Sitting of 26 July 1878

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Mutiny and Marine Mutiny Acts [No. 316].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne (Establishment) * [277].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204] —R. P.; Commons Regulation (Expenses)* [273]—R. P.
Committee — Report—Considered as amended— Third Reading—Admiralty and War Office (Retirement of Officers) (re-comm.) [169], and passed.
Third Reading—Highways* [261], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE SCOTCH JUDICIAL BENCH—LORD CRAIGHILL.
  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial before Lord Craighill, contained in the "Scotsman" of the 24th of July, to the effect that—
  "Lord Craighill sat in vacation on Monday, to hear evidence in an action from Glasgow having reference to certain plumber work, which, it is alleged as the ground of the case, was improperly executed. When the hour for rising came, the hearing of the evidence was not completed. His Lordship thereupon stated that as no clerk had as yet been appointed to his Court, and as Mr. Bell, the assistant clerk, would be required to discharge his own duties in the Register House, he should adjourn the further hearing of evidence until the ensuing winter sessions;"
  and, whether steps have been taken to fill up the vacant clerkship; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons why this has not been done, and what other means are to be taken to facilitate the due administration of justice, and to prevent the additional expenditure to litigants which such postponements unavoidably occasion?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, the same Question, practically, was asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who

  387
  gave me private Notice of it. I regret that the business of the Court referred to should have suffered, and that some steps have not been taken before to provide Lord Craighill with an interim clerk; but I can inform the hon. Member that steps will now be taken to supply the present deficiency.

ORANGE PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to the Grand Jury of the county of Londonderry, in which he directed the attention of that body to the deplorable loss of life which occurred at Mahera in that county on the 12th instant, by reason of a procession of Orangemen, marching armed, and firing on a number of navvies then at work on the Derry Railway; whether the learned judge did not refer to the Party Processions and Party Emblems Acts, one as having been repealed, and the other allowed to expire, in the hope that the good sense of the people would prevail, and put an end to the state of things then previously existing; and, whether, considering these lamentable circumstances, the Attorney General for Ireland will take into his consideration that further Legislative powers are required to put a stop to such party processions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, I have read in the Irish papers a report of the occurrence referred to, and when the matter comes before me, I shall, of course, give it my most anxious attention. But I think the present law is quite sufficient to put down offences of this kind without resorting to any new legislation.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: Sir, in consequence of the answer I have received, I beg to give Notice that early next Session I shall move a Resolution and bring in a Bill upon the subject.

ISLAND OF CYPRUS-SOVEREIGNTY AND ADMINISTRATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the
  388
  native population of Cyprus since the Anglo-Turkish Convention owes allegiance to the Sultan or to the British Crown; and what will be their status in the event of a war in which the Sultan may be a belligerent and England neutral, and vice versâ; whether the right conceded by the Porte to the Government of Great Britain to "administer the island of Cyprus" is sufficient by itself to operate as a complete super-session of the Sovereign authority of Turkey over the laws and people of that island, or whether it is proposed by some further Treaty to define the relative powers of the Sultan and the English Government; whether the Ottoman Government can be taken to have delegated to that of Great Britain a territorial jurisdiction in its own dominions over the subjects of foreign states, which jurisdiction the Sultan has himself surrendered in favour of those states; and, if not, whether the European Christian States which by usage, treaty, or capitulation possess the right of exclusive jurisdiction over their own subjects in the Turkish dominions in the Levant will retain the same rights under the English administration of Cyprus; and, whether all those states will have the right to maintain Consular or other Courts in Cyprus, and to exercise jurisdiction over their own subjects independent of the authority of the English administrators?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is of a highly speculative and imaginative character, and in order to answer it fully it would be necessary that it should be more elaborated, and the conditions under which the law is intended to apply should be much more fully explained. But the reply which I am about to give will, I think, be found to be an answer so far as the Question is really practical. First of all, the Anglo-Turkish Convention does not destroy the allegiance of the Natives of Cyprus to the Sultan. The Natives who will remain in Cyprus will, while they are there, be under the protection of the Queen, and bound to render allegiance to her so long as the Island is occupied by Great Britain. A war in which the Sultan may be a belligerent and England a neutral, or vice versa, would not alter their status. Secondly, I think the right conceded by

  389
  the Porte to the Government of Great Britain to administer the Island of Cyprus is sufficient to give Her Majesty all necessary powers over the Island. Whilst the Island is administered by Her Majesty, Her Majesty will exercise the sole jurisdiction, and administer all laws over the people, subject only to the exception specified in the Convention. Thirdly, if any other country, or the subjects of any other country, claim any exceptional rights under existing arrangements with the Porte, the position and claims of such country or subjects will be duly considered. Fourthly, the question whether European Christian States, possessing exclusive jurisdiction over their own subjects in the Turkish Dominions, would have the right to maintain Consular or other Courts in Cyprus, and to exercise jurisdiction over their own subjects independently of the authority of the English Administration, cannot be answered until it is known whether any and what right to exercise jurisdiction is claimed by the other States.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN —INSTRUCTIONS TO LORD ODO RUSSELL, JUNE 8, 1878.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would explain why a Despatch of instructions, dated June 8th, from Lord Salisbury to Lord Odo Russell, and laid before Parliament was written in contradiction to the secret Agreement between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff, dated May 30th, and which was surreptitiously obtained from the Foreign Office?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the only answer that I can really make to the noble Lord's Question is that I dispute the fact. The Question is very like that put by King Charles II. to the Royal Society, as to how a certain thing was to be explained, and the answer was that "I deny its existence." I entirely deny that there is any contradiction between the despatch of Lord Salisbury, of June 8th, to Lord Odo Russell, and the secret Agreement between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff of the 30th May last.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the contradiction between the two propositions; first, that England—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the noble Lord that he is out of Order in putting a Question of an argumentative character. The noble Lord has put his Question, and is not entitled to enter on matters of debate. He should give Notice in a formal manner, if he desires to bring this matter before the House.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I am only referring to a Question I asked the other day. I want to know, whether there is not a contradiction between the Agreement which said the Government would not contest the possession by Russia of Kars and Ardahan and Batoum, and the instructions to Lord Odo Russell telling him to contest their possession by Russia?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must remind the noble Lord that what he calls a secret Agreement has never been produced or laid upon the Table of the House by Her Majesty's Government; and the reason they give for not producing it is that, taken by itself, it does not convey an accurate idea of their policy. I again repeat, what I said before, that there is no contradiction between the despatch to Lord Odo Russell and the policy of Her Majesty's Government as expressed in their confidential communications with the Russian Government.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION — ALLEGED TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRIA, GERMANY, AND RUSSIA.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, before or on Monday next, a Copy of the Treaty or engagement between the Emperors of Austria, Germany, and Russia, under which the cession of the two provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria had already been arranged, as it appears from a statement of the late Foreign Secretary recently made in these terms:—
  "I will only notice as a curious fact, that, although as I understand that cession was proposed by the British representatives at the Congress, yet we well knew that their transfer to Austria was part of the original engagement between the three Emperors entered into some five years ago?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, nothing is known in the Foreign Office of any such Treaty or engagement; and I am quite unable to throw any light on the statement to which the Question refers.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL—NAVAL PENSIONS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, under the Order in Council of June 29th, "limiting the number and amount of Greenwich Hospital age pensions," the Admiralty are empowered to limit to 2s. 6d. a-day Naval pensions which might otherwise be in excess of that amount, irrespective of the age pensions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the Order in Council did not contain any such provision as that to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred. There was no intention on the part of the Admiralty to limit to 2s. 6d. a-day naval pensions which might otherwise be in excess of that amount.

PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY SITTING.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there was to be a Morning Sitting tomorrow; and, when he intended to bring up the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill on Report?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that the Government proposed to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow to go on with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill if not finished before. If that Bill were finished to-day, the Report on the Resolutions relating to the Duke of Connaught's Annuity would be taken, and also the Admiralty and War Office (Retirement of Officers") Bill. He was not in a position to say at present when the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill could be proceeded with. They might be able also to take other Business to-morrow; but he would inform the House more definitely at a later period of the Sitting.
  THE O'DONOGHUEinquired, Whether any but Government Business would be proceeded with to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERbelieved it would be the general
  392
  wish of the House to confine the Saturday Sitting to strictly Government Business, and he should discourage, therefore, any private Business being introduced.
  In reply to Mr. M'LAREN,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he still hoped to pass the Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) Bill this year.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he wished to be understood that in regard to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill he did not in any way consent to the arrangement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing but Government Business should be taken to-morrow. He understood that the Government did not intend to put the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill on the Paper; but he reserved to himself the right of moving the third reading to-morrow.
  MAJOR NOLANhoped, if the Government were to take the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill to-morrow, they would adhere to their resolution to proceed only with Government Business. If it was to be understood that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill stood a chance of coming on, there would be no chance of making progress with the other Business, as a great deal of unnecessary talking on the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill would ensue, in order to obstruct, if possible, the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. ANDERSONappealed to the Speaker, whether it was not perfectly regular for any private Member to put down a Notice for any day on which the House was appointed to sit?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the House was appointed to sit to-morrow, it could take any Bill it thought proper to proceed with.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, whether the Speaker meant that private Members were or were not shut out.
  MR. SPEAKERexplained, that he made no distinction between what the hon. Member called private Members and official Members, as regarded the Business of the House.
  MR. VERNERasked, if the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill would be proceeded with to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Bill, I understand, is being

  393
  reprinted, and if it can be in the hands of Members in time, I hope to take it to-morrow.
  MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer not to take the Bill to-morrow, as it would be very inconvenient to proceed with it until hon. Members' Amendments were on the Paper.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that he fully appreciated the hon. Member's objection. He would admit that it might be inconvenient for hon. Members who wished to move Amendments on the Report to frame them properly, unless they had the printed Bill in their possession. He would keep that consideration in view when determining whether the Bill should or should not be taken at tomorrow's Sitting.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MESSAGE OF THE QUEEN— THE MARRIAGE OF H. R. H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [23rd July] reported.
  On Question, "That the Resolutions be agreed to?"
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Sir, it may, perhaps, meet the convenience of the House if I should now state that, acting under the advice and by the request of most of those hon. Members with whom I have acted in opposing these Royal Grants, I do not propose to carry further the opposition of which I have given Notice on the Second Reading of the Bill relating to the marriage of the Duke of Connaught. I think, however, I am justified in saying that those who oppose this Grant have some reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in their management of the matter. For instance, we heard nothing of it until the close of the Session. It is then hurried through, without any opportunity for discussion whatever, and from the first moment until the third reading, probably not more than a week will elapse. It is never proper to insinuate motives, and it has never been my habit to do so; but it looks exceedingly like an attempt to prevent the people of this country from expressing their opinion. Any amount of opposition, any amount of indignation or of feeling expressed by the people—and there is such a feeling—
  394
  will come only like the distant rumbling of the thunder long after the lightning bolt has fallen. It is quite clear the people outside have no opportunity of speaking; their Friends in the House have spoken; and, therefore, I am disposed to be content with the discussion that has taken place, and the vote that has been given, being quite sure that it is impossible for the people outside the House to reinforce the opposition inside. I may, in conclusion, venture to say to the Government, that although discussion has closed in this House, they probably have not heard the last of it. The matter will be discussed throughout the country; and in the course of the not far distant General Election, many an hon. Member, when he appears on the hustings, will be asked this question—"Did you vote for wasting the people's money?"
  MR. MACDONALD: Sir, it was my intention to have supported the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in his Motion for rejecting this Vote. I, therefore, did not take any part in the discussion which took place last evening; and I wish now to say that the action of the hon. Member for Leicester will not guide me in the course I may take tomorrow. If I take the course of dividing the House, it is not from any feeling of disloyalty to the reigning Family that I do so. I look on those large and frequently repeated Grants as one of the principal causes that are sapping the loyal feeling of thousands, nay of millions of people, towards the reigning house. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen call out "Oh!" They speak of their experience. I have a right to speak of mine. They speak the opinions of the narrow circles in which they move and the drawing-rooms into which they enter. Some time ago an enormous Petition was presented by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and myself against these Royal Grants. I shall only say, in conclusion, that I feel bound, notwithstanding the course the hon. Member for Leicester has taken, to divide the House, as a further protest on a question that is of vital importance to this country, to the great body of our people who are now suffering from "cleanness of teeth'' in the great manufacturing districts.
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, as one who has acted on this question with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor),

  395
  I trust the House will allow me to express my opinion that my hon. Friend has arrived at a very wise and judicious decision not to press his opposition further on the present occasion. No one who knows him, either in this House or in the country, will for one moment consider that he would ever shrink, from motives of fear, from carrying his opposition to its legitimate conclusion. No one has more the courage of his opinions than he has; but I think that, under the circumstances, my hon. Friend has acted most wisely in resting satisfied with the protest that was made yesterday. The debate which then occurred was ably and temperately conducted on both sides; and however much those who were in the majority disagreed with the minority, I believe they will accept an assurance that we were actuated solely by principle, and were free from any feeling of personal hostility towards the Prince or towards any hon. Member who voted with the majority. It is not for me to use words of compliment; but I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House that I believe every one of the 33 Members who voted yesterday most heartily and sincerely reciprocates every good wish and congratulation he used towards the Prince. I think the hon. Member for Leicester is right in withdrawing further opposition under the circumstances; because, as the second reading of the Bill is to be taken on Monday, he would place himself in a wrong position by interposing between the important debate which is to commence on that day and the subject of this grant. He made his protest yesterday, and we then had a fair opportunity of voting against this Grant. I repeat, that he has acted most wisely and judiciously; and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) will be satisfied with the protest he has just made, and will not separate himself from those with whom he usually acts by again troubling the House with a division.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is not for me to say what course those who object to the Vote should take with regard to the Bill. That I leave to them to settle among themselves; but I must say one word of protest against what has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), as to there being anything in the nature of hurry or surprise in the pass-
  396
  ing of the Bill. What has been done in this case is that which has been done uniformly during the present Reign on several occasions; and there could not be the least doubt that the course which has been followed on the occasion of other Royal Marriages would be taken with respect to this marriage. I think I may venture to point to the Petition to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) referred, as showing that the minds of those who take his view of the subject were alive to this question; but I must protest against the idea that any attempt was made to bring this matter forward at an inconvenient or improper time. It was brought forward at the proper time. It could not be done until Her Majesty had given her consent to the marriage; and it could not be brought forward in the other House in the absence of the Prime Minister. I must also enter my protest, in the most general terms, against its being assumed that those who thought it right to vote against the Grant are in any sense greater friends of the people than those who proposed it. There has been nothing done that has not been done from a sense of public duty and the responsibility the Government owe to the people of this country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 277.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL. [Lords.] [BILL 204.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 33 (Prohibition of importation; slaughter or quarantine).
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 17, line 4, to leave out from the word "Act" to the words "seventy-nine," in line 5, inclusive, said: If the Committee agree with me, the result will be that as regards the importation of foreign cattle it will be left in the position in which it now stands. But I wish to refer to what was in the minds of many hon. Members when this clause was originally under consideration. Although

  397
  we have not had the clause directly before us, we have had a kind of floating allusion or reference to it in all our discussions; and, under these circumstances, I think I shall be justified in detaining the Committee for a few minutes, while I express the view I entertain in regard to the clause. I think that the arguments for and against leaving things as they now are have been pretty well stated, so that I can hardly expect that there will be any alteration in the opinions of hon. Members. But there is one remark that I wish to make. I may observe that some other hon. Members have said that this change in the condition of foreign importation is necessary, because it has been proved by experience that discretion ought not to be left entirely to the Privy Council; and that, notwithstanding the discretion given to the Privy Council last year, with a view of keeping out the cattle plague, the cattle plague still came into the country. I have heard that argument used two or three times; and I hope the Committee will allow me to say that really it has nothing whatever to do with the question which we have before us. I am not going to weary the Committee by indicating the action of the Privy Council with regard to either of the inroads of cattle plague which occurred in 1872 and 1877. My own opinion is, that no regulation can be prescribed by Act of Parliament, and nothing that could have been done by the Privy Council would have prevented those inroads. Whether we stamped it out quite as quick as we should have done if this Act had been passed is another question. The reason I mention the matter is this. Let no one suppose that they would vote against my proposal for leaving things as they are under the idea that what the Government propose would make the slightest difference with regard to cattle plague, and for this reason—at this moment the Privy Council have power to prohibit the importation of cattle altogether from cattle plague countries. The Government continue that power; and, consequently, the restrictions for slaughtering at the port of landing have nothing whatever to do with prohibition altogether. Then it may be said—"Oh! but if we suppose that cattle are to be slaughtered at the port of landing generally, that would take away one chance of the cattle
  398
  plague, because the cattle come, not from cattle plague countries, but from countries in contact or communication with cattle plague countries." There, again, no alteration has been made. The past rule and custom of the Department has been, in the first place, to prohibit the import of cattle at all from any country which has the cattle plague; secondly, to slaughter, at the port of landing, all cattle coming from a country through which the animals from Russia, or cattle plague countries, can have come. That was the reason why Holland was scheduled, until Holland passed a law preventing the importation of cattle into Holland. That was the reason why France was scheduled. And the real fact is, that when cattle plague came into this country in 1872 and 1877, all those countries were scheduled which had cattle plague, and the cattle were slaughtered at the port of landing in all cases in which the slightest danger was apprehended of cattle plague. I hope I am not unnecessarily detaining the Committee; but I want to explain that really this question has nothing to do with cattle plague. Now, then, we come to the question whether it is desirable to make the alteration? As the Bill was first brought into Parliament, slaughter at the port of landing was the universal rule. There was no exception whatever. But in the House of Lords so much argument was brought forward in debate, and so many facts were brought out in Committee, that the Government felt themselves compelled to change the rule, and to admit cattle from the United States and Canada. The Committee are very well aware that, yielding to the pressure of argument and of facts, the Government have found that they must make two changes since the Bill first came into the House. The first change was to admit into the inland markets the cattle of five countries— Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; and then, when they found that that left matters in a most absurd and inconsistent position, the Government have, under certain conditions, restored the discretion of the Privy Council. But they still adhere to what they call the principle of exclusion, rather than inclusion. I do not think that it will make any very great practical difference ["Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Phipps) says he agrees with me.

  399
  If he really does, I do not think there will be much difficulty in persuading him to vote with me. [Mr. PHIPPS: It was the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell).] To my mind there must be some discretion placed in the hands of the Privy Council, in order to guard the necessities of trade. I can speak with some little experience on that matter. Whoever represents the Veterinary Department before the country is put in a most responsible, not to say difficult, position. From day to day, and from week to week, he has to interfere with almost the most important trade in the country — a trade in regard to which people are sensitive to an extreme degree—the trade of supplying them with what they want to eat. He is obliged to interfere with it, because he is responsible for doing his best to keep out disease. But he cannot have been in that office a week without feeling how very responsible a thing it is thus to interfere with the food of the people; and I do not know, with all the experience I have had in connection with the administration of the Department, that I ever felt more difficulty than in being aware, from day to day, that I might be called upon to take measures which I knew must cause an alteration in, and generally raise, the price of food—not, perhaps, throughout the whole country, but certainly in this large City in which we live. This being the responsibility of the matter — the responsibility of increasing the price of food, and, on the other hand, of doing your best to stamp out disease. I am perfectly sure that no Privy Council will very much care as to what is the presumption one way or the other. They will merely ask themselves—"What is our discretion, and what is our duty? Our duty is to let the country have as much food as it can get; let as much food come in as the people can possibly buy, without incurring danger from disease." Therefore, it will not make much practical difference to let them have this discretion. If this be the case, it is not too much to ask of the Government and of Parliament that the presumption should be in favour of free trade—that the presumption should be that we should get as many cattle as we can, and that we should not keep them out of the country, unless we are obliged to do so in consequence of disease. We
  400
  have talked this matter over during the last two or three weeks, and we know very well, both from the Amendments which have been put upon the Paper, and from the statements of the Secretary to the Treasury and the supporters of the Government, that immediately the Act is passed, that cattle will be admitted from America, also from Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. There are 11 countries from which cattle are imported into this country, or 10, if you count the United States and Canada as one; and when this Bill passes there will be only four countries excluded, and from six the cattle will be admitted. Therefore, if you establish your presumption, it will be broken through at once by two-thirds of the exporting countries. I now come to the number of cattle. Last year there came 82,000 cattle from the four countries which would remain scheduled; while there were 116,000 from the six countries which you let in. I think I have said enough to prove my case; and it only remains for me to say that if the Committee will accept this proposition, I shall be quite prepared to allow to be embodied in the Bill instructions to the Privy Council to treat pleuro-pneumonia as a ground for slaughter, as has hitherto been done with cattle plague. I do not suppose anybody would think of prohibiting the import altogether on the ground of pleuro-pneumonia; but now we are going to take real measures to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia at home, I think the prevalence of it in an exporting country ought to be ground for slaughter at the port of debarkation, and that can be fairly met by some instructions in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 4, to leave out from the word "Act," to the words "seventy-nine" in line 5, inclusive.— (Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'but shall not take effect' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: No one can complain of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) raising this, which is the point upon which has practically rested all the discussion and opposition to the Bill; but I do not suppose the Committee will, for

  401
  one moment, feel that, having introduced the Bill in the form it now stands, the Government are prepared to give way to him on this particular point. We have argued from the first that, whilst not attempting or wishing in the least to interfere with the free introduction of cattle into this country from abroad, we are bound to take steps for regulating their movement when they are in this country, so as to protect ourselves, as far as possible, from the introduction of disease. We have argued all through that this is not a case of free trade, and we are not proposing to restrict free trade. What we do want to restrict, and what we have a legitimate right to restrict, is free trade in disease. The real distinction and difference as to the treatment of the two cases is this. With regard to your home trade, you have it immediately under your own eye, and you are able, through your Veterinary Department and the local authorities combined, to ascertain what are the regulations dealing with disease, and what are the outbreaks of disease in different parts of the country; and, as soon as you have done this, you can at once bring your laws to bear on these outbreaks, and check them by the strength of the Privy Council. But that is not the case when you are dealing with cattle in foreign countries. It is true we may be informed by the courtesy of foreign Governments what steps they are taking to deal with these diseases; but we have had, only a few years ago, conclusive evidence that, in spite of all the international arrangements for the imparting of information, the cattle plague has beaten the authorities, and has arrived in this country before their information respecting it has reached us. That justifies us in dealing with the foreign import in the way we propose. We are not, and cannot be, in the possession of information with regard to foreign cattle the same as we are in regard to cattle at home. We cannot deal with their cattle while they are in their own countries; we can only begin to deal with them when they arrive here. Therefore, we are subject to disease coming to our shores over which we have no practical control; whereas, with regard to disease which arises in this country, we have the power to control it in our own hands. That, I think, is a strong argument in favour of making the presumption, contrary to what it has
  402
  been up to the present time. The presumption up to the present time has been in favour of letting all these animals in; and the result has been we have had cattle plague twice within recent times, and we are constantly under the risk of having pleuro-pneumonia introduced from these countries.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the Secretary to the Treasury has just made a statement which may mislead, although he has, no doubt, done it quite unintentionally. Cattle plague has come in twice from Germany; but, in both cases, the cattle were slaughtered at the port of debarkation.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: My impression is, that cattle from Germany were not slaughtered at the port before the introduction of the last cattle plague. However, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be better informed on that subject than I am. But I place what we propose to do on the broad ground that we want some control over these animals; and we take extra precaution in making the presumption as we do, and giving the Privy Council discretion with regard to satisfying themselves that these counties are, both as regards sanitary matters and the regulations which they enforce, in a position to justify us in believing that we have got the same security as regards their cattle as we have in regard to home trade. I hope, therefore, the Committee will adhere to the principle as it is now in the Bill. It is not put there with any intention to hamper or stop the introduction of healthy animals into this country; but it is put there because the Government feel it is a power which is absolutely necessary if we are to attempt to deal with the introduction of disease from foreign countries.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had hitherto cordially voted for the Bill, because he wished to create that free trade which did not now exist. From all the information he had been able to collect, the farmers of this country were in a state of terror about the introduction of disease; and until that was removed, it was impossible to expect them to increase their herds and flocks. If they could once establish confidence in the minds of the farmers, so far from the price of meat being increased, he believed the price would decrease, because the stock of meat would increase.

  403
  He knew no class who were less desirous than the farmers to increase the price of meat. It was in the belief that this Bill would not increase the price that he supported it; though, of course, whether it would attain its object was another thing. The Government had come forward and, upon their responsibility, declared that if they could once exclude the disease from this country the home stocks would increase; and therefore the Committee ought to support them in their attempt to accomplish that object.
  SIR WALTER B. BABTTELOTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) had told them that foreign cattle were slaughtered at the ports of landing at the time of the last two outbreaks of cattle plague in this country. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) believed that to be true; but the right hon. Gentleman did not go on to state that there were animals for store and breeding purposes which were admitted, and which were not slaughtered at the port, and that the attack first took place in the dairies. That showed how careful they ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman said that, practically, there was no difference between the proposal of the Government and his own Amendment. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would ask him, then, whether it was worth while fighting them on a point of that kind? If the right hon. Gentleman himself had brought in a Bill of that character, and had made great concessions in accordance with the views expressed by both sides of the House, as had been most wisely done in this case, would he have given way any further? Were they to stultify their proceedings by changing the whole face of that Bill? Let the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends now be satisfied and allow the measure to proceed, seeing that they had got all that they wanted, and the great object was now to make progress with the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen on his—the Ministerial —side did not mean to give way on that point, but would stand absolutely firm.
  MR. RYLANDSconsidered the speech just delivered quite refreshing. Now, what were the facts? In the first instance, the Government brought in a Bill in which they had no faith, and which was contrary to their own convictions. The Bill had been drawn upon lines which could not be defended, and they
  404
  had continually yielded one point after another, so far as they had been allowed by their supporters; and now, when they came to one of the most important proposals of the Bill, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said there must be no more yielding. He hoped, however, the hon. and gallant Baronet would allow them to give way on this occasion also. But however lightly hon. Gentlemen might treat this question of the interference with the import of cattle, it was one which was regarded with the greatest possible interest by the people of this country; and he was rather astonished that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) should have persuaded himself that it was of advantage to keep out foreign food. This Bill, from the first, proceeded upon the line of absolute prohibition of live cattle; and there was no doubt whatever, if that line had been carried out throughout the whole of the foreign importation, the effect would have been very materially to raise the price of food in this country. The Bill, therefore, in its original form, was a Protectionist one; and the Government, by their concessions, had admitted it would have seriously interfered with the supply of food. As regarded the Amendment now before them, his right hon. Friend had clearly shown that its adoption would not have any very material effect upon the action of the Privy Council, and he was not quite sure that it need necessarily have any effect at all; while it would have the advantage of showing to foreign countries what was our opinion in regard to free trade in this matter. The prosperity of England depended upon free trade; and he trusted it would not go forth that the House of Commons was unwilling to give facility for the importation of foreign food.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Rylands) had repeated a statement he had made before—that when the Government introduced this Bill into the House of Lords it was for the total prohibition of the import of foreign cattle into this country. There was not a single word then or now in the Bill which prohibited the importation of foreign cattle. The hon. Member could not have read the Bill, the object of which was simply to prohibit cattle from coming inland,

  405
  which was a very different matter to preventing their importation. At the present moment sheep were prohibited from coming inland, yet there had lately been a larger import of sheep than they had had for years, thus showing that slaughter at the ports did not prevent mutton from coming into this country from abroad. He had to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) for what had fallen from him with respect to pleuro-pneumonia. His conversion in that matter had been slow; but he hoped it would be sure and certain. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently coming round; but he had not quite reached the true point. He really felt that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said, although it was but little benefit to the agriculturists, yet it was also a great point for them. However other things might be, he desired to have the law right; and he certainly thought that the proposal of the Bill was just, for, even if there were no cattle disease whatever in any part of the Continent, it must be admitted that after cattle had undergone the privations and miseries of a long transit and sea voyage, they must be more subject to disease, and, therefore, they should, at all events, be regarded with considerable suspicion. This should be the case were there no cattle disease on the Continent; but when they knew how rife cattle diseases were on the Continent, it seemed clear that what the Bill proposed should be done for the protection of the farmers of this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that only four out of 10 cattle-exporting countries would have their cattle slaughtered at the ports of debarkation; but he forgot that cattle from Germany and Belgium were prohibited at the present time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he reckoned Germany and Belgium, and there were only 10 exporting countries.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he thought that if he were to reckon up the countries which might export cattle to us he should make about 12; but he would not further contest that point. What he wished to observe was, that cattle plague came in on two previous occasions. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman said he could not help letting in the disease; but that told in favour of
  406
  the proposal of the Bill; for as soon as the disease overstepped its accustomed limit, it was almost certain to come into this country. On a previous occasion cattle plague broke out beyond its ordinary boundary, and it came into England even before the Germans knew it existed in their own country. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said it came from a scheduled country.] That was the case; but if the Lords of the Council had prohibited then, as they prohibited now, the importation of cattle from Germany, we should not have had the cattle plague in this country. There was no doubt about that. If the present regulations were kept in force it would only be by some wicked conspiracy, or some unavoidable accident, that we could have the cattle plague again in this country. He felt very warmly on this point. Surely, hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow that hon. Members on this side of the House had made all the concessions which were requisite; and he trusted the other side would let the farmers have what might seem to some a shadow, or a phantom, advantage. But it was something to have the law in one's favour; and, in the name of the farmers of England, he demanded it.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, the distinguishing feature of the Bill had probably been the many concessions which the Government had made. He did not say that in any taunting spirit; for those concessions had not been forced on the Government by any probability of their encountering an adverse majority, but by the force of right and reason. Ho gave his full testimony to the openness of mind and candour of judgment which the Secretary to the Treasury had shown in the conduct of the Bill. But what was the result of all these concessions? It was this—that they left a discretion to the Privy Council. What were the concessions? They were these—First of all, Canadian and American cattle were admitted. Then the Government consented to admit cattle from five European countries. Then the House found itself in a difficulty with respect to the Favoured Nation Clause and International Treaties; and the Government agreed to put all nations into one category, and make all equal before the law. But the Government would not get into that difficulty again by anything which they were now asked to do. The dis-

  407
  cretion which they had now established with respect to the Privy Council would not get them into any difficulty as to the infringement of any Favoured Nation Clause which might have been entered into with a foreign country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had shown that no great practical difference would result if the change of presumption were made. He had shown that even if the law were left as the Bill proposed, as many as two-thirds of the exporting countries would still break through the rule, and that there would, therefore, be no practical difference in the importation of meat to this country. However that might be, he (Mr. Peel) did not put the case on that ground, but on a higher ground. Whatever might be the practical result, there was no reason why they should change the law; certainly no reason had been shown in the course of the debate why the law should be changed from what it was in the Act of 1869. The concession asked for from the Government was one that could do agriculturists no harm, while it would be of immense advantage on the other side, for the contention was simply this —that the Government should preserve the principle of Free Trade that had hitherto prevailed. Long after these debates had been forgotten, and the extenuating circumstances of the case had passed from men's minds, the principle would remain, if the concession were not made, that the Government had changed the presumption in favour of Free Trade into a presumption against Free Trade. The reason for doing this would be forgotten, and the Protectionists of a future day would be able to say that the English Government had changed the presumption from Free Trade to Protection. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the outbreaks of cattle plague in 1872 and 1877. Now, it was an undoubted fact, that in 1877 the rinder-pest came from Hamburg, and from a scheduled country. He could not understand what argument the Secretary to the Treasury could frame on such a fact as that. Why were the Government going to make this change? He understood the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to say that cattle plague might exist in a foreign country; that we might not get adequate notice of it; and that some diseased cattle might
  408
  slip into this country. That would be the case as the Bill was originally drawn. If they had compulsory slaughter, how were they to prevent a sick or diseased animal from coming in, and from being the means of conveying disease? He would remind hon. Members that when they said a single animal might convey disease, and that, therefore, thousands of animals ought to be slaughtered, they proved too much; for a single diseased beast might come into a port, and might be immediately slaughtered, and yet some man might have had communication with it, and might convey the disease elsewhere. That was the way in which disease had been communicated. In 1877 the spread of the disease was attributed, by those who ought to know, to the infection of a cowshed at Limehouse being carried to other cowsheds and other places in the Metropolis. He hoped that the concession asked for might yet be granted, for no reason had been brought forward why it should not be granted. Hon. Members on his side were as willing as hon. Members on the other side could be, that if disease was proved to exist on board ship the rest of the cargo should be slaughtered. When the hon. Member for South Norfolk taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford on the subject of pleuro-pneumonia, and said that he was coming round, he would remind the hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman introduced a clause into his Bill, or a regulation under the Bill, which had operated hitherto, that if a single beast in a cargo should be found infected, whether with cattle plague or pleuro-pneumonia, the whole of the cargo should be sacrificed. If that was a slight concession, he should like to know what concession the hon. Member expected? He would urge on the House that the concession now asked for should be made; because it was no light thing to vary the presumption that had existed for so many years. If they left the Bill as it was, there might be no practical result; but they would have taken a retrograde step in their attitude towards freedom of trade.
  MR. PELLsaid, they had been told more than once that there was no reason for changing the presumption; but he thought there was one obvious reason— namely, that when the presumption was on the other side they had had cattle

  409
  disease imported. It was said that cattle would still come from foreign countries; and also, that if a diseased animal was brought here for slaughter, the disease might be communicated; but he did not think these were sufficient arguments against the proposal of the Government. Another argument of an extraordinary kind had been urged, that they must be careful how they dealt with foreign countries in the point of free trade. He was a free trader before he had a grey hair on his head; but he did not find that foreign countries were so ready to accept free trade. He did not know that any foreign country would make a protest against this country's dealing with foreign cattle in the way proposed. In his opinion, the placing the presumption as it was now sought to place it was more important than many hon. Members seemed to think. He held that the responsibility of the Privy Council should be greater than it was at present, and that they should act on the side of prevention, as the Bill proposed, only admitting cattle as far as, after some inquiry, they were satisfied that a country was free from disease. Several concessions had been made already on his side of the House; and unless it was to be all give and no take on that side, he thought they might fairly ask for a slight concession on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) himself said it would not make much difference; and he (Mr. Pell) thought it would be good taste on the part of the other side to give way on this point, and to allow the Bill to be brought to a conclusion.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he would again urge that with perfect free trade, or as nearly perfect free trade as they could desire, they had not had cheap meat. On the contrary, year by year meat had risen in price. He must repeat that his wish was to obtain cheap meat for the people; and he believed that no Government ought to do anything which would prevent meat from becoming cheap. He was satisfied, from inquiries which he had made, that if they could keep away disease, as it was the object of the Bill to do, they would cause the home stock to be so much increased that a proper supply of meat could be obtained at home. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had told them that the quan-
  410
  tity of meat which was required could be supplied by 2,400,000. There was now a supply of 2,100,000; therefore, the whole supply expected was no more than 300,000. He found that already there had been a very considerable increase; and shortly, if only there was confidence on the part of the farmers, they might expect the required increase to be made up.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he hoped the Committee, before going to a division, would allow him to make a few remarks, to show the extreme importance of this point. His hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) and South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) urged that to give way to the Government on this matter would be a very slight concession, and referred to the question as being one of form, and not of much practical consequence. He agreed with them that it would be a very slight concession, if they looked merely at the direct consequences which were likely to result from the Bill remaining in its present form. But he thought he could show that in that case the Bill would produce most serious consequences, which would be felt in every commercial and manufacturing centre in the country. They read in the papers of meetings of Chambers of Commerce, complaining of the depression of trade, and stating that the decline in our exports was mainly due to the hostile tariffs which were maintained against English goods. There was no doubt that there were at the present time hundreds of thousands of men in this country who were suffering greatly, and who were deprived of their honest employment owing to the serious reductions which were imposed upon them by protection on the Continent and in America. He had given some attention to the subject; and he was sure that no one who had examined carefully into the state of feeling on the Continent and in the United States at the present time could resist the conclusion that the Protectionist party in the United States, in Canada, and on the Continent was as eagerly looking out for every excuse to maintain a system of rigid Protection, as was a drowning man to clutch the first substance that came within his reach. He would show that this was no theoretical or fanciful grievance; and he begged the attention of the Committee

  411
  to this point. The other day his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the English Government could not do something with regard to the most serious impediments which were being imposed on English trade by the Spanish Government? who were treating the trade of England with a harshness and an injustice that they were applying to no other trade or country. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, in reply, that the Government had remonstrated, as strongly as it was possible for remonstrances to be worded, against the conduct of the Spanish Government, but, hitherto, without the slightest effect. Now, let them consider for a moment the reason of the course adopted by the Spanish Government. What was their justification for thus singling out English trade for special treatment? This will show hon. Members the perilous path on which they were entering. The great excuse of the Spanish Government, in especially hindering the English trade, was this—They said that, whether intentionally or not, a great injustice was done to their trade by the two most illustrious free traders England had ever produced — he meant his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and his late distinguished Friend Mr. Cobden. They said, as their great ground for treating English trade with injustice, that when the Commercial Treaty was negotiated between France and England, certain arrangements were entered into which, whether intentionally or not—of course, unintentionally—placed the Spanish trade at a special disadvantage. Now, that showed how extremely tender and careful they had to be in their commercial relations with foreign countries. It was enacted in that Treaty, that all wines of less than 26 degrees of alcoholic strength should pay a duty of 1s. Then there was a sudden jump to 2s. 6d. The Spanish Government said that their wines were of 28 degrees of alcoholic strength, and were unjustly treated by having to pay a duty exceeding by 150 per cent what was paid by French wines. On this circumstance the Spanish Government rested their main defence for maintaining a rigid system of protection against English trade, which was felt so
  412
  acutely by all who had trade with Spain. Hon. Members said their opponents ought to be generous to them, and ought not to impute Protectionist intentions to them when they had none: they said they did not wish to raise the price of meat, or place home produce at an advantage compared with foreign produce; they said they were as anxious for free trade as their opponents were. He should be very sorry not to accept these assurances unreservedly. He did not believe for a single moment that it was their intention or wish to re-introduce Protection with regard to English agriculture. But what they had always to look at in Acts of Parliament was, not the wish or the intention of the Act, but what would be its practical effect. Now, it seemed to him to be impossible to resist this point: if a very considerable section of the House believed, just as sincerely as hon. Members opposite did, in their opinion that this Act would be a Protectionist measure—["No, no!"] —well, they denied it, and he and his Friends believed it, but they were equally bound to accept the sincerity of each other's belief. If 150 or 160 Members of that House, and a large section of public opinion out-of-doors, after giving this question the most careful consideration, were prepared to say, as he for himself was prepared to say, that they believed the effect of this Bill, although that was not the effect intended, would be Protectionist, did not the House think that that belief would also be shared in by those Protectionist countries which were at the present time eagerly looking out for the slightest excuse for making their tariffs more hostile against the interests of England? If 150 Members of the House of Commons believed that the House was about to pass a Protectionist Bill, was it not likely that at least as large a proportion of the American Congress, or the French Chamber, or the German Parliament, would come to the same conclusion? And if that was the case, the House would see how it would most seriously weaken the hands of that party on the Continent, and in the United States, which was at present contending, under every difficulty and obstacle, for the maintenance or introduction of a free trade policy, which would have a practical effect on this country. He had no hesitation in saying, after having given some considera-

  413
  tion to the subject—and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were present, would bear him out—that the renewal of all our Commercial Treaties, whether with France or other countries, stood at present in a most critical position. No one could tell whether, with regard to France, for instance, the Protectionists in that country would not be sufficiently strong to prevent the Commercial Treaty with England from again being renewed. It was not necessary for him to point out to the manufacturers and other men of business in that House what a serious effect would be produced on English trade if all those Commercial Treaties should gradually fall through. He knew that this Bill was already welcomed by the Protectionists of other countries, who were beginning to say— "This is a powerful weapon in our hands." What would now be the position of Protectionists in the United States? They would read the papers, and would see that hon. Members, like the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and the hon. Member for South Norfolk, spoke of this matter as a slight concession. But what was the principle of the "slight concession" that was insisted on? It was this. Hitherto, in our dealings with the United States, we had been able to say—"We maintain towards you, not only with regard to agriculture, but with regard to other industries, that free trade shall be the rule, and restriction the exception." Protectionists would now, in a thousand different ways, turn round and say— "Oh, England has reversed her policy." It would be of no use for hon. Members to say why they had done it; foreigners would say—"You have reversed your policy. England is now, without giving us the slightest notice or warning, about to make restriction the rule, and free trade the exception." And that was exactly what hon. Members were doing. He should not have troubled the Committee at such length; but he felt that, considering that perfectly unrestricted commerce was never in a more critical or perilous position than at present, it was impossible to exaggerate the mischief that had been done, and that might still be done to English trade by an increase of the hostile tariffs of other countries. He thought that after it had been admitted that the direct consequences of this concession were slight, the House
  414
  would be pursuing a perilous and dangerous policy if they placed in the hands of the Protectionists of other countries an argument which they would not be slow to use. The free trade party in other countries, and the friends of unrestricted commerce, would find that they had a more difficult task to perform, and that their struggle was harder than it had been before England departed from a principle which she had hitherto resolutely maintained. If it was necessary for the prevention of disease to impose restrictions, they should still cling as firmly as possible to the principle of free trade, and say, as they had hitherto said, that if it was necessary to impose restrictions, they should be imposed on the distinct and intelligible principle, that unrestricted trade should be the rule, and that any restriction should be the exception.
  MR. NEWDEGATEregretted that he should be obliged to tell the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who had, perhaps, studied this question as much as anyone in that House, that this was not a question of free trade in cattle or in meat; it was a question of free trade or protection in disease. There was no restriction against the importation of healthy cattle, or of dead meat to any extent; but the restriction under the Bill was in the nature of a quarantine restriction, and it was entirely an internal and permissible arrangement. It had been pretended that the Bill would interfere with International Law. The Bill came, however, within the great exception of quarantine, and the only restriction was upon internal communication. Well, then, the whole argument, based upon free trade, fell to the ground. He had heard the free trade question argued ever since 1843; and he defied any sensible man to explain how the principles of free trade applied as an objection to the Bill, unless free trade in disease was meant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said—"Oh, we object to the principle being one of exclusion." What was the title of the Bill? Its title was the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. Did the right hon. Gentleman object to the principle of excluding disease? If he did, he objected, not only to this measure, but to the existing Acts on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said that the objection to all these Acts

  415
  was the enormous responsibility which they imposed upon the Privy Council, because they made them literally traders in food. He felt the force of that objection, and he would have preferred the original principle of the Bill, which would have entirely relieved the Privy Council; but the pressure brought upon the Government by the importers and other traders in this country had been so strong that they found themselves compelled to abandon that principle.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he felt bound to protest against the analogies that had been drawn by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) in dealing with the question of cattle disease, and held that it was the duty of the Government to prohibit the importation of disease through whatever medium it was conveyed. He claimed to be as staunch a free trader during the last 30 years as any hon. Member of that House; and he must say that he had both heard and read with regret of imputations which had been thrown out against the promoters of this Bill, and those who supported them, that they were actuated by a desire to raise the price of meat. Nothing could be more absurd or more untrue; and he was astonished that hon. Members should have been found in any part of the House to countenance such a transparent fallacy. There were some hon. Members on his side of the House who were quite as anxious for the welfare of the working classes as were his hon. Friends below the Gangway, and he would make the same remark of hon. Gentlemen on the other side; and he thought it was unworthy of any hon. Members of that House to start such a theory for the sake of getting up a Party cry. What he firmly believed was, that the Government would have done far better if they had had the courage to persevere with their original intention, which was to insist upon compulsory slaughter at the port of debarkation. If they had done this, they would, perhaps, for a time have subjected themselves to the contumely of certain trading interests; but they would have adopted the only certain means of remedying admitted evils. In this matter he wished to make an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, who once took a very active part in preventing the spread of Asiatic
  416
  cholera in this country. It happened that some years ago he (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) was at a certain port, and he received from one of the authorities there information that cases of Asiatic cholera were on board a vessel in the offing. He immediately telegraphed up to his right hon. Friend, who instantly sent down an Inspector, and he believed it was entirely due to the rapid action which was then taken that Asiatic cholera was prevented from getting a footing in this country. But who could tell in what manner the discretion of the Privy Council might be exercised? Who could tell whether they would always have at the head of that Department a man who would have the courage to act in a time of emergency? The President of the Privy Council might be a timid man, or a man who might be carried away by false notions of free trade principles; and he might feel that it would be unworthy of him, or dangerous to his Party, to put any vigorous measures in force. Therefore, it was far better and safer that the presumption should be as the Government had put it—namely, that the cattle should be slaughtered. He was sorry to have detained the Committee one minute, as it was very desirable that the Bill should be got through as rapidly as possible; but he felt bound to protest, not only against the imputations which had been made against the supporters of the Bill, but against the doctrine that it was wise to leave any loophole open whatever for the importation of disease into this country.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, there was no hon. Member on his own side of the House who more appreciated the concessions which had already been made by the Government than he did; and in proof of that he need only refer to the fact that he had withdrawn all his Amendments from the Paper in order that the discussion might be taken on his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford's Amendment to this clause. He had done what he could to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He gave his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) full credit for sincerity in every word that he had addressed to the Committee; but his opinions were based upon a knowledge of one side of the question only. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, as zealous, honest,

  417
  and earnest in his desire for cheap meat and cheap food of all kinds as he himself or any other hon. Member of that House; but when his hon. Friend drew the distinction which he had drawn and argued, that the opponents of the Bill were fighting a shadow, and anxious only for free trade in disease, he spoke from the point of view of the cultivator of the soil and a landowner. He (Mr. Mundella) wanted to point out the important bearing that the presumption of law which was now insisted upon would have upon the future industries of this country. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had given it as his opinion that if there was no disease on the Continent at all the presumption of law ought still to be in favour of compulsory slaughter. What did that mean? What did words like those convey to the people of this country, and to the foreigner with whom they had to deal? Everybody in that House knew that in modern times free trade had been the greatest source of the increase in their national wealth, and all classes of the community had benefited equally thereby. What had been the result of the extension of that system to the Continent? They had Commercial Treaties with Continental nations, which involved a trade both ways of over £150,000,000 sterling; but, as his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had pointed out, Free Trade was never in such jeopardy amongst Continental nations as it was at the present moment. And let him tell the House why the manufacturing classes on the Continent of Europe had all along been opposed to Free Trade. Their whole strength in regard to Commercial Treaties lay in the agricultural classes, who sent to this country the produce of the soil. They would have very little chance of maintaining a Commercial Treaty with France, but for the fact that that they took her wine, her butter, her poultry, and a number of other products which amounted to a very considerable sum in the year. In like manner, as regarded Denmark and other countries, they took their cattle, and the fact was that the exports of agricultural products of the Continent of Europe were largely in excess of the exports of manufacturing products. In America the export of manufacturing products was less than 12½ per cent of the entire exports. It would be seen, therefore, that the only
  418
  hope which they had of maintaining commercial relations with those countries upon a proper footing was the hold which they had upon the agricultural classes. Let him point out what had been happening, and why he ventured to bring this argument before the Committee at the present moment. It might be said that it was very little germane to cattle. If so, it was because hon. Gentlemen opposite knew nothing about the matter. They were purely agricultural Members, who had not a commercial idea in their heads. At the present moment there was, and had been for some time past, very great manufacturing distress throughout the whole world, and the manufacturers in every country with which England had a Commercial Treaty had been appealing to their Government to get rid of that Treaty. In France there had recently been an inquiry into the causes of manufacturing and commercial distress, and he held in his hand a Report of the French Senate upon that subject, which he had obtained at the Foreign Office the day before. To what did they attribute the manufacturing distress which prevailed? Mainly to English competition, and they demanded that the duties which now protected their industries should not be diminished in any case; but that they should be raised in all the cases of those industries which were now suffering, and that no further negotiation of Treaties of Commerce should be effected. Well, what were they doing by this Bill? They were proposing that the presumption of law should be in favour of exclusion. But the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had, he thought, admitted that he was contending almost for a shadow. He (Mr. Mundella) said, honestly, that he had no desire to admit any diseased animals into this country. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) had said that this presumption of law should be maintained, because the Privy Council could not be trusted. But the Government had trusted the Privy Council in the Bill. As the Bill now stood, it was the Privy Council who alone must exclude diseased cattle. What, then, was the good of this presumption? Why should not the presumption be as directly in favour of Free Trade, with the strictest injunction to the Privy

  419
  Council to exclude diseased cattle, as it should be in favour of compulsory slaughter with power to that body to admit healthy cattle? It would only be reversing the presumption; but, at the same time, a most important principle was involved. What would happen when they passed this Bill? These discussions would go to America, and everything which had been said in the country or in that House implying a want of confidence in Free Trade would be seized upon by the Protectionists of that country and diligently circulated in the newspapers from New York to San Francisco. Why should there be any contention about the reversal of this presumption? If once this country was brought into a state of commercial distress through any foolish legislation of this kind, it would be not merely the industrial classes, or the manufacturing interests, but the landowner and the farmer who would suffer. The latter would have to pay heavy rates, and they would suffer heavily from the depreciation of their property. They had not a single Acton the Statute Book which implied any want of confidence in the principles of free trade. Why should this Act be the first? He appealed to the Committee and to the Government to allow the presumption to be that England admitted Free Trade in every department of food, and simply insisted upon excluding unhealthy cattle.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. This was a Consolidation Bill, and he saw no reason why the Consolidated Acts should be made so much more severe with regard to the universal compulsory slaughter at the out-ports. If the Privy Council had been trusted to take foreign animals out of the Schedule, why could they not be trusted to put foreign animals into the Schedule? Were they to be put into the Schedule by Act of Parliament merely to give the Privy Council the trouble of taking them out again? The cattle wore to be condemned to death by Act of Parliament, and they were afterwards to be granted a free pardon by the clemency of the Crown; because, practically, the Privy Council represented the Crown. He thought that such a provision was contrary to common sense, and that it would be far better to leave it to
  420
  the discretion of the Privy Council whether cattle should be put into the Schedule or not. There was another point of still more importance. A concession was made in the House of Lords of a most valuable kind, and that was that Canada and the United States should be excluded from the Schedule. The Bill came down to that House with a clause in it giving a discretion to the Privy Council to put the United States into the Schedule or not. A discussion took place on going into Committee, and a further concession was made by Her Majesty's Government—namely, that five healthy countries might be exempted from the Schedule by the Privy Council. Then a cry was raised that the Government was violating the "Most Favoured Nation Clause" in Treaties, and they made a still further concession that the Privy Council should have the power of taking all foreign cattle out of the Schedule; but, in granting that concession, they proposed to do away with the concession granted in the House of Lords. [Cries of "Agreed."] They were not agreed. This was a matter which affected his constituents, and he had a right to defend their interests; and he would do so, notwithstanding any interruptions that might be offered to him. He repeated that it was a most unfortunate thing that the Government, while making the concession that the Privy Council should have power to take all cattle out of the Schedule, should have proposed to do away with the concession which they made in the House of Lords— that American cattle should not be put into the Schedule at all by the Act of Parliament. This change affected them very greatly in Salford. In the course of the year before last, there were in the Sal-ford cattle market 3,243 American cattle, and last year there were 6,254. The means of transit had so greatly improved that he believed that in the course of time Salford cattle market would be very largely supplied by American cattle. Then why did the Government propose to level down the American cattle, and put them into the Schedule? The proper thing to do would be to level up the other cattle, and put them on the same footing as that on which American cattle were put when the Bill left the House of Lords.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that as he had not taken part in the debates on this Bill,

  421
  he might be permitted to offer a few remarks, especially as he was a Member of the Committee which sat last year, in whose deliberations he had taken somewhat of an active part. He had listened with the greatest attention to the observations of his hon. Friends the Members for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he confessed that, Free Trader as he was, he could not agree with their arguments. He did not believe that the provisions of the Bill would ultimately affect the importation of cattle from healthy countries; and, so far from the principles of Free Trade being infringed, he looked upon those provisions merely as a matter of police and sanitary regulation with respect to the cattle after they had been imported. The Bill was an experiment. When they found that the agriculturists of this country were willing to submit to considerable restrictions for the purpose of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth now existing, he thought it was only fair and reasonable that regulations should be imposed with respect to the import of foreign cattle, so as to prevent the introduction of disease into the country. When the Report was under consideration, it was clear that the majority of the Committee were in favour of the total exclusion alive of cattle from certain countries; and he ventured to submit a more moderate proposal in the interests of all parties—namely, that they should admit cattle from all countries, but that they should be slaughtered on debarkation, and he made an exception in favour of the United States and Canada. His proposal was ultimately rejected by the agricultural Members of the Committee, who affected to think it simply monstrous. He must say, in justice to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, that when he (Mr. Norwood) proposed his Motion simply as a compromise, based upon the understanding that the agriculturists should submit to bonâ fide restrictions, his right hon. Friend said—" I think you are going too far in the way of concession; but if it insures unanimity in the Committee, I shall not oppose." Notwithstanding the concession made by his right hon. Friend, the agricultural Members were so determined to carry their views to the full extent, that they voted against a scheme which their Party was glad to accept in the House of Lords,
  422
  and with respect to which still further concessions had been made in this House. He did not think slaughter at the ports of debarkation would have any permanent effect in increasing the price of food. Until the regulations of trade were fully understood there might be some small advance in price, because there might be some little hesitation at first in sending foreign cattle to this country, subject to any restrictions at all; but that difficulty would soon vanish, and. he thought the controversy ought now to cease by the acceptance of what he, for one, thought a most fair and reasonable compromise.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the speech to which they had just listened was, in part, a reply to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone), who advised the Committee not to make of this question a Party cry. He thought it must be perfectly evident that it would not be either possible or expedient to make a Party cry of a matter upon which it was evident that the Party itself was divided. In this matter, for instance, he continued to differ from the opinions of many of those with whom he generally acted. As far as he knew, no hon. Members below the Gangway had ever imputed to the Government or their supporters any design or desire to raise the price of meat. He could not conceive the imputation of so much wickedness—for it would be nothing short of it—being made in that House. All that was said by the hon. Members to whom he referred—and they believed it —was that, in their opinion, a rise in the price of meat would be the result of this legislation, and particularly of the Bill as originally drawn. He had no intention to go into a lengthy discussion of the principles of Free Trade; and he was perfectly willing to accept the analogy set up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) between restrictions against disease and quarantine. In quarantine regulations, the presumption was always in favour of the healthy subject, and not, as in this case, against it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough referred to a case in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford prevented the landing on our shores of a crew among whom Asiatic cholera had broken out; but the right

  423
  hon. Gentleman did not, from a fear of Asiatic cholera, decree that no one from any country should come to this country, unless he could prove himself absolutely free from disease. Yet that was the presumption in this Bill. The arguments which had been used appeared to him to be inconclusive, or to go very far beyond the conclusions; because it was said that the fact of cattle plague and other diseases having been imported in spite of the present restrictions, justified the particular distinction now proposed to be made. But let them take some recent cases of the outbreak of cattle plague. The change of presumption, which would still leave a discretion to the Privy Council, would not prevent the possible importation of cattle plague from a country in which its existence was not at the moment known, either to the Government of that country or to the Home Government. It was intended by the Privy Council to make exceptions in favour of such countries as, say, Denmark; but could it be said with absolute certainty at any moment that there was no case of pleuro-pneumonia in Denmark? And it must be remembered that a single case of disease existing there might be imported into this country, even when the presumption was against Denmark and other countries, as proposed by the Bill. If it was wished to preclude the possibility of this, they must go very far beyond, and do very much more than, what was now proposed. They must go back to the original principle of the Bill, and prohibit the entrance of any live stock inland. That was consistent and logical; but it was not done, because the supporters of the Bill could not persuade themselves or the country that any regulations of the kind could be imposed without raising the price of meat. When the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) argued that a dead meat trade would take the place of a live meat trade, the only tiling to be said in reference to such an opinion was that it ran entirely counter to all the evidence given before the Committee. He should be glad to believe, with his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, that the point at issue between them was only a small one. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) held the same opinion, and urged those who thought with him
  424
  (Mr. Chamberlain) to accept a compromise by making a concession. He, on the other hand, could not help thinking that the earnestness with which hon. Members opposite clung to this small point was due to an impression on their part that it might become a very important distinction, and it was perfectly evident that its importance depended upon the way in which it was interpreted by the present and future Privy Councils. If they were to be beaten, they would at least have called attention to the nature of the difference between them. The operation of the Act would be carefully watched, especially with regard to this important point of presumption; and they would have on record speeches to show that, at all events, when the Act passed, it was not intended that the presumption should operate against healthy cattle coming from healthy countries.
  MR. BELLsaid, he should be one of the last men to impugn the motives of those hon. Members who opposed the Bill, or of the Government and those who supported them. Certainly, he should not think for a moment of impugning the motives of his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone). The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) spoke of the Bill as an experiment. All legislation of this kind must necessarily have something of a more or less experimental character; because it was almost impossible to predict, with any degree of certainty, what the effect of such legislation might be on the trade of the country. He would, therefore, ask whether the present time was a very appropriate one in which to commence a course of experimental research into a question of this kind? In his opinion, the country was never less fitted than now for the making experiments of such a nature. Owing to the high price of food in this country, the workpeople were very ill able to purchase a sufficiency of it to enable them to discharge efficiently their labours. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that compulsory slaughter at the ports of debarkation must increase the price of meat; but this was not the limit of the evil. If the importation of meat to this country was restricted in any way, to that extent a bar was put upon the exportation from those coun-

  425
  tries which supplied us. If there was one thing more conspicuous than another, it was, that as the prices of animal food and the other necessaries of life in foreign countries were low, wages were low also; and at the other end of the scale the two facts, relatively, were observable. When in Belgium butcher-meat could be obtained at half its present price, the value of labour corresponded with that factor. In the year 1825, the entire earnings of a miner in Prance were only £15 a-year, and he was within the mark in saying that at that time the price of meat was not more than one-third of its present price. Now, however, that the price of food had risen to double its value at the time of which, he was speaking, they found miners in the same district where they once earned £15 a-year, now earning as much as £45. The effect, therefore, of preventing a free export of cattle from foreign countries upon the wages paid in those countries would be to depreciate them, and so to have a tremendous effect upon our power to compete with those countries in the markets of the world.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTpointed out that Parliament was about to make a fundamental change with regard to the law of trade in cattle, and yet nobody was to be a gainer by it. The presumption of law was that cattle were to be excluded; but the discretion vested in the Privy Council was to remain as before. With a hungry people—and they were very likely, from time to time, to have a very hungry people in this country—the Privy Council would be obliged to use its discretion wisely, and to admit from foreign countries cattle that were free from disease. Therefore, as there would practically be no change in the policy of the Privy Council, he saw no reason for making this change in the law. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in thinking that the hon. Members for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had not made out a case in support of their views. He, on the other hand, thought they had made out a very strong case; and he thought, further, that the time at which the Government had imposed tremendous responsibilities upon the country was not the one at which anything should be done to shake, in the
  426
  slightest degree, the great fabric of Free Trade.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, it seemed to be assumed that, if this Bill passed, the quantity of cattle bred and fattened at home would increase. That might be true; but it was also true that they had already at home a larger number of both population and cattle than the natural products of the country could support. The farmers had, in order to fatten their stock, to buy large quantities of oilcake, Indian corn, and other materials from abroad, notwithstanding the high prices paid for beef. There were, as a general rule, losses by the transaction. It must also be borne in mind that if Parliament passed an Act which would have the effect of injuring the trade of the country generally, the masses of the people would have no money, or very little, to spend in the purchase of beef, no matter how much of it was produced at home. He remembered very well the time when the Welsh mutton could be bought at 2½d.. per lb. As for the dead meat trade, he could not approve it; and he did not believe that the people generally would approve it. Dead meat, imported from abroad, generally meant bad meat; and he felt sure that the majority of those who ate it once would be careful not to eat it a second time. The Government had already made several large concessions, and he hoped they would not refuse this last small one which was asked.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the question had been thoroughly thrashed out; and, therefore, he should say nothing in reply. At the same time, he wished to say that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) seemed to be labouring under a misconception in regard to his course concerning the Bill.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he could not have made himself clear when speaking a short time back. What he meant then to say was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said he should not oppose his proposal, if he found the Committee in its favour. When it was found that some Members of the Committee were dead against it, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford became a perfectly free agent, and had since acted in perfect consistency with his position.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 111: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 242.)
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not propose to move the Amendment on the clause which stood upon the Paper in his name.
  Clause agreed to.
  Expenses of Local Authorities.
  Clause A (Expenses out of local rate) agreed to.
  Clause B (Relief of boroughs from contribution to county expenses).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill had considered the point raised by the Amendment he was now about to propose to the clause. It was as follows:—In new Clause B, to follow Clause 43, page 21, line 16, after "(2)" to insert the following words:—
  " The local authority of the Metropolis shall be exempt from contributing towards the expenses under this Act of the local authorities of the counties within which the Metropolis is situated," &c.
  His impression was that some such Amendment was necessary, the words of his Amendment being exactly those which it had been found necessary to insert in the Highways Bill, in order to exempt the local authority of the Metropolis from contributing towards the expenses of that Bill.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that the hon. Baronet would see that the Amendment he proposed was unnecessary. The Amendment, of which the hon. Baronet had given Notice, would treat the Metropolis as though it were a borough within a county; whereas the Metropolis had never been treated on that footing. The Metropolis was a distinct and separate local authority, and no county rate had ever been levied within it; and, therefore, it occupied a very different position from a borough within a county. He was informed by the best authority that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was quite unnecessary; and, therefore, he could not give his assent to its being introduced into the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that of course he was not qualified to
  428
  give an opinion adverse to that of lawyers; but the Committee would recollect that an Amendment precisely similar to his own had been introduced into the Highways Bill for the purpose of exempting the Metropolis from being compelled to contribute to the expenses to Be incurred under the provisions of that Bill. The fact was that the Metropolis did contribute to the county rate. Although there was a distinct clause in the Highways Bill providing that it should not apply to the Metropolis, it was nevertheless found necessary to insert words of this character, in order to exempt the Metropolis from the 'operation of the provisions of the Bill, as far as taxation was concerned.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that, in his opinion, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was really required in order to exempt the Metropolis from the operation of this clause; and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Baronet who had charge of the measure would not object to adopt it. In any case, the insertion of the Amendment could do no harm; and it, therefore, would be wise to accept it, in order to remove any doubt on the subject.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he could not allow surplusage words to be inserted unnecessarily into the Bill, because they might lead to many misconceptions and difficulties. He had been informed by the best authority that there would be no liability on the part of the Metropolis to contribute to the rates to be levied under this measure. The Metropolis occupied the position of being a separate and distinct authority, and all rates levied within it were applicable solely to its own purposes. He must, therefore, ask the Committee to decline to insert in the Bill an Amendment which had been brought forward not in pursuance of a legal opinion, but merely to gratify an idea.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Committee were left in a very unhappy position with regard to this Amendment. They ought to have had either the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board himself, or of the Law Officers of the Crown, whose duty it was to assist them in questions of legal difficulty with regard to the

  429
  necessity for this Amendment. Here, unfortunately, was the fact that the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill had stated, upon the strength of the information that he had received, that the Metropolis was not liable, in any case, to contribute towards the county rates; whereas he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) knew that such was not the case. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), had asserted that the Amendment was absolutely necessary to prevent the Metropolis being compelled to contribute to the rates to be levied under the Bill; and, in these circumstances, the Committee were entitled to have some more reliable legal opinion upon the effect of the measure than they had yet had. He wished to impress upon the Committee the fact that, although a clause in the Highways Bill expressly declared that the provisions of the measure should not apply to the Metropolis, yet it had been found necessary to insert a clause expressly exempting the Metropolis from contributing to the rates to be levied under it. That clause had not been inserted in the Bill as mere surplusage, but as a matter of necessity; and, therefore, he asked the Committee to support him in pressing his Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he rose in order to save time, which was being wasted in what appeared to be a useless discussion. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) evidently believed that he was doing right in pressing his Amendment, and the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill clearly was of a different opinion. He did not think that the objection of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to the Amendment was satisfactory, and as he appeared to think that the Amendment, if introduced into the Bill, would be mere surplusage, it could do no harm to insert them for the present; and if, after due consideration, it was found to be unnecessary, it could be struck out upon the Report.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it appeared to him, on the contrary, that the best plan would be to bring up the Amendment again upon the Report, if it was found to be necessary. He had been informed most distinctly by a high authority that the
  430
  Amendment was unnecessary. In those circumstances, he must oppose the Amendment, leaving it to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to bring it up upon the Report, if he should still be of opinion that it was desirable to insert it. In the meantime, however, he would take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he did not think that the Committee ought to be asked to decide this question upon a mere suggestion from a particular Government Department. They ought to have had the legal opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown before they were required to give a decision upon the point. It appeared to him that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was perfectly right in insisting upon his Amendment; because, unless some words of this kind were inserted in the clause, the Metropolis might be liable to contribute to the rates to be levied under the provisions of the Bill. He based his opinion upon the necessity there appeared to him to exist for inserting some special words, which would exempt the Metropolis from being rated under this measure. He should, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that the City of London was a county within itself, but that was not the case of the Metropolis; and he was afraid that if this Amendment were not agreed to, those parts of the Metropolis which were within counties would be liable to the county rate, to be levied under the provisions of the Bill. If the hon. Baronet who had charge of the measure were to agree to insert the Amendment for the time being, he might consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, and, if necessary, move to strike the words out on the Report.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that naturally he had no wish in the least to do anything but what was right by the Bill, and that he was perfectly willing to consult the Law Officers of the Crown upon the point if necessary, and to bring up the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) upon the Report, if, in their opinion, it was necessary for the protection of the Metropolis that the words should be inserted in the clause.

  431
  He could assure the ton. Baronet that he was only guided in the matter by the information—the very positive and distinct information—that he had received from the draftsman of the Bill, that the Amendment was not necessary, and that it would be mere surplusage if inserted in the clause. He must, therefore, repeat that he should be most happy to consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, and to leave the matter as it stood until the Report.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had just sent down for the Highways Bill, and on looking into it, it appeared to him to be a precisely similar case to the present. The clause in that Bill stated, most distinctly that no part of the measure was to apply to the Metropolis—and it must be remembered that the Bill under discussion contained no such provision—and yet, in the face of that clause, it had been found necessary to insert words identical with his Amendment, in order to exempt the Metropolis from contributing to the county rates levied under it. When application was made to the Local Government Board on the point, it was said they knew that the Metropolis would be liable to be charged under the Highways Bill, and they intended that it should be; and it was only after considerable pressure was brought to bear on them that they consented that the Metropolis should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and that the words of his Amendment should be introduced into the Bill. And yet the hon. Baronet in charge of the present Bill had told the Committee that no county rate could be levied on the Metropolis. He maintained that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in his view of the matter, and his opinion was supported by that of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. In these circumstances, he felt bound to take the opinion of the Committee upon the matter, and must press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. A. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he must ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to be a little careful on this point; because his Amendment, if adopted, might have an effect which he did not contemplate. If words of exemption were inserted in the Bill, it might hereafter be held that Statutes in which they were not found
  432
  applied to the Metropolis, and that it was, therefore, liable to contribute to rates not now levied within its area.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Canterbury referred had already arisen; because, as he had over and over again pointed out, the words of his Amendment had already been inserted in the Highways Bill; and if they were not introduced into the present measure, that fact might be used as an argument to show that the Legislature intended that the Metropolis should be liable to be charged under the Bill.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that on referring to the 2nd Schedule of the Bill, he found that there the Metropolis was specially exempted from the operation of the Bill; and, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea was unnecessary.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill appeared to think that the Metropolis was a county in itself, just as the City of London was. Having himself helped the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) to bring in a Bill to make the Metropolis a county, he could assure the hon. Baronet that it was not a county at present. Seeing that whoever had informed the Secretary to the Treasury was entirely wrong upon the point, he did not think that the Committee would be much inclined to place reliance upon the information which he had received from the same quarter upon other matters connected with the subject.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment; because, he should be very sorry if, after having done so, it should subsequently turn out that the Amendment was necessary, and that he had been misinformed on the point. He must, however, state distinctly that if, on consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, he was advised that the words proposed to be inserted were unnecessary, he would move their rejection on the Report. In answer to what had just fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), he wished to say that he was solely responsible for the assertion that the Metropolis was a county in itself, and that he had not been

  433
  informed that such, was the case by the draftsmen of the Bill. What he had been informed was, that this Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea treated the Metropolis as though it were a borough within a county, which it certainly was not.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped that the hon. Baronet would not be satisfied, if he were told that the Schedule made the matter sufficiently clear; because the Committee should be very suspicious of legislating by Schedules, instead of placing the matter beyond all doubt by a distinct provision in the enacting part of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, as an Amendment, in new Clause B, to follow Clause 43, page 21, line 19, after "shall," to insert "in such case."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must ask the hon. Baronet whether the Amendment was really necessary?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not wish to press the Amendment if the hon. Baronet thought it was unnecessary; and, therefore, he should ask for leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause C (Outstanding rates) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Borrowing by Local Authorities.
  Clause D (Power for local authority to borrow).
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that he had the following Amendment to move in the clause:—In page 21, line 40, after the word "to," to insert the words "any period not exceeding." He begged to move the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had no objection to the insertion of the words.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he had a further Amendment to propose in the same
  434
  clause which was in the same line, to leave out the words "or less."
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. STAFFORD HOWARDmoved to insert a new clause after Clause 9, as follows:—
  (Notice to be given of disease.)
  "Upon any animal becoming affected with disease, the owner or the person in charge shall immediately report the fact to the local Inspector, or such other person as the Privy Council may by General Order direct.
  "If the owner or person in charge of an animal so affected fails to give such notice within reasonable time after the outbreak of the disease, he shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the Justices before whom he is charged that he did not know of the same being so affected, and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge."
  The object of the Clause was to impose a penalty on persons who might wilfully conceal or omit to give notice of an outbreak of disease. In Clause 30, Subsection i., the Privy Council might, from time to time, make Orders for prescribing for and regulating the notice of disease. Parliament aimed at stamping out disease, and it seemed to him the most important step in the process was to discover disease as soon as it broke out. In this view, the insertion of some such clause as he proposed was most necessary. He did not at all wish to interfere with the discretion of the Privy Council, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to think, when he (Mr. Stafford Howard) raised the question on Clause 30; but he thought it most important that every man who had cattle, or who was in charge of cattle, should know that he was bound by law and not merely by the Order of the Privy Council, to give notice of disease the moment it broke out.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Committee not to accept the clause. It raised a question which had always been left to be dealt with by Orders under Act of Parliament, instead of by the Act itself. There was an advantage in leaving these Orders to the discretion of the Privy Council, because they could vary their Orders according to

  435
  the necessities of a particular case. In the event of an outbreak of cattle plague, the ordinary notice would not suffice. The provisions of Clause 30 were ample to meet the necessities of the case. The clause proposed by the hon. Member would probably be evaded in this way. An owner would say—"I am not convinced that the animal is sick," or, " it is not to my mind diseased; " and thus time would be lost, whereas Clause 30 required that notice of any illness should be given to the Privy Council. The Privy Council Orders were enforced by the 54th clause, which made it an offence against the Act to violate them; so that, with the 30th and 54th clauses, there was absolute certainty that the required notice not only of disease, but of illness would be obtained.
  MR. CHAPLINhoped the clause would be withdrawn, in favour of one to be proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), which he thought would meet the views of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stafford Howard).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had been certainly inclined to support the hon. Member in this clause; but the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury tended to show that Clause 30 gave all necessary powers. He, therefore, advised the hon. Member to withdraw the clause for the present, and to bring it forward again on Report, if, upon consideration, he found that his views were not sufficiently met by Clause 30. He believed there was a unanimous feeling on both sides of the House that there should be a clause requiring notice of disease.
  MR. CLARE READagreed that it was necessary to have a clause of some kind providing for notice, and that there should be a statutable penalty for omitting to give notice of disease. The argument of the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to him to be an argument against any clause appearing in the Bill. He (Mr. Clare Read) did not wish to construct a form of notice; but he contended that the Bill ought to provide for notice being given to the Inspector or police constable in the neighbourhood. If the Act of Parliament said that notice must be given, there would be no possibility of people excusing themselves by saying they had not read the Orders in Council.
  THE O'CONOR DONdid not know if it were right to discuss at that moment the Amendment given Notice of by the hon. Member who had just spoken; but if it were, he would say that it seemed to him not advisable to put such a clause in the Statute. A man might have cattle infected, and unless he were skilled, be perfectly innocent of the fact; and yet he would, under this clause, be liable to a penalty. He preferred the Bill as it stood. He denied that an Act of Parliament was more likely to be known by every individual farmer than an Order of the Privy Council.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it appeared to him that a provision in an Act of Parliament would have greater publicity and produce more effect upon the public mind than an Order in Council. Ho would, therefore, prefer to see a provision as to notice incorporated in the Act; but he thought the proposed clause defective in two respects. First, it required that notice should be given to the Inspector, who might live at a considerable distance from the premises on which the disease broke out. It would be better to provide that notice should be given to the constable who was generally accessible. Secondly, it was doubtful whether the clause would, as it stood, include horses in its operation. It would be well to withdraw the clause, and take the discussion on the one to be subsequently proposed.
  MR. STAFFORD HOWARDsaid, he only wished to see it laid down by the Act that every owner should be bound to give notice of disease. He would gladly withdraw his clause in favour of that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STAFFORD HOWARDmoved to insert the following clause:—
  "If any person exposes in a market or fair, or other public place, where horses or animals are commonly exposed for sale, or exposes for sale in any sale yard, whether public or private, or places in a lair or other place adjacent to or connected with a market or fair, or where horses or animals are commonly placed before exposure for sale, or sends or causes to be carried on a railway, or on a canal, river, or other inland navigation, or on a coasting vessel, or carries, leads, drives, or causes to be carried, led, or driven on a highway or thoroughfare any horse or animal affected with a contagious or infectious disease, he shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he shows to the satis-

  437
  faction of the justices before whom he is charged that he did not know of the same being so affected, and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge."
  The object of the clause was to impose a penalty on persons wilfully exposing diseased animals in public places. It could not be objected to the clause that it did not form part of the Act of 1869, for he had copied it from that Act. It seemed to him that the best mode of preventing the outbreak of disease in markets was to impose a severe penalty on the persons who wilfully and knowingly drove diseased animals about, and to and from public places. As the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had laid great stress on the fact that the Bill was, to a great extent, a re-enacting measure, he hoped the clause would be accepted.
  Clause (Horse or animal affected with a contagious disease exposed for sale,)— (Mr. Stafford Howard,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, " That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was sorry to disappoint the hon. Member by asking the Committee not to agree to the clause. His objection was that it was now proposed to deal by Statute with parts of a subject that had been dealt with under the old Act by Order. The hon. Member, in proposing to enact a portion of the Order framed under the Act of 1869, left out other important portions of the clause in that Act dealing with the subject. In Sub-sections ix., x., xi., of Clause 30, there were ample instructions as to the Orders which were to issue. Seeing that the Privy Council had ample power to issue Orders to the effect of the proposed clause, and would undoubtly issue such Orders; and seeing that Clause 54 provided penalties for the infringement of the Privy Council Orders, there could be no want of security for the carrying out of the hon. Member's object. The Privy Council would have the power of enlarging the scope of their Orders to suit cases that arose if the Bill were left in its present shape; and he, therefore, hoped the clause would not be accepted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the insertion of the clause would make the
  438
  general public aware of the law, and would, at any rate, insure some minimum regulation. The Secretary to the Treasury said that the Privy Council would undoubtedly issue Orders; but, though it was expected that they would, it was not so absolutely certain that the desired provision would be made, as it would be if it was actually inserted in the Act. There was nothing in the proposal to insert this clause inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and it would be a mistake to allow people who read the Act to see that it was without an important provision that appeared in the previous Acts.
  MR. SYNANthought the clause would provide for cases in respect to which no Order was issued by the Privy Council. He saw no objection to the clause, provided it were amended by the insertion of the words "wilfully and knowingly;" because he apprehended that a man might expose an animal in a fair, and not know that it was infected. This clause would actually subject a man to punishment, unless he showed to the satisfaction of the justices that he was innocent. Now, a man was not bound to prove his process. His guilt ought to be proved; and he never knew of a clause creating an offence that did not also state that the offence should be wilfully and knowingly committed.
  MR. M'LAGANpreferred the clause as it stood. It was said that the prosecution should make out a man's guilt. But the possession of the diseased animal would prove him guilty, unless he proved that he did not know it was diseased.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreferred the Committee to Clause 26, already passed, and warned the Committee that if they adopted this clause, the whole framework of the Bill would be altered.
  MR. ANDERSONmaintained that the whole principle of the Bill was to leave the presumption against the cattle in the first place, and against the owner in the second. Unless that were otherwise altered, he thought the Amendment quite consistent with the Bill, and he would support the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) if he went to a division.
  THE O'CONOR DONcould not understand how hon. Members could hold that the provisions of a Statute would be

  439
  better known than Orders in Council which would be published in the local newspapers. He hoped the Government would not accept the clause.
  MR. PELL,while appreciating the excellent motive of the proposer of the clause, deemed it exceedingly imperfect, and thought it would tend to mislead people as to the extent of the law.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that a clause in an Act of Parliament would be held in greater reverence than any Departmental Order; and a clause of this nature, which existed in the Act of 1869, could not do harm, but would strengthen the Act.
  MR. GORSTthought the clause inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which was to give powers to the Privy Council, and to trust to that body to make regulations. The Committee must either pass a Bill in which the whole of the intended regulations should be expressed, or leave it to the Privy Council to exercise the powers intrusted to them of making regulations and carrying them into effect. The insertion of this clause would tend to make the Bill a measure of patchwork.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the circumstances contemplated by the clause proposed to be introduced into the Bill, were provided for by the wording of the 54th clause already decided upon. The making of regulations of this kind came within the powers conferred by the Bill upon the Privy Council, with whom the matter should be allowed to rest. He pointed out, besides, that the clause proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) rather unfairly upset the whole drafting of the 54th clause, which, if the alteration were made, would have to be re-submitted.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINconsidered the reply of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, to the effect that the Privy Council should be trusted to do all that was necessary for the suppression of disease, somewhat inconsistent with the observations he had made a few minutes previously with reference to the clause, when he spoke of laches on the part of the Privy Council. He (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that if that body were to be trusted at all, it should be as little as possible. In his opinion, it was certainly desirable, whenever it became proper to define an
  440
  offence which might be committed against an Act of Parliament, that the subject should not be left to be decided by Orders in Council which might be already a great deal too numerous. He reminded the Committee that in past years the conduct of the Privy Council in this respect had not been altogether satisfactory. Again and again had disease been spread throughout the country in consequence of the exposure of infected cattle at fairs and other places. He had been informed of the case of a dealer who, failing to get rid of a number of infected animals at one place, had actually taken them, with all their contaminating influences, to no less than three fairs in Ireland. The offence, one of the most serious that could be committed, was perfectly easy of definition, and should form part of their statutory enactment. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) would press his clause, and, if necessary, divide the Committee upon the question.
  MR. ANDERSONremarked, in reply to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), to the effect that the clause was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, that they had been told at the beginning of the debate, that as the Privy Council had not done and could not do their duty with respect to cattle diseases, a new Bill was required to enable them to do it. Hon. Members on his side of the House had endeavoured to make the Bill more effective in that direction than it was in its original form, but were now told that they would not be allowed to do so. The clause proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) was to be regarded as an instruction and guide to the Privy Council, in the very matter in which it was alleged they had not done their duty, and he, therefore, hoped it would be pressed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 187: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 243.)
  MR. CLARE READ, in moving to insert, after Clause 29, in page 12, the following new Clause:—
  "Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal (including a horse)

  441
  affected with a contagious or infectious disease shall, as far as practicable, keep that animal separate from animals not so affected, and shall, with all practicable speed, give notice of the animal being so affected to the Inspector or to the police constable of the district where the animal is.
  "The constable shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Inspector of the local authority, and the Inspector shall forthwith report the same to the local authority and to the Privy Council,"
  said, that although he was not at all wedded to the words of the Amendment, which were taken from an Order in Council that had existed in very much the same form for the last 12 years, he trusted the proposed clause would meet with the sanction of the Committee; and if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would say that he would, on the Report, introduce words embodying the principle that there should be a statutory obligation on the part of the owner of a diseased animal to give notice of the fact, he should be very well content.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the same objection applied to this clause as to the previous clause just decided against—namely, that it was at variance with the scheme of the Bill, which was that the Privy Council should possess the power of making as many Orders in Council, beyond those specified by the Act, as might appear necessary for dealing with cases of the kind indicated by the Amendment. Every publicity with regard to disease was insured by the powers given to the Privy Council in the 30th clause—
  ''for prescribing and regulating the notice of disease, or of the illness of an animal, to be given to or by any person or authority;''
  and he ventured to think that, although by adopting the Amendment then before the Committee, the giving of such notice would be made a statutory obligation, its effect might be found to be in direct opposition to the very principle sought to be enacted. Beyond that, if the Amendment were agreed to, its application must necessarily be restricted by the actual wording of the Act; while if the subject were left to be dealt with by an Order in Council, the words of such Order could, when necessary, be varied and made more explicit. The Committee would see that by this means far more real restriction would be placed on diseased cattle than by the new clause, as suggested by his hon. Friend. Again,
  442
  a man who was not quite certain that his animal was diseased, would probably keep it for some time to make sure, before giving notice; but, under an Order in Council, he would be obliged to give notice at once, and was subject to a penalty for not doing so. It was clear, therefore, that if the Orders in Council were made as public in the district in which they were to be enforced as the Bill required, the Committee had a security for notice being given, and attention being called to the existence and outbreak of disease, which went far beyond the fixed words that would be put in the Statute if the Amendment were accepted. He hoped his hon. Friend would see that an attempt had been made to meet the cases at which he and the Committee were aiming, in a way that he ventured to consider preferable to the insertion of the proposed clause. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the form in which the Bill was drawn.
  MR. ANDERSONwas sorry that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had not accepted the clause; because he understood that the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. S. Howard) had withdrawn his Amendment, which was of a similar character, in favour of that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the Committee that he had said he should resist the present clause on the part of the Government.
  MR. ANDERSONwould be justified in saying there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of the clause of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, who had withdrawn his clause to make way for that under discussion.
  MR. CHAPLINregretted that the Amendment, to which he thought great importance attached, would not be accepted. He could not follow his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) on to his ground of objection that the clause interfered with the general scheme of the Bill. So far from that being the case, it would, in his opinion, work with the Bill, by providing security against the outbreak and spread of disease, in addition to the other restrictions contained in the measure and the Orders which might be issued by the Privy Council. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: The Privy Council might vary their

  443
  Orders.] That was precisely one of those things which it was not desirable to vary. They wanted to impose on people who had reason to suppose that an outbreak of disease had occurred among animals in their possession, the necessity of telling the nearest constable that such was the case. There was another point to which he would for a moment call the attention of the Committee. There were certain outbreaks which would not always come under the notice of the Privy Council. During the last few months a very serious disease had prevailed among horses belonging to the large breeding studs in the neighbourhood of London, and a frightful epidemic, which he believed to be pleuro-pneumonia, and contagious, had existed in the breeding establishments at the Royal Park, Middle Park, and at Hampton Court. The losses incurred had been very heavy, and amounted, in one case, to 40 foals out of a stud of 70. There was nothing to impose on these establishments, in which there were horses of very great value, the necessity of giving information. The consequence had been' that the mares had spread the disease all over the country on their return home. He could speak from his own knowledge that people in Yorkshire had lost many thousands of pounds, which would have been saved if the owners had been under the obligation of declaring the outbreak of disease at the time it was first discovered. He hoped the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be accepted by the Government; if not, he was prepared to vote for it on division.
  MR. SYNANagreed with the opinion that the clause was in no way inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. He could not, however, vote for the clause, unless the word "knowingly" were inserted in it, because a man might have in his possession a diseased animal without knowing it; and because, if the word were not inserted then, in the case of his afterwards moving its introduction, he might not succeed with his Amendment.
  MR. PELLsaw some objection to the Amendment, on the ground that it destroyed the completeness of the Bill; but the clause was a very important one, and he suggested that it should be added at the end of Clause 54, where it could not interfere with the drafting, so
  444
  as to provide that every person having in his possession, and under his charge, animals infected with disease, should be bound, under the Act, to give notice thereof.
  MR. M'LAGANpointed out that it was absolutely necessary to insert the word "knowingly" in the clause. In the case of the disease called glanders, for example, there were many persons who did not know what it was. Within his own knowledge, a glandered horse had been treated during six months for influenza; and, in another case, a veterinary surgeon decided that a horse was not glandered, when the animal was actually suffering from that disease.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, it was very necessary to insert the clause he proposed in the Bill. At present, the Privy Council could issue Orders to the same effect, and anyone disobeying those Orders was really disobeying the law. Therefore, those who opposed his Motion ought to have known that hitherto the principle of it, in an Order of the Privy Council, was law, and if they objected to it, they ought to have raised the question before. He would accept the word "knowingly," which it had been suggested he should add to his clause, and he would willingly bring the matter up on Report; but, at the same time, he wished to have an intimation from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, as to whether he would allow the principle of his clause to be embodied in the Bill.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must impress upon the Committee the fact that Orders of the Privy Council formed part of the measure, and, therefore, they were the law. It was because he wished to meet cases mentioned in the clause of the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) by an Order of the Privy Council, and not by any part of the Statute, that he asked the Committee not to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. What had been done in the past by the Privy Council they might guarantee would be done in the future. They had been trusted in the past, and had, as his hon. Friend admitted, made Orders which had the effect of law. Yet now, his hon. Friend asked them to destroy the whole framework of the Bill, by inserting a clause to provide for a thing which the Privy Council might accomplish by an Order.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the reason his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) brought forward the clause was, because it was very well known that in many cases people, who well knew what they were about, had evaded the Order, and failed to give notice of disease. It was that each individual might be warned that he had to give notice as soon as possible of the existence of disease, that the clause had been proposed. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to consider carefully the statements which had been made to the Committee, for he believed the object that the hon. Member for South Norfolk had in view could be inserted in the Bill without affecting any of its other provisions. He believed that no Order of the Privy Council would have that effect, and that the only way to meet the case was to have a clause in the Bill by which it could be publicly known that a heavy penalty would be inflicted on persons who failed to give notice of disease.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there was that power in the Bill as it stood. Under the 54th section, it was an offence to evade any Order of the Privy Council. Power was taken in the Bill to make public, through the local newspapers, every Order in Council which was issued; and, therefore, there would be that publicity in every locality, the want of which was now complained of. Under those circumstances, he believed the Bill effected all that his hon. and gallant Friend wished.
  MR. W E. FORSTERsaid, he was compelled to ask a question before the division, which was probable, was taken. He did not wish to move to report Progress, although if he had to do so he would. He wanted to know when the Bill would be taken again?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Government proposed to take it at the Evening Sitting, in order to avoid the necessity of a Morning Sitting on Saturday.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in that case, he must propose his Motion to report Progress. At the beginning of that Sitting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House, most distinctly stated that if the Bill was not carried at that Sitting there would be a Morning Sitting on Saturday. At the Evening Sitting that night there would
  446
  very likely be a long debate on the affairs of South Africa. Considering the importance of the Cattle Bill, he did not think it was at all fair to ask the House to go on considering it at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and he did not think the promoters of the Bill would gain anything by the attempt. He reminded the Committee that if it was distinctly stated that a Bill, if not carried at one Sitting, should be taken the next day, it was contrary to all precedent to depart from such an engagement.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must remind the Committee of what had been inferred by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. It was, that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was acting apart from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had done nothing of the sort. He had stated that the Bill would be taken again that evening, in consequence of a communication from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He certainly should not have ventured to reverse the decision of the Leader of the House in a matter of so much importance.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had not made any charge against the Secretary to the Treasury. All he had said was that it was contrary to precedent to do that which, at the beginning of the Sitting, the Leader of the House said should not be done.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhad not understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any definite statement. He understood him to say he would defer his decision until the close of the Sitting.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, there was a wide-spread impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did use the words to the effect that the Bill would be proceeded with on Saturday morning. Under those circumstances, he thought it might be well to report Progress, with leave to sit again.
  MR. J. COWENreminded the House that many hon. Members were engaged in it until between 3 and

  447
  4 o'clock that morning; and he thought it a most unreasonable thing to put an important Bill down for that evening, when it certainly could not be considered until after midnight. That being so, he hoped the Government would stand by the implied arrangement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, a most important part of the Cattle Bill remained to be discussed, and the Government actually proposed to take it at 3 or 4 in the morning. He pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fairness of abiding by what he said at the beginning of the Sitting.
  THE O'DONOGHUEdenied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made any definite statement, beyond saying that he should state what he intended doing before 7 o'clock.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know the Question before the Committee.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had moved to report Progress, in order to know when the Bill would be taken again, and, to his surprise, the Secretary to the Treasury had replied that night. He (Mr. Forster) had said he understood there would be important Business to be taken that night on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and that therefore the Cattle Bill could not come on before midnight, and he reminded the House that there was still very important matter to be considered in the Bill. He had also referred to the statements of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the beginning of the Sitting, which certainly gave him and many other hon. Members the impression that if the Bill was not concluded that day it would be taken on Saturday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when he made that statement, he did not mean if the Bill was not finished at the Morning Sitting only, but at the two Sittings, as he thought it probable that it might come on in the evening. But he understood, from what he gathered in different parts of the Committee, that it would be very distasteful to have a Morning Sitting, and that they would rather go on that night. He had been told that they would be able to take the Bill that evening. Of course, when the House reached it that evening, they could decide whether they
  448
  would go on; but at present he did not propose to fix a Morning Sitting for Saturday.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the proposal for a Morning Sitting on Saturday was made with the view of promoting another Bill which was being forced on at the risk of losing a very important measure, in which all the people of Ireland were interested—the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill. In forcing on that other Bill—the Irish Sunday Closing Bill—in the place of this more important measure, hon. Members did a most dangerous thing, and they would bring upon themselves an inquiry, if not censure, from the people of Ireland.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell the Committee that he would not take the Cattle Bill that night, because it could not possibly be reached before 12.30. Not only were there Motions on going into Committee of Supply, but a large number of Bills were down for that night; and, therefore, the Government would really gain nothing by putting the Bill down. Although they might go through the clauses, they could not possibly take the Schedules, as there was a good deal of debatable matter in them. Then there was the question as to the form which the Government Amendments relating to the slaughter of foreign cattle would take; and although he hoped they would arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on those Amendments, and come to a compromise, still the agreement to such a compromise must be preceded by a considerable amount of discussion. It must be apparent to all that it would be impossible to take the discussion at 3 o'clock in the morning. He could assure the Irish Members in the House that in taking an active interest in that Bill he had no desire to obstruct either of the two Bills relating to Ireland, both of which had been alluded to. They had no idea of opposing the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, or the Intermediate Education Bill; and, as regarded the latter, he supported its policy, and would do nothing to prevent its passing.
  MR. SYNAN, as a honest supporter of the Cattle Bill from the beginning, felt it rather hard to be kept up until 3 or 4 o'clock discussing the clauses. He preferred very much continuing the discussion at a Morning Sitting on Sa-

  449
  turday. He believed if there was a Morning Sitting on Saturday the Bill would be passed.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the difficulty could be got over if private Members who had Motions on the Paper would give way, and let Government take the Bill directly the Evening Sitting commenced. He was one who had a Motion down, but he would freely give way. Such a course would be much better than sitting on Saturday, when certain proceedings might be taken which would carry on the Sitting even on Sunday.
  THE O'CONOR DONcertainly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say at the beginning of the afternoon that there would be a Morning Sitting on Saturday, irrespective of the Cattle Bill; and, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned other measures to be taken at the Sitting. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had been told that if there was such a Sitting, a Bill not at present before the House might come on; and, that being so, it was quite apparent why the proposal, which had been made quite irrespective of the Cattle Bill, had been abandoned. The real fact was that the right hon. Gentleman was afraid if there was a Morning Sitting, a Bill might come on, in which the majority of the House took a deep interest.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that what his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don) had said was perfectly true. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say there would be a Morning Sitting to take the Cattle Bill, if it was not finished, and also to take other Bills.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that at the beginning of the Sitting he contemplated a Sitting of the House on Saturday; but, at the same time, he said he must reserve any decision upon the matter. Since then, he had ascertained that it would, under all the circumstances, be inconvenient to a very large proportion of hon. Members to sit on Saturday; and, with reference to what the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not flinch from what he had said. It was perfectly true that if there was a Morning Sitting on Saturday, other Business besides that appointed by the Government would probably be taken, and that had something to do with his not asking
  450
  the House to meet. He did this, not out of any antagonism to the Bill which many were desirous to discuss—and he thought he had shown himself ready to help on the Bill—but because there was a difference between asking the House to meet on Saturday for the purpose of getting through Government Business, which might occupy two or three hours, and asking the House to meet for the purpose of taking Business which, as they knew very well, was likely to last for a great number of hours. He declined to fix a Saturday Sitting for the convenience of the House; and when he had to look at the convenience of the House, that certainly was an important consideration.
  Question put, and agreed, to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE (RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS) BILL.
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Secretary Colonel Stanley, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  [BILL 169.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill re-committed, in respect of an Amendment to Clause 2; considered in Committee, and Amendment made.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MAJOR NOLANasked the effect of the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty; was it to limit the retirements to the officers receiving £425 a-year, instead of £400 a-year?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the effect of the Amendment was rather to make the scope of the Bill a little wider.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BISHOPRICS BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 197.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross.)

  COMMITTEE POSTPONED.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSfixed the Committee on the Bill for Monday next.
  MR. J. COWENobjected to the Bill being put down for Monday, when the right hon. Gentleman must know it could not be taken. It had already been put down on at least a dozen days when it could not be taken.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he knew very well the Bill could not be taken on Monday, and he only put it down as a matter of form.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock..

ORDERS OF THE BAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

COLONY OF NATAL —ADMINISTRATION OF NATIVE AFFAIRS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN M'ARTHUR, in rising to call the attention of the House to the administration of Native affairs in the Colony of Natal; and to move—
  "That this House strongly condemns the policy of the Local Government of Natal in employing the machinery of British Courts in that Colony for the purpose of legalising polygamy and validating and enforcing native usages which recognise rights of property in women and children; and this House is of opinion that measures should at once be taken to promote the civilization of the native tribes, and to facilitate their withdrawal from the savage state, and recommends the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the subject,"
  said, he would assume, as the basis of his argument, that the House, acting in accordance with its best traditions, was determined, not only to discourage, but to oppose slavery in all its forms; and that, whether Cyprus or Natal were in question, the British Parliament was resolved that the British flag should continue to be, as it had been for nearly half-a-century, the symbol of freedom to the slave and down-trodden races of the world. "Wherever England had planted her Colonies, she bad given
  452
  them her institutions, throwing over the Native Tribes the shield of protection, and elevating them in the scale of humanity. Natal, however, although a British Colony, was an exception to the general rule. He did not ignore the difficulties which had to be encountered in that Colony, which swarmed with a semi-barbarous race. He did not ask the Government to engage in a Quixotic crusade against the Tribal system; for he believed that the best way to put an end to existing evils, arising from that system, was to educate and civilize the Native Tribes, giving their barbarous customs no countenance under English law. In the Colony there was a population of 350,000 or 400,000 souls, while the European settlers numbered considerably less than 20,000. The disproportion would at once strike hon. Members as being so great that it could hardly fail to prevent Natal, which occupied an area not larger than Wales, from ever becoming a White man's Colony. The Natives would always enjoy a large numerical preponderance, and it depended upon us whether that preponderance became an element of safety and progress in South Africa, or whether it involved us in danger and discredit. For 30 years Native policy in Natal had been determined and controlled by the will of one man. He would be sorry to ignore the fact that Sir Theophilus Shepstone had acquired enormous influence over the Natives, and had generally managed to preserve the peace of the Colony. It was to the credit of Sir Theophilus Shepstone that he had commanded the respect of the Natives for his authority; but still it could not be said that merely personal influence of this kind would insure security for the future. The loyalty of the Kaffir would be little worth to this country, unless it was attached by ties far stronger than the simple prestige of an individual officer of the Crown. The complaint he wished to make against Native policy in Natal was that, with the exception of those Natives who had come under missionary influence, the Kaffir locations were now very much what they had been 30 years ago. There were districts in which barbarism was segregrated, and where civilization, except by the punishment of offences against Native law, was not allowed to enter. The Natal Govern-

  453
  ment evidently thought that if it could secure the peace of the country, suppressing or punishing cattle-stealing and like offences, it had discharged the obligations of a good and orderly government as far as the Natives were concerned. To that policy he (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur) entirely demurred. The Natives still lived, as they did in 1848, in clans; their Chiefs in grass huts; uneducated, and unable to communicate with the superior Chief except by verbal messages, they constituted more a heathen than a Christian Colony. What were the causes which had operated to perpetuate that unhappy state of things? The first was the continuance of the Native law, which was, for the most part, oral. There was no written code to which a magistrate could refer. Lord Carnarvon had established, more than two years ago, a Native High Court, presided over by English Judges, which, by reviewing the decisions of the magistrates, had acted as a check upon the local Courts; but an alteration of mere procedure did not necessarily improve the law itself, which was neither more nor less than the will of the Chiefs; and, unfortunately, the new High Court had served only to crystallize and to give permanence and the highest sanction of British authority to some of the worst customs of the Natives. One of these was polygamy, which involved woman slavery. Formerly, polygamy among the Zulus was generally confined to a privileged class— to Chiefs and other head men; but he had the authority of Mr. Akerman, a distinguished Member of the Natal Council, for the statement that the Natal authorities had permitted the practice among all orders of the people. The number of registered marriages under Law No. 1, of 1869, up to June 30, 1875, was returned as follows:—2,225 Natives had registered the purchase of the second wife; 818 the purchase of the third; 343 of the fourth; 156 of the fifth; 80 of the sixth; 45 of the seventh; and so on, two having registered a 24th wife. It was monstrous that polygamy should be recognized, and that the code of Utah should be grafted into the legal procedure of a British Colony. Practically, no Native marriage in Natal was legal, unless the ceremony took place with the heathen rites of the Natives, and thus the taint
  454
  of illegitimacy rested upon Kaffir children whose parents had been married by a lawfully-appointed minister of the Christian religion; and the law, as administered by English magistrates and Judges, was dragging women and children, in certain cases, back into the darkness of heathendom. But the charge against Native law was even of a graver character. All the Native female population of Natal lived in a state of unquestionable slavery, being bought, sold, inherited, and their price recovered by law, like any other property. Although this practice of selling women like cattle could not be put down at once, yet he contended that it ought to be discountenanced by the English Government and receive no sanction from British Courts or officials. But this course had not been adopted so recently as the 14th of November last. In September of last year, a Native of Natal, named Charlie Dingeswaya, surrendered his property for the benefit of his creditors, and the sole asset was the price which he believed his infant daughter would fetch when she was married— namely, £50. A large proportion of the eases in the Courts related to the sale of women; and questions of property of this kind had often to be settled by evidence as to the sale of mothers, and even of grandmothers. The matter was made worse by the fact that civilized Natives found it difficult to obtain any advantage from the Law 28 of 1865, ostensibly passed to enable them to acquire the privileges of British subjects. In several cases, where Natives had applied for certificates of citizenship, and had fulfilled the conditions of the law, interminable delays took place, as if to wear out the patience of the applicants. Some of these cases were brought before the right hon. Gentleman who so worthily represented the Colonies in the House, and—thanks to his prompt interference—the Petitions of several of these Natives had, according to the statement of the Native Government Gazette, been complied with. The Law in question contained no less than 38 clauses, which made it so complicated that it was almost impossible for a Kaffir to avail himself of it; and, therefore, he thought the best means of putting an end to, or at all events greatly mitigating, the evils arising from that and from the Native law, might

  455
  properly be made the subject of investigation by the Commission which he desired Her Majesty's Government to appoint. There were other questions besides those mentioned which he would like to have considered by a Commission. The Natives of Natal contributed largely to the taxation of the country. He believed the quota paid by the Kaffirs amounted to upwards of £60,000; and this sum was collected without difficulty. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies to inform the House how much, in return for that large contribution to the Revenue, was expended on educational agencies or works of public improvement in the Native districts? The Kaffirs, as taxpayers, were entitled to more consideration than they at present received at the hands of their Rulers. There were a few mission stations in Natal; but the efforts of the missionaries could not be expected to be attended with much success until the Government changed its policy and took up the question, and established industrial and other schools in the Native districts. If the Government provided the Natives with extensive facilities of an educational character, the expenditure, regarded simply as an investment, would yield a very large interest. The Kaffirs were an intelligent and improving people; they were not a race ever likely to die out, and they had real capacity for civilization. But, in order to develop that capacity, it was necessary that we should become their teachers, as the Basutos had been taught by the missionaries. The Reports of Mr. Griffith, the British Resident in Basutoland, showed that, under the guidance of the missionaries, the Natives had made immense progress in the industrial arts. One of the missionaries, Mr. Dyke, had stated that 20,000 Basutos were under the direct influence of Christianity. The House would remark the fact that, while the Basutos were large exporters of wool and grain, they were, in return, good customers and traders of our merchants. In fact, it was becoming a very valuable Colony, and if it got fair play it would take up a very good position. Another matter to which attention should be specially directed was the tenure of land. A Committee of Members of the Colonial Legislature had inquired into this subject, and had made some most
  456
  important suggestions, which had been transmitted to the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which, if adopted, would lead to the most beneficial and valuable results. They recommended that the Kaffirs should be given possession of lands in a form more binding than the permissive occupation under which they had held them, and should thus be led to feel that they had a real and permanent interest in the well-being of the Colony, and were no longer dependent upon the will of their Chiefs. That course had also been recommended by Sir Benjamin Pyne. But, in order to insure the success of any enterprize, peace was necessary, especially in the neighbouring territory of Zululand. Many persons were apprehensive that war would break out between ourselves and the Zulus in consequence of our having inherited a boundary dispute from the Boers. It was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to ignore the rights of the Zulus, or the fact that when the Boers ruled the Transvaal we had regarded their title to the disputed land as one which we could not support. We could afford to be just and even generous to the Zulus, and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies would be both. It was of such vital importance that our relations with the Zulus should be placed on a permanently satisfactory footing, that a Commission might well inquire into this important subject. Our past policy had been very injurious and required to be changed. Great Britain could gain no glory for victories over uneducated and savage tribes; her glory ought to be to raise, educate, and confer upon them the blessings of freedom and Christianity, and thus to make them happy and prosperous; they would thus be made the means of carrying those blessings into the interior of Africa. He, therefore, begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTON,in seconding the Motion, said, that looking at the Cape as one of the most promising of the English Colonies, he did not think a discussion on this subject would be waste of time. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur), that polygamy was one of the most serious defects in the life

  457
  of the Colony, and that the condition of the Native women called for some consideration from the Government, for they were nothing but slaves. That fact, combined with their having a money value, being worth from £5 to £500, obliged the young men to resort to robbery and violence to obtain wives, and that was the root of most of the Native wars. The last war at the Cape was undertaken, in the words of the younger Natives, "to make widows," so that they might be able to possess the women they so ardently desired for wives. Owing to the serious events of the last few years, the mind of England had been too much distracted to pay due regard to the importance of our South African Colonies; but he trusted that would cease to be the case now that peace was settled. He was informed that the Cape Colonies were capable of maintaining a population of 40,000,000 of people; and in these days of rapid increase of population, it must be of immense importance to England to have such a Colony so near to her shores. The minerals at the Cape embraced almost every description known. There were coal in abundance, silver, gold, copper, and the diamond fields. He would rather that this debate had not been started until the House was in possession of the Report of the Colonial Inspector. Railways were all important to the proper working of the enormous quantity of land in South Africa that had fallen into the hands of the Government, and he hoped they would facilitate the construction of railways in the Colonies by means of guarantees. A railway from Delagoa Bay was contemplated, and it was of the highest importance to this country to obtain possession of that place and harbour from the Portuguese Government, which Government, he had been told, were willing to negotiate for its transfer. Natal was, indeed, a possession of immense importance to us; it was, he believed, destined to become one of the brightest gems in the British Crown, and would, no doubt, prove a great outlet for that emigration which was so necessary to the people of these Islands.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " this House strongly condemns the policy of
  458
  the Local Government of Natal in employing the machinery of British Courts in that Colony for the purpose of legalising polygamy and validating and enforcing Native usages which recognise rights of property in women and children; and this House is of opinion that measures should at once be taken to promote the civilization of the native tribes, and to facilitate their withdrawal from the savage state, and recommends the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the subject,"—(Mr. Alderman M'Arthur,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. JAMES, who had upon the Paper a Notice, as an Amendment to Mr. Alderman M'Arthur's Amendment, to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the question of native law in Natal should he dealt with in connection with the general policy to be carried out towards the native tribes in South Africa, and that for this purpose a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject,"
  said, that he had no desire to oppose the Motion; but this question relating to Natal was only part of a very large subject that ought to be brought before Parliament. Comparatively little attention had been given to South Africa, and he thought, therefore, that before Parliament separated, they had a right to require some statement from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the war which had broken out in Cape Colony. He was anxious to submit to the House an account of the state of our South African Colonies, and he thought there was matter for serious consideration in the fact that the Government of Cape Colony had shown itself most incapable of administering the affairs of the Colony, and the consequence of their action had driven those who took an interest in South Africa almost to despair. The result of this incompetent government had been disastrous both for the Colonists and for the Natives, a system of filibustering and marauding having been encouraged which had produced results which he scarcely dared to contemplate. The Kaffirs were the most numerous and most thriving part of the Colony of Natal, and, to secure their allegiance, it was necessary to show them that England did not go forth

  459
  merely for the purposes of territorial aggrandizement, and for the spreading of grog and gunpowder; but for the introduction of better systems of administrations and the adoption of social reforms. They should also be taught that the real wealth of the country consisted in the produce of the soil. The Native population should be treated not only with kindness, but with justice and uniformity. Ho thought, between the Imperial and Colonial Legislatures, they might do much to promote education among the Aborigines. He wished to know, now that the Transvaal had been annexed, what steps Government were going to take for the improvement of the various races in the countries it was proposed to confederate? It was most important that efforts should be put forward without delay to educate the children, and develop that peculiar mechanical power which was so remarkable amongst these people. He would suggest, that for this purpose, industrial schools should be established throughout the Colony, and the work of education should be undertaken by the Legislature, either Imperial or Colonial, instead of being confined to missionary societies and voluntary efforts. There was no wiser mode of bringing about a reconciliation than to do something for their industrial improvement, keeping in mind the peculiarity of the Native, and the character of the South African race. Now that the war had been nearly suppressed, he wished to know what steps the Colonial Legislature were prepared to take in order to punish those who had broken out in revolt? He hoped, as regarded any indemnity, whatever steps might be taken, they would not be punished by either the confiscation of their lands or flocks. They should be compelled, however, to disarm. The Tribal tenure of land should also be broken up. The present Tribal system was one under which the Kaffirs were entirely in the hands of their Chiefs, and were prevented from pursuing peaceful arts. He asked the Government to state that, whenever an opportunity occurred, that system should be broken up. The uncontrolled existence of the liquor traffic among the Natives was a great evil, and the more so because of the vile liquors that were sold, and the prevalence of adulteration with fusel oil, tobacco, and vitriol. The proposal to introduce a
  460
  brandy tax was strongly resisted by those interested. Some degree of responsibility might, perhaps, be secured by restricting canteen licences to those who kept bonâ fide hotels. Many brawls and disturbances, that had led to difficulty, had resulted from liquor shops being frequented by Chiefs and their supporters. Whatever differences of opinion might exist in the House with respect to the licensing system, there could be no doubt that in Natal canteens had been, and still were, the curse of the country; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary what steps Government intended to take in the matter? This House was involved in great responsibility to South Africa, where we had annexed more territory than anywhere else, except Australia. The late war broke out in October, and on the 13th of November it was announced that applications would be received for the settlement of the confiscated Crown lands. Surely, it would be better to do something to improve the industry of a population of nearly 2,000,000 than to carry on a war at a cost of nearly £100,000 a-month? The Report of Mr. Ashley, brother of the hon. Member for Poole, showed that improved administration and better locomotion would increase the produce of the land a hundred-fold. The question of what ought to be done might very well be relegated to a Commission, as had been done in the case of Demerara and the Mauritius, unless the matter were left to Sir Bartle Frere, who had been in the country two years, and than whom no one was better qualified to obtain the required information. There was a grand future before the South African race, and, while identifying our prestige with that future, we ought to do our best to secure equality and justice in matters of local administration as between Blacks and Whites.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that, agreeing as he did with much that had been said by the last speaker, and heartily desiring to see the Natives of South Africa civilized and placed on a footing of equality with the Whites, he desired to recall the attention of the House to the question immediately before it. The proposal of the Mover of the Resolution was confined to Natal; but the Amendment of the last speaker was that there should be a Commission

  461
  for the whole of South Africa. There was no precedent for a roving Commission of that kind. Jamaica was a Crown Colony in which there had been an outbreak, and a Commission was sent there for a special purpose. The Commissions to the Mauritius and British Guiana had special reference to the treatment of Coolies, and were appointed on behalf of the Government of East India, with the assent of the Colonial Governments, the continuance of the Coolie emigration depending upon the Reports of the Commissions. This assent distinguished those cases from the present proposal. In Natal there was a representative Government, a certain number of Members being elected to the Assembly; and at the Cape there was a purely responsible Government, so that it would be a most unusual proceeding to send a Commission there. The appointment of a Royal Commission now would be inopportune. It would certainly excite disaffection in the minds of the Natives, and it was impossible to avoid considering that there existed at the Cape at this moment a great jealousy of interference on the part of the Imperial Government. This feeling would materially tend to weaken the effect of the Commission, and to hamper its proceedings. As regarded Natal, there had been no disturbance except the Langalibalele outbreak, of which the circumstances were very special; and, considering the enormous majority of Natives over the Whites, we could not shut our eyes to the fact that the Natives had been well treated, for otherwise it was quite certain they would long before have risen against the Whites. Owing to the judicious conduct of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and the non-interference with the Native laws, the Natives had been quite peaceable and contented. No doubt, it was desirable that they should be more civilized; but he believed there had already been a considerable advance in civilization, and that the Colonial Governments were alive to the importance of advancing still further in that direction. What was a Royal Commission to do? As to the Native laws, no new light could be thrown on that subject. As to Colonial laws affecting the Natives, these all came before the Colonial Office for careful consideration. It was true that the Commission might suggest that there should be further means of educa-
  462
  tion, but that could be done equally well by the Colonial Office. He failed to perceive, therefore, what good a roving Commission, with no special purpose, as in the case of British Guiana and the Mauritius, could be expected to effect. It would excite the Natives and really do mischief, instead of good. Lastly, he would observe that the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth were extremely unfair to the Colony of Natal, when it asserted that they employed the machinery of British Courts for the purpose of legalizing polygamy, and validating and enforcing Native usages which recognized rights of property in women and children. In point of fact, they did nothing more than secure to the Natives a just administration of their own Native laws. We, ourselves, objected to polygamy; but it was not so long ago that it was recognized by virtuous people quite as good as ourselves. If, then, the Natives professed polygamy, it would be very unwise for us to interfere in order to put an end to their Native laws on this subject. It would be impolitic and dangerous to force our English laws and higher code of morality upon them, except by degrees and with great care. He did not think anyone who had thoroughly watched over the Colony, as those had done who had been at the Colonial Office, could doubt that the Natives knew they would in the Courts of Law have the same rights dealt out to them as the Whites had. He really believed that, to appoint a roving Commission of this kind would be a great mistake, and would lead to mischief which the House was hardly in a position to realize.
  MR. E. JENKINS, in supporting the Motion, remarked, that if, at that moment, there existed in Natal a state of things which was a blot on our escutcheon, it was owing to the manner in which we had established a large Native emigration there. We had positively, through a long series of years, under the able management of one individual, created and organized a vast Tribal system out of the emigration into the Colony. There appeared to exist a state of feeling between the Colonists and the Natives which demanded the interposition of Her Majesty's Government. Of that there was abundant evidence in the official despatches. At present, we were not in a position to

  463
  generalize on the facts as regarded South Africa, the views of different men being so various that it was most difficult to arrive at a just conclusion. A Commission of Inquiry, therefore, would probably be productive of good results. Apart from the cruelties perpetrated by the irregular troops, and the fact that looting was recognized as a regular part of warfare, he found that the Legislature proposed to confiscate the lands of the Native Chiefs, Sandilli, and others. Sir Bartle Frere, to his honour, protested energetically against such a measure; but the fact that it was proposed illustrated the spirit in which the Colonists looked on these questions, and proved the necessity of holding a strong hand over them. For his own part, he thought a policy of kindness should be adopted with the Natives, and among the necessary reforms for the improvement of the Colony which he would suggest were those—1st, the gradual supersession of the arbitrary power of the Native Chiefs by British, not Colonial, magistrates; 2nd, the establishment of individual, instead of Tribal tenure; 3rd, that there should be an entire suppression of the sale of intoxicating drinks in the Native districts; and, 4th, the immediate abrogation, by force if necessary, of the laws relating to the sale of women. He believed the inquiry, if granted, would yield much important, and, perhaps, unexpected, information, and that it would tend to avert the dangers and difficulties which appeared to be in store for us in South Africa.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsubmitted that this was a subject on which much information was still wanting even inside the Colonial Office itself, and that it was one, moreover, which had an important bearing on our Colonial relations. He admitted that it would be a mistake to send a Commission of Inquiry to Cape Colony, where there was an established Government. The case, however, was different with regard to Natal, which was a Crown Colony; and he saw no objection to a Commission whose specific object should be to consider what ought to be the policy of the future with regard to the Native Tribes. One of the first reforms to be effected, he believed, was the breaking up of the "locations" or congregations of Kaffirs living in a state of original barbarism; but the question was, how that was to be effected. It
  464
  was difficult to form an idea of the amount of evil which these " locations " fostered. The only civilizing influence in them at present appeared to be polygamy, as nothing was so great an inducement to a Kaffir to go out to work as the prospect of being able to buy another wife. As for the administration of Native law by British magistrates, no doubt it presented very great difficulty; but the real danger in discontinuing that practice would be that of throwing the Natives back on their Chiefs. The feeling that bound them to their Chiefs was well illustrated by the fact that Sir Arthur Cunynghame had offered in vain 1,000 head of cattle for information as to the whereabouts of Kreli, who was known to be in the neighbourhood. If we had to administer the Native laws, the question arose how we were to treat laws repugnant to our feelings. The answer was that all such laws and customs would have to be much modified; and although it could not be done immediately, he thought it was quite possible to gradually bring the Native law into harmony with our ideas of civilization, especially when it was remembered that the people themselves were pliant and docile. In one district, the mere introduction of the plough had had the happiest effects on the local industry, as the men thought it not derogatory to their dignity to use the iron instruments, and so far relieved the women of their usual drudgery. He would only repeat that he knew no reason why such a Commission of Inquiry as was proposed should have any detrimental results; and whilst, as a rule, he thought no greater mistake could be committed than for the Colonial Office to interfere too much in the internal affairs of the . Colonies, he was nevertheless of opinion that a Commission of Inquiry in this case would be of great assistance to Sir Bartle Frere in bringing to bear public opinion in favour of the measures of civilization which he was desirous to promote. Nothing of real importance could, however, be done until the powers of the Chiefs was broken down and the Natives were taught the habit of work. Another very serious question was that of the franchise. On the one hand, its extension as far as possible was desirable per se; and, on the other, care would have to be taken not to let the Natives get the upper hand of the Colonists. That,

  465
  and all other questions, could be some day settled when the great capabilities of the Colony had been fully developed.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that as the subject before the House was the Natal marriage law, which did not exist at the Cape, it would be somewhat irregular that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the latter Colony. It was also too much to say that a Commission of Inquiry was justifiable when its sole object was to provide cheap labour for a British Colony, and that it could not be allowed when the end to be attained was the removal of a blot upon our rule and of a danger to the Colony. The main fact to be borne in mind was that, under present circumstances, a woman in Natal was always the property of some man; and thus, when women came to be of a marriageable or disposable age, they were taken away from, any employment in which they might be engaged, and sold by the men to the highest bidders. He had heard of cases in which a girl, brought up and educated in an Englishman's household, was claimed by a male Kaffir and sold as his property. This extended to more than merely civil relations. Instances were on record in which, when crimes were committed against women, they were held to be no crimes, because the women were the property of the men by whom the crimes had been committed. It was said that when British rule was extended to Colonies, respect must be paid to the Native customs; and that, therefore, polygamy could not be at once, at any rate, abolished in Natal. He quite admitted the force of the argument or suggestion; but it must not be forgotten that, although we acknowledged the general principle in India, we had abolished suttee in that Dependency of the Crown. Having, then, abolished that dreadful custom, why should we not deal in the same way with the custom of woman-ownership, with its consequential polygamy in this case? The general question of appointing a Royal Commission of Inquiry was one which might be regarded from several points of view. The practical advantage of sending out a Royal Commission was that the Commissioners could see with their own eyes, take evidence, consult with the authorities, and, perhaps, suggest many things which might be hidden from persons here. There was one prin-
  466
  ciple, at all events, which we might lay down—that, in the case of adults, there should be some sort of consent required on the part of the woman before becoming a wife. It might also be found possible to make the payment for a marriage licence progressively increase in second, third, and subsequent marriages. Again, we ought, by all means, to facilitate the transition of any woman who wished to go out from the Native system and put herself under our law. We had an Act on that subject already; but it was too complicated, and every sort of impediment had been thrown in the way of the Natives who wished to emancipate themselves from the law under which they lived. He did not think there need be any fear of irritating the Natives by such a policy. The Natives, on the whole, were content to live under our rule; they knew its advantages, and there were very many who wished to remove from the operation of the Native and come under the operation of the English law. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies was going to assent to the proposal; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to urge on the Government of Natal to suggest some system by which this woman slavery—so horrible, so repulsive, so degrading, and in its fruits so full of danger to the Colony —might be ameliorated, if not altogether removed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that though the difficulties in the case were considerable, and such as we had not attempted to solve, yet the responsibility rested with us. It was a question which might fairly be considered whether a Royal Commission was the best way of dealing with the subject. He maintained that we had not yet given sufficient attention to the solution of the South African question, that the Confederation Bill had dealt with the question only from a European point of view, and not with reference to the Native inhabitants of the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) succeeded at 3 o'clock in the morning in introducing some clauses tending to give justice to the Native population; but nothing adequate to the requirements of the case appeared in the measure. Remembering that polygamy was permitted

  467
  and practised among five-sixths of Her Majesty's subjects, it would be difficult, and perhaps not expedient, to prohibit it in South Africa. As to the question of woman slavery, that practice was one which ought not to be tolerated either under the sanction of English laws, or by the operation of Native law. He doubted, however, whether the facts that had been stated amounted to slavery. If the payment of money in consideration of marriage amounted to slavery, we had something very like slavery in this country. It was a fair subject of inquiry whether slavery existed; but his view being that the terms of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur's) Motion were not such as they should agree to, and that the question was not confined to the Colony of Natal, but was a South African question, he should infinitely prefer the proposal that stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), who suggested a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the position of the Natives and the Native law in South Africa. It seemed to him (Sir George Campbell) that this subject involved a question of the broadest kind —What was the nature of the Government we should establish in South Africa? The Government of India was a type under which Natives and Europeans were subjected to British rule. That government was intelligible, and, he thought, tolerably successful. There wore other kinds of government. In Australia we had given the Colonies complete self-government, and reduced British authority to a minimum. But there were other Colonies of an intermediate character, where there was partly a European community and partly a Native community. In respect to intermediate government, he did not think the Colonial Office had been successful. He was inclined to think that the great question as to what sort of government should be established in South Africa might best be dealt with by a Royal Commission of the highest character. Sir Bartle Frere had been involved in very great administrative difficulties, and it was scarcely possible for one man, in the face of those difficulties, to be able to deal sufficiently with the matter. The Royal Commission, he thought, should include Sir Bartle Frere and those other able men who had considered the South African question.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No one can be surprised that the discussion of this evening should have travelled over a wide field. Important as the Native question in Natal may be, it is obviously inseparable from the larger question affecting the Natives in all the South African Colonies. And this subject occupies nowhere else the important and peculiar position that it occupies in South Africa; for there, perhaps, alone among the Colonies of the world, the White race and the Native race have prospered and increased side by side. While we admit that there is much in the present condition of Native affairs that needs improvement, it ought to be remembered—for hardly sufficient stress has been laid on this point to-night —that it is, at all events, something to the credit of English colonization and English humanity that in Natal and in the Cape Colony also, the Native race has not in the process of that colonization disappeared through the influence of civilization or whisky; but has been able to live alongside, and to increase and multiply even faster than, their White neighbours. All will agree with the hon. Member for Lambeth that measures should be taken to promote the civilization of the Native tribes, and to facilitate their withdrawal from the savage state; but, as has been observed, there are other statements in the Motion which cannot command the same assent. It contains assertions of opinion and concludes with a recommendation to which it is impossible that the Government can accede. It proposes strongly to condemn the policy of the local Government of Natal as employing the machinery of British Courts in that Colony for the purpose of legalizing polygamy, and validating and enforcing Native usages which recognize rights of property in women and children. We cannot accept this as a fair statement of the facts of the case. No doubt, Native law is recognized by the British Courts in Natal; but it must be remembered that over a large portion of our Indian Empire laws are recognized of the precise character of those which are deprecated in the Motion. It must be admitted that in dealing with such matters we can only act gradually. In our endeavour to bring to the Native races under our control the benefits of an improved

  469
  civilization, we must gain their own support, and avoid such premature action as might enlist their prejudices against us. What has been the state of things in the Colony of Natal? The Native population there is largely in excess of the White population. Before 1873 the Native population of that Colony was only nominally governed by White authority. The Natives were left in their locations under the control of their own Chiefs, and were, practically, not interfered with by the Colonial Government. They were subject entirely to Native law, administered by their own Chiefs. It was found that this was a state of things, not only objectionable in itself, but positively dangerous to the Colony and to the whole of South Africa. Measures were taken to reverse that policy; to abolish, as far as might be, the Tribal organizations which existed, and to substitute for them the authority of White magistrates, who should decide cases and entertain appeals from the Native Chiefs. That was the first step which was taken; and, in taking it, I think it is clear that it was absolutely necessary to recognize Native law. We could not at once abolish all the Native laws and customs, and substitute for them White laws and customs; but we took an important step in endeavouring to substitute the authority of White magistrates for the Tribal organizations which have been so universally condemned this evening. What followed? A Law was passed by the Legislature of Natal, enacting that the Native law should be investigated by a Commission, reduced to writing, and carefully amended where necessary to bring it into harmony with civilized customs. The Commission was appointed, I think, in 1876, and not long afterwards those troubles began in South Africa, which, I fear, have not yet concluded. Some of the Members of the Commission had to leave their work to render still more important service in the Transvaal; and naturally, in the disturbed condition of affairs, the Government of Natal found it impossible to give that undivided and persistent attention to the subject which it might give in time of peace. Some weeks ago, a despatch was written, by my directions, to the Governor of Natal, calling his attention to the work of the Commission, and suggesting that if he thought it neces-
  470
  sary other gentlemen should be appointed in the place of those who had Been removed, and asking for a Report of what had been done. Our first step must be to ascertain what the Native law is, and the next step, I hope, will be carefully to amend that law in those particulars where it requires amendment, so as to introduce the benefits of civilization by degrees among a population who have hitherto been unaccustomed to them, and to introduce them in such a manner as to induce the Natives to work with us rather than against us. The hon. Member for Lambeth has complained that the Natives are unable to transfer themselves from the jurisdiction of Native to that of Colonial law. Endeavours have been made by Statute to facilitate that process; but the difficulty is that the Natives prefer their own law to a law of which they are ignorant. Any such transfer must, therefore, be gradual and even slow; and the point to which our attention will most usefully be directed is the harmonizing, as far as possible, of the Native law with civilized ideas. I cannot admit that anything that has been done can fairly be described in the words of the Motion as an employment of the machinery of British Courts for the purpose of legalizing polygamy and validating and enforcing Native usages. The rule is that all matters in dispute between Natives living under Native law shall be tried according to the provisions of the Native laws for the time being prevailing, so far as the same shall not be of a nature to work manifest injustice or repugnant to the settled principles of natural equity. This was as far as it was safe to go at the time the provision was made. I admit that having begun to move in this direction w e should endeavour, as soon as possible, to bring our work to a satisfactory conclusion. But I am utterly unable to see what good a Royal Commission can do. It can give no further information with regard to Native customs than we have. Many of these customs may be objectionable, as some Native customs in India are objectionable; but a Royal Commission could not abolish them, nor in any way change them; and it might, on the other hand, create irritation and awake prejudices both amongst the Colonists and amongst the Natives, which would, in reality, retard the work

  471
  we all desire to see accomplished. If that is true with regard to Natal, much more is it the case with regard to Cape Colony. This is the time of all others when an apparent interference of the Imperial Government with the responsible Government of Cape Colony might produce disastrous results. A Commission sent to inquire into questions of such difficulty, delicacy, and importance, as the Native question in a Colony possessing responsible government could, scarcely at any time do good; but, under present circumstances, it would do infinite mischief. In Sir Bartle Frere we have, at the Cape, a Governor who is better than any Commissioner. He has dared to act, under very difficult circumstances, with a moral courage which few men would have displayed, and he has earned unanimous approval in this country and the confidence of the great majority of the people of the Colony. He has throughout these difficulties shown that high humanity and that regard for the Native races which everyone who knows him and his past history would expect from him. He has done, perhaps, more than could have been conceived possible to mitigate the horrors of the war, which, I hope, is now happily concluded, and to secure its conduct under proper regulations by the Forces engaged in it. He has devoted special attention, under a great pressure of other work, to this question of the future of the Native inhabitants of South Africa. The hon. Member for Gates-head (Mr. W. H. James), I believe, quoted some despatches of Sir Bartle Frere's; but I may venture, although at this late hour, in justice to Sir Bartle Frere, to read extracts from other despatches to the House, because I think it ought to be known not only what attention he has given to this subject, but how thoroughly his views in regard to it are in accordance with the views of some of those hon. Members who this night have argued in favour of a royal Commission to supersede him. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, what is the good of a Royal Commission, if you have confidence in him, and believe he will carry out what is desired? In a despatch of November 14th, 1877, addressed to my Predecessor (Lord Carnarvon), Sir Bartle Frere expresses his opinion that the agents employed by the Government in dealing with the
  472
  Natives should be energetic and trained officials. He states that the Tribal system was a great obstacle to improvement, and could be easily broken down, and the authority of the Government made to supersede that of the Chiefs; that while the Government could do little to bridge the gulf separating the White from the Black, it could do much to regulate the sale of liquor; and that, looking only to the interests of the Native population, it was of vast importance to uphold the character and support the power of the Imperial Government. Then, Sir, in a despatch of the 9th of January, written in reply to a letter from the Aborigines Protection Society, Sir Bartle Frere develops his own conclusions on the Native question. He recommends that the carrying of arms only used for inter-tribal warfare should be stopped; there should be a good police and good Native tribunals; individual property must be respected, and obstacles against the holding of it removed; education of every kind, but especially industrial education, must be encouraged, and educated Natives employed in places of trust. He says that nothing could do more to prevent future Kaffir wars than the extension of industrial education to agriculture. Well, Sir, I could quote much more of the same kind; but I think I have read enough to the House to show what Sir Bartle Frere's policy is, and how much it is in accordance with the views which have been expressed this evening, which cannot but strengthen his hands in bringing that policy into action. I have shown how entirely unnecessary it would be to substitute for Sir Bartle Frere anything in the nature of a Royal Commission. If it be that Sir Bartle Frere requires any assistance either from this country, or in the Colony itself, in order to carry out his policy, I can only say Her Majesty's Government will most cheerfully afford it; but I entirely deprecate any interference with him in the work which I believe he is doing so satisfactorily, and I trust nothing of the kind will be sanctioned by this House. Now, Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House much further. I am glad, so far as I am concerned, to express my hearty sympathy with much which has been said to-night. I cannot but think that,

  473
  however late in the Session this debate has taken place, it will not be without good effect both in England and South Africa. I trust that now, when this war, which has occupied the attention of all who have been connected with the Cape Colony, including Sir Bartle Frere himself, for so many months past, appears to be happily ended, no time will be lost in attempting to deal with this most important question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I agree in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the hands of the Government and also the Colonial Government will be strengthened by what has passed tonight. With very much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I entirely agree. I do not know that there is more than one remark to which I should take any objection, and I hope in that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. In alluding to the terms of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur) the right hon. Gentleman commenced by sympathizing with his object; but said that he went too far in advising that measures should at once be taken to declare polygamy illegal, and also the enforcement of Native usages which recognize rights of property in women and children. The words which I took down as used by the right hon. Gentleman in alluding to both these questions were that they were subjects which were recognized in our possessions in India. I think that is rather a mistake. Polygamy, undoubtedly, is recognized; but I do not think the slavery of women is recognized; and I shall be corrected if I am wrong in the statement. I can quite understand that there are enormous difficulties in the way of withholding from polygamy some sort of legal sanction; but I cannot imagine any hesitation in taking away legal sanction to anything approaching female slavery. I imagine, from the facts brought to my notice, that there is no doubt women slavery prevails to a great extent in Natal. I do not deny for a moment the enormous difficulty of dealing with it in this country; but I feel sure this House and the country, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, will not rest until we have done all we can, all that is possible to destroy it—in fact, that we shall not stop until we have succeeded in the effort. I confess I do not agree with the
  474
  hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that, by abolishing polygamy, we should be decreasing the population of South Africa.
  MR. COURTNEYwished to correct the right hon. Gentleman. He had not said anything of the kind.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I understood him to say that one good effect of stopping polygamy would be that there would not be so large an increase in the population. Such a thing, I do not think, will follow. It is a fact that the population increases very slowly in polygamous countries, and that the real increase in South Africa is not in consequence of polygamy, but because of the country coming under our rule of peace, order, and prosperity. I am sure there is no hesitation on the part of the Government to do what they can in the matters to which my hon. Friend has called attention. And now we come to the mode by which my hon. Friend proposes to effect his object. I confess I should think it a strong step to take to send out a Commission. I do not think it could go out merely as a Commission of Inquiry. It would have to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said, a strong Commission. If we were to have a Commission strong enough to do the business at all, it would have to be so strong as to to almost overshadow the Governor. It is possible that Sir Bartle Frere himself might wish such aid, and if he did, I understand the Government would seriously consider whether they would not meet that wish. But at this moment we are, in one respect, in a fortunate position with regard to this Colony. We have certainly, as the Governor of the principal Colony, a man whom we can entirely trust for motive, for sense, and for ability, in this most difficult matter. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think we might search the whole of our public servants, and with difficulty find any man who has that combination of feelings of justice and firmness of character which fits him to deal with this most difficult question. I do not know that the Government can do more than strengthen his hands as much as possible. I have no doubt that they will in their despatches, both to Sir Bartle Frere and the Governor of Natal, state that, although these are to a great extent

  475
  self-governing Colonies, yet England cannot give them the assistance we see they require, unless we are sure they act in perfect justice to the Black population. This question of the Native law is not exactly a question between Black and White. It is a question of difficult government of Blacks; and one of the great arguments which made me feel strongly in favour of doing what I could last year, towards the Confederation of the Cape Colonies, was the hope that a large Colony—the Cape Colony— would be able to materially assist in solving that question. That, again, is a reason why it might be a very dangerous step to send out from this country a Commission to override the authority at the Cape; and I do not think that ought to be done, except in a case of extreme necessity. The hon. Member for Grates-head alluded to some acts of injustice which he thinks have been committed in the Kaffir War. That has been the case hitherto with regard to all these wars; but I have the satisfaction of believing and trusting that there has been much less of that injustice in this war than in previous wars. I am not saying anything in palliation of what has been done; but anyone who has looked at the history of previous wars will, I think, find there is an improvement. But there is no reason why there should be any of those acts of outrage, and I do not believe the Government will allow them to be committed, if it is possible to prevent them. I am quite sure that Sir Bartle Frere, and I believe our other Representatives, will do the same. I think we can look for much more from Sir Bartle Frere and our other Representatives than from a Commission, by letting them feel they are fully supported not only by the Government at home, but by the public opinion of this country. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth will feel, after the manner in which he has been met by the Colonial Secretary, and the statement that the Colonial Office intends to do all it can to strengthen the hands of Sir Bartle Frere, that his object will be gained by withdrawing the Motion.
  MR. ALDERMAN M'ARTHURsaid, after the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies he would withdraw his Motion. He was aware that he had not got the right of reply; but in explana-
  476
  tion, he might say that he had not the slightest idea of reflecting in any way upon Sir Bartle Frere. On the contrary, he desired to strengthen his hands, and after the way in which the Colonial Secretary replied, he believed the debate would do good both in England and the Colonies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BREWERS' LICENCES.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN, in rising to call attention to the question of Brewers' Licences; and to move—
  "That licences to conduct recognised trades are unjust and impolitic in principle, and that the licence tax inflicted on the interests of the Brewers ought to be repealed whenever the state of the Revenue will permit the remission of taxation,"
  said, that in bringing forward the Motion, he was only actuated with a desire to remedy an injustice. He had always maintained that it was a mistake to tax any authorized or proper trade, and that this particular tax was vexatious and exceptional. From the many speeches on the subject by hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House, and notably by some Members of the Government, he was astonished that the subject had not yet been dealt with. The House would remember that in 1862, the duty upon hops was abolished; but in order to make up for the expected loss to the Revenue by the abolition of the duty, the tax was re-imposed on brewers. That was to say, that a man who brewed for sale, and not for his personal consumption, was taxed; while the man who brewed for his own consumption, or the consumption of his neighbours and friends, escaped taxation. The result was that the sale of beer as a trade was constantly diminishing, and as in the case of all taxes of the kind, the effect had been to give an advantage to the large producer to the detriment of the smaller one. The difference between the private brewer and the licensed brewer was very remarkable. In a few words, he would give a comparison between the licensed and private brewer, and the producer of cider and perry. The licensed brewer payed £113 6s. 8d. for 100 quarters of malt, which came to a taxation of 5s. 7¼d., in addition, of

  477
  course, to income-tax. The private brewer, on the contrary, paid but 1s. 4¼d. taxation. Then, beside this injury to trade, the licensed brewer was interfered with in the exercise of his industry by the Government supervising authorities. He had to give 24 hours' of his intention to brew, and two hours notice of the quantities of ingredients used. Then he had to pay his tax six months in advance, so that there was a direct levy out of capital, irrespective of private losses. In the case of a private brewer, he must buy his malt of a licensed maltster, and no other restriction was imposed. Home-brewed beer was used in part payment of wages to both in-door and out-door servants, and that was a matter of importance, seeing that the beer was brewed without a tax on the brewer. Then, in the case of cider, perry, and wines, there were no restrictions and no tax of any kind. As he was told the House was to be counted, he would move his Resolution without other words.
  MR. CLARE READseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "licences to conduct recognized trades are unjust and impolitic in principle, and that the licence tax inflicted on the interests of the Brewers ought to he repealed whenever the state of the Revenue will permit the remission of taxation,"—(Sir Edward Watkin,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not wish to appear neglectful of the important question to which the hon. Gentleman has directed our attention; but I must say I hardly expected we should be called, upon at this time of the Session, and considering the state of the Business of the House, to discuss a question of such importance as that which he has raised. I have more than once had occasion— once every year, I think—to discuss this matter, and the House has several times been called upon to pronounce an opinion upon the subject. I am afraid I cannot depart from the position which I have taken since we have been in
  478
  Office. I do not at all hold this or any other tax to be in itself a desirable thing, if we could do without it; but I do think there would be great difficulty in altering this system, and, at the present time, I do not see my way to making such an alteration. There are two difficult questions involved. One is, whether we can abandon the Revenue which is derived from the tax altogether, without any substitute? the other is, whether we can alter the incidence of the tax, so as to make it fall, instead of upon the brewer in the shape of a licence duty on the article he produces upon the article which he uses? You might possibly, no doubt, convert a licence duty into a malt duty, in order to get rid of the licence duty; or, on the other hand, you might do away with both the malt duty and the licence duty, and substitute for them a duty on beer. There is no doubt that, in argument, a great deal may be said for both of these propositions; but I think if anyone came to deal with the subject, he would find that either of them would involve him in very great difficulty, and would be more unpopular than the system which at present prevails. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the effect of this licence duty has been to drive out the small brewers; if driven out at all, it has been by competition with the large brewers, and in accordance with the natural law which operated in these cases. I do not think we have arrived at a time when it is possible to take away the duty.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought much might be urged in favour of the abstract proposition which had been urged by the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin); but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked, the evil which was complained of could only be met by a proposal which might prove more objectionable.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Intemperance.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Rending—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) * (174); Naval Discipline Amendment* (175).
Second Reading — Idiots, &c. (Ireland) (148); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (169).
Report—Corrib (Galway) River* (166); Freshwater Fish Protection* (173); Weights and Measures* (161).
Third Reading—Epping Forest* (164); Police (Expenses) Act Continuance* (165), and passed.

THE TREATY OF BERLIN—THE PORT OF BATOUM.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise, with permission of your Lordships, to make a personal explanation. The accuracy of a Ministerial statement is of national importance. The accuracy of a statement by an individual Peer is only of importance to himself, but to himself it is of great importance. On Thursday, the 18th, and on Tuesday, the 23rd, irreconcilable statements were made by the Prime Minister and myself respecting the port of Batoum. There is no question, I hope, of either of us wishing to deceive the House. The question is, which was best informed. The noble Earl, in referring on Thursday week to the cession of Batoum, said, among things—
  "It will hold three considerable ships, and if it were packed like the London Docks, it might hold six; but in that case the danger if the wind blew from the west would be immense."
  On the Tuesday following, I quoted what the Prime Minister had said, and I said that I did not know how many ships Batoum could hold, but that I knew that recently it had held not three, not six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, or 12 but 13 men-of-war and a transport. Yesterday the noble Earl read, as a Memorandum from the Royal Hydrographer, as follows:—
  "Batoum can only be described as a bay and not as a harbour. The area within which ships can anchor is limited to a circle of about 850 yards in diameter, but this area is further reduced by the very deep water—upwards of 45 fathoms—of the central part. The anchorage ground with any reasonable depth is thus confined to the shore segments of the circle, and certainly not more than three iron-clad ships could take up anchorage here, and swing clear, even with a limited amount of cable and in fine weather. With reference to the statement made that the port has contained thirteen-men-of-war and a transport, this could only have been effected by the ships being placed parallel to each other at short distances, and their sterns secured to the shore near the town on the western side of the bay. These are not the conditions attached to free anchoring ground, and it could be only under very exceptional circumstances that such a squadron would be so packed, and even then with insecurity."
  I have seen in The Morning Post a letter from Hobart Pasha, which I shall read—

  337
  "SIR,—As considerable doubt seems to exist in the public mind as to what sort of place Batoum is as a seaport, I would like to give some information on the subject. The Prime Minister was perfectly right when he stated that only three ships could lay at anchor in the port, if he meant to convey, as I presume he did, vessels laying at anchor in the ordinary way with room to swing; but if ships are hauled into the shore with their sterns made fast with the beach (that is called laying in tiers) 12 or 13 vessels could moor in Batoum harbour. If any mistake was made by the Prime Minister in his statement regarding the capabilities of the harbour of Batoum for holding ships, it evidently arose from a technical error on the part of his informant, who had not calculated on the great advantage of the existence of deep water close into the shore, merely, I presume, having measured the size of the harbour and allowed so much space for each ship to anchor in, so that she might swing with safety."
  On seeing this letter, I took the liberty to write to Hobart Pasha—
  "July 26, 1873.
  "DEAR HOBART PASHA,—I have just read in The Morning Post a letter in which you give an explanation of Lord Beaconsfield's mistake respecting the capacity of the harbour of Batoum. You were not the person who gave me the information on which I spoke on Tuesday, but I should be much obliged if you would tell me whether Batoum is a bay or a harbour; whether it is or is not a fact that 13 men-of-war and a transport have recently been held in that harbour; whether of these men-of-war seven were not iron-clads and one or two other ships taking up an equal space; and whether they were not perfectly safe in all weathers?"
  I received the following reply:—
  "DEAR LORD GRANVILLE,—Batoum is more than a bay; it is a harbour though small, and a very safe one, as no sea or wind over endangers the safety of ships moored to the shore. It is well-known to sailors that all vessels immediately on entering the harbour have to secure their sterns to the shore, where they arc quite safe. Thirteen men-of-war of different sizes, of which six were iron-clads, and two large wooden frigates, were lying moored to the shore on more than one occasion."
  I trust your Lordships will think I was justified in giving the contradiction which I did on Tuesday to the previous statement of the Prime Minister, that Batoum could only hold three considerable ships, or six closely packed, which would then be in immense danger if the wind blew from a certain quarter. On authority even better than the Hydrographer, it appears that 13 men-of-war have lain there more than once in perfect safety from any weather.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: All I can say is that the statement of the
  338
  noble Earl fully bears out that of the Royal Hydrographer.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes, but not that of the noble Earl.

  TRAMWAYS (USE OF MECHANICAL POWERS) BILLS.—RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALErose to move a Resolution in reference to the existing system of legislation in respect of the use of steam power on Tramways, and declaring the necessity of further inquiry. The noble Earl said, that looking at the extreme importance of the question to all persons concerned, he was desirous that the House should consider whether it was not expedient to pass some such Resolution as that he had just proposed. The first Report on the subject of the use of steam on Tramways was presented last year to the House of Commons, and the Committee of the present year had simply adopted that Report. The Committee recommended that certain bye-laws governing the use of steam or other mechanical power on Tramways should be framed by the Board of Trade, and he presumed that they were the bye-laws which appeared in the Bills now before Parliament. The recommendations referred to several matters more or less concerning the use of steam—the employment of bells, stopping the cars or slackening speed in case of approaching danger, posting the bye-laws, protection of passengers from machinery, consumption of smoke and steam, &c. But several of these precautions were not included in the Bills before their Lordships. One of the regulations—a very important one to his mind—was that the engines should not travel at a greater speed than eight miles an hour in town, and 10 miles an hour out of town; and that, where there were facing points, the rate should not be more than four miles an hour. The speed was to be determined by an indicator attached to each engine. Now, the indicator was admittedly not a perfect instrument, and therefore it was considered desirable that a recorder should also be used. But no provision was made in the regulations for recorders. On this point it was important to note the evidence given by Major General Hutchinson, of the Board of Trade. Before the Committee that gentleman was asked whether it was his

  339
  opinion that the use of steam indicators and steam recorders should be laid down in any general regulations? The answer was, that was the opinion of the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade. But even if all the regulations recommended in reference to the use of steam were observed, it could not be said that they had arrived at any fixed or conclusive decision; and the question which he desired to raise, therefore, was whether some "further and well-considered legislation" as to the use of steam on tramways was not desirable. It should be remembered that when tramways were introduced, it was intended they should supply the place of omnibuses; and their application was first made in the direction of towns, the provision being that the lines should be carried along the middle of the streets. Now that it was proposed to lay down tramways in the public highways in the country, it was right to draw attention to the remarkable fact that in all these Provisional Orders the word "street," not "road," was used. This omission of the word "road" seemed to him to be very important, since, in some of the Bills before their Lordships' House, there was an evident desire to substitute to a considerable extent tramways for railways in certain cases. If that was the right thing to be done, it behoved Parliament to take care that further provision was made for the safety and convenience of the public, and that undue competition with railways did not arise. These tramway schemes came to Parliament at a great advantage; for, instead of having like a railway to buy land, they took the public highway. That was said to be for the public advantage; but for all that it was a matter requiring careful consideration, both on the ground of competition and of public convenience. There was one case illustrative of his argument that he desired specially to mention. Down in Lincolnshire they had started a tramway which was to run 10 miles into the country, and the lines were to be laid along one side of the turnpike road. This could only be done to the inconvenience, more or less, of the cattle, and carts, and other vehicles which by right were now driven over it; and it was perfectly clear that if tramways were thus to be laid down in all directions throughout the country, that
  340
  some further Parliamentary regulation and control—not at first contemplated— would be required to prevent them becoming a danger and a nuisance. He thought it desirable, therefore, that their Lordships, before giving their consent to the Bills that had been presented to Parliament, should consider how far was expedient to permit the use of steam on tramways.
  Moved to resolve, That this House is not prepared to sanction the use of steam power on tramways generally under the conditions proposed in the Bills now waiting to be committed without further inquiry:
  That further and well considered legislation appears desirable in regard to tramways to be worked by steam along public highways throughout the country in conjunction or in competition with railways, such tramways being free from many of the obligations to which railways are subject, and frequently proposed to be laid on one side instead of the centre of the road thereby affecting the property of frontagers injuriously and unequally.—(The Sari of Redesdale.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDwas not surprised at the alarm exhibited by his noble Friend, in common with many others, at the somewhat novel idea of introducing steam power upon the highways and country roads. His noble Friend shied at the idea, just as horses shied at steam tramways themselves; but they were told by witnesses who appeared before the Committee of the House of Commons, that it was possible to educate horses to the engine and cars; and he must confess that, since their evidence, he had gone through some education himself, and thought that a great deal of the ground for alarm had passed away. The Committee which this year inquired into the subject was a most competent one, and was presided over by a Gentleman of great ability and industry—his hon. Friend, Mr. Arthur Peel. Their Report was not by any means a repetition of that presented by the former Committee. A great deal of fresh evidence of a most important kind was taken, amongst the witnesses being Major General Hutchinson and other railway inspecting officers of the Board of Trade. Major General Hutchinson had been engaged during the year in examining all accessible tramway lines, not only in this but in foreign countries, where the use of steam power had already been tried. The result of those inquiries was well calculated to allay the alarm that had

  341
  been created. Notwithstanding what his noble Friend had stated, there did not appear to him to be any lack of restrictions or regulations in the Bills and Provisional Orders before Parliament. On the contrary, the promoters of the tramways were subjected—and most properly so—to an amount of control such as was never imposed upon any other class of traffic. If steam was to be used on tramways at all, the most careful regulations would have to be adopted for the safety of the public, especially in regard to the danger of frightening horses, and thus causing risk to human life. For his own part, he wished that those obnoxious machines, the traction engines, which they were in the habit of seeing on their roads every day, were subjected to anything like the same regulations as were to be found in these Tramway Bills. He believed the annoyance that would be experienced from steam tramways would be less than that which resulted from the traction engines. No doubt, there were weighty arguments in favour of these Bills. The promoters had managed to satisfy two careful inquiries of the other House; they had satisfied the Board of Trade; and last, though not least, they had satisfied all the local authorities of the towns and places concerned. But it was true that this House had not itself inquired into the question of the use of steam on tramways on their public roads. He thought it would be only proper that the House should inquire for itself into that point; but he did not see why, on that ground, these Bills and Orders should be absolutely rejected. He thought the promoters, who must have incurred considerable expense, were entitled to have their Bills without the clauses authorizing the use of steam, on the understanding that an official inquiry should be instituted into the whole question by this House next Session. He trusted this suggestion might be accepted.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, that if the suggestion of the noble Lord met the wishes of the House, he, for his part, would be quite prepared to accept it.
  LORD GOLVILLE OF CULROSSwas struck by the somewhat favourable legislation accorded to Tramway Companies as against Railway Companies. Over the Metropolitan Railway, which
  342
  was constructed at the enormous cost of about £1,000,000 a-mile, there was actually running a tramway whose proprietors purchased no land at all, but simply laid their rails on the high road. The Metropolitan Railway Company had to pay 5 per cent on their receipts for passenger duty, whilst the Tramway Companies—those privileged interlopers on the Queen's highway—did not pay a farthing. He thought the time had come when some fairness should be shown in the matter; and he considered that the passenger duty should be imposed on the Tramway as well as the Railway Companies.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURThoped their Lordships would not pass the Resolution which had been proposed, as they would have the effect of preventing the use of steam on tramways altogether. He thought to do so would be a mistake, because it was quite possible the best kind of steam engine had not yet been invented, and it was not improbable that some noiseless machine might hereafter be made which would be altogether unobjectionable.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEdid not advocate the use of steam on tramways, which were a sufficient nuisance without it; but he travelled in a steam carriage to Ascot and back before the introduction of railways with the late Earl of Egmont and other persons, and although the journey was a tedious one, there was no accident owing to the frightening of horses.
  THE EARL OF STAIRthanked the noble Earl for having brought this question before the House, as it was one of very great importance. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) appeared to have no fear of tramway engines; but directly he met a traction engine, he was aghast. In regard to the testimony borne by the noble Lord who spoke last, he must state that he had witnessed the working of a steam tramway in Princes Street, Edinburgh, and his experience was that every horse which passed shied at it.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, it seemed to be agreed that it was desirable to appoint a Select Committee next year, and, as another debate of some importance was about to come on, it was hardly worth while to prolong the discussion or to divide the House. One point was gained, at all events—that the parties

  343
  who were immediately interested in these Bills would now know what they were to expect. He understood that it was now arranged that a Select Committee should be appointed early next Session. He hoped this would be appointed as early as possible; and, meanwhile, the Board of Trade would insert powers to use steam in all Provisional Orders relating to Tramways, subject to the decision of the Committee, which would have to be considered by the Board of Trade before they could come to any decision. There were two Bills. No. 3 Bill related to tramways which were already existing, which were asking for steam powers. No. 2 Bill contained new Tramways Provisional Orders, with steam powers in them. He did not suppose that even the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) wished to disallow powers which had been sanctioned over and over again by Parliament, and he supposed that under the arrangement made, No. 3 Bill would not be proceeded with, and No. 2 Bill would be passed without the clauses relating to mechanical power.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEunderstood the noble Lord's (Lord Carling-ford's) suggestion to be that the clauses empowering the use of steam should be omitted from the Bills passed this year, and that next Session there should be a Committee of the House to consider what should be done. As that suggestion had been accepted, he would not press his Resolution on the House; but next year he should ask attention to the question whether better legislation could not be had as to tramways running over the public roads of the country.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  IDIOTS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 148.)
  (The Lord Carlingford.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure, which had passed the other House, was to give to Boards of Guardians in Ireland substantially the same powers as were possessed by similar bodies in England in regard to the disposal of blind, deaf, and dumb, or imbecile paupers, who
  344
  might, under proper regulations, be domiciled where they would be better cared for than in the workhouse. There were certain words in the Bill which apparently extended it beyond the English law; but those words he would, at the next stage, agree to omit.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Carlingford.)
  THE DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDONwould offer no objection to the second reading of the Bill, although Clauses 3 and 4 appeared to go further than the English law in respect to imbecile paupers. He believed the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland introduced a somewhat similar Bill last year, which was not proceeded with in consequence of a Commission being issued in Ireland to inquire into the whole question. He was informed that the labours of the Commission had now terminated, and that the Commissioners had drawn up their Report. In assenting to the second reading, therefore, he must give Notice that in Committee, in the 4th clause, he should propose to insert words empowering the Local Government Board, if they thought proper, to impose such regulations as might be deemed necessary to give effect to the Report of the Commissioners to which he had alluded.
  After a few words from Earl NELSON and Lord O'HAGAN,
  LORD CARLINGFORDobserved, that this Bill was far more restricted in its operations than that introduced last year by his noble and learned Friend. Ho had no doubt that in Committee he would be able to agree to such an Amendment as that which the Lord President of the Council had sketched out.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE TREATY OF BERLIN—ALLEGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYrose, in accordance with Notice, to call attention to a Memorandum purporting to have been signed by the Marquess of Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff on May 30, 1878, and to ask, If it was the intention of the Government to lay it on the Table

  345
  of the House? He regretted that the question was not in worthier hands than his. It was of importance, as bearing on a part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which, from the nature and scope of it, must be of paramount importance at this moment. It might be objected from the Government Bench that he had not framed his Notice in the form of a Motion. He had always observed that when noble Lords on the Opposition side ventured to call attention to important points in the policy of the Government, they were met with the statement that the Government would be quite prepared to defend their policy when it was properly challenged. Well, in the first place, with respect to the reflection which, he thought, would be found after a little to become rather monotonous, he had to say that he thought they on the Opposition side of the House must recognize the fact that they were not a majority. They were in a minority, though, he believed, a right-thinking minority. In the second place, he thought he might state that they—that he, at any rate—did not for one moment wish to call in question the policy of the Government in this matter. The policy of the Government must be most momentous in its consequences. It was, he believed, a policy such as had not at any time been submitted to Parliament during this century. But it was a policy as gloomy as it was gigantic. They knew absolutely less about it now then they did at the beginning of the Session. He humbly ventured to say that their proper course, as an Opposition, was not so much to arraign the policy of the Government, as it was to ask the Ministers to instruct them in it, in short and easy lessons. As he said before, the policy of the Government was a great one, and, being so great, there was all the greater necessity for explanation. Upon this head the Government did not appear to agree with the view he had endeavoured to express. The course they had pursued with respect to their policy, he would venture to say, was one of obscurity enlivened with sarcasm. The other day, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) the Leader of the Opposition in their Lordships' House, ventured, in a manner so conciliatory as to be almost humble, to ask for some information with regard to the last jewel which had been placed in the English
  346
  Crown, and he was referred to The Ency-clopœdia Britannica. Well, they did get a little information, but it did not come from the noble Marquess at the head of the Foreign Office (the Marquess of Salisbury). The Predecessor in Office of the noble Marquess did give them some information, and did throw light on some of the transactions of the Government, for doing which he was sharply called to account by the noble Marquess, who likened him to Titus Oates. They who came to the Government asking for bread might complain that they were treated to stones, and stones thrown with no inconsiderable force. In the whole history of the negotiations there were five cardinal points—points which became salient to everybody who had studied the history of these transactions. First, there was the San Stefano Treaty; the second was the Circular of the 1st of April; the third, the alleged secret Agreement of May 30; the fourth, the secret Convention of June 4th, with Turkey; and the fifth was the Treaty signed at Berlin on the 30th of July. As to the secret Agreement between Russia and England, the only light thrown upon it was that which came from certain proceedings in a police court. Now, as regarded this Agreement, which was supposed to have been signed by the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary and the Russian Ambassador in England, Count Shouvaloff, on the 30th of May, it would be well to recall how they came to have any cognizance of it at all. The substance of it appeared in The Globe within, he thought, three or four days after it was signed, and it was on the 14th of June, he thought, that the entire text was given in the columns of the same journal. As regarded the substance of the Agreement, a Question was put to the noble Marquess on the 3rd of June, and he replied, that—
  "The statement in The Globe, and other statements he had seen, were wholly unauthentic, and not deserving the confidence of their Lord-ships' House."—[3 Hansard, ccxl. 1061.]
  On the 17th of June, the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, who had been interpellated on the same point, said that at the earliest possible moment Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to give the fullest information to Parliament, and that the alleged Agreement which had appeared in The

  347
  Globe—and he used words identical with those used in "another place" by a Member of the Government in answer to a Question, in similar terms, so that they must have been the result of some study—was "incomplete, and, therefore, incorrect." Upon the statement of the noble Duke, there was certainly a very strong case for the production of an authentic copy of the Agreement. Having got as much knowledge as they could of this Agreement, and there being no authentic denial, as he understood, of the principle of the Agreement, he must say he thought it a little hard of the Government to leave the nation in entire ignorance of the exact text of this particular document, which was a compact of so much importance that it would be difficult to over-estimate its significance. Not merely that; but if this was a "counterfeit presentment" of the real Agreement, it was even worse upon the part of the Government to leave it with them, and deny them the means of testing its accuracy. Another thing was apparent. It might be irregular for him to refer to what had transpired in "another place," but they had all heard that the Agreement was not to be laid upon the Table, because there were documents in connection with it which it would be necessary to present at the same time; but other Powers would not allow us to produce them. What he gathered from all this was, that if it had not been for the ill-advised conduct of a very subordinate clerk in the Foreign Office, who was intrusted with the copying of the Agreement, at the rate of 10 d. per hour, the English public at this moment would not have the faintest conception of such an Agreement, and the key-stone of the whole purpose of the Government would be wrapped in obscurity. This was alarming in itself, as regarded the general direction and course of the policy of the Government; because, if these subterranean methods were employed as a rule, they would give the public some little dismay in regard to the progress of further negotiations. There was this further consideration, which was also alarming—namely, what were the documents that foreign Powers would not allow the Foreign Secretary to produce, and without which this important document was incomplete and incorrect? What was the nature of these docu-
  348
  ments? Did they pledge this country to anything in the future? They would have known absolutely nothing, and would have been told absolutely nothing, about the document in question, if it had not been for a pure accident. Was the British Parliament to be left in total, entire, and contemptuous ignorance upon a point like this; because, if it was, it had better abdicate its office at once. Having signed this Agreement, and having signed another secret Agreement within two or three days with Turkey, Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries proceeded, fortified with them, to the Congress. Now came the most extraordinary point in all the history of these negotiations, so far as they knew it. Eight days after the signature, or alleged signature, of this Agreement, in which, if the House would remember, we consented to the abandonment of Batoum and the other Russian conquests in Armenia, the Foreign Secretary addressed a despatch to our Resident Plenipotentiary at Berlin, in which he urged him to use his exertions to the utmost on behalf of Batoum. The words were so remarkable that he might be pardoned for quoting them to their Lordships. On the 8th of June, the noble Marquess wrote to Lord Odo Russell—
  "There is no ground for believing that Russia will willingly give way in respect to Batoum, Kars, or Ardahan; and it is possible that the arguments of England urged in Congress will receive little assistance from other Powers, and will not be able to shake her resolution in this respect."
  Well, that was not likely under the circumstances. The noble Marquess continued in this letter of June 8th—
  "You will not on that account abstain from earnestly pressing upon thorn and upon Russia the justice of abstaining from annexations which are unconnected with the professed object of the war, and profoundly distasteful to the populations concerned, and the expediency, in regard to the future tranquillity of Asia, of forbearing to shake so perilously the position of the Government of Turkey. In the event of the failure, in this respect, of the English Plenipotentiaries, you will be made acquainted with the course which Her Majesty's Government have decided to pursue."
  This meant, if it meant anything, that the noble Lord, our Ambassador at Berlin, if his arguments on behalf of Batoum and against Russian conquests in Armenia failed, he would be made

  349
  acquainted with the Convention signed four days previously at Constantinople, and which, it seemed to him, ought at once to have been brought to the notice of our Representative in the German capital. Now, the great point with regard to this was, was Lord Odo Russell, when he received that communication, cognizant of the Agreement which had been signed on the 30th of May? Because what they wanted to know was this—Was Lord Odo Russell one of a company, or was he a simple actor put up to recite the arguments of Batoum, with a prompter by to keep him to his part? Either he did know of the Agreement, or he did not. If he did know of it, then it was impossible to understand the despatch of the 8th of June. If he did not know of it, the despatch was calculated to mislead him as to the course the Government had decided upon. The contest, however, was carried on, and they all knew what it led to. The result, and, indeed, the whole thing, reminded him of a passage in the Midsummer Night's Dream, which their Lordships would pardon him for recalling to their attention. Starveling, one of the actors in the drama, says—"I believe you must leave the killing out when all is done." To which Bottom the weaver, replies—
  "Not a whit; I have a desire to make all well. Write me a prologue, and let the prologue seem to say we will do no harm with our swords; and that Pyramus is not killed indeed; and for the more better assurance that I, Pyramus, am not Pyramus, but Bottom the weaver."
  He did not believe this to be a laughing matter, but the quotation happened to come in with such pertinency that he could not help repeating it. As regarded the general character of the proceeding, he would say it was mysterious and mystifying. It was a proceeding, moreover, which he would take the liberty of saying was not characterized by the qualities which generally marked the course of British diplomacy. Then, on the same day, Mr. Secretary Cross addressed a despatch to the Plenipotentiaries of Her Majesty, urging them to make great exertions on behalf of Greece. He should say that the position of a Plenipotentiary who entered the Congress to struggle on behalf of Batoum, Kars, Ardahan, and Greece, must be a some-
  350
  what melancholy one in the retrospect; because, when the questions came up, the Turkish positions were abandoned and Greece was ignored. Many persons in England heard with sorrow and dismay that the task of upholding Greece was left to the Plenipotentiaries of France and Italy in the Congress, for they remembered that England had lavished much blood and treasure for Greece. But, in this instance, we bade her wait, and she waited. What had been the result? No doubt the noble Marquess did speak of the affairs of Greece; but this was one of the subjects which was relegated to the influence of personal interviews, whence it had not emerged. How was all this to be explained? Why had England abandoned her ancient prerogative of supporting Greece and oppressed Nationalities on the Continent, especially those whom Turkey had trodden down? Was the explanation of this course to be found in the documents which were of a nature to complete the Agreement, of which they had had at least some foreshadowing? Would any explanation be found in those documents of this very strange proceeding? He should like to know what more was to follow. As to secret Treaties, he believed they were not unknown to this country. There was a secret Treaty in 1815, by which England, Austria, and France agreed to support the decisions of the Congress of Vienna with 500,000 men. Then there was the Treaty of the 21st of November, 1855, by which we guaranteed the position of Sweden. He did not pretend that secret understandings were unknown to us; but he believed this was the first time we had called a European Congress, with the view of discussing great Treaties, and standing forth on behalf of public law, we ourselves having, at the same time, bound ourselves in private to consent to those stipulations which we had denounced, and which we continued to denounce. He believed this to be a course which was altogether unique in the history of English diplomacy; but, of course, if he were wrong on that point, he should receive correction. He might say that it did not make him happier to feel that now that they had got the drift of the document, the Government refused to produce its precise words. There was another Convention, which was the correlative of this one,

  351
  about which he wished to make one remark—the Convention of the 4th of June, 1878, by which we had made important stipulations with the Ottoman Porte. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that the ground on which they insisted upon the Treaty of San Stefano being submitted to a European Congress was that it seriously modified the Treaties of 1856; and that, accordingly, it could not be held valid without the sanction and criticism of the Powers who were parties to those Treaties. But at the very moment we were urging that, we were making a Convention with the Ottoman Empire, which, most certainly, invaded the Treaties of 1856; and he had not heard that this new Treaty was to be submitted to a Congress, or that it was ever considered to require the sanction of a Congress. He laid these matters before their Lordships, as matters not necessarily requiring censure; but he did think they required elucidation. This country had always had one or two attributes which distinguished her from many other nations. One of these was unto her a sacred prerogative—that of standing out upon behalf of weak nations; another was that in dealing with the affairs of other countries, we were fair and straightforward; another circumstance marking our history was the openness —the almost faulty openness—of our diplomacy; another, of which we had always been proud heretofore, was the completeness of our Parliamentary control. He confessed to the fear that great doubt would now be thrown upon our possession of these attributes; and, indeed, he regretted that some of them seemed entirely to have disappeared. But he regretted more than any of these circumstances, that the Government had not seen fit to trust the Parliament, and the country; and he ventured to ask the noble Marquess whether the time had not arrived—in the words of the noble Duke, whether we had not reached the earliest possible moment — when, with regard to these transactions, he might take into his confidence the great English nation which had shown confidence in his Government, which had brought the Government an unexampled majority, and which had some claim to know the nature of those secret Conventions which must so seriously modify our career as a nation?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl is perfectly correct in saying that this particular movement— for it is not a Motion—which he has taken this evening, is analogous to the general policy which his side of the House have thought fit to pursue during the discussion of this question. They raise objections, they introduce general debates upon particular questions or small points; but they decline to challenge the judgment of the House upon any one point upon which they arraign the conduct of the Government or of a Minister. Their excuse for doing this is that they know they are in a minority. But the complaint of the Government is, that the result of this policy is that the country does not know in how small a minority they are. The country sees debates constantly going on— the same speakers constantly re-iterating the same charges; but they do not know —what I am credibly informed—that the Opposition, which, ordinarily, is a very strong one in this House, is in this matter confined to the Front Bench, and a few devoted followers behind. I do not think, at all events, this policy is likely to have the effect of diminishing the minority of which they complain. The questions which the noble Earl has submitted to the House have a very important public bearing; but it has also one bearing that is personal to myself. The noble Earl complains of my language, when I was asked of the truth of a certain statement which had appeared in the newspapers. I had stated that the document which had appeared was un-authentic and unworthy of the confidence of this House, and the noble Earl proceeded to characterize this document which I had so described as being the substance of a document whose general authenticity was not denied. It is merely a question of fact, whether this summary was or was not an authentic summary of the document which appeared later, and of which it purported to be the substance. I described it as un-authentic simply because it was so, and because no other adjective would accurately describe its character. I shall say in a few words why I so described it, and what my justification for this description was. At that time, the main contest and controversy between ourselves and Russia in those negotiations was the extent of the military power to be given

  353
  to the Sultan in the Province South of the Balkans. Russia was willing enough to acknowledge the nominal authority of the Sultan; we were willing enough to provide institutions which would secure the people from misgovernment; but the point on which we found it impossible to agree was our contention that the Sultan should have the full power of militarily defending this Province we had assigned to him. Therefore, in the understanding which we came to with the Russian Government, this point was carefully and deliberately reserved for future consideration at the Congress, the Russian Government well knowing that we were resolved to insist upon it, and that it was a point which we could not yield. As a matter of fact—I am speaking of what is concealed from no one—when we came to the Congress this matter was earnestly contested, and the negotiations at one time seemed in danger of breaking off; but at last we obtained our point, and secured the military supremacy of the Sultan in the Province South of the Balkans. It was the key-stone and essence of our policy. This summary, of which the noble Earl speaks, and which was supposed to contain the essential part of the Agreement between England and Russia, misrepresents us in regard to this important point. It represents us as giving up that point absolutely and altogether; it said we had assented that the Turkish troops should be withdrawn from the Province and should not return to it. It was in a most essential point an absolutely untrue description of the document it professed to represent. If Hamlet were represented, with the part of Hamlet left out, I should describe it as at least an unauthentic representation. For the same reason, I so described the summary of the Agreement, which left out the most essential point, aye, and the point on which the eyes of the other Powers were most intensely riveted, or which gave of that point an entirely untrue description. These are the reasons why I described it as an unauthentic document, and if I were asked the same question again, I would give the same answer. The noble Earl reproaches us very bitterly because we will not lay this document and other documents illustrating it upon the Table of the House. This is not an isolated document; on the contrary, it is part
  354
  of a considerable interchange of ideas. I may relieve the noble Earl's mind as to this country being under any engagements in consequence of these documents which we will not produce. This country is under no engagements for the future except those on the Table of the House. But when the noble Earl asks us to produce these documents, he must know very well that the production of confidential documents depends not merely upon your own consent, but upon the consent of those persons whose confidence you have been enjoying, and by whose confidence you have negotiated at all. We have asked for consent to produce Papers which we think essential to illustrate the document, but that consent has been refused. The complaint which the noble Earl makes that it is at variance with the traditions of English diplomacy to have confidential communications with foreign Powers, only shows that entire unacquaintance with the inside of a Government Office which I have no doubt, in the noble Earl's case, will not last long. It is not only an essential part of the diplomacy of this country, but it must be an essential part of the diplomacy of every country to conduct negotiations which those persons with whom you communicate do not wish should be published at Charing Cross. I have only been in Office a few months; but already, many and many a time, not from one Power but from many Powers have I received communications prefaced with this condition—"You are to receive it only on condition that it does not go into a Blue Book." Our Blue Books are a perfect terror to Continental Chanceries. As far as we are concerned, we have no objection to publicity; we live in an atmosphere of publicity; and we are glad to have the criticism of those to whose authority we owe obedience; but were we to enter into negotiations with the announcement that we intended to publish everything we received and heard, the simple result would be that we should receive nothing and hear nothing. Of course, the necessity of observing reticence, which is not observed by us for our own pleasure, but is imposed on us by others, somewhat hampers me in dealing with many portions of the noble Earl's contention that this document surreptitiously obtained, throws a new light on our policy. But

  355
  I think he is making a rather considerable mountain out of the very small molehill of the official Correspondence which is placed at the beginning of the Blue Book that contains the Protocols. It is the ordinary practice when Plenipotentiaries are sent out to give them instructions. For that reason Mr. Cross gave instructions to my noble Friend and myself; but I assume he is aware that was a mere formal proceeding. He does not really suppose that Mr. Cross was the sole depositary of the policy which he explained. And so with Lord Odo Russell. He knew all we had been doing; he knew all the documents that passed through the Office, and the line we intended to pursue. In the same way formal instructions were addressed to me by the Secretary of State when I went to Constantinople; but no one would suppose that those formal instructions were dictated by him. The fact is it was as a convenient way of recording what we set out to do that these formal instructions wore addressed to us. The policy was determined upon first, and then it was put down in the instructions. I think, also, that the noble Earl entirely misapprehended the bearing of the Memorandum on which he lays so much stress, which he read to the House. When we found how deep the divergence of views between this country and Russia was, at the time when the first refusal to go into the Congress was made, we came to the conclusion that an immediate entrance into Congress was not desirable. A Congress is a very good thing to bring those together who already have a tolerable similarity of views, and whose personal communications are therefore likely to increase their peaceful disposition; but a Congress is only an instrument of war when it brings together those whose opinions are hopelessly divergent. We felt at first that there was this great danger before us— that if we assembled in Congress and separated in anger, the peace of Europe would be in far greater danger than if the Congress had never met. We, therefore, came to the conclusion that it would be useless to meet until we were satisfied there was that amount of agreement between Russia and ourselves as would make a peaceful solution possible. With this view, we considered it an essential preliminary that a rough outline of agreement should be arrived at;
  356
  but that agreement was not what we were to discuss, what we were to settle, or what line we were to take in Congress. The agreement was in regard to what we were to do if Congress failed to settle the differences on certain particular points. Our agreement was, for instance, with reference to Bessarabia on the one hand, and the Balkan frontier on the other, that if we could not come to an agreement with regard to them after due discussion in Congress, we should not go to war on account of them. There were other questions which were still left open, and which might have been the cause of war; but a certain number were taken and put aside. We felt it perfectly certain that Russia would not abstain from entering Bessarabia; we, on the other hand, were determined that Bulgaria should not stretch to the Ægean; and, balancing one against the other, concessions were obtained on both sides; and the points I have mentioned we said should not be the cause of war. But while we said we would not go to war for them, we did not despair of modifying the opinion of Russia in regard to some of them. On the contrary; in the first place, we knew there would be other Powers at the Congress, and that their views would have great weight; and, in the second place, we knew that, apart from the threat of war, yet, by discussion in Congress, it was possible to appeal to other motives short of war as an instrument for obtaining modifications of opinion. The error of the noble Earl is not, perhaps, so great as the opposite error—that of the Peace Party in this country, who imagine that you can get everything by arguments, and have no need to employ armaments; that you have nothing to do but put reasons before your adversary, and your adversary will yield. I am glad to see the noble Earl renounces them; but it is possible to carry the opposite view too far. The threat of going to war is not the only instrument which one nation has to use in controversy with another. I will not seek to prove this à priori, but by an instance. We said we would not go to war on certain points; but France declared she would not go to war on any point—à fortiori, if we lost all influence by this preliminary understanding, France must have been abso-

  357
  lutely without influence in the Congress. But was that the case? Anyone who sat in the Congress, and saw the impatience with which the views of the French Plenipotentiaries were waited for, and the weight which was attached to them when delivered, would not for a moment fall into that error. Take another instance. Germany said that nothing would induce her to bleach the bones of a single Pomeranian soldier in Turkey; but if any one in this House should tell me that, on that account, Germany was without influence in the Congress, I can only say his political information differs considerably from mine. I can prove the same fact from the simple instance of Batoum. The noble Earl thinks it was a mere comedy, our urging any modification of the terms regarding Batoum after the adoption of the Memorandum. Notwithstanding that, it was our firm intention to endeavour to obtain a modification of the terms, and to a great extent we succeeded. We did urge in the strongest way upon Russia the importance of not inserting into the Treaty provisions which would allow her to make Batoum an armed naval station menacing the Bosphorus. I shall not venture to say what were the arguments we used to convince her, but, at all events, those arguments were used with effect; and though on the point of Batoum, Russia well knew that we would not go to war, she consented to make it a free and essentially commercial port, and, moreover, yielded a considerable portion of territory occupied by Mahomedan populations. It is ridiculous, then, to tell us that we were playing a comedy. We were doing something which was really and conclusively serious. We sought to persuade Russia to give up certain advantages; and that we were not trusting to futile arguments is proved by the fact that she yielded to this extent. Therefore, when the noble Earl tells us that this letter to Lord Odo Russell was inconsistent with the traditions of British diplomacy, I can only say it was a plain and open declaration of what we intended to do, and what we did; and, considering that the noble Earl opposite has not ventured to challenge our decision, it seems that we did it with considerable success. I will now say a few words with respect to Greece. I
  358
  can only account for the noble Earl's speech by supposing that he has not read the Protocols. He said, in the first place, that we had given some promise to Greece of an increase of territory if she abstained from going to war. No such promise has ever, as far as I know, passed from the hands or lips of any British Minister. I, myself, when these rumours were put about, challenged the Greek Foreign Minister to produce any such promise, and he entirely acknowledged the freedom of the British Government in the matter. The noble Earl tells us that Mr. Cross sent us to the Congress with instructions to defend the cause of Greece, and that the cause of Greece was utterly abandoned. I am afraid the noble Earl has not even read the letter of Mr. Cross. What Mr. Cross told us was that we were to procure a hearing for Greece at the Congress, and we did so. We did it on these grounds—not for the sake of any increase of territory —a question on which we had absolutely refused to bind ourselves—but because Greece was the natural protector and representative of the Greek populations under Ottoman rule. We thought it fair that if a Slav was to sit at the Table to defend Slav interests, a Greek should be there to defend Greek interests. We were unable to obtain that representation for Greece to the fullest extent of what we wished; but we did obtain it in a considerable degree. The noble Earl tells us that we surrendered the cause of Greece entirely into the hands of Italy and France. Why, I heard my noble Friend behind me deliver at the Congress, in defence of this very cause of Greece, one of the most eloquent speeches I ever heard from him. The noble Earl might just as well tell me that the noble Earl opposite has surrendered the Leadership of the Liberal Party in this House to the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), because, on this occasion, he supports his Motion, as to say that because we allowed France to make a motion, and then supported it, that therefore we surrendered the cause of Greece into the hands of France. Now, in respect to the cause of Greece, I do not wish to speak many words, because words on this matter are dangerous. Any encouragement given to reckless enterprize at this moment may renew the shedding of blood, and may, possibly,

  359
  condemn to hopeless ruin a Kingdom in which we all take the deepest interest. I will only say this—that in the interests of peace between Turkey and Greece, and not with a view to any of those wild and speculative ideas which may fittingly be recorded by the philosophical historian, but which have no place in the calculation of statesmen—but with a view to peace and good relations between the two countries, we always thought it wiser that Turkey should consent to rectify a frontier which had been inconsiderately drawn, and we have always plainly spoken to Turkey on that point. The very line proposed by the French Plenipotentiary had a month before been recommended by us to the Porte; and it is, therefore, absurd to charge us with any indifference to the position of Greece or her good relations with her stronger neighbour. But we did earnestly feel that it was not our duty to urge the weak to attack the strong, unless we intended ourselves to support her. That consideration weighed deeply on the Congress. No Member of the Congress was prepared to say—"We will force the Porte to make this or that concession to Greece;" and, therefore, they felt that it was wise to use the most moderate language, and to promise only the most pacific means, lest they should be the cause of inciting the object of their solicitude to attempts which would only end in her ruin. I believe that the true friends of Greece are those that bid her trust to the development of her own resources, and to the gradual increase of her own strength, and do not encourage her to undertake adventures beyond her power.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: There appear to me to be two main considerations involved in the question which the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) has raised. The one is the secret nature of the engagement to which his remarks have been principally directed, and the other is the character and substance of the engagement itself. Now, whilst I hope to say nothing which shall depart from the temperate tone in which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has just spoken, I must take the liberty of demurring at once to one of the arguments he has used. My noble Friend puts it as though this transaction were a link in that ordinary chain of confidential communications which constantly
  360
  pass between different Governments, and which form a recognized and an essential part of the system of our own, or any other, Foreign Office. My Lords, if it were simply one of the class of confidential communications, all that my noble Friend says would be perfectly true; but the objection is that this is not a communication to enable two Governments to arrive at an understanding, but an engagement entered into, by which Her Majesty's Government and the country are bound to a particular course of action, which was subsequently defined and embodied in the Anglo-Turkish Congress. That is abroad and an essential difference. Now, as to the secrecy of the engagement, I cannot consent to pass that by in silence. There are, no doubt, precedents for secret Treaties and engagements; but they are rare. Secret engagements are not congenial to English diplomacy; they are not resorted to except in case of extreme emergency; and I do not think the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) was far wrong when he described them as at variance with the traditional policy and feeling of this country. In the year 1853, just before the Crimean War broke out, the Emperor Nicholas made an offer—under circumstances not altogether dissimilar to the present—to the English Government of that day. He offered Crete and Egypt under a secret engagement. Now, it happened that in turning over my papers the other day, I came upon Lord Clarendon's answer on that subject. Lord Clarendon said—
  "England desires no territorial aggrandisement, and would be no party to approving an engagement from which she derived any such benefit. England would be no party to any understanding that was kept secret from the other Powers."
  I apprehend that answer was conformable to all the traditions of English policy, and in accordance with the general feeling and temper of the country. It is, therefore, perfectly clear—and it will be admitted by Her Majesty's Government themselves—that in this matter they have taken an unusual course; and taking the broadest view of the question —because I prefer to take a broad rather than a technical view—the justification, if any justification there be, is to be found in the results. That is unquestionably the way in which the

  361
  matter is to be viewed in this country. But if you look to these results, you must clearly consider them under two aspects—first, whether the provisions of this engagement, subsequently carried out and embodied, as they are, in the Treaty, are likely to lead to a permanent settlement of this question; and, secondly, whether the obligations we have accepted under that engagement are such as this country can safely or oven prudently accept. Now, as to how far this engagement has in it the elements of stability, I would invite your Lordships, first of all, to look at the position in which Turkey is left at this moment. My Lords, Turkey is not partitioned, but Turkey is re-distributed; because we are told on high authority that there is a difference between a partition and a redistribution—re-distributed amongst a variety of European Powers. It is re-distributed amongst a variety of European Powers — Russia, Austria, Montenegro, Servia, and, finally, this country. In other words, the area of Turkey is greatly contracted by this arrangement, and she is left helpless, so far as self-defence is concerned, yet very dangerous as a Power, should she fall into the hands of a powerful and unscrupulous enemy. But what are the feelings with which the different Governments of Europe which sat around the Congress Table have risen from it; for upon those feelings it depends, in a great measure, whether this arrangement is permanent or not? The answer, I think, is very easy. On the one hand, Russia has got pretty nearly all she desired; on the other, whilst you have acquiesced in those concessions, the seeds of ill-will have been deeply sown between this country and Russia, and an irreconcilable barrier to the friendship of two nations, to endure, perhaps, for a generation or more, has been erected. And what of Greece? My noble Friend says that nothing more could have been done for Greece than was done, and he repudiates any idea of abandonment, on our part, at the Congress. I do not care now to urge that; but it is an incontestable fact that Greece declares, with almost one voice, that she had been encouraged, and that she has now been betrayed; and it is a curious and not very edifying fact, that whilst Greece, on the one hand, desired Crete, we, on the other hand, have taken Cyprus. Then comes
  362
  a ease which my noble Friend very wisely avoided—the view which France and Italy take of recent transactions. Can anyone doubt what the irritation in France was when the first news of the engagement became public? Does anyone doubt what the feelings of Italy are at this moment—the strong feelings which have been conjured up by the knowledge of the secret course of action we have taken? And yet these two countries, France and Italy, are obviously interested in any future complications that may arise, as the two maritime Powers, of all others, must have a voice in the disposition of affairs, whatever they may be. In connection with this, may it not be worth while to remember what happened in 1830? In that year, after the famous march of Diebitch to Adrianople, the collapse of the Turkish resistance—events not very unlike those which we have witnessed ourselves during the last few months— the Treaty of Adrianople was concluded; but, in the following year, France acquired, or it may be said seized, Algiers. Immediately after followed that tremendous war which shook the whole of the Turkish Empire to its foundations, and which brought Russia to the banks of the Bosphorus, not as an enemy, but, as my noble Friend would probably say, in the much more dangerous guise of a friend and supporter. Therefore, it comes to this— that every one of the Great Powers, with the exception of Austria, who has obtained all she has desired, and Germany, who declared that not the bones of a single Pomeranian should be allowed to bleach in Turkey—every single Power that sat around the Congress Table has risen from it with feelings of discontent and dissatisfaction. Therefore it is not too much to presume that there are small hopes of the permanence and stability of an arrangement concluded under auspices such as those. But now, my Lords, I turn to what is, after all, far more important to us than any other part of this question—namely, the obligations to Turkey which we have accepted by this engagement. My Lords, when I first read that agreement in the daily papers, I was greatly alarmed at the clause—the 11th, I think it is— in which England charges herself, in a special degree and manner, with the supervision of the Asiatic dominions of

  363
  the Porte; but although, when the Congress was decided on, I, like many others, knew it was inconvenient for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to be absent, I acquiesced in that inconvenience, and waited for the explanation which had been promised. Since then information has oozed out drop by drop, not, I may say, from Her Majesty's Government, but in the public newspapers, on which we have depended. When the noble Earl at the head of the Government made his speech the other night, I thought then there would be some endeavour to enlighten us; but, as I listened with the utmost attention, the darkness grew only darker, for there was a total absence of any real explanation. Something, it is true, was said on both sides of the House in regard to India and Indian procedure in dealing with Native Courts and Governments; but I would beg the House to remember there is no real analogy whatever between the state of things in India and the state of things to be introduced into Asia Minor, and for this reason. In India the whole power of England is backed by an enormous and visible Army; but in this case you have nothing of the kind; and the point on which I and every Member of this House desires explanation is, what if these obligations are really undertaken, what are the powers you have taken from the Sultan of Turkey to enable you to see that those reforms on which everything depends are carried out? By this Treaty you guarantee the Eastern frontier of Turkey on condition that she makes certain reforms. Those reforms are absolutely essential. There can be no sound administration unless there be a sound system of finance, and there can be no sound system of finance unless there are great reforms. Therefore, I would again ask, what powers have you taken from the Sultan? There is an error current at this moment, that if the Sultan's Government does not fulfil its part of the agreement in regard to these reforms, then we may retire from the protectorate; but I apprehend that that is a misinterpretation of the bargain—it certainly is not a construction which is consistent with the wording of the despatch of my noble Friend the noble Marquess, when he speaks of our having the right to "insist" on the reforms—and that we are really bound, whether Turkey makes these reforms
  364
  or not, by the obligations we have undertaken. Therefore it is necessary more than ever that we should understand what those powers are which we have taken from the Sultan. But is there a reasonable chance that Turkey will ever reform her institutions herself? The whole history of Turkey is against it. In 1839, and again in 1856, at the close of the Crimean War, when there was every reason and inducement for the Turkish Government to exert themselves, and redeem their promises, they failed. Therefore, so far as the Turkish Government is concerned, it appears to me that you have bound yourselves to a covenant of unlimited liability with an insolvent partner, to whom you pledge, under all circumstances, favourable or unfavourable, your money, credit, blood, and the whole force of the country. Failing, then, these reforms, what is the nature of the task which you have undertaken? I doubt whether many of us have endeavoured even to express or depict that responsibility to ourselves. You have a country where the Exchequer is empty, where the towns are in a state of ruin, where whole districts are devastated by chronic warfare, and where the governing classes live by grinding out the last piastre from the subject-classes. You have to reform all that—to create a new system of law, to build up a new system of finance, and to organize a new Executive. All that, if Turkey fails to do it, falls on your shoulders, and you have to accomplish that colossal task in the full face of Europe, surrounded by international jealousies and intrigues. That is one of the most gigantic tasks which a nation in its senses ever accepted; and if you consider any of the ordinary details that must arise, I am at a loss to understand how they are to be grappled with. A large part of Asiatic Turkey is, I may say, in a state of chronic warfare; and the Turkish Government has long been powerless to enforce order. Supposing you have another fanatical outbreak, such as occurred at Damascus 16 years ago, or at Salonica two or three years ago — you can only subdue such an outbreak by military force. Turkey has no military force available, and, therefore, you must do it under your obligation. Take another point of detail. Slavery, which has been mentioned in this House once or twice in connection

  365
  with this question, is the law of the land throughout Asia Minor. There is not a householder who is not wedded to the system of domestic slavery. But whenever England has asserted her dominion or given her protection, slavery has ceased to exist, the two things being incompatible. Two years ago, on the African Coast, we had a Protectorate in which slavery was found to exist, and that had to be abolished—but it had to be abolished with every precaution—with the presence of troops in the territory which could be employed at any and every point with the certainty of success. None of these things, whether as regards troops or geographical conditions, exist in the country in respect of which we have undertaken these engagements. But it is said that, by the possession of Cyprus, you will be able to watch over and control the government of Asiatic Turkey. There never was so idle a dream. If you intend to redeem the engagements which I maintain you have taken under this Convention in the first instance, and have since ratified by Treaty, you cannot remain at Cyprus or anywhere else. You will be compelled to land on the mainland. You will be compelled to use English agents. You will be compelled to make use of no small number of troops—and British troops, too. Remember what occurred 15 or 16 years ago in the Lebanon, when the French had to land, if I mistake not, some 20,000 men; and so, if you mean to be successful, you will have to adopt the same course in Asia Minor; and Indian troops will not answer your purpose, because Indian troops, however good, cannot be trusted by themselves— a certain complement of English troops is absolutely necessary. What does all this mean? Not only enormous moral and political responsibility, but also a colossal expenditure. It is a matter for very grave anxiety when a nation finds, in consequence of such engagements, its expenditure standing at the rate of a war expenditure in time of peace. Nor even is this all; because, as you cannot stop in Cyprus, so you cannot stop in Asia Minor. Those who know anything of the subject know that if you intend fully to fulfil your obligations, you must govern from Constantinople. But you will then find that your policy embraces a- European as well as Asiatic Protec-
  366
  torate, and that you become, whether you like it or no, mixed up at once in all those intrigues and factions of the Palace which revolve around the Sultan. If the Sultan is a strong man, he will resist your dictation; if he is a puppet, the danger will be no less. There must be many who remember the deposition of the King of Delhi; and those who entertain so great a respect for Mahomedan feeling will do well to remember what Mahomedan countries will think when, for the second time, they see a Monarch in whom the faith and nominal sovereignty of Islam centre, dethroned by an English Army. I will not take advantage of this opportunity to go further into this matter. I have dealt with it broadly—for the discussion this evening has been broad. There is much more that I would gladly say; but I have said enough to place on record, in the most distinct manner—as I desire to do—my own deep regret, disappointment, and disapproval, of the terms of this engagement and of the Treaty of Berlin. Time will show who is right in this matter. Those who hold the views I do may very well be content, I think, to await their justification. I am satisfied myself that when the excitement of the present moment has gone by, when the glamour which now bewitches men's minds has passed away, when they open their eyes to the sober reality of this question, they will find themselves confronted with this most terrible and painful dilemma—either to carry through an almost hopelessly impracticable obligation, or to retreat from it at the expense of national credit and honour.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYobserved, that although there was no direct issue before the House, the discussion would have been justified by the speech of the Foreign Secretary alone, which possessed many points of interest. That speech, however, was characterized all through by the noble Marquess answering questions which had not been asked, and dealing with difficulties which had not been raised. The noble Marquess, he thought, had justly defended his statement that the summary of the Anglo-Russian Agreement published by The Globe was unauthentic; but it would have been interesting if he had gone on to justify his assertion that it was not worthy of their Lordships' confidence.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl mean to say an un-authentic document can be worthy of confidence?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: It appeared to me that the noble Marquess's explanation of its unauthentic character was not inconsistent with its being worthy of confidence. I understood him to say it was unauthentic because it was not published on proper authority.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl must have misunderstood mo. I said it was unauthentic, because, in the most essential point—a point of the greatest possible moment— it was an untrue account.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYaccepted the explanation; but, at the same time, he thought the words used by the noble Marquess, when questioned about the statement in The Globe, conveyed to him and other noble Lords a meaning which he could not have intended to convey. The noble Marquess had never explained why it was that when the full text of the Treaty had been published, it was described as incomplete, and, therefore, inaccurate. He understood now that the Government were unwilling to produce it, because they could not produce other Papers which they considered right to be added to it. That, however, was not a valid objection. If the document was confessed now to be accurate, why not formally produce it? If, in some degree, it was incomplete and inaccurate, why not produce the genuine Agreement? The other documents alluded to might be important, but they could not affect what was contained within the four corners of the Agreement. The noble Marquess had assumed that the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had stated it to be contrary to the traditions of our diplomacy to enter into confidential communications with other Powers. He had not understood his noble Friend to assert anything of the kind. On the other hand, his noble Friend had admitted that secret Treaties might have their place in diplomatic transactions; but the noble Marquess must surely admit that this Anglo-Russian Agreement had now passed out of the region of confidential communications? In regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention and the Berlin Congress, although he was not dissatisfied with the results as
  368
  far as Europe was concerned, but the Opposition would be wanting in their duty if they did not inquire into the modes by which those results had been attained. When the noble Marquess succeeded to the post of Foreign Secretary, he wrote a despatch explaining that England declined to go into Congress because Russia wished to reserve to herself the right of accepting or not the discussion of certain questions. That appeared to him to be a fair ground on which to base our refusal. The noble Marquess, in his despatch, went on to quote the Declaration of 1871, that it was an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power could liberate itself from its Treaty engagements without the consent of the other Powers. Now, it was on the 1st of April that the despatch of the noble Marquess was written, and, with the exception of an occasional answer in reply to a Question addressed to the Government, they heard no more of what was going on till the end of May, when it was triumphantly announced that a Congress was to be held at Berlin. The Government, it was stated or inferred, had gained a diplomatic triumph, Russia had consented to all our demands, and she had agreed to place every clause of the Treaty of San Stefano before the assembled Congress. But if they were under that impression, he should say, with due deference to the House, that they were under a false impression. Had it not been for the "pure accident" alluded to more than once that night, there would have been nothing official or unofficial to show that this secret Agreement with Russia had any existence at all. More than once the despatch to Lord Odo Russell had been alluded to; and, of course, it was well known that Plenipotentiaries had fuller instructions and more accurate knowledge than was contained within the four corners of their official instructions; but he thought they had a right to complain on this head, because this set of instructions, and the final Protocols, gave a false impression to the nation of the position held by our Plenipotentiaries in the Congress with regard to Russia. At least, that impression was false with regard to the points which Russia retained her right to withdraw from the cognizance of the Congress. They might fairly assume that

  369
  the secret Treaty, to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had called attention was a practical surrender of the points with which it dealt to Russia, a waiver of our rights, and that we entered the Congress with a foregone conclusion. Without the light of this secret Treaty, it would seem that the Congress yielded to Russian views on those points where we were most committed to resistance; whereas we had, by our secret Agreement, really conceded those points before the Congress was opened. The difference between the despatch of the 8th of June and the secret Agreement of May 30th was that while the first, couched in the form of instructions to Lord Odo Russell, was always intended to be published, the latter was not to have seen the light, and would not have seen the light, if it had not been for the misconduct of a copying clerk. He thought noble Lords opposite could not deny that, without the knowledge the public possessed of this secret understanding, their impression of the position of England before the Congress would have been false and misleading. He was justified in saying that without this Anglo - Russian Agreement, their Papers were "incomplete, and, therefore, inaccurate." He was also, he thought, justified in saying that this secret Treaty established a precedent that might, in the future, lead to painful and dangerous consequences. What did we do by this Treaty? We bound ourselves, said the noble Marquess, merely to an agreement upon points about which we would not go to war. No doubt, the noble Marquess knew more of it than they did; but it seemed to him that the words of this Treaty carried a great deal more meaning, and that, in consenting not to contest the desire of Russia to occupy the port of Batoum, we begged the whole question whether Russia was up to that time retaining the right she claimed to withdraw certain points from the discussion, or, at least, the determination, of the Congress. He did not quite follow the arguments as to the last Convention of a secret character—that with Turkey. It appeared to him that we had been sacrificing what the noble Earl the Prime Minister described as the "independence and integrity" of the Ottoman Empire, by taking Cyprus. And while we had been doing this, we were, at the same time, placing ourselves in one of the most
  370
  difficult positions ever occupied by this country. Not merely had we gained nothing, but we had gone in a precisely opposite direction. Regarding the condition of Turkey, the noble Earl the Prime Minister became anxious to strengthen her Empire by concentrating her power, and by depriving her of territory. But this method of strengthening the Ottoman Empire had necessitated the enlargement of our borders, and given us elements of weakness with which we had hitherto been unfamiliar, by making us vulnerable to attack where we had never before been accessible to it. This was the most important point of all, because it transferred the initiative power from England to Russia—it made us in emergencies a defending, instead of an aggressive, Power. We had dealt with the frontier lines of the Powers recently engaged in war, and with what result? We were now placed close to the Russian lines and the base of Russian operations; and for this danger we had gained absolutely and entirely nothing but an enormous responsibility, and the vast expense which this responsibility would involve. He should like, before sitting down, to ask another Question, and that was, whether the noble Marquess would be able to give them any more information about this important Treaty with Turkey? Its meaning had been much questioned. They had been told its main condition was in the promise and the undertaking of the Porte to improve. On the other hand, they had been told that England was to be responsible—entirely and alone —for the good government of Asia Minor. In the one case, he confessed he did not see how this Treaty was more likely to have good results than the Treaty of Paris, or how the reforms contemplated by it could be more efficiently carried out than by that Treaty. In the other case, how great was the responsibility which had been laid upon the nation—not merely behind the backs of other nations, but behind its own; for neither Parliament nor the people had ever received the faintest intimation of what was to be done. Could we, when the honour of the nation was pledged, withdraw from the pledge? Parliament and the nation would support the course to which in honour we were bound; but he ventured to think that these Treaties, agreed upon behind

  371
  the back of our own and other nations, would, as the noble Earl who brought this matter forward had pointed out, impair the character for candour and openness which had hitherto distinguished English diplomacy, and would create a precedent very dangerous in its results. It was a new reproach in our history that we were engaged in forming secret Treaties upon points upon which we and the European nations were actually assembled in Congress, and that, when a Congress was summoned to deal with the great interests of Europe, we, at the same time, separately and secretly arranged with other individual Powers some of the most important points which were to be discussed collectively. But, ill addition to this, the Government had now set up a grave and dangerous precedent for involving the nation in enormous risks and responsibilites, and in a vast expenditure of money, without giving the nation an opportunity of expressing or of forming an opinion upon the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHrose with reluctance to speak on the subject before their Lordships, because it was not a pleasant task to call in question the conduct of the Government and the Party he had so long supported, still less to question the conduct of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But he could not avoid expressing the astonishment with which he heard the statement of his noble Friend that evening, when he justified the Memorandum agreed upon between himself and Count Schouvaloff. His noble Friend told them that until some agreement was come to between the Powers assembled in Congress, there was very little prospect of any good result from the Congress—that it was necessary that some sort of agreement should be come to between them in order that success might eventually crown their efforts. Now, he was extremely struck when the noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary—in his speech, he believed it was, in quitting Office—told them that, in his view, the Congress was more likely to be useful as a means of registering foregone conclusions, than as sharing in the discussion of events in reference to which it was necessary that some course should be decided upon. It struck him that in that statement the noble Earl laid down a policy entirely
  372
  apart and distinct from that of Her Majesty's Government. But what had been the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the spring, when this country and Europe were kept on the tenter hooks, ignorant whether, and when, and why, we were to be dragged into war. They were told, at that time, that the language of Her Majesty's Government was clear, decided, unmistakable. They were told, then, that the Government were the advocates of the liberties and the public law of Europe; and they were told that the Government would consent to no alteration of the state of things previously established by Treaty, without the consent of all the Signatories to the Treaty. They were further told that the Government would not be parties to any private agreement, and the Government took credit, and great credit, to themselves for having perpetually and consistently repudiated all suggestion of partition, requiring that the Treaty of San Stefano should be discussed in Congress in its entirety, and objecting most strongly to any secret arrangement. Now, what had the Government done? They who objected to partition were parties to partition, which they called a re-distribution. They required that the Treaty of San Stefano should be discussed in its entirety, and they brought to its consideration two separate Conventions, by one of which different parts of the Treaty of San Stefano were essentially effected—two separate Conventions, one of which yielded a particular part of the Treaty, and the other dealt with interests, certainly not affected by the Treaty, but very much affecting foreign Powers assembled at the Congress. They who required the submission of the -whole Treaty to the Powers of Europe, who came forward as the defenders of the public law and the liberties of Europe, behind the back of Europe, and behind the back of Parliament, made separate Conventions, one of which disregarded the decisions of the Congress, and the other of which dealt with matters which the Government themselves claimed should alone be dealt with by a European Congress. His noble Friend, in one of his despatches, proceeded to justify the conduct of the Government, presuming that complaints had been made against it, and that those complaints had generally proceeded from foreign countries. His noble Friend

  373
  also attempted to justify the proceedings of the Government at the Congress, and particularly to show that they were not altogether at variance with his deliberate Circular of the 1st of April. He ventured to say that what his noble Friend had to justify was not so much the proceedings of the Government in the Congress, as the Circular he had issued. The charge against the Government was that outside the Congress, and not in the Congress, they had been false to their own professions, and untrue to the principles they themselves laid down. Now, how had their proceedings been received in Europe? Why, they had been received either with nonchalance, or with what he could only call silent contempt. Germany merely asked why we had waited hitherto. Russia was only too delighted with a portion of our proceedings which justified, not everything that Russia had done, but justified everything that the Government had charged her with doing. We had ourselves been committing the very offences which, as it seemed to him, in many respects unjustly, we had imputed to Russia. Then, look at France and Italy. Italy was discontented; France, bleeding at every pore, prostrated, and with no object but to recover herself from the losses of a great war—France, with nothing left her but the sentiment of her own dignity and the consciousness of her own honour, had no wish to enter the Congress. She did not in any manner whatever put herself forward; but she was drawn into the Congress, on the ground that we were advocating the public law and the liberties of Europe, and that no territory should be dealt with which was not affected by the Treaty of San Stefano— Egypt, Syria, and the Holy Places, being included in the reservation. France, having no desire to enter into Congress at all, stipulated that no territory, not affected by the Treaty of San Stefano, should be touched by the Congress, and she especially excepted from its consideration Egypt, Syria, and the Holy Places. They did not deal in Congress with any territory that France stipulated should be left alone; but, behind France's back, England took Cyprus, which was not affected by the Treaty of San Stefano. The real importance of that Island was not that it gave a point d' appui for action in Asia Minor, for it must be ultimately from
  374
  Constantinople that any action in Asia Minor must be taken. The real importance of Cyprus was that it dominated Syria. He could not find language in which to describe the sentiment which such action as this raised in his mind. The noble Marquess issued his Circular; he tore up the Treaty of San Stefano into shreds; he repudiated it; he said—"I have nothing to do with your Treaty; I object to the Treaty in its entirety; I object to it in all its details." Yet he agreed to a Memorandum which re-enacted this repudiated Treaty with certain alterations—no doubt, some important alterations; but still he re-enacted the Treaty. Then he went to the Congress, and there they found him wrangling over every detail to get out of the engagements to which he and his Colleagues had assented. They had had all sorts of declarations from the Government, and all sorts of modest descriptions from their own lips of their intentions and aims. The Government had declared it was their intention to uphold the honour and interests of this country—a country with possessions in every quarter of the globe and in every sea; that they would perform their duty to their Queen and their country; that they had but one regard, and that was for the honour of England. These were wide words. But they were told, when the Government went into more detail, that the Prime Minister upheld the integrity and independence of Turkey—the status quo before the war; but what had they done? They had signed at the Congress a Treaty whereby very nearly as much territory was taken from Turkey as was even proposed to be taken by the Treaty of San Stefano. Her Majesty's Government declared that they would uphold the liberties of Europe; but they had since entirely thrown over the liberties of Europe. If there was any meaning in the words, it was that they would oppose the one Power whose influence was likely to preponderate over the others. What was the result? They found the one Power, which might be a menace to the liberty of Europe, re-established more completely in its supremacy. They were told that the settlement was to be final, and that peace was to be perfectly secured. If the condition of things was looked at, it would be seen that there was no finality anywhere. Peace

  375
  was not finally or perfectly secured. On the shortest possible notice fresh disturbances and difficulties might be expected. Looking at the question from every point of view, they found nobody satisfied—nobody contented—no attempt being made to encourage the development of the freedom of the people, in whose contentment alone could any permanent security be found. It was a part of the Ministerial policy to check Russia. He had made no secret of the fact that he had entirely sympathized with the objects with which Russia began this war; and he had also held that the Russian demands at its conclusion were fair and reasonable. But what had Her Majesty's Government, which thought otherwise, done? They had conceded to Russia all practically that he had ever thought she could possibly hope to attain. They had conceded to Russia all she had any right to expect. If Russia, as they represented, was an aggressive and ambitious Power, they had given her the means of aggression and of developing her ambition in the future. Having made these large concessions to Russia, one would have expected it to be done in such a way as to entitle England to the gratitude of Russia. Nothing of the kind. The language in the published despatches was so contrary to the ordinary language of diplomacy; the language of the Government's supporters out-of-doors, the language of some of their own Members, the language of that portion of the Press known to write in their interests, had been from the first so offensive to Russia that instead of having gained what this country was entitled to expect — the gratitude of Russia—they had created a feeling of hatred which would probably last to the end of this generation. A kind of evil fortune seemed to have attended the action of the Government. Every cause they opposed prospered, and to every cause they took up some misfortune happened. The Government had opposed Russia; they had opposed the development of the Slav race; and they had checked it to a certain extent; but they had left it a great deal better off than any other race, and in a position, at no distant period, to acquire fresh power and influence. They took up the cause of Turkey, and what was the consequence? Turkey had been dragged into this most fatal war, and had lost a
  376
  great portion of her Dominions. He had alluded to the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire. He had pointed out how the first had suffered, and he would now point out how Turkey's independence was gone, and by no one's act so much as by the act of Her Majesty's Government. The Treaty of Berlin, which gave to all the Powers the right to see to the carrying out of its stipulations by the Porte in the Turkish Provinces in Europe, was a blow to the independence of Turkey; but the Convention by which this country took from Turkey pledges for the future good government of its subjects in Asia Minor, and by which this country took upon herself the sole right to see them carried out, was a still greater blow to the independence of Turkey, however valuable it might be to Turkey's Asiatic subjects. Then, as to Greece, the noble Marquess had spoken about the question so far as Greece was concerned; but it was really very difficult to understand the position the Government occupied in this matter. He did not assert that when the war was going on any promises were made to the Greeks that they would obtain an increase of territory at its conclusion; but the Greeks were perpetually told that their claims would be considered when the settlement came to be made, and pressure, both diplomatic and otherwise, was brought to bear upon that country to prevent it taking part in the war. He ventured to say that if, after the fall of Plevna, the Greek Army had advanced into the Turkish territory, it would have contributed more than anything, at that moment, to the falling to pieces of that Empire. We were not done with the Greeks yet. When the Treaty of San Stefano was signed, the noble Marquess exclaimed against the neglect of the Greeks, and seemed to feel a great horror at the Greeks being subjected to the rule of the Slavs. It was very difficult to predict what might have occurred had the Greeks joined in the war, or had they remained, as the Treaty of San Stefano designed, in some measure under the rule of the Slavs; but he ventured to say there were no Greeks who would not infinitely rather be left permanently under the rule of the Slavs than permanently under the rule of the Turks. The only reason why the Greeks were ready to applaud the declaration

  377
  of the English Government that they were not to be subjected to the Slavs was the hope that they would get their freedom. But now they found themselves subjected to the old tyranny against which, whenever they had had a chance, they had protested. They were told by the Prime Minister that they had a future; but they also heard from the noble Marquess that their only future was in the fancy of poets, of enthusiasts, and of philosophic historians. He (the Marquess of Bath) ventured to think that his noble Friend was entirely incorrect; that the Greeks had a great future, and a future for which they might not have long to wait. He wished to protest against the kind of cold-bloodedness with which the noble Marquess contemplated the possibility of a war between Turkey and Greece, as the result of an attempt on the part of Greece to obtain some measure of liberty and security of life and property for men of the same race and creed on their Northern frontier—the cold-bloodedness with which he contemplated the possibility of the country being devastated by Turkish armies and bombarded by Turkish fleets, when he knew that the slightest possible exercise of power on the part of the English Government would prevent anything of the kind occurring. He would like to ask what England had gained by the action of Her Majesty's Government? It had gained a Protectorate it could not enforce, and it had obtained pledges which the Government knew beforehand could not and would not be kept. For these ends we had lost our ancient alliances, and we had also lost the respect of Europe. The noble Earl the Prime Minister had told them on one occasion, amid the sympathetic cheers of his auditors, at a dinner in the Mansion House, that England was prepared to fight not one, not two, but three campaigns at any time. If the Government were to come forward now and say they were ready to fight not one, or two, or three campaigns, if they thought the interests and the honour of the country were involved, or that the question was sufficiently serious to justify the power of this country being exercised in the cause, he should have not a word to say against it. But in the Protocol which they had read, and in the speeches that they had heard, what did they learn?
  378
  They were informed that Ministers, in order to avoid war, had assented to proposals of which they disapproved. It was put on record that though English Ministers objected to such and such a course, they did not object to it to the extent of going to war to oppose it. A great deal of the excitement and agitation we had had in the country had been caused very much by the wish to exalt particular Members of the Administration, and to draw unfavourable contrasts between their spirited policy and that of their Predecessors; but he should like to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the conduct of the English Government in the year 1871, and the conduct of the English Government in the year 1878. In the year 1871 there was a proposal on the part of Russia which involved a departure from the Treaty of 1856. There were no public meetings; there were no speeches at the Mansion House; there were no declarations that a particular Minister, whether he was the Premier or the Foreign Secretary, was the only man capable of upholding the honour and interests of this country; and they had no brilliant perorations in that House about the glory of England and the duties to Europe that devolved upon her. Yet there was obtained from Russia a Declaration in accordance with the view of England that no Power could release itself from the obligations imposed upon it by Treaty without the consent of all the Powers that were parties to that Treaty. But, on the present occasion, this country was placed in a most extraordinary position. By the action of the late Government the sacred-ness of Treaties was upheld; by the action of the present Government it had been trampled upon and destroyed. He did not know whether any of their Lordships had read through the Protocols lately published; but if they had they would have seen a most extraordinary document—the most extraordinary, indeed, that he had ever heard of an English Minister having anything to do with. It was at page 270—
  "Considering that the Treaty of Berlin will modify an important part of the arrangements sanctioned by the Treaty of Paris of 1856, and that the interpretation of Article 2 of the Treaty of London, which is dependent on the Treaty of Paris, may thus become a matter of dispute, I declare on behalf of England that the obliga-

  379
  tions of Her Britannic Majesty relating to the closing of the Straits do not go further than an engagement with the Sultan to respect in this matter His Majesty's independent determinations in conformity with the spirit of existing Treaties."
  It might be possible to explain this; but it seemed to him that either this document had no meaning at all, or it was a simple declaration on the part of the English Government that they would not be bound by the Treaties. In view of this repudiation of the Treaties, Count Schouvaloff demanded, as they would see at page 277 of a Declaration on the part of the Russian Government—
  "The Plenipotentiaries of Russia, without being able to explain the meaning of the proposition of the second Plenipotentiary of Great Britain respecting the closing of the Straits, restrict themselves to a demand on their part for the insertion in the Protocol the observation that in their opinion the principle of the closing of the Straits is an European principle obligatory on all the Powers, and that the stipulations confirmed by the Treaty of Berlin are binding upon the part of all the Powers in accordance with the spirit of existing Treaties."
  Here they had England repudiating Treaties—the ink of her signature to one of them being hardly dry—and Russia standing forth as the advocate and supporter of Treaties. Was that a creditable position to be placed in by the Government? He believed the action of the Government merited the strongest condemnation. What had they done? They had in every way that they could opposed the freedom and development of rising peoples. They had been niggardly to small States. They had taken a little themselves; they had allowed Russia to take more; they had left Austria to take a great deal— Austria, a Power that had been hated by every nation she had ever ruled, that never quitted a campaign except under circumstances of defeat, that never made a peace except by sacrificing her Allies. This was the broken reed, an alliance with whom the policy of this country depended.
  LORD HAMMONDsaid, he had waited in vain to hear from the Government any satisfactory vindication of their conduct with reference to the Memorandum to which attention had been called by the noble Earl who had opened the discussion with so much ability. But while noble Lords on the Opposition side, and two noble Lords below the Gangway on the other side, had addressed the House, no
  380
  one but the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had spoken on behalf of the Government. Irrespective of the manner in which it had been made public, it was to his mind a matter of satisfaction that the official secrecy with which even now it was proposed to enshroud the Schouvaloff-Salisbury Agreement had been baffled. They might accept the treason, though they condemned the traitor. The reasons of the Government for objecting to lay that Agreement before Parliament could not be accepted as satisfactory and sufficient. It was a document complete in itself, involving most important political engagements on the part of this country with a foreign Power, and it had led to other onerous and important engagements on the part of England, some of which had already been discussed in their Lordships' House, and others were about to be discussed in both Houses a few days hence. It needed no Correspondence with foreign Governments to elucidate or explain. The general authenticity of the document had been confirmed on oath in the Bow Street Police Court; and, although the revelation of its existence in the columns of The Globe might have caused some surprise—not to speak of any other feeling—in the minds of the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin, yet it was difficult to understand on what grounds any foreign Government could now object to its being officially communicated to the British Parliament in the customary manner. It was certainly satisfactory to receive from the noble Marquess, who he was sorry to see had left the House, the assurance that there existed no other engagements than those the House was acquainted with; and it might be assumed that it might be neither convenient nor agreeable to Her Majesty's Government to publish Correspondence with foreign Powers respecting the Agreement. But it was not asked of them to produce confidential Correspondence, but merely the Agreement which was the result of that Correspondence. The Agreement was, however, before the public, certified as to its general correctness by the oath of the persons through whose hands it had passed; and Parliament and the country were as free now to criticize and pass judgment on it as if it had been laid on the Table of the House; and their Lordships were at liberty to consider whether

  381
  it was right, or according to practice, that Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries should appear in Congress as the advocates of measures which ostensibly all the Powers were free to reject or to adopt; but in regard to which they had already agreed with the Power whose proceedings and demands were to be reviewed as to the extent to which British advocacy might be carried.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, there is nothing so dull as a monologue, and as I think this discussion has lasted long enough, I am not inclined to prolong it to the annoyance of your Lordships. The noble Earl who opened this discussion in such an admirable speech (the Earl of Rosebery), threw a fly, which was immediately swallowed by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess, who, amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, was so indignant the other night with Lord Derby for leaving the House for five minutes, has not thought it respectful, on this important question of foreign policy, to wait to hear what might be said in answer to his own speech. The noble Marquess, I say, rose to the fly thrown by my noble Friend in the most speedy manner. The noble Earl said, he was sure he would be met with this reply— ''Why don't you make a Motion—why don't you divide?"—and curiously enough the noble Marquess repeated that observation almost word for word. The same argument has been used by Lord Beaconsfield—I am in Order in using the names of noble Lords who have gone away— in advising and warning us on this subject; but allow me to say, in regard to this question of making Motions and dividing, that the point the Opposition has always held is this—that we will maintain our own freedom of action, and will not be governed by the injunction and advice of those who are opposed to us. I do not say that within the last two years there has not been strong temptation indeed to make Motion in this House; but in what we have done, I claim a conscientious desire to cause as little embarrassment to the Government as possible, and to ventilate these great questions in the manner peculiar to your Lordships' House without unnecessarily running our heads against a large and mechanical majority, which always has the effect to a certain extent of closing discussion. We have been advised, both by Lord Beaconsfield. and
  382
  Lord Salisbury, to divide; and Lord Beaconsfield showed that it was very wrong of us not to do so. He advised. us to do it in our own interests. Now, it has always been my habit in life when people volunteer advice or try to force advice upon me, to ask myself two things —first, whether they are competent to give advice, and then, whether they have any particular object in offering it. On these two grounds, I do not consider that Lord Beaconsfield is the best adviser as to the course we should pursue. Lord Beaconsfield—
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: Order, order!
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have a perfect right, in the absence of the noble Lord, to call him by name.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: The general practice of the House, when speaking of a noble Lord who is absent, is to call him by his name when speaking of him for the first time; but afterwards to refer to him in another way.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Since I have been in the House it has been the invariable practice to refer to a noble Lord by name, when he is absent.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: You may refer by name, but you must not go on repeating it.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Does the noble Earl mean to invent a new Rule for this debate?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: It is not a new Rule.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl will excuse me for saying again that I am not out of Order. The noble Earl may invent Rules, but I am not obliged to conform to them. There are two things which I want to consider, and one is, how far the Prime Minister was the best adviser I could have, even if he meant no good. He said to us—"Your nerves are so delicate that you will never turn your minorities into majorities if you go on in this way." Now, my recollection is that that the noble Earl led the Conservative Party in the House of Commons for 25 years before he got a majority at all; and that is not very encouraging to a more than Sexagenarian like myself, supposed to be pining for Office. But for the first half of the 25 years, the noble Earl was constantly making and supporting Motions and dividing, to the great injury of his

  383
  Party. Now, although since he has been in Government, he has been trying to lay down the principle that you approve a policy if you do not challenge it, yet during the past eight years—the period in which he was supposed to be accumulating his policy—he carefully abstained from making any Motion on the foreign policy of the Government he was so constantly blaming. Therefore, I deny that the noble Earl is competent to give me any advice on the point. Now, upon the general question before us. So far as I can make out, we are without any answer to the inquiry why we are not to have this Secret Memorandum laid upon the Table. All we are told is that there are certain despatches connected with the Memorandum which one foreign Government objects to have produced. Now, I quite agree that in secret communications between different Governments any one of those Governments is bound in honour not to publish such communications without the consent of the others; but this Memorandum, about which we are talking, is to all intents and purposes public. And here I would like to say a few words as to how it became public. Some time ago I asked the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council a Question on that subject, and he declined to give an answer as legal proceedings were then pending. Well, those legal questions being over, the Question was repeated last week in "another place"—and what was the answer? That the document was intrusted to this man, who had only been in the Office a year, who did not belong to the Establishment at all, for the sake of despatch. There is a noble Lord behind me (Lord Hammond) who knows more about the Foreign Office than any man in this country, and I should like to know whether he understands those reasons? When I went into the Foreign Office as Under Secretary in 1837—and I have been connected with it at intervals of 20 years since that time—I found there absolute confidence in all Departments, and a really wondrous power of getting through work in great emergencies. It was made a special point of honour with the officials that nothing which took place should be revealed; and I appeal to the noble Lord (Lord Hammond) to say whether, during his experience, that confidence was ever misplaced? Now, of course, I do not know how that
  384
  Memorandum got into the Treaty Office —in my time, it was not the place to which it belonged; but I am told that it was considered to be of such special secrecy that instructions were given that the Foreign Office should not be trusted with it. The result of this wondrous secrecy was what we all know. Now, I should like to ask the question that was so forcibly put by the noble Earl who opened this discussion—where should we have been if it had not been for the immoral, surreptitious act of this 10 d. an-hour clerk in the Foreign Office? We should have been absolute dupes. We should have read the instructions to Lord Odo Russell; we should have read the Protocols and the various despatches that were sent and received from time to time; but we should have been perfect dupes as to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government had proceeded in this matter. The other day I frankly confessed that I did not myself see any objection to coming to such an understanding with Russia as would enable the Congress to meet with the prospect of a happy issue, provided always that it was done in a perfectly open manner. But what I did object to was the arrangement, on the understanding of the comedy which was to be played when we got into the Congress. I fail to see in the Protocols the slightest proof of a greal deal of this transaction. In regard to Batoum, as I pointed out the other day, there appeared to have been no protest at all against its acquisition by Russia. Prince Gortchakoff announced that it would be made a free port, and the Prime Minister accepted that arrangement. I want to know whether the House is never to have this Secret Memorandum, or whether it is really to be presented in accordance with the pledge given, as I understood, on the part of the Government a few weeks ago? I consider that the House is entitled to ask for its production. The noble Marquess has! twitted us with not bringing forward a Resolution and going to a division; because, he said, we have no supporters except on the front Opposition Bench. This, however, is a very unhappy occasion for such a taunt to be indulged in; because, until I myself rose, this debate had been exclusively conducted by noble Lords on the other side, and by Peers on this side not sitting on the front Bench of the Opposition, who have spoken

  385
  against the Government. I think, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Ministers might have condescended to take a little more part in the discussion. The fact is that it is difficult for them to do so; because two different accounts have been given of their policy—one to suit the cautious, and the other to suit the energetic—and it is very difficult to walk, as on the edge of a razor, between those two. It would seem that the real policy of the Government is now to be as unmeaning as possible. Since the declaration of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, that the Sovereignty of the Sultan is to be strictly respected, I am inclined to believe that all we are going to do for the future in regard to reforms is to trust to the promises of the Sultan—promises made in 1839, and repeated again in 1856. We are told there is great consolation in this, inasmuch as if the Sultan does not fulfil his promises, we shall be, by the terms of the Convention, entirely absolved from the engagements which we have entered into with him. But I want to know what our position would really be? Supposing that two, three, or four years hence we shall decide that the reforms have not been carried out to our satisfaction, we may then cancel the Convention; but if we do so, what, then, will be our position? It is a very different thing to cancel a Convention after it has existed for three years, and to avoid entering into it at all. Shall we, in such a case, cancel the Convention, thus giving a sort of invitation to Russia, or shall we forcibly interfere with the Sultan's authority? It appears to me that, in their desire for something like a display of fireworks in connection with the Treaty, the Government have made up their minds to avoid what they deem inconvenient discussion; but I insist that the country have a right to expect some answer to the questions which have been raised.
  NAVAL DISCIPLINE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for explaining certain words contained in section forty-six of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866—Was presented by The Lord ELPHINSTONE; read 1a. (No. 175.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.