Sitting of 3 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Universities (Scotland)* [131].
First Reading—Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland)*[130].
Committee—Report—National Gallery (Loan)* [128].

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—MARINE PENSIONERS— THE AUXILIARY FORCES.
  MR. E. COLLINSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can hold out the hope that the position of Marine Pensioners serving as Sergeants on the permanent staff of the Auxiliary Forces will be favourably considered by him, with the view of removing the inequalities which at present exist between them and Army Pensioners, serving in a like capacity, as regards pay and status?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; the attention of the Departments interested has been directed to the matter referred to by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the inequality complained of will be redressed.

  IRELAND-LABOURERS' COTTAGES—LORD CRICHTON'S COMMITTEE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If, having regard to the necessity for encouraging the better housing of Agricultural Labourers in Ireland, the restrictions at present existing, against lending for more labourers cottages on an estate or portion of an estate given as security than are necessary for its proper cultivation, will be withdrawn, and also if the collateral security, which is taken on loans for building labourers cottages in urban districts, may not also be taken in loans
  1274
  for similar purposes in agricultural districts?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the hon. Member bases his Question on certain recommendations in the Report of Lord Crichton's Committee; but the subsequent passing of the Land Act has materially altered the circumstances of the problems considered by that Committee. However, in reviewing the provisions of the several Land Improvement Acts with a view to their simplification, the suggestions made in the Question shall be duly weighed.

  NAVY—DOCKYARD CHARGES—REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What, if any, objection he has to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of a recent Admiralty Committee on Dockyard Incidental Charges, which was presided over by Mr. Hamilton?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into incidental expenditure at the Dockyards is of a confidential character, and intended for the information of the Board of Admiralty. It would be inconvenient, and, I believe, also quite unusual, that such a document should be made public.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer I have received, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates I shall call attention to the great inconvenience which arises from Members of the Government quoting in their speeches official documents of a confidential character which they are not prepared to lay on the Table of the House.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain—and my explanation may save the noble Lord the trouble of drawing attention to the subject—that I did not quote from this document at all in my speech on the Navy Estimates. I merely referred to the fact that an inquiry had been held, and had had the result of promoting economy; but I did not say anything about the Report or quote from it.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: The hon. Gentleman alluded to the document as bearing out his own views. If a document were, even in that manner, brought before the House of Commons, it be-

  1275
  comes the property of the Members of the House of Commons.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
  MR. KENNARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the following passage in the "New York Times," on the subject of the undistributed balance of moneys under the Geneva Award:—
  "The Award was made to the States, the money to be divided at its own discretion, guided by no standard except such as our Government should adopt for itself. But good faith and honour have been defiantly ignored by our Government in its action, which has struck a blow at arbitration, as the means of settling international disputes, from which it will not soon recover;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government will afford the House an early opportunity of discussing the Motion of which I have given notice?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, it is contrary to usage, and would be inconsistent with the dignity of the House, to found a discussion on a passage in a foreign newspaper, which has no official character, and represents only the opinion of the writer. The question of the Alabama arbitration has now only a historical importance; and Her Majesty's Government has no interest in the manner in which the United States Government may deal with the money which it has received in respect of these claims.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—TRAINING COLLEGES—ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, If his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. Boucher, the Principal of the Carnarvon Church Training College, which appeared in the "Carnarvon Herald" of last Saturday, in which Mr. Boucher declared his determination to refuse to admit a young man as a student to that College on the ground that though confirmed by the bishop of the diocese, he had been baptized by a dissenting minister, and was not a member of the Church of Christ at all, but merely of the Congregational Society; and, whether he will consider if a person holding those views can discharge the
  1276
  duties of Principal of a Training College supported in part by the State?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had no knowledge of the fact stated in the Question. Indeed, if he had, the matter was not one which would come within the control of the Home Department.

  MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART, DUBLIN.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether by the conditions of the competition issued by the office of the Public Works, Dublin, dated the 5th of September 1881, in reference to the Dublin Science and Art Museum, it is provided by Clause 20—
  "That the Committee of Selection shall report to the Treasury upon the five selected designs, and the Treasury will select the author of one of them to execute the new building as architect;"
  whether all the difficulty has arisen owing to the breach on the part of the Board of Works and the Treasury, of Condition 21 of the competition—
  "That until after the award on the final competition is given and officially made public, no drawings or photographs should be sent to the public, nor any design or copy should be exhibited publicly or privately;"
  and, whether, under the above circumstances, he is still prepared to maintain that no guarantee was given that one of the selected five should be the architect of the building?
  MR. COOPE: I beg to ask, in addition, whether, owing to the breach of contract on the part of the Government, an offer has been made to one or more of the five successful competitors of £500 on condition that they gave a receipt in full of all demands?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope), I must deny that there has been any breach of contract. No contract at all has been entered into; an offer has been made, but quite irrespective of any alleged contract. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) has put to me three Questions, two of which lead up argumentatively to the third—namely, whether any guarantee was given that one of the selected five should be the architect? In answer to this I would reply that, under the 10th paragraph of the memorandum of the terms of appointment of architect,

  1277
  provision is expressly made as to what should be done supposing no one of the selected five was appointed architect; and I, therefore, adhere to the conclusion that no such guarantee was given. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree with me that it is unnecessary to answer the preparatory Questions.
  MR. COOPE: I wish to ask whether, if the Government has offered £500 to one or more of the successful competitors, it is his intention to award the same amount to all of them?
  MR. COURTNEY: Certainly not, Sir.

  LICENSING ACTS—OFF-LICENSING— BEER LICENCES.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephen in the case of "Kay versus The Justices of Darwen," by which the judges named held that "The Beer Dealers' Retail Licences (Amendment) Act, 1882," gives the licensing justices power to refuse the renewal of existing off licences without there being any grounds for such refusal; whether he is aware that in consequence of the Act, and the decision referred to, several respectable holders of off licences applying for renewals to the licensing justices at the recent annual licensing meeting, were deprived of their licences, and have suffered considerable loss as a result; and, whether the Government recognise the hardship the Act in question is inflicting upon a respectable body of tradesmen without any fault of their own; and, if so, whether they are prepared to take such steps as will secure such persons being properly compensated?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the question of compensation was not raised at all by the cases decided by Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephen, who had held that the Beer Dealers' Retail Licences (Amendment) Act, 1882, gave the licensing Justices power to refuse the renewal of existing off-licences for the sale of beer at their discretion, for other reasons than those mentioned in the Wine and Beerhouse Act of 1869. There had, however, been a more recent decision—March 15—of the Supreme Court, which showed that the magistrates were
  1278
  bound to exercise a judicial discretion, and were not free to refuse arbitrarily. Probably the hon. Gentleman had not seen this decision; but in no case could the question of compensation arise.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO CRIME, OR ALLEGED CRIME, WHERE NO PERSON APREHENDED.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to recent correspondence regarding a notable case in which he has taken part, Whether, as the Law of England now stands, there can be no judicial inquiry into a crime, or alleged crime, short of murder, when no person has been apprehended and accused?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, there is no such provision in the existing law for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend; but he will find that certain power is taken for that purpose in the 12th section of the proposed Code.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE— BLOCKING.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the honourable and learned Member for Bridport, If he is aware that the Bill to afford increased facilities for obtaining sites for places of worship, schools, and residences for teachers and clergymen in Ireland, applies to Ireland only; and, if he will remove his block, so as to permit of this Bill being read a second time, with a view to its being then referred to the consideration of a Committee?
  MR. WARTON: Sir, I must thank the hon. and gallant Member for his courtesy in giving me Notice of this Question. With regard to the Question itself, I am quite aware that the Bill applies to Ireland only. Regarding it as an invasion of the rights of property, and Ireland being a country where these rights have been already attacked, I wish to prevent any further invasion; and, therefore, I decline to remove the block.

  TURKEY AND RUSSIA—ARMENIA.
  MR. M'COANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a correspondence in the "Daily News" of Saturday last,

  1279
  dated "Trebizond, March 18," which reports the expected imminence of a Russian invasion of Armenia; and, whether, in view of such a contingency, Her Majesty's Government regard the Treaty known as the Anglo-Turkish Convention as being still in force?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I read at the time it appeared the statement in The Daily News, which amounted, I think, simply to this, as the hon. Member has correctly quoted—that a report from a correspondent abroad stated that there was an expected imminence of a Russian invasion of Armenia. We have had no confirmation whatever of that intention, and the matter remains in a state of pure hypothesis. To discuss a question of such great importance, resting on a statement so hypothetical, would be contrary to the rules on which the Government act in all its Departments, and not, I think, be in conformity with the public interests.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government have received any assurances from the Porto as to whether they will carry out such reforms in Armenia as will satisfy the people of that country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to this matter; but perhaps he will kindly give me a day or two's Notice before he puts the Question.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE COAL AND WINE DUES.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any communications have passed between the Government and the Metropolitan Board of Works on the subject of the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the nature of such communications; and, whether the Government have come to any decision on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there have been communications between the Government and the Metropolitan Board of Works on the subject of the renewal of the coal and wine dues to this extent—that there was the expression of a wish from the Board that a deputation should come to the Treasury on the subject. The matter stands for further consideration, and I think that when the Session is more advanced it is highly probable
  1280
  that I may receive a further communication from the Board of Works; and such a deputation, if asked for, will undoubtedly be received.
  MR. RITCHIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Board of Works has postponed any further step on the question of providing any further connection across the Thames until the decision of the Government has been given on this question? I understand that the Board has requested an interview, and that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet replied fixing a time to receive the deputation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of it.

  SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day he can give facilities for discussing the question of the release of the Cuban refugees? He might add that he had done all lie could to got a place at the ballot for the discussion of the question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Papers which explain the nature of the arrangement that has been accorded to us by the Spanish Government are now on their way, and will be immediately presented to Parliament. Not being of any great bulk, the)' will, I hope, be in the hands of Members before many days have elapsed. When the right hon. Gentleman has read them, I shall be happy to confer with him as to the way he can best raise the question if he should desire to raise it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would repeat the Question on Monday.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE POLICE BILL.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to know why the Police Bill was not proceeded with last night, although the President of the Local Government Board had informed the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that as the blocks had been dropped the Bill might be brought on at any time?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It was thought, Sir, that the Bill was too important to be taken at so late an hour as 2 o'clock in the morning.

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—GRAND COMMITTEES.
  MR. CAINEsaid, he wished, with the permission of the Speaker, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), Whether he was correctly reported in The Yorkshire Post on the 28th of March as having said, in a speech delivered at a Conservative banquet at Kirby Moorside, that—
  "Attempts had been made to remove from the immediate control of the House of Commons the consideration of the practical details of legislative enactments and to refer them to carefully packed representatives of the Birmingham caucus. He ventured to think that Members would consider when a Bill came out of that select coterie, and when that monstrous farce had been done, the serious business of legislation would begin?"
  If the right hon. Gentleman were correctly reported, was the House to expect that the resolution thus expressed of systematically re-debating on Report the 13111s coming from Grand Committees would be seriously carried out? And he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman also—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Any Question not put to Ministers of the Crown should relate to some Bill or Motion before the House. I do not understand that the Question of the hon. Member does relate to a Bill or Motion before the House.
  MR. CAINEsaid, that the Question had reference to the Standing Orders of the House and to the Bankruptcy Bill.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Government what Business it is proposed to take on Thursday and Monday next?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the majority of the House is aware that on Thursday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will submit the Financial Statement. Informer times it has been usual to receive the Financial Statement and simply to put questions upon it, and to turn to some practical account the remainder of the evening. It is generally felt that that is a convenient course, as a subsequent day is always fixed for the consideration of the Statement. I am inclined to think that there will be a
  1282
  disposition to pursue that course in the present year, more especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has an important Motion to come on with regard to the Public Expenditure on the very next day. Therefore, I presume the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know how we intend to dispose of the residue of Thursday evening. The most urgent call upon us at the present moment is the Army (Annual) Bill, with which it will be desirable to go forward. If there should be further time at our disposal, we should take the second reading of the remaining Bills that have to be referred to Standing Committees. I am hardly in a position to say what will be done on Monday until I see what will become of these Bills on Thursday.

  NAVY—THE TRANSPORT SERVICE.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to articles appearing in the "British Merchant Service Journal," entitled "Slop Work," referring to defects which existed in certain vessels selected for Transport Service during the recent operations in Egypt; and, if he will state whether the Admiralty have consulted the Marine Department of the Board of Trade as to the fitness or otherwise of the numerous merchant vessels which are said to meet the requirements of the Admiralty for the purpose of cruisers or transports?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, it h not usual for the Admiralty to consult the Board of Trade with reference to the vessels engaged in the Transport Service. In the present case the vessels at the time they were hired by the Admiralty had a certificate from the Board of Trade.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—"COUNTS OUT."
  MR. CALLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was in accordance with the usual practice of Her Majesty's Government that one of the junior whips, whose duty was popularly supposed to be to keep a House and cheer the Ministers, and one of the subordinate Members of the Government, should promote and actively facilitate a "count out" of the House during the discussion

  1283
  of a Bill to the principle of which Her Majesty's Government stood pledged, as was the case when the Irish Registration (No. 2) Bill was counted out early that morning?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. Member sounds to me like one full of pitfalls, and as I am not cognizant directly of the circumstances alluded to, I hope the hon. Member will pardon me if I ask him to postpone the Question.
  MR. CALLANsaid he would repeat the Question on Thursday.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Leave to Committee to make a Special Report:—
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYaccordingly reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members fron the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Stansfeld.
  And had appointed in substitution:—Mr. Henry Fowler, Mr. William Edward Forster.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYfurther reported, That they had added the following fifteen Members in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill:—Mr. Allsopp, Mr. Arthur Cohen, Mr. Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Compton Lawrance, Mr. Macnaghten, Mr. Meldon, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Serjeant Simon, Mr. Waugh, Mr. Wills.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Sir Richard Cross, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Henry Fowler, Mr. Gregory.
  And had appointed in substitution:—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Grantham, Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Stansfeld.

MOTIONS.
  AFRICA (RIVER CONGO).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT,* in moving—
    "That, in the interests of civilisation and Commerce in South West Africa, this House is of opinion that no Treaty should he made by Her Majesty's Government that would sanction the annexation by any Power of territories on or adjacent to the Congo, or that would interfere with the freedom hitherto enjoyed by all civilising and Commercial agencies at work in those regions,"
    said, it is not easy to introduce a question to the House about which little is known, and in regard to which, therefore, not a very wide interest is felt; but, Sir, the less a question is known, the more it ought to be brought to the notice of the House, if it be an important question. I am convinced that the subject before us is one of the utmost gravity; and, if I fail to impress the House with that conviction, I am sure some hon. Members who will follow me in the debate will succeed in doing so. The country to which the Resolution refers lies between 5 deg. 12 min. and 8 deg. Southern latitude, on the South-West Coast of Africa. It embraces both banks of the Congo, and has become of extreme importance, owing to the knowledge we now possess of the greatest of African rivers, and of the country through which it flows. I will first say one word as to the character of the stream. From the mouth to Stanley Pool, the distance is 336 miles. For the first 115 miles the river is generally two miles wide, and deep enough for oceangoing vessels. Portions of the remaining distance are impeded by rocks and cataracts, and here roads have been constructed for the conveyance of merchandize to Stanley Pool, from which place the river is navigable for nearly 1,000 miles. The river has large tributaries also navigable, and the productive character of the country cannot be surpassed. The territory on the Lower Congo is under the rule of Native Chiefs and Kings. Trade is more absolutely free than in any other part of the globe where any considerable commerce exists, and missionaries have freedom for all their various labours. Whatever may be said with regard to slavery, there is no such thing as the export of slaves from the

    1285
    Congo. As to the general security of the country, merchants make no complaint. They pay an annual tribute, and there the matter ends. The missionaries make no complaint. Nobody in that region complains. I have looked at the official Papers presented to the House a few days ago, Containing a Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and that of Portugal from the year 1845 to the year 1877. During this period there is no evidence of disorder until the year 1877. In the year 1877 there was a complaint from the English Consul that crimes had been committed, a factory burnt, and some Portuguese had committed dreadful barbarities on the people, and had been assisted by a British subject. I understand Lord Granville to express an opinion that there ought to be some authority there which does not now exist, by which better order might be maintained. If an authority is established there which does not now exist, it should be one in which the Natives can have confidence, and which the traders can respect. If a change is to be made, it should be a change for the better. I think everyone will agree with that proposition; and, in view of that, I should like to discuss what the Government propose, and what are likely to be the results. We have had very little information given us. Everything is vague with regard to this question; but, so far as I know, Her Majesty's Government propose to make a Treaty with Portugal, by which they will sanction the annexation to that Power of this important territory. The Treaty, so far as I understand, relates to the questions of trade, of religious freedom, and of slavery. This proposed Treaty has met with extraordinary resistance. Every class of persons, every individual who has had, or has, relations with the Congo country is in arms against it. Let mo look at the question in regard to trade. The Government would require what they consider favourable conditions for us. They would ask that Portugal should give us moderate duties throughout all the Portuguese possessions in Africa; that also the British trader should be put on the same terms as the Portuguese. I trust that when my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) rises to address the House, he will tell us what the
    1286
    Government understand to be moderate duties. A country like the Congo, that has no duties and no Custom House, is one in which trade is absolutely free. The traders in that region might, therefore, not take the same view of moderate duties which the Foreign Office takes. It does not seem that we should be wise in upsetting Native rule on the Congo. In Zanzibar, where we have a Native African Government, the trade is eight or ten times greater than in the Portuguese Province of Mozambique. It is understood that the Foreign Office looks with some satisfaction on the Mozambique tariff, where official figures show the duties to be 10 per cent; but every merchant knows that that is altogether fallacious. The duties in Mozambique on some of the most important articles are not less than from 25 to 35 per cent. No doubt, the Government will tell us that by the proposed arrangements we are to have a great improvement in Angola. In that Province, the import duties are excessive—there are considerable export duties, there are differential duties in favour of Portugal—British vessels cannot trade on their coast, nor carry merchandize between Angola and Portugal. I am, of course, prepared to admit that if we had a Treaty removing all these grievances, there would be some gain; but I am here to state that those who know the Congo, and those who know Portugal in Africa, say that no possible Treaty will induce them willingly to admit the Portuguese to another yard of African territory. If we had low duties, it does not follow that we should have a large trade. I am not speaking now for British traders only, but for the traders of every European country who go to the Congo territory. The Portuguese have a method of making trade impossible. They have passports, papers, tolls, fines, and fees—fees at every corner. You can hardly look at a bale of goods after it has passed the Custom House without having to fee somebody. My noble Friend may say—"Yes; but our Treaty will remove these difficulties, and make trade an easy thing in the Portuguese territory." But will he tell us what is the cause of the difficulty at present? It is too deep to be removed. It lies in the fact that the Portguese officials are an ignorant class, and badly remunerated, and therefore

    1287
    they become corrupt. There is no Treaty that could get at this radical defect in the Portuguese system. But, admitting that these difficulties could be got over, there are other methods of destroying a Colony, and of paralyzing trade which the Portuguese well understand. You may destroy trade by excessive internal taxation, and I do not know that any Treaty ever contained a clause interfering with the right of a country in regard to internal taxation. In Angola, for instance, there is an income tax of 10 per cent. Our Income Tax is at present 6d. in the pound, or 2½ per cent. It causes irritation. People think it burdensome. What effect would an Income Tax of 2s. in the pound have on the commerce of this country? How far would it interfere with our power of competing successfully with other countries? That is not all. There is a property tax of 10 per cent in Angola, and a house duty of 6 per cent. There is a duty on the transfer of property of 6 per cent. If you sell a house or a bit of land, you have to pay 6 per cent on the transfer. Will my noble Friend tell us if this Treaty, if it be made—I hope it never will—will prevent English, Dutch, French, and German commerce on the Congo from being paralyzed by a state of things like this? Then what is the character of the Portuguese—their character for intelligence, for enterprize, for any of those qualities which a country ought to possess that is expecting to extend its borders, and take still further Provinces under its control? The chief river of Angola is the Quanza. It is navigable—there are steamboats upon it—but how have the Government arranged the navigation of this river? For the last 18 years it has given the navigation into the hands of one firm, which has made it a close monopoly, and that firm charges from 40 s. to 50 s. a-ton for a distance of 150 to 200 miles, or, in other words, it charges as much for that distance as is charged between the Congo and Liverpool. I saw it stated the other day that we had 10,000 miles of railway in India. This is not much, considering the extent of the country. But Portugal was in possession of Angola for 200 years before the foundations of our Indian Empire were laid, and yet there are almost no roads in Angola. The people have to carry goods mainly on their heads up to this day, as they have
    1288
    done in times past. Another fact. There is splendid river water within nine miles of the capital of Angola; but the Portuguese have never yet succeeded in bringing it to the thirsting inhabitants of the town. It is still brought in casks and sold to the people at a high price. Now, it would be difficult for me to express to the House the anxiety which exists at the present moment in the mercantile mind of this country—of course, I mean among the merchants who have to do with this part of the world—it would be difficult to describe how nervous they are in regard to what the Government are supposed to be doing. They tell me, and I believe it, that if this Treaty were made, if the annexation takes place, if Portuguese troops were landed on the Congo, there would be no factory or business establishment that would not be put in a state of defence. Such would be the irritation of the Natives at the Portuguese taking possession of their country, that they would treat every White man as an enemy, and do all they could to destroy his property. I am an old enough Member of this House to be aware that it is a common thing, whenever any considerable change is proposed, for hon. Members to foretell that all sorts of dangerous things will happen; and, as a rule, those things do not happen. It may be that the House fancies this is a groundless fear. But let me mention one fact to show that the fear is not groundless. Twenty-eight years ago, the Government of Angola sent an armed force, which took possession of Ambriz, the most northerly town of the Angola Province. The Natives had to submit; but, before they did so, they destroyed the factories in the neighbourhood. I am not going to discuss the question as to the claims of Portugal to this territory, for the simple reason that our own Governments in the last half century have denied these claims, and successfully resisted them. For 200 years Portugal has had no connection with the Congo. The trade of the Congo, which 30 years ago was almost nothing, has now risen to something like £2,000,000 sterling per annum. But the Portuguese have not contributed in any respect to this trade, as is shown from the fact that the Portuguese steamers from Lisbon to Loanda never touched at the Congo till last January,

    1289
    when one came there, in consequence, no doubt, of the negotiations as to this Treaty. It left the country, without a passenger and without a ton of cargo. The House is aware that Foreign Secretaries have repeatedly guarded this territory. In 1853, Lord Clarendon, the Foreign Secretary, said—
    "That the interests of commerce imperatively required the Government to maintain the right of unrestricted intercourse with that part of Africa."
    Our trade then was almost nothing. If the territory were worth some consideration on the part of the English Government at that time, one would suppose that it would now require far more earnest attention. After commerce, I understand the next most important feature of the Treaty is that which is to give us additional guarantees from Portugal that slavery and the Slave Trade shall be suppressed. I cannot help believing that the Anti-Slavery Society has more knowledge of Partugal in relation to slavery than the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office has received a Memorial from the Anti-Slavery Society on this subject, in which they say—
    "That they cannot but view the proposal for this Treaty with the gravest apprehension. Whatever amount of sincerity might be credited to the Government of Lisbon in respect to the suppression of the Slave Trade, it has been proved, by long and painful experience, that an inadequate, feeble, and corrupt Executive in Africa has both given protection to the Slave Trade, and at the same time imposed the most vexatious obstruction to the extension of legitimate commerce, by which the traffic might be superseded."
    Allow me to quote also a paragraph from a despatch to Lord Granville, from Mr. (now Sir Robert) Morier, dated "Lisbon, April 25, 1881"—
    "The first act of the new Cabinet in connection with Colonial matters has been to recall Senhor Sarmento, the Governor General of Mozambique, in disgrace. The crime of Senhor Sarmento consists in having not only admitted that there was Slave Trade from the Mozambique coast, but in having done good work in putting it down; he has fallen a victim to the intrigues of Senhor Machado and the Geographical Society of Lisbon, whose object has been to make out that the Mozambique Slave Trade is a mere hallucination of Her Majesty's Consuls."
    I had an interview last Friday with a Gentleman well known to the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to other Members of the House—I
    1290
    mean Lord Mayo, who has been spending a good deal of time in South-West Africa. He has been over all these countries; he knows the Natives and the Portuguese; and, with respect to this question of slavery, he gave me some information which I think ought to be communicated to the House. He says that between Angola and the Island of St. Thomas there is a regular traffic in slaves, and that official forms are made use of in order to conceal its character, and to enable the officers of the Govern-met to reap some portion of the reward. Slaves are brought from the interior to Catumbella—they are called "Colonials," The price here is £7 a-head. They are then sent on lighters to the Portuguese steamship at Benguela, thence to Loanda, where official forms are gone through. They are assumed to have engaged themselves for five years' service. They are then shipped in the same steamer to the Island of St. Thomas. They are well treated on board, and decently clothed. Price at St. Thomas from £10 to £15; a pretty girl sells for more. They can be re-engaged by the planters at the office of Santa Anna, the capital of the Island. In this re-engagement they are not consulted. They die early. Lord Mayo came by the steamship Angola in February last from Benguela to Lisbon, when 82 of these "Colonials" were on board. They never see their own country again. I do not know where we could find greater credulity than that which would seem to exist in the Foreign Office, if they believe that anything on paper is likely to compel the Portuguese to suppress slavery in Africa. There is an Association exercising great influence on the banks of the Congo, which ought to be better known in this country. I refer to what is ordinarily called the Belgian Association. Generous and public-spirited men in this and other countries formed that Association some three years ago, with the munificent King of the Belgians at its head. I believe I do not exaggerate when I say that the King himself, from his own private fortune, has given not less than £70,000 a-year for its support, and the object is to promote intercourse between Europe and Africa, and to extend so far as they can the advantages of civilization to the negroes in that country. They have stations all the way up the Lower Congo; they are pushing these stations

    1291
    on the Upper Congo. They make arrangements with the Chiefs. There is neither force nor violence. All is done by friendly negotiations, and the spirit of Penn in his negotiations with the Natives of Pennsylvania seems to have guided this Association in Africa. They are looked upon with gratitude by traders, by missionaries, by travellers, and by all who have intercourse with that part of Africa. I need not say that this Association, from its head downwards, would dread the possible approach of Portugal to the mouth of the Congo. They believe that such an advent would be the advent of a Power hostile to commerce, to freedom, and to civilization. Then there are the missionaries. The Baptist Mission has many establishments on the Congo. It is an influential Mission, guided by men of great intelligence. They, too, look upon the possibility of this Treaty with great fear and anxiety. One of those who are engaged in missionary labours in Africa wrote to me—
    "What we, as a Missionary Society apprehend, should the Portuguese he recognized as the rulers of the Congo Country, is that they will adopt the same repressive and persecuting policy as they have adopted all along the Const of Africa where they have had any power whatever. Already Portugal has assumed a persecuting attitude against our missionaries at San Salvador—the Roman Catholic priests intimating that, in a little while, Portugal will have the power, and that then our missionaries will have to fly the country. This is not mere hearsay, but a fact, and no Treaty guaranteeing religious equality is worth much to the Government of Portugal."
    But, Sir, there is yet another class to be considered on this occasion, a class which must be counted by hundreds of thousands, indeed, by millions, if we go further into the country and assume that the Power at the mouth of the river may have considerable influence in the interior. I refer, of course, to the Native population. I shall be right in appealing to the Prime Minister with regard to them. I may ask him whether they are not to have some voice in tills transaction? We are bargaining away their country, and it is not ours to give. The Foreign Office is making terms for us which we reject. Is it making any terms for the Natives? Well, in appearance, the Natives are not forgotten. The Treaty will forbid the Portuguese to buy or sell negroes; but the Foreign Office is full of evidence to show that Portugal
    1292
    cannot help buying and selling negroes, whenever there is a profit upon the transaction. A Government which consents to have any part in placing Portugal on fresh territory, in giving them this important country at the mouth of the Congo, should at least make some inquiry as to the character of Portugal in her African possessions. There would be no difficulty in arriving at the facts. Here is a little country, not much larger than Scotland, with a population less than that of Ireland, having territory on the Continent of Africa of six times the extent of the United Kingdom. Will anyone on the Treasury Bench place his finger on one single spot on the African Continent where the Portuguese have planted themselves, and show that there their presence has been a blessing to the Natives? On the other hand, if I assert it has been a curse, will anyone in the House give adequate testimony to show that I am wrong? Take the East Coast of Africa. Many of the officials on the Mozambique are convicts sent away from Portugal. That, I suppose, is undeniable. I have it on a great amount of authority. In Angola, the army is largely composed of convicts. I was told this by a Portuguese merchant, and on my hesitating to believe it, he said—"It is true, and it is easy to get what I say corroborated by writing to the former Consul." In a letter since received from Mr. Watson Uredenburg, Her Majesty's former Consul, he says—
    "That so far as relates to the time when I was Her Majesty's Commissioner, the troops forming the garrison of Loanda were undoubtedly formed from the worst class of convicts, capital punishment having been practically abolished in Portugal."
    When he speaks of the worst class of convicts, I know what he means. He means there are men who have committed murder amongst them. It is not an uncommon thing for men who have committed murder in Portugal to be at large in Angola. A little while ago we succeeded in abolishing a punishment which was very odious to us, the punishment of flogging. That punishment, however, appears to be almost universal in the African possessions of Portugal. The persons convicted of serious crimes are generally flogged to death. In Mozambique, the Portuguese officials scarcely dare venture on the mainland, unless they are escorted, for fear of

    1293
    being murdered; and in Delagoa Bay, the officials dare not venture outside the town without being armed. That is the sort of feeling existing between the Portuguese and the Native population over which they rule. In Angola, the Portuguese cannot even go to the southern bank of their own river, the Quanza; they have to keep on the northern bank, on account of the hatred of the Native population. They cannot travel by land between Loanda and Ambriz. There is an interesting book, entitled "Angola and the Congo," by a Portuguese gentleman, Monteiro, who is recognized as an authority both in London and Lisbon, and I trust the House will permit me to read a few extracts showing the effect of Portuguese rule in their African Provinces. He says—
    "Trade or commerce is the great civilizer of Africa, and the small part of the coast we are treating of at present (Congo) is a proof of this. Commerce has had undisturbed sway for a few years with extraordinary results. The Natives have not been spoilt as yet by contact with the evils of an ignorant and oppressive occupation as in Portuguese Angola."
    Then he says—
    "Were not the Natives of Ambriz such a remarkably inoffensive and unwarlike race, they would long ago have driven the Portuguese into the sea. It is a great pity that Portugal should neglect so disgracefully her Colonies, so rich in themselves, and offering such wonderful advantages in every way for colonization and development."
    Speaking of a most fertile country within easy reach of Loanda, he says—
    "Apathy reigns supreme, and the authorities at Loanda prevent any attempt to get out of this State by the obstructions of all kinds of petty and harassing imposts, rules, and regulations, having no possible aim but the collection of a despicable amount of fees to keep alive and in idleness a few miserable officials."
    Monteiro refers frequently in his book to the great depopulation in Angola. He speaks of the "depopulation of the country," of the "stifling of any attempt at industrial development on the part of the Natives." That this is a truth admitting of no denial or defence is, he says—
    "At once shown by the fact that the sources of the great exports of Native produce are all places removed from the direct misrule of the Portuguese."
    There never was so strong a condemnation of the government of a Colony as that. Where Portuguese influence is felt, there the earth refuses to yield its produce; the supplies of the export trade
    1294
    come from regions uninfluenced by them. I am afraid of tiring the House; but I should like to make one or two more statements, because, after all, it appears to me that it is the character of the Portuguese in their Colonies that we are discussing to-night. If we find that character wholly bad, then, surely, we shall scarcely persist in carrying out the policy which we fear the Government proposes. This traveller—I quote still from Monteiro—says—
    "We passed many places where towns had formerly existed; but the inhabitants had been obliged to remove further into the interior to escape the wholesale robbery and exactions of the Portuguese. … We found traces everywhere of a former very much larger population, and the same true tale of the inhabitants having been driven further inland by the rapine of the Portuguese rulers.…The furthest inland district in Angola under the rule of the Portuguese was that of Cassange; but a successful revolt of the Natives against the oppression of the Portuguese 'chefes' led to its being abandoned a few years ago."
    There is only one more short extract which I shall read. In it Monteiro says—
    "Were the Natives otherwise than inoffensive and incapable of enmity, they would have long ago swept away the rotten power of the Portuguese in that large extent of territory."
    It is this rotten Power which the Government now proposes to establish amongst those inoffending Natives. I do not know what crime they have committed that they should be subjected to so tremendous a penalty—a penalty not for a term of years, but to be perpetual. There is a line well known to every Member of this House—
    "None but himself can be his parallel."
    That line would apply with strict accuracy to Portugal, if we could forget the existence of Turkey. There is a wonderful similarity between Turkey and Portugal. You have a Turkey in the East of Europe, and you have a little Turkey in the West. There is similarity in this respect, that the officials and employ¹s of both are ignorant; they are badly and irregularly paid, and the consequence is that they are corrupt and feed upon the Natives. There is also this similarity, that where Turkey rules, the Provinces are often desolate; and, according to an authority who may be perfectly trusted, the Provinces of Portugal are in many places rendered desolate by the presence of the Portuguese, The

    1295
    hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse) has put down an Amendment to my Motion. He would admit the Portuguese to this important possession, on condition that we should get "adequate guarantees." I wonder if the hon. Member for Bath has ever been for a long time in connection with one in whom he had absolutely lost confidence and, if so, whether he would be willing to contract still closer engagements by getting more "adequate guarantees?" I do not know what guarantees might satisfy the little town of Bath; but I can tell the hon. Member for Bath that there is a commercial public in Great Britain outside the town of Bath, and that Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol, Bradford, and the City of London have all sent earnest Memorials asking that this step may not be taken. In this country, a Treaty is made by the Crown, which means, of course, the Cabinet, and it is not known to Parliament until it is made and ratified. Some four or five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) raised a question in the House as to whether it was safe that Treaties should be made and ratified without the knowledge of Parliament. I remember that the Prime Minister on that occasion opposed the Motion of my hon. Friend, and I think I am correct in saying that he vindicated the present practice on the ground that no Minister, no Government, would ever dream of making a Treaty which was not in harmony with the general opinion of the country. Let me ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he rises, to tell the House how many Memorials and representations, of an earnest character from public bodies and eminent individuals, the Foreign Office has received in opposition to this Treaty, and how much public support, or how much support of any kind, they have received in favour of the Treaty. The facts as to public opinion laid before the House would be such as to make any Government hesitate in going against it. I have not made any reference to France in regard to this question. There is an opinion—I do not know how far it is well-founded—that what has been done and said by a subject of France in Africa has somewhat disturbed people's minds, and has had some influence at the Foreign
    1296
    Office. Some of those who have communicated with me since this Motion was put on the Paper—and I cannot tell how many communications I have had from all quarters—think that there has been a great exaggeration with regard to this matter, and that it may only result in a salutary extension of French commerce. It may end in nothing; but oven if there should be annexation which comes down to the north bank of the Upper Congo, why should we invite another Power to the Lower Congo, where we and the Dutch and the French have a large commerce, where she has none, and where her character is such as I have described? There is a wide-spread feeling amongst those interested in this question, and it does not seem to me to be an irrational feeling, that this subject is of sufficient importance for the different Nations of Europe to come to some friendly understanding with regard to it. We have an International Commission for the Danube. It would seem a much easier thing to have an International Commission for the Congo. There are on the Congo every year national vessels from Austria, Germany, Italy, France, and England, which go there presumably to give protection to their own subjects. Does not that point to the possibility of an international understanding? To bring about such an understanding would be worthy of the ambition of a great Government, and if the Prime Minister would consent to give his mind to the question something might come of it. One word more, Sir, and I will no longer tax the patience of the House. This vast region of Central Africa—watered by noble rivers, thickly peopled, rich in varied products—has been given to the world mainly by the indomitable courage of two men of our own race, Livingstone and Stanley—names which I venture to say will long be held in honour by two great nations. In presence of this memorable fact, of which this Assembly must be proud, I will not believe that an English Minister will place the gateway to this magnificent territory in the hands of the one European Power that is bankrupt in every quality which might entitle her to its possession. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. WHITLEY,in seconding the Motion, said, it was not his intention to

    1297
    travel over the ground which had been so well occupied by the hon. Member for the City of Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). He (Mr. Whitley) thought they would all admit that no Government, however weak that Government might be, would seriously compromise such interests as those which had been brought under the notice of the House, except upon the strongest possible grounds; and, more than that, he thought the Government would not for the first time attempt to interfere with those rights which Englishmen had enjoyed so long on the Congo, and which had led to Treaties between English merchants on the one hand, and Native Princes on the other, and also to Treaties between the Government of this country and the Native Princes. He could not believe that any Government would seek to interfere with those Treaties, or to harass that trade, except upon the most conclusive grounds. In the observations he should address to the House he should, therefore, endeavour to anticipate some of the grounds upon which he believed, if any action at all was contemplated by the Government, that action would be vindicated. The House was aware, from the Correspondence which had been laid before it, that the claims of the Government of Portugal to that territory had been of long standing. Those claims had been investigated by successive Foreign Ministers, and 40 years ago Lord Clarendon informed the Portuguese Government that there was no foundation for those claims which were brought forward. Those claims were founded on the discovery of the country in the 15th century; but everyone who had read the Blue Books and investigated the subject would see that according to International Law no claims of this sort could exist, unless there had been a continuous possession on the part of Portugal, either expressed or implied. Those claims were pronounced to be void 40 years ago, and in consequence of the distinct assurance of the Government of that day there had been a vast increase during those 40 years of the trade with that country. During that time commerce had immensely increased with the people of that country, and they had become comparatively happy and prosperous. In a letter which he had before him from a gentleman who had long traded with that country, he was told,
    1298
    on the assurance of Lord Palmerston, that if necessary he would send a British man-of-war in order to protect British interests on the Congo, and that beyond Ambriz the Portuguese Government had not the vestige of a claim. In consequence of that assurance, he built factories on what was accounted to be ground where Englishmen could build factories. That these factories had been built and trade carried on ever since under this assurance of the Government was, he thought, a strong case why the Government should show that there should be no variance from the decisions of Lord Clarendon, Lord Palmerston, and Lord Derby. It was very difficult to understand upon what grounds the negotiations for a Treaty could ever possibly proceed. The English trade on the Congo was five times larger at the present moment than that of the Portugese Government, extending to 800 miles of coast. That commerce had been fostered by the knowledge of the freedom of trade which had prevailed, and which had been secured by Treaties made upon the statements of our Foreign Ministers. The Native Princes had entered into Treaties of commercial relationship with English houses. They had faithfully kept those Treaties, and commercial enterprize was continued up to the present moment. He would ask the Government whether they were prepared to interfere with a trade which had been so peaceably conducted for a long series of years under the protection and assurances of the British Government? He thought that such a conclusive case had been brought forward that no Government could put such a proposition before the House. It might be, as suggested by his hon. Friend, that France had made, and did make, some claim to the territory. It might be a very convenient thing to set that up; but, at the same time, he would ask the Government was it a wise thing to be faithless towards the antecedents of a great commercial country like this? This country existed on its commercial relationship—its commercial freedom—which was the watchword of the days in which we lived; and he would put it very strongly to the Government, and to the apostles of Free Trade in the House, were they prepared in a day like this, when hostile tariffs were the rule of Europe and America—when there were so few countries open to English

    1299
    commerce—were they ready to give to foreign countries what was denied to British commerce? Were they prepared to give a tariff to a river which had hitherto been free to the nations of the world, and to do that to the detriment of those whom they had encouraged in this trade, and who had made the country a mercantile community? He thought that such a course of procedure would be most unpopular to the county, and unpopular to those interests which, during the past few years, had suffered so grievously from these hostile tariff's. They all knew how the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country had suffered—how Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Glasgow, and every commercial city had suffered—and were they going now to cripple those interests? They had learned from the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Manchester that wherever the Portuguese trade was there were strong hostile tariffs. He believed the general tariff of Portugal was about 35 per cent as against the English manufacturer. He was told it was possible to effect a Treaty by which the hostile tariff's might be lowered from 35 to something like 10 per cent. He was sure the House—and he was sure the mercantile community at large—would rejoice to think that the tariffs of Portugal were lowered with regard to Portuguese ports; but he would put it to the House, and to the Government, whether they were prepared on this account to saddle with import duties a port which had been practically free? He trusted, therefore, that the Motion of his hon. Friend might be a success. He thought it was one of the most important Motions which had been brought before the attention of the House of Commons. They were defending that day the interests of Free Trade in its highest and its best sense. They were asking the House of Commons to maintain those principles which they had adopted in this country, and would they not see it adopted in foreign countries? He asked them in return to protect the interests of the English and of England, and not by an unfortunate Treaty put a hostile tariff on the struggling manufacturers and merchants of this country. It was on these grounds that he very heartily supported the Motion which had been so well and ably moved by the hon. Gentleman the Mem-
    1300
    ber for the City of Manchester. On a question of this kind there could not, and ought not to be, any Party feeling. It was a question which affected them all. It affected the interests of the country. It affected the interests of those toiling inhabitants of Africa, who had been so greatly benefited by the course of procedure of the English Government in the past, and who were gradually being rescued from barbarism by honest industry and enterprize. He would ask the Prime Minister and the Government whether they were prepared to send back again to the dark ages these poor people, who had exhibited such great commercial and religious improvement? Were they prepared to take a retrograde step, and send back to the days of barbarism and obscurity those who were gradually emancipating themselves by industry and enterprize? On the ground, therefore, of benefiting those communities on the Congo which it was the object of British statesmen in the past to benefit, he asked the House to go on in the career which they had adopted, and to support heartily the Motion of his hon. Friend, for he believed that in so doing they were doing very much indeed to promote the interests of England, as well as the best interests of the Natives on the Congo. It was on these grounds he very heartily and sincerely supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Manchester.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the interests of civilisation and Commerce in South west Africa, this House is of opinion that no Treaty should be made by Her Majesty's Government that would sanction the annexation by any Power of territories on or adjacent to the Congo, or that would interfere with the freedom hitherto enjoyed by all civilising and Commercial agencies at work in those regions."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he felt quite sure, whatever opinions might exist in different parts of the House as to the merits of this question, that everybody would agree that the speech in which his hon. Friend had introduced the Motion was one of great ability, indicating a thorough acquaintance with the subject. He could assure him, and also the Seconder of the Motion, that he was entirely at one with them as to the importance of the question which had been brought before the House. He believed it was one of the most inte-

    1301
    resting commercial subjects which had for many years engaged the Attention of the House, not only in regard to its present, but also in regard to what might be called its future aspect. The great discoveries made of late years in African geography had given to every subject connected with that Continent a peculiar importance; and although, perhaps, it was not altogether a pleasant prospect, it nevertheless seemed to be one to which, in all probability, the House and successive Governments would have to make up their minds that, owing to the great increase of African disco very, and also owing to the manner in which different nations were beginning to occupy, or, at least, to attempt to occupy, the African Continent, discussions and controversies of that nature might tend, perhaps, to become more frequent than heretofore. Therefore, in this debate they were approaching a subject which might in some way become of historical importance, and the position now taken might hereafter be regarded as a land mark. Under these circumstances, the Government felt that nothing was more reasonable or more natural than that there should be a considerable difference of opinion. In the first place, he would say a word or two on the Constitutional aspect of the subject. His hon. Friend had spoken of the position and influence of the Foreign Office and the Treaty-making power of the Crown, and he had laid down the general proposition that the Crown—which he said was practically the Cabinet—had the absolute power of making Treaties, and that those Treaties were ratified before the House of Commons had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on them. Now, that proposition was one which he could not quite accept; it was one of dangerous latitude. What generally happened was this, that a Treaty was negotiated with the consent of the Cabinet and through the medium of the Foreign Office, and that at some stage, which varied in regard to time and place and according to the gravity of the situation, Parliament had, as a rule, an opportunity of expressing an opinion before it was ratified. In all those cases which were of real importance Parliament had an opportunity of expressing, if not directly, at least indirectly, an opinion. A misconception appeared to arise in regard to the term ratification.
    1302
    The ratification did not take place at the time of the signature, but at a later stage. In the case of the Treaty of Berlin, the ratification took place on the day subsequent to the great debate in that House. But if he wanted a case on all fours with the present one, he would rather find it in the commercial precedents; and he might remind the House of, perhaps, one of the most memorable—namely, the commercial portion of the Treaty of Utrecht, which, after it had been signed by the English Plenipotentiaries, was discussed in that House, and a Resolution brought forward by the Members for great commercial constituencies was carried against it. In consequence, several of its most important clauses never came into operation. Therefore, he could not admit that Parliament was entirely shut out by the Constitution from the consideration of those matters, and if he wanted a modern instance to support the case, he thought the present debate might be said to furnish it. If it was found, in the course of the debate, that the feeling of the House was hostile to the steps which had been taken, or to the course which the Government, on full consideration of the case, had determined to adopt, he believed it would be impossible for any Government to proceed against the clearly-expressed opinion of that House of Parliament. Apologizing for having touched on that rather dry and technical aspect of the question, he now proceeded to the merits of the case. His hon. Friend had dwelt on the enormous importance of the interests at stake. Nothing his hon. Friend could say could add to the sense of the importance of this question entertained by Her Majesty's Government, who had, in fact, already had it forced upon their notice by the information they had received from different persons, who felt great interest in the question, and from gentlemen engaged in commerce and in missionary work in that portion of Africa. But there were certain physical facts which spoke for themselves. Modern travellers, such as Living-stone, Stanley, and De Brazza, had dwelt on the importance of the Congo; but there was another and an earlier traveller, an Englishman—Tuckey—who had published his views many years ago of the immense importance of the Congo as a navigable stream. He said the Congo,

    1303
    even when at its lowest volume, discharged 2,000,000 cubic feet of water per second; and against the tides of the ocean 40 miles out at sea the river was still asserting itself. Of the great streams of Africa it alone possessed a navigable estuary, whereas other rivers only began to be navigable some distance up the stream; and although it was true that above the estuary there were rapids and falls, nevertheless above them again, as was stated by the travellers to whom he had just referred, there was a magnificent body of water, a great navigable river, stretching right away to the Eastern side of the Continent; while, owing to the energy of Mr. Stanley, a road had been constructed between the points where the rapids began and where they ended, which had already led to the development of a large amount of commerce. All this showed the importance of the subject. But not only on account of the commercial question was it important. Of late years, missionary bodies, comprising men of great ability and intelligence, had made their way to most difficult and dangerous regions, in a manner peculiar to Englishmen, and had achieved great results. He had heard depreciatory observations made to the effect that these missionaries were only traders under another name. Even assuming that to be so, he himself believed that missionaries engaged in trade could not fail to exercise a beneficial influence; for the example of honest men like these carrying on trade must surely exercise an influence for good upon the Natives, and, as a matter of fact, so far from losing their character by trading, they had, by engaging in trade, raised the character of the Natives and weaned them from a life of savagery and plunder. Therefore, they had not only commercial interests, but also missionary interests to consider; and both from the commercial and missionary world there was evidence in the possession of the Foreign Office of the great interest taken in this question. But the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) was an indictment of the policy of the Government, and what he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had to do was to meet him upon that point, and to show to the House the reasons which had induced the Government to depart, up to a
    1304
    certain point, from the attitude hitherto observed by the Foreign Office in regard to this question. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had alluded to the despatches which had a few days ago been laid upon the Table of the House, and had asked why Her Majesty's Government had departed from the attitude taken by Lord Clarendon, Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, and the present Lord Derby upon this question? He would not altogether admit that Her Majesty's Government had departed from the attitude taken by those eminent statesmen. The attitude taken by them—namely, that they did not recognize the position of the Portuguese in this region, was still the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. But Her Majesty's Government considered that circumstances had since arisen, which, they believed, had they arisen in those former days, would have induced the Government to consider whether they did not furnish adequate reasons for taking, up to a certain point, a now departure, and entering into communications with the Portuguese Government in order to see whether some arrangement could not be made to obviate the existing difficulties and dangers. Now, what were those difficulties and dangers? And here he came to a point to which his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester had referred. His hon. Friend had dwelt a great deal upon the horrors of slavery and the Slave Trade. What was forced upon the attention of the Government some years ago was this—that, owing to the fact that here was a territory over which it was very difficult to say there was any recognized or constituted authority, events were taking place which, if they did not amount to the actual restoration of slavery and the Slave Trade in their most odious form, yet assumed a close resemblance to it. It was impossible for the Government to close their eyes to the facts which were brought to their notice, not only by the Portuguese Government, but by their own officers. Her Majesty's Government felt there was no sufficient guarantee against this state of things, and that the very increase of trade was tending to create a condition of things in which the Native Tribes were running serious risks. He would lay briefly before the House the statements made upon this painful sub-

    1305
    ject by a gentleman whose name was familiar to many hon. Members. Mr. David Hopkins, Her Majesty's Consul at Loanda, in a despatch, dated the 1st of May, 1877, to the Governor General of Angola, informed him of the abominable excesses practised by some Europeans on the Zaire. Mr. Hopkins especially denounced the assassination of about 30 negroes, including women and children, who, having been more or less justifiably accused of having taken part in the burning of the properties belonging to the Portuguese subject, Manuel Joaquim Oliveira, were, by the orders of the latter, and with the connivance of other Europeans and some Natives, among the former being a British subject, bound hand-and-foot and thrown into the river, some of them at Roma, and others at Port Lenha. As a climax of monstrosity, the presumed accomplices or witnesses, the victims as they were called, were put to torture by him. According to the information of Mr. Hopkins, similar attrocities were frequently perpetrated in the region under notice; and the same Consul specially named the Spanish subject José del Valle, better known as Don Pepe, as the person who inflicted frequent cruelties on his Black labourers, and who had even caused the death of some of them, whom he ordered to be drowned. Mr. Hopkins added that slavery was, in fact, re-instated on the Zaire; and that the Black labourers in the service of Europeans were literally sold to those by the Native Chiefs. But what most impressed the mind of Her Majesty's officer was the feeling that seemed to exist among Europeans living in the midst of a negro population—that it was the most natural thing in the world to treat them as slaves, and that it was singular that he should think it necessary to make such a fuss about the matter. No doubt, since then missionary enterprize had tended to introduce both among Europeans and Natives more kindly notions, and it was to be hoped would prevent such things from occurring again; but they had no real security that this would be so, and everyone knew that in these districts, where there was no strong civilized Government to control the conflicting claims, and the rivalries and jealousies of traders, these melancholy events were not unlikely to repeat themselves. That being so, it was felt that it was only probable that before
    1306
    long the Portuguese Government would call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the existing state of things. Accordingly, shortly after that, negotiations were opened by the Portuguese Government with the English Government. He wished to dwell upon that, because the Mover and Seconder of the Motion were inclined to say that Her Majesty's Government had gone out of their way to hand these regions over to Portugal. It was difficult to say at what exact moment the present stage of the negotiations began; but he was justified in saying that the first proposition in the present stage of the negotiations emanated from the Portuguese Government in consequence of the atrocities and horrors which had taken place. Ever since 1878 these negotiations had been begun and dropped and again taken up by successive Governments. If the history of this question were examined, it would be found not to belong to one Government or to one Party. His hon. Friend must be fully aware of that. In 1880 certain negotiations were carried on through Sir Robert Morier, who then represented Her Majesty's Government at Lisbon; but they did not lead to any settlement. The proposal was to recognize the Portuguese claims to the south bank of the Congo. Then, at a later period, the question was again taken up, and the present negotiations were begun. This discussion was one which could only be welcome to Her Majesty's Government, which had nothing whatever to conceal, and that had looked forward to the opportunity which the Forms of the House gave for bringing on this Motion to make a statement. He felt that he would be able to press upon the House the fact that this question had not been taken up in a hurry, or without adequate consideration and knowledge of the interests involved, and that he should at the same time be able to show clearly and distinctly that it was the full intention of Her Majesty's Government to listen with respect to the expression of opinion of those Gentlemen in the House who represented important interests. Now, he would remind the House that since the despatches of Lord Clarendon, which had been so frequently referred to, were written, there had been the Delagoa Bay Arbitration. The claims put forward to Delagoa Bay by Portugal were not recognized by England, and there were

    1307
    other despatches quite as strong' as those, which had been quoted in this debate, on the Delagoa Bay question. The decision in the international arbitration with regard to Delagoa Bay went against Great Britain; and therefore it was desirable to consider whether it was not their duty, not necessarily to give up their old position in consequence, but to ask themselves whether a wise moderation might not be desirable with regard to this question. They had also to consider the fact that these possessions were mentioned in the Portuguese Constitution, and that with the Portuguese Constitution the English Government had had a good deal of indirect, if not direct, connection. The English Government might be said to have had, if not legal, at all events equitable, notice of the Portuguese Constitution, because, as the House was aware, the Portuguese Constitutional question was frequently before it, more frequently perhaps than at the present day would be willingly sanctioned. Therefore, if the Portuguese Constitution was drawn up with these claims in it, the English Government, to a certain extent, received full notice of what Portugal claimed. There was yet another reason why the Government thought it desirable to consider this question. The Portuguese Government clearly and distinctly claimed this Coast, and a sentiment of Portuguese patriotism was enlisted in favour of the claim. It was a dangerous sentiment to evoke, because the consequences might be dangerous, and lead oven to bloodshed; and Her Majesty's Government had to ask themselves whether it would not be better, without giving up the position taken up by those great statesmen whose names had been mentioned, to try and come to some fair and equitable arrangement with the Portuguese Government which would save the great commercial interests so eloquently advocated by his hon. Friend, and which would also insure the interests and the liberty of the Protestant missionaries engaged in those regions. They had also to consider whether, by the establishment of a regular and responsible Government, those horrors could be prevented occurring among the Native population to the existence of which it was quite impossible for Her Majesty's Government to close their eyes. When
    1308
    Her Majesty's Government considered on the one hand the evils of leaving the question entirely open, and on the other the advantages accruing from an equitable settlement, they did not hesitate on the invitation of the Portuguese Government to re-open the subject and to enter into negotiations. As had been stated by the Secretary of State in "another place," negotiations had been going on, but without hurry and without any tendency to overlook any important point. Her Majesty's Government had first of all demanded, with regard to the commercial question, that the navigation of the River Congo should be absolutely free. That was a most important point. No proposal had been made or admitted by Her Majesty's Government which would enable the mouth of the Congo to be barred by what would be far worse than rapids and cataracts—namely, the imposition of dues upon navigation which would interfere with that freedom of navigation which at the present moment existed with great benefit to commerce in those regions. Her Majesty's Government had informed the Portuguese Government that they would not tolerate the existence of a tariff similar in character to some of those vexatious tariffs with which, in former days not far removed, the commercial world was familiar in the Portuguese possessions in Africa. They had distinguished between the different tariffs, they had pointed out that the Mozambique tariff, even with the modifications introduced in 1880, was superior to what was called the Angola tariff. They were not, however, pledged to be satisfied with the Mozambique tariff without receiving far more information on the matter than had yet reached them. Great uncertainty existed as to that tariff in consequence of some high-handee acts on the part of the Portuguese Governor which interfered, while they lasted, with the trade of those regions. He was bound to say that the Portuguese Government had repudiated those acts; but they nevertheless showed how thoroughly right his hon. Friend was when he said that they had not only to deal with the Treaties made by the Portuguese Government, but with the clauses of those Treaties as carried out by Portuguese Governors and other officials. Then there was yet another com-

    1309
    mereial point in which he knew many hon. Members felt an interest. He called it a commercial point, though it was not so entirely. It was that the Government would reserve whatever engagements had been made so far as they could be reduced to express terms; whatever obligations had been entered into with Native Chiefs upon the Coast would be respected, and they would not suffer anything on account of what had happened in the past. They would be in no worse position than they were now, and would be put under the aegis of an International Treaty. It had also been insisted as a point on which there could be no mistake that religious liberty should be granted by the Portuguese Government, and that adequate protection should be given to the Protestant missionaries established in those regions. It had been stated in unmistakable language that if religious liberty were given there should be a Treaty right on the part of this country to intervene for the protection of the persons entitled to it. The Government would also insist upon a point which was mentioned in the speech of his hon. Friend, on which he dwelt not at all at undue length—he meant that the clause relating to slavery should be couched in equally clear language with those relating to the other subjects he had mentioned. This was no new demand on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There had been a long controversy on the Slave Trade Clauses of the Lorenzo-Marquez Treaty, and the House was aware that after the negotiations had been brought to apparently a successful termination there was a great deal of excitement, and a vote of the Portuguese Cortes put an end to those clauses. The Lorenzo-Marquez Treaty was a remarkable and valuable one, and gave full right to the cruisers of the English Government to operate against the Slave Trade in Portuguese Waters, and also a right of calling on the Portuguese Coast officials, whether stationed on land or on sea, to co-operate in an effectual way in the suppression of the Slave Trade on the Coast, and in the mouths of the rivers along the Coast. Her Majesty's Government, although they would not insist on exactly the same words, would insist that what was the real value should be preserved in any Treaty that might be made. Lastly, there was another point
    1310
    on which the Government had thought it their duty to dwell, and which had not been mentioned in this debate. They had determined—and this was a decision of great importance—not to do anything to recognize any indefinite claim of the Portuguese Government inland. While attaching full importance to the questions connected with the Coast, it was well not to forget what might happen in the interior. The past history of America showed the necessity of that; for what was the origin of those great struggles which extended in the last century far beyond America, where they arose, and involved European nations in war? Their origin would be found in the claims which different Powers put forward with regard to the occupation of inland territory in America. The representatives of various nations settled on the Coast, where stations were first established. Then they proceeded up the rivers, establishing stations as they went along. Quarrels then began, one nation claiming to go indefinitely towards the East, a second towards the West, a third towards the North, and a fourth towards the South. The result was that the different claimants came into conflict in the valley of the Mississippi and Ohio, and great wars took place in consequence. The Government held it to be their duty to avoid any act or omission which might in the future be the cause of a similar struggle. Although it might be impossible in a region so imperfectly surveyed to lay down accurate boundaries, the Government held that some indication must be given of the claims of the Portuguese in the interior, and they had resolved that nothing should appear in the Treaty which could be used by the Portuguese Government or any other as a bar to the enterprize of those travellers who, from all parts of the African Coast, were now pressing into the interior of the country. That was a consideration of the utmost importance. The Government, he felt sure, would be supported by the House of Commons when they demanded that the Portuguese Government should indicate clearly the whole extent of their claims, not only along the Coast, but also in those remote regions. In conclusion, he had to say that one of two things would happen—either a Treaty would be made fully securing all those rights and liberties, whether commercial, or religious, or

    1311
    territorial, which it was the duty of the Government to defend; or, if the Government should find it impossible to obtain those securities which, consistently with their duty to Parliament, they felt it imperative on them to demand, the negotiations, which had proceeded slowly and carefully, would resume the position which they occupied between the time when the negotiations of Sir Robert Morier came to an end and the time when the present negotiations began.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, the noble Lord commenced by telling them that this question was one of growing importance, and that, owing to late discoveries in Africa, it must in the future have even a more important place than it had at present, and that he (Mr. Bourke) considered was quite sufficient to give the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) even greater importance than he attached to it. The speech of the noble Lord consisted of two parts, the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative part was strongly corroborative of all the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, while the second part was a hazy description of what Her Majesty's Government were going to do, without a single word as to the steps which Her Majesty's Government intended to take with the Government of Portugal in regard to this territory. the noble Lord had not attempted to negative one single assertion or argument that had fallen from the lips of either the Proposer or Seconder of the Resolution. On the contrary, he had said that the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester was an indictment against the Portuguese Government. The Portuguese Government was a Government with whom we were on friendly terms, and he was aware that it was not the business of the noble Lord to go out of his way to carry that indictment further; but, at the same time, he might be permitted to say that he had not mentioned one single fact or argument to detract from any of the considerations which had been brought forward with respect to the conduct and the policy of the Portuguese Government, upon which Her Majesty's Government relied as a reason for not giving up this territory to Portugal. It, therefore, came to this—that all the arguments and facts of the Mover and Seconder remained perfectly intact, and were, indeed, rather
    1312
    corroborated by the noble Lord's speech. Of course, the salient point in the contention of the hon. Member for Manchester was the argument that the policy of the Government for the last century had been exactly the reverse of what their policy was now to be. They were told also by the hon. Member for Manchester that the tariffs were excessive, and that if this cession took place it was absolute and certain ruin to English trade on that Coast. The noble Lord, however, had not touched this matter, nor had he said a single word regarding the paramount reasons that had induced Her Majesty's Government to take this extraordinary course. There was something more, he felt sure, behind all this which the noble Lord, probably out of prudence, had not stated. He had spoken about the jurisdiction which the Portuguese Government were to have in the country, but in such a shadowy way that it was almost impossible to meet his arguments. Instead of being told what were the proposals of the Portuguese Government and of Her Majesty's Government, the House had been treated to a series of negatives, which really came to nothing. They were told, for example, that slavery was not to exist under the Treaty; but we had already a far greater guarantee against the existence of slavery in the neighbourhood of the Congo than any that could be given by a Treaty. Was it on the Coast alone that this Treaty was to be applied? What jurisdiction had the Portuguese Government one mile from the Coast? Even in those countries where the Portuguese occupied territory given up to them exclusively they had no jurisdiction in the interior, or whatever jurisdiction they possessed was exercised by means of convicts and discharged prisoners. On the other hand, the jurisdiction now exercised along those African rivers, such as the Niger and the Bonny, worked well, and did not offend the susceptibilities of any nation, and the longer it lasted the better it became. The fact was that a sort of equitable Code was made between the merchants and our own officers, and so we went on remarkably well with the Tribes. Negotiations had been going on with the Portuguese for a long time, and they always founded their claim to this territory upon grounds which could not be established for a moment. The Portuguese had never put

    1313
    forward any claim except that of ancient discovery; but all knew that ancient discovery was not enough. Portugal had never exercised any jurisdiction, and if ancient discovery were sufficient there was not a single mile along the whole East Coast of Africa that Portugal might not claim, for ancient memorials of Portuguese occupation would be found all along the Coast. The noble Lord used an exceedingly alarming argument when he said that Her Majesty's present Advisers regarded the commercial relations on the East Coast of Mozambique as satisfactory. It was well known that nothing could he more unsatisfactory.
    LORD EDMOND EITZMAURICEexplained that he did not say that; but he stated that the Mozambique Tariffs were now under discussion between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade.
    MR. BOURKEobserved, that the noble Lord in another place spoke of the satisfactory character of the arrangements with Mozambique, and remarked that it would be well if they were applied to other parts of the Coast. Now, there was not one of the officials of the Foreign Office who would not laugh at the idea of the Mozambique arrangements being satisfactory. In 1878 the Government endeavoured to make more satisfactory tariffs; and he was sorry to say that those which had been arranged had been set aside by Portugal. The noble Lord would find in the records of the Foreign Office that the Portuguese had shown the greatest indisposition to admit British travellers into the country. There was one traveller who wanted to go into the interior in order to see whether there were any gold mines there. The Portuguese officer received him very cordially; but when the higher authorities found that to be the case they put the officer under arrest for having given the traveller any encouragement whatever. It was absolutely impossible for the Portuguese Government to carry out their own settled policy—that system which we call slavery and they "engagements"—if commerce were admitted into the country; and so surely as Portugal took possession of the Coast, so surely would slavery exist as it now existed in the Province of Angola. The noble Lord drew a distinction between the inland territory and the Coast. Now, he wanted to know what jurisdiction or power the Portuguese were to
    1314
    have upon the Coast, for that was the whole point? It would be perfectly impossible for them to have jurisdiction in the interior, for then they would be put down in a moment. But was the territory along the Coast to be ceded? It was perfectly impossible to ascertain, from the speech of the noble Lord, whether it was to be ceded or not. The noble Lord spoke of the rights which Her Majesty's Government would have by International Treaty. But they all knew that Her Majesty's Government, in other parts of the world, had a right to interfere, yet they did not always exercise it. It was not a question that concerned Her Majesty's Government so much as the Natives themselves. He agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), and those who said that the first consideration was the future of the tribes. There was one observation of the noble Lord, however, that he heard with pleasure, and that was that the Government would listen to what took place during the debate. Well, the best way in which Her Majesty's Government could listen to what took place was to give effect to this Motion. There never was a Motion brought before the House of Commons so conclusively proved and so inadequately met. He did not blame the noble Lord for that. He defied him, with the materials at his command, to make out a case. He perfectly agreed with all that had been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. He hoped, to use the words of the noble Lord, Her Majesty's Government would not make "a new departure" from the traditional policy of the Foreign Office;" but that they would adhere to the wise and statesmanlike policy of Lord Clarendon, Lord Russell, and Lord Palmerston, and would refuse altogether to entertain the claims of the Portuguese.
    MR. WODEHOUSE,in rising to move an Amendment, expressing the opinion that no Treaty should be made by the Government affecting territories in or adjacent to the Congo that would not afford adequate securities to all the civilizing and commercial agencies at work in those regions, said, that the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) had seemed to regard it as presumption on the part of the Representative of what he was pleased to call "little Bath" that he (Mr. Wodehouse)

    1315
    should have put an Amendment on the Paper. He certainly did represent a place which was smaller than Manchester; but, while entertaining great respect for the latter place, he could not help thinking, if he was to judge from the tone of the hon. Member, that among the many virtues which flourished in Manchester, modesty was not one. If it was necessary for the hon. Member for Manchester to make any reflection upon him (Mr. Wodehouse) at all, he should have done so upon him personally, and not upon him as the Representative of Bath. But if the hon. Member challenged a comparison, he would remind him that Bath, "little Bath," was famous when Manchester was still hidden in the gloom of obscurity; and he would stake the beauties of Bath—beauties of nature and of art combined—against all the charms of Manchester. However, he would not pursue that topic further, especially as he was in accord on many points with the hon. Member for Manchester. The speech of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) might be accepted as an assurance of the resolve of the Government to regard this Congo question with a single eye to the paramount interests of commerce and civilization; and it was, likewise, an assurance of the intention of the Government to pay the fullest measure of deference to the opinion of the House on this question. Nothing could be more natural than the jealousy with which negotiations affecting the Congo were viewed by mercantile communities who traded in South West Africa, and religious bodies who had Mission Stations there. The importance, also, of recent discoveries by travellers in Central Africa was unquestionable. The use to which the Congo might be turned as a great artery of communication stretching across the Continent profoundly affected our whole vision of the future in those regions of the earth. He would not weary the House by attempting to examine in detail the strength or weakness of the Portuguese claim to the territory between the 5th and the 8th degrees South latitude. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bourke) spoke contemptuously of it. For his (Mr. Wode-house's) part, as far as territorial claims of this kind went, it seemed to him to be a tolerably good one—["Oh, oh!"]
    1316
    —at least, he suspected many a worse one had been recognized elsewhere. But, be that as it might, the validity of this claim had never been admitted by Her Majesty's Government. The Papers which had been presented to the House showed conclusively that the Government of this country had been prepared to resist the assertion of the Portuguese claim, even by force of arms, if necessary; and when engagements had been entered into with the Native Chiefs in Her Majesty's name, they had always been treated as independent Rulers, and not as the vassals of Portugal. He fully admitted, therefore, that the recognition of Portuguese Sovereignty in that territory would be a modification, or a new departure, from the policy hitherto pursued by our Foreign Office under successive Secretaries of State. But the House must remember that the conditions of these African, questions were not the same now as when they were dealt with by Lord Palmerston, by Lord Russell, and by Lord Clarendon. A good many things had happened since then, and therefore the whole subject had to be regarded from a different point of view. There had been the extinction of the Slave Trade on the "West Coast; there were the great discoveries of recent travellers; there was now the international enterprize which owed so much to the enlightened initiative and public spirit of the King of the Belgians; and there was also the recent appropriation of territory by the French Republic, at a point commanding access to the upper navigable waters of the Congo. Many things, in fact, had changed in Central Africa since the days of Lord Palmerston, of Lord Russell, and of Lord Clarendon; and they could not approach the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester as those departed statesmen might have approached it. He (Mr. Wodehouse) did not wish to criticize the terms of the Motion in any hostile spirit, for as to the impolicy of a Treaty which would surrender the interests of civilization and commerce there could not be two opinions. The practical issue he wished to submit to the House was, whether it was wise to prohibit, as far as a Motion in that House could prohibit, the Government from concluding a Treaty which, although it might sanction annexation, might also secure efficient guarantees for the liberties of commerce and the free action of all

    1317
    civilizing agencies? It could hardly be contended that the existing state of affairs in the territory claimed by the Portuguese was one of ideal perfection even from our point of view. Wherever there was a disputed claim to Sovereignty an incident might at any moment arise to disturb and embitter the relations of otherwise friendly States. The Papers in their hands showed clearly enough that serious evils were prevalent in the independent settlements about the Congo, over which no civilized Power exercised jurisdiction. Consul Hopkins stated that all the factories in those settlements, excepting the English factories, were worked, more or less, by slave labour; and he described some of the cruelties practised upon the slaves. The Consul summed up the situation in the following words:—
    "All the White men in the tract of country lying between the Northern boundary of Angola and the Southern boundary of Gaboon consider there is no law; they are not responsible to any Government for their actions, and they do just what they please."
    Among the things which pleased them were torture by thumbscrews and drownings of slaves in batches. This was no Portuguese allegation; it was the official testimony of the British Representative on the spot; and he gathered from the words of the Consul which he had quoted that, however inefficient and defective the Portuguese administration of Angola might be, a worse state of things existed in the territories outside the administration of Portugal—territories which she desired to administer, but over which we forbade her to exercise control. ["No, no!"] That was his own inference, which he was as entitled to draw as hon. Gentlemen opposite were to draw theirs. He was sure that no men in the House were more anxious to avert the recurrence of such barbarities as those described by our own Consul than the hon. Members for Manchester and Liverpool; but what better security could they provide against the repetition of such barbarities than the establishment, in the places where they had happened, of the jurisdiction and the police of some responsible authority? Of course, the existing traders in these settlements of other nationalities than the Portuguese were opposed to annexation by Portugal; they would probably object to annexation by any country except the particular country to which they
    1318
    severally belonged. This was very natural, because, while there was no Sovereignty over them except the shadowy and phantom Sovereignty of a Native Chief, they did pretty much what they pleased; so long as they satisfied and propitiated the Native Chiefs by some small payments they were as free as air. This free and easy system of arrangements with Native Chiefs sometimes worked tolerably well in settlements where the trade was of moderate proportions, and where the Europeans were very few in number; but if some important discovery was made—if gold or diamonds were found, or if, in some other mode, a vista of extended trade were suddenly opened, there was an influx of Europeans to the spot, and then the free and easy system utterly broke down. Disturbances multiplied, and a stronger hand than a Native Chief s was required to maintain order. These advanced guards of civilization and commerce usually contained some of the wickedest of living men; and as Native Chiefs were easily induced by unscrupulous adventurers to cede anything and everything for a bottle of brandy or a keg of rum, all kinds of conflicting claims to land and other property or privileges were set up in the general confusion. Then out of this chaos there always came a demand for the intervention of some European Power; and he anticipated that the Congo territory was about to enter on such a critical period as he had described. The prospect of an enlarged trade would draw more Europeans to it, and then in due time the inevitable demand for intervention would come. The British traders and Missionaries would want British intervention, the Dutch would want Dutch intervention, and the French merchants would invoke the support of France. But intervention on these occasions was generally wont to glide into annexation. Now, when these things came to pass, would the hon. Member for Manchester be prepared to advocate a British annexation of the mouth of the Congo? If he were not prepared to advocate it, he would lose the support of many whose champion and Representative he might be Ion the present occasion. He (Mr. Wodehouse) did not wish to prejudge this question, or determine how it should be settled; he would only submit, as a reasonable hypothesis, that in order to avert worse

    1319
    dangers and complications in the future, it might be expedient to recognize the claims of the only Power which at present professed even to have a claim to Sovereignty in these regions. Even Lord Clarendon recognized the occupation of Ambriz, although he had disputed the right of the Portuguese to it as strongly as he disputed their right to Cabinda and Molembo. [Mr. BOURKE: Tolerated.] Well, he acquiesced in it, at all events, if that word would suit the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Wodehouse) did not know that the condition of Ambriz since the Portuguese annexation had been worse than it was before. ["Oh, oh!"] As regarded British trade, no doubt it had; but as regarded an increase of anarchy, what evidence was there of it? There was, undoubtedly, a strong prejudice against the Portuguese, and he would admit there was some cause for it; but the hon. Member for Manchester did what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bourke) refused to do; he drew an indictment, not against the Portuguese Government, but against the whole nation, and drew it with all the charity of a philanthropist. He (Mr. Wodehouse) did not desire to strengthen the prejudice against the Portuguese; but it could not be denied that the condition of Angola was not what it ought to be, nor that their commercial policy was exclusive and restrictive, and their Church intolerant to Protestants. There had been times when we had reason to complain of their conduct with regard to the Slave Trade; and even now some of their local officials were suspected of complicity with slavery practices. On the other hand, it should be remembered that there had been times when the services of Portuguese officers in suppressing the Slave Trade had been freely recognized and acknowledged by the English Government. He would also point out that Portugal had, at least, made a step towards a more liberal commercial policy in the Mozambique Tariff of 1877. With regard to the present negotiations with the Portuguese Government, everything would depend upon the nature of the terms obtained from them in return for so great a concession as the recognition of their Sovereignty in these territories would be. A bad Treaty with the Portuguese would be worse than useless; but a good Treaty, making provision for a liberal tariff, and for the enjoy-
    1320
    ment by British subjects of all due rights as to property, and religion and for their immunity from vexatious taxation, might be an improvement on the existing state of affairs, especially with regard to future contingencies. The hon. Member for Manchester advocated an International Control of these territories. He (Mr. Wodehouse) had not a word to say against it. If it were practicable, nothing, perhaps, would be better; but he did not think it would be found a very easy thing to set up. At any rate, the Government alone were in a position to judge of its feasibility; and, in the meantime, he would leave their hands free, and not bind them, as they would be bound, by the Resolution. One other point. It had been said that a Portuguese annexation would be resisted by the Natives, who were much opposed to it. No doubt, there was always a risk of outbreaks in these settlements when a new jurisdiction was set up, or when they were transferred from one jurisdiction to another; our own experience on the Gold Coast, where we had exchanged settlements with the Dutch, taught us that; the partizans of the old order were eager to discredit the new order at its start. There was generally some European or Mulatto intriguer in the background who stirred up the Natives to riot and plunder, and then represented the outbreak to be a genuine Native protest against a hated change. The only way to minimize the risk of such outbreaks was for other Powers who had subjects in the settlements concerned to support the introduction of the new jurisdiction by the presence of their Consuls or naval officers. He hoped, therefore, that if Portugal was to set up her Sovereignty in these places, it would not be done without the full concurrence and countenance of other Powers. Portugal should then be rigidly held to her engagements. But the discretion of the Government in carrying that policy into effect ought not to be hampered. It was not because he had other objects in view than the hon. Member for Manchester that he moved his Amendment, but because he deprecated the imposition of inconvenient restrictions upon the liberty of action which the Government were entitled to have. He would, however, ask leave to be allowed slightly to modify his Amendment, so that it might take note of existing arrange-

    1321
    ments on the part of the Crown, either? with Portugal or with independent Native Chiefs. In its new form his Amendment would run thus—To leave out all the words after the word "Government," in line 3, in order to insert the words—
    "Affecting territories on or adjacent to the Congo that would compromise any engagement into which Her Majesty may heretofore have entered, or would not afford adequate securities to all the civilising and Commercial agencies at work in those regions."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "Government" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "affecting territories on or adjacent to the Congo that would compromise any engagement into which Her Majesty may heretofore have entered, or would not afford adequate securities to all the civilising and Commercial agencies at work in those regions,"—[Mr. Wodehouse,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I would ask permission to interpose briefly in this debate at the present stage, not because I am anxious to interfere with Gentlemen who may desire to continue it, but because I feel that, after the very able speech which we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse), and the Amendment which he has placed before us in its present form, the question has reached a position in which it becomes perfectly practicable for the Government to define and explain to the House, in the most precise terms, the view which they take of the Motion and the Amendment, and to give the satisfaction which they desire to afford to the natural and reasonable expectations and wishes that have been uttered in various quarters during this debate. Now, we have before us the Motion and the Amendment. The Amendment purports to limit the future action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to a certain region in Africa, by shutting them out from any risk of making a Treaty which should fail to afford adequate securities to all civilizing and commercial agencies; and, likewise, they are to be shut out from making any Treaty which would interfere with the good faith of the country in regard to any engagement into which
    1322
    they heretofore have entered. As respects the first-named of the two particulars, I think the intention of the Motion and the Amendment may be said to be very nearly the same. As regards the second of them, I think the Amendment is an improvement upon the Motion, because, although the Motion is somewhat rigid in the fetters which it imposes upon the future action of Her Majesty's Government, yet it does not specifically, and in terms, guard against that danger which might incidentally arise—the danger of conflicting in a state of things which is extremely complicated by a former transaction, the danger of interfering with some engagements into which we have previously entered. I do not suppose any great difficulty can arise as between the Mover of the Motion and the Mover of the Amendment. My hon. Friend who made this Motion stated his case to the House, as he usually does, with very great ability and force, and it was not difficult to perceive that he had much justification for a great part of what he said. I do not wish to subscribe—indeed, it would hardly be becoming to subscribe—to all he stated upon the subject of the Portuguese Government and policy. I hope there was something, without reproach to my hon. Friend, of exaggeration in a portion of that statement, or else we have been exceedingly unfortunate in our judgment of the character of a State which it has been customary to extol in this House as one of our most ancient and faithful Allies, for whose welfare we were bound always to exercise a peculiar care. But that is not the matter at issue on the present occasion. What I wish to point out exactly to the House is the nature and extent of the difference between the Motion and the Amendment. I have assumed thus far that, so far as the statements of the Amendment go, they would not be disagreeable to the Mover of the Motion. Now, let us see what my hon. Friend does by the Motion itself. By the Motion, he desires that there should be no Treaty made by Her Majesty's Government that would sanction the annexation by any Power of territories on or adjacent to the Congo. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has an apprehension that there are Gentlemen in this House who desire the annexation of some of those territories by ourselves;

    1323
    and I take the opportunity of observing that, at any rate, the Motion of my lion. Friend effectually knocks that notion, and all such schemes and plans, upon the head. For under that Motion there can be no annexation by Great Britian. What we contend is this—that it is not wise, any more than customary, to tie the hands of Her Majesty's Government by indicating a particular region that now exists under very peculiar circumstances, and setting up a solemn declaration of policy on the part of this House that no Treaty, however advantageous, whatever compensation it may present, however unexceptional in its items, can properly be made by Her Majesty's Government, unless certain conditions, specified beforehand, are fulfilled. What we contend is that this is an unwise, as well as an unusual, limitation. It will be considered, I think, as a gratuitous and extraordinary step on the part of the House, even in a case where there was no special circumstances to be alleged. But the special circumstances here alleged are of a very grave order. They amount to this—that there are portions of this territory where there is no acknowledged jurisdiction of police, where, at the same time, the arrival of new accessions of strangers leads to an increase, it is true, of exactions, but which has brought about serious mischief and gross outrages. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) seemed to me, I must say, to make his speech very much more in the spirit of a Party connection than was at all necessary where there has been no Party issue. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of my noble Friend near me as if he had mentioned only a single case of outrage. Well, it was a case sufficiently grave, where 30 negroes were bound together and thrown into a river and drowned; and had it been urged from another quarter it would probaby have received a more worthy appreciation from the right hon. Gentleman. But my noble Friend did not dwell upon that act alone, but upon a certain portion of the territory, which he did not precisely attempt to define, nor should I attempt to define, where reigns what approaches to a state of lawlessness, and that frequent outrages occur there. Under these circumstances, what was stated by my hon. Friend behind me and by my noble Friend is this—that it is a possibility that the
    1324
    establishment by a civilized Power of some regular rule and jurisdiction might be for the advantage of that country. Now, here let me observe that by this Motion we are asked not only to exclude annexation by Portugal—the Government of which my hon. Friend describes as so intolerably bad—but we are asked to declare that under no circumstances, and at no time, can this annexation be properly effected by any Power whatever, even the most civilized, the most careful, the best qualified to exercise a beneficial influence over the Native Tribes. Surely that is too much to ask. What I ask my hon. Friend is this—that he shall not require us to make so broad, and, I will say, inconvenient, and, within its limited bounds, so dangerous an assertion. Let me see whether, in preferring that request, I am not able to give him, at the same time, every reasonable satisfaction. Our allegation, as stated by my noble Friend, was twofold. First, that there was a portion of territory where all regular authority was thwarted, where horrible outrages occurred, and where it may be desirable to establish a civilized jurisdiction, and a regular police. He also pointed out a branch of the case, into which it is not necessary for me to enter at any length, in which there was some doubt whether the assumption of too high a tone in denouncing in principle, and radically, all the claims of Portugal may not raise inconvenient arguments in reference to the recognition we had ourselves given to some claims of this character, not perhaps consistently, but yet actually given in a very solemn document—namely, in the Constitution of Portugal itself, the adoption of which we actively promoted. The right hon. Gentleman opposite used this expression. He said—"Is the territory to be ceded?" I must say that is an extraordinary expression to come from a Gentleman who has been six or seven years in the Foreign Office. Is the territory to be ceded? What is that but giving territory to somebody which is ours? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think he has a general right to the patrimony of mankind, and if anybody takes property it is necessary for him to cede it. I think the right hon. Gentleman should approach this matter in a spirit and with language more consistent with that policy of consideration and equality which is generally recognized in international

    1325
    rights, and which I believe it is the desire of my hon. Friend who moved this Motion, and of the House, to recognize. We cannot accept the Motion, because we cannot consent to be shut out, by previous deliberation and decision of the House, from turning the situation to the best account, and in determining what is the best account. What we say is, that it is possible that some annexation duly guarded, which would bring in regular government where lawlessness now prevails, may appear best to fulfil that condition. But my hon. Friend will say—and I do not complain—that the Treaty-making power places very large discretion in the hands of the Executive Government. My hon. Friend has quoted a speech of mine on a former occasion, when I objected to interference with the present Treaty-making powers upon principles and convictions I then entertained—that no Government would ever venture to make Treaties in serious matters behind the back of the country and of Parliament, without being well assured that they were acting in conformity with the general wish and conviction of Parliament. I am bound to say, viewing what has happened in some recent years, I am not prepared to repeat that assurance; and, therefore, after an experience which I need not enter upon in detail, I feel that my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion is entitled to ask from the Government, in a peculiar case like this, some further satisfaction. I propose to give him satisfaction in this way. I have no objection whatever to the acceptance of the limitations proposed to be placed upon us by the Amendment. They are just, and they are honest. But my hon. Friend may say they do not cover the whole ground. If so, I will now say, what will cover the whole ground? I am quite ready, under the circumstances of the case, to engage—and I think it is only equitable and fair to engage—that if we shall find it expedient, according to our conviction—on which I can at present give no positive judgment whatever—if we arrive at the conclusion that it is for the interest of the country, and of that country in particular, that we should make a Treaty, that Treaty should be made known to Parliament before ratification in such a way, and with the intervention of such an interval, that Parliament shall be enabled
    1326
    to exercise an independent judgment upon it. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to ask the hon. Member for his confidence. I believe, if I did, he would probably give us the credit of attaching due weight to all he has said, and what has been said by others. I think in a case of this kind, complicated as it is, and mixed up as it is with interests of which my hon. Friend is the zealous and faithful guardian, it is right to give the House an assurance that it shall have an opportunity given to it to exercise that jurisdiction which it is undoubtedly entitled to. I hope the words I have used have been sufficiently ample; and, if so, I cannot but express the hope that they greatly narrow any remaining ground of difference between us. In truth, I cannot believe, and I do not believe, that my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion has any object or purpose in view whatever except that which we also have. We may err in the mode of giving effect to our common wishes. Therefore, I say, he shall have an opportunity of judging of the way we propose to give effect to them before the country is finally bound by them. I need not explain what the effect is of an intervention of a deliberative Chamber upon an unratified Treaty. We have experienced it in very important cases ourselves from other States, the effect of which is to prevent the instrument ever taking legal effect as a portion of International Law. It was to make that statement, to point out where it is we differ from the terms of the Motion, that I thought it desirable to interpose at this period of the debate. Advantage has been taken of words very properly used by my noble Friend respecting a new departure. But do not let that be misunderstood. It is perfectly consistent to take a new departure under new circumstances, even for the purpose of giving effect to the views that have been previously entertained. When the British Government was content with simple protestations against the claim of Portugal, it was because there was no urgent case for considering the question, whether any regular government of the police on any part of this territory was to be established. If a case of the kind arises, even those who thoroughly approve, and have participated, as I have, in the prior proceedings, may say that modification in the former is absolutely

    1327
    necessary. That is not intended in any way as a qualification of a declaration that I have previously made; and I will conclude by expressing the hope that the explanation may meet the circumstances of the case.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, after the declaration made by the Prime Minister, he would recommend his hon. Friend to accept it, and withdraw his Motion. It was such a declaration as they had never had from any Prime Minister before. It was a new departure, and one of which he highly approved. At the same time, he felt bound to say that if his hon. Friend did not accept the advice, he would support him in his Resolution, because he was most anxious to impress upon the Government the undesirableness of making any Treaty whatever with this particular Power. He looked upon Portugal as a faithless Power, as a Power it was not safe to make Treaties with. The Amendment suggested our getting adequate securities; but we could never get adequate securities from such a Power. He looked upon Portugal as one of those contemptible Powers that trusted to their own weakness, and to our forbearance and generosity. The noble Lord told them about Portugal disowning wrong acts; but that Power would disown them to-day and repeat them to-morrow. They were not observing Treaties they had already made. The noble Lord knew that the other day we made a Treaty with Portugal for an International Sailing Code. They deliberately violated that Treaty, and refused to give us what we asked—arbitration. They did so simply because they trusted to our magnanimity not to press our claims. For that reason, he thought that the Portuguese Government ought to be, as a Treaty-making Power, sent to Coventry. We should refuse to make Treaties with them until they showed they were willing to abide by the Treaties they had already made. They had refused arbitration in the case he had alluded to; and he had not the least doubt, if we made a Treaty with them about the Congo, say, to have no navigation dues, and to have no tariff so bad as the Mozambique Tariff, still there would be some tariffs, whereas we wanted none. Any Treaty they made they would get out of somehow or other, and we would find ourselves in a scrape, and we would not know how to set about
    1328
    compelling them to keep to their Treaty. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would give up their present negotiations with Portugal, and not attempt to have a Treaty with that country at all.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, after what had been stated by the Prime Minister, he would withdraw his Motion. They had received a promise that any Treaty which was entered into would not be ratified until the House had had full time and opportunity for discussing it. He assumed that if such opportunity were given the discussion would take place, and the information which the House and the country would derive from what had been said to-night would prevent any Government from passing the Treaty.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Motion could not be withdrawn unless, in the first place, the Amendment to it was withdrawn.
    MR. WODEHOUSEsaid, he was perfectly ready to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that a somewhat analogous Motion to this was brought forward last year in reference to the payment of the Indian troops employed in Egypt, but was not pressed, on a promise being given that the matter would be subject to the further consideration of Parliament. But the Mover had to take his chances of the ballot; and now he (Mr. Onslow) asked the Prime Minister whether, when this Treaty was placed on the Table of the House, he would give facilities for discussing it?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not perceive the analogy of the two cases, and he did not think this was the time to go into details as to the mode or opportunities of discussing a Treaty that did not exist, and might not exist. The pledge he had given was well understood; and if they availed themselves of the crowded state of Business for the purpose of escaping discussion they would be guilty of violating that pledge.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There is one matter which I think we should clearly understand, and which we do not now quite realize—that is, how the matter will rest after what is now proposed. As I understand, the Motion is about to be withdrawn as well as the Amendment, and thus we shall have nothing before us at all. I think that

    1329
    would be an inconsistent conclusion, because what is the actual state of the case? As I understand, Her Majesty's Government have been, and perhaps now are, carrying on negotiations with the Portuguese Government, with a view to the making of a Treaty which would give certain rights of annexation to the Portuguese on the banks of the Congo. Then the hon. Member for Manchester comes forward and says—"I object to this. I desire to call for an expression of opinion to prevent this annexation." And he and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) gave their reasons for that objection; and those reasons had weighed with the Members of the House. They had weighed with the Government, so far as to induce them to come forward with a voluntary pledge of a very peculiar character—I may say of an extraordinary character—with regard to the ratification of the Treaty. They have made a pledge, embodied in the words of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Bath has placed on the Paper. There have been communications going on, and those communications have led to an arrangement between the Government and the Mover of the Motion, satisfactory to the hon. Member for Manchester. The fact of the arrangement and the conclusion will rest entirely on the records of the debate; but there will be no record of what induced the hon. Member to withdraw, so far as the Journals of the House go. They will show nothing of it, and this will raise or create a false impression. The matter is one of great importance. I am conscious of the delicacy of the position in discussing a matter which affects a Government with whom we have always been, and with whom we desire to be, in friendship. While sensible of that, I feel that after the observations of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) there are still greater reasons for fear and apprehension. He told the House some things; but what he did not tell left the House to anticipate something less satisfactory. I think the least that the House should require is that, in some shape or other, the words apparently accepted as satisfactory by the Mover of the original Motion should be placed in the Order Book as being a record of the proceedings.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member for Manchester has done right, after the assurance given him, not to press his Motion. I agree that it would be desirable that there should be some record of the debate. I should hope that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bath, which had been accepted by the Government, should be accepted as the Resolution of the House. I believe it would greatly assist the Government in their negotiations with Portugal; but I cannot but believe that there would be an end to the Treaty if it be shown in the negotiations that this was the Resolution of the House. If we take the first clause, I do not believe the Portuguese Government would care to have a Treaty after they understood the real meaning of that clause. We have, between 1848 and 1877, 13 Treaties, and in them we, in the frankest possible terms, acknowledged the Kings as Rulers of territories; and if we state that no engagement with them is to be compromised, that means that we do not acknowledge or recognize any Sovereignty of these territories on the part of the Portuguese. I am perfectly convinced that the Portuguese Government would never consent to that. Then, as to existing commercial and civilizing agencies at work, that means, in the first place, security for Missionary effort. We know what the law of Portugal is in that matter—that other than Catholic worship is not even allowed to foreigners, save private worship in houses having no external appearance of churches. It is not possible for the Portuguese Government to give the contemplated security without a change of their own laws. If they find that their restrictions on trade cannot be enforced, their motive for a Treaty will disappear. Why have they put forward their claim? Not because of the atrocities mentioned by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That may have had much to do with the negotiations entered into by our own Government; but it must be remembered that almost all the persons engaged in it were Portuguese subjects. The real reason they are asserting a claim is that the Congo has become a valuable country. Thanks to commercial enterprize—mainly British—the trade with the Congo has doubled in the last 10 years. Thanks to the travellers who

    1331
    have been named, to the International Association, and, above all, to the King of the Belgians, who, by his benevolent efforts in this part of the world, has fastened his name on history, there is a great trade upon the Congo, and the Portuguese wish to gain something by it. That is the real reason of the Portuguese anxiety. If we are to have the adequate security spoken of, we must first of all make it clear that there shall be no toll-bar; that there will be no dues exacted on the river; that it will be a free highway; and that the stations of the International Association will be left untouched. But, if this be done, the motive of the Portuguese will be gone. The real great danger—and until the declaration of the Prime Minister I thought it so great a danger that I could not have advised my hon. Friend (Mr. Bright) to withdraw his Motion—is the interpretation to be given to the words "adequate security" Portugal is a friendly country, and I do not want to reiterate what has been said about past Treaties; but it is notorious that the Treaties about the Slave Trade were a mockery; and with regard to other matters, promises have been made and broken. There is this great difficulty in dealing with Portugal—that she does not seem to be accessible to public opinion with regard to the keeping of Treaties. She can only be got to keep them by the threat of armed force. Therefore, it is of immense importance we should know what the adequate security is. I understand the Prime Minister is to submit a Treaty to the House, though I do not believe there will be one. If there be one, it will be looked at with a critical eye by the friends of commerce, of civilization, and of Missionary work. I hope there will be no annexation by any country, for civilization is making progress. It is five years since these atrocities occurred, and the stations of the International Association and of the Missionaries are producing the most beneficent consequences. Supposing some European country was to conquer a part of this territory, it would be a strong thing to pledge us beforehand against sanctioning it; but it is a different thing to sanction a claim by the Portuguese which they can only enforce by going there. Is there anything to justify us in inviting them to go and take possession of the country? "With the additional informa-
    1332
    tion which the Government have now obtained, I cannot believe that they would for a moment consent to any Treaty which did not contain stipulations, which I do not believe any Portuguese Cortes would sanction, and which I do not believe any Portuguese Government would give, unless they thought they could evade them immediately afterwards; and I do not think the House would allow any Treaty to be made in these circumstances without its being clear as to securities; and I do not know what securities could be required that would be adequate. Nothing would injure the Natives more than a war, and that would result if the Portuguese attempted to go there. Evil consequences could only be prevented by the presence of English gunboats; and could we send them to protect the Portuguese in making a claim which we have denied to them for a number of years? But it is not only the possibility of war between Natives and the Portuguese. How are we to make Portugal carry out its engagements? The only way would be by war with Portugal. I am convinced that all these considerations will weigh with the Government; and I believe that this discussion has put an end to any Treaty; we shall hear nothing about it; or, if we do, it will be in a form that will enable us to put an end to it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government had no objection whatever to adopting the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, and of the Leader of the Opposition, that the Amendment should be carried instead of being withdrawn, provided the hon. Member for Manchester and his Friends saw no objection to that course.
    MR. WHITLEY,as the Seconder of the Motion, said he had no objection to that course.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, That in the interests of civilization and Commerce in South West Africa, this House is of opinion that no Treaty should be made by Her Majesty's Government affecting territories on or adjacent to the Congo that would compromise any engagement into which Her Majesty may heretofore have entered, or would not afford adequate securities to all the civilising and Commercial agencies at work in those regions—(Mr. Wodehouse.)

  OPIUM DUTIES (CHINA).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASErose to move the following Resolution:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that in all negotiations which take place between the Governments of Her Majesty and China, having reference to the Duties levied on Opium under the Treaty of Tientsin, the Government of Her Majesty will be pleased to intimate to the Government of China that in any revision of that Treaty, or in any other negotiations on the subject of Opium, the Government of China will be met as that of an independent State, having the full right to arrange its own Import Duties."
    The hon. Baronet said: I think I am safe in saying that there is no question in this country which has taken so firm a hold of the public mind as the question of our opium trade with China, and the production of the drug in India. There has been an extensive agitation on the subject, although there has been but a comparatively small Society endeavouring to diffuse information—I believe that the whole cost to the Society during the last one or two years has not exceeded £2,000—nevertheless, there have actually been Petitions presented to this House during the last Session of Parliament against this traffic, signed by upwards of 75,000 persons. I believe that a larger number of signatures has been attached to these Petitions than has been attached to Petitions on almost any other subject which has been recently brought before Parliament. In dealing with the question of China, as my Motion does, I intend also to make certain remarks which I feel bound to make on the question as it affects India, the Indian Revenue, and the Indian Government. This forms a very large and a very important part of the general subject of the opium traffic; and, whatever the Government of India may say to the contrary, I have around me a large consensus of public opinion. As far as that large and important body, the Established Church of England, is concerned, I may say that the late Archbishop of Canterbury—a man whose memory everyone here holds in reverence—the present Archbishop of York, and a large number of the Bishops and clergy and congregations of the Church of England, have protested against the opium trade, and they have
    1334
    passed Resolutions at their respective Assemblies petitioning Parliament, besides taking other steps to show their assent to the movement for the suppression of the traffic. The whole question of the traffic has been very carefully inquired into. In addition to the Church of England, Petitions have been presented from all the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic priests, and Roman Catholic congregations, who have, from the first to the last, taken the strongest interest in the question of the opium trade with China. There is also a large Missionary body in China who have taken an active interest in putting down the use of this drug among the Christian converts in that country. I believe that there have been Petitions from Representative Bodies of all the Dissenting Churches in the Kingdom—Wesleyan, Independent, Congregational, Baptist, the Society of Friends, the English Presbyterian Synod, the United Methodist Free Churches, the Methodist New Connection, and many others. There has also been presented a considerable number of Petitions from most of the Presbyterian Bodies in Scotland, and the General Assemblies of the Church and of the Free Church of Scotland. All the Unitarian ministers and congregations and the Evangelical Alliance have repeatedly protested and petitioned in the same strain. Therefore, I say that around this question has been drawn the interests not only of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Bodies of Scotland, but the whole of the Dissenting Churches have given their testimony in regard to what they believe—and they are well able to speak upon the question—to be the immorality of the traffic carried on between India and China, which testimony I think the Indian Government ought, to some degree, to respect. But, in addition to this, we have had Petitions from many Secular Bodies, and one to which I should like to call the attention of this House to is a Memorial addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister during last year, which bears the signatures of both the Archbishops, and 12 Bishops of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Manning, the Presidents of the Wesleyan Conference, the Congregational Union, and the Baptist

    1335
    Union, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Duke of Westminster, and other Peers, 60 Members of Parliament, 30 Mayors and Provosts, 30 eminent medical men and Medical Missionaries, Chairmen of Chambers of Commerce and School Boards, Presidents of Liberal Associations, merchants, bankers, shipowners, Professors of the Universities, &c, &c.—361 in all. Now, I wish to ask my right hon. Friends who sit below me whether they can think that the Indian Government and the Foreign Office are right in allowing this trade to be carried on with China, when all these people, in whose opinion they must place the greatest confidence, have declared that they are wrong; that the trade is immoral; and that it is one which ought to be stopped in the interests of morality. Well, Sir, the question does seem to me to be a question which ought to be tried by public opinion; and I think that public opinion in this country has gone so far that it will render it very difficult for the Government of India to go on cultivating this traffic, and that it would have to seek for a sounder and better source of Revenue. Nor would the Foreign Office be able to insist upon China taking this drug and paying the duties we have imposed upon it. I have worded my Resolution, in the first instance, in order that I may deal with that which seems to me to be one of the first fringes of this question, and that is to test the sincerity of the Chinese. The noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) has laughed at the sincerity of the Chinese in this question; but I believe that the Chinese are perfectly sincere in the matter, and in expressing that opinion I believe I am expressing the view which is held by a gentleman who has represented us very ably for some considerable time in China. I refer to Sir Rutherford Alcock. In the evidence of Sir Rutherford Alcock, before the Finance Committee in India, he stated, in reply to Question 5,725—
    "I have estimated the absolute interest of the Chinese Government in the Indian trade at about £1,500,000 sterling, and in reference to this I may mention that not only in the Conference that took place with the Ministers of the Tsungli-Yamên, a Minute of which I read at the last meeting of the Committee but also at different times officially or privately, they have shown the greatest readiness to give up the whole Revenue, if they could only induce the
    1336
    British Government to co-operate with them in any way to put it down."
    Sir Rutherford Alcock went on to say, in answer to Question 5,728—
    "As regards the bearing upon the Government of China, if I had been enabled, during the recent revision of the Treaty, to hold out any distinct promise or assurance to them that, both as regarded Missionaries and opium, which are their two great grievances, something should be done more or less restrictive that would meet their wishes, I believe that I might have got any facilities for our trade that I had chosen to demand. My great difficulty was that I could offer them nothing in either direction."
    Well, Sir, I ask, at the present moment, that no pressure should be placed upon the Chinese as to what duties, Imperial or otherwise, shall be imposed on China by the Foreign Office at the instigation of the Government of India. That is the simple Resolution which I propose to ask the House to assent to. I ask that the Government of China shall be treated as we should treat France or Germany, or any other independent Power which we considered equal to ourselves. I have heard the argument used, over and over again, that we have never forced opium upon the Chinese. I think the least we can say to China at the present moment is, that whether we forced opium upon them, or did not force it, we shall now leave the Chinese people at liberty to deal with the duties in regard to the drug as they like. But I say that the evidence, in spite of all that has been said by Secretaries of Legation and others, is overwhelming that we did, and do, force this opium traffic upon China. I do not know that I can read anything which will have more weight with the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues than the words of the Prime Minister himself, which I have before quoted in this House, and which were used in reference to the war in 1840. On this occasion the Prime Minister said—
    "They gave you notice to abandon your contraband trade. When they found that you would not, they had a right to drive you from their coasts on account of your obstinacy in persisting in this infamous and atrocious traffic. You allowed your agent to aid and abet those who were concerned in carrying on that trade; and I do not know how it can be urged as a crime against the Chinese that they refused provisions to those who refused obedience to their laws whilst residing within their territories.…A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know, and I

    1337
    have not read of. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke last night in eloquent terms of the British flag waving in glory at Canton.…That flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic, and if it were never to be hoisted except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror.…Although the Chinese were undoubtedly guilty of much absurd phraseology, of no little ostentatious pride, and of some excess, justice, in my opinion, is with them; and that whilst they, the pagans, and semi-civilized barbarians, have it, we, the enlightened and civilized Christians, are pursuing objects at variance both with justice and with religion."—(3 Hansard, [53] 818–19.)
    Again, in a letter written in 1880, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I have witnessed three wars in China. The two first of these wars were directly connected with the opium traffic, and grew out of it; and I was amongst the most earnest, and, I may say, the most determined opponents of both those wars."
    I have many other quotations here; but I will not trouble the House with them. Sir Thomas Wade wrote, in] his Memorandum on the revision of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin—
    "We are generally prone to forget that the footing we have in China has been obtained by force alone; and that, unwarlike and unenergetic as we hold the Chinese to be, it is, in reality, to the fear of force alone that we are indebted for the safety we enjoy at certain points accessible to our force.…Nothing that has been gained, it must be remembered, was received from the free will of the Chinese; more, the concessions made to us have been, from first to last, extorted against the conscience of the nation."
    Sir Rutherford Alcock came to exactly the same conclusion. He was examined by my late hon. Friend, Mr. J. B. Smith, and he was asked—"We force them by Treaty to take it from us?" to which he replied—"That is so in effect." I think I need not go further into this question as to whether we forced the opium traffic upon China or not. We forced the whole Treaty of Tien-Tsin on China, and this duty was part of that Treaty. We have merely to say to the Chinese that, whatever we did in those days, it is different now, and that we are prepared to give up these obnoxious duties in such a manner as the Chinese may think for the best. A great deal has lately been said in favour of the drug itself, and in a manner which has certainly surprised me. The more I have looked into the question, the more satisfied I have become as to the demoralizing influences which this drug produces upon all who deal with it or who trade in it, and the
    1338
    more I am satisfied that the course I am now urging upon the House and upon the country is the only course that is justifiable. The principal advocates I have heard for retaining the traffic have been my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and Sir George Birdwood, whose letters have lately been published, and who is a gentleman who holds a very honourable position in the India Office. But what does Sir George Birdwood say? In the course of these letters there are only two short paragraphs which I will venture to read to the House. He says—
    "I am not approving the use of stimulants—I have long since ceased to do so. I am only protesting that there is no more harm in smoking opium than in smoking tobacco in the form of the mildest cigarettes, and that its narcotic effect can be but infinitesimal, if, indeed, anything measurable; and T feel bound to publicly express these convictions, which can easily be put to the test of experiment, at a moment when all the stupendous machinery available in this country of crotchet-mongers and ignorant if well-meaning agitators is being set in movement against the Indian Opium Revenue on the express ground of its falsely-imputed immorality. Be that as it may, all I insist on is the downright innocency in itself of opium smoking; and that, therefore, as far as we are concerned in its morality, whether judged by a standard based on a deduction from preconceived religious ideas, or an induction from national practices, we are as free to introduce opium into China, and to raise a Revenue from it in India, as to export our cotton, iron, and woollen manufactures to France."
    Now, I will hand Sir George Birdwood over to the tender mercies of his own Profession, who have given an unanswerable declaration upon this subject, and which has never been contradicted; and also to the experiments which have been tried by Professor Gamgee with unanswerable results. I believe that Professor Gamgee, a resident of Manchester, is a gentleman well known to the Under Secretary of State for India. The Lancet, in a leading article, says—
    "The opium-eater, after a very brief habituation, is wretched and feeble without his artificial strength, and the moderate employment of opium is comparable rather to what is now regarded as the habitually excessive use of alcohol than to its really moderate use. The moderate and even the minimum opium-eater is a slave to his stimulant as the moderate alcohol-drinker is not. The testimony on this point is overwhelming, and so, also, is the evidence of the rapidity with which the opium-eater becomes enslaved, and the extreme difficulty and rarity of rescue. The mass of evidence on this

    1339
    point—as an example of which we may mention the Chinese Consular Reports lately referred to in those columns—is altogether ignored by Mr. Moore, and, à fortiori, by Sir George Birdwood, the former contenting himself with a covert sneer at the statements of Missionaries (who have probably enjoyed better opportunities for observation than anyone else), and by the assertion and demonstration of the fact that recovery from the opium habit is a possible thing, which no one dreamed of denying. It is, moreover, difficult to attach much weight to an opinion of a writer who at one page admits that 'confessedly the practice of using opium, in common with indulgence in alcohol, exerts sufficient deleterious influences,' and at another asserts that 'the moderate use of opium is, under innumerable circumstances, beneficial to mankind both in health and sickness,' and who deliberately defends as harmless the habitual administration of opium to young children."
    Then I think the testimony from China itself, and from all those who have been engaged in China, is overwhelming; but I cannot trouble the House with one-half of the instances which I hold in my hand. Let me, however, take two or three of them. I will quote Sir Rutherford Alcock as one of my testimonies. He says—in answer to the Question—
    "Can the evils physical, moral, commercial, and political, as respects individuals, be exaggerated?—I have no doubt that where there is a great amount of evil, there is always a certain danger of exaggeration. It is difficult not to conclude that what we hear of it is essentially true; that it is a source of impoverishment and ruin to families."
    Sir Thomas Wade, our present Representative to China, at this moment in this country, in a Memorandum of the revision of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, writes thus—
    "It is to me vain to think otherwise of the use of the drug in China than as of a habit many times more pernicious, nationally speaking, than the gin and whisky drinking which we deplore at home. It takes possession more insidiously, and keeps its hold to the full as tenaciously. I know no case of radical cure. It has insured, in every case within my knowledge, the steady descent, moral and physical, of the smoker, and it is, so far, a greater mischief than drink—that it does not by external evidence of its effects expose its victim to the loss of a repute which is the penalty of habitual drunkenness. There is reason to fear that a higher class than used to smoke in Commander Lin's day are now taking to the practice."
    The same evidence was given by Mr. David Hill, a Missionary of very large experience in China, and a gentleman very well known in the City of York. Mr. Hill, who is connected with the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and returned
    1340
    to this country after having been for 14 years out there, told me—
    "The effects of opium smoking upon the Chinese generally has again and again been depicted to the British public in strong and earnest language; but never I think too strong, and certainly never too earnest. No language can fully picture to others the deplorable consequences of opium smoking, which I have myself soon in China, even in the case of some of my own Chinese acquaintances."
    I hold in my hand copies of the opinions of Dr. Kerr, a Medical Missionary at Canton for more than 20 years; of Mr. Winchester, Her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai; of Dr. Gauld, who was connected with the English Presbyterian Medical Mission at Swatow; and of Dr. Osgood, of the Foochow Medical Missionary Hospital, from whose statement I will read one passage. Dr. Osgood says—
    "In all, over 1,100 cases have been treated. As a majority of these cases have come under my personal supervision, day after day, I hope that I shall not be accused of egotism or cant when I write that, in my opinion, the use of opium is an unmitigated curse."
    He also says—
    "I have never yet heard a heathen Chinaman defend the use or sale of opium; but, on the contrary, they universally condemn them. The only apologists for the use of opium have been representatives of Christian lands, many of whom have had but little practical knowledge of the evil resulting from the use of opium."
    Well Sir, there was a very remarkable gathering that I had the pleasure of attending—of the Chinese Missionaries, at Exeter Hall. It was held one day last year, and the verdict of all the Missionaries of China was unanimous in regard to the ruinous results upon the Chinese people of opium smoking. Therefore, I think this evidence, which cannot for a moment be contradicted, is of the highest value. Sir Rutherford Alcock seems lately to have altered his views. I wish to say nothing disrespectful of Sir Rutherford Alcock. Sir Rutherford Alcock ably represented us in China for a long time; he is now placed in an altered position. He has become the Chairman of the British Borneo Company. The British Borneo Company, to the great scandal of this country, have, in their Charter given to them by Her Majesty's Government, the power of dealing with this drug in Borneo; and in Article 15 of the Charter there is a Section (VII.) which gives the Company

    1341
    the power of monopolists in dealing with and selling opium. I do not mean to say that Sir Rutherford Alcock's views have altered because he has altered his position in life; but it is a rather singular thing that he should now be writing in favour of the use of this drug, after the evidence which he gave before the Committee which inquired into the question in relation to Indian finance. There is another argument which is sometimes used in these debates. I have heard it often said that the English, who indulge in excessive drinking, are the last persons who ought to protest against the use of opium. Now, I never could see the force of that argument. I think it is proved abundantly that the use of the drug by the Chinese is a very much worse thing than the use of almost any quantity of alcoholic drink. But, on the other hand, if things are allowed to happen in our own country which are a great disgrace to it, and which many of us have been labouring to put down by wise and prudent and careful measures of legislation—because the people of this country do wrong by using alcoholic liquors to excess—that can be no possible reason why the Government of India should live upon poisoning the Chinese, or why the Revenue of India should be raised at the expense of the physical and moral corruption of the Chinese people. I hold in my hand Papers which were moved for in 1881 on the consumption of opium in British Burmah. The Indian Government seems to have acted with great fairness, but with great firmness, in reference to the question of the opium trade in British Burmah. In a Memorandum written by Mr. Aitchison, late Chief Commissioner of British Burmah, dated Rangoon, April 30, 1880, he says—
    "The Papers now submitted for consideration present a painful picture of the demoralization, misery, and ruin produced among the Burmese by opium smoking. Responsible officers in all divisions and districts of the Province, and Natives everywhere, bear testimony to it. To facilitate examination of the evidence on this point, I have thrown some extracts from the Reports into an Appendix to this Memorandum. These show that among the Burmans the habitual use of the drug saps the physical and mental energies, destroys the nerves, emaciates the body, predisposes to disease, induces indolent and filthy habits of life, destroys self-respect, is one of the most fertile sources of misery, destitution, and crime, fills the gaol with men of relaxed frame, predisposed to dysentery and cholera, prevents the due extension of
    1342
    cultivation and the development of the land revenue, checks the natural growth of the population, and enfeebles the constitution of succeeding generations."
    That passage is not written by any member of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, but by one of Her Majesty's Representatives in British Burmah, who brings together the whole of the evidence contained in this Paper, and upon such evidence the Indian Government took almost immediate and strong action. In the Report of the Administration for British Burmah, of 1880–1, it is stated—
    "In April, 1880, 40 licensed opium shops were closed, leaving 28 still open, and the price of Government opium was raised 30 per cent. It is proposed to close nine more shops on the 1st of April next, and to restrict the issues of Government opium to the holders of some of the remaining shops.…It is anticipated that the measures which are being taken will eventually cause a loss of from £50,000 to £70,000 of provincial revenue. In the Kyonkpyoi district the shops were reduced from five to one. There can be no doubt that all respectable classes of the people felt strongly on the opium question. Christian Missionaries and European officers who go much among the people share this feeling. Indulgence in opium sent a certain number into the lunatic asylum and a larger number into gaol. The name of opium smoker was a term of reproach throughout the country. Under these circumstances, it was clearly right to comply with the wishes of the people, and to restrict the consumption of opium.…The recent measures were proposed and were sanctioned by the present Chief Commissioner, and were sanctioned by the present Government of India, because they were demanded by the voice of the people, and because they were deemed to be right."
    It is absurd for people to say that that which is good and right for Burmah is bad for China, and that the opium traffic ought to be maintained for the benefit of the Revenue of India. But the matter does not end here. I am told that the Government of Bombay are negotiating with the head Government—my hon. Friend (Mr. J. K. Cross) will correct me if I am wrong—and they say—
    "The Government consider there are very strong objections to the introduction of an industry so demoralizing in its tendency as opium cultivation and manufacture into a Province where at present it is unknown, and, so far as His Excellency in Council is aware, not asked for by the people. If opium cultivation were allowed in Scinde, it could not, with consistency, be prohibited in the rest of the Presidency. It has already been tried in Gujerat, and the result was wide-spread corruption and demoralization. At present the consumption of opium in this Presidency is very limited; but if the cultivation

    1343
    of opium and manufacture of opium were permitted, every village might have its opium shop, and every cultivator might contract the habit of eating a drug which is said to degrade and demoralize those who become addicted to it. On the ground of public morality, therefore, His Excellency the Governor in Council would strongly deprecate the grant of permission to cultivate the poppy in Scinde, or in any other part of this Presidency."
    I contend that the Indian Government seems to be doing what is right and wise at home; but they are doing an unfortunate thing if they are urging the Foreign Office still to dictate terms to the people of China on the question of the duty on this drug, and are guilty of gross inconsistency. Now, Sir, I think I have proved that this drug is demoralizing; that it is bad; and that we, a civilized, moral, and Christian people, should not deal with it. I find that there are Treaties existing between America and China, and between Russia and China, and in both these Treaties the Chinese Government has insisted that these two countries shall not take any part in the opium traffic. If the opium traffic is helpful to the people of China, surely such a stipulation is not necessary? But our American friends are beginning to find out that the use of this drug, as introduced into California by the Chinese, is demoralizing to their people, and they have already passed a statute on the subject. I find, in that excellent book of Dr. Kane's on Opium Smoking in America and China, that the habit of opium smoking is described as most fascinating.
    "It ensnares individuals in all classes of society, leading to the downfall of innocent girls, and the debasement of married women, and spreading its roots and growing in spite of the most stringent measures tending to its eradication."
    Dr. Shurtleff again writes that the laws for the suppression of this vice were manifestly deficient until last winter, when the Legislature added a new section to the Penal Code of this State, which is as follows:—
    "Every person who opens, or maintains to be resorted to by other persons, any place where opium or any of its preparations is sold or given away to be smoked at such place; and any person who at such places sells or gives away any opium or its said preparations to be smoked or otherwise used; and every person who visits or resorts to any such place for the purpose of smoking opium or its said preparations, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 500
    1344
    dollars, or by imprisonment in the county gaol not exceeding six months, both such fine and imprisonment."
    Therefore, in America they find that this drug is as evil in its effects as in China; and, until some argument is brought to the contrary to convince me, I shall hold to the opinion that this method of raising the Indian Revenue is demoralizing to a friendly, if somewhat barbaric, people. Another argument was used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the course of one of the debates on this subject, that it was the smuggling of opium which brought us into this traffic, and that if we do not continue it as a legal trade we should then get into the difficulty that always arises: when a contraband trade has been brought about by the large duties which have been levied on the article in question. Mr. Commissioner Aitchison says—"The evasion of the Revenue is not to be compared with the gradual demoralization of the people." That is his view, and I believe it to be the view of the Indian Government, and that it will be the view of this House. But what was our conduct towards China? Our conduct towards China comprised the abetting of smuggling. The Arrow, while sailing under false colours, was seized by the Chinese authorities in a way which was perfectly right, as was afterwards clearly demonstrated. But we went to war with the Chinese, and we punished the Chinese. Now I come to that which is, perhaps, the most difficult part of the question, and that is the subject of the Indian Revenue. This has been, from first to last, the great difficulty in dealing with the question of opium. I have looked carefully through the records of the Indian Revenue for some time back; and I have come to the conclusion that if the Government of India once make up their minds to do without the Revenue from opium they would without difficulty be able to find a way to do so. There have been a great many things said on this question, and the noble Marquess who is now the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) said that, while we were trying to protect the Chinese, we were endeavouring to put burdens on the poor people of India, who were very little able to bear them. But I would show how many burdens the poor people of India can be relieved from. I sat

    1345
    some time on the "Public Works Committee, India," and a great deal of evidence as to the want of power in India to bear taxation was brought before us. There are Memorandums in existence, one by Lord Mayo and one by Lord Northbrook, in which they specify a certain Army as necessary for India. Is there any reason for still exceeding the limit fixed by those experienced Governors? But, lastly, the Indian Revenue showed a considerable surplus. If I recollect right, the Indian revenue from the opium traffic was about £5,000,000 sterling year by year. It has run up to £6,500,000, and has gone down below £5,000,000. But, in the meantime, while it has been at rather a higher figure, the stock of opium has considerably gone down. Instead of dealing with the opium question last year, the Indian Government dealt with the salt duty—a very necessary thing, no doubt, to pay attention to this tax—and also with the duties on imports. But I cannot help thinking that the latter, at any rate, was not one of those questions that required immediate attention. It was certainly not asked for by the people of India, but it pleased the people of Manchester. I very much doubt, however, whether the Indian Government were justified in taking off the duty on cotton goods when they had so large a portion of the Revenue due to opium. I wish, in conclusion, to say that I think we are bound to look at the manner in which my Motion, if carried, might affect the Revenue of India. In the Petitions which I have had the honour to present to the House, that has been dealt with by those who have signed them, who have expressed their desire that the people of this country should be temporarily taxed, if it should be necessary for India to give up a portion of her Revenue. It would be only a portion that would be required under any circumstances. There are several Indian financiers who have laid down very strongly that there are various items in which India could save. My hon. Friend sitting below me (Mr. J. K. Cross) said, in one of his speeches on Indian Finance, that 35 per cent of the money spent on public works was spent in establishment charges which could be saved without difficulty if a certain course of policy were pursued. Then the Indian Finance Committee of 1874
    1346
    reported that certain Indian charges should be borne by England. I believe none of the charges touched upon in that Report have yet been placed upon England. Whether the Indian Government can make the present sacrifice without help I cannot say; but when I turn to the ever increasing revenue of the Indian railways, to the steady development of the country, and to the probability that the Empire will still further develop in time of peace, with proper care of her resources, I have little hesitation in saying that, if Her Majesty's Government once make up their minds that they will gradually diminish their revenue from the poppy, they will find India able to exist, and exist well, without having any reliance on this source of Revenue. But I shall be asked if the House of Commons should take away this source of Revenue when the people of China cultivate vast fields of this drug for their own consumption? All the evidence, however, which is before this House shows that we were parties in the matter, and that we have forced opium upon the Chinese in a way which rendered it perfectly impossible for the Chinese Government to put an end to the cultivation in its own territory. It does not matter, in my view, whether the Chinese grow the poppy themselves or not—whether they get it from Persia or Turkey, or anywhere else. I say that we, as a Christian country, believing in the laws of morality and religion, have no right to be participators in a trade which brings demoralization and death and disease upon those with whom we profess to have friendly relations. I take a strong and a high ground in this matter; and I think I have proved that this trade has been forced on the people of China from the days of the Chinese War up to the present time; that we have never let the Chinese be free agents in the matter; that the duties we arranged under the Treaty of Tien-Tsin are still enforced; that the use of this drug is uniformly demoralizing and injurious to the Chinese; and that there can be no qualification to the statement. Therefore, I say that our first step, if we take this view of the case, is to say to the Chinese that in any Treaty which we make with them—whether it relates to the Treaty of Chefoo and the municipal duties, or to the Treaty of Tien-Tsin,

    1347
    which deals with the Imperial duties—we will treat you as any other independent Power of equal strength and position to ourselves; and whatever duties you think fit to make in the interests of your Revenue or your people we leave to you. We ask no more, and we want no more, than this; and I leave the matter in the hands of the House, thanking the House for the patience with which it has listened to me upon a question in which I take so deep an interest.
    MR. S. SMITH*: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), and, in doing so, I will say that I think the able speech which he has delivered must have carried conviction to this House. He has set before us so fully the evidence showing the unjust character of our past treatment of China, and the very pernicious effects of the opium traffic on the people of China, that I think little more requires to be said in that connection. The time has passed when it is necessary to discuss the question of the morality or immorality of our past dealings with China. The verdict of all impartial historians is against our country. It seems to me that there can be no difference of opinion amongst honest men, that the conduct of this country towards China has been shameful and unjust in the highest degree, and that we have been the means of inflicting upon the people of China one of the greatest curses which ever befell a nation. But it is not of much use to go back upon past events which we cannot recall. The point which we have now to discuss as reasonable men is, what amends can we make for our past misconduct—what remedy can we offer for those great evils which we all deplore? I admit that the evils have now become so vast and so difficult to grapple with, that one may well be appalled at their magnitude, and feel almost discouraged at attempting to prescribe a remedy. In thinking over this matter, I have felt the full force of this view. I have felt, as many have done, that we have so inoculated the Chinese with a taste for this poisonous stuff, that it will be almost impossible to stamp it out. We have forced the Chinese to legalize the import of a drug which their Government earnestly sought to exclude. We
    1348
    have taken away from them all inducement to abstain from the cultivation themselves; we have stimulated the culture all over that country, and thereby have given a great excuse to the Indian Government for persisting in forcing this trade on China. This is the state of things which we have now to confront; and the question which we have to ask ourselves is, what can we do, as just and reasonable men, to atone for the past, and bring about a happier state of things in the future? I think it will be more fitting for me now to deal with some of the objections against the course which is advocated by the Motion of my hon. Friend. I need not go back to the history of our dealings with China, and I deed scarcely allude to the almost universally admitted pernicious effect of opium smoking. The first great objection is that it is now too late to apply a remedy. Our opponents say that the evil has been done, and has become so universal that it is in vain for us to attempt to grapple with it; that the Chinese will have opium, and that we may as well poison them as anyone else. Now I cannot sit down under that view of the subject. I cannot feel that it is the right view for any man to take who seeks to do justice to his fellow-men. It puts this country in a false position. It seems to me to be an immoral argument, and I hope that this House will never agree to any argument which appears in its judgment to be immoral. I think the least we can do is to leave the Chinese Government to deal with the matter as its own sense of justice leads it to act. The Motion of my hon. Friend asks nothing more than that. I think it is the very minimum of reparation that this country can offer to China. Now, it may be said that anything the Chinese Government may do is inadequate to cope with the evil. I admit that it will take a long time, even with the most beneficent Government in China, to very greatly mitigate this national evil. But that is no reason why it should not attempt to do something, and it cannot begin the attempt until we leave its hands free. What we ask is, that England should allow the Chinese Government to restrict the import of opium according as it thinks best. The Chinese Government has no encouragement to stop the growth of opium so long as we compel it to receive it from India. But

    1349
    let us grant it power to restrict, as it thinks fit, the import of opium, and it will have at once a strong inducement to limit the home growth. Therefore, I think that this objection is one which the House will not consider good. Then I will deal with another objection, which is raised, at all events, by the Indian Government—the objection to which my hon. Friend has already alluded—that India cannot dispense with this large revenue. The hon. Member put it as forming one-eighth of the Revenue of India; but I should think that too low an estimate. It may be one-sixth to one-eighth. Now, I know well that India is a poor country, that its resources are strained considerably, and that we cannot tax it much more heavily than now. I quite admit that at present we cannot face the question of extinguishing the opium traffic without proposing some substitute for yielding the revenue that we should lose. But I think the Motion we propose will not seriously affect the Indian Revenue for some time to come. It is not likely that the Chinese Government will attempt to prevent the import of opium, even if we agree to this Motion. But it might wish, in the first instance, to increase the tariff considerably, so as to limit the import of the foreign product, and then restrict the home product in the way which it thinks best. I think it could be shown that the real interest of the Chinese Government is to tolerate the foreign, rather than the home product. The collection of Excise duties over the whole extent of China would be an almost impossible method of taxation. The Chinese Government, therefore, as far as Revenue is concerned, would rather permit the import of foreign opium than the growth of the home product. Then we must be aware that China is liable to serious famines. It is not a long time since the Chinese people were afflicted with this terrible scourge, and many millions perished. It is not likely, for this reason, that their Government will give much encouragement to the home growth, and so I hold that, if we grant this moderate concession to China, the probability is that the reduction in the trade between India and China would be very gradual, and would not press with any great suddenness on the Revenue of India. But, as has already been said, I am
    1350
    sure that this country would be ready to make some contribution to the Revenue of India if necessary. I hold that it is bound to do so. This country was the author of the present trouble. The people of India were never consulted in the matter, and we are bound to accept the consequences of our own actions, and bear at least a portion of the cost of atonement. Should it be found necessary for a few years to add 1d. to the Income Tax for this purpose, I think there will be no indisposition to yield that moderate amount of assistance. Then we are told that another objection is that it will encourage smuggling in China. Undoubtedly, that, at first, seems a serious question. Smuggling was the cause of the first China War; but the remedy lies in the hands of the Indian Government. If it will sell the opium to responsible merchants, who will give bail that they will deliver it into the Chinese bonded warehouses, the difficulty will be met; the Indian Government can put its hands on all the opium exported, and if it was in earnest, could arrange that it should be conveyed to China in such a way as to prevent smuggling. The last objection is, that if we retire from this trade, or even withdraw in some degree, other countries will step in. Persia, for instance, is exporting increasingly large quantities of opium; but we know that any Treaty we apply to China on the subject of opium will apply all round. China will be only too glad to apply the same restrictions to other foreign opium. Now, these appear to be the chief objections against the very moderate change advocated. Let us look for a moment at the advantages to be derived. The first is that we shall thereby do something to conciliate the people of that vast Empire. We have done nothing hitherto to conciliate them. We have done everything to make them our enemies. We have done everything to make them hate us and European civilization. Now let us do something to try and conciliate a population which is supposed by some to be equal to one-fourth of the whole of the inhabitants of the globe. I think that is not a small object, and I think it would be a worthy object. I cannot conceive an object more worthy a country like this than to make 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 of people in China think of us as friends instead of enemies. In the

    1351
    event of a possible struggle with Russia for our Indian Empire, which I trust may never occur, the good feeling of the Chinese population towards us would be an important element, and I think we should endeavour to cultivate the friendship of this great nation. Now I lay great stress upon the effect which friendly feeling with China would have upon our trade with that great Empire. Our trade with China has been miserably small hitherto. On examining the Board of Trade Returns for last year, I find that we only sent to China £7,500,000 worth of British products as against £29,000,000 worth sent to India. Now, China has a much larger and more industrious population than India; we have almost free trade with China; so there is no reason whatsoever why we should send so little produce there as compared with that sent to India. As a matter of fact, last year we only sent to China, with its 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 of people, as much of our products as we sent to South Africa. We exported less than we sent to Belgium, and less than half of what we sent to Australia. On the Manchester Exchange, there is nothing that excites so much astonishment as the little elasticity of our trade with China. Now let us ask ourselves the reason. The reason is obvious. It is because, in the first place, the resources of the people of China are wasted upon opium; and, in the second place, because the hostility of the Chinese to the opium trade excites hostility to all foreign trade. These are the two reasons why our trade with China is so poor and so languid; and I maintain that the people of this country have lost quite as much in their diminished trade with China as the Government of India has gained by the opium revenue. If a profit and loss account were drawn up, it would be shown that the people of England, and especially the people of Lancashire, have lost as much or more in their intercourse with China than the Indian Government has gained by the sale of opium. I fully believe that, if we only change our policy with respect to the opium trade, and make China our friend instead of our foe, there will be no limit to the growth of trade that will take place with that vast country. At the present time the outlets for British capital seem almost choked up. There is nothing this country needs so much as a large
    1352
    field for the investment of its capital. What field in the world would equal China with its hundreds of millions of industrious, hard-working people? Supposing we make ourselves the friends of China, so that it would be willing to increase its intercourse with England, I see no reason why we should not in the next 20 or 30 years do as large a trade with China as we now do with India; we should more than make up for any temporary loss we might sustain in the falling off of the opium revenue. Another advantage that we should gain by the change of policy I have suggested, is that we should be raised in the estimation of all the nations of the world. This country suffers very much in loss of reputation on account of its connection with the opium trade. Wherever you go—in America, Germany, or elsewhere—if you speak with enlightened foreigners concerning the policy of this country, they at once put their finger on the opium trade. There cannot be any doubt that, in the eyes of the whole world, our connection with this trade appears a great blot on our national character, a great stain upon our escutcheon. By the proposed change of policy, we should get back in the estimation of the world far more than sufficient to compensate for any little temporary sacrifice we might be required to make. Then, again, in performing this great act of justice we should remove from the minds of many of our own people the painful consciousness that we were engaged in an iniquitous trade. The opium trade is one of the great national sins that this country has not yet atoned for. Many politicians are not aware of the strong feeling there is throughout the country on this matter. It would, indeed, be a wonderful relief to many people to know that we were altering our course. Furthermore, I maintain that, by the abolition of the opium trade, we should give Christianity a chance. At present, we give Christianity hardly any chance at all. In this country we have reaped the blessings of Christianity, and, surely, we ought to be alive to the responsibility of presenting our religion in its true light to the 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 of people in China. We have, however, contrived to make Christianity abhorrent to the Chinese. We have approached them with the cup of vice in one hand, and with the Bible in the other hand. We

    1353
    have given them the impression that our Christianity is a huge hypocrisy, on account of the cruel and unjust way in which from the very first we have treated them. The change of policy we desire will bring blessings on our own country. I believe that in every nation the moral and material go hand in hand. I believe that a country which takes the right course will always gain by it. I believe that the world is governed by providential laws, and that "righteousness exalteth a nation." I am sure that if we deal with China honestly we shall do so in the interest of our own country. I would recommend the application to China of the golden rule of "doing to others as we would wish to be done by." We wish to allow the Government of China to protect its subjects in the same way as the Government of India protects its subjects. The Government of India takes care to prevent the taste for this noxious drug spreading. I hope it will always do so; I have no wish to see the use of opium spreading in India, and I think the Government is doing its best to minimize the danger by keeping the trade in its own hands. It is also acting wisely in preventing the introduction of foreign opium. Surely, the Chinese Government ought to be permitted to be the judge of the interests of its people in the same way as the Indian Government is the judge of the interests of its people. We ask that the Government of China shall be allowed to do as the Government of Japan does. The Japanese Government has made Treaties with all European Powers, forbidding the introduction of opium into its country, and it has taken good care to prevent the entrance into Japan of this poisonous drug. I believe up to recent years it made the sale of opium a capital offence, so conscious were these Asiatics of the deleterious nature of the drug. We ask that the Government of China shall be allowed to exercise the same care of its people as that of Japan does. It is monstrous to say that what is poison to the Japanese is good for the Chinese. Most of us read in the newspapers, a short time ago, a most eloquent speech delivered by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), in which the right hon. Gentleman depicted the horrors of war. There passed before the right hon. Gentleman's mind a
    1354
    vision, in which he saw millions of broken-hearted widows and children, whose husbands and fathers had been slaughtered in war, and he moved his audience deeply by the picture of the sorrow and misery which he drew. I thought that, when I read that speech, we might conjure up a similar vision of the misery caused by the opium trade—of the 160,000 suicides said to be caused by it annually—of the multitudes of blighted homes for which it is responsible. If these things are true, surely the time has come when this terrible vice should be grappled with, and serious steps taken to deliver us from complicity in this iniquitous trade. It may be said it is too late. I do not believe it is. It is better to repent at the eleventh hour, than not all; and I would ask the House, even at this late stage of the opium question, to turn its steps in the right direction, to make at least a beginning, and thus afford some hope that this dreadful evil will at some future time be wiped away, to give some encouragement to the excellent and religious people out-of-doors who are continually agitating this question. Let the House give some encouragement, even if it does not go so far as we could wish. Let us feel that the Government have an earnest desire to put our policy towards China on a more Christian and more honourable footing than that on which it now stands. I hope that before long something will be done which will tend to wipe away the greatest stain which now exists upon the escutcheon of this country. I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that in all negotiations which take place between the Governments of Her Majesty and China, having reference to the Duties levied on Opium under the Treaty of Tientsin, the Government of Her Majesty will be pleased to intimate to the Government of China that in any revision of that Treaty, or in any other negotiations on the subject of Opium, the Government of China will he met as that of an independent State, having the full right to arrange its own Import Duties."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not rise to make a speech upon what might be called the general question; but rather to indicate what was the present position of the negotiations which were known to be proceed-

    1355
    ing in connection with the opium question, so far as the Foreign Office was concerned. The Seconder of the Motion said he hoped the Government were conscious of the importance of a good understanding with China. Let him assure the hon. Member that the Government were fully aware of the great and transcendant importance of a good understanding with that country. Some years ago it was an open question whether the Empire of China, hard pressed by foreign wars, and harder pressed by internal rebellion, would not fall to pieces, or be at least very much curtailed as to the limits which were under the control of the Central Government. But that day was over. The Chinese Empire in the last few years had shown an extraordinary recuperative power. It had put down the rebellion, had vindicated its ancient limits, and occupied a position in Asia almost equal to that of the most palmy days of its history. His hon. Friend might be sure that the Government thoroughly understood the importance of a good understanding with such a Power. At the same time, he did not urge the desirability of an alliance with China for the reasons adduced by his hon. Friend. He preferred not to contemplate the possibility of such a struggle as that forshadowed by the hon. Member, but to court the alliance of China for commercial reasons only. Passing from that, he desired to indicate to the House the present position of the opium question. Speaking upon the subject two years ago, the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) stated that the negotiations which had taken place within the last three years had been negotiations in which the opium question had been dealt with from the Chinese side, and so far as any change had been made or contemplated, it had been a change proposed by the Chinese to suit their ideas, and it was, therefore, not to be supposed that any step had been taken to increase the opium trade in China; on the contrary, the steps proposed and considered would, if carried into effect, be more likely to decrease it. Now, the language of the President of the Local Government Board was language which he could make use of on this occasion; and it would be desirable to explain to the House more fully that at this moment, so far as any proposal had been
    1356
    made, it was not a proposal by the English Government with the view of forcing the opium trade on the Chinese, but rather a proposal by the Chinese themselves. The Treaty of Tien-Tsin was negotiated in 1858, and immediately afterwards certain Articles were drawn up respecting the rules of the trade, bearing date 8th November, 1858. Among these was an Article which put opium under certain special treatment out of deference to the wishes of the Chinese Government. Under that Article the same facilities were not claimed in regard to opium as to other goods; nor had Her Majesty's Government ever departed from the position then assumed that the internal arrangements of the Chinese Government with regard to opium were matters with which they and nothing to do. By the phrase "internal arrangements" he did not mean Customs duties, but those duties which were levied in the interior of China. In the Chefoo Convention, which it should be borne in mind arose out of special circumstances, there was a clause enacting that merchants must bring their opium to the notice of the Customs officers at the ports, and that the importer must pay the Customs duty and the purchaser the transit duty. But the Chefoo Convention had hardly been drawn up when differences of opinion became manifest about its meaning, and the amount of the likin or transit duty which might be levied under it, and it became apparent that the discontent which it was intended to allay was intensified by it. It had been asked—"Why not ratify the Chefoo Convention at once?" If they were to ratify that Convention as it stood, not much would be done. Though it might be desirable to negotiate on the basis of the Chefoo Convention, it would be dangerous to ratify it as it stood, because no two people could possibly agree as to the meaning of the terms. That view having forced itself upon Her Majesty's Government, negotiations as initiated by his Predecessor had been slowly going on. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheered derisively at the word "slowly." With regard to those cheers he could only say what his hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board said in reply to similar cheers three years ago—that it must

    1357
    be recollected that the Government with which they had to deal, though of remarkable skill and ability, never moved very fast. However, the negotiations with regard to the likin or transit duty were at the present moment reaching a stage which the Government hoped would be fruitful. His hon. Friends had argued on this, as upon other occasions, that the Chinese Government felt itself in the position of a person acting under pressure. He was unable to see anything of the kind in any proposition emanating from the Chinese Government. Sympathizing, as he believed everybody in the House must, with the abstract view that the consumption of opium had, to say the least, never done anybody any good, it was quite another thing to assume, as his hon. Friends had rashly assumed, that there was evidence that the people and Government of China were in any sense united in demanding from the English Government power to prohibit the trade or the production of opium in their own country. He was perfectly willing to grant that there was a part)' in China in favour of the suppression of the opium traffic, just as in England there was a party in favour of the suppression of the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks, and that that party comprised within its ranks many men of great power and eminence. But he was unable to see that there was any proof whatever that that party had the ear of the country; or that if the English Government consented to the complete and immediate abrogation of the old Treaties, which, however, was not aimed at by this Motion, there would be any immediate or near prospect of the Chinese Government putting an end to the traffic. All that would be done, therefore, by the Government would be most seriously to embarrass the finances of India without obtaining those objects which were placed before them as inducements for making this great and weighty change. The Government were fully sensible of the importance of the question; and, considering the great interest shown, not only in that House, but out of it, in the matter, when the time approached when the decennial revision of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin would naturally take place, the whole opium question would be certain to be forced upon the attention of the Government, But he was bound
    1358
    to say that at this moment to adopt a Resolution of this kind would not attain the objects which were aimed at by the Mover of the Motion, and, at the same time, it would seriously hamper the Foreign Office in regard to the limited question of the transit duty. Under these circumstances, the Government were unwilling to meet his hon. Friend's Motion with a direct negative, because that would look as if they had no sympathy with the object he had at heart, which was a great and philanthropic object; but feeling, as they did, that the present negotiations would probably only suffer, and that even the general object of his hon. Friend would not itself be in any way promoted in a manner which would be useful or conducive to the Public Service, or to India, the Government would meet the Motion by moving, as he now did, the Previous Question.
    Previous Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Lord Edmond Fitsmaurice.)
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYcongratulated his hon. Friends opposite on the fact that the conscience of the country had been very much awakened, and that there was a sincere desire to deal fairly with the Chinese in this matter. The country greatly resented the fact that the execution of the Convention had been so long delayed, and that, as was said by Sir Thomas Wade, while we had entered upon the enjoyment of advantages conferred upon us, we had evaded the fulfilment of corresponding obligations. The whole matter ought to be fairly looked in the face. The growth of native opium in China was, however, very much larger than what we imported, and the drug was very greatly consumed. The Secretary of State for War, when he spoke on the question, hardly agreed with what had been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because he showed that opium was largely used, especially by the working classes in China, without doing harm. He believed the point between the Chinese and the British Government was simply as to the amount of duty that should be imposed. It had been proposed, on the part of the Chinese, to raise the duty to something like 130 or 150 taels, which was a very high duty. Sir

    1359
    Thomas Wade had suggested that 60 or 70 taels might fairly be conceded by this country as the import duty to be paid in to the Central Government through the Customs, because it had properly been said that there should not be such a high duty as would lead to smuggling, and probably to collisions between our authorities and those of the Chinese. That was a point that might fairly be conceded. The demand of the Chinese was for fiscal liberty. He held that we had not the right to interfere with the Chinese in a matter which was essentially connected with their own internal fiscal arrangements. We should resent any dictation on the part of France as to the amount of duty we might choose to impose upon her brandies; and much as we disliked the oppressive tariff of the United States, we should never go to war to force them to admit our goods at a low rate of duty. He was glad that we were arriving at a clearer perception with regard to this question than had formerly prevailed.
    MR. MACFARLANEremarked, that the violent anti-opium tone had disappeared from this annual Resolution, since it had now been reduced to a desire that the Government should inform the Chinese that they were an independent State. He did not defend old proceedings of this country with regard to forcing opium upon China; but he maintained that opium was the most innocent stimulant that man could take. He had never heard of any injuries resulting to other people from the men who took opium. They never heard of the atrocities which were committed in this country to poor women and children through the intoxication caused by the use of our stimulants. It was, moreover, a valuable medicine. In British India the quantities consumed were in exact proportion to the prevalence of fever. In the dry districts, where fever did not exist, opium was scarcely used; whereas in the damp malarious districts it was used to a large extent, and beneficially. He was glad to observe that the discussion had taken a much more commercial than a moral tone. He denied that opium was in itself essentially an immoral drug, and challenged those who had raised this question to take a similar course with regard to spirits, and see what sort of a division they would have in that House.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER,although preferring the Motion on this subject brought forward about the year 1870, by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and which he had the honour to second, said, he had on all occasions entered his protest against the system pursued with regard to Indian opium; and believing that the present Motion was a protest against that system, he would go into the Lobby in support of it. At the same time, he regretted that the Motion took attention off the Indian question, and directed it to the secondary point of the negotiations carried on by the Foreign Office with the Chinese Government. Since last Session they had had a very important document presented, which was the answer of the Indian Government to the very able indictment made against the opium traffic by the hon. Member for South Durham. The only new point raised by the Government of India on that occasion was that a former Governor (Sir William Muir) of the North-Western Provinces advocated the imposition of a transit duty in place of the existing monopoly; and it was said that on the borders of Malwa it would be comparatively easy to enforce that duty, as the country was mountainous, and the passes could easily be guarded, but that Bengal being an open country the prohibition could not be enforced. But so long as the Indian Revenue was so largely dependent upon opium, he had no fault to find with our negotiations with China. A parallel had been drawn between opium and alcohol. But no such comparison was valid. Most persons considered the use of alcohol to some extent innocent, and healthful; but who ever heard of a doctor prescribing opium? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Laudanum.] But even in the case of alcohol their laws were keenly repressive, and it was not allowed to be sold without special licence. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to abolish all duties on wines and spirits, and to make it allowable for anyone who chose to open a house for their sale, a very large increase of drunkenness would ensue. He regretted that Lord Shaftesbury had not been successful in the efforts which he made in that House 40 years ago to suppress the traffic when it only produced £2,000,000 a-year, and its suppression would have been comparatively easy. He was quite

    1361
    aware of the difficulties which attached to the opium question; but thought that if the people of England felt they were promoting a nefarious trade, they should authorize the House to assist the Revenue of India, and by that means put an end to what be could but regard as one of the great blots in the escutcheon of the people of England.
    DR. FARQUHARSONprotested against the view that they owed any reparation or confession of wrongdoing to China with respect to the opium question. In 1858, according to the authority of Mr. Laurance Oliphant, the Chinese were given the option of altogether excluding opium. In China, too, much larger districts were devoted to the production of the drug than in India. It ought not to be forgotten that if the monopoly were taken away India would be practically bankrupt. Much misconception, too, prevailed as to the injurious effects of opium. There was a great difference as between smoking and eating opium. Some of the most vigorous races of India—the Sikhs and the Eajpoots—habitually smoked opium. Moderate opium smoking was found to be a wholesome tonic, and it was not narcotic until it was taken in excess. It was also known that it was a valuable prophylactic against fever, and for that purpose it was a good deal used in the Fen districts of England. But opium eating produced disorders of the stomach which were not produced by smoking. Yet distinguished men in this country had been in the habit of eating opium; and it was well known that the illustrious Wilberforce rarely made a great speech in that House without having previously taken an opium pill They had got the evidence of many very eminent authorities, to the effect that opium smoking was not dangerous, but rather beneficial. The Chinese coolies were almost invariably opium smokers; and of the Chinese Army, who were a hardy set of men, 90 per cent were opium smokers. The general condition of China showed it to be quite absurd that we should take the extreme view of the destructive nature of this drug. Many of the people of China who smoked opium were the most learned people in the world. He believed that the number who did smoke opium had been greatly exaggerated. The evidence from the other side seemed
    1362
    to him to be suspiciously vague. He asked whether anyone could produce a single case of real actual damage done by opium smoking per se? To his mind there was no evidence whatever that deaths ever did take place from the actual effects of opium smoking per se, and it was a point on which evidence was urgently needed. He believed that it was one of the least harmful of stimulants. It was certainly far less harmful than alcohol, from which they in this country derived an annual revenue of £20,000,000. Opium did not produce crime, nor did it produce hereditary disease, both of which were results of alcohol; and he believed it did China very little harm.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could not agree with the view taken by the hon. Member who had just spoken, he did not think it was proved that opium was worse than whiskey; but he did not think, on the other hand, it was proved that whiskey was worse than opium. No doubt there were limits within which whiskey might do no great harm. He confessed that he himself drank it sometimes; but it was taken to excess and did much harm. The Indian Government did not encourage the growth of opium; but, on the contrary, they restricted it. In fact, they treated opium exactly as we treated whiskey. The view be bad always taken was that we who were connected with India should wash our hands of the sin of this matter, if sin there was. So far as the question went of not forcing opium upon the Chinese, he agreed with the Mover of the Resolution; but the question was a very much more difficult one, and could not be treated in that simple way. The House would be glad to hear the Under Secretary of State for India; but the noble Lord who had spoken for the Government had not told them where the negotiations stood now, and what was going to be done. The question was whether they were bound, not only to refrain from forcing opium on the Chinese, but whether they were also bound to take upon themselves to prevent the smuggling of opium into China, if the Chinese could not effect that object themselves? The Chinese seemed to seek to raise as much revenue out of opium as they could. If the Chinese raised their import duty the Indian Revenue must suffer; and if they could

    1363
    do so of their own power, we could not do anything to prevent it. It seemed to him that, practically, when the Treaties were made, the agreement between this country and China amounted to this—that the Chinese agreed to limit the revenue on opium upon the consideration that we should collect the duty for them. But if they raised the revenue, it seemed to him a very debateable question whether we were bound to collect that duty. He rather feared we were trying to buy the acquiescence of the Chinese Government in this trade, by giving them an additional share in the revenue derived from it. The hon. Member for Liverpool had a definite plan. It seemed to him that not only did the hon. Member want to retain the monopoly of this opium traffic in India, but also in China. Pending the result of the negotiations, however, he should vote with the Government for the Previous Question, rather than for the Motion, though, as a matter of principle, he agreed with it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 126: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 48.)

  CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to move—
  "That a Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords, to inquire whether it is expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France; and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned:—That the Correspondence with reference to the proposed construction of a Channel Tunnel, presented to Parliament in 1882, be referred to the Committee."
  Under ordinary circumstances, I should have moved this Resolution as a matter of form, in pursuance of a promise given on the part of the Government last Session, and repeated at the commencement of the present Session; but in view of the Notice of Motion given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), the House will probably consider it right that I should state very briefly the position in which the matter stands, in order to put it clearly before the House. I must first call the attention of the House to the steps which
  1364
  have already been taken in the matter, It appears that the subject of the Tunnel between England and France was first raised by an Anglo-French Company, established in 1867; but no practical result followed, for the breaking out of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 put a stop entirely to the proceedings. In 1871 the matter was again brought up, and a correspondence took place, in the first instance, between the promoters of the French Company on the one hand, and an English Company on the other, and their respective Governments; and, in the second place, between the two Governments of France and England. On the 22nd of June, 1872, Earl Granville, writing to our English Ambassador in Paris, said—
  "With reference to Your Excellency's despatch of the 15th instant, and previous correspondence, I transmit herewith a copy of a letter received from the Channel Tunnel Company, urging the Government to inform them if they have any objection to the Tunnel being made. The Board of Trade have been consulted, and as regards the engineering difficulties the Government offer no opinion; but they consider it a matter for consideration in what way a concession, if granted, should be modified by fixing the manner in which the purchase of the undertaking is to be effected. The Government do not doubt that, assuming the matter undertaken, it ought not to remain a monopoly, and I am to request that Your Excellency will make known to the French Government the present application; but the Government state that, subject to those observations, they have no objection in principle to the proposed Tunnel between France and England."
  Well, in 1874, the French Government granted a concession to the French Company, contingent on their being able to make arrangements with the English Company for carrying out the English portion of the undertaking. In the interval, the Government of England had been changed, and the late Government was then in Office. In September of that year the Earl of Derby, who was then at the Foreign Office, communicated to the Board of Trade a despatch received from the French Government, and, in so doing, said—
  "I am to request that you will move their Lordships in order to ascertain their opinion as to the answer to be sent to the French Ambassador."
  And, further on, he said—
  "Support would be afforded by the Government to secure such a result as the Board of Trade might desire,"

  1365
  The Board of Trade considered the subject, and made certain suggestions with which I need not trouble the House. In December, 1874, the Earl of Derby wrote to the French Ambassador on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. And in his letter, addressed to Count de Charnac, and dated December 24th, he said—
  "In reply to Your Excellency's communication, I have to say that there appears to be no reason to doubt that the Government will offer no opposition to the scheme, provided they are not asked for a gift, or loan, or guarantee in connection therewith."
  Well, now, in 1875, following this communication, a Bill was introduced into the Legislatures of France and England, and both Bills appear to have passed without opposition. In the month of March of the same year, a Joint Anglo-French Commission was appointed to consider the conditions on which the undertaking might be carried out, and this Commission met in Paris and in London. They reported, in 1876, on the question of the management of the traffic, and on the question of jurisdiction in the Tunnel between the two countries, and in favour of certain conditions being carried out, including the right of either Government to suspend the traffic or destroy the communication in case of war or of a threat of war. On behalf of the English Government the following Departments were parties to the Commission:—The Admiralty, presided over by the late Mr. Ward Hunt; the War Office, represented by Viscount Cranbrook; and the Treasury, represented by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). After the Report of this Joint Commission, nothing was done to give effect to the English Bill, owing to the financial collapse; and the power of the English Company under the Act altogether lapsed. Nothing more was heard of the project till the year 1881, when the South-Eastern Railway Company, which had obtained power in 1874 to spend £70,000 in borings, obtained additional powers to purchase land between Folkestone and Dover. In the autumn of 1881, the House of Commons were called upon to consider the rival projects of the South-Eastern Railway Company and the Channel Tunnel Company, and the Board of Trade appointed a Committee, which was joined by re-
  1366
  presentatives of the War Office and the Admiralty, to consider the conditions which ought to be imposed in reference to the undertaking. The Committee took a great deal of evidence on the subject; and after the inquiries had proceeded for some time, the question was raised, for the first time, whether or not the national security was involved in the establishment of the proposed communication. It was raised, I believe, definitely in a very able document, which was prepared for the Committee by Lord Wolseley, in which he put forward the reasons which induced him to believe that the establishment of the projected Tunnel would constitute a danger to the country. The moment the question was raised it was seen to be one of cardinal importance, and it was at once recognized that it was a matter which could not be properly decided by a mere Departmental Committee, which had been appointed for a very different object. Accordingly, in 1882, the Committee were relieved of their functions, and it was understood that the Government would take the matter into their consideration. The first step taken by the present Government was the appointment of a Military and Engineering Committee to consider if, and how, the Tunnel could be rendered absolutely useless to an enemy in time of war. This Committee also took a great deal of evidence, and made a Report, which appears in a Paper dated May, 1882. Upon the receipt of that Report, the Government considered what further steps it would be their duty to take in the matter, and came to the conclusion that hitherto, at all events, the inquiry had been only partial; that there had been no attempt to exhaust the evidence, favourable or unfavourable, as to the effect of the Tunnel on commerce; that the advantages of greater facilities of communication had not been brought in any prominent way before the Committee previously; that the general military question had not been fully discussed; that it was desirable that further evidence should be taken on the subject; and that the House and the Government should be in a position to weigh the balance of advantages before they were asked to come to any conclusion in the matter. Accordingly, in 1882, the Government announced their intention to ask the House of Lords to join the

  1367
  House of Commons in the appointment of a Joint Committee to further consider these questions. It may be asked, perhaps, whether the Joint Committee was the best Committee for such a purpose; but that is a comparatively technical point. It appears from Sir Erskine May's book, that Joint Committees, which were common up to the year 1695, were not employed from that time till 1864, in which year there were several proposals in regard to the Metropolitan Railways. The Bills for those Railways, involving questions of very great importance, were referred to a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons, and that Committee laid down the general principles upon which such Bills should be dealt with. The Bills were subsequently brought into accordance with the principles then laid down, and were afterwards dealt with upon those principles. Another case was that of the proposals made some years ago for the amalgamation of certain railways, when a similar Committee was appointed and the same course was followed. Another question may be raised as to whether the present subject is properly a matter to be referred to a Committee at all. On that point, I can only say that there is hardly any subject of national interest and importance which has not at some time or another been referred to a Committee. Questions involving the national security have frequently been so treated. For instance, the whole question of the National Defences—a cognate subject—was referred to the consideration of a Committee. I may also refer to the precedent of Mr. Roebuck's Committee, at the time of the Crimean "War, when the whole subject of that war was made a question for inquiry. I observe that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite states that—
  "Before entering upon the questions whether it is expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to the establishment of submarine communication between England and France, and upon what conditions (if any) such sanction should be granted, it is desirable that the House should be put in possession of the views of Her Majesty's Government on these subjects."
  Now, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that two successive Governments which preceded the Government now holding Office have pronounced a pretty decided opi-
  1368
  nion upon the matter, and have communicated that opinion not only to the House, but also to a Foreign Government; and it is, therefore, rather difficult to see how the present Government, if any continuity of policy is to be observed—[Ironical cheers]—I shall be glad to hear from right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they think there are cases in which a continuity of policy should not be observed; but I will go on to say that if any continuity of policy is to be observed, it is difficult to see how the present Government, without the distinct authority of the two Houses of Parliament, and especially of the Representative Chamber, could fly in the face of the decision upon the situation already come to by two previous Administrations. I may say, in sitting down, that it does not seem to mo there can be any question upon which the Government can more properly ask the assistance of the whole House than a question which concerns the national security. If the Government are to be called upon, as a Government, for an opinion according to our Parliamentary system, it might make of this matter a Party question. Now, at least, it is not a Party question. It seems to me that it is a question on which the Government have a right to ask the advice of all Parties in the House, and with respect to which it is under a corresponding obligation to consult the opinion of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords, to inquire whether it is expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France; and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned."—[Mr. Chamberlain.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I propose to imitate the right hon. Gentleman in being extremely short in the remarks I shall trouble the House with, because the point which, at the present moment, I desire to bring to the notice of the House is one of a minute character, although of great importance. I do not wish to raise the great question of the expediency, or otherwise, of the Channel Tunnel, or of the proper mode of providing for the great interests of

  1369
  the country which may probably be conceivably affected by it. What I challenge is the mode of procedure which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to adopt. Now, it does seem to mo that, instead of the Government appealing to the House, the House has rather a right to call upon the Government of the day, the question being one of great and acknowledged importance, to give us, in the first instance, their view of their responsibility in regard to the National safety. I was in hopes, even up to the last moment, that they would have given us some view upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has referred to a statement which had been made by the late Government, and also by the Government which preceded it, in which expressions were contained that the Government saw no objection, in principle, to the proposal, or accepted the proposal in principle. But that had nothing to do with the view which the present Government may take; and for this reason—because, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly and truly said, the great and important question of the making of any Tunnel of this character, which is a question of National defence, has really only been seriously raised in the course of the proceedings a year or two ago. I shall call the attention of the House to what took place on that occasion. It will be found in the Blue Book, at the 14th page of the preliminary statement. We are told that the Board of Trade Committee, consisting of Mr. Farrer, as Chairman, Admiral Phillimore, and Colonel Smith, of the Royal Engineers, was appointed to take evidence as to the rival schemes submitted to it. And on the 1st of February, 1882, the Chairman informed the President of the Board of Trade that, during the course of the inquiry, the effect which such schemes might have on the Military defences of the country had assumed such grave importance, that the Committee desired to have further Naval and Military evidence on the subject. In reply—and this is what I wish to call the attention of the House to—the President of the Board of Trade informed the Chairman that the final decision of a question of such magnitude would not rest with a Departmental Committee, but must be settled upon the responsibility of the Government as a whole,
  1370
  and he would not, therefore, prolong the labours of the Committee. Now, I presume it is the view which the right hon. Gentleman not only had then, but which he holds at the present time; and I wish to know whether the question, which is of such magnitude, has been settled upon the responsibility of the Government as a whole, or whether it has not; whether they are seeking the protection of a Committee of the House of Commons, or a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, in order to evade a matter which the right hon. Gentleman then estimated to be a matter which lay upon the responsibility of the Government? With regard to the previous proceedings in the matter, I do not think it necessary to enter at length into questions which occurred before the present Government took Office. There were a great many questions discussed, irrespective of the National do-fences, questions of International Law, for instance, and various other matters, which were fully discussed, but were always discussed with the reservation expressed in some of the proceedings, that a power should be reserved to the Government on each side of the Channel of closing the communication by the Tunnel in the case of war, or in case of national necessity. But, although it was put in general terms, it was never investigated, or thoroughly gone into, until the time to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Now, it is obvious that there cannot be a question of greater magnitude or importance, and it is one upon which, no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman says, Parliament ought to be consulted as a whole; and that is exactly what we want—we want to have Parliament consulted as a whole, and that these matters shall not be referred to a Committee which is to take off the responsibility of the Government, and throw it upon the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in mentioning various questions in which Joint Committees of the two Houses of Parliament have inquired, referred to Mr. Roebuck's Committee at the close of the Crimean War. Undoubtedly, that was a Committee appointed to look into matters of a very serious character; but the right hon. Gentleman will remember what took place when that Committee was appointed. It led to a change of Govern

  1371
  ment, and to the resignation of the Government of the day. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but it was opposed, at all events, by the Government of the day, on the ground that the House which appointed the Committee were not satisfied, with their management of affairs, and that it was necessary that the House, through its Committee, should take into its own hands matters which the Government of the day, according to the opinion of the majority, were mismanaging. Although the right hon. Gentleman shook his head at what I said, the vote which carried the appointment of that Committee was very closely connected with the resignation of Lord Aberdeen, who was the Prime Minister; and, in the second place, with the right hon. Gentleman himself, because—I am speaking now from memory, as I had not thought of the matter until the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it—but my recollection is that when the new Government was formed, with the right hon. Gentleman in it, and it was proposed that that Committee should still go on, and Lord Palmerston agreed to it, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister thought it his duty to retire from the Government on that ground. I am only mentioning that, to show that the appointment of Mr. Roebuck's Committee was not really a case in point, but rather militated against the proposal of the Government; because, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Supposing the Government had proceeded with this matter without consulting us, and some Member of the House had got up to move that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter, and had carried such a Motion against the Government, would not the Government naturally say, "There is a want of confidence in us?" Instead of that, they are coming forward now and asking the House to relieve them of a duty which we on this side of the House say belongs to them. If this matter is to be treated as important Private Bills are treated, what should happen? The proper mode would be to have a Bill introduced, when the whole House could consider and discuss it on the second reading; when the considerations for and against it of an important character would be discussed; when the Government would give their opinion; and the House
  1372
  after hearing that opinion, would arrive at a conclusion as to what it was their duty to do. But we are not put in that position; we are not invited to discuss the matter ourselves. We are invited to refer it to a Committee, and no indication whatever has been given as to what the feeling of the Government is. If by the proposal it was intended to refer to a Committee the great question whether it is expedient that the sanction of Parliament should be given to a submarine communication between England and France, simply the second part of the Reference, the matter would be different. If it was simply that a Committee should be appointed to consider whether any, and what, conditions should be imposed by Parliament, there would be a case on which it might be necessary for the Government to obtain advice and take evidence. But it is said the Government are putting upon the Committee a duty they have no right to put upon them, and which they ought to take upon themselves. In submitting the Motion I have placed upon the Paper, I do not desire to discuss the merits of the Channel Tunnel Scheme. No doubt, they are very important, and must and will be discussed at some time or other; but at the present moment I am only challenging the Government's mode of procedure, and I hope the House will take the view I have endeavoured to put before them. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "before entering upon the questions whether it is expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to the establishment of submarine communication between England and France, and upon what conditions (if any) such sanction should be granted, it is desirable that the House should be put in possession of the views of Her Majesty's Government on these subjects,"—(Sir Stafford Northcote,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will not be necessary for me to detain the House at any length at this late hour, and I will follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman. I will only now say that, in my opinion, the statement of the right

  1373
  hon. Gentleman opposite would, under different circumstances, be a statement of the general rule of Parliament; but, in our view, the general view of Parliamentary conduct, upon which the right hon. Gentleman opposite relies, is wholly inapplicable to the present case. The right hon. Gentleman has loft out of his calculations the essential point upon which the case of the Government is founded. Before indicating what that point is, I will refer for a moment to one or two matters upon which the right hon. Gentleman has touched. It is not necessary for me to trouble the House by going at length into the history of the Motion of Mr. Roebuck and the Sebastopol Committee. I may explain, however, that I shook my head from no wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but because the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government resigned upon that Motion, which was far from being the fact. Certain Members of the Government, however, did resign. [A laugh. I am surprised that there should be any Gentleman in the House incapable of seeing the difference between the resignation of a Government and the resignation of some of its Members.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The resignation included the Prime Minister. Lord Aberdeen, who was Prime Minister, was among the Members of the Government who resigned.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Lord Aberdeen did resign, no doubt, and subsequently other Members of the Government resigned, because they were not willing to accept the concession made by Lord Palmerston. But that does not touch the point we really have before us. What was proposed was that the House of Commons should take into its own hands the management of the matter by appointing a Committee; and, secondly, there was a Motion made that the House should adopt the Report submitted by the Chairman of the Committee. I need not, however, dwell further upon the matter, because the case of the Sebastopol Committee does not involve the point which is essential to the present discussion, and which ought to govern our proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a letter in which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated to Mr. Farrer that the final decision of the question referred to
  1374
  a certain Committee would not rest with, that Committee, but must be settled on the responsibility of the Government at large. But the meaning of that was that it was for the Government at large, and not for the Committee or the Department of the Board of Trade, to determine what course should be pursued by the Government. No doubt, a very important question has been brought before us, and our determination was that it was one which it was our duty to refer to the House of Commons without assuming the initiative. No doubt, that decision was a most important decision; and though negative in its character, it was just as important and as responsible as if we had given an affirmative decision, and assumed the initiative. Now, the question is this. Is the present case one with regard to which the Government ought to assume the initiative, or are the Government right in their opinion that it ought to be handed over to Parliament, and especially to the Representative Chamber? The decision of that question, in our view, depends entirely upon the history of what has taken place. It is no longer a National, it has become an International question. When it was first raised, in the time of the last Government, that Government did not shrink from taking the initiative; and I think better of that Government than to suppose that they passed a judgment upon a matter of this kind, without asking themselves, in the first place, what bearing it had upon the question of National defence. The Government of which I was a Member assumed the initiative, and declared that it saw no objection to the principle of the execution of the Tunnel under proper conditions. The Government which followed us again assumed the initiative. It was perfectly free for them to reverse our action. Nothing was done which tendered to fetter its liberty of action, and they arrived at the same conclusion, probably on the same grounds. But the late Government took this further and most important step—it placed itself in communication with the Government of France, and took common action with the Government of France. It appointed a common organ for the two Governments, and each adopted the scheme in principle, discussed and determined the conditions on which it ought to be executed, and recommended that a Treaty

  1375
  should be framed; and the non-conclusion of that Treaty at the time was simply and entirely owing to financial considerations connected with the Money Market. So that the nation, as represented by the Executive Government, had entered into relations with the Government of Franco, and taken common proceedings upon a common basis of the proposition that the Tunnel was, so far as the two Governments were concerned, to be executed upon certain conditions. What was the next step? After that had taken place, the Executive Government had become bound, and it no longer remained in the proper sphere and competency of the Executive Government to recede from the pledges it had given. Though Parliament was not bound, no one can say that the Treaty did not constitute an engagement binding, not only Parliament, but, in our opinion, binding the Executive Government which had appointed the Commission, and binding likewise any Administration which might follow it in power, because it was pledged—and whether it was a formal or an informal pledge that was given by the Administration to a foreign country, it ought to be respected by the succeeding Administration. Since that time public opinion, in certain quarters, at any rate, has taken a new turn; and to whom are we to look to ascertain the state of public opinion with more propriety than the Houses of Parliament? In our opinion, it does not lie with Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative. We feel we have no right to take the initiative after what has taken place. Speaking for myself, I do not feel myself in a position to go to the French Government and state that I and my Colleagues have determined to recede, on our own responsibility, from an international transaction, in respect of which common proceedings have been taken. There is an authority which is superior to the Executive Government, and it is not bound to recognize the Commission, or the Report of that Commission. It is true that we have been encouraged by the passing of certain Bills through Parliament; but the passing of those Bills did not constitute any pledge to a foreign country. In France it is fully recognized that Parliament is the master of the situation, and has a perfect right to speak on the part of the English
  1376
  nation; and the English nation alone, and not French opinion, can form transactions or bind the English nation. It is Parliament which is the author of legislation for such a purpose; and though, by the proceedings that have taken place, and by the course taken by the late Government, the Executive has ceased to be in a condition of competency according to the rules which govern international transactions, it is not open to the Executive to go to the French Government on its own responsibility and declare, on the part of the country, a difference in the opinion of this country. It would, in the same manner, depart from the honourable and equitable construction of its duty if it were to come to this House and take the initiative in asking the House, or influencing the House, to alter the course and to recede from the transactions into which the English Government has entered in common with the French Government. These are our opinions, and the considerations which make the line of our duty clear. It is not necessary for us now to consider at what time we might feel ourselves liberated from the disabilities under which we now lie, or feel ourselves free to assume that the views of Parliament are clear, or that we are in a position again to suggest or direct the proceedings that should be taken. We should be committing a very serious error, and should have set a precedent of an inexpedient and even of a dangerous character, if we had taken it upon ourselves to break off the series of transactions which had reached such a point in communication with the French Government. We wish to give a large and free interpretation to all our obligations concerning our common international action in the negotiations which have been conducted with France; and, if right in that view, there is no other course open to us but to submit the matter to the judgment of the two Houses of Parliament, and especially of the Representative Chamber, as being now the only free, competent, independent, and legitimate authority to declare the judgment of the country on a matter in which it will be admitted that the judgment of the country ought to be given, whatever that judgment may be.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: This question of the Channel Tunnel was first brought before the House 10 years

  1377
  ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, and it was referred to a Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman. The question brought before the Committee was that of establishing a service of large boats to carry passengers between this country and France, and the construction of large harbours on both sides of the Channel for the purpose of making a better communication between the two countries. In that inquiry, for the first time, two propositions were made. One was for making a Tunnel from one side of the Channel to the other; and the other, which was very strongly advocated at the time by very experienced engineers, was that of making a bridge over the Channel. Three propositions were brought before me as Chairman of the Committee, and they were all fully discussed at the time; and I remember perfectly well consulting the Government of the day, including the present Prime Minister, upon the subject: because the question was not only one which closely and materially affected Private Bills, but was an international question, and a national question also; and, therefore, I would not consent to any scheme being passed without first consulting the Government. All the Committee did was to dismiss the bridge scheme, and we thought the Tunnel nearly as wild a scheme. With the consent of the Government, however, we did pass a Bill in favour of a system of steamboats, and that system I consider to be the best now, for it supplies all the necessary communication that is really wanted. Another proposition was that a tram should run from London to the Coast, and be lowered down by powerful hydraulic machinery to the tide level, and run into a hole in the bows of a large ship built for the purpose, and so be carried over to the French Coast. When it got to France it was to be met by another large ship and transferred. That was the scheme passed by the Committee of that day. Now, I think the Prime Minister has put this question on a wrong footing. By-the-bye, I may say that the scheme placed before the Committee was a scheme to provide a large harbour at Folkestone or Dover, and France consented to allow another great harbour to be made at Andreselles on the other side; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried out was that
  1378
  the French Emperor did not give his consent, because he was afraid of ruining the harbours of Calais and Boulogne, and before the matter could be carried into execution the French Empire fell, and thus there was an end of the scheme. I presume it was after that that the question of the Tunnel was brought before the Government, and I think they must have given their assent to that proposition very hastily. I am quite sure of one thing—that they never gave the consideration to it they are now giving, and they never thought at that time what would be the real practical result of the leave they gave to the French Government. I cannot think that any permission subsequently given by the late Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, was given under the impression that they were bound to give it. At all events, I do not think there can be any quarrel between the responsibility of one Government or the other. I believe there is no question which, from one end of the country to the other, has raised more strong feeling than this question relating to the Channel Tunnel. I have, moreover, had communication with several Ambassadors of foreign countries during their stay in England; and I can only say that it is not in this country alone that the feeling which I have alluded to exists. One and all of those Ambassadors have said, in effect—"What in the world are you thinking of, when, having this silver streak between you and the Continent, you talk of giving up what has hitherto been your protection and safeguard?" When this question comes to be threshed out, I am convinced that this House will emphatically vote against the authorization of the scheme. The question here involved is purely national, and has nothing whatever of a Party character about it. It has been decided by the Secretary of State for War that before the wider question involved in the Channel Tunnel Scheme should be submitted to the Government a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the practicability of closing the Tunnel in time of war. So that, before the scheme is even to be submitted to the Government, we are to have a Committee appointed to inquire into the matter in its relation to the safety of the country. That, I think, shows conclusively that the mind of the I Government was not at all made up on

  1379
  this subject; and, therefore, that they were in no respect bound to the Government of France. But the Committee has now reported, and I am certain there is nothing in their Report which will at all diminish the alarm which is felt throughout the country as to the proposal for making this Tunnel. Now, under these circumstances, what do the Government propose to do? I should have thought that, having said—"Before this scheme is submitted to us we will have a Committee of Inquiry," when the Report of that Committee was made to them they would have formed their opinion upon it, and that, having done so, they would have submitted it to the House. They might then have said to the Government of France—"The feeling of the nation has forced us to have this inquiry, and the Report of the Committee has satisfied us that for the purposes of national safety, and also for the purpose of maintaining those friendly relations"—which, I trust, will always exist "between the two countries—we think it very much better that the Tunnel should not be made." the feeling of the country has been expressed by the Prime Minister in a way which cannot be mistaken. Amongst persons of every creed and class in politics, and of every section of society, I believe that the universal feeling is opposed to the scheme of a Channel Tunnel. I am bound to say that it has taken me a great deal by surprise that the Government, having appointed already a Committee for the purpose of inquiry before this question was brought before them, should, apparently deserting their former position, now propose that another Committee—a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament—should be appointed to decide what is really a question of national policy. I should have thought that if any question of international policy were involved, it should not be left to a Committee to decide what is essentially a question for the Government of the day. I say it is essentially for the Government to deal with the Government of France on this question, and that they are bound to give their opinion, and answer Aye or No to the question—"Is it wise for us to allow this matter to go on?" It is their business to advise the House of Commons; and when their advice upon this matter is given, we shall, of course, know how to deal with it. I strongly impress
  1380
  upon the House that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is perfectly sound and practical; and that neither a Committee of this nor of the other House, nor a Joint Committee of both Houses, should be allowed to take away from the Government the responsibility which belongs to them of stating to the Government of France their belief that the Channel Tunnel should not be made.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, they were called upon to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire whether it was expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to effect a submarine communication between England and France. That was similar to what he supposed a Private Bill Committee would do, had the matter come before them in the shape of a Bill. But the reason why this project has been taken out of the hands of a Private Committee, and placed in the hands of a Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, was because some reasons of policy were involved in it. He did not think a question of high policy ought to be referred to a Committee of that sort; and he did think, if that House had any sense at all, it should decide upon that question itself, without being guided by a Committee of either House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had entered somewhat more than might have been expected into the policy of the whole question. Now, it seemed to him that if they objected to communication between France and England, and to increased facilities of intercourse between the two nations, they ought also logically to object to every improved steamer that might be put on, and to oppose any improvements of the harbours on either side of the Channel. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that there was in the country a strong feeling upon this matter—it had been got up with a great deal of ingenuity and perseverance; but it existed nevertheless. There were two parties who, as far as he could understand, honestly objected to the Tunnel. There was the party who were perpetually talking about "the natural barrier" and "the silver streak," and used phrases of that sort, which meant very little, but were very useful in argument. He could not understand anyone being so anxious to preserve these bar-

  1381
  riers to communication between one country and another. Why, there was a great natural barrier between Italy and Switzerland a short time ago, which was removed by the construction of the St. Gothard Tunnel. But did the people of those countries go into hysterics because that great natural barrier was going to be removed? Far from it. The Municipal authorities on both sides had special trains, met in the middle of the Tunnel, and, like respectable Christians, had a good drink over the event. One of these days, the greatest deputation ever heard of was going to wait upon the Prime Minister, composed of Irishmen of all creeds and Parties. Why? With the object of improving the communication between England and Ireland. And he was sure he would just as soon improve the communication between England and France as between England and Ireland. But he was not at all surprised at the fear which the right hon. Gentleman opposite so ably represented in that House—the fear of invasion. It was conscience that made cowards of us all; and when they talked of invasion, they had, no doubt, an uneasy conscience, which told them they were making invasions perpetually. Why, every year the Conservative Government invaded some country or another; first, Afghanistan, then the Transvaal, and next Zululand; and when the Liberal Party came into power they straightway went into Egypt. But there was another Party who likewise objected to the Tunnel, and he sympathized rather more with them. Their argument was—"We do not at all object to any number of Frenchmen coming over here; but we know that the people of this country are so stupid that if the Tunnel is made it will become a reason for additional panics, and end in more money being spent on Military and Naval Forces." That was the very reason why the Tory Party ought to support it. But he said, after all, if this was a question of high policy, it was not a question to be left to five Gentlemen of that House, however able they might be, for the purpose of saying what ought to be done. He said, let Parliament decide this matter for itself, and let it say whether it was willing that there should be this submarine communication between England and France. Let them be guided in this matter by the Govern-
  1382
  ment. He had immense regard for Her Majesty's Government, and he was sure that their advice would be hailed by every section of the House—the "Fourth Party" included. Let the Government give their opinion and advice, and lay Papers upon the Table; and the House would then be in a position to decide whether this great country was to maintain a policy of isolation and obstruction, or whether it was to promote the means of friendly communication between two great nations.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, if the House were to decide the question immediately before it upon the same considerations as would apply to any other question of equal magnitude, he did not think there could be the smallest doubt as to the result. They were about to refer to a Committee the question as to whether it was expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to the construction of a Marine Tunnel between England and France. No one could doubt that this was a question of the first magnitude. It was one which affected the military and commercial position of the country; and it was one, above all others, on which the Government of the country, if they were worthy of the name of a Government, ought to have an opinion. Sooner or later their opinion upon the subject would have to be given. It appeared to him, however, that the Government desired to shirk all responsibility in this matter as far as it possibly could do so, and to avoid arriving at a decision, because it was hopelessly divided in itself, and could not offer an unanimous opinion to the House. They all knew perfectly well the opinion of certain Members of the Government with regard to this question. There was the Secretary to the Treasury, who flirted with it, and connected himself with a public Company for the promotion of the Tunnel. It was, therefore, clear that the Government had not arrived at so unanimous an opinion as to be able to present it to the House at the moment. Supposing the matter were remitted to a Joint Committee, as was proposed, and whether this Committee reported for or against the Tunnel, would the Government accept the Report of the Committee? Did they not know that, whether the Committee reported for or against the Tunnel, the question was one which ultimately the

  1383
  Government of the country must decide and which no one but that Government could decide? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them that they had not materials at the present moment which would enable them to come to a conclusion; but he (Mr. Stanhope) was sure that there were materials sufficient for that purpose. The Government had had inquiry after inquiry; they had appointed a Committee to consider the military aspect of the question, and they had the evidence given by the military authorities upon the subject; and therefore, he said, the House was perfectly well able to form a just opinion as to how the question ought to be decided. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said that the Government would not decide the question, and that they would remit it to a Committee of Members of both Houses. He accepted the challenge of the Government; and if it happened that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, urging that the Government ought to express an opinion upon this subject, were rejected, he, for one, should certainly take the opinion of the House as to the appointment of any Committee at all.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it had been stated that the Government wished to shrink from all responsibility in the matter. They did nothing of the kind. It would be their duty ultimately to decide whether they would advise the proceeding with the Tunnel or not. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had explained the position in which the Government stood in reference to what had gone before. Under the former Government of the present Prime Minister very little was done in the matter, because the original proposals were interrupted by the Franco-German War. After that war there was very little prospect of any capital being obtained for this purpose; and although, in general terms, the Government had expressed their assent to the scheme, the matter practically dropped out of sight. But in 1874, after it had died away for some considerable time, it was revived by a letter from the Earl of Derby, who, addressing the Board of Trade on the 7th of November of that year, re-opened the whole question, and asked for the
  1384
  opinion of the Board. The Correspondence containing the whole of the inquiries made and decisions arrived at by the late Government covered 160 pages of the Blue Book. These inquiries were most exhaustive, both the Board of Trade and the Military and Naval Departments taking part in them; and after making those inquiries the late Government agreed to the appointment of a Joint Commission, three Members of which were nominated by Her Majesty's Government, and three by the Government of France. They received and considered the Report of that Commission; and then they arrived at the decision, which is recorded in the Blue Book, that negotiations for a Treaty with the French Government on the basis of the Protocols of the Joint Commission should be entered upon. That was the position of affairs when the present Government took Office. They found that the late Government were committed up to the hilt in favour of the project. The present Government opened their own inquiry, in the first instance, through a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade; and then by a larger Committee of Military and Civil Engineers, and Artillery officers, presided over by Sir Archibald Alison. Their Report, which was most instructive, was in the Blue Book; and Her Majesty's Government now came to the House, and said to hon. Gentlemen opposite—"You have practically committed the country up to the hilt to the arrangement with France. Is it not right that Parliament should complete the inquiries, which up to this point have not dealt with important parts of the question, before a decision is taken to break off or to carry on the negotiations?" The late Government's responsibility was absolute; but the questions publicly raised since they left Office placed their successors in great difficulty. They had taken the only course possible under the circumstances. After the Parliamentary inquiry was exhausted the final responsibility of the Government would commence, and they would not shrink from it.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had no intention of detaining the House more than a few minutes. He had, however, an Amendment on the Paper, and he was obliged to say a few words upon this important subject. The appoint-

  1385
  ment of a Committee would be very objectionable indeed, inasmuch as it would prevent many questions being raised which ought to be discussed openly in the House. The remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade to a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, who laid particular stress on the question of the possibility of invasion from a military point of view, called for some special reference. He (Captain Aylmer) did not wish to say the possibility of invasion was not a very important point, nor did he propose to discuss the merits of the Bill in the slightest degree; but he wished, before they went to a division—in which, most probably, the Government would have their way—that the President of the Board of Trade would give the House his opinion of the Tunnel from the point of view of the effect it would have on the Mercantile Marine. He had no hesitation in saying that the effect of the Tunnel would be to withdraw the whole trade of the East from our own ports into those of Prance and the Mediterranean.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 74: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 49.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 72: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 50.)
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move that the Correspondence with reference to the proposed construction of a Channel Tunnel, presented to Parliament in 1882, be referred to the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Correspondence with reference to the proposed construction of a Channel Tunnel, presented to Parliament in 1882, be referred to the Committee.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I now move that a Message be sent to the House of Lords presenting the said Resolution.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to The Lords to acquaint their Lordships, That this House hath appointed a Committee of Five Members to join with a Committee of The Lords, to inquire whether it is expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine com-
  1386
  munication between England and France; and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned,—And that the Clerk do carry the said Message.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for the better administration and endowment of the Universities of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading— Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*.

LAW AND POLICE—INTERROGATION OF PRISONERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD DENMANsaid, that, seeing the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in his place, he desired to call his attention to a report in the morning papers, from which it appeared that the noble Marquess, presiding at the Hertford Quarter Sessions, had said—
"He had always tried to impress juries that evidence of that kind was evidence to which they should not attach the slightest importance."
The report did not appear to be a full one, and his object in calling the attention of the noble Marquess to the matter was to give him an opportunity of disclaiming any intention of saying that the evidence of policemen generally was not to be relied upon. An Act of Parliament imposed upon the police the duty of cautioning prisoners against saying anything which might criminate themselves, because anything they might say might be used against them; but his noble Relative—who had been thanked by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons for his testimony as to the good conduct of the police soon after their establishment—constantly expressed his wish that prisoners might be allowed to state anything they wished, when first apprehended; because, if corroborated by evidence or circumstances, it would be of the greatest importance to them on their trial.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble Friend gave me no Notice of this Question. I have not even seen the report to which he referred; but undoubtedly the statement I made as the Chairman of Quarter Sessions appears to be very much in the sense of that which was made by the distinguished Judge, the Relative of my noble Friend—that is to say, that we ought not to attach any importance to evidence extracted from prisoners by interrogation by the police.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be read 2aª on Thursday next.—(The Earl Granville)
House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.