said, that before putting the Question of which he had given Notice relating to certain papers submitted to Sir Alexander Milne, he wished to read a letter he had received from that distinguished officer. The letter, which was dated March 23rd, said—

"You no doubt recollect the three estimates on the 'Megæra' Papers, page 184, and at page vii. of the Report, with my signature and approval of the same, for £250, at the bottom. I wrote and requested to see the original papers, and it turns out that I never saw these estimates—never saw even the papers on which they were written, and my signature does not exist on the papers at all; but my approval is on the submission of the Controller, at page 181.—Yours truly,

A. MILNE"

He had, therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to No. 184, printed at page 595 of the Appendix to the Evidence of the "Megæra" Commission, and referred to by the Commissioners in Clause 10 of the Report, Whether the said Document as a whole was ever submitted to Sir Alex- ander Milne, whose approval it purports to bear; and, whether Document 184 does not consist of separate Documents, one of which only (that for the smaller Estimate) was ever submitted to Sir Alexander Milne for his consideration and approval?

In reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. and gallant Admiral, I have to state that he is quite accurate in the main portion of his Question. The document was not as a whole ever submitted to Sir Alexander Milne; but the error arose from the printer not having left the proper space between the documents. No doubt, upon those who had not seen the original documents a wrong impression would be produced. I, however, wrote a letter to the gallant officer, which I have no doubt will satisfy him as to the facts.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that some of the Officers of the Royal Horse Artillery, ordered unexpectedly to England in February 1871, unsuccessfully applied for passages for their horses, on account of the impossibility of selling them except at a heavy loss, owing to the short notice which they received; and, whether, in consideration of the large saving effected by the Indian Exchequer by the sudden and unexpected withdrawal of a whole brigade of Horse Artillery, which must otherwise have remained in the country until the following cold season, the Secretary of State for India will re-consider his decision with regard to compensation to the Officers for the losses incurred?

In reply, Sir, to the hon. and gallant Member's first Question, I have to say that I am not aware that the officers alluded to applied for passages for their horses. There is nothing on record at the India Office to show that they did, nor has it ever been the practice for troops proceeding to or from India to take their horses. In reply to his second Question, I have to say that the Secretary of State does not propose to re-consider the decision arrived at by him in Council.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Board possess any powers of regulating the sources of the water supply of the Metropolis; and, if so, whether he intends to exercise such powers?

Sir, the Board of Trade have no power whatever of regulating the sources of the water supply of the metropolis. The water companies are regulated by their own Acts, subject to this condition—that they shall not take water below Teddington Lock. One of the companies most complained of did take power last year to draw its supply of water higher up the Thames—at Molesey, above the inflow of the Mole.

, in rising to call attention to the incidents of the Civil War in Cuba in connection with the question of Slavery, and to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to urge upon the Spanish Government the fulfilment, without further delay, of those Treaty obligations in respect to the Slave Population of Cuba which have been so long neglected,"

said, that the treatment of what were called the "inferior" races by this and other Christian nations was becoming every year a more and more important question. He would remind the House that it was referred to in the opening paragraph in the Queen's Speech of this Session, in connection with the martyrdom of an English Bishop. Since then Motions had been made and discussions had arisen with respect to the Pacific, the East Coast of Africa, China, Australia, and the West Indies. He had heard it remarked that these matters did not interest the House of Commons, and that the country objected to the expense of the Squadron maintained for the suppression of the Slave Trade on the West Coast of Africa. He should consider it a great misfortune if those statements were true, because the anti-slavery work of this country during the last 50 years had been the noblest part of the nation's work. He was old enough to remember the time when children were trained in the habits of abstaining from slave-grown sugar and subscribing pence for slave emancipation. Of late a good deal of ridicule of a rather thin kind had been expended on these and similar customs; but indifference to such ridicule about matters in which we took a deep interest was one of our most useful national characteristics. In his judgment, such habits were the best antidote against national selfishness and isolation, and kept the nation's head clear, its heart warm, and its nerves strung to meet any serious crisis with wisdom and daring. The Pacific Islanders Bill, which would save us from implication in the Coolie Trade, encouraged him to hope that the state of things in Cuba and Spain would command attention of the Government at this time. That position was exceptional and peculiar in this respect—that, in every other country which had declared for emancipation, the movement came from without, and abolition was forced on the Colonies. Now, in this case of Cuba, it was the Colonies of Spain which desired emancipation, and the planters united with the slaves in demanding it, while the Central Government refused to grant it. To the honour of Spain, be it said, the public opinion of the country, both in metropolis and provinces, favoured the abolition of the Slave Trade, and, according to a despatch of Mr. Trumbull to Lord Palmerston, the same state of things existed 40 years ago. Even in the present year, when the greater part of Cuba was in rebellion, great meetings had been held in Barcelona, Leon, Salamanca, Badajoz, Madrid, and other large towns of Spain, calling on the Government to carry out the principle of the Revolution of 1868, and to emancipate the slaves in the Spanish Colonies. These meetings also returned thanks to the deputies from Porto Rico, who had come over with the scheme of emancipation, and to the 69 Spanish journals which had not received the subventions of the slave party. To go back to the Spanish Revolution of 1868. When it broke out, the Provisional Government of General Prim issued a proclamation abolishing slavery in the Colonies, and it was received with great enthusiasm in Cuba; but, unfortunately, there was delay. There were three members of that Provisional Government who had been Captains General in Cuba or Porto Rico, and who did not command colonial confidence. Consequently, two months after the Revolution in Spain the Revolution in Cuba broke out, and that was followed by the formation of a Government and an Assembly for those parts of the island under revolutionary government. On the 11th of March, 1869, the Cuban Revolutionary Government declared slavery abolished in the island; and the immediate effect of that was to free 100,000 slaves belonging to Members of the Assembly or their sympathizers, and to leave another 100,000 slaves still within the districts occupied by the Spanish troops. Of these the Government of Spain took possession, and worked them for its own benefit, their earnings in 1871 being 15,000,000 reals. The Cuban proclamation was met by a Spanish proclamation, requiring that every man above the age of 15, in the disturbed districts, who was found absent from his home should be summarily shot, and that houses unoccupied and without a white flag should be burned. He trusted to hear that the British Government had remonstrated against that proclamation, as the American Government had remonstrated, in strong language. Since that time the government of the island, unfortunately, had been allowed by the authorities to get into the hands of those Spaniards who were known as the Cuban Volunteers, and those troops were the very worst kind of irregulars. They did not do the fighting, but remained behind and tyrannized over the whole population in the rear of the troops. From the evidence of Spanish officers, who loathed the atrocities committed by them, it appeared that these Volunteers numbered more than 60,000 well-armed Spaniards, who wished to exterminate the Cubans. He did not mean to dwell on these atrocities, and would only therefore refer to the terrible murder of the medical students at Havannah last December, full details of which had appeared in The Times. On the morning of the 23rd of December last, 44 medical students, most of them sons of Cubans who sympathized with the Revolution, dismissed from lecture on account of the illness of the Professor, entered a cemetery and injured the tomb of a Volunteer officer who had been connected with some of the worst doings in that terrible war. They broke a glass case, scattered about the immortelles it contained, and scribbled doggrel verses on the tomb. On this becoming known in the city, the Volunteers called on Captain General Crispo to have all the students tried by court-martial. The 44 students were arrested, and a regular court-martial appointed to try them; but the Volunteers put pressure on the Captain General, and forced him to bring them before a tribunal composed partly of Volunteer officers. The sentence was that eight of them should be shot, and that 30 of the remainder should be sent to the chain-gangs in penal servitude. On the Monday morning the eight young Cubans were shot, and 30 of the students still remained in the chain-gangs. The reason the remaining six other students escaped was, he believed, because they were connected with English or American families. The Captain General, who had now returned to Spain, justified his conduct on the ground that, if he had not consented to the execution of the eight students, the whole of the 44 would undoubtedly have been butchered by the Volunteers. To show the powerlessness of the Government of Spain to deal with this question, he might mention that early in February, when the news had reached Spain, and been considered in that country, 77 Members of the Cortes went to the young King and asked him to release the 30 prisoners. He believed that the King, without leaving the Council Chamber, telegraphed to Cuba that they must be at once released; but the Captain General replied that he dared not release them, because if he did they would certainly be murdered, and probably rivers of blood would flow in the island. It had been said that the rebellion was almost at an end, and was likely to be speedily suppressed; but 30,000 troops were about to be de- spatched to the island in the present year, and, according to the latest returns, there were 59,000 rank and file of the Spanish Army there already. The Volunteers, too, were nearly 60,000 in number; and of the Spanish Fleet there were altogether 50 vessels, carrying 206 guns, on the coast of Cuba. Did that look as if it were likely that the present state of things would be brought to a speedy end? The loss of life both to the Spaniards and the Cubans during the three years of strife, moreover, had been perfectly frightful. At a great meeting held last February in the Circus at Madrid, under the presidency of Senor Zorilla, the ex-Minister for the Colonies stated that of the 110,000 Spanish troops who left for Cuba, 50,000 had died in the island. He now came to the special question of slavery. During the four years of this rebellion, besides the injuries inflicted on the negro slaves, a new form of slavery had been established. He referred to the slavery of the Chinese coolies. Up to the middle of last year, or even later, the rule which obtained was that every Chinaman imported into the island should bind himself to serve for eight years, for $4¼ a month, at the end of which term he could return home. But in December last the Captain General Valmazeda issued an edict, to the effect that a second term of eight years' compulsory service should be imposed on every Chinaman in service in the island, and on his refusing to accept this second term of servitude the coolie became a slave and the property of the Government. Senor Felix Ferra, who succeeded as acting Captain General, issued another edict only a few weeks since, which practically established the absolute slavery of every Chinaman in Cuba. It prohibited every Chinaman from leaving the island, from moving from place to place, except in company with his master, and from obtaining naturalization, or permits of residence in the island. In addition to these lamentable facts, from a letter which he had received from an Englishman living in Havannah, the question of slavery in Cuba was spoken of as becoming more and more important, because the slaveowners were going to import slaves, or coolie labourers, as they were called, on a large scale. The writer declared that there ought to be a Consul or Commissioner in Cuba to look after the condition of the Chinese. That was an observation which it was desirable should attract the attention of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Now he was in a condition to prove that a new kind of slavery was being established in Cuba, and that two influential companies had been formed in Havannah for the special purpose of importing Chinese. Advertisements had been published in the latest Cuban journals, stating that four vessels belonging to those societies, with 1,900 of these unfortunate slaves on board, were actually on their way to Cuba, and one of the societies offered 850 and the other society offered 950 for sale. But it might be said, supposing all this to be true, what right had any other nation to interfere? He should say that this country had most undoubtedly a right, and was, indeed, bound to remonstrate on this state of things. One reason for interference on the part of England was, that Spain was pouring Cuban refugees, who were utterly destitute, into the West Indian Islands, leaving them there dependent on the charity of the inhabitants. That was one reason justifying the interference of England; but, in addition, there was a still stronger reason for English interference, for Spain was bound by treaties which explicitly gave England the right of appealing to the Spanish Government, and of strongly pressing the appeal on this subject. In 1817 a treaty was made between Spain and England, by which it was declared that the Slave Trade carried on with certain parts of Africa should be abolished in 1820, and His Britannic Majesty engaged to pay £400,000 as compensation for the loss of the said traffic. That treaty proved to be insufficient for the purpose in view, being limited to a certain portion of the coast of Africa; and in 1835 a new treaty was entered into, the 1st clause of which enacted that the Slave Trade should be declared by Spain to be totally and finally abolished in all parts of the world. It might be said that those treaties only applied to the Slave Trade. They certainly did not apply to the negroes in slavery in Cuba at the time of their conclusion; but they applied to every other negro afterwards landed there, and the lowest estimate of the number of slaves imported since the date of those treaties put it at five or six times the amount previously living in Cuba. Therefore it was quite clear the greater part of the negro population now living in that island must have been imported since 1820, or must be the descendants of slaves imported since that date. But the fact was, that both the treaties had been neglected by the Spanish Government. Over and over again the late Lord Palmerston had applied to the Court of Spain, peremptorily insisting on the fulfilment of these engagements; but the state of things had not been altered. The question then arose—What could Her Majesty's Government do in the case as it stood at present? It was now said that Spain herself was almost in a state of revolution, and that it would be an act of unfriendliness to press, at the present time, upon the Government of that country claims founded on those treaties. But he (Mr. Hughes) felt strongly that the time would inevitably come when such claims must be pressed, and he believed, indeed, that that time had already arrived; nor could he think that by doing so the British Government would commit an act of unfriendliness, or imperil the throne of the young King Amadeus by taking this course. On the contrary, it was his conviction that that throne would be better secured if a little pressure from the English Government led him to declare the emancipation of the slaves in Cuba. This matter, however, did not rest alone with the Spanish Government or with the English Government. Other Powers had already intervened to a certain extent, and what had occurred in Cuba had evoked the sternest protests from the United States, protests made in his (Mr. Hughes's) belief with a loyal view of obtaining emancipation for the slaves, and not for any ulterior purpose. It therefore could not be an unfriendly thing to urge the young King of Spain to proclaim emancipation at once, and he believed most sincerely that if emancipation were proclaimed, it would give by far the best chance of terminating the Rebellion in Cuba without separating the island from the Spanish Crown. He thought, accordingly, that our Government should press at once, and firmly, for the fulfilment of Spain's treaty obligations, and should insist that all negroes not native born who were now in the Island of Cuba, and all the children of negroes who were not in the island in 1820, should be at once emancipated, and that care should be taken that a new slave trade, as horrible in its details as any which had ever existed, should not be suffered to grow up in the island. In view of so terrible a contingency, the delivery of such remonstrances could not possibly be intrusted to a fitter man than to our present Ambassador in Spain. The Spanish Government should also be urged to allow the appointment of our Consul General, or some other competent person, as a Commissioner for the Chinese on the island; and he was certain that nothing but some such arrangement as that would put a stop to the new slave trade from China, which had been in operation since the beginning of last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Address.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he was doing no more than asking the Government to continue in the path which Lord Palmerston during all his life had so steadfastly adhered to, for there was in the Foreign Office, and in this country generally, a strong desire to see slavery abolished, and the engagements which Spain had entered into fulfilled; and he hoped the House would that night give authority to the Government to say to Spain, in terms that could not be misunderstood—"We are tired, after the sum of money we have paid you for the abolition of slavery, of seeing the present state of things going on, and we must press upon you the fulfilment of the engagement which you entered into with us." We, moreover, undoubtedly had a right to ask Spain to fulfil her contract with us, if we could satisfy ourselves that the Cuban insurrection had grown out of the question of slavery. The fact was, we had been living in a fool's Paradise, deluding ourselves into the belief that slavery was abolished throughout the length and breadth of the world, while there never was a time when slavery, under varied names, was so rampant as it was at this moment. The question was one in which, fortunately, party politics had no share; for while one side of the House could point to its Wilber-force, the other could claim its Clarkson and its Buxton. He believed that the insurrection or rebellion in Cuba had for its chief object the emancipation of the slaves, and that if the Spanish Government at the outset had decreed freedom, the outbreak would have been but a very small one, if it had occurred at all. Some thought it would be unfriendly to Spain to make representations on the subject; but our experience showed it would be the most friendly course we could pursue, especially as the withdrawal of Spanish soldiers would be a distinct gain to Spain. The rejection of the Motion would not, however, express the true feeling of the House, and he was sure it enlisted the sympathies of the Under Secretary, whatever view he might take of the question officially; and he (Mr. Gilpin) would express a hope that the discussion would revive something of that old anti-slavery feeling in the country which formed one of the best reminiscences of his younger days, and which was one of the finest characteristics of our better nature.

said, he was in doubt, until he had heard the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Motion, whether it pointed to the question of slavery in Cuba simply, or to the Cuban question generally. Having been in the island during the heat of the disturbance, and in the centre of the disturbed districts, he could speak with some authority upon the state of the case, and in the first place would remark, that opinion on the Cuban question seemed to be divided into three factions—the Spanish, the Cuban, and the American. The Spanish faction did not wish to see Cuba handed over to America, or any other foreign Power, or even to become independent; because it was well known she could not maintain her position. The Cuban view was participated in by the Coloured and Creole population, and fostered by inflammatory addresses from a few rich and ambitious Cubans living in wealth in New York, who were also the prime movers in filibustering expeditions. This party sided with the Americans in their endeavours to get rid of Spain; but the union between the Americans and the Cubans ended with this—for, while the Cubans sought complete independence, the Americans knew the island must fall into their hands if the Spanish were excluded, unless they wished to see it another Mexico or St. Domingo. Much had been said of the manner in which the Rebellion had been suppressed; but information on this subject should be received with reserve. It mainly came from two sources—official correspondence between Mr. Fish and General Sickles, and the statements of American newspaper correspondents. The latter reflected great credit upon the ingenuity of the writers, but should not be trusted. As to the character of the disturbance, he objected to its being described as a state of war, and in this he was supported by General Grant, who some time since had stated that there was no absolute state of war, and no de facto political organization, and who had clearly stated as much in his Message to Congress. The conduct of Spain had not been characterized by that cruelty which some attributed to it, and but very few cases of inhumanity came under his notice. Even if the rule of the Spaniards had been harsh, it was not for us to throw stones with Jamaica fresh in our recollection, although he would be the last to say a word against that much ill-used man Governor Eyre, the victim of ill-informed sentimentality. Knowing, as we did, that a little well-timed severity would prevent great mischief, and be the means of preventing great loss of life and suffering, the policy of Spain in Cuba should not be unreservedly condemned, although, at the same time, he thought it would have been much better for all parties if a man of greater firmness and resolution had commanded at the outset. Allusion had been made to the murder of the unfortunate students at Havannah, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. Hughes) had shown that the general who was guilty of abetting that crime had been taken to task for it by his Government—with what result he knew not. He believed that the Spanish Government were not so much to blame in that matter, and the only reason which they—and, perhaps, Spain at large—had to blush in reference to it, was that a man holding a Spanish commission should, in order to save his own life—which would have been sacrificed if he had taken another course—have put his name to such an atrocious paper as that which was presented to him. He did not defend Spain for not acting up to her treaty obligations; but he did not quite see what the best course open to Her Majesty's Government was in that matter. It was now an accepted principle, especially among hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we ought not to interfere diplomatically in the affairs—and particularly the internal affairs—of other countries. If this had been the case of a first-class Power—which possibly Spain could not claim to be—he felt confident that we should not interfere except by the most friendly despatches, really amounting to nothing. If, as they had been told, Lord Palmerston had protested repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, he could hardly see of what avail a protest would be coming from a Government which regarded treaties as such ephemeral things, as they might be supposed to regard them from their action upon the Treaty of Paris. Even Spain might return a polite answer, but take no further notice of the protest, knowing that we had no intention of backing it up or adopting any other step in the matter. Moreover, the insurgents of Cuba had put themselves out of court in respect to sympathy. Had they risen at a moment when there existed real tyranny it would have been a different matter; but they rose when there was about to be a great change in the administration of the country, and they did not give the Spanish Government an opportunity of carrying out its reforms. He believed that those who instigated the late Rebellion in Spain also instigated the Rebellion in Cuba with the intention of hampering the then Government of Spain. In the present state of things, therefore, and until the insurrection in Cuba was at an end, he thought a protest on our part, if it was not absolutely uncalled for, could at least lead to no practical result.

, in reference to what had just fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Major Arbuthnot), said, it was somewhat embarrassing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have imported his own personal knowledge into the discussion, because he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would be at issue with Mm upon matters of fact as well as of opinion. Without intending any disrespect to the hon. and gallant Member opposite, he must say that his observation in regard to Cuba had been superficial, and that his information was unsound. From his(Mr. Serjeant Simon's) own personal knowledge and experience of Cuba, dating back now some 40 years, and having travelled through that island and visited most of the principal cities and towns which were the scene of the insurrection, he could assure the House that he had never found but one sentiment among the people—namely, a detestation of the Government under which they lived. It was a Government which might be described as a pure military despotism, and corrupt in every department. All the great appointments in the island emanated from the mother country; and he had heard of one high official person in Cuba—a collector of revenue—who had been thrice dismissed in consequence of peculation, and thrice replaced in his position by his influence with the Cabinet at Madrid. It was a well-known fact that Governors General who went out from Spain as poor soldiers returned as rich men, and were covered with stars, orders, and titles of every description; and he could state that ever since he was a boy there had existed among all classes in Cuba a feeling of disaffection, and a strong desire for a change in the management of their affairs. That feeling had gradually deepened into the conviction that they had no chance of achieving their freedom except by the means to which they had had recourse. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken disparagingly of the rich Cubans, who he said issued inflammatory manifestoes from New York, and fitted out filibustering expeditions. But if the leading men of a community did not take the lead in a great national movement, to whom were they to look to do so? Those Cubans at New York had been driven there by the necessities of their position, and had resorted to the only means open to them as exiles to free their countrymen from the oppression to which they were subjected under the military rule of Spain. He knew the Cubans well—they were the most hospitable, they were the gentlest of human kind; and he had a deep sympathy for their sufferings, and a high admiration for the courage and endurance they had displayed in their endeavour to establish their liberties. One of the first acts of the Provisional Government was to proclaim the freedom of the negroes. He had witnessed slavery in Cuba and other parts of the West, and was acquainted with the miseries and evils inseparable from the system. The hon. and gallant Member was hardly old enough to remember the Slave Trade; but he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had seen a captured slaver brought into an English port. Originally she had sailed from Africa with 500 negroes on board, men and women, and chiefly young persons, but many of them had died and had been thrown overboard on the voyage. When the vessel arrived, he, with some friends, went on board, and was a witness to the misery which the survivors had endured. They had been packed in the hold and on the deck of the vessel in rows of three or four, close together, as cattle were packed in a railway truck. The posture in which the poor creatures had been placed during the greater part of the voyage was a sitting posture, their knees reaching up to their chins, and their feet in an almost perpendicular line with their knees. He heard their groans, and witnessed their agonies, in the endeavour to straighten their limbs and to walk, and should never forget the hideous spectacle. This was not an exceptional case, it was in the ordinary course of the trade. The cost of fitting out several vessels was comparatively small, and was likely to be recouped by the chance of escape, and one voyage out of three would recoup the capture of two vessels and pay a large profit upon the expedition. It was of great importance that this country should keep a sharp eye, lest a similar trade should be brought into activity from the East. It was important that Her Majesty's Government should keep their attention fixed upon the conduct of the Spanish Government with reference to the importation of Chinese and coolies into Cuba, and at least exercise that friendly admonition which might secure adequate protection to the poor emigrant, such as was afforded in English Colonies. A long period had elapsed since the horrors of the Slave Trade were depicted in that House, and the rising generation in this country were not sufficiently informed on the subject, and looked upon slavery as a thing of the past. Although he was one of those who repudiated the doctrine of intervention, he thought there would be nothing opposed to the policy they had laid down in that respect or to the comity of nations in administering friendly warning and counsel to Spain, and reminding her of her treaty obligations.

desired to tender his thanks to his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Enfield) for his production of the Papers which had been moved for some weeks ago, and, in passing, would remark that, in his opinion, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot) had been misunderstood in the observations he had made upon the question. He (Mr. Fowler) held in his hand a statement showing the result of Census returns in Cuba, from which it appeared that there were in that island 34,025 males, and only 25 female coloured persons—a circumstance of the disparity of sexes highly suggestive as to the existence of slavery. He hoped the result of the present Motion would be to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in putting an end to the evils which afflicted that dependency of Spain.

said, he did not attach implicit credit to the assurances of the Spanish Government that there had been no importation of slaves into Cuba of late years, for from the statements of the English Consul it appeared that a cargo of slaves was landed in Cuba in 1867, and in 1868 Mr. Layard wrote that he believed the reports of slaves having been landed were not wholly destitute of foundation. The Emancipation Law passed in 1870 was inadequate and illusory, and under it the treatment of emancipados, was even worse than that of the original slaves. The most stringent edicts were inoperative when their execution was left to interested agents, and although the Emancipation enactment was framed in a manner to be as tender as possible to the slave-owners, yet our Consul General stated that it would be thwarted with all the cunning and chicanery for which the slave-owners of Cuba were so remarkable. As to the condition of the Chinese coolies in Cuba it was clear that they were abso- lutely sold on their arrival, and that Asiatic colonization in Cuba was, as Marshal Serrano said, perpetual slavery. In fact, Asiatic slavery was now taking the place of African slavery, as evidenced by the fact that the coolies in the island now numbered 50,000, and they were continually increasing. With all deference to the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley), he (Sir Charles Wingfield) entirely differed in opinion with him upon this question, and held that to remedy the evil, they must strike at the source of supply, and not of demand. Macao was the great seat of the emigration trade, and within the last few days they had had placed in their hands a correspondence which revealed fresh horrors in this species of traffic. The Judge of the Mixed Commission at the Cape of Good Hope stated that the emigration was voluntary only in name, and the grossest cruelties were committed. The coolies were entrapped at Macao, terrified by threats from saying that they were unwilling to emigrate, sent on board ship under a military guard and emigration agents who played into the hands of the kidnappers, put between decks, and cannon were planted so as to sweep the decks. The emigration rules might not be bad so far as they went; but they were not carried out in good faith, for Macao was too deeply interested in the continuance of the emigration trade. If the authorities desired that no coolies should be sent away without their own consent, why did they not dispense with the armed guard? But the Portuguese Government expressed no horror, or even regret, at the tragedy of the Dolores Ugarte; but made the allegation—which seemed rather impudent—that the trade carried on from Hong Kong was quite as bad. That charge had been abundantly refuted, and it was difficult to imagine a more disrespectful reply to the remonstrances of the British Government. He would suggest to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Enfield) to devise some measure, in conjunction with the Chinese Government, for stopping this emigration from Macao. He admitted the benefits of emigration when carried on as it was from Hong Kong to the United States and Australia—that was, when the Chinese went of their own accord, to push their fortunes, and were not trepanned by recruiting agents and consigned to masters like slaves; but what humanizing, civilizing, or elevating influence could they receive under a state of things in which they were driven by despair to kill their oppressors and destroy themselves. The Chinaman, therefore, who returned to his own country after such treatment imbued the minds of his countrymen with a hatred of Europeans, and associated them with kidnapping, and the cry of kidnappers was always enough to raise a Chinese mob against Europeans. He did not think we should be doing our duty if we did not take more decided measures with a Government which had shown itself so unmindful of human suffering as that of Portugal; and the remembrance of what this country had done in years gone by for the suppression of the Slave Trade, ought to incite our Government to do all they possibly could to stop this iniquitous traffic, and not to rest content with a mere polite remonstrance on our part.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome had spoken on the subject with his usual ability, and with that earnestness and generosity of purpose which always characterized everything he had to say when human suffering was in question. He could assure both him and the House that with the sentiments he had expressed and his horror of the Slave Trade he most cordially sympathized; but he wished to bring back the attention of the House to the Motion now before them, from which the last two speakers had somewhat deviated. That question was, as to what the Government were able or would be willing to do towards pressing on Spain the fulfilment of her treaty obligations for the suppression of the Slave Trade in Cuba. He need not remind the House with regard to the insurrection now going on in Cuba that so far back as 1823 there was much discontent among the Creoles, forming the greater part of the White population, against the Spanish Government. There were risings, but no actual bloodshed. The feeling of the population was hostile to Spanish rule. In October, 1868, the knowledge of what was passing in the Spanish capital precipitated matters; an insurrection broke out in Cuba, which continued to rage more or less till the present time. Although there was no subject of more political interest in Spain, and none which more divided men into political factions, there was, unfortunately, one feeling which united all, and one determination which influenced their actions, which was that they could and would put down this insurrection in Cuba; and that until it was suppressed they could not entertain any proposition with regard to the suppression of the Slave Trade. Unpalatable as these sentiments might be for us, some allowance must be made for the Spaniards under their present difficulties. We should also be acting unfairly if we did not remember what were exactly the treaty obligations of Spain. No doubt there was a treaty with ourselves so far back as 1817; but the principal treaty on which we might rely with regard to any representations it might be our duty to submit to the Spanish Government, was concluded at Madrid on the 28th of June, 1835. By that Treaty, the Spanish Government declared the Slave Trade to be thenceforward abolished in all parts of the world, and declared that Spanish subjects should not be concerned, nor the Spanish flag employed in this traffic, and they undertook to use all effectual means for carrying out their intentions. The treaty was designed for the stopping of the African Slave Trade, and to form regulations for the good treatment of negroes who might be taken out of the vessels captured by the cruisers. That treaty, however, contained no stipulations which gave this country the right of interfering in the status of slavery in the Spanish possessions, and this distinction should be borne in mind by the House—we had clearly-defined stipulations that Spain should suppress the traffic in slaves, and that the captured negroes should be treated humanely and restored to liberty and their country within a certain period; but Spain had complete liberty of action as to whether she should retain slavery as an institution in her colonies, free her slaves tomorrow, or provide for a gradual state of emancipation; and England had no treaty right to interfere. With regard to the African Slave Trade, he must allow that Spain might fairly say that her treaty obligations had been observed with good faith, for there was no authentic record of any cargo of slaves having been landed in the Spanish Dominions for the last five years. Rumours of small batches of slaves having been landed had been occasionally reported, but not confirmed. Within the last 15 years up to 1868 upwards of 40,000 slaves were annually imported into Cuba; in 1868 the return was nil, and we might now look upon the Cuban Slave Trade as over. Having said that much in her favour, he must, however, in all frankness, admit that the engagements of Spain towards this country in regard to captured negroes had not been fulfilled in the manner we could wish. By Article 4 of the Treaty of 1835 it was provided—

"If the cruiser which makes the capture is Spanish, the negroes shall be delivered over to the Spanish authorities of the Havannah, or of any other point of the Dominion of the Queen of Spain in which the Mixed Court of Justice is established, and the Spanish Government solemnly engages that they shall be then treated strictly according to the regulations lately promulgated and now in force at the Havannah, with respect to the treatment of emancipated negroes according to such regulations as may in future be adopted, and which have and shall always have the humane object of improving and securing honestly and faithfully to the emancipated negroes the enjoyment of their acquired liberty, good treatment, &c., in order that the said emancipated negroes may be put in a condition to earn their subsistence, whether as artizans, mechanics, or servants."

Article 5 provided—

"That a register shall be kept of all emancipated negroes, in which shall be entered with scrupulous exactness the names given to the negroes, the names of the vessels in which they were captured, and the names of the persons to whose care they have been committed."

Article 6 provided—

"That the register referred to in the preceding Article shall serve as a general return, which the Government or Captain General shall be bound to deliver every six months to the British and Spanish Mixed Commission, in order to show the existence of the negroes emancipated under this treaty, and the decease of such as have died."

These regulations, if fairly carried out, would have insured the freedom of all captured negroes; but we could not and we must not disguise the fact that the condition of the so-called emancipados had differed little from that of the actual slaves. They had been subject to the caprice of their masters; they had had to perform the same hours of work as the slaves; they had been bought and sold—many times under the guise of being transferred to different masters—and, though entitled to their liberty, had been in many cases compelled to take the places of deceased slaves. The Spanish Government, on the other hand, in a Memorandum, dated the 31st of March last, communicated by Senor Blas to Mr. Layard, Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, maintained that the law of the 25th of July, 1870, in regard to emancipados was strictly fulfilled, and that the Africans in this category were in the full enjoyment of their liberty. The Spanish Minister added—

It is true that the superior Civil Governor of Cuba, to avoid the vagrancy of these libertos, and to obviate the inconveniences which they might cause to the public order, has urged them to contract for employment freely, and that such contracts have been made; but it is unjust to deduce from this that they constitute a real state of slavery, for the Minister of the Colonies has taken care to warn his delegate in Cuba that, though he should not hinder the signing of contracts of the nature of the above, but should do all in his power to encourage them when they have as their object the free contracting of labour as a consequence of the prescriptions of the law of slavery, and of the state of affairs to which the same give rise, and when the conditions agreed on do not impose restrictions on those who are freed by this law, but tend to foment agriculture and industry in the spirit which guided the Constituent Cortes in dictating their first dispositions in the matter, he, the Minister of the Colonies, was, notwithstanding, decided not to allow of indirect restrictions being placed on the liberty of the emancipados."

With regard to the substitution of emancipados for deceased slaves, the falsification of lists, &c., the Spanish Minister stated that—

"The Minister of the Colonies has no official knowledge of such facts, and is resolved to punish them with the full rigour of the law if substantiated by a proper channel, so that the respective authorities may report on them."

It was perfectly true that our representations had not been crowned with the success we had hoped for; but even those who were most disappointed would admit that we had never ceased to press the subject on the Spanish Government, and that although our exertions in their behalf had not been very successful, here and there batches had been liberated and made over to the British authorities for exportation to our own colonies. But England, having secured the fulfilment of the treaty obligations with respect to the African Slave Trade, had never ceased to press forward the other duties and the other obligations of Spain towards the emancipados, the number of whom in Cuba in March last, according to a despatch from our Consul General in the Havannah, was about 6,000, and according to the law of July 25, 1870, those Africans should now be in the enjoyment of their full liberty. The 50th paragraph of the law said—

"All slaves belonging for any reason to the State are declared free. In the like manner those who, as emancipados, may be under the protection of the State, shall at once enter upon the full exercise of the rights of free men."

Mr. Consul Dunlop reported that contracts for the services of these freedmen were still in request, and that as much as £70 per head was paid as a douceur to the authority who could procure for the applicant the free services of an emancipado. There were difficulties in making the emancipados know that they were free. They saw their follow labourers working as slaves and did not appreciate their own position; and the Spanish authorities had trouble in keeping the two classes separate; and for those reasons it would be a dangerous experiment to allow the emancipados to remain among the slave population, and to give them their full liberty. At the same time, however, the value of the free labour of the libertos or emancipados, was too great to allow of their being removed from the country. We must look to the law of 1870, which freed all children born since 1868 and all slaves over 60 years of age, as the best means for the ultimate extinction of slavery in Cuba. If that were fairly carried out—and we had no right to doubt that it would not be, especially as soon as the insurrection was suppressed—a few years would see the slave-working population of Cuba in a minority, instead of in a majority as at present, and, humanly speaking, the future total extinction of slavery might fairly be looked forward to. In Puerto Rico, the Spanish authorities had proved their good faith by liberating, under the law of June, 1870, many slaves, whose owners had neglected to register them, or had registered them falsely, believing that the returns were required for purposes of taxation. We might reasonably hope that the good example set by Puerto Rico would in a short time be followed by Cuba. Above all, we must not overlook the immense difficulties under which all Spanish authority was placed—incessant changes of Government, an insurrection of four years' standing in Cuba, the determination of the Spanish people, unanimous in this respect, to put down these risings against their authority before they would approach the abolition of slavery. Our Minister at Madrid had worked zealously, heartily, and with tact and discretion in this cause, and the Papers that would be laid on the Table would prove this. Her Majesty's Government had made representations to the Spanish Government on this subject, and would continue to make them. We must, however, he repeated, make some allowance for the great difficulties under which the Spanish Government had laboured for some years past, and we might entertain the hope that when Spain settled down under the constitutional authority of her young King she would be able to carry out faithfully those obligations into which she had entered with this country. In conclusion, he hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of going to a division; for, although the object of the Motion was one with which Her Majesty's Government fully sympathized, yet, on behalf of the Government, he could not consent to an Address being moved in the terms in which his hon. Friend had brought forward the subject that evening.

said, nothing could be more satisfactory than the speech they had just heard; but he could not understand why, with the feelings the noble Lord said Her Majesty's Government entertained, he should have had any difficulty in assenting to the very moderate proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Frome. From his own knowledge of the subject—for it was one which in former years he had brought before the House—ho could state that the position of these unfortunate people, the emancipados, was far from satisfactory. Yet as the slavers were usually Spaniards, our cruisers were considered bound to take them to Havannah, or some other Spanish port. Lord Palmerston had been so much impressed with this that, urged by a deputation of which he (Mr. Cave) formed one, he came to the resolution to treat slavers, unless they showed-a flag, as of no nationality; and as slavers very rarely carried flags or papers, from that day many cargoes of slaves for Cuba were stopped, and the ill-treatment which they would have received was exchanged for the freedom of the British Islands, and other places in which slavery had been abolished. Knowing a little of Cuba, he was a little surprised when he heard from his hon. Friend that the feelings of the people there had very much altered. When he was in the island, the slavery was of the most atrocious description; and if the Cubans wished to abolish it, they had only to take advantage of the excellent slave code which then existed, for the Spanish law was even more favourable to emancipation than any which had ever prevailed in the British Colonies, inasmuch as it enabled the slave to purchase his freedom by degrees—a day at a time—even without the consent of his master. Unfortunately, however, circumstances arose which, in consequence of making the slave of greater value, induced the masters to render the law of no avail whatever, and to defraud the slaves in many cases of the freedom they had already earned. The Act which was passed in 1846 equalizing the duty on slave-grown sugar increased the value of slaves, and from that time slavery took a fresh start. Before that time the Cubans were willing that the Slave Trade should be abolished, but the profits then became so large that it was their interest that the traffic should be kept up. It was perfectly easy for anyone who understood the subject at once to fix upon the nationality of a negro, and to say whether he was born in the island—a Creole—or whether he had been imported from Africa—a Bozal. He believed that a very large proportion of the slaves now in Cuba were entitled to their liberty under our treaty, as having been imported since its date and contrary to its provisions. Emancipados landed from captured slavers were put into a state of apprenticeship; but it was said that if there were emancipados on an estate the negro slaves never died, the one being substituted for the other. In consequence of what Lord Palmerston did, and of the alteration in our system, by which small steamers were placed on the Coast of Cuba as well as the Coast of Africa, a very great hindrance was thrown in the way of the Slave Trade, and African slaves became extremely valuable. It then entered into somebody's head to substitute a so-called free emigration of Chinese for the African Slave Trade, which gratified many people in this country who were most opposed to the Slave Trade; but the fact was the result was infinitely worse, because the immigration of free labourers into a slave country could not exist without the greatest posssible abuses. The free Asiatic labourer became degraded to the position of a slave, and from his superior organization felt it far more. A very large slave traffic was carried on from China to Cuba, and though at one time a certain kind of supervision was exercised over the embarkation, as there was none on the other side it was perfectly futile. Supervision, in order to be effectual, was required at the port of disembarkation as well of embarkation. The Chinese, therefore, had no protection whatever in Cuba, except their disposition to commit suicide. The negro might be flogged to death; he would die under the lash; but the Cubans soon found out that unless they treated the Chinese with a little more humanity they were apt to commit suicide. The late Lord Taunton gave Spain the monopoly of this traffic by refusing to allow Chinese emigration to the British West Indies, without a fixed proportion of women. But in the British West Indies, where there was a large surplus of negro women, the Chinese, after the emigration had been sanctioned by the present Lord Derby, married the negresses, and he was informed that their offspring were a very fine set of people. But in Cuba there was a great scarcity of women—as very few were brought from the Coast of Africa, and, therefore, the men were greatly in excess. Hence the many disadvantages which accompanied the immigration of one sex only. But the Chinese who were kidnapped not only committed suicide in Cuba, but their sufferings at sea were so great that they often rose on the crew, massacreing and being massacred. It was a great misfortune, not only to the British West Indies but to the Chinese themselves, that the emigration of Chinese to those islands had been stopped, and the monopoly again given to Spain, owing to the alterations made in the excellent treaty negotiated by Sir Harry Parkes, because, as everyone knew, they were well treated in those colonies, although there might have been some cases of abuse. With regard to what was to be done in this case, he must say that if we were to press, without discretion and without very considerable tact and delicacy, Spain or any other country to carry out what we considered to be her duty, we should run the risk of doing what we did in the case of Brazil—enlisting the pride of that country against us, and inducing it to delay what, if left alone, it would have done at a much earlier date. But at the same time, when we had treaty engagements, when we had absolutely paid the large sum which we paid to Spain in pursuance of that treaty, we had a right to go to Spain from time to time and repeat our remonstrances at her conduct. It seemed to him that the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend did not go beyond that, and therefore, if he divided the House, he should be very willing to support him. However, in all cases of this kind, he thought the debate did more good than the actual Motion, as showing that England had not lost her interest in this matter. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to the zeal of Mr. Layard, the British Minister at Madrid, against slavery and the Slave Trade, and oppression generally, instancing the case of prompt action at his (Mr. Cave's) request on behalf of a British sailor who had been confined for an excessive period in gaol at Barcelona.

said, as it appeared that Her Majesty's Government were pressing, and would continue to press, the necessity of fulfilling these obligations to this country upon the Spanish Government, he should not put the House to the trouble of dividing; but he hoped Her Majesty's Government would lay additional Papers on this subject before the House.

said, that additional Papers bearing upon the Slave Trade question should be printed during the course of the Session.

, in rising, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the continued ill-treatment of the Jews of Roumania and Servia in defiance of the Treaties under which those States are constituted, and to move an Address for Papers, said: Sir, as 1 consider it a grave breach of duty on the part of any hon. Member to waste the time of the House, I am desirous in the first instance to give two reasons for thinking that, although the occurrences to which I am about to draw attention took place abroad, and were therefore not within the direct jurisdiction of Parliament, I shall nevertheless not be throwing time away in bringing them to your notice. My first reason is, that they do not fall under the ordinary description of proceedings in foreign countries with which England as a State has no concern; but that they are, as mentioned in my Notice of Motion, a series of infractions of treaties to which this country, together with the other Great Powers, was a party, and that accordingly the British Government and Parliament have a right to express an opinion upon them. My second reason is the earnest desire of the sufferers by these persecutions, that what they have endured should be brought to the knowledge of this House. In 1867 and 1868, when the present Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, was Foreign Minister, I had the honour of directing to similar events the attention of the House; and those who suffered persecution in the countries to which I refer, thought that the course I had then taken was at least of some temporary advantage to them. Since the renewal of these persecutions, I have received from the Jews in Roumania and Servia the strongest entreaties to bring their cases again under the consideration of the British Government and of Parliament. And, Sir, when I contrast the condition of my religious community here with their condition in Servia and Roumania—when I remember that we are here not only in the enjoyment of all civil and political rights, but that several of us have also the honour of being Members of this Assembly, and can, in this place, make our voices heard, and that, on the other hand, in Servia our brethren are cooped up in one corner of the territory, and that in Roumania they are deprived of all security for their houses, their property, and even their families and their lives—I cannot, I must own, resist the appeal which has been made to me. I do not think I am at liberty to deny to tens of thousands of men of my own race and faith any chance of improving, in however slight a degree, their position, which may arise from the opportunities afforded me by the liberal policy of the United Kingdom, by the confidence of an English constituency, and by the sympathy of the House of Commons with the oppressed. I have said, Sir, that the proceedings of which I complain are a series of infractions of treaties; and in order to establish this so far as respects Roumania, it is fortunately only necessary that I should read a few lines from the Convention of the 19th of August, 1858, under which the Principaltities received their present organization. The 46th Article of that Convention begins as follows:—

"All Moldavians and Wallachians shall be equal in the eye of the law and with regard to taxation, and shall be equally admissible to public employments in both Principalities. Their individual liberty shall be guaranteed. No one can be detained, arrested, or prosecuted, but in conformity with the law. No one can be deprived of his property, unless legally, for causes of public interest, and on payment of indemnification. Moldavians and Wallachians of all Christian confessions shall equally enjoy political rights. The enjoyment of these rights may he extended to other religions by legislative arrangements."

The provision withholding from non-Christians, in the first instance, political rights appears to me to have been very unfortunate, as it tended to foster the idea of the Jews being an inferior race, and to encourage persecution. But this provision ought at least to have had one good effect, by rendering it impossible to contend, as the Roumanian Government, and even its tribunals have some time since attempted to contend, that "all Moldavians and Wallachians" at the commencement of the 46th Article means only Christian Moldavians and Wallachians. The distinction is as clear as language can make it. The Article promises all civil rights, security of property, and even admission to all public employments to all Moldavians and Wallachians irrespective of creed; while political rights were confined, in the absence of subsequent legislation, to Christians. But although this was what was promised, the performance has been different indeed. About 14 years have elapsed since that Convention was entered into. During the last six years of that period, and contemporaneously I am sorry to say with the beginning of the rule of the present Prince Charles—although I must not be understood as attributing any blame to that Prince—persecutions of the Jews commenced. In July, 1867, and April, 1868—[3 Hansard, clxxxviii. 1136 & cxci. 1242]—I brought this subject before the House, and I desire to read a short abstract of what I stated on the latter occasion, because my statements derive an authority which in themselves they could not possess, from their having been made in Lord Stanley's presence, and assented to by him. I said, that in May, 1867, the Roumanian Minister of the Interior, Bratiano, revived, by his own authority, old laws which had been abrogated, forbidding Jews to dwell in rural districts, and directed that they should be expelled from houses and land of which they were lessees or proprietors, and that after they had been driven lawlessly from their homes, he directed that they should be illegally condemned and punished as vagabonds; that in June, 1867, the Court of Appeal at Jassy set aside one of these condemnations, but that the Circular had never been revoked, and that the persecution had from time to time been renewed; that in June, 1867, 200 Jews were beaten at the moment of Prince Charles's entry into Jassy; that in the following month 10 Jews, believed by the Consuls to be native Roumanians, but alleged by the Roumanians to be vagabonds from Turkey, were taken from Galatz to a marshy island in the Danube, where one of them perished; that the survivors were sent back to Galatz by the Turkish authorities, and that in a struggle between the Turkish boatmen, who wished to land the unhappy Jews, and the Roumanians, who would not receive them, they were all thrown into the water, and two were drowned; that in October, 1867, a wholesale expulsion of Jews from the villages round Galatz took place by order of the Prefect; that about the same time the Mayor of Jassy, reviving an obsolete law, which prohibited Jews from keeping Christian servants, fined a respectable banker for disobeying it; that in December, 1867, the death of a child at Kalarsch led to the revival of the mediaeval calumny that Christian blood was used in Jewish ceremonies, and that the propagators of what was shown by the Report of a Government Commission to be a slander were never punished; that early in 1868, 120 families, of most of whose names I had lists, were driven in an inclement season from their houses in the districts of Vaslen and Bacao; and that the Prefects who had authorized these atrocities had been retained, while those free from persecuting tendencies had been removed. The present Lord Derby, then Foreign Secretary, condensing, as he could so well, into a few sentences the facts of a case, said—

"There is only one other subject to which I will advert, and that is the one which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Francis Goldsmid) introduced—namely, the persecution, for it is nothing less, of the Jewish race, which is carried on at present in the Principalities. I can assure the hon. Baronet that he cannot feel upon that subject more strongly than I do. I really think it is a question which concerns Christians even more than Jews, because if the suffering falls upon the Jew the disgrace falls upon the Christian. I know of no instance in our times of a series of oppressive acts committed so completely—I will not say merely without any provocation, but, so far as I can see, without any reasonable and intelligible motive whatever. In so far as those acts were connived at, or encouraged by the local officials, or, as I fear must have been the case, in some instances by the Roumanian Government itself, I can only explain that connivance or encouragement by the tendency of a weak, and not very scrupulous, Government, to trade upon the worst popular passions."—[3 Hansard, cxci., 1267–8.]

The noble Lord then expressed a hope that the continued representations of the British and other Governments would prove successful; but I regret to say that this hope has been only partially realized. In July, 1869, a series of wholesale expulsions of Jews from rural districts occurred, as to which Mr. Layard, then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, promised, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir David Salomons), that representations should be made by the British Government. Between that time and the present year I am not aware that any remarkable instance of absolute violence occurred; but the Jews were subjected to restrictions, conflicting in many cases with the Roumanian Constitution, and in all with the Convention to which the State owed its existence. They have been excluded from the Bar, from rank in the Army, from educational appointments from medical posts, and, during the last few weeks from the right to employ their co-religionists in the sale of tobacco. I now come to the violent proceedings of the present year. On the 2nd of January last, some silver vessels, valued at 10 ducats, were stolen from the Cathedral of Ismaïl—a town in that part of Bessarabia which was ceded by Russia to Moldavia by the Treaty of Paris of March, 1856—by a Russian named Silber, or Silbermann. The Roumanian Government have thought it worth while, in their answer to a Note from the Consuls, to state that this man was a Jew. I am informed, how-ever, that it is the fact, and that he has admitted in his last examination, that, though a Jew by birth, he has long abandoned his ancestral faith. The thief at various times accused the President of the Jewish Synagogue, the Rabbi, and two other Jewish residents, of having incited him to the act, and the vessels were found in sewers attached to their residences. I need hardly comment on the extreme improbability of the charge. It cannot be supposed that members of a race forming hardly a fifth of the population of the town, and surrounded by persons zealous for what they call religion, though it is very unlike Christianity as understood in Western Europe, would venture on such an act. If gain had been the object, it follows, almost of course, that more valuable articles, which it is admitted were close at hand, would have been taken. If the purpose had been to insult Christianity, and yet to escape unpunished, what short of madness could have led to the instigators of the crime causing to be hidden in the immediate neighbourhood of their own residences the stolen vessels which might have been so easily destroyed? The author of an able statement on this subject, recently published by the Anglo-Jewish Association remarks, that if Joseph's cup was found in Benjamin's sack, it was because Joseph had directed that it should be put there. It might, it seems to me, be still more apposite to cite a newer, though less authentic narrative—Dickens' "Old Curiosity Shop" where Sampson Brass hides a £5 note in the lining of the hat of the boy whom he immediately afterwards accuses of the theft. I insist on the absurdity of the charge against the President and the Rabbi of the synagogue of Ismail, because their unjust condemnation by a Roumanian jury is one of the grievances of which I have to complain, and not because, if the accusation had been true, it could have formed any justification for the outrages on the whole Jewish population which followed in the last week of January, and which are thus described—I am assured not untruly—by the sufferers—

"An excited mob rushed through the streets, sparing neither infirm old age, trembling women, nor infants at their mothers' breasts. Helpless and unresisting Jews were treated in the most inhuman manner; wives and daughters were violated before the eyes of their husbands and parents; houses were plundered; sacred places were desecrated, and the rolls of the law carried away; even the rest of the dead was disturbed, and the burial place destroyed. Many persons have succumbed to their wounds; dishonoured women are hiding their shame in cellars; sick and wounded men are lying in miserable dwellings, the doors and windows of which are broken down, without a straw mat even on which to stretch their limbs, without a pillow, without covering. Hundreds of others who have been cruelly ill-treated are wandering homeless through the streets, begging at the doors of the few who have been spared, or who have suffered in a less degree."

In two other towns where similar outrages have occurred—Vilcow and Cahul—there has not even been the pretext of a preliminary accusation. In Vilcow, a fishing village not far from Ismail, the Jews were driven off and robbed, suffering losses to the extent of £8,000. In Cahul, a town of 7,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,000 are supposed to be Jews, scenes of the same character have occurred. The soldiers attempted to escort the Jews to the barracks; but the mob broke through the soldiers—who did not offer any resistance—and ill-treated the Jews, who are stated to have afterwards remained for three days in the barracks without food. If the matter were not too serious, it might be thought that the municipalities tried to give a touch of comedy to these tragic scenes, for while the unfortunate Jews had been expelled from their houses, robbed of nearly all they possessed, and were dependent for food upon the charity of their neighbours, the municipalities, who had been unable or unwilling to protect them, stuck up on the deserted dwellings the usual forms of notice demanding the payment of taxes. Upon a Government investigation into the charge against the Jews accused of theft at Ismaïl, they were pronounced entirely guiltless, and were set free. A few weeks afterwards, however, they were re-arrested and ordered to undergo a jury trial. Immediately on this taking place, Mr. Peixotto, the United States Consul at Bucharest—a Jewish gentleman who, I understand, was induced by his wish to ameliorate the condition of his oppressed Roumanian brethren to give up an excellent practice as barrister in America, in order to accept the almost unpaid office he now holds—wrote to me that the case of the accused was hopeless, as no Jew would ever be acquitted by a Roumanian jury. The prediction has been verified, for I have, within the last two or three days, received a telegram informing me, not only that the accused Jews have been convicted, but also that the rioters of Vilcow have been acquitted. It may be worth while to observe that all the recent riots have occurred in that part of Bessarabia which was ceded by Russia to Moldavia by the Treaty of Paris. Russia, as we all know, succeeded last year in getting rid of the neutralization of the Black Sea; and we have lately been informed that she contemplates the re-building of the fortifications of Sebastopol. These facts have suggested an idea that she may also desire to get rid of a third portion of the Treaty by resuming possession of this part of Bessarabia. Certain it is that these riots were preceded by the publication of a pamphlet pointing out what a great disadvantage it was to the district in ques- tion to be severed from the great Empire of Russia and annexed to petty Roumania. It has further been surmised, not of course that the Government of Russia, but that some individuals acting in the supposed interests of Russia, had something to do with the instigation of the riots with the view of facilitating the execution of the project referred to, by disgraceful outrages occurring in the coveted district, and demonstrating the incompetency of the Roumanian Government to rule it. On these conjectures I offer no opinion. I content myself with expressing the hope that Russia would show her utter disgust at any such manifestations by joining in the representations which, in my opinion, all the guaranteeing Powers should make to the Roumanian Government. With respect to Servia, nothing new has occurred; but a wrong of some years standing is persevered in, and is still keenly felt by those on whom it is inflicted. The 28th Article of the Treaty of Paris, guaranteeing to Servia full liberty of worship there, has apparently been always understood by the Christian majority of Servians to mean freedom for themselves, together with the right of oppressing the Jews. In March, 1867—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 838]—I brought the subject before the House, and stated that the Jews, who, under the rule of Prince Milosch, as well as previously, had been allowed to inhabit every part of Servia, had since 1861 been shut up in a corner of Belgrade. I added that—

"This conduct of the Servians of influence really originated in a jealousy of Jewish traders, who, either from being more clever in business or from being contented with smaller profits than their competitors, were able to provide the Servian peasants with the necessaries they required on cheaper terms than their rivals. It was thus self-interest which was clothing itself in the garb of religious zeal—a kind of hypocrisy more contemptible than bigotry, if it could not be more mischievous."—[Ibid. 841.]

During the same debate, Lord Stanley said—

"The hon. Baronet has adverted to the most material features of the question, and I believe that his statement is fair and accurate. I am quite sure that the feeling of the House will be unanimous in cordially and sincerely sympathising with the object he has in view. I quite agree that we have a moral right to give advice to the Government and people of Servia.…. I can only confirm what has been stated by the hon. Baronet as to the laws now in force in Servia regulating and restricting the occupations of the Jewish community; and I do not think that the hon. Baronet has characterized those laws in terms which are too strong for the occasion. I am afraid it is impossible to deny that the conduct of the Servian people, in regard to the Jewish community residing amongst them, has been utterly unworthy of a people who reasonably and justly aspire to take their place amongst the civilized communities of Europe."—[Ibid. 844.]

He went on to express hopes that the pressure of European public opinion would produce improvement. These hopes have, however, been disappointed. I have within the last few weeks received a communication from Servia describing the severe hardship which the Jews endure from being confined to one quarter of Belgrade, and thus prevented from following their callings; and I have been implored to bring the matter under the notice of the House. And now, Sir, having described, as shortly as I could, the condition of my brethren in Roumania and Servia, I desire to make some few observations which these facts suggest. Our first feeling on our attention being drawn to them, must, it seems to me, be one of astonishment at finding that in the course of a week's journey we might be brought face to face with events which, in Western Europe, we could only have encountered if we had been born six or seven centuries ago; in the reign of Richard I., which was disgraced by tumultuous slayings of Jews in London and York; or under the rule of John, who, when he wanted money, drew, not cheques on his bankers, but teeth from the jaws of the Jew; or in the days of Edward I., who expelled the Jews wholesale from England; or at the time of the alleged crucifixion of Christian children at Gloucester and St. Edmunds-bury; or when the Crusaders, going to the Holy Land to rescue it from the Infidels, prepared themselves for their sacred work by murdering the Jews whom they met on the road. But I submit that it is quite time to inform the Roumanians that, although these acts might suit the 12th or 13th century, similar proceedings cannot be endured in the 19th; that no people can expect to enjoy at once the blessings of civilization and the pleasures of barbarism; that they cannot be permitted, on the one hand, to have a popular representation, and to bargain keenly for the terms on which the locomotive and the railway are to be introduced among them, and on the other hand to revel in the luxuries of beating and robbing, and insulting the wives and daughters of those whose religious opinions they disapprove; and of using a pretence of trial by jury to convict them of serious offences without evidence or against evidence. And I venture to suggest that the time has now arrived when some more decided step should be taken. We have had, during the last six years, enough, and more than enough, of fair promises broken, and of fair hopes disappointed. Under the 27th Article of the Treaty of Paris, and the 8th Article of the Convention of August, 1858, the guaranteeing Powers have the full right to authorize Turkey to intervene for the purpose of restoring internal order in Roumania. If they refrain from so strong a step, it does, I own, appear to me that they should at least make jointly a representation to Roumania, or even send there a Joint High Commission with a view to putting a stop to a state of things which is a discredit to our age, and of which—in Lord Stanley's emphatic words—"if the suffering falls upon the Jew the disgrace falls upon the Christian." I have now, Sir, only to thank the House for the favourable attention with which it has heard me, and to move for the production of all recent Correspondence between Her Majesty's Secretary of State and Her Diplomatic Agents Abroad respecting the condition of the Jews in Roumania and Servia.

said, it was not because he doubted that there was a sufficient number of hon. Members of the Jewish profession in that House to do ample justice to the cause of the Jews, that he asked to say a few words on this subject; but because it concerned the character of Christian legislators, that some of them should take that oppor- tunity of expressing their indignant abhorrence of the atrocities which had been described by the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading, for it was a stigma on the civilization of the 19th century that such things should be possible in any part of Europe. He had always felt that the treatment of Jews in former days, which, in that respect at least, might be called the "Dark Ages," formed one of the most shameful chapters in the history of Christendom—he was going to say of Christianity. But it was not Christianity that prompted or sanctioned those doings, but a ghastly and cruel superstition which had usurped its name; and certainly one would have hoped that in no part of Christendom at the present day could there have been a repetition of such scenes. But in that respect they had been undeceived by the facts stated by the hon. Baronet, which were given more fully in the pamphlet which had been circulated among hon. Members of the House. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was a matter of very little consequence whether the accusations brought against individual Jews were well founded or not. There might be unworthy and dishonest Jews in Roumania, as there were plenty of unworthy and dishonest Christians in Great Britain; but that was no reason why the whole race should be treated as outlaws, banished from their homes, plundered of their property, deprived of their legal rights, their men murdered, and their women subjected to treatment which would not bear description. Moreover, that policy was as stupid as it was atrocious, for they knew that in every country where the Jewish race had been treated with ordinary justice, they had not only contributed largely to its material wealth, but had distinguished themselves highly in philosophy, literature, art, and government. In this country there was no class of the community more orderly, loyal, and law-abiding than the Jews; and if there were in that House any hon. Gentlemen who had formerly opposed—strenuously, and, no doubt, conscientiously—the admission of the Jews to Parliament, he (Mr. Richard) thought they must admit that the consequences which they had anticipated had proved groundless. Were there, he would ask, any hon. Gentlemen in the House of Commons more respected or more entitled to respect than hon. Mem- bers of the Jewish religion? But the question was, what was to be done. The best thing that the members of the Jewish persuasion in this country could do was to make an appeal to the public opinion of the civilized world. It might be asked, what was the use of opinion! He would answer in the words of Lord Palmerston—words all the more forcible because Lord Palmerston was supposed to represent a different policy—

"It is true it may be asked, what are opinions against arms? My opinion is, that opinions are stronger than arms. Opinions, if they are founded in truth and justice, will in the end prevail against the bayonets of infantry, the fire of artillery, and the charges of cavalry."

In accordance with that opinion he believed that the public opinion of Europe would prevail likewise against the unjust laws and persecuting practices of Roumania. If the Jews throughout Europe were to make an appeal to the Christian consciences of the nations, there would, he believed, be such a response as could not fail to smite with terror and dismay those who had been thus persecuting their brethren. At any rate, he hoped that from this House would go forth to-night no uncertain sound, and that it would be understood that they viewed with execration conduct of which, in the words of Lord Stanley, it might be said that "though it was the Jews who suffered, it was the Christians who were disgraced."

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had with great truth and perfect accuracy depicted the sufferings of his co-religionists in these Principalities. He had hardly exaggerated the sufferings which they had undergone at different times during the last 12 years, but he (Viscount Enfield) thought the points to which the attention of the House ought more properly to be directed were the sufferings and persecutions they had undergone during the present year, and the steps which Her Majesty's Government had taken, either singly or conjointly with the Powers which signed the Convention of the 18th of August, 1868, to mitigate the sufferings of the Jewish population of those districts. On considering what sufferings the Jewish populations of these Principalities had undergone during the last 10 years, he thought it would be a subject of congratulation to both sides of the House that our Foreign Secretary, whether Lord Russell, Lord Clarendon, or Lord Stanley, had always and consistently given strong instructions to the different Consuls residing in the Principality of Servia to bring under the notice of the local authorities the sufferings and persecutions the Jews had undergone, and to express in strong and indignant language the deep regret and mortification which Her Majesty's Government felt that the Jewish population of those parts of the world were subjected to such unmerited sufferings. His hon. Friend (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had, with perfect truth, reminded the House of the Guarantee of the 18th of August, 1868. The 25th Article of that Treaty declared that the Christians of Moldavia and Wallachia should enjoy political rights, but the enjoyment of those rights was to be extended to persons of all other religions by legislative enactment. We had, therefore, the clearest right to demand from the Prince of Servia and from the Prince of Roumania the faithful execution of that treaty, which declared that political liberty should be enjoyed by Jews as well as Christians in those districts. His hon. Friend had narrated the events of the present year of course, from information supplied to him by his own friends; and it was only right that he (Viscount Enfield) should assure the House that, substantially, all his hon. Friend had said had been confirmed by our Consul, Mr. Green. In the early part of January it was true that an act of robbery was committed by a Jew in the Cathedral of Ismaïl, and not only were the feelings of the Christian population aroused, but a violent and unprovoked onslaught made on the Jewish population. But there was this curious fact—that although a robbery was committed, so many valuables were left in the church as to give colour to the statement that robbery was not the object of the act, but sacrilege. The feeling of excitement spread, the Jews were subjected to every sort of indignity, and several lives were lost. The feeling of indignation spread to other towns. At Cahul, near Galatz, the Jews were plundered, and subjected to every sort of indignity; their houses were burnt; they took refuge in barracks; several lives were lost; there were three days' rioting; and if troops had not come from Galatz, in all probability there would have been a wholesale massacre of the Jewish population. Our Consul at once urged the local authority in the strongest manner to repress these disorders. At the request of the American Consul a meeting was held in the House of our Consul, Mr Green, to prepare an appeal to Prince Charles and his Government, to do all in their power to afford sufficient protection to the Jewish population. On the 11th of March, Mr. Green called the attention of M. Catargi, the Roumanian Prime Minister, to the fact that men supposed to have been ringleaders in this riot had not been punished, that false charges continued to be made against the Jews, that they had been thrown into prison, and that the orders of the Government for the restoration of their property had not been complied with. The reply he received was to the effect that it would be necessary to take legal proceedings, that the Prefects of Ismail and Cahul had been dismissed, and that the crime of sacrilege should be punished, if proved against the Jew then in custody. On the 20th of March, Mr. Green further stated to the local authorities the painful impressions which had been created in the minds of Her Majesty's Government by the petition of the Jews to Prince Charles, and that Her Majesty's Government could not but believe that such barbarities had occurred through the remissness of the Roumanian authorities. M. Catargi rejoined that energetic measures had been taken; that the Procureurs of Bucharest and Fochshany had gone to inquire into the subject; but he hoped that many of the Jewish accusations, if not unfounded, were at any rate exaggerated. Mr. Green rejoined that no answer had been returned to the joint Note of the Foreign Representatives of the 19th of February. M. Cartargi said answers should be sent when translations were made. On the 26th of March, Mr. Green reported that 46 of the rioters who had been imprisoned for having taken part in these riots had been set at liberty. He thought the House, therefore, would agree with him that Mr. Green had done all in his power to bring before the Roumanian local authorities their remissness in not punishing the offenders or not taking adequate steps for the pro-action of the Jewish population. On the 12th of the present month, Mr. Green was instructed by telegraph to caution the Roumanian Government against the possible dangers which might arise at the Feast of the Passover on the 22nd instant; and Her Majesty's Government urged him to represent to the authorities, that it was their imperative duty to take every step for the prevention of painful scenes and occurrences. Mr. Green reported a few days since, that the Roumanian Government had promised that adequate means should be taken to prevent a repetition of such scenes; but, not content with this, Her Majesty's Government sent a telegraphic instruction to their Representatives in Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Vienna, and Rome, to invite the powers to whom they were accredited to take the same view, and to send similar instructions to their own Representatives. He therefore hoped his hon. Friend and the House would think that the Government had thus taken every measure in their power to endeavour to impress upon the Roumanian authorities their sense of detestation of the scenes which had taken place, and had even impressed upon those authorities in the most imperative manner—as they were entitled to do—the opinion that it was their duty to give every adequate protection to the Jewish population. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) had said with great truth that there was no class of her Majesty's subjects more loyal, peaceful, and charitable, than the Jewish community in this country; and it should not be forgotten that five months ago, when deep anxiety prevailed respecting the illness of the Prince of Wales, the Jewish population were the first to offer up prayers for the restoration to health of His Royal Highness. It would be a great disgrace to us as Christians if we did not adopt every means in our power to urge upon the Roumanian authorities their duty to bring the offenders to justice. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press for Papers, but would accept an assurance that the Government would continue to do all they could, by remonstrating through their Consul and the other Great Powers, to prevent the Jewish population of Roumania and Servia being again exposed to these persecutions.

considered the statement of the noble Lord to be extremely satisfactory, but suggested that it might be possible to do still more than was intended—to convince the Governments of the Principalities that unless their treaty obligations were carried out we should be prepared to take much more active steps in the matter. He wished to express his detestation of these cruelties, and as sacrilege was an easy way of exciting a semi-Christian population, he hoped the British Government would use its influence in urging such an inquiry as would throw the fullest light on the accusation referred to by the hon. Baronet opposite.

said, this was not a Jewish question, but a question of humanity and of Christianity, and his memory told him that for nearly 10 years there had been similar outrages to those now complained of. If the account which he had read, and which had been confirmed by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was correct, the occurrences in question would be a disgrace to any civilized country in the world. The Government of Prince Charles appeared to have done all they could in the matter; they had tried to punish the offenders, and taken measures to prevent the recurrence of the offence. During the last 10 or 12 years there had been similar events and similar results; and he thought the time had come when other steps should be taken. By the Treaty of Paris, the Five Great Powers were to guarantee the independence of the Principalities; and, in addition, there was a far more stringent Treaty in which England, France, and Austria agreed to uphold the integrity of the Ottoman Empire against all attacks, collectively and separately. The Sultan was the Sovereign of the Principalities, and the protecting Powers had a right to call upon the Sultan to see that the system of government should be improved; and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not be contented with what they had already done, but that they would instruct their Ambassador to act with the other Ambassadors of the Great Powers, and to insist that the Government of Roumania should be brought within the pale of civilization, so that one of the most harmless, industrious, and talented races in the world might be secured from further violence.

said, it might naturally be supposed that he felt a deep personal interest in this matter, affecting, as it did, persons of his own race, and whose religious convictions he shared. He should, however, as an Englishman have felt it to be equally his duty to raise his voice in behalf of the victims of these outrages had they been members of a different religious communion. The blood and treasure of England and France had been expended in the Russian War, and the Jews of both countries had contributed their full quota in that cause. One of the issues of that war, it was believed, was the relief of the Roumanian population from Mahomedan despotism, and that they would, as a semi-independent State, be placed in the enjoyment of constitutional and religious freedom. The Jews, however, were much freer under Turkish rule than they had since been, for since the accession of the present ruler they had been subjected to systematic oppression not exceeded by anything that happened in the worst period of the Dark Ages. For 10 years their houses had been plundered, their synagogues destroyed, their women outraged, their persons assailed, and their lives sacrificed. By a strained interpretation of an article of the new Constitution they had been declared foreigners, disentitled to the political and religious freedom which the Treaty of Paris secured to all natives, and shut out even from the jus gentium which protected foreigners under the old Roman Empire. Without Consuls or foreign Powers to protect them, they had been left at the mercy of a semi-barbarous people, erected by the Great Powers into a semi-independent nation. Religious fanaticism and political intrigue had been levelled at this unoffending race. The only shadow of justification for these outrages, urged in a letter purporting to be written, he was ashamed to say, by an Englishman, was that the Jews were enterprizing and ambitious, and were hated in consequence by the nobles, who were described as indolent and vain. He had yet to learn that indolence and vanity were virtues, and calculated to advance a nation's prosperity and happiness, and that enterprize and ambition were unfavourable to a nation's well-being. Our own and other Governments had made strong remonstrances, and he was sensible of Earl Granville's readiness to do the utmost in his power; but, in spite of repeated representations, the outrages had been repeated, and repeated in an aggravated form. The noble Viscount (Viscount Enfield) had stated, of course, on the authority of the Consul, that the sacrilege at Ismail was committed by a Jew; but, according to information on which he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) could rely, it was committed, if at all, by a person of Jewish birth who, at the ago of 14, was baptized a Christian, and who was a deserter from the Russian Army. This person had, at the instigation of certain Roumanians, stolen a pyx and other sacred articles from a church, and had thrown them into the yard of a house inhabited by a Jewish Rabbi. Inquiry being made into the affair, this deserter from the Russian Army accused, in the first place, his employer, a tailor, of having committed the outrage; but, on being put to the torture, he accused the Rabbi and another Jewish gentleman. Now, it was an historical fact that the Jews had never been guilty of an aggression against the religious opinions of the nations among whom they lived, and it was most improbable that these gentlemen should have been guilty of this outrage in Roumania, where they lived from hour to hour upon sufferance, and have thus called down upon themselves the immediate vengeance of a hostile community. Moreover, a Jewish Rabbi held a high and venerated position, and it was just as probable that a Prelate of the Church of England would be guilty of sacrilege in a Roman Catholic place of worship, as that the gentleman in question should have been guilty of the charge that had been brought against him. The Rabbi and the gentleman, and some others who were charged with him, upon the evidence of this deserter, however, were taken into custody, and were convicted by a Roumanian jury, although the rioters who had pulled down the synagogues and the Jewish houses, who had violated the Jewish women, and had beaten and broken the limbs of the Jews themselves, were acquitted. Could a verdict given by a Roumanian jury under those circumstances of excitement be regarded as conclusive of the guilt of these gentlemen? Who would trust his life, or any interest he might hold dear, to the mercy of such a tribunal? During a long professional career at the Bar, he had had some experience in the verdicts of juries, and they all knew how difficult it was, even in this country, to obtain a right verdict from a jury in times when popular feeling was excited. What confidence, then, could be placed in the verdict of a Roumanian jury under such circumstances as those which they had heard? For his own part, he repudiated and denounced the so-called verdict which had condemned these unfortunate men as utterly valueless in point of truth, and as the result only of a wild fanaticism and of barbarous ignorance. If the evidence upon which the Rabbi and others had been convicted had come before an English Court of Justice, it would not have been deemed by any English Judge, or any jury of Englishmen, sufficient to entitle it even to consideration; the case would have been dismissed at once as unfounded and malicious. Yet it was upon this tainted evidence of a Russian deserter and convert from the Jewish religion, extracted under the pangs of torture, and varied from time to time, that men as honourable and respectable as any who now heard him, had been condemned to three years' imprisonment in a Roumanian dungeon. He called upon the Government of this country, as one of those which guaranteed the Roumanian Principalities, to bring the matter under the notice of the other Guaranteeing Powers, in order that a joint representation might be made to the Roumanian Government, to the effect that such outrages and misdeeds must cease, that they would not be permitted, and that security and freedom must be given, even to the Jews, in a country which was protected by the civilized nations of Europe.

expressed his concurrence in many of the views which had been expressed by his hon. Friends, and said he did not think that the English Government would be acting up to its duty, unless it did more than had been already done in this matter. He considered that, as one of the great Powers which had set up the Roumanian States, they ought to see that the provisions of the Convention were properly carried out, and, at all events, full compensation should be made to those Jews who had suffered loss and outrage. Whatever might be thought of these foreign treaties, he was of opinion that, when under them England had the power of doing an act of justice to a large section of the inhabitants of the Principalities, whom all admitted to be most worthy citizens, it was the duty of the Government to show that England did not enter into them for mere selfish purposes, but that, when necessary, this country would use its great influence to promote the civilization of the rest of Europe.

felt gratified at the statement made by the noble Lord of the proceedings taken by the representatives of the Foreign Office, and hoped that the discussion that had taken place would strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with the case. England had always listened to the voice of the oppressed, and he trusted that in this case there would be a strong intervention, not by arms, but by representations in order to prevent the occurrence of such persecutions as had been described.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the way in which the representation of towns upon Town Councils was effected, so far as regarded elections to the dignity of Alderman, for, in his opinion, the principle which regulated aldermanic elections was by no means a good one. In the City of London the Aldermen were elected by each ward, but in provincial Town Councils the Aldermen were elected by the majority of the councillors, and instead of forming a fair representation of the whole town, they only represented that majority who had chosen them. He thought that was a vicious system of representation, and he did not believe that anything could be said in its favour. Now that the Government were dealing with the question of municipal corporations, he thought it was their duty to take some steps for getting rid of that blot upon the municipal system, for it was a scandal on their representative system in their Town Councils that it should be confined to a mere representation of the majority of the Council. The election of Aldermen should be by the wards, the same as in London, instead of by the Town Council. He would, therefore, move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, by means of the cumulative vote, to provide for the proportional representation of the Town Council on the Aldermanic Bench.

seconded the Motion.

, while admitting the importance of the question raised, said, it was not a fitting time then to bring it forward, as the Bill had only been introduced to meet a special object.

, in condemning the present system, said, that it had been so worked in Leeds that, from the passing of the Municipal Act up to that time, neither a Conservative Mayor nor a Conservative Alderman had been able to secure his election in that borough. All the officers of the corporation were of one particular political opinion.

considered the present law to be satisfactory, and hoped it would not be altered.

denied that corporation officials at Leeds were selected for their political opinions.