Lords Sitting of 7 April 1881

MIINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Readings—Inclosure Provisional Orders (Scotton and Ferry Common)* (64); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (65).
Committee—Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds)* (53).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual) (61), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— MURDER OF CAPTAIN ELLIOTT, DR. BARBER, AND OTHERS.
QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. He was very anxious to know, before the House rose for the Holidays, Whether his noble Friend had received any further details with respect to what he must once more call the massacre of a detachment of the 94th Regiment, in South Africa, than had been presented to Parliament; and, also, what the powers of the Royal Commission were on this question? He could not understand how any Ministry could have made peace with the enemy without insisting upon, in the first place, inquiry being made into the full circumstances of the slaughter of that detachment, and the infliction of condign punishment upon those who had directed the massacre. He had seen statements made that the amnesty would include the Leaders of the Boers. Now, he wished to know, Whether the Commander of the Boers was to escape, supposing the inquiry proved that the assault upon the 94th partook of the character which he had attributed to it, and was directed by him? Would the Royal Commission have power to inquire into the circumstances of the conflict; and, if it was proved to have been beyond the usages of civilized warfare, would steps be taken to bring the authors of it to justice?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in reply, said, the Royal Commissioners had received instructions to make every effort to bring to justice the persons guilty of the murder of Captain Elliott and Dr.

849
Barber, and also any other persons who had been guilty of similar crimes. As to the affair of Brunker's Spruit, the alleged massacre of the detachment of the 94th Regiment, he had only to repeat the answer which he had already given several times in their Lordships' House—namely, that, as far as he was informed, it was covered by the amnesty.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 61.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee, after briefly explaining the provisions of the Bill, said, that the Government were doing everything they could to encourage a better class of citizens to enter the Army, and, besides giving additional inducements for that purpose, they were doing away with anything that deterred people from enlisting. He hoped their efforts would be successful, and that notwithstanding the abolition of corporal punishment, against which there was the strongest feeling in the country, the discipline of the Army would be maintained as heretofore.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Morley.)
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he very much regretted the abolition of corporal punishment, as essential to the maintenance of discipline, the absence of which rendered au army an armed rabble, and could not help thinking that most puerile reasons had been given for taking this step. As to the frequency of its infliction, there was very great misapprehension existing. The fact was, it was seldom inflicted—so much so, that he might mention that during the eight years he had commanded a regiment there had been only three cases of corporal punishment; but its existence as a punishment was absolutely necessary for the protection of the good men in the Army. The new punishments, on the contrary, provided by the Bill as it was originally framed, were far more degrading than flogging. To increase the popularity of the Army, the
850
allowances for both officers and men ought to be increased in favour of the innkeepers.
LORD CHELMSFORDexpressed his dissent from the reasons given by the Government for the abolition of the deterrent punishment of flogging. Although he considered that the late Secretary of State for War had made a serious mistake in giving way with regard to corporal punishment, he could not admit that by limiting that punishment to offences punishable by death, he had, as the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War declared, virtually done away with it altogether. He would read out the list of offences punishable by death, and noble Lords would see that it contained almost every offence which on active service in the field required to be dealt with by some deterrent punishment. The list was as follows:—Leaving his commanding officer to go in search of plunder; without orders, leaving his guard or post; forcing or striking a sentry; impeding the provost marshal; doing violence to inhabitants of countries in which he is serving; breaking into a house in search of plunder; being a sentinel, sleeping or drank on his post, or leaving his post before being relieved; striking or offering violence to a superior officer, being in the execution of his office; disobeying, in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority, any lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office. In the face of such a list as he had just read out, it would be absurd to contend that by limiting corporal punishment to such offences its death - knell had been sounded. Another argument used for the abolition of corporal punishment was that it would induce a better class of men to enter the Army. He quite recognized the force of that argument, and he was willing to admit that the class of recruit had already much improved. But the abolition of corporal punishment would not prevent the bad characters from entering the Army, and it was for them that the punishment was usually required, in order to prevent them from setting a bad example to the well conducted. He failed to see in the Amendments on that Bill any indication that an equally deterrent punishment would be substituted for that which was about to be abolished,

851
and he did not believe that any could be devised. The effect of the abolition of corporal punishment would, therefore, really be to substitute for the mild punishment of 25 lashes the awful penalty of death. The Preamble of the Bill showed clearly the value attached to the maintenance of discipline; and he was under the impression quite recently that every member of the Profession to which he belonged fully recognized that the secret of success in war depended almost entirely upon the discipline of the troops. That idea, however, had been deliberately challenged by one who, rightly or wrongly, was credited with considerable influence in the council chamber of the Secretary of State for War. In the article which had lately appeared in The Nineteenth Century, entitled "Long and Short Service," appeared the following passages:—
"There is a great deal of talk of the good old times, of their glories, and of the imagined magnificence of our soldiers then; of their splendid physical appearance, and."—
He would ask their Lordships to notice the following words:—
"of their high moral qualities of discipline, &c. … In those days, as at present, splendid success was only secured when really able and scientific generals commanded in the field. … It should never be forgotten that our Army that won Waterloo was pronounced by its Commander to be the worst he had ever commanded; whilst I think it will be freely admitted by the student of military history that the physique and discipline of the little Armies, which are now only remembered by reason of the misfortunes and calamities that overtook them, were often of the very highest order."
If these views were carried out to their logical sequence, it followed that so long as a competent General was at the head of our Army, the troops might be inferior in physique, in drill, and in discipline—no matter, success to our arms must be the result. Did Wellington attach but little importance to discipline? Did he rely solely upon his own character and military attainments? Let their Lordships look back to his speeches, look back to his writings, and he (Lord Chelmsford) ventured to affirm that no great Commander had ever more fully recognized the absolute necessity of maintaining in our Army the strictest discipline that it was possible to enforce. Waterloo was won, not by the ability of the Commander, but by the discipline which was then ingrained in our military system, and which enabled
852
our troops to bear, without flinching, "the long and hard pounding," to use the Duke's own words, which they were exposed to on that memorable day, and thus enabled the Duke, at the right moment, to make that counter attack which decided the fate of the day. He trusted that in any changes which were made in the Army Discipline Act, full consideration would be given to the effect which such changes would have upon the discipline of the Army.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he did not wish to criticize the scheme of Army re-organization, except upon one or two points touching upon discipline. He was of opinion that the Army organization at the present time was most inefficient, as the men were so frequently moved from one battalion to another that all moral control and superintendence were lost sight of. Therefore, it was all the more necessary that the rules of discipline should not be too much relaxed. The Army Discipline Act, with its amending Act of this year, was already more confused than the former Mutiny Act and Articles of War. He was also of opinion that the territorial naming of regiments, as provided by the new regulations, would in some cases lead to rather ludicrous results. The sudden transformation of four rifle Militia regiments into Infantry with red clothing, of counties with which he was connected in Ireland, was most vexatious, and would entail considerable expense to the public.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, ho was of opinion that some of the points raised by noble Lords could be best dealt with when the House went into Committee on the Bill. Whatever defects there might be in the organization, he had the opinion of a very high authority that there was no defect in the soldier. He thought his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Chelmsford) entirely misapprehended the views put forward by Sir Garnet Wolseley in the article from his pen which had appeared in The Nineteenth Century. As to the abolition of flogging, he (the Earl of Northbrook) did not, on that account, entertain any apprehensions regarding the future of our Army. He hoped their Lordships would go into Committee on the Bill.
LORD STRATHNAIRNheld, on the contrary, that those apprehensions were well-founded, and that to expect to

853
maintain discipline in the Army without the punishment of flogging was a vain hope and a miserable delusion. He thought corporal punishment was a terror to bad soldiers and the hope of good soldiers; and he was sorry to register his opinion that its abolition was a measure neither conducive to the future success of Her Majesty's arms nor to the safety and honour of the inhabitants of the country.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that as to punishment in the Army, however much it might be condemned, they could not do without it; but in regard to flogging, he had seen for some time that the feeling in the country was very strong against it, and there could be no doubt that it was one of those unpleasant questions which arose from time to time. But there was no doubt, also, that it must be faced and decided; and as the feeling against it was so strong that it was impossible to maintain it as a means of discipline in the Army, the practical question for consideration was this—what was to be substituted in lieu of it, now that its abolition was an established fact? Young soldiers required to be more closely looked after than older ones; and, therefore, they must be rather stringent in regard to discipline. Without wishing to defend corporal punishment, he might say that it had this advantage—that it enabled the commanding officer in the field to deal very summarily with crimes committed in the field by bad and dissolute characters, where the difficulty was to punish men in any other way. And as there would be always bad characters in the Army, he did not see how that punishment was to be replaced, seeing that the discipline with regard to them should be of a strict character. He did not believe that any man was deterred from entering the Army by the fear of corporal punishment; but, as he had said, it was useless to deny that there was a strong public feeling against the use of the lash; and, that being so, he was of opinion that the best thing their Lordships could do was to accept the situation, and address themselves to the question of providing as effectual a substitute as could be found. With regard to leaving the matter to be dealt with at the discretion of the general officer, it must be remembered that the general officer might thereby be placed
854
in a false position, and exposed to something more than grievous censure in the event of his inflicting the punishment he might think necessary, but which might turn out to be illegal; and it was essential that something should be done to protect him against the consequences in such an event. He understood that the point was still under the consideration of the Secretary of State for War. In conclusion, he felt bound to maintain that there had been no falling off in the morale and good conduct of the British Army.
Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Summary punishment).
LORD DENMAN,having regard to the lightness of the punishment of the lash, only 25 strokes being now permitted, suggested that they should not omit the word "flogging." He, therefore, moved to omit the words "other than."
Moved, in page 3, line 26, to leave out ("other than"), and insert ("of"); and after ("flogging"), insert ("or such other punishment.")—(The Lord Denman.)
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that though he did not intend to oppose the passing of the clause in its present shape, he desired to point out the fact that the substitutes for flogging originally provided in the Bill having been withdrawn, showed the difficulty of providing a substitute for it; and the clause as it stood threw on generals in command the inviduous task which the illustrious Duke said ought not to be imposed on them. They would virtually have no alternative but to order the punishment of death.
THE EARL OF MORLEYhoped that, under the conditions the Bill was presented to the House, the noble Lord (Lord Denman) would not press his Amendment, as the Government could not accept it. The rules that would be proposed would be amply sufficient to maintain the discipline of the Army without flogging.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, it was proposed simply to abolish flogging without substituting anything whatever. They had not even an undertaking that at a future time any substitute would be

855
provided. He would ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) to tell the House what would be done in the interval until a substitute was provided, and how the attention of Parliament would be brought to the matter.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that it was provided in Clause 7 that the rules should be laid before Parliament. In the interval the summary punishment inflicted would be of the character of personal restraint or hard labour, but not such as to cause injury to life or limb. It was a mistake to suppose that the punishment of death was abolished in the Army for military offences which were considered worthy of that punishment.
LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, that hitherto we had an essential guarantee for discipline; but now we were to have nothing in its place. He never heard of a more extraordinary policy. He had grave doubts as to the effect of the abolition of flogging in India, and especially as to the working of the system of restraint in the case of mutiny. In that case, what would be the position of the commanding officer? If he were to put the offenders into prison, or to hard labour, he would have half the Army guarding the other half. A commanding officer in the field, with men under him who had entered the Army because they preferred a life of adventure and of action to any other life, would, even for the protection of the unfortunate inhabitants of the country, find the power of inflicting summary punishment absolutely necessary. He denied that the morale of the Army had improved to the extent as was believed in certain quarters.
In answer to Lord ELLENTIOROUGH,
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Act would not come into operation out of the United Kingdom in Europe, the West Indies, and America, until the 31st of July, and elsewhere not until the 31st of December, and between that time and the present, he trusted rules would be adopted.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYpointed out that there was no obligation on the Secretary of State for War to make any rules at all. The reason why the rules were not framed was that it was quite impossible to frame any as a substitute for the rule abolished.
LORD DENMANsaid, he had asked a man, of whom he had the highest opinion, whether the existence of corporal punishment in the Army would deter him from enlisting, and he answered that it would not. He had asked another man, whom he respected, his opinion. He had been nine years in the Army, and a non-commissioned officer for all the time except three months; so his opinion against the lash did not carry much weight, as for eight years and nine months he had been in no danger of suffering from it. This was not an Army Discipline Bill, but an Army Relaxation of Discipline Bill. The safeguard of flogging, which, perhaps, might never have been called into action, ought to be retained, at least, until the new rules were approved. It was like the abolishing of turnpikes before any substitute was found, and abolishing Chiefships without arranging as to their patronage, which required an Act of Parliament on the subject.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Summary court martial).
LORD CHELMSFORDcalled attention to the changes that it was proposed to make in this species of court martial. The provision virtually gave to two subalterns and a field officer the power of life and death over the soldier. According to his reading of the Bill, any offence might be tried by this description of court martial, and, without appeal to a higher authority, a sentence of death could be carried out at once under the orders of an officer, who might be the convening officer, the president of the court martial, and the confirming officer. Perhaps the power of officers thus given in the field would not be excessive, especially now that corporal punishment was to be abolished; but the clause demanded further consideration than was permitted by the circumstances in which the Bill came before the House.
THE EARL OF MORLEYthought that the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had somewhat overrated the importance of the clause. With the exception of one or two rules, the restrictions on the action of general field courts martial applied to the summary courts martial. A summary court martial would only

857
have the jurisdiction of the provost marshal.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (Rules made in pursuance of this Act to be laid before Parliament).
VISCOUNT BURYhoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) would give some assurance to the House that the rules to be prepared by the Secretary of State for War, prescribing the punishment in lieu of flogging, would be laid on the Table of the House. It was very important that some limit of time should be fixed. If the assurance was not given, he would move that the rules be laid on the Table within two months after the passing of the Act.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he could not give a definite assurance; but he knew that the Secretary of State for War was anxious to frame the rules as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYthought it necessary to press the point, considering the early date at which the Act was to come into force.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEpointed out that a longer period than two months was necessary, as communications would have to be sent to officers abroad in order to ascertain their opinion as to the best substitutes for corporal punishment. It would be a great misfortune to press the Secretary of State for War to submit the rules before any particular date. The House might be sure that the rules would be laid on the Table as soon as possible, and he believed that the Secretary of State for War was anxious to produce them without unnecessary delay.
EARL STANHOPEasked, if they would not be laid on the Table in the course of the Session?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he could add nothing to what he had said.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, with all respect to the illustrious Duke, he could not see that there was anything unreasonable in what was asked. The Act would last only for 12 months, and that there would then probably be another Amendment Act. The new rules ought, at any rate, to be framed before the Act came into operation. He begged, therefore, to move an Amendment providing that the new rules should be laid before
858
Parliament on or before the 31st day of July next.
Moved, in page 5, line 12, to leave out all after ("as soon") to end of clause, and insert ("on or before the thirty-first day of July next")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEhoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) would not press his Amendment. He could assure him that, so far as the authorities were concerned, there would be no unnecessary delay in the matter; but it was necessary to obtain information from different foreign countries which, in all probability, it would be impossible to procure before the end of July. If possible, the new rules would be laid on the Table within the time named.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, if that was the case, their Lordships were asked to be content with an Act of Parliament in which an important hiatus could not be filled up. After the statement of the illustrious Duke, he could not but cordially agree to the Amendment being withdrawn, and would recommend his noble Friend who moved it to be content with the statement that there would be no undue delay in the matter after the necessary information had been obtained, and that the new rules would, if possible, be laid on the Table before the 1st of July.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment: Then Standing Order No. XXXV.
considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3*, and passed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to call attention to the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) in not communicating with him relative to a Question which had been asked in "another place" attacking his conduct as a landlord. The Question was, whether it was true that in a case of process-serving which had

  859
  lately occurred on the property of Lord Oranmore and Browne, the process-server, on arriving at the house, found the man dead, and then placed the notice on the man's dead body? Now, even if a process-server had acted in that way, he was a public officer not under his (Lord Oranmore and Browne's) control, and he could not be held responsible for what he had done. But the real facts of the case were that the poor man referred to, who had been ill for a number of years, owed him two and a-half years' rent in November, and that he had not served him with a process at all, so that the whole thing was devoid of foundation. Having sent a letter to the Chief Secretary explaining the matter, he had thought it would have been only courteous in the right hon. Gentleman in answering the Question to have read that letter to the House; but that had not been done, and that was what he chiefly complained of, seeing the matter was one which seriously reflected on his character. He had since telegraphed to the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject, and he had received a curt reply from him which, in the circumstances, he thought was extremely uncivil. He thought this matter required some explanation from the noble Earl opposite.
  EARL SPENCERdisclaimed, on the part of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), any intention of being uncivil towards the noble Lord. The facts of the case were simply these. The Question which was put upon the Paper did not mention the name of the noble Lord; and his right hon. Friend, having made inquiries in Ireland, apparantly before receiving the noble Lord's letter, gave his answer upon the official information so obtained, which entirely disproved any charge against the noble Lord in regard to serving a process on a man who was lying dead. Under the circumstances, his right hon. Friend did not think it necessary to connect the noble Lord's name with the subject, and wrote to the noble Lord to that effect. There was, surely, in that proceeding, no breach of the usual courtesies of political life.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he still thought the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the matter had been grossly unfair and unjust towards him.

TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to ask, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the Protocol of the 18th of June 1867, establishing the jurisdiction of the local courts in the Regency of Tunis in cases relating to real property; and whether any information can be given relative to the alleged raids on the Tunisian Frontiers? said, so much uneasiness existed with regard to it, that he was quite sure noble Lords opposite would excuse him if he asked for such information upon it as it was convenient to give. From the previous answers of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), he was led to believe that the matter would be settled in a satisfactory manner by the usual Courts of Law. Both the French and English Governments, he understood, agreed that it was a matter in which political influence ought not to be used; and, further, the noble Earl stated on the 8th of February last—
  "At the end of last week the French Government informed me that they had sent orders to their Representative at Tunis not to intervene."—[3 Hansard, cclviii. 330.]
  This assurance produced a very salutary effect, not only in this country, but also at Tunis, as he was informed. But, on a recent occasion, a further statement was made by his noble Friend to the effect that the question was under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown. Now, it was not easy to understand where the difficulty of the question lay. The Regency of Tunis was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. The Bey received investiture from the Sultan. He had given contingents and money in time of war, and the general law of the Ottoman Empire prevailed throughout the country. As regarded this case, it seemed to have been specially provided for by the Convention of 1863 and the Protocol of 1867. In Article IV. of the Convention between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis, in 1863, it was provided that all cases of litigation respecting immovable property and relating to the ownership or occupation of houses or lands between a British and a Tunisian subject, should be referred for adjudication to the competent legal tribunals. Then, if any

  861
  doubt existed whether this was applicable to the case, when both parties were foreigners, the Protocol of the 18th June, 1867, Article II., cleared up the doubt, by saying such persons—that was, owners of real property—
  "Are directly amenable to the Ottoman Civil Courts in regard to all questions relative to landed property and to all real actions, both as plaintiffs and as defendants, even when both parties are foreign subjects, the whole on the same footing, under the same conditions, and in the same forms as Ottoman proprietors, and without the power of availing themselves in such matters of their personal nationality."
  Now, he thought it would be difficult to have anything more decisive than that with reference to the Enfida case. Both parties were foreign subjects; but under this law they were made directly amenable to the Ottoman Civil Courts, and without the power of availing themselves of their personal nationality. All that was asked was that the case should be decided in the usual Ottoman Courts, and not, in any way, made a political question. There was a further matter upon which he trusted to receive information. Well authenticated statements had been made relative to the concentration of French troops on the frontiers of Tunis and Algeria. The avowed object was alleged to be to put a stop to the lawless acts of some Tribes in the forest and mountainous districts lying between Tunis and Algeria. The Government was probably aware that other motives had been assigned for this movement of French troops, and that it had created considerable alarm. References had been made in various ways and in various places to the action of the Government of this country with regard to Tunis, and he could not but think that it would be most desirable that information should be given relative to the future course of Her Majesty's Government. Not only in this country, but elsewhere, the same feeling existed. In Italy, not a little alarm had been caused by events which had been regarded as menaces of the independence of Tunis. Friendly relations had long been maintained between the Sovereign of Tunis and this country, and it was to be hoped that they might continue. Not less had kindly feelings been shown by the Bey, both by words and actions, towards the Government of France. But the question was not confined to this or that country; it was a great European ques-
  862
  tion. The geographical position of Tunis and its possession of the harbour of Bizerta, which might be converted probably into one of the finest naval stations in the world, were, among others, considerations which rendered it highly important that the independence of the Bey of Tunis should be secured in all matters which did not concern the sovereign rights of the Sultan.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that since the question of Tunis was last before the House its aspect, in a certain sense, had rather improved, on account of the assurances said to have been given by the French Government. It now appeared to have been one of French subjects rather than of the French Government. Nevertheless, there was still danger from the action of the French in Tunis and Algeria. He had little doubt that the French Government was in ignorance with regard to the proceedings of M. Roustan, the French Consul General, and of his coadjutor, the Tunisian Consul, in Algeria, who was also a Frenchman. These persons had much exaggerated the importance of the disturbance caused on the Frontier of the Khoumis Tribe. It was, however, an important question, as there wore 10,000 English subjects profitably engaged in trade in the country, and all the communications between the country and Europe came through the French. A year ago the Bey sent 3,000 men to keep order amongst them, and he succeeded, though at that time the French only sent 200 men to co-operate with the Tunisian troops. The Bey of Tunis only learnt from England about the recent disturbance of the Khoumis. It was now announced that the French intended to cross the Frontier on Sunday next, instead of leaving it to the Bey of Tunis to reduce the Khonmis to order. If the French troops should unfortunately, cross the Frontier, what was now a small affair might become much larger, and precipitate matters beyond recall; for then the Arabs and inhabitants of the plains, seeing Tunis invaded, would not be able to refrain from flocking to the defence of their country. The French troops would then be unable to avoid operations much more extensive than those contemplated at Paris with regard to the Berber Tribe, the Khoumis, and if they went beyond the mountains occupied by the Khoumis, the demands of

  863
  the French in Tunis and Algeria on their own Government would be such as it would be most difficult then to satisfy. The telegraphic communications were entirely in the hands of the French, so that between Fridays and Tuesdays, when the Italian steamers sailed, Tunis was cut off from communication with Europe. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would remonstrate, while there was yet time, with the French Government, and prevent all the bloodshed and misery of an invasion of an orderly and well-governed country.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am sorry to say my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) is unable to be in his place this evening, and he has asked me to reply to the noble Earl's Question. I will confine myself to giving an answer to the Question of which he has given Notice. There is no Protocol of the 18th of June, 1867. There was a Turkish law of that date which had the object referred to, and which was confirmed by a Protocol of July, 1868. That, with the other Papers, is in the hands of the Law Officers, who have the whole case before them. With regard to the alleged raid on the Tunisian Frontiers, I have to inform the House that the Foreign Office has not obtained any official information on the subject.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he believed there was a document such as he had described signed at Constantinople.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could only repeat the information which had been given to him.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— PEACE NEGOTIATIONS—PROTECTION TO LOYAL SUBJECTS.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay on the Table copies or extracts of the Instructions given to the Royal Commissioners in the Transvaal regarding the protection of the rights and property of loyal English and Boers in the Transvaal, especially in the case of those who, after the proclamation of annexation, and the subsequent declaration of Sir Garnet Wolseley that the annexation was irrevocable, purchased land in the Transvaal; whether the Standard
  864
  Bank of South Africa has applied for protection to Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, what reply was returned; whether in the interval between the surrender of sovereignty on the part of Her Majesty and assumption of the rights of suzerainty only, the English Courts will continue in operation, and, if not, whether the Judges have been recalled, and what provisions have been made for the administration of justice? The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies had already said that he did not consider Her Majesty's Government could be called upon to indemnify those persons who purchased property in the Transvaal on the faith of British annexation; but such a policy as that statement indicated might lead to civil war, if means were not found to protect those rights. He thought that the Commission might, with advantage, be desired to ascertain the real feeling in the Transvaal on the subject of the annexation. He believed that, if not an actual majority, a considerable minority of the White population would be found to be in favour of it. What he desired to know was, Whether the Royal Commissioners had been instructed to inquire what was the opinion of the White population of the Transvaal at that moment with regard to the continuance of British rule? His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) might believe that Messrs. Kruger and Joubert represented the real feeling of the Boers; but he (Viscount Bury) and many others thought otherwise. In fact, he believed that the action of the gentlemen he had named would ultimately be disavowed. Turning to another point, he again urged the Government to press upon the attention of the Commissioners the outrages perpetrated upon the 94th Regiment. The part of his Question relating to the administration of justice referred to an extremely important matter. At present, justice was administered in the Transvaal by two British Judges. The Commissioners could not make their final Report, and decide what ought to be the ultimate form of government in the Transvaal, before the lapse of several months. Would the English Courts sit in the interval, and would Her Majesty's writs continue to run in the country? If not, what steps would be taken for the administration of justice during the months

  865
  that must pass before the publication of the Commissioners' final Report?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in reply, said, the answer to the first part of the Question, whether he could lay on the Table of the House Copies of the Instructions to the Royal Commissioners, must be that it would be very inconvenient and prejudicial to the Public Service to produce those Instructions at the present moment, seeing that they wore at present on the way. With reference to the point on which his noble Friend was naturally desirous of obtaining information, he had to state that Instructions had been given to the Commissioners to make full provision for those who during the recent disturbances had remained loyal to the Queen, whether of British or Dutch origin. Then, as to the last part of the Question, he apprehended that the Courts of Justice would remain open during the interval between the present time and the final settlement, subject to the agreement made by Sir Evelyn Wood that no civil action should be taken in reference to the war. The other Questions, in reference to the administration of the Transvaal during the time that must elapse between now and the final settlement, had been referred to the Commissioners for their consideration and report.
  In answer to Lord BRABOURNE,
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had that day laid on the Table of the House Papers which would be distributed before the re-assembly of the House after the Easter Recess.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.