Sitting of 31 March 1881

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Guildford, Kingston, and London Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bridges (South Wales)* [129].
Second Reading—Teinds (Scotland) [118]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [126]; Alkali, &c. Works Regulation [119]; Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention [120], debate adjourned; Agricultural Holdings Act (1875) Amendment [127], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual) [123].
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonakilty, &c.)* [103].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GUILDFORD, KINGSTON, AND LONDON RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CUBITT,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he hoped he should be able to show, without detaining the House at any length, that it was a case in which there was no need for the House to interpose at that stage of the measure, seeing that it was a Bill of the character which the House had been in the habit of sending up-stairs to be disposed of by a Select Committee. Now, there had been so much discussion about the Bill, there had been so very much correspondence, such a great amount of Lobbying, such a vast amount of sensational articles in various newspapers, and so many deputations and counter deputa-
    320
    tions to Ministers of the Crown, that he thought it might possibly surprise the House when he told them that, instead of being a great railway measure, it was a very small Bill indeed, simply for the purpose of constructing what was called a landowners' line. He thought there could hardly have been more excitement if it had been proposed to carry a line under that House in a tunnel, or to cut through Palace Yard into St. James's Park by an open cutting. It was simply a landowners' line, and it affected a not very populous part of the county of Surrey. For some years the county of Surrey had been accommodated by three great Railway Companies—the London and Brighton, the South-Eastern, and the London and South-Western; and after those great Companies completed their undertaking, he believed there was an understanding come to among them that a certain central part of the county should be neutral ground. That neutral part of the county was a sort of quadrilateral, bounded by Kingston and Epsom on the North, and Dorking on the South. After much opposition on the part of these great Companies, and after appearing before several Committees, a line was authorized from Epsom to Dorking. It touched one side of the quadrilateral, and might be described as a line from Kingston to Leatherhead and Guildford, which district had previously been without any railway accommodation. The ground in that district had been particularly in the charge of the South-Western Company. The landowners living along that line had made several attempts to get the South-Western Company to take up their grievances; and it was in evidence, he believed, that the South-Western Company had gone so far in former years as to oppose every independent line that had been suggested for filling up the gap. So things remained until this year. This year a change came over the scene. The Metropolitan line came down to Fulham on the Middlesex side of the river; and the landowners, finding that they had no hope of obtaining anything from the South-Western Company, went to the Metropolitan Company and made arrangements with them to cross the Thames, and, skirting Wimbledon Common, to go on to Guildford. The South Western Company met that proposal in a peculiar way. They did

    321
    not say that they thought there was no need for additional railway accommodation; but they said—"If you want fresh railway accommodation we will supply it." They happened to have an Omnibus Bill at present before the House, and they proposed to insert in that Bill a provision which would enable them to construct a rival line to Guildford. Consequently, the South-Western Company were, this Session, promoting a rival line. He believed their scheme would be brought before the House tomorrow; but, as far as that stage of the matter was concerned, he thought the House would be of opinion that the South-Western Company were out of court, and that it was not for them to oppose the present Bill, but to show before a Select Committee that their line was superior to the one it was his duty to ask the House to read a second time. There he might now leave the question of the South-Western Railway, and he would come at once to one or two general objections raised against the Bill. The first was that a better line could be constructed, and that it could not be properly worked into London. That, he need not tell the House, was a question which it was quite impossible for them to consider and settle at that time; but it was a question to be fought out before a Select Committee. He would, therefore, pass over that and all the other general objections to the Bill, and go to another point; and that was, how far the proposed line interfered with the common lands in the county of Surrey. That question divided itself into two parts. Hon. Members who knew the county of Surrey knew that it possessed more common land than almost any other county in England, and a great deal of it was of a very beautiful character. There was a considerable amount of very hilly scenery there, with natural woods; and the whole locality was becoming year by year more and more a place of recreation for the hundreds of thousands of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. Although he could not agree with everything the Open Commons Preservation Society proposed, he should not be prepared to move the second reading of the Bill if he thought that one iota of the beautiful commons in Surrey would be destroyed by the construction of this line. If the Bill were likely to occasion serious injury of that
    322
    kind, he should be among the first in that House to oppose it; but he believed that these common lands would be in a very small degree affected by the Bill; and be would not trouble the House further upon the matter, for this reason, that he understood the promoters of the Bill bad undertaken to provide an equal extent of land to that which they proposed to take, and to make up any loss which the commons might experience. The whole quantity of common land proposed to be taken by this line was only 3½ acres; and he thought the House would agree with him that a very great story had been made out of very little. He was glad to see that the Motion which had stood on the Paper in the name of the Chairman of the Commons Preservation Society no longer appeared there, and that it was not the intention of the hon. Member to move the rejection of the Bill. He hoped that further investigation had convinced the hon. Member and the Society that there was really no ground for their interference in this case. Lastly, he came to what he believed to be the most difficult point in regard to the Bill, and that was its interference with Wimbledon Common. The Wimbledon case divided itself again into two parts. First of all there was the commons question, and then the supposed interference of the Bill with the rifle ground. He did not hesitate to say that when the line was first proposed great objections might have been made to the mode in which it was proposed to cross Wimbledon Common. It was proposed partly to cross the common in a cutting, and partly by a covered way. But the promoters had been anxious, as far as possible, to meet the objections of the Conservators of Wimbledon Common, and they had made a great divergence, which he would proceed to describe to the House, and which he believed the House would think ought certainly to satisfy them. The promoters had applied to a neighbouring landowner to assist them in avoiding Wimbledon Common, and that landowner at once acceded to their request. The present state of the case, as far as Wimbledon Common was concerned, was that the line would skirt Wimbledon Common without touching it at all, and would cross Beverley Lane, which was an approach to part of Putney Heath, by a bridge of one span, and then would proceed under Putney Heath by

    323
    a tunnel, the level of rails being at a depth varying from 50 to 80 feet beneath the surface. He was told that the tunnel would be so deep that no harm would be done, either to the vegetation on the heath, or to the drainage of any part of the common. He hoped he had shown that there was nothing to be apprehended in regard to the destruction of Wimbledon Common as a place of recreation. In saying that, he must remind the House that Wimbledon Common had been already adopted as a place of recreation, and was no longer simply the property of the people of Wimbledon, as they seemed to think it, but that the inhabitants of this great city who had means of access to it were also interested in it. Lastly, he came to a point upon which he professed not to be very fully acquainted, and his want of knowledge of military matters rendered it an extremely difficult one for him to touch; and he did so with more hesitation, because he believed that upon that point he should be encountered by one who had very great knowledge of the subject—namely, the noble Lord the Member for the County of Haddington (Lord Elcho). It was alleged that although that line did not touch the common, it would yet interfere seriously with the rifle practice on Wimbledon Common. All he could say about that matter was that the promoters, in the early part of the measure, had introduced clauses which secured the National Rifle Association, and the various Volunteer Corps who used Wimbledon Common, from any interference; and they had offered to make further arrangements in order to carry out the same idea. He thought the Bill ought to be allowed to go to a Select Committee, so that the promoters might be able to show both the Committee and the Association that all adequate protection would be given to the rifle practice, and that ample protection would also be afforded to the public who would use the line. There was one point more, and then he had done. He had said that he could not venture to cope with the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire in knowledge of the Volunteer Associations, yet it was rather a strong fact that the landowner, who had so cordially met the wishes of the promoters of the Bill by offering his land, was no less a person than His Royal Highness
    324
    the Commander-in-Chief. The Volunteers had no reason to say that the Duke of Cambridge had over thrown cold water upon their movement; and, therefore, if His Royal Highness was willing to facilitate this line, he thought the House might conclude that, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, the Bill would not do much damage to Wimbledon Common. He merely pressed this point for what it was worth, in anticipation of the arguments which he knew would be used by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire. He believed he had now exhausted all he had to say. He wished he could think that any appeal he might make to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Henry Peek) would be useful, and would induce him to withdraw his opposition to the Bill. He could assure his hon. Friend that the promoters would give every weight to the arguments of the Conservators, when they came before a Committee of that House; and he believed that his hon. Friend would consult the interests of the Conservators, as well as the time of the House, if he would not now persevere with his Amendment. At any rate, if he felt justified in saying, as a Wimbledon man, that Wimbledon should be preserved for inhabitants of Wimbledon only, he (Mr. Cubitt) believed he would find himself deceived if he anticipated that he would be supported by any other Member interested in the locality. He begged now to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cubitt.)
    SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, he had not a word to say as to the tone of the remarks which had been made by his right hon. Friend; and if it was only a simple small landowners' Bill, he should not have been, for one, addressing the House at that moment. He would ask the House to be good enough to listen to him for a short time while he assured them that it was not the simple matter which had been put forward by his right hon. Friend. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, he supposed, there was not one person in 500,000 in this country who knew that there was any such place as Wimbledon Common at all. But those who lived in

    325
    the West of London knew it perfectly well as one of the most beautiful of all the commons of Surrey. Some 20 years ago, at the institution of the National Rifle Association, they wanted a practice ground upon which they could hold their annual meetings; and, after looking about them for some time, they pitched upon Wimbledon Common. Lord Spencer, being then lord of the manor, met them in a very fair way, and gave them many facilities; but, then, Lord Spencer thought to himself—" Here is a common of 1,000 acres of land; I am lord of the manor, and I ought to be able to do what I like with it. I will, therefore, make a proposition; if the neighbourhood will give me 300 acres in fee simple I will make them a present of the remaining 700 acres, and convert it into a park and put it under management." A great many meetings were held at Wimbledon in reference to this project, and at those meetings the people who resided in the locality declared that they were not prepared to accept Lord Spencer's scheme at all. A great many of them thought that the word "common" implied a great deal more than the interests of the lord of the manor and a few copyholders. They, therefore, opposed Lord Spencer's scheme, and a long and expensive litigation ensued. After a time it was thought desirable to close that litigation; and a special Act of Parliament was passed in the year 1871 in reference to the common. This was the Preamble of that Act—
    "And whereas it would be of great local and public advantage if the Commons (that is Wimbledon Common and Putney Heath) were always kept uninclosed and unbuilt on, their natural aspect and state being as far as may be preserved."
    This case of Wimbledon Common had no parallel in the United Kingdom. It was a common that was free and open to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects; but, unfortunately for them, the inhabitants of Wimbledon living within three-quarters of a mile of that common had to find £2,600 a-year for the purpose of keeping it open. He asked the House to bear that fact in mind, that the inhabitants were taxed to the extent of £2,600 a-year in order to keep that common open for the public enjoyment. Now, how was that £2,600 expended? They had to pay in perpetuity £1,200 a-year to Lord Spencer for all his rights.
    326
    They had to borrow £5,000 in order to pay the expenses of the law suit and the cost of getting the Act of Parliament through both Houses. They owed every farthing of that money now. They had to provide for the general management of the common, to make bye-laws, and to provide for the maintenance of the common. They had to find part of the police of the common; and last, although not least, they had to pay the Crown 30 s. a-year for estovers formerly enjoyed by the Crown tenant as a Commoner; and all they got in exchange in pounds, shillings, and pence, was £100 a-year from the National Rifle Association, and a few casual receipts which never amounted to more than £200 a-year. By the stringent terms of the Act they were prevented from inclosing it for any purpose whatever. Some three or four years ago the Royal Agricultural Society were anxious to hold their show upon Wimbledon Common. They would have given the Conservators a considerable sum, he had no doubt, for the privilege of temporarily inclosing 30 acres of the common for that purpose; but the terms of the Act of Parliament were so stringent that they could not take the money of the Society, nor could they take the money of any other person. He might mention another thing in order to show what the people of the locality got for that sum of £2,600 a-year. They only had two days in the week upon which they could enjoy the common. There was no firing on Sundays, and there was no firing on Wednesdays; but on every other day for five hours, certain rifle corps paying nothing, among them being the London Scottish Rifle Corps, had the privilege of practising upon the common, by which means they rendered fully one-third of the enjoyable part of the common highly dangerous and, therefore, useless. He thought the House would agree with him that the ratepayers got very little in return for their £2,600 a-year; and the question would naturally arise, why were they so anxious to fall in with that arrangement? Now, he had not the least hesitation in telling the House that it was public spirit alone, and public spirit entirely free from the least taint of selfishness, that induced them to take the course they did. They saw 1,000 acres of the most beautiful common land in the whole of England, con-

    327
    sisting of wood and water, and a magnificent open plateau, and they wished it to be maintained for the general enjoyment. They were quite willing to pay that very large sum of money per annum in order that they themselves, and the public generally, might enjoy this common. Perhaps the House would allow him to read three sections of the Act of Parliament which related to the duties of the Conservators, of whom he was one named in the Act. From the passing of the Act till a fortnight since he had been Chairman of the Conservators; but he was now retiring from the Board, and should cease to be a Conservator in a few days' time. Section 34 of the Act of Parliament stated that—
    "The Conservators shall at all times keep the Commons open, uninclosed and unbuilt on, except as regards such parts thereof as are at the passing of this Act inclosed or built on, and shall by all lawful means prevent, resist, and abate all encroachments and attempted encroachments on the Commons and protect the Commons and preserve them as open spaces, and resist all proceedings tending to the inclosure, or appropriation for any purpose, of any part thereof."
    Section 35 said—
    "It shall not be lawful for the Conservators, except as in this Act expressed, to sell, lease, grant, or in any manner dispose of any part of the Commons."
    And Section 36 enacted that—
    "The Conservators shall at all times preserve, as far as may be, the natural aspect and state of the Commons, and to that end shall protect the turf, gorse, heather, timber, and other trees, shrubs, and brushwood thereon."
    If those sections did not lay down the duties of the Conservators in very plain terms he failed to understand what they did. He said just now that they were actuated by public spirit. The Wimbledon people and the Putney people had eyes. In that district there were other commons. They could see the present state of Wandsworth Common. He recollected Wandsworth Common when it was a beautiful open space of 300 acres. And now what was it? They could see Barnes Common with a railway running across it, and completely spoiling it. Mitcham Common was very little better. The railway facilities, as they were called, had absolutely ruined that common. They preferred Wimbledon Common in all its natural beauty; and he had no hesitation in saying and assuring that House that for 10 years they had done the best they could in
    328
    that way, and that the common was never in such an excellent condition as it was now. That common, as he said before, was a unique common; and he thought the House would agree with him when he said that he believed there were flowers and insects to be found on Wimbledon Common which were scarcely to be found on any other common in England. He knew an entymologist who went down there—a working man—and he could earn as much as £1 a-day by collecting, in certain seasons of the year, rare insects. They might find there partridges, pheasants, hares, rabbits, kingfishers, moor-hens, glow-worms, and all kinds of harmless snakes. There were birds of all kinds, and he himself had bought, not very long ago, a live badger, not one that had wandered on to the common, but one that had been dug out of his lair there. Then, again, many hon. Members of that House would bear him out when he said that the common offered to pedestrians unequalled advantages; it further offered to all persons opportunities for cricket and fishing; and it must be borne in mind that these advantages were given not to the Wimbledon ratepayers, or to the Wimbledon residents alone, but to all Her Majesty's subjects who knew how to behave themselves. The common offered opportunities for cricket, fishing, football, hockey, la crosse, polo, quoits, and many other games. It afforded to equestrians miles of turf; and it afforded to all the very best of air, with cheerful rural surroundings, which he hoped would be long maintained. Such was the position now. Then, what was it that had disturbed their serenity some six months ago? They received a notice that a railway was coming. It became at once their duty to inquire what the railway was; and they found that it proposed, as had been done in the case of other commons, to cut off some 60 or 80 acres from the main common. It further proposed to erect a bullet-proof screen in order to protect the passengers by the railway from the bullets of the National Rifle Association, and he believed power was taken to put up other additional works. Directly the plans were out, the Conservators put themselves in communication with the promoters. He, as Chairman of the Conservators, called a meeting, and asked the engineer to come down and bring any persons with him

    329
    who were interested in the measure. He came down, and they had a four hours' interview with him; and they then and there told him that they were determined, at every stage of the measure, to oppose that or any similar proposal. Nothing was done for a long time; but when it was found that the original proposition was altogether too violent, modified plans were brought forward, and only last Friday these modified plans passed the Standing Orders Committee. He quite agreed that the modified plans minimized the evil; but the result was, still, to leave a belt of railway and a screen which was perfectly hideous round the edge of the common for nearly a mile. Further, there would be a tunnel under the common, which would be certain to injure the trees and dry up the springs. There was an old well on the common, which had been there since the time of the Romans, and which was enjoyed by hundreds every day; but springs were capricious, and if the tunnel wore constructed, those on the common would probably all be dried up. The ponds, which during a great part of the year were used for fishing, and which during the winter were used for curling and skating, would be drained. And then this tunnel was to be a mile long; and, therefore, it was sure, sooner or later, although they were not proposed now, to be furnished with large ventilating shafts thrown up on the common, and these, as all hon. Members would see, would hardly add very much to the beauty of the place. As his right hon. Friend had said, this proposal had created quite a storm in the neighbourhood. Yesterday they had an election of Conservators; and it was a fair stand-up fight on the question of railway or no railway. Well, the votes given to those who supported the railway averaged 600 per man; whilst, on the other side, the votes given to the opponents of the railway averaged over 3,400. That was to say, where one person voted for the railway—and, of course, in such a neighbourhood there were sure to be a few ratepayers who would be benefited by the little money that would be brought into circulation by the line—there were seven who voted against it. As he said before, they had been charged with selfishness by the promoters of the railway; but a more baseless charge was never made. In
    330
    this Act of Parliament, they excepted all ratepayers who were rated under £35—that was to say, those residents who paid over £35 per annum took the whole burden on themselves. Then they were charged with selfishness with regard to the working man. He (Sir Henry Peek) joined issue, with pleasure, on the working man argument. He never did toady to the working man yet, and he never intended to toady to him. He respected the working man—he was a working man himself—but he would not toady to him. There were two kinds of working men. There was the working man who did not trouble himself about other people's enjoyment as long as he could, enjoy himself, and go where he liked, and have his pipe and his pot. Let this man go to Wandsworth Common. He could get there for a few pence, he need only walk a hundred yards from the railway, and there were a dozen public-houses for his enjoyment. But there was another kind of working man who thoroughly appreciated the advantages for himself and his family which he (Sir Henry Peek) had described. Such a man avoided Wandsworth Common, and wont to Wimbledon Common, which to him was really in the country as much as though it was 200 or 300 miles from London. He could get the fresh country air there, and it satisfied his wants. Working men would come from the East End of Loudon—they would walk all night in order to take up their position, at day-break, at the ponds on Wimbledon Common. The other day he saw some odd-looking men, whose conversation he could not understand, standing there. He went up to them, and made inquiries, and he ascertained that they were Spanish porters, attached to a wine house, who, once a-year, came to Wimbledon Common for their treat, because it reminded them of the beautiful parts of their own country. What did he see there on the following Sunday? Why, he saw a man, sitting on one of the benches provided for the public by the Conservators, reading his book. He said to the common-keeper, "Do you know that man?"—he thought his appearance was somewhat familiar to him—and the keeper replied—" Yes; he is a clerk—he comes here every Sunday of his life, and brings his sandwiches and sherry." The working man had

    331
    been quoted; and, what was more, the working men, or a body said to be fairly representative of the working men, waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Now, with reference to that deputation, the Secretary of the Gilders' Society, a body 80 years old—wrote to him (Sir Henry Peek), and said—
    "Permit me to say there is a considerable difference of opinion on the subject (of this railway). A very large number of workingmen, particularly those belonging to the higher class of trades, are quite opposed to the extension for many reasons, amongst which may be mentioned the want of necessity for such extension (there being more railway accommodation through the county of Surrey than in most counties of the same characteristics), and the ample means of reaching Wimbledon Common from any part of London in less than one hour, and less than a mile walk; whilst the plain fact remains that the opportunity of seizing common land is the temptation too strong to be resisted in the railway speculator's mind."
    These were not his own words, but words addressed to him by a perfect stranger, Mr. Robert Francis, the Secretary of this Society. Well, he wanted to know why the railway wished to come to Wimbledon Common? The inhabitants of Wimbledon were not against the railway per se. They had shown the promoters an alternative plan, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was a better plan; but, unfortunately, they proposed that the line should be run through property which, although it was not built upon, was in private hands, and would have to be paid for; whereas, if the railway could come through Wimbledon Common, the promoters would get, at any rate, one mile of their distance towards London for nothing at all. He hoped that he had made out to the House that, at any rate, there were two sides to this question, and that this was not the little innocent landowners' railway that his right hon. Friend wished them to believe it. There was a great question involved. This Act of Parliament of theirs was the result of a great deal of litigation; and it had saddled, as no common in England had saddled, the neighbourhood with a charge of £2,600 a-year for keeping up the place, not only for the benefit of the residents, but for the benefit, likewise, of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects; and he, therefore, hoped that to-day the second reading of the Bill would be refused. It should be
    332
    rejected, if only for the simple reason that the plans only passed the Standing Orders Committee last Friday, which seemed to him abundant proof that the scheme could not be a well-matured and well-considered one. The Bill was certainly not favoured by the best class of working men; it was opposed to all recent legislation as to open spaces near the Metropolis; and it made still more onerous the hard bargain made in 1871. What would be the effect of sending the Bill to a Select Committee? Why, those who were bound to pay already £2,600 a-year for the maintenance of the common would also be bound—for they were not free agents in the matter—to oppose the scheme, and that would add, at least, another £1,000 to the rate which it was their duty to do their best to limit. There was another feature in this Bill which ought to insure its immediate condemnation. In the new clauses just proposed by the promoters, there was this singular provision—that not only was the line to be protected for a considerable distance from the firing on the common by some sort of screen, but the Company was to indemnify all persons lawfully using the rifle ranges from or in respect of any accidents to persons or property that might happen through the insufficiency or want of repair of such screen. That was to say, Parliament was asked to sanction the construction of a line of railway in so dangerous a position that it was thought necessary to provide for possible loss of life through bullets from the rifle ranges entering the carriages; rather than wait another year and then bring up an improved plan, the promoters were actually driven to promise that if anyone was shot on their line they would bear the consequences. Was such a proposal worthy of a moment's consideration? There was only one other matter to which he wished to call the attention of the House. He hoped he had made out a good case for Wimbledon; but there was another case that not only affected the residents of a certain district, but which affected everyone who went to the Thames for the purpose of recreation or amusement. The promoters proposed to take the railway to Putney. It had been determined by the proper authorities to get rid of the old bridge and the present ugly aqueduct and to build a new, handsome structure of granite, of five wide spans, which, no

    333
    doubt, would be a great ornament to the river. Well, in order to get to London, this railway must cross the river; and it was proposed that they should throw across it a bridge at a different angle altogether to the proposed granite bridge, and consisting of no less than nine arches. The Company said—" Oh, if you want fewer spans, we will hear what competent persons have to say on the subject; and if they say that it will be an improvement we will adopt your suggestion." Still, they could not get rid of the fact that they would have ck skew bridge within 200 yards of this new Putney Bridge. He happened to be President of the West London Rowing Club. He did not say anything to the Secretary of that Club about this bridge; but within the last 24 hours he had had five separate Petitions from him and others begging the House, for the sake of boating on the Thames, if for no other reason, to throw out the Bill. Let the House bear in mind that if they did not allow this bridge to be built it would be fatal to the Bill, because the railway could not come into London unless this skew bridge was built; and, at the same time, the House should also bear in mind that if they did allow the scheme to be carried out, it was good-bye to the enjoyment of that which was one of the finest reaches of the river. He was afraid he had been somewhat tedious; but he had this matter very much at heart, and he trusted that his Amendment would be accepted. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he rose to second the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down. After the able and exhaustive speech he had delivered, he (Mr. Bryce) would confine himself to one or two very short remarks. The hon. Baronet had pointed out how injuriously this scheme would affect Wimbledon Common. He admitted the great desirability of opening up the parts of Surrey that this Bill proposed to open up; and he also admitted the great desirability of making not only Wimbledon Common, but all the commons near, accessible to the people of London. As a Representative of a London constituency, he had no hesitation in saying that the House would be rendering a great service to the public by
    334
    making the commons more available; but in doing that they must not purchase too dear. The Bill proposed not only to injure Wimbledon Common in the way which had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet, but also to take pieces of other commons in Surrey. It was proposed that if this was objectionable the Company should enter into an undertaking to abstain from acquiring any common laud if the Home Office required it to so abstain; but he thought the Company should be required to give an absolute undertaking that it would not take common land at all. The Bill proposed to take power to cross the commons, one of them the most beautiful common in Surrey, to sever it in two; and when that was done its enjoyment was, of course, seriously interfered with. As the Mover of the second reading had well remarked, it was time that the railway sought power to throw into these two commons land equivalent to that which it took from them; but the hon. Members who looked at the clauses of the Bill would see that the powers were not sufficiently strong. The powers were merely permissive. They allowed the Company to take the lands, but did not give them power to take them compulsorily. They, having obtained possession of the common land, might say to the Conservators, or those interested—"We cannot get the land we want to throw into the common—the owners will not sell it;" and the commons, therefore, would suffer. He submitted that these commons were matters of great public interest and value. There was no county in England that possessed not only more commons, but more beautiful commons than Surrey; and they ought to be careful not to impair the respect the people had for them as their own patrimony. They ought to tell the promoters that they had brought forward an ill-advised scheme, and that it was incumbent on them to show that they could construct their line without interfering with the commons at all. There was another Bill for second reading to-morrow promoted by the London and South-Western Railway Company which also proposed to take common land in a way that would be more injurious than this Bill. If they did not oppose that Bill, it would be argued with some force to-morrow that as they did not oppose one they should not oppose the other. He sub-

    335
    mitted, therefore, that the proper course was to reject all the proposals, and to tell the promoters that they must come back next year with better schemes, that would preserve these common lands for the enjoyment of the people.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to acid the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Henry Peek.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Trade have very carefully considered the provisions of this Bill, and we have also had before us the representations of the opponents to the measure and of those who advocate its passage. I may point out to the House that the question before us this moment is not whether the Bill should pass, but whether there is on the face of it any provision so objectionable and. monstrous in its character that the House would be justified in refusing to allow it to be road a second time. As I understand the language of the opponents of the Bill, they consider that one or two of its provisions are of this character—The first is the extent of its interference with commons, &c.; secondly, the point raised by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Peek)—that the railway can only reach its destination by means of a bridge which it is proposed to erect diagonally with another, to be built by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of a different span, so as to be dangerous to navigation. As to the latter point, I considered it of so much importance that I engaged Colonel Yolland to make a Report of the facts; and I have received a Report from him, and will submit it to the Committee if the House passes the second reading. Colonel Yolland says he does not see in the proposal any valid reason for refusing to allow the Bill to be considered by a Select Committee. I have also received a letter from the solicitor to, or, at all events, signed on behalf of, the Company; and in that letter they undertake that both the direction of tire bridge and the character of its spans shall be altered in accordance with the desire of the Thames Conservancy—who are interested in the river—and the Board of Trade, and, if there is any difference of opinion between them, in accordance with the decision of an arbitrator. That disposes
    336
    of that objection; but there is still the more important question that the Bill interferes with the enjoyment of commons to such an extent as to justify the House in refusing to allow it to pass its present stage. It seems to me that there are two objects which all lovers of commons should keep in view—in the first place, their preservation intact, and, in the second place, to secure the greatest access to them for the largest possible number of people. It appears to me absolutely impossible that any line should be constructed through what may be called a commons county, such as that traversed by this line, without some slight interference with the commons; but I doubt if access could be afforded to such a large number of commons with less interference than is now proposed under this Bill. I do not think that the extent of the commons in the county of Surrey will be diminished if the Bill passes by a single acre. It is part of the proposal, I understand, that where it is proposed to take a certain part of a common, the Company will throw into it an equal area of private property. It is said that there will be a severance of the commons, which will be a great injury to them; but this is not the fact. As I understand it, there will be an intersection, but not being in the nature of a severance. As to Wimbledon Common, there will be no interference with its surface, and the amenities of the common will still be preserved. The opposition to this Bill—I will not call it a selfish opposition—is on the part of the Conservators of that common and the inhabitants of Wimbledon, who naturally complain that they should be rated for that which it is now proposed to open up to the whole of London. It seems to me they will have a fair case to lay before a Committee—that if the common is to be opened up to the whole of London, the expense connected with the preservation of the common should fall on the whole of London, as has been the case with some other commons. But these are really matters for Committee; and, therefore, under the circumstances, I trust the House will not take the strong step of rejecting the measure on the second reading.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the right hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) had referred to him in connection with the

    337
    National Rifle Association; and he assumed that, as a member of the Council of that Association, he (Lord Elcho) would not oppose the Bill. Certainly, at one time, he would have done so; but the Company had made proposals to the Association which, to a great extent, diminished the objection which they had to the Bill as originally framed; and—he thought he could speak for the Council of the Association—reserving to themselves the right of appearing before the Committee, they did not propose to oppose the second reading. He opposed it himself as an individual, wholly irrespective of the Association, and on totally different grounds to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bryce), who, he believed, was the Chairman of the Commons Preservation Society. This Bill now came before them in a very modest form—in the form of a small landowners' Bill taking only three and a-half acres of common land. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that the intersection of a common by a railway was not a severance; but he should like to know what was a severance if an intersection was not. He was not aware what the distinction drawn by the President of the Board of Trade was.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the communication between the land on each side of the railway was preserved to the public.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, they had a clear severance, and the right hon. Gentleman evaded the real point. He asked the House to reject the Bill on the broad matter of principle. It came before them as a landowners' Bill; but it was of a very different character when the plans were first deposited and it was first brought forward. Why, as regarded the National Rifle Association, it took no heed of that important body for the encouragement of rifle shooting in the United Kingdom; and if it had stood as originally framed it would absolutely have put a stop to all rifle shooting. The way they treated all rifle corps who had a right to shoot there was simply by giving them notice that they were about to take their shooting ground. In that way they regularly sought to override the public interest in a manner which the House of Commons ought not to sanction. The House ought to lay it down as a principle that Com-
    338
    panies were not to come to Parliament to override public interests, and then to be allowed to bring in an amended scheme. They had often heard it stated that Railway Companies would not hesitate, if it suited their purpose, to run a railway through St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey; and his right hon. Friend, in moving the second reading, said there was such an opposition to it that one would suppose the intention was to run a line to the House of Commons with a cutting through Palace Yard. The Bill did not propose to do that; but it did propose to cut through Parliament, or the intention of Parliament, as shown by Parliamentary Committees and Acts of Parliament, because it had for its object to cut through and take a large portion of the lower part of a common. They ought to teach Railway Companies a lesson, and show them that they were not, for the sake of saving money to the shareholders or for some other purpose, to bring in a Bill overriding the intention of Parliament; and then, when they were stopped—as they had done in this case—to bring forward a modified scheme, saying—" We will not do all the harm we intended to do." The plans showed what was originally intended; and what was now meant was a modification of that original scheme. They did not propose to cut through the common, but to carry out the same plan by travelling under it. He should give his vote heartily for his hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, to teach the Railway Companies a lesson which might save them a great deal of litigation in future cases.
    MR. ONSLOWshould like to say a word on the matter before the House went to a division. He had heard nothing from the hon. Baronet, nor the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bryce), which should induce the House to refuse the second reading of this Bill. The remarks that had been made concerning its provisions touched subjects that could be very well dealt with in Committee, and he certainly could not see that there had been a strong case shown for the refusal of the Bill. They all expected that the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) would say something which might induce the House to throw out the Bill, because he was connected with the Volunteer movement; but he had shown them conclusively that the measure would not

    339
    interfere with the shooting at Wimbledon. [Lord ELCHO: As now proposed.] The House had nothing to do with that particular branch of the subject. It was said that ricochet shots from the butts might have some injurious effect on the line, and that, of course, was a very serious consideration; but it was not a reason why they should throw out the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Henry Peek) seemed to take a local objection to the Bill; but it was not a local measure. The matter was one which affected a very large number of the inhabitants, seeing that at present there was no railway accommodation at all. He should be the last person to support the Bill if he thought the common lands in Surrey were likely to be interfered with by it; but he thought that, beautiful as the commons in Surrey were, at this moment the general public had so few facilities for visiting them that if they were not likely to be cut up or destroyed, a railway should be constructed for the purpose of giving access to them. The hon. Baronet behind him (Sir Henry Peek) had not shown how, if the proposed railway were made, it would interfere with the games which were played at Wimbledon, or with the rare insects which were to be found on Wimbledon Common. He held in his hand a Petition in favour of the Bill from the borough he had the honour to represent. It was signed by the Mayor and Corporation, under the corporate seal, and it pointed out that the Petition in favour of the line came from every part of Surrey through which the railway would pass. He believed that it would be a very popular line; and that when it was made it would be found that there was no objection to it at all. If it were laid down that no railway should pass through common land in the county of Surrey it would be impossible to have any railway at all. The whole of the lines in Surrey passed through common lands; from Wimbledon to Guildford, from Guildford to Aldershot, and all through the county there was one succession of common lands. If they were to pay any attention to the sentimental idea that they were not to interfere with the common lands which now existed in the country, in future it would be impossible to construct a new railway in Surrey. At the present moment, the line from Lon-
    340
    don to Portsmouth passed through a large extent of common land, and it would be altogether impossible to construct a line from Guildford to Portsmouth, unless they did pass over common lands. It had been said, and said most truly, that, at the present moment, the London and South-Western Railway Company had a monopoly of the railway accommodation in this district, and that fact constituted one of the chief reasons why he supported the present Bill. Nothing could be worse than the accommodation provided by the London and South-Western Railway Company at the present time, and a little wholesome competition was very much needed. The fares charged by the Company were excessive; the stations and the accommodation generally were as defective as possible; and throughout the whole of England there was not a worse line of railway than that of the London and South-Western Railway Company's from London to Portsmouth. He believed that his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Henry Peek) had gained a great deal of unpopularity by the course he had taken in reference to the present Bill; but he (Mr. Onslow) hoped that unpopularity would die away long before the next General Election, and that it would not interfere with his seat in any way whatever. For the reasons he had given, he begged to support the second reading of the Bill.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he also intended to support the second reading of the Bill, and he did so entirely irrespective of the merits of the measure; but because he thought the House of Commons was a tribunal totally unfitted to dispose of a project of this kind, without first sending the Bill before a Select Committee, which alone was capable of dealing with the questions involved in it. As so much, however, had been said upon the merits of the Bill, he wished to say one word in reference to a matter which was within his own personal knowledge. Richmond Park was, he believed, the largest and most magnificent park in the United Kingdom. In every way it was the best park in the neighbourhood of London; and it so happened that those parts of it which were nearest to the Metropolis were also near to the proposed line. A man who was able to keep a horse, and drive to Richmond Park,

    341
    when he got there found it almost a solitude, the best parts of it being almost entirely shut out from the inhabitants of London, owing to the absence of the means of getting there. In Richmond Park there were miles and miles of the most magnificent country scenery, full of woods and dales, and trees and ferns, and everything which made rural scenery enjoyable; but, owing to the absence of railway facilities, the park was comparatively unused. At present the only means the inhabitants of London possessed of getting to Richmond Park was by going clown to Richmond by rail or river; and then they had to walk through the town, and travel for a mile and a-half, before they reached the farther end. He felt certain that if railway accommodation were provided in such a way that there could be no insuperable objection raised, the inhabitants of London would highly appreciate the privilege of obtaining free access to Richmond Park at the near end about Robin Hood's Gate.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he simply desired to answer one of the points which had been raised in the course of the debate. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bryce) suggested that the Bill should be deferred for a year. Now, on behalf of his constituents, who were deeply interested in the matter, he (Mr. Brodrick) ventured to protest against any delay whatever. The proposed railway would be 22 miles long, and in almost the whole of the district through which it passed it was not opposed in the slightest degree, and the objections which had been urged to it in respect of Wimbledon did not apply. He, therefore, hoped that the House would agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee, who would carefully inquire into the whole merits of the case.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 49: Majority 226.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

LONDON CITY (PAROCHIAL CHARITIES) BILL (by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BRYCE,in moving that the Order for the second reading of the Bill upon
  342
  Wednesday next be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, said, that he made this Motion in conformity with the established practice of the House; but in doing so he wished to call attention to the inconvenience and hardship which the practice inflicted upon private Members. When a Bill was referred in this way to the Examiners of Private Bills it necessarily lost its place on the Paper for second reading; and, as the House was aware, it was almost impossible to get a Bill to a second reading unless the Member in charge of it balloted for a day on the first night of the Session. If he was successful in obtaining an early day, and the Bill affected any particular locality, or appeared to affect any rights of private bodies, it then became necessary to refer th Bill to the Examiners, and he lost the day he had obtained. This happened even though the Examiners might ultimately hold that the Bill was entirely a public one. It thus became practically impossible for a private Member to bring in a Bill with a prospect of getting it read a second time, however important it might be, if it became necessary to refer it to the Examiners. He hoped the House would see its way to modifying the existing practice by a new Standing Order, which he hoped to be able to propose, dealing with this inconvenience, and permitting a Bill referred under such circumstances to the Examiners, to retain its place on the Order Book for second reading. He might add that the difficulty became greater by the application of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill upon Wednesday next be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  MR. PELLhoped he might be allowed to say a word upon the subject. He would not take up the time of the House by commenting upon the reference of the Bill to the Examiners; but he could not let the opportunity pass of calling the attention of the Government to the importance of the measure, and of expressing a hope that if the Bill came forward too late to be fully considered this Session, the Government would, at the earliest time at their disposal, take up this important matter, with a view of

  343
  giving effect by legislation to the views of the Royal commissioners.
  Motion agreed to.
  Leave given to the Examiners to sit and proceed forthwith.

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS—KILMAINHAM GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many town councillors, members of poor law boards, and students of the learned professions are now imprisoned in Kilmainham under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that, in accordance with the terms of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, it was his duty to lay upon the Table a list of all persons arrested under it, and by help of that list the hon. Member would be able to obtain the information he desired.

POST OFFICE ACT, 1837—DETENTION AND OPENING OF LETTERS.
MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in the case of duly prepaid private letters stopped, opened, and read by the Post Office authorities, by virtue of a warrant from the Secretary of State, or otherwise, it is usual to prevent the communications from reaching their intended destination, and to return them as "Returned Paid Letters" to the writers, without any explanation or reason for their stoppage; whether, on or about the 13th instant, a duly prepaid letter, addressed to a young lady residing at West End Park, Harrogate, was, by authority of a special warrant from Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, or otherwise, stopped, opened, and read by the Post Office authorities, and by them returned to the writer as a "Returned Paid Letter," without any explanation of such proceeding on their part; whether, on or about the same date, a letter addressed to a young lady in a boarding school at Haverstock Hill was in a like manner stopped, opened, perused, and returned as a "Returned Paid Letter" to the writer by the Post Office authorities, without any explana-
344
tion of their conduct; and, whether it is a fact that in each case it was discovered that the communication so intercepted by the authorities was from a young lady in Ireland inclosing a spray of Shamrocks to a former schoolfellow in one case, and to the writer's sister in the other; and, whether it is not possible that, since the Home Secretary has been reported to have opened letters, dishonest letter carriers had availed themselves of the opportunity of opening them also, thinking that the recipients would imagine it had been done by the Home Secretary?
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I need scarcely say that the two letters referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member were not opened by a warrant from the Secretary of State. I find, on inquiry, that the explanation of the matter is simply as follows:—On St. Patrick's Day, a great number of letters are always sent containing shamrock. The two letters referred to in the Question contained shamrock in such a wet condition that the moisture came through and injured the other letters. The course was then taken which is always followed when a letter is in such a condition that it cannot be for warded without damage to the other correspondence. These letters were sent to the Returned Letter Office. They were, of course, not read, but treated in the same way as letters which are sent to the Returned Letter Office to be returned to the writers in consequence of insufficient address or other cause. I think, however, it might be better, and would probably cause less inconvenience, if, under similar circumstances in the future, letters thus detained are forwarded to their destination instead of being returned to the writers. Through an inadvertence the letters in question were returned to the writer endorsed with the word "shamrock," instead of with the words "damp shamrock withdrawn," which would have explained the cause of the detention.

CRIMINAL LAW—ARREST OF THE EDITOR OF THE "FREIHEIT."
MR. GREGORYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a paper called "Freiheit" is printed and published in London, in which paper the assassination of the late Czar of Russia is justified and approved, and in which the destruc-

345
tion of other sovereigns of Europe is suggested; and, if he will consider whether such a publication is consistent with our International obligations to friendly States or the Law of this Country? He desired to explain that, since placing this Question upon the Paper, he had ascertained that proceedings had been taken against the editor of the paper referred to.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, Whether it was true that the editor of the Freiheit was arrested yesterday, under a warrant charging him with inciting the people of a foreign State to sedition and rebellion; and that his money, his watch, his bank book, and his letters were taken from him; if so, by whom the warrant for his arrest was issued, and whether the warrant authorized such rigorous treatment, and under what law or statute the arrest was made, and under what law or statute the police were justified in forcibly ejecting the compositors from the premises, in taking possession of the keys, and in shutting up the premises?
MR. J. COWENinquired, Whether the prosecution of the editor of the Freiheit had been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government at the request or suggestion of any foreign Government?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I will first answer the Question of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). The attention of Her Majesty's Government has necessarily been directed to the article referred to. It has been reproduced with more or less detail in most of the English and foreign newspapers. Its revolting character is universally known, and it seemed to Her Majesty's Government impossible to ignore it. I hold in my hand a translation of that article, and I am afraid I must shock the House by reading one or two sentences from it. In this article there is no circumstance of bestial ferocity absent. After describing with exultation the assassination of the Czar, it pro-ceeds—
"Triumph, triumph! … The Emperor of Russia is no more … One of those brave young men who produced the revolutionary movement in Russia, Rousakoff—with reverence be his name uttered—threw a dynamite bomb under the despot's carriage, winch, indeed, did great damage to the conveyance and to its immediate neighbourhood, but left the crowned murderous thief uninjured. … Then flew another bomb. It fell at the despot's feet,
346
shattered his legs, ripped open his belly, and caused many wounds and deaths among the surrounding military and civil Cossacks. Those who witnessed the scene were paralyzed, but the energetic bomb-thrower retained his composure and happily succeeded in escaping. The Emperor was conveyed to his palace, where for an hour and a-half he was able, amid horrible sufferings, to meditate on his guilty life. At last he died—as a dog dies. … For three years has many a shot whistled past the ears of these monsters without—except in Nobiling's attempt—hurting a hair of their heads. … The other rabble, too, which in various countries pull the wires of Government mechanism for the ruling classes, experienced a powerful 'moral delirium' and melted in tears of confession, whether they were mere head lackeys on the steps of the Imperial Throne, or Republican 'regulation bandits' of the first class. The whimpering was no less in France, in Switzerland, and America than in Montenegro or Greece. A Gambetta caused the adjournment of the Chambers and thereby put an insult on France. The leaders of the ruling classes see in the successful destruction of an autocrat more than a mere act of homicide. They are in face of a successful attack upon authority as such. They all know at the same time that every success has the wonderful power of instilling respect, but of inciting to imitation. Hence they are trembling, from Constantinople to Washington, for their long forfeit heads. … What we might at any rate complain of is that so-called tyrannicide happens so seldom. If only a single crowned wretch were disposed of every month in a short time no one would any more care to play the Monarch. … Indeed, we might actually wish that it should so turn out, for we hate the hypocritical mock-liberal Monarch no less than the despots sans phrase, because the former, perhaps, have greater power of retarding the development of civilization than the latter. … Meanwhile, be this as it may, 'the throw was good,' and we hope that it was not the last."
In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would be a grave error to regard this matter solely, or even principally, from an international point of view. It is not so much as an offence against foreign Governments, but as a domestic crime, that such publications should be dealt with. They constitute a gross and flagrant breach of our public morals. Incitements to murder, whether levelled against princes or peasants, against citizens or strangers, are like obscene libels; they attack the foundations of civil society and shock the conscience of mankind. No Government, which desires to do its duty to the society with whose safety it is charged, can tolerate the open advocacy of atrocious crimes. Those who are justly jealous of the rights of asylum will be the first to demand the punishment of its monstrous abase, which, if permitted, would de-

347
stroy the privilege. The refuge of a free State is not to be converted into a propaganda of assassination, whether at home or abroad. It is for these reasons that Her Majesty's Government have determined that the persons responsible for this infamous outrage should be dealt with according to law. That answers the Question, I think, of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). This prosecution is instituted upon the authority of Her Majesty's Government. I directed the matter some days ago to be placed in the hands of the Solicitors to the Treasury, who have taken, I suppose, the ordinary steps which are proper in such circumstances. In answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), I have to say that, as soon as this article came to my knowledge, without any instigation from any foreign Government, I immediately directed it to be laid before the Officers of the Crown.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the right hon. Gentleman under what statute the editor was searched, his money and watch taken from him, and the compositors ejected from the premises?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the noble Lord would be informed of that when the indictment was preferred.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to answer the Question in the House of Commons. He would repeat it to-morrow.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
MR. WODEHOUSEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Transvaal State will be designated as "the South African Republic," when under the suzerainty of the British Crown; and, whether the reserved control of its relations with Foreign Powers will include the control of its relations with independent chiefs of Native tribes?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, to my hon. Friend's second Question I must answer—Yes. The Commission will have to determine the manner and extent of the control to be exercised, and it will be also part of its duty to consider the
348
question of the name of the Transvaal State, due regard being had to all relevant circumstances.

THE STTEZ CANAL COMPANY—THE BRITISH SHARES.
MR. LABOUCHERE (for Mr. BRADLAUGEH)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a letter in the "Times" of Saturday, stating that the 176,602 shares in the Suez Canal Company, purchased by the late Government in 1875, have now a price of "78," showing "the handsome profit of £10,242,916;" whether it is not the fact that 176,602 shares so purchased had their interest coupons detached prior to such purchase; and, whether such shares are not absolutely unsaleable at any profit whatever?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the enormous rise during the last few years in the value of the Suez Canal Shares; and, if he can, in reference to the 176,602 shares held by the British Government, state the difference in value between the price paid for them in 1876 and the latest market quotation, first, on the assumption that they are now entitled to the same dividend coupons as other ordinary shares, and, secondly, making an actuarial calculation for the difference in their deferred value; and, whether the 5 per cent annuity guaranteed by the Egyptian Government for nineteen years has hitherto been regularly paid?
MR. GLADSTONE: It is in the recollection of the House that 176,000 odd shares in the Suez Canal were purchased in 1875 by the Government, and that the price given for them was £4,076,000. That was at the rate of about £23 per share. The interest coupons on these shares were detached from them until the year 1894, when the Government will be entitled to take dividends on the shares. In the meantime they are entitled to receive £5 per cent on the purchase money from the Egyptian Government, and that has been regularly paid. With regard to the Question whether these shares can be sold, I am not aware whether there is any legal provision on the point; but there is no doubt that, as far as the market is con-

349
cerned, arrangements could be made for selling them if it were deemed expedient, and it was quite evident they could be sold at a convenient profit. It is stated that the present value of Suez Canal shares is about £78, and that is a price which, I believe, has been recently obtained. They were purchased, as I stated, at £23 1s. 8d., and at that time the price of the shares in the market was about £30; the difference between those two sums represents the sum set down by the Government in their calculations against the postponement of profit on the shares to the year 1894. The share profit is now considered to be worth in the market £58 on the £20 share, receiving profit continuously; but when the period to which the profit on the 176,000 shares is deferred is taken into account, then it may be held to be relatively £27 more than in 1875. Consequently, there may be said to have accrued a gain of £4,750,000 on the purchase of the shares.

RAILWAYS (INDIA).
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If the Government have determined again to try to have Railways constructed in India by private Companies aided by the State, and on what terms the Calcutta and Khoolna Railway has been offered to Messrs. Rothschild; and, whether any other lines have been offered to private projectors with any, and what, Government aid?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Government are extremely desirous of seeing private enterprize applied to works of public utility in India, and hope to see railways constructed through the instrumentality of private Companies, without the usual guarantee hitherto given, but with certain aid from the State. It has, therefore, been determined to assist a Company, in which Messrs. Rothschild have taken much interest, for making a line from Calcutta to Jessore and Khoolna. The terms which have been agreed upon with the promoters of this railway are briefly these:—The Government is to provide the land free of cost to the Company, and to grant them a lease for 99 years. Government is to have the option of purchasing the line at the end of 30 or 50 years on paying £125 for every £100 stock. On the termination of the 99
350
years' lease the works are to become the property of the Government, the movable stock being purchased at a valuation. The capital, as raised, is to be paid into the Bank of England to the account of the Secretary of State for India in Council. Interest at the rate of 4 per cent is to be advanced on money so paid till the line is opened, or until June, 1886, whichever occurs first. The interest so advanced is to be repaid to the Government, with interest from half the earnings of the line above 5 per cent. No other schemes of a similar character have been brought under my notice, and no other lines have been offered to private projectors.

BRAZIL—CLAIMS OF A BRITISH SUBJECT.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government will take the opportunity of a new Minister being sent to Brazil to give him such instructions in regard to British claims as will show the Brazilian Government that Her Majesty's Government will resist the postponement of a settlement of claims arising before 1858, and that they will in no case allow counter-claims arising out of destruction of slave ships to enter into the question?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Ford sent home, on the 20th ult., a revised list of British claims, and reported that he was daily expecting to hear from the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs that he was prepared to confer with him as to an adjustment of this long-pending question. Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires will be instructed to press the matter forward; but Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it will be necessary to give any further instructions than those already issued.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JOSEPH B. WALSH.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Joseph B. Walsh, now in Kilmainham Prison, under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, is detained because he is declared to be reasonably suspected of having committed an offence, for which the maximum punishment after conviction is three months'

351
imprisonment; and, whether, after he has suffered the full sentence which the law allows for persons convicted of this crime, Her Majesty's Government will discharge him?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): No, Sir; the maximum punishment for the offence is not three months' imprisonment, but penal servitude for seven years, or imprisonment, with hard labour, for three years; long before the expiration of either of which periods the Act for the Better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland will have ceased to be in force.

THE CUSTOMS SERVICE—OUT-DOOR OFFIERS—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the fact that a competitive examination for the promotion of out-door officers of the Customs Service was announced more than fourteen months ago, and held on the 15th October of last year; if it is true that the result has not as yet been made known; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the delay prejudicially affecting the competitors, found to have meritoriously passed in October last, by causing their promotion to reckon from that date?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, notice of an examination was given in January, 1880, and those candidates who passed a preliminary test examination were admitted to competition on October 18 last. The number examined, 430, was unusually large, because candidates for the offices, both of examining officer and of gauger, which were formerly dealt with separately, were taken together; and, as the examination included practical subjects relating to both branches of the out-door department, the inspection of the answers has occupied a longer time than usual. But the work is now nearly complete, and the results will probably be made known in a few days. The successful candidates will have no claim to have their appointments pre-dated. The examinations are not held for the purpose of filling existing vacancies, the officers found qualified being only entitled to be placed on a list to receive appointments, in order of merit, as vacancies occur.

THE WEST INDIES—THE CURRENCY.
MR. PARKERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether in our West Indian Colonies creditors are by law compelled to accept British token silver, shillings, sixpences, &c., without limit, not at their intrinsic value, but at their nominal value as parts of the pound sterling; whether in consequence West Indian currency consists mainly of such coins, with notes partly based on them, and for want of gold intercolonial and international remittances are unduly expensive; and, whether the present Secretary of State adopts the language held by his predecessor, in a Circular addressed to these Colonies, that so long as they unwisely place no limit upon the tender of token silver, "they in fact suspend cash payments;" and, if so, whether further steps might not now be taken towards the amendment of "an unsound currency," by limiting the legal tender of silver, as at home, to forty shillings?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my. hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that his statement is perfectly correct. In reply to his second Question I have to say the same. In reply to his third Question I have to say yes; but the prevalence of erroneous ideas on the subject of currency in some parts of the West Indies makes it extremely difficult to move in the matter as quickly as we could wish.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—THE REPORTED BOROUGHS.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will be able to inform the House before Easter, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take as to those Boroughs with reference to which the Election Commissioners have reported that Corrupt Practices have extensively prevailed therein at the last General Election?
TILE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped he might be allowed to answer the Question. The House was aware that the Commissioners had made their Report in seven cases, and only one—that of Oxford—remained to be reported upon. These Reports and the evidence were very volu-

353
minous, in one case alone 85,000 questions having been put. Any steps taken either by way of disfranchisement of the boroughs, or suspension of the writ, or disfranchisement of individuals, must be by legislation, and therefore a Bill must be brought into the House. In order to arrive at the degree of punishment that should be inflicted, it would be necessary to inquire into the degree of guilt of the constituencies; and to do that they must take into account not only the schedules with regard to the late elections, but also what had occurred at former elections. Some time must, therefore, elapse before a result was arrived at. Certainly no steps could be taken before Easter.
In reply to Colonel TAYLOR,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not state when the remaining Report would be presented.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
In reply to Mr. GIBSON,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, as far as he understood, there would be no objection to lay on the Table the judgment in the case of "Clarke v. Bradlaugh."

POOR LAW—WORKHOUSE INMATES— RELIGIOUS ATTENDANCE.
MR. SUMMERSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether Boards of Guardians in England and Wales are bound by the provisions of the Poor Relief Amendment Act, 31 and 32 Vic. c. 122, to permit any inmate of a workhouse for whom a religious service according to his own creed is not provided in the workhouse, to attend, at such times as the Poor Law Board shall allow, some place of worship of his own denomination within a convenient distance of the said workhouse?
MR. DODSON: Sir, section 21 of 31 & 32 Viet. c. 122, expressly provides that every inmate of a workhouse for whom a religious service according to his own creed is not provided in a workhouse shall be permitted, subject to regulation to be approved or ordered by the Local Government Board, to attend, at such times as the said Board shall allow, some place of worship of his own denomination within a convenient dis-
354
tance of the workhouse, if there be such. In case, however, of the abuse of such permission, or on some other special ground, the Guardians may refuse permission to any particular inmate.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE 94th REGIMENT—PROTECTION OF NATIVE INTERESTS—SLAVERY.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, when the Convention was approved by Her Majesty's Government, which granted an amnesty to those who had taken up arms against the Queen, they were aware of the terms of Sir Owen Lanyon's Despatch, which states that the Boers "sent in a message with the white flag, ordering the Colonel (Anstruther) to halt and proceed no further;" that "while this was being done the enemy continued to advance under cover of the white flag, and so took up positions, which, from a previous reconnoitre of the ground, they had selected as being most suitable to pour in a deadly fire on our men;" and that "on the receipt of the reply that their orders could not be complied with," they did immediately" open a murderous fire on our men from about 200 yards with such effect, that in a short time 57 were killed, and 101 officers, men, and women were wounded;" and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will treat this attack as within the scope of civilised warfare?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir; and I am not surprised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question; but Sir Owen Lanyon was at Pretoria when this deplorable event occurred, and Her Majesty's Government was also in possession of the despatch of Colonel Anstruther, the officer in command, which gives a somewhat different complexion to the affair. More than this I had rather not say at present.
MR. GRANTHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether as it appears by Sir Evelyn Wood's telegram, that no instructions had been given by Her Majesty's Government to the Commissioners in the Transvaal to protect the interests of British subjects who had purchased land or advanced money on land in the Transvaal in consequence of its having been annexed as a British Colony, Her Majesty's Government have since given, or will now give, such in-

355
structions; and, as Sir Evelyn Wood states in the said telegram "that the Royal Commission should consider the provisions for the protection of native interests," how is it that the Government had taken no steps to ensure that the Royal Commission should also consider provisions for the protection of British interests, and especially of British subjects who purchased land or advanced money upon the land in consequence of the Transvaal having become a British Colony?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the hon. Member will, perhaps, permit me to reply to his two Questions. As to the first, I have to observe that, as Her Majesty's Government have not yet given instructions to the Commission upon any subject, it has not given any instructions on the particular subject to which the hon. Member alludes; but, as a matter of course, it will do so. That statement is a full reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's second Question; but I may add that I fail to see how the fact that Sir Evelyn Wood had very properly called attention to Native interests should have led the hon. Member to infer that Her Majesty's Government proposed to neglect British interests.
MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government will give instructions to the Transvaal Commissioners to enforce the Article of the Sand River Convention, by which it is agreed that no slavery is or shall be permitted or practised to the North of the Vaal River, a stipulation which was continually violated by the South African Republic?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the hon. Member for the City of London, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government will call the attention of the Commission to the provisions of the Sand River Convention on the subject of slavery.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information as to the number of slaves, if any, who were found in the Transvaal at the time of the annexation, and what course the British Government took with regard to those slaves?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to say that I never
356
heard that any person in what is technically known as a state of slavery was found in the Transvaal at the time of annexation. The facts which have been so much commented upon occurred, I believe, some years before that event.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state approximately the number of so-called "apprentices" employed by the Boers in the Transvaal at the time of its annexation; whether that "apprenticeship" is or is not a system of forced, unpaid labour; and whether he can explain the difference between that institution and slavery?
MR. GRANT DUFF: No, Sir, I cannot state the figures, nor do I know that they are procurable. I am afraid that apprenticeship not unfrequently bore a good deal of resemblance to slavery.

STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED OUT RAGE BY SOLDIERS—CO. CORK.
MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Cork Examiner" of March 28th, giving an account of the capture, at Corkbeg near Whitegate, of three soldiers from the garrison at Carlisle Fort, attempting to mutilate sheep, the property of Mr. R. U. Penrose Fitzgerald; and, whether he has directed any inquiry to be made into the matter with a view of ascertaining the correctness of the statement?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this matter, and I have received information from the constabulary in reference to this subject, and I find that the account given in the newspaper is not correct. If the hon. Member will look at the Freeman's Journal of yesterday he will find a paragraph that puts the matter in a correct light.
MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked, whether the Report did not state that the men were not Marines?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Report does state that they were not Marines.
MR. PARNELLsaid, that what he asked the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he had directed any inquiry to be made into the matter with the view of ascertaining the correctness of the statement referred to by the paragraph in the newspapers; but he did not give him the information he required
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have inquired into the matter, and I find that the account given in the newspaper is not correct, and I think it was admitted by the newspaper yesterday that it is not so.
MR. O'DONNELL: But, in a matter of so much importance, would it not be more becoming and satisfactory to state to the House what was the result of your inquiry, and not merely state that the account in the newspaper was not correct?
MR. PARNELLasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could inform him whether two soldiers had been captured under circumstances which gave rise to the belief that they were going to mutilate sheep?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BOARD AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Education Department in the new Code will secure equal treatment in the matter of reckoning school accommodation to Board and Voluntary Schools?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there is no difference in the mode of reckoning the amount of accommodation in schools on the ground that they are Board schools or voluntary schools. But if a school has been built, with the consent of the Department, to accommodate a particular number of children, and if, in order to do so, the Department have, at the request of the locality, allowed them to obtain the money by mortgaging the rates, the Department take care that the accommodation provided shall not be less than 10 square feet for each child. But, unless this special privilege is so obtained, the annual grant is not forfeited so long as the minimum of eight square feet is provided. As I have already told the hon. Member, the Department would be glad to see this minimum increased, both for Board and for voluntary schools. Where schools with the enlarged accommodation have been provided, we do not consent, except in cases of urgent necessity, to allow them to be crowded to the full extent of the minimum requirements of the Department.

AFGHANISTAN—POLITICAL AFFAIRS.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in the Calcutta Correspondence of the "Pioneer," dated the 28th of February, that the mission of General Mir Ahmed, the plenipotentiary of Abdur Rahman—
"Is first of all to convince the Indian Government that the Ameer has done everything in his power to secure himself in Cabul, and then to sound our officials upon the subject of further subsidies * * * * The ten lakhs which have already been given to the Ameer, and any subsidy which may now be offered to him, will, it is presumed, figure in the Budget under the head of Afghan War Expenditure;"
whether he will state to the House what subsidies, if any, have been granted to Abdur Rahman; and, also, whether Government will treat the payment of subsidies for the maintenance of Abdur Rahman in Cabul and Candahar as a matter of Imperial concern not exclusively affecting the interests of India, and will propose that the British Exchequer contribute in an equitable proportion towards such expenditure?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I do not think that the nature of General Mir Ahmed's mission to Calcutta has been correctly stated in the Calcutta Correspondence of The Pioneer. The cause of that mission originated in a communication from the Viceroy to the Ameer suggesting that, in order to discuss certain affairs connected with Cabul generally, and especially the proposed arrangements to be made in Southern Afghanistan, a confidential agent should be despatched to India. The mission of General Mir Ahmed was the result. I believe it is a fact that the agent in question asked for some war material and received it. We have no information of any request about subsidies; but I have not yet received a full official Report from the Indian Government as to the results of the mission. The subsidies granted to the Ameer are as follows:—On the 2nd of August, 1880, the sum of nine and a-half lakhs of rupees found by Sir Frederick Roberts in the Cabul treasury on his occupation of the city was given over to Abdurrahman. Ten lakhs were, at the same time, given to him by the Indian Government. A sum of five lakhs has, since January 19, 1881, been given to him, making 25 lakhs in all given to him by the Indian

359
Government. These sums have been taken into account in arriving at the cost of the Afghan War, in respect to which the contribution has been made from the Treasury. As I do not know that any arrangement has been made as to the granting of an annual subsidy, it will be impossible for me to answer the second part of the Question.

SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND (PEACE NEGOTIATIONS).
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, Whether it is now possible for Her Majesty's Government to take the "friendly action with a view to the restoration of peace" in Basutoland, which was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, and endeavour to protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in that country?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, Her Majesty's Government did take that friendly action through Her Majesty's High Commissioner some time ago; but I regret to say that his efforts towards bringing about a settlement were not crowned with the success they deserved, the Basutos declining, in spite of their loyal professions, to confide unreservedly in the Representative of the Crown. Within the last day or two he has informed us that he has again made an attempt to get them to do so; but, when he last telegraphed, their answer had not been received.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to know whether Sir Hercules Robinson asked the Basutos to put themselves in his hands, as distinguished from those of the Cape Ministry?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Undoubtedly.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—LAND OWNERSHIP.
MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Royal Commission in the Transvaal will be directed to inquire into the operation of the Law which prohibits Natives from holding land, and, at the same time, to consider the expediency of securing in this matter equality between the two races?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the attention of the Royal Commission will be called to this important matter.

STATE OF IRELAND—RIOT AT MIDLETON, CO. CORK.
EARL PERCY (for Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a riot which took place in the town of Midleton, county Cork, on Tuesday the 21st, and to the fact that a house next door to the police barracks was wrecked, and that three houses were subsequently burnt down; whether he is aware that the police made no attempt to quell the disturbance, and that no arrests have since been made; whether, under the circumstances, a general meeting of the Land League, which has been summoned for Sunday next, and from which similar disorder may be feared to result, will be permitted to take place; and, whether the baronies of Clony and Kinalla, in the county Cork, have been proclaimed?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that one of the baronies in question had not been proclaimed; and the other, which was in the East Riding of the county, had been. He had expected to receive more information relative to the Question of the noble Lord than had yet reached him; but he hoped he would have it by to-morrow. He would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to repeat the Question; but he thought he might already say that the matter appeared to have been much exaggerated.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM—ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Right honourable Member for the University of Cambridge, Whether, considering the success that has attended the electric lighting of the Reading Room of the British Museum, the Trustees have considered the expediency of extending the hours of opening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and, if so, whether they have made application to the Treasury for provision to meet the increased expense?
MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: Sir, the Trustees of the British Museum have not had under consideration the extension of the hours of opening the Reading Room from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and, therefore, they have not made application to the Treasury for provision to meet the increased expense. At the same time, it

361
is right to state that since this Question has been put on the Paper I have made inquiries about it, and I am informed that such a proposal as the one referred to could not be adequately carried into effect without lighting all the rooms connected with the Library as Well as the Reading-Room; and the question would then arise as to whether this could be adequately accomplished until better provision is made for dividing and distributing the light than is practicable according to the apparatus now used.

LICENSING ACTS—SUNDAY SERVICES IN MUSIC HALLS.
MR. P. EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Middlesex magistrates authorised the abrupt closing of the Sunday evening religious services, and thereby put 2,000 persons to considerable inconvenience on Sunday evening last; and, whether it is intended to close other music halls which have been used for similar purposes in the Metropolis for many years?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Chairman of the Middlesex magistrates has communicated to me the form of licence granted by the Court under the Act of 25 Geo. II., which expressly stipulates that music halls shall not be opened on Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Christmas Day. This was a very proper provision to prevent them from being opened for ordinary amusements on those days. It did not apply, however, to religious services, and was not intended to place any difficulty in the way of the gratuitous opening of these houses for religious services; but they were not to be used on these occasions as a common tavern. The police reported to me most favourably of the character of these services on Sundays. They seem to have been always permitted at the Metropolitan Music Hall and elsewhere in London. I must say I do not understand on what ground it is intended to close them. As far as my information goes, they appear to me to be altogether unobjectionable. There must be some error on the part of the magistrates, and I shall inquire about it.
MR. P. EDWARDSsaid, that since he had put the Question, he had received
362
a telegram from the Rev. Mr. Cook, asking whether he could hold services in one of these halls next Sunday.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am afraid not, because I have no authority to give such permission. The Middlesex magistrates are the executive authority in that matter.

STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS, MOHILL UNION, CO. LEITRIM.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. FINIGAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the many evictions for non-payment of rent recently carried out and in course of being carried out in the Mohill Union, in the county of Leitrim; and, whether he will cause an inquiry respecting those evictions to be instituted, with a view of ascertaining the amount of rent as compared with the Poor Law valuation?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Precisely the same Question was asked in the names of the hon. Members for Ennis and Cavan last Tuesday, and I must refer the hon. Member to my answer.
MR. PARNELLsaid, in reference to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman had just given, he would ask whether he could not obtain information with regard to the rates in the Poor Law valuation; whether he could not direct the constabulary to obtain the information from the officer of the clerk of the peace in the different counties, and also from the clerks of the Unions? The information with regard to the Poor Law valuations of the Union and the information with regard to the rents might be obtained.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Undoubtedly, it will be in the power of the Government to obtain through the police the Poor Law valuation; but I doubt whether we have a right to compel an answer as to the amount of rent. I fear we have no official means of ascertaining that, but I will inquire. I shall be very glad to be able to lay the information asked for upon the Table of the House.

COOLIES (INDIAN)—THE HURRICANE IN LA REUNION.
DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to

363
the disastrous hurricane which raged in Reunion on the 21st January last; whether he is aware that the Indian Coolies (British subjects) resident in the island have in consequence been subjected to great sufferings; and, whether he can inform the House whether Her Majesty's Consul in Réunion has taken any steps to alleviate the distress of the Coolies?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called by the gentleman in charge of the Consulate, during the absence from ill-health of the Consuls, to the great damage caused by the hurricane in Réunion on the 21st of January last; but as no mention has since been made of the special sufferings of the coolie population, it is hoped that their privations were only temporary.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS) (LAWCOSTS)—HAMPSTEAD HOSPITAL CASE.
MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the statement made at the last meeting of the City of London Union that the costs of the recent Hampstead Hospital case amount to £40,000 to £60,000 has any foundation in fact; and, whether he has now ascertained what is the estimated amount of such cost; and, whether there is any and what statutory authority enabling the Metropolitan Asylums Board to expend the money of London ratepayers in such litigation, or upon what ground such expenditure is approved by the Local Government Board?
MR. DODSON: Sir, I do not know what the costs in this case amount to; but I think that there can be no doubt that this statement that such costs amount to either of the sums in question must be an exaggeration, as the costs of the managers up to the beginning of the present year did not amount to one-sixth of the last-named sum. I am not aware that there is any express statutory authority enabling the managers to pay the costs of the proceedings which have been instituted against them; but, having been advised by high legal authority that they had a good defence, it was open to them, as to any other public body, to defend what they believed to be their legal rights, and, having regard to
364
the importance of the subject, they might have been exposed to reproach had they failed to do so.

INDIA—THE NAGAS TERRITORY.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether portions of the territory of the Nagas bordering on Eastern Bengal, lately occupied by the British. troops, have been recently annexed; whether the Nagas have asked for annexation to the British Dominions; and, whether, if not, the annexed territory will be immediately restored?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwas understood to say that Commercial Treaties were concluded in 1826 and 1833 with the territory in question; but, owing to the nature of the country and the people, with little result. Since 1867, in consequence of very savage raids made on several British and neighbouring villages, active measures had been taken to put a stop to them. A British Resident was appointed, and after certain military operations in the spring of last year, in consequence of the murder of a British subject, strict injunctions were given that no further operations should be undertaken against these tribes without careful previous inquiry from the Government of India.

PUBLIC HEALTH—CHOLERA AT CHICAGO—BUTTERINE.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the fact that an outbreak of cholera which has occurred in the town of Chicago has been attributed by physicians of that town to the use of butterine, into the composition of which lard enters largely, and to the statement made by these physicians that the process of making butterine does not require so high a temperature as to kill the germ of disease in lard; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking measures of precaution, by inspection of butterine and other similar commodities imported into this Country, to prevent the dissemination of disease by their use?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, he did not know the names of the phy-

365
sicians referred to, and had no means of ascertaining whether they were men of any authority. Many opinions adverse to those described might be given. As regards the last Question, he had no evidence whatever that was trustworthy to show that any disease had been disseminated by butterine or any similar commodities.

STATE OF IRELAND—CONVICTIONS FOR "BOYCOTTING."
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Indictment in the case of the two persons recently convicted, at the Cork Assizes, of having "Boycotted" Jeremiah Hegarty; and if he will state the statutes under which the prisoners were indicted?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Of course, Sir, the convicts referred to, or their advisers, were furnished with copies of the indictment against them; but I have no objection to lay a further copy on the Table of the House. The last part of the hon. Members's Question I cannot answer, as I have not myself seen any copy of the indictment.

ARMY—CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, 1879.
MR. CAINEasked the Judge Advocate General, If he can inform the House the number of punishments in the Army for the year 1879, and how many of those punishments were for drunkenness, or directly resulting from drunkenness?
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: Sir, the total number of punishments inflicted in the Army by order of courts martial in 1879 was 14,750. The Returns do not state what proportion of these punishments were for drunkenness; but I can state the number of courts martial held on soldiers in 1879 for drunkenness. They were, for drunkenness on duty, 1,895; for simple drunkenness, 2,526. making together, 4,421. These numbers, however, do not by any means represent the total amount of drunkenness in the Army, which will be more clearly shown by the number of fines inflicted during the year, both by order of courts
366
martial and of commanding officers. There were 43,372 fines inflicted upon 23,316 men, giving a proportion of 236 fines to every 1,000 men. The number sounds large; but it has been steadily decreasing for the last 10 or 12 years. As to the second Question, as to how many of these punishments were for crimes resulting from drunkenness, the Returns give no information, and I could only answer it after reading through proceedings of 15,512 courts martial; but, speaking from my official experience, I should think a very large proportion, probably three-fourths, of the crimes committed by soldiers are in, some shape or way, attributable to drink.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—SURRENDER OF POTCHEFSTROOM.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has been able yet to ascertain if the Boers besieging Potchefstroom knew of the armistice when the town was surrendered; if so, what steps are the Government taking on account of this conduct of the Boers, which would be contrary to the usages of war; and will they at once insist on all arms being immediately restored?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to answer the Question. I have to say that Sir Evelyn Wood has telegraphed that he is making inquiries on this subject, and it is possible that some days may elapse before they are completed.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he should like to ask the Prime Minister, whether, before they broke up for the Easter Recess, he would make any statement with regard to the terms of peace with the Boers, and with regard to those acts which were said to have been committed by the Boers which were contrary to the usages of war?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it is very improbable we shall be in sufficient possession of the facts on those rather nice judicial questions, as to acts contrary or not contrary to the usages of war, before we separate for the Easter Recess. With respect to the terms of peace with the Boers, in their general principle they are set out with perfect clearness, I

367
think, in the telegrams laid before the House, and the House is in possession of the means of forming a judgment on our conduct. In the pressure of Public Business which now prevails, I do not think it will be in my power to volunteer a statement of the kind suggested. Any additional explanations that may be desired with respect to our motives are quite at the command of the House.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, whether it was to be understood that the Government expected to receive full written despatches from Sir Evelyn Wood in the course of a week or a fortnight; and, if so, would they be laid on the Table before the holidays?
MR. GLAPSONE: Of course, we shall proceed with the same disposition and desire to communicate to the House everything material to the formation of its judgment which, I hope, we have already shown. But I think the noble Lord will allow Sir Evelyn Wood but a very short time if he expects that in the course of a fortnight or thereabouts we can have from him the means of passing a full judgment on the whole details of the proceedings. The time allowed for the probable conclusion of the affair, according to the best judgment that could be formed out there, is six months; and I think it probable that some time—I do not say six months—must elapse before the House is in possession of full information with regard to the whole of the interesting matters involved.
MR. PARNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Armistice between Sir Evelyn Wood and the Boers had any other reference to the garrisons in the Transvaal than was involved in the sending of provisions to them?
MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked, whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the reports of meetings held in the Colonies for the purpose of inciting to civil war in the Transvaal, and to the statement that one Colonist offered £1,000 for the purpose of promoting civil war in the Transvaal, with which we were at peace; whether this was legal conduct on the part of a Colonist; and, whether any notice would be taken of these transactions?
MR. GRANT DUFF: I shall be glad if hon. Members will give me Notice of these Questions.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— SCOTCH BILLS.
MR. RAMSAYasked the Lord Advocate, Which of the three Scotch Bills that stood next on the list after the First Order of the Day he intended to take up that evening; and, further, whether any of these Bills were to be deferred till after the Easter Recess?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): I think, Sir, that the Question of my hon. Friend might, perhaps, with greater propriety have been addressed to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I may state, however, that if the Business of the House admit, I am desirous of moving the second reading of the Teinds Bill this evening, as I had not an opportunity of giving any explanation as to its purport when moving its introduction. The Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Bill I propose, however, to defer till after Easter; and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council that he will not proceed with the Endowed Institutions Bill without due Notice being given of the day fixed for the second reading.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—INFANTRY AND CAVALRY MAJORS.
MR. MONTAGUE GUESTgave Notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that under the new scheme for the re-organization of the Army, by which a double Infantry regiment will have five lieutenant-colonels, the result will be that half the majors of Infantry will be promoted over the heads of Cavalry majors; further, with regard to senior captains in the Cavalry, who, under the old system, would shortly become regimental majors at the pay of 19 s. 3d., whether they will not now become majors on the 1st of July in this year at the pay of 14 s. 7d., besides having to serve as captains for three years; and, if such is the case, whether he will take into his consideration the position of senior captains in the Army?
MR. CHILDERS: I can save the hon. Member the trouble of putting the Question on the Paper. All these are matters of detail which are under reconsideration in connection with the general scheme.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILL.— [BILL 123.]
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Trevelyan.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
  VISCOUNT EMLYN,in rising to move—
  "That it is undesirable that punishments to be awarded by Courts Martial for grave offences committed by soldiers on active service should be regulated by the Secretary of State, and thereby withdrawn from the direct control of Parliament;"
  said, the question he desired to raise did not affect the main principles of the Act of 1879; but it appeared to him that the 4th clause of the Bill now before the House would import in that Act a principle so new and so objectionable, that he claimed to be justified in raising the question before the stage of Committee. The principle to which he referred was no other than this—that for the gravest offences a soldier could commit on active service the punishment should be regulated, not by Parliament, but by the Secretary of State. They all remembered what took place in 1879, and how the question of the abolition of flogging was introduced. It was then said that the great difficulty in the way of its abolition was the finding of punishments which could be substituted for it. They remembered, too, the strange changes of front which were executed by the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for India, then the Leader of the Opposition changes brought about by concessions made by his right hon. and gallant Friend the then Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley), and also by the pressure brought to bear upon him by his supporters below the Gangway. The result was that the question was made a Party question, which had landed them in a not very pleasant position. What had been the result to the soldier? It was this, that he was now placed, as regards grave criminal offences, in a worse position than any one of Her Majesty's
  370
  civil subjects. The punishments could be changed by the Secretary of State at his will, and for the gravest offences the soldier would be subject to what he must call experimental punishments. It might be said that the Bill contained such restrictions that it would be perfectly safe to leave the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State. But, even from a civilian's point of view, it appeared to him that to be tied to a cart tail or to a horse's tail with heavy weights on one's back and to be marched under the sun for a period of 18 days was nothing less than torture. They had been told that the Secretary of State was anxious to see how these punishments would work; but the Bill would not come into operation, except for the United Kingdom, Europe, America, and the West Indies, until the 31st of December next, and, as the Bill must be renewed this time 12 months, he did not see how experience of its working was to be acquired. It had been frequently stated that it was desirable to abolish flogging in the Army because it prevented good men joining the ranks. Well, he said it was most desirable that whatever be the punishments to be inflicted for these serious offences, above all was it desirable, in the interests of all concerned, that they should be clearly known and understood by every recruit who joined; and yet we found this Bill—if passed in its present form—adding this further difficulty to recruiting, that no man coming into the ranks to-day could tell to what punishment he would be subject for those grave offences to-morrow. No good purpose could be served by discussing at any length rules which at any moment might be altered; but they need not go beyond the provisions of the Bill itself, and the language used from the Treasury Bench, to find the strongest condemnation of the rules in question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced it said he would lay the rules on the Table, but could not say that they had been approved of even by the highest military authorities—they might have to be changed, and the Secretary of State did not wish to have his hands tied. He maintained that the hands of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be tied. He claimed for the soldier as well as for the civilian that for grave criminal offences he should be subjected to no

  371
  punishments but such as were clearly prescribed by statute. The right hon. Gentleman said he was willing to share his responsibility in this matter with the House. Well, he believed the House was willing to take its full share of that responsibility. A very large principle was involved in the question. When the Bill of 1879 was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary said—
  "There were many parts of the Bill on which he was incapable of forming an opinion; but the great merit of it was that it was a consolidation of the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, and that it brought the whole thing under Parliamentary revision and control."
  But what were they asked to do now? Why, they were asked actually to remove from Parliamentary control some of these very provisions over the acquisition of which the Home Secretary rejoiced so much in 1879. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to understand that in anything he said he was not actuated by the slightest mistrust of himself; but the question was one which involved a large and grave principle—a principle to which he hoped the House would not assent. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  EARL PERCY,in seconding the Amendment, said, his noble Friend had sought to justify the course he had adopted by the fact that the proposal of the Government was altogether unusual. He might have cited, too, the tone adopted by Members of the Government on the second reading of the Bill, from which it would appear that their condemnation of flogging was of a very qualified nature. They had more than once appealed, not to a sense of what was really necessary for the proper discipline of the Army, but to what would be popular with the constituencies. For his part, he believed that if sonic of the supporters of the Government had their own way, uncontrolled by the influence of popular sentiment, they would re-enact some of the clauses of the Bill of the late Government, and, to some extent, restore flogging to the position it was in before the Bill of 1879 passed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General quoted, with approval, the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir
  372
  Henry Havelock-Allan), that the lash was an appropriate punishment for the crime of drunkenness, and for crimes arising out of drunkenness; but he added that he wanted the question looked at from a popular point of view also. His main objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was that it was calculated to impose upon soldiers an absolutely uncertain punishment, and that it would afford to commanding officers a power to inflict as much physical torture on their men, if they were so disposed, as was possible under any system in which flogging was included. He could not imagine any punishment more degrading than for a soldier to be dragged through the country tied either to the tail of a cart or the stirrup of a horse; and though surgical advice was to be taken as to the punishment being inflicted, it might involve the men in great torture, because it was by no means easy to tell whether a man was or was not malingering. He would shrink from exposing the British soldier to such a degradation, and he believed that its effect would be injurious to the Army.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is undesirable that the punishment to be awarded by Courts Martial for grave offences committed by soldiers on active service should be regulated by the Secretary of State, and thereby withdrawn from the direct control of Parliament,"—(Viscount Emlyn,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that nothing could be more moderate or reasonable than the speech of the noble Lord who had brought this question forward. He (Mr. Childers) hoped the House would agree with him that in a matter of this kind the responsible Minister of the Crown could have no object except to propose to Parliament what, in his judgment, appeared to be the best solution of the question. In asking Parliament to give the Secretary for War power to define for the next few months what ought to be the summary punishment for certain offences, he did so not because he desired to have that power, but

  373
  solely because he thought it would be in the interest of the Public Service. Before bringing in the Bill he consulted with those with whom it was his duty to consult whether it would not be possible to introduce into the Bill itself a proper definition of the summary punishment which was to be substituted for flogging; and it was only after very careful consideration with his military advisers that he came to the conclusion that it would be better if the House would repose in the Secretary of State for the next few months the responsibility of deciding, from time to time, what ought to be the punishment, rather than to stereotype at once in the Act words which it might be desirable to alter when it would not be possible to do so. In reference to the concluding remarks of the noble Earl, ho need only say that the punishment of tying a soldier to a cart or the stirrup of a horse if, finally adopted, would only be resorted to when the Army was in the field, or so far removed from a prison that he could not be conveyed thereto. The Bill said that in cases of disgraceful conduct—especially drunkenness and offences connected with drunkenness, which formed by far the greatest item in the list of the crime of the Army—there should be entrusted to commanding officers, who could not send the offenders to prison, power to inflict upon them a summary punishment which would be a deterrent, while at the same time it would not possess those characteristics which had made flogging so odious to the English people. In answer to requests that had been made, he had laid on the Table of the House a Paper explanatory of the intended punishments to be inflicted for offences for which flogging had been formerly the penalty; and these punishments, drawn in a spirit of humanity, but with a determination to preserve discipline in the Army, would only be inflicted with due consideration for the physical powers of the soldiers upon whom it was deemed necessary to inflict punishment. These were the proposals which the Government had to make, and under them the punishments to be substituted for flogging could not be inflicted for more than a certain number of days in the aggregate, nor for more than a certain number of days continuously; while the officers were required to take care that no personal injury was done to the individual being
  374
  punished, and on the certificate of the medical officer, the punishment was immediately to be discontinued. It had been objected, on the one hand, that the punishments indicated would not be effectual substitutes for flogging, in consequence of their being of too mild a character; and, on the other, that they were so severe that they would prevent men from joining the Army. He, however, felt himself justified in coming to a conclusion which lay between these extremes, and in thinking that the punishments were neither too mild nor too severe. He was afraid, in the circumstances, that he must ask the House to repose confidence in the Government until next year, when he hoped to be able to submit a Schedule to the Army Discipline Bill containing a more exact description of these summary punishments.
  COLONEL NORTHregarded the interference on the part of the Government with the old punishment of flogging, before they were prepared to lay before the House any definite substitute for it, as a great misfortune. He was one of those who were in favour of retaining the power of flogging as a punishment in the last resort. How could the proposed punishments be carried out in the case of forced marches? In that case, to place the lazy blackguard in the waggon was exactly what he would like best, and would throw his share of the work upon the honest and loyal soldier.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he could not see how the punishments proposed in place of flogging could be inflicted in India under a burning sun. Although he was by no means an advocate of flogging, nevertheless he could not help feeling that it would be very difficult to keep up the discipline of the Army without it. Insubordination in the Army had been far more frequent since the introduction of the short-service system than it was before, owing to the utter inefficiency of the non-commissioned officers, and the discipline of the Army had sadly deteriorated in consequence. It was this want of discipline that had led to the disasters at the Cape, where, to use the words of The Times Correspondent, the men had ran away helter-skelter with a cry of despair.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILregretted that the Government should have taken the step of abolishing this old-established punishment without having any-

  375
  thing definite to propose in its place. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had taken that course after consultation with their military advisers; but he should like to know whether they had taken the advice of any General who had commanded an army in the field, such as Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir William Codrington, Sir Garnet Wolseley, or Lord Chelmsford? It would have great weight with the country if the change could be shown to have the support of those distinguished officers. The prevailing idea in the Army and the country was that it had been effected from political motives. The summary punishment now proposed would be impracticable in the field. It would take away the ill-behaved soldier from the labours and risks of actual warfare, which was a very serious consideration in the case of a small army; and, moreover, under certain circumstances, it must become an exceedingly brutal punishment. That was altogether a novel power to give to a Secretary of State. It was certainly an un-English idea to tie people by their hands to a cart or a horse by way of punishment. He would not say that such a punishment never took place in this country, because he did not know what happened before we had a Standing Army; but he did not think that since we had had a Standing Army there had been such a mode of punishment. If the right hon. Gentleman was determined to abolish flogging, he had better leave the matter as it was. Imprisonment might be inflicted where it was available; if it was not, he could see no other alternative but a resort to the ultima ratio which he did not care to name. He made these observations in the hope that his right hon. Friend would make inquiry of experienced officers with reference to this subject and give time for reflection.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he could not conceive it was possible to retain corporal punishment any longer in the face of the strong public opinion against it which prevailed throughout the country. He had seen hundreds of lashes inflicted, not upon one man, but upon many men, week after week, and he was not surprised at the feeling of horror with which the people of this country regarded that brutal punishment. He considered that
  376
  the punishment proposed to be substituted was detestable; but, at the same time, he admired the right hon. Gentleman for taking upon himself a responsibility which few politicians would assume, instead of throwing it upon his military advisers. He thought much could be done to keep the soldiers from drink, under the influence of which the crimes were committed which brought the punishment of flogging upon them. He objected strongly to soldiers being sent to the field until they were declared fit by competent officers. It was a scandal that youths with only three months' service should be sent into the field, as had recently been the case. We spent millions upon millions on our Army, and yet we had no security that the men were fit for their duties.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman himself recognized that the power he asked for was one which had never been granted to a Secretary of State before. They were not asking that every detail should be specified, but at present everything was left vague. The right hon. Gentleman said that as one person argued that the punishments would be hard and another that they would be moderate, the objections answered one another and fell to the ground. But if the rules could be read with such different interpretations that persons who did not wish to distort anything could take opposite views of the matter, that only showed how objectionable it was to leave a discretion on the subject. The lash had the advantage of uniformity so far as uniformity was possible. Officers had no discretion one way or another as to the administration of the punishment, which was as certain as any punishment could be. But that would not be the case with the punishments now proposed. Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the punishments to be substituted there would be the same amount of uniformity as attached to the punishments formerly administered? They were throwing a great responsibility upon the officers constituting courts martial and those who had to review the sentences of those courts. It would be much fairer to allow the officer commanding to carry out the punishment as he thought fit than to leave the matter so vague. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about putting a man into irons,

  377
  and then said something in a gentle way about the ancle. Did that mean leg-irons or not—that a man was to be put into irons hand and foot, and that the irons were to be linked together; or did it mean some much more gentle mode of dealing with the man as the right hon. Gentleman indicated? The right hon. Gentleman said that the punishments would be regulated by the Secretary of State, and would not be subject to the control of Parliament. Parliament did not wish to interfere with details, but to leave them to the Executive officers and to hold them answerable for the result. Would the right hon. Gentleman introduce upon the Report or some other stage some words which would in some degree explain the nature of the summary punishments? Would the right hon. Gentleman sanction the French mode of burying a man? He quite admitted that certain matters must be left in the hands of the Executive. The Amendment of his noble Friend was quite in harmony with that sentiment. If his noble Friend went to a division, he would support him; but, at the same time, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give such explanations as would render a division unnecessary.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the question was not whether flogging should be abolished. Public opinion had declared itself so strongly against that punishment that it could not be retained. There was an almost universal consensus of opinion that the existence of the punishment was hateful to well-conducted soldiers. He was perfectly convinced that three-fourths of such men held that the retention of flogging would be a degradation and injury to them. It was perfectly impossible for any Government to retain it. But if flogging were abolished, it was necessary that some summary mode of punishment should be adopted for offences such as drunkenness on duty and on the line of march. At present there was no power of summary punishment whatever; and two-thirds of the crimes committed in 1877, and for which death or penal servitude ought to be the punishment, did not occur twice in 25 years. He thought the Secretary for War had acted discreetly in making the punishments under this Act experimental, until he had sufficient information to enable them to fix them by statute. It was to be deter
  378
  mined whether the retention of corporal punishment, even in a modified form, was possible. He maintained it was. The feeling of the country was not so much against corporal punishment as it existed in 1879, but as it existed 40 or 50 years ago. He had not voted for the abolition of flogging, simply because he did not see what punishment could be substituted for it; and he had reason to complain of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), who denounced him to his constituents as one who was in favour of the brutal and cruel system of flogging in use at the close of the last century. He had no hesitation in supporting the substituted punishments, which, he thought, should not be introduced into the statute, leaving it to time and experience to determine whether they would be effectual.
  MR. GIBSONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman considered himself bound under the existing law to lay all these rules, or modifications of them, before the House?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANthought it better not to leave this matter in doubt, and he had prepared a clause which he would move in Committee on the Bill to make it perfectly clear. The clause was to this effect—
  "That all rules made in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable, and if Parliament be not then sitting, as soon as practicable after the beginning of the next Session of Parliament."
  He had very little to add; but, in reply to the noble Lord, he must state that he had never said that this was a matter on which they should defer to popular clamour. He said they should be guided by the opinion of the most experienced men; but it was impossible to disregard altogether the opinion out-of-doors. The Army was recruited by voluntary enlistment, and they all knew that the retention of this punishment deterred not the blackguard, but the best class of men from entering the Army. When it was abolished, they would get a better class of men to join it. Flogging was dead. There was no use in rearguing the matter. They could not revive it. The only question was what punishments could be substituted for it? The noble Lord said the punishments proposed to be substituted were too vague; but it should be borne in mind that they would be

  379
  administered by reasonable and humane men, and with reference to the climate and country where they would be inflicted. Against the conduct of any of our soldiers in the Transvaal we might well set the conduct of our troops on the march from Cabul to Candahar. He believed the discipline of the Army to be thoroughly sound, and he hoped that what they were doing, so far from having any tendency to destroy it, would have the effect of improving it.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the Motion of the noble Lord had his entire concurrence. Its object was to prevent the re-introduction of methods of torture in substitution for flogging. He wished to know whether, under the new condition of things, a soldier would not escape the liability to be flogged for offences which would be punished with flogging if committed by civilians? He put the case of a man who, after being imprisoned on board ship for striking a man, rushed on his victim and worried him. In civil life the man would have been liable to be flogged for the analogous offence of garotting. If the triangle and the lash were abolished, there was no knowing what torture an officer might think it necessary to inflict for the purpose of maintaining discipline in the field.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,in reply to the question just put, said that the offence of garotting would be a civil crime, for which the soldier would be punishable by a civil tribunal.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the noble Lord had done good service in bringing the question before the House. An explicit declaration had been given that any new rule should be laid on the Table. Never before had the House been asked to sanction the proposal that a Secretary of State for War should have the power of prescribing what punishments were to be inflicted, and of doing it in the vague way indicated by the Bill. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be far wiser to leave to the officer in command the responsibility of deciding what it might be necessary to do in the peculiar circumstances of each case? He hoped that, at least, the right hon. Gentleman would place something more definite before them, in order that they might know what was to be done in the case of an emergency arising in the field. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon.
  380
  Gentleman had consulted the highest military authorities with regard to these punishments, and particularly those capable of expressing an opinion as to whether they would be effectual in the field?
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, after the statement that had been made, he should not trouble the House to divide, but would ask leave to withdraw the Motion, reserving the right to raise the question, if necessary, on the Report.
  MR. CHILDERSdesired to say, in response to the appeal that had been made to him, that these punishments were as distasteful to him as they could be to any Member of the House, and he looked forward to the time when the character of the Army would be so much improved that everything in the nature of punishments like these might be minimized. He had consulted those whom he thought it was his duty to consult on questions of detail concerning such punishments, and he did not feel prepared to narrow at present, too far, the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State—powers of deciding from time to time what the nature of summary punishment should be. But he would undertake, between the Committee stage and the Report, to make further inquiry in order to ascertain whether it would be possible to introduce into Clause 4 of the Bill a few words limiting the summary punishment to personal restraint, and such hard labour as shot drill. He would take the Report on Monday next instead of to-day (Friday), which would give him time to consult those whose advice would be useful on this point, and he hoped that on Monday, after the Report, the Bill might be read a third time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Summary punishment).
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, by the Amendment to this clause standing upon the Paper in his name, he intended that no summary punishment should be inflicted on non-commissioned officers. He found, however, that the Judge Advocate General had considered the point, and

  381
  had put down an Amendment which fully met the case. He should not, therefore, move his Amendment.
  On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 3, line 30, at the end of the sub-section, by inserting the words—
  "The said summary punishment shall not be inflicted upon a non-commissioned officer, or upon a reduced non-commissioned officer, for any offence committed while holding the rank of non-commissioned officer."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Summary court martial).
  On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 12, after the word "convened," by inserting the words "and shall have jurisdiction."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he proposed to add words in line 15 that would, he believed, meet the objection of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) to evidence being given without an oath being administered, as indicated in the Amendment standing next in his name. It was intended to provide rules to govern the proceedings of these summary courts martial, which, when they were seen, would be found to guard very carefully against the miscarriage of justice feared by his hon. and gallant Friend.
  MAJOR NOLANthought the point he intended to raise had, perhaps, hardly been understood. He was, however, satisfied with the provision that witnesses were to be sworn.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that there was, in the case of a drum-head court martial, no time to carry into effect many minute regulations. Still a certain form was gone through. An oath was administered, a simple note was taken of the men forming the court, and a record made of the punishment awarded.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was no such thing as a drum-head court martial, although there might have been 70 or 80 years ago. They had, moreover, never been recognized by law, and the sooner the idea of their existence was ceased in the minds of the people, the better. No doubt, a drum might be placed on the ground, and a Bible put upon it; but so-called drum-head courts martial only existed in romances.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had himself been present at a drum-head court martial.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 19, after "1879," by inserting the words "as amended by this Act."
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he did not intend to move his Amendment to retain the five sections of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act of 1879, because the principal reason he had urged in support of it on the second reading—namely, that witnesses and others would not be sworn—had been met by the Judge Advocate General. Still, there were many things to be said in favour of the retention of the five sections of the Act of 1879, which provided certain safeguards for the administration of justice—among others, that the officer prosecuting should not sit on the court martial or give evidence as a witness. All these safeguards would now be abrogated by making the sections in question inapplicable to summary courts martial as constituted by the present Bill. The Amendment he now intended to move related to the number of officers necessary to form a summary court martial. He had given the subject careful consideration, and arrived at the conclusion that the words "where a summary court martial consists of less than three officers," ought to be left out. This Bill constituted a totally new form of court martial, and he hardly thought the Committee quite realized the effect of passing the clause as it stood. The minor punishments of carrying an extra weight, or of being tied to a waggon, he did not regard as very serious affairs, so far as the power of sentencing to them by the summary courts martial as constituted by the Bill was concerned. But when the power of sentencing to death was given to these courts martial, the matter became very serious indeed. Under the present Bill, if any three subalterns were got together and any two of them decided that a man should be punished with death, the punishment of death could be inflicted. The court that had this power was of a most informal character. It was not, however, so much the court itself that he feared it was the action of the provost marshal. That officer, at starting on the line of

  383
  march, was no worse than any other officer, but he very soon became so. He was made responsible for almost everything, and in time he became a sort of policeman. If discipline was not preserved, he knew very well that he would be reprimanded, and was, therefore, determined to stop every irregularity. Under those circumstances, he flogged men for almost anything. He (Major Nolan) was afraid that, under the present Bill, he would shoot a man for almost anything. The provost marshal or senior subaltern had nothing to do but to get an assistant and form a summary court martial. The sentence of the court could be carried out on confirmation by the major. The major might not like to confirm the sentence; but he would know very well that the provost marshal had the ear of the General of the Army, and that he would be looked upon as a weak man if he did not support the provost marshal. He would be, so to speak, afraid of the provost marshal, or rather of his influence with the General. He (Major Nolan) could not help thinking that, in a great many cases, a weak officer would be coerced into approving the sentence. Again, the clause was, in his opinion, objectionable, because it allowed the Commander-in-Chief to remove the responsibility for shooting a man from his own shoulders and cast it upon an inferior officer, who, being a weak man, might be inclined to shoot one or two men for the sake of example. It would be seen in line 31, page 4, that a sentence of death awarded by a summary court martial might be confirmed by the General or Field Officer commanding that body of the Forces with which the prisoner was present at the date of his sentence. In the Act of 1879 it was not so. In the old Mutiny Act, the responsibility was brought home directly to the General or Commanding Officer, who knew very well that, when he shot a man on his own responsibility, he must have a clear ease. But the present Bill did away with that safeguard, and practically placed it in the power of the provost marshal to force, perhaps, a major to say "yes" or "no" to the sentence of the summary court martial. Formerly, no man could be shot until the General Officer commanding in the field had signified his approval; but it was now proposed that every major in charge
  384
  of a baggage guard should have the responsibility which, in the Peninsular War, rested only with the Commander-in-Chief. It amounted to this—that any offence whatsoever could be punished with death by any major in command of a body of the Forces. That seemed to him very like murder. It had been remarked to him recently by an American officer that our system of field general courts martial was very much more simple and expeditious than that in force in the American Service. We had already far more power in our system than was deemed necessary in the United States Army, and yet we were about to double and even treble the powers of courts-martial. He had never heard of such tremendous powers being given to any court.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 26, to leave out the words "where a summary court martial consists of less than three officers."—(Major Nolan.)
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERhoped the Judge Advocate General would not agree to this Amendment, because he thought it important that, as flogging had been done away with, there should be some means of punishing an offender in a summary way. If the clause was not carried, he feared that General Officers commanding an army in the field would have great difficulty in maintaining discipline. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken into all the details of the subject, but would remark that he had had an opportunity of discussing the question with a General Officer of distinction in the field. That officer was of opinion that no General could undertake the discipline of his army without summary courts martial, seeing that the punishment of flogging had been abolished. There could be no doubt that, when a disgraceful crime had been committed, the best way to deter others from committing it was by punishing the offender at once. It would never do to allow two or three weeks to elapse before bringing the offender to justice. He felt that summary justice had the best effect in deterring men from following a bad example, and therefore trusted the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not give way.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it would be utterly impossible for the Go-

  385
  vernment to assent to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. The observations with regard to the provost marshal might have applied before 1879; but the Act of that year practically abolished the power of the provost marshal. It established a court called a field general court martial, which was, of course, only another name for a summary court martial. If hon. Members looked at Section 49 of the Act of 1879 they would see that the field general court martial might consist of three officers, who could inflict capital punishment, penal servitude, corporal punishment, and imprisonment, subject to this—that the sentence of capital punishment had to be confirmed by the general officer commanding. It had now become absolutely necessary to have the power provided by this section. Officers in command of a small detachment, possibly in a beleaguered town, must have at their disposal means of promptly suppressing mutiny. The object of the Government was, therefore, to put the summary court martial in the place of the field general court martial, with, in some cases, more extensive powers. They were, however, practically in conformity with the Act of 1879. The rules of procedure issued by the late Secretary of State for War governed the course of procedure in the case of general courts martial. One of these provided that the witnesses and the members of the court were to be sworn, and that if the court passed sentence of death the whole court should be of one mind. That rule was now in force. He thought that the hands of these courts martial should not be crippled; and, therefore, could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  MR. BRANDsaid, the hon. Gentleman admitted that the proposed regulations were more stringent than those under the system of field general courts martial. That was the whole point in the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. His case was that under the field general courts martial there was security that the sentence of death should be confirmed by the general officer commanding the forces in the field. Under the proposed system, these summary courts martial would be formed without any limitation as to the rank of the officers composing them; so that, in fact, sentence of death might be delivered by three subalterns of the regiment.

  386
  Whereas, under the old system, the sentence had to be confirmed by the general officer commanding in the field, it might now be confirmed by a major. He regarded that provision as a distinct addition to the severity of the system. The sentence of death ought not, in his opinion, to be delivered by any court martial that had not at least upon it an officer of the rank of captain, and that it ought to be confirmed, as it had been formerly, by the general officer commanding.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had alluded to a point that had seriously occurred to himself. It was not three officers alone, but two, who could deliver a sentence of death. There was really only one independent officer to judge of the case, and that officer might be a junior subaltern. He hoped the Judge Advocate would consider the extent of the power conveyed by the clause. It was a remarkable fact that there existed a strong tendency to make Mutiny Acts annually more severe.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANpointed out that, under the rules which governed the procedure of field general courts martial, there must be an absolute concurrence on the part of the members of the court, in cases where the sentence of death was awarded. The words—
  "By the general or field officer commanding that body of the forces with which the prisoner is present at the date of his sentence,"
  were introduced to meet the case of a mutiny breaking out in a small detachment commanded by two or three officers, cut off from communication with the outer world. He was unable to give up the wording of this section.
  MR. BRANDsaid, the Judge Advocate General now admitted that there was only one valid reason for this increased severity. It was intended, he said, to meet the case of a force cut off from the main Army. But surely there was no necessity for hurling a man out of existence in such haste. He thought the officer in command of the force to which the man belonged might detain him in prison until he could get a confirmation of his sentence from the general officer commanding the forces.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he wanted to guard against making it easier to shoot a man than it was before.
  MR. CHILDERSwas willing to agree that the sentence of death should only

  387
  be carried out in the manner provided by the clause in cases where there was no practicable communication between the main body and the beleaguered forces.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that, on those conditions, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to ask the Judge Advocate General whether one of the three officers who might sentence a prisoner to death could be the officer who investigated the charge beforehand and ordered the court martial? The words which allowed this were, at his request, struck out in Committee on the Army Discipline Bill of 1879; but he afterwards found they had been re-introduced on the third reading. He thought that the officer referred to should not be a member of the court martial.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, as a matter of fact, the convening officer might be a member of the field general court martial; and he was afraid that it would not be possible to insert words in the direction indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "that body of forces" and insert "force."
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the substitution of the singular for the plural in this instance might have an important effect. He understood that the proposition of the Secretary of State for War was to leave the Act in the same state as it was left by the Act of 1879, except in regard to its legal character.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Amendment was proposed so that it might apply to the case where there was a small force commanded by an officer who was not a general.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 6 (Abolition of capital punishment) agreed to.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved a new clause to provide that all rules made in pursuance of the Act should be laid before Parliament if Parliament was sitting at the time; if not, as soon afterwards as practicable.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had intended to move a new clause to the same effect, the only difference being that his clause required the rules to be laid before Parliament within 14 days after they were issued.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. CAINE MR. CAINE moved to insert the following clause after Clause 3:—
  (Prohibition of supply of intoxicating liquors.)
  "On and after the commencement of this Act the sale of all intoxicating liquors in canteens and other places of refreshment in garrisons shall be prohibited, and the supply of spirit rations on the march discontinued."
  The hon. Member stated that he proposed this clause in consequence of a sentence contained in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) upon the second reading of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to the strange and unaccountable difference in the Return of offences in different regiments; and he said—
  "It did seem to show, some way or other, how he would not pretend to say, that you could make the British soldier pretty nearly what you liked; and that if, on the one hand, he could be powerfully influenced for evil, on the other hand he could be powerfully influenced for good. How was that object to be carried out? They would not do it by the lash; they would not do it by these summary punishments, however necessary they might be; but they would do it by raising the character and morale of the soldier, by removing the temptations to drunkenness, which was his greatest curse."
  When he (Mr. Caine) heard those words, he took it for granted that the War Office fully intended to take some immediate steps to remove "the temptation to drunkenness" which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said was the British soldier's greatest curse; but he found nothing in the Bill now before the Committee, nor any expressed intention in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, that at all pointed to any such intention. He proposed to insert this clause in the Bill as the best means known to him for securing these desirable results, and making some change in the awful and deplorable state of things revealed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to a Question he (Mr. Caine) had put to him that afternoon at Question time, when the right hon. and learned

  389
  Gentleman told the House that in 1879 there were 14,750 punishments in the British Army under the sentences of courts martial, 4,421 of which were for drunkenness. There were also 43,372 fines imposed, and out of the total number 23,000 resulted from drunkenness. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: Upon 23,000 men.] He (Mr. Caine) inferred from that some men came up two, three, and four times to be fined for the same offence of drunkenness. The right hon. and learned Gentleman further gave the House the astounding information, although they were certainly prepared for a serious state of things, that 236 per 1,000 of the entire British Army were fined or punished for drunkenness during that year—1879; and also, that three-fourths of the whole crime of the British Army resulted from drunkenness. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: It was a mere surmise of mine.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman further told them that these figures were the result, after a great declension from year to year, the declension having been caused by the inculcation of principles combatting this drunkenness. The House had also heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War state that night that drunkenness, and crimes resulting from drunkenness, made up nearly the whole crime of the Army; so that both the Secretary of State for War and the Judge Advocate General had arrived at the same opinion, that a large proportion of the crime in the Army resulted from drunkenness. He must say that he had considerable sympathy with the difficulty which seemed to have been felt in the House, especially on the Opposition Benches, in devising some punishment which should take the place of the barbarous punishment of flogging. What he wanted to do, if he could get this clause inserted in the Bill, was to prevent the offences resulting. Ho ventured to think that prevention was much better than cure. He had heard an hon. and gallant Member on that side of the House (Sir Alexander Gordon) say that the Mutiny Bill increased each year in severity. He was not surprised at that, when such a state of things existed as that which they had heard of to-day from the Government Benches. He was afraid ho should be obliged to trouble the Committee with a good many quotations; but he would not apologize for doing so, because he knew
  390
  that in military matters the opinions of a civilian like himself, however they might be in accordance with common sense, would have no great weight. During the last few weeks he had taken the trouble to collect the opinions of many of the most distinguished officers in the Army upon this vital question, and he had done so in view of the Resolution he hoped to bring forward on going into Committee of Supply upon the Navy Estimates. The first opinion he would give was that of Sir Garnet Wolseley, from The Soldier's Pocket Book, published in 1868, and which was accepted as a standard authority in the Army. Sir Garnet Wolseley said—
  "Give your men as little spirits as possible; tea and coffee are much more sustaining, and are more profitable. The old superstition that grog is a good thing for men before driving, or after a march, has been proved by the scientific men of all nations to be a fallacy, and is only still maintained by men who mistake the cravings arising solely from habit for the promptings of nature. It is the commonest thing to see men, when travelling at home, taking brandy to keep themselves warm. It is an ascertained fact that alcohol of any sort reduces instead of increases the temperature of the body. The use of spirits in cold weather has been well tested during the various Polar expeditions, the medical officers of which all condemn it as a preventative against cold. No men require greater endurance than the trappers of North America, and none do a greater amount of hard physical work than the voyagers' lumbermen there; none of them drink spirits when in the woods, tea being their constant beverage. Our armies in Kaffraria had no spirits issued to them, as a rule, and no army in the field was ever more healthy (if any other was as free from sickness). Our experience in the Indian Mutiny also carries out this theory; for months, in some places, our men were entirely cut off from all liquor, and they were healthier than when, subsequently, it was issued to them as a ration. By increasing the allowance of tea, and abolishing that of rum, you diminish the supplies to be carried to a great extent, whilst you add to the health and efficiency of your men. Their discipline will improve as their moral tone is raised, engendering a manly cheerfulness that spirit drinking armies know nothing of. No men have ever done harder work than was performed by the troops employed upon the Red River Expedition. No spirits of any sort were issued to them; but they had practically as much of good tea as they could drink. Illness was, I may say, unknown amongst them."
  That was an old opinion of Sir Garnet Wolseley, published in 1868. For fear, however, that any hon. Member should think that that gallant officer had changed his opinion, he would quote a passage from a letter written by him from the War Office at the Horse

  391
  Guards, on the 17th of August, 1880, in which he said—
  "My experience has proved to me that less liquor there is consumed in an army the more efficient is its condition. I have never seen men do harder work than that done by the three battalions I took with me on the Red River Expedition in 1870, and I never saw men make lighter of hardships, be more cheerful, more healthy, or better behaved than they were. With the troops under my command recently in South Africa, we had very little spirits. Of my own personal escort the majority were total abstainers, and they were models of what soldiers on service should be. I find that if you give men plenty of tea and sugar they do not miss their grog after a time; having no grog with you in a campaign eases your transport very considerably, and removes a temptation to steal which its presence with an army always creates. There is no one that wishes well to the temperance cause more sincerely than I do."
  That was the opinion of Sir Garnet Wolseley expressed within the last 12 months. He would now quote a single passage from the book of Lieutenant Colonel Denison on Modern Cavalry which, he believed, was another standard book—
  "Care should be taken on the line of march to prevent men drinking. Some will say it is necessary to give men spirits to keep them up. I do not see any necessity for it. I have always noticed the men who do not drink at all work the best and will hold out the longest."
  He was sorry that he was not able to quote the opinion of Major General Sir Frederick Roberts. Had that gallant officer been in the country, he believed he might have been able to do so. But when at the Mansion House the other day at the banquet given to him there, in answer to Mr. John Taylor, a member of the National Temperance League and a personal friend of his (Mr. Caine's) own, Sir Frederick Roberts stated—
  "That the absence of crime amongst total abstainers in the Army was almost incredible, and that drink was a great incentive to punishable offences in the Army."
  In a letter sent from Simla in October, 1877, to the Soldier's Total Abstinence Association, Sir Frederick Roberts said—
  "I have the pleasure to inclose a cheque in aid of the Soldier's Total Abstinence Association, in the success of which I am deeply interested."
  The next letter he would read was one from Lord Napier of Magdala, dated May 5, 1876. The noble Lord said—
  "I have deferred writing to you regarding the operations of the Society for the Suppres-
  392
  sion of Drunkenness in the Army in India, in order that I might ascertain thoroughly how the action of the Society has affected regimental discipline, and what has been its effect upon crime resulting from drunkenness."
  In 1874 there were in the Indian Army 1,751 abstainers, and 16,233 non-abstainers. The crimes committed by the teetotallers were virtually none. The aggregate percentage of crime committed by teetotallers during the five years amounted to 0·12, while those of the non-abstainers amounted to 4·68, or, in round numbers, were about 40 times as numerous. He came next to a letter from Lieutenant General the Hon. Sir Henry W. Norman, a Member of the Council of India, dated October 3, 1876, and written in connection with the Association in which he (Mr. Caine) had for a long time taken a warm personal interest. Sir Henry Norman said—
  "You are well aware of the interest I take in the Soldier's Total Abstinence Association, and may rely upon my aiding it as far as I am able. The work you are engaged in is one of the highest value, not only to the soldiers themselves, but also to the Government they serve, which has the strongest reasons for desiring the success of efforts calculated to promote the physical and moral welfare of the troops."
  He did not conceive that he was wasting the time of the House in reading these extracts. He merely wished to give the opinion of these distinguished officers rather than offer any arguments of his own. The next opinion was that of Lieutenant General Sir Charles Staveley, Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army from 1874 to 1878—
  "I desire to say that there is no doubt that drunkenness is the source of nearly all the crime in the British Army, and here in India of a very great deal of the sickness and invaliding."
  That confirmed the opinion which had been expressed on the Treasury Bench. He would now quote a letter from Sir Richard Temple, and he was almost inclined to regret that the hon. Gentleman had been unsuccessful at the last General Election, because otherwise he might have been sitting on those Benches to endorse, as he (Mr. Caine) was sure he would have done, the views he was now expressing. Sir Richard Temple, writing from Malabar Point on the 18th of March, 1878, said—
  "From long experience in the field in almost all parts of India, I am convinced that beer, wine, and spirits do not conduce to strength and en-

  393
  durance under circumstances of severe and sustained physical exertion, but have rather a contrary effect, and are often at the bottom of illness and ailments erroneously attributed to the Indian climate and other causes."
  He would next read a portion of a letter from Colonel Charles Blewitt, now commanding the brigade depôt at Halifax, written in 1874, when commanding the 65th Regiment in India—
  "I do not hesitate to say that were the principle and habit of totally abstaining the rule and not the exception crime would be comparatively unknown, and the roll of other offences insignificant. Drunkenness at all times and in all regiments has been, in my opinion, the direst foe to discipline, and the destroyer of the health of the soldier. Further, it has sapped his moral and weakened his manly character. Men of experience in the Army know what shifts a man will make to buy, conceal, and consume a bottle of rum. He will prevaricate and mislead to prevent his superiors learning from whence he obtained it. The same man, when free from the debasing influence of liquor, would scorn to deceive on any subject whatever. Abstinence from intoxicating liquors is, I think, of greater consequence in its moral effects than its physical. Under the first condition we have our soldiers in their own proper nature, loyal, truthful, frank, and bold, doing the right for the right's sake—hating the wrong, because it contaminates, and is loathing to their manhood."
  He would now venture to read a short extract from the opinion of a colonel in the Indian Army, who, however, had not given him permission to use his name. He quoted this gallant officer because he was not a total abstainer, and he stated so in his letter. The letter said—
  "Many commanding officers, myself among the number, are not advocates of total abstinence; but I believe all commanding officers to be hostile to the issue of rum to the men: at least, all I have ever conversed with have been so, and I believe if by your efforts you can induce the authorities to stop the issue of spirits to all regiments arriving in this country, you will confer a great boon on the Army, and you will remove one of the chief causes of the universal use of spirits in the Army in India. I look upon a free canteen as fatal in India, where a man has so much money to spend, and so much idle time. The strongest argument against free canteens is the fact that in the Army of India, the greatest proportion of delirium tremens is amongst the sergeants who are possessed—in their mess—of the privilege of a free canteen. If, therefore, these men, the selected men of each regiment, with superior education, cannot be trusted, what would be the result if free canteens were thrown open to the whole body of men?"
  From a very interesting Return from Her Majesty's 1st battalion of the 11th
  394
  Regiment in India he would quote three sentences—
  "The late Commander-in-Chief, Lord Napier of Magdala, in his farewell General Order to the Army in India, proclaimed that the introduction of temperance had been clearly the means of reducing the number of courts martial during the last five years by one-half; and he said that the proportion of crime in Bengal amongst temperance men, versus the moderate and intemperate, was 1 to 40. Statistics from the records of the 1st battalion, 11th Regiment, bears out the above statement in every respect, as the following examples will show:—The number of trials by courts martial in 1870 was 45, of which 33 were for drunkenness. The numbers of trials in 1875 was 11, of which 6 were caused by drunkenness."
  He had quoted these figures in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General might see whether they were in a decreased or in an increased degree. The next short sentence he selected, because he thought it might have some weight with hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. There were, certainly, not many present on those Benches; but he quoted the passage because he thought it might have some effect upon the two or three who were there. It was the opinion of the Marquess of Salisbury, written in January, 1875, respecting the Army Sanitary Commission. Lord Salisbury said, in his despatch—
  "I would also request your attention to the remarks of the Commission as to the importance of every effort being taken by the Government to discourage the use of alcoholic drinks in the Army in India."
  Ho was now about to trouble the Committee, for a moment or two, with the medical declaration respecting the habitual use of intoxicating liquors in the Indian Army; and he might add that he did not intend to quote any authority that evening that was not an Army authority. The declaration to which he referred was signed by six deputy surgeons, 35 surgeon majors, and two surgeons, all of them in the Army Medical Depôt. The declaration said—
  "I. Being fully convinced that nearly all military crime may be traced to the use of intoxicating liquor, and a great deal of sickness caused by its excessive use, there can be no excuse, on physical grounds, for rejecting the practice of total abstinence. II. A common idea, that intoxicating stimulants are necessary in India, is a fallacy, which has gradually led many moderate drinkers into baneful excess. The habitual use of rum, brandy, and other spirits, is far more injurious than beneficial to the vast majority of those who daily indulge in them. III. Young

  395
  soldiers, on landing for the first time in India, should be warned against the pernicious habit of drinking a dram or rum daily. Many men, who never knew its taste before receiving their first dram at the canteen, have acquired a thirst for spirits, which has ruined their prospects in the Service, and prevented the recruit from developing, morally and physically, into a well-trained soldier. IV. The men who abstain from intoxicating liquor, in the Service, are not more subject to climatic diseases than their drinking comrades; on the contrary, the teetotallers are not so frequently under medical observation or invalided. V. The object of the Soldiers' Total Abstinence Association commends itself to our sympathy, in its endeavours to suppress drunkenness in the Army. The whole question of the use of alcohol, as a medicine, is not touched upon by the pledge of the Association, which leaves every member at liberty to use such, under medical direction."
  He had read this medical declaration through, because he thought it was not fair to take extracts from it. There were now two or three individual opinions from the surgeon majors who had signed the declaration, which he would also read. The first was from Surgeon Major Hamilton, who said—
  "I have long advocated the disuse of spirits in canteens as a Government issue. The best change Sir Hugh Rose ever effected for the British soldier in India was the alteration in the rum ration, when it was reduced from two to one 'tot' per day; and that Commander-in-Chief who completes the work, and stops the issue of rum in canteens, will do more for the Morale of the European force, and cause a greater diminution of crime, than any other measure that has hitherto been proposed."
  For the benefit of those civilians who did not know what Sir Hugh Rose's Order was, he had it there, and would quote it. It was an Order given at Simla in June, 1864, and was as follows:—
  "Sir Hugh Rose has taken into mature consideration the opinion, and unanimous one, of medical officers, that it is prejudicial to the health of the soldier, especially in a tropical climate, to drink daily two drams of spirits. They consider that this constant consumption of ardent spirits weakens gradually the organs of life, affects the head, gradually the senses, and paves the way to crime. His Excellency is persuaded that many young soldiers, sober from childhood, have contracted habits of inebriety from drinking, at the canteen, what they conceive to be a regulation allowance of spirits for soldiers."
  A very important separate opinion was given by Mr. F. R. McFarlane, Surgeon Major in charge of the 65th Foot. Mr. McFarlane said—
  "In reply to your letter, asking me the relative numbers of teetotallers to non-teetotallers admitted into hospital, with the general results
  396
  of disease, I send you the following particulars taken from the admission and discharge book. From the 1st of January to the 26th July there were 565 admissions; of these, 45 were teetotallers, or about 1 in 12; but, as only about a third of the regiment are teetotallers, the proportion of admission of teetotallers to non-teetotallers is about one to four. I believe, in nearly all cases, it is the rum ration which makes men spirit drinkers; they rarely are so when they enlist. If the rum ration were done away with, I do not think many men would drink native spirits."
  The last opinion he would give from those who signed the medical declaration, although he might, if necessary, give replies from nearly all of them, was from Surgeon Major Robinson, who said—
  "I hope such an amount of consentient testimony may be obtained, as will enable the advocates of temperance and of total abstinence to obtain the withdrawal of the rum ration. I behave that a large proportion of the rank and file of the Army, who now partake of it, would be pleased with such a result. I have myself recommended this step, and have no doubt that many medical officers have done likewise."
  There were just two or three other sentences from other letters with which ho would close. Surgeon-Major Turton said—
  "The dram of rum might, with advantage, be done away with in India, as it is not only unnecessary, but pernicious."
  Surgeon Major Condon said—
  "The rum ration is about the greatest curse ever inflicted on the Army. The soldier takes it, at first, because he thinks Government is giving him a boon."
  Surgeon-Major Colan said—
  "Some men who were temperate before canteen facilities were opened to them thereby acquired a thirst for spirits."
  He would close his quotations with two from distinguished medical officers at home. The first was from the late Dr. E. A. Parkes, F.R.S., Professor of Military Hygiene at the Army Medical School, Netley, who, in the latest edition of his Manual of Practical Hygiene, asked—
  "Are there any circumstances of the soldier's life in which the issue of spirits is advisable, and if the question, at any time, lies between the issue of spirits and total abstinence, which is best? To me there seems but one answer. If spirits neither give strength to the body, nor sustain it against disease—are not protective against cold and wet, and aggravate, rather than mitigate, the effects of heat—if their use, even in moderation, increases crime, injures discipline, and impairs hope and cheerfulness—if the severest trials of war have not been merely borne, but more easily borne without them—if

  397
  there is no evidence that they are protective against malaria or other diseases—then I conceive that the medical officer will not be justified in sanctioning their use under any other circumstances."
  Surgeon-General W. C. Maclean, M.D., C.B., Professor of Military Medicine, Army Medical School, Netley, in a lecture at the Royal United Service Institution, delivered in February, 1874, said—
  "If there be any point of military hygiene that may now be regarded as settled beyond doubt or cavil it is this—that spirits are not only not helpful, but are hurtful to the marching soldier, everywhere, I believe, but nowhere more so than in hot climates. The evidence on this point is overwhelming. Were I the medical chief of any Army destined to take the field in a tropical climate, not a drop of spirits should, with my consent, accompany it, save what the requirements of the ambulance service demanded. The evidence shows that wherever soldiers, by accident or design, have been cut off from the use of spirits on marches, on active service, in temperate climates exposed to wet and cold, or in the tropics to ardent heat, or in laborious sieges, they have maintained their health, spirits, and discipline far better than when the once-deemed indispensable grog was in daily use. I cannot leave this important subject without adding that for 12 years I have, at Netley, had unrivalled opportunities of studying the effects of habitual dram-drinking on the persons of our soldiers, and add my testimony to the immense weight of evidence accumulated by medical men in civil and military life, to the effect that alcohol is one of the most active agents in causing degeneration of the human tissues—in other words, disease, premature decay, and death. If this be true, as I believe it is, those officers who, by precept and example, strive to wean their men from the practice of this, our national vice, may, with truth, be said to be engaged in a patriotic work, and to deserve well of their country."
  He had no other quotation to lay before the Committee, though he could have given a great many more. He could have occupied two or three hours' time in making quotations from the speeches and writings of very great authorities, all of which would tend in precisely the same direction as those he had already made. What he wanted to point out was that the Government proposed no remedy for the appalling state of things that was revealed in the answer to the Question he put to the Government this afternoon. He proposed, no doubt, a very drastic remedy; but still, until the Government proposed some remedy which would be equally effective, he must press his case to a division, that the feeling of the House might be tested upon the question. He could not under-
  398
  stand how the War Office could go against such opinions as he had just quoted, unless it was, as had happened before, that the influence of the leading and active agents of the Army counted little or nothing as against that other influence which sometimes prevailed in that particular branch of the Service. The Government admitted the evil; they expressed their intention, in the speeches they delivered from the Treasury Bench, to do something or other; but they did not do so. He now gave them an opportunity, by their acceptance of his clause, to get rid of those temptations to drunkenness which they themselves provided.
  New Clause (Prohibition of supply of intoxicating liquors,)—(Mr. Caine,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that with a very great deal of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) he most cordially agreed. The hon. Gentleman would know that there was no man in the House who was more anxious than himself (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to put a stop to the terrible amount of drunkenness which prevailed in the Army, and which, as he stated early in the evening, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Scarborough, was the root and cause of a very large proportion, if not the whole of the crime committed in the Army. But what he was afraid of was that his hon. Friend's clause would not secure the object he had in view; in fact, he thought it would have an exactly contrary effect. The hon. Gentleman proposed, in order to promote sobriety in the Army, to stop the sale of all intoxicating liquors in the canteens. Why, if that were done the soldier would simply be driven from the canteen to the public-house. Instead of getting good liquor, as he now did get in the canteen, the soldier would get bad liquor at the public-house; and instead of drinking beer, as he did now, it would be found he would drink gin and other spirits. Was the hon. Member aware that the sale of spirituous liquors was expressly prohibited on home stations? In the course of the 11 months he had held Office, he

  399
  had never come across a single case of drunkenness occurring in canteen; cases of drunkenness had invariably originated outside. That, he thought, would be also the experience of his Predecessor (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would go further and say that in India, where there were no public-houses, but where the only drink supplied was that from the canteen, cases of drunkenness, as compared with those in civil life in England, were exceedingly rare. The Queen's Regulations relating to canteens strictly prohibited the sale of ardent and spirituous liquors of any description in canteen on home stations, although at foreign stations the sale of spirits was permitted at the discretion of the commanding officer. Furthermore, it was stipulated that no intoxicating or malt liquors of any description were to be sold before 12 at noon, or after tattoo, or during Divine Service, or to any man apparently intoxicated. His hon. Friend had spoken of the prevalence of drunkenness in the British Army. Great as the drunkenness was it had been steadily diminishing; and he had heard, though he could not state it as a fact, that the number of total abstainers in the Army was as large as 25 per cent of the whole force. At any rate, temperance was on the increase. There was another objection to the adoption of the proposed clause. It was not a clause which could be conveniently inserted in a Mutiny Bill, inasmuch as it was quite outside the scope of the Bill. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause to a division, because, if so, he would be compelled, for the reasons he had assigned, to vote against him.
  DR. KINNEARcould not follow the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) in the extracts he had read; but he could give the Motion his heartiest support. In the North of Ireland he, as pastor of a congregation, constantly came in contact with the soldiers stationed there. He had questioned the men with reference to drinking in the Army; and from the answers he received he had concluded that if the Government would offer the men, in addition to their pay, 2d. per day in lieu of the drink rations, at least 50 per cent would very gladly accept it. There was hardly a young man who entered the Army or Navy who did not leave his parents'
  400
  home without carrying with him the prayers of his father and mother, and who did not join the Service without promises of the very best nature. He would like to see the Government doing everything to assist the men to carry out the promises which had been so justly and solemnly made; and he hoped the arguments of the hon. Member for Scarborough, supported as they were by such weighty authorities, would commend themselves to the judgment of the Committee. Their earnest desire ought to be to promote the characters of the young men in the Army and Navy for sobriety and righteousness, which was the greatest aid to discipline and efficiency.
  CAPTAIN HERON-MAXWELLsaid, that as the clause applied to home stations the Committee ought not to accept it. Judging from his own experience as a soldier he did not think there were many cases of drunkenness arising out of the drink obtained at the canteens; and if, as it was now proposed to do, they drove a soldier out of the canteen, they would inevitably drive him to the endless number of public-houses which infested camps and military stations. The real remedy of the evil of excessive drinking in the Army was that the magistrates who had the issuing of licences should restrict the number of public-houses in the neighbourhood of large camps. That would assuredly have the effect the hon. Member for Scarborough had so much at heart. In India there was a very common conviction that spirit drinking and the issuing of the rum ratio was deleterious in the extreme to the health of the soldier. But at home, on account of the good regulations in force in respect to the canteens, it was hardly possible for men to get drunk in those establishments; and the shutting up of the canteens would simply result in the soldier being driven to the public-house, where he would get drunk unknown to the authorities. The evil of drunkenness would increase rather than diminish; and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would refuse the Motion now before them.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had not the advantage of being present during the early part of the discussion; but after reading the mere terms of the Motion on the Paper, and after hearing from his hon. Friends around him an

  401
  account of what had taken place, he was bound to join with those who wished to offer an opposition to the insertion of the clause. He did so, not because he was less anxious for temperance than even the hon. Member for Scarborough himself, but simply on the grounds he had already heard stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Heron-Maxwell) and by others—namely, that if they prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor in the canteens they would drive the men outside where they would get liquor of an inferior description, and in quantities totally unstinted. He did not believe the bounds of reasonable drinking were at all exceeded in canteens. He was a member of the Canteen Board, and he spoke from personal observation when he said that when the canteens were taken over from the canteen keepers, for the benefit of the soldiers, they were very well regulated and looked after, and drinking was reduced to a minimum. Furthermore, he could not help feeling that if they were to get, as they hoped they would now get, a better class of men in the Service they would not do so by restrictive measures of this sort. He was glad there was one common ground on which the hon. Member for Scarborough and himself could meet, and that was in the promotion of the new movement which he hoped would gain ground every day, that of the Army Coffee Taverns. He trusted that in the persons of the hon. Member for Scarborough, and those who thought and acted with him, they might find supporters of that movement; and he felt persuaded they would do more, by engaging in a work of that kind, to promote temperance in the Service than by coming to the House with a Motion of the description now on the Paper. He wished to enter his very earnest protest against soldiers being understood to be the most drunken class of men in existence. That was an entire mistake. He did not mean to contend for a moment that there was not too much intemperance in the Army; but it must be borne in mind that when hon. Gentlemen read the lists of punishment and the general Returns connected with the Army they read of cases of drunkenness in men who were under observation at all hours of the day and night. The soldier, from his very uniform, was conspicuous; and he (Colonel Stanley) was afraid there
  402
  was not always a friendly feeling towards him on the part of the general public, but that they were always ready to notice in him the slightest shortcoming. He was glad to believe there was not more drunkenness existing in the ranks of the Army than there was in the corresponding branches of civil life. He would be pardoned for entering his protest against the character usually given to our soldier. It was very easy to give a soldier a bad name; but it was very difficult for a man to retrieve his reputation when he had once, whether rightly or wrongly, lost it. He felt hon. Gentlemen would best advance the social position of the soldier, if, instead of giving him a bad name, they would assist him in getting a better one.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTdid not think the object the hon. Member for Scarborough had in view would be attained by closing the canteens. Drunkenness in the Army had diminished very sensibly since the Government took over the canteens. This very action had tended to discourage drinking, not only at home, but in the Colonies, and for the simple reason that the men now got in the canteens a good description of liquor at the lowest price. The drink sold outside barracks, both at home and in the Colonies, was very bad; and, in his opinion, it would be a great improvement if spirits were sold in canteens. There were some men who wished to drink spirits, and if they were supplied in the canteens they would be of good quality. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Motion.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was cheering to him, and it must be cheering to the country, to know that both the present and late Ministers for War were entirely at one in a sincere desire to assist the soldier who was willing to assist himself in pursuing a policy of sobriety. He did not believe any one of them had the well-being of the individual members of the Army more at heart than the Secretary of State for War himself. The only difference between the hon. Member for Scarborough and the War Office authorities was as to the mode of attaining the desired end. Perhaps he might be allowed to point out what struck him as an unconscious inconsistency in his friends. Either the position of the hon. Member (Mr. Caine) was untenable, or he was right. The

  403
  soldier ought to have good drink in the canteens, because if he could not get it there he would go to the public-house. They ought to give him brandy and whisky as well as other liquor. If the soldier wanted good and honest liquor, but it was not provided for him in the canteen, it was agreed that he would be compelled to go out of the barracks, where he would get what his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) called "silent spirit," but which, in reality, was a spirit which made him very noisy. That struck him, and others, as inconsistent and illogical in the present position. He appealed to the War Office to consider that the step they had already taken, such as it was, in the direction of his hon. Friend's position, had been attended with great benefit. They had struck out the more ardent spirits, and since the military authorities took over the canteens and placed them under their own regulations there had been good order prevailing in the barracks. his hon. Friend considered that if they would take the remaining half-step they would go the whole way, and make the canteens army coffee taverns. Then, at all events, the soldier would not be in a position to turn round to his court martial, and say—" You train me to the appetite within the barrack gates, and upbraid me for the consequences." He admitted the men did not get drunk in the canteen; they commenced the drinking in the canteen, and, having taken the first two or three steps in drunkenness, they went out of the gates. He protested against throwing the blame on the public-house keepers, for they only finished the transaction. The first part of the operation was performed under the authority of the War Office, and the finishing touch was put upon the business by the unconscious and innocent publican over his counter. [A laugh.] He meant that it might happen that a soldier might have had several glasses of good beer in the canteen, and have gone to the public-house before the beer had produced any marks on his countenance; the publican would then innocently complete the wreck by supplying him with more drink. It was not for a moment supposed that there was any want of desire to help forward sobriety in the Army. He knew nothing connected with the Service better calculated to attract young men of good conduct than the abolition of flogging,
  404
  and the establishment of reading rooms and the like, in the different barracks. The hon. Member for Scarborough simply asked them to take into account that they had done a great deal of good by prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits, but that they would do a great deal more good if they went still further.
  MR. ILLING WORTHthought the Committee owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Scarborough for having brought the question under the notice of the Committee. He had no doubt it was true that since the Government had undertaken the control of the canteens drunkenness in the Army had very greatly diminished. This, however, conclusively showed that if no intoxicants were supplied they would have everything they desired in making the British Army the model army of the world. But then they were told that if intoxicating liquors were suppressed in the canteens the soldiers must go outside and get worse drink. If that were so, it was only necessary to go a step further. They already punished a soldier for drunkenness, why should they not punish the publican for making him drunk? That was no new doctrine. It was the law of the land, and the only misfortune was that the law was never put in force. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a division, because they were all interested in raising the character of the British Army. Every Member of the House must be concerned to hear the testimony about the desertions in the Army, the great percentage of crime, and the great outcry made about the relaxation of discipline, and the increase of mutinous spirit in the Army. The testimony produced by the hon. Member for Scarborough was to the effect that if there were no drink there would be no insubordination, but perfect discipline; and it appeared to him, therefore, that the duty of Parliament was clear—namely, to force on the War Office the necessity of introducing this system of suppressing intoxication and supplying non-intoxicants in the canteens instead of these dangerous things. If the hon. Member went to a division, he should be glad to support him; and other hon. Members, by supporting him, would be doing more to lessen the expenditure upon and increase the efficiency of the British Army than by any other step it was left to the British Parliament to take.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdid not think that the hon. Member who just sat down had shown that by introducing this clause in the Bill they would raise in the manner described the credit, and discipline, and honour of the British Army. The hon. Member was one of those who, like so many hon. Members who sat near him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), wished to regulate by Act of Parliament, not only what people might drink, but also what they might eat. He had always believed that we in England were a free people, and should be allowed to do that which we thought to be in our best interests; but there were some people who seemed to think that we should be regulated in all we did by Act of Parliament. He admired those who could refrain from drinking ardent spirits or malt liquor, or anything else; but they must certainly give people credit for some little discretion, and allow them to do that which they considered for their own interest and benefit. There was not one of the hon. Members who had spoken but had shown that it had been a good thing to take away from the canteens the power of selling ardent spirits; but they had not proceeded beyond that one inch. They had not shown that by giving the soldier good beer in his own barracks they had not prevented him from going into the public-houses, which had been the curse and the abomination of the soldiers of the British Army. What he wanted to point out was that if the men wanted beer and porter, and could get it good in their own barracks, it was infinitely better for them to get it there than to have to go outside for it. Hon. Members must not tell him that if they did away with the canteens they were going to prevent soldiers from drinking in public-houses outside the barracks. Then, he wanted to know, what good would they do? They would take the men from those places where they got good liquor which did not make them drunk, and drive them to those places where they would get bad liquor which would make them drunk. The argument hon. Members used was absurd. He knew what their feelings were, and that they would like to make all the soldiers sober. If they could, well and good; but it was impossible to make them more sober by what they now proposed than they had been able to do before. They
  406
  had all listened attentively to the statements that had been made, and he would venture to say that if they looked back to what the Army was 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago, with regard to drunkenness, and then at what it was now, they would find that a great improvement had taken place. If that was so, why not let well alone? They should not hurry the thing too much, for if they did they would bring about an outbreak far greater than anything they could attempt to remedy. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Scarborough might laugh; but, although, no doubt, he had got up the question very well to-night, he practically knew little or nothing about it; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would inform him that if they stopped the sale of malt liquor at the canteens they would drive the men to public-houses outside; and it was because he wished to prevent men going outside, and getting worse liquor than inside, that he was for maintaining the canteens.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONthought his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) must have an extraordinary idea of what "well" was when he said "Let well alone." They had a list of 22,000 soldiers in the British Army fined for getting drunk in one year. If that was the hon. and gallant Baronet's opinion of what was "well," he must say he could not endorse it. The hon. and gallant Baronet was a good old Constitutional politician—for here he was, staunch as ever, standing up for flogging and drinking in the Army. The hon. and gallant Baronet talked about the temptations outside the barracks, about the better conduct of the men inside, and so forth; and, no doubt, his argument would have a certain weight if they were discussing one of his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) Bills, which he wished to apply to the general public; but nobody knew better than the hon. and gallant Baronet that the soldier was in an exceptional position altogether. He was under masters—captains, colonels, and generals. He was looked after to a certain extent—regulations being made for him that would not be made for other people. Now, they had heard a great deal lately in these Army debates, and had read a deal in printed articles, about the importance of removing temptation out of the way of the soldiers. The Judge Advocate General himself had spoken

  407
  about it; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not in the least know what was going to be done. He had heard nothing in connection with this Mutiny Bill, nor in connection with any other Bill, about removing this temptation, which, they were told, did so much harm, out of the way of the soldier. The only person who proposed anything was the hon. Member for Scarborough; and because he proposed the clause he was said to be impracticable. Theoretically, they were all in favour of sobriety and everything else that was good, and they were all united in desire to advance any scheme that proposed to bring about sobriety. He would ask, then, was there ever a stronger case than that which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend to-night. The Judge Advocate had said—and he was not a man who exaggerated—that three-fourths of the crime in the Army was owing to drink, and they had evidence from the most competent authorities that drinking was a great cause of sickness in the Army, and the cause of the Army being more inefficient than it otherwise would be. Before the House was as full as it was now, they had had voluminous evidence tendered to them by his hon. Friend on his left, to the effect that all the principal generals agreed in saying that drinking in the Army was an alarming evil, and that our soldiers would be much more efficient in every way if the means of obtaining drink were kept from them. They talked of improvement in the Army; well, he was glad it was improving, and that in spite of the 22,000 fined for drunkenness, according to the Judge Advocate General, there were 25,000 teetotallers in the Army. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: 25 per cent, I said.] That made the number still greater. If a fourth part of the Army were teetotallers, what awful drinkers the others must be; but, really, the principal argument used to-day was this—that if we did away with the canteens the men would go to the public-houses. Well, why should they not go to the public-houses? ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear!" but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) maintained that if the public-houses were good places, why should not the soldiers go to them? He hoped the next time he brought forward a Bill, endeavouring to get rid of public-houses, hon. Members, who were so
  408
  horrified at soldiers going into these public-houses, would vote for it. They must remember that it was they who set up the public-houses, and not the soldiers. They licensed these traps where these men were caught; but he was glad to hear the argument that was advanced on the other side, because he was sure it would prove a very useful one. He had noticed over and over again, when these questions came up, hon. Members, who were opposed to his views, made use of arguments most useful to him. Sir Garnet Wolseley had said that intoxicating drink was bad for soldiers both before, during, and after a march—surely that meant that drinking was bad for them during the whole of their lives. But he had been told another thing. It had not been said openly in the House, but it had been said to him by a gallant soldier who was a Member of the House—" Why, if this clause of the hon. Member for Scarborough is carried, you will never get the men to enlist at all." That, he believed, was in the hearts of many hon. Members, though they did not like to say so. What a shameful and miserable idea it was—that they could not get men in the Army unless they did what was wrong. He was sure our soldiers would fight quite as well without this temptation. What happened the other day? Why, Sir Evelyn Wood was negotiating as to the terms of peace with the Boers—whom, we all agreed, made gallant soldiers—and, in the course of the proceedings, he offered them champagne. It was not accepted. "No," said the leader, "thank you; we came here not to drink, but to fight." And we knew they did fight, just as our own soldiers would fight without this temptation. When he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) brought forward any Motion to shut up public-houses, in general he was always met with the compensation argument. It was said—" Compensation must be given to the people who keep these houses." But there was no question of compensation here. It was to nobody's interest to keep these places open, for canteens were Government property; indeed, it would be a saving to the Government, as well as a benefit to the men, if they were shut up; and he could not see why the Secretary of State for War should not be careful about the soldiers, and anxious as for their benefit, as the

  409
  Navy authorities were for the benefit of sailors. They knew what the naval authorities had done? During this very Session they had heard that they were going to cut off the spirit rations from the sailors, and give them other things in its place. ["No, no!"] Well, perhaps they were not going to cut off the spirits entirely, but only to a certain extent. The use of spirits would be very much restricted. ["No!"] At any rate, alternatives were to be given to the men. The Secretary to the Admiralty would correct him if he was wrong; but he believed they were going to take away all spirits from everyone under the age of 20; but why should they not extend the age to 40 or 60? If the Government looked sharp after the health and morality and efficiency of the Navy, why should they not do the same thing for the Army? He hoped the House would divide on the question, so that they might see who were the real friends of the soldiers, and who were they who only made speeches about them in the House.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought it would not conduce greatly to the discipline and good feeling of the Army to have one law for the soldiers and another for the officers, for the latter could have what they chose to drink in their mess. But there was another objection to the clause proposed—namely, that if it were adopted recruiting would simply come to a standstill. Everyone knew that our Army was drawn from the lowest classes of society in this country. It necessarily must be so, seeing that it was a voluntary Army. Well, the lowest classes of society were frequenters of public-houses; therefore, if the canteens were closed, an end would be put to recruiting.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was going against his own favourite principle in advocating this clause. The hon. Baronet had distinguished himself as the great advocate of local option; and, to be consistent, he should be ready to apply the principle of local option to the barracks—to allow every regiment to say whether they would have canteens or not. He did not see why the hon. Baronet should step forward and, without allowing the soldiers to vote upon the question, say "They shall not have liquor supplied to them in-doors."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he would go even further than the hon. Member who said they should have the same law for the officers as for the soldiers. He would say they should have the same law for the House of Commons as they had for the Army. If they were anxious to teach soldiers not to use intoxicating liquors they should exclude those liquors from the bar of their own Lobby. If they did that the soldiers would see that they were in earnest and were ready to set the Army a good example, and it would then be easier to shut up the canteens. If it could be shown that the sale of liquor in the canteen was under complete control, and was not abused, the House should not support the clause, which was, in his opinion, contrary to common sense.
  MR. W. FOWLERcould not accept the language of the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down. As far as he was concerned, he should be delighted to see the sale of intoxicating liquors stopped at the bar, because he was one of those infatuated people who did not make use of such liquor. What did we want to give our soldiers these liquors for? Was it to make them stronger and more efficient? No; he apprehended that the real reason was because they thought the men liked it, and because they thought the men considered it pleasanter to get liquor at home than to be driven into the public-houses outside for it. This was not the only question they had to consider. They had to consider whether it was good for the soldiers to have liquor sold in the barracks. It could be shown that the system did a great deal of harm to the soldier, and the only argument he had heard used against the clause was that if they did not give the soldiers liquor in the canteen they would be driven outside to get it. That was what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and others would say; but he would point out that the House was not responsible for that. The men were not bound to go outside, and would not if they had tea and coffee and that sort of thing provided inside. He admitted that the clause was an extreme one. It was a strong measure to say that intoxicating liquor should not be sold in the canteen; but it was desirable, if the men wanted it, that they should get it in places licensed by Parliament. He did not see

  411
  any necessity for intoxicating liquor being sold in the canteen; and he, for one, would vote for the clause.
  MR. CHILDERS: I yield to no man, not even to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) in my desire to do all I possibly can to promote the sobriety of soldiers. No one who knows anything of the records of intoxication in the Army and its effects on crime can have any other wish. But still I would repeat what has been said by others opposite to me and near me, that the consumption of intoxicants in the Army is steadily diminishing, and that, though there is still more to be done in the direction of promoting sobriety, the Army now is far more sober than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Therefore, from the evidence before us, it does not seem necessary to adopt such a drastic measure as that which the hon. Member for Scarborough proposes, when we see that without it sobriety has been steadily increasing. So much for the general principle. Will the Committee allow me for a moment to go to the particular proposal of my hon. Friend, which may be divided into two parts. One is that he wishes the spirit ration to the Army to be put a stop to in India; and the other s that he wishes the canteens elsewhere, in which spirits are not sold, but beer only, to be stopped altogether. The hon. Member quoted from the Reports of medical officers and others as to the state of the Indian Army; but I would remind him that the Mutiny Bill only refers to the Army in the United King-don and some of the Colonies. India is not referred to in it; and the adoption, therefore, of the clause would not interfere with the sale of spirits at canteens in India. I will say at once, however, on that point, that I will spare no pains to endeavour to discourage the issue of liquors to the soldiers in tropical countries. I firmly believe with those who have gone before me that the use of spirits by soldiers, particularly when it is possible for them to get malt liquor, ought to be discouraged as much as possible. That is the policy I shall endeavour to adopt, and that, I know, has the general approval of military authorities. Passing now to the proposed prohibition of the sale of malt liquor, I must protest against the doctrine laid down by some hon. Members that it is wrong to drink a glass of beer. ["Oh!"] Well, I have
  412
  taken down the words of more than one hon. Member who has spoken in this debate, and I find that allowing beer to be sold in the canteens has been described as tempting men to do that which is "wrong." I protest against that doctrine altogether. There are some people—though I am not one of them—who have been accustomed to do without malt liquor, and others who have trained themselves to do without it; but I am bound to say, and I think I shall have the majority of the House with me, that a very large number of people indeed who have been accustomed to drink it are none the worse for it; and that, in moderation, it is the most wholesome and healthy of the national beverages of the country. To lay down the doctrine that to drink a glass of beer is to do something that is wrong is a piece of fanaticism with which the House, I am sure, will have no sympathy. Therefore, I say distinctly, whilst wishing to do what I can to put down, as far as it lays with me, the unnecessary use of spirits, that I will not be a party to the doctrine that the soldier is to be prevented from getting a glass of beer when he can get it good and wholesome, because the country, by allowing him to get it, is tempting him to take a first step in doing what is wrong. I do not think it is wrong for the soldier to drink a glass of beer; therefore I say that if the result of selling good beer in the canteen is to save the soldier from getting a worse description of drink outside we are doing not a wrong thing, but a good thing, in maintaining the canteen system. I cordially go with those who advocate the principle of giving the soldiers not only the opportunity, but every encouragement to drink coffee and cocoa. My right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Stanley) has been good enough to say that he, when he was in Office, and that I am now doing all that is practicable to encourage the sale of good wholesome coffee and cocoa in the garrison towns. Moro than one society has been established for the purpose, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and myself have done all we can to promote them. We must give the soldier inside the barrack-yard opportunities for obtaining good wholesome coffee and cocoa at a fair price, so that those who wish to have these beverages can have them instead

  413
  of drinking beer; but I am not prepared to drive the soldier out of the canteen, where, at any rate, he gets wholesome beer, into the public-houses of a garrison town, where the associations are not always of the best, and where, certainly, the beer is not always of the best, and where he will be tempted into excesses of which there would be little or no danger in the canteen.
  SIR ROBERT CUNLIFFEsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Caine) would admit that he (Sir Robert Cunliffe) was not indifferent to the subject of intemperance. He was very sorry he could not stand on the same ground as his hon. Friend on this question. So far as he could follow the hon. Member's remarks, the assumption upon which his speech was founded was, that by accepting his Motion they would be removing the temptation to drink from the path of the soldier. He (Sir Robert Cunliffe) differed from his hon. Friend. He maintained, and he believed the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War went to prove it, that if the soldier could not get wholesome liquor in the canteen he would go and get it somewhere else. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had alluded to the fact that 25 per cent of the Army were teetotallers, and had gone on to say what "awful drinkers the rest of the Army must be." But if his hon. Friend's proposition was right, and they drove these "awful drinkers" out of the canteens into low public-houses, how much worse they would become? The teetotallers did not want the canteens; but the "awful drinkers" would be better for drinking their beer there. Yet the hon. Member said—" You must not have it in the canteen; you must go outside for it." During the time he had been in the Service, he had had an opportunity—in Canada—of observing the result to the soldiers of their getting a bad description of liquor. He could appeal to several hon. Members to bear witness to the way in which the men suffered from the spirits sold in Montreal. The hon. Member for Scarborough seemed to assume that if his Motion was carried an immense deal would be done to put an end to drinking in the Army. That was an assumption he should be very glad to accept; but it seemed to him that the hon. Member had not given sufficient arguments in support of it. He
  414
  thought his hon. Friend had not proved his case; but that he had only proved that if the liquors, which were believed to be in a large degree wholesome, were not bought in barracks they must be bought elsewhere. As the Motion stood, he must vote against it.
  MR. RAMSAYregretted that he could not see his way to voting for the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Scarborough; but he observed that it consisted of two parts. In the first place, it proposed that the sale of intoxicating liquors in canteens should cease from the passing of the Act, and then it proposed that the supply of liquor on the march should be discontinued. He thought he could vote for the latter portion of the Motion, believing it to be well worthy of the consideration of the Committee whether it would not be advantageous to discontinue the supply of liquor on the march, and give money in lieu of liquor to the soldiers who were teetotallers, or who did not desire the liquor. It would be better to give them the chance of taking the value of the liquor than to force them to drink; and, if the hon. Member could confine his clause to the discontinuance of all supply of spirits on the march he should support the Motion.
  MR. CAINE,replying, said, the Judge Advocate General and the Secretary of State for War had suggested that he claimed a monopoly in that House of a love of temperance. He did not claim any such monopoly, and he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentlemen were quite as anxious as he was for the sobriety of soldiers; but he did claim something of a monopoly in having proposed the right remedy. A great deal had been urged in favour of the canteen as against the public-house outside, and a great deal had been said of the good and cheap liquor at the canteens and of the bad liquor supplied at the public-houses; but no evidence had been adduced, or could be adduced, to show that there was any real difference between the liquor in the canteens and the public-houses. The beer, as a rule, in public-houses, whether large or small houses, was pretty much the same, and he had not found any adulteration in it, because it was difficult to tamper with beer. What he wanted to point out was that, under the present system, the soldier subscribed for liquor in the canteen, and when the sergeant in charge,

  415
  thinking that he had had enough, refused to supply any more to him, the soldier then went elsewhere and got more to drink than was good for him. The sergeant would refuse him more drink because he showed signs of having been drinking; but, as the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had said, the publican outside was not to be blamed for supplying drink to a soldier, if he only showed slight signs of intoxication. He contended that the canteen gave the first impetus to drunkenness, which was completed elsewhere; and he hoped that before long the Government would do away with canteens, and, at any rate, not supply liquor themselves. Twenty-five per cent of the soldiers were teetotallers; but the existence of the canteens was a continual temptation to them. In the interests of those teetotallers in the Army who were trying to live sober lives, something ought to be done in the direction of removing temptation. The late Secretary of State for War had spoken of the coffee canteen, and suggested that he (Mr. Caine) and those who agreed with him might found coffee canteens. There were coffee canteens in the Army, and the number was increasing; but nearly all the coffee canteens in the Army had been started by teetotallers, in the same way that coffee palaces and cocoa-houses all over the country had been started by teetotallers. Something had been said in favour of the much abused soldier, as to his not being such a bad character as he was said to be; but it was also remarked that there was no very friendly feeling on the part of the public towards the soldier. We constantly heard of the soldier being refused admission to coffee palaces and places of entertainment, and he thought that the proprietors of those places ought to be compelled to treat soldiers in the same way as other people; but it could not be wondered that people shrank from soldiers when, as the House had been told, 23,000 soldiers were punished every year for drunkenness. In reference to an observation by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he did not base his argument entirely upon his own opinions; but on the opinions of experienced officers in the Army. Sir Garnet Wolseley, ho had served in India, at the Cape, in Ashantee, and in
  416
  the Red River country, had declared that, in his opinion, in each of those campaigns the soldiers were bettter without liquor than with it. In conclusion, he would only say that he had been exceedingly gratified by the sympathy of the Government, especially by the statement of the Secretary of State for War. It was because he felt sure of their sympathy, though not, perhaps, of their support, that he put his Amendment on the Paper. He should proceed to a division; and, in consequence of the strong opinion expressed that something should be done with regard to spirit rations on the march, he should, on Report, bring forward a clause, declaring that, from the passing of the Act, all supply of spirits on the march should be discontinued.
  MAJOR VAUGHAN LEE,as an old soldier, wished to defend the soldiers against the accusations of drunkenness; and said he doubted much if the hon. Member (Mr. Caine) himself would not like to have had a glass of rum if he was up to his knees in snow for the whole night. The soldier who got his liquor at the canteen paid ready money for it; and it would be very hard that a man who might be at drill from 6 in the morning to 4 in the afternoon should not be allowed to get a glass of beer during the whole of that period. He had served Her Majesty in the Crimea, and he did not know where the soldiers would have been at night without their rations of rum.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Judge Advocate General whether he correctly understood him to say that 23,000 cases of drunkenness occurred every year in the Army?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: 23,000 are fined for drunkenness.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 156: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Clause proposed is in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour); but it is not possible to introduce that as a proviso in the Preamble as he proposes, and as a new clause, as it is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he proposed to take the Consideration on Monday next, as he had promised the Committee to confer with those he should desire to consult about the introduction of words limiting summary punishment to restraint and hard labour; and, if the words should be acceptable to the House, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to be read a third time on that day, as there would otherwise barely be time to get it passed before the Easter Recess. He would try to put the words on the Paper before Monday.

  TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 118.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: The subject of this measure for the improvement of the Law of Teinds or Tithes in Scotland is one of a somewhat technical character; and I shall not occupy very much the time of the House in explanation of its provisions. It is right that I should state, at the outset, that the subject has attracted a great deal of attention in Scotland; and this measure has been prepared at the request of a very influential committee, consisting of representative members from the various County Boards of Scotland, who had appointed a committee of their number to investigate the subject and make recommendations. The judicial procedure regarding tithes in Scotland is one of the most antiquated, barbarous, and cumbrous systems of judicial process that exists in any part of the civilized world. While every other part of our judicial system has been simplified and improved in conformity with modern requirements, this department touching upon Ecclesiastical Law, and relating to the rights of the Church, has been allowed to remain as it stood two centuries ago; its very nomenclature unintelligible to the community; its rules, those that existed at the time when a Court of 15 Judges, sitting with endless opportunities of reclamation and appeal against its own judgments, had its time chiefly occupied in deciding questions of form. The object of this measure is to introduce a simpler and more economical
  418
  method of ascertaining and valuing the tithes of the country, and of apportioning the liability between the different landed proprietors affected by it. In order to explain the provisions of the Bill, it will be necessary to state, in a sentence or two, how the Common Law stands at the present time with reference to the liability of owners of tithes towards the clergyman. It is probably known to many Members of the House that there is a material difference between the position of the clergy of Scotland and those of England—that while in England tithes are mostly in the hands of the rectors, who own the property of the tithes subject to certain deductions, in Scotland the tithes are almost entirely in the hands of persons who, in the language of the English law, would be called lay impropriators, but who with us are called titulars. It is matter of history that after the Reformation the great mass of the tithes in Scotland were made over by grants from the Crown to influential landed proprietors, who made use of their influence to obtain these favours. They have been assigned and have passed into various bands. I am glad to say that a considerable part of the tithe property belongs to the Crown, and is administered by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. A considerable portion belongs to the Universities and other corporations. Much of the tithes remains with the proprietors of the soil from which they are levied; but a large portion still belongs to the titulars, who have no connection whatever with the soil; but who have the right of drawing the tithes by virtue of their titles from estates to which they are strangers. The clergy, as a rule, are stipendiaries. They, under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed soon after the Reformation, were entitled to have competent stipends assigned to them as a charge upon the tithes in whose hands so ever these might be found. In modern practice every clergyman was entitled once in 20 years to come into Court and ask for an augmentation or increase of his stipend; and there ensued a general litigation among all the heritors and landed proprietors of the parish to ascertain who were primarily liable, and to what amount, and whether the tithes were valued or not. Now, if the system that was devised after the Reformation had been carried out, this costly and

  419
  troublesome process recurring at frequent intervals would have had no place in our judicial system. In the time of King Charles II. two successive Commissions were appointed, with powers to value all the teinds in Scotland, and to ascertain the liabilities of persons entitled to them. Unfortunately, a considerable part of the records of the valuation of these Commissions was destroyed by fire; another portion of them was removed to England, and lost at sea in the transit; and, by various accidents, the result is that only a part—though, undoubtedly, a considerable part—of the official valuations of the tithes of the country which were thus valued remain extant in the records of our Register House. The result is that whenever a minister has obtained an increase of stipend he has to call all the landed proprietors of the parish into Court. A common agent was then appointed to attend to the interests of the proprietors collectively; and every man appointed his own solicitor to look after his individual interests; and litigations went on that lasted for 5, 10, or even 20 years, sometimes becoming dormant and being revived again, and it not unfrequently happened that the cost of the ascertainment of the liability amounted to more than all the benefit the clergyman obtained by his application. This state of things has given rise to a great deal of feeling on the part of landed proprietors, and last year a Committee of the Commissioners of Supply or County Boards was appointed to draw up a scheme, and they requested the Government to give effect to it by bringing a Bill into this House. The provisions of the Bill, which have been adjusted after consideration with persons of great experience and practice in this branch of law, I shall shortly explain to the House. It appears to me that, instead of treating this branch of legal practice as a subject of litigation, it ought to be regarded as an administrative proceeding to be regulated by Commission; but, inasmuch as the questions that are likely to arise and to engage the attention of the Commission are of a legal character, it is desirable that the person who undertakes the settlement of these questions should be a lawyer of the highest reputation, and one who would command the confidence of the country. It
  420
  is proposed that one of the Judges of the Superior Court should be appointed Judicial Commissioner for making up the roll of tithes in the various parishes. It is provided that he should begin with those in which the tithes have been already to a certain extent valued, beginning with the more recent cases and advancing to the more difficult; that he should make up a draft roll, and should then advertise a day on which he will proceed to hear all objections to that roll, and to declare it final with regard to the parish. Power is given, in case of any question arising of importance or difficulty, for granting an appeal to a Division of the Court of Session. I shall not trouble the House by explaining or enumerating the different matters which are to be embodied in a tabular form in the roll of the tithes, and which are to become the basis of future assessments for ministers' stipends. There is one other matter which requires attention. It had been the practice hitherto to allocate stipends of ministers in grain. He got so many bolls, firlots, and other ancient denominations, and measures of wheat, barley, oats, and beans; and after these had been carefully calculated and reduced to a tabular form they were converted back to money, and the clergyman was actually paid his stipend in money. We have thought it desirable that this antiquated process should cease, and that all stipends should be allocated in the current coin of the Realm upon an average of years preceding the making of the application. No change has been made with reference to the rights either of the minister or the rights of the proprietors. The right of the minister to apply to the Court for an increase of his stipend is preserved; but some improvement is made in the course of procedure, and the rights of the proprietors to the reversionary interest in the tithes are also preserved. The only change is in their mode of ascertainment. I am very hopeful that this measure will be favourably received by the landed proprietors of Scotland, because it is based on their own recommendations, and has met with the approval of some of the most eminent Judges and authorities on this branch of the law. I shall, therefore, as the subject is one which in its own nature cannot be familiar to many Members of this House, and which I

  421
  must ask them, therefore, to take to some extent on trust, venture to ask the House to give a favourable consideration to the Bill. I know there are some hon. Members who desire not to be committed to the second reading of the Bill; and if an adjournment is proposed, I have no objection that some time should be given for consideration, and the second reading deferred till after Easter. I have been desirous to make this statement of the objects of the measure, and also to explain what objects are not contemplated by the Bill, in order that at the meetings of the county proprietors, which will be held in the ensuing month, they may have before them the views of the Government with reference to a subject in which they are much interested. I venture to hope that if the House will consent to pass this Bill a subject which has given rise to a great deal of heart-burning between the clergy and the proprietors may be simplified, and that the interests of the Church and the people, which in this matter are not in conflict, may, in some degree, be promoted by the reforms proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEhad heard the statement of the Lord Advocate with great satisfaction that he was willing that the Bill should be allowed to stand over. The Bill was very technical, and dealt with a law of a very complex nature, and one not very well understood even by most lawyers. The Lord Advocate had had no opportunity of making a statement on the first reading, and the statement he had made that night was well worth consideration. He believed it would be satisfactory, not only to the Scotch Members, but to the Scotch community, that time should be given to consider that statement; and, therefore, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. RAMSAYseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the main result of the Bill, apart from improving the mode of procedure, would be to
  422
  compel every landlord to value his teinds at once. As all Scotch landlords were aware, it had been possible for them to value their teinds at any time they might select during the past 200 years. Those who valued them 200 years ago were now liable for a very small fee for the support of the clergy, while other landlords who had not done so were liable up to a fifth of the gross rental. If the proposition of the Lord Advocate were carried into effect all those landlords who had not had their teinds valued must value them at once on the year 1880–1. No Scotch landlord would think of valuing his teinds at this moment, because rents in Scotland were not rising, but falling. The consequence of that might be that in certain estates where the teinds had not been valued the landlord might at some future time be in considerable difficulty. That was a consideration which he should like to bring under the notice of the Lord Advocate, because the Bill might have the effect of doing a practical injustice in some few cases.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)thought it was rather for the advantages of the proprietor that his teinds should be valued when rents were low, because his object was that teinds to be charged on the estates should be as low as possible.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he never knew such a course proposed as to delay a Bill when there was plenty of time for its discussion. The Lord Advocate seemingly had been informed by some hon. Members that the Bill was not agreeable to parties not belonging to Scotland, but to England; and he was prepared, by acquiescing in that dissatisfaction, to give them an opportunity of opposing the Bill. He thought the Bill a very important one. It had no reference to establishment or disestablishment. It was simply meant to get over a cumbrous and antiquated and expensive law. He thought the Lord Advocate would have shown more the spirit of a Scotch Representative if he had opposed this action. The opponents of the Bill would have an opportunity of expressing their views upon it in going into Committee.
  MR. DALRYMPLEjoined with his hon. Friend who had just sat down in his representations on this subject. The Lord Advocate had made his statement

  423
  with such lucidity and clearness that it was perfectly possible for anyone, even although perfectly uninformed on the subject, to follow the purpose of the Bill. It had been stated that the Bill was introduced at the instigation of the landed proprietors. Of that fact he was well aware before; but the Lord Advocate, having made that statement, followed it up by saying that the Bill should be discussed by the proprietors. Well, if the Bill was so introduced, what was the use of referring it to the landed proprietors? There was a little more in this than appeared. Along with his hon. Friend he joined in expressing astonishment that the Government should not take the opportunity of getting the second reading of a Bill which they judged to be of importance, and on which there could not be very much debate, partly owing to the Lord Advocate having said all that could be said on the subject, and partly that so many hon. Members were thoroughly ignorant of the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLsuggested that the hon. Member should withdraw the Motion for adjournment.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSexpressed his surprise that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, after having moved the second reading of the Bill, should have consented to the adjournment of the debate. He thought the present was a most appropriate opportunity for discussing the measure. He wished, however, to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact that at the head of the Bill, as circulated to hon. Members, there was a statement or a summary of the objects of the measure drawn up on the authority of those who had introduced it. He thought that such a practice was a dangerous one, and that if such a statement was to be drawn up at all it ought to be done by an entirely independent authority. He should like the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to give the House his views on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: As the right hon. Gentleman has called my attention to the statement of objects contained at the head of this Bill, I am bound to say, while not expressing any opinion upon the particular statement with reference to this Bill, that I think the practice referred to is one which is open to abuse. My
  424
  attention having been called to the matter, I can only say at present that I will look into it and see what course it would be best for the House to pursue. No doubt, to a certain extent, some convenience may result from the practice of accompanying a Bill by such a statement; but, at the same time, I feel the force of the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman that if a statement of this kind is desirable it should be drawn up by some independent authority.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There seems to be a general feeling, on both sides of the House, that the Bill should be proceeded with. I hope, under these circumstances, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) will not persist with the Motion he has made for the adjournment of the debate, and that, as time is precious, he will allow the Bill to be proceeded with.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he rose to express his surprise at the Motion which had been made for the adjournment of the debate. There was a general complaint among the Scotch Members that no time could be obtained for the consideration of Scotch Business. They had now on the Notice Paper two Scotch Bills; and having put one off until after Easter, now that the other was brought on at a reasonable hour, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock proposed to adjourn the debate, but did not bring forward a single argument in favour of adjournment. The Bill, so far as he could judge, was admirably suited to the object the Lord Advocate had in view, and they ought to feel obliged to him for having brought it on at so early an hour, so that it might be sent clown to Scotland and discussed by the various Committees in the Recess, just as easily after the second reading as before. He therefore trusted that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn, and that the House would read the Bill a second time, as he imagined there could be no opposition to it whatever.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that as the feeling of the House on both sides seemed to be strongly against the adjournment of the debate, he should not feel it right to press the Motion. He had moved the adjournment because he thought the statement of the right

  425
  hon. and learned Lord Advocate was one that required careful consideration before they proceeded to discuss the Bill. In withdrawing the Motion he had made, he would only say that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), in stating that he had given no reason for the Motion, was mistaken. He had said that the Bill was of a technical and complicated nature; and seeing that no statement was made by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on introducing it, but that this was the first explanation that had been offered, he thought an opportunity should be afforded for considering the nature of its provisions. In withdrawing the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, he wished it to be understood that he reserved to himself the right of taking what action he might think proper at a later stage of the measure.
  MR. RAMSAYmerely wished to say that he was not surprised at the course pursued by the Lord Advocate. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member opposite said "Hear, hear!" assuming, of course, that he (Mr. Ramsay) was opposed to the Bill. It was not at all upon that ground that he made this remark; but because the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in answering a Question of his early in the evening, indicated that he intended to take this course, and had promised, after moving the second reading of the Bill, to adjourn the discussion upon the merits of the Bill. His (Mr. Ramsay's) reason for assenting to the proposal was not that he had any doubt as to the principle of the measure, but because he felt it was due to those at whose instance the Bill was drawn up that the Lord Advocate should take that course, in order that those who had the greatest interest in the Bill in Scotland
  —the landed proprietors—should have an opportunity of judging for themselves whether the principles which they had submitted to the Lord Advocate were fairly and fully embodied in the Bill. What he had felt was, that when they were called upon to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and to express, by so doing, their approval of its principles, that it was necessary that it should be fully understood by those at whose instance it had been introduced. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) had alluded to the course pursued by the
  426
  Liberation Society of England. He (Mr. Ramsay) had never heard of such a resolution as that which had been referred to; and he had no more idea of it, in seconding the Motion for adjournment, than if it had never occurred. The truth was, he had felt the remark made by the Lord Advocate, in answering the Question which he put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the afternoon, might have been the means of inducing some of the Scotch Members who were then present to have left the House without waiting to hear the discussion. Ho felt, further, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was fully justified in the course he proposed to take. He was quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who had brought under the notice of the Chair the statement which appeared at the head of the Bill, had heard the answer which had been given to his (Mr. Ramsay's) Question, he would have felt there was no ground for surprise at the course the Lord Advocate had taken in assenting to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwished to put a question to the Solicitor General for Scotland. He wanted to know if it was intended to compel any landlord whose rents were falling now, and likely to fall, to have his teinds valued on the rents of 1880–1? That would not be so under the law as it stood; and he wished to know if the landlord would be compelled to accept that valuation under the present Bill, or whether any provision would be inserted in the measure to prevent injustice being done?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)stated, in reply, that if the Bill became law it would necessarily deal with all the teinds of Scotland for as long a period as might be found requisite for the purpose in view; but, certainly, provision would be made that the real value of the land at the time would be the basis. Of course, all teinds would be valued if the Bill passed.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL.— [Lords]— [BILL. 119.]
(Mr. Dodson.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodson.)
MR. OTWAYsaid, he had not been aware that at that hour of the night it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill. It contained very important clauses, which materially affected the interests of persons who had invested large capital in cement works on the Medway. The proprietors of these works were already under considerable disadvantages in the competition they had to meet from foreign makers of cement; and if they were to be saddled with all the restrictive provisions of the present Bill they would be placed under still greater disadvantages, and the particular industry they carried on would be almost entirely destroyed. He regretted very much that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had not paid more consideration to the position of these persons, and the large amount of capital they had invested in this industry. He (Mr. Otway) did not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill; but he hoped his right hon. Friend would consider the circumstances to which he had referred, and that when the Bill went into Committee some provisions would be introduced to except the manufacturers of cement, which was a perfectly harmless manufacture, having no sanitary disadvantages attached to it, from the restrictions which it was proposed by the Bill to impose upon other manufacturing works. Ho trusted that his right hon. Friend would bear in mind the observations he now made, because an injurious interference by legislation of this kind with an important industry was really no light matter; and, certainly, if the Bill were passed in its present form, it would have that effect.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEwished to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the same arguments in reference to the cement works on the Thames which had been used by his hon. Friend
428
the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) in the case of the cement works on the Medway. These works were threatened with interference, not only by the present Bill, but by another measure. In point of fact, there were two Bills hanging over the heads of the cement manufacturers for the destruction of their interests. It was, however, admitted, he believed, by those who supported the Bill in regard to alkali works that cement works were not of the same deleterious character. Objection might be made to the smoke and the vapour; but, on sanitary grounds, the same objections which applied to alkali works could not be sustained. He would therefore urge upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board the necessity of fully considering that what was suitable and proper in the case of alkali works might be altogether unsuited for cement works.
MR. R. N. FOWLERwas sorry that the Bill had been brought on at so late an hour of the night (12.15), when his hon. Friend opposite, the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), who had a Motion on the Paper to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, was not in his place. It was unfortunate, under all the circumstances, that the Bill was brought on, for he happened to know that it attracted a good deal of attention. He had himself received several letters in regard to it; and it was, therefore, to be regretted that it should be brought on at an hour of the night when hon. Members who were interested in the matter were absent. As it was highly inconvenient to discuss it in their absence, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
MR. DODSON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Motion. This Bill is a Bill which is, in the main, a Bill to consolidate, and to a slight extent to amend, the existing law relating to alkali works, and, speaking generally, the Amendments which are proposed by it, are accepted by the alkali manufacturers. The extensions of the present law, proposed in the Bill are extensions which are founded on the Report of a Royal Commission,

429
which reported on the subject some time ago. It is essentially a Bill of detail, and one which can only be fairly considered in Committee. When it gets into Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), can both be heard in reference to the question of cement works; and, without making any distinct pledge upon the subject, I can assure my hon. Friends that I shall be perfectly ready to pay attention to any objections they may have to make on the subject. I will only add that if the House will now agree, as I trust it will have no objection to do, to the second reading of the Bill, taking into consideration the nature of the provisions of the measure, I do not intend to take the Committee upon it until after the Easter holidays.
SIR R. ASSHTON CROSS: I hope my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. R. N. Fowler) will not press his Motion. I am sure the hon. Members who object to the provisions of the Bill could never have lived in a place where alkali works are carried on. Her Majesty's Government have not brought in the measure without full consideration. The question has been carefully discussed, not only by a Committee of the House of Lords, but by a Royal Commission; and I believe that the proprietors of alkali works are perfectly satisfied with the provisions of the Bill. It would be a positive injustice to the whole country if the Bill were not proceeded with. I hope the Motion will be withdrawn. The hon. Member who has given Notice of a Motion in reference to the Bill ought to be here to move it. If he is not in his place, it is no reason why the Bill should be postponed.
EARL PERCYremarked that, as a Member of the Royal Commission which had inquired into the matter, he sincerely hoped the Bill would be allowed to proceed. It was a Bill of an important nature, as far as its provisions went, and the provisions themselves were of a very moderate character. On several previous occasions, in other years, a Bill for this purpose had been laid before the House. In the last two years a Bill had been introduced by the late Government, which went a good deal further than the present measure; and he thought it would be extremely unfortunate if such a mo-
430
derate measure of reform as that which was now proposed were not to be adopted. They were constantly hearing of the difficulties which private Members experienced in bringing measures forward; but he could not see that the Government had any further facilities than private Members for bringing forward measures that were not of general and widespread interest. The present Bill was not of general interest, because there were not many parts of the country that were much affected by the operation of alkali works. He could, however, assure the House, from the knowledge and experience he had gained by serving on the Commission, that the provisions of the Bill could not be seriously objected to, even by those who were acting most in the interests of the manufacturers. It would really injure no interest, and would be of the greatest advantage to many of those who were now suffering from the nuisances the Bill sought to remove. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would persevere with the second reading of the Bill, and that some real progress would be made this Session in removing this nuisance.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, in view of the feeling which appeared to prevail in the House, and the appeal of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he was willing to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Mondag 25th April.

RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.— [Lords.]
(Mr. Dodson.)

[BILL 120.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DODSONsaid, he had to ask the House to read the Bill a second time. A Bill had been founded originally on the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and had been introduced into that House on behalf of the late Government by the Duke of Richmond. The Bill, however, on coming down to the House of Commons, did not pass, the Session being far advanced The Bill now before the House, like that

431
introduced by the Duke of Richmond, was founded on the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords. It was introduced by the present Government in that House, and was referred to a Select Committee, by whom its clauses had been discussed and considered. The measure was essentially one of detail; and, after it had been read a second time, he should ask the House to refer it to a Select Committee upstairs to go through its clauses. That appeared to him to be the best way of dealing with a subject of the kind. Without detaining the House at length, he would simply point out that this was an Enabling Bill. It recognized the fact that our rivers were so different in their character that it was impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast line for their improvement; and it therefore enabled localities to obtain a Conservancy Board, adapted in each case to the circumstances of their position. His hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had also introduced a Bill upon the same subject, which was one to which he was known to have devoted great attention, and read a second time. He trusted to have the assistance of his hon. Friend upon the Select Committee, and there might be found proposals in his measure which could with advantage be incorporated with the present Bill. Reminding the House that after it had been referred to a Select Committee there would be opportunity for going fully through the clauses in Committee of the Whole House, he asked the House to agree to the second reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second tine."—(Mr. Dodson.)
MR. A. H. BROWNpointed out that throughout the country very great confusion existed as to the areas of jurisdiction and authority of River Boards. He was perfectly aware that a great difficulty would be found in endeavouring to consolidate a great many existing powers; but the suggestion he had to make presented the least possible difficulty. There were at that time many River Boards throughout the country, specially charged with certain duties in connection with the fisheries of their respective rivers. They had powers relating to the preservation of those fisheries; and, in certain cases, to the removal of river obstructions. The
432
Bill before the House would therefore create, in some cases, a double jurisdiction by the constitution of new Boards. Thus, one authority being constituted for the purpose of diminishing floods, and the other for the purpose of maintaining the fisheries, it required very few words to show that they would shortly come into conflict with each other upon the question of what ought to be done on particular rivers. The alterations in connection with rivers necessary for the purpose of mitigating floods must, in sonic cases, undoubtedly injure the fisheries. Therefore, he thought that the same authority which was charged with the prevention of floods should also be charged with the settlement of questions relating to the fisheries. He could see no reason why the Boards, which it was proposed to create under this Act, should not undertake the whole of the duties in connection with the Salmon lets, and he considered the present time a favourable opportunity for carrying that plan into effect. He pressed it upon the House particularly, because he noticed that there had been a Bill introduced in the present Session to consolidate and regulate the Salmon Laws. The convenience of the House would, he thought, be consulted by his not moving at that hour the Motion upon this subject standing in his name. He should, however, move it as an Instruction on going into Committee on the Bill.
MR. CHAPLINreminded the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that, notwithstanding he had described this as an Enabling Bill merely, it dealt with a very important subject, and with interests of enormous magnitude. Under the circumstances, he did not think that it should be read a second time at that late hour without any discussion whatever. He should, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, his constituents had suffered greatly from floods during recent years. The Bill was of enormous importance to the country, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would persevere in his Motion that it be now read a second time.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTregretted that his right hon. Friend had not made a more complete and intelligible statement with regard to the Bill, which was the most important of any that had as yet been placed before Parliament. The measure was of enormous importance to the owners and occupiers of land; but the right hon. Gentleman had made no statement as to what was contained within its four corners. It was a Bill that had never been discussed by the House upon its merits, and no opportunity had been given for discussing what might and ought to be its provisions. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford that there was a crying evil to be dealt with, for he had had meadows of his own 23 times under water during the year 1879; he was afraid to say how many times that had been the case last year. During the whole of the time the meadows had been worth nothing. He said it was impossible to deal with a question of such importance at that hour (12.30). If the Bill had been reached an hour or two sooner, and the right hon. Gentleman had made a clearer statement showing the scope of the measure, there would have been some justification for reading it a second time. The right hon. Gentleman should have stated to the House in what manner he meant to deal with canals, mills, weirs, and other obstructions which now existed. There could be no doubt that great power was required to be placed in the hands of Conservators, for the purpose of controlling the great body of water which came down in the time of floods; and he thought it would have been to the interest of the whole of the localities concerned that some statement should have been made. He felt certain his right hon. Friend would agree with him that it was of importance to have a statement from a Minister in charge of a Bill, setting forth what he intended to do, and how far he intended to go. The right hon. Gentleman had merely stated that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee; but it would, in his opinion, have been wiser if he had stated what its provisions were.
MR. MAGNIACsuggested that it would be for the convenience of the House that the Bill should go to the Select Committee, and then come before the House in the form in which it was intended to be discussed in Committee.
434
His own Bill might he incorporated with this measure and form a single Bill; and, therefore, the course he proposed would, he thought, add to the efficiency of the measure. He hoped the second reading would not be opposed.
MR. PELLtrusted the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consent to the adjournment of the debate. The magnitude of the interests involved rendered it impossible to discuss the measure with advantage at that hour. Of course, he was aware that hon. Members were bound to be in their places; still he believed there were many who had not anticipated that the Bill would come on for discussion that evening. He reminded the House that the time of Parliament had been occupied hour after hour, on former occasions, in discussing the very converse of the present question—namely, the storage of water. It had not long ago been the complaint that there was not enough water in the country. Since then, however, there had been three or four exceedingly wet seasons, and great floods had resulted. In his opinion, it would be well to defer the consideration of the Bill until a few months of fine weather had removed the impression which had been produced by the recent downfalls of water. The Bill proposed to do what had never been done by any Act of Parliament—that was to say, to tax people who were not benefited for works constructed exclusively for the benefit of others. There was a paragraph in the Report of the Committee who had considered this question to this effect—
"With regard to the measures which have been adopted, of raising rates to meet the expense of conservancy, the Committee find there is much variance of opinion. The principle introduced by the Statute of Henry the Eighth, and observed ever since, of taxing in proportion to the benefit conferred, appears to work unfairly, and to be incapable of application in this case."
The Bill embodied a principle which had never been adopted in England before; and therefore the present hour—20 minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning—was not a suitable one at which to introduce it. If the Government really wished the Bill to pass, they would be acting wisely if they consented to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, to admit of the Bill being thoroughly debated, as Bills of this nature were debated, upon second reading. The present measure involved questions of the utmost

435
moment. They had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) any statement as to how far it would be in the power of the sanitary authority of a rural Union at the head or outfall of a river to incur enormous expenses under the Bill and charge them upon the Union rates. It was a dangerous Bill, and it was not proper that it should be pressed at that time of night. He trusted the Government would. consent to the adjournment of the debate, in order that they might have a fuller statement. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, in fairness and justice to the large interests involved—not only in respect to the undrained and flooded lands, but to the great districts of the country, some of which Mr. Speaker represented, the great level of the Fens—to allow the merits of the Bill to be considered at a proper and convenient time.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could assure the House that, under ordinary circumstances, his right hon. Friend would never have thought of pressing the Bill to a second reading at so late an hour; but they were told by him, and it was well known, that it was intended to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and upon that very ground they might fairly ask the House to agree to the second reading. The whole of the discussion on the second reading might be thrown away, on account of the alteration which it was possible might be made by the Committee upstairs; and when they considered the great importance of the subject, and how pressing a measure of this nature was in every county in England, they would see that time would be saved if the House agreed. to read the Bill a second time to-night, in order to allow it to be at once referred to a Select Committee. His right hon. Friend was quite willing to agree that the whole matter should be thoroughly discussed. on the Motion for going into Committee. The principle of the Bill might be discussed much more advantageously when the measure had been considered upstairs; and he trusted, therefore, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and other hon. Members who had supported the adjournment of the debate, would now agree to the second reading. If they took the second reading now, and thus enabled the Committee to commence its sittings immediately after the Easter Recess, they would do great service to the country. As to the question
436
of the storage of water, he ought to say that when the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords it contained a provision upon the subject. The clause had been struck out by the House of Lords; but it was competent for this House, if it thought proper, to restore the clause. He trusted that, upon the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion upon the whole principle of the Bill should take place at a later stage, the House would now consent to the second reading. His right hon. Friend. suggested that, a few weeks ago, the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedford. (Mr. Magniac), which was of a very similar nature, was allowed to pass a second reading without discussion, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. Considering the very strong feeling which existed in every part of the country in favour of some such measure as the present, no obstacle ought to be thrown in the way of the second reading.
MR. GORSThad never heard a more extraordinary argument in favour of the second reading of a Bill than that just advanced by the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert). It was time the House should put a stop to what appeared to be the principle upon which the legislation of the country was being conducted by Her Majesty's Government—namely, that of reading several Bills, emanating from the Ministerial side of the House, a second time, on the understanding that they were to undergo entire alteration in Committee upstairs. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board. deprecated any discussion on the second reading of this Bill as pure waste of time. It was a most unsound mode of conducting the legislation of the country to argue that any discussion which took place on the second reading of a Bill would be quite inapplicable to the Bill which would emerge from the Select Committee; but it was, nevertheless, a method which the Government had, during the present Session, shown an extraordinary leaning towards. Several Bills, upon which the Government had carefully avoided pronouncing any opinion, had been read a second time, with the view of having them materially altered by Select Committees. By this course of conduct he presumed the Government meant to

437
please their supporters. It would be far better, and more in accordance with Constitutional practice, if an important measure of this kind underwent discussion on the second reading, because at this stage the views of the House as to the principle of the measure were elicited, and if it were afterwards referred to a Select Committee upstairs that Committee would have the views and opinions of the House of Commons to guide it in the particular way in which they would alter the measure. It was quite a new thing that Committees upstairs were to consider principles of measures; one always used to fancy that the principles were settled by the House of Commons, and that the details were settled by Committees. He should certainly support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
MR. PUGHsaid, the Bill contained principles of very great importance. The creation of a new authority, empowered to levy new rates, and to carry out objects which had not hitherto been carried out by such a body, must be looked upon with great suspicion and jealousy; and they ought to be assured that the Bill was founded upon justice before agreeing to its second reading. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was correct in saying that a rate, such as that contemplated, had never been levied in England. If he had included Wales he would have been equally accurate. But the hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that the principle had never been applied. Many years ago an Act was passed in respect to Cardiganshire, and it contained an exactly similar principle to the present. A defect, however, was discovered in the Bill, and no rate was ever raised under it. The present Bill was one which ought not to be read a second time without a full discussion; and he hoped the Government would consent to the adjournment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 74: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the policy of taking the second reading of an important Bill on the ground that it contained important provisions, which should be considered by a Select Com-
438
mittee, was a very dangerous one. Next on the Paper to this Bill was the River Floods Prevention Bill, which was read a second time some days ago on a similar representation. At the time that Bill was read a second time he had thought the system was one fraught with danger, which should not be assented to, unless under very exceptional circumstances. At that hour of the night he would not detain the House any longer. It was only right that the measure should be brought before them at a more convenient hour; therefore, he would move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
MR. DODSON: I regret that this Motion should be made, notwithstanding the expression of the opinion by the House that this Bill should now be read a second time. As regards the discussion of the measure, the Secretary to the Local Government Board has pointed out that there will be an opportunity for a debate on the Bill as a whole on the Motion for going into Committee. It would be a great saving of time, on a very important subject, if the House were allowed to refer it to a Select Committee, in order that its details may be considered. It is said—"This is an important Bill, and ought not to be read a second time without a full discussion." Well, no one denies that it is an important Bill; but what I wish to point out is, that it is only an Enabling Bill, to enable the localities to take the initiative and help themselves. It is not a Bill in which the House prescribes what shall be done in the case of any particular river; but it is one which enables the inhabitants of a locality, who wish to have adequate power to deal with a river running through that locality, to cause an inquiry to be made by an engineer and inspector of the Local Government Board. It enables them to submit to these officials their own proposals; and it gives the Local Government Board wide powers, after consulting with the inhabitants and considering their scheme, to embody that scheme in a Provisional Order to be submitted to Parliament, and referred to a Select Committee. The Order will have to pass through all the usual stages in

439
Parliament; therefore, as I have said, the measure is nothing but an enabling one; and, in order that its object may be carried out in such an elastic manner as to give the necessary facilities to the inhabitants of the different localities to obtain the powers they desire, it is requisite to introduce a considerable amount of detail. As it is a Bill of that character it is essential that it should be considered by a Select Committee. It will be more advantageously discussed by the House after the clauses have been considered; and I would, therefore, urge the House not to treat it as if it were a Bill imposing legislation on the localities. I must oppose the Motion for the adjournment, and express an earnest hope that hon. Members will assent to the second reading.
MR. PELLsaid, that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the proceedings now going forward in the House—namely, discussing such a Bill as this by driblets. He and many others agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), not as desiring to obstruct, but as desiring to obtain that which they believed to be necessary—namely, a statement as to the novel principles contained in the Bill. They had divided the House already, and would continue to do it for some hours more, on successive Motions for the adjournment of the House and the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said this was an Enabling Bill. It was such—it was a measure to enable persons to carry out private improvements at the cost of the public. Under the guise of a very small rate over a large area, it would raise considerable sums of money which, after all, were likely to fail in effecting the purpose for which they were intended. According to the view taken by the House of Lords, the principle of taxing the highlands for the water that came from their property upon the lowlands was a just one; but if that principle were admitted—as it would be by the second reading of the measure—the next step that might be taken might be the taxation of the hill-lands for the shadow they threw into the valleys, and for, in that way, depriving vegetation below of the warming influence of the sun. The hill-lands might be taxed for the purpose of supplying the lowlands with artificial heat. One
440
principle was no more monstrous than the other; and he, therefore, hoped the Government would take the debate on the second reading in the ordinary way. Considering the magnitude of the interests involved, the Bill should not be discussed by driblets, for in that way no adequate amount of information would be given to the public. He must vote for the Motion for adjournment.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDhoped the Motion would be withdrawn, because he believed that it would be a wise economy of time to refer the matter to a Select Committee. He was very much surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) should object to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, because he could not forget that the late Government had referred everything to a Select Committee, except their foreign policy; and he thought it would have been better for the country if they had also referred that to a Select Committee.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 69: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. LONGsaid, no one could deprecate obstruction more than he did; but he was aware that there were many hon. Members who took a very keen interest in this matter who did not know that the measure would be pressed on at this hour of the morning. He was very sorry it was necessary to oppose the action of the Government; but he was satisfied that in so doing he was not "obstructing," in the ordinary sense of the phrase. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but they were only anxious to obtain their own ends. He and his Friends were also anxious to obtain their ends. He would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Long.)
MR. DODSON: I will not enter into a discussion with the hon. Member as to what is and what is not legitimate obstruction; but I would point out that we have the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and by that Rule no opposed Business can be taken after half-past 12. It appears to me that the legislative progress of this House is not likely to be very

441
rapid if we are not allowed to proceed with opposed Business which actually comes on before half-past 12. There is a Notice of Opposition against the secondreading, which would have prevented that stage being taken had that hour been reached; but the Government are entitled to endeavour to get the Bill read a second time, coming on at the time it has, and are not open to the charge of wishing to "rush" the Bill through. A majority of two to one have twice expressed a desire to go on with the Bill; but I have no wish to take advantage of that, and I will, therefore, consent to the adjournment of the debate. The Government will, however, put it down again for tomorrow, considering it a Bill of a character which should be proceeded with.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly been quite fair in his reference to the motives of hon. Members in objecting to proceed with the second reading of the Bill that night. It had been generally understood that it was the intention of several hon. Members, whose constituents were very much more interested in the matter than those of the hon. Member for Salford, to take a debate on the second reading; and he did not think it was quite fair of the right hon. Gentleman to treat the Bill as one of a comparatively second rate character. It was, or ought to be, one of the most important Bills of the Session; and a debate on the second reading would not only be valuable in itself, but would be valuable to the Committee to which it was proposed to refer the Bill.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmentioned that the Secretary to the Treasury had stated his intention to take some Votes in Committee of Supply tomorrow, if the debate on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair closed early. It was proposed now that this Bill should also be put down, and he wished to ask whether the Government still proposed to take Votes in Committee?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that that would depend on the hour. There were no very important Motions on going into Supply, and if they were disposed of at a reasonable hour it would be desirable to make some progress with Supply; and, therefore, Supply would be put down.
MR. PELLasked whether evidence would be taken by the Committee on this Bill, or whether the Bill would be gone through without evidence?
MR. DODSONrepeated that it was proposed that the Committee should go through the clauses of the Bill, the Bill being founded on the Report of the Select Committee which had gone into the whole question.
MR. GORSTthought it was desirable to have a distinct understanding as to the Business to be provided for to-morrow, as the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury left that open to doubt. It was understood that if the discussions on going into Supply closed at an early hour the Civil Service Estimates would be taken. Was it now to be understood that the Committee would be closed at an early hour to enable this Bill to be brought on, or would the Committee be continued till the usual time, in order that the Government might make progress in obtaining Votes in Supply?
MR. DODSONsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had stated that whether any Votes would be taken or not would depend on the hour. The length of time the House would continue in Committee must depend on what appeared to be the convenience of the House.
MR. PELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would say at what time the Bill would be taken?
MR. DODSONreplied, that he should bring it on at whatever hour he could.
EARL PERCYthought it desirable that the House should understand whether the right hon. Gentleman would bring the Bill on at an hour when he could make a statement, and which would give time for discussion on the second reading, because, otherwise, the House would be in the same position as it then was.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 127.]
(Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Monckton.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. STAVELEY HILL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had allowed the second reading

443
of this Bill to stand over, because of the Bills of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), which were discussed a few days ago. But since then he had put it down for second reading, because, in his judgment, it emodied the same principle as the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. What it did was to provide that every tenant should have the same amount of compensation as under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and that for that purpose he should, on giving his notice of claim, state whether he claimed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, or under an agreement, if he had one, or under the Lincolnshire custom, which was scheduled in the Bill. He had added a proviso with reference to any landlord having any loss in consequence of a written agreement. He understood that the Bill was not opposed, and he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
MR. BRANDthought it would be very unreasonable at such a time of night to enter upon a discussion of this important measure. It was a measure which dealt with tenant right, and was the first real application of tenant right to this country; and although it might be a desirable measure, he could not consent to enter upon a discussion of it at that hour, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. A. J. BALFOURseconded the Motion, and, observing that the hon. Member lead appealed to some arrangement with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, said he was no party to that; and if the second reading had been put down for the day with the other Bills on the same subject he should have opposed it. It was an extremely bad specimen of an extremely bad Bill; and, while he did not know what principles it embodied, it violated altogether the principle of freedom of contract. It did that in a striking manner, and all the more striking because it contemplated other agreements besides those under the Act of 1875, and, at the same time, so arranged that whenever a tenant disliked an agreement he might treat it as null and void.
444
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Brand.)
COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEconsidered it hardly fair to object to the second reading of this Bill after it had been decided to refer the Bills of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire and the hon. Member for North Devon to a Select Committee. The principle of this Bill was the same, and, that course having been adopted, it was unfair to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. CHAPLINdemurred to the supposition that the principle of this Bill was the same as that of his Bill, which he had submitted a few days ago. In his Bill he offered three alternatives, either one of which might be accepted by landlords and tenants upon agreement. As he understood, this Bill offered no alternatives; but left it open to a tenant to break an agreement when he thought fit. He could not accept the statement that the principle was the same; but he did not intend to oppose the second reading.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noe 1: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 177.)

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 23rd May.
Ordered, That the Knights of the Shire do prepare lists of the Christian and surnames of Commissioners for executing the Land Tax Acts for their respective counties.
Ordered, That Members for cities, boroughs, and places having Commissioners executing exclusive jurisdiction within the same under the said Acts, do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts within such cities, boroughs, and places respectively.
Ordered, That the Members for other cities, boroughs, and places do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts for the counties in which such last-mentioned cities, boroughs, and places are respectively situated.

BRIDGES (SOUTH WALES) BILL.
On Motion of Viscount ENILYN, Bill to enable county authorities in South Wales to take over and contribute towards certain Bridges, and to remove doubts as to the liability to repair the Highways over and adjoining certain Bridges which have been rebuilt, ordered to be brought in by Viscount EMLYN, Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD, Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. HENEY ALLEN, and Mr. PUGH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 129.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (56).
LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 56.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD O'HAGAN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the main object of the measure was to extend jurisdiction in bankruptcy to County Courts in Ireland. The Bill had already passed through their Lordships' House twice, and on each occasion its provisions had been explained. In the House of Commons the measure had been unfortunate. He would not trouble their Lordships by explaining the principles of the measure a third time, and would simply move the second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord O' Hagan.)
EARL CAIRNSexpressed gratification that the noble and learned Lord had introduced his Bill again, and hoped that it would be more successful in the other House on its third introduction.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS)—THE PEACE ARRANGEMENTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL CAIRNS,in rising to call the attention of the House to the arrangements recently made by Her Majesty's Government with the Boers, as appearing in the communications (telegraphic) respecting South Africa, and to ask for explanations, said: My Lords, it is now nearly three months since Parliament met, During that time, owing probably to the pressure of other Business, very little has been said of a subject which has, nevertheless, greatly occupied the public mind—the state of affairs
250
in South Africa, and especially in the Transvaal. We were informed at the beginning of the Session, in the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne, that there had been a rising in the Transvaal, and that military operations were in progress for the purpose of suppressing that rising, and vindicating the authority of the Crown. After that we heard of successive disasters to the British Forces. There had been, before the end of the year, an attack upon the 94th Regiment at Madder's Spruit; then in January the reverse at Lang's Nek; and in February, first the battle at Ingogo, and subsequently the defeat at Majuba. We then heard that reinforcements had been rapidly and energetically prepared and sent forward to retrieve these disasters, and that a General, who had won his laurels in the East, had been sent out to command the reinforcements, and to co-operate with another General, hardly less trusted, who had already arrived on the scene. In these circumstances, the spirit of the country was sustained. They put trust in the exertions which were being made, and they relied upon the assurance they had received from the Government that the authority of the Crown would be vindicated. We then heard that there were arrangements and negotiations in progress. The Government naturally had a right to decline to enter upon any discussion of those negotiations while they still were in progress; and, on the other hand, it would have been wrong to press the Government for any information at that stage of the proceedings. But still the public relied on the assurance they had received, and in this House we had obtained a still further assurance. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley), when the subject was mentioned on the 21st of February, told us that—
"Her Majesty's Government have taken such steps as seemed to them best calculated to promote a satisfactory settlement, and to spare the effusion of blood, consistently with the honour of the British Crown."—[3 Hansard, cclviii. 1345–6.]
As the Speech from the Throne had announced that the authority of the Crown would be vindicated, so we understood that the Secretary of State for the Colonies desired to assure us that the honour of the Crown was involved in vindicating that authority. Then we re-

251
ceived the information that the arrangements were concluded and that a peace bad been made. The idea of peace and of a cessation of hostilities is always so welcome that we were disposed to hail with satisfaction the news of this arrangement, and of this peace; and we naturally imagined that, although the terms were not known, yet when they came to be known it would be found that they fully redeemed the promises which had been made by the Crown. Her Majesty's Government have now laid upon the Table the telegraphic Papers connected with this arrangement. I do not know how much of the satisfaction which first was felt any longer remains. Some details there are which still are wanting; and with regard to those details my object is to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to favour us with some information on matters on which we are left in doubt by the Papers before us. But the leading features of the arrangement are clear, and although it may not be the time, until every detail has been supplied, for your Lordships to pronounce any formal opinion upon the peace that has been concluded; still, I think Her Majesty's Government have a right to know, when the Papers have been, as far as they have been, laid before us, what is the opinion which may be entertained by us with regard to this arrangement; and they would be entitled to say they naturally concluded, when so much information was laid before us, that we were satisfied with that which had been done when we expressed no dissatisfaction.
I will ask your Lordships to remember what the state of affairs was at the commencement of the Session. It was on the 20th of December that the affair which some people called, and not incorrectly, a massacre at Madder's Spruit took place. A portion of the 94th Regiment was on its march under the command of Colonel Anstruther. I do not stop, however, to consider at this moment the precise nature of the occurrence which took place; but your Lordships remember that in the result some 70 or 80 out of a force of 157 were killed, and that several, if not all, of the officers were among the number. After this an appeal was made to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the Colony of Natal. Your Lordships will find in the Blue Book which was presented to
252
Parliament in February a communication which was made to the Secretary of State on the 29th of December through Sir George Strahan. A deputation of the Legislature of Natal and others requested Sir George to send to the Secretary of State a resolution by telegraph. It was in these terms—
"A deputation, composed of 15 Members of the Legislature and others, Mr. Merriman spokesman, request me to send the following resolution by telegraph:—' That this deputation, in common with the rest of South Africa, deplores the unhappy state of affairs now existing across the Vaal River, and ventures to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that, in order to effect a settlement of the differences which have arisen and to establish tranquillity, it is desirable that some person acquainted with the feelings and opinions of the inhabitants of South Africa should be appointed as a Special Commissioner to the Transvaal territory to inquire into and report upon the exact position of affairs, the feelings and wishes of those interested, and what arrangements would be most advantageous to the country and most likely to reconcile the inhabitants to the Government of the Queen; and the deputation would further respectfully suggest that the Chief Justice of the Cape Colony, Sir John H. De Villiers, possesses in an eminent degree the qualifications required for such an office.'"
That was a proposal which at that time, I think, was not unnatural. It was one which might well have been entertained; and if this eminent person, who is said to possess the confidence of all the parties there, and who, indeed, is one of the three Commissioners recently selected, had been appointed at that time, it is possible that we might have been spared much of what has occurred. But the view of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time was different. He replied, by telegraph, on the 30th of December, to Sir George Strahan as follows:—
"Inform the deputation that, while fully appreciating their motives, we do not think the present moment will be opportune for sending a Special Commissioner to the Transvaal."
That was the opinion of the Secretary of State at that time. I think we shall find the ground of that opinion appearing again in the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne. The same motives which led the noble Earl to conceive that December was not the proper time to meet the proposal which had been made probably influenced Her Majesty's Government in putting into the mouth of Her Majesty the words of the Speech from the Throne. Parlia-

253
ment met on the 6th of January; and I will ask your attention to these words, which were then addressed from the Throne to your Lordships—
"A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of taking military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of my authority; and has of necessity set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over their own local affairs, without prejudice to the interests of the natives, which I had been desirous to confer."
In the Address presented by your Lordships in answer to that Most Gracious Speech you thanked Her Majesty for the information we had received, that the authority of the Crown would be promptly vindicated, and that not until that was done could the time arrive for conferring the boon upon the European settlers that was indicated in the latter part of the sentence which I have just read. "Rising in the Transvaal," of course, means a rebellion or insurrection; and I now wish to ask the Secretary of State whether the authority of the Crown has been promptly vindicated in the Transvaal? Has the action at Lang's Nek promptly vindicated the authority of the Crown? Has the reverse at Ingogo? Has the disaster at the Majuba? I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he conceives that after these occurrences the authority of the Crown stood in a higher and better position than on the 6th of January last; and if it did not, what has become of your prompt vindication of the authority of the Crown? But I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the second part of the sentence. The duty of vindicating the authority of the Crown has, it is stated—
"Set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over their own local affairs, without prejudice to the interests of the natives, which I had been desirous to confer."
Do these words, I ask, in the mouth of the Sovereign, point to a cession of territory? Do they point to an abandonment of territory? Do they point to a dismemberment of the Empire? When the Government, through the mouth of the Sovereign upon the Throne, speak of conferring free institutions upon a portion of the British Dominions, it is understood that the Sovereignty of Her Majesty over that portion of the Empire is retained; that while there may be an
254
alteration in the form of government, the Sovereignty remains where it stood before. I challenge Her Majesty's Government to produce any instance in any State Paper in existence where words of this kind in a Speech from the Throne were used to indicate or denote the dismemberment of the Empire—that is to say, abandon the country, and leave it free to establish a Republic or any form of government they pleased. Upon those words in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech I have a few questions to put to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Is the arrangement spoken of in the Speech from the Throne, and which was at that time contemplated by the Government, the same as that which has now actually been made with regard to the Transvaal? If it is not—if it is a different arrangement—will the Secretary of State allow me further to ask him, when did the change in the opinions of the Government take place, and why? If, on the other hand, the Secretary of State says it is the same arrangement which was contemplated by the Government at the time of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, I wish to know why was that arrangement misdescribed in the words I have read? Why was Parliament, I will not say left in ignorance, but misled as to what was intended by the Government? Why were words put into the mouth of our Most Gracious Sovereign which, according to every interpretation of words coming from such a source, meant that the Sovereignty of the Transvaal was to be retained. But I have a further question to ask. If the arrangement which has actually been made is that contemplated at the time of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, and if the authority of the Crown has not been vindicated, I want to know what we have been fighting about in the interval? If this arrangement is what was intended, why did you not give it at once? Why did you spend the treasure of the country, and, still more, why did you shed the blood of the country like water, only to give at the end what you had intended to give at the beginning? We know that there are those who have lost in the Transvaal that which was dearer to them than the light of their eyes. They have been consoled with the reflection that the brave men who died, died fighting for their Queen and their country. Are the

255
mourners now to be told that those men were fighting only for a country which the Government had determined to abandon, and that they were fighting for a Queen who was no longer to be the Sovereign of that country?
But let us go a little further into the history of this matter. I wish to know when it was that the idea in the mind of the Government of vindicating the authority of the Crown was abandoned? There is a very remarkable passage in one of the Orders issued by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Sir George Colley. On the 5th of February the Secretary of State telegraphed Sir George Colley in these words—
"I think it right to intimate to you, as you have instructions to assume the functions of Governor when you are able to enter the Transvaal, that whenever you may succeed in reestablishing the Queen's authority there, all questions affecting the future administration and settlement of the country, as well as questions as to dealing with those who have taken part against the Government, should be reserved by you for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government."
That is a very instructive telegram. It shows at once the construction put at that time by the Government upon the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne; and that construction is, I think, exactly that which ought to be put upon it. The re-establishment of the Queen's authority in the Transvaal was the task which the Government put before Sir George Colley, and the re-establishment of the Queen's authority was the vindication of that authority. But what becomes of these instructions? The next thing we have is a communication from the President of the Orange Free State—Mr. Brand. How Mr. Brand came to be set in motion I do not know, and it is not my business to conjecture. There are various theories on this subject; but I take what I find in these Papers. On the 5th of February, the day on which the Secretary of State telegraphed to Sir George Colley, a proposal came from Mr. Brand through Sir George Colley that the Boers should not be treated as rebels "if they submitted." How was that received by the Secretary of State? We are here on the first step of a descending scale, which is of an interesting character. The Secretary of State adopts the expression of "submission." He telegraphs to Sir George Colley—
256
"I have received your telegram of the 5th. Inform Mr. Brand that Her Majesty's Government will be ready to give all reasonable guarantees as to the treatment of the Boers after submission."
The question, consequently, now comes to be, What was meant by the submission of the Boers? Well, the submission of rebels means, I apprehend, that they should lay down their arms, and that they should give up the strong places which they occupy in opposition to the Queen. Unless these things are done, there is no submission at all. But to continue the history of the matter, which is very curious. On the same day—that is to say, the 5th of February—took place the battle of the Ingogo, and from that day the word "submission" disappears from the telegrams. It never occurs again. On the 16th of February I find a telegram from the Secretary of State to Sir Evelyn Wood, in these terms—
"Inform Kruger that if Boers will desist from armed opposition "(there is no reference to submission now) "we shall be quite ready to appoint Commissioners with extensive powers, who may develop the scheme referred to in my telegram to you of the 8th inst. Add that if this proposal is accepted, you are authorized to agree to suspension of hostilities on our part."
Submission is now removed out of the question. The proposal now is that the Boers should cease from armed opposition. Now, I want to know, what is the meaning of the Boors ceasing from armed opposition? What were the Boers doing? The Boers were in the Transvaal. Our garrisons were beleaguered there. Our forces were marching up to relieve our garrisons, and to re-establish our authority in the Transvaal. The Boers were opposing the advance of our troops. That was the position of things. We were moving; they were opposing. "If the Boers would desist from armed opposition." The meaning of that is that our troops were no longer to be interfered with, that they were to continue their march, that the garrisons were to be relieved, and that our troops were to establish authority in the Transvaal. But nothing of the kind was intended, and nothing of the kind was done. That was what embarrassed Sir George Colley, and ho said—" I understand what this means if we are to go on and the Boers are to cease; but do you mean that we are to cease, and that that is to be the way in which opposition is

257
to come to an end?" Sir George Colley asks very naturally the question—" Am I to leave our garrisons isolated? Is that what you mean by the Boers ceasing from armed opposition?" These are his words—
"Latter part of your telegram to Wood not understood. There can be no hostilities if no resistance is made; but am I to leave Lang's Nek, in Natal territory, in Boer occupation, and our garrisons isolated and short of provisions, or occupy former and relieve latter?"
The Secretary of State answers that the garrisons should be free to provision themselves, and peaceful intercourse with them allowed; but he adds—
"We do not mean that you should march to the relief of the garrisons, or occupy Lang's Nek, if the arrangement proceeds."
What was the consequence? Did opposition cease? Opposition, my Lords, triumphed; it was we who ceased. "Opposition" had nothing to go on for; it got everything it wanted. We now come to the battle of Majuba on the 26th of February. What was the advice of Sir Evelyn Wood under the circumstances? Did he say—" Cease from opposition; let nothing more be done?" Would that be very like Sir Evelyn Wood? He gave some very striking and pointed advice to Her Majesty's Government. That advice your Lordships will find at page 21 of the White Book which I hold in my hand. He says—
"Reflecting on similar struggles in history, I do not attach much importance to punishing leaders, as did Sir George Colley, though I would not recommend allowing them to remain in Transvaal, nor would I accept them as representatives of people. In discussing settlement of country my constant endeavour shall be to carry out the spirit of your orders; but, considering the disasters we have sustained, I think the happiest result will be that, after accelerating successful action which I hope to fight in about 14 days, the Boers should disperse without any guarantee, and then many now undoubtedly coerced will readily settle down."
Sir Evelyn Wood knew that re-inforcements were at hand, the strength of the position he was occupying, and he spoke as anyone, humanly speaking, would have spoken under the circumstances, with the perfect certainty of the success of the exertions which he was ready to make. I think it cannot be doubted by any person that when our re-inforcements came up there would have been no bloodshed, and that the matter would
258
have been settled with, probably, hardly any exchange of hostilities. But, at all events, that was the opinion of Sir Evelyn Wood; but no notice seems to have been taken of it by the Government at home. The phrase about ceasing from armed opposition was repeated and repeated in every telegram from that time from Downing Street, and nothing else. The first variation of the phrase, so far as I can find, came not from Downing Street, but from Mr. Kruger. The Boers are very shrewd men. They are not misled by captivating phrases; and what did Mr. Kruger think of this phrase—" Cease from armed opposition?" He put a construction on it which your Lordships will find at page 28. He said—
"We are very grateful for the declaration in the name of Her Majesty's Government that, under certain conditions, they are inclined to cease hostilities."
It is not the Boers, you will observe, it is the Government who are inclined to cease from hostilities. Mr. Kruger quite understood the telegram; he read between the lines; he is a clever man, and he does not talk about the Boers ceasing opposition, but of the disposition of the English Government to take that course. But what, let me ask, was the final basis on which Mr. Kruger came into this arrangement? There was no repudiation of the construction which he put on the offer of the Government. As your Lordships will find at page 25, he would have nothing whatever to do with the telegram of the Secretary of State of February 8; and the reason he gives is that if he accepted it, it would be like admitting that the Boers were in the wrong. He speaks of holding to Sir George Colley's telegram of the 16th of February, a letter of the 21st of February, another telegram of the 12th of February, and a letter of the 29th of January. These are four documents which Mr. Kruger puts forward, and he says that it is upon the footing of these four documents that he is prepared to enter into negotiations. Here I may say that I have a question to put to the Secretary of State which is of some importance.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It may be well to inform the noble and learned Earl at once that I have never been put in possession of the telegram of the 16th of February, nor the letter of the 21st.

259
That of the 29th of January I only saw in the newspapers.
EARL CAIRNS: Nothing can be further from my intention than to suggest that the Secretary of State is in possession of those documents. I know his candour too well to doubt that if they were in his possession he would have laid them on the Table. But there is something more important. This telegram was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, in which Mr. Kruger says—" Now, understand, I am going to enter into negotiations with you on the footing of these four documents." The Secretary of State says he has not got the documents; but without them how could he know how the negotiations were to be conducted, or what Mr. Kruger meant? Why did not the noble Earl say, the moment he got this telegram—" I do not know what you refer to; you speak of documents which ought to be in the possession of the Government, but which are not." But I pass to something still more important. What is the final statement of Mr. Kruger in his telegram? It is this, that the only basis on which he will enter into negotiations is the restoration of the Republic. Short of that he says he will not treat; and with that document before them the Government, if they entered into negotiations, of course did so on the terms of Mr. Kruger, which embraced the restoration of the Republic. That is the common sense of the matter, whether you are dealing with Boers or Englishmen. So much for the history of the transaction. These then, my Lords, are the six stages of the "Surrender's Progress;" they are almost worthy of the pencil of a Hogarth. There is, first, a patriotic and almost passionate determination to vindicate and restore the authority of the Crown. In the second place, comes a lower offer—let there be at least submission on the part of the Boers. Thirdly, we reach, by this ladder of degradation, a still lower platform—no longer vindication of the authority of the Crown, no longer submission, but cessation from armed opposition with a strong intimation that there would be nothing to oppose. What comes next? The advice of your General to settle the country by acting on your military power, and that advice disregarded. Mr. Kruger then comes upon the scene, and his view is—" It is you, and not we, who are to cease from
260
hostilities." And what is the last? Mr. Kruger again says—" Cease from hostilities; go into negotiation, but only on the terms of our having everything we ever asked for, including the restoration of the Republic."
Well, now I come to the terms of this surrender. In the first place, I have a question to ask as to the authority of the persons with whom you are treating. Have you thought who they are who were negotiating with you and with whom you have made your agreement? What are we told about this in the Papers before us? The first intimation we have is the view of Sir Evelyn Wood, who, as I said just now, stated that he would not treat with Mr. Joubert or Mr. Kruger. He did not accept them as the representatives of the people. That was his view. What was the view of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? He did not agree with the view of Sir Evelyn Wood, and answered him in these words—" We should make no exception as to the persons with whom we will negotiate, requiring only that they should be duly authorized representatives of the Boers, with power to act on their behalf." How were they duly authorized? Will the Secretary of State inform us? I am bound to say, on behalf of Messrs. Kruger and Joubert, that they seem to have very great doubt about their own authority. They at every turn tell you that they are shaking in their shoes for fear their acts will be repudiated by the Boers. And what, finally, did they say to Sir Evelyn Wood? Sir Evelyn Wood said—
"They asked had I the power to recognize him (Kruger) as representing the Boer Government, and did I represent the English? I replied Yes.'"
Well, it was quite true that Sir Evelyn Wood represented the English; but had he the power to accept Kruger as representing the Boer Government? The Secretary of State required that the persons with whom we should negotiate should be duly authorized. I find no authority whatever. This is not a mere technicality; I should think very little of the point if it were. It is a matter of very considerable importance. Mr. Kruger is undoubtedly very apprehensive as to whether his acts will not be repudiated. We see every day in the ordinary channels of information that the opinion commonly entertained in the neighbourhood is that it is likely there

261
will be a civil war, and that there are two parties, if not more, in the country. Well, if there should be a civil war, which side are we going to take? Are we going to side with the loyal Boers against the Triumvirate, or with the Triumvirate against the loyal Boers? Suppose that everything that Kruger has done should be disavowed, what is to happen? If this were a matter that would be finished and done with when done, I could understand our being ready to run some risk. But this is an arrangement which is to run on for six months. There are all sorts of things to be done under it, and if these things are not done the arrangement will not be of the slightest value to us. If it comes to pass that the acts of those who made this arrangement are repudiated, we shall have no power to insist upon the performance of any of the things to be done under it. Is it consistent with the dignity or with the interest of this country to accept the words of a Triumvirate who have with considerable violence seized upon the government, and to assume that they have authority to bind all the inhabitants of that country?
Now, let me come to the terms. The first is—" The right of the Transvaal people to complete self-government." I want, in the first place, to know how it came to pass that this term, conceding at once complete self-government—as it is called—was made by Sir Evelyn Wood? I think something has dropped out here—some Paper is missing. Of course, I do not mean to say that the Secretary of State has it; but it must be somewhere. But how does the matter stand according to the evidence of the Book before us? The Secretary of State, on March 12, said—" The Commission would be authorized to consider the following points;" and the first is "complete self-government under British suzerainty." The Commission would be authorized to do that—that is to say, that when the Commission was appointed it would take the matter into consideration, and determine whether there should be self-government, and in what form. I suppose that is the meaning of the words. Well, what happened next? Your Lordships will remember Mr. Kruger's communication, in which he says—" I am going into the conference upon the basis of the restoration of the
262
Republic, and upon no other basis." I find on the part of the Secretary of State neither any acceptance of what Mr. Kruger said nor any repudiation of it—nothing about it. The next step is the stipulation by Sir Evelyn Wood that there should be complete self-government. Now, when did the Secretary of State authorize that stipulation to he made? What he did authorize was that the Commission should consider it. What is done is that the stipulation is, without any reference to the Commission, actually made and agreed to. I know Sir Evelyn Wood pretty well, and I am satisfied that he never went an inch beyond the authority given him. What I want to know is the way in which the authority was given him. Will the Secretary of State give us the information? Is the Secretary of State, or is he not, the head of the Colonial Office? Is somebody else conducting these negotiations? I trust we may have an explanation of this matter for the sake of Sir Evelyn Wood, if for no other reason. My next observation is this. We have got here the term "complete self-government to be given to the Boers." Those are not Sir Evelyn Wood's words. He is a soldier who does not use jargon of that kind. He talks plain English, and never called the abandonment of the territory of the Crown and the setting up of a Republic complete self-government. That is not what a soldier would call it. I think it is impossible not to see what these terms were inserted for. Their insertion is an effort—a feeble effort—to square what was done with the words of the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne. If you had said what was true—I mean what was accurate—you would have said—" The Transvaal is ceded to the Boers; the annexation is cancelled; the Republic is restored, and the Queen has no longer anything to say to the territory." That is the English of what is being done. Who can doubt that that is the real effect of these transactions? The Transvaal at this moment is the property of the Crown. When this Treaty is carried out, the Transvaal will cease to be the property of the Crown. Is that not dismemberment of the Empire? Is that not cession of territory? Is that not abandonment of the Dominions of the Queen? And, forsooth, you call this, as if you were giving free

263
institutions to a Colony, local self-government! My Lords, you are giving Ireland a pretty lesson as to what you mean by local self-government. Our fellow-subjects across the Channel are very fond of using that term. Take care that you do not teach them it has a meaning which will make them still fonder of it.
But, now, I have something more to say upon the subject of this cession of territory. I do not desire to raise any legal question at this moment; but I wish to enter my protest against this straining and stretching of the Prerogative of the Crown. We have heard a good deal of late years in the way of charge against straining the Prerogative of the Crown. Take care, lest you strain it as it has never been strained before. I want to know what right the Crown has to abandon territory? It is a very difficult question, about which a good deal could be said. I recollect what was done in the case of the Orange Free State. There was much doubt entertained as to how that State was to be given up, and in great doubt the Secretary of State at the time determined, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to repeal Letters Patent by an Order in Council and not to ask for an Act of Parliament. But in the case of the Orange Free State there had been no war, and the Imperial Parliament had never legislated upon the subject. In the case of the Transvaal the subjects of the Queen were in rebellion, and the English Parliament had stepped in and had voted money and legislated in a form which embraced the Transvaal. But, my Lords, do you recollect what was done 100 years ago in the case of the American States? Did the Crown cede those States by its Prerogative? Look back at the Statutes. You will find there an Act of Parliament which authorized the Crown to cede those States; and until that Act was passed the Crown was not authorized to treat with the rebels and to cede that territory. My Lords, I do not wish to encumber the case with any further argument upon the point; but I desire to express my grave doubts as to the course which the Government are pursuing. If they are right by the letter—which I doubt—they are certainly grievously straining the spirit of the Prerogative.
264
Well, now I come to the next term—"Protection for the Natives of the Transvaal." Protection for the Natives of the Transvaal! That is indeed something to provide for. The Commission, we are told, at page 7, will have to consider what securities shall be taken as to the future treatment of the Natives. What "securities?" Now, my Lords, let me say a few words upon this question. What are "the Natives of the Transvaal?" There seems to be some doubt about their number. Nobody says they are less than 400,000; some say 500,000.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: About 700,000.
EARL CAIRNS: I believe the number is nearer 700,000; but I wished to be under the mark. These 400,000, or 500,000, or 600,000, or 700,000 are now subjects of the Crown of England, and, beyond all doubt, so far as they are concerned they desire to remain subjects of the Crown. The Commission, you say, is to consider how they are to be protected. But what are they to be protected against? There is one thing they have to be protected from, which we find described in a despatch of the Administrator, Sir Owen Lanyon. The way in which he describes their state is this—your Lordships will find it on page 6 of his Letters—
"The unfortunate natives have suffered most from this outbreak because of their loyalty to Her Majesty. Numerous instances have been reported in which they have been wantonly shot down. They have been forced to work in the camps, and their property and cattle taken to supply the commissariat of men who had large flocks and herds of their own to draw upon. Were anything needed to show the necessity of Her Majesty's rule over the Transvaal it would be found in the reign of terror which exists and the sufferings which have been imposed upon these unfortunate natives."
But that is not by any mean all. What is the history of these Boers? In the years 1833–4–5, after Great Britain had abolished slavery, the Boers fretted against the restraints of our law of freedom, and they left the Cape Colony, in which they had been living, and "trekked," as it is called, over the border and went up beyond the Vaal. In the year 1852 a Treaty was made. We knew what their habits were; that they were slave-owners; that it was agreeable to their notion of right. The Sand River Convention was made in 1852. One of

265
the terms was that there was to be no slavery north of a certain limit. My Lords, you know that that term of the Convention has been continuously and systematically disregarded. The Boers have practised slavery. My Lords, they practise it now in a way which is extremely formidable to deal with, because it is not as if the moral sentiment of the people were against slavery, and only certain wrong-doers were violating the law. But the Boers have not brought the mild and beneficent influence of Christianity to bear upon their understanding of Holy Writ. They go back to the Old Testament, and they find in it—or they think they find in it—a justification for these practices; and they hold that if slavery is not a Divine institution it is at least permitted. What is the practice of these people? I take one authority—I might adduce 50 from the Blue Books, but I select one authority from one of the Blue Books, which is a statement given by an unprejudiced witness—it is from a Colonial newspaper, The Cape Aryus—
"The whole world may know it, for it is true, and investigation will only bring out the horrible details, that through the whole course of this Republic's existence, it has acted in contravention of the Sand River Convention; and slavery has occurred, not only here and there in isolated cases, but, as an unbroken practice, has been one of the peculiar institutions of the country, mixed up with all its social and political life. It has been at the root of most of its wars; it has been carried on regularly even in the times of peace."
That description seems to me to be of great and grave importance. But, my Lords, even in the legislation of this people you will find sanctioned that which is, under a thin disguise, actual slavery. The disguise is the guardianship of orphans. In the Transvaal it would appear, as someone has said, as if all the Black children were orphans. Every child which they can get hold of is subjected to that which, in their views, is perfectly legitimate. We heard in this House only three weeks ago, from the lips of the Secretary of State himself, the story of the Boer Chief who brought home over the border, or from some other quarter, 32 Kaffir girls, whom he sold for 10 s. apiece in his own neighbourhood. Now, my Lords, this is the nation you have to deal with. These are the 400,000, 500,000, 600,000, or 700,000 people whom you have to pro-
266
tect. This is the system against which you have to protect them. My Lords, this country has made great sacrifices, great exertions for the purpose of suppressing or extirpating slavery. I shall be surprised, indeed, if this country tolerates the handing back into that which is really a liability to slavery a nation of hundreds of thousands of people who, at this moment, are free British subjects. If this thing is to be done, at all events, it shall not be done in a corner. It shall be done in the light of day; and, as far as my feeble voice can reach, I will endeavour to explain and expose the real character of the act which is to be done. Well, but you say, the Commission is to consider the question of the treatment of the Natives. What can the Commission do? What is the protection which these people require? Recollect what the Transvaal is. It is a country larger than France. Homesteads are scattered over the country 20 or 30 miles, or much more, apart from each other. And what you have to watch over and superintend is what goes on in each of these homesteads. My Lords, how is that to be done? Are you going to occupy the country with an armed occupation? What less are you going to do? There is one protection, and one only, which can avail for the protection of the Coloured people. That is the protection of Courts of Justice, deriving their authority from the British Crown, and supported by the power of the British Crown. Unless every Native of the Transvaal can come before an British Court of Justice and say, "I am a free man, or a free boy, or a free girl, and I demand the protection of the British Crown as a British subject"—until that can be done, day after day, there can be no protection for the Native inhabitants of the country. My Lords, I read just now from the Gracious Speech from the Throne some words which I did not think at the time had the meaning which it now appears they bear. It is the passage which speaks of securing the rights of European settlers "without prejudice to the interests of the Natives." Without prejudice! It ends like a lawyer's letter. My Lords, is it possible that the annihilation of the rights of 700,000 British subjects in the matter of freedom is to be spoken of as an arrangement which is not to prejudice the rights of the

267
Natives? My Lords, I recollect when this country was greatly moved at certain instructions from the Admiralty, which were supposed to imply that a slave who took refuge in an English ship might be surrendered to his owner. Has this country so altered its views with regard to slavery that it will permit hundreds of thousands of British subjects to be handed back to a system which really is slavery as much any slavery that ever prevailed in the world?
What comes next? "The control of foreign relations is to be reserved." What, my Lords, is the meaning of that term? I know what this term means in the Congress Halls of Vienna, or Berlin, or Paris, or London. What I want to know is the meaning of the term as applied to a half-civilized race like the Boers. What are the foreign relations of the Boers? Do you mean their relations with Portugal? We do not want them reserved, because Portugal is our ally. What are the foreign relations of the Boers? I will tell your Lordships what they are. The foreign relations of the Boers are with the Zulus, the Swazis, the Pondos, and, if there be any, other Native border tribes—and the foreign relations of the Boers consist of stealing cattle across the border of the Zulus, and the Zulus stealing cattle across the border of the Boers, and Zulus and Boers grazing cattle by trespass on each other's grounds, and the Boers ill-treating the Zulus when they come into the Transvaal, and the Zulus ill-treating the Boers when they come into Zululand. These are the relations which are grandiloquently termed the foreign relations of the Boers, and which we have reserved. Are we really going to reserve this treasure? Are we really going to reserve squabbles about cattle stealing and grazing over limits, and complaints of ill-treatment on one side of the border or the other? I want to know from the Secretary of State, is that his view of the foreign relations which he is so anxious to keep for us? But, if so, how are we to deal with them? Suppose that a Boer is ill-treated by the Zulus in their country, and the Boers want redress, must they ask our leave before they seek it? Or suppose the Boers are attacked by the Swazis, are we going to defend the Boers, or to forbid them defending themselves? Are you going to make military pro-
268
vision for maintaining these foreign relations; or, on the other hand, are you going to say to the Boers that they shall do this, or that, or the other, and yet refuse to defend them for following your advice, which brings them into trouble? That brings me to another question. Are we going to be protectors of the Boers or are we not? Now, I will deal frankly with your Lordships on this subject. When I read over this Book, I did not find in it one word implying that we were to protect the Boer Republic, and I said to myself—" A very foolish thing to reserve the foreign relations of the Boers; but, at all events, we are not saddled with the duty of protecting this people in their foreign relations." But my illusion was broken by a document, which I find, not in this Book, but in other channels of information. It is in a communication from Sir Evelyn Wood. It is dated Durban, March 24, and is published in the newspapers—
"The Colonial Secretary to-night issued the following communication from Sir Evelyn Wood:—' Terms of peace have been signed. The Boers have gone away. Free trade intercourse permitted throughout the Transvaal. A Royal Commission is to assemble at once to consider all points left in abeyance and recommend to the Imperial Government what, speaking generally, shall be the Eastern boundaries of a self-governing republic, which is to have a British Resident and to be under a British protectorate.'"
Is that an authentic document or not? The Secretary of State shakes his head.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not know.
EARL CAIRNS: The noble Earl does not know whether the Boer Republic is to be protected by us or not.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I did not say that. I said I did not know whether the document quoted is or is not authentic.
EARL CAIRNS: Then, I suppose, the noble Earl can tell us whether this statement in the document is correct or not. It is issued by Sir Evelyn Wood. It is a very serious thing, and I should be very glad to hear that there is some mistake about it. I have no wish to press the document if it is unauthorized. Bad as other things are here, I shall be glad to hear that there is not to be a protectorate. But the document is issued on the spot. You may not know of it; but it has been issued in the country,

269
and the people of the country will believe it.
Well, now I come to the next point. The Transvaal will be under the suzerainty of the Queen. I hope your Lordships will not suppose that I am going to give a learned or antiquarian explanation of what the word suzerainty means. I have no intention of doing anything of the kind. I am content to take the word upon the negative and affirmative meanings which we have received from the Government. The negative meaning we have received from the Prime Minister. He says that suzerainty does not mean sovereignty. Well, I know very well that it does not; and, what is more, if it did the Boers would not have accepted it. It is just because it does not mean sovereignty that they have submitted to it. What does it mean? What it means is described by Sir Evelyn Wood, and his glossary—his interpretation—may be found at page 29 of the Papers. He defines suzerainty to mean this—
"That the country is to have entire self-government as regards its own interior affairs; but that it cannot take action against or with an outside Power without permission of the Suzerain."
That is to say, the foreign relations of the Boers are reserved. Now, my objection to that is this. I object to your taking a word and coupling it with the name of the Sovereign of this country, and putting a meaning on the word which is not the real meaning—which is a conventional meaning—because it is perfectly clear that whatever may be the real meaning of the word, what it does not mean is that foreign relations are reserved. It is quite clear that it does not mean that.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Why?
EARL CAIRNS: Why? Will the noble Earl produce any book, any State Paper—any instance in history—in which a Power which had no connection with another Power except through the one circumstance of foreign relations being reserved was called the Suzerain of that other Power? If this is the meaning of suzerainty, that wherever the foreign relations are reserved you have a case of suzerainty, the consequence is that the Sovereign of this country is the Suzerain of Afghanistan. Because the Sovereign of this country, according to your Treaty, has control of the foreign relations of Afghanistan.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What Treaty?
EARL CAIRNS: I am willing to be corrected; but we have understood that the arrangement with Abdurrahman is that the foreign relations are reserved. But that is of very little importance. What I do care about is this. I object to your coining a meaning for a word—a word which has another meaning. I object to your taking possession of a word and giving it a special meaning for a particular purpose, and then connecting it with the Sovereign of this country. Why, you might as well take the word Archimandrite, and say that by that term you mean that foreign relations are reserved, and then say that the Queen is the Archimandrite of the Transvaal. You have no right to take a word and give it a meaning which is your meaning, and not the meaning of the word. And I object to your coining by the Prerogative a style for the British Sovereign hitherto unknown. But I will tell you why the word is taken. It is quite palpable what the reason is. The word is selected for this reason. It is selected in order that you may go on the one hand to the Boers and tell them—and tell them truly—" Suzerain does not mean Sovereign; suzerainty does not mean sovereignty; you may be quite satisfied," and then that you may come home here and jingle in the ears of the unthinking people of the country the word suzerainty, and leave them to think that it has the sound and semblance of, and some connection with, sovereignty.
Now I comp to the Commission, and I want to know what is the authority that this Commission is to have and how is it to be supported? I know what has happened with regard to the Boers. The Boers, when the Commission was talked of, proposed, not unnaturally, that they should be represented upon that Commission. They asked that they should have two members, and they would have agreed to be bound by its decision, perhaps, had they been represented. But that was declined. It was decided that there must be no Boers on the Commission at all. I do not find one word in these Papers showing that the Boors have consented to be bound by what this Commission will do. I cannot find a word binding even the Triumvirate. We hear from various quarters that there is very great indignation as to what this

271
Commission is to do, and we hear mutterings both loud and deep that the Boers will not be bound by anything the Commission does. What we may naturally ask is—Suppose the Boers refuse to be bound, how are you going to support the authority of the Commission? What authority have you at this moment in the Transvaal to support it? You have the same authority that you have in Abyssinia. You may invade Abyssinia, and you may invade the Transvaal; but until you invade the Transvaal you have no authority there. Your garrisons are cooped up, and you can exercise no authority by compulsion. Suppose you mean to enforce it by invasion, what is your position with regard to invasion? Your re-inforcements, where are they? Three or four regiments have been ordered home. Your General is coming home in the packet ship—that is to say, if he can find room among the numbers who are doubtless hurrying away from a land which you are making uninhabitable for Englishmen. The spirit of your troops is lowered, the authority of the Crown is discredited; and what about the loyal Boers? I do not know how many of them there are. I know that various opinions are entertained on that subject. Some say they are the majority; a great many people think so. It is quite clear that Mr. Kruger and Mr. Joubert think they are in great numbers, for they are much afraid of them. Well, but if you had entered the Transvaal in the present state of affairs, these loyal Boers would have been your friends and supporters. Will they be so hereafter? You have betrayed them once; do you suppose they will ever let you betray them again? They will know much too well for that. Those loyal men will for the future be arrayed against you along with the rest of the nation. That is the way in which you are going to support your Commission.
But, my Lords, I find as regards this Commission a very remarkable statement, as to which we must have some information from the Secretary of State. It appears, among other things, that the Commission is to consider whether there shall not be taken off the Transvaal a portion of territory to the east of the 30th parallel of longitude. There is about as much land there, by the look of it, as England and Scotland together. Therefore, the portion in question may be a tolerably large slice. I see that it
272
is said in the Papers that the Boers will not consent to have anything taken off the Transvaal; but I know not how that may be. But for what purpose do the Government wish to separate the piece of land to the east of the 30th parallel from the rest of the Transvaal? The idea appears to be that it is to be some "buffer," as it is called, between the land of the Boers of the Transvaal and the countries to the east of that territory. I do not suppose that you want a "buffer" between the Boers and the Portuguese. Remember that to the east of the 30th parallel you have first the Portuguese, then Amatonga, and then the Zulus. You want to separate the Boers from the Natives of Amatonga and of Zululand. The intervening piece of land I take it for granted you do not mean to leave as "no man's land," without any owner. If you do, either the Boers will take it again, or the Swazis or the Zulus will do so. Are we, then, to keep that land and to interpose between the Boers, the Swazis, and the Zulus? We have some right to know what the Government intend to do. We are not to be hood-winked as to a matter which is all-important in regard to the policy to be pursued in South Africa. You know very well that that intervening piece of land will be of no use to you as an interval between the Transvaal and the Native tribes unless you garrison it with British troops. Are you going to garrison it with British troops? Is that the policy of the Government? Let us know it if it is, because nothing more disastrous could occur to us than that, after giving up the Transvaal and exciting all the loyal Natives and the loyal Boers against us, we are to end by having a chain of garrisons along the eastern part of the Transvaal, which is most isolated from support.
I come next to the provision that until the completion of the arrangements with the Boers our garrisons are to remain, are to have food, but are to have no ammunition. No ammunition is to be brought by us into the country of the Transvaal. What does this mean? I own that I am ashamed to be the person to explain it. Do your Lordships remember what has happened? What were our Transvaal garrisons at the commencement of the war? Our soldiers were cooped up in them; they were surrounded; our troops were marching from Natal to relieve them.

273
In substance, though not in form, the garrisons were prisoners; they could not move out. Our troops were marching to relieve them. You are going to leave these garrisons there. What will their position be? I see calculations made as to whether they have ammunition for a week, for two weeks, or for three. It does not matter in the least whether they have ammunition for one week, for two, or for three weeks; if you have not the right to supply fresh ammunition their ammunition is limited, and they are at the mercy of the Boers around them. And while you, in form, leave this country to imagine that you are doing something in their favour by arranging that these garrisons are to remain in the Transvaal, the truth and the English of it is that these garrisons are hostages in the hands of the Boers. That is where the Government leaves them—those English troops are hostages in the hands of the Boers. This reminds us of the painful occurrences at Potchefstroom. There was a time when this country would have expressed a stronger opinion about what has happened at Potchefstroom than it has yet done. What has happened? There was an armistice agreed upon between Sir Evelyn Wood and the leaders of the Boers. What were the terms of that armistice? I will read it to your Lordships. At page 22, it is said that the third term of the armistice is that "Mr. Joubert undertakes to send notice of the armistice and its conditions to the respective garrisons." Remember, it was for the Boer Commander, Mr. Joubert, to do this, and not for us. The armistice was made on the 7th, and the garrison had to surrender 14 days after. I hear that there was a convoy of mules going on from Sir Evelyn Wood with provisions for this garrison, and that this convoy of mules did not, could not, make the distance of 200 miles in 14 days. Very possibly; but that has nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Joubert was not to send his notice by a convoy of our mules. He personally undertook to send notice to the garrison; and does anybody say that messengers could not traverse in the Transvaal a space of 200 miles in less than 14 days? I heard with surprise the noble Earl say that he and the Secretary of State for War were conferring on this matter, and that they had not received sufficient information.
274
My Lords, I should have thought that 10 minutes, or even 10 seconds, would have been sufficient for any English Minister to know what ought to be done under the circumstances, and that in 10 seconds after the receipt of the news there would have been flashed from Downing Street, with the lightning speed of the electric wire, a message to the Boer Triumvirate, not that any life that had been lost should be restored—that, alas! could not be done—but that every arm that had been taken must be restored, the ammunition must be given back, full indemnity must be made for every loss, and that every word written with regard to the surrender of Potchefstroom must be absolutely and completely cancelled and obliterated. And, my Lords, if that has not been done, I do maintain that never before in the history of England has such an act occurred and such an act been allowed to be so long unredressed.
And now I come to the stipulation as to Lang's Nek. What is the provision with regard to it? As the Boers, we read, have agreed to withdraw from Lang's Nek and to disperse to their homes, Sir Evelyn Wood promises not to take possession of that position, nor to follow them up with troops, nor to send ammunition into the Transvaal. Lang's Nek is in the Colony of Natal. The Transvaal is our country, too, but Lang's Nek is in Natal. The Boers retire from Lang's Nek, and we in Natal are bound hand-and-foot; our troops are not to occupy Lang's Nek. My Lords, can we speak patiently of this? Not to occupy Lang's Nek! What is the explanation of the Prime Minister about this? He says these words only mean that the Boers were dispersing, and there was not to be a pursuit of the Boers. Well, if that was what was intended, a very few words would have been sufficient—not to occupy Lang's Nek for 24 hours, or for a day, or for a week. But an absolute provision not to occupy Lang's Nek! My Lords, was ever such an insult offered as this, even according to the explanation of the Prime Minister? I can hardly trust myself to state it. Are we, are this great and spirited nation, gentlemen and men of honour I trust, making peace with the Boers, telling them that we do make peace with them, that they are to disperse—as one of its terms—to their own homes, and are they to turn

275
round and tell us—" That is all very well for you, but we do not trust you; we believe that at the moment of our dispersing, notwithstanding the peace, you would turn round and follow us, and pursue us; and we, therefore, bind you not merely to make peace with us, but not to occupy positions in your own country from which you could pursue us?" Was ever such an insult offered in private life, and is our nation so lost to all sense of honour that it can sit down under such an insult as that which the Prime Minister offers by way of explanation?
I come now to the next point. There is to be a Resident at the capital of the Boers, but there is to be no interference in the internal affairs of the country. Now, how is the Resident to be supported—I do not mean by money, but by force? The Boers are a rough sort of people, and even in our short intercourse with them during the last two months some rough things have been done. I do not suppose that this Resident will be very popular; and I wish to know, without anticipating the use of any extreme violence, how he is to be supported in the event of his being insulted? Or are you going to send him into the country without any support? If so, I need only remind the Members of Her Majesty's Government that that was precisely what they denounced when it was done in Afghanistan. I trust we shall have an explanation on this point.
Then I come to the amnesty, the terms of which are very remarkable. The amnesty extends to all, including the leaders, and excepts only persons directly responsible for acts contrary to the rules of civilized warfare. And in Sir Evelyn Wood's final agreement, we find that the Boer leaders said they would gladly co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in bringing to justice those who were directly responsible for acts contrary to the rules of civilized warfare. Now, who are these men? We know very well to whom these words ought to apply—namely, to the murderers of Captain Eliot, and to the authors of the massacre at Madder's Spruit. The Boers are to co-operate with us in bringing them to justice; but what does this mean? The murderers of Captain Eliot are Boers in the Transvaal; they are nine in number, and are perfectly well known to everyone there. The murder was committed in broad
276
daylight, and in the midst of the homesteads, so that everyone knew what had happened. The leaders of the Boers are able to hand them over to us; and to toll us that they will co-operate with us is to invert the real position of affairs, for they are in possession of the Transvaal, and we can do nothing. It is for us to require them to hand over to us those persons who are outside the pale of civilized warfare, instead of promising to co-operate with us. But who are the others? You remember the affair of Madder's Spruit, and the account of it that had been communicated to us by the Government. The circumstances of the attack I will read to your Lordships from the Official Report of Sir Owen Lanyon. He says—
"The circumstances of the attack upon Colonel Anstruther's men—a force consisting of 268 men, women, and children—are told in a few words. Having selected their spot for the attack, the mounted force of the rebels surrounded the straggling wagon-train while on the line of march, and sent in a flag of truce to the officer commanding, and while he was reading the letter from the Triumvirate, and replying verbally that his instructions were to proceed to Pretoria, and that he must obey those instructions, the attacking force of rebels was, under cover of the flag of truce, advancing upon and surrounding the soldiers; and immediately the answer was given the rebels opened a deadly fire, picked off the officers, and killed and wounded 157 of the small English force. The number of the dead now amounts to 70."
And, further on, he adds—
"The surrounding and gradual hemming in under a flag of truce of a force, and the selection of spots from which to direct their fire, as in the case of the unprovoked attack by the rebels upon Colonel Anstruther's force, is a proceeding of which very few like incidents can be mentioned in the annals of civilized warfare."
My Lords, did I hear aright the other night a reply given that the Government had received no information to lead them to think that this massacre was not inside the rules of civilized warfare? Did your Lordships hear that in this House? I trust there is some mistake, and that the noble Earl will rise and tell us that that is not what he meant to convey, and that the idea will not go forth that a transaction such as I have described is, according to the view of an English Government, within the pale of civilized warfare.
And now as to the position of the English and the loyal Boers. I see in this Paper some suggestion that somebody or other is to look after their

277
interests. These loyal Boers number many thousands, of whom many are refugees in neighbouring countries, but many still remain in the Transvaal. I do not know whether it is true, as we read the other day, that Mr. Kruger said he would rather kill 20 of them than one English soldier; but if there is any truth in these words, they show the temper in which the loyal Boers will be regarded by those who are now in the ascendant. And what have they to rely upon? I remember that Sir Garnet Wolseley told them—I trust to my memory for the words—that the rivers might run back to their sources, or the sun rise in the West, before the Transvaal ceased to form part of the British Dominion. They relied on that assurance; but was the word of Sir Garnet Wolseley of less avail than that of Sir Evelyn Wood? And if Sir Evelyn Wood's word is now to be relied on, was Sir Garnet Wolseley's word not to be taken before. Can you suppose that anything that this Commission can recommend, any promise that can be extracted, will prevent these Boers, when they return home, from regretting bitterly the day that they believed the word of an English General?
I cannot weary your Lordships by going into a further examination of the details of this arrangement, though there is still much that might be said. I have risen, my Lords, from the perusal of these Papers with feelings which I find it difficult to describe. It is not easy, in the midst of the events which pass around us, to realize the character of the history we are creating for future ages; but we can understand and look back upon the history of past times, and infer from this the manner in which we shall be regarded by those who come after us. It is just 100 years since a page was written in the annals of England, darkened by the surrenders of Burgoyne and Cornwallis. Those were surrenders made by Generals at a distance from, and without communication with, home—on their own responsibility—in great emergency—and without the possibility of any alternative. They were events, however, which both at the time, and long afterwards, deeply touched our national pride. But it will be recorded hereafter that it was reserved for the 19th century, and for the days of telegrams, to find a surrender, with reinforcements at hand, and every means
278
for restoring the power and vindicating the authority of the Crown, dictated, word for word, by the Government at home. I observe that this arrangement is somewhere styled the Peace of Mount Prospect. My Lords, I much doubt whether it will not go down to posterity as the Capitulation of Downing Street. You have given a bitter cup to drink to Englishmen abroad and Englishmen at home, and you have made the draught unduly and unnecessarily bitter. Surely some of the ingredients might have been spared. I wish you could have chosen for the conclusion of such a capitulation some other agent than one of the bravest, the most intrepid, the most promising Generals in the service of the Queen. I wish you could have spared our troops the intense mortification of being paraded to see a half-civilized enemy marching off in triumph with arms and accoutrements captured from British soldiers. I wish that while still the Transvaal remains, as you say it does, under our control, the British Flag had not been first reversed and then trailed in insult through the mud. I wish that the moment when you are weakening our Empire in the East had not been selected for dismembering our Empire in South Africa. These are the aggravations of the transaction. You have used no pains to conceal what was humbling, and a shame that was real, you have also made burning. But the transaction, without the aggravations, is bad enough. It has already touched, and will every day touch more deeply, the heart of the nation. Other reverses we have had; other disasters. But a reverse is not dishonour, and a disaster does not necessarily imply disgrace. To Her Majesty's Government we owe a sensation which to this country of ours is new, and which certainly is not agreeable.
"In all the ills we ever bore
"We grieved, we sighed, we wept; we never blushed before."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while I listened to the confident and unsparing denunciations of the noble and learned Earl, I confess I was somewhat surprised. I thought that his memory was somewhat better, and that he might chance to have recollected that the embarrassments and difficulties connected with the question concerning which he has addressed the House for over two hours, were due,

279
and due entirely, in their origin, to the action of the Government of which the noble and learned Earl was a distinguished Member. ["No!"] Those noble Lords who say "No! "must be very ignorant indeed of the history of these transactions. I have never attributed to the late Government any motives which were wrong in reference to the action they took; but I said that if they had correctly judged the circumstances of the case, and that if they were right in their opinion that the people of the Transvaal would willingly acquiesce in being placed under the British dominion, there was much to be urged in favour of the measures that were taken. But, in reality, they erred in judgment, and the event has proved that a greater blunder was hardly ever committed; and yet they now blame the Government which, with painful steps, I admit, is endeavouring to extricate the country from the difficulties in which it is placed. I think the noble and learned Earl might have displayed a little more modesty in his statement and a little less legal ingenuity, and have taken a more statesmanlike view of the subject. It is always disagreeable to be connected with a failure. To be connected with a failure is now the unfortunate lot of this country, and noble Lords opposite are connected with the failure as well as we. The whole origin of this difficulty was the annexation of the Transvaal. The noble and learned Earl began, I think, from last December; but I hope I shall be allowed to carry the subject a little further back. When we came into Office we found that we had this question to deal with. It might, perhaps, have been better to reverse at once the whole policy of the late Government. If our information at that time had not led us to believe that it might be possible to avoid that reversal, we should have adopted that measure. But in South Africa there has been, unfortunately, more than one change of policy; and changes of policy, even when they are inevitable, are always attended with considerable evils, and we thought it our duty to endeavour to carry on the government of the Transvaal, and to see whether we could not bring the people of that country to such a state of contentment that they might acquiesce in our rule and be willing to enjoy the blessings of self-government under the sovereignty of the Queen. The first
280
position we took was that they might have this self-government within the Confederation. The question was brought before the Cape Parliament; but they declined to take the first step, and the proposal for a Conference fell to the ground. I confess that I had not sufficient insight to see behind all the information I received. I could show your Lordships, step by step, how Sir Owen Lanyon, who governed the country, and Sir George Colley, who went through the whole of the country in August, informed me up to the last moment before the rebellion broke out that things were quieting down, and that all our difficulties would disappear. Then came the news of the outbreak of the insurrection on the 19th of December. The only previous information I had received that looked at all alarming was contained in a telegram of the 5th of December, which said it had been thought desirable to send back a few companies of a regiment to the Transvaal, as there had been some difficulty with the Boers. But considering that the authorities in the Transvaal were of opinion that the forces might even have been further reduced shortly before that time, I could not suppose such a complete change had come over the whole circumstances of the case, or that there was any real ground for serious apprehension. I now come to the period with which the noble and learned Earl deals. The first document to which the noble and learned Earl referred was Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne. In order to explain clearly the point of view the Government then held, I will refer to the instructions to Sir Hercules Robinson, issued a few days before the assembling of Parliament. Those instructions stated that Her Majesty's Government anxiously looked forward to the time when it might be possible to confer institutions for local government on the Transvaal; but that the recent attempt to overthrow the authority of the Queen by armed force rendered that impracticable until the authority of the Queen had been vindicated. As I understand it, the accusation against us is this—" If you had formed the scheme of relinquishing the sovereignty of the Crown, why did you not act upon it, and why did you speak of vindicating the authority of the Crown, and why did you spend unnecessary blood and treasure?" That is, I

281
think, a very fair statement of the argument; but you must consider what was the precise situation when my despatch to Sir Hercules Robinson was written. The insurrection had then broken out about 10 days, the garrisons in the Transvaal were beleaguered, and our force was a very small one. Was that a moment, even if we had formed the intention, to announce that we were to leave the Transvaal, without making any effort, without sending any re-inforcements, without having any military power, and simply to say that, an insurrection having broken out, we would withdraw our garrisons, and leave the Boers their independence? Under no circumstances, I undertake to say, would any Government have taken a course other than we did. The noble and learned Earl wrongly assumes that all the concessions have been on our side. He quite overlooks one important stipulation—namely, that the armed Boors should disperse. It seems to me that if the armed Boers are to disperse, if tranquillity is to be restored, if the British garrisons in the Transvaal are to be relieved, and British administration carried on until other arrangements are made by Commissioners appointed by the Queen, there is a vindication of the Queen's authority in the Transvaal. The noble and learned Earl proceeded to a minute criticism of the various telegrams contained in the published Papers, treating them, if I may say so, as if they were documents in a Chancery suit, and, by dint of great legal ingenuity, placing upon them interpretations which, I freely admit, are exceedingly new to me. Let me briefly refer to one or two of the points referred to by the noble and learned Earl, which appear to me the most important. He made a great deal of the word "submission" employed in the telegram of the 8th of February, and left your Lordships to infer that it afterwards disappeared from the Papers on account of the unsuccessful engagement on the Ingogo. Unfortunately for that argument, the communications with President Brand were commenced a considerable time before the date of the telegram referred to, the first being made so long ago as January 10. On that date I wrote to President Brand's Representative in this country—
"I request that you will inform President Brand that, provided the Boers desist from
282
their armed opposition to the Queen's authority, Her Majesty's Government do not despair of making a satisfactory arrangement."
The word "submission" was used subsequently in a reply to a communication from Mr. Brand, in which he asked what would be done on a certain point if the Boers "submitted;" and the word "submission" was merely a re-echo of the word used by him. Therefore, the whole of the noble and learned Earl's ingenious argument as to the omission of the word from the telegrams after our defeat on the Ingogo falls to the ground. Again, the noble and learned Earl overlooked altogether this important point—that the arrangements made after the unfortunate engagement on the Majuba Hill had their origin in communications made some days before that engagement. The original source, if I may say so, of those communications, putting aside my telegram to Mr. Brand, which may have suggested, though this I do not know, to Mr. Kruger the communication he addressed to Sir George Colley, was the telegram of the 13th of February. The absence of the document to which the noble and learned Earl referred can only be explained by the death of Sir George Colley, in whose possession they were. I have never received them. But by inference I am aware what they must have been. The letter of the 21st of February was, no doubt, written by Sir George Colley to Kruger in pursuance of my telegram, and repeating its terms. That to Mr. Brand of the same date could not have been of vital importance, inasmuch as it was addressed to a third party. The letter of the Triumvirate of the 29th of January, strangely enough, does not seem to have reached the British authorities at all; but, from what I have seen respecting it in the newspaper telegrams, I do not think it could have much affected the situation. To return to Mr. Kruger. The position of matters was this. We received from Mr. Kruger a communication which we thought afforded an opportunity of entering into further negotiations with the Boers which might have a satisfactory result. If the noble and learned Earl will turn to that document, he will find that Mr. Kruger refers to the possibility of a Royal Commission being issued. In answer to Mr. Kruger's communication I sent a telegram to Sir George Colley, informing him that if the Boers desisted from

283
armed opposition we should be quite ready to appoint Commissioners. The question of dates in these matters is one of importance; and the noble and learned Earl will observe that Sir George Colley's answer to Mr. Kruger was sent on the 21st of February, and that not till the 26th of February did the affair of the Majuba Hill occur. Now, could we, because we had been unfortunate in that engagement, draw back from the undertaking we had previously entered into with Mr. Kruger? Such a proceeding would have been most undefensible—I had almost said an act of bad faith. We did not consider that it was possible for us as honourable men to change our plans because of the unsuccessful result of an engagement in which we, and not the Boers, had been the aggressors; and the consequence was that the negotiations went on. Here it may be well I should go back upon the cause of those negotiations, and explain the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to engage in them. They did not originate with Her Majesty's Government at all, but were started by President Brand, who was very anxious—which did him credit—to put an end to the war. Now, what was the course which it was my duty in these circumstances to take? Was I to tell President Brand that we could not listen to any terms of peace, or to any suggestion of peace from him? The circumstances were such that I could not conceive a greater breach of duty or a more imprudent course than that would have been. We knew that the action of the Free State trembled in the balance—that at any moment it might enrol itself among the number of our enemies; and, considering the comparative weakness of our forces in the field, an attack upon their flank by the Free State might have proved most disastrous. It was my duty to intimate to President Brand that we were not prepared to push matters to extremities if an honourable settlement of the difficulty could be arrived at. Up to that point the noble and learned Earl, I take it, would not complain of the action of Her Majesty's Government. After those communications with President Brand had been carried on for some time, during which we pursued a perfectly consistent course, uninfluenced
284
by the misfortunes which occurred from time to time to our arms, we received a direct overture from the Boers. They asked for terms we could not accept. They called upon us to withdraw our garrisons from the Transvaal, and to acknowledge the independence of the Republic. The noble and learned Earl says that we agreed at once to all that the Boers demanded. We, however, did nothing of the kind. We, on the contrary, did not assent to any of the terms proposed except the suggestion of a Royal Commission, which we thought might afford a means of settlement. Then came the unfortunate affair at Majuba Hill; and before I come to the conditions of peace which were subsequently agreed upon, I would point out that your Lordships' attention ought not to be concentrated on a certain number of telegrams or upon each successive step which the Government may have taken. You ought, I think, to look from a somewhat broader point of view on the whole subject. You should regard it from the point of view of the interests of South Africa generally and of those of the Empire itself. The origin of these difficulties should not be lost sight of, nor the temper in which the question at issue was looked upon at home, abroad, and in our Colonies. In referring to the origin of the war, I am not going to say anything about the policy which led to the annexation of the Transvaal. That is a fait accompli. But when the noble and learned Earl talks of the dismemberment of the Empire, one would suppose that he was speaking of the surrender of a limb which had been united to the Empire for at least the last 100 years. He would almost seem to have forgotten that the people of the Transvaal are only subjects of the Queen of three years' date, and that a large number of them—the majority, as it now turns out—have protested against being considered in that light. I am ashamed, therefore, to find this matter dealt with as if we were giving up an integral part of the United Kingdom, and in a way that shows there is no consideration with the great questions of general policy involved. There is no desire to look at them in a broad spirit, but rather to snatch a Party triumph. When the Transvaal was taken over we on this side believed, and I am sure noble Lords opposite, who

285
were at the time in Office, honestly believed also, that the people acquiesced in the annexation of their country; and, indeed, it was that only which led us to regard it as a justifiable measure. But, as matters have turned out, it appears that, so far from acquiescing in the annexation, they were so violently opposed to it as to break out into a most dangerous rebellion. Were we then, I would ask, to treat these men as if they had been united to this country for generations? That would, in my opinion, have been a wrong spirit in which to approach the subject. But the position in which we found ourselves was not one in which we could say to the Boers, "We will retire because you attack us." That would be impossible. It was absolutely necessary to take steps to relieve our garrisons. More than that. Before we could be in a position to negotiate with the Boer leaders it was necessary to have a force on the spot, so that we might be able to enforce our demands. What chance, I would ask, would there have been otherwise of a successful arrangement? Here I may observe that when the noble and learned Earl speaks of the conditions of peace, and what he calls our humiliating position, as reminding him of the capitulations of Burgoyne and Cornwallis, who, he says, yielded to superior numbers, I was somewhat astonished. The argument of the noble and learned Earl, I think, has much more force the other way. When a person is able to insist on his own terms he is, I maintain, in a far better position to make concessions than those who have no alternative but to capitulate and give up their arms. Such, then, as I have stated, was our position with regard to the Transvaal. But was the Transvaal the only settlement we had to take into account? There are other settlements in South Africa, and those who have studied the subject know that their interests are so closely connected that nothing occurs in one part of that wide territory by which the rest is not more or less affected. There is not a shot fired throughout South Africa in anger which does not re-echo throughout every portion of that dominion. But there is still something further to be considered. Who are those rebels of the Transvaal? With whom are they connected? They are men of Dutch origin. They are connected by the closest ties with
286
the inhabitants of the Orange Free State and with the subjects of the Queen at the Cape. So intimate is their connection by marriage and every possible tie that a war carried on in South Africa brings into play forces and rouses passions which might well make a bold man hesitate before he rejected any mode of preserving peace which would be likely to succeed. The connection between the Orange Free State and the Transvaal is such that it is scarcely possible, had the war continued long, that the former would have been able to refrain from joining our enemies. The state of feeling throughout the Colony was also becoming of a very alarming character. The sympathy felt by the Dutch population with the people of the Transvaal was such as could not be overlooked by the Government. Such being the state of things in South Africa, what, I would ask, was the temper of the people at home? The noble and learned Earl spoke of the late war, as if it was one which enlisted all the patriotic feelings of the country, as one in which every man of honour would desire not to sheathe his sword until it had become dyed with the blood of the greatest possible number of Boers. We have been treated to a kind of declamation which might well be resorted to if some enemy were invading our shores; but the feeling of the English nation on the subject is, I am convinced, somewhat different from that which the speech of the noble and learned Earl would lead one to suppose. The conscience of the people of England was not easy as to the war in the Transvaal. It told them that it was a war which had been undertaken to subdue men who were never willing to be our subjects—a war from which no glory was to be obtained, and which, if it could be done consistently with sound policy, it was an absolute duty to bring to an early conclusion. These were the inducements which weighed with the Government; they were, it seems to me, strong inducements; and the policy which we have pursued is one which I do not think the country will condemn. It is a most disagreeable task to a Minister to have to recommend, especially when our arms happen not to have attained success, a course which has been represented in the light in which that which we deemed it our duty to adopt has been represented

287
to-night. Speaking for myself, however, I may say I believe there is no higher or more imperative duty in the case of a Minister charged with the responsibility of an Empire such as ours than to resist the vain desire of mere military glory when he can obtain a settlement which he regards as conducive to the real interests of the country. I remember having heard an anecdote of a man who, I think, noble Lords opposite will allow was not disposed to take a low view of military honour. Someone speaking in the presence of the Duke of Wellington said something about the point of honour, and his answer was—"I used to hear a good deal when in Spain about the point of honour, but in my opinion the true point of honour is to do your duty." I would now make a few remarks as to what the noble and learned Earl said about the conditions of peace. The noble and learned Earl said he supposed the terms "complete local self-government" were used in order to square what we have done with the words of the Gracious Speech from the Throne. If the noble and learned Earl will believe me, these words were chosen simply because they expressed more clearly than others could the kind of position which we intended the Transvaal State should occupy. The whole matter is for the consideration of the Commissioners, who will take this general statement as a guide to their deliberations and communications with the Boer leaders——
EARL CAIRNS: Why does not that appear?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble and learned Earl will take it from me that it is so.
EARL CAIRNS: Where are the documents?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The documents say so; the Commission is to consider these points.
EARL CAIRNS: It does not say so.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then the noble and learned Earl may take it from me that I say so, and when he sees the instructions I have sent to the Commission he will see that it is so. The noble and learned Earl will find, perhaps, in the course of his career, that every point cannot be as clearly explained by telegraph as it can in a legal case. Well, the Commissioners will consider the whole subject, and it will undoubtedly
288
be open to them to consider whether this agreement may not be varied, and whether the final settlement should take some other form. We shall adhere with perfect honesty to what we have agreed to; but if the Commissioners think that there are arrangements which would more suitably carry out our intentions, it will will be open to them to report those arrangements to us with a view, if we should see fit, to their adoption. It is suggested that we have been very perversely ingenious in discovering the word Suzerain, and that we have given it some special meaning evolved out of our own consciousness; but, in the opinion of many persons well qualified to understand the meaning of words, it is the most appropriate term that could be used. I believe the word expresses very correctly the relation which we intend shall exist between this country and the Transvaal. Our intention is that the Transvaal shall have independent power as regards its internal government, and we shall only reserve certain powers to be exorcised by the Queen. Let us consider what the limitations are to be. The noble and learned Earl assumes that there is only the limitation of control over foreign relations. But there are other limitations. For instance, there is one dealing with arrangements for the protection of the Natives in the interior of the Transvaal. Now, with regard to our control over the relations of the Transvaal with foreign Powers. The noble and learned Earl thought it curious that we should have reserved a control of that kind, thinking, no doubt, that the relations of the Transvaal with foreign countries were very limited. But before the Transvaal was annexed the Republic had concluded Treaties with a large number of European Powers, and those Treaties existed at the time of the annexation. Therefore, the control which we propose to assume is not an altogether unimportant matter. It is quite clear that there ought to be, as regards foreign relations, only one Government in South Africa; that there ought to be no communication with foreign Powers upon any subject except through the Representative of the Queen. I come next to Frontier affairs, and I admit at once that the dealing with these Frontier affairs is, perhaps, the greatest difficulty of the whole subject. The late

289
Government were actuated by their apprehensions of Native disputes on the Transvaal Frontier to take the step of annexation. It was because of the embarrassment caused by the relations of the Transvaal to the Natives upon the Frontier that the Earl of Carnarvon advised the annexation of the territory. There may be some force in the argument that it is a dangerous thing to entangle ourselves with these Frontier difficulties. My answer is, that at no time have we been able to disentangle ourselves in South Africa from these Frontier questions. Long before the annexation we were continually remonstrating with the Transvaal Republic, and interfering between it and the Natives; and, in short, doing the very thing without authority which it is now proposed we should have the right to do. It is of vital importance that Frontier wars should not be undertaken in South Africa without our having an opportunity of expressing our views and using our influence for the purpose of preventing them. I do not see any insuperable difficulty in the way of a Resident in the capital of the new Transvaal State exercising a very salutary influence over the Government of the State; and, under the agreement which we may make with it, we may expect to be in a position to mediate between it and the Frontier Natives with far greater effect than if the matter were left untouched. The object of this settlement is to preserve all that was valuable in our position when we annexed the country. There would be no advantage to England in her having to manage the ordinary local affairs of the Transvaal. We have, in fact, been trying to carry out the spirit of the arrangement which the late Government made when the Transvaal was annexed. The next subject to which I shall advert is one of very great importance; I refer to the position of the Natives within the Transvaal itself. Upon this the noble and learned Earl will, I hope, forgive me for saying that he fell into a very natural mistake. He gave us a tremendous denunciation of slavery. I think, for my part, I have never been backward in expressing my hatred of slavery; and I thought I had shown, by the way in which I have spoken upon that subject, that I had paid some attention to the subject of slavery in the Transvaal. Anyone who took the
290
trouble to listen to mo when I last spoke on the subject will remember that I said that in earlier days there was slavery in the Transvaal; but that of late years slavery no longer existed. I am fully persuaded that during the last few years, though it may be possible there may have been cases of slavery in some homesteads, there has been no general system of slavery. It existed far longer in the two smaller Republics than in the South African Republic in which they were finally absorbed. The whole, therefore, of the terrific denunciation of slavery which the noble and learned Earl addressed to us was simply a creation of his own imagination. It may be some satisfaction to the noble and learned Earl to know that the stipulation which was made at the Sand River Convention will be renewed.
EARL CAIRNS: That stipulation has always been disregarded.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg to differ from the noble and learned Earl. I am absolutely convinced that for some years past there has practically been no slavery in the Transvaal. To say, as the noble and learned Earl said, that we are handing over hundreds of thousands of Natives to a condition of slavery is purely, utterly, and entirely a figment. There are, I think, three other points referred to by the noble and learned Earl. First, there are the Royal Commissioners and the instructions to be given to them. The noble and learned Earl used extremely strong language when he was speaking of the position of our troops in the Transvaal. But the noble and learned Earl is mistaken in what he says upon this subject. The absolute condition of the whole of these arrangements—the condition on which we have insisted throughout, is that the armed force of the Boers was to disperse. I would just ask the noble and learned Earl what he understands the position of the troops in South Africa to be at this moment. He spoke of the recall of all the troops.
EARL CAIRNS: It was announced by authority that the troops were to be recalled.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then the noble and learned Earl is misinformed. No troops have been recalled. No doubt, the noble and learned. Earl refers to the four regiments which were ordered not to proceed, and to the fact

291
that General Roberts is to return home. That is so far true. But I hope it will be some satisfaction to the noble and learned Earl to know that there is still a very strong force in the country, amounting to 12,000 men, including those actually in the Transvaal. I would ask the noble and learned Earl to reflect in what position the Boers will be. They are now relying on our good faith. They have dispersed to their own homes. Is that a position on our part of utter weakness; is it altogether disgraceful to us that the enemy has dispersed? I should be sorry to intimate that we mean to take advantage of this to depart from the arrangements which we have entered into. Nothing could be further from our intention. But that is the position in which the Boers are left. The Commissioners are to visit the Transvaal. Sir Evelyn Wood himself is about to proceed to the capital of the Transvaal to make such arrangements as may be necessary to carry on the administration. Is that a humiliating position? It appears to me to be a considerable surrender to us, and leaves us in a position where we can deal with the matter. So much for the position of the troops. Then with respect to the surrender of Potchefstroom. In this matter there is no doubt that it may be necessary to take steps to assert our rights. But the noble and learned Earl is far more fiery. He wonders why 10 seconds were allowed to elapse without our revenging this insult. I am glad the noble and learned Earl did not occupy my situation or command our troops. I cannot imagine anything more calamitous than to flash forth orders to revenge what might turn out hereafter to have been only imaginary bad faith. Sir Evelyn Wood has not taken the same views as those of the noble and learned Earl. He has written, saying—" Pray suspend judgment until I send you all the facts." Sir Evelyn Wood is a prudent and responsible man—too prudent to give the advice which the noble and learned Earl has tendered to us to-night. I have explained, to a certain extent, the course which will be followed. It will be my duty to address instructions to the Commissioners, in which a far fuller explanation will be given than has been possible in telegrams, and in which the whole course of our policy will be dealt with. I have, I believe, dealt with every point of the noble and learned Earl's
292
speech. My Lords, I am far from saying that there is much to boast of. I am not one of those who fall into ecstacies at the peace as if a great success had been obtained. But when we come to talk of humiliation, I think that the real humiliation would have been if for a mere point of honour, when we know that we cannot hold this country, that it is impossible to hold it with any proper regard for the interests of our Colonies in South Africa or of the whole Empire, that even if we had conquered the country we could not hold it, and when practical terms could be made which would, in our opinion, secure all that is valuable to retain, we had stood in the way of the acceptance of such terms. That would have been a humiliation to which I, for one, would never have been a party.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The noble Earl who has just spoken has invited attention to topics which were left out of consideration by my noble and learned Friend. The noble Earl has gone back to the question of annexation, and upon that point I am perfectly willing to meet him. The fact is that there is a great deal which might be said upon that subject, and which has been said, not by the late Government alone, but by those who supported the late Government in the House of Commons, who vindicated the annexation of the Transvaal. Among these I might recall to the noble Earl's attention a distinguished Member of the present Cabinet, Mr. Forster. I might call attention to a speech by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brabourne), who went fully into this question, and showed that the country was not annexed from any greed of power. I suppose the noble Earl would consider himself responsible for what has been said upon the subject by Members of his Government since it came into Office. I will, therefore, refer to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 31st of August last. Subsequent to the failure of the Confederation there was a debate in the House of Commons, in which Mr. Chamberlain spoke—Mr. Chamberlain, who is a Colleague of the noble Earl, and he thoroughly repudiated the notion that it was taken over hastily by the present Government. He said—" When the present Government came into Office it considered this question most carefully."

293
Therefore, there can be no doubt on this point. What said the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was put up to answer Mr. Courtney on that occasion? Speaking in August last year, he said—
"I firmly believe that if Sir Theophilus Shepstone had held his hand, and had not annexed the Transvaal, before very long the South African Republic would have fallen like a ripe fruit; and however much any of us—and, certainly, I have been one of them—dislike the idea of having to take charge of the South African Republic, I do believe that within a few mouths the cry for protection from the people of the Transvaal would have become so strong that it could not have been resisted by a civilized Government…… If ever there was an occasion on which it was right to complete the legal maxim and say Fieri non debuit (that is as to time) factum valet, this is the occasion. Not only has the annexation of the Transvaal been accepted by three different Secretaries of State, of very different characters and political tendencies, but it has been accepted and ratified by two Cabinets, which are so diverse that they may be said to represent almost every element which exists in British political life.…. In the existing state of affairs, no one who wishes well to that country—the Transvaal—as a portion of Her Majesty's Dominions will desire any Constitutional changes to be made."—[3 Hansard, cclvi. 874–5–6–9.]
Therefore, the Government of the day—the present Government—when it came in gave careful consideration to the question of annexation, and in spite of the speeches which the chief of that Government made in Mid Lothian, and to which I attribute mainly the rising which has taken place—I do not hesitate to say of those speeches, the language used, and the application made of it by the leaders of the Boers, that it might be shown that through those speeches, and not through annexation, has the rising taken place—in spite of those speeches, and notwithstanding the way in which the chief of the Government pledged himself, yet when the Government came carefully to consider the whole subject, they came to the conclusion that the Transvaal was to be maintained as part of Her Majesty's Dominions—that she was to retain her sovereignty over it. The noble Earl has read one portion of the extract with regard to the instructions given to Sir Hercules Robinson. He read the portion which declared that when the authority of the Crown had been vindicated, and the maintenance of tranquillity was firmly assured, terms would be discussed; and then the despatch goes on—
294
"When this has been effected, consider the best means of assuring the Dutch settlers such full control of their local affairs as may be consistent with the general interests of Her Majesty's dominions in South Africa, and with the obligations which have been incurred by this country to the very large Native population in the Transvaal."
The noble Earl cannot deny that the Dutch Boers of the Transvaal treated the Natives, whether by slavery or not, in a manner wholly alien to British rule, and which has not taken place since the annexation of the Transvaal in 1877. Since that time the Natives have been under British dominion and under British justice, and they have had means of appealing to British Courts and defending themselves against wrong. The noble Earl gives no answer to the passage from Sir Owen Lanyon's despatch to show what is the spirit in which the Boers deal with the Natives. Is it or is it not true that they are wantonly shot down? At the beginning of this rising their property was taken from them, and they were made to supply the commissariat of the Boers, who abound in flocks and herds. The interests of 700,000 Natives had been set aside, and the Boers had been allowed to bear down the scale against them in the most disgraceful manner. I say you are lowering the British name, you are lowering the British standard of right and wrong, you are taking away the protection you are bound to give to these people. And do not tell me that, by having a Resident at Pretoria, and by controlling the foreign relations of the Transvaal, you will protect the Natives when you withdraw your garrisons from the country. There is no law that can be exercised unless it is backed by force in the ultimate result, and when you withdraw force you withdraw British law. When the noble Earl told us the position in which we stand in consequence of the arrangements made, he did not say that we occupy a very proud position, he says our position is not a very humiliating one. It is not a pleasant position—it is a disagreeable position; but it is not one which may affect the honour of the British nation. Now, what is it? The Boers were encamped at Laing's Nek—not in the Transvaal, but in the Colony of Natal. They have thrice, indeed, if we count the massacre which took place of Colonel Anstruther's troops, they have four times inflicted defeats on British forces, and

295
they were in possession of Laing's Nek, not part of the Transvaal. You say they have dispersed. You know they have left Laing's Nek; but you do not know that they have dispersed.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: They have left Laing's Nek.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Is that "a real dispersion," to quote the words used in one of the telegrams? What is a real dispersion? You have no means of knowing. You have no force in the Transvaal. The Boors have retired from Laing's Nek. They may be within five miles of it, and they may be called together at the sound of a trumpet at any moment. You, on the other hand, have agreed that even in Natal your forces are not to move in the direction of Laing's Nek. That being so, you are tied and they are free. You have never entered the Transvaal; you have never tested its loyalty, and I say one of the greatest wrongs you are doing is that you are surrendering your friends to your enemies without making the slightest pretence to defend those who have been loyal to you. You do not know what the real feelings of the people of the Transvaal are, because they have not had an opportunity of asserting them. Your garrisons are small, and they are hemmed in by superior forces; and, therefore, it is perfectly clear that there are at the present moment in the Transvaal many persons attached to British rule whom you are going to leave behind you; I will not say leave behind you, for you have left there; but there are many persons in the country who look to you for protection. They are shut up in the towns with the garrisons. We find one of the garrisons has been called upon to surrender, even during the Armistice, and that at a time when provisions were near at hand. It is a remarkable fact that Sir Evelyn Wood appears to be by no means sanguine of peace. At present there is a shadowy outline drawn, and this has to be filled in by the Commission, and then sent home for the assent of the Government here. And all this was done with regard to three gentlemen who had taken upon themselves to represent the Transvaal. Sir Evelyn Wood objected to their being representatives; but the noble Earl said they were to be accepted. Sir Evelyn Wood would have compelled certain
296
persons not to reside within the Transvaal; but the noble Earl said—" You must give an amnesty to everybody, unless it is something contrary to the laws of civilized warfare." Therefore, you are dealing with the matter in a way contrary to that recommended by the officer on the spot. A telegram dated the 17th of March states what was passing through his mind as to the negotiations. It is stated in a subsequent telegram that the Commissioners are to consider the question of Native affairs. But what is the use of considering the question of Native affairs when the people whom you admit to be at the head of the Boer conspiracy mean to have the entire control of their interior affairs, including Native affairs? When you have nothing but a Resident in Pretoria, with a country as large as France, do you suppose that he can protect the Natives or exercise any effective control on behalf of the Natives? With regard to the term suzerainty, no doubt, as it has been explained by the noble Earl, it is sovereignty a good deal watered down, and probably it will gradually fade away in a dissolving mist. What is the length of the duration of the Transvaal Republic of which the noble Earl spoke? Why, 19 years of miserable government, or, as Sir Garnet Wolseley called it, of mischievous and indolent government. The Transvaal Republic dragged on until it was unable to raise taxes, punish crime, or perform any other function of government; it ultimately had only 12 s. 6d. in its Treasury, and it had become a nuisance to all its neighbours. This country, under these circumstances, saved it from a Zulu invasion, and also from Secocoeni, who had defeated it before; and the men who had been protected by us in every way have turned against the British, not having been ashamed to take British money and become servants under Her Majesty. I am puzzled, my Lords, to know when and how it was that Her Majesty's Government arrived at a conclusion so totally different from that to which they came when they wrote to Sir Hercules Robinson, and when the Speech from the Throne declared that the Queen's authority over the Transvaal would be vindicated. It is impossible for anyone not to connect in his mind what has taken place on this subject with opinions of certain Members of the Government.

297
We know that at least one Member of the Government has generally been considered to belong to the school which advocates peace at any price, or, at all events, advocates peace so strongly that there is hardly any humiliation to which he would not subject his country rather than break it. We have seen letters which show what the tone of mind of certain Members of the Government was. I should be glad, therefore, to know what were the reasons which induced the noble Earl opposite to depart from the policy worthy of this country which was put forth in the Queen's Speech? And I must say that of all the extraordinary charges ever made by a statesman the charge made by the noble Earl to-night was the most extraordinary—namely, that we on this side are, from Party spirit, taking the course we now pursue. Why is it to be said that we are guilty of Party spirit in urging the policy which was declared in the Queen's Speech, but which Her Majesty's Government now appear to have repudiated without any reason, except that the arms of this country have sustained humiliating defeats? At all events, it cannot be doubted that the change of policy came after those defeats. One of the most remarkable things connected with the negotiations is that the word "submission" was suggested by President Brand; because he, being a statesman of some note, and a patriot of even greater note than a statesman, felt that no country placed in the position in which England was could consent to give everything to the Boers unless they tendered their submission first. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies was afraid of those Colonists of the Cape who are of Dutch blood taking the side of the Boers of the Transvaal. Now, it is a curious fact that, while the negotiations were going on, and after almost the worst thing which had happened to us had occurred, a Member of the Legislative Council of the Cape, Mr. Hofmeyer, telegraphed to Mr. Joubert, hearing of the peace that was likely to ensue, and then telling the Boer leaders what they ought to do. Mr. Hofmeyer said that—
"In any case, before the Commission could be appointed, either the British arms must have conquered, or the Boers must have given a tangible proof of submission in the eyes of the world."
298
What does that show? That two patriotic men of the Dutch race are in favour of the policy expressed in the Queen's Speech, and which, I think, has been abandoned—I will not say so disgracefully, but in so humiliating a manner. Those men feel that a great country cannot afford to be dealt with in the way in which the Boers have dealt with us. I say that the course which you have pursued in South Africa, viewed as it must be in relation to the events which have taken place, will be attributed throughout the world not to your magnanimity, but to your fear of disaster and defeat. The noble Earl opposite has himself urged that our force, instead of being overwhelming, was wholly inadequate, because, if the struggle had gone on, the whole Dutch race in South Africa might have turned against us. After arguing in that way the noble Earl can hardly claim credit for a great display of magnanimity.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not say I thought we had been magnanimous.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I am glad, at all events, that the noble Earl gives up the claim to magnanimity; but I have seen that character assigned to the transaction. The noble Earl dwelt on the importance of having one foreign policy for all the White population in South Africa. I think, however, that the course which Her Majesty's Government have adopted is calculated to frustrate a union of the White race in that part of the world. English supremacy has been admitted for a good many years in South Africa, and any bad feeling in regard to it on the part of the Dutch Settlers may, however numerically large, be supposed to have long vanished. But it will be a very different thing if the Dutch flag is now to take the place of the English flag in the Transvaal. The humiliation attending these transactions will not be confined to the particular spot, but will extend to all the British Dominions throughout the globe. And when the noble Earl tells us that this policy will be for the benefit of the South African Colonies, let him look at the Colonial papers and see how the matter is viewed by all the Colonies. The people of Natal, many of whom went to the Transvaal, complain that you have betrayed the confidence which they placed in you when the annexation was

299
effected, To be British subjects was a pride to many persons in the Transvaal, who, if they are to be abandoned, will have a right to complain; and much the same thing may be said of the Natives. I am very anxious not to repeat points on which my noble and learned Friend has spoken; and, indeed, it seems to me that the question is a very simple one. It is this—Is it for the advantage of the country and the Colonies that we should, at a time when, according to Sir Evelyn Wood, the Boers admitted the certainty of our victory, withdraw from a dominion we have undertaken, not for our own aggrandisement, but for the benefit of the people of South Africa? I say most distinctly that we have no right—no moral right—to withdraw, and to recede from the engagements to which we are pledged. I will give an instance of what happened in former times. We were defeated by Pretorius in Natal; but he saw that we were in a superior position and gave up. Now, why are we to assume that, when a General like Sir Evelyn Wood could have taken positions that would have dominated Laing's Nek, bloodshed must have ensued? It might be that the Boers would have retreated, and that the English might have marched into the Transvaal without further bloodshed. But how have you treated your noble Army? You have made it stand by while its enemies retired from it in derision, and in possession of trophies snatched from us by treachery. As for these trophies, it is the fact that on two occasions, by means of the white flag, the Boers have got within shooting distance of our forces. The truth is that you have caused the most unfortunate feelings among those whom you sent out to fight the battles of the Queen, and having given them the idea that their first duty was to vindicate her authority, you have withdrawn them, and have betrayed the people under your charge. Probably this peace will not be durable, as, according to the noble Earl himself, it is no more than an outline that ought to be filled up. It would have been better to have advanced and to have shown your strength first, and then to have displayed your mercy and kindness and liberality to the people, who would acknowledge your domination; but you have adopted a policy which will destroy the belief in the strength of England,
300
and cause it to be imagined that we are afraid to meet the Boers in actual conflict. You have spread that illusion throughout South Africa, and the consequence may be bloodshed hereafter—oceans of bloodshed, far greater than would have been caused now by the vindication of the authority of the Queen, and upon your heads that bloodshed will rest when it comes.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble Viscount complained that Her Majesty's Government did not, immediately after their assumption of Office, revoke the annexation of the Transvaal, and reverse the policy of their Predecessors.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I did not say that.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: If that was not what was meant, he was at a loss to understand the criticisms of the noble Viscount. The annexation of the Transvaal was approved by many eminent men, but disapproved by many others, amongst the latter being several Members of the present Government; and when the present Government succeeded to power, they had to consider, not whether the Transvaal should or should not be annexed, but whether, under the circumstances of the time, it would be wise to cancel the annexation. They had before them information from Sir Garnet Wolseley and Sir Owen Lanyon, who were believed to be best qualified to form an opinion on the subject, and who considered that matters were settling down, and that the rule of Her Majesty over the Transvaal would be accepted by the Boers. In this condition of things he contended that they were right in not at once reversing the policy of their Predecessors, but endeavouring, if possible, to reconcile the Boers to the rule of the Queen, by the grant to them of local self-government, in connection with the proposed federation of the South African territories. Even so late as a few days before the outbreak, Sir Owen Lanyon thought the agitation would cease with the grant of representative institutions; and Sir George Colley termed the movements of the Boers "spasmodic efforts of disaffection." The noble Viscount had not endeavoured to reply to the answers given by his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) to the speech of the noble and learned Earl; but before he (the

301
Earl of Northbrook) addressed himself to the main question before the House, he would allude to some incidental remarks of the noble Viscount. He had asked if the Boers had dispersed to their homes. Her Majesty's Government had not sufficient information to enable them to answer the question fully. They knew that the Boers had withdrawn from Laing's Nek; but they were unable to say positively that they had dispersed to their homes. He trusted they would carry out their engagements loyally and properly; otherwise, it would be for the Government to consider what course they would take, and they had an ample force at their disposal. The noble Viscount had, to some extent, miscalculated the number of the troops in Natal and the Transvaal. They originally numbered 3,500, and the reinforcements amounted to about 9,000 more, besides the regiments that had been countermanded. Considering that we were dealing with so small a population as the Boers in the Transvaal, the force in Natal under the command of Sir Evelyn Wood was likely to be sufficient to give a good account of any opposition that would probably be brought against him. The noble Viscount had tried to make it appear that the word "suzerainty" had no value whatever. As the noble Viscount had been for some time Secretary of State for India, he ought to be aware that the word had a very well-known meaning, and that the subordinate State could not enter into relations with foreign Powers excepting through the Suzerain, or, to use the Indian phrase, the Paramount Power. This was precisely the position which the State of the Transvaal would occupy with respect to the British Empire. The noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had, on the authority of a newspaper extract, the date of which he had not given, but which he (the Earl of Northbrook) believed was written four years ago, hung some eloquent periods on the evils of slavery; and although the statement might have been correct at the time it was written it did not show the state of affairs now. The noble Viscount who had just spoken had asserted that in the arrangements for peace the interests of the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal would be neglected. As far as he knew, there was not the slightest evidence for this assertion. One of the main objects of his
302
noble Friend in the negotiations would be that on both sides there should be a complete amnesty for what had passed, and to secure the entire protection of the loyal inhabitants from any injury in consequence of their not having favoured the insurgents. The noble Viscount implied that he thought it was necessary that the war should be continued for the honour of the British arms. But was it really the fact that the small actions which had taken place—none of which, with the exception of Laing's Nek, could be called serious, and in which our soldiers fought against large odds—could so affect the honour of the British Army that it was necessary to continue a war in order to wipe out the disgrace? Was that really the noble Viscount's opinion? If it was, he might tell him, at any rate, that his opinion did not coincide with that of Sir Evelyn Wood, who, he should think, had the honour of the British Army as much at heart as the noble Viscount. Sir Evelyn Wood, in a telegram now before the House, said that none of the actions could be regarded as so important as to affect our prestige. To his (the Earl of Northbrook's) view, to say they must continue this war against the Boers to uphold the honour of the British Army was a most unfortunate and humiliating admission to be made by anyone in that House, and most of all by a noble Lord who at one time filled the Office of Secretary of State for War. He would now say a few words upon the main question before the House. It had been clearly proved by his noble Friend behind him that the negotiations which led to the conclusion of peace were not opened by Her Majesty's Government after a defeat, as was contended by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns); but that almost immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, and before the first battle—that at Laing's Nek—was fought, Her Majesty's Government had informed President Brand of their desire to make a settlement, "provided only the Boers would desist from their armed opposition." That was the real point of the whole question which was now before their Lordships. He held that the Government were right to express a desire to settle this question; and, so far from it being a humiliation to this country, he maintained that it would have been disgraceful to any Ministry if they had,

303
in consequence of the reverses of our troops, withdrawn from their previous assurances, and determined to subdue by force of arms a free people who did not desire to be under our rule. The noble and learned Earl had asked how it was that President Brand was mixed up in the matter. President Brand felt that the hostilities were a serious calamity to South Africa; and, as the President of a friendly State, he considered it his duty to prevent, if possible, the further shedding of blood. He (the Earl of Northbrook) wished that he could have noticed in the speeches of noble Lords opposite some concern for the condition of South Africa, or the slightest desire to prevent the shedding of blood. Would it have been right for the Government, after the assurances they had given President Brand, to have receded from their engagement merely because of reverses to a handful of their troops? That was the question which their Lordships had to consider. The Boers had unreservedly accepted the condition of desisting from armed opposition; and the rest of the conditions, he believed, would be such as their Lordships would approve. What, in fact, did Her Majesty's Government fail to secure? Did noble Lords opposite desire that the Queen's authority should be imposed upon the Transvaal by force? Were they not satisfied with the control this country was to exercise over the foreign relations of the Transvaal, and with the powers proposed to be conferred upon the Royal Commissioners? After all, the difference could only be on questions of detail; and he had not heard from noble Lords opposite a single substantial objection to the terms of peace. All he had heard was a protest against making peace on any terms, in consequence of the misfortunes which had happened to our arms. The noble Viscount had alluded to the speeches made by the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian. He (the Earl of Northbrook) did not understand why noble Lords opposite were so fond of referring to speeches which had done so much to procure the defeat of the Conservative Party at the late General Election. The particular speech was one in which the Prime Minister referred to the disastrous policy of "pride and passion" pursued by the late Government; and his attack could not have found a better illustration than in the speeches of the noble
304
and learned Earl and the noble Viscount opposite—speeches which breathed the same spirit which led to our war with the American Colonies. From first to last there was not in those speeches a single word indicative of a desire to settle the unfortunate troubles in the Transvaal by any other means than force, or a single suggestion as to how a condition of affairs, due entirely to their own policy as Members of the late Government, could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that the whole arrangement entered into by Her Majesty's Government was one which inflicted deep humiliation upon the country; and it was astonishing that so manly and straightforward an Englishman as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have lent his countenance to it. The noble Earl who had last spoken appeared not to realize the full force of the accusation brought against Her Majesty's Government, which was that between the date of the delivery of the Queen's Speech and the conclusion of peace with the Boers a total change of opinion on their part had occurred, of which no explanation had been given. Why was it that at the date of the delivery of the Queen's Speech submission of the Boers to the Queen's authority was a condition precedent to any negotiations, while now, without any such condition, the Boers were to have all they wished for? Peace had been obtained, not by a vindication of the Queen's authority in the Transvaal, but by the surrender of everything claimed by the Boers at the beginning of the insurrection. The Boers had not submitted. They had, it was true, retired to their homes; but they had not consented to lay down their arms until they had obtained every one of the terms on which they had from the outset of the war insisted. As to the question of slavery, to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) had alluded, the whole course of Boer history was shaped by the belief that they bad a right to subjugate the Native races. They trekked first of all to the Orange Free State, then to Natal, and then across the Drakensberg into the Transvaal; but wherever they settled they had kept up that institution of slavery which they had carried with them from the beginning, and for which they were now fighting. If, then, we removed from them the pres-

305
sure of British laws, we should only be enabling them to continue a state of things which they had, until the annexation, contrived to maintain, and the trade in black ivory, as it was called, would still go on. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he might add, spoke of the relationship in blood and religion between the inhabitants of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State as being such that the latter, in all probability, would have been drawn into the war. That possibility might be so; but would not the feelings, he would ask, to which Mr. Kruger referred when he spoke of Africa for the Africander, and to which the noble Earl alluded, have been better met by imposing terms on the Boers after we had driven them back to their own country than by making concessions to them which to many appeared to carry with them the stigma of disgrace? For his own part, he could not help thinking that the former would have been the more prudent policy. Sir Garnet Wolseley, in a speech which he made in 1877, speaking in his official capacity as Lord High Commissioner, said there was no Government, Whig or Tory, Liberal or Radical, which would, under any circumstances, dare to give back the Transvaal. That was the declaration of your own Administrator in South Africa, and he would ask the House to compare it with the words of Sir Evelyn Wood, under the orders of the present Government. The loyal Boers had been mentioned in the course of the debate; but not a word had been said as to the loyal English population in the Transvaal. He, however, knew many persons who, after the annexation, invested all their savings in the purchase of land in that country, and he wished to know what was to become of them; for the terms which had been made with the Boers did not contain a single stipulation in their favour. They were numerous; some said they formed even a majority of the White population, and it was a scandal that they should be ruined in purse and person as well as in honour by the capitulation of the Government. Coming to the question of the meaning of the term suzerainty, he pointed out that no analogy could be drawn from India, as the state of affairs there was wholly different from that which existed, or could be expected to exist, in Natal, where homage,
306
fealty, and investiture were impossible. As to the Military Service, he could hardly suppose that the Government were going to ask the Boers to fight England's battles. They were told that it was important that Suzerainty should be preserved in connection with the foreign relations of the Transvaal. But what would those foreign relations be? They could only be concerned with questions of peace and war; and what would be the use of declaring that the Boers should not make war, except with our sanction, after they had waged successful war upon ourselves? Unless very strong garrisons were to be kept in the Transvaal, stipulations of that kind must be utterly vain, idle, and futile. Nothing remained but a bare understanding, which the Boers might throw over at any time. He held that our position in connection with the Boers would be much the same as the present position of the Sultan of Turkey in connection with Cyprus—that is, we should possess the husk of a nut whose kernel had been extracted. Referring to the Commissioners, he said they would not be backed by any force, and that, consequently, their award would possibly not be respected, unless it met with the entire approval of the Boers. But he understood that no agreement had been made as to the manner in which the award was to be enforced. At any rate, they had received no information about it. Alluding to the attack upon the 94th Regiment, he expressed a hope that his noble Friend opposite would give the House an assurance that the question of the massacre of that regiment would be referred to the Commission for adjudication and report. We had taken over the Transvaal out of pure charity when it was in an altogether bankrupt condition; and he desired to know whether one of the questions to be referred to the Commission was to be that of the repayment of the £200,000 which they had obtained from the Imperial Treasury? He thought the position of the loyal Colonists ought to be considered, and that they ought to have the expenditure incurred by them, on the faith of Imperial Proclamations and High Commissioners' speeches, secured to them, or be indemnified in one way or other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, whatever may be said in favour of the views put before your Lordships

307
to-night by my noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns), and those who succeeded him on his side of the House, at all events the time has been somewhat unfortunately chosen. There might have been some justification if all the arrangements between this country and the Boers had been brought to a conclusion, whether successfully or unsuccessfully; if either a lasting peace had been secured, or negotiations had failed, then my noble and learned Friend might have been justified in proposing a Vote of Censure against the Government, or in expressing his own personal censure of what had been done. But to do so at this moment, just after the basis of peace has been agreed upon, and just before the Commission is to meet to settle arrangements by which this basis is to be carried into effect, to choose this particular moment to prophesy the possible bad faith of the Boers, and the possible want of power in the British Government to enforce those arrangements—to prophesy that what has been stipulated in our favour may never be carried into effect, to magnify and enhance the difficulties attendant on those stipulations which are most in our favour, and to depreciate their value, and, on the other hand, to exaggerate all that is favourable to the Boers, even to the extent of giving to the future State a name which has not yet been agreed upon, may, perhaps, appear to my noble and learned Friend a wise and a patriotic course; but I am persuaded it will not commend itself to the country as calculated to facilitate the performance of the duty of the Commissioners. There is no better master of minute, destructive criticism than my noble and learned Friend. He has criticized the terms of peace word by word, and has tried to discover inconsistencies, retractations of purpose, changes of opinion. But the country will not look upon the matter with such minute criticism. The country will simply ask whether what has been done is wise in policy, just in principle, and honourable to this country. I am persuaded that the country will approve our policy as wise, just, and honourable, in the circumstances of the case. First, was it wise? We have to consider what has been so powerfully urged by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the evils which would have
308
arisen in South Africa by a prolongation of the war. It is not that the power of this country would be insufficient to meet the dangers of war with the Boers, or, for that matter, with all the forces which might have been combined against us, in any conceivable development of the war. But the Government had to consider the welfare of the populations of South Africa. Nothing could be more miserable for this country than to be driven into a general contest of race, a contest with the whole White population of South Africa, of kindred race to the Boers. Such a contest would be at variance with the whole spirit of our Government. We should have to establish a dominion of conquest totally different in character from any which we could ever have intended or desired. The Government which preceded us supposed that they had the consent of the great body of the people of the Transvaal to the annexation. It is a most difficult matter to judge whether they were, in this respect, misled by false information, or whether, under the difficulties and embarrassments of that time, a majority of the people of the Transvaal were really indifferent, or for the moment favourable to the change. If the late Government had not believed this, I am quite persuaded that nothing would have induced them to seek to annex that country. And I am further persuaded that if they could have foreseen how utterly false and hollow the state of opinion was on which they had been led to rely, and that in so short a time an insurrection would take place, which could hold its ground, and beleaguer our garrisons, without so much even as a counter movement or demonstration in our favour from those who were supposed to be well affected to British rule, they never would have been willing to place the British Crown in so false a position. It is a position which it would not have been wise to assume, and which it cannot be wise forcibly to retain. If, therefore, an opportunity has occurred of getting out of this miserable war by a righteous peace instead of by conquest, it was right and wise to avail ourselves of that opportunity. And, my Lords, by the terms which have been so much abused we have relinquished nothing which it was desirable to obtain. The terms were ours; the Boers made

309
overtures to us. We did not make any overtures. These terms were accepted by the Boers, being essentially different from anything which they had ever proposed. They are such as sufficiently to realize our own views as to what was desirable to be done for the future of the country. My noble and learned Friend has referred to the passage in the Queen's Speech in which an intention was expressed to give full control over their own local affairs to the European inhabitants of the Transvaal. My noble and learned Friend said that that passage necessarily meant something different from the arrangements which have now been made. I totally deny that. I say, with perfect confidence, that arrangements such as those which have now been agreed upon were among the various alternatives which would have been at that time open to us for the purpose in view; we had formed no resolutions with which they would have been inconsistent. They were perfectly open to us, and were at that time quite as likely as any others. Then as to suzerainty. It was said that this does not mean sovereignty. No doubt, the word "suzerainty" rather than "sovereignty" has been intentionally used, to mark a difference. It involves, however, the ultimate principle of sovereignty. My noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) has happily expressed it, as an 'over-lordship.' Suzerainty means nothing if it does not mean that the Suzerain is lord paramount of the people who are subject to it. When it is said that these are the terms which the Boers themselves asked for, I should like to ask when the Boers proposed anything about subjection to us, or proposed to acknowledge the British suzerainty? Then, as to the control of their foreign and Frontier relations, when did the Boers propose that? The control of foreign and Frontier relations essentially distinguishes a paramount Power. No war can be made upon adjoining Native tribes, no Treaty can be made with Portugal or any European Power, except by the authority of this country. With regard, also, to the Native inhabitants of the Transvaal, towards whom, undoubtedly, in the Queen's Speech we had expressed our sense of obligation, we have made a stipulation, which at no time formed part of any Boer terms. The conditions we have laid down, therefore,
310
touch the foreign relations of the Boers, the Frontier relations of the Boers, and the Native relations of the Boers. My noble and learned Friend referred, also, to the mention of a possible separation of the territory to the eastward of the principal part of the Boer State. The great mass of the Native population reside in that territory, and the European population in it is very small; and it may be, that in such a separation the most convenient means may be found of giving to the Native population that protection which they are entitled to expect from us. On that point, no resolution could, as yet, be taken; but it is certainly not from the Boers, that the suggestion of such a separation of territory has proceeded. I shall not stop to deal with the noble and learned Earl's criticisms on the powers of the Resident and the Commission. The Resident will be there to represent the suzerainty Power, and to give effect to all the reservations in which the Suzerain Power is interested. With regard to the loyal population, it is stipulated that no person shall be molested who has taken part in the war, or on account of his political opinions. This is the engagement entered into, and we have no reason to suppose that the Boers will act in bad faith. As to the affair at Potchefstroom, details have not arrived; but I know nothing in the conduct of the Boer leaders which should lead me to suppose that they have been parties to an act of treachery, or will refuse proper reparation for it, if it has been committed by others, or that, in other respects, they will not act honourably upon the engagements they have made. Reference has been made to a great many loyal Dutch and British subjects who are supposed to be in the Transvaal. I do not know upon what authority that statement is made; but what I do know is, that these numerous and loyal subjects were either not numerous enough, or not energetic enough, or not loyal enough, to rise on our behalf, or to prevent our garrisons from being beleaguered. My noble and learned Friend asks, what proof we have that the persons with whom we negotiated had the authority or the power to bind the Boers generally, or to carry through the arrangement which they have agreed to? My answer is, that the only persons with whom, in a case of insurrec-

311
tion, it is ever possible to negotiate, are those who are the actual leaders in arms, who are the commanders of the forces in the field, and at the head of the whole organization of government which represents the insurrection. To say that we are never to negotiate terms of peace with such persons, under such circumstances, without some formal and technical proof of their authority, is equivalent to saying that no terms of peace can ever be negotiated in a war of this kind. I think that argument only shows that as much fault is being found with the arrangement as legal ingenuity could suggest. I think, for these reasons, that we have made a wise arrangement, and that on the ground of policy it is perfectly justifiable. I hold, also, that it is as just in principle as it is wise in policy. There are certain considerations to which few of us will be found insensible. If ever there was a war of an unhappy character it was this war. In the first place, these Boers were not men whose pursuits or habits would naturally lead them to go to war. They are most closely connected with the inhabitants in the Orange Free State, and there is a large Dutch population in the Cape Colony with whom they are also connected by family ties; so that it was something like being at war with our own flesh and blood, not in the general, but in a closer sense. If we regard the question as we ought to regard it, the Dutch population of the Transvaal is entitled to much consideration. What were the prior circumstances? Can we honestly impute rebellion to people who never assented to the annexation? Their leaders have always protested against it; and, no doubt, had the Government then in power been informed of the real state of the facts that annexation would never have taken place. To refuse to arrive at a peaceful settlement, when we had a fair opportunity of doing so, would have been, in these circumstances, and on all points of morality as well as policy, utterly unjustifiable. But it is said, if this is our present view, why did we speak of vindicating the Queen's authority, and send troops into the field for that purpose, at the beginning of the Session? The answer is obvious. The Boers were then in active insurrection, had given no sign of any disposition to lay down their arms on such terms as might
312
appear to us consistent with the dignity of the Crown, had made no overtures for peace. We did, at the time, the only thing which it was possible for any Government to do. But when the insurgents began to evince a desire for peace, the situation was altered. It was not only by conquests in the field that such a vindication of the Queen's authority as we thought necessary might be accomplished. And this brings me to the last question—Whether we have done what was honourable, under the circumstances? I utterly repudiate the idea that we have suffered what is called humiliation. If, when overtures were made to us, we had summarily rejected them, we should have been most justly censurable, and I think none would have been more prominent in censuring us than my noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns). Overtures came to us, first, through the President of the Orange Free State, and afterwards from the Boer leaders themselves. They were actually made before the first of those three unfortunate engagements which took place, beginning with Lang's Nek. I feel as much as any of your Lordships can do for every disaster which may befall British troops; but we must not forget, when considering the character of a disaster, in what circumstances it took place. These were attacks made by our own troops on a strong position occupied by the Boers, made most gallantly in a manner to which no fault can be imputed, unless it be too much boldness in venturing on a very difficult undertaking with an exceedingly small and inadequate force. There is no dishonour to British troops in the repulse of an attack under such circumstances. Were we on that account, when we had received overtures direct from the Boer leaders, to repel those overtures? We had sent word, before the third of those unfortunate actions, that we were willing to entertain them; but the answer was delayed from circumstances which we did not understand. Sir George Colley waited for some days beyond the time appointed, and then, with an inadequate force, the operation at Majuba Hill was undertaken. When the answer of the Boer leaders came, it was favourable to the progress of negotiations. Were we, then, because those three attacks made by our gallant troops under circumstances so disadvantageous

313
had resulted in disaster, to depart from our previous intention of, at least, ascertaining whether peace could be made upon terms which we thought satisfactory? The British nation is too powerful, and its power is too well understood, to require to be vindicated in any such manner. Was there in the terms no assertion of the Queen's sovereignty—no vindication of her authority? The Boers agreed to disperse and to lay down their arms.
EARL CAIRNS: There is no agreement to that effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words were not used; but the substance of the thing was there. They carried their arms; but they were no longer to be used for purposes of hostility against us. I state it as I understand it, and I believe I understand it aright. They were to disperse; they were no longer to be in the field in arms against us; they acknowledged the Queen's supremacy; they were to receive an amnesty, which could only be granted by a superior Power; and our Commissioners were to negotiate the particular arrangements by which the terms agreed upon were to be carried out. We dictated those terms; we thought the terms sufficient, and the Boer leaders accepted them. It appears to me, in those circumstances, that if we had continued the war we should have done excessively wrong. My noble and learned Friend said that we put our garrisons in the position of hostages to the Boers. A more ingenious argumentative perversion of the facts of the case I cannot conceive. The Boers would have preferred that the garrisons should go; we thought they ought to remain, and remain as in time of peace; but we did not bind ourselves that they should remain. To say, then, that they were hostages is an assertion purely rhetorical—I might almost say preposterous. If the circumstances, both political and moral, made it, as I contend they did in the highest degree, desirable to lose no fair opportunity of putting an end to the war, was not the course we took honourable? Different people may have different notions of honour, and of shame; for my own part, I hope I may never have more cause to blush than in this instance. I say that to do right, not when you are pressed by a superior force, but when
314
you have already a superior force in the field, able, if necessary, to carry all things before it, and a still greater force coming up every day to back it, to adhere then to your previous purposes, formed under other circumstances, and to forego the continuance of bloodshed for the sake of mere revenge, is an honourable course—a course very far more consistent with true dignity and honour than the reverse would have been.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at this period of the evening it will not be desirable that I should go much further into a question which has been so fully discussed. So far from thinking with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that this discussion is in any degree inopportune, I think the country, when it reads tomorrow the luminous and exhaustive statement made by my noble and learned Friend behind me, will have a knowledge of this case which it has not had before, and will be surprised at the disgrace into which we have been led. We have had many accounts of the motives which actuated the Government; and in the forefront of them we have, of course, had an appeal to the Ministerial conscience. Now, I have the greatest possible respect for the Ministerial conscience, and I will say nothing in the least irreverent concerning it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I made no appeal to the Ministerial conscience; but I did appeal to something far more important—the conscience of the nation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Appeals to conscience are brought up on many occasions; but we know that whenever that important phrase passes Ministerial lips some great enterprize of "scuttling out" is under discussion. I venture to take exception to the appeal to conscience in the present instance. It is very doubtful to me whether it is true that originally the Boers were unwilling that the annexation should take place, or that up to a recent period the majority of them felt any such unwillingness. I believe the true history of the conduct of the Boers to have been this—that they found the conduct of their Government wholly impossible, and they were threatened by very serious danger from the neighbouring powers of Secocoeni and the Zulus; and they took shelter under the wing of a stronger Power which could defend them. The Zulu War took

315
place; Secocoeni retired; the danger passed away; and the Boers turned against the Power which had protected them. That, I believe, is the history of that change of Boer opinion. But I entirely demur to the doctrine which finds favour with noble Lords opposite, that the question whether we ought to be in the Transvaal or not depends on the voice of the majority of the Boors. The Boers are an insignificant fraction in that vast territory, in which there are 500,000 or 600,000 men, of whom there is no danger in asserting that they earnestly welcomed our presence, and earnestly regret our withdrawal; and I suppose I shall not hear from noble Lords opposite that the small fraction have white skins and the vast majority have black skins and that this circumstance makes any difference in the equity of this matter. If we have been turned out of the Transvaal, it has been by the successful armed rebellion of an insignificant minority. We have had a good deal of discussion upon the various phases of Ministerial opinion; but I have not been able, though I have carefully listened, to get an exact account of the state of mind of the Government on the 6th January, when the Queen's Speech was delivered. We are told it would have been a great mistake in policy to have retained the Transvaal by force; and we hear, not only from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but also from the noble Earl who sits opposite, who appeals to the conscience of the nation, that considerations of morality are involved in our not maintaining our supremacy in that country. We are also told that the majority of our White subjects of Dutch extraction would probably have joined the insurgents against us. These are grave considerations; but they were just as forcible on January 6 as they are now. If it is immoral to assert our authority now, it was immoral then. The question is no now one; and the Government have had ample time to consider it. In fact, their attention was called to it by a most potent voice. It had been one of the subjects upon which Mr. Gladstone most loved to dwell; and we know, in the words of Mr. Joubert himself, that it was on the authority of Mr. Gladstone that he appealed to the English people to cancel the settlement. Therefore, whatever reasons exist for
316
abandoning the Queen's sovereignty over the Boers existed also on January 6, when the Government used these memorable words in the Queen's Speech—
"A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of taking Military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of my authority; and has of necessity set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over their own local ailltirs, without prejudice to the interests of the natives, which I had been desirous to confer."
The Colonial Secretary said it would have been impossible to offer the terms which the Government have ultimately accepted until they had there a sufficiently large force to prevent our offer being attributed to fear. I can hardly imagine the noble Earl really meaning to offer such an explanation as that.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I said nothing about fear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Then it involves this—that for the sake of saving appearances there was a vast unnecessary treasure expended, and many valuable lives sacrificed, which the country could ill afford to lose. You must always remember that in blaming these terms of peace we do not necessarily blame the policy which the Government itself have adopted. We do not approve of it; but the one argument does not involve the other. Even if we had approved of your reversal of our policy, we should still have blamed in the strongest manner your delaying to make the Boers acquainted with that determination until so many English lives had been lost, and so much English honour had been tarnished. It is said, and I think with perfect truth, that the defeats we suffered at Laing's Nek and other places were not really disgraceful, because our forces were overmatched. In that I entirely concur; and if we had only continued the war until we could have made terms which were suitable for the dignity and interests of the country, no one would have said that those reverses had cast any permanent reflection on our arms. But then I understand the noble Earl to say that there is no disgrace in consenting to terms of peace which are an entire surrender of the position which we previously occupied, because we were a large force standing against a small one; and it could not be imagined that we gave way to any considerations but honour and duty. So that we are in the

317
happy position that when we are a small force we are not disgraced by defeat, and that when we are a large force there is no disgrace in making terms because our overwhelming force proves our magnanimity. The noble and learned Lord made a great deal of the fact that we had stipulated successfully that the Queen should be Suzerain of the Transvaal; and he exerted his ingenuity and his learning to show that that title covered a great deal. The noble Earl the late Viceroy of India compared it to the suzerainty of the Queen in India; but nobody knows better than he that that suzerainty does not preclude interference with internal affairs. The peculiarity of this suzerainty in the Transvaal is that interference in internal affairs is absolutely excluded. The only comparison you can make is with the Empire of Turkey, in which suzerainty has sometimes been employed to cover the loss of power by the Sultan. The most remarkable case of suzerainty at present is the relation of the Sultan to the Prince of Bulgaria. That I imagine to be an excellent illustration of the relation of Her Majesty to the Transvaal—only a suzerainty over a Republic is, I believe, merely a diplomatic invention. The suzerainty contains no atom of sovereignty whatever. The truth is that this is merely a device to cover surrender. A Commission is to be appointed whose decrees will not be enforced by any force of troops whatever. If the Commission should confine themselves to the utterance of a certain number of platitudes, or if they should make conditions which are entirely acceptable to the Boers, no doubt their mission will be successful; but if, on the subject of territory or the subject of the treatment of the Blacks, it should be their misfortune to make any decision adverse to the interests, or the prejudices, or the passions of the Boers, you will find that you have set up a mere nominis umbra, concealing from the English people the nature of the sacrifice and the abandonment to which you have consented, but possessing no reality of power. My Lords, it is not for military glory that we regret the nature of this step or the circumstances by which it has been preceded. Military glory has been spoken of lightly enough to-night, and one noble Lord had evidently read the pregnant observations of Falstaff on
318
that subject. But military glory contains in it something more solid than the gratification of a sentiment. As long as it is maintained untarnished it is the security for the peace and prosperity of the Empire. You have hinted in very dark terms at the position of our South African Colonies, and you gave us no ground to believe that our English Dominion rests upon that foundation of attachment, entirely free from force, which the noble and learned Lord told us was the kind of dominion that England loved to exercise. On the contrary, when the words of the Colonial Secretary are read at the Cape of Good Hope, will they not encourage the Colonists to believe that it was fear of the Boers that led us to this peace?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not say fear; I said regard for their opinions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Regard for their opinions is expressed in a material sense. If matters are really so critical in those Colonies, if there is this division of opinion, and if the British Dominion does not rest on the sure basis of allegiance, you can have made no worse provision for the future than to lower and depreciate our military power, and to diminish the belief which is entertained of its overwhelming force. You induced Dutchmen and Englishmen in the Transvaal to take your side. You informed them in the strongest language that your protection would never pass away from the country. You induced them to stand by you and expose themselves to the vengeance of their enemies, and you now abandon them with nothing to secure them except a paper guarantee. It is the same wretched story as that which we have had recently about Candahar. Well, if there should be any material outbreak of this difference of opinion to which Ministerial speakers have so pointedly alluded, and if the races of the Cape should be ranged against each other, and the authority of the Crown should be in any degree called in question, will it be a light thing that you have discouraged those who otherwise would have done much on your part? Will it be a light thing that the Government have told them, by the strong teaching of example, that when they trust to the English Government the probability is that they will be betrayed? And will the impression you have given to

319
the other side be more favourable? I fear that the course you have now taken at the price of abandoning a great Native population, while it may extricate you from your difficult complications, will leave behind a distrust in your power and a distrust in your fidelity to your engagements which will be fatal to our future Dominion in South Africa.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.