Sitting of 6 August 1883

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the County of Sligo, v. Denis Maurice O'Conor, esquire, deceased.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Vote 7; Class III.—Law AND JUSTICE, Votes 9 to 12.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Ennis and West Clare Railway (Abandonment) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * [281]; Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) * [282]; Expiring Laws Continuance * [283].
First Reading—Public Health (Dairies, &c.) * [280].
Second Reading—Education (Scotland) [226].
Select Committee nominated—Isle of Wight (Highways) * [268].
Committee—Revenue and Friendly Societies * [269]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Diseases Prevention (metropolis) * [279]; Labourers (Ireland) (re-comm.) [240].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Payment of Wages in Public - houses Prohibition [126], and passed.
Withdrawn—Constabularyand Police (Administration) (Ireland) * [274]; Pawnbrokers * [271]; Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland)* [189]; Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [130].

SOUTH AFRICA — AFFAIRS IN THE TRANSVAAL—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [13th March] read, and discharged.
QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—BELCARRA (COUNTY MAYO) POST OFFICE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the want of a Money Order Office at Belcarra (near Castlebar, county Mayo); if it is the fact that, although a sub-office has been established there some years, the people have to go five miles to the nearest money office to get their orders cashed; and, whether he can see his way to remedy this grievance?
  MR. FAWCETT: My attention was not called to the difficulty of obtaining money orders in the district referred to by the hon. Member until I read his Question on the Paper. I immediately gave instructions that an inquiry should be made into the case, and I hope in the course of a few days to have a Report.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MODEL FARMS — THE MUNGRET AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL AND MODEL FARM, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has made inquiries into the circumstances connected with the letting of the Mungret Agricultural School and Model Farm, in the county of Limerick,

  1617
  and the shutting up of the National School connected therewith; whether said School has been shut up by order of the Lord Lieutenant and consent of the Lords of the Treasury, or by the Trustees of the Local Act of 42 and 43 Vic. c. 220; whether the shutting up of said School is warranted by the said Act; and, whether the Government will direct the Commissioners of National Education to erect another school for the parish of Mungret, or order the said Trustees to pay the one-third of the Grant required by the said Commissioners out of the rents and profits of said Buildings and Model Farm, or to restore the said schoolhouse to the parish?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This is the same Question which the hon. Member put to me a week ago. I have nothing to add to the reply then given. I have not yet obtained the further advice which I have asked for in the case.

  EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE (for Mr. J. G. TALBOT)asked the Vice President of the Council, -Whether his attention has been called to that part of the last Report of the Charity Commissioners, in which they express a fear that endowed schools which "have been, or, it is to be hoped, shortly will be, established for nearly 6,000 children," may be "practically emptied and rendered useless" by the competition of higher elementary schools; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent such a contingency?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have been unable to obtain any communication from the Chief Charity Commissioner on the subject of the last Report; but I may state that that part of it to which the hon. Member refers appears to be founded on a misapprehension. The establishment of higher elementary schools within the limit of the Statute and the Code for children abeve the Fourth Standard cannot conflict with the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. Their third-grade schools are designed for children of the lower middle class, who can pay fees of £4 and upwards; whereas the higher elementary schools are designed for children of the elementary class, at fees not exceeding £1 10 s. per annum. The 6,000 places in higher-grade schools to which the Commis-
  1618
  sioners refer are all within the Metropolitan area. There is no higher elementary school in London, and the proposal to establish them has been negatived by the Board. But even if such proposals were carried, inasmuch as the schemes of the Charity Commissioners and those of the School Board both require the sanction of the Education Department, we should take care that there should be no conflict between the two.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL — DEANERY OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will explain what is meant by the official statement in page 6 of the recent Return (167) of "Public Moneys applied for the use of the Scotch Universities," that "These payments" (those to Theological Professors from the funds of the Deanery of the Chapel Royal in Scotland) "will not be affected by the Universities (Scotland) Bill;" whether the funds of that deanery are public funds under the control of Parliament, and subject to its check and power of revision as regards their appropriation; on what authority the present application of the whole large income to theological professors was made, and whether it has ever received the sanction of Parliament; if it is binding except for the lifetimes of the present incumbents; and, in what public accounts laid before Parliament is a statement of the property and income of the deanery and of the expenditure to be found?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the funds affected by the Scottish Universities Bill were limited, by its 1st clause, to sums voted by this house or charged on the Consolidated Fund. The deanery revenue falls into neither of these categories. It was, in fact, the endowment of the Chapel Royal; and since the disendowment of Prelacy in Scotland this income has always been treated as part of the patronage of the Crown. The present application was made by a Royal Warrant, dated February 9, 1863, under which the sum is apportioned among five Professors and their successors in office. It will be seen that these funds have not been under the control of Parliament; but I have learnt semi-officially that the income is about £2,000 a-year.

  METROPOLITAN (DUBLIN) POLICE—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen a report of the proceedings before Mr. Curran, R.M. in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 25th and 26th ultimo, in which a cabewner named Mekins charged Police Constables 70 B and 128 B with tippling whilst on duty in Harcourt Street on the 24th July; whether Mekins complained that, to shield themselves, they arrested him for drunkenness and abusive language; whether the Constables admitted, on oath, having spoken to Mekins a short time previously, and saying nothing about drink; if he is aware Constable 128 B swore he was on special duty for Mr. Curran on the day in question, and admitted drinking whisky in Mekins' presence; if it is the fact that four respectable witnesses swore Mekins was perfectly sober when arrested; whether, notwithstanding, Mr. Curran convicted Mekins, marking his licence for being drunk, and fining him 10 s. for abusive language, and refused to grant him the right of appeal, though pressed by counsel to do so; if it is the case that Mekins was imprisoned in the cells underneath the Court, by orders of the Police, until fine was paid, although no imprisonment was imposed as an alternative of non-payment; and, whether any inquiry into the conduct of the Police has been held or will be granted?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case was brought by the police against a cabdriver named Mekins, who was charged with being drunk and using abusive language. The use of abusive language was not denied, and the magistrate believed on the evidence that the drunkenness was proved, and that the suggestion made for the defence, that the constables arrested Mekins to screen themselves from a charge of tippling, was not well founded. The accused was cautioned for the drunkenness, and fined 10 s. for the abusive language. An increase of the penalty would 'not have given him a right of appeal. After the conviction the defendant was removed to the cells for about two minutes until the fine was paid. The suggestion that one of the constables was on special duty for Mr. Curran is not correct. He had been sent on the
  1620
  most ordinary and commonplace duty—namely, to notice a witness for a Police Court case the next day. It is the fact that the two constables had gone to a refreshment bar before the arrest was made, and had taken a glass of whisky each. Their case has already been before the Commissioner, who fined them for this breach of discipline. I see no ground for further inquiry.

  BRAZIL—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the British claims against Brazil, after being investigated by Mr. Clare Ford, were sent out to Brazil and urgently pressed on the attention of the Brazilian Government, and with what result; and, whether he has reason to expect that the recent change of Ministry at Rio will in any way affect the prospects of settlement?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEBefore addressing any further instructions to Her Majesty's Minister at Rio Janeiro, it was found necessary to arrive at a decision on certain legal points which had arisen upon Mr. Ford's Report. This has caused some unavoidable delay; but I trust that the question will very shortly be in a position to be submitted to the Brazilian Government. My hon. Friend will understand that it is not in my power to predict the effect which the recent Ministerial changes in Brazil may have upon the settlement of the claims.

  ARMY—PENSIONS—CASE OF PATRICK GORMAN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Gorman, of Mallow, a pensioner of the 19th Foot, 74 years of age, who was lamed and lost the use of his sight in the British service; whether Gorman served in the Army with two honourable distinctions for 19 years and 141 days, and was discharged in 1847 in consequence of injuries received by the bite of a scorpion in Demerara; whether he was drafted into the local Reserve Force in 1848, and was called up for drill yearly until 1870, when he fell ill during training and lost his sight; whether, notwithstanding this additional service of 22

  1621
  years in the Reserve, and his disablement while so serving, together with the breaking-out afresh of his old wound, he received no addition to the ten-pence a-day therefore granted to him; and, whether anything can be done, in consideration of his 41 years' service, to relieve him from penury in his helpless old age?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is a pensioner from the 19th Foot, named John Gorman, who is apparently the man to whom the Question of the hon. Member refers. His pension was raised to 10 d. a-day in the year 1853. After his discharge from the Army he served in the Force of Enrolled Pensioners. Service in that Force does not carry increase of pension, except in cases of injury received on duty. Gorman has hitherto failed to produce satisfactory evidence of any such injury.

  CRIMINAL LAW—ASSAULTS ON IRISH HARVESTMEN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the following account in the "Daily Telegraph" of August 1st was true—
  "Attacks on Irish harvestmen, such as disgraced Cheshire last year, have recommenced. This afternoon three English farm labourers, named Dodd, Littler, and Richardson, were charged at Eddisbury with assaults on Patrick Philips, an Irish harvestman, at Durham. Prosecutor said he was going home when defendants threw stones at him in regular showers, and Dodd and Littler struck him violently with their fists, knocking him down. He gave defendants no provocation. He had loft his situation because he lived in fear of further outrages. A police officer who witnessed the attack said prisoners got the Irishman against a stile, and beat him most unmercifully, causing blood to flow freely. The magistrates fined the defendants each £1 and costs, and stated that they would send other offenders to gaol."
  and, whether, considering the light character of the punishment, he can take steps in the matter?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I am sorry to say that the facts stated by the hon. Member are not exaggerated; on the contrary, so far from being fined £1, as stated, the men were only fined 10 s., with 9s. 6d. costs, which made up nearly £1. At the same time, I am happy to be able to inform the hon. Member that the Chairman stated that if any more cases of assaults on Irish harvestmen in the neighbeurhood occurred, they would deal more
  1622
  seriously with them. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Secretary of State has no power to increase the sentences imposed by magistrates.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Would it not be in the power of the Secretary of State to admonish the magistrates for inflicting such a small penalty on men who brutally waylaid an unfortunate Irish harvestman, or else brutally waylaying Irish harvestmen will become a very popular amusement in England?
  MR. HIBBERT: I quite agree that the fine was small for so serious an offence; but I do not think the Secretary of State should depart from the usual course.

  NAVY—THE "BRITANNIA"—HEALTH OF CADETS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any illness has recently been prevalent among the cadets on beard the "Britannia;" whether such illness has been attributed to the inferior quality of the food supplied them; and, whether he can state what system was pursued to inspect the provisions supplied to the cadets on that vessel?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, during the six months ending on the 30th of June, the cases of illness among the cadets on beard the Britannia were none of them of a serious character, more than half being common colds and sore throats. No case of illness was attributable to the food supplied to the cadets, which is of the best quality. As to the method pursued for the inspection of provisions, the food is inspected daily by a lieutenant, who is the "officer of the day," and it is tasted by him frequently. He inspects the meat each day as it arrives on beard, and he is present during the dinner time and at the beginning of breakfast and tea, and is always ready to receive any complaints.

  INDIA—THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement in detail of the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council, as formed under the first Order in Council, and as now

  1623
  formed with the alterations as made in the last Order in Council of 19th July 1883, the comparison to show ranks, classes, numbers, rates of salary, and total salaries, with explanations as to increases and decreases?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The India Office, under the first Order in Council of 1859, was constituted on a totally different basis to that on which it now stands; but in 1860 it was re-organized on a footing more nearly resembling the present establishment. If my hon. and gallant Friend will move for a Return comparing the India Office as it now is with what it was in 1860, I shall be happy to present it.

  METROPOLIS—WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has noticed in Lieutenant Colonel Bolton's last Report, that the number of services on the constant supply, in the New River Company's district, is only 19,404, out of a total of upwards of 200,000; whether that constant supply is practically limited to the City of London and the parish of Shoreditch; and, whether he has any power to compel the Metropolitan Board to exercise the powers they possess, and to require a constant supply throughout the whole of the New River Company's district?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The last Report of Colonel Bolton shows that the number of services of the New River Company on the constant supply system is 19,464, out of a total of 138,650. The constant supply by that Company is practically limited to Shore-ditch, and parts of the City. All new houses in this district are, however, required by the Company to be provided with water fittings adapted for the constant supply system. The Board are not empowered to compel the Metropolitan Board of Works to exercise the powers they possess in this matter. It may be mentioned that the total number of supplies to houses, &c., by the London Water Companies is 653,000, and that the houses served on the constant supply system are about one-third of that number—namely, 213,000.
  MR. BROAD HURSTasked the honourable Member for Truro, If it is correct that the Metropolitan Board of Works (of which he is Chairman), being the authority which by "The Water-
  1624
  works Act, 1871" has the power to require the various Metropolitan Water Companies to give a constant supply, has never exercised that power; whether, when the Board was requested by a Metropolitan Vestry to make such requisition, it refused to do so; if so, will he state the reason for such refusal; and, whether he is aware that the Vestry alluded to (that of Shoreditch) obtained the good offices of Lieutenant Colonel Bolton, and, by those means, obtained a constant supply from the New River Company?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: The hon. Member is correct in his suggestion that the Metropolitan Board has not exercised its power under the Water Act of 1871 in regard to constant supply. The reason why the Board has refrained from calling on any of the Companies to give a constant supply is, that such a supply can only be given subject to regulations which the Board has always considered to be unnecessarily expensive and harassing to the owners of houses. At the same time, the Board has never offered the least obstacle on objection to a Water Company introducing the constant system into its district, whenever the circumstances of the district appeared to render it desirable, As regards the last part of the Question, I believe the Vestry of Shoreditch did obtain a constant supply without the intervention of the Board.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact, recently restated by the analyst to the Local Government Board, that the water supplied to the Metropolis by five of the London Water Companies consists of Thames water mixed with the sewage 01 more than half - a - million of human beings; whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence showing that the extent of the cholera epidemics of 1849; 1854, and 1866 in London was largely due to the presence in the water of organic matter of sewage origin, which propagated this disease; whether he is aware that Dr. Frankland, the analyst to the Local Government Board, state: the opinion that minute organisms, calculated to propagate zymotic disease are to be found in the water supplied by the London Water Companies, and that in order to avert another epidemic o: cholera, "the rivers Thames and Lea

  1625
  must be wholly abandoned as sources of water supply;" whether he will take means to apprise the inhabitants of London of the danger of the present water supply; and, what he proposes to do in the matter? The hon. Member added that a further Question must be asked on the subject—namely, whether the Local Government Board accepted the necessary conclusions that, in the event of a cholera outbreak amongst those 500,000 people, choleraic germs would be distributed by this water?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Local Government Board are not aware that Professor Edward Frankland, the analyst of the Board, has recently restated that the water supplied by five of the London Water Companies consists of Thames water, mixed with the sewage of more than 500,000 human beings; but a statement to this effect appears in an article in The Nineteenth Century, which bears the name of "Percy Faraday Frankland," not of Professor Edward Frankland. As regards the facts, I would draw attention to the following statements in the Report of the Conservators of the River Thames for the past year:—
  "The Thames and its tributaries within 10 miles of the river are placed under constant supervision, in order that any effluent, consisting of sewage or of offensive and injurious matter, may at once be detected and stopped. The towns on the Thames above the intakes of the Water Companies which supply the Metropolis with drinking water, having spent large sums of money in diverting their sewage, that part of the river is now practically free from sewage pollution."
  The Board are aware of the evidence upon which the intensity of cholera epidemics in particular localities in London in 1849, 1854, and 1866 has been associated with impurity of water supplies delivered to those localities. Defects in the purifying processes of one or other Company were then in question. The Board have referred to the annual Reports made to them by Dr. Frankland for several years past; but they do not find in any of those Reports that he has stated that—
  "Minute organisms, calculated to propagate zymotic disease, are to be found in the water supplied by the London Water Companies, and that, in order to avert another epidemic of cholera, 'the Rivers Thames' and Lea must be wholly abandoned as sources of water supply."
  He has, no doubt, on several occasions expressed an opinion in favour of a
  1626
  water supply for the Metropolis other than that from the Thames and Lea. The Board find, however, that in 1882 on two occasions only were living organ- isms found by him in the water examined; and he states that—
  "This indicated that the Companies drawing their supplies from rivers have of late years exercised increased care in the treatment and filtration of water."
  As regards the question of organic pollution, the following extract from Professor Frankland's Reports may be quoted:—
  "Monthly Report for June, 1883. — The Thames water sent out by the Chelsea, West Middlesex, Southwark, Grand Junction, and Lambeth Companies was again unusually free from organic matter. With the exception of that supplied by the Grand Junction Company, which was very slightly turbid, all the water was efficiently filtered before delivery. The water drawn from the Lea and distributed by the New River and East London Companies was also exceptionally free from organic impurity, the New River Company's supply being chemically but slightly inferior to the best of the deep well waters."
  The danger which, at the present time, is most to be feared is that resulting from want of proper care on the part of householders with regard to the state of the cisterns or butts in which the water is stored; and it will be satisfactory to the House to learn that the Water Companies, on the suggestion of Colonel Bolton, the Water Examiner, have arranged to give notice to every householder as to the importance of the cisterns, &c., being properly cleansed; 650,000 notices are now being printed for this purpose.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Mr. Frank-land, who wrote the article in The Nineteenth Century, is a near relation of Dr. Frankland, and assists him in his laberatory?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I asked whether that was so or not this afternoon, but was not informed. I thought he was some near relation. In any case, the statement that the sewage of 500,000 people comes into the Thames above the intake is one which I cannot in any way accept.

  NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—CHATHAM DOCKYARD
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he is aware that nine apprentice fitters in

  1627
  Chatham Dockyard will be, on Monday morning next, forced to exchange their own branch of trade, to which they were beund, for that of shipwrights, in which they have no desire to serve; if such compulsion on the part of the Dockyard officials is legal; and, whether he has received any communication from Chatham on the subject? The hon. Member also asked, whether it is true that a fitter named "Munro" has recently been discharged from his employment at Chatham Dockyard for assisting the "fitter apprentices" in drawing up a statement of their grievances?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the facts of the case at Chatham referred to by my hon. Friend are these. Shipfitter apprentices, like shipwright apprentices, are apprenticed to the chief shipwright officer. He has been directed to employ both classes partly in the shops and partly in the ships, the object being to widen their experience at once for the benefit of the Service and for the benefit of the apprentices themselves; and this has become more necessary now that by a recent arrangement ship-fitters are allowed to compete with shipwrights for promotion to the position of foremen of the yard and constructors. Some of these shipfitter apprentices did at first submit a protest against being put to work under shipwrights; but this matter was explained to them; and on it being found that their parents and guardians, who are parties to the indenture, did not concur in the action they had taken, the apprentices were allowed to withdraw their Petition, and have expressed their regret for what they had done. I may add that if any fitter apprentice had, with the consent of his parent or guardians, objected in a proper manner to the order which has been issued, subsequently to the date of apprenticeship, the objection would have been allowed, although it would have been much against his own interest. With regard to the man Munro, I understand that the Admiral Superintendent has, on the advice of the Chief Constructor, discharged him from the Service. He was a hired man, who had been employed about two years. According to a most salutary practice, which has prevailed for some time past, the Admiralty do not interfere in such cases, but leave both the engagement and the discharge of hired men to the authori-
  1628
  ties on the spot, who are responsible for the efficiency and good discipline of the Dockyard workmen.
  MR. BROADHURSTinquired whether it was a fact that the officials in discharging these men used somewhat violent language, which was altogether unfit for repetition; and, whether the officials were justified in using language of that kind?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I answered the Question as it stood upon the Paper, and I was not aware that the hon. Member had given Notice of that further Question. No Report has come to me from the Dockyard confirming the idea that any such language was used.

  TAXATION—PROPERTY HELD IN MORT MAIN.
  MR. FIRTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the probability of an attempt being made next year to tax property held in mortmain, he will use his influence with the Treasury in order to have the Return of all real property held in mortmain, which was made last year, printed in extension for reference and information?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I only saw my hon. Friend's Notice this morning, and I fear that I could not answer it conclusively without more inquiry than I have had time to give it. But the Return would, I am told, cost several hundred pounds; and I cannot undertake to say that this expense would be warranted by any immediate legislative proposals. I will, however, consider the matter during the Recess.

  IRELAND—STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Report of an interview between Mr. Hayden, the correspondent of the "Baltimore Herald," and the "Philadelphia Press," and the Guardians of the Loughrea Union, reported in the "Western Morning News" of 28th July, as follows:—
  "Mr. Hayden: Now I want to know, in the first place, is it the custom of your Board to bond a woman, not married, having illegitimate children, to America;
  "Clerk: No

  1629
  "Mr. Hayden: A woman appeared before this Board on Saturday last, and was refused because she had illegitimate children;
  "Clerk: The Local Government Board refused to sanction such persons;
  "Mr. Hayden: Is it a fact that a woman having illegitimate children went in the last batch of your emigrants;
  "Clerk: I think not. I don't know;
  "Mr. Hayden: What about Teresa Redington;
  "Clerk: She was a widow, and had one child;"
  whether, within a few minutes of this disclaimer on the part of the Clerk of the Union, application was made for the admission into the workhouse of an illegitimate child whom the woman Redington had left behind; and, whether the Local Government Board issued any instructions to the Boards of Guardians against including in their emigrants to the United States women with illegitimate children?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The woman referred to, whose name is Edington, not Redington, is a widow with one legitimate child, whom she has taken with her to America. She was not in receipt of relief or a workhouse inmate. Her uncle had written from America as follows:—
  "I will get her good employment, and I shall keep her till such time as she will be well engaged."
  When the Guardians had this woman's application before them, they were not aware that since she became a widow she had had an illegitimate child; and the Emigration Committee were not informed of the child's existence. The Local Government Board declined to consent to the emigration of women with illegitimate children, except under very particular and very exceptional circumstances, and when they ascertained that the woman is a person of reformed character; but no general instructions have been issued on the point.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA—HOSPITAL SHIPS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention to have hospital ships placed at the disposal of the Commanders of the Troops in Egypt for the purpose of receiving cholera patients at Alexandria and Ismailia, and also as depots for medical comforts?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Even supposing there were hospital ships available at a day's notice—which there are not—I am informed by the medical advisers of the War Office that they would be inappropriate for cholera patients who could not be moved long distances to the ships. Troops attacked by cholera would be kept moving; and it is necessary that the proper medical comforts should accompany them, so as to be instantly available.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked, Whether the despatch relating to quarantine, published in one of the morning papers, was authentic; and, if so, whether it was the habit of Her Majesty's Government to write apologetic despatches to Foreign Governments?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I will lay the despatch on the Table today.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he is aware that the German Admiralty have attached to the Baltic Squadron during its evolutionary cruise a complete hospital ship, fitted with cots, requisites for the sick and wounded, instruments, and operating tables, and that it is intended in any future war that the vessels shall accompany the fleet into action, carrying the Geneva flag; and, whether it is intended to attach similar hospital ships to British Squadrons at home and abroad?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, we have no official information on the subject of the first Question of my hon. Friend; but I believe the fact is as he says. It is not the intention of the Admiralty to attach hospital ships to our cruising squadrons in time of peace. During war we should prepare hospital ships for service according to the circumstances and requirements of the war. For example, during the Egyptian Campaign the Carthage, Tamar, and other vessels were completely fitted for such a duty at very short notice, and our troopships are all suitable for use as hospital ships without any addition to their fittings.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—EXTRA POLICE AT KILMALLOCK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen in the Cork papers of the 21st of July a report of

  1631
  the Kilmallock Petty Sessions, where Mr. Weldon, a local magistrate, protested against the injustice of keeping extra police in Kilmallock, which was free from crime and outrage, and further stated from his place on the bench that the only cause he heard at first for sending extra police to that town was because some glass was broken in Pr. O'Connell's windows some time previous; if so, whether this is sufficient ground for using the Prevention of Crime Act to retain a hut there, and to place an extra tax on the people of that district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen the newspaper reports of the case. I find that Mr. Weldon made some observations from the Bench in explanation of his withdrawing from the hearing of a case for the recovery of the extra police tax. It is true that he objected to the presence of the extra police; but he admitted himself to be an interested party in the case. The breaking of Dr. O'Connell's windows is not the only ground upon which the presence of the police is considered necessary. Boycotting and intimidation still exists; and inhabitants of the town of Kilmallock are responsible for this. The Special Resident Magistrate of the district is going back to his duties pretty soon, and I will get a Report from him when he arrives.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that not later than Friday last 55 farmers from this district allowed themselves to be brought into Court rather than submit to this injustice?
  [No reply was given.]

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Postmaster General, How he proposes to accommodate with the parcel post those villages and rural districts where there is no regular Post Office, but only a bex let into or fastened to a wall, and opened by the 'postman when he calls for letters?
  MR. FAWCETT: In answer to the hon. Member, I may state that, in villages and rural districts where there is no regular Post Office, it will be necessary for the senders of parcels to deposit them at the nearest Post Office. It is considered that difficulties would arise
  1632
  in the working of the Parcel Post if the collection of parcels from other places than Post Offices were authorized.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION)—APPOINTMENT OF MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's appointment to a post in Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI am informed that certain communications have recently passed between Lord Dufferin and Mr. Clifford Lloyd as to the employment in Egypt of the latter gentleman; but there has been some misunderstanding as to the nature of the duties to be performed, and no appointment has been made.
  MR. HEALY: Was it in connection with the cholera outbreak that this appointment referred?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No; I do not understand that it had anything to do with it.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask, in reference to the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that Lord Dufferin had something to do with the appointment or non-appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whether Lord Dufferin was now held responsible for the appointments made by the Egyptian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had already stated that the communications were of an informal nature. A communication was made by Lord Dufferin to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, then further communications took place, and the misunderstanding to which he had alluded arose. There was a misunderstanding as to the place Mr. Clifford Lloyd could have.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked if it was not a fact that the Khedive wanted an assistant, or Secretary of State, and that Lord Dufferin recommended Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that what he understood took place was that a communication was made by Lord Dufferin to Mr. Clifford Lloyd that employment was open to him under the Egyptian Government; but when communications took place as to the nature of the post, Mr. Clifford Lloyd found that he had misunderstood what the

  1633
  character of the situation was. Thereupon negotiations were suspended.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could state whether Lord Dufferin was personally acquainted with Mr. Clifford Lloyd; or whether it was in consequence of what Lord Dufferin heard that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had done in Ireland that he recommended him to the Khedive for employment?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am totally unaware whether Lord Dufferin was acquainted or unacquainted with Mr. Clifford Lloyd.
  MR. HEALYasked whether, if he put down a Notice on the subject, the noble Lord would give an answer?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think that I have anything to do with it.

  TURKEY (ASIATIC PROVINCES)—NAVIGATION OF THE TIGRIS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the protest by Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the "Khalifeh" and "Medjidieh" not being permitted by the Turkish Government to land their upward cargo and parcel mails at Bagdad, has produced any result; and, if not, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take other steps for the protection of British and Asiatic trade by way of the Tigris and Euphrates?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the Turkish Ambassador of the intention of the Porte to put an end to the violent proceedings which have recently taken place on the Tigris, and the Vali has now allowed the mails to be lauded. No agreement has yet been come to as to the terms of the arrangement, and the question is still under discussion.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—HOME LESSONS, BRAIN DISEASES, &c.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that the Education Department have sanctioned the action of school managers in refusing children admission to school because their parents refuse to allow them to do home lessons; and, if so, whether he will state under what
  1634
  authority the Education Department or school managers are entitled to enforce a system of home lessons, in addition to their school attendance, during the hours fixed by Act of Parliament?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Where school managers have required that reasonable home lessons shall be learnt by children in a good state of health, the Education Department has always supported them in maintaining their Rules, and preserving the discipline of their schools. We do not think it necessary, or desirable, that the Department should lay down hard-and-fast Rules controlling the discretion of managers in the conduct of their schools. Under Article 89 of the Code; no child can be refused admission on other than reasonable grounds.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Against the will of the parents? Are these lessons insisted on against the will of the parents?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the parent is not satisfied with the school he would send his child to some other, where there are no home lessons. We do not find that parents object. It is other persons who object to education, not the parents.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: In consequence of the answer I have received, I will ask to-morrow whether the letter written to this effect by Mr. F. E. Palgrave to the parents of the boy—
  "My Lords consider that the refusal to admit the boy Shackelton is justifiable, until his parents undertake that he shall do home lessons."
  was written with the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and consent?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; that letter was written by the Assistant Secretary to the Department with my knowledge and consent.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, If he can state on the authority of the Commissioners in Lunacy, whether it is a fact that while there has not been any material increase of brain disease and lunacy in proportion to the population generally during the last ten years, there has been a material increase of such diseases among the children of school age and the teachers in schools?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I inquired of the Lunacy Commissioners whether they could throw any light on the Questions

  1635
  of the hon. Gentleman. They reply that children sent to asylums are usually idiots, and that it is only occasionally an insane child is met with. The number of children under 15 admitted, so far from increasing of late years, has fallen from 306 in 1876 to 286 in 1882, notwithstanding an increase of about 2,500,000 to the population in the interval. So far as the teachers are concerned, the Commissioners refer me to the Report of last year, which states that of the group described as teachers, schoolmasters, schoolmistresses, governesses, professors, and lecturers—out of 127,140 persons classed under this head in 1871, 154 only were committed to asylums in 1881. This is a lower proportion than in almost any other Profession. The Clergy, the Legal and Medical Professions, the Army and Navy, Civil Engineers, and others, all show a much higher average. Out of 746 teachers applying to the Education Department for pensions since 1875, incapacitated from continuing their Profession, 24 only are returned as suffering from brain affections in any form. I may be allowed to correct a mis-report of a statement I made on the authority of the Registrar General — namely, that the death-rate of children between five and 15 years of age had fallen fully 19 per cent since 1870, and that the deaths from brain diseases was 0·5 per 1,000, and not 5 per 1,000, as reported.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the Chairman of the Lunacy Commissioners, the Earl of Shaftesbury, agreed with that statement?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was quoting from the Secretary of the Commissioners. The hon. Member would find the Report from which he quoted in the Library.
  MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will consider the expediency of making such modification in the New Code as will admit of a percentage of the children in any school being excused examination, without diminishing the grant to the whole class, in cases where some of the children are naturally incapable, and where it is injurious to their health to be pressed forward for examination?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Code, as it stands, is more fair and more liberal than the proposal of the hon. Member,
  1636
  as it allows managers to withhold from examination any number of scholars for whom a reasonable excuse can be established. If a fixed percentage were laid down it would imply equal conditions in all schools, and might in some schools prove too high; while in others, where the circumstances were specially unfavourable, it would fall short of what might legitimately be claimed. If the hon. Member will refer to our Circular of August 9, 1882, and to one which I have to-day laid upon the Table, he will, I think, find that the instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors, as to the scholars who may be withheld from examination, provide all that is reasonable and just both to teachers and children.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to Parliamentary Paper, No. 263, the second on the subject of lighthouse illuminants, Whether the Illuminants Committee, the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Wigham, or Dr. Hopkinson replied to the Letter of the Board of Trade of the 10th of July; and, if so, whether he will state what was the general purport of their replies; and, if he will have their replies, and also the proceedings of the Illuminants Committee, in full?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINstated that, in reply to their Letter of the 10th July, the Board of Trade had received a communication from Trinity House which covered an account of the proceedings of the Committee, which had since been dissolved, as far as it went, and also a preliminary account of the expenses which had been incurred. They had also received a letter from Mr. Wigham regretting the dissolution of the Committee. He did not think any of these documents possessed any public interest, and he did not propose to publish them.
  MR. GRAYasked, were the Board of Trade about to take any steps now to test whether gas or oil was the best lighthouse illuminant?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied, that, on a previous occasion, when answering a similar Question, he pointed out that the Correspondence would show that

  1637
  they had communicated the dissolution of the Committee to all the Bodies concerned; that they also informed them that they were left to their own initiative; and that the Board of Trade would be prepared to pay the greatest possible attention to their recommendation. They further informed Trinity House and the Northern Lights Commission that if they thought it desirable to make any further experiments in the matter, the Board of Trade would be prepared to assist them.
  MR. GRAYasked, would the Irish Lights Board be free to exercise its discretion in the matter?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, all the Boards would be equally free to exercise their discretion subject only to the general control of the Board of Trade, which had to see that the considerations of economy and efficiency were duly observed.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—TORY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the works connected with the lighthouse on Tory Island are being proceeded with; and, if they are not, if he can state the reason for the delay?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the hon. and gallant Member asked precisely the same Question on the 23rd of last month; and he then told him that they had asked the Irish Lights Commissioners for a Report in connection with Tory Island Lighthouse, and that until they received a reply they could not give the sanction of the Board to the expenditure.
  COLONEL KING - HARMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for a reply?
  MR. DAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the delay on the part of the Irish Lights Commissioners in forwarding this Report was due to their anxiety respecting the abandonment of the experiments which were to have been made by the Committee?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Irish Lights Commissioners delayed their reply owing to the proceedings of the Committee; and now that it had been dissolved there was no reason why they should not forward it.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE DYNAMITE CONSPIRACIES—REWARDS TO THE POLICE.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to confer any distinctions or rewards on the superior and other officers of the Metropolitan and Provincial Police of England, whose services have been specially utilized in connection with the dynamite conspiracy, and recent prosecutions for participation therein?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, it was the intention of the Home Secretary to call for a Supplementary Vote to enable him to confer certain money rewards on members of the Metropolitan and Birmingham Police, and some other persons not connected with either of those Forces. An Estimate would be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. M'COANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the continued peacefulness of the county, as attested by the police reports and the charges of the judges at the recent assizes, the Irish Government will now revoke the proclamation of County Wicklow; and, if not, if he could state the reason why?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The licensing officer for the county of Wicklow has instructions, on which he states he has acted to a considerable extent, to be as liberal as possible with respect to the granting of licences for arms, so that I do not think it likely that the proclamation causes any serious inconvenience to peaceable and well-disposed persons. I will, however, ask Lord Spencer to take the matter again into consideration on his return to Ireland this week.

  ARMY—FIELD MARSHALS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the fact that of the four Officers holding the rank of Field Marshal, two are of advanced age, and two are members of the Royal Family, who from relation to the Throne or from other circumstances may probably not

  1639
  be available for belligerent command, he will recommend that in the proposed appointment to the rank of Field Marshal an effective officer should be selected?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Question of my hon. Friend seems to be based on the assumption that it is desirable that an officer holding a command in the field should have the rank of Field Marshal. On the contrary, I should be disposed to say that circumstances might easily arise in which we should be deterred from selecting an officer for command in war by the fact of his holding Field Marshal's rank; but if it became desirable to give the rank the officer in command could always have it bestowed on him. The distinction has always been given as a reward for long and distinguished service, and I see no reason for changing the practice.

  NEW SOUTH WALES—REMOVAL OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been drawn to the following letter addressed to three magistrates, Messrs. Dalton, Casey, and Burke, by the Colonial Secretary at Sydney:—
  "Colonial Secretary's Office, Sydney, March 8, 1883.
  "Sir,—My attention having been attracted by a statement in the newspapers, that you, while holding Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace, did sign and present to Mr. Redmond, on the occasion of his recent visit to Orange, an Address' in which you characterised Her Majesty's High Court of Parliament of the United Kingdom as a 'Foreign Senate,' and express your 'admiration of resolute resistance' to what you designate as 'its oppressive proceedings,' I desire to invite you to make any explanation you may have to offer of expressions which otherwise appear inconsistent with the commission you hold.
  I have, &c.,
  ALEX. STUART."
  Whether, on the irreplies being deemed unsatisfactory, the Governor ordered their removal from the Commission of the Peace; whether the Government approve of the Governor's action; whether the Correspondence can be presented to the House; and, whether the Governor's salary is paid out of Imperial taxation, and if it has yet been voted?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The facts stated in the first part of the hon. Member's Question are quite accurate, with
  1640
  the exception of the impression conveyed in the second part, that the Governor ordered their removal from the Commission of the Peace. It is true that the Governor, as head of the Executive, acted in the usual way, but on the responsibility and initiative of the loyal Government of Sydney, which recommended to him the course which he should adopt. As to the third Question, whether the Government approved of the Governor's action, I hardly think that it is a question for the Home Government to express either approval or disapproval of an act done by the Government of Australia with regard to their internal affairs. But the Secretary of State, I may inform the hon. Member, in acknowledging the receipt of the despatch forwarding these statements, while expressing regret at the circumstances which occurred, expressed, also, his satisfaction that the Government of New South Wales had not hesitated to require that the magistrates should set an example of proper respect for lawful authority. The whole Correspondence has been laid before the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and there will be no objection to lay it on the Table of this House. The Governor's salary is not paid out of Imperial taxation, but out of Colonial funds.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what he means by "the loyal Government of Sydney?" Is there one Government loyal and another disloyal?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I mean what I said.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the "loyal Government" which he describes is the Government nominated by the Crown; and whether he wishes to draw any distinction between the Government of the Colony in question nominated by the Crown and the elected Representatives of the people?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir. New South Wales is self-governed, and the Government depends upon the majority in the Legislative Assembly.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he means by "the loyal Government" the Government that is refusing to accept the consignment of Irish informers?
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that I shall ask the hon. Gentleman

  1641
  how many convicts are in the Legislature of Sydney; and whether any convicts—pickpockets and so forth — exported from this country have found their way into the Government of New South Wales?

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT, 1878—SANITARY AUTHORITIES.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, Ireland, Whether he can state the number of sanitary authorities in Ireland, and the number of such authorities who have adopted bye-laws under the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878; and, whether the Local Government Board of Ireland has issued to the Irish sanitary authorities sets of model bye-laws, such as have been issued to the English sanitary authorities by the English Local Government Board?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The number of such authorities is 223. The number who have adopted bye-laws under the Public Health Act is 33—namely, 25 urban and eight rural. The Local Government Board has not issued sets of model bye-laws; but facilities are readily afforded to any sanitary authorities finding any difficulty on the subject.
  MR. GRAY: Will bye-laws be issued by the Local Government Board to the Irish sanitary autberities similar to those issued by the English Local Government Board?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will inquire.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that it is almost impossible for sanitary authorities in urban sanitary districts in Ireland to make preparations for special hospital accommodation, or to take other precautions against outbreaks of such diseases as cholera, owing to the provisions of the Public Health Act, under which, in the event of an outbreak, the duty of taking special measures to cope with it would be transferred from the present urban sanitary authorities — the Corporations and Town Commissioners—to the Boards of Guardians?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government are not prepared to admit that the present state of the law renders it almost impossible for sanitary authori-
  1642
  ties in urban districts in Ireland to take the necessary precautions against outbreaks of such diseases as cholera. Boards of Guardians have full power to make preparation for special hospital accommodation; but there appears to be no doubt that it would be better and more convenient in some of the large towns in Ireland if the urban sanitary authorities, who have charge of the execution of the Public Health Act in ordinary times, should also be intrusted with the special arrangements necessary to prevent the spread of infectious disease when an epidemic prevails or is threatened.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government have received any information regarding the movements of an alleged Russian Agent in Afghanistan, who is described in the "Standard" of Saturday as
  "having credentials from the Russian Government, and as having been very kindly received by the present Governor of Kabul, and as having informed the Governor that Russia has for the last four years been contemplating an advance on Hindustan,' and that he himself believes a regular move in that direction will be made within the next two years;"
  and also that
  "Russia has sent a number of spies to investigate the best routes and seasons for such an advance;"
  whether he will lay before Parliament the Reports of the Agents of the Indian Government in Afghanistan for the past ten years; and, whether he can state the present position of the advanced guard of the Russian forces north-west of Herat?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The India Office has no information which enables me to confirm the statements in The Standard referred to in the first Question of the hon. Member for Eye. As to the second Question, I must very respectfully decline to present to Parliament the confidential Reports of our Agents in Afghanistan. I cannot state the present position of the Russian Forces northwest of Herat; but I have no reason to believe that there are any Russian troops stationed beyond the line of the Frontier fixed by the Russo-Persian Treaty of December, 1881.

  VACCINATION ACTS—VACCINE LYMPH.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether there are three sorts of vaccine lymph in use by medical men, viz.: (1) Humanised lymph passing through the systems of the million since the time of Jenner; (2) Small-pox virus taken from the human patient and put into a cow, as propagated for Government use by Dr. Badcock, of Brighton, and Dr. Ceely, of Aylesbury; (3) Animal vaccine or calf-lymph, prepared by Dr. Renner; whether any lymph allowed by Government is guaranteed to be free from humanised or animal diseases, or all alike, or all productive of exactly the same results; and, whether, under the system of compulsory vaccination, parents have to submit to the vaccination of their children with anything the vaccinating officer supplies, even though he be incapable of saying what its origin is, and without guarantee that it is free from hereditary taint, tubercular disease, or scrofula, or any of its cognates?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Government has nothing to do with any lymph but that which it supplies from its own establishment. This is of two kinds—the one collected from children's arms by approved vaccinators in various parts of the country and examined at the Board offices; the other cultivated from calf to calf at the Board's station at Lamb's Conduit Street. These are known as the humanised lymph and the animal lymph (of the establishment) respectively. Government is always on the watch for every indication of the quality of the lymph which is supplied. No reason appears for supposing that any variety of it can cause any disease except vaccinia, or any other result than to protect from small-pox. Public vaccinators are required to keep a record of the source from which they obtain their lymph, and a failure to comply with this requirement would render them liable to penalties.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the Government declined to guarantee any kind of lymph used by its officers; and whether parents had a right to be informed as to the origin of the particular lymph used?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he thought he had made it clear that the
  1644
  Government did its best to secure that that which it supplied should be free from suspicion. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It does not guarantee it.] He did not see that there could be any more positive guarantee. The Notice of the Question only appeared on the Paper that morning; but if the hon. Member desired further particulars, he would do his best to supply them.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND—THE CHIEF MANKOROANE.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any answer, and, if so, what answer, has been given by the Cape Government to the Petition by the Chief Mankoroane to be taken under their rule?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have not yet heard whether any answer has been sent by the Cape Government. I imagine none has been sent yet, or we should have heard of it.

  THE COPYRIGHT ACTS—PHOTOGRAPHS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to a case decided in the Court of Appeal, and reported in the "Times" of the 3rd, where it has been held that under the Acts 25 and 26 Vic. the operator or person who "placed the people in position" is the only one entitled to copyright in a photograph; and, if, as the effect of this decision will be to permit wholesale piracy of valuable property, and render it impossible, without forfeiture of the copyright, for proprietors of photographic establishments to employ paid servants to carry on their business, he proposes to amend the Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that his attention was only called to this subject by the Question. He believed there was a case decided; but he was not capable of judging, at the present moment, whether any inconvenience or injustice would arise. But even if legislation should be necessary, nothing could be effected this Session.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether the effect of the decision would not be to invalidate the copyright in every photograph taken up to the present?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had only seen a newspaper report, and had not had time to form any judgment.

  BANKRUPTCY BILL — EXTENSION TO IRELAND.
  MR. GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, if he perseveres in his intention of seeking to extend the Bankruptcy Bill to Ireland, he will frame the Irish portion of the Bill upon the same principle as the English portion—that is to say, make it a code of Bankruptcy Law as is proposed by the Bill for England, by repealing the English Acts, and re-enacting such portions as are to be retained, instead of, as is proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland, retaining the Irish Acts and amending them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that the clauses put down in his name embedied the views of the Government in reference to the extension of the Bill to Ireland. It was not intended to abolish the Irish Court of Bankruptcy; and, therefore, it would be improper to repeal the Acts upon which it was founded, as it was perpetuated in more than one Act. It was hoped, if the Bill passed in its present form, that, so far as law was concerned, there would be a complete Code; and, so far as procedure was concerned, a complete guide.
  MR. GRAY: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite understands my Question. I understand that the procedure with regard to the portion of the Bill applying to England is that all the Acts relating to Bankruptcy are to be repealed, and to be embedied in one Bill, now to be passed. I want to know whether the new procedure will be adopted with regard to Ireland; and if the Government will not adopt that course whether they will raise any objection to its being adopted by Irish Members who may wish to make the Bankruptcy Law in Ireland simple instead of confused, as the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)replied, that it would not be convenient or in Order for him to discuss the subject with the hon. Member now. He had already answered the Question by stating that the clauses
  1646
  proposed by him represent the ideas of the Government.
  MR. GIBSON: Have the Government finally decided to apply the Bill to Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Yes, Sir.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if the Government have finally made up their minds to force this Bill through the House without passing it through Committee, so far as the Irish clauses are concerned?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I should state, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that these clauses were proposed in the Grand Committee. [Mr. HEALY: Not discussed.] These clauses were submitted—["No, no!"]—and, at the instance of the hon. Member for Carlow, they were temporarily withdrawn—[Mr. GRAY: No, no!]—in order that public opinion in Ireland might be more accurately obtained. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member desired more time should be given in order that public opinion should manifest itself. [Mr. GRAY: No, no!] That time has since elapsed. Public opinion has manifested itself; and, under these circumstances, I think we are justified in asking the House and Irish Members, the great majority of whom are in favour of our proposal, to consider the clauses as placed on the Paper.
  MR. GRAY: The right hon. Gentleman has, quite unintentionally no doubt, totally misrepresented the position I took on the Grand Committee. I never asked the clauses to be withdrawn. These clauses were not submitted in Committee. Different clauses were submitted, and they were not discussed at all.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry there should be a difference of opinion between us. All I can say is that I appeal to the Members of the Grand Committee when the hon. Member came to our deliberations for the first time—["No, no" from Mr. GRAY, and laughter]—as to whether what I have stated is not accurate? Although not virtually the same, those clauses are in the principal proposals the same as the clauses submitted to the Grand Committee.
  MR. GRAY: I am sorry to occupy the attention of the House again, but that

  1647
  was not the first time I attended the Committee, and I never asked that these clauses should be adjourned, or that they should be considered. I opposed thorn from the beginning.

  RECENT HONOURS—THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he has any objection to state whether it is true that he has advised Her Majesty graciously to confer the honour of Baronetcy upon two distinguished English gentlemen of groat medical and surgical skill; and, whether he has also advised Her Majesty to reward the services of an Irish gentleman, who has also attained to great and deserved eminence in the surgical profession, with the simple honour of a Knighthood?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that this Question is not intended to elicit matters of fact, which the hon. and gallant Member knows as well as I do, but rather to elicit a short explanation. Well, I am informed that as the matter stands at present there is a Medical Profession in the three countries—one in England, one in Ireland, and one in Scotland. Viewed in that light, there has been recently conferred in England upon two distinguished gentlemen the honour of a Baronetcy, and upon one distinguished physician the honour of a Knighthood; in Ireland on one distinguished gentleman the honour of a Knighthood; and in Scotland there has been conferred no honour at all. That is the state of things, the Medical Profession being viewed as threefold in the three countries; but I own that state of things is not very satisfactory, and very great efforts are being made, and are in progress, in a Bill now before the House, to make the Profession in the three countries one—one in standard and one in authority. We attach great importance to the views embedied in that Bill; and, acting on that principle, we regard the Medical Profession as one. Questions of honours conferred on persons, whether in one country or the other, we regard as only secondary questions; and, therefore, we cannot give them more than a secondary importance. Of course, I am very well aware that in advising the Crown with respect to honours of this kind I am liable to err; but I need not tell the
  1648
  hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that I do not proceed upon my own authority alone, but that I endeavour to inform myself by very full consultation with those who are regarded as the heads of the Medical and Surgical branches of the Profession, and not iu any formal sense, but as probably the most leading persons in both the Medical and Surgical branches of the Profession. It was after full consultation with them that I advised the Crown on a recent occasion; and I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no intention of disparaging the honour of Knighthood, which I deem to be a considerable honour, and cannot think meanly of a title which is berne by the Judges of the land and by the Law Officers of the Crown.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is aware that a very strong feeling has been exhibited by the Medical Profession in Ireland owing to the conferring on their Profession of the lower honour of Knighthood, which, I admit, is no doubt a very great honour, while the higher honour of Baronetcy is bestowed on the English Medical Profession?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I have endeavoured to convey is that upon ascertaining, as well as I could, the relative merits and degrees of these distinctions, my advice has been given to the Crown; and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to this subject, I must say that two gentlemen of very high position in the Irish Medical Profession have written to me stating that they regret very much that any notice indicative apparently of discontent should have been brought under my notice.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: As this question is before the House, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to proceed with the Medical Act Amendment Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; it is the intention to proceed with it; and the reason for the delay in doing so is that the Bill having come down from the House of Lords, it was thought right to give precedence to other Bills which require to go before that House.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SECTION 21.
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that

  1649
  a considerable number of applications by tenants, under the Lease Breaking Clause of the Land Act, were dismissed by the Land Commission (though otherwise admittedly within the terms of the Act) on the ground that the landlord had bought the property since the date when the lease had been forced on the tenant, and was therefore a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice; whether, on a case of this kind being ultimately brought before the Court of Appeal in Ireland, that tribunal decided that the Land Commission were wrong in their construction of the Act, and that the fact in question was not a ground for dismissing the tenant's application; whether, owing to the fact that the lease breaking provision was only in force for six months, and that the decision of the Court of Appeal was made after the expiration of this period, all the tenants whose cases had been dismissed by the Land Commission on the ground referred to, lost the benefit of the Act; whether, if the facts stated are as alleged, a Return will be granted of the number of lease breaking applications dismissed on the ground stated, or withdrawn in consequence of the decision of the Land Commission; and, whether the Government propose taking any steps to enable tenants deprived of their legal rights, through the default of the Land Commission and the temporary duration of the Lease Breaking Clause, to renew their applications?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer this Question. It is the fact that the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Land Commissioners in this matter, and held that the plea of purchase for valuable consideration without notice was not a bar to the tenant's right to have the lease set aside; but, so far as the Commissioners are aware, the cases in which the question arose are few in number. The Commissioners are unable to give a Return of the cases dismissed or withdrawn on this ground. It is not conceived that the tenants in these cases have necessarily lost the benefit of the Act. Their applications to the Commission were made within the proper time; and, presumably, leave to appeal will be given if asked for. At any rate, no reason is shown for any interference by Government.
  1650
  In reply to a further Question,
  M. TREVELYANsaid, the tenant would still have the right of appeal if given by the Commissioners.

  EGYPT—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to his declaration on August 10, 1882, in respect of an imputed design of occupying Egypt for an indefinite time, that
  "undoubtedly of all things in the world that is a thing we are not going to do,"
  and, considering the expectation of the Secretary of State for War, expressed this spring, that six months
  "represented with probable accuracy the length of time that it may be necessary to keep our troops in Egypt,"
  Whether the intentions thus expressed have been communicated to the other Powers of Europe; and, whether any circumstances have occurred to lead Her Majesty's Government to change these intentions; and, if not, whether he will now, or before the Recess, inform the House of the steps that the Government propose to take in order to give effect to their various pledges to Parliament and Foreign Powers in this matter?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, perhaps I may be permitted, at the same time, to ask a Question of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice. I have called his attention to two paragraphs in the despatch of Lord Dufferin of February 6, which, perhaps, I had better read for the information of the House. The first paragraph is—
  "A succession of unexpected events, over which we have had no control, and which we had done our best to avert, has compelled us to enter Egypt single handed, to occupy its capital and principal towns with an English force, and to undertake the restoration of a settled Government. As a consequence, responsibilities have been imposed upon us. Europe and the Egyptian people, whom we have undertaken to rescue from anarchy, have a alike right to require that our intervention should be beneficent and its results enduring; that it should obviate all danger of future perturbations, and that it should have established on sure foundations the principles of justice, liberty, and public happiness."
  The second paragraph is—
  "Unless the Egyptian people are convinced that we intend to shield and foster the system we have established, it will be in vain to expect the timid politicians of the East to identify themselves with its exissence. But even this

  1651
  will not be enough. We must also provide that the tasks intrusted to the new political apparatus do not overtax its untried strength. The situation of the country is too critical. The problems immediately pressing on the attention of its Rulers are too vital to be tampered with, even in the interests of political philosophy. Various circumstances have combined to render the actual condition of the Egyptian fellah extremely precarious. His relations with his European creditors are becoming dangerously strained. The agriculture of the country is rapidly deteriorating, the soil having become exhausted from overcropping and other causes. The labour of the corvée is no longer equal to the cleansing of the Canal. As a consequence, the desert is encroaching on the cultivated land, and unless some remedy be quickly found the, finances of the country will be compromised. With such an accumulation of difficulties, Native statesmanship, even though supplemented by the new-born institutions, will hardly be able to cope, unless assisted for a time by our sympathy and guidance. Under these circumstances, I would venture to submit that we can hardly consider the work of re-organization complete, or the responsibilities imposed on us by circumstances adequately discharged, until we have seen Egypt shake herself free from the initial embarrassments which I have enumerated. Even then the stability of our handiwork will not be assured, unless it is clearly understood by all concerned that no subversive influence will intervene between England and the Egypt she has re-created."
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government, that our intervention in Egypt shall be "beneficent," and its results "enduring;" that it shall obviate all danger of "future perturbations;" and, whether it is clearly understood by Foreign Powers that "no subversive influence will intervene between England and the Egypt she has recreated?"
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: One word. I only wish to ask the Primo Minister whether it is not the case that, in a despatch, dated April 29, Lord Duffer in declares that the material tranquillity of the country is absolute from one end to the other?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think there is considerable variety of intention in the Questions which have been put to me; but I do not feel that there is any difficulty in replying to them. With regard to the last Question, my memory is not quite fresh; but I believe my hon. Friend is accurate in his reference. So far as relates to the re-establishment of tranquillity, nothing could be more satisfactory than the effects produced in Egypt, not merely by the presence of a British Force, but through the re-orga-
  1652
  nizing operations steadily in progress. With respect to the original Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), I think I can answer him very briefly by saying there is no change whatever in the views of Her Majesty's Government, as they have been expressed on a variety of occasions; and although expressed by several Members of the Government, yet, so far as I have been able to review the various statements, they were characterized by great unity of purpose and even, perhaps, of expression. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, which mentions six months as representing with tolerable accuracy the length of time that might be necessary for keeping the British troops in Egypt, my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) was, I think, careful, when he mentioned that period, to state that he gave that estimate by way of conjecture and approximation only, and gave nothing at all approaching the character of an engagement or a pledge. Then my hon. Friend asks whether the intention thus expressed was communicated to the other Powers of Europe. No intention was communicated to the other Powers of Europe, having reference to a particular term—either of months or of years; but the other Powers of Europe, I think, are well aware of the general intentions entertained by the British Government—intentions which may be subject, of course, to due consideration of the state of circumstances, but conceived and held to be in the nature not only of information, but of a pledge or engagement. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bourke) he has read two paragraphs which, though of considerable length—probably greater than are usually embedied in Questions before the House—yet form only an infinitesimal part of a very long and very able despatch of Lord Dufferin's, in which he has summed up the result of his assiduous exertions, and I am not aware upon what principle two or three expressions have been picked and culled from that despatch. I see nothing to object to in the idea conveyed by those expressions; and regarding, in common with my Colleagues, the despatch as a whole, we are of opinion that it affords a very worthy

  1653
  and very remarkable record of labours, pursued with great assiduity and with great ability, and attended, I think, with results by no means insignificant in proportion to the time occupied. But I will refer more particularly to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, thanking him for giving me Notice in reference to those words on which he dwelt. I cannot say that it is the
  "Determination of the Government that our intervention shall be beneficent, and its results enduring;"
  but, undoubtedly, it is the desire of the Government, the hope and view of the Government, and their intention, so far as it is in their power, to command the circumstances in conjunction with which they work, and that these enduring results shall, humanly speaking, aim at not merely securing the tranquillity of the moment, but likewise at obviating further perturbations. When I am asked as to the withdrawal of the British Forces from Egypt, I would ask the House to bear in mind that while Egyptian institutions have been in process of re-organization, that deplorable event, the arrival of the cholera, has very seriously disturbed and delayed operations in that country. It has, to some extent, interfered with the collection of the Revenue, and has introduced the necessity of considering some questions in reference to that Revenue. It has, therefore, tended rather to slacken the progress of the work in which we have been engaged; and it prevents me, at this moment—though it is quite true that the time conjectured by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War is on the eve of expiration—it prevents me being able to anticipate any very early withdrawal of the troops. It is our desire, unquestionably, that when we leave Egypt we should leave behind us something more firm and stable than the fabric which was lately overthrown. We cannot, in such a case, command the future; all that we can do is to take means which are rational and equitable with reference to the future; and, so estimating the matter, I think that would be a fair description of our intention as it has been repeatedly stated in Parliament, and as I would state it in these few and slight words now. Of course, I am aware, and the House will be aware, that no full or comprehensive view can well be comprised within the few sen-
  1654
  tences I can use on this occasion. One word I must add as to the latter part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. He asks, if it is clearly understood by Foreign Powers that no subversive influences will intervene between England and Egypt? It would be rather presumptuous in me to undertake to say what is clearly understood by Foreign Powers. It is enough, I think, to answer for our own understanding and information. I believe, however, that Foreign Powers are substantially well informed respecting the views and intentions of the British Government in Egypt; and I may say, likewise, that we have no ground whatever to anticipate any unfair, unfriendly, or unreasonable opposition on their part to any of the proceedings which we are taking with a view, not to any selfish aim, but for the benefit of Egypt itself.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether any Papers will be laid on the Table shortly with respect to the communications which have passed on this subject between Her Majesty's Government and Foreign Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give Notice of that Question, because I am not aware how far there has been very recent communications.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would like to know whether we are to understand that the assurances of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and of Lord Granville, will hold good—namely, that the aim and object of Her Majesty's Government is the withdrawal from Egypt, and not, as has been suggested in some organs of the Press, to convert a temporary occupancy into a permanent Protectorate, direct or indirect, or to acquire any rights that will not be possessed by any other of the Great Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have, I think, already used the expressions by which, in the mass, the declarations of the views of Her Majesty's Government have been made on various occasions. I am not aware that in any part of those declarations there is anything inconsistent with what I have said; but to select any particular expression might tend to disarrange what may be called the balance of expression.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Bearing in mind that we have no information from Egypt of' a later date, I think, than the middle of May, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman. We understand Her Majesty's Government have been endeavouring to organize in Egypt a considerable number of institutions, and to introduce various improvements in the administration of that country, and that they are at present retaining our Forces there for the support of the work they are doing. What I think the House and the country wish to know is, whether the operations for the re-organization of Egyptian institutions are proceeding satisfactorily, and are nearly completed; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain our Forces there—I do not say for any definite time, but until such time as the new institutions shall have been placed upon a secure footing and seem likely to be able to stand by themselves?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no difficulty in referring to the previous declarations which we have made—that we went to Egypt to accomplish certain work, and that the accomplishment of that work must necessarily lead to the measure of our continuance there. Unquestionably, the attainment of a stage of progress with the new institutions which, all things considered, would afford reasonable hope in the future for their working in a manner satisfactory to the people and Government of that country, is the essential, the very basis, in fact, of the whole of our policy in the matter. I may say that when I saw my hon. Friend's Question put down I made a communication to Lord Duffer in, to which I have only just received an answer. I have not been able to read it; but if I find in it any explanation of detail which I think will be of interest I will take care, probably to-morrow, to make it known to the House.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there was any truth in the statement that Sir Rivers Wilson had been appointed to succeed Sir Auckland Colvin as Financial Adviser to the Khedive?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have not seen that statement anywhere.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE—THE NEW RULES.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What day he will give for the discussion of the New Rules of Procedure?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the 40 days would not expire until the 20th of August. He believed it would be possible to take the consideration of the Rules on Saturday next.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDasked if they would be taken as the first Business?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they would, unless there was some Bill for third reading.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA—PUBLIC OPINION IN THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the important Memorandum presented to Her Majesty's Government by the Governments of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand, in favour of the establishment of a British Protectorate over New Guinea and the adjacent islands, Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision upon this question?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, the Government had seen no cause to add to or to alter their decision upon the question.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONTEMPTS OF COURT BILL.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Contempts of Court Bill which was brought down from the House of Lords on the 2nd of May last?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he was afraid he must ask his hon. and learned Friend to wait still a short time before expecting him (Mr. Gladstone) to say positively whether the Government would proceed with the Bill or not. Of course, the feeling of the House must weigh with them in the decision they arrived at.

  PAWNBROKER'S BILL.
  In reply to Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH,
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that his right hon. Friend saw no prospect of being able to pass the Pawnbroker's Bill this Session.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—THE IRISH VOTES.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked, When the Irish Estimates, which had been postponed, would be taken up?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that after the discussion on the South African Vote and the Vote for Major Baring, the Votes would be taken in their order.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Irish Votes had been already passed over, and would not, therefore, come on until the end, unless a special day was fixed for them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In that view we would clearly take them at the end.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. FINDLATER, asked whether the Tramways Bill would be taken that night?
  MR. PARNELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would ask him whether, in view of the fact that there are 33 Orders on the Paper for discussion to-night, he would think it advisable to ask for leave at a late hour to introduce this Emigration and Tramways Bill, in which the Irish Members are so deeply interested?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought he would have a better opportunity to introduce it to-morrow, and accordingly he did not propose to make his Motion that night.

  LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) AND BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) BILLS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he proposed to proceed with the Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland) Bill, and the Board of Works (Ireland) Bill, neither of which had been yet read a second time?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he proposed to move for the discharge of the Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland) Bill; but he did not intend to make that Motion regarding the other Bill at present.

  EGYPT—THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION—THE CHOLERA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, Whether the statement was correct, which appeared in The Times today, that in the Army of Occupation the total number of deaths up to yesterday's date was three officers and 107 men?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: All I can do is to read two of the latest telegrams received. The telegram received yesterday is to this effect—
  "The general accounts this morning of cholera satisfactory; but a second case is reported at Ramleh."
  The telegram received to-day from the General Officer commanding in Egypt is as follows:—
  "6th of August.—A third case of cholera, fatal, in Ramleh Hospital. Deaths continue at Helouan Hospital Camp, which is being moved to Mokattam. At Suez three fresh cases. All camps there changing ground. At all other stations disease much abated. Number of deaths—Officers, 0; non-commissioned officers and men, 8; total 8."
  I am unable at this moment to state accurately the entire number of deaths.

  PARLIAMENT — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY SITTINGS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, Whether there was to be a Sitting next Saturday; and, if so, what Business would be taken? He hoped, when the time came for fixing the day, they might have an opportunity of fixing the Orders.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the time had already come for Saturday Sittings. The Business next Saturday would give the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) an opportunity of discussing the New Rules of Procedure.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Vice President of the Council, After what hour he would not take the Education (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped he would be allowed to bring it on at any hour, as any points of detail could be arranged in Committee.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA).
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the

  1659
  important annual Report by Mr. J. Dumas on railways in India was to be discontinued; whether the Government intended giving in its stead the Report by Colonel F. S. Stanton for the year 1882–3; whether it was a fact that Indian railways continue to earn increasing dividends every year; whether the average dividend on all railways in India was, in 1882–3, 5·37 per cent per annum; 1881–2, 5·15 per cent per annum; and 1879–80, 4·75 per cent per annum?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Yes, to all the Questions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.—

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £9,425 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,808), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for certain Changes connected which the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, and the Island of St. Helena."
    MR. GORST: I rise to propose the reduction of this Vote by the amount necessary for the salary of the Resident in the Transvaal; and I am sorry that it is necessary for the Committee to express its sense of the results of the Government policy in the Transvaal by a Motion of this character. That, however, is not my fault. At an early period of the Session an opportunity was given to the House of Commons to debate upon a formal decision as to the fulfilment of the Transvaal Convention by the Transvaal Government; and although the Prime Minister thought it right to put on record a Motion on that subject, yet from that day down to the present the subject has been adjourned from time to time by Her Majesty's Government, and it has stood until this very day on the Notice Paper, the House of Commons never having been allowed to come to a decision upon the matter. My reasons for objecting to this Vote, and which I shall state at this period of the Session as concisely as I can, are that
    1660
    the maintenance of a Resident in the Transvaal is perfectly useless for any purpose whatever. When the Convention was signed by the Transvaal Government, and when a Resident was appointed, it was supposed that he would be useful to three classes of persons—first, the British subjects who happened to be in the Transvaal; secondly, to the Natives, who were, certainly, subjects of Her Majesty, who might need protection on remaining in the Transvaal; and, thirdly, the Native races outside the Transvaal Borders who, I may say, would be specially under his personal protection. The Papers laid before the House recently by Her Majesty's Government give specimens and examples of the extent to which the Resident in the Transvaal has been useful to these three classes of persons; and, as briefly as I can, I propose to call the attention of the Committee to the extent and degree to which he has been useful to them, and I shall then ask the Committee if it is worth while to continue to spend money on this functionary at all. In the first place, in regard to British subjects, such as the case of the unhappy man M'Gillivray, who was murdered in Transvaal territory. The attention of Her Majesty's Government was called to this case almost simultaneously, at the beginning of the year, by the Government in Cape Town, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) here. They brought under the notice of the Government certain facts which are very well known. This man M'Gillivray was accompanied by a man named Smith, and both were taken prisoners in 1882 by the filibustering Boers who were attacking one of the Native Chiefs. The men were put in irons and brought to a laager, and on the 8th of September they succeeded in effecting their escape. One of them was followed, shot, and buried, or half-buried, outside the Transvaal territory. With regard to the other man, a corpse was discovered in the Transvaal territory, having shackles on the legs, and having beside him a stick, on which was cut the words "J. C. M'Gillivray, Beaufort, Cape Colony, September 12, 1882," being four days later than the date the unfortunate man was found to have escaped. Moreover, it was asserted, not only by the Press, but by the brother of the murdered man,

    1661
    that the body had been found close by the boundary of a farm called Kanye in the Transvaal, to which he was known to be going; and it was discovered by a Boer who lives there, named Peet Van Zyl. These facts are well known, and they are all to be found in the evidence of a man called Campbell Johnson, a traveller in Bechuanaland, who came to a knowledge of the facts through his own investigations. The matter having been brought under the notice of the Government, Lord Derby and Sir Hercules Robinson both thought it necessary to order the Transvaal President to make a rigid inquiry into these facts, with a view of discovering by whom M'Gillivray had been murdered. The result was that, in the first place, the only notice taken of the matter by the Transvaal Government was an impudent assertion that the man M'Gillivray was still alive, and in support of that assertion they told a trumped up tale. The next thing, after asserting that the man was still alive, was an assertion that the Chief Montsioa had murdered, him. In the next place, a despatch was sent by the Transvaal Government to Montsioa, quite contrary to the terms of the Convention; because, under the Convention, the Transvaal Government had no right to communicate with Montsioa, except through the Transvaal Resident. But the Secretary to the Transvaal Government wrote direct to Montsioa, telling him that they were going to send a Commission to inquire into the reported atrocities which had occurred at Montsioa's place—the alleged atrocities being that human remains had been found there with chains on the legs, for which it would seem that a man had been first caught and put in fetters, and afterwards done to death. This letter was addressed to Captain Montsioa, Land Goshen. After threatening Montsioa, finally, an investigation was made by a Commission of the Transvaal Government, outside its own boundaries, and an expedition was made into Bechuanaland, and the result of that inquiry was a deposition that they knew nothing about it. A great number of depositions were forwarded to Her Majesty's Government, and are contained in the Blue Book; but the gist of them is that the persons examined knew nothing at all about it. There was, however, one remarkable omission. There never seemed
    1662
    to have been any inquiry made by the Transvaal Government concerning Peet Van Zyl, at whose farm the body of the man was discovered, and who had been charged over and over again with having committed the murder. Peet Van Zyl was a Transvaal subject, and his farm was in Transvaal territory. So much for the investigation of this unhappy murder of the man M'Gillivray; and I think the Committee, and everybedy else, will disagree with Lord Derby's final conclusion on page 102—
    "I fail to see that any useful result is likely to follow from a further inquiry into this case on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. There is no evidence that a murder has been committed; and looking at the length of time since the supposed death of M'Gillivray, and to the circumstances of the country, I do not consider it at all probable that any fresh evidence would be forthcoming which would clear up the uncertainty as to M'Gillivray's fate. Nor can I take upon myself the responsibility of suggesting to M'Gillivray's relations that they should hold an inquiry themselves; but I think that the Papers in the case should be communicated to them."
    Lord Derby says that there is no evidence that a murder has been committed. I think Lord Derby, in expressing that opinion, stands almost alone in the civilized world. The noble Lord goes on to say that, looking at the length of time since the supposed death of M'Gillivray, and to the circumstances of the country, he did not consider it at all probable that any evidence would be forthcoming which would clear up the uncertainty as to M'Gillivray's death. As Lord Derby thinks there is no necessity for making further inquiries into the death of a British subject in Transvaal territory, I would ask the Committee to agree with me in rejecting this part of the Vote. The next case is that of a British subject named F. J. Wells, who was most grossly assaulted, by being shot at and severely wounded, on the 19th of February last at a place in the Transvaal territory, in the immediate neighbeurhood of the Border of Bechuanaland. Mr. Wells made his complaint on the 12th of February to the Resident, and gave the whole circumstances of the case, together with the name of the man who shot him, Adrian do la Rey, a man who was well known in these parts. So that on the 12th of February there was a statement made by a British subject that he had been shot at, and very nearly killed. The name of the man who shot

    1663
    him was given; and yet, from that day to the present, nothing has been done in the matter. What is the use of a British Resident in the Transvaal who cannot get justice done, even when a man complains, and gives the name of the man by whom he had been shot and injured? But, although the Transvaal Government did nothing, this man Adrian de la Rey, who is one of the founders of what Sir Hercules Robinson calls the Republic of Stellaland, declined to let the matter rest where it was, and issued a Proclamation on the 12th of February—page 42 of the Papers—signed by G. J. Van Niekirk, Administrator; A. J. G. de la Rey, Member ofi the Committee of Management; Theodore Dome, Member of the Committee of Management and Secretary to David Massouw, which is published in De Volkstem, and in which it is stated that—
    "Whereas the said James W. Honey, being on his way as aforesaid, under escort, was followed by certain mounted and armed persons, named James Streak, alias Campbell; Frank Wells, alias Captain Wells; Horwitz, a certain Basuto, by name Cetchwayo, son of August Rapport, with the intention of delivering the prisoner from his guard and out of the hands of the law, and with that object the above-mentioned persons attacked the escort."
    In other words, that Captain Wells and these persons had made an assault upon officers of the Stellaland Republic, the assault consisting of the fact that Captain Wells had been fired at, shot, and wounded—
    "The Proclamation, therefore, declares all the above-named persons to be outlaws in this territory:—That is to say, that the said persons, for the safety of their lives, will never be allowed in this territory."
    Thus you have this unfortunate British subject complaining to the British Resident, and the Administrator of the Stella-land Republic coolly pronounces him an outlaw, on the sole ground, as far as I can ascertain, that he has been shot and assaulted by Adrian de la Rey. I myself received a letter, in February last, giving the evidence of an eye-witness as to the nature of the assault committed; but I was obliged to ask the Government under no circumstances to betray the author of that communication, because British subjects in the Transvaal already found their position extremely precarious, and any knowledge coming to the Boers of a person having made a
    1664
    complaint to a Member of this House would certainly bring upon him the vengeance of the Boers. I come now to the case of the Natives who were till lately the subjects of our Queen. May I call the recollection of the Committee to the fact that at the beginning of the Session I brought forward an authentic account, furnished by an eye-witness, of certain women and children having been smoked to death in a place called "Hell," and promises were made to me that the matter should be inquired into. A despatch was sent from here to the Transvaal, asking for a Report on the subject; but, unfortunately, at the time the statement was made in the House a noble Lord who represented the Government in "another place" was good enough to take an opportunity of entering into a defence of the use of dynamite against the Natives, than which, he said, nothing could be more humane. Now, it seems to me that the Government mixed up two things, and that they were far more anxious to defend the noble Lord in regard to the use of dynamite against Mapoch than to investigate what took place at this stronghold called "Hell." The case I had referred to was not that of Mapoch at all, but it occurred elsewhere; and it was not a case of the use of dynamite, but of smoking a number of women and children out of a cave, most of whom died in the course of the operation. An inquiry was made of the Transvaal Government, and the answer of the Transvaal Government will be found at page 43. The British Resident, in his Report to the High Commissioner, seems extremely anxious to make out a case for the defence of his official Chief, the noble Lord who had said in "another place" that nothing could be more humane than the use of dynamite. Mr. Hudson says that ample opportunity was given to the people to go out of the cave before it was blown up; and there was no reason whatever to suppose that the use of dynamite deserved the reprobation of Parliament or of the civilized world. This statement of the Resident is supplemented by an indignant protest on the part of the Transvaal authorities themselves, who got Mr. A. H. Nelmapius to make an affidavit that he never saw a single woman or child killed by dynamite except in the Army under Sir Garnet Wolseley,who, in the storming of Sikukuni's stronghold, were known to

    1665
    have murdered women and children by wholesale. I will leave these people to fight out the matter as they like. There is neither a despatch from the Transvaal Government nor from the Resident himself which touches the point whether there were women and children stifled by smoke or not. Thus we have an opportunity of seeing how far the British Resident succeeded in obtaining protection for Natives in the Transvaal who were British subjects. In the month of November, 1882, the Transvaal Government made use of the British Resident, sending a telegram to him asking him for two field pieces; and it seems that on the 24th of November the Governor laid before his Executive Council a Minute of this subject, which is not found in the Papers. Now, I should like to know what a gentleman like Sir Hercules Robinson said in answer to the telegram asking for these two guns. I do not know why the statement is omitted from the Blue Book, and I have no doubt that every hon. Member in this House would like to know what it was. I will give the reference which is to be found on page 27. Mr. Scanleu, Premier of the Cape, says, in a letter from the Colonial Secretary's Office, Cape Town—
    "I acknowledge the receipt of His Excellency's Minute of the 24th instant, covering copy of a telegram from the British Resident, Pretoria, preferring a request on behalf of the Transvaal Government for the loan of two seige guns, with ammunition, to operate against the Chief Mapoch. Ministers have to state that there are at King William's Town three 6-inch howitzers and three 8-inch mortars, and that one of each class will be readily placed at the disposal of the Transvaal State with 300 rounds of ammunition per piece. The Transvaal Government will have the option of returning guns in good order, or of purchasing them at cost price, at which rate also the ammunition will be charged. The weight of the howitzer, carriage, and limber is 81 cwt., and of 300 rounds of ammunition, 29,000 lbs.; the weight of the mortar, carriage, and limber, 28 cwt., and of 300 rounds, 14,000 lbs."
    I do not know what the Governor said; but I am curious to know, and if the Secretary for the Colonies would give us the substance of the Minute by Sir Hercules Robinson, I think it would be exceedingly interesting. It seems that the siege guns were promised to the Transvaal Government; but that they were not immediately sent, and the Transvaal Government, therefore, got impatient, and on the 12th February they telegraphed
    1666
    again to know why these field pieces were not coming. They seem to have had notice that it was part of the business of the British Resident to procure these field guns that were to be used against Mapoch, and in that telegram the British Resident says—
    "That the latest intelligence of Mapoch's commands was not satisfactory; that certain Boers have been killed without securing any compensating advantage."
    And he also mentions that as yet no communication had been received from the Transvaal Government in reply to the latest representation as to payments duo for interest on the British advances. I do not know how it was, but at this time the conscience of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies seems to have been alarmed, and on the 19th February he telegraphed to the Cape Government to ask for information about these guns. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies told us that these telegrams are not printed in the Blue Book, but that the substance was given in subsequent despatches. I must confess that this is a very inconvenient mode of dealing with the matter, and that when the government of a Colony is carried on by telegraph, it is most desirable for this House to have the actual text of the telegrams which were sent by Lord Derby placed before it. I shall show presently how inconvenient the course actually pursued was, because the account of the telegrams given in the despatches are not always consistent. On the 19th of February, Lord Derby appears to have telegraphed to ask about these siege guns, and he got an answer on the 20th from the Governor, in which he was informed that the guns had been lent to the Transvaal Government for use in the operations against Mapoch. Well, then, on the 15th of March, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrote a despatch on the subject of lending the siege guns for the operations against Mapoch, which I think is one of the most degrading documents which ever proceeded from the pen of a British Minister, because, after clearly expressing his disapprobation at the course pursued, the noble Lord goes on to say—
    "I am not in a position to raise any objection against this transaction, though there is unquestionably a strong feeling in this country

    1667
    that, having regard to the terms and object of the Convention with the Transvaal State, Her Majesty's subjects should not assist in operations against the Natives whether within or beyond its boundaries."
    That despatch was written on the 15th of March, and on the 13th there had been a strong speech delivered in this country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). I am not at all sure that the despatch is not accounted for by the effect which that speech produced on the conscience of the country. The noble Lord is content with saying—
    "I should, however, be glad to receive from you a Report on the subject stating to what extent arms and ammunition have been furnished from the Cape Colony to be used either by the Transvaal Government, or by persons acting independently of it, against Natives during the past year, and showing whether and how far the Cape Government has been concerned either in providing or permitting the provision of such supplies."
    Lord Derby's conscience was alarmed, and he wished to have some Report from the High Commissioner at Cape Town which he might produce to Parliament in case the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) should press the criticism a little further, and make inconvenient inquiries about the use of arms and ammunition by the Cape Government against our subjects in the Transvaal. Then comes the phrase which I call de-grading—
    "I shall also be obliged by your informing me whether, in your opinion, it would now be possible to prevent the continuance of such supplies, and whether a representation from Her Majesty's Government would be favourably received and attended to."
    So that a Minister of this great country, feeling and knowing that these supplies are improper, and wishing to put a stop to them, dare not address a remonstrance to the Government of Cape Colony until he had first found out from the Government of Cape Colony whether his representations would be favourably received. He says, in effect—"If you think the Cape Government will not be very angry I will send a remonstrance. If you think the Cape Government will be angry, then I must chance the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), and hold the matter up." Such an instance of feeblenesss and vacillation I say—and I use the word advisedly—is degrading. The subse-
    1668
    quent story of the operations against Mapoch is, that Mapoch, by the means of these two guns, has boon defeated; his stronghold has been reduced; and we are told by Her Majesty's Government that the Volksraad have passed a Resolution that his people shall be apprenticed out for five years to servitude, or what we call in this country by the shorter name of being sent into slavery. Yet Her Majesty's Government do not know whether this is true or not. Their Resident apparently does not keep them so well informed as the Correspondent of The Standard keeps his employers informed. The British Resident has not told them whether this is true or not, and he has not been able to tell the Government what measures are going to be taken, or whether they are going to appeal to the Convention, or to the still older Sand River Convention, against this kind of treatment. It is under such circumstances as these that I invite the Committee to say that the establishment of a British Resident is quite useless. I now come to the last part of the case—namely, Bechuanaland—and we know from the Papers recently placed on the Table a great deal more of Bechuanaland than we did when the subject was debated in March last. The Government have managed to keep their counsel well. When Notices were put upon the Paper about Bechuanaland the conscience of Lord Derby became alarmed again, and he sent a telegram on the 21st of February to the High Commissioner at the Cape suggesting the formation of a police force to act against British subjects and deserters in the Bechuana country. On the 22nd he is informed by the High Commissioner at Cape Town that the Ministers of the Cape Government would give the desired facilities; but that they agreed with Lord Derby in thinking that the proposal would effect no appreciable good, as nine-tenths of the freebooters of Bechuanaland were neither British subjects nor deserters. It appears that the opinion of Lord Derby is not recapitulated in the telegram. The original telegram sent is not recorded in the despatches at all. It appears from Lord Derby's despatch that—
    "You (Sir Hercules Robinson) were of opinion that the only effectual course would be for Her Majesty's Government to clear the terri-

    1669
    tory from all marauders, and to retain in it for a small time a small force to prevent their return. Five hundred mounted police would, you thought, be sufficient to clear the country; if 100 remained on for 12 months, matters would probably settle down. You estimated the expenditure at £100,000. You added that time was of great importance, as further delay would increase the difficulty and cost of intervention."
    Lord Derby goes on to say—
    "I replied to you also by telegraph on the 27th, that as you thought the only effectual course would be to clear the country with a large force and afterwards occupy it, I feared that no present action was possible, as Her Majesty's Government could not undertake large military operations and the protection of the territory where only one-tenth of the marauders were British."
    All we know of the original telegram is contained in the first despatch of Lord Derby's letter—
    "On the 27th ultimo I inquired of you by telegraph whether, if Her Majesty's Government should decide to organize a force of British police to act against British subjects and deserters in the Bechuana country, the Cape Government would afford all the necessary facilities?"
    That is all; and it is only from the reply on the 22nd that we learn that there is something more in the telegram than what is there recorded—namely, an expression of opinion on the part of the Colonial Government that the proposal of Her Majesty's Government would effect no appreciable good. I certainly think the Committee would like to have seen what the telegrams themselves were; but it appears that, in the opinion of the Governor, the only effectual course was for Her Majesty's Government to clear the territory of the marauders, and to keep on a small force for a short time to prevent their return. The amount of the force and the amount of money which it would cost seemed to have been stated, although in this House, when the debate took place a fortnight later, we heard much more extravagant estimates made by the speakers on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. What Sir Hercules Robinson thought necessary was 500 mounted police to clear the country, and if 100 remained on for 12 months he was of opinion that matters would probably settle down; and he estimated the expenditure roughly at £100,000. Sir Hercules Robinson also appears to have added that time was of great importance, as further delay would increase
    1670
    the difficulties of the situation and the cost of intervention. On the 27th of March, Lord Derby replied, also by telegram, that, as the Governor thought the only effectual course would be to clear the country with a large force and afterwards occupy it, he feared that no present action was possible, as Her Majesty's Government could not undertake military operations where only one-tenth of the marauders were British, notwithstanding the fact that the people attacked were Allies of Her Majesty's Government, and that they were attacked by Boers of the Transvaal in defiance of the Convention made between the Transvaal Government and Her Majesty's Government. I think I am right in saying that the despatches did not disclose the whole of the telegram, because if hon. Members will refer to page 31 of the Papers they will see there are two despatches from Sir Hercules Robinson to the Colonial Secretary, and it will be seen that there are two stars with a notification that the telegrams to which they refer have not been printed. At the end of the second despatch, Sir Hercules Robinson inquires whether—
    "He was to inform Mankoroane and Montsioa that, in the sense of his Lordship's message of the 27th ultimo, no action on the part of Her Majesty's Government was possible, and they had better make the best terms they could with their enemies?"
    Now, I should like to know whether Sir Hercules Robinson is either misrepresenting Lord Derby, or whether Lord Derby did telegraph to Cape Town to tell Montsioa and Mankoroane that they were to make the best terms they could for themselves? As I see that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has left his place, I presume he has gone to make that inquiry. After Lord Derby had sent that telegram, he got a long telegram in reply from Sir Hercules Robinson. It is dated the 1st of March. On the 1st of March Lord Derby is informed that Mankoroane had lately visited Sir Henry Barkly, and had written a letter—
    "Which was forwarded to you on 12th February, stating that the whole of his country is being appropriated by freebooters, and asking for a definite reply as to whether he can look for any help from,Her Majesty's Government, or must submit to his enemies. I pointed out that our obligations are not limited to responsibility for the acts of marauding British subjects. Shortly before the Transvaal troubles, Sir Bartle Frere, as High Commissioner, wrote

    1671
    to Mankoroane assuring him that if he behaved loyally to the British Government he might rely on receiving every reasonable support. This Chief and Montsioa are now on the point of being exterminated in consequence of their fidelity to the British Government, and because of the assistance they gave to British subjects in the Transvaal War."
    I remember over and over again that Members of this House, I myself among the number, were taken to task by the authorities at the Colonial Office for reiterating again and again that this was a war made upon Montsioa and Mankoroano because of their fidelity to the British Government in the Transvaal War. I recollect distinctly, on one occasion, that the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was extremely severe upon hon. Members for making that statement. In another despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson, on the same date—the 1st of March—The High Commissioner says—
    "In continuance of my telegram of to-day, I thought it well to explain in a further message that, in stating that action was hazardous, I meant that there were the risks of the force sustaining a check, and of the freebooters receiving support from their friends in the Transvaal State. But I thought that if the matter were taken in hand at once, with a thoroughly efficient force, before the difficulties with Mapoch were disposed of, these dangers would not be realized. If, however, action wore delayed till after the freebooters had entered upon the occupation of their farms, and until the hands of their kinsmen in the Transvaal were free, the attempt to dispossess them would then probably give rise to a struggle which might assume large and wide dimensions."
    The High Commissioner obsorves—
    "I observed that I saw clearly all the serious risks entailed by armed intervention, and that I, in consequence, hesitated to press such a course upon Her Majesty's Government; but I was anxious that they should have fully before them both sides of the case, and realize that, if our Native Allies were now abandoned, the Convention might as well be dropped. I pointed out that no stronger claim for forcible intervention could well arise under the Convention, or one less difficult to deal with, as our nominal opponents in this case would be the freebooters, and not the Transvaal Government."
    Sir Hercules Robinson adds that—
    "If these Chiefs are now abandoned, all the others to the West, including Bore the Chief of the Battoros, would soon share the same fate."
    Therefore, on the 1st of March, Lord Derby had in his possession the most full information and the most urgent representations on the part of the High Commissioner. Well, he did not immediately answer the telegrams of the
    1672
    High Commissioner, but he waited until he got a letter from Mankoroane, which was upon its way to this country at that time; and a few days after the telegram of the 1st of March, Lord Derby got this letter, and it constituted one of the materials on which the ultimate decision of Her Majesty's Government is based. It is, therefore, well worthy of the attention of the Committee, and it will be found at page 16 of the Blue Book. It sets out the facts which have over and over again been stated in this House, and which now, it appears, have received the confirmation of the High Commissioner, as to the loyalty of Mankoroane, and as to his conduct in the Transvaal War in protecting the English, having been the main cause of the war waged against that Chief. That letter contains the names of leading men and owners of property in the Transvaal State, who have taken part with the fillibusters; and amongst them will be found Adrian De La Rey, whom I spoke about just now, and other men, whose names are also given. He also informs Her Majesty's Government that some of the Colonial Boers, who were British subjects from Griqualand West, were taking part in the fillibustering expedition; and he gives the names and addresses of several of our own subjects who were in arms against us. He also gives an extract from The Diamond Fields Advertiser, of the 30th of January, containing a Proclamation from the so-called Stella-laud Government, with a list of licences and various regulations which people who ventured into Mankoroane's country wore to pay, showing that a de facto Government had been established in that territory by these marauders. Still, Lord Derby appears to have hesitated, and on the 13th of March, the very day on which the debate took place in this House, he sent a further telegram to the High Commissioner at the Cape. His Lordship seems to have felt what it may be supposed most people felt when they heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster)—namely, that it might be called infamous to desert Allies who had boon promised our support; and he wanted to know again, whether it was really true that any pledges had been made by Her Majesty's Government to these two Chiefs? He sent a telegram asking for that information, and he got the information

    1673
    from the High Commissioner, who gave him references to the various despatches in which the pledges of the Government to the Chief Mankoroane were to be found, and asked whether a further Paper, which was dated 14th of September, 1880, had been received? That despatch will be found referred to in a letter from the High Commissioner at page 32, in which Sir Hercules Robinson says—
    "In reply to your telegraphic despatch of yesterday, inquiring whether Sir Bartle Frere's promise to Mankoroano was reported, authorized previously, or ratified, I have this day informed you by telegraph that Sir Bartle Frere's letter of the 14th of September, 1880, to the Administrator of Griqualand West, sending a message to Mankoroane, does not appear to have been reported home, or specially authorized; but in this connection I called your attention to Sir Henry Barkly's speech of the 16th of January, 1877, and Lord Carnarvon's reply of the 20th of February, 1877. I also requested reference to Sir Bartle Frere's despatch of the 14th of January, 1879, reporting Mankoroane's capture, under pressure from us, of Gasibone, Mankoroane's present enemy, who is now employing the freebooters against him."
    Sir Hercules Robinson promptly replied to the telegram from Lord Derby, and I should like very much to have seen the identical despatch; but I suppose it is inconvenient to produce it. [Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: What despatch 7] It is a telegram despatched on March 3rd, and described by Sir Hercules Robinson as a telegraphic despatch inquiring whether Sir BartleFrere's promise to Mankoroane was reported, authorized, or ratified. Sir Henry Barkly's despatch of 1877 to Lord Carnarvon was one in which he expressly asked whether any assurance was to be given to Mankoroane, and there was a reply to that despatch by Lord Carnarvon. Lord Derby further referred to another despatch of Sir Bartle Frere, and an inquiry was made by the High Commissioner whether the text of the material part of Sir Bartle Frere's letter of the 14th of September, 1880, should be sent to Lord Derby. So much for the attempt of the Government to get out of their obligations. Then, about the time the debate came on in this House, the Government appear to have formed the idea embodied in the Resolution which has stood on the Papers of this House during the whole of the Session, that they should make provision for these Chiefs in the Cape Territory; and in the telegram sent out on the 13th
    1674
    of March, asking the High Commissioner if that proposal was acceptable to the Cape Government, the Cape Colony replied that they had no means of providing either for the Chiefs or their Tribes. It was quite evident that Sir Hercules Robinson looked for provision for the Tribes as well as for the Chiefs, and Sir Hercules Robinson pointed out that the Cape Government had no power to provide land for so large a number of persons; and, finally, finding no other outlet, this disgraceful Resolution of the Government was at last announced in a telegram, which was to be communicated to those two loyal Chiefs. These are the words in which the Resolution of the Government was announced—
    "Tell Mankoroane Her Majesty's Government cannot intervene by force for his protection; but will consider, in the event of either he or Montsioa being driven out of their country, what assistance can be given them."
    The Government of Great Britain, in fact, confesses its impotence to interfere by force for the protection of its Allies whom it had pledged itself to assist; but if they got worsted, and driven out of their country, then this heroic Government would consider what assistance could be given to them. Now, I consider that a most disgraceful Resolution. It was ultimately communicated to these Chiefs on the 11th of April. Let me now ask the Government to consider what has been done in Bechuanaland under the Transvaal Convention and under the administration of this Officer for whom they now ask us to vote a salary. They have allowed the Boers of the Transvaal state to establish what the High Commissioner himself calls "two robber Republics;" and there is ample information that the officials of the Government have been taking part in these operations. There is the evidence of Colonel Ferreria, who was sent down as a Boundary Commissioner in league with the Administrator of Stellaland; and there is information that the supplies furnished to these marauders came from the Transvaal Government. Part of the ammunition appears to have belonged to the Gatling guns at Potchefstroom. The Transvaal Government entered into an engagement to restore the ammunition and guns, and this very ammunition found its way into the hands of the marauders, and was used against Montsioa. The names of persons belonging to the Trans-

    1675
    vaal State were over and over again supplied to the Transvaal Government, and documents sent by Mankoroane were submitted by the British Resident to the Transvaal Government which contained the names of a number of Transvaal officials who had been engaged in these depredations. Let me give an example. At page 69 of the Blue Book there is a sworn declaration made by a person whose name is, of course, omitted, because it would be only to subject the writer to the vengeance of the Transvaal Government if the name were given. At page 69 there is a sworn declaration, in which a distinct account is given of the mode in which the ammunition was supplied to these volunteers, together with a list of the Transvaal burghers with landed property who were David Mason's "Volunteers;" and the writer says he knows the whole of them personally. He gives the names and districts, and amongst them will be found the name of—
    "Jacobus De Beer, Commandant of the Bloemhof district, joined while holding the above appointment, which he still holds. He has three substitutes."
    Which means that he has three other persons in his pay. Then we have the name of
    "Piet de la Rey, a Member of the Volksraad, and two substitutes."
    And there were actually persons from Pretoria—
    "Hendrick Grobelar, four substitutes; Jacobus Smit, one substitute; Hendrick Smit; Colonel Ferreira, C.M., Special Commissioner at present by appointment of the Transvaal Government for its South-Western Border, nine substitutes."
    Thus, you have a Commander of one of your own Orders, and a Special Commissioner by appointment of the Transvaal Government, whose name is included in this sworn declaration as having been engaged With nine substitutes against the Native Tribes under our protection. The Transvaal Government, no doubt, deny these charges. Ultimately, after a considerable lapse of time, the British Resident called the attention of the Transvaal Government to the matter, and asked them to remove Colonel Ferreira. The Transvaal Government did not venture to deny the particulars of the accusations made to them; but they expressed extreme astonishment at what they heard, and
    1676
    proposed to make further inquiries. Finally, when all these things have been going on for a considerable time, Her Majesty's Government yield to the suggestion of the Transvaal Government that the only course in the present state of things is to let them have their own way, and allow them to annex these territories to the Transvaal, because the matter is almost beyond the control of the Government now. The Transvaal Government have never ceased to write letters to the Resident asking for the annexation of these territories; and on the 1st of May they finally ask the Resident to cablegram to the Home Government their desire to have them. The Resident declined to incur the expense of a cablegram, thinking that would not do at all in a matter of this kind; but, although he does not like to incur the expense of a cablegram, Mr. Hudson says—
    "Have long representations from the Transvaal Government urging again sanction of Tier Majesty's Government to their direct intervention at once beyond the South-Western Borders; they also urge me to send their representations by cablegram to England. Have replied that I did not feel at liberty to incur such great expense, and think it less necessary, in view of late announcement by Lord Derby, as telegraphed, that Her Majesty's Government is prepared to consider subject of modification of Convention. That I would, however, inquire by wire whether your Excellency has yet received any intimation of the nature of any proposed modification, especially in regard to the South-Western Border."
    The statement made by the Resident almost amounted to a promise that the application of the Transvaal Government should be favourably considered. When that came to the knowledge of Lord Derby, Lord Derby wrote to approve of his action; so that Mr. Hudson, having virtually promised that the Boundaries of the Transvaal State should be extended over Bechuanaland, Lord Derby approved of it, although he refused subsequently to ratify that promise. I think that I have now made out my case, and that I have said enough to prove that this Office of Resident, and the expenses of the Office, are absolutely useless for the protection of British subjects, or for the protection of the Natives outside the Transvaal State, whom we are bound to protect. It does seem to me, that when the honour and credit of the country are involved in such a matter, it is something

    1677
    like bathos to say the question is one of mere finance; and I confess that I should not like to make a Motion for the reduction of the Vote by so paltry a sum as this officer's salary, if, unfortunately, the Government had not acted in such a manner as to prevent me from taking any other course. But, as the action of the Government has prevented the sense of the House from being taken in any other way upon this Transvaal Convention, I invite the Members of the Committee to follow me into the Lobby for the purpose of protesting against so useless and so ignominious an Office as that of British Resident in the Transvaal State.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,105 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,808), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, and the Island of St. Helena."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: The statement which the hon. and learned Member has made is so clear, that it will not be my duty to detain the Committee long. I do not see how we can avoid this discussion, although, no doubt, it would have been more convenient if we could have had a debate on a definite subject. It was absolutely necessary that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion, and that we should know the present opinion of the Government before Parliament separates, especially in view of the fact that a deputation is coming from the Transvaal Government, at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, asking the Government to reconsider the Convention, or to make inquiry into its working. These are the terms used in the telegram which has been given to us. Probably any attempt that is made to settle the question must be made before Parliament meets again. Now, I am unable to vote for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, and I do not know whether he intends to go to a Division upon it. The reason I cannot vote for it is that, although I think it is most abundantly proved that the Resident is not of much use in the present circumstances, nevertheless, the Convention
    1678
    was established by the Government as the sole mode in which they thought the interests of the Natives could be protected, and our obligations to them fulfilled; and I am not disposed to support the cancelling of it without knowing what is to be put in its place. What I wish to do—and I hope to speak with as much moderation as it is possible for me to speak with when I feel so strongly in the matter—what I wish to do is to press most earnestly on the Government, and especially on my right hon. Friend, that the cancelling of this Convention will not cancel our obligations to the Natives, either in the Transvaal or out of it. I have just one word to say with regard to the Natives of the Transvaal. After the facts which have been given by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, I need not dwell upon that matter at any length; but I must make allusion to one remark of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has called Mapoch and other Chiefs, "Native rebels." Upon the most purely technical definition of the term "rebel," perhaps this man Mapoch may be called a rebel; but it seems to me to be a straining of the term beyond anything that is necessary. What is the position of this man? He has never paid taxes to the British Government. He has never accepted our Sovereignty, and he has never been conquered by the Transvaal until now. He has never accepted the Transvaal form of government or rule. He is willing to accept our rule; but he has never accepted the Transvaal rule, and I think that he has declared himself unwilling to accept their rule. I did not expect to find that the Cape Government lent the cannon at the instigation of our Representative in the Transvaal; I think certainly that that was a matter in which the Resident ought not to have engaged; but it appears that he did sop and I have reason to believe that the Cape Government had no hesitation about lending the cannon, because they supposed that the request of our Resident was approved by the Government at home. However, thanks to the cannon and the dynamite, the Chief is now conquered; and, perhaps, if he attempts any forcible resistance hereafter, he may be called a rebel. But I think, whether the Convention be cancelled or not, it is our bounden duty to see what becomes

    1679
    of that man and his people, and to find out how far it is or is not true that this Tribe is being broken up—which means that the people are driven from their land without their cattle; that they are not merely beaten in battle, but that their means of subsistence is taken away from them. We should find out the truth of this matter, and ascertain whether there is any chance of their preservation in the future. With regard to the Bechuana Tribes, perhaps the Committee will recollect the position in which this matter was left when the question was debated in April last. I think it was admitted on that occasion that the Tribes were despoiled; that they were unjustly deprived—in other words, robbed—of their means of subsistence. There was some question as to how far the Transvaal Government were responsible at the time; but I do not wish to deal with that, because our business is with the present and the future of this people, and, having regard to the honour of England, on looking back, I think the less said the better. I cannot help remarking that Sir Hercules Robinson remains of the same opinion which he hold last year, that the Transvaal Government connived at these freebooting raids. He says, in his despatch of May 26th, which will be found on page 71 of the Blue Book—
    "I think the time has now arrived when a decision, whether the Convention is to he insisted on or abandoned, can be no longer delayed; and the policy which may be decided upon in this respect will govern the reply to be given to the application which the Transvaal Government have again advanced to be allowed to annex to the State the territory which has been so unjustly seized upon by the freebooters, whose proceedings the Transvaal Government have throughout connived at."
    Notwithstanding the differenceof opinion which existed as to how far we were bound to those Tribes, there was an agreement; and I think it was admitted by all the Members of the Government who spoke on the occasion I have referred to, that some obligation rested upon us with regard to them. Although the line of protection was considered to be too costly, I think there is proof that the cost was over-estimated. The plan of the Government was, as stated by Lord Derby in "another place," to compensate the Chiefs in some measure by land or money the Under Secretary of State for the. Colonies spoke of small
    1680
    pensions to the Chiefs. I venture to doubt whether the plan of compensation will succeed, because either that compensation must be given to the Tribes as well as to the Chiefs, in which case a large amount of land would have to be found, and in order to get a sufficient area of unpeopled land we should have to search throughout the whole of the Cape Colony; or, if the people wore not to be put in a better position as well as the Chiefs, then I say we should not be fulfilling our obligation to them. I must refer the Committee, for one moment, to the despatch of Sir Hercules Robinson, of March 19th, 1883, in which he encloses a copy of the Minute which he had addressed to the Cape Ministers on this subject; and it is worthy of remark that in this despatch Sir Hercules Robinson evidently supposes that the people were to be located on British territory as well as the Chiefs. He says, alluding to a copy of a telegram received from the Secretary of State—
    "The Governor transmits, herewith, for the consideration of Ministers, a copy of a telegram which he has received from the Secretary of State, stating that Her Majesty's Government, admitting that the Chiefs Montsioa and Mankoroane have special claims through former services and promises, are willing to give them and others moderato allowances, if, when driven out of their country, they can be located in British territory. The Governor will be glad to learn from Ministers whether there is any available land within the limits of this Colony on which these unfortunate Chiefs and their people can be located."
    There is a reply from the Cape Ministers to Sir Hercules Robinson, which says—
    "In acknowledging His Excellency the Governor's Minute of the 14th instant, covering a copy of a telegram from the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, inquiring whether the Chiefs Maukoroane and Montsioa can be located on British territory, Ministers have the honour to point out that the public lands of the Colony cannot, save with the assent of Parliament, be alienated in any other way than that prescribed by the Land Laws. Even if there were no other obstacles Ministers do not think that a suitable tract of country, within the Colony, could be found for the purpose suggested in His Excellency's Minute, and the pressing nature of the responsibilities in connection with Native affairs, for which the Colony is already liable, precludes them from entertaining any project, the effect of which would be to increase such responsibilities."
    From this, it is clear that Sir Hercules Robinson thought the people were included. The despatch came to hand on

    1681
    the 13th of April last, and, from the speech made on the occasion to which I am referring, by the President of the Board of Trade, it makes me think that it could not have been read by him, because he expressed his opinion that it was quite impossible to do anything for the people. He said we were bound to do all we reasonably could to compensate the Chiefs, either in land or money, but not the Tribes at large. The right hon. Gentleman gave reasons in support of the view which he held; one was that we had given no pledge to the people, and the other was that the people would not be any the worse off by coming under the rule of the Boers. Sir, I believe that to be an absolute misconception. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the matter as if it were merely a change of masters, in the same way as the government of a European State might be transferred from one great Power to another. But I think my right hon. Friend will find, if he inquires of any person practically connected with affairs at the Cape, that it is not merely a question of handing over the allegiance of the Bechuanas, in the sense I have described, but that it is a question of their means of living after their farms have been taken from them. It has been pointed out that one Chief complained that 70 per cent of his pasture land and 95 per cent of his plough land had been taken from him, and that 1,300 farms were distributed by lot amongst the freebooters. Therefore, I say that the Government has to deal with the obligation we are under, not merely to the Chiefs, but to the entire people, who depended upon what we might do for their means of future subsistence. However, I believe an offer was made to the people; we have not the full particulars of it, but I imagine it was made in that telegram to which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham has alluded, in which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave instructions that Mankoroane was to be told that we could not intervene for his protection, and asked what assistance could be given. Well, I suppose that was an offer of compensation; and I ask the Committee to listen to Mankoroane's reply, which, I think, does that savage credit. It will be found on page 68. Mankoroane says—
    1682
    "I have had the honour to receive the message sent to me through Captain Stewart, Civil Commissioner of Barkly, by Her Majesty's Government, but beg to point out to your Excellency that, if Her Majesty's Government delays its assistance until such time as Montsioa and I are driven out of our countries, our people will by that time have been almost exterminated, and the survivors enslaved by the Boers, for we are determined not to desert our subjects, and to defend our just rights against Boer rapacity to the last."
    That is just the answer I should have expected from what I learned from well-informed men, travellers and missionaries, who told me that the Chiefs would scout the idea of compensation, and of being located away from their own country. That was the plan of compensation suggested when the matter was last debated in this House; and I think it must be admitted that it has failed, because there is no land available for the people, and the Chiefs themselves will not desert their subjects. But there was another plan suggested, and that was combination amongst the Chiefs. It was a very difficult thing to suggest, because, no doubt, there would be a considerable outcry, if the combination took place, that the Home Government, or, at any rate, the Cape Government, ought to assist the Europeans against the Natives. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies asked whether, if these Chiefs were united, anyone would suppose that the Boers, armed as they were, would be able to carry out their freebooting invasions? It appears by the Blue Book that there has been an attempt at combination. I observe that a Mr. Bothell, who seems to be a man of considerable ability and energy, has been trying to get the Chiefs to unite. I mention that fact, because I trust that if they do combine, in accordance with the suggestion I have referred to, the Government will not prevent their having a chance of success, although certainly what we read in the Blue Book shows that we are doing all we can to prevent it. Mr. Bothell, in one of his letters, said they wanted ammunition, and he earnestly asked that it might be forwarded. I have no doubt that the reply will be that the rules of the Cape Government cannot be broken, and that the ammunition cannot be sent. We must not, on the one hand, call upon the Natives to combine, and then complain of them, or sneer at them, if they do not succeed under such circumstances

    1683
    as these. It will, however, be a very difficult matter to effect, and I think it would be much better if the Government themselves would take it in hand, because it cannot be denied that there is some force in what Sir Hercules Robinson says—namely, that—
    "If it is necessary on grounds of public policy to insist upon the Natives on their borders being kept without arms, it is at the same time the bounden duty of a civilized Government to prevent, if necessary, by force their own armed citizens taking advantage of the defencelcss condition of the Natives to despoil them of their lands."
    But why do I trouble the Committee with these accounts? After all, there are only between 25,000, and 30,000 of these people; and it may be asked why we should take so much notice of them? But, besides other considerations, the question of humanity is involved in this matter; and if hon. Members doubt that I will refer them to page 29 of Mr. Campbell Johnston'sReport, where they will find that in one struggle which took place women were shot down, and that for hours together there was firing at the people, and that those who finally surrendered were shot, whether armed or unarmed. It may be asked, what have we to do with this among the many cruel things that are done in the world? I think my hon. Friend alluded to this struggle as a hopeless tribal war; but I must confirm what has been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that we are specially bound to help these people, because they are Allies who have helped us in the hour of need. When we were hard pressed, when, in fact, we were beaten, we called upon them to protect our refugees at great cost to themselves, and they did it. We have abundant confirmation of that statement in the despatch referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am surprised that, if the Government knew what had taken place, we did not hear more about it at the time. In one despatch Sir Hercules Robinson gave proof of the assistance afforded us by Mankoroane, where he said that to aid us this Chief, at the pressure of the British Government, had arrested another Chief whom the Boers had made use of. The real question is, what are we to do with regard to this Tribe? The Convention has to be reconsidered; and my object in bringing this sad story before the
    1684
    Committee and the Government is not for the purpose of finding fault with what the Government have done, but to remind them of what I believe to be their duty in the future. They have to reconsider this Convention, but they must not forget their obligations; and let me remark that, in considering those obligations, I hope they will not overestimate the cost of fulfilling them. I think there is abundant proof that the cost has been exaggerated. From all the information I could get, I came to the conclusion at the time that it would not be a very costly business either in men or money. It was suggested that the minimum force necessary would be 2,000 men; an occupation of years was spoken of, and millions of money were hinted at as the probable expense. But Sir Hercules Robinson says that 500 mounted police would be sufficient to clear the country, that if 100 police remained there for 12 months matters would have settled down, and that the cost would not be above £100,000. The Government had, of course, a perfect right to look at the cost of this undertaking; but I am surprised at one thing—namely, that on the page before that which contains Lord Derby's reply acknowledging the estimate of Sir Hercules Robinson, there is a copy of a letter from the noble Lord to the Aborigines' Protection Society, which says—
    "I am directed by the Earl of Derby to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, enclosing copies of letters addressed to the Rev. John Mackenzie from the Chief Mankoroane and from a Native teacher at Taungs. These letters had been already brought under Lord Derby's notice by Mr. Mackenzie, and have received his Lordship's careful consideration. There appears to be no reason for hoping that any substantial relief could be given to Mankoroane and other Natives in this country except by military operations on a considerable scale, followed by the permanent occupation and protection of the territory."
    The Government may be right, and Sir Hercules Robinson may be wrong; but if, as the Under Secretary says, he is wrong, it is a most extraordinary thing that he should be retained as Governor of the Cape Colony. There is no doubt whatever that the delay which has taken place has made the matter much worse and more difficult of settlement in this way—that the freebooting may be said to have reached its second stage. The first party of freebooters who drove the people away might have been easily

    1685
    disposed of; but they have sold their stolen goods, and they have let in another class of people who have some sort of right to the soil, having paid money for it to these robbers. Notwithstanding this increased difficulty, I think we should still see whether we cannot fulfil our duty, and whether, in the interests of the people and on the principle of economy, it would not be right and much easier to do so at once. I will not trouble the Committee with any more general remarks; but I think what has taken place is a lesson to us that no policy can succeed at the Cape which is not firm and consistent, and that we must make up our minds either to leave the country or, if we remain there, to fulfil our duties. I do not believe for one moment that public opinion in England, or that the interest of England, will admit of our leaving the Cape, although I believe there are some Gentlemen who advocate even that course. This thing is positively certain—that we cannot get that country governed without governing it, and we shall have to choose first or last—and it would be much better first than last, and much less costly—we shall have to choose between leaving matters as they were, and leaving the country. Above all, we must not leave the Native question in the hope that it will settle itself. It will not settle itself, and we shall be driven to the conclusion either to allow the English name to be stained by one act after another, of which we could hardly bear to hear, or to assert our supremacy. I am perfectly well aware of the difficulties of the position. They are very great—I do not want to enter into the past—but they must be met; and I do not know that I can do better than conclude my remarks by referring my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) to the remarks he made two years ago. That was a time when these South African affairs were in a state of great crisis. We had defeated the Boers—I mean the Boers had defeated us, although we had a large force with which we might have defeated them. I will not go into that question now. I never was one of those who thought it better to carry on war merely to re-assert our prestige; but I did suppose that, if we gave the Boers to understand that we would not carry on war for that purpose. yet we should, at the same time, make
    1686
    them understand that there were matters of injustice and wrong which we would not allow them to do. That was, to my great comfort, the notion of the Government, and, above all, of my right hon. Friend. I will conclude by reading his words, because I do not know anything with which I more thoroughly agree, and I do not think the time is past when they may be carried into practice. These remarks were made at a large meeting in Leeds—
    "You may now perhaps better understand that what we attempted was to do equal justice, and in attempting to grant that justice to the Dutch population which we thought our Predecessors withheld, we never for a moment forgot what was duo to other considerations—to the rights of the Native Tribes and the general peace of South Africa; and those men are mistaken, if such there be, who judge that our liberal concessions were the result of weakness or timidity, and who think that because we granted much, it was only to encourage them to ask for more. I know not what is to happen — I hope the Convention is shortly to be ratified—but this I can tell you. We have not been afraid of reproach at home, as we have not been afraid of calumny in the Colonies, on account of indulgences which it was said we extended to the Boers of the Transvaal; and"—
    these are the words to which I desire especially to remind my right hon. Friend—
    "So in what may yet remain to be done we shall recollect and faithfully maintain the interests of the numerous and extended Native populations; but we shall not be the less faithful to the dignity of this great Empire in the conduct of all our proceedings."
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I regret that a speech like this, which would be far more profitably dealt with on large grounds, taking in a particular view of our obligations and our power, should have been applied to following the detailed criticism of isolated passages from a Blue Book. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as I understand, moves the reduction of the Vote on the ground that the British Resident in the Transvaal has been useless. I deny that the Resident has been useless. He certainly has not been useless to hon. Gentlemen opposite, for if that position had not been filled they would not have had the materials for the attacks they had freely made on the policy of the Government; but because the British Resident has not been able to do all that he might do, it does not follow that the presence of a British Resident is useless. The hon,

    1687
    and learned Member for Chatham actually comes seriously hero and begins his speech by saying that the presence of the British Resident is useless because a murder has been committed in the Transvaal. In the first place, the murder was not committed in the Transvaal. It was committed outside the Transvaal. Mr. Johnston stated that he did not know whether the spot where the corpses were found was in the Transvaal or not, but it was not very far from the Border. But the story is a very short one. M'Gilvray and his companion had evidently gone up and joined the freebooters. One of the rules of the freebooters' laager is that when a man has joined them he is not to leave them until the campaign is over. M'Gilvray got tired of this and escaped; but he was caught, and irons were put round his neck, and his body was found with the irons round him. Whether M'Gilvray was shot in pursuit, or died of starvation, is not proved; and Lord Granville's statement that there is no evidence of his having been murdered is perfectly consistent with the facts that are known. There is no evidence upon which you can convict anyone of the murder of M'Gilvray.
    MR. GORST: The hon. Member says it was outside the territory; but he does not know whether it was.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The statement does not say it is in the territory. It is not proved to have been outside the territory; but the laager, of course, was outside the territory, and M'Gilvray was escaping from the laager, and, whether it was inside or outside the territory, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Transvaal. But the next case he quotes is that of Captain Wells. Does the hon. and learned Member mean that every act of violence committed in the Transvaal shows the inutility of the Resident? So far as I make out the story there was a man named Honey, who had been arrested by these freebooters. It appears to me that Wells was one of the men who followed them in order to rescue Honey from their custody, and they turned round and repelled Wells's party by firing shots at them. I may toll the hon. and learned Member that the Resident remonstrated with the Transvaal Government on the conduct of this man—Adrian De La Ray—and asked them to repress him; and, al-
    1688
    though I cannot state it officially, I have seen it stated in the papers which have recently arrived from that district, that this man has been tried in consequence of the remonstrances of the British Resident, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the assault on Wells. So far for those two eases. The only case made out for a want of efficiency on the part of the British Resident is the attack on these men. I recall to the Committee the fact that the letter which the hon. and learned Member quoted, and because of which we forwarded our inquiry, was a letter which stated distinctly, in the words of the informant, that this was an attack made on a body of Boers by certain Natives in a camp. Shots were fired, and some women and children were smoked and burnt. I do not know why the hon. and learned Member drags in the question of the guns supplied by the Cape Government to the Transvaal. With regard to Mapoch, no doubt at one time he was nominally a British subject, but he was not a very peaceful subject. He was called upon to pay the hut tax, but he refused; and when our Resident went to arrange the location of the Tribes he absolutely refused to allow him to carry out that work, or to approach his stronghold. He had, in the meanwhile, taken under his care the murderer of M'Gilvray, and, having refused to allow us to go near his stronghold, he then defied the Transvaal Government altogether. Is the Transvaal Government to have no jurisdiction over anybody at all?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I stated was that he was merely called a Transvaal subject because he was within the map which they chose to draw up.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am glad to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that, in consequence of what he asked me the other night, we telegraphed out to the Transvaal Government asking the British Resident to report as to what steps were being taken, or were contemplated, with respect to Mapoch and other Natives, and whether anything was concluded with regard to slavery? The reply we have received is as follows:—
    "Hudson reports the following proceedings are contemplated by Transvaal Government regarding Hapoch's and other tribes: first, general principle of dispersing tribes; secondly, detention for three years, but families not separated; conditions similar to those adopted

    1689
    by the British Government in the case of Mankaroane."
    That was under the late Government, and we have always maintained that it was not slavery. The Boer Government, following our example, are, according to this telegram, about to adopt the conditions which we adopted. I should like to refer the Committee to the Blue Book, where hon. Members will find the whole Correspondence and the conditions with regard to Mankoroane's Tribe. Further than that, we have received a despatch to-day from the Cape, in which it is stated that the Government have sent down a representative to watch the proceedings against the prisoners. I commend the following to the hon. and learned Member who says the British Resident is of no use:—
    "I have used my influence, I believe sucessfully, with the Transvaal Government to have the trial connected with war with Mapoch held before the High Court at Pretoria, instead of before the Council of War."
    so that this Resident, who is no use, has obtained this much. [Mr. GORST: Has he succeeded?] He says—"I believe successfully." I venture to say that the indictment brought against the Transvaal Government is destroyed by charging thorn with things that cannot be brought against them. I venture to say there has been nothing in the war against Mapoch with which you could charge them which would be contrary to the usages of civilized war. Our Representative states that there has been no destruction of women and children, and nothing half so bad; and hero you have the Transvaal Government spontaneously sending down, without pressure from the British Resident, an advocate to watch the trial; and, at the request of the British Resident, taking away the trial from the Council of War, and transferring it to a civil tribunal. Of course, there is no duty upon them to watch Mapoch's trial; but my right hon. Friend must be aware that there are difficulties connected with the disposal of these Tribes, when it becomes necessary that they should not be allowed to remain in their strongholds. They must live somewhere; but the difficulties are so great that it has been found absolutely necessary, in order to provide for these people, to give them a choice of employment, and stipulated
    1690
    wages and term of service. The whole thing turns on the condition of the indentures; and we must not be in a hurry to say that the Transvaal Government have violated the Pretoria Convention, or the Sand River Convention, merely because they ostentsibly say what they have always said. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham refers to the telegram on page 31. He made a great point of there being inconsistency here, and asked whether Lord Derby had said that these Chiefs had better make the best terms they could with their enemy? I must take the Committee back for a moment to the 16th page; and, with all respect to the hon. and learned Member, I must confess that I can hardly find words to describe the inaccuracy with which he read the telegram. It is a curious fact that the two Boer gentlemen whom the hon. and learned Member for Chatham has specially selected for attack are the very men who were known as the last of the loyal Boers during the Transvaal War. But I do not understand what argument the hon. and learned Gentleman founded upon that part of his statement. The next thing I have to turn to is the reference of the hon. and learned Gentleman to that long list at the end of the last Blue Book of the officials of the Transvaal, alleged to have been engaged in abetting the freebooters. The hon. and learned Member says that their connivance is quite clear, and that, nevertheless, nothing has been done in the matter. Now, I do not blame him for bringing forward this subject; but I may point out that since this Blue Book has been on the Table of the House we have received from the Transvaal Government a statement of the result of the inquiry made into these charges at the request of the British Resident. They send us very voluminous affidavits, contradicting almost every one of the charges made against the Government of the Transvaal—affidavits on the face of them deserving of as much credit as the statement we have in this Blue Book. Those Papers will be laid upon the Table of the House as soon as possible. At this point I will refer very briefly to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) said with reference to the non-supply of ammunition to the Natives. It must be clear to him that great difficulties stand in the way of supplying

    1691
    them. It is part of the policy of all the States in South Africa not to supply ammunition to the Natives; and, that being so, I do not see that Her Majesty's Government could do in this matter more than they have done. In such a case as this we could not coerce the Cape Government, who have full power to adopt what course they choose. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham was very indignant over a despatch of Lord Derby, and said it was most degrading that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should ask to be informed whether it would be possible to prevent the continuance of supplies to the Boers, and whether representations from Her Majesty's Government upon the subject would be favourably received. Sir, I cannot conceive what constitutes a self-governing Colony in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but of this I am sure, that if we had written despatches ordering the Cape Government to do this or that, we should have soon heard from them that we were out - stepping our position. Therefore, putting the circumstance together, the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely unfounded. I say that the document in question is not a degrading despatch, but such a despatch as any prudent Secretary of State would write who knows how important it is not to arouse the susceptibilities of a free people. But I will ask the attention of the Committee to the despatch of Mr. Bethell to the High Commissioner, on page 99 of the Blue Book, which is as follows:—
    "My permit for Montsioa's country the only one refused. Traders from all other Chiefs received permits. This will so increase rising distrust among Bechuanas of good intentions of Government, that disturbances will be accelerated with freebooters, and feeling will be embittered against Colonial Government, who the Natives have already fancied are opposed to their interests. This has been always opposed by Englishmen living among them, especially since despatch of Earl Kimberley in last year, on subject of ammunition for protection against freebooters. Montsioa's son expresses surprise that their Tribe only are refused permits, as they and Batlapins are attacked by Boers solely for protecting English subjects. I, as Baralong Agent, concur, and protest to Imperial Government against such action, more as expression of Colonial feeling than as of importance as regards ammunition, as that is to be procured at a price from West Coast and Portuguese settlements."
    It is to the concluding paragraph of this
    1692
    despatch, which treats the supply of ammunition as merely a matter of price, that I ask the particular attention of the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) has referred to a statement made by me on a former occasion to the effect that if these Natives only co-operated and joined together, they would hold their own against the freebooters. Sir, I am happy to say, that recent occurrences are a guarantee of the truth of that remark; and when the right hon. Gentleman says that we ought to intervene and put our police into the territory of the Bechuanas, I cannot help thinking how much more mischief would have been done, and in how much worse a position those people would have been, if we had listened to the proposal that was pressed upon us. The position of affairs now is that the freebooters are hemmed in by the Native forces, that the Chief is advancing against them at the head of 2,000 men, and that a Petition for annexation by the Cape Colony has been signed without opposition in the Republic of Stellaland. The telegram conveying that information arrived at Cape Town on the 13th of July, and only reached the Colonial Office to-day; the delay which has occurred in its transmission I regret I am unable to explain. In arriving at their conclusion upon this matter the question of cost was regarded by Her Majesty's Government as of minor importance, and was really not taken into consideration. The consideration which influenced Her Majesty's Government was that by intervening they would be assuming a responsibility which would lead to further difficulty. With regard to the estimate of £100,000, I would point out that it was based upon the assumption that we should enter the territory of the Bechuanas and leave it immediately the freebooters were displaced; but our view of the case was that directly we retired we should have to face the same state of things over again. I will conclude by saying that, after all that has occurred, I deny that a British Resident is useless at Pretoria; and, further, I maintain that a Resident or a representative of Her Majesty—by whatever appellation he is described—is necessary for us; and if we are to call upon the Transvaal Government to discharge their obligations, we must have

    1693
    someone at Pretoria to inform us of what is going on. In view of the fact that three Representatives of the Transvaal Government are coming over here at the end of October, it cannot be said that the re-opening of the question of the Convention has proceeded from Her Majesty's Government. It has proceeded from the Transvaal Government; and it is only bare justice to say that from the beginning the Government of the Transvaal have expressed their desire to wait until they had some experience of the Convention, and then approach Her Majesty's Government, if necessary, and ask them to reconsider the position. Mr. Kruger, the President of the Republic; Dr. Toit, the Minister of Education; and General Schmidt, are the three Representatives to whom I have alluded. I have no right to speak with authority as to the view which Her Majesty's Government will take when the wishes of the Transvaal Government are laid before them; but I am warranted in saying that the condition of the Natives of the Transvaal will not be forgotten by Her Majesty's Government at that time. I deny entirely that the Natives in the Transvaal have not gained greatly by the Pretoria Convention; and I would point out to the Committee that every case of cruelty that has been attributed by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Boers, has occurred outside their territory. With regard to slavery, I am quite sure the Transvaal Government do not wish it to be restored in their country. I believe them to be perfectly honest in their declarations upon this subject made through their President when he was over here some time ago. The question was then dealt with very completely by President Kruger, who pointed out that, although, undoubtedly, some years ago there had been slavery in the Transvaal, it was dying out. But however that may be, however loose and ineffective may be the Transvaal Government, and notwithstanding the abuses which may be found to exist under it, I am certain that the Natives in the Transvaal have gained, and will continue to gain, by the existence of the Convention of Pretoria.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had taken his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham warmly
    1694
    to task for what he had styled his inaccuracy in quoting the Blue Books. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think he ever heard Blue Books more fairly analyzed than those had been by his hon. and learned Friend; and if the Under Secretary of State had considered the number of efforts they had made to obtain a fair discussion of the whole question at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and how those efforts had been thwarted, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) believed the hon. Gentleman would not have commented so severely on the course taken by his hon. and learned Friend in raising this question that night. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies referred, in the course of his reply, to those murders with the account of which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham commenced his speech. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was surprised when he heard him speak of the Resident as having completely done his duty, when he found that the latest intelligence which Her Majesty's Government possessed with regard to those murders was contained in a newspaper telegram. He could not think that the hon. Gentleman fairly dealt with the position of Mapoch. No doubt, that Chief and his Tribe were included within the limits of the Transvaal, and were technically subjects of the Transvaal Government; but whose fault was that? It was the fault of Her Majesty's Government and the Commissioners they sent out to South Africa, who placed this Chieftain and his Tribe and hundreds of thousands of other Natives under the authority of the Transvaal Government, notwithstanding that they strongly stated their dislike and hatred to the Boers and their government. He was surprised to hear the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies say that the action of the Transvaal Government with reference to Mapoch had been justified, because, in his opinion, Mapoch had never paid taxes to Her Majesty's Government; and all he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would say on that point was, that if the hon. Gentleman was right, it proved that there was less reason than ever for that decision to include this terriory in the Transvaal, which had been the primary cause of the difficulty. He must say he thought the Committee had been hardly treated that evening by the way in which more

    1695
    than one important piece of information had been convoyed to it by the Under Secretary. The hon. Gentleman had read a telegram stating that it was not a fact that the Mapoch Tribe was indentured for five years, but that it had been indentured for three years, the families not being separated. He would not take up the time of the Committee by entering into this question of indenturing further than to say that it had been the practice of Colonial Governments, as well as of more or less independent States, to indenture the Native Tribes whom they had conquered in war. But he did not think tire Under Secretary fairly stated the case, when he referred to the action of the last Administration in a matter of this kind. He had not, since the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were made, had time to refer to the case of the particular Tribe adverted to; but he had a most distinct recollection that when the Cape Government, during the time he was at the Colonial Office, indentured the members of some Tribes which they had conquered, for a period of three years, he at once wrote in strong and plain terms, requesting that the period of indenture should be altered to one year. With reference to the present case, then, he would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should take his view, which, he ventured to say, was right—namely, that the indenture should be for as short a period as possible, and that they should impress upon the Transvaal Government that the term of three years should be reduced to one. Before passing to those matters of larger importance to which the Under Secretary referred in the course of his statement, he wished to express his conviction that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had not raised this question that night on a Motion for the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of the Resident, from any feeling that the Resident had not to the best of his power endeavoured to do his duty. As he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) understood it, the ground on which that Motion had been placed before the Committee was that, whatever the Resident might have done, or whatever he might have attempted to do, his office had been practically useless, because his remonstrances had not been attended to by the Transvaal Government. He would now turn to the ques-
    1696
    tion of the way in which the Transvaal Government, and even the freebooters, had been provided with arms to be used against the Natives, while the Natives themselves had been precluded from obtaining them. He quite admitted the accuracy of much that had fallen from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies respecting the difficulties which attended the free supply of arms to Natives. The reason of that was obvious, and it was nowhere more fairly stated than by Sir Hercules Robinson in the despatch which the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had quoted in the course of the debate. He thought Sir Hercules Robinson was fully justified by the facts of the case in saying—
    "If it is necessary, on grounds of public policy, to insist upon Natives in their own borders being kept without arms, it is, at the same time, the bounden duty of a civilized Government to prevent, if necessary by force, their own armed citizens taking advantage of the defenceless condition of the Natives to despoil them of their lands and cattle."
    It did not seem to him, from a perusal of the Blue Books, that there had been any really strong representation made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Transvaal on this subject. He was quite aware of the rights of a self-governing Colony; but Natal, at any rate, was not a self-governing Colony, and when he saw, as they had all seen during the last few months, arms supplied to the freebooters, not only without any attempt to check their supply, but actually with the connivance of the Government of the Transvaal, he must say he did not think Her Majesty's Government had shown quite that conception of the necessity and justice of the case which Lord Derby informed Her Majesty's Representative at the Cape so widely prevailed in this country. The Under Secretary for the Colonies went on to allude to a combination among the Bechuana Tribes for their own defence against the common enemy, as the freebooters were considered, and the hon. Gentleman had referred to it almost in tones of delight, as if it was one of the best things that could happen in South Africa. Now, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) ventured to say that nothing could be more dangerous to the White population of South Africa than to encourage the Natives to defend themselves by such a combina-

    1697
    tion against their White neighbours. The Under Secretary stated that the Natives looked upon the White freebooters as their common enemy. No doubt they did so, and ever would do so; but it could never be forgotten, in dealing with South African affairs, that for generations past there had been these perpetual Border conflicts between the Whites and the Native Tribes; and if there was once any general combination among the Native Tribes of South Africa against the White men, he ventured to say that such a result would tax far more heavily the responsibility and power of this country to defend the settlers in South Africa than anything that could occur under present circumstances. The last remarks of the Under Secretary appeared to him to be by far the most important part of his speech. After all, they were not concerned so much that evening in discussing the past; it was not even necessary that they should discuss the present; but what the country was anxious to know was, what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were in the future in regard to the revision of the Convention? It had been practically admitted in the debates which had taken place in the course of the Session that, to use the words of the President of the Board of Trade, the Transvaal Government had broken both the spirit and the letter of the Convention. It had been admitted that the Bechuanaland Chiefs had been attacked, despoiled, and plundered, at any rate, with the connivance of the Transvaal Government, and that these Chiefs, in the words of Lord Derby, had special claims on the Government of this country through former promises of protection. That was the position we had arrived at; and the question naturally asked was, what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do? What happened during the last discussion in the House of Commons on this subject? The Prime Minister came down to the House and announced his intention of moving a Resolution, which he must say, although he did not wish to make use of any offensive term, appeared to him to be one of the meanest propositions ever made by a British Government. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to ask the House to express its trust that Her Majesty's Government would make adequate provision for any Chief who might
    1698
    have just claims upon them, and suggested that this might be done by locating any such Chief in British territory. That proposal was further elaborated and interpreted by the despatch from the Colonial Secretary proposing to Sir Hercules Robinson that Her Majesty's Government should give all these Chiefs and others a moderate allowance if, when they were driven out of their country, they should settle in British territory. Although that proposal was suggested by the Prime Minister, and although at the time it was suggested the right hon. Gentleman stated it was desirable that the House should express an opinion on the subject, Her Majesty's Government had never dared to submit it to the House. Although they had been challenged to do this by himself (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), over and over again, or to take the judgment of the House in any other way upon their Transvaal policy, Her Majesty's Government had never ventured to do so; and why? Because he believed that proposal would have been scouted by the House, as it deserved to be. Instead, they had withdrawn it, and had made a proposal, very likely in consequence of some suggestions from the Transvaal Government, that there should be a revision of the Convention. Now, what was it that the Transvaal Government meant by a revision of the Convention? The Transvaal Government had never accepted the Convention as imposing upon their actions the smallest restriction, except so far as suited their convenience. When the Volksraad, in 1881, accepted the terms of the Convention, they asked, in the first place, for such modifications as would have altered the conditions of the Convention, and made it an instrument establishing the independence of the Transvaal. When they at last accepted it as it stood, they did so simply, to use their own words, subject to a practical test; and they immediately proceeded to test it. How did they test it? They tested it, as he could prove from the Blue Books, by omitting, in every instance, to carry out its provisions where those provisions caused them the slightest inconvenience. They had as little regard for their financial obligations as for the stipulations to which they had agreed with respect to the Native Tribes. In the Blue Book last published they set forth one of the

    1699
    most audacious statements that could possibly be made. Although they admitted their debt to this country, and their liability to pay the £100,000 which, according to the Convention, ought to have been paid a year ago, they trumped up an audacious counter - claim of £170,000—a claim, to use the words of Lord Derby, so absurd that it could never have been made seriously with any idea that it would be allowed. It was, therefore, clear what the Transvaal Government intended by the revision of the Convention—namely, that it was to be so altered in its terms as to recognize their independence. He wanted to know how Her Majesty's Government would interpret it when they were dealing with the Representatives of the Transvaal who were coming over to this country? Would they adhere to the interpretation given to Parliament when the Convention was made, and see that the solemn promises made by Sir Hercules Robinson to secure the interests of the Natives, whom we were beond to protect, were kept? Those solemn promises were that the Native interests would never be forgotten by us as their former Governors, or by our Representatives in South Africa. In accepting the ratification of the Convention by the Volksraad of the Transvaal, Lord Kimberley, who was then the Colonial Secretary, said that Her Majesty's Government would not entertain any proposal for the modification of the Convention, unless, after it had been ratified, the necessity for further concessions were proved by experience. He had never understood the meaning of those last words, for there was an expression used at that time by a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government—he thought the President of the Board of Trade—that everything had been conceded in the Convention which could, in honour, be given. If that were so, he did not see how any further concession could be made. And yet he fully recognized that the Convention might require alteration. Nothing could be worse than a Convention which one side repudiated in practice, and the other did not attempt to enforce, and which only held out false hopes to the Natives, without protecting the interests which it purported to protect. Therefore, he was glad that the Convention would be reconsidered, with a view to its altera-
    1700
    tion; but what he hoped was that Her Majesty's Government, in considering what the alterations were to be, would not make concessions to those whose wrong-doing had prevented it from working. It would be a very bad thing to put a premium upon freebooting in South Africa by allowing the establishment of these independent Republics, as they called themselves, of Stellaland or Goshen; but it would be even worse to encourage the Transvaal Government in a system of wrong-doing in attempting, directly or indirectly, to extend its boundaries, by allowing them to incorporate within their own territory the land of these Bechuana Chiefs. There had been a suggestion made to the Government of the Cape Colony, which suggestion appeared to have been most favourably received according to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, not only by the Chiefs Mankoroane and Montsioa and the Natives of their district, but also by these very freebooters who had attempted to establish the Republics, and now found themselves in some little difficulty in regard to the matter—namely, that the country should be annexed by the Cape Colony, or placed under its Protectorate. That seemed to him to afford one ray of light in this unfortunate question. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would do their best to secure the consent of the Government of Cape Colony to that proposal to annex the territory, or to place it under the protection of the Cape Government. He felt that the responsibilities we had incurred towards the inhabitants of those regions; as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), could not be cancelled by the mere cancelling of the Convention, and he saw no other way in which they could be satisfactorily fulfilled. He could well conceive that the obligations of this country under the terms of the Convention, in regard to the powerful Tribes to the North of the Transvaal, might be such as were practically impossible for this country to carry out, and which neither any question of good faith or of interest would make it incumbent upon this country to retain. If that were so, he could conceive that the Convention might well be revised in those respects. But he must venture again to impress most strongly upon Her Majesty's Government the hope

    1701
    that they would not concede, in the revision of the Convention, anything to the wrong-doers, so as to practically secure them in the enjoyment of the wrong they had done. He did not believe that this country would be relieved from any of the responsibilities which they had recently recognized in the action they had taken in Basutoland, or that anything would be done to secure permanent peace in South Africa by such a course of conduct as that. They might depend upon it that the Africander Party in South Africa were no more to be conciliated by action of this kind, or by concession, than was another Party who lived far nearer to Great Britain. What the Government ought to do was to recognize the obligations which had been incurred, and carry out those obligations in concert with the Cape Government, as he believed it was possible to carry them out. In that way, and in that way only, could they hope to extricate this country from the shame and disgrace which had so far attended their policy and action in South Africa.
    MR. WODEHOUSEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would use their influence with the Cape Government to obtain their consent to the annexation of Bechuanaland to the Cape Colony, or to its being placed under the Protectorate of that Government; but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that such a proposal had already been submitted to the Cape Government, and the Prime Minister of the Cape, in reply, said his Government were not prepared to entertain the idea of extending the boundary of the Colony in that quarter. And, indeed, it did not seem at all probable that the Colonial Government would undertake these new responsibilities at a time when it was asking the Imperial Government to release it from the burden of governing the Basutos. Although he was not averse to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, he did not think there was any likelihood of its adoption at the present moment. He agreed with a great deal which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, who had spoken with much moderation. He agreed with him that the Transvaal Government would probably evade or violate any engagement which they might find either inconvenient or distasteful to
    1702
    observe. It was undeniable that the Convention had been flagrantly violated. We had as strong a case as could well be imagined for forcible intervention, if we chose to use it; but we had not intervened. We had Native Chiefs with confessedly strong claims upon us now threatened with extermination, partly because they had been our friends, and yet we did not intervene. There was no disguise about the reasons which had induced us to abstain from intervention. We abstained because, in our opinion, intervention would have involved sacrifices greater than we cared to make for the objects concerned. He did not make these remarks by way of taunt or accusation, but simply that we might realize under what conditions Her Majesty's Government would soon be negotiating with the Transvaal Commissioners. He supposed that those Commissioners would ask for complete independence, for a discharge of all their debts to the Imperial Government, and for an extension of territory on their South-Western Frontier, together with the removal of the Resident, or a modification of his functions. Now, in regard to the discharge of the debt, he thought the Government might consent to wipe it off; and in connection with the Suzerainty of this country, he thought we might modify the functions of the Resident, so as to reduce him to the position of a purely diplomatic officer. He trusted, however, that Her Majesty's Government would not sanction any further extension of Transvaal territory on its South-Western Frontier. Then, with respect to the question of the supply of arms and ammunition to the Natives, he hoped that, when the Government were negotiating with the Boer Commissioners, they would consider the expediency of abrogating the Sand River Convention, which precluded us from alliances with Native Chiefs, and from supplying Natives with arms and ammunition. No doubt the Transvaal Government would wish to continue to hold us to those engagements; but if the Imperial Government would not protect the Natives from aggression by freebooters, at least they might refuse to be a party to one-sided engagements, which operated exclusively to the disadvantage of the Natives. The Cape Government lent cannon to the Transvaal Government, and would do nothing to facilitate

    1703
    a supply of arms and ammunition to the Natives; but surely the Imperial Government might be impartial in this matter, and thus encourage the Natives to combine for their own defence. It might be said that the Sand River Convention contained valuable provisions in regard to the prohibition of slavery, and the apprenticeship of Natives; but it appeared, from the statement of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the practice of apprenticing Natives prevailed in the Tranvaal, and therefore the value of those provisions of the Sand River Convention was questionable. A great deal in the future of South Africa turned on the settlement of the Bechuanaland question. Much of that country was inviting to settlers, and the main roads to the interior passed through it. It was a very serious thing, therefore, to allow it to pass into the hands of the Boers and freebooters. He must say, on the other hand, that it would be imprudent on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake a forcible intervention there unless they went in strength, prepared for the contingencies of sharp fighting and a costly occupation of the country afterwards, in which they would never be sure of a cordial support from the Cape Government. They could not count on effective support from that quarter, because a Cape responsible Ministry, dependent for its existence on Dutch votes, was always afraid of wounding Dutch susceptibilities; and it must be remembered that Colonial opinion, as regarded the treatment of Natives, was very different from English opinion. Intervention in Bechuanaland would have been a serious undertaking even a few months ago, and it would certainly not be less serious now. He did not believe that, even if Her Majesty's Government were ready to embark on such a policy, they would be properly supported in it by the public opinion of this country in its present mood and temper. But public opinion in this country was perpetually fluctuating in regard to South African questions. Hot fits succeeded cold fits. One day the British public was captivated by what the President of the Board of Trade called a "crusading enthusiasm," and another day it thought only of extricating itself from these everlasting South African entanglements. In the constant fluctuations of public opinion, the cru-
    1704
    saders might have their turn again some day; and if they then made an end of the Transvaal Republic, the interests of civilization and human progress would probably not sustain an irreparable loss. However much we might wish to shake the dust of South Africa off our feet, it was extremely difficult to do so. And he would point out that a policy of complete non-intervention in Bechuanaland would not be strictly consistent in spirit with the present policy of Her Majesty's Government as regarded Basutoland. They were going to take back the Basutos, and the Cape Government would probably press them to take over also all the Transkei territory. He did blame the Government for these proceedings; but, from the point of view of those who wished to get clear of South African entanglements, taking hack the Basutos was a retrograde step. Lord Derby's disclaimer of permanent responsibility for the affairs of Basutoland was not worth the paper upon which it was written. It would not shorten Imperial responsibilities by a single hour, nor diminish them in the least degree. Once in Basutoland, the Imperial Government would occupy a central and commanding position in regard to Native affairs. Every Native thought South Africa would be conscious of its presence there; and if its administration of Basutoland proved successful, as he believed it would, there would be continual demands, both from Natives and from Missionaries, for further extension of Imperial administration. He would not detain the Committee longer; but would apologize for the desultory and fragmentary character of the few observations he had ventured to make.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDthought that they were much indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Wodehouse) who had last addressed them for his able and statesmanlike speech. He concurred with that hon. Member in thinking that it would be very doubtful policy to press upon the Cape Government the annexation of Mankoroane's territory. He feared a recurrence of what had happened in respect of Basutoland. He feared that, after the annexation, troubles and difficulties might arise; that the Cape Government would spend a good deal of money in endeavouring to put an end to these disturbances; and that ultimately they would disannex the territory

    1705
    again; and that this country would be asked to take over the Government of it, a request which we might have some difficulty in refusing. He might here state that he thought Her Majesty's Government had acted wisely in the course they had taken with respect to Basutoland; and he was of opinion that the conditions laid down by Lord Derby were fair and reasonable. Another point in which he very much agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Bath was with regard to the opportunity they now had of making more satisfactory terms with the Transvaal Government. If that Government could be convinced that we were prepared to act firmly, and to enforce the observance of any agreement made with them, we had a good opportunity of making satisfactory terms and of settling the disturbances along this Frontier, and securing tranquillity for the future. He thought the question of abrogating the Sand River Convention, and of making, as it were, a fresh start, was well worthy of consideration; and he was disposed to think that the Transvaal Government would not be opposed to this. But all depended upon whether the Government would act firmly. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had accused the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) of inaccuracy in his construction of the Papers in the last Blue Book; but he had signally failed to prove his charge. He had himself been inaccurate upon the point where Mr. M'Gillivray was killed; and he (Sir Henry Holland) thought he was no less inaccurate in his reading of the letter of Mankoroane at page 16 of C. 3,686. Mankoroane says that—
    "The Boers were bitter against me because I was looked upon as an English ally, having befriended many loyal refugees from the Transvaal during the late war. Among these are many leading men and possessors of landed property in the Transvaal State,"
    and then he gave some names. Mankoroane's grammar might be defective, and it was true that strictly speaking the word "these" should refer to the "loyal refugees; "but a glance at the names, and a comparison of those names with the names of the Transvaal burghers at page 69, who were fighting with Massouw, showed distinctly that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was quite correct in assuming that the word "these" applied not to loyal refugees,
    1706
    which these men certainly never were, but to the Boers who were bitter against Mankoroane, and who formed part of his enemy's (Massouw's) volunteers. The Under Secretary of State disputed the statements as to Mapoch. Now, it was not necessary to defend all the actions of Mapoch. He might have been—indeed he probably was—a troublesome fellow to deal with; but it must be remembered that we could not properly throw off all obligations in respect of him, because he, undoubtedly, was at one time a British subject; and it was against his will, and in despite of his remonstrances, that he was made a subject of the Transvaal Government by the terms of the Convention. He would only refer to one other point in the speech of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. He quoted a statement of a Mr. Nelmapius (page 50 of C. 3,686), as if it were correct, of the massacres committed at the storming of Sikukuni's stronghold; but he omitted to state that a despatch was found from Lord Derby on the next page, in which Lord Derby referred to the inquiries that were made in 1880 as to this matter, and says that—
    "The published denials of those who were present on the occasion are entirely at variance, it will be seen, with Mr. Nelmapius's statements."
    He (Sir Henry Holland) hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would not press this Amendment to a Division; because, in truth, the Resident was not to blame; but Her Majesty's Government were in default. The Resident remonstrated, and he could do no more. The fault lay with Her Majesty's Government, who were not prepared to support the Convention under which those remonstrances were made. That no heed was paid to remonstrances was, therefore, not to be wondered at. As he had had an opportunity, by the kind indulgence of the House, of stating his views upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the Transvaal in April last, he would not repeat them now; but he must say that he had since then seen no reason to change his opinion. On the contrary, he thought that the last Blue Book presented to Parliament had considerably strengthened and proved the correctness of that opinion. They were, indeed, in a worse position than before. First, because two new Republics had been formed assuming Exe-

    1707
    cutive and legislative functions; and with these Republics formed of deserters and bad and violent freebooters they would now have to deal. If proper measures had been taken at an earlier period, such as he had suggested in the former debate, these men who were now organized and embodied could have been dispersed. And, secondly, because the condition of the Native Chiefs, their allies, was much worse. He had proved, as he thought, on a former occasion, the complicity of the Transvaal Government in the attacks on the Natives, and the more recent Papers confirmed this view, though it was then questioned by some Members of the Government here. The Transvaal Government again showed that they could have put down these disturbances and secured peace, if we had been willing to alter the terms of the Convention. They said—
    "This Government feels assured that it would be able by its intervention to restore peace in those parts, and to render it permanent among the Natives."
    Why, then, did they not exercise this intervention if they were in earnest? But, again, the evidence now was overwhelming as to the character and position of the Transvaal subjects who were fighting against the Native Chiefs. There were not only common marauders, but there were Transvaal Field Cornets; a Commandant of the Bloemhof District; two Members of the Volksraad; Colonel Ferreira, a Special Commissioner, and other well-known men; and, as shown by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, ammunition was supplied by the Transvaal Government. The Native Chiefs were losing men, cattle, and land; and why were they suffering this loss? Sir Hercules Robinson furnished the answer. He said Montsioa and Mankoroane
    "Are now on the point of being exterminated in consequence of their fidelity to the British Government, and because of the assistance they gave to British subjects in the Transvaal War."
    It seemed to him (Sir Henry Holland) most remarkable that in the last debate in April, when Members of Her Majesty's Government were disputing the propriety of using the term "allies" in connection with those two Chiefs, and were disputing their obligations and responsibilities towards them, they actually had in their hands this despatch of Sir Hercules Robinson, which was received here on
    1708
    March 29; and he thought that this required some distinct explanation from some Member of the Government. Our obligation to these Chiefs could be very briefly stated. They had been and were our allies; the Convention which was made with the Transvaal Government had for one of its main objects the protection of Natives; and this was supposed to have been secured by the fixing of a boundary line, and by the retention of the Suzerainty. The Prime Minister himself had stated that the retention of the Suzerainty was as safe a protection to the Natives as if we had retained the Transvaal; in other words, it was, then, an absolute protection, for no one could doubt that if we had retained the Transvaal we could have prevented these attacks on the Natives. But what had Her Majesty's Government done in performance of their engagements? They had allowed the Boers to break the conditions of the Convention—that was admitted by Her Majesty's Ministers—and not ventured to enforce the observance of those conditions. They had left the Natives without any assistance to fight their own battles against these freebooters; and now what was their reply to the earnest entreaties of the Chiefs for assistance and protection? In the first place, he would remark, as a proof of the uncertainty of the action of the Government, that they seemed to have delayed returning any reply to such entreaties until Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed that, in his opinion, the Chiefs "were entitled to a final and definite reply." And what a reply was then given. It had been characterized by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham as disgraceful, and he did not think that that term was too strong. Montsioa and Mankoroane were told that Her Majesty's Government could not intervene by force for their protection, but that, in the event of their being driven out of their country, Her Majesty's Government would consider what assistance could be given them. Not even actual assistance was promised to them; but after they had been defeated, and driven out of their country, Her Majesty's Government would consider what could be done for them. A most cruel reply, and aggravated, as it seemed to him, by the fact that at this very time the Government had learnt that they could not acquire land in the Cape Colony for the Chiefs

    1709
    and their people. They must, therefore, have known that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find land elsewhere even for the Chiefs, still more for the Chiefs and their people, from whom the Chiefs would never willingly consent to be separated. There was left, then, no other mode of assistance than money, and such assistance would have been most inadequate, and would not have met the necessities of the case. It had been urged by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies that the fact that the Republic of Stellaland had recently applied to us for protection against Mankoroane was a justification of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. He confessed he took a very different view. He was not surprised that such protection should have been asked for. When freebooters had secured their plunder, they would, of course, be glad to be protected with their ill-won gains. But the Government could not possibly give such protection; and thus more bloodshed must follow, whether the Natives conquered the freebooters or the freebooters defeated the Natives. Now, if the Government had intervened at an early period, and before the quarrels became intensified, with a moderate Frontier Police Force, composed of Boers and Volunteers, and paid at the joint expense of the Transvaal and the Imperial Governments, they would, in all probability, have saved this bloodshed. That was the opinion of Sir Hercules Robinson, who knew the position well; and it was difficult to see how the Government, if that were so, could be held clear of this additional fighting and bloodshed. In conclusion, he thought that the Committee and the country had a right to condemn the Government for their conduct in this matter, for the want of firmness, and for the want of good faith to those who were suffering in consequence of their fidelity to us. It was conduct that tended to impair the honour of this country, and to lower it in the eyes, not only of the Dutch population and of the Natives, but of the whole civilized world.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir Arthur Otway, I am rather surprised, after the long experience of the hon. Baronet at the Colonial Office, at the easy way in which he disposes of these Cape Controversies. He sees his way through the whole of them without the slightest
    1710
    difficulty, notwithstanding they have been the perplexity of British Cabinets for over 50 years. About that the hon. Baronet has no doubt—he sees no shadow upon any part of the question. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, hear!] He tells you what we ought to have done, and what would have happened; and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) lends the hon. Baronet the support of his high authority. Let us see how this question stands with regard to the issue raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and in speaking of the hon. and learned Gentleman I distinctly repeat what I said before—namely, that, in my opinion, the whole course of his proceedings on this matter shows that he has been animated by a public spirit in what he has said. He thinks that the Office of Resident ought to be abolished, because it has entirely failed as regards those who are still British subjects, and as regards Natives within the Border and Natives beyond the Border. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in what I thought a very able speech, has stated the case as we view it on these points. We think the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, with respect to those who are still British subjects, made no case whatever; because the two persons to whom he referred, though they may have been British subjects, were persons who were apparently engaged in freebooting, and were persons who were not in the view of the Government, or of any Party in this House, when we endeavoured to frame this Convention. Then, with regard to the Natives within the Border, I will not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman has proved nothing, because my hon. Friend has admitted that with respect to the particular case brought up in the letter kindly supplied to us by the hon. and learned Gentleman we are not in a condition to give a perfectly full explanation. But even if I am to adopt the worst supposition, I still contend that an isolated case of that kind goes no way whatever towards the finding of a reply to the very great and broad question, which is really the question, and by far the most important of all the questions involved in this intricate subject—namely, what has been the case of the Natives within the Border under the

    1711
    Convention? There may have happened a particular abuse in the case of certain persons of subordinate authority at a particular spot; and yet the general operation of the Convention, or, at any rate, the general condition of the Natives within the Border, may be, on the whole, a satisfactory condition. With regard to the case of Mapoch, I must say I take entirely the same ground as that taken by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. Mapoch was a rebel against us—that is to say, matters did not come to actual violence; but he was disobedient to our laws. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: In what?] In not paying the taxes which it was his duty to pay. That appears to me to be an argument which goes very far indeed to acquit the measures taken by the Transvaal Government for the purpose of putting down a person who neither we nor they could persuade to perform civil duties. With regard to the Natives within the Border, I am almost afraid to say how many they number, for no one knows the fact perfectly; but unquestionably there are certainly many thousands of them. [An hon. MEMBER: 250,000.] Well, they exceed in numbers those persons beyond the Border, with regard to whom my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Forster) and others in this House have felt so much just anxiety. Though I am very far from saying that the Convention was proved to be a solution of all the difficulties connected with the Transvaal, yet I must say, as regards that main question, the presumption is that the operation of the Convention has been good; and certainly we are not in a position in which it would be wise to withdraw the salary of the Resident upon the ground that he has failed in the duties which he has undertaken in respect of those who were the objects of his special charge. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman, in professing to quote conclusive authority—he has certainly quoted high authority, and he was justified in giving the best in his power—has not convinced us that there is reason to believe that there was anything irregular in the case of Mapoch being withdrawn from the court martial, and his being tried as a rebel before the High Court. I will not detain the Committee upon the question of literary criticism on the interesting matter which has arisen upon
    1712
    the interpretation of page 16 of the last Blue Book; but it is admitted that the argument as to grammar is on our side. About that there is no doubt. I do not wonder that the hon. Baronet, who sees his way with such facility through all matters of political difficulty, should also see his way through all matters of grammatical difficulty, which are matters much more easy to get over. My opinion is, that my hon. Friend was quite right in following the grammar of the letter. If this letter had been the composition of an illiterate person, or of a savage, I could have better understood the contention raised. I do not suppose that anybody suggests that the letter was written by Mankoroane. It is rather a finished letter in its phrase and expression, and it has even adopted the very last administrative improvement in the framing of despatches by numbering all paragraphs. I have nothing to complain of whatever in the tone of this debate, which I think has been conducted with a seriousness and a directness of purpose which does credit to those engaged in it. We have, I am afraid, a good deal of difference of opinion amongst us; but, at the same time, I shall not hesitate to state my own opinions where they differ. I will in no case venture to state them dogmatically; but will give them with the reserve which I think is due to cases arising at a vast distance, in a country very difficult of access, and under circumstances with which we are most imperfectly and inadequately acquainted. It has been said by my right hon. Friend behind me, and by the hon. Baronet opposite, that matters would have stood much better had we interfered by force some four or six months ago. Well, Sir, that is directly the reverse of our opinion. Our opinion is, that the present situation, so far as we may presume to give an opinion, is better than it would have been had we interfered. It is all very well to say, and perfectly true, that Sir Hercules Robinson is a man of great ability, and that he supplied us with the opinion that if we sent 500 men to this place—1,000 or 1,200 miles off—we should have disposed of the matter in the course of a few months, and that by keeping a limited number of men there, in 12 months we could have left the country, and thus the whole question would have

    1713
    been settled. We have had lessons upon trusting to the opinions even of confidential, upright, and able men in distant countries, when they have been called upon to give their opinions on such questions. When we came into Office, we trusted to the opinions—and I believe we had no choice, according to the understood rules of action in this country, but to entrust to those opinions—of the eminent men who were actually in Office, or appointed to Office, in South Africa. I mean such men as Sir Bartle Frere, Sir George Colley, and Colonel Lany on.
    An hon. MEMBER: When was Sir George Colley appointed?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir George Colley was appointed to Office at the time when we came in. These are gentlemen of whom I speak with most unfeigned respect. But the result of those opinions was entirely disappointing, and this country had to pay a heavy price for that disappointment. When such disappointments occur, responsibilities cannot be thrown on those who give the opinions; it must be thrown upon, and it must be borne exclusively by, the Executive Government of the day. Therefore, Sir, in receiving this opinion from Sir Hercules Robinson, we were not in a condition in which we could say—"We accept it, because it is your opinion; and we will pledge your authority in the face of Parliament if we find you are wrong." On the contrary, it was my opinion, and I believed it was also the opinion of my Colleagues, that however able Sir Hercules Robinson may be, or however conscientious his judgment may be, yet, from the very nature of the case, he could give no opinion amounting to more than his own probable impression under obscure and difficult circumstances; and that we, and not he, should bear, and justly bear, the whole responsibility if we had acted on it. I do not hesitate to say, with respect to that opinion, that there was on the face of it, in my opinion, the strongest reason why we should attach but slight importance to it. It was sustained by no reasonings; it was an opinion, and a mere opinion. It was a mere opinion, and an opinion without the props which are derived from illustration, analogy, and reference to former examples—and when applied to the legitimate facts of the case—the immense
    1714
    distance of 1,000 or 1,200 miles at which a force would have to operate, the length of time which must have elapsed in conveying communications, the difficulties of the country, unsettled and barbarous, through which these communications must have passed—and when we were told that we, the responsible Government of this country, should have been justified in coming down to our places in Parliament and saying we have sent 500 men a distance of 1,000 or 1,200 miles to a wild country and will bring them all back for £100,000, I think we should have been laying ourselves open to universal censure and reprobation; and we should have been told that, if misfortune did arise, the responsibility of that misfortune would have accumulated upon our heads in a degree almost beyond example. The hon. Baronet joins with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) in the opinion, which they very frankly avowed—namely, that we ought to have threatened force, and to have used it. That is a most conscientious view on their part. I would, however, observe that those who have had responsibility in the matter, especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and those among whom he sits—indeed, I think I am right in saying, even the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) —have never adopted that doctrine. They have pointed out and indicated that we have been wrong, and that there is something unknown and indistinct which we ought to have done, but which we did not do. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham did not suppose that we ought to have carried out another South African War—hon. Gentlemen have carefully avoided committing themselves to that opinion. Their statements of opinion upon this point have been rather remarkable. Well, I sympathize, to a great extent, with the feelings of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Forster), and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland). I know—I do not disguise it for a moment—that there is much that is very painful to look back upon in the circumstances which have occurred; but, at the same time, we must be prepared to deal with those circumstances, not according to the impressions we may derive by a partial inspection of one portion of them, but from an examination of the whole case,

    1715
    and endeavour to estimate our case in the light of reason and possibility, recollecting that we are the stewards of the treasure, lives, and interests of the people of England, and that we have those to consider before we indulge the first impulses of our own mind in a desire to interfere for the purpose of gratifying that which I admit to be philanthropic instincts. My right hon. Friend said, in one portion of his speech, that the cost, after all, would not have been very heavy. Now, Sir, it was not the cost—and I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will give me credit for sincerity when I say this—that weighed upon our minds. Had we thought it to be a case in which a certain amount of good—and I admit that the settlement of Bechuanaland would have done great good—could have been obtained by an expenditure of a certain amount of money, neither the Executive Government, nor the House, nor the people of England, would have hesitated for a moment. It was no such thing. It was not primarily a question of money, but a question of blood. It was not only a question of blood; it was a question of dangers in South Africa lying in the rear of all those signs, and sometimes that appeared on the surface, of danger in South Africa, of stirring up animosities that would have pervaded the whole of the European communities, and the end of which it would have been difficult to foresee. With regard to the supposed complicity of the Transvaal Government with the freebooters, it is the duty of everyone holding Office to speak with reserve on such a subject; but I do not hesitate to say that it is very natural to suppose, in the absence of the most positive proof to the contrary, that there was considerable sympathy existing between the Transvaal Government and the freebooters. If that be so, it is that very circumstance that makes the whole question so formidable, for do not suppose that the sympathy was confined to the Transvaal Government. The same feeling went into the Orange Free State. ["No, no!"] But we have some evidence of expressions of sympathy made to caravans of travellers passing through the Orange Free State; and I do not hesitate to say that it is a sympathy of race, and would not have even been confined to the Transvaal and
    1716
    Orange Free State, but would more or less have pervaded the whole of South Africa. Those are great responsibilities, and I must observe that I am not ashamed to say, under these circumstances, that some effort ought to be made, if need were, to provide for any necessities of those persons who have suffered very severely on account of their attachment to us by some means other than making war. The hon. Baronet, let me assure him, is entirely mistaken in one reference he made to the former debate. He stated that the contention of the Government on a former occasion was that we were under no obligations to these Chiefs. That language was never used by my hon. Friend near me, or by myself, or anyone who spoke on the part of the Government. We do not deny that there were obligations towards these Chiefs; but what we said was that those obligations were of a character which could not be considered in a manner so obsolete, and so isolated from the view of other circumstances, as to cause us to look at them and nothing else. They were obligations which were qualified by our obligations, which in turn were qualified by the amount of sacrifices we were to ask from the people of England by the practicability or impracticability of the objects, and by the most serious doubt we entertained as to whether, if we intervened by force, as we were invited to intervene, we should not be doing more harm than good. We contended that the case was a case of tribal war, and that the freebooters were taking the part of one portion of the Tribes, and my hon. Friend suggested that nothing would be so desirable as union among the Chiefs themselves. Months have elapsed, and undoubtedly, without contesting at all the weight of the authority of the hon. Baronet, and my right hon. Friend and others, we do believe, in our own minds, that we are in a better position, and not a worse one, than we should have been if we had intervened by force four or six months ago.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: The people have lost part of their land.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend speaks as though he had been there to-day. Are we not told that Mankoroane is marching with 2,000 men against Stellaland? That is the intelligence we have received. I venture to

    1717
    say there is much weight in the statement of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland) says that if we had interfered with a force of 500 policemen, five or six months ago, that interference would at once have tended to drive the freebooters into unity. The temper of the debate, however, has been such as to show that the chief anxiety of the House is in reference to what has to come. Of course, under existing circumstances, all I can say is, that we ought not to approach the question under the influence of any motives or ideas that ought to bias us in endeavouring to arrive at any partial judgment. Her Majesty's Government have certainly no vanity of authorship or affection of parentage in respect of the Convention. [Ironical cheers.] Those ironical cheers will not lead me to deviate from the path I ought to take in the matter, nor will they lead me into a statement of the reasons which led us to believe that the Convention was the best expedient remaining to us in a very difficult position. We do not claim for the Convention a complete and palpable success. The question will be, in what sense and to what extent the representations of the Transvaal Government respecting its modification ought to be entertained? It would not be expedient that I should proceed to indicate any leaning in any particular direction; but this I will say—we are fully sensible of our responsibility to Parliament; and we have no idea, and no desire, to carry into effect any views of our own irrespective of Parliamentary control. We will endeavour so to proceed as to commit as little as possible those on whose behalf we act, and who are entitled to represent in a special manner the sentiments of the people of England. I have the strongest conviction that it is an abuse of power on the part of the Executive Government, although they are obliged to claim for themselves, by high considerations of policy, the right and privilege of making Treaties—it is a gross abuse of their power if they interpolate their own peculiar views and fancies in the formation of those Treaties, if they do not endeavour to frame them according to the real demands and the justice of the case, and with a just and full regard also to the sentiments entertained
    1718
    by the people and by Parliament. The question does not admit of my saying much more; but there is one appeal, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), which I do not hesitate for a moment to meet and accept. My right hon. Friend says that in cancelling the Convention we should not cancel our engagements with the Natives; that the Convention is a written document; and that the abolition of that document would not at once reduce to a nullity all those relations which had prevailed between us and that country. We cannot undertake to set aside prudential considerations in anything we may do or decide; but I fully admit, in answer to my right hon. Friend, that we are bound, in good faith, to do what we can with regard to the future destiny of those Native Tribes who themselves have qualities which make them as races very full of interest, and with respect to whom our special relations have, undoubtedly, imposed upon us some degree of peculiar responsibility. I have to thank hon. Gentlemen generally for the way in which this question has been discussed; and I hope I have said nothing which would tend in any degree to suggest that I am unaware of the considerable responsibility under which we stand, or that I am too confident as to our being in possession of any special secret by which we might solve at once the difficult and complicated problem which has now for more than a generation perplexed our statesmen.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question bearing upon the remarks he has just addressed to the Committee. I understand him to say that Her Majesty's Government have no desire to carry into effect any views of their own, irrespective of Parliamentary control. Are we to understand that if any modifications of the Convention are proposed by the Representatives of the Transvaal Government no final action will be taken until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The opinion that I expressed was an opinion accompanied by qualifications. All I meant was that we should go as far as we could towards reserving the control and opportunity of interference on the part of Parliament;

    1719
    but I know not what political necessities may arise, and, therefore, I cannot give any pledge that we will take no steps before Parliament has been consulted.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he agreed with the Prime Minister that this was one of the most difficult problems Parliament had had to consider for many years. He could not understand how they could avoid the carrying out of the Convention. They must maintain it or abandon it; and if the Natives were not to be altogether left to their fate, he apprehended that they must carry out the Convention. The Prime Minister had not said he had any desire to get rid of the Convention; but what he had said was that there were immense difficulties in the way of carrying it out. He (Mr. W. Fowler) thought that what they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman must convince them of that fact. At the same time, he (Mr. W. Fowler) had great difficulty in understanding how they could possibly abandon the Convention consistently with their honour as a nation. They had deliberately entered into the Convention; and the Prime Minister assured them two years ago, that one of its great objects was to protect the Natives within and without the Frontier. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in deliberate and clear terms, and many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would never have voted with the Government unless they had thought the Convention would have been a real protection to the Natives, both within and without the Frontier. Now, they were told that the Convention was of no use. If the Convention was really and truly binding upon them it ought to be carried out. If it was of no consequence, and could not be carried out, they must throw it over, and admit that they had made a blunder. But, surely, those who made the Convention must have seen the possibility of defeat arising. It was distinctly laid down in the Convention that certain things were to be done by the Boers and certain things by the British Resident. For instance, the Boers were on no account to make any contract with Natives outside the Frontier; everything was to be done through the Resident. But the Boers were making contracts with the Natives outside the Frontier in defiance of the Convention. They had been making Treaty-arrange-
    1720
    ments about land, and they boldly told us that they had made such arrangements with the Natives, although they had entered into a distinct agreement with us that they would do nothing of the kind. He was particularly struck with the despatch of the 26th of May from Sir Hercules Robinson. That despatch had been referred to in the course of the debate. It was written in London after Sir Hercules Robinson's arrival here, and, it was to be supposed, after he had most carefully considered the question as a whole. He (Mr. W. Fowler) would like to point out to the Committee that Sir Hercules Robinson, on page 71 of the Blue Book, gave the deliberate conclusions he had arrived at after he returned from Africa. Sir Hercules Robinson said there were yet four courses open to the Government. The first was to clear the freebooters out of the territories belonging to Mankoroane and Montsioa by force. That, he said, Her Majesty's Government had given up. He did not say he approved or disapproved of this course; but merely said it could not be adopted without considerable expense. The next course, Sir Hercules Robinson said, would be—
    "To cancel the Convention of Pretoria, reverting to the provisions of the Sand River Convention."
    Sir Hercules Robinson continued—
    "This course, if adopted, would dispose of the present application of the Transvaal Government to be allowed to intervene on the South-West Border, as if the Convention of Pretoria were abrogated the Transvaal Government would be free, should they see fit to extend their Border to the Atlantic, which was claimed some years ago in a Proclamation by President Pretorius as the Western boundary of the Republic."
    The third course was—
    "To adhere to the present Convention line, refusing to acquiesce in any extension of the Frontier, whilst abstaining from active intervention for enforcing it. The result of this course would be either that the freebooters will succeed in establishing the independent Republics, which they have proclaimed, and named Stella-land and Goshenland, or the Transvaal Government will persist in annexing the territory conquered by the freebooters without the permission of Her Majesty's Government."
    That would be a most extraordinary result, which he (Mr. W. Fowler) thought would hardly be satisfactory to the House. The fourth course was—
    "To amend the Convention line, acquiescing in the annexation of the territories of the

    1721
    Native Chiefs Montsioa and Mankoroane to the Transvaal State. This is the course urged by the Transvaal Government in their application now under consideration."
    Sir Hercules Robinson then went on to say—
    "Of these four courses, I think the last is the most undesirable, for the reasons which I explained in paragraphs 9 and 15 of my despatch of the 22nd of January last."
    He (Mr. W. Fowler) attached great importance to the words of Sir Hercules Robinson. Sir Hercules Robinson told them that to accede to the application which had been continually made by the Boer Government, to give up these lands which they now claimed, belonging to Mankoroane and Montsioa, would be the worst course of all to adopt; and he (Mr. W. Fowler) thought the House should insist that the Convention should not be thrown away in that sense. It seemed absurd that they should make elaborate arrangements, and then turn round and say it was impossible they could be carried out. After entering into this deliberate agreement, it did seem to him the strangest argument to say, within two years of the conclusion of the Convention, that it was an impossibility to carry it out. On reading through the Blue Book he observed a most marked change in the tone of the Correspondence of the Transvaal Government within the last month or two. Their last despatch was couched in very different terms to that about which he had heard Lord Kimberley in the other House use such strong language. It seemed to him that we were beset with immense difficulties; but the Prime Minister himself said that we were to meet difficulties. We had, no doubt, before us the danger of war; but he could not help thinking that if the Boer Government once understood that the English Government were determined to carry out this Convention, and that it was not a question of their being squeezed this way or the other, not merely should we have civility in despatches, but something like a reasonable agreement would be come to. The Committee had been told several times that this was a quarrel with which they had no business; and the question had been asked, why should they interfere in the quarrels between the Native States and the Boers? He admitted that there was a great deal to
    1722
    be said in favour of that view, which was very popular out-of-doors. None of them wanted to be dragged into another South African War; but he thought that this argument came rather too late. It would have been very true if it had been said, at the outset, that they had no business at all in South Africa; but now they could not say they had no business there. They had great responsibilities in South Africa, and they were bound to respect those responsibilities. Former generations had handed down those responsibilities to them, and they had to do the best they could to carry them out. There had been one argument used in the course of these discussions which he hoped they would not hear again. He referred to the argument that some sort of compensation ought to be given to the Natives. They had been told that the Natives should be compensated—that was to say, that land should be given to the freebooters, who had taken the land improperly from the Natives. In other words, it was suggested that they should pay money and give land up to people who had no right to it. Such a proposition could not be seriously entertained by the House of Commons. If they looked at the Blue Book, they would find that there was even a still more preposterous suggestion made, and that was that money should be given to the Chiefs, and no notice should be taken of the people. As a matter of fact, the land belonged to the Tribe and not to the Chief alone, and to give money to the Chief alone would be a most monstrous and outrageous thing. He could not help thinking that there was one danger which had not been much alluded to on this occasion. It was said there was a danger of arousing animosity between one race and another in South Africa; that there was a great danger that they might create a still greater feud between the English and Dutch races in South Africa. He, however, thought there was a still greater danger if the English ceased to be respected in South Africa. They had to take a course worthy of a great people, having great responsibilities, and not being afraid of those responsibilities, and they had to act with a real and genuine desire to do their duty on all sides. They could not ignore the Dutch, and they could not ignore the Natives. Surely it was not

    1723
    for those who were descended from the great anti-slavery advocates to say they did not care what happened to the Black man, and that they would rather suffer any indignity as long as they escaped war. That was the sort of argument he heard in the Clubs, and even in the Lobbies of the House of Commons; but hon. Members ought not to give way to any such feeling. There was no man in that House who had a greater detestation of war than he had; and he would be the last man in the world to say a word which he thought would have the effect of encouraging war. He believed, however, that if they acted in a careless and indifferent manner, only bearing in mind their own selfish needs, it might lead to disputes and to very serious wars hereafter. He had intended at one time to have gone into several other points in connection with this matter; but he would not trouble the Committee any further, considering the long discussion they had already had. He simply wished to intimate his deep sense of the difficulties of the position, and his desire that they should take a very large, temperate, and moderate view of it; that they should not lose sight of the rights either of the White or of the Black man; but should endeavour to carry out a Convention which they had deliberately entered into, and which ought not to he deliberately broken either by one side or the other, and endeavour to carry it out with the utmost consideration and regard for the feelings and rights of all parties concerned.
    MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated that the principal argument of those who opposed the active protection of the Natives in Bechuanaland and the Transvaal was the danger that they should be involved in greater difficulties, and possibly in extensive wars with the Dutch population. The hon. Gentleman spoke of that argument as being used in the Clubs, and whispered in the Lobbies of the House of Commons. He might have said that it was the principal argument which the Prime Minister of England had first put forward. The Prime Minister had denied, with great force and impressiveness, that any question of cost had entered into the consideration of the Government in refusing protection to the Natives of Bechuanaland; but he admitted a reason for the
    1724
    inactivity of the Government which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) ventured to say was worse than the reason of parsimony. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the reason why they had not protected their friends and allies was that they wore afraid to do so. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen dissented; but what other construction could be placed on the statement of the Prime Minister? So long as these slave-driving, perfidious, and canting Boers of the Transvaal were elevated into heroes by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), did hon. Members think they would hesitate to press exactly what they pleased on a Government, which not only showed itself by its actions to be afraid of them, but confessed itself afraid? The Prime Minister stated that this question must be judged from a regard of the general circumstances of the case. What were the general circumstances of the case? Here was a Convention which the Government of England made not two years ago, on the faith of which they induced the House of Commons to put up with the greatest disgrace and humiliation that had over been inflicted on this country since the Dutch ships sailed up the Thames in the time of Charles II. The Government promised that this Convention should be observed; but it had been broken, not in one or two main points, but in every single clause and item, and broken with the utmost degree of effrontery. The Convention was to protect British subjects in the Transvaal. How many loyal British subjects had remained there? British subjects had been chased out of the country, and their property had been confiscated. Their lives had been made miserable. They dared not remain, and the Government dared not send out a Commissioner to inquire into the state of affairs. What was the secret of the change of front—the extraordinary change of front—which the Government made not long ago with regard to the despatch of a Commissioner to the Transvaal? Within a fortnight of their statement that they intended to send out a Special Commissioner to inquire into their relations with the Transvaal, they came down to the House and stated that they were going to receive a Commissioner—that was to say, they were going to allow two or three

    1725
    more of the men who had proved themselves to possess no faith or honour to come over and make what representations they liked to Her Majesty's Government, and purposely to deceive them. There never was a more humiliating confession than that the Government were going to receive a Commissioner, and that they were to abrogate that Convention, on the faith of which Parliament accepted the Transvaal surrender. The Under Secretary of State had told the Committee that the Government knew all along that the Boers were not satisfied with the Convention, and meant to break it—that was to say, the Government signed the Convention, and brought it down to the House, knowing all the while that it would not be observed in the least. He doubted if such a confession had ever before been made on behalf of Ministers in that House. The Prime Minister told them that Mapoch was a rebel. They might have understood that statement in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham; but for the Prime Minister to say that Mapoch, who had never submitted to British rule, was a rebel, because he declined to pay taxes, was indeed extraordinary. But who else refused to pay taxes? Why, the Transvaal Government bound itself by solemn pledges to pay us £100,000 with interest; but not one farthing of that money had been paid. Were they rebels; would Her Majesty's Government judge them by the same criterion as they applied to this unfortunate savage, who was willing to go to our rescue, and who had been indentured by the Boers? Well, the Under Secretary had read an extraordinary telegram to the Committee, to the effect that Mapoch had actually mustered 2,000 men, and was marching against the freebooters. Every Member in the House was impressed by that statement; and it was not until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) asked the date of the telegram that the Committee became aware that it was nearly a month old—the date being the 18th of July. There had been many telegrams received by Her Majesty's Government since that time; but no mention had ever been made of this. He ventured to say that if there was the smallest amount of truth in that despatch it would soon be found that the Boers would send an overwhelming
    1726
    force against the Bechuanas and destroy them. The Prime Minister had again had recourse to his argument of blood-guiltiness; but did the blood of these unfortunate Bechuanas, murdered in thousands, count for nothing? He shared the opinion of a great many well-informed Gentlemen in that House, and the opinion of Sir Hercules Robinson, that if a little firmness had been shown by Her Majesty's Government Mankoroane would have been saved. The Prime Minister most unjustly threw the blame on the officials in South Africa, and a more unworthy act it was difficult to conceive. He had been astonished to hear the challenge thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under Secretary with regard to the attitude of the Natives inside the Transvaal. The facts were these. When the Convention was being made, Her Majesty's Commissioners in South Africa were met by deputations from all the Chiefs in the Transvaal, who represented 800,000 Natives; and these, with the strongest and most unanimous voice, complained of the treatment experienced from the Boers. They said as they had been treated in the past so they would be treated in the future, and they gave the strongest evidence of their loyalty to us. Their words were—
    "We should like to have the man pointed out from amongst us who objects to the rule of the Queen. We were the owners of this country; we were here when the Boers came, and who, without asking leave, settled down in the country. … The English Government then came, and we have had four years of rest and of peaceful and just rule."
    They went on to say that the Boers pierced their noses and made them slaves. The same language had been made use of over and over again; and yet the President of the Board of Trade, not long ago, in that House, said that the Natives were under an obligation to the Boers for making the Transvaal habitable for them. But the contrary had been proved many times in that House; the treatment of the Natives by the Boers had been atrocious. The Convention of Pretoria had been violated at every single point; the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal had not been protected by the Transvaal Government; and the Natives around it had been despoiled and massacred by thousands; the Article of Suzerainty had been broken; and, finally, the question of payment of

    1727
    debt had been completely put on one side. They had not heard a single word of the Vote of Censure passed by the Transvaal Government on the Government of Her Majesty. The Committee would have liked to hear something about that, and also about the future; but, as nothing had been stated, he ventured to say there was no real undertaking as to the future, either with regard to the Zulus or any of the Natives of the Transvaal. The longer the policy of the Government was persisted in the more serious would be the difficulty and the cost, he would not say of sustaining the honour of the country, for the Government had thrown that aside long ago, but of protecting the lives of the loyal Natives at the Cape.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, to which the Committee had listened, rendered any further defence of the Government policy in South Africa unnecessary. In all the attacks upon that policy not a single suggestion had been made of the course which would have been taken by the Opposition in the circumstances. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse) had addressed the Committee with extreme clearness, grace, and knowledge of the subject; and that hon. Gentleman had proved that almost every course was impossible. He had hoped that his hon. Friend, with his great knowledge of this matter, would have indicated some way out of the difficulty; but he had entirely failed to do so. Although no charge had been proved against the Government, they had shown that they would have been in a most undignified and unworthy position in trying to work a Convention which was not to be worked. He said they must, once for all, make up their minds as to the course to be adopted in future; in other words, they must either enforce the Convention or abandon it. It seemed to him impossible that they should enforce the obligation they had incurred unless they took possession of and administered the Native territory. The Convention was originally that they should take over from the Transvaal Government the purely Native territory; but they had departed from the Convention, and said—"We will make a Treaty to protect from injustice the Natives under the dominion of the Boers." Now, everything showed
    1728
    that that was almost impossible. Therefore, his argument was that they must either undertake the protection of these Natives or abandon all responsibility for it. They were not beund to protect Natives all over the world; and in South Africa, as elsewhere, they must endeavour to draw the line somewhere beyond which their responsibility should not extend; and his own opinion was that in the present case the line should be drawn on this side of the Transvaal. It seemed to him that they had given nothing in the nature of a distinct pledge to the Chiefs who were now in trouble. He did not understand, in other cases, the use of the word "rebel." Take the case of the Chief Mapoch. It was shown that he had consistently maintained an independent position; that he had refused to pay tribute to the Transvaal Government and to the British Government. In what sense, then, was he a rebel against either Government? It seemed to him that he had not been a rebel against the Boers, and also that he had no claim on the British Government, because he had never submitted to it. He thought they ought to recede from the Convention into which they had entered in a weak and unfortunate moment. He was not one of those who wished to withdraw from their position of responsibility in respect of pledges actually given in South Africa. There were many people there within the British boundaries to whom they were pledged. He was very glad that they had undertaken to fulfil those pledges with regard to the people, and he believed there were other States for whom they should undertake that duty; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking it a stroke of good fortune that the career of Cetewayo had been so speedily brought to an end. He would conclude by expressing a hope that they should establish the British Dominion within an intelligible boundary line, and that they should not undertake to protect the whole of South Africa and her people at an enormous expense.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had told the Committee that all the attacks made upon the Government from that side of the House had failed; but he would remind hon. Members that the Government, who were the authors of the Convention of Pretoria,

    1729
    came down to the House and said they had made a Convention which in a satisfactory manner protected the interest of the Natives. That Convention had the effect of handing over 750,000 Natives to the tender mercy of 37,000 Boers, who were perfectly well known to be the most atrocious slaveowners in the world, and with respect to whom it had been stated two years ago, by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that they had been known to put a number of Native children to death by burning them alive. These were the people to whom Her Majesty's Government had handed over the unfortunate Natives; and the result of that policy had been clearly shown in the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). If the Government had advanced at the proper time, they would have incurred some loss of life; but they would have restored peace and order in the country, and the Committee would not have had before them the harrowing details to which they had listened that evening. He had expressed his deep sorrow that Her Majesty's Government should have entered into this ill-starred and most unfortunate Convention of Pretoria, which had been fraught with the greatest human miseries that any act in the history of the world had produced. He urged on Her Majesty's Government to remedy the mischief caused by the Treaty of Pretoria; and he hoped that when the Transvaal deputation made its appearance in Downing Street they would be received in a firm spirit by Her Majesty's Government, and that they would find they were dealing with men who were determined to do all that lay in their power to promote the interest of humanity.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYmoved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,200, the salary and expenses of the Resident with Cetewayo in Zululand. He was well aware that the Office in question had already been swept away by the interposition of a far different authority to that of the Vote of a Committee of the House; but however much circumstances might have
    1730
    changed in the last few days as a result of the policy of the Government, that change had not affected the question of the wisdom or justice of that policy in the first instance—rather it had added a burning point to the charge to be brought against the Government. Last year, on the debate on his hon. and learned Friend's (Mr. Gorst's) Motion for the restoration of Cetewayo, the Prime Minister stated that the Government could not listen to the suggestion until they had obtained the best information in their power as to what the effect of the restoration would be. The right hon. Gentleman used the following words:—
    "But supposing that, instead of an unanimous reception of Cetewayo, there should be a serious division of opinion, is it right for us, until we have taken every step in our power to obtain the best information and the best advice, to send Cetewayo into the country, with the moral certainty we possess that he would be a power, and that if he were not the cause of pacification he would be a very serious cause of disturbance and bloodshed."—(3 Hansard, [268] 771.)
    Those remarks induced him (Mr. Guy Dawnay) to forego his intention of addressing the House on the subject; but he had bitterly repented his decision ever since. The Government acted strictly in accordance with the declaration of the Prime Minister. They got the best information that was to be got; but they deliberately acted contrary to it, and upon their heads would be charged all the bloodshed which had taken place during the five months preceding and culminating in the death of Cetewayo. Ever since the adoption of the unfortunate policy which led to the restoration of Cetewayo he had done his best to obtain an opportunity for discussing it. He had not thought himself justified in availing himself of the facilities afforded under the New Rules of Procedure, because he held somewhat different opinions as to the propriety of such a course to those held by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings); and owing to the unfortunate delay in the issuing of the Papers, which should have been issued at the beginning of the Session, he was precluded from raising the question on the Address to the Speech from the Throne. The Government plea in that Speech for the restoration of Cetewayo was that it would "lead to the preservation of peace and

    1731
    order, and bring about a stable Government in Zululand." But instead of peace and order they had to look back upon a five months' history of bloodshed and violence in the land, wasting and destruction within its borders; while in place of a stable Government they had now to picture to themselves the dead body of the Zulu King, with a Zulu's assegai driven through his heart. He asserted that his condemnation of the Government did not depend upon the mere easy after-wisdom that followed in the wake of history; but that all information, all experience, and all common sense pointed conclusively and infallibly to the events he had referred to, as the natural and inevitable consequence of the policy he would condemn. He would only refer to the Zulu War so far as to remind the Committee that as the outcome of a campaign involving a most lamentable loss of life on both sides, and a very considerable expenditure of public money, they did obtain a settlement of the Zulu Question, which received the assent of all best qualified to give an opinion in the essential point of the removal and deposition of the Zulu King, who was at once the Representative of the warlike spirit of the nation and the embodiment of the bloodthirsty traditions of his race. But the present Government had gone out of their way to re-import that element of danger, and on what grounds? Not in deference to any general desire among the Zulus, either Chiefs or people; in direct opposition to the expressed wishes of our Colonists, against the wishes of those who wore entitled to have the utmost possible deference paid to their wishes, and in the teeth of the opinions of Sir Henry Bulwer. It was merely from a desire to complete in South Africa, as in India, Ireland, and elsewhere, the reversal of the policy of the late Government, and in deference to what was the mistaken sentiment of a false philanthropy amongst a small section in this country, and to the agitation which was carried on in Natal with the effect, if not the object, of fostering discontent among the Zulus, thereby discrediting the former settlement in the Zulu country and rendering its government impossible. With the permission of the Committee he would read one or two extracts in confirmation of this view. Sir Evelyn Wood said—
    1732
    "Every Zulu whom I met alone in my ride through Zululand told me, in the course of conversation, that the Zulus would not willingly go back to the old system which obtained under Cetewayo, preferring the present system. I gathered that the people in those districts that have been undisturbed greatly prefer the present state of things; but that all are earnestly desirous of being more directly under the British Government."
    And, again, Sir Henry Bulwer, in his Report, stated that—
    "I believe that not merely the majority of the appointed Chiefs are individually opposed to the restoration of Cetewayo, but that great numbers of the Zulu people have no wish to return under this rule, and would regard any obligation to do so as one of the greatest misfortunes that could befall them, and that many would be compelled to leave the country."
    Did the Committee realize what was the state of Zululand under Cetewayo? In his own experience he had twice in one year, during the short time that he had spent in the inhabited districts of the country, come across companies of soldiers on their way to wreak the vengeance or to deal out the barbaric parody of justice of the King on some unfortunate and unsuspecting kraal. The soldiers would surround the kraal at night; at the first dawn of day the work of destruction would commence, and the sun would rise on the corpses of men, women, and children slain in an indiscriminate massacre, where it had set on a happy and prosperous village. Was it to be wondered at that the first question of so many Zulus at the installation to Sir Theophilus Shepstone was—"Will the King be allowed to send out killing parties, and to act, generally, as he did before?" When Sir Henry Bulwer complained of the slaughters which were committed, Cetewayo said—
    "I do kill, and I mean to kill, and I do not consider I have done anything in the way of killing. I have not yet begun. It is the custom of our nation, and I shall not depart from it."
    What was it but such facts as these that peopled Natal with its thousands of Zulu refugees? The best comment on the difference of the state of the country under Cetewayo, and under Lord Wolseley's settlement was, that instead of the thousands of flying Zulus, Zulus escaping for their lives, that each year of Cetewayo's reign witnessed, the year 1881 saw 1,643 Zulus re-immigrating from Natal to Zululand. There was an expression which occurred more than once

    1733
    in the Blue Books, which contained in a few words a whole volume of eloquence. The Zulus said that in Cetewayo's absence "they could sleep with both eyes closed, and the barking of dogs no longer disturbed them." A charge of "Killing" had been brought by a Correspondent of The Daily News against some of the appointed Chiefs; but Sir Henry Bulwer had ascertained there was not the slightest truth in this charge, and the Correspondent in question was the same who, on so many occasions, had trusted to his imagination for his facts, or else had proved a perfect sponge, for the absorption and re-expression of the lying fabrications of others. In further proof of his assertion as to the real wishes of the Zulu people, he would refer the Committee to Sir Theophilus Shepstone's graphic account of his installation of Cetewayo; but he thought he had adduced overwhelming evidence to prove his views, and he would ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what evidence he proposed to bring forward in support of his case? He denied that he could bring any evidence, except that of what had been so wrongly called "the great Zulu deputation"—the deputation of a few discontented headmen and relations of Cetewayo, who, as the Blue Books showed, wanted, in reality, not Cetewayo's restoration, but territories for themselves. He would ask the Government upon what they had based their views of peace and contentment in South Africa? They had entirely failed in making either the people of Natal, or Cetewayo, or the Chiefs contented. As regarded the Chiefs, the policy of Her Majesty's Government involved a deliberate breach of solemn engagements; and this was the expressed opinion of Lord Wolseley and Sir Henry Bulwer. Lord Wolseley wrote on March 23, 1882, to the Colonial Office—
    "I wish to place on record my strong conviction that the return of Cetewayo to Zululand would be fraught with considerable danger to Natal, and would give rise to serious trouble in Zululand itself, while it would be in direct contravention of the guarantee I gave to all the 13 existing Chiefs of Zululand, that under no circumstances should Cetewayo be ever allowed to settle again in that country. Without that guarantee none of them would have accepted the position of Chief, with all its many responsibilities."
    But there was a still more weighty ex-
    1734
    pression of opinion—that of the Prime Minister himself, uttered last year in that House. The Prime Minister said—
    "Our obligations to the 13 Chiefs in actual or nominal possession of Zululand were not to be got rid of—at all events, without some definite evidence as to the unfaithfulness or the incapacity of those Chiefs. I admit that two cases have been quoted; but it would be absurd to say that those 13 men are to be condemned because two of them have proved unfaithful to their Government." — (3 Hansard, [268] 772–3.)
    What proofs of unfaithfulness or incapacity could be brought against Umbanawendhlela, against Hlubi, or against John Dunn? The Committee were entitled to demand some explanation of the deposition of John Dunn. It was 13 years since he first know him in South Africa; and he could, from years of acquaintanceship, bear testimony to his talents, his abilities, and his worth. He had won the golden opinion of all Europeans who had met him, and the regard of the Natives; and his name was mentioned with respect by both friend and foe in South-East Africa. He had proved himself a most loyal and useful subject of his Queen; a better friend to the Natives amongst whom he had cast his lot than any member of the Aborigines Protection Society; and a better Christian, in all the most essential principles of Christianity, than many that had professed it far more, and practised it far less. He had been accused of treachery to Cetewayo; but only by those who were totally ignorant of his previous history, and of the terms on which he held his Chieftainship. He had done all he could to prevent the Zulu War, and, when it broke out, he crossed, by Lord Chelmsford's orders, into Natal, and there waited quietly for the war to terminate —till that event happened which changed the whole complexion of the struggle, till a British and Colonial Force had been practically annihilated by the Zulus, while Natal was lying paralyzed by the disaster, momentarily expecting a rising of her own Native Tribes as a consequence of any further reverses, while a British Force was away in Zululand, hemmed in by the Zulus. Years ago John Dunn had told Cetewayo that if any hostilities broke out between Zululand and Natal, he would be found in the ranks of the King's enemies; and Cetewayo replied—

    1735
    "You are a White man; I am a Black man. If White men fight Black men, for whom should you fight but for those of your own colour?"
    Of his services in the war it was needless to speak; of the estimation he was held in by the Zulus it was enough to say that a common demand of Zulu Envoys was—"Will John Dunn give us his word?" He could not himself understand how anyone who appreciated the effect of our first reverse on the Native mind, and the extent of the consequent panic in Natal, could blame John Dunn for refusing to remain a passive spectator of what then seemed the death-struggle between civilization and savagery, after the White man's dominion had received such a crushing blow as that inflicted by the Zulu assegai under the rocks at Isandhlwana. As regarded his administration of his territory, Sir Henry Bulwer had borne testimony to his good government; and it was owing to the confidence of the authorities that all the discontented Chiefs were quartered on his territory. The only single point upon which the Government could find the slightest fault with John Dunn was with regard to the Hut Tax. That was, however; one of the suggestions orginally made by him, and it was proposed to the assembled Chiefs by Sir Evelyn Wood, and unanimously agreed to by them; and it was utterly impossible for anyone placed in such a position to have done without some sort of tax of that kind, a fact sufficiently proved by the Government having adopted time same tax in the Reserved Territory, though they had increased it by 40 per cent. There could be no question or doubt of the improvements made by John Dunn in his territory; he at once set to work to make roads, he prohibited the import of spirits, he assisted the Missionaries, he gave ploughs and trained oxen to his headmen, he built six substantial stores for the creation and supply of that demand for necessaries and luxuries which was the best incentive to Native industry and exertion, and he had employed three White Administrators under himself at salaries of £200 each, and, in fact, had done all he could, and all that no one else would, to civilize the Natives and improve his territory. In that lay the best chance for the security of our Colony of Natal, and it did seem hard that the only recognition of all this was his
    1736
    deposition from that power he had exercised so ably—his removal from that post which he had filled so wisely and so well. He thought it was incumbent on the Government to furnish some proofs of the unfaithfulness or incapacity they had alleged against him. With regard to the restoration of Cetewayo, he had shown that it was not desired by the people of Zululand; it was a violation of the promises given to the Chiefs, and it was only due to the agitation of a few discontented relatives of Cetewayo, who thought their own claims to the exercise of a superior authority had been overlooked in the general apportionment of power—an agitation fomented and fanned to flame by unfortunate influences in Natal. It remained to view it from the point of view of the Colonists—that is, in regard to the effect that the restoration must have had on the Native Tribes around; and he asserted that, with every Native who knew that Cetewayo was restored, such a concession to agitation could only be looked upon as a further evidence of the wane of the power of the White man. He merely expressed the opinion of every White man in South Africa, when he said that the magic of the name of Englishman had lessened very considerably in Africa during the last two years, through the long, serious loss of prestige entailed on us by our policy in the Transvaal, through our defeat, and still more by our placid acceptance of defeat—by the disastrous, the humiliating termination of a war, entered upon with a light heart, and a careless confidence—conducted in a way which, if that war was unjust and was unnecessary, involved a heavy charge of bloodguiltiness on the Government which commenced it—a heavy responsibility for wasted blood and tarnished fame—and terminated after repeated reverses with a haste, and under circumstances, which they had been told, which some had been taught to consider manly and Christian, but which the misguided Kaffir persisted in considering as conduct craven and cowardly. Had our latest transactions in the Transvaal done aught to redeem our fame? Did the Government soothe themselves with the belief that, with regard to Montsioa and Mankoroane, these things had been done in a corner; that every Native, from the Kuysna to the Zambesi did no know that, not only had we been

    1737
    beaten in the miserable skirmishes that ended in the retrocession of the Transvaal, but that now the Natives who, as our allies, had assisted us in that war, had in their turn been plundered and despoiled, had lost lands and lives at the hands of the Boers, while the Suzerain power, to whom they looked for assistance, and to whom they made such touching appeals, had stood idly by, or only made its impotence more marked by helpless and unavailing remonstrances. And, finally, was Cetewayo's restoration necessary as an act of justice to himself? What was the claim of his family to the Throne; and how had that claim been won? It had been won by blood, and cemented by a succession of fratricides unparalleled in history. Chaka, the former King, first waded through slaughter to a Throne. He was killed by his brother Dingaan. The fratricide Dingaan was, in his turn, killed by his brother Panda, with the help of the Boers. No such Nemesis overtook the fratricide Panda in his own person; but his favourite son, Umbalazi, whom he had intended to succeed him, was attacked and killed by his brother, the late Cetewayo. And yet that was the Royal Family, and that the man whom the Government went out of their way to restore. From the first moment that Cetewayo's foot touched Zululand he began to break every single condition under which he had been restored, both with regard to the Reserved Territory, and to Usibepu, until, after the land had been turned into a perfect Pandemonium of savage civil war, he had fallen himself a victim to the fear and the dislike which the remembrance of his former tyranny had inspired—a tyranny which his absence had enabled his former subjects to realize. All experience and all history showed that, often in a civilized nation, certainly with the conquered Chief of a savage race, when once his former servile subjects have seen—
    "The desolator desolate, the victor overthrown, The arbiter of others' fate, a suppliant for his own."
    That then—
    "His spell upon the minds of men, breaks never to return again."
    In defeat and in captivity we had shorn the locks of the Zulu Samson; and we did but restore him to his country with sufficient strength left to pull down his
    1738
    country in ruins on himself. In bringing these charges against the Government, he was aware that such charges lost weight in coming from so young a Member, though he could say his hair had grown grey under an African sun. He asked—Would the Government deny that their policy involved a breach of faith to the Chiefs?—that faith which the Prime Minister owned had been pledged to them. Would they deny that they had acted directly contrary to the information by which the Prime Minister owned they should be guided? As regarded the future, the Government had now an opportunity of effecting a peaceful, lasting, and beneficent settlement of Zululand. All the difficulties which had been experienced might have been avoided if the Government from the first had accepted their responsibilities, and extended to the whole of Zululand that protection which they had given to the Reserved portion, as he had suggested last year. A Resident ought to be appointed to the whole of Zululand, whose power should be exactly the same as that possessed by the Resident in the Reserved Territory. The produce of a general Hut Tax should be assigned to him, for the expenses of government, and for the improvement of the country. Zululand would be self-supporting, and would be in no way a burden or expense to us. Such a settlement would be welcomed with joy and relief by every Zulu Chief, and by every Zulu man and woman. He thought that the services of John Dunn ought to be utilized in any settlement of the country. If any Chiefs should be unwilling to come under our protection some territory in the North might be allocated to them; but he believed that even Usibepu would prefer our Protectorate. He was confident that it was their duty, as a civilizing and Christian country, not to give up the power for good which had been given to them in that country. He looked upon their maintenance of their. hold there as a solemn duty; but he still would say, "Zululand for the Zulus." He did not want to see that country portioned out amongst White settlers, with a Native area growing each year smaller and more confined, like some Red Indian Reservation. If the Government would only, even at that eleventh hour, assert their paramount authority, and put an end to anarchy and bloodshed—if they

    1739
    would but listen to the repeated requests of the Zulus themselves that they should be brought under the protective rule of England, they would find a people—like the Israelites of old asking for a King —a people not only ready, but desirous to accept our control; and if they would accept that responsibility in a proper spirit, as a mission entailed upon them, as a superior race, as a conquering and a Christian nation, he believed not only that the present inhabitants of that country would learn to look back, without heartburnings or regret, to that July morning which first saw their King a fugitive, and his Army flying from the field, but that all the future generations of Zulus would learn to bless the day which gave up their land to the true mercy of the White man.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,225 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,808), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, and the Island of St. Helena."—(Mr. Guy Dawnay.)
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The misfortune of dealing with this question seems to be that those who approach it are divided into two factions. There are the advocates of John Dunn, who may be called the Dunnites, and the advocates of Cetewayo, who may be called the Cetewayo Party; and those who are for John Dunn think there is no good in the Cetewayo Party, and the Cetewayo Party think there is no good in the Dunnites. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is the Leader of the Dunn Party, and the Leader of the Party favouring Cetewayo may be said to be found in the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham strongly insisted upon the restoration of Cetewayo, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down offered no opposition.
    MR. GUY DAWNAY: In consequence of the direct appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I forewent my right to move the Motion I had down on the Paper.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. I am utterly unconscious of such an appeal.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: However, it is the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not here to oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham when he pressed on the Government the necessity of restoring Cetewayo. We at the Colonial Office are obliged to be made of sterner metal. We are not for John Dunn, and we are not for Cetewayo. We do not care for either. We have tried to take into consideration what is of far more importance than the welfare of John Dunn or the welfare of Cetewayo, and that is the welfare of Zululand. This is what has guided us, and not the interests of John Dunn or the interests of Cetewayo. The hon. Gentleman has talked to us as if the settlement that was inaugurated under the late Administration had been such a success that the only duty of the succeeding Administration was to leave it alone; and as if Her Majesty's Government, by a Quixotic conduct, and by their affection for Cetewayo, had caused disorder and disturbance where before there was peace and quiet. I would observe that the hon. Member very distinctly pointed in the course of his speech to annexation as the real solution of the Zulu difficulty. Well, Sir, I am not prepared to deny that at the time of the defeat of Cetewayo at Ulundi the great body of the Chiefs and Natives would have accepted our rule if we had chosen to assert it. But Her Majesty's late Government were not prepared to annex Zululand, and Zululand was not annexed. Instead of that, a system was invented by Sir Garnet Wolseley which was described in a Natal paper at the time as a system of establishing 12 Cetewayos where there had only been one before. How has that system prospered? What has been the result to Zululand of its establishment? It is absurd to suppose for a moment that during Cetewayo's three years' absence from Zululand the country was in a state of peace. As a matter of fact, there were many little wars between the Chiefs; and there was a great loss of life. There were disputes going on between Chiefs, and, in fact, there were constant disturbances. On this point I need only appeal to the authority of Sir Henry Bulwer, who was not a very ardent advocate of the restoration of Cetewayo. What does Sir Henry Bulwer say? In addressing the Legis-

    1741
    lative Assembly of Natal in 1882 he said—
    "I regret to say the accounts from the neighbouring Zulu country are unsatisfactory. The general condition existing in that country under the settlement is, in many respects, such as to make it desirable that matters should be considered with a view to remedy defects, and with a view to a more satisfactory and assured state of things."
    This is what Sir Henry Bulwer said in June, 1882. Again, in his despatch dated August, 1882, Sir Henry Bulwer said that—
    "Events have occurred in the Zulu country which not only have lent colour to the assertions against the appointed Chiefs, but have given an unfavourable impression of the working of the settlement."
    Further on he makes similar statements; but one quotation is quite sufficient for my purpose. What does the Transvaal Government say? They had no particular liking for Cetewayo; and, as far as I remember, they sent an official communication to Her Majesty's Government, through the Resident at Pretoria, dated October 24, 1881. In that communication it was stated that the Executive Council had passed a Resolution to the effect that the intelligence they had received showed that the condition of affairs in Zululand was so unsatisfactory that it would in future be a source of disturbance and continual danger to them and also to the residents on the Natal Border-line. It therefore appeared to them in the highest degree necessary, in the interests of the peace of the whole of South Africa, that the Government of Zululand should be placed on a satisfactory footing, and this could only be done by releasing the Zulu King, and restoring him to his rights. They added that Cetewayo would then be in a position to restore peace to the Kingdom, and to prevent the shedding of blood in such a barbarous manner as was then to be witnessed. Now, I do not quote these opinions to show that the Transvaal prophecy has turned out right. I do not pretend to say that; but I venture to say we had before us all these elements for our decision, and that we were not swayed solely, as the hon. Member stated, by the deputations which went to Sir Henry Bulwer. "Deputation" is a noun of multitude, and signifies many, and not much. I
    1742
    will allow that these deputations did not signify much; but, still, they were elements in the consideration of the question. But the chief element was this—Zululand was in a state of disturbance, and it was going from bad to worse. We had reason to believe that as long as Cetewayo remained in captivity there would he this agitation on the part of those who were at his back; and, above all, there was this great consideration, which Sir Henry Bulwer has dealt with so carefully in his despatch, and which, I think, will commend itself to hon. Members—there was this great fact—that the Zulu people, like all the Natives of such countries as Zululand, were accustomed to the existence of a paramount authority—that is to say, a power forming a Court of Appeal and the Sovereign power over the different Chiefs who came more immediately in contact with it — and this Sovereign power lay in the person of Cetewayo, their King. We took that paramount authority away, and we substituted nothing for it. If we had annexed the country, or established a Protectorate, we should have supplied that paramount authority; but in the plan adopted no substitute was found for it. It was perfectly evident that there would be no peace in Zululand until the paramount authority was re-established in some way or other. That there was a comparative amount of peace after the settlement of Sir Garnet Wolseley was due to the fact that the Zulus thought we had assumed that paramount authority; and it was only when they began to discover that the English Queen had not taken Cetewayo's place that disturbances broke out and matters went from bad to worse. I can put into the witness-box no less a personage than John Dunn himself, because there was a record in the Blue Books of about a year and a half ago of a letter from John Dunn to the Colonial Office, in which he says—
    "This settlement cannot possibly last, and the only solution I can suggest is to make me King of Zululand."
    Well, Sir, that of course, might have been a solution; but we thought that the more just solution was to re-establish Cetewayo. In taking into account all these points of expediency, we must not lose sight of the question of justice, and there was a question of justice involved. Cetewayo had been removed from

    1743
    his position, without his having given us any real cause for depriving him of power. Whether war was well-advised or ill-advised; whether it was expedient or inexpedient, I think it is universally acknowledged that, as far as Cetewayo himself was concerned, he had not attacked us, and probably would never have attacked us if we had not first attacked him. This being so, there was a consideration of justice to be brought into play; and I maintain that we were bound, if we could, to restore Cetewayo; and the only consideration that ought to have prevented that restoration could have been, first of all, if we had thought that by restoring him we should have exposed ourselves to attack, or that by restoring him we should have brought trouble and disturbance to Zululand, where before there was peace. We had no reason to believe that he would attack us before, and we had much less reason still to believe that he would attack us after the experience he had gone through. As to the question of bringing disturbance and trouble to a country where before there was peace, I have already said there was no peace. The outbreak, perhaps, was not very acute; but disturbance there was. There was certainly no peace to disturb. Our belief at the time was that, on the contrary, Cetewayo's return would bring peace; and I think we had good reason to believe that, under the conditions we imposed upon him, his return would have brought peace, had he adhered to those conditions. It is quite clear, however, that he did not accept the limitations of territory which he had bound himself to observe. Why he did not, it is beyond my power to say; but I think if Cetewayo had been left a little more to himself, and had not been counselled by seeming friends, whose counsel turned out eventually to be more fatal than that of enemies — if he had not been encouraged by friends to believe that he could regain his former possessions in full—ho might have been content with what had been allotted to him, and he might now have been alive and in possession of a great part of his former possessions. The Reserve that we kept back from Cetewayo is, in itself, a reply to the charge that we failed to keep our pledges. As far as John Dunn is concerned, there is no doubt that he has nothing to complain of. The territorial
    1744
    system was meant for the good of the people, and not for his personal gain; and if he had made any personal gain he would have been unwarranted in doing so. He was left in possession of his personal property and of his tribal followers; and all he is deprived of is his territorial jurisdiction, with all its duties, and labours, and its privileges. The same thing applies to all the Chiefs. With regard to Usibepu, it is all very well to find fault with us for his having been left in possession; but he could not have been removed except by an expeditionary force, and after a difficult fight. It would have been an odd way of restoring peace in Zululand to tell one-third to go and take two-thirds; and Usibepu is well placed in a corner of Zululand. If peace has not resulted from the return of Cetewayo, that has entirely arisen from his determination to appropriate territory, and obtain the mastery over the whole country. Usibepu's conduct is strictly defensible. The first attack was made upon him by Cetewayo, and the last onslaught made by Usibepu's forces upon Cetewayo was made in anticipation of a united expedition by Swazis and Cetewayo's forces, which in a few days were going to attack Usibepu in his own territory; and I may say, in reference to the Question, I think, of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition the other day to the Prime Minister, as to the number of men Cetewayo had at his disposal, we have official information that in the last fight between Usibepu and Cetewayo,Cetewayo's troops numbered 6,000, while Usibepu had only 2,000 men; so that Cetewayo had not been hampered by any numerical inferiority. The Committee may like to know what is our latest intelligence respecting Cetewayo. Our latest information is that there seems to be very little doubt that he was killed, although his body has not yet been found; but the Reserve has remained unattached, and is in a state of tranquillity. Mr. Osberne, our Resident in the Reserve, has been instructed to go temporarily over into Zululand proper, in order by his presence to try to bring about a pacification, and a settlement of this difficulty; but, at the same time, he has been instructed to explain to the Natives that he is not to take any action implying that we are going to assume the government of Zululand. Mr. Os-

    1745
    borne is an old friend of many of the Zulus; he understands their language and their character, and his influence has already acted very well in the promotion of peace. Usibepu did ask, some time ago, for an English Resident; but, as will be seen from the Blue Books, the Government thought it unnecessary to appoint such a Resident; on the contrary, they thought it would be likely to bring about complications in the matter. I do not understand the hon. Member intended to move the reduction of the salary of the Resident with Cetewayo. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Certainly.] I must say that the word "Resident" in this case is a mistake, because it implies a great deal more than the word "Resident" should do; for I must point out that from the earliest time of a Resident in Zululand proper—when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), through Sir Garnet Wolseley, appointed a Resident—it was clearly understood that he was merely to be an adviser, without any authority to interfere, and no doubt it is very seldom that you can get very much influence exercised by a Resident; but, however that may be, and whatever may be the future of Zululand, it would not be right to withdraw the Resident at present. Whether it may be possible at some future time to withdraw him I do not know; but at present I believe lie is exercising very useful influence.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think it is a great misfortune that my hon. Friend (Mr. Dawnay) has not had an opportunity of bringing his Motion under the notice of the House, and that we are forced to take this debate as a second Amendment upon this Vote in Committee. Not only would my hon. Friend's eloquence have had a greater effect in support of a Motion on which he would have divided the House, but we should have had a fuller discussion on a matter which has not been completely entered into by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman said something about the different views held by the partizans of John Dunn and of Cetewayo. No doubt it is true that they look at this matter from a different point of view; but I am quite sure there is one thing in which they will all agree, and that is that, in spite of the grandiloquent phrases in
    1746
    which the hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government had endeavoured to consult the interests of Zululand and this country, there has seldom been a more signal failure in the policy of a Government than has resulted from their action in the case now before us. What do we see? We see that the Government, from certain motives, some of which the hon. Gentleman has described, and which I shall touch upon shortly, made up their minds to restore Cetewayo to Zululand; but they could not make up their minds to restore Cetewayo to Zululand in the sense in which the restoration was desired by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), or by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), or by those who have taken up Cetewayo's cause in South Africa. I am not blaming them for the hesitation with which they approached this matter. I think they were wrong in restoring Cetewayo at all; but this, at any rate, is certain—that in attempting to carry out the policy which they took up, I believe not on account of justice or necessity, but because it was forced upon them by certain hon. Members below the Gangway, they did not satisfy those wbe had pressed it on their notice. On the other hand, in the course they pursued they neglected the advice of those who were best qualified to advise them, and whose advice they, as representing the Government of this country, were specially bound to take, and I will mention one name, that of Sir Henry Bulwer. Nothing could be more contrary to the advice of Sir Henry Bulwer than the course decided upon by the Government in the restoration of Cetewayo; because what they did was to force him, little by little, very much against his own inclination, to suggest to them some plan for the restoration of Cetewayo, and then to emasculate that plan by taking out the very part which he considered vital for its success. The hon. Gentleman has told us that, after all, the conditions with which the Government had to deal were by no means satisfactory—that, in a word, the settlement of Zululand, of which Sir Garnet Wolseley was the author, and which was sanctioned by the late Government, had failed. I should like, if the Committee will permit me, to occupy their time for a few minutes upon that point. I do not say

    1747
    that that settlement had a very complete success; but why? In the first place, I will venture to say, on behalf of Sir Garnet Wolseley and the late Government, that that settlement would never have been made on the basis on which it was made had it ever been supposed that the authority of this country over the Transvaal would be withdrawn. The whole basis of that settlement depended on the maintenance of Her Majesty's authority over the Transvaal, and on the influence exercised by the prestige of British power over the neighbouring regions. That influence was lost by the retrocession of the Transvaal, and especially by the manner in which the retrocession was effected; and it was obvious that some substitute for it must be found, if the Zulu settlement was to be maintained. Such a substitute was suggested to Her Majesty's Government; but they would not adopt it. If hon. Members care to turn to the Blue Books, which are now so much a matter of ancient history, they will find that at the time of the settlement by Sir Garnet Wolseley, in the very despatch in which I gave the sanction of the Government of the day to that settlement, I called the attention of Sir Garnet Wolseley to the question of Sub-Residents, and expressed my opinion that in the working out of that settlement it would probably be necessary to appoint Sub-Residents to assist the Residents with the intelligence they could obtain, and with their advice. It is strange that within a year of that time—September, 1880—Mr. Osberne, who was then Resident in Zululand, suggested the very same thing, and also suggested the imposition of a Hut Tax; and, later on, he expressed the opinion that the condition of affairs existing in September, 1881, would have been prevented by the adoption of the plan he had recommended in 1880. But these measures were not adopted. The matter was left to itself. Sir Evelyn Wood called the Zulu Chiefs together to consult as to the state of Zululand; and at the end of 1881 the very same proposal was again made, and Sir Evelyn Wood supported it. Her Majesty's Government declined again to consider the proposal. They declined to extend any kind of authority over Zululand, even to the extent of appointing Sub-Residents possessing some kind of magisterial power. What happened?
    1748
    There arose a very remarkable agitation, conducted by the representatives of Cetewayo's family in Zululand, but directly fomented by White men in Natal, and by the Aborigines' Protection Society in this country. It is to that agitation that the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government is really due. Lord Kimberley had telegraphed to Sir Henry Bulwer that the Government felt strongly the danger of prolonging uncertainty in Zululand, and the difficulty of justifying the continued detention of Cetewayo. That last sentence is the real key to the whole situation. Her Majesty's Government were pressed not merely by the deputations to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, but by inconvenient Questions and Notices of Motion from below the Gangway. Sir Henry Bulwer stated that the agitation had arisen from statements that the Government was about to restore Cetewayo. I need not say, as my hon. Friend has remarked, how much the public belief in statements of this kind must have been augmented by the feeling aroused throughout South Africa by the policy adopted by the Government with regard to the Transvaal. Sir Henry Bulwer distinctly attributed to this agitation, conducted and fomented as I have described, all the troubles in Zululand. Then the Under Secretary of State went on to say that another matter which pressed upon the Government was the suggestion of the Transvaal Government that Cetewayo should be restored. He admitted that the restoration had not had the effect which the Transvaal Government had expected; and I am sure nobody would be more ready to join in that admission than the Transvaal Government themselves, for I have noticed that their complaints as to the action of the Zulus on the Border, and the complaints of the Zulus as to the action of the Transvaal Government, have been increasing instead of diminishing since the restoration. Then the third point to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that touched upon by Sir Henry Bulwer. Sir Henry Bulwer dwelt with great ability and at considerable length on the absence of any paramount power in Zululand. But how did the Government propose to deal with that? Not at all in the manner he recommended. What was his recommendation? He

    1749
    said they might restore Cetewayo over a small portion of Zululand, which was willing to have him back, but that it was vital to the success of the scheme that in the remainder of the country which was not willing to have him restored they should institute another paramount authority, and that must be the authority of Her Majesty's Government. That recommendation, I must say, was treated with contempt by Lord Kimberley; and Cetewayo, in obedience to hon. Members below the Gangway, was restored to a considerable portion of Zululand, while the recommendation of Sir Henry Bulwer, who was on the spot and knew the circumstances, was absolutely ignored. Now, the Government are surprised that this settlement of theirs has had worse results than the former settlement. I say worse results. Just now the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) told the Committee that one of the reasons which prevented Her Majesty's Government from enforcing the provisions of the Transvaal Convention with reference to Bechuanaland was the thought of the blood that might be shed. I do not think Her Majesty's Government could have considered that matter much before they sent Cetewayo back; but if they did, they have been disappointed, for I will venture to say that all the blood that was shed in the Zulu War was little indeed when compared with the loss of life and misery which has occurred in Zululand since the restoration of Cetewayo. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies says it is all Cetewayo's fault, because he would not accept the limitation of his territory. This Blue Book clearly shows that when Cetewayo had an interview with Lord Kimberley, and was told generally how his territory, would be limited, and how he would have John Dunn for his neighbour, and the other conditions that would be required of him, he protested in the strongest way against the proposed limitations. Yet, in spite of his protest, he was sent back to Zululand; and it appears to have been expected by Her Majesty's Government not only that he would himself willingly observe these conditions to which he had objected, but also that, although he was sent back a man who had been defeated, and deprived of all authority over his people, he would be able to impose them upon his adherents without any force to assist
    1750
    him in carrying them into effect. All that I can say is, that of all the acts of Her Majesty's Government in connection with South Africa, I do not think there is one which will redound with so little credit to them as this restoration of Cetewayo. I cannot conceive any person to whom that restoration has been any benefit whatever; but this I must say—that it has been another exemplification of the entire incapacity of Her Majesty's Government to resist any agitation, however unreasonable, that could be raised against them, and to consider the fairest arguments in opposition to such agitation, even when put before them by those very men in whom they ought to have the highest confidence as thoroughly able to judge of the state of affairs in South Africa.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Baronet has shown his capacity to deal with a question of this kind in the spirit of a Party politician; and I do not think I have heard during the present Session a speech more imbued with that spirit than this speech. A large portion of that speech has been an unnecessary vindication of Sir Henry Bulwer. Why have we all this about Sir Henry Bulwer? No one attacks him; there was no complaint against him, and no responsibility thrown upon him; yet what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He accuses and attacks the Government because they did not accept certain proposals made by Sir Henry Bulwer as to the method of restoring Cetewayo. They did not accept these proposals because they disapproved of them, and because Sir Henry Bulwer's plan appeared to them to come too nearly to a plan for the annexation of Zululand. Did the right hon. Gentleman approve of these proposals?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Certainly, if Cetewayo was to be restored at all.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Then the right hon. Gentleman did not approve of the restoration? [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No.] Then why did he not say so at the time? The right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly wise after the event. Cetewayo's restoration was a failure. There is no doubt about that. He has paid the penalty of his fault. The right hon. Gentleman had no other advice to give at the time when the matter was fully debated in this House

    1751
    on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware of that? Has he reserved all his studies of this subject until he thought he had an opportunity of attacking the Government? Did he pay no attention to the subject of Zululand until that opportunity was given him? Is he unaware that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, in a speech of great ability—and not a Gentleman on this side of the House, and below the Gangway, but on the other side of the House—opened up the subject, and not by agitation, and not by means of the Society for the Protection of Aborigines, or anybody else, but by his own reason, showed what we were not prepared to contest, and what we were aware of, that the state of things in Zululand was very unsatisfactory; and the right hon. Gentleman, with all his Colonial wisdom, of which we have had such an abundant display to-night, had not a word to say on the subject, and allowed this fatal measure of restoration to go forward without a syllable of warning. Why was Cetewayo sent back? It seems to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman a thing totally impossible to conceive, that anybody should be actuated by the idea of doing justice. He says my hon. Friend was guilty of grandiloquence. Why? Because he said in the simplest language—the right hon. Gentleman is pretty grandiloquent himself—that we had endeavoured to study the interests of England and Zululand. Therefore, he is guilty of grandiloquence. Now, I will repeat the statement, though I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will accept it, with any credit, that a sense of justice did greatly and principally govern us with regard to Cetewayo. I thought the right hon. Gentleman had himself done the grossest injustice to Cetewayo. Our great desire was to repair what had been done; but the ruin that had been wrought in Zululand it was not possible for us entirely to repair. It is one thing to carry confusion and destruction into a country; but it is most difficult to gather together the broken fragments which are the monuments of the statesmanship of the right hon. Gentleman. These were the motives that led us to restore Cetewayo. Never did I receive any communication with greater pain, or an appeal of which
    1752
    I more felt the force, than the letter which Cetewayo addressed to me, pleading that he had done no wrong, and asking what was our justification for keeping him an exile from his home and his people. I had no answer to it. Had there been peace in that country, we should have been able to say it was our duty to make some reparation to him in some form; but if Zululand was happy, he must not ask us to restore him, or to wink at restoration, because the happiness of the country was the first thing to be secured. But the country was not happy. The right hon. Gentleman says it was, because the Transvaal had not been retained by us. If the Transvaal had been retained by us, in our judgment no part of South Africa would have been happy. That is our belief. So far from the state of Zululand being better, it would not have been better. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: No.) Surely the right hon. Gentleman said the retention of the Transvaal would have enabled the settlement which was tried in Zululand to work satisfactorily.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: What I said was, that the plan of Sir Garnet Wolseley's settlement was based on the idea of the retention of the Transvaal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The retention of the Transvaal, if, as we believed it would, it had led to general disturbance and confusion in South Africa, so far from improving the state of things in Zululand, would have done exactly the reverse. I therefore do humbly assert, whether the right hon. Gentleman believes it or not, that we were greatly pained by what we thought the injustice which had been done to Cetewayo. I am sorry to have been obliged to revive that subject. I should not have wished to refer to it for a moment; but the right hon. Gentleman, by the Party speech he has made, compels me to refer to it, and to point out to whom it is due that all these difficulties have arisen. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary has stated what I am afraid is true—that, under what influences I know not, though I very deeply regret them, Cetewayo was unwilling or unable to execute the conditions of the settlement provided; and, as my hon. Friend believes, though I will not say I have been able fully to examine that matter, he has suffered for that, and has probably paid

    1753
    the forfeit of his life. But here, again, comes in the right hon. Gentleman, and seems to imply that Cetewayo was under no obligation to fulfil these conditions. And, pray, Sir, why? Because, says the right hon. Gentleman, he protested against them. Why, he had subscribed, and willingly subscribed, to them, in the sense that he chose rather to accept restoration with those conditions than to forego restoration. His case was entirely analogous to the case of the Government of the Transvaal in reference to their Convention. They protested against the conditions of that Convention, but they chose rather to take it with the conditions than to have nothing; and nobody has been more forward than the right hon. Gentleman in holding them to that Convention, because, although they protested against it, they accepted it with their eyes open. Cetewayo did exactly the same thing. He accepted the conditions.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: With every intention not to fulfil them.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has such a perfect knowledge of the intentions of people, and of the interior of their minds, that I will not follow him into that. It is no answer to me, nor any defence of the plea brought up by the right hon. Gentleman, that Cetewayo was not bound to comply with those conditions, and that the blame of his not accepting them falls on the Government. Therefore, I can only say that of all the different kinds of wisdom there is none that is less profitable to mankind than wisdom after the facts; and I have never known a finer or more full-blown specimen of that kind of wisdom than that with which we have been favoured in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-night.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I should like to say, with reference to the personal attack of the right hon. Gentleman upon me for not having questioned the restoration of Cetewayo at the time when it was carried out, that it was quite impossible for me to do so. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) raised the question in the early part of last Session; but it was then raised incidentally by him on a day when I was not present, and discussion was absolutely deprecated by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Then Her Majesty's
    1754
    Government, being in communication with Sir Henry Bulwer on the subject, waited—I do not blame them for that —until the end of the Session; and about the 12th of August announced their intention to restore Cetewayo. Everybody knows that at such a time, within a very few days of the close of the Session, it is quite impossible to call any Government satisfactorily to account in this House.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONwished to say a word or two, principally because the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had made many allusions to those who, in former days, pressed for the restoration of Cetewayo to his own country. With regard to the present state of Zululand, and what had been going on there in the last few months, they had not got quite sufficient information to deal with what had taken place. He had listened to this debate very carefully, and he had had some difficulty in knowing exactly what the point of discussion had been; but, so far as he could understand, there was a desire on the part of the hon. Member who had brought this Motion forward, and those who supported him, to obtain some sort of censure upon the Government for the restoration of Cetewayo to his Kingdom. In his opinion, the only fault the Government had committed in that matter was that they were too late in what they did. If they had done that some months before all these difficulties might not have occurred. But another fault in their proceedings, if it was a fault, was that when they did the thing they did not do it thoroughly; and he thought the speeches from the other side showed that hon. Gentlemen opposite were in that position also. They who were attacked for having pressed the Government to restore Cetewayo might clear themselves by saying that, although they contended that Cetewayo had been badly treated and ought to be restored, they never intended that the restoration should be carried out as it was. Bishop Colenso, who was a great friend of Cetewayo and of the Zulus, advocated that Cetewayo should be sent back. He did not think it was quite clear—although, perhaps, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies might say it was—that Cetewayo was the aggressor in these proceedings. The Blue Books showed that our authorities kept telling Cetewayo,

    1755
    whatever he did; not to got into trouble, and not to contend with anybody; and Cetewayo refrained from attacking those who were continually attacking him. He did not press that, because he thought the whole thing was obscure; but he believed that something of that sort would be found to have been the case. At all events, whatever they thought of Cetewayo, they must all feel that this had been a very tragical and miserable affair, and that he, through a great part of his life, was very ill-used indeed; and he had been very glad to hear the Prime Minister make that able defence of Cetewayo to-night, and admit that great injustice had been done to him. The hon. Member for North Yorkshire (Mr. Dawnay) seemed to think this very much a question between John Dunn and Cetewayo. He himself was rather inclined to think that John Dunn was at the bettom of this last attack upon Cetewayo; because he saw a letter in The Observer of yesterday week, written in large letters, by someone who said he was a great friend of John Dunn, and knew all about South Africa. He was very much inclined to think that letter was written by the hon. Member, as the writer gave great credit to John Dunn for having been at the bottom of the whole affair, and as having been the man who attacked Cetewayo. He did not know John Dunn personally—he only knew him through the Blue Books, and he could not think he was the noble, grand character his hon. Friend made him out to be. What did the hon. Member say at the beginning of his speech? He told a number of anecdotes of the cruelties of Cetewayo when he was in power. Those things he had never heard of before, and he did not think anybody else had.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, he had stated that he had come across soldiers, and in One case he had heard shots fired which had killed women and children.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, the hon. Member did not know the whole history of the case, or how this quarrel arose; but his point was, that when these things were done John Dunn was the friend, adviser, and comrade of Cetewayo, and in alliance with him. Did he make any remonstrance, or do anything to stop these crimes?
    MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, John Dunn had remonstrated with Cetewayo.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, there was another point with regard to John Dunn which he did not think his hon. Friend would deny, and that was, that while he was the Agent for Natal he was in the habit of sending guns to Zululand; and that, he (Sir William Lawson) thought, was not very much to his credit. But, after all, they were really speaking in the dark, for they had not sufficient information on these points, and he only made these observations in defence of himself and his hon. Friends in regard to this matter; and as to the future, he thought it was almost too soon to say anything. He had not observed that anybody had laid down any rule as to the future with respect to what was to be done; and he hoped that the Government, warned by the sad experience they had had, would refrain from that interference and those annexations which might show our strength, but which showed neither justice nor wisdom, and which, in the end, would do us very little credit.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought the Prime Minister showed that in this case, as in the case of the Transvaal, he felt he had a doubtful case to defend, because he had made strong personal attacks on his opponents. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was well able to defend himself; but he (Sir Henry Holland) desired to say, in reply to the Prime Minister, who had accused him a few hours ago, in the debate on the Transvaal, of giving an off-hand judgment as to what the Government ought to have done in the Transvaal, without weighing or making allowance for the difficulties of the case, but as if it were all an easy matter, that he could not, of course, take up the time of the Committee by re-stating what he had said in the debate on the Transvaal in April last; but he had then most fully admitted the great difficulty of government in South Africa, which he was not at all inclined to underrate. As regarded the question before the Committee, he desired to point out that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had contented himself with reading two opinions of Sir Henry Bulwer on the settlement of 1879 which were given in 1882; but that he had omitted to inform the Committee of the well-considered judgment of Sir Henry Bulwer in 1883.

    1757
    In his despatch of February 15 of that year he writes—
    "The settlement of 1879 had conferred great benefits upon the Zulu people, which every true friend of the Native Races ought to rejoice at, but which people—at the time of which I write, carried away by a desire for the release of Cetewayo, and impatient at the disorders which had occurred in some parts of the Zulu country, and, moreover, not fully understanding the nature of those disorders, which were, in great measure, the result of an agitation that had been promoted from outside—were apt to lose sight of. The settlement, too, was, in its general design, an admirable one."
    It would have been only fair if the Under Secretary had stated this later opinion of Sir Henry Bulwer's to the Committee. He (Sir Henry Holland) could not acquit the Government of want of judgment and foresight in restoring Cetewayo, as they had done. He was not himself open to the charge made by the Prime Minister against the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) of not having remonstrated against this restoration before it was accomplished; because he had ventured last year, when the debate which had been referred to took place, to argue against the restoration of Cetewayo, either as Chief of the whole country or as Chief of a smaller district. He then prophesied that if the latter course were adopted, and if Cetewayo were returned as a Chief on the same footing as other Chiefs over whom he had ruled, troubles and disturbances were sure to arise. And this view had been proved to be correct. Cetewayo was, from the first, dissatisfied with the conditions imposed upon him, and jealous of the other Chiefs. Front the first he was hostile to Usibepu. In February, 1883, they find him saying that—
    "Usibepu was his (Cetewayo's) dog, but land of the Zulus had been given to him (Usibepu), who bragged over him (Cetewayo). This could not continue. The Zulus could not stand all this."
    Sir Henry Bulwer had constantly to remonstrate with Cetewayo for this and other breaches of the conditions. Nor could he refrain from observing that when the Prime Minister spoke of the justice towards Cetewayo in restoring him to Zululand, he seemed to forget the injustice and broach of faith thereby shown to those Chiefs whose power and land had been secured to them by the distinct pledges of the British Government, to which reference had been made
    1758
    in the debate. It was said that those Chiefs had the power to go into the Reserved Territory, if they did not desire to serve under Cetewayo; but that was very materially altering their condition. And as the Government had not retained paramount authority over the Reserved Territory, the Chiefs not unnaturally distrusted this offer. Upon this point he might cite Mr. Shepstone's letter to Sir Henry Bulwer, of March 15, 1883, where he says—
    "I would beg to bring to your notice the fact that Cetewayo has no authority whatever in this Reserve, and his claiming anyone here is a breach of the conditions—"
    this referred to a distinct breach committed by Cetewayo in demanding money and labour from the people in the Reserve—
    "and I may also point out that on my questioning those who had already decided on remaining, and who from the first expressed their determination to live, as they said, under the Government, they have asked me seriously as to whether the Government still doubts its own determination to retain this part of the country for such as do not wish to return to Cetewayo."
    The Native Chiefs evidently doubted whether this Reserve would not be, sooner or later, handed over to Cetewayo. This doubt would have been probably removed if Her Majesty's Government had openly declared their paramount authority over the Reserve; and by doing this they would have given confidence to those Chiefs and headmen who did not want to be under Cetewayo, and who desired either to migrate into the Reserved Territory, or to remain there. He (Sir Henry Holland) would not, at that late hour, detain the Committee any longer; but would conclude by stating that, in his opinion, the Government had shown a lamentable want of foresight, and judgment, and of fairness to the Native Chiefs in restoring Cetewayo to Zululand.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS III— LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,077, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

    1759
    necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the London Bankruptcy Court as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to move the reduction of this Vote by £5,000, with a view to calling attention to the very heavy expenses which were incurred in connection with the London Court of Bankruptcy. The Vote now asked for that Court was equal to an average charge of £17 for each case, the cases amounting to 5,293; while in the country, where the cases numbered 8,134, the average cost was only £5 per case. The estimated extra receipts for 1883–4 were £2,500; and he presumed they were the fees that would be received in the London Bankruptcy Court; but there was also a sum of £65,000 which had been received during the year ending September, 1882, by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for stamps on account of the London Bankruptcy Court, and bankruptcy business performed by the Registrars of County Courts. That sum, in fact, came from the County Courts, and not from the London Bankruptcy Court. He should be glad to know whether he was right as to this amount coming in the way he had described, because, looking at the Return which was presented respecting the High Courts of Justice and the Court of Appeal, he could not be satisfied that that was so. Amongst the amounts given in that Return as received from County Court business for stamps was £66,000; but of that sum £65,000 was carried to the credit of bankruptcies generally. In the Return as to the High Courts of Justice, and the Court of Appeal, there was a remarkable item of incidental and travelling expenses, £8,502; but he could not find in the Return any such item for bankruptcy expenses. In the Vote now about to be passed there was an item of £1,200 for travelling expenses; whereas in the Return presented to Parliament there was this item of £8,502 for travelling expenses, and he should like to know to whom that sum was paid? As far as he was aware, they were not paid to County Court Registrars; and if they were paid in London, he should like to know why they did not appear in this Vote? If hon. Members
    1760
    would look at the Estimate they would easily understand how it was that the London Bankruptcy Court cost so much more than the County Courts. The cause was, the large number of officers—one Senior Registrar, three Registrars, four first class clerks, nine second class clerks, five third class clerks, and so on, making, altogether, 35 clerks. He had very good reason to believe that one Registrar, one Assistant Registrar, and three clerks would be able to do all the work that was performed by this large staff; and, in addition to these charges, there was the Taxing Masters' Department, which cost something like £3,000. Now, in County Courts the Registrar taxed the accounts; there was no special Taxing Master, but each Registrar was the Taxing Master of his own Court. He (Mr. Rylands) could not see why there should be an extra Taxing Master's Establishment in the London Court, when they did not require anything of the kind in County Courts. The Registrars of County Courts performed the duties of Taxing Master with great efficiency. Hon. Gentlemen would also see that there was an Official Assignee's Department, for which the country was required to pay about £4,000 a-year. He would like to know why this Official Assignee's Department was kept up? Then, again, there was a Messengers' Department maintained at a cost of £7,000 a-year, certain first class messengers receiving £200 a-year, and second class messengers £150 a-year. There was also the Department of Controller in Bankruptcy. He had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen had received the Returns in Bankruptcy. If so, they would have observed that only a very moderate amount of ability, and certainly not very much time, would be required to tabulate the Returns which were supplied by the different County Courts and Bankruptcy officers. Yet, under this Vote, the Committee were asked to grant about £6,000 to the Controller's Department. On this point too, he should be glad to receive an explanation. On the face of the Vote, there was a much larger number of officers in London than were required by the necessities of the Court. He held that the whole Establishment was on too high a scale, and he moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

    1761
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,077, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the London Bankruptcy Court as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    MR. WAUGHdesired to supplement the observations of his hon. Friend. He should like to hear some explanation of the travelling expenses incurred in transacting the business of the Court. There was another thing which also required explanation. The Lord Chancellor settled the amount for every bankruptcy to be paid throughout the country. The fees were to be paid in stamps, and he found that in 1880 the Registrars of the County Courts received £89,293 5s. 6d., and that only £53,835 was paid back. He would like to know what became of the £35,000? In 1881, £69,987 11 s. 9d. was received, and there was paid by the Registrars £42,511 3s. 8d. In 1882, there was received £65,546 12 s. 3d., and there was only paid £49,920 0s. 11 d. In 1883, there was received £66,006 16 s. 6d., and paid £36,000. What could possibly become of the balance between the two sets of sums? He could not understand the matter at all. It seemed as if the Bankruptcy Court of London swallowed up the difference. His hon. Friend had referred to the Official Assignee and Messengers' Departments. He (Mr. Waugh) had understood that those Departments died in 1869, and yet they appeared to have been continued. There was another account in the Estimate which astonished him namely, that relating to a solicitor who was attached to the Court, and who received between £2,000 and £3,000 a-year. What was this solicitor appointed for?
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the receipts for the Court of Bankruptcy included the receipts both for the London Court and the County Court. It was not possible to apportion exactly the receipts from stamps. With respect to the comparative cost of the Court of Bankruptcy in London and the County Courts, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was aware that County Courts were not simply Bankruptcy Courts, and, therefore, some part of their cost must be set down to busi-
    1762
    ness other than Bankruptcy business. The London Bankruptcy Court, he had no doubt, cost a considerable sum; but the amount of business transacted was such as to justify the expenditure. The Official Assignee, to whom reference had been made, was a survivor of the old London Court of Bankruptcy, and he did a considerable amount of work in assisting the Registrar of the Court. The hon. Member had called attention to the remuneration of the Controller. The Controller discharged most important functions. There was a great deal of work going through his hands, and, indeed, he was fully employed. As a matter of fact, it was impossible to over-rate the importance of the office of Controller.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the Vote for the London Bankruptcy Court was swollen to a great extent by the legacy left to it by the old system of Bankruptcy. The Official Assignee, for instance, was one of those legacies.
    MR. WAUGHsaid, the same fees were received in the London Bankruptcy Court as in the County Courts. If they took, for instance, the number of bankruptcies in the London Court and in the County Courts, they would soon arrive at an idea of the actual state of affairs. In 1882 there were in the London Bankruptcy Court 1,593 bankruptcies and insolvencies, costing £34,150, or £21 8s. each. The bankruptcies and insolvencies in the country, however, only cost in that year £5 3s. each. In London, in 1883,there were 1,798 cases, costing £34,263, or £19 each; while in the country, in the same year, there were 7,243 cases, costing £36,553, or £5 each. He desired to know why there should be this great difference in the cost of bankruptcies? In 1882 the amount received by the Inland Revenue Department for stamps issued in respect of Bankruptcy business was £66,006, and the amount received from County Courts was £36,533. He was anxious to know what became of the remaining £30,000? He could not help thinking that it was swallowed up by the extravagance of the London Bankruptcy Court.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the money was actually received by the Inland Revenue Department.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Waugh) had, no doubt, overlooked the fact that this money did go to the Exchequer. He (Mr. Rylands) wished

    1763
    to draw a comparison between the expenses of the London Bankruptcy Court and those of the County Courts, and he hoped that, although the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury considered matters satisfactory, there would speedily be some overhauling of this Vote. If the Bankruptcy Bill passed, he presumed there would be some re-arrangements, and that, at all events, they would not continue to vote such a large staff of officers, He thought that by some re-arrangement some of the officers of the London Court could be drafted to places where they would be more usefully and advantageously employed. He was very dissatisfied with the expenditure of the London Bankruptcy Court, and he should be glad if the Treasury could find a method by which it could be reduced.
    MR. WARTONasked whether any account or estimate had been made, or whether there would be any reduction or any increase of the number of officers connected with the London Bankruptcy Court? His object in asking the question was to ascertain whether it was likely they were creating legacies, in the shape of officers, for the Court of the future.
    MR. COURTNEYconfessed that he was unable to give any estimate of the post of the new machinery.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. MACFARLANEmoved to report Progress, on the ground that there were many Orders of the Day, and that it would take a considerable time to run through them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as he only proposed to take three more Votes to-night.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that if the Votes would not lead to long debate, he should be glad to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (3.) £394,122, to complete the sum for County Courts.
    1764
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,842, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he should feel obliged to take a Division on this Vote. This Office was one of the most extraordinary in the country. The Vote to be taken for the year amounted to £5,442. Two or three months ago he put a Question to the Secretary to the Treasury, as to how many applications there had been for registration in that Office during the year 1882, and the answer that was given him was that the number of applications had been 14. During the year 1882, therefore, this Office cost the country, for every case that was registered, the sum of £325. It was simply monstrous that the Government should continue to keep that Office up on its present basis. He did not make the least complaint against the gentlemen employed in that Office. They held sinecures, and could not help themselves. The Office was certainly a sinecure, and long before this the late Government, or the present Government, ought to have taken steps to reduce its cost to the country, either by transferring gentlemen who were now engaged in the Registry to other Offices, or in some other way. His hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) would, no doubt, say that, in addition to these 14 cases of land registration, there had been some cases with reference to property already on the Register. This really did not affect the Question before the Committee. The Office was substantially kept up for the original cases of registration, of which there were only 14 in the past year. It was hardly credible that the Government should go on, year after year, asking the Committee to vote £5,442 for au Office which was obviously a failure. The Office was intended to carry out the Land Transfer Acts of Lord Westbury and of Lord Cairns; but both those Acts had been complete failures, because they contained no provision whatever for compulsory registration. He hoped hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would support him in this matter. There was no case more clear than that this Office ought not to be

    1765
    maintained; and it was with great confidence that hon. Members would do their duty to their constituents in this matter that he moved to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £842, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."— (Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it would be in the recollection of those who had been in the House for some time that this question had constantly been brought under notice. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), as well as he himself, had called particular attention to the Vote; and he thought it would be remembered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), as well as the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), had said that this Vote could not be defended on any grounds. They looped, however, that some work would come to the Office. It was evident that work had not come to it. Of course, it would be altogether unfair to reduce the salaries of the Office without notice. The men employed would do their work admirably if they had any to do. The Committee, however, in this case, were asked year after year to vote money for an Office which was admitted to be a failure. It appeared to him that Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench had taken no trouble to go into this question, or to endeavour to provide that the officials should have something to do. As a protest against the continuance of this Vote without some work being performed for it, he should Divide with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). When the Army or the Navy were concerned, it seemed that expenditure was to be remorselessly kept down; but when they came to deal with lawyers, matters were very much altered. Some notice, however, ought to be taken of this waste of money; and he trusted the Committee would receive some satisfactory explanation from the Government.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he also should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford as a protest. It would be said that they had not sufficient time to do what was desired. The question was an intricate one, he knew; but he was advocating no new principle, as there had been all sorts of inquiries made with regard to it in recent years, although they seemed to get no further. The money expended on the Office might be just as well thrown into a ditch as laid out as it was now. Besides, the whole system was monstrous; in some cases proprietors being compelled to pay a whole year's rent to obtain a registration — the system was monstrous and ridiculous in the extreme. Registration was so performed that it was of no use whatever. The kind of registration which was wanted was one which would apply to the whole Kingdom, and not this fragmentary system, which was worthless—which was certainly not worth £5,000 or £6,000 a-year. If he did not hear any satisfactory explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he should be obliged to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was not at all surprised at this Vote being made the subject of comment, and at regret being expressed that such a small return should be received for the money paid for this Office. He felt assured, however, that hon. Gentlemen would wish to do justice to the gentlemen who were in this Office, who had given up good prospects and positions of considerable emolument to enter it. Even though the Government might have been remiss in allowing the present state of things to continue, he did not suppose hon. Members would be prepared to take away from these gentlemen the positions they occupied. There was not so much blame to be attached to the Office as some hon. Members might think. The Office existed, as at present constituted, under the Act of 1875, which was an attempt by Lord Cairns to extend the system of the registration of titles. The expectations formed in 1875 as to the effect the measure would have had not been realized. The Office took upon itself the duties resulting from Lord Westbury's Act of 1862. There had been a registration of 2,500 titles made; and, whatever was

    1767
    thought of the Office, it was clear that the interests of the owners of these 2,500 properties had to be protected. Parliament had undertaken the protection of the titles of these persons, and could not now very well give up its trust.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: You do not require £5,000 a-year to do that.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not wish to argue the matter. They might say that there might be fewer officials, and that those who were retained might receive less emolument; but, surely, it would not be just to let the officials suffer because the Act of 1875 had been a failure. If they passed a Vote of Censure on the Government, and by so doing punished these officials, it would be grossly unfair. It was said that the Government had been supine in this matter; but that was not quite correct, for though they had not done anything they had, at any rate, tried to do something. They had brought forward a proposal for joining the duties of the Middlesex Registry with those of the Land Registry. Their efforts, however, had been met with opposition all round.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I should think so.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Why? They must keep the contracts they had made with these clerks. Unless hon. Members said they were to send the clerks adrift, they could not, he thought, take the course they were proposing. What was the objection to the proposal the Government had made? The Land Registry of Middlesex was in a peculiar position, and was doing a great deal of work; and if the Bill the Government brought forward had been passed the expense of this Office complained of would have been largely decreased. Members had said—"We will not allow you to pass the Bill; we will not allow the two Offices to be amalgamated." They saw no chance of passing a Bill of this kind this Session. They had brought one forward in 1881 and 1882, but had failed to receive that encouragement which would have induced them to bring it forward again in 1883. He did not say that, theoretically, this money should be paid for such a small return; but he would ask the Committee to pause before they deprived of their salaries these
    1768
    clerks, who were in no way responsible for the failure of the Act.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he held in his hand a letter which had been given to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had left the House; but, owing to the lateness of the hour, he would not trouble the Committee by reading it. He entirely agreed with those who said the Act had been a failure. The fact was one which he deeply regretted. The money expended on the Office was, for all practical purposes, wasted; and he, therefore, trusted that the Government would take the matter in hand, and endeavour, in some way or other, to render the expenditure useful. The question lie wished to raise was as to the position of these gentlemen who were engaged in the Office. The letter he had mentioned was from one of them, and he stated that the place he filled was created by Act of Parliament in 1862, and was in the terms of that Act to be held during good behaviour. The appointment was to be made somewhat after the manner of the appointment of the Judges. The writer of the letter stated that he had accepted office at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, giving up a considerable professional income and a valuable position at the Bar on the faith of an Act of Parliament—he and other gentlemen connected with the Department had accepted their positions on the faith of the Act of Parliament. The question was whether the Office could be modified so as to be a benefit to the country, or whether it should be abolished. If the latter alternative were decided upon, those gentlemen who had given up their professional incomes and prospects on the faith of an Act of Parliament would have to be fairly treated. What he would ask was this—if they refused to pass this Vote, how would the salaries be paid in the future? It would be impossible at this period of the Session for the Government to bring in a Bill to abolish the Office and entitle the officials to pensions.
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the position had been accurately described by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The gentlemen in question hold offices which only differed from those of the Judges in the manner in which the salaries were voted.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he could corroborate what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) as to the high standing of these gentlemen at the Bar, and as to the considerable practices they had given up for the purpose of taking these appointments. Not only the Registrar, but the Deputy Registrar also, had given up considerable emoluments. These officials were most anxious to discharge any functions which might devolve on them; nay, they had themselves promoted measures with the view of increasing the duties of their Office. They felt it irksome and wearisome not to have sufficient duties to keep them employed. There were two ways of dealing with the Office—one, to create functions for it to discharge; and the other, to abolish it and compensate the officials for the loss of their employment and of the opportunities of making way in their Profession when they became connected with the Office. He preferred the first of these alternatives. Certain proposals had been made not long ago which, if they had been adopted, would have had the effect of creating a good deal of work for the Office—namely, in connection with the registration of deeds throughout the country. It was not the fault of the Office that that proposal had not been adopted. The Government had not seen fit to accept the proposal, and the Office was, therefore, without work.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he could not regard the explanation of the Attorney General as satisfactery, except in one respect—and that he invariably observed in the utterances of the hon. and learned Gentleman and other Law Officers —namely, that they were tender to the last degree in dealing with the vested rights of the Profession of which they were distinguished ornaments. He (Mr. Illingworth) must take exception to what his hon. Friend opposite had said —namely, that if this Office had been in connection with the Army or Navy the view the Attorney General would have taken would have been different. He did not think there was much respect for vested interests where these two Professions were concerned. Nothing had been said as to the case of the two gentlemen at the head of the Office. If they were in the position of receiving large salaries for lucrative professions in 1862, it was fair to assume that they
    1770
    had now reached mature life, were, indeed, in the evening of life. When they left the Office, he could not suppose for a moment that their places would be filled, seeing that there were no duties connected with the Department. He would go a step further, and suggest that the Chief Registrar should be superannuated, and that the Deputy Registrar should perform the duties of the Office, or, in case they found one of the gentlemen unfit for the Office, that his place should not be filled. They would find, in the ordinary course, that if a vacancy occurred, the Government would at once take steps to fill it. [Mr. DODDS: No, no!] The hon. Member for Stockton had been long enough in the House to know that unless something was said, and a promise, or undertaking, were given by the Government in a case of this kind, every vacancy which occurred would be filled up. He did not wish to cast an imputation on the Secretary to the Treasury; but he could not help thinking that if there had been more zeal shown by the Government there might have been more work found for these highly talented gentlemen in the Registry of Deeds Office. The talents of these gentlemen were surely not confined to the registration of deeds. They were continually finding extraordinary charges in the Estimates for professional work, and he certainly thought it might be very easy to get further services out of these gentlemen not confined to the Office with which they were connected.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, it appeared to be necessary to give the Government time to consider this matter; therefore he would move to report Progress.
    [The Motion was not Seconded.]
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 40; Noes 65: Majority 25. — (Div. List, No. 263.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that with regard to the Vote which had just been passed, it had been absolutely impossible to refuse it, as they could not deprive these gentlemen of their salaries.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote is not passed.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he desired to press on the Secretary to the

    1771
    Treasury the necessity of instituting some inquiry next Session, in order to see whether this Office could not be abolished. He would suggest that at the beginning of next Session there should be a Committee of the House appointed to consider the matter.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDtrusted that that course would not be adopted, otherwise they would have legislation on the subject.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £18,690, Revising Barristers, England.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    (Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
    [BILL 226.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped at that late hour the House would allow the second reading of this Bill to be taken without any further explanation of its details than had already been given. There were one or two inconsiderable alterations proposed to be made to which he need not then refer, except to say they could be moved in Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    MR. HENDERSONsaid, he felt it his duty to protest against the second reading being taken on that occasion. It was quite true that no Notice of opposition appeared on the Paper; but there were some points on which he thought a number of Scotch Members absent that night would like to express their opinion. But he understood that the right1 hon. Gentleman would give ample opportunities for stating objections in Committee; and therefore, on the distinct understanding that the Committee stage would not be taken at a late hour, he would not press his objection to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. WARTONpointed out to the hon. Member who had just spoken, that if he had not wanted the Bill to come
    1772
    on at 2 o'clock in the morning he should have had recourse to the simple expedient of blocking it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) (re-committed) B1LL.— [BILL 240.]
    (Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Parnell, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. Callan, Mr. Lalor.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Representation by whom to be made).
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the clause provided that 12 persons residing in any district could put the Act in force. He objected to this number as being too small. There might be 12 men in a district who put the Act in force, and who, nevertheless, would not contribute one farthing to the rate to be levied for it. He thought there should be some provision made that the persons who put the Act in motion should be residing in the district where the rates would be charged. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, to leave out the word "twelve," and insert the words "twenty four."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could not agree with his right hon. and learned Friend as to the question of number. It seemed to him that the number 12 was sufficiently large to guarantee that there was a bonâ fide need that the Act should be put in force in the district. He trusted his right hon. and learned Friend would not think it necessary to proceed with his Amendment.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford) were agreed to, he should not be so anxious for the adoption of this Amendment. But he should be obliged to press it at a later stage of

    1773
    the Bill, if he were not met in this matter in a reasonable spirit. When the Bill was introduced last week he was urged to allow it to go into Committee, because it was intimated that the Amendment he had on the Paper would be accepted.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not divide the Committee on this Amendment. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with him that the danger was that the Act would not be sufficiently used. He believed the hon. and gallant Gentleman near him, as well as some hon. Members opposite, had expressed the opinion that the Board of Guardians would not be inclined, in some instances at least, to use the powers bestowed on them by the Bill. But did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that by increasing the number of ratepayers required to set the Act in motion its operation was largely imperilled? Another point was that there were several localities in which the number of ratepayers was not large, and the number of 24, or even 20, of those who would take part in a matter of this kind would be so few that the Act would not be put into operation at all. Finally, he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind that public-spirited men in Ireland were not a large body, and that if he raised the principle of having 20 or 24 ratepayers, he would make the business of setting the Act in motion everybedy's business—in other words, nobody's business. He trusted the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter on its merits, and see that the Act should be put in operation by those who required it.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, nothing could be more persuasive than the appeal of the hon. Member who had just spoken. As he had not the slightest wish to act in any hostile spirit, he would withdraw this particular Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 29, after the word "district," to insert the words "whose rateable qualification conjointly shall not be less than one-fourth of the rateable valuation of the district."—(Colonel King-Barman.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was obvious that the objection raised by him to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) applied with still greater force to the proposal now before the Committee; because if the 24 ratepayers suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would impede the operation of the Bill, à fortiori the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do so.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought there should be a representation of the value of one-fourth, at all events; otherwise, the 12 ratepayers who set the Bill in motion might represent an infinitesimal proportion of the value of the entire district. It was only reasonable that this matter should be looked at from the point of view of those who thought that the number fixed by the clause was too small. He had heard many people say it should be one-third instead of one-fourth; and he threw it out for the consideration of the hon, Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that he should remember that their work would be considered afterwards, and gone through with a great deal of care. If a representation were made to have the powers, which were very novel powers, in this Bill called into operation—powers which, if good for Ireland, would be good for England — what was the objection to saying that the powers of this Bill should only be exercised on a representation of one-fourth of the rateable value of the district? It was desirable that there should be some substantial representation.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that although the Act might be put into operation by a small number of persons, the initiative step might be taken by small holders; but it could only be called into operation by the consent of the ratepayers.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, there would be two or three large districts, and they would do neither one thing nor the other. If they held a large amount of land, they would not take any initiative.
    MR. DAWSONpointed out that there would be the safeguard of a Provisional Order, in case of any drainage being stopped in any county in Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, there might also be a particular area defined.
    COLONEL KING - HARMANurged that some considerable care must be taken to prevent persons outside the area taken action. If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept the next Amendment on the Paper, he should be disposed to drop this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 30, after "district," to insert "and living within the area upon which the cost to be incurred in carrying the scheme into effect shall be charged."—(Mr. Beresford.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should have no objection whatever to the Amendment; but he wished to point out one difficulty to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland which would have to be met at a subsequent stage. The area put forward in the beginning might not be the area afterwards adopted by the scheme.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that was a point which might require consideration afterwards, because with regard to the area which would be charged afterwards, they could not tell whether the people lived within it or not. It was to meet that point that he had an Amendment providing that they should live within the section with respect to which the representation was made. Then they would be masters of their own section, and they would take care, he thought, to include their residences. There was nothing to prevent that; so that, if the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) liked, he could compose an Amendment out of his and that of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford), which should read—" and living within the section in respect of which the representation was made."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, after "district," insert "and living within the section in respect of which the representation is made." —(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    1776
    Clause 6 (Requisites of improvement scheme of sanitary authority).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, at end, to add, "the scheme shall avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the lands proposed to be taken, and such lands shall be selected with due regard to the general situation and convenience of the owner's property, so as to diminish the value thereof as little as possible."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Words added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Confirmation of Scheme.
    Clause 7 (Proceedings for the confirmation of the improvement scheme. Petition to Local Government Board).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 17, after "scheme," insert "and shall be bound to pay over the purchase money for such lands to the original owner within a period not exceeding one calendar month from the date of the confirmation of the Provisional Order." —(Colonel King-Herman.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was quite impossible to accept this Amendment; for it would be absolutely impossible that the money could be paid within one month from the date of the Provisional Order, because that was only the Act of Parliament under which subsequent inquiries would have to be made. He would suggest an Amendment afterwards which would have the effect of securing the utmost possible celerity in regard to payment of the purchase money.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he did not wish to prevent the Bill being effective; but he did desire to fix some reasonable time within which the vendor should be able to expect to receive his money. He should not object if it were three months, so long as some period was fixed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that where land was taken by agreement, the time for payment would be arranged; but where land was not taken by agreement—which he should deal with hereafter—it was reasonable that there should be the utmost possible despatch, but not

    1777
    such as would render it impossible to make the proper inquiries.
    COLONEL KING- HARMANasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to substitute three months for one month? If some period were not fixed, he thought the Bill had better be thrown out.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the machinery of this Bill was precisely the same as that of other Acts by which land was compulsorily taken in Ireland; but they could not guarantee that the process of the law would be quickened in every case, and it might be possible, with the utmost despatch, that the proceedings could not be worked out under six months.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could not accept that argument. When the State owed money to a man, he did not see why the State should not pay the money within a reasonable time. If a man owed money to someone else, he had to pay within a reasonable time, or show some reason for not doing so; and it was hard that anyone should have his property taken away and not be paid within a reasonable time, because the State owed the money. He hoped the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would reconsider his decision.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, it was well known that it was perfectly impossible to fix exact limits of time, owing to the variety of circumstances surrounding every case and every purchase. Every Provisional Order proceeded quickly or slowly, according to the particular circumstances, and it would be hard to fix a limit of time. The agents of the landlord would, no doubt, proceed with all possible despatch.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, this was not a matter which would affect a small holder, who had a few roods to sell; but it was a matter of large portions of land being taken, and it might mean ruin to a man if he did not know when he would get the money due to him.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that if the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel King-Harman) would look at the Bill, he would find that there must be a time for notice and inquiry by the Board of Trade, and that the very minimum of time which that could be ex-
    1778
    pected to take would be six months. Of course, no possession could be settled until those steps had been taken, and there would be no title to the sanitary authorities to enter on the land. This was a matter in which the limit might be one, or two, or six months, from the date of the Provisional Order, and it would be absolutely impossible to guarantee the period, even with the utmost anxiety for despatch. If these first steps were not taken, the whole expense would be incurred for nothing, and the vendor would be in a serious position. It would appear like a legislative inducement not to move as quickly as possible, if there were a certain fixed time.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, a man having a small piece of land which he had leased to a tenant on short terms would not be able to find a tenant during six or seven months, and so he would be out of pocket.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that what he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to intend to introduce by a subsequent Amendment was that, if a landlord was able to show that the whole thing had not been properly carried out, then he would have his ground of complaint. He could not now discuss that Amendment; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the Amendment, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought he would see that when a landlord was able to show that the whole thing was complete, then, if he did not get his money within 30 days, he would have a right to demand it.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANobserved, that during all this time the landlord would be kept from both his land and his money. He was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would appreciate what he was urging. He was not speaking on behalf of the large owners, but of the smaller owners.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the land would not he taken until the purchase was complete.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the tenant would have to give up his land.
    MR. DAWSONasked, why he should have to do that?
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, that supposing a Provisional Order to be obtained for the compulsory taking of land for waterworks; under these circumstances,

    1779
    while that Provisional Order was in operation, of course the land would remain on the landlord's hands. If the landlord had a tenant, that tenant would be paying rent for the land; and still further, when the Provisional Order became absolutely operative, then before the promoters sought to enter into possession they would have to deposit the purchase money in Court; and, in point of fact, he thought, with all respect, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) would see that no possible evil could accrue to the landlord under these circumstances. If the tenant was on the land, he would have to pay the landlord. He could not quit, because there would be an application for a Provisional Order for surveying notices, and the tenant would not be dispossessed until after, under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, the money had been lodged in Court.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he understood that the money would be paid into Court; but that was what he objected to. It would be held in Court, and the unfortunate landlord would not get it—nobody would get it. He did not see why either the vendor or the vendee should suffer from this redtapeism; and he thought they might endeavour to make the sale of land a little easier. He had not expected opposition from such a quarter; but he did not wish to obstruct the progress of the Bill, though he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would consider this point again.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to offer no opposition to the hon. and gallant Gentleman; this was a matter for the Government to settle.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Certain orders of the Local Government Board valid without confirmation by Parliament).
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the object of the Amendment he wished to propose was to put in a minimum of one month. At present, under Sub-section (b) of the clause, power was given to the Local Government Board to prescribe a time, and he wished to provide that that time should not be less than one month.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had an Amendment before this; and he
    1780
    wished to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether or not three ratepayers were not too few to be empowered to compel an Act of Parliament to be carried out?
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it had been suggested that, under some circumstances; three were too many.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 4, after "time," to insert "not less than one month."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 9 and 10 severally agreed to.
    Execution of Scheme by Local Authority.
    Clause 11 (Execution of scheme by sanitary authority).
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 7, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Conditions of lettings).
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment to this clause, to remedy what he thought must have been an oversight. In Clause 11 it was provided that, under certain circumstances, power should be given to the sanitary authorities to either lease or grant a lease to carry out the Act. That was all intelligible and plain; but when they came to this clause a marginal note said "conditions of lettings," and that applied directly to lettings by the sanitary authorities. He proposed to provide that those who had neglected their duty should be equally bound by this clause as by Clause 11.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, at end of Clause, to add—"The conditions in this section contained shall apply and extend to the assignees or lessees of the sanitary authority in respect of any purchased lands sold or let under the next preceding section."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Completion of scheme on failure by sanitary authority).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he would

    1781
    move an Amendment on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with the object of providing that in a case where a purchase had been arranged, but in two years it was not completed, the landlord should have an opportunity of repurchasing the land at a price to be arranged.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 13, after "dwellings," to insert,—"The said land shall, in case the person from whom the same was acquired, his heirs or assigns, so requires, be reconveyed to him or them at the price paid for the same by the sanitary authority, or if such person, his heirs or assigns, omits, after one month's notice, to signify his or their intention to repurchase on such terms, then."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had an Amendment which went to a similar point; but he should prefer his Amendment, because he considered that, where land was compulsorily taken, it should not be essential that the owner should have to watch for two years, and then, if he did not claim within one month, should lose the chance of repurchasing his land. He thought it was also essential that the land should be handed back to him in generally as good condition as when it was taken. The third part of his Amendment proposed that he should be paid for having been kept out of his land; and in the case of small owners, who would have to spend money and would be put to inconvenience in getting the land back again, he proposed that they should receive a certain amount per cent per annum. He should not hold to that; but he thought the Local Government Board ought to give an option to the landlord to repurchase, and that he should not be obliged to watch the time for claiming a right of resumption.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the hon. and gallant Member opposite was under a misconception. His Amendment would not do at all, because it proposed that the Local Government Board should hand back in as good condition land which, perhaps, might never again be as good land as it had been. He thought that what was the substance of the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was amply carried out by that now before the Committee.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there were small plots of land which let extremely high close to large towns for conacre. Suppose bricks were put upon those plots and then handed back in that condition, they would be absolutely valueless. He did not think he was asking too much in asking that the land should be given back in the condition in which it was when taken, and that something should be given to the owner to prevent his being a loser.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he should move to amend the Amendment by inserting, in the second line of the Amendment, after "them," and before "at the price," the words—
    "In the condition as suitable for agricultural or grazing purposes, as it was when originally taken possession of."
    He supposed that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) had no objection to the words of his Amendment. All the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested was that if land were let as agricultural land, they ought to get it back as agricultural land; and if it was pastoral land, they should get it back as pastoral land. This appeared to him a very reasonable proposition.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment—
    To insert, after the words "re-conveyed to him or them," the words "in a condition at least as suitable for agricultural or grazing purposes as it was when it was originally taken possession of."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland saw his way to accept this proposal, he would not offer any opposition. The ground might have undergone operations which might have made it less valuable for agricultural or grazing purposes, but which might have made it more valuable for other purposes. It might have been cleared, for instance, and the landlord might find it advisable to use it for building purposes. It might not suit the landlord's purpose to have the land re-conveyed to him in the condition in which it was originally taken possession of.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)advised the

    1783
    hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, said, he would assent to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Power to purchase lands).
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he saw that reference was made to the Lands Clauses Act, and he desired to know how that Act would affect the case of commons lands? If the Board wished to acquire commons land, how would the occupier of such land be brought into contact with the Board? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would understand him. There was not a great deal of commons land in Ireland; but there were certain commons lands on which people had squatted, and on which the buildings were of a very miserable character, and which it would be most desirable to improve. He would like to know whether this branch of the subject had been considered?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secreretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not had an opportunity of considering the subject up to the present. What, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view was not, perhaps, that which could strictly be called commons land. If a person built a house after he had squatted for a certain length of time he acquired the fee-simple of the land on which it was built, and that matter could be dealt with under this Act like any other matter. He had now to propose the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 33, after the word "Act," to insert—"In the case of any purchase of lands otherwise than by agreement, such purchase, and the provisions of the Provisional Order relating thereto, shall, at the option of the owner of the lands, estate, or interest proposed to be purchased, be at an end in the following events:—

    (a.) In cases in which the owner of the lands, estate, or interest shall have become entitled to a certificate under the fourteenth section of 'The Railways (Ireland) Act, 1851,' if the purchase money is demanded by such owner, and
    1784
    remains unpaid for a period of thirty days or upwards after such demand;

    (b.) In cases falling within the eighteenth or nineteenth sections of 'The Railways (Ireland) Act, 1851,' if the sanitary authority make default for a period of thirty days or upwards in dealing with the purchase money as provided by those sections respectively;

    Provided, That the election of the owner of the lands, estate, or interest to declare such purchase to be at an end shall be notified by him in writing to the sanitary authority within a period not exceeding thirty days after the expiration of the time limited by this section, within which the purchase money should be paid or otherwise dealt with as aforesaid."—(Mr Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thought there would be time for the negotiation of the loan by the sanitary authority within 30 days? It seemed to him (Mr. Parnell) to be a very short time to allow.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he thought there would be sufficient time, provided despatch were used on the part of the sanitary authority; and, of course, it was to the interest of all parties that such despatch should be observed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in line 36, after "shall," the words—
    "Be given back to the original owner in a state suitable for agricultural or grazing purposes, subject to a repayment of the sum originally paid for it less by the amount of fifteen per centum per annum, or, if the original owner shall, after one clear month's notice, decline to repurchase on such terms, shall."
    Having reference, however, to what had gone before, he should like to leave out the words "less by the amount of fifteen per cent per annum." He, therefore, intended to move the Amendment with the omission of those words.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that in order to meet the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman he would insert in the next Amendment, which stood in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the words recently proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and

    1785
    adopted by the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then proposed the Amendment standing in the name of Mr. Trevelyan, with the addition of the words he had just referred to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 37, after the word "Act," to insert the words—"In case the person from whom such lands were acquired, his heirs or assigns, so requires, be reconveyed to him or them in a condition at least as suitable for agricultural or grazing purposes as it was when it was originally taken possession of, at the price paid for such lands by the sanitary authority, or if such person, his heirs or assigns, omits, after one month's notice, to signify his intention to repurchase such land, on such terms, shall."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
    MR. O'SULLIVAN (for Mr. VILLIERS STUART)proposed, in page 6, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Power to sanitary authority to enforce under section four of Labourers' Cottages and Allotments (Ireland) Act, 1882.)
    "In any case in which an order has been made or shall he made under section three of 'The Labourers' Cottages and Allotments (Ireland) Act, 1882,' or under section nineteen of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' for providing accommodation for the labourers employed on any holding, and such order has not been complied with within six months after the date of such order, it shall be the duty of the sanitary authority of the district in which such holding is situate to make such complaint as mentioned in, and to put in force, the provisions of section four of 'The Labourers' Cottages and Allotments (Ireland) Act, 1882.'"
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANinquired whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had examined the clause and found whether it came within the purview of the Act?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Certainly.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not quite sure whether it might not be desirable to retain the word "officer" in place of the word "authority," and so leave the clause in the form in which it originally
    1786
    stood on the Paper. It might be well to have two strings to the bow, and employ the words "sanitary officer" as well as the words "sanitary authority." The difficulty to contend against was that the sanitary authorities were mainly composed of persons who had neglected to carry out the order that had to be enforced. It could not do the slightest harm to give power to sanitary officers, as well as to the sanitary authorities, to enforce the order.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there was a difficulty, of course, in finding who was the proper authority to put the law in motion; but if they adopted the words "sanitary officer," it might lead to inconvenience, because there were a great many sanitary officers in each district, and what was the duty of everybody was generally the duty of no one. The duty might be imposed upon the clerk to the sanitary authority. It would then be the duty of the clerk to the Union in each case to enforce the Order.
    COLONEL KING HARMANsaid, his experience was that whenever they placed fresh duties upon clerks of Unions, the latter expected to get fresh pay; and if their expectations were not realized in this respect, they did not do the work required of them. He should be disposed to leave the duty to the sanitary authority.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was afraid that if they left the enforcement of the Order to the Clerk of the Union, the Order would not be enforced.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORproposed to insert the following Clause, after Clause 17:—
    (Extension of Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1875, to certain towns.)
    "The Artizans' and Labourers' Improvement Act, 1875, as amended by any Act or Acts, shall extend to all urban sanitary districts in Ireland containing, according to the last published census, a population of twelve thousand and upwards; and also to any other urban sanitary district in Ireland to which the Local Government may by Provisional Order declare that the said Act shall extend.
    Such Provisional Order may be made by the Local Government Board in the manner in which Provisional Orders are made by them under 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.'
    No such Provisional Order shall be made except upon the petition of the urban sanitary

    1787
    authority of such sanitary district, nor, in the event of any objection being taken to such petition, until after a local inquiry with respect to such petition has been held by the Local Government Board."
    The hon. Gentleman said, that anyone acquainted with the position of the labourers of Ireland would know that a large number of them took refuge in miserable hovels in small towns. The Committee would only half complete the good work they were doing if they did not make some provision for such men, and this was the object of the clause which he now proposed should be read a second time.
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that at first sight the clause did not appear exactly in consonance with the scope of the Bill. He should like to consider the matter between this and Report, and see what could be done.
    MR. HEALYsuggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should allow the clause to be inserted, and that on Report he should strike it out if necessary, or make such modifications in it as might appear advisable.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he would be willing to adopt such a plan.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would stand to his original proposition. He (Colonel King-Harman) did not think less of agricultural labourers living in towns than of those who lived in the country; but the Committee had as yet had no time whatever to consider this clause.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the question of artizans' dwellings had been exhaustively discussed when the Artizans' and Labourers' Improvement Bills were brought in; and it was again discussed in 1878, when the Public Health (Ireland) Act was introduced. The authorities in Ireland, who looked into that matter, were of opinion that the fixing of a limit to the operation of the Bills was of immense importance. He did not profess to have any objection to the clause; but he considered that the mat-
    1788
    ter was one which required great consideration. He hoped the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be adopted, and that the matter would be left to be considered by him before the stage of Report. It was very proper that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have an opportunity of consulting his official Colleagues, and that he should be guided, to a great extent, by their opinions on the subject.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the course suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be the most convenient one to adopt—namely, that they should insert the clause in the Bill, and consider it more fully on Report. If it were inserted in the Bill, they would be able to consider it properly in its relation to the rest of the Bill. It would certainly be to the interest of the Irish labourers that this clause should be inserted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he had no objection to the clause being read a second time; but, of course, the Government would reserve to themselves the right to deal with it as they thought fit on Report.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC-HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL [Lords].
    (Mr. Samuel Morley.)
    [BILL 126.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (No wages to be paid within publichouse. See 35 & 36 Vict. c. 76, s. 16, and 35 & 36 Vict. c. 77, s. 9).
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was quite true that, on account of what occurred on Saturday, he had not been able to put a block on the Bill. If he had been able, he should certainly, with respect to a Bill of this importance, have taken steps to prevent its being considered at an unreasonable hour in the morning. ["Go on!"] He maintained that it was extremely discourteous for hon. Gentlemen to assail him with shouts of

    1789
    "Go on" and he appealed to the Chairman to say whether hon. Gentlemen were really in Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to define what is discourteous at this time of the morning, when everyone is anxious to make progress.
    MR. WARTONdeclined to go on if he was to be insulted in this way.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    MR. SAMUEL MORLEYsaid, they were all but unanimous upon the principle of the Bill; and he hoped the House would be good enough now to read it a third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Samuel Morley.)
    MR. WARTONprotested against the Bill being hurried through the House in this way. ["Go on!"] The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was always ready to insult him. In fact, it was not the first time that the hon. Member had used improper expressions in that House. He considered the hon. Gentleman extremely rude. He had been prevented making the observations he desired to make in Committee; and he, therefore, begged to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 8.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the word "re-committed." —(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MOTIONS.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to suspend for a limited period, on account of Corrupt Practices, the holding of an Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for certain Cities and Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill281.]

  CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel NOLAN, Bill to enable sanitary authorities in Ireland to take possession of land for the erection of temporary Cholera Hospitals, ordered to be brought in by Colonel NOL.AN, Mr. O'KELLY, Mr. FINDLATER, Mr. O'BRIEN, and Mr. MACFARLANE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 282.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 283.]

  ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Select Committee on the Isle of Wight Highways Bill nominated,—of Mr. HIBBERT, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, and Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, and Two to be nominated by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Patents for Inventions* (179); Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) * (178).
Second Reading—Trial of Lunatics* (184); Railway Passenger Duty, &c. (167).
Select Committee nominated—Petroleum * (154).
Committee—Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment (156).
Committee—Report—Greenwich Hospital * (165).
Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats)* (170), and passed.
Withdrawn — Merchandise Marks (Channel Islands and Isle of Man) (143).

MERCHANDISE MARKS (CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
(The Lord Belper.)
MERCHANDISE MARKS (CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN) BILL.

  (NO. 143.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would suggest the withdrawal of the Bill. Since the last stage of the Bill was reached communications in reference to it had been received from the States of Jersey and the Governor of the Isle of Man. The former pointed out that the Imperial Parliament had never exercised the right to legislate for the Channel Islands, and that the passing of this Bill by Parliament would establish a precedent which would be highly inconvenient to the States of Jersey. It was also urged that the object of the Bill would be much more easily obtained by an Act of the local Legislature than by one passed by the Imperial Legislature. As to the Isle of Man, the Governor stated that there was no objection entertained on the Island to this particular Bill; but that it would be more convenient and proper that it should be submitted to the Tynwald, and by them passed into law. On these grounds, he appealed to his noble Friend to consider whether it would be well to ask the House to proceed with the Bill; but if he did so, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) would, on the part of the Government, feel obliged to oppose it on the third reading.
  LORD BELPERsaid, that the statement of the noble Earl had placed him in some difficulty. He had received a
  1602
  letter from the Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, and he understood that there was no opposition to the Bill. He hoped that the Government would give some assurance that the necessary Orders in Council would be passed to enable the provisions of the Bill to be carried out.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he believed that by this time next year, at least, there was some chance that there would be no further necessity for legislation.
  Order discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUEZ CANAL—CONCESSION TO M. DE LESSEPS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the further correspondence upon Egypt; and to move for copies of the original concessions to M. de Lesseps on the Isthmus of Suez Canal, said: My Lords, I came down to address the House a week ago upon this Notice, when Her Majesty's Government referred to the absence of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as an objection to proceeding. We are now in August, and the unavoidable satiety of the House at such a moment imposes on me more compression than might have otherwise been necessary. At the same time, the reasons for discussion upon Egypt, and the rather burning question it has recently forced on us, have accumulated in the interval. The world is full of novel contributions from well-known and independent writers on the subject. The opinions of M. Leon de Say have been communicated to our public. This very day some new despatches have appeared, if they have not been yet delivered to your Lordships. The daily Press of France and of Great Britain is still engrossed with the Canal. It is too late for Parliamentary Committees to discriminate and methodize the different propositions which are offered. The Government are engaged to the claim of M. de Lesseps, and cannot, of their own initiative, bring the matter under any scrutinizing process. Unless in this House some advance is made towards a practical conclusion, the Session would not close under the circumstances

  1603
  which the public are entitled to anticipate. The strongest ground of all for giving some consideration to the routes across the Isthmus at this moment is the great variety of schemes which may be rapidly enumerated. M. de Lesseps seems to favour a new and parallel Canal. A diagonal Canal from Alexandria, over the branches of the Nile, has been contemplated. A Canal from Syria through the Dead Sea, with a different termination from that of Suez, has been suggested. Another project is to widen the existing channel. There is a fifth suggestion that of Mr. Talbot, a Member of the House of Commons, which appeared in a morning journal, to prevent confusion which exists, by devoting alternate days to the traffic from the Red Sea and the traffic from the Mediterranean. These schemes are all in need of accurate comparison. My impression is that M. de Lesseps cannot form a new Canal without a new concession on many grounds, and partly upon this one. The old concession specified the different stages he was bound to traverse, and does not give authority to traverse any others. It hardly seems desirable, however, that a new concession should be granted to him, as it would do little to advance the end of those who are dissatisfied at present. The insufficiency of any scheme to widen the Canal is known to naval men, and has been explained in the Report of Admiral Ryder, which may be found in the work of Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, the glowing, but not on that account inaccurate, historian of M. de Lesseps and his enterprize. Whether a Canal can be formed independently of M. de Lesseps may be doubtful. Even if it can, Her Majesty's Government are not at liberty to sanction it. Committed as they are, they can only sanction a Canal which would defeat the aim of further enterprize and outlay. Before quitting the subject of the Canal, there is one reflection which late events might almost force upon us. It is that, were Lord Palmerston surviving, he might now easily demand indulgence or acquittal for the course he had pursued in first opposing the design of M. de Lesseps. He might insist that as to commerce, those immediately engaged in it proclaimed the inconvenience and inadequacy of the project; that, setting wealth aside, the Canal had not at all contributed
  1604
  to the safety of the Indian Empire, or any military object; that we had purchased largely to avert a risk which it involved; that we had gone to war in order to defend it from a mutiny; and been led by that war into an occupation of the country dangerous to prolong while cholera is menacing our troops, difficult to terminate when anarchy may follow our departure. As the authority of Lord Palmerston in foreign policy is valuable, the reflection may not be an useless one. But even those who are inclined to recognize his former prudence on this subject may concur with the aggrieved interests and labour for a scheme by which their object would be realized. When it is remembered to how prodigal an outlay, to how crude a scheme the shipowners were an obstacle, they seem to be entitled to more than unsubstantial gratitude from Parliament and from the country. No doubt the Correspondence shows that Her Majesty's Government were assailed by an extraordinary pressure; that a well-known Member of this House we do not often see among us (Lord Napier and Ettrick) was its organ; and that the project of a new Canal could hardly be avoided. But it shows also that the secret of that pressure was the desire of the shipowners to be released from the ascendancy M. de Lesseps had established. In what manner Her Majesty's Government were led to think that they would satisfy the movement by a plan to double the ascendancy complained of, and to restore in Egypt the specific influence which the war had recently diminished, is a mystery the Correspondence leaves for other sources to dispose of. My Lords, no one who engages to call attention to the further Correspondence upon Egypt can entirely pass over the despatch of February 6 from the noble Lord the Ambassador at Constantinople. The labour it involves would be a title to our notice. Of all his varied and exhaustive details as to the improvement of the country, what has fallen from the noble Lord on irrigation may now appear to have the greatest practical importance. According to the noble Lord, immeasurable wealth may be reclaimed by such a fertilizing process. He uses language which, were it not in a despatch—to guarantee its accuracy and exactness—might seem to border on the realm of poetry and fancy. The Nile he thinks

  1605
  in its effects has more than equalled the Pactolus. Were irrigation organized more thoroughly, he teaches us that deserts might be transformed into gardens, and wealth derive an impulse which would bring down the actual debt to utter insignificance. As irrigation turns a good deal on the system of canals adopted, the opinion of the noble Lord may tend to guide the country as to the new mode of joining the two seas which it is most desirable to favour. With regard to the organic projects of the noble Lord, his local Councils, General Assembly, Governments restricted to eight Members, there may be little to object to them. They are marked by an aversion to sudden, violent, exotic innovations in an Oriental country. They are marked by much consideration for the welfare of the masses and the remedy of evils which had before been noted by such travellers as Baron Malortie, Mr. do Leon, Mr. Nassau Senior. Whether such projects could be realized without a lasting occupation is a question to be seriously canvassed. Indeed, my Lords, the most important passage of the Correspondence, if I am not deceived, relates to occupation of the country. The noble Lord was gravely urged, so far as he was able, to extend it. He was urged in that sense by a body of merchants and by a body of missionaries whose opinions he reported. It appears that his instructions were prohibitory of all hope upon the subject. It appears, likewise, that his own mode of thinking was opposed to that of his petitioners. I admit now having contended before Easter that there are many grounds on which a lasting occupation ought to be avoided. On this point, or rather on the question of permanently holding Egypt, the judgment of Lord Palmerston was a most decisive one. Although no one was less inclined to acquiesce in the supremacy of other Powers in that region, although no one laboured more assiduously against movements to detach it from the Ottoman Empire over a long and agitated period, which closed in 1841, Lord Palmerston, as his private correspondence has revealed to us, was thoroughly opposed to British tenure of that country. He regarded Egypt only as a moans of transit for Great Britain, and held that we had no more reason to be proprietors within it than a traveller from Edinburgh to London would have for buying
  1606
  the hotels which might be useful on his journey. But even if Lord Palmerston was silent, the: inconveniences of lasting occupation would not be less manifest. As the noble Lord the Ambassador at Constantinople has justly pointed out, it would be a burden to the Treasury of Egypt. It is felt as a blow to the dignity of the Ottoman Empire, and thus renders it still more averse to any counsel we may offer. It must beget in Russia endless aspiration to some dominion on the Bosphorus, of which, according to her view, the price has been surrendered when Egypt falls under Great Britain. By withdrawing so large a force it does not lessen the anxiety which Ireland habitually occasions. It prolongs the animosity of Franco which the decision to avoid the terms of M. de Lesseps must in some degree have kindled. It renders it more difficult to address to France the least remonstrance on the Tunisian Protectorate, or any other subject which arises. But there is something else to be considered. We learn, if not from the Blue Books, from many other sources, that the Vice-regal power has been a good deal undermined; that movements may spring up as grave as that which drew us into Egypt; that the actual Khedive, although irreproachable to us, has not sufficient power to defend himself against intrigues which may occur. It does not seem to be a groundless calculation that when the British garrison withdraws, the Sultan will retain a kind of balance in the country between the forces which divide it. It is now historically clear that he might have done much more to control the movement of Arabi. But we cannot possibly depend on the co-operation of the Sultan—it is in no spirit of invective I allude to such a circumstance—until the British Government has ceased to be identified with the actual First Lord of the Treasury. Whether the Sultan looks back to his language before the General Election, or to his conduct since that period, he must regard the First Lord of the Treasury as an implacable opponent. It is well known to your Lordships, and it is well known to me, that the Sultan does regard him as an implacable opponent. The conclusion is that either the garrison must stay in spite of many risks and disadvantages connected with it, or that the First Lord of the Treasury must soon withdraw from the position which

  1607
  he occupies. Which of these two alternatives is most to be desired would hardly be a question to enlarge upon on such a Notice as the present, since it embraces points of foreign and domestic policy which lie beyond the Correspondence upon Egypt. The Motion before the House is one Her Majesty's Government can scarcely hesitate in granting. The original concessions, in the form of a Return, have been presented to the other House of Parliament. They are essential to a just opinion on a controversy so very far from being exhausted. They may be seen in the volumes of Mr. Percy Fitzgerald; but these are not accessible to everyone. They are the only means of ascertaining how far M. de Lesseps is entitled to form a new Canal, or how far the Khedive is at liberty to do so.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of the original concessions to M. de Lesseps with regard to the Isthmus of Suez Canal."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have listened very attentively to the speech of the noble Lord; and although do not personally agree with him that the resignation of Mr. Gladstone would put an end to the political evils of the world at home and abroad, yet in general I do not think that I have anything to complain of in the tone or purport of his speech, in which he has gone over many of the most important subjects connected with Egypt, and has shown great study of the past and the present Papers on the subject. I did not get up immediately after the noble Lord concluded, because I wished to see whether your Lordships desired on this occasion to enter into a serious discussion on this question. The speech of my noble Friend has been rather of an academic character; and as there are several Bills of an important character awaiting your Lordships' consideration, I have merely to point out, with regard to the Motion, that the Papers which the noble Lord asks for have been already presented to your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it the intention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to take any opportunity of making any statement with respect to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to some of the matters touched upon by the
  1608
  noble Lord, analogous to that which it is understood is about to be made in the other House?
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is not my intention; but if the noble Marquess wishes to raise a discussion, I am perfectly prepared to meet him.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in reply, said, that perhaps the noble Earl the Secretary of State would inform the House where the original concessions had been brought before their Lordships. [Earl GRANVILLE was understood to say No. 6.] If that was the case, he (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) would withdraw the Motion. He must remark, however, that he had by no means held out the disappearance of the First Minister from his actual post as an universal panacea. He had only pointed out that until it happened it would not be possible to take away the garrison from Egypt, while to retain it led to evils of a grave and serious description.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Greville.)
IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 156.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Loans to Town Commissioners from Irish Reproductive Loan Fund).
  LORD VENTRYmoved, in page 3, line 20, to substitute "Boards of Guardians" as administrators of the Fund for the "Town Commissioners." He did not see why they should trust the management of this Fund to bodies who had had no connection with it in the past. It appeared to him that Boards of Guardians would be more suitable bodies for the management of the Fund than any Town Commissioners; because this Fund was intended, not specially for the development of any parts of the particular counties dealt with in the Bill—Tipperary and Roscommon—but for the benefit of the counties at large; and if they entrusted the Funds to be administered by Boards of Guardians the whole community would, both directly and indirectly, obtain the benefit of the expendi-

  1609
  ture, whereas if the expenditure of the money was placed in the hands of the Town Commissioners it would be limited to a few small towns.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 20, to leave out ("Town Commissioners") and insert ("Boards of Guardians.")—(The Lord Ventry.)
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, the object with which the management of the Fund was proposed to be put into the hands of the Town Commissioners was to enable the two counties of Roscommon and Tipperary to carry out certain works for which this money had for the last 40 years been denied them.
  LORD VENTRYcontended that, under existing legislation, the Town Commissioners could obtain loans for effecting improvements independently of the Fund in question. Their Lordships ought not to forget that this money was originally subscribed for charitable objects, and that the balance after those particular objects were attained was devoted to casual charitable purposes. He should persevere with his Amendment.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, would be that the money would be applied to no use whatever. The fact was, it had lain absolutely idle for the last 50 or 60 years; and it would, if the noble Lord had his way, remain idle probably for 60 years more. The object of the Bill was simply to find some useful purposes for employing this Fund strictly by way of loan, and not by way of grant. He had heard nothing from the noble Lord or anyone else to induce him to think that Boards of Guardians were better bodies for using the Fund in the two counties in question than those bodies which were proposed by the promoters of the Bill. Why Boards of Guardians were considered the more suitable bodies he was not able to understand. He knew that the suggestion of the noble Lord was made by a single Gentleman in "another place;" but it received no support. He had heard nothing as to what use Boards of Guardians would make of these loans. The loans could not be applied for the relief of the poor, for emigration, or for any of the other purposes with which Boards of Guardians had to deal.
  1610
  Boards of Guardians, for purposes beyond the relief of the poor, such as emigration or sanitary matters, had powers to borrow money already; and if this Fund were put at their disposal he saw no other prospect than that it would be "frittered" away and wasted. Under those circumstances, he conceived that it would be better to leave it in its present useless condition. If the Fund was put within the reach of the Town Commissioners of the small towns in the two counties he could very well conceive that loans could be applied by them to very useful public purposes. The benefits of such loans would not be confined to the towns themselves, but would, as a matter of course, extend into the neighbouring country. As between the two public bodies, which was the only question raised by the noble Lord, he could not doubt that the Town Commissioners had far better means of making use of such loans for useful public purposes than Boards of Guardians, to whom the noble Lord wished to have them transferred.
  LORD EMILYsaid, the only change which was made by the Bill was that the Town Commissioners had the power of levying rates for the purpose of paying the instalments of these loans as they became due. What would be the result of that? Of course, they could not ask people to contribute towards objects which were outside their own town; and, therefore, the real object of the Bill was to take the money from the counties of Tipperary and Roscommon and give it to the small towns in which these Commissioners had jurisdiction. The Bill gave these small towns the power of appropriating to their own objects this money, instead of allowing it to be applied to objects which were to benefit the whole counties. He did not like very much Boards of Guardians, if some other more suitable body could be found. He was not sure the Fund should not be handed over to Grand Juries, who had control over the whole of the counties. Still, he thought, on the whole, that the Boards of Guardians had a very much larger and more extensive jurisdiction than the Town Commissioners; and, therefore, if the noble Lord went to a Division, he should vote with him.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would

  1611
  remind the noble Lord that Boards of Guardians had no power whatever of using these loans. With regard to making the loans available to the whole of the counties that was scarcely possible. In all other counties, with the exception of the two inland counties named, these loans were applied solely for the purposes of the fisheries.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 5 (Conditions of loans).
  LORD VENTRYmoved the addition of the following provision:—
  "No money shall be expended under this Act for any institution having for its object the reclamation of criminals."
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, he would agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL.

  (No. 167.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the Bill was intended to consolidate the law with reference to the conveyance of the Queen's Forces by railway. It was also the purpose of the framers of the Bill to carry out the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. That promise was that he would make some reduction in the Railway Passenger Duty if the Companies would make certain concessions. The sum which the right hon. Gentleman stated would be remitted amounted to £400,000. The chief benefits that would be conferred on the Railway Companies by the Bill were—first, that all fares not exceeding 1d. per mile would be exempted from duty in the future; and, secondly, that duty would only be payable at the rate of 2 per cent, instead of at 5 per cent, on fares exceeding 1d. per mile between stations on urban lines. Certain reductions would
  1612
  be made in the rates charged for the conveyance of troops. The present scale of charges was fixed in 1844 at 2d. per mile for first-class passengers, and 1d. per mile for third-class passengers. Since 1844 ordinary passenger rates had been greatly reduced; and the Bill aimed at making such a reduction in the rates charged for troops as should be in accord with the original proportion between the rates charged for the public and the rates charged for troops. This was a Revenue Bill; and it was based on arrangements come to with the representatives of the principal lines of railways in the Kingdom, and on mutual concessions made to and by them. The Bill gave the Board of Trade power to regulate workmen's trains. There had been no opposition to the Bill in the House of Commons; and he trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now road 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that since he had been connected with the railway management of the country he had—for reasons which their Lordships would understand—forborne from taking part in discussions in that House upon railway matters. This Bill, however, was of such an exceptional character, and involved such serious consequences, that he must humbly crave their Lordships' attention for a brief space of time. Of course, their Lordships could simply accept or reject a Money Bill, but could not alter it; and if this Bill dealt simply with the abolition of a tax, he should be the last to raise any question as to it, more especially as he had himself brought the subject of the Passenger Duty before the other House of Parliament, had served upon the Committee which had inquired into it, and had a full, share of responsibility in the Report of that Committee condemnatory of the duty. Incidentally he might observe that this duty had been imposed because there were duties leviable upon other public conveyances; and these latter duties having all been removed, it was claimed, and recommended by the Committee, that this duty should share the same fate, without any question of a quid pro quo. The 3rd clause in this Bill, however, gave power to the Board of Trade to interfere with private enter-prize by regulating the time and man-

  1613
  ner of running workmen's trains, and regulating the fares already authorized in each case by special Act of Parliament; and if the Railway Companies did not agree to what the Board of Trade proposed, they were not to have the benefits conferred by the Bill. The House of Commons endeavoured to interfere with private enterprize; and their Lordships were told that they had no power to interfere, because an allusion to a tax was tacked on to the end of the clause. Again, the arrangements for the conveyance of troops had nothing to do with Imperial taxation; and yet their Lordships were told that they could not interfere with it; whereas this clause had relation to railway rates and fares, which might be a very proper question for arrangement between the Department of Government and Railway Companies, but had no place, by right, in a Revenue Bill. The novel powers which were given to the Board of Trade in this Bill, and the powers to lower the rates of conveyance of troops, were powers which the House of Commons had no right to give alone, but which, if right to be given, should be given by the concurrent legislation of both Houses of Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the question of principle seemed to him quite plain. Any noble Lord might move the rejection of the Bill. On the other hand, a Bill for the conditional remission of taxation must be dealt with on the same principle as a Bill for the unconditional remission of taxation. They must either accept it as it stood, or reject it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there could be no doubt, according to the practice of the House and the precedents which guided their Lordships, remissions of taxation were not matters with which they dealt. It might also be fairly said that if the remission was conditional, and if the House of Commons proposed to receive certain work done in the place of a tax, their Lordships should not interfere so far as concerned the remission or condition. But the precedent brought forward in the celebrated speech of Lord Lyndhurst on the question of the Paper Duty 20 years ago bore him out in saying that if the conditional remission of taxation was directed towards the attainment of any object of public policy, and that public
  1614
  policy was one in which their Lordships' House could not concur, it was entirely open to them to give effect to their view by their votes. Were it otherwise, the House of Commons would be enabled, by its management of the public purse, to affect the legislative rights of that House. He did not, however, take an attitude hostile to the Bill, because he believed there was a good deal of foundation in the remarks made by the noble Earl, and the object it had in view was a very good one, and dealt with a grievance which the House would be anxious to remove. At the same time he thought a good deal might be said as to the inequality of the Bill in its bearing upon the Railway Companies.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the great
  question of Privilege relating to the tacking on of Money Bills might be so managed as to exclude the House of Lords from the whole legislative Business of the country. On that principle they were bound to object to such a course, which would curtail the Privileges of the House in a most objectionable manner.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had only referred to bonâ fide Money Bills.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

METROPOLIS—DRAINAGE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FORBES, in calling attention to the drainage of London, said, he certainly believed that in Cavendish Square, where he lived, the drainage system was very objectionable. He was perfectly convinced that the system adopted in the Metropolis must be unsatisfactory. The drainage was conveyed to the sea, and at a certain time of the tide there was no exit for it, and all the gases were forced to escape through openings in the drains themselves. His attention had recently been called to a system of drainage, which appeared absolutely faultless in its working. Exhibits of it might be seen at the Fisheries Exhibition, and the Company were at that moment draining Aylesbury. He had no connection with the Company in question; but a relative of his was its Chairman, and had ex-

  1615
  plained the system to him. Immediately the drainage was received, it was conveyed into tanks, where it was treated with blood, carbon, and clay, and also with a certain compound of alum. After going through three tanks it flowed into the River Thames in the shape of water, pure and perfectly innocuous. The refuse also provided a useful manure. The Company were quite ready to drain any other towns; and lie did not see why the sewage of London should be conveyed away to poison the sea at Margate or elsewhere, when it could be satisfactorily disposed of in the manner he had described.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he concurred in the importance of the question raised by the noble Lord. As, however, he had not received Notice of the matters to which he had referred, and had no previous knowledge of the system he had alluded to, he would not attempt to follow his remarks. He would, however, take care that the noble Lord's observations were brought to the knowledge of the proper authorities.
  PETROLEUM BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  D. Somerset.

  L. Ramsay.

  E. Milltown.

  L. Norton.

  L. Monson

  The Committee to meet this day, at One o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock