Sitting of 12 April 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee
—Resolutions [April 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading— Seal Fishery (Greenland) * [117].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [113].
Committee—Artizans Dwellings [1]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Explosive Substances [76–
115]; Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment * [4–116]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 1 and 2)* [92–93]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * [112].

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—PETITION FROM PRITTLEWELL.

  REPOET.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERbrought up a Special Report from the Committee on Public Petitions as follows:—
  "Your Committee having had before them a Petition from Prittlewell and neighbourhood, presented to the House on the 6th day of this instant April, relating to the Trial at Bar, in the Court of Queen's Bench, on the Indictment of The Queen versus Castro, for Perjury, think it proper that the said Petition should be brought to the notice of the House, as containing offensive imputations upon the Lord Chief Justice and two of the Judges of the said Court, and reflecting, in an unbecoming manner, upon the Speaker, and the proceedings of the House.
  "The House, while respecting the constitutional rights of Petitioners, has guarded against the abuse of those rights; and it will be for the House to judge, in the present case, whether the Petition be one, which, according to the Rules and practice of the House, can properly be entertained."
  MR. DISRAELImoved that the Special Report should be taken into consideration on Thursday next, at half-an-hour after Four of the clock.

MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—THE INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM, EDINBURGH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the First Commissioner of Works, On what grounds the completion of the Industrial Museum in Edinburgh has been indefinitely postponed, by the omission from the Miscellaneous Estimates of the usual grant of £5,000 for building purposes; and, whether this omission will be supplied when any supplementary estimates are brought forward?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, I am much indebted to the hon. Member for Edinburgh for giving me an opportunity of removing the natural misgiving which exists in that city on the subject; and I am happy to assure him that there has never been any intention on the part of the Government to act in the manner suggested in his Question. The omission of any sum for the purpose in this year's Estimates was owing to the fact that the arrangements for the construction of the west wing were not sufficiently advanced to enable the Government to insert any sum. If necessary, a Vote can be submitted hereafter in the shape of a Supplementary Vote, and in the meanwhile I beg the hon. Member to believe that I will use my utmost efforts to remedy the delay which has taken place, and for which I fear I must admit I was partly to blame.

ARMY—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LEARMONTHasked the Secretary of State for War, If, under the new system, the retirement of Adjutants of Militia will be commutable?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the Commutation Commissioners act under instructions from the Treasury, and, as they have commuted the retired allowance of several adjutants, no doubt they will continue to do so.

ARMY—THE MERTHYR VOLUNTEER RIFLES.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the locks have all been taken off the rifles which are used by the Volunteers of the Merthyr district, county Glamorgan, South Wales; whether they

717
have been removed out of the county; whether the same thing was done during a dispute in respect to wages between the mine owners of the district and their employés in 1872 and 1873; and, whether he will state by whose orders these acts have been carried out, if done?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in reply to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member I have no information on the subject. I have endeavoured to obtain information; but I do not know whether such a thing has been done on this occasion or not. It certainly has not been done by any orders of the War Department, for no one in that Department knows anything about it. It appears that in February, 1873, during a strike in South Wales, directions were given by the War Department to the general officer commanding the district to have returned into store any arms or ammunition in the places named which were not in a secure place. The locks were to be taken of and the bayonets to be removed.
MR. MACDONALDsaid, he would renew the Question on Friday.

HIS HIGHNESS THE GUIKWAR OF BARODA—PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When it is his intention to lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the official reporter's notes of the Evidence lately given before the investigation or trial of certain charges against his Highness the Guikwar of Baroda; and, whether it is his intention further to lay before this House a Copy of the Proclamation or Order of the Governor General of India suspending the Guikwar from the exercise of authority in his own territory?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Secretary of State for India will, as soon as possible, lay before Parliament the Papers relating to the appointment and proceedings of the Commission referred to in the Question. Those Papers will give the hon. Member the information which he seeks. I take this opportunity of stating that a large mass of Papers relating to the proceedings of the first Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the Baroda State have for some time past
718
been in the hands of the printers, and will shortly be distributed to hon. Members.

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS—GERMANY AND BELGIUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is true that a menacing note has been addressed by the Prussian Government to the Belgian Government, referring, amongst other matters, to the liberty of the press in Belgium, and calling upon the Belgian Government to alter the laws of their country; if any communications upon the subject have been received from the British Minister at Brussels, or any instructions sent to him by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, if he will lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House; and, as Great Britain has formally guaranteed, in conjunction with the other great powers of Europe, the neutrality and independence of Belgium, what steps it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take, diplomatic or otherwise, in fulfilment of that guarantee, should Belgian independence be imperilled in consequence of rejecting the demands of Prussia?
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, I would venture to observe that, I think as a general rule, in Parliamentary Questions, and especially in questions connected with Foreign Affairs, we should be careful not to avail ourselves of the opportunity of using epithets entirely uncalled-for and unnecessary. Epithets in Questions are generally, I may say, always useless, and may lead to misconception. In the present case, Her Majesty's Government have no information whatever of a "menacing" Note having been addressed by the German to the Belgian Government. This is a subject, on which there is a great deal of misrepresentation and exaggeration. In the first place a considerable time has passed since a Note was addressed by the German Government to the Belgian Government. It was at the commencement of February—I think on the 3rd; and it was not a menacing Note, but a Note of remonstrance. Now, a remonstrance does not, I conceive, by any means involve menace. On the contrary, one element of remonstrance may evince a friendly disposition, and we all

  719
  know that a "friendly remonstrance" is a phrase often adopted in discussing subjects. This remonstrance was addressed by the German to the Belgian Government, on the 3rd of February, and it was replied to by the Belgian Government at the end of that month—I think on the 26th. Her Majesty's Government became acquainted with these two Notes, the Remonstrance and the Rejoinder, through the action of the German Government. The German Ambassador, by the instructions of his Government, made Her Majesty's Government, in confidence, acquainted with those two Notes, and we at the time appreciated that act, and still continue to appreciate it, as an evidence of the cordial and confidential relations which subsist happily between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Germany. No answer whatever has been made to the Rejoinder by the German Government. The Rejoinder having been made on the 26th of February, we are now advanced in the month of April, and we consider, and I believe those who are competent to form an opinion upon this question also consider, and have considered for some time, that this is a question which is concluded. The hon. Gentleman continues by asking me whether—
  "As Great Britain has formally guaranteed, in conjunction with the other Great Powers of Europe, the neutrality and independence of Belgium, what steps it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take, diplomatic or otherwise, in fulfilment of that guarantee, should Belgian independence he imperilled in consequence of rejecting the demands of Prussia? "
  Now, Sir, as a general rule—and I think the House will support me in the position I take —it is not expedient or necessary that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, whoever forms that Government, should be declared upon a hypothetical statement. But I will so far deviate from the stric course taken on such occasions, certainly, as to say that if the independence and neutrality of Belgium were really threatened, we should do our duty to our Sovereign, and not be afraid to meet Parliament.

ARMY-MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, taking into
  720
  consideration the length of service of the majority of the Adjutants of Militia, and that the present scheme for their retirement is virtually a compulsory one, he will grant such Adjutants the honorary rank of Major on retirement?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he thought that the retirement scheme in question could hardly be called a "compulsory one," and good compensation was given to those officers who retired. He could not give the assurance asked for by his hon. Friend, but no doubt the case of those officers who had served along time would be deserving of consideration.

IRISH SALMON FISHERIES—LEGISLATION—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session with regard to the Irish Salmon Fisheries; and, if so, whether it is proposed to make any change in the Law relating to Fixed Nets?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, some suggestions having been made as to the amendment of the law relating to the Irish salmon fisheries, I referred them to the Inspectors of Fisheries for their report. That, however, cannot be made for some time, the Inspectors being occupied in other duties. When I do receive their Report I fear it will be too late to propose new legislation this Session, even should it be thought necessary. But considering the many abortive attempts to carry out alterations of the law upon this subject during recent years, I do not think it would be any disadvantage to the Irish salmon fisheries if they should for a certain time be left without any fresh legislation. I may, however, say that the Inspectors do not recommend that any change should be made in the matter referred to in the latter part of the Question.

ARMY—THE "HIMALAYA" TROOPSHIP—THE 75th REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONORasked the Secretary of State for War, How soon the detachment of the 75th Regiment, which left the Cape on board the "Himalaya" troopship in the early part of January, is likely to reach England; whether it is

721
true that in consequence of defects in the machinery of that vessel she broke down several times during the voyage, and had at all times to proceed at a very slow pace; whether it is true that messages were sent from Madeira requesting another ship to be sent in her place, which request was refused; whether the troops then went on to Gibraltar where they were disembarked and placed in buts, without protection from the severity of the weather, and without more clothing than was necessary for them in the comparatively warm climate they had left; and, what steps have been taken for bringing them home, and who is responsible for the efficiency of the ships engaged in transporting Her Majesty's troops?
MR. GATHOENE HARDY: I fear, Sir, I must apologize to the House for the length of my Answer, which I have derived from the Admiralty, who supply transport for the Army. A detachment of the 75th Regiment, consisting of six officers and 250 men, left the Cape in Her Majesty's Ship Himalaya on the 2nd of February last—not early in January—and arrived at Gibraltar on the 9th of March. On the 18th of March two officers and 100 men were transhipped to Her Majesty's Ship Tamar, and arrived at Queenstown on the 26th of March, where they joined the headquarters of their regiment, on board Her Majesty's Ship Simoom, and landed at Belfast on the 31st of March. Four officers and 150 men were landed at Gibraltar on the 18th of March, and on the 2nd of April they embarked in the Paraguay, hired steamer, for conveyance to Ireland. This skip arrived on the 11th in Ireland, and the detachment of the 75th has been disembarked. About the 12th of January, at the Cape, "a fracture was discovered in the fore part of the after crank pin," but, after full investigation, it was not considered of such a nature as to make the voyage home with troops in any way hazardous, but merely to render the precaution of reduction of speed desirable. On the homeward voyage the Himalaya called at Ascension, St. Vincent—February 24, whence the captain reported proceedings by telegraph—and Madeira, reaching that island on the 5th of March. These stoppages, however, were merely precautionary and for the purposes of communication, and not on account of
722
"breaking down."Between the Cape and St. Vincent steam power only was used, strong head winds being experienced, and the duration of the voyage—22 days—did not much exceed that of an average passage, though greater than the Himalaya under other circumstances would have occupied. No application for assistance was made by Captain Grant, but having reported from St. Vincent that the fracture had slightly increased, he was informed that he would find Admiral Symons with the Channel Squadron at Madeira, by whom convoy would be furnished. The four officers and 150 men disembarked at Gibraltar on the 18th of March were placed in buts protected from the severest weather, where they remained until the 2nd of April. During this time not a man was sick, nor was a complaint made. These troops had the same cloth tunics with them which they would have had on landing at home, the serge frocks being of a thinner texture. The Paraguay steamer, has, as already stated, brought the remainder of the detachment to Ireland. The Admiralty is responsible for the efficiency of Her Majesty's troopships or hired vessels conveying troops, subject to the inspection by a mixed board of officers as to the accommodation provided for the troops.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.—QUESTION.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretry of State for the Colonies, If there is any objection to lay upon the Table a Despatch of the 18th August 1866, or about that date, from Sir Philip Wodehouse to the Secretary of State, regarding the distress prevailing at the Cape of Good Hope, founded upon certain communications from the Consul General of the Sublime Porte in that Colony, together with the Reply of the Secretary of State?
MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, there would be no objection to produce the despatch, if the hon. Member would move for it.

ARMY—RECRUITING—THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Departmental Committee which, when moving the Estimates, he

723
informed the House that he had appointed to consider the questions of recruiting, reserves, and desertions has yet reported; and, if so, whether the Report will be presented to Parliament and circulated before the 20th instant, for which day notice has been given of a Motion on the subject of recruiting?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the Committee I spoke of was a Departmental Committee, and not, therefore, one of a public character. It has reported to me, but its opinion is confidential. When I have get the appendices to that Report, I shall look through them to see if there be any new facts which I can state to the House; but I should not consider it consistent with my duty to bring the confidential Re-ports of my Department before the House.

METROPOLIS—STREET TRAFFIC—HYDE PARK CORNER.—QUESTION.
MR. ADAMasked the First Commissioner of "Works, Whether any steps are to be taken to ease the block of traffic at Hyde Park Corner; and, if so, whether he will state what is proposed to be done?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: I fear, Sir, that my Answer to the Question of the right hon. Member will be longer than is thought convenient for Ministerial replies. Shortly before I took office, the right hon. Member himself was good enough to explain to me the way in which he would have attempted to relieve the block of traffic at Hyde Park Corner; and, coming from so high a quarter, I gave my very serious consideration to the scheme in question. It proposed to throw the foot pavement in front of the Wellington Arch into the carriage-way, and to construct a foot pavement where the small gardens now are on either side of the archway. The width of the present roadway is 80 feet, and this would have added to it 18 feet, or the width of two line of carriages; but while the already wide thoroughfare was to be thus widened, the narrow channel of Grosvenor Place would have been left as it is, and I feared, therefore, that the addition of these two strings of carriages to the road at Hyde Park Corner would only have aggravated the difficulty. Besides that the gardens in question form part of the Green Park, and I have no right to appropriate them
724
for a public footway. For these reasons, among others, I was unable to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member. The evil existing at Hyde Park Corner is very great, but the difficulties in the way of improving matters are equally great. I received several suggestions upon the matter, and after much consideration I was of opinion that the best plan would be to make a road following the line of the present footpath across the Green Park from Hamilton Place, passing under Constitution Hill, and coming out in Grosvenor Place, nearly opposite to Halkin Street. A model was prepared of this; but, from unavoidable circumstances, I was unable to exhibit it until within a few days of the close of the Session. Very few hon. Members, therefore, were enabled to see it; and the Government, in consequence, thought that for that and other reasons, it would be unadvisable to expend the necessary sum of money without having directly obtained the approval and sanction of Parliament. That model, however, with the drawings and inclines, will, by permission of the authorities of the House, be again placed in one of the Committee Rooms, and I shall be grateful if hon. Members will do me the favour of inspecting it, so that when the question is brought on in the House, they may give their opinion as to whether the proposed plan is not the best to remove or palliate an acknowledged and growing evil.

PARAGUAYAN LOAN—COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN LOANS—SIR HENRY JAMES.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  SIR LAWERNCE PALK: Mr. Speaker, I feel great pain, Sir, in having to bring under the notice of the House a matter which I am sorry to say is of a personal character, and there can be nothing more distasteful to me than to trouble the House with any matter of a personal description. I have therefore to ask most respectfully for the indulgence of the House in bringing the matter before them. On Thursday last I felt it my duty to put a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), of which I not only gave him private Notice, but also the usual Notice in accordance with the Rules of the House. The question was to this effect—I asked

  725
  him whether he had appeared before the Lord Chancellor in a legal proceeding relating to the Paraguayan Loan. The hon. and learned Gentleman answered—
  "On the 15th of December, 1874, I had to appear as counsel in an interlocutory motion before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice James, sitting as the Appellate Court in Chancery. I believe the main object of the suit was to enable certain persons to recover a certain sum of money from other persons for work and labour done in relation to the Paraguayan Loan; and the interlocutory proceeding' in which I appeared was for the purpose of determining whether certain witnesses should be examined in private or should be examined in public; that was the only manner in which I was concerned—the only proceeding in which I had to take any share or part. With the main purpose of the suit I had nothing to do. At the time, I had no intention of moving for a Select Committee on Foreign Loans. Before the sitting of Parliament, and when I determined to bring the question forward, I caused the retainer I had received in that suit to be returned, and I have taken no part nor share, directly or indirectly, as advocate or counsel, in that suit or any other connected with it."
  Well, Sir, that language conveyed to this House and to me the impression that that was the only suit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged; but it so happens that before I put that Question to him, I received evidence which to my mind was conclusive, that he had been engaged in another suit or action in which he received a fee of £132. On Thursday, therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman made this statement, I was very much inclined to get up and state what I am now stating to the House; but I felt that his declaration was so explicit, that either I must have made some mistake in the Question I had placed on the Paper, or that my information must have been incorrect. I therefore consulted with some friends, and finding that the evidence I relied on was such as would justify me in placing another Question on the Journals of the House I did so, and gave the usual Notice, both public and private. It so however happened—and I must apoligize to the House for the circumstance— that I was unable to attend in my place upon Friday last, and consequently I telegraphed to my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claud Hamilton), requesting him either to put the Question as I had given Notice of it; or, if it were possible, to postpone it
  726
  until to-day, that I might be in my place to put it myself. Under those circumstances, on Saturday as I returned to London, I was very much surprised to read the Answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said—
  "I have to thank the noble Lord for having acceded to my request [that the Question should be put at once], and I am quite sure that the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire is attributable only to unavoidable circumstances. I must, however, repeat I do regret that he should have thought it necessary, after the answer I gave him last night, to communicate the Question to the public Press in the form in which it there appears."
  As I was out of London, and as I had no communication with any member of the Press, I at once wrote a letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and as I was uncertain where he might be found on Saturday, I myself took the letter to his club. In that letter I said—
  "Dear Sir Henry,—I regret that I was prevented from being in the House of Commons on Friday last. On my return to London I read a report in The Times of your answer to the Question put for me by Lord Claud Hamilton, in which you you are stated to have said—' I do regret that he (alluding, I suppose, to myself) should have thought it necessary, after the answer I gave him last night, to communicate the Question to the public Press in the form in which it there appears.' Should this report be correct, I beg to request you will do me the favour to give me the name of your informant, also the authority on which you made the above assertion. I have also to inform you that, so far as the rules of the House will permit, I intend on Monday next to give that statement my unqualified contradiction, also equally to repudiate all intention of insinuating that which I do not declare, as I gather you stated to the House."
  I must now revert to the first Question. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Will you read my reply?] Most certainly; I had intended to do so, and here it is—
  "Brooks's Club, April 11, 1875.
  "Dear Sir Lawrence,—I trust it is not necessary for me to disclaim any intention of discourtesy to you personally, I do not remember the exact words I used in the House of Commons on Friday last; but I did intend to convey a complaint that the Questions proposed by you to be submitted to me should, in the form in which they appeared, have been communicated to the Press. Permit me to remind you that in The Times of Friday morning an announcement appeared of your intention to put certain Questions to me. Those Questions never appeared on the Notice Paper of the House, and, therefore, could not have been copied from it. As you were the Member giving the Notice which did appear. I certainly assumed the publication was with your sanction. If any one without your authority communicated to the newspapers Questions you never intended to put to me, I am sure you will

  727
  so inform the House; and if this he so, pray accept the expression of my regret that I should have assumed that the Member who framed and gave Notice of certain Questions was answerable for the announcement which some one made to several newspapers. Claiming from you that in making your statement to the House, you will read this correspondence, I am, &c., HENRY JAMES."
  Well, Sir, I am not aware what I have done that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I have endeavoured, so far as my knowledge permits, to treat in this matter with every courtesy, should have made this charge against me. I can only say I think it is very hard that one in his high position and of his great Parliamentary reputation should have so attacked me. Still, I am bound to accept the apology he has made. There is, however, one portion of the letter to which I wish to allude, and it is that in which he speaks of "Questions you never intended to put to me." I beg leave to say that the Question which was put on the Notice Paper of the House, or as I sent it to the Clerk of the House, was as I arranged it should have been put. I must refer to the original Answer to my Question, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman says, as I understand, that he was only engaged in one suit. I may be wrong—I do not make any charge against him; but I am informed he was engaged in the one suit in which he says he was engaged, where he returned his brief, and that he was also engaged in another suit, in which he received a fee of £132, and in connection with which he was engaged in an application to the Court of Chancery for the examination of certain witnesses which was refused him. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the object of my Question has been to cast some reflection upon his public and private character. I beg leave to say nothing was further from my intention, and nothing is further from my intention at the present moment. I have watched the hon. and learned Gentleman's career with great admiration, and certainly I am not a likely man to attack him in the way he was good enough to attack me in the concluding part of his speech on Friday night. He said—
  "I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire if he does intend to suggest upon these two Questions, that my object in bringing forward that Motion had been influenced by any other considerations than that of what was duo to the public, he should give
  728
  me the opportunity of giving a refutation to any facts within his knowledge, and not content himself by insinuating that which he does not declare."
  I beg leave to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not in the habit of insinuating charges, and that I would never condescend to so mean an artifice as has been implied; if I had a charge to make, it should be made after due Notice had been given, and when he had full opportunity to refute it. But while disclaiming any intention or any desire to cast any imputation on the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have still a great regard for the honour of this House. I have had a seat in this House for more than 20 years and I look with great veneration upon the pureness of its Committees and upon the justice of their decisions, and in asking these Questions I had no other intention, no other thought, than that of ascertaining, as I believed I was justified in ascertaining, whether the Rules of this House had been infringed or not. For myself, I have only to say that, although I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly justified in moving for a Committee in a matter in which he has taken so much interest, yet it is not fair to try individuals in the House of Commons and in the Courts of Law at the same time. It only remains for me to thank the House for the kind consideration with which it has listened to my explanation, and to move that this House do now adjourn.
  SIR HENRY JAMES: I am sure that the House will accept my statement how sincerely I regret that the public time should be occupied in any way by a matter which appears to affect me personally; but I hope it will feel that it is not my fault that its time has been thus taken up. In relation to what I understand is the first complaint of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire—that I assumed he communicated to the public Press a Question which had never appeared on the Notice Paper of this House—hon. Members will recollect that on Friday morning there appeared in The Times and other newspapers a notice of several specific Questions which, I repeat, had never appeared on the Notice Paper of this House. As the hon. Baronet's name was attached to those Questions when they appeared in the public Press, and as his name afterwards appeared to some Questions,

  729
  I may say, similar, which were printed on the Notice Paper, I did assume that he was answerable for that communication. If he did not send that Notice to the public papers, who did? I have written to him what I repeat now—that if the assumption I made was inaccurate, it was such a natural one that I am sure he would forgive me for having drawn that conclusion. I say no more on that point; but I must now, after the course the hon. Baronet has taken, ask from the House a few minutes' consideration while I meet that which, notwithstanding what he says, does appear in some respects to cast an imputation upon me. It is true that on Thursday evening last the hon. Baronet asked me a specific Question, whether I appeared as counsel in December, 1874, and again in January, 1875, before the Lord Chancellor in a legal proceeding relating to the Paraguayan Loan. I answered that I did appear in an interlocutory proceeding, which I then explained, in a cause which without doubt had a connection with that Loan, and I certainly did not intend, when I said that I took no other part in that suit, to convey that I had no connection with any other suit. With reference to the cause to which the hon. Baronet referred on Friday I did not appear in Court—it was settled several days before it should have come on for trial. I wish to add a few words more on the general proposition which the hon. Baronet puts forth. He tells the House that his only object is to maintain its honour, and to secure that its usages should be followed. I accept that statement, but does he know for what cause and reasons these Questions have been suggested to him? I think the House will suppose, because I had been connected with matters relating to the Paraguayan Loan, that therefore the persons connected with those loans had objections to this investigation. As far as I can learn, no objection proceeds from any person connected with the Paraguayan Loan, and if such objection should be made, I am sure that the Committee will do what is right in the matter. It so happens, however, that we are now investigating matters connected with the Honduras Loan. Let me remark that the hon. Baronet's second Question contained a specific quotation from a certain bill of costs, in which the name of Mr. Waring was introduced.
  730
  Now that Gentleman, who was formerly a Member of this House, having been alluded to, he has written to me this morning the following letter as a defendant in that suit, and also a contractor of that loan—
  "Dear Sir,—I can scarcely express to you the regret with which I have seen an extract from a "bill of costs delivered to my firm as quoted in Saturday's newspapers. I fear it might he thought that I was endeavouring to stay you from continuing to inquire into matters in relation to which I and my firm have nothing to conceal. I wish, therefore, to state to you the manner in which the extracts which have appeared were obtained without any communication from me, and without my cognizance or that of my firm. Sir Philip Rose obtained from one member of the firm who act as my solicitors, the loan of the plaintiff's hill of costs, which was in their possession. Equally without my sanction or knowledge, or that of my firm or my solicitors, Sir Philip Rose gave the same to 'a member of Mr. Bischoiffsheim's family,' through whose hands it must have passed to Sir Lawrence Palk."
  Sir, as my conduct is somewhat severely criticized of late, I beg to explain that the words "a member of Mr. Bischoiffsheim's family" do not occur in the letter. The name of that member of the family is given; but I prefer employing the general words. I will, however, hand the letter to the hon. Baronet, and he will see my reason for not mentioning it.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALK: As far as I am concerned, I would much rather that the whole of the letter should be read.
  SIR HENRY JAMES: I will take upon myself the responsibility of not reading the whole of the letter, which, however, may be placed in the hands of the hon. Baronet. It proceeds—
  "If it is not out of place, I should wish to add that the matter involved in the action to which that bill referred, and in which you were engaged as counsel against me, does not appear to involve the question of the system of issuing foreign loans brought by you before the House of Commons. Pray make any use you like of this letter.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "CHARLES WARING.
  "Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P."
  With regard to the part I have taken in the matter, I gave a full explanation that I had ceased to have any connection, directly or indirectly, with any suit relating to these foreign loans. What, however, has been, and what is now the suggestion of the hon. Baronet? If he means that my object is to promote pri

  731
  vate ends, rather than what I consider is due to the public, I would ask what object I could have in severing myself from professional duties, in giving my attention to the consideration of these loans, involving day after day attendance upon the Committee, and affording assistance, as far as I can, to Members of it? How could that be beneficial to me in any other sense? May I also add one fact with regard to these foreign loans? From the commencement of this investigation it was arranged between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) that he should take charge of the inquiry relating to Paraguay, and that I should take no part or share whatever in that branch of the subject, and he knows how far I have interfered with his discretion. There is one matter only which I wish to correct. I stated to the House that I had determined to bring this subject before the House without consultation with any one. In that respect I made one slight error. There is one Friend I did consult, and that is the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) and it was after long consideration with him that we jointly determined to bring forward the Motion for a Committee. I take credit for nothing that I have done, but I shall not be deterred by Questions such as these from performing what I deem to be my duty.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must apologize to the House for having allowed the discussion to proceed as it has done, but as it is a personal matter I have abstained from interference. I now wish to point out that, the Motion for Adjournment not having been seconded, there is no Question before the House.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: As my name has been introduced into this discussion I wish to say a few words, and in order to be able to do so, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. I desire, in justice to the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, to state that some months ago he did consult me with regard to moving for an investigation into certain frauds of which he was aware I had some acquaintance. Such knowledge as I had of these loans was simply—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that it is irregular to discuss a matter which is now
  732
  the subject of inquiry before a Select Committee.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I was not aware that I was discussing matters which are before the Select Committee, and I have no desire to do so; but, as some doubt has been expressed as to when and how the hon. and learned Member for Taunton first thought of moving for a Select Committee, I merely wish to say that he did communicate with me some months ago. I will only further add that as far as regards the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), who seems to have some apprehension that the dignity of the House may suffer from the course of action taken by the hon. and learned Member, I can only hope that for the sake of the dignity of the House of Commons there will long be found men within its walls who have enough of courage and capacity to come forward and frankly expose any malpractices which they may believe to exist.

ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 1.]
(Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 1.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th March.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 7 (Duty of local authority to carry scheme when confirmed into execution).
  MR. FAWCETTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "sell or let," and insert "lease for a period not exceeding ninety-nine years." The hon. Member said, he did so in order to meet what he regarded as a serious defect in this clause—a want of provision as to the appropriation of the land dealt with under the Bill. As the clause stood, if the local authority, having cleared ground of condemned houses, declined for any reason to let the ground to private individuals or trustees, or to build on it themselves, there was nothing in the Bill to say how the land was to be appropriated. In order to effect the same object, the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had placed on the Paper two Amendments. One was, that if at the end of three years this clause, as it stood, should not be carried out, if the land in question was not leased or sold to private individuals or bodies of trus-

  733
  tees, or if the local authorities themselves were not to carry out the scheme, the land should he sold by the local authorities at the expiration of three years in the public market. Suddenly, however, that Amendment was withdrawn, and the hon. Member had substituted another of a different character, which, if carried, would introduce into the Bill a novel principle and one fraught with the most important consequences. That second Amendment amounted to this, that if at the end of three years the land was not sold or leased to private individuals or bodies of trustees, and if the local authorities should not themselves by that time be prepared to carry out the scheme, then private individuals or bodies of trustees should apply to the Home Office or the Local Government Board and ask them to appoint an arbitrator who should decide whether the price asked for the land was a reasonable price, the seller being compelled to accept such price as the arbitrator might fix. There was an Amendment which obviously raised a question of the utmost importance. He undertood the Home Secretary was going to accept that Amendment. The clause, as it stood, allowed the local authorities to sell or lease the land to private individuals, and what he himself wished to propose by his Amendment was that they should not have the power to sell it, but simply the power to lease it for a period of 99 years or less. He thought that if they were obliged to sell the land, they might have to do so at a ruinously low price, too inadequate to repay them any expenditure they might have incurred. He wished the Home Secretary to tell the Committee what were his intentions with respect to the clause.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWthought it was unusual to discuss an Amendment or question the Government in reference to it until it had been arrived at. He would only at present say that the best actuaries drew very little, if any, distinction between leasing land for 99 years and parting with it altogether by sale.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that one of the main objects of the Bill was to place in the hands of the great corporations of the country, power which they did not now possess, which they had asked for, and were desirous of exercising. Under these circumstances, he had resisted the placing of
  734
  any further compulsory powers in the hands of the central authority than those suggested by some hon. Members opposite, and to confer which he had himself placed an Amendment on the Paper. The local authorities would naturally resent such a step, as it would, in fact, throw a doubt upon their willingness to take steps under the Bill for the removal of the rookeries which existed in their towns. He had often been told, both in that House and in the public Press, that the Bill was not sufficiently strong because it contained no power of compulsion; but his answer to that charge was that, confined as the clauses were to the great towns, he was certain the local authorities in those great towns would carry out the provisions of this measure to the satisfaction of the House and of the country. With regard to the particular point alluded to by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he did not believe there was any danger that the corporations who were bound to carry out the scheme would for a moment turn round when this Bill was passed and refuse to carry it out. If compulsion were put upon the corporations, it might be impossible to carry the Bill through that House, and even if they succeeded in forcing the measure through Parliament, it would be impossible to compel the corporations to carry its provisions into useful effect against their will. Under these circumstances, the Government had thought it better to carry the corporations with them on this question, and they had accordingly drawn the Bill as it now stood. He was decidedly opposed to the Amendment, because it would be perfectly monstrous to enable a corporation to say that they could not sell, which would, in a great number of cases, depreciate the value of the property; while in others the leasing of it for 99 years would, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had justly observed, be a distinction without a difference.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the difference between selling and leasing the property was this—that, if leased, the corporations would at the end of the lease come into possession of it. As he could not find out what course the Government intended to pursue with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) he would withdraw

  735
  his own Amendment, and propose it at a subsequent stage.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the two objects of the Bill were to get rid of nuisances and to provide better accommodation for the working classes. It might be easy enough to carry out the first of those objects, but he was afraid it would be very difficult to secure the second; and that difficulty would be greatly increased by prohibiting the corporations from selling the land they acquired under the provisions of the Bill, because out of London people would not build on leasehold land, and the result of such a restriction would be that no poor people's dwellings would be built to replace those removed under this measure.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwished to mention that the Amendment would preclude the Peabody Trustees from carrying out any scheme, because they could only spend their money upon land which they had bought.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FAWCETT, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "without the express approval of the confirming authority," said, that as the clause now stood it gave power to the local authorities to carry out the scheme themselves at the expense of the ratepayers if it obtained the assent of the confirming authorities—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the President of the Local Government Board. He did not wish to give them that power. It was impossible to discuss the Amendment without considering the present position of local taxation and local government, and the great injustice which the Bill might inflict on the ratepayers. Supposing a great building scheme was to be carried out on land which had to be cleared at an expense involving £1,000,000, how, he asked, was that money to be obtained? It would be obtained by borrowing from the Public Works Commissioners on a loan to be repaid in a fixed number of years, and in doing that great injustice would be inflicted upon a certain class of ratepayers. If the loan was to be paid in 21 years, and supposing a man tad the lease of a house for 21 years, the burden would fall upon the leaseholder of that house, while the owner would not contribute a single penny towards this improvement scheme. He
  736
  ventured to say when that fact became known to the country, everyone would decide that the proposition was extremely unfair. Nothing at the present moment was so serious connected with the finances of the country as the extraordinary rapidity with which the local authorities were accumulating debt; and if they allowed those authorities to enter into these vast building speculations, although the debts of the various municipal authorities were no less than £80,000,000, and were increasing at the rate of £3,000,000 per annum, they would give them the power of adding in the future an indefinite augmentation of the debt. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had alluded to the Peabody Trustees, but their buildings had to be let far below their market value, or if they were not they would be placed far beyond the reach of the class for which they were intended. In the same way, if some such provision as he proposed were not inserted in the Bill, either the buildings must be let at competition rents, or at rents which would not yield a profit on the outlay. In the former case, they would not be taken by persons of the class displaced; and, in the latter, there would be the initiation of an expensive and otherwise objectionable system of favouritism. In addition, if they once sanctioned the principle of a person living in a house erected by public money at a rent less than the market value they would be doing a thing which was an injustice to the ratepayers. If the buildings of the Peabody Trustees were let at rents yielding a fair return, a tenant occupying five rooms would have to pay as much as £30 a-year.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the fears of the hon. Member would be removed if he referred, for example, to what had been done by the Corporation of Glasgow. There was reason to expect that, as in that case, the building schemes would be of positive advantage to the ratepayers. At the same time, nothing could be further from his desire than to allow local authorities to enter unrestrictedly into large building speculations. In Glasgow what the Corporation had done was to set an example, leaving others to follow it out. That was all that these words were inserted for; they were put in for the

  737
  express purpose of taking care that local authorities should not enter into large building speculations, but that they should be allowed to provide for certain special cases, and thus set an example to private voluntary enterprize.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. CAWLEY, Amendment made in page 6, line 5, after "scheme," by adding—
  "Except that they may lay out, form, pave, sewer, and complete all such streets upon the land purchased by them as they may think fit, and all streets so laid out and completed shall thenceforth be public streets, repairable by the same authority as other streets in the district."
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 5, to add, after "scheme," the following words:—
  "Provided that complete plans of the new buildings shall be submitted to the confirming authority for approval, and that no grant, lease, or arrangement as aforesaid shall be binding till such approval shall have been obtained."
  He thought, although there were a great many safeguards in the Bill, there was one wanting in this clause.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would lead to delay and expense. Beyond that, he believed the provision was already in the Bill; but if the Amendment were now withdrawn, he would consider the matter when the preceding clauses were printed in their amended form.
  MR. CAWLEYobjected to the provision, as it would defeat the object of the Bill, and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would neither accept it now, nor at any future period.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "care shall be taken in carrying the scheme into effect to," and insert—
  "In any grant or lease of any part of the area which may be appropriated by the scheme for the erection of dwellings for the working classes, the local authority shall impose suitable conditions and restrictions as to the elevation, size, and design of the houses, and the extent of the accommodation to be afforded thereby and shall."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. DODSONthought the words in the Amendment, "in any grant or lease of any part of the area," were somewhat too restrictive. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether they were or not.
  MR. FAWCETTwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was intended to be laid down as a principle that the working classes, to whom political power had been given, were an exceptionally helpless section of the community, and could not attend to these matters themselves?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the question raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fawcett) had been fully discussed before. He wished to point out that the sole object of the Amendment was to provide that the local authority should see that the plans of the houses were correct.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words from "provision," in page 6, line 7, to "and," in line 9, inclusive, the object of the Amendment being to take away the necessity for the continued appropriation of such a number of dwellings for the use of the working classes as might have been at first contemplated under the scheme.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would accept the Amendment, as the object to which the words referred to was provided for in another part of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words struck out accordingly.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 10, after the word "arrangement," to insert words which would have the effect of enabling differences arising on various points between the local authority and the company or person making an offer for the purchase or lease of the lands to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the confirming authority on the application of either party within three years from the passing of the Confirming Act, said, when they were last in Committee on the Bill, the hon. Member

  739
  for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) moved to report Progress on the ground that this Amendment was too important to be discussed at half-past 11 at night, as if the proposal involved a new form of legislation and was a new principle in the Bill. In answer to the objection, he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was ready to admit that the principle of the Amendment was of great importance—namely, that of giving power to the confirming authority to complete the scheme, and it would be a crucial test by which it could be determined whether this measure would remove the evil of overcrowding. But this was no new form of legislation, nor was it a new principle. The Amendment had been copied almost verbatim from a clause in the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Bill of 1872 inserted at the instance of the Government of the day, and it could not be said that it was inconsistent with the preceding clauses in the Bill. He found the same principle also in a Bill passed as far back as 1663 in the reign of Charles II. It might be said there was no necessity for the Amendment; but the history of some metropolitan improvements showed there was the greatest necessity for it. In 1838 and 1840 two Bills were passed for making a new street from Holborn Valley to Clerkenwell Green. Let any one walk down that street now and observe the enormous mass of vacant land on either side. Not only had there been great loss in the value of the land so long left vacant, but the vestries of the particular district had lost a sum in rates perhaps as large as the value of the land itself. In 1857 a Bill was passed for making a new street from London Bridge to Black-friars, and the number of vacant spaces left on either side of the new street again showed the necessity of this Amendment. He was sorry to say there was a large number of owners who had a strong aversion to the erection of houses for working men near to their own property, and those owners would do their utmost to prevent the completion of schemes unless the power now proposed were granted. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the confirming authority accepting the responsibility he was going to place in their hands. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "if after the expiration of three years from the date of the passing of the confirming Act any difference arise between the local authority and any Company or person making an offer in writing for the purchase or lease of the lands appropriated as aforesaid to dwellings for the labouring classes, or any of them, or any part thereof, as to whether such offer is to he entertained, or as to the terms to he inserted in the contract with reference to the purchase-money or rent, or with reference to the conditions upon which the said land is to he sold or let, or with reference to the houses and buildings to be erected thereon, such difference shall from time to time, if the confirming authority think is expedient that the case should be referred to arbitration, be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by such confirming authority, and the decision of such arbitrator shall be binding on all parties, and shall be carried into effect accordingly."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
  MR. CAWLEYthought it would be better simply to enact that if in the course of three years the areas were not occupied, the land should be sold by public auction, subject to certain restrictions to carry out the scheme. If the arbitrator was simply to say whether an offer was to be accepted or not, the Amendment would place the whole matter in the hands of the person who had made the offer, and two or three persons might enter into an arrangement with a view to getting the land on their own terms.
  SIR JAMES HOGGdiffered from the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), and thought the circumstances were not analogous to those which arose in carrying out the Street Improvement Act. The Amendment seemed to imply a certain want of confidence in the local authorities which they did not deserve.
  MR. DODSONthought the purpose of the Amendment just and desirable, and hoped that if the Home Secretary could not accept it in its present form he would endeavour to improve it and accept its principle. In many cases it might be necessary to compel local boards to take action.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSfeared the Amendment would not work, that, in fact, it would delay the sale of land for 12 or 18 months. He admitted there were several reasons why it was desirable that some pressure should be put upon the local authority to carry out the powers given by the Bill; but he thought it extremely likely that in the event of

  741
  wilful neglect, a mandamus would lie; but at any rate, individually, he saw no difficulty in so working the Bill, in London especially, as to compel the local authority to take action. The proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone would cause endless confusion and be impracticable. By the Act relating to Glasgow the corporation of the city were prevented from proceeding with the scheme of improvement until they had satisfied the sheriff that the requisite accommodation for a certain number, not less than 500, of the working classes had been provided. That was a screw of the strongest possible character, and a modification of it would be preferable to the Amendment. He should, however, be willing to consider the question further before the Report.
  MR. RATHBONEhoped that full consideration would be given to the difference between London and corporate towns in the Provinces, where there would be no difficulty in providing the house accommodation required. In Liverpool, for instance, the "Welsh builders would soon provide any number of houses, and in any towns similarly situated it would be a pity to throw any needless obstacle in the way of the demolition of the fever nests.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he must still contend that, although the clause might appear to be compulsory, it was in certain contingencies only permissive, and there was not a single word to prevent the ground from being cleared and remaining unoccupied for an indefinite number of years. He could not agree that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) offered the best way of meeting the difficulty, but some provision ought to be adopted that the land should be offered for public competition, after it had been unused for a certain time, care being taken that nothing should be erected upon it to affect prejudicially the sanitary condition of the neighbourhood. The clause could not remain as the Home Secretary proposed to leave it, unless the Act were to become a dead letter, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give some more distinct intimation of the intention of the Government in regard to the clause than he had yet done.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he did not share in the views put forward
  742
  by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) for he did not apprehend that under the Amendment those who desired to purchase cleared land would obtain it at less than the market value. The land would be valued by a competent arbitrator, so that the contingency spoken of would not occur. He regretted, from experience, he could not share the faith entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in local authorities; for under the Holborn Viaduct Act, the Corporation of the City of London was bound to build dwellings for those who were driven from their homes by that improvement, but 10 years had since elapsed and as yet not a single house had been built. It was useless then to provide that certain things "shall" be done, unless a time was fixed for it, and a penalty imposed, and he trusted that compulsory power would be taken in the Bill with a view to insure its objects being fully carried out. He should not press his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to bring up upon the Report a provision to carry out its object.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShad no doubt that, under the Bill as it stood in the 5th clause, the confirming authority would have full power of securing that substituted dwellings were provided for the parties to be displaced before they were disturbed. They would require to be satisfied on that subject before sanctioning any proposed scheme. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone could suggest any means of strengthening that provision, in accordance with the objects of the Bill, he (Mr. Cross) would be glad to give the proposal his best consideration.
  MR. W. M. TORRENS, being desirous of seeing a scheme adopted which would work well, sincerely sympathized with the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in view. Ten years' experience, however, of the subject sought to be dealt with by the Bill compelled him to say that he (Mr. Torrens) did not share the sanguine expectation which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He had no doubt that while the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary he would make corporations do their duty; but that was not the security they required for the carrying out of this most perplexing experiment. When he (Mr. Torrens) had

  743
  the honour of carrying a measure with the same object, but not on the same lines, as that of the right hon. Gentleman, he was more sanguine than he was now, but he had seen hope after hope die out. Of this he was persuaded—that the driving of great thoroughfares through such places as St. Giles's would only intensify the evils of overcrowding in the neighbourhood, and that the providing of suitable accommodation for those who were to be displaced would saddle the towns with an amount of expense which would compel Parliament to repeal the Act. What had happened at Paris? Whole districts had been covered with splendid edifices, but the poorer classes had been again and again driven back, and, as a matter of fact, Communism never existed in Paris until Haussman had effected his transformation of the city. Greater control should be given to the local authorities in London. It was incorrect to say that the local bodies had not shown an intention of repressing the system of overcrowding and of enforcing cleanliness and proper sanitary regulations under the Act of 1868. Overcrowding could not be put an end to merely by destroying the houses in which the very poor herded together. The evil had been created by legislation and by the changes in the law of settlement, which had led all men who were out of work to come to London and the other large towns, where they remained to prey on each other. He knew of a case in the parish of St. Luke's where, the parish having interfered in consequence of the frightful state of a court, the owner of the property came forward like a man and at considerable expense pulled down the condemned buildings and erected others in their stead, the consequence being that the poor were attracted to them in greater numbers than ever, and the overcrowding in them was worse than it had been before.
  MR. DODSONthought that the purport of the Amendment was somewhat misapprehended, because it merely gave the confirming authority a discretionary power to appoint an arbitrator in cases where he thought fit to do so. He wished to see that the objects of the Bill were secured, and thought that there should be some better security for their being carried out than the mere chance of the right hon. Gentleman's continuing at the
  744
  Home Office. The Government might be changed, and although they might, on the whole, obtain a wiser Administration, they might not perhaps get a wiser Secretary of State. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman was only the confirming authority for the part of the country he acted upon by his own hand, and not for the whole of it. He should, however, advise the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone to withdraw his Amendment, provided that the right hon. Gentleman would himself undertake to propose some amendment of the Bill in the direction indicated on the bringing up of the Report. If no such undertaking was given, he (Mr. Dodson) would divide with the hon. Baronet, and if the Amendment was defeated, at all events a protest would be made in favour of the principle embodied in the Amendment. Under the 13th clause, persons were compelled to part with their property without receiving that benefit which under all other compulsory laws was granted; and that being the case, it was but just to those persons who were compelled to part with their property that the Bill should absolutely secure, as far as possible, the object for which they were compelled to part with their property.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would admit that if land was taken for the purpose of the scheme it was quite necessary it should be carried out. Provision was made in the Bill for housing the persons who were turned out.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that was what they had been contending for; but provision was not to be made for those displaced, simply the working classes.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not going into the question of the working classes. The scheme always had been as he had stated, and he referred, in support of this, to the last clause of the Preamble—"It is expedient that provision should be made for dwellings." That, he believed, would be practically provided for in Clause 5. In that clause certain Amendments had been made, and when it was reported he would reconsider its entire tendency and details, so as to determine whether any further provision was necessary to carry out to the full extent the spirit and principle of the Bill.
  MR. DODSONbegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 5 was

  745
  silent as to the time within which dwellings were to be provided for those who were dispossessed.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 137: Majority 89.
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, after line 10, to insert—
  "Provided also, that in any case in which the local authority erect any dwellings out of funds to be provided under this Act, they shall sell or dispose of all such dwellings within five years from the time of completion thereof."
  He thought it exceedingly undesirable that the local authorities should become the permanent owners of this class of property.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish that corporations should hold such property in perpetuity; but if they were compelled to sell it within five years, they might incur loss. If his hon. Friend consented to substitute "a reasonable period" for "five years," he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, "a reasonable period" was no definition at all. He would suggest "ten years" instead of "five."
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he would accept the proposed alteration.
  Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.
  MR. JAMES, in moving, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause words which would forbid the grant to any premises of a licence to sell intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises, or of any new licence to sell such liquors for consumption off the premises unless the number of such premises was less than 1 for every 1,000 of the population within the area, said, he could assure the House that he did not in any degree introduce this subject as a matter of party feeling, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to accept the Amendment, which was one of a practical kind, and was founded on fair and equitable considerations. He was not going to discuss the Licensing Bill of last year, or to allude to the attractions of the public-house; but if a genuine effort were made to improve the homes of the poor, the measure by which
  746
  it was proposed to remove social and domestic misery ought to be considered in every aspect. It was an undeniable fact that in large towns public-houses almost invariably occupied the best sites, generally at the corners of streets, and he thought that steps should be taken so that this state of things should not be indefinitely repeated on sites where fever nests and rookeries had been rooted out. On the Shaftesbury Park Estate no evil had arisen from the fact that there public-houses were conspicuous by their absence. He thought that some explanation ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this peculiar question—namely, how it was proposed to deal with licensed houses hereafter erected under the provisions of this Bill. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "No licence to sell intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises shall he granted for any now premises within the area to which the scheme relates, and no new licence to sell intoxicating liquor by retail for consumption off the promises shall he granted for any promises in such area, unless it is proved to the licensing justices that the number of premises for the time being licensed to sell therein as last aforesaid is less than one for every thousand of the population inhabiting such area."—(Mr. James.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. If the matter was to be dealt with, it must be in quite a different manner and by a general measure. The question was one which had been frequently discussed in Scotland. It would be most unwise to mix up the licensing question with a scheme for improving artizans dwellings.
  MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he could not conceive on what ground the Amendment was objected to. In his opinion it was a moderate and reasonable proposal, for it did not seek to interfere with the social rights of the people, but merely to take care that money taken compulsorily from the ratepayers to clear sites and spaces should not be expended in raising up large gin-palaces. He did not agree with the Permissive Bill; but he should certainly support the Amendment, on the ground that those ratepayers who thought that houses of that sort would greatly increase the rates ought to be considered.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYconfirmed what had been stated by the hon. Member

  747
  for Gateshead (Mr. James) with reference to the absence of public-houses on the Shaftesbury Park Estate. Great satisfaction was expressed at it by every one except the publicans who were kept away, and the magistrates, although pressed to increase the number of public-houses in the neighbourhood to make up the deficiency within the area, had rightly refused to do so. Although he was one of those who did not go in entirely for the Permissive Bill, he yet thought that as very little was get out of the Licensing Bill of last year, they should get what they could out of this; and in that view, small contributions such as this offered by the hon. Member for Gateshead should be thankfully received. He hoped the Amendment would be carried.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was sorry to hear the Home Secretary say that he did not want the licensing question matter to be mixed up with his Bill. The Bill was intended to make more comfortable, cleaner, happier, and healthier the dwellings of the working classes, and surely a proposal like the one before the Committee ran exactly in a line with it. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) thought that those houses which they were going to erect would be more likely to be clean, happy, comfortable, and healthy if they kept away these temptations from their immediate neighbourhood. He (Mr. James) wished to diminish the temptations to drunkenness, which was the cause, nine times out of ten, of miserable and degraded homes. He wished to free the neighbourhood to some extent of those places where, according to his Friend the hon. Member for Hudders-field (Mr. Leatham), "the presiding genius has an interest in filling the glasses and emptying the pockets of his customers." He proposed to protect them from those temptations, and he desired to have an "oasis" in the desert of drunkenness. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), however, regretted that his hon. Friend had not quite had the courage of his opinions in this matter. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished that he had gone a little further. For no human being could say what was the exact number of public-houses that ought' to be supplied to a given number of population. He could not quite understand why, if a public-house was an evil, 999
  748
  persons were to be free from it, whilst if there were 1,001 in the area they should suffer from it. It was impossible logically to maintain the proposition of his hon. Friend, for this trade was either good or bad; if good, they ought to make it as free as the wind; but if bad, they ought to prohibit it. But he took the Amendment as he found it, and thought it really deserving of some favour. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins), in one of his excellent works, describing a "rookery" and its surroundings of gin-palaces, public-houses, and beer-shops, said—
  "Veritable wreckers they who conduct these haunts, viler than the wreckers who place false beacons and plunder bodies on the beach.
  That was stronger language than he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) used; but if there were any truth in it, Parliament was responsible, and he did not think they should wash their hands of all the crime that arose. Last year both parties in that House by a large majority passed the third reading of the Licensing Bill, doing all the harm they possibly' could to the working classes, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must have had many an uncomfortable hour during the last Recess, and now when he heard what was going on in consequence of his legislation—legislation which, in his heart, he was as much ashamed of as any of them. Take Lancashire, a large portion of which he (Mr. Assheton Cross) himself represented. What was the state of things there? The Chief Constable's report shows an increase of 7,148 proceedings for drunkenness. In Liverpool, the apprehensions for drunkenness, disorderly, and incapable were in 1873, 20,970; and in 1874, 23,303. Also in the first five weeks after Cross's Act, 1874, came into force, an increase of 10 per cent in arrests for drunkenness. Now that they had done all they could to deteriorate the man, they spent hour after hour in that House pottering over this Bill to improve the houses in which he lived. But he maintained they must improve the men first, and remove them from those temptations which were their curse. He was sorry not to see the Prime Minister in his place, because, allusion having been made to the Shaftesbury Park Estate, he wished to call attention to the address which the right hon. Gentleman had delivered at its inauguration. His words were very important. He

  749
  was addressing a meeting called to promote the interests of the Shaftesbury Park Association. The leading principle of that association was not only to erect good working-men's dwellings, but that they should be kept perfectly free from the contamination of drink shops. On the 18th of July, last year, the Prime Minister, at Shaftesbury Park, said—
  "I have never in my life been more astonished than by what I have unexpectedly witnessed to-day—a city suddenly rising in the desert. The experiment you have made has succeeded, and therefore can hardly be called an experiment, and in its success is involved the triumph of an interesting effort for the moral elevation of the great body of the people…I cannot doubt that this movement will spread. I myself view it with great interest, because it is a subject which at this moment engages the attention of Parliament. However, to a certain degree, you may be said to have solved a question which has perplexed Parliaments; and from what I have seen here, from what I am told I shall learn, from the information which has been promised me, I think I see the possibility of obtaining results which may guide the national councils in accomplishing an enterprise which I believe is impending in this country—the attempt upon a large scale to improve the dwellings of the great body of the people."
  So that the right hon. Gentleman did not, like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, object to the two questions being mixed up together. He repeated that he regretted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was not now in his place, for after that speech he would be bound to vote with the hon. Member for Gateshead. But what could the Home Secretary mean by saying that the Amendment ought not to be mixed up with the objects of the Bill? Read the Preamble itself, which specially points out the evil of "buildings so densely inhabited as to be highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants." That was exactly what public-houses were, that was the only reason why he had ever objected to them, because they were "highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants." The Government in the Bill were doing what he had been condemned as the most desperately wicked politician ever seen for doing—namely, trying to make people moral by Act of Parliament. Then again, the Preamble said, touching the effect of these objectionable houses—
  "Diseases are constantly generated there, causing death and loss of health, not only in
  750
  the courts and alleys, but also in other parts of such cities and boroughs."
  Again; exactly, his charge against the public-houses. But they did more than promote disease and death, for the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), the other day, described those who kept such places as men who deal in articles "producing crime, disorder, and madness to a very great extent." Did they really wish such places to be established in their new and improved districts? He should vote for the Amendment, and all those who did not wish to go on in make-believe legislation, but really wished to turn this Bill into one that would do something to increase the happiness and prosperity and morality of the working classes of this country, ought also to support it.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he could not help thinking, with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that till the Permissive Bill was passed the licensing of public-houses had better be left in the hands of the justices.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, the Amendment did not go far enough. The existence of public-houses ought not to be allowed in these buildings. It was a very usual thing for a clause to be inserted in leases for building on estates to be occupied by the wealthier classes that no public-house should be erected. If it was desirable so to protect the dwellings of wealthy people it was far more so those of the working men.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Amendment did not go far enough. He could not vote for it for the reason that made it difficult for him to support a Permissive Bill—that it was the duty of the Imperial Parliament to take upon itself to determine for a country what law should prevail upon the subject, and not throw the responsibility on public bodies of deciding matters of such vast importance. He would have voted for a clause prohibiting altogether the erection of public-houses in these districts. He should support the clause.
  MR. E. SMYTH: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Cotton) has expressed his concurrence with the Home Secretary that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) is not consistent with the objects of the Bill. And why? Because,

  751
  says the hon. Gentleman, it is an artizans and labourers dwellings Bill. Now, no other argument is needed to justify the Motion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, for surely no one will contend that a publican is either an artizan or a labourer. You are proposing to erect more healthy dwellings for the working classes, and all that my hon. Friend asks is, that you take care that your dwellings when they are erected shall not be diverted from the objects for which they are built, and turned into dwellings for those who do not belong to the working classes at all. In fact, the Amendment is a necessary corollary to the main provisions of the Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has shown that if you are sincere in wishing to promote the moral and physical welfare of the labouring classes, you will keep them as far as possible from the contaminations of which he has spoken; but, apart from this weighty consideration, which has really received no answer, I accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and turn it against himself. This is a Bill to provide suitable dwellings for the working classes, and therefore it is not a Bill to provide taverns and beer-shops. For that reason I shall vote with my hon. Friend, and I hope he will divide the House.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the land that was to be built upon for artizans dwellings could not be used for public-houses, but the portion that was to be sold could be utilized as the purchaser thought fit. It was not right that the ratepayers' money should be spent in purchasing interests in public-houses, and that in 12 months after the same interest should be re-created without the authorities being recouped the money they had spent in purchasing it up. There were, in these existing crowded localities, more public-houses than were wanted, and it would be a great boon to reduce them.
  MR. T. CAVEsaid, opponents of the United Kingdom Alliance could accept the Amendment, which was necessary because municipalities, for the sake of saving a halfpenny rate, might be tempted by higher offers to let land for public-houses.
  SIR ANDERW LUSKsaid, it would be better not to take into consideration the Permissive Bill when they were dealing with this question. He hoped the
  752
  right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Bill, or otherwise he would get into trouble. If there was no necessity for a public-house, the magistrates would not grant a licence, and if there was, why should not the neighbourhood have one?
  MR. JAMESsaid, the object of the Amendment was to try and do something to remedy a prevailing evil, and he thought it was practicable if carried out. He must press it upon the Committee.
  MR. MUNTZobjected to the Amendment, because it was an attempt by a side-wind to nullify the provisions of an Act of Parliament already on the Statute Book. There was no practical result to be derived from this perpetual meddling with private enterprize, and he should therefore vote against it.
  MR. CUBITTsaid, that by forbidding the erection of public-houses on a piece of land the value of the adjoining land was increased in value for that purpose. It was the practice on large estates to set out a certain number, in order that the number should be limited. In all other cases, the most inconvenient sites were provided.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 109: Majority 56.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause the following words:—
  "The local authority may, when they think it expedient so to do, without themselves acquiring the land, contract with the owner of any land comprised in an improvement scheme for the carrying out of the scheme in respect of such land by such owner."
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREinquired, whether it was intended that the local authority should be at liberty to pay money out of the rates for the purpose of enabling an owner to carry out improvements in his property? If so, he thought the Amendment would be objectionable.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was no such intention. If he were advised that there was the least doubt on that point, he would take care to have it removed.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  MR. FAWCETTmoved, as an Amendment, to add to the clause words providing that if at any time within three

  753
  years after the local authority had acquired any plot of land the confirming authority should determine on, or if at the expiration of such three years the local authority should have been unable to lease the same for the purposes of the Act, the obligations of this enactment imposed upon the local authority should with respect to the land so un-leased, cease and determine. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had failed to carry his second Amendment, he (Mr. Fawcett) made this proposal to give the opportunity of confirming the idea embodied in the hon. Member's original Amendment. As the clause stood it was permissive in regard to carrying out the scheme, and there was nothing under Clause 7, as it stood, to ensure that the land when cleared out would be used. It was no answer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that this or that was not the intention of the Government; what the Committee had to look to was the legal application of the words contained in the clause. Did the Home Secretary pretend to say that in Clause 7, as it stood, there was anything to make the carrying out of the scheme obligatory? If not, what would become of the land, supposing the scheme should not be carried out? The object of his own Amendment was simply to prevent in future that taking place which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had described as having taken place in the City of London, where great improvements had been carried out, and where, though it was the intention that houses should be built for the working classes, the people residing in the cleared areas were turned out, and other parts of London became more crowded than before, the land remaining unoccupied. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the great principle which animated him with respect to the Bill was, to have a generous confidence in the local authorities; but the local authorities, though they might be anxious to carry out the scheme, might, from considerations of wise and just prudence, shrink from incurring the expenditure which the scheme involved, and find other excuses for not doing what was required. If the Amendment which he proposed were accepted, he believed the scheme would be adopted in localities where it was advisable that
  754
  it should be adopted, while it would not be adopted in places where it was not desirable, and that nothing would be more likely to effect the clearance of unhealthy areas.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "If at any time within three years after the local authority have acquired any of the before mentioned plots of land the confirming authority shall so determine, or at the expiration of such three years the local authority shall have been unable to lease the same for the purpose aforesaid, the obligations by this enactment imposed upon the local authority shall, with respect to the land so unleased, cease and determine."'—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished the Committee and the whole country to understand clearly the point at issue between himself and the hon. Member for Hackney. The hon. Member wished to make the measure a Towns Improvement Bill, and had urged his view in every possible variety of shape during this discussion. He (Mr. Cross), on the other hand, desired that the measure should not be a Towns Improvement Bill, but something else—namely, a measure that would prevent the occurrence of those evils that have been so forcibly and vividly depicted to-night by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) as having been brought about in Paris by the destruction of the dwellings of the working classes without any provision having been made for their accommodation. The object of the Government was to get rid of the rookeries, but also to provide for the erection of houses in the place of those destroyed, and thus to prevent the vice, filth, overcrowding, indecency, misery, disease, and death that must be the inevitable result of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Fawcett's) Towns Improvement Bill. That was the sole issue between himself and the hon. Member, but it was a grave one, and was one in which all the people of this country had the deepest interest. The hon. Member wished to leave the accommodation of those who were turned out of their dwellings to be met by the law of supply and demand, and by those of political economy. Well, the Government did not wish to place houses at the disposal of the people turned out at a cheaper rate than they ought to pay, they did not want to pauperize these people;

  755
  but they wanted to take care that in clearing out the rookeries for the benefit of the whole community the persons driven from those rookeries should not be damaged by it. They wished to build houses for them such as the people could live in and carry on their occupations in, but they must pay for them. That was the issue between them. [Mr. FAWCETT: No, no!] That was at the bottom of the issue, and it was clearly shown by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), who wished to change the title of the Bill; but he was glad to say that was not the ground taken up by his hon. Friends opposite. He had that faith in the great municipal institutions of England that when they came to Parliament and said—"We come here for a scheme to carry out these improvements "they would fully carry out that scheme. He asked the House to have confidence in the municipalities and in local self-government; and he contended that by passing the Amendment, they would be holding out great temptation to municipal authorities to evade the Act.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHalso opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would put a great temptation before the local authorities, and afford them a means, where they desired it, of evading the Act. At the same time, he was quite sure that nothing was further from the thoughts of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) than that the people who inhabited these places should be sent forth houseless and homeless, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had either misunderstood, or not treated quite fairly the remarks of the hon. Member.
  MR. DIXONdeprecated any proposal which would throw difficulties in the way of the successful working of the Act among our large provincial population such as he feared was suggested by the Amendment. All the arguments adduced by the Home Secretary had been in favour of the importance of re-building habitations for the working classes in those places where there had been great clearances; but there was a difference between the metropolis and the provincial towns, because in the latter there was no necessity for the immediate re-building of the houses. He suggested that the difference should be recognized.
  MR. WHITWELLconsidered that
  756
  when the Provisional Orders were laid on the Table would be the time to see that they contained compulsory powers.
  MR. RATHBONEurged that the Home Secretary should accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Hackney so far as applying the relaxation to all places outside the metropolis.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the discussion showed how right the Government were in taking care that the Bill should apply only to very large towns. The more the details were discussed, the more it would be seen that they were only applicable to very large places. Indeed, he stated originally that he would rather apply it to towns of still larger population than was fixed in the Bill. At the same time, for the comfort of hon. Members, he would call attention to the fact that there was on the Paper a clause which would give ample power to the central authority to select any part of a scheme which it might appear desirable not to carry out.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not condescended to answer his question, but had simply repeated the worn-out taunt that he (Mr. Fawcett) did not care for the working classes, and that Her Majesty's Government was a benevolent Government which did. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not the least afraid to have his political character judged by the working classes. The worst friend to the working classes was he who attempted to deceive them by trying to make them believe that this House could do for them what it could not do, and what they only could do for themselves. That was the principle which he had always endeavoured to advocate, and whatever the consequences he would, for the sake of the working men themselves, continue to advocate it. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a business question—Would the right hon. Gentleman point out the words in the clause which would give any security that the ground when cleared would be appropriated to any purpose? If the right hon. Gentleman would not answer it now, he (Mr. Fawcett) would move to report Progress in order to secure an answer at a future time.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could only reply as he had done before. He must refer the hon. Gentleman to the original scheme, which he did not

  757
  appear thoroughly to understand. The local authorities would have to lay down the original scheme, and the permanent authority would, as a matter of course, require to be shown in that scheme how they proposed to deal with the land. It was distinctly stated that it should be their duty not only to take steps for securing the land, but also for carrying the scheme into operation.
  MR. EAWCETTsaid, he would assume that the scheme had gone before the Home Secretary, and that he was satisfied with it, but how was it to be carried out? The enacting part of the clause said that the scheme was to be carried out in either of three ways; but supposing the parties concerned did not choose to act, how was the scheme to be carried into effect?
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 211: Majority 168.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Notice to occupiers by placards).
  On the Motion of Mr. HAMOND, Amendment made, in page 6, line 11, by leaving out "eight," and inserting "thirteen."
  MR. FAWCETTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 12, the omission of the words "occupied wholly or partially by persons belonging to the working class as tenants or lodgers," his object being to extend the benefit of the notice to be given to the occupants of condemned houses equally to all, irrespective of the class to which they belonged.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWregretted the course taken by the Home Secretary on that point, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, with regard to the latter point, the effect was that in every case there would be 13 weeks' notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART II. PROVISIONS ANCILLARY TO IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
  As to Local Authority.
  1. Medical Officer.
  Clause 9 (Medical officer of health in Metropolis).
  On the Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Amendment made, in page 6, line 26, by leaving out from "when they are desirous," to end of clause, and inserting—
  "Appoint one or more legally qualified medical practitioner or practitioners, with such remuneration as they think fit, for the purpose of better carrying into effect this Act in the metropolis. Any officer so appointed by the Metropolitan Board of Works shall he deemed to he a medical officer of health of a local authority within the meaning of this Act, and shall perform the duties and he subject to the liabilities which such medical officer is by this Act required to perform and be subject to."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  2. Local Inquiry.
  Clause 10 (Proceedings on local inquiry); Clause 11 (Notice of inquiry to be publicly given); and Clause 12 (Power to administer oath) agreed to.
  3. Acquisition of Land.
  Clause 13 (Acquisition of Land).
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he had to complain of the very careless manner in which the Bill had been drawn in reference to this subject. It should be sent back to the draftsman in order that it might assume a more intelligible shape. He had expected that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would have moved the Amendments which stood in his name; but as he appeared to have abandoned his intention, he (Mr. Jackson) would himself move them. His object was to provide that the Lands Clauses Act should be incorporated in this Act. The plan of the Schedule appeared to be that a quasi-official arbitrator, appointed by the public authority, was to hold a preliminary and, he supposed, ex parte investigation; he was to issue a provisional award; and then, and not till then, was the owner to have a right to be heard. Under the Lands Clauses Act parties must elect at once between an arbitrator and a jury; but, under the proposed system, he could not help thinking that there would be troublesome and expensive rehearings, as parties affected by the preliminary award would recognize the difficulty of

  759
  inducing the arbitrator to vary his own decision, and would procure expensive legal assistance, and resort, when possible, to a jury, and the Committee ought to call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to show very clearly why he adopted this new and untried system in preference to that which had been satisfactorily in operation for so long a period. He should move the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which was to substitute the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act for those of this Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the procedure, so far from being novel, had been tried with success for 25 years in Ireland, where it was introduced with the object of avoiding the delay and expense of dealing with small holdings under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. There was no doubt it would be equally satisfactory in the present case.
  MR. CAWLEYdid not think the cases were so far parallel as to justify the adoption of the Irish procedure without modification. He was, however, willing to accept the provision proposed in the Bill, with certain modifications in the direction of a rule that might apply to all kinds of property, which at the proper time he would move.
  MR. RATHBONE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the authorities in Liverpool, owing to the incorporation of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, were obliged—with a view to avoid legal expenses—to pay to proprietors of houses who had neglected to carry out proper sanitary arrangements, 50 per cent above the value of their property. In the opinion of the Town Clerk of Liverpool, the Irish system worked better, and he was glad it was to be adopted; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it was not possible still further to lessen the expenses to be incurred in carrying out the Act in connection with the transfer of land.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the courses provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act—the summoning of a special jury or the appointment of arbitrators to fix the value of property to be acquired—were dilatory and uncertain. The arbitrators were in a certain sense judges; but they seldom agreed, and they generally had interested views. The system adopted under the Irish Act was better and simpler;
  760
  for if the party interested were not satisfied, he had a right of appeal to the tribunal of a jury. The main provisions of that Act were adopted, and such of the clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as were necessary to give effect to such main provisions.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsuggested, for the sake of clearness, that such of the clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as were proposed to be incorporated with the Bill should be stated in the Schedule by number.
  MR. MARTENbelieved that the clause would work well. With regard to the suggestion as to retaining the action of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it should be borne in mind that Act had to deal with every description of property.
  MR. HERSCHELLthought that the Schedule of the Bill was an improvement in the appointment of a single arbitrator; but it was objectionable that under the Bill there might be a double inquiry and then another appeal to the jury. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not, at all events, devise something which might give the advantage of a single arbitrator dealing with the whole of the cases without the disadvantages which would ensue if the Schedule were carried in its present form. There was a vast waste of time and money in most of these arbitration cases, inasmuch as the evidence given in one case might often be made applicable to others.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that under the Irish Lands Clauses Act an arbitrator went down to the spot to survey and assess the property. The parties had notice of his intention, and they were heard before him either by or without counsel or attornies. The parties often acquiesced in the arbitrator's draft award; but if they were dissatisfied, they then appeared before him on the final award. Sometimes he was satisfied he had made a mistake, and then he either increased or diminished his award, but always acting in a quasi judicial way. Traverses were not too frequent under this system, and the Home Secretary had been wise in adopting the main provisions of a procedure which he doubted not would work as satisfactorily in England as it had done in Ireland.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made in page 7, line 25, after "body thereof," by inserting—
  "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,'as amended by' The Lands Clauses Consolidation, Act, 1860,' 'The Railways Act (Ireland), 1851,' 'The Railways Act (Ireland), 1860,' 'The Railways Act (Ireland), 1864,' and the Railways Traverse Act, shall, subject to the provisions following, regulate and apply to the purchase and taking of lands in Ireland, and shall for this purpose be deemed to form part of this Act, in the same manner as if they were enacted in the body hereof."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved the following Amendment in page 7, line 39, at end, add—
  "Due regard being had to the nature and then condition of the property and the probable duration of the buildings in their existing state, and to the state of repair thereof."
  The object of the Amendment was to prevent the arbitrator giving an excessive amount of compensation to the owners of the property taken, and also to prevent the owners from permitting their property to go to ruin with the view to its being taken under the provisions of this Act.
  MR. CAWLEY, whilst approving of the intention of the Proviso, questioned the utility of introducing it into the Act, as the arbitrator would in any case, if he was a fitting person for his office, have to take these and all other circumstances of the property into consideration. He therefore proposed to move an Amendment to leave out all the words after the word "to" in the first line of Mr. Cross's proposed Amendment, and insert the words, "all the circumstances affecting such value." He did not see any reason why this further Amendment could not be accepted.
  MR. STANSFELDjudged that the effect of the proposition of the Home Secretary would be that the arbitrator would have to ascertain the market value of the property. He wished to observe that property was often of greater market value, because it was unfit for human habitation. Owners of property who had neglected their duty ought not to be allowed to take any advantage of their own wrong; and the amount necessary to put their property in a fit state for human habitation ought to be deducted from the value of their property.
  MR. GREGORYtrusted the Bill would be left in the state which was proposed by the Home Secretary, which was calculated to carry out what were really the principles of the Bill.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREexpressed his approval of the Amendment, which he considered would be a great improvement to the Bill. He thought that some limit ought to be placed on the calculation of the proposed measure of value, and would suggest that the best course would be to incorporate Torrens's Act with the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the words were drawn by a person of great experience. He was willing, however, to assent to the addition of the words "and all other circumstances affecting such value."
  Amendment (Mr. Cawley), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross), as amended, agreed to.
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out in line 40 "without any additional allowance in respect of the compulsory purchase of the same." There would be numbers of cases where great hardship would follow to individuals where the property was taken away compulsorily.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. WAITmoved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped they would proceed until the next disputed point was reached.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 (Extinction of rights of way and other easements), agreed to.
  4. Expenses.
  Clause 15 (Formation of improvement fund for purposes of this Act).
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was of considerable importance, and he should therefore move that Progress be reported.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL. [BILL 76.]
(Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL. [BILL 76.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Regulations for factory and magazine).
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he must object to so heavy a penalty as £50 a-day for a breach of the conditions laid down, and would contend that the effect of the penalties provided in the Bill would be to suppress all small manufacturers of gunpowder and explosive substances.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, with regard to the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the penalties were reduced by the Bill below the point at which they had formerly been. In addition, he had to say that manufacturers had expressed their approval of the Bill.
  Clause, verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 10 (General rules for factories and magazines).
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in moving to report Progress, said, he did not understand the procedure of the Government. It was understood that they were to deal that night with the important question of the nomination of the Select Committee on Banks of Issue, and many Scotch Members had been waiting to take part in the discussion on that Motion. It was now past 12 o'clock, however, and other Orders of the Day were on the Paper, so that there seemed little prospect of the Motion he referred to being brought on.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman).
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the Orders of the Day would have to be gone through before the Motion the hon. Gentleman referred to could be reached, and then it would be too late to take it. The hon. Member, by pressing his Motion, therefore, would be interfering with whatever progress they could make with the Bill now in Committee, but would not be doing anything to advance
  764
  the object he had in view. The Motion should, however, be fixed for to-morrow (Tuesday).
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the Scotch Members took a particular interest in the question, and only wanted to know whether the Motion was to come on that night or not.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 109, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 110 (Expenses of local authority).
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved to substitute "poor rates" for "grand jury cess." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the cost of carrying out the Act in Ireland should be charged on the poor rate instead of the county cess.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 27, to leave out the words "Grand Jury Cess," and insert the words "Poor Rates."—(Captain Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Grand Jury Cess' stand part of the Clause."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Sullivan,)—put, and negatived.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 25: Majority 34.
  Clause agreed to, with Amendments.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

  SEAL FISHERY (GREENLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Bill to provide for the establishment of a close time in the Seal Fishery in the seas adjacent to the eastern coasts of Greenland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK and Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 117.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Railway Trains Regulation * (50); Public Entertainments (Hour of Opening) * (51).
Committee—Report—Marine Mutiny *; Mutiny *.
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighton) * (32), and passed.

SIR JOHN GEORGE SHAW LEFEVRE, K.C.B., LATE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that he had received from the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury a copy of a Minute of that Board awarding to Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., late Clerk of the Parliaments, a special retired allowance of £2,500 a year.
The same was ordered to he on the Table, and to be printed. (No. 52.)

NATAL—THE KAFFIR OUTBREAK.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL GREY, who had given Notice to call the attention of the House to the Papers lately laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's command relating to the Kaffir Outbreak in Natal; and to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to allow the Act of the Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope, No. 3. of 1874, to continue

  665
  in operation, said, he could assure his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies that in bringing this Motion forward he was not actuated by any spirit of hostility to him or to Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, from the time the present Administration was formed he had always earnestly wished it success, and especially did he wish success to the Administration of his noble Friend, whose appointment as head of the Colonial Department gave him great satisfaction. But it was notorious that both in Natal itself and in the Cape Colony very strong objections were entertained to the policy with regard to the former that had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and such being the case, he thought it right that these objections should be stated in that House, in order that, if they were well-founded, they might receive proper consideration, or that, if ill-founded, they might be removed by the explanations which would, no doubt, be offered on the part of the Government. He was glad also to find that his noble Friend was himself of opinion that if any discussion at all on this subject was to be raised, this was the proper time to raise it, as he understood from him that the whole of the case was now before the House in the Papers which had been laid on the Table, and that it would not be for the public convenience that the discussion should be further delayed. That being so, he would proceed to state the grounds on which he intended to conclude by moving an Address to Her Majesty to allow a certain Act of the Cape Parliament to continue in operation. And in the first place he would give a slight sketch of the Colony of Natal. The territory of the Colony was estimated to be about one-third the size of England. Of its inhabitants there were 18,000 persons of European descent; perhaps now somewhat less, as the attraction of the diamond fields beyond the territory had led some of the inhabitants to leave Natal:—of the entire number of the population of European descent, about 8,000 lived in two towns; the remainder lived in farms and stations which were scattered widely throughout the different parts of the Colony. The Colony was also inhabited by large numbers of Natives. He believed the Native population did not
  666
  fall short of 300,000. All those were not of the race of the original inhabitants. Towards the close of the last century or the beginning of this, the country was densely inhabited by the Kaffir tribes; but the bloody wars waged by a famous Zulu conqueror who invaded the territory had so nearly exterminated or dispersed its former inhabitants that when about 40 years ago the first settlers entered Natal from the Cape Colony, they found the country an almost uninhabited waste. After a time, when the Colony was formed, and the English rule established, many of the old inhabitants came back, and put themselves under British protection, which was also sought by a far larger number of the Zulus. These Zulus were in many respects a fine race of men, and they were by no means absolute savages, though not far removed from barbarism. They had among them recognized forms of laws and social customs, and a state of society which, in its own way, maintained a kind of rude order among them. After the establishment of British authority, large numbers of the Zulus continued to come into the Colony; sometimes individuals or families escaping from the tyranny of their chiefs; sometimes whole tribes flying from the attacks of stronger ones—indeed, they did so to such an extent that at last it was found necessary to impose certain restrictions on their immigration. Some of these Zulus lived among the settlers as servants and assistants; and he found that many of them displayed considerable skill as carpenters and in bricklaying and other handicrafts, so much so that some were even found capable of attending to steam machinery. A case was mentioned of a Native, living within 20 miles of the port of Durban, who possessed £600 worth of steam machinery, with which he was now manufacturing sugar from canes grown and planted by other Natives, without the and of any White assistance or intelligence whatever. The Kaffirs supplied a large part of the domestic servants of the Colony, and to them was entrusted the postal delivery all over the territory, which they performed with punctuality and despatch. But those who were employed in these useful callings constituted but a small portion of the Zulus in Natal, who were part of

  667
  the great Kaffir race spread over the South of Africa. The great mass of the race had made much less progress, and were living as tribes according to their old customs on land assigned for their use by the Government. It was obvious that the existence of so large a population of that description, though their services were valuable to the settlers, was necessarily a source of constant anxiety and danger to the Colony, and they required to be managed with great firmness and great prudence to keep them under control. These Native tribes living under the English rule were governed exactly upon the same system as the tribes beyond the boundary, who were ruled by their subordinate Chiefs, each of whom in his turn owed allegiance to the Zulu King. In like manner the tribes within the boundary were governed by their own Chiefs under Her Majesty's Representative, the Lieutenant Governor of the Colony, who, by an ordinance of the Natal Legislature, was made the supreme Chief over the Zulus, and who exercised over them the same authority as the Zulu King did in his territory. They were required to pay very light taxes, and to abstain from all acts of violence; but while they submitted to these rules there was as little interference as possible with the authority of the Chiefs. Such of the Native laws and customs of those people as were not repugnant to humanity were allowed to remain in force. This was the system which had been in successful operation in the Colony during the last 80 years. In the course of that time the interruptions to peace had been but very few; there had been no disturbance of any consequence, but order and security had been maintained; and favoured by these, the British settlers had amassed a large amount of wealth and property. The exports and imports of Natal for 1872—the last year for which he had seen the accounts—were just under £1,500,000, and the productive power of the Colony was extending itself very rapidly. Well, when Sir Benjamin Pine arrived at Natal as Lieutenant Governor in 1873, he found that great doubts respecting the loyalty of a powerful Chief were entertained by some of the principal officers of the Government, and by nearly the whole of the White population. He would not enter into the details of the circum-
  668
  stances which had created these doubts, and which appeared very fully in the Papers laid on the Table; it was sufficient to state that in October, 1873, Sir Benjamin Pine and his advisers thought it necessary to send a force to enforce the obedience of the Chief he had referred to, who bore the very difficult name of Langalibalele, who had been three times summoned to appear before the Governor, and evaded or neglected the summons. That would not appear to be a very grave act of disobedience to persons ignorant of Kaffir customs, but it derived great importance from the light in which it was regarded by these people. According to Kaffir law, the refusal of a Chief to obey the summons of his immediate superior was an act of rebellion deserving of the severest punishment; and in the opinion of Sir Benjamin Pine and his advisers, Langalibalele, in refusing to attend when summoned, was deliberately taking the first step in a rebellion he had been long preparing. One of the circumstances which led them to that conclusion was that he was observed to be removing the cattle of his tribe beyond British jurisdiction. Now, that also, according to Kaffir law, was regarded as a high misdemeanour and a sign of rebellion. In consequence of those proceedings and of his disobedience, an officer of the Government, supported by a force composed of Native troops and White Volunteers, was sent to him with the view of inducing him to obey the summons, and, that attempt failing, of compelling him to do so. The force was divided into different parties, in order to surround the Chief and his followers. One of the parties came upon a portion of the tribe driving cattle away from the British territory. The officer in command commenced a parley with them in order to induce those Natives to return and again place themselves under British authority. They seemed inclined to obey; but they managed to prolong the parley for two hours, and during that interval get an increased number of the Chief's followers into a commanding situation. This accomplished, they, without warning, suddenly and treacherously fired on the officer and his party, killing five of the latter and wounding him. After that open act of revolt, of course there was nothing left for the Governor to do but to put down the rebel-

  669
  lion by force. The hostilities which ensued were only of short duration, and they ended in the driving of the rebellious party out of their strongholds in the Colony, and by the active co-operation of the Cape Government and of a subordinate Native tribe, the Chief and some of his principal followers were made prisoners beyond the frontier. Governor Pine then proceeded to try Langalibalele according to Kaffir law. Having been adjudged guilty, he was sentenced to transportation to Robben Island, and the Legislature of the Cape passed an Act to authorize his detention there. For his conduct in these transactions the Governor had been censured and recalled by the Secretary for the Colonies, and if he (Earl Grey) understood the Papers correctly, his noble Friend had arrived at this decision mainly on two grounds—first, that Sir Benjamin Pine had been too hasty in employing force against the Chief; and, in the next place, that justice had not been done to the latter in his trial and sentence. There were other points adverted to in the despatch of his noble Friend; but, as he felt the necessity of not taking up more of their Lordships' time than he could avoid, he would abstain from entering into them, and would confine himself exclusively to the two main points which he had just mentioned. On the first of these points, he submitted to their Lordships that his noble Friend had fallen into a mistake in attempting to review in this country the judgment formed by the Governor on the spot. Whether Sir Benjamin Pine was right or not turned on the question whether the Chief was or was not meditating rebellion when a force was sent to compel him to obey the Government summons. There could be no doubt that the Chief had declined to obey that summons more than once; there was no doubt that some of his excuses were false; and there was no doubt that in order to maintain the authority of the Government, it was absolutely necessary that the obedience of the Chief should be obtained either by expostulation or compulsion. So far his noble Friend and the Governor were agreed; but Sir Benjamin Pine and his advisers were convinced that the conduct of the Chief implied a determination to rebel which made it unsafe to temporize, while the Secretary of State had come to
  670
  an opposite conclusion, and stated in his despatch that he could not divest his mind of the conviction that, if greater pains had been taken to sift the matter, a more just conception would have been formed of the attitude of the Chief, and that by more conciliatory measures the fatal necessity of putting a force in motion might have been avoided. Now, in his (Earl Grey's) opinion, it was a great error on the part of his noble Friend to attempt on such a question as that to review the judgment arrived at by the Governor, and, for his own part, he declined to go into an examination of the reasons which influenced the Governor on the one side and his noble Friend and the Bishop of Natal on the other in coming to the opposite conclusion at which they had arrived. He declined to balance those conflicting reasons, because he was persuaded that the point was one on which it was utterly impossible that a sound judgment could be formed in this country. To enable one to form such a judgment required an intimate knowledge of Kaffir habits and manners, and a far more accurate knowledge of the circumstances than could be conveyed in written despatches. Even if all the facts could be made known to his noble Friend, there might be many of them which in England might appear insignificant, while they might be very significant in the mind of the Governor and others seeing matters on the spot. He said it was a great error of his noble Friend to question the judgment of Governor Pine and his advisers upon a matter of this sort; because he held that the judgment of a Colonial Governor under such circumstances should be accepted as right, unless there were some very strong reasons for believing that he had been wrong. There was this strong reason for adopting this as a general rule—that unless the Governor could act on his own judgment, with full confidence that he would be supported by the Government at home, unless he were manifestly wrong, it would be utterly impossible that a people like the Kaffirs could be governed with the firmness and promptitude that were required. With regard to any Colony, it was impossible to carry on its government efficiently from Downing Street, and too much interference from home with the measures of the local authori-

  671
  ties was always a mistake; but in the ease of a barbarous and warlike race like the Kaffirs to attempt to govern a Colony in that way could not fail to have fatal consequences. It was obvious that the Governor of such a Colony as Natal must be prepared to act with vigour in circumstances of emergency, if peace and the obedience of an almost barbarous people many times out-numbering the White population was to be preserved; but how could you expect him to act with vigour if he knew that he could not be safe in taking decisive measures unless there was a case of necessity not only to satisfy his own mind, but also sufficient to satisfy an imperfectly-informed Secretary at some thousands of miles distance? If Governor Pine was right in his view of the situation, and if the Chief was really plotting rebellion, immediate action was required. By this the mischief might be stopped at once—as it was—but if there was delay—if time were given to Langalibalele to go on preparing for revolt, and to gain adherents, and if other tribes were encouraged to join him by the apparent indecision of the Government, a formidable rebellion would have been likely to break out; and, if so, though in the end it would have been put down, it could not have been so till much blood had been shed, and there had been a very considerable sacrifice of life on both sides, and a great destruction of property. He would remind their Lordships that in Natal the lives and property of a very large number of scattered settlers, whom it would have been impossible to protect, depended on the stifling of the rebellion. This had been pointed out in a very able paper written by the Treasurer of Natal. If once law and authority were set at defiance in that Colony, we should have to deal not only with the 300,000 barbarous and warlike Kaffirs within the Colony itself, but also with a large number of Chiefs and their tribes outside the Colony, who were in constant communication with the Kaffirs within, and whose love of war and plunder would be speedily excited by an outbreak in the Colony itself. The consequence might be a war of races, the results of which no man could foresee. Our policy in the ease of such a Colony ought to be to support the Governor as long as there was no decisive proof that he was acting in
  672
  flagrant error. Was a man like Sir Benjamin Pine likely to act in that way? He had been in office at Natal more than 20 years before, and his conduct here met with high approbation. From Natal he was transferred to other and most important posts on the West Coast of Africa and in the West Indies, and had throughout maintained his character as an able, energetic, and honest Governor, an able administrator, and one sincerely humane and very desirous to promote the civilization of the barbarous races. The present system of government in the Colony had been established for 30 years, and had been approved by successive Secretaries of State; the Governor, therefore, was entitled to believe that it was his duty to adhere to it, and to take those energetic steps, without which, in his opinion, there was no doubt that the whole territory would have been in a state of rebellion. Then how was his conduct in respect of Langalibalele viewed in the Colony? Why, the opinion of the colonists, including the missionaries, English, Scotch, German, and American, was in his favour—and some of those missionaries thoroughly knew the Colony from an experience of 30 or 40 years in Natal. They were well acquainted with the character and language of the Natives, for whose welfare they had shown the most praiseworthy devotion. These missionaries, with the exception of a few followers of the Bishop, had, in the strongest manner, expressed their approval of the conduct of the Government; and at a meeting of farmers in the Colony, regret was expressed that the action taken by Sir Benjamin Pine had not been taken five months before, and the Natal papers which reached this country on Saturday last contained further expressions of opinion on the part of the colonists that the Governor was in the right. He ventured to ask whether, in the face of such a concurrence of colonial opinion on the side of Sir Benjamin Pine, it was wise in his noble Friend to assume that in spite of his well-known character and his reputation for sound judgment, the Governor was wrong in respect of this Kaffir Chief? He was glad to observe that as regarded the proceedings which were adopted after hostilities commenced, and before the trial of the Chief, his noble Friend did not express any censure,

  673
  and did not seem to think that the charges of reckless cruelty were well-founded so far as related to any officers of the local Government. It was not to be denied that some acts of cruelty had been committed, and, of course, those were to be regretted; but such acts were committed in wars in which the most civilized countries were engaged, and it was not to be wondered at that troops consisting of Natives, assisted by settlers who had wives and children and property in the Colony, should have done some cruel acts in the course of hostilities which had been commenced by murder and treachery on the part of the rebels. But for these acts no blame had been imputed to the Governor by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. What he condemned him for was his proceedings against Langalibalele and his followers after the revolt had been put down. As he had already stated, in accordance with Kaffir law that Chief had been tried by his superior Chief, whose summons he had disobeyed, and his noble Friend had declared, in the first place, that Langalibalele ought not to have been tried by Kaffir law; and, in the second place, that the sentence of detention for life in Robben Island was too severe. It appeared to him (Earl Grey) that his noble Friend, in objecting to Sir Benjamin Pine's having himself tried Langalibalele as his supreme Chief, and especially his having refused him the privilege of being heard by counsel, had fallen into the mistake of forgetting that our whole system of administering the law, and the technical rules by which it was governed, were only means adopted in order that justice might be done. They were, on the whole, well adapted to attain their end in our state of society, though even here it might be doubted whether the end was not sometimes sacrificed to the means, and whether a failure of justice did not occasionally happen from too rigid a regard for technicalities. Be that, however, as it might, he thought it clear that our system was not fitted for rude tribes in the very infancy of civilization. In such a state of society, a much rougher mode of proceeding worked better. Among the ancient nations of Palestine, they read in the Bible that the King sat in the gate of the city and judged his people; and, even up to the present time, in a great part of Asia, judi-
  674
  cial authority was in the same hands as executive power—the Kings and Chiefs were the Judges. This was precisely the Kaffir system; and, in his opinion, Sir Benjamin Pine had done wisely in adhering to it, and in himself judging Langalibalele his supreme Chief. That was wise, because it was of extreme importance that the proceedings in this case should be rapid; that they should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible, and that they should be so conducted as not to cause unnecessary excitement among the Native population. If the trial had been conducted in accordance with English forms, with all the technicalities of English law, the proceedings would have gone on for a very long time, and in the end there might have been a miscarriage of justice, which would have been attended with the greatest danger. But if the Governor was to judge the culprit as his Chief, it would have been out of character with the whole proceeding to have allowed counsel to be heard in his defence. With regard to the refusal to hear counsel, on which so much stress had been laid, it ought to be remarked, too, that it was not so long ago that even, in this country, the privilege of being heard by counsel was first given to the accused in criminal cases. The Governor acted in the exercise of his discretion; and, whether he was right or wrong in the course he took, it was unfair to find fault with him for merely having followed what was an established custom of the Colony, unless it could be shown that in following it he had done some substantial wrong. There was all the less reason for finding fault with Sir Benjamin Pine on this ground, because three or four cases had previously occurred in which trials were conducted in accordance with the Kaffir law, and the Governor had not been censured in any one of those cases by the Secretary of State. And whatever opinion might be entertained as to the propriety of the mode of proceeding, could anyone say that owing to it, any substantial wrong had been done? Langalibalele had been taken in open and armed rebellion—about that there could be no doubt—and in the revolt several of our troops were killed. It appeared to him that even the Bishop of Natal confessed that there was an actual rebellion. He had read his very long, very confused, and very obscure state-

  675
  ment; and though he did not feel very confident that he understood it correctly; if he did, it did not amount so much to a denial of the rebellion as to an argument that Langalibalele had been driven into rebellion by harsh and unfair conduct on the part of the Governor, and that therefore the Chief was entitled to be treated with indulgence. This brought him to the last point in the case—that of the too great severity of the punishment. His noble Friend held that the sentence was too severe, or, in other words, that the plea set up on that head by the Bishop was just. He altogether dissented from that view of the subject; he believed that by every nation, and at all times, armed resistance to the Government had been considered as a great crime, for which death was the appropriate punishment—and justly so; because there was no crime which tended so much to the destruction of society and led to so much evil and so much misery. We might not feel the same detestation for a rebel as for an ordinary criminal, because his crime did not imply the same moral degradation as that of a murderer or a robber; but still, looking to the consequences of rebellion, by the common consent of all nations, no crime had been regarded as greater than that of armed resistance to the State. That being so, he would remind their Lordships that in this case the crime was not merely rebellion, but rebellion accompanied by treachery and murder committed under circumstances to which he had already called attention. The Bishop, however, contended—and he presumed that view was adopted by his noble Friend opposite—that the Chief himself was not responsible for the attack made upon our troops during the parley; and that he was at a distance from the spot at the time it was made. Having considered the whole of the circumstances of the case, he (Earl Grey) must say that though there might be no proof that it was done by his direct orders, it seemed impossible to believe that the treacherous onslaught did not form a part of the general plan of rebellion to which the Chief was a party. And even though he might not have had anything to do with the crime beforehand, it was asserted in the Papers, and he (Earl Grey) could not find that it was anywhere denied, that when those who had perpetrated the crime immedi-
  676
  ately afterwards joined the Chief openly carrying the arms taken from their victims, he did nothing to show disapproval of their conduct, and allowed them to keep the arms they had thus obtained. By doing so, according to the principles not only of Kaffir, but of British law, the Chief became an accomplice after the fact in a most treacherous murder of British subjects, as well as having been guilty of rebellion. He (Earl Grey) held that if the Chief had been sentenced to capital punishment, and that punishment had been inflicted, no blame could justly have been passed on the Governor. But Sir Benjamin Pine believed that the peace of the Colony would be secured, and that a sufficient example would be made by inflicting a milder punishment, and he wisely as well as humanely determined to follow the precedent of what had been done, with the full approval of the Home Government in the case of Macomo, and he sentenced Langalibalele to detention for life on Robben Island. The Cape authorities concurred in that course, and on the advice of the Ministers, an Act was passed, authorizing the Chief's detention. His noble Friend the Secretary of State in the first instance doubted the legality of what had been done, but he had since recognized that it did not involve even any technical infraction of the law. He adhered, nevertheless, to the opinion that the punishment inflicted was too severe, and had announced his intention of advising the Queen to disallow the Act, though he had for the present postponed doing so. To disallow the Act, before some other legal provision had been made on the subject, would involve the necessity of giving liberty to Langalibalele, and that would, in his (Earl Grey's) opinion, be as dangerous as it was uncalled for. It was uncalled for, because for the reasons he had stated, he considered the punishment to which the Chief had been subjected, to be a lenient one under all the circumstances of the ease. It would be dangerous in the highest degree, from the effect the liberation of that Chief would have on the minds of the whole Kaffir race. On that point he would call their Lordships' attention to the opinions expressed by persons of the very highest authority on such a question. Mr. Brownlee, one of the Ministers and Secretary for Native Affairs in the Cape Govern-

  677
  ment, said, in a Paper, dated January, 1875, that—
  "In considering the effect on the Natives of the release of Langalibalele, it cannot be overlooked that he possesses even greater influence from his reputed powers as a magician than he does as Chief of a large and powerful tribe."
  Their Lordships were doubtless aware that the belief in magic and witchcraft prevailed universally amongst the Kaffirs, and exercised a most powerful influence over their conduct. The most dangerous war of 1850–53 was brought about, as Mr. Brownlee observed, by the agency of a magician; and with reference to that well-known fact, he said that heavy floods last year in the Transkei district were attributed to the captivity of that Chief, and their continuance was predicted; the still greater floods which had occurred when Mr. Brownlee wrote would, he said, enhance his importance and confirm the predictions of last year, and he then proceeded to state that—
  "All the Natives feel, and those friendly to us admit, that Langalibalele has received substantial justice. His release would be considered as a sign of weakness rather than as an act of clemency on the part of the British Government, and would be attributed to his power as a magician. His importance would thus be magnified in the eyes of all the Native tribes both in the Colony and in Natal. Their minds would become unsettled and our influence impaired."
  Such was the opinion deliberately expressed by the Cape Secretary for Native affairs, of whose knowledge of the people, and ability, there could be no doubt. Another of the Cape Ministers expressed the same opinion; in a letter dated December 24, 1874, after observing that Langalibalele had deliberately defied the Government of Natal, and that had he not been made prisoner quickly, it was almost certain that very serious disturbances would have taken place among the Native tribes. Mr. Molteno added—
  "With all the Native tribes the one opinion and idea is that this Chief has been checkmated and defeated in his purpose, and is now justly undergoing punishment; indeed, that he has been leniently dealt with. Should he now be released, the idea with these people will be that it is from fear and distrust on our part as to the success of our policy, consequently, our difficulties in the management of the Natives would be increased enormously, so much so, that it would be impossible for us to preserve peace and the satisfactory state of affairs which has now existed for the last 20 years and upwards, in which case the question would necessarily
  678
  arise as to whether the Home Government could leave us to ourselves, to bear the brunt of a policy essentially their own."
  Their Lordships would not fail to notice the significance of the last words of the extract he had read from Mr. Molteno's letter. That country had now for some years acted on the policy of telling the Colonists that they must rely on themselves for protection, and that if another Kaffir war should come, they must not expect to be relieved from the necessity of providing for their own defence. He (Earl Grey) disapproved of that policy; but it had been adopted by successive Administrations; and, if it was to be adhered to, it surely would be, in the highest degree, unjust to use the power of the Crown—which was not to be exerted to protect the Colonists—in order to prevent them from employing the means they believed to be necessary to avert war with the Native tribes. Such a war, if it should once begin, could not be limited to one of the two Colonies, but would be sure soon to become a war of races, and to extend over the whole of South Africa. To take a step which involved the risk of causing so fearful a calamity would, in his opinion, be utterly unjustifiable, and it was that consideration which had induced him to make this Motion. Much as he disapproved of the policy of the Government, he might have abstained from bringing it before the House, if it had been irrevocable; but the Act had not yet been disallowed, nor the Chief released. The intention of disallowing it had been announced; but the carrying it into effect had been suspended, and he therefore asked the House to interpose its advice, and by an humble Address, to submit to Her Majesty the inexpediency of disallowing the Act of the Cape Parliament. He hoped that there might be no occasion for his pressing the Motion; he hoped that his noble Friend might be able to tell them that having already determined to delay the step he contemplated, to give time to the Cape Parliament to make some other provision with respect to Langalibalele, he would go a little further, and assure them that he would continue this delay until some arrangement had been made with the concurrence of that Parliament. Such an assurance would be perfectly satisfactory to him he believed, indeed, that the place where the Chief was now detained was the best and safest that

  679
  could have been selected for the purpose; but if an Act should be passed by the Cape Parliament which, in its judgment, would secure the two Colonies from having their peace disturbed by Langalibalele, without keeping him in Robben Island, that would be quite enough; but, simply to disallow the Act, and thus make it necessary to release him, would be a course he considered so unjustifiable that he trusted his noble Friend would be able to assure them that it would not be adopted.
  Before he sat down, he hoped he might be allowed to add a very few words on another point of great importance to the welfare of that interesting Colony, though it had no direct bearing on the Motion he had to make. He observed that in the despatches laid on the Table his noble Friend had told the Governor that he contemplated a great change in the policy hitherto pursued in Natal, and it appeared that one object of this change would be to break down the power of the Chiefs. That announcement alarmed him. Hitherto the policy pursued had been to govern the Natives mainly through their Chiefs. He admitted that that system was not in all respects satisfactory; it tolerated for the present the continuance of many evil customs and practices which we should all be glad to get rid of, and especially polygamy and the oppressive treatment of women by their husbands. These things had been allowed to go on, because it had been the opinion of the ablest servants of the Crown employed in South Africa, that an attempt suddenly and violently to change customs which had so long existed and had so strong a hold on the minds of the people, would do more harm than good. Unless a large number of efficient European officers could be sent out to work a new and better system of laws, and unless their authority could be supported by a large military force, England must for the present be content to govern Natal through the Native Chiefs and by Native laws and customs. Those laws and customs might be gradually and cautiously improved if peace and order were maintained, and all violence and bloodshed were sternly put down, as they had been of late years. Security and intercourse with a civilized race would by degrees create new wants among the Natives, and call forth industry to supply them;
  680
  in the meantime, the efforts of the missionaries and the increase of education would produce their effect on the rising generation, and the habits of civilized life would grow up among them. Facilities also might be given to those of the Natives who desired to withdraw from their tribes and settle among the Colonists under the same laws and with the same rights as the Whites. That was the policy which for nearly 30 had been pursued, and though improvement had not been so rapid as might have been desired and expected—in some degree owing to the continued influx of additional immigrants from the surrounding tribes keeping up the element of barbarism—still it had not, on the whole, been unsuccessful—peace and friendly relations between the White and coloured races had been maintained. Industry had begun to increase, and European implements of industry were coming into use, while education was extending among the young. The first steps of civilization, which were the hardest, had been made, and every year that went by the progress was likely to be more rapid, as the number of White inhabitants increased, and the means of communication were improved—as it was to be hoped they would be—by railways. More had been probably accomplished than if the Government had attempted to go faster, since it was not enough that changes in the laws should be good in themselves—to be really useful they must be fitted to the people among whom they were to be introduced. He therefore looked with apprehension to what had been announced as to the intentions of the Government, and especially with regard to the attempt which it seemed was to be made to break down the authority of the Chiefs. He hoped his noble Friend would be very cautious how he proceeded in that design, and that he would not forget that both in Africa and in New Zealand, the breaking down of the authority of the Chiefs from their contact with Europeans before there was anything to replace it, contributed more, perhaps, than any other single cause to produce the discontent and disaffection among the Natives which led to the calamitous wars with them in which we were involved. It was that experience which suggested the policy which had been pursued successfully in Natal, and he felt convinced it would be wise to

  681
  adhere to it, and that instead of attemping to break down the authority of the Chiefs, it would be better to regulate and control its exercise, and by degrees to convert them into paid and responsible officers of the Government. The first step towards that had been made by the practice which had been introduced of deposing any Chief who grossly abused his power, and appointing another in his place. By a different policy they might easily rouse their hostility, and if a war of races should once be kindled, civilization would be thrown back for generations. But that was a subject far too large to be fully discussed on that occasion, and he had to apologize to their Lordships for having made even these very imperfect observations upon it. He would now conclude by moving the Address of which he had given Notice.
  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to allow the Act of the Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope, No. 3. of 1874, to continue in operation.—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I certainly have no cause whatever to complain of my noble Friend who has brought forward this question—neither as to the time he has chosen, nor the manner in which he has discharged his self-imposed task. If, indeed, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to be called in question, and if it be necessary that such a Re-solution as this—which I beg your Lordships to observe is a direct censure upon the policy which has been pursued—should be seriously pressed, from no one sooner than my noble Friend would I be content to accept it. I say so for this reason—I know well that no personal feeling has entered into the question with my noble Friend, and that he has been actuated solely by a sense of public duty. In fact, if it were necessary that the question should be stated against the Government at all, it could not have been more fairly, clearly, or ably stated than by him. My noble Friend begun by reviewing the early history of the Colony. Into that I will not enter. I believe his statement of it is substantially correct. But when he comes to the later period in the transactions with the different tribes
  682
  I feel myself obliged, in some degree, to traverse the same ground, because, as your Lordships are aware, the same facts admit of very different colouring. It is because I look at the transactions which my noble Friend has reviewed from a very different standpoint from him that I am obliged in part to recapitulate the facts to which he has referred. My noble Friend stated, at the commencement of his speech, that the censure I had cast upon Sir Benjamin Pine fell under two heads—first, that he had acted too hastily, and secondly that the trial and the proceedings connected with it were wrong. Now, as to the hasty action, although I admit I have touched upon it in the despatches, I do not think it is a point worth discussing. Whether the action was soon or late is of comparatively little importance. But when I come to the proceedings themselves—to the trial and its consequences—I must join issue distinctly and completely with my noble Friend. I can hardly accept a single expression which he used in connection with that matter. Throughout the greater part of his speech my noble Friend begged the whole of the question at issue, and dropped words which, were I to accept them, would not only prejudice my case but absolutely cut the ground from under my feet. He spoke of doubts and suspicions, long entertained respecting this Chief and his tribe. If there were any such doubts and suspicions, why have they not been stated to us before? Why do we now hear of them in this House for the first time? I challenge my noble Friend to go through the Papers and point to anything relating to such doubts and suspicions, beyond the most vague and cursory allusion. There has never been any doubt expressed or any well-founded suspicion alleged in these papers from first to last. My noble Friend speaks of the defiance which this Chief gave when he refused to attend the summons of the Government. If the Chief had defied the power of the Government a great part of the case of the Colonial Office would have been gone. I contend that he acted entirely under the impulse of fear and panic. My noble Friend speaks of the affair as a rebellion. It is a mistake to characterize it as a rebellion. If it had been a rebellion I admit it should have been put down with a strong and high hand. But I believe it deserves

  683
  rather the name of a disturbance, which a few policemen would have effectually dealt with. And if it had been animated, as my noble Friend says, by motives of treachery, I fully admit that I should not have a leg to stand upon, and that a great part of what Sir Benjamin Pine did or sanctioned with regard to this particular Chief would have been only what the justice of the case required. But it is because I demur absolutely to the views expressed by my noble Friend that I propose to run over the main facts connected with these disturbances. The difficulty in question arose about October, 1873. It had a variety of causes, one of which was an unfortunate marriage law, which imposed a certain tax upon the number of wives which a Kaffir Chief might purchase and own. But it arose in a greater measure, I believe, from ordinances passed for the registration of guns. A large number of the Kaffirs in their dealings with the Whites were paid in guns instead of money, and these transactions seemed to be recognized by the authorities. At all events, when the Natives brought home the guns which were the price of their labour, the Natal Government summoned them to have those guns registered. In many cases the guns were brought in for registration. But I have to call your Lordships' attention to two important facts—namely, that sometimes guns which were taken away from the Natives for the purpose of registration were not returned; that the tribe of Langalibalele were guilty of disobeying the law in a lesser degree than other tribes, against whom no proceedings whatever were taken. My Lords, if it was fair to insist on the registration of guns in this tribe, obviously it was only fair to insist upon guns belonging to other tribes being registered also. This Chief it appears was summoned no less than three times. At first he made excuses; but subsequently, knowing that he had failed to comply with the law, and fearing the action of the Government, he fled, and his tribe fled with him. The Colonial authorities at once started a force of Volunteers in pursuit. They came up with the retreating tribe; a parley ensued, and then—not, as I conceive, by any premeditation or treachery—for of this there is really not a shadow of evidence—a gun was fired, an unfortunate panic seized the White Volunteers, Langali-
  684
  balele's men fired upon them, and in the fray five valuable English lives were lost. It was a deplorable event altogether; but I own I cannot see throughout these Papers any evidence of any premeditation, still less of any treachery such as my noble Friend has described. Scarcely had this affray occurred than the whole tribe seemed to be seized with panic, and again fled. They were pursued, the Colonial forces get up with them, and there was, I am afraid, a great deal of bloodshed. My noble Friend says I have failed to censure the Natal Government for what occurred at that particular time. When I reflect, however, on the difficulty of holding the Native auxiliaries in check, I feel I am not in a position to press that part of the case against the Natal Government. There was no wish or intention on their part to run to any excesses, and I prefer to draw a veil over proceedings which will not bear the light of day. For the next step in this unhappy business, Sir Benjamin Pine and the Natal Government are unquestionably responsible. The action was directed against the tribe, the tribe was broken up, its lands were harried, women and children were summarily expelled from their homes and placed in servitude, their property was confiscated by the State; and no less than £50,000 or £60,000 in cash was paid into the Colonial Exchequer. This was a severe punishment for a tribe which, so far as I know, had taken but little part in the disturbances. But the Natal Government went on to take proceedings against a neighbouring tribe against whom I am absolutely unable to find anything in the Correspondence involving guilt or complicity. The utmost I can discover as furnishing a reason why it was considered right to take measures against this tribe was that they had harboured some women or cattle of another tribe. The dispatch went on to say—although I am at a loss to follow the argument—that even under English law such an offence would make the offender amenable to punishment. This serves, at all events, to show the somewhat exaggerated view which, under the influence of the moment, was taken of the matter. Well, the next point of my noble Friend is the trial of Langalibalele. Langalibalele having been captured beyond the frontier was brought to trial. I cannot go into this part of the case

  685
  without pointing out Low anomalous in many respects are the circumstances of that trial. The Court itself was a very singular tribunal. The head of it was Sir Benjamin Pine himself, the Commander and Chief of the Forces and Governor of the Colony, and who combined in his own person the position of Judge and prosecutor, he being, in order to sum up the anomaly, head of the Court to which an appeal would lie. Then came the heads of tribes which were hostile to Langalibalele, and who would naturally follow the ruling of the White Judges; and, in the next place, certain colonists formed part of the tribunal. Of them, however, I prefer to say nothing, except that it seems to me for the sake of appearances to be unfortunate that one of those White Judges should have been the father of one of the young men who had most unhappily lost his life on the frontier. It would, I cannot help thinking, have been more wise and more prudent—although I am sure no personal feeling was allowed to influence his mind—if he had abstained from sitting as one of the Judges in the ease. Lastly, I may observe that to complete the anomaly, the members of the Court did not sit continuously, some coming and going throughout the whole trial, some sitting only part of the time, and others at other times. Thus much for the composition of the Court. But my noble Friend says that in the despatches contained in these Papers I have objected to the employment of Native law. Now, I never did anything of the sort. My objection was not so much to this Chief being tried under Native law as to his trial being conducted under a mixture of Native and English law. Therein consists, it seems to me, the gross anomaly of the whole proceeding. My noble Friend has pronounced a panegyric on Native law; but originally it was retained in the Colony on the understanding—firstly, that it was to be applied to Natives as between themselves, and, in the second place, that it was to be maintained only so long as was absolutely necessary, and that the moment a higher system could be attained it should pass away. In this case it was not applied as between the Natives themselves, for the issue was between Natives and Whites. Its application, therefore, was most preposterous and dangerous. I admit it is a very convenient weapon to
  686
  make use of, under certain circumstances, against the Native Chiefs, and Sir Benjamin Pine, being described by law as a Native Chief, is held to be absolute. But in a despatch written by my noble Friend in 1848, I find his definition of a Native as one who is ignorant of, and unfit by habit for, the duties of civilized life; so that your Lordships will at once see that Sir Benjamin Pine, being described by law as a Native Chief, answers the terms of one who is unfit by habit and ignorance for the discharge of those duties. But what, my Lords, I so much object to is not, as I said before, Native law, as the mixture of Native and English law. Let us have either one or the other. To have recourse to both is likely, I think, to be productive of unfairness, for it scarcely seems right when you fail to reach a man by Native law to have recourse to English law, and when you fail to reach him by English law to fall back upon Native law. One or two words more as to the Court and its procedure. One of the Native witnesses produced stated that the Chief ordered the messenger of the Government to be put to death; and it was no doubt believed that he had been stripped of his clothes, which would have been a great insult to the Government of Natal and a manifestation of the worst intentions. When, however, the matter was examined into it turned out that all the messenger had been compelled to do was to take off his cloak, and that upon the ground that on a previous occasion when the cloak was kept on a pistol had been used with serious effect upon the Natives. Yet upon that evidence in a great measure the prisoner was convicted. The next step in the trial to which my noble Friend alluded was, in my opinion, a fatal one. The prisoner was denied the assistance of counsel and never even saw the indictment against him until the very morning of the trial. His plea of "Not Guilty" was, moreover, construed by the Court as a plea of guilty:—and I am perfectly lost in astonishment to find that a tribunal, partly composed of English gentlemen, could have thus acted. The result of the trial was that the prisoner was convicted and sentenced to confinement for life. I was advised that that sentence was one which it was wholly beyond the power of that Court to pass, and that it was illegal. It was impossible to carry it out without having

  687
  recourse to the assistance and co-operation of the sister Colony. The Legislature of the Cape of Good Hope, with the best intentions of rendering assistance to a neighbouring Colony in what was felt to be a great and a critical difficulty, came forward and passed the Act to which my noble Friend referred, under which the prisoner was transported and confined on Robben Island; and although the actual confinement may be legal, the sentence to which that Act was afterwards applied is wholly and unquestionably illegal. It only remains to say, in conclusion, on this particular point that there was an appeal first to the Executive Council and subsequently to the Supreme Court, and that, as might have been expected, inasmuch as the Judges in each case were the same, the appeal was in each case dismissed. My noble Friend, among the charges which he has thought fit to bring against me, has not, I think, accused me of this, although I have been greatly accused of it in the Colony, and I wish to say one word about it. It has been said that I have acted hastily. My Lords, no charge could possibly be more unfounded. I can appeal to these Papers and to the whole of the facts of the case, which are in the recollection of all who have followed these transactions, to show whether I have at any time acted with haste. It was long before I brought my own mind to any conclusion on the subject. When, last year, I was strongly urged to lay all the Papers before Parliament, I declined to do so simply because I felt that the production of the Papers at that particular stage might give an unfair colour to these transactions. My Lords, I am in this difficulty—that if, as sometimes happens in correspondence, I have expressed a strong or, as my noble Friend says, a peremptory opinion, I am then told that it is Downing Street tyranny and oppression that is being revived. If, on the other hand, I endeavour to deal gently and considerately—as, for instance, in the despatch in which I announced to Sir Benjamin Pine that he was relieved of his duties as Governor—then I am told that I am so uncertain in my expressions that I do not know my own mind. That is rather hard, and an unfair dilemma in which to be placed. My noble Friend has more than once spoken of the peremptory tone of my
  688
  despatches. Now, I would rather be judged by these despatches than by anything I say here to-night, because they were written with the utmost care and consideration that I could give them, and, as far as I know, there is no expression and no word in them which I regret or am prepared to recall. I cannot for one moment lament having expressed my strong view of the illegality, of the unwisdom, of the injustice of those proceedings. I should have been unworthy, as it seems to me, to hold the Seals of the Colonial Office, if holding such an opinion I had refrained from giving expression to it. If there be any truth whatever in our theory and idea of Empire, surely it is in this—that the servants of the Crown are bound to have a conscience in this matter, and bound, also, to have a voice; and when an act of wrong or injustice has been done in any part of the Empire it is their duty to raise their voice in its condemnation. If the ties of the Empire really will not bear that strain upon them, then I say the whole Imperial theory becomes an absolute fiction, and worse than fiction. My Lords, I have been constantly accused—and there was much in what my noble Friend said which endorsed the charge—of having sacrificed the whole merits of this case to some notion of abstract justice. I can only say that I do not know where abstract justice exists. But if it is meant that I have sacrificed to some theoretical and fanciful notion of abstract justice what was expedient and practicable in this case, I utterly and entirely deny that allegation. I have thought all through of that which was expedient, and that which I believed was practicable; and my hope and belief is that when this question is brought to its final conclusion it will be found that the course which Her Majesty's Government has taken has not only been wise and safe, but also eminently founded on what was practicable under the circumstances. My noble Friend dwelt strongly, and most severely perhaps, on the utter impolicy and folly of which I was guilty in attempting to govern Natal from Downing Street. He asked how was it possible that any Minister sitting in Downing Street could be so conversant with all the details of Native affairs as to interpose in such a quarrel as this, and to issue a mandate deciding on the ques-

  689
  tion at a distance of thousands of miles? Surely my noble Friend must see that there is some limit to this argument, and if it is pressed home not only is there an end, as I have said, of all justice, of all right, of the expression by the Home Government of what they think to be just and right, but an end also of all that control which I hold it is the business of the Minister here to exercise. If you tell me, on a question involving the lives and property of 15,000 Natives, and also 15,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, where I believe, on good evidence, that wrong has been done, that injustice has been committed, that the Colony itself is placed in a dangerous position by that injustice, that I am not to pronounce an opinion in any degree affecting the decision of the matter, then I say you make the Colonial Minister a mere puppet, and the sooner you abolish the Colonial Office and the Colonial Minister the better. But I deny altogether that that is the case. There are many views which are best to be seen at a distance. It is not always those who stand close to mountains who really can take in their full proportions or distinguish their true character. While I admit that it is very difficult for a Minister here in England to be accurately informed of a thousand and one local details, it is, on the other hand, competent for him—and he is often best qualified, I think—to judge, being at a distance, of the broad outlines of truth and justice and of right and wrong. One of these days the Colony itself, I hope, will do me better justice than I have now received. At present this is the day of public meetings, of condemnatory resolutions, and I cannot expect at this moment very much mercy at their hands. Still, I think that as time goes on, under a calmer view of the circumstances, the colonists will feel that I have, at all events, been actuated not only by friendly feeling towards them, but by no desire to interfere in their local concerns more than was absolutely necessary to me as a responsible Minister of the Crown. My noble Friend dwelt with great force—and it had all the more force because it was done indirectly—upon the danger with which an unadvised step might precipitate such a Colony as Natal. He hinted in no doubtful language that, with the numbers, the strength, the power of organi-
  690
  zation which existed in the various tribes, the risk of any mistaken action now might involve us in trouble, and possibly in war. To whom does my noble Friend say that? Does he conceive that these dangers, these risks, could have for one moment been absent from my mind? I venture to say that no one in this House has thought of them more or more anxiously, more fully, and in every point of view, than I have endeavoured to do. There is not one single step that I have taken in which I have not endeavoured to the best of my judgment, knowledge, and ability to give them their due weight. When I urged on the Cape Government to allow the prisoner to locate, as it is termed, under certain restrictions, near Cape Town, it was with a view to those risks. When I recently advised Her Majesty's Government to send out a distinguished officer—but who goes there, not in a military, but civil capacity—it was with the same view to meet those risks. Anyone who knows anything of the state of a South African colony, where we are in contact with large masses of the aborigines, must be aware that no matter of any importance can arise in that part of the world in which there is not or may not be the germs of serious danger. But I say it is no reason because there is danger for saying, as my noble Friend does by his argument, that you are bound to throw the whole control into the hands of the Local Government, and may yourselves dispense with the administration of those functions which reside in the Home Government, and so absolve ourselves from all responsibility as to the administration of justice and the rights and liberties of the nations over whom this country claims dominion. What, therefore, is my conclusion? It is this:—I have had to deal, first of all, with certain proceedings in Natal which I have already described; secondly, with the Act which has been passed by the Cape Legislature. As regards those proceedings in Natal, I have said it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept them. We could not make ourselves parties to them. It was in their power to express the opinion they held, and as far as possible to find a remedy. But when you come to deal with the Act, that is altogether a different matter. Let me ask your Lordships to consider for one moment what

  691
  that Act was. The sentence which had been passed by the Natal Court was, I venture to say without fear of contradiction, not only unjust, but also illegal. Ignorant of that illegality and actuated by the best intentions towards a sister Colony, the Government of the Cape came to the rescue and passed that Act in order to give the power of transportation to Robben Island. The Act consequently gave effect to that which was an illegal sentence. Her Majesty's Government could not accept such a position. They proposed to the Cape Government the release of the prisoner; but, at the same time, conscious that there would be a risk in bringing him back to Natal, and desirous to avoid all possible danger, they proposed that he should be located—as the term is—somewhere in the neighbourhood of Cape Town, where he could be placed under surveillance. The Cape Government, while expressing anxiety to meet Her Majesty's Government in every possible way, argued that it would be difficult to impose such restrictions upon the prisoner when he was released as would give a security for his retention in that particular part of the country, and they urged—and urged in very reasonable language—that his escape beyond the Cape frontier, and his return to his own country and to his allies would be a fruitful source of danger. On these grounds they declined for the moment to give effect to my earlier despatch. My Lords, in a certain measure, as I think, I have shown that I can sympathize with the difficulties which the Cape Government felt:—some of the arguments, however, I cannot subscribe to. When I read in Sir Henry Barkly's despatch the observation that the disallowance of the Act might be construed as an improper interference with the self-government of the Colony, I confess I was at a loss to understand the argument. I believe it arose from a pure and absolute misconception of the facts—certainly from an entire misapprehension of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I think I have set that matter at rest. I have explained that there cannot be the slightest desire or intention on our part to interfere with the system established in the Colony, and have shown that the Cape Government themselves by passing that Act contributed in a certain degree to produce the present difficulty, and
  692
  therefore that it is only reasonable and fair they should meet us half-way and co-operate with us in seeking to arrive at a satisfactory settlement. My noble Friend urged that the disallowance of the Act might be fatal to the peace and safety of South Africa. I quite admit that if this man were released without any restrictions being placed upon him, there would be a risk of dangerous consequences. But I beg the House to observe that that never was our intention, and was distinctly stated in the last despatch not to be our intention. Her Majesty's Government have consented, indeed, that the Act should not be disallowed until legislative provision has been made as best it can for placing the prisoner under the restrictions which seem necessary. If the Cape Legislature could pass an Act for the imprisonment of this man, they can also pass an Act for surrounding him with such safeguards as the public security demands—there is no difficulty on that point: and when therefore my noble Friend asks what course Her Majesty's Government will take with regard to the disallowance of the Act, my answer is that I fully hope and expect that the Government and Parliament of the Cape will meet us half-way, and that, acknowledging the mutual and reciprocal obligations which in this as in many other things bind the Colony to the mother country, they will endeavour to meet Her Majesty's Government with the same good feeling that we are disposed to extend to them, and will at once consent to adopt the course of passing an Act which will surround this man with the proper restrictions after his release. If—what I believe to be almost impossible—the Cape Government should decline altogether to co-operate with us, then I can only say that Her Majesty's Government must take that most extraordinary state of things into their consideration, and act with reference to it according to the best lights they have. But I am bound to say at once that it is an entire mistake to suppose it possible for us to consent to the indefinite continuance of that Act, for it is an Act which clearly gives effect to an illegal and unjust sentence of perpetual imprisonment passed upon a man who is, after all, a British subject and entitled to all the rights of a British subject. I wish to add a few words with reference to the concluding

  693
  remarks of my noble Friend—which, as he himself acknowledged, travelled somewhat beyond the actual scope of his Motion. I quite admit that the question does not end with the mere release of Langalibalele. Matters must be placed henceforward upon a surer basis than they have been in the past. It was with that view that Her Majesty's Government sent out to Natal so able and distinguished a man as Sir Garnet Wolseley. I hope and believe that many changes in the Native law will be carried out, with the best possible results. But let me point out that there has been a great alteration in the state of affairs since the noble Earl was Colonial Minister. Let me remind your Lordships with whom we have to deal. First, there is the Cape Colony, with its responsible government. Next there is the Colony created and founded by my noble Friend opposite. Then there are two Dutch Republics, which are really united with us by many ties. Then there are districts such as British Kaffraria, governed by independent Chiefs; there are the Zulus; and lastly there is the colony of Natal. At the time my noble Friend was Secretary of State there were not, I think, 100,000 Natives in the Colony. Now there are between 300,000 and 400,000. The tribes live in a state of segregation, and are the centres of armed strength—it may be even of rebellion. Barbarous customs, which it was the intention 25 years ago gradually to get rid of, have been in some respects strengthened rather than weakened. In the interest both of the public safety and of civilization, it is important that this state of affairs should come to an end. Hitherto the interests and systems of all the States in South Africa have conflicted with each other. My wish is to see those interests and systems brought into greater unity. I desire, in the first instance, to see a greater development of those great resources which South Africa possesses. Secondly, I desire to see a uniform system adopted in these States, because as long as different systems exist among them there will be a perpetual source of danger. And, lastly, I look most earnestly to a better understanding being created between the two Dutch Republics and ourselves. I think it would be to the interest of all parties to concur in demanding that there should
  694
  be a better understanding and a more conciliatory course of action between those Republics and our Colonies. None of the great objects which I have indicated can ever be realized unless they are founded upon justice; they cannot rest on an Act which is tainted with injustice and illegality, and it is on that ground, and on that ground alone, that I must meet the Motion of my noble Friend with a direct negative.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could assure his noble Friend opposite and the House that he was far too sensible of the difficulties which surrounded Government at all times in dealing with the complicated affairs of South Africa to be desirous of saying anything which would create any addition to the embarrassment under which the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies laboured. He had read the Papers with great care, and he was obliged to say that he concurred in the main with the views expressed by his noble Friend (Earl Grey) as to the policy which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the matter which he had that night submitted to the consideration of the House. He could not concur in the proceeding of his noble Friend the Secretary of State with regard to this Act. He could conceive that his noble Friend should come to the conclusion that the policy pursued by the Natal Government ought to be to a certain extent revised; but he could not understand how his noble Friend could have proceeded to pronounce a decision without first adopting the very simple expedient of taking time to ascertain the views of the Cape Government. He might be quite wrong—and he should be glad if he was wrong to be set right—but his strong belief was that Her Majesty's Government had no power to direct the removal of Langalibalele from Robben Island to a place within the Cape Colony, with strong restrictions against his re-entering Natal. The present system of Government at the Cape by a responsible Ministry had been established but a short time: he believed that thus far it had worked well, but it was obviously especially necessary that Her Majesty's Government should do nothing which would weaken its authority. So far from doing this, however, the noble Earl, without first ascertaining whether the Cape Go-

  695
  vernment would assent to the course which he proposed, informed Langalibalele that he would be released from Robben Island, and caused to be issued a Proclamation in which he pledged himself that when released from the island, Langalibalele should not return to Natal. Further, the noble Earl seemed to have contemplated establishing the whole Amahlubi tribe in the place to which Langalibalele was to be transferred from Robben Island.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Earl had misunderstood the line of action which was contemplated. It was only intended that Langalibalele should be accompanied and surrounded by his immediate relatives and friends.
  THE Earl OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his misunderstanding was due to the vague terms in which, unfortunately, the Proclamation had been drawn. He had no desire to suggest to the Cape Parliament that they should refuse to comply with the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, and he certainly hoped that a course would be taken in which the Imperial and Colonial Governments would be able to agree; but, at the same time he strongly deprecated the taking of any dictatorial course by the Home Government in reference to the Colonial Legislature. The inevitable result of such a course must be to land this country in responsibilities and possible consequences of no light description. The noble Earl who had brought this question forward (Earl Grey) took what seemed to be the correct line when he said that Parliament at home was scarcely competent to deal with questions involving such intricate local details of Colonial Government as were raised in the question before the House, although, no doubt, the Imperial Parliament ought to reserve to itself the right to review, and, if necessary, to revise the decisions arrived at by Colonial Governors and legislative bodies in Crown Colonies, such as Natal. His noble Friend the Colonial Secretary contended that it was begging the whole question to say that Langalibalele had been guilty of a great crime; and further he said that the Chief in running away acted simply from fear. This, however, was not nearly the whole of the offence that was charged against him. A charge having been made against Langalibalele and his tribe, the Chief was called upon to answer it, in
  696
  accordance with the whole sum and spirit of Kaffir law and tradition, which held the Chiefs of tribes responsible for the acts of their subjects and followers. The noble Earl himself admitted that a serious crime had been committed, and added that his recommendation to the Queen to remit the punishment was based upon the fact that, in his opinion, the sentence was too severe. The noble Earl himself said in his despatch—
  "For this, which he (Langalibalele) knew to he a serious crime according to all the conditions and usages of his tribe, he was deservedly and justly punished."
  And no one could doubt that he had committed a serious offence. He was legally summoned by the Supreme Chief the Governor, to appear at the seat of Government; he did not appear to give any account of his proceedings, and having treated the messenger sent to him with indignity, a force was sent to compel him to appear. This force was attacked by some of the Chief's followers and five men were slain. Having made the despatch of this force necessary by his disobedience, he must be held to be guilty of the murder of these five British subjects. By the whole system of Kaffir law and tribal relations the Chief was responsible for the acts of his followers; and Langalibalele had not only permitted his men to keep their arms, but had identified himself with them after this most treacherous murder. His noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) held that the trial to which the Chief was subjected was not a fair one. Now he quite admitted that Sir Benjamin Pine would have been better advised if he had simply dealt with the case by his authority as Supreme Chief administering Native law; but, at all events, the intention of Sir Benjamin Pine was that the trial of the offenders should be made more full and fair than they were entitled to by adding to the Native law—to which they were amenable—some of the forms and procedure of the English Courts. So that, in truth, no injustice had taken place in respect of these proceedings, for ail the changes that had taken place were in extenuation and mitigation of the Native procedure. It was not difficult to imagine a more perfect legal system under which the trial could have taken place; but the only course open to Sir Benjamin Pine was to administer to the best of his abi-

  697
  lity the law as he found it. It was said that the sentence was illegal; but, if so, how would it be cured by the substitution of an Act, as suggested by the noble Earl, for confining Langalibalele on the mainland for the Robben Island Act? The noble Earl who had introduced the subject (Earl Grey) had laid down the policy that it was exceedingly undesirable that the Crown should be advised to set aside the Acts of Colonial Governments. In this principle he (the Earl of Kimberley) concurred. He held that it was not desirable to interfere with the discretion and judgment of those on the spot, unless a very clear case indeed was shown that they had committed a serious error. In this case he did not think that it could be shown that any such error had been committed. He thought that with a smouldering state of rebellion in the Colony the Government of Natal were justified in calling upon Langalibalele to give an account of his actions—that when he did not respond to their orders they were right in sending a force to coerce him—that when they had sent that force and it had been treacherously fired upon they had no alternative but to follow him; and that, having captured him, they had no alternative but to try him, and that the sentence passed upon him was not too severe. So far as the Chief was concerned he (the Earl of Kimberley) did not think the punishment either unjust or excessive; but he was ready to admit that the Government had punished the tribe too heavily—it would have been sufficient to punish the ringleaders. He also agreed with the noble Earl (the Secretary of State) that the punishment inflicted on the Putili tribe was not justifiable: it was only fair, however, to the Natal Government to remember that even before they received an intimation of the noble Earl's opinion they had taken steps to remedy this injustice by replacing the tribe in its location. No doubt some cruelties had been committed. They must, however, make an allowance for a population of 15,000 or 16,000 White people placed amid 300,000 Natives; and though things had been done in hot blood which were to be regretted, no cruelties had been committed in cold blood. He would say nothing of Sir Benjamin Pine's merits, as he was responsible for his appointment, except that he believed him
  698
  to be a singularly humane man; but with regard to Mr. Shepstone he was a man who for many years had conducted successfully the most difficult relations with Native tribes that existed in any part of the world. Mr. Shepstone approved and counselled every step of Sir Benjamin Pine; and would it be believed that, having been the prime counsellor in these proceedings, and the Governor having been recalled the Imperial Government sent out another Governor, with instructions that he was to rely on the advice and assistance of Mr. Shepstone. He (the Earl of Kimberley) did not wish to say anything unkind of the Bishop of Natal; but when he read his confused, illogical, and unfair pamphlet, and when he set against it the opinion of Sir Benjamin Pine, Mr. Shepstone, and Sir Henry Barkly, he was surprised that his noble Friend should have acted simply on the views of the Bishop. [The Earl of CARNARVON: No, no.] His noble Friend had taken the precise course which the Bishop of Natal recommended. In a preface to his pamphlet the Bishop suggested that Langalibalele "may be suffered to retire into private life under proper surveillance for a time." So much was the Bishop carried away by his feelings that he could not find in his pamphlet a single word of regret for the murder of the White men; and though he (the Earl of Kimberley) did not wish to make that an accusation against the Bishop, who was certainly actuated by perfectly pure and honourable motives in the course he had taken, he complained that this matter should have been judged on the views of the Bishop, to the neglect of the views of other persons more competent to form an opinion. He trusted that his noble Friend would be able to reconcile his action to the Cape Government, and he hoped that the Cape Government would look at this matter calmly, and remember that any dissension between the Colonial and Imperial Governments could not tend to their benefit. He hoped also that Her Majesty's Government would be able to find a way out of the difficulties in which they were involved, and would greatly rejoice if this affair should lead to no further embarrassment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel as much as any of your Lordships the necessity of upholding

  699
  the Government of this country, and of strengthening the hands of those who administer public affairs in our distant Colonies. I sympathize as much as anyone with what I believe to be the feeling of our fellow-countrymen who are in the Colony of Natal—a small hand-full of Englishmen in the face of an overwhelming Native population. I sympathize in their anxieties, and in what cannot be described otherwise than their natural apprehensions, lest anything should be done to endanger their position in the face of tribes with whom their relations are so often unsatisfactory. This is a subject on which, however, I feel unable to keep silent. I should be ashamed to occupy the place I have the honour to hold, if I did not protest against the observations which have fallen to-night from the two noble Earls who support this Motion. England exercises too wide a sway, has too large an Empire, and interests much too high at stake, to allow or tolerate that which is an absolute and thorough injustice to be perpetrated with impunity in any part of her dominions. I will show your Lordships that this is no question of technicality; no question on which a quibble can be raised as to what was the law under which the prisoner should be tried. It is not a question which can be slurred over and buried, or with regard to which we can say—"Well,"—to use the expression of the noble Earl who spoke last—" it was not satisfactory, but after all the man who was tried was a very bad man, and if he had not committed the offence which he did, he would have tried to do something else; so the best thing we could do was to confine him." England, my Lords, cannot afford to hold language of that kind, or to shrink from expressing its approval or disapproval of an act done under the authority of one of its colonial Governors. And when I hear that any statesman can approve what has been done in this instance, I can only express my most unfeigned astonishment. I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what is the state of the case. I am not going to enter into some of the acts charged against this Native Chief, which, according to the law, were punishable, or into what the exact amount of punishment to be assigned to them should be. I believe him to have been rightly acccused of not having obeyed the sum-
  700
  mons to appear before his Chief. I am not going to dispute that he was in fault when he proceeded to withdraw his cattle and the members of his tribe across the frontier. But the great offence on which he might most properly have been convicted in proper form was that he was said to be guilty of the murder of five men, who were killed in the collision between the troops of the Colony and his tribe. Now, what occurred was as follows:—This tribe was believed to be retreating; with their women and children across the frontier. Their Chief had not attended when summoned; and for that reason the Governor proceeded to undertake against the tribe what he calls in some places a proceeding to arrest the Chief, but which was in reality a military operation. I do not complain of the Governor for undertaking that operation; but it was a military excursion in pursuit of a warlike tribe engaged as I have described. It was, under the circumstances, all but inevitable that a collision should occur. So the Governor thought; but he issued the very prudent and humane order that his troops should not be the aggressors. The Chief of the tribe, Langalibalele, had gone forward with some advanced portions of it; they had crossed over the border, and were not on the spot where the collision occurred. That is proved by the evidence of the Government of Natal itself. A parley was held, but without effect. Meantime a sudden panic arose among some of the troops, engendered, as is stated by the Governor, by the cowardice and folly of one of the Volunteers. He called out that the troops were surrounded, and a retreat at once commenced. Then it was that—obviously without any premeditation—the firing took place on the retreating body of soldiers, ending in the very disastrous result of the death of five men. Now, I do not say one word as to what should be the punishment of a person actually engaged in such a transaction; but to make a man who was miles distant, and who could know nothing of what was going on behind him, responsible for the murder of these men is, according to any idea of law which we have, out of the question. It is said that because, at a later period, when Langalibalele was arrested there was in his company a man who was present when the occurrence took place,

  701
  he must on that ground alone be held responsible, is simply absurd. Now, I beg your Lordships to consider what was done on this occasion. In the first place, let me advert to the Judges before whom Langalibalele was tried. I do not, let me at the outset observe, concur in the criticisms which have been made on the fact that the Governor was at the head of the Court, for under the Colonial Act it was provided that a fit and proper person should be appointed. But one of the five Judges was the father of one of those who had been killed at the collision while in command of some of the Volunteers. What, I would ask, would be thought of English justice, if the father of a man said to have been murdered was appointed to try a prisoner accused of the crime? Is it possible that noble Lords can stand up in this House and say that this is a matter of no importance—a mere matter of form—and that that opinion is to go forth to our Colonies as our idea of English justice? Is there not, I would ask, a Supreme Court in Natal? I want to know if this prisoner was to be tried by an admixture of English and Native law, why was it that the Judges of the Supreme Court were not associated with the others in the trial? What reason could there be except that the ingredient of law was to be excluded from it? But that is by no means all—worse remains behind. Let us see what occurred at the trial. The Governor explained to the tribunal what they were to do. "We are assembled, "he said, "to try Langalibalele for the greatest crime a human being can commit against society—for rebellion against the authority of the Queen." He then goes on to say that while the Court was willing to give the prisoner the benefit of an inquiry according to Native law, they would temper that law as much as possible with mercy. "We are Christian men and live under a Christian dispensation." Well, the prisoner is called upon to plead—the forms of English law being thus resorted to—and his plea, which the Court construed into a plea of guilty, is the longest I have ever seen, for it occupies more than a page. But it was in reality a plea of not guilty. The prisoner's plea admitted some of the facts stated, but alleged that if the prisoner's view was right, the conclusion drawn from them was entirely erroneous. It was a plea which
  702
  the youngest magistrate in this country would immediately have ordered to be entered as one of not guilty. But it was taken at once as a plea of guilty; and, thereupon six of these impartial Judges—Native Judges—pronounced judgment.
  "Mafingo (one of these Judges) said that among Natives there would be very little talk over such an offence as this. The prisoner occupied the position of a dog, which if it bit its master would be killed with little consideration…and 'his conduct had disgraced every black man in the Colony and made every native feel resentment towards him.' Another (Nondonise) said 'no black man, no white man, but lifted up his hands in amazement at the course he (Langalibalele) had pursued.' Another native Judge (Manxele) concurred in all that had been said and felt that if he said anything he would be only needlessly taking up the time of the Court."
  So that you commence with an allegation of not guilty being entered as a plea of guilty, and then you have six of the Judges pronouncing sentence on that plea of guilty. The prisoner was then removed. The Court re-assembled next day—and will your Lordships believe what happened? The night, I suppose, had been spent in considering a little the position in which they stood, because on the Court meeting again it is said, "The Court will now proceed to hear evidence." Will your Lordships believe that this occurred in a British Colony among sane men, professing to administer law and English justice? It is said that they met "to place on record the extent of the prisoner's crime." The second day they spent in taking evidence, after the man had been pronounced guilty. On the third day a complete change of scene occurred. The Court re-assembles and the Lieutenant Governor says—"I wish, before we commence business to-day, to state that I have determined to allow counsel to the accused in the person of an European advocate." The Lieutenant Governor went on to say emphatically that this was not allowed in any Kaffir Court, that it must not be taken as a precedent, which would be a dangerous thing in the Colony and that he was only induced to permit it on that particular occasion, on account of the importance of that trial in the view of the public; that although it was contrary to Kaffir law and usage, he was going to allow a European advocate "to say what he can fairly and justly say for the prisoner." That is the promise made. If it had come a little earlier, it

  703
  might have been pretty well. But they finished the evidence without the presence of the European advocate, who was not sent for and who was apparently to come in at the close as a sort of ornament. At the end of the third day they thought they would ask the prisoner whether he should like to have counsel. The prisoner said he should, and he left it to his Excellency's discretion whether it should be a Kaffir or an European counsel. Mr. Eseombe was the gentleman who was to act as counsel for the prisoner and he applied to the Resident Magistrate, the proper person, for permission to see the captive. What could be the use of counsel if he was not to be allowed to see the man he was going to defend? That permission was, however, refused. Is that English justice? What happened next? When the Court reassembled on the fourth day the Governor said—
  "I stated at our last meeting that we intended to allow counsel to appear for the prisoner, and we selected Mr. Eseombe for that purpose. Mr. Eseombe, on being informed that this Court was of a peculiar nature and jurisdiction, and that he must confine himself within certain limits, could not accept the duty, and I think properly. He said that as an English counsel he must ever be at full liberty to say or do what he liked, or he could not take up the case at all, and therefore he had declined; but looking at the peculiar character of this Court, and its being so directly contrary to Kaffir usage, custom, and law to allow counsel, I made up my mind that it would not be desirable to allow or ask any one else to say anything or act for the prisoner; he could only say something in extenuation of the guilt of the prisoner because he had admitted it."
  Counsel must not say his client was not guilty; he could only be allowed to extenuate his guilt. Was there ever anything written in the wildest novel equal to that? The prisoner was taken to have pleaded guilty when he pleaded not guilty; yet he must be tried all the same. The evidence was heard, and after it had been taken counsel was to be called in for the prisoner. The Governor then said counsel could not be permitted to say anything, except in extenuation of the prisoner's guilt, because he had confessed it; and then his Excellency observed—"We shall be as merciful as the circumstances permit of." The very Governor who had invited counsel to come, who had begged him to come and "say what he fairly and justly could say for the prisoner," after-
  704
  wards shuts his mouth and says he must not open it in favour of the accused because he has pleaded "Guilty." Was there ever anything that had darkened the annals of British justice like that? And is this what Her Majesty's Government at home are to wink at and slur over, and say we must not look at or criticize because it happens thousands of miles away, and therefore we are not able to pronounce an opinion upon it? This, the noble Earl says, is what Parliament and the British public are to accept without remonstrance. But the matter does not stop there. Mr. Eseombe is not heard; and at a later period, after the Governor had had the Benefit of the remarks of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he said on this point himself—
  "There is much force in your Lordship's objection to our not allowing counsel for the prisoner. Looking at the question as it is regarded in England, and from a purely English standpoint, I regret that we did not allow counsel. But so far as the administration of strict justice is concerned, I feel certain the prisoner would not have benefited by the concession, but rather the reverse."
  According to the noble Earl (Earl Grey), we are not to take any notice of that. Well, my Lords, the trial went on, and further witnesses were examined: and hero is the account of the close of the fourth day. His Excellency says—
  "Before I go away I want to say one word with regard to the speeches the Chiefs made to me on the first day of the trial."
  It is obvious that even in the Colony itself it was matter of observation that it was Jedburgh justice to pronounce the decision first and examine witnesses afterwards. His Excellency went on to say—
  "Some fault has been found with their giving their opinions at that stage by persons who do not exactly understand the usages and customs of the Kaffirs."
  I suppose, indeed, that the Kaffir nation is the only one in the world where such usages as those here brought before us could prevail. But I thought this was a Christian trial, or one, at all events, tempered by the usages of Christianity. From the kaffir point of view it is true what was done may have been quite right. His Excellency proceeds—
  "Langalibalele has confessed his guilt,"—I have not found where he did so, "Langaliba-

  705
  lele had confessed his guilt, and stated circumstances which he considered were an extenuation of his guilt, and according to Kaffir law and usage the trial was over. In their point of view the Chiefs were quite right, and I thanked them for the opinions they gave. All the subsequent proceedings which have taken place are in conformity with our own ideas of justice."
  I must demur to that. Standing here, I say those proceedings were not in conformity with our ideas of justice; and I want it to go forth that your Lordships are not of opinion that they accord with our ideas of justice. In no part of the world can a colony thrive which holds that proceedings such as those are in conformity with enlightened principles of justice.
  "We wanted," continues his Excellency, "to find out what extenuating or mitigating circumstances there might he. That would not have occurred in a strictly Kaffir court; but, according to our own notions of justice and propriety, we thought it proper to go and ascertain any circumstances which might mitigate or extenuate his conduct."
  Again, on the fifth and sixth days witnesses were examined. Then we come to the judgment—and I want your Lordships to understand exactly what the Chief was sentenced for. The heads are as follows:—
  "1. The prisoner has for a considerable time past set at naught the authority of the magistrate to whom he was immediately subject, in a manner not indeed sufficiently palpable to warrant the use of forcible coercion according to our laws and customs, but perfectly clear and significant according to Native law and custom.
  "2. The prisoner has at least permitted, and probably encouraged, his tribe to possess themselves of firearms and to retain them, in direct violation of the law. On this point the evidence is clear and precise.
  "3. It also clearly appears from the evidence that, with reference to the unlawful possession of these firearms, the prisoner set the authority of the magistrate at defiance, and on one occasion insulted his messenger."
  With regard to the insult to a messenger, had an advocate been permitted to appear for the prisoner he would have pointed out a circumstance which in this country would have been fatal to this charge—namely, that of the two messengers, both of whom gave evidence, one spoke of the insult and the other said not a word about it. The judgment proceeds—
  "4. It has further been brought to light that after the Supreme Government had been called upon by the magistrate to support him, the prisoner set even that authority at defiance by refusing to appear before it; excusing his refusal by evasion and deliberate falsehood, till at last,
  706
  emboldened, as it would seem, by the extreme forbearance of the Government, he insulted their messengers sent to deliver to him a message full of mercy as well as justice.
  "5. We come now to the final stage of the prisoner's proceedings. It has been proved that he directed his cattle and other effects to he taken out of the Colony under an armed escort, thereby manifesting a determination to resist the Government with force and arms. Now, on this subject the Court wishes to remark that, according to Native law, as administered under the Native Chiefs, the mere removal of a tribe with its cattle out of the jurisdiction is an act of treason and rebellion. This law has been so far recognized by this Government that it has always been in the habit of giving up cattle brought into the Colony by refugees; but it has not given up the people, on the intelligible ground that it has no means of judging by itself how far the people may have been guilty of treason, except by such act of removal. But this Government has never recognized the mere act of such removal as an act of treason, if unaccompanied by any criminal acts; and it cannot be too clearly understood that any tribe in this Colony is at liberty to remove itself and its cattle out of our jurisdiction if it does so peaceably and with the cognizance and previous consent of the authorities. The case before us, however, is quite different. It is that of a tribe flying from the jurisdiction, after having set the authority of the Government at defiance, and thereby endangered the peace of the country. We come now to the affair at Bushman's River Pass. A great deal has been said upon this subject, in the Colony and elsewhere; but all we have to do with it is to look at the evidence submitted to us as it concerns the prisoner. It has been proved that a force sent by this Government, under Major Durnford, to intercept the prisoner's tribe and prevent them from leaving the Colony, met at or near the Bushman's River Pass with a portion of the tribe, under the command of the Induna Mabuhle; that Major Durnford entered into a lengthened parley with that Induna and members of the tribe, in which he earnestly and for some time endeavoured to persuade them to return to the Colony and to their allegiance; that the Induna and those with him led Major Durnford to believe that they would consider his injunctions, and so prolonged the interview till they had brought up an additional force. It appears that then, after many threats and insulting gestures and language, the tribe fired upon our forces and killed five of the Queen's subjects, who were doing their lawful duty by attempting to support Her Majesty's authority. It is needless to say that this act of firing on the Queen's forces, even had they, in obedience to authority, opened the fire, amounted in the eye of the law to rebellion and murder. But to fire on Her Majesty's forces and to kill her subjects, who had not thought it right to commence firing, and whose leaders were trying their utmost to avoid the shedding of blood by an appeal to reason, was wilful and deliberate murder. The law of England declares that any person who in committing any felonious act causes, even accidentally, the death of another is guilty of wilful murder. The next question is, who committed this act of rebellion and murder. It was proved in evidence that the

  707
  Induna Mabuhle commanded the portion of the prisoner's tribe at the pass, and, therefore, presumably commanded them to fire. He is, then, the immediate traitor and murderer. But, now comes the inquiry, in what relation did this Induna stand with respect to Langalibalele? It has abundantly been proved by the evidence before us that Mabuhle was one of the most trusted, perhaps the most trusted, of the prisoner's Indunas; that he always formed part of any important mission sent by the Chief to the magistrate. It has been further proved that he took a prominent part in the communication which latterly took place between the prisoner and the Secretary for Native Affairs. But, more than all, it has been admitted by the prisoner himself that Mabuhle was the commander of the military portion of his tribe; in fact, as we should say, Commander-in-Chief of his army. It has been proved and admitted that the prisoner himself was, at the time, actually with that portion of his tribe who were some distance in front; that is, that he was personally with the armed array which was leaving the Colony, of which array the divisions under Mabuhle formed a part. It has further been admitted by the prisoner that the killing of the Queen's subjects was reported to him by a messenger sent to him by this same Induna Mabuhle. Lastly, it has been proved that this Mabuhle was in company with Langalibalele when he was taken prisoner. Thus, in every way, before and after the fact, the prisoner was identified with the actual perpetrator of the murders, so as to render him as directly responsible for those murders as if he had himself commanded on the spot."
  That is to say, that a man who was in front of a retreating force is made answerable for shots fired by men in the rear with whom he had no personal communication. Then comes an important part of the judgment—
  "6th. The charge against the prisoner of treasonable communication with others out of the Colony has not been inquired into, in consequence of the length of time which it would take to collect evidence, and also because, in the presence of the grave charges proved against him, it was not thought necessary to press this charge. On all the other charges we find the prisoner guilty. The prisoner Langalibalele, therefore, appears before us convicted on clear evidence of several acts, for every one of which he would be liable to severe punishment under the Native law; for some of them he would be liable to forfeit his life under the law of every civilized country in the world."
  For which of these offences would he be liable to forfeit his life under the law of every civilized country in the world? The concluding passage is—
  "Our unanimous judgment, therefore, is that the prisoner Langalibalele, the late Chief of the Hlubi tribe, is, under the law which we are bound to administer, liable to the punishment of death; but, taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances alluded to, and giving them the greatest and fullest force, and also the punishment he has already undergone by deposition
  708
  from his office and confiscation of his property, we sentence the prisoner to banishment or transportation for life, to such place as the Supreme Chief or Lieutenant Governor may appoint."
  Add to this that the sentence was perfectly illegal—the Governor had no power of transportation—there was no law in the country which empowered him to transport the prisoner. Are we to overlook that? Are the Government at home so weak, powerless, and paralyzed that they are to allow this gentleman—of whom I must speak with the greatest respect as a man of experience and ability—to carry out an illegal and unjust sentence, merely because the place is some thousand miles away? What is Sir Benjamin Pine's own view of the proceedings, as expressed in a despatch of the 24th September, 1874? He wrote—
  "The trial, so called"—so called!—"of Langalibalele, commented on by Mr. Advocate Moodie, was not a trial of a prisoner in the ordinary sense "—I quite agree with him there—" but was an inquiry to ascertain the whole circumstances of the case and its ramifications so far as other tribes were concerned."
  If that was the nature of the proceeding they were holding, they were not trying Langalibalele at all, they were only investigating some historical circumstances to ascertain the relationships between certain tribes. I only wish if this be so they had not issued that illegal sentence. I should be surprised to hear anyone say that at this so-called trial, justice was administered as it is in this country. The only other matter referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was the phraseology of the despatch of the Secretary of State with regard to the colony of Cape Town. I see nothing whatever in that. The Secretary of State was justified in saying that this sentence could not be supported and that the clemency of Her Majesty must in some form or other be extended to the prisoner. I do not in the slightest degree wish to suggest that this man was not a very troublesome Chief, or that he did not commit an offence for which he ought to have been punished; but it is a different thing to say that a trial such as this was, for an offence such as alleged, followed by a sentence such as I have described, is a thing to be desired.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he agreed with his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down that the proceeding

  709
  against Langalibalele in no respect deserved the character of a judicial process. It violated, in the several ways which he had pointed out, not only the rules of judicial proceedings as observed in this country, but those necessary to give any such proceeding the character required by the rules of substantial justice. But, when this was most fully admitted, it appeared to him to go but a very short way towards the decision of the present question, which really depended, not upon forensic, but upon political considerations. Granted that there had been no trial, in any proper sense of that word, and therefore no judgment founded upon a proper trial. But it did not follow from that, that what was called the sentence in this case, was therefore illegal and void. That question, as the Papers showed, was brought in a formal and legal manner before the Supreme Court of the Colony, and the Supreme Court of the Colony—from whose decision on that point, if wrong in law, an appeal would doubtless he to Her Majesty in Council in this country—determined that there was nothing to show that what was done might be warranted by the powers of the Native Chiefs, and, under the circumstances, held that there was no law in force in the Colony enabling any Court of Law to interfere with the execution of the sentence. No doubt it had been pronounced by a political authority in the exercise of arbitrary powers. No doubt it was impossible, with any propriety, to apply the term law to the proceedings under which this Chief was sentenced—still he (Lord Selborne) was not able to follow the proposition that the order for his banishment was altogether ultrâ vires. As a sentence of an Executive Government armed with arbitrary power, it appeared to have been supported by a legal decision in the Colony, and until the Court of Appeal in this country should have otherwise determined, he, for one, must hesitate to express a confident opinion as to the illegality or incompetency of that sentence. Indeed, but for the speech of the noble and learned Lord, he should have supposed that this was the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself. The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies in his despatch had stated that the punishment was excessive, and ought to be mitigated. But if the sen-
  710
  tence was altogether illegal and unjust, it would necessarily follow that no punishment whatever ought to be inflicted. How, if he regarded the sentence as simply illegal, could the noble Earl consistently treat the case as one for mitigation of punishment, and not for total remission? Upon the general merits of the case, he was far from differing with his noble Friend the Secretary of State. He agreed with him in wishing that further means had been used to test the good faith of Langalibalele before such strong measures were taken against him. He agreed in wishing that the most lenient measures possible might have been, and might still be taken, as far as the safety of the Natal and Cape Colonies would allow, with respect both to the Chief and his tribe; and he agreed in thinking that the severities practised against the other—the Putini tribe—were unjustifiable. On the other hand, he thought, as the Secretary of State did, that Langalibalele was confessedly guilty of some serious political offences; and his noble Friend seemed to him to be quite justified in dealing with the whole case upon its merits as a political one, and of looking calmly at all the facts as far as they could be ascertained, apart altogether from the abuse of the forms of legal proceeding which had followed upon the commission of the offences. He regretted, however, that, under the circumstances, his noble Friend had not communicated with the Cape Legislature before forming and publicly announcing the decision at which he had arrived—because it was above all things necessary in a case like the present, that there should be co-operation and agreement between the Imperial and Colonial Governments. But as matters now stood, he could not vote for the Motion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), if for no other reason, because it was not possible to know what was now passing in Natal, and while their Lordships were addressing the Crown with a view to the continuance of the Act, the coming mail might be bringing to this country—as he sincerely hoped it might bring—a decision of the Cape Legislature in favour of some alternative course which would have the effect of reconciling the existing differences.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that Governor Pine, whose judgment had been praised so much, and

  711
  which, it had been suggested, was to over-ride that of the Colonial Office, had when on the West Coast of Africa projected an expedition through Central Africa, and, he believed, had been censured by either the noble Earl (Earl Grey) or by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies. He was certain that he had incurred the ridicule of the leading journal for his proposal to carry the British flag in triumph through Central Africa. The noble Earl (Earl Grey), in his speech introducing the Motion, had begun by speaking of the imports and exports of Natal, and the interests of the Colonists; but, except by using the words "rebellion of the Kaffirs," he had said nothing which showed that Her Majesty was Sovereign of the Kaffirs as well as of the Colonists, and therefore owed them also justice and protection. A circumstance similar to that now under discussion had taken place in the Algerian Colony of France. In 1862 the French in Algeria attempted to deprive the Arabs of their lands; but the Emperor appointed a Commission to report to him, and on the receipt of their report he quashed the attempts to deprive the Arabs of their land, saying that in Algeria he was as much the Emperor of the Arabs as of the French. The consequence was that out of gratitude to the Emperor the Arabs remained quiet during the Prussian war. Her Majesty's Government would not have to regret having done justice upon this occasion.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that if any fault had been committed in this matter by the Government of Natal, he should be much disposed to think that the fault rested not so much with the Governor, Sir Benjamin Pine, as with some of the subordinate officials, on whose information and advice he had acted. He would say nothing as to the legality or illegality of the trial, but what struck him most forcibly was the anomalous nature of the whole proceedings. But while he refrained from commenting upon the result, as far as the sentence was concerned, he wished with regard to the subsequent proceedings to call attention to the appeal brought before Sir Benjamin Pine under the 10th section of the Ordinance of 1849. On that part of the case he must express his regret that the Governor in Council, sitting as a kind of Court of Appeal, had confined
  712
  himself solely to the evidence given on the first occasion, in accordance with the practice of English Courts of Appeal, instead of admitting anything which would have been adduced in the prisoner's favour But supposing that the whole proceeding was irregular altogether, how was the Secretary of State to investigate a sentence that was altogether illegal? If the sentence was illegal, as was contended, it could not be mitigated, but must be remitted altogether; and this course, as he understood the matter, was to be followed in the present case. He did not understand that the Government proposed to give an absolute pardon, but that the Chief would be permitted to return to the colony and set at freedom, such precautions being taken as might be necessary to prevent his return to that part of Africa in which his influence with the Natives might be used against British rule. He was, further, glad to know that Her Majesty's Government intended to make certain alterations in reference to African customs where British rule prevailed. He hoped these alterations would reach the practice of polygamy and the custom of magistrates assigning wives to the Natives whether they liked them or no. He commended the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley to the governorship, in succession to Sir Benjamin Pine, as one which was likely to lead to the best results. Sir Garnet Wolseley had a great reputation. He would be sure to act with decision if the occasion required it, and he would be almost quite sure to be supported by public opinion at home in doing so. He referred to the opposition which had been made at the Cape to the action of his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon). Although he had great respect for public opinion there, yet Colonial public opinion was apt to be influenced by prejudice, and he hoped that when the Colonists came to re-consider the very courteous request made to them for assistance in carrying out his noble Friend's views, they would see their way to falling in with his wishes. It was his opinion that the Government had adopted the best course that was open to them under the circumstances.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the noble Lord, who had last occupied the Woolsack, had abundantly proved that the banishment of Langablbalele was lawful,

  713
  and he himself had been told of the commutation of his sentence, and had gladly accepted it. He (Lord Denman) believed that the Parliament of Cape Town would gladly and the Government in finding a suitable locality for the banished man and his family. He found in the Papers presented to this House that the presiding over the Court of Appeal by the Governor had been compared to, and justified by, the worst sort of case that could arise in an appeal before their Lordships; but he (Lord Denman) believed that the debate would do a great deal of good, inasmuch as it would prove to the Colonies that they might always rely upon their affairs receiving a full and fair discussion in the Imperial Parliament.
  EARL GREY, in replying, observed, that he had never contended that the Secretary of State was always bound to accept the judgment of Colonial authorities, or that their judgment might not in many cases be properly overruled by the Government at home, but that in cases where a knowledge of local circumstances was required—in such a case, for instance, as that of Langalibalele, which they were now discussing—where the Colonial authorities had the best means of knowing the truth, and where instant and prompt action was required, a Colonial Governor ought to be supported by the Home Government, unless it could be clearly shown that he was in the wrong. With regard to the trial of Langalibalele, he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Selborne) that it had been a great mistake to mix up two things so inconsistent with each other as an act of authority of a Kaffir Chief and a trial according to the practice of an English Court—that made the proceedings of the trial a perfect mockery, and Sir Benjamin Pine would much better have dealt with the Chief according to his own judgment as Supreme Chief. Still, in spite of this error in the form of the proceeding, substantial justice had been done, and that was what was really important. The objections taken by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the infliction of a just punishment, because the culprit had not had a chance of escape by a trial conducted with all the technicalities of English law, were like the objections of a professional sportsman to the shooting
  714
  of a fox without giving him a fair run for his life. He begged to remind the noble and learned Lord that there were cases in which a fox was so dangerous that any mode of killing him might be resorted to. In the present ease, the lives and property of the colonists of Natal were in danger from a person who was beyond all doubt a rebel; and, under all the circumstances, he maintained that the action of the Colonial Government was perfectly justifiable. As to the Motion, after what had fallen from his noble Friend behind him he would consent to withdraw it provided the noble Earl opposite would assure the House that he did not contemplate the unconditional discharge of so dangerous a person as Langalibalele, and that his liberation would be accompanied with such restrictions as would prevent him from inciting the Natives to rebellion, and thus causing a serious disturbance.
  THE Earl OF CARNARVONsaid, he could give no more distinct assurance on the subject than that which he had already conveyed to the House. He wished, he might add, further to state that he had not, as was by some supposed, acted in the matter on the advice of Bishop Colenso. Both Dr. Colenso and Mr. Shepstone had come to this country, and he had had the advantage of hearing from them both sides of the question before he came to a decision upon it; but, as a matter of fact, the conclusion at which he had in the first instance arrived was substantially that which he afterwards adopted, which clearly showed that he had not been influenced by what Bishop Colenso had urged. As to Mr. Shepstone, of whose great experience he had the highest possible opinion, he had consulted him on the various questions of Native policy. He found, he might add, that that gentleman concurred generally in his views, and had promised, so far as lay in his power, to carry them out in the Colony.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  RAILWAY TRAINS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for regulating passenger accommodation in Railway Trains—Was presented by The Lord REDESDALE; read 1a. (No. 50.)

  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (HOUE OF OPENING) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Law relating to houses of public dancing, music, or other public entertainment of the like kind in the cities of London and Westminster—Was presented by The LORD Steward; read 1a. (No. 51.)
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.