comprehensive measure; but I firmly believe that in the long run it will be a much more simple piece of legislation than the old Mutiny Act. As regards the maintenance of discipline, the Bill, I believe, contains provisions under which we shall be able to maintain discipline as thoroughly and as efficiently as it ought to be, and as it has been in the past. With regard to the question of corporal punishment, about which there has been so much discussion, I am fully persuaded that every officer in the Army would desire, if possible, to get rid of all severe and disgraceful punishments; but we are called upon to carry out the discipline of the Army, and the first consideration is, how is that discipline to be maintained? My conviction is—and I believe that it is the conviction of every officer in the Army—thatunless corporal punishment be retained in the Service it will be impossible to maintain discipline—unless the officers have power to deal with, cases as they arise, and unless an Army is kept in a state of discipline, it is a rabble and a mob—it is useless—it is worse than useless—it is dangerous. You must maintain discipline at all costs, and I do not believe that any outrage or injustice will arise under the provisions of this Act. It is said

  837
  that flogging is a disgraceful punishment. My Lords, all punishments are degrading—it is in the commission of the offence, and not in the nature of the punishment, that degradation consists. What you want to find in a punishment is that it should deter from crime. If the effect of this punishment is to deter men from committing crime, that is the best defence that can be offered for it. The alternative, as regards certain offences, lies between flogging and shooting, and surely flogging is much less severe than the punishment of death. Very serious offences may be committed while the Army is in the field. For instance, an outbreak of mutiny might occur in face of the enemy, or some serious crime of that sort might be committed which must be dealt with instantly and effectively. We are told that foreign Armies have a variety of other punishments. In some, it is said, men are tied up by their thumbs, while in others men are bound hand-and-foot to the wheel of a gun-carriage. I do not know whether such punishments are inflicted or not, but I have seen it stated that they are:—Would it be judicious or wise, however, for us to leave it to the discretion of an officer to resort to punishments of that kind? I am informed that these punishments are inflicted incidentally, as it were, by the officers in command of troops. In my opinion, it would not be at all justifiable for us to leave to an individual officer the responsibility of any punishment to which he might resort in difficult circumstances, because we have not the courage to put what we think right into law. It would be unjust to officers to place them in this false position, and Parliament would be acting with a great want of moral courage if it did not state that, in certain circumstances, corporal punishment may be inflicted. I sincerely hope the necessity for such punishment may never—or, certainly, very rarely—arise; but the effect of having the punishment on the Statute Book is the very thing which will deter men from committing crimes for which corporal punishment can be awarded. Although most anxious to have no punishments which are not justly meted out to men, I am prepared to say that, under existing circumstances, it is necessary and essential to maintain this punishment. With regard to the reduction in the number of lashes, it will, I believe,
  838
  be found that 25 lashes will produce as great a deterrent as 50; and, therefore, I think it is perfectly justifiable to accept this modification. My Lords, I consider that the condition of a soldier, under this new law, will be very much better than it was under the old. With regard to the subject of enlistment, the Bill makes an important change. Formerly, if a man took the shilling, he was from that moment considered to be a soldier, although he might have been in a state of drunkenness at the time; but under the proposed new law, the shilling test is done away with; if the man does not choose to appear before the magistrate, he may remain away; and he may, if he likes, claim his discharge within three months. This and other points in the Bill are of considerable importance. I am convinced that when the Army comes to understand this measure they will admit that they are in no respect in a worse condition, or under worse treatment, than they were under the old Mutiny Act and Articles of War, and that the officers will be able to maintain the discipline of the Army, which is, after all, the first object we have at heart, and the necessity for which I am bound to press moat earnestly on the attention of your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT CARD WELLsaid, he should give the Bill his most sincere and hearty support. His noble Friend the Secretary of State had introduced it in terms which left him nothing whatever to complain of, and the illustrious Duke had also made a most satisfactory statement. The provisions of the Bill would, he believed, effect a very great change for the better in the law relating to military service. Ten years ago a Royal Commission, over which his noble Friend opposite (Lord Winmarleigh) presided, made its Report to the Queen, and the first and chief of its recommendations was that the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War should be carefully re-drawn. In 1871, he (Viscount Cardwell) had the assistance of Mr. Davison, one of the most able men who ever filled the Office of Judge Advocate General. He had expectations that in a very short time—probably in 1872—Mr. Davison would nave been able to present to the House of Commons the result of his labours; but, unfortunately, that gentleman's career was cut short by an untimely death. Afterwards came the time when he had

  839
  the assistance of his right hon. Friend Mr. Ayrton—and he might here remark that he was glad to hear his noble Friend opposite speak in such well-merited terms of Mr. Ayrton's services. He might say that there was no Judge Advocate General of modern times who had earned to a greater extent the confidence and approval of the illustrious Duke, and of the military men by whom he was surrounded, than Mr. Ayrton did when he held that Office. At the beginning of 1874 he confidently expected to see Mr. Ayrton lay his Bill on the Table of the House of Commons; but their Lordships knew very well what happened in that year. It had, therefore, fallen to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War to introduce this Bill, which had been sent up to their Lordships on the responsibility of the Crown with the concurrence of the other House of Parliament. With regard to the vexed question of corporal punishment, he might say that he was very much struck on referring to what passed in 1867, when an important step was taken in mitigation of that kind of punishment in the Army. No less sagacious a person than the late General Peel was recorded to have said that if they reduced corporal punishment in time of peace to the dimensions then spoken of, or something to that effect, they would never be able to recur to it in time of war. What he wished to found upon that remark was this—that they did not know what they would be able to do in the way of reducing that punishment if they proceeded tentatively, and so as always to have the results of experience to fall back upon. They might be able to do, in the course of years, things which they now hardly expected to be able to do at all. They had, during the 12 years which had elapsed since General Peel's prediction, gone on improving the condition of the soldier; and, according to the testimony of the Inspector General of Recruiting, the popularity of the Army was rapidly increasing, and there was a much greater disposition to enlist than formerly existed. If they went on perpetually improving the position of the Army in the manner done by the present Bill, and by other ways, they would still further encourage that disposition. He rejoiced that the first step had been taken in ful-
  840
  filling the recommendations of his noble Friend's Commission; and they might depend upon it that this measure was a very great step towards the simplification of the law and putting it in a form which would reach the comprehension of the soldier. If they went on for the next 12 years, or for a shorter time than that, in their course of continually ameliorating the condition of the soldier, he did not at all despair of their arriving at the point at which they might go even beyond the limit contemplated by this Bill in doing away with corporal punishment. They might have the opportunity, in the next few years, of considering whether any amendment in this measure would be necessary, and he was sure its practical working would be carefully examined by those who were responsible for the administration of the Army.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had no intention of disturbing the harmony with which the Bill had been received by their Lordships. The former Mutiny Act provided sufficiently for the government of the Army, it protected the rights of officers and of soldiers, and of the public; however, if Parliament insisted upon a Bill more symmetrical in arrangement, and more precise in language, he should make no objection; but he rose to express his hope that the Bill, or some other measure which might hereafter be introduced, might have the effect of inducing a superior class of recruits to enlist. He was afraid that that point had not yet been reached. Although he was aware that no Amendments in the present measure could be carried, there were one or two points in it which it was especially desirable should be amended in a future year. The 72nd clause unduly limited the power of the provost marshal. Anyone who had seen the legion of devils who followed an Army would know that a more summary power of dealing with them was necessary than that provided in the Bill. He also thought that the Secretary of State would require greater powers than he now possessed for utilizing the services of the Reserve.
  LORD TRUROheld it to be a mistake to suppose that men of the respectability which was desired in the British Army were for one moment deterred from enlisting by the fear of being flogged.

  841
  That punishment was feared only by men of the most unfortunate habits and who were looked upon as belonging to the lowest class of our population. He had heard of the case of a soldier in a very distinguished regiment who had been five or six times flogged, and it made no impression whatever on the man, who was now a Scripture reader at Liverpool. Corporal punishment, under the safeguards interposed by this Bill ought, he thought, to be maintained.
  EARL GRANVILLEconcurred in regretting that circumstances made it impossible for their Lordships to discuss the details of this very important measure. He could not, however, say that he regretted that fact on his own account; because he remembered the rule once laid down by a noble Lord—that one should only speak in that House on subjects on which he not only knew something, but on which he was known to know something. He was afraid, therefore, that any remarks which he might have made on the details of the Bill, which had been handled professionally by the illustrious Duke on the Cross Benches, would have had no weight whatever. But, on the other hand, he protested against this measure being considered as necessarily perfect on some of the subjects which had been in controversy. The illustrious Duke had said the Bill contained everything which he thought essential for the discipline of the Army. But the Government had introduced the Bill, after a great deal of consideration, in a certain form with regard to flogging; and all knew that in "another place," under considerable pressure, they had made three distinct concessions in that matter. Either, therefore, they had not considered the subject in time, or the concessions they had now made were against their judgment. This being so, he begged, to say that, as far as he was concerned, he could not accept the present limitations as being necessarily perfect of their kind.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the Government might quote from Horace—
  " Adsit
  Regula peccatis quœ pœnas inroget æquas
  Nee sentica dignum horribili sectere flagello."
  And the measure was one which could be altered next Session. He hoped that
  842
  it would pass without alteration immediately.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.