said, the Bill as it stood seemed to prejudge a question in which a deep interest was felt in Ireland—namely, what authority was to control the teaching of Science and Art in Ireland. The section dealing with this point required explanation, and in order to give an opportunity for it, if possible, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. The main object was a desirable one—the constitution of a national museum and library in Dublin. This was achieved, so far as the creation of powers for the purpose, by the 4th and 11th sections of the Bill. The only observation he found it necessary to mate on this part was, that care would be necessary to prevent undue expenditure in buildings, so as to insure the adequate apportionment of money for teaching purposes throughout the island. The difficulty laid in the 6th section, which provided that the library and museum should be kept in Ireland by the Department of Science and Art, "for the use of the public, subject to the provisions of this Act, and to such regulations as may be made in pursuance thereof." These words gave the Department power to adopt any scheme they chose for the teaching of Science and Art in Ireland, and to decide on the relations to be borne to the country by the South Kensington Museum. The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had advocated, with the approval of the House, a system under which local control and management, working harmoniously with South Kensington, would be maintained, and he feared the words of the clause gave the Department of Science and Art complete power to depart from that principle.

said, that whatever might be the language of the Bill, it was not intended to prejudge the question alluded to by the hon. Member. The object was to prepare the way for the creation of a national museum and library, and when Parliament came to be asked for money for that purpose, hon. Members would be enabled to discuss how that institution might best be managed. He proposed to alter the language of the 6th section in such a way as to remove the ambiguity complained of by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and to leave the question quite open

With regard to the Motion that stands in my name on the subject of the work known as The Priest in Absolution, I beg to say that I shall not again bring that forward, except the House should show itself prepared to consider a Resolution to do away with the Established Church. I beg to ask, Whether, under the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will afford facilities for discussing the subject; I having twice endeavoured to bring forward this question of the Confessional, and been on both occasions counted out, and on one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman himself was, I believe, desirous of expressing his opinion? These are some of the grounds on which I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give a day for the discussion of the whole question of the Established Church in connection with the system of Confession.

I beg, Sir, to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true, as reported in Vienna, that the British Ambassador at Constantinople has informed the Sultan that it may be necessary for England to occupy Constantinople and the Dardanelles for the protection of British interests; and, if so, whether he will be prepared to lay Papers on the Table?

Sir, I can at once answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman. There is no truth whatever in the report.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Memorandum explanatory in detail of the intended changes in the Militia; whether the Order in Council of 1852 fixing the quotas of Militiamen to be raised in the several counties will be revised, and the Sub-lieutenancies of counties re-arranged, to suit the altered state of the population; and, whether a revised and complete set of Militia Orders, brought down to the latest date, will be furnished in supersession of the 1875 Code?

in reply, said, that as the recommendations of the Committee had been finally approved, it was intended to proceed with the revision of the Rules and Regulations respecting the Militia. The revised Rules would be issued early next year.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Navigating Sub-Lieutenants were by the Circular of October 1876 allowed to exchange into the executive branch of the service at the time of passing their examinations at Greenwich or on promotion; whether some Sub-Lieutenants gained an addition of time to their seniority on entering the service owing to good conduct and high marks in the "Britannia" training ship; whether in some cases the usual date of passing the Greenwich examinations was in consequence of this addition anticipated, and officers in these eases were thus deprived of the advantages given by the Circular, and will be so deprived until promotion, a probable period of seven years; whether the Lords of the Admiralty will consider the expediency of extending the advantages given by the said Circular, as amended by the Circular of March 1877, to those Navigating Sub-Lieutenants who passed out of Greenwich at an exceptionally early period owing to their own good conduct and before the date of the Circular; and, whether this object might be effected without undue disturbance of the course of promotion, by applying the said Circular to each such case, as if ante-dated to the extent of time added to the seniority of the officer in consequence of his good conduct and high marks when on board the "Britannia?"

Sir, there is some confusion in the Question between navigating sub-lieutenants and sub-lieutenants, and it will be necessary to reverse the order of some of the queries in order to make the answer intelligible. Navigating sub-lieutenants are, by the Circular of October, 1876, allowed to exchange into the executive branch of the Service at the time of passing their examinations at Greenwich, or on promotion. The advantages given by the said Circular, as amended by the Circular of March 1877, cannot be extended to those navigating sub-lieutenants who passed out of Greenwich at an exceptionally early period, owing to their own good conduct before the date of the Circular; such a course would be most invidious, as the very few officers who would benefit by such a proceeding received at the time of their passing immediate promotion to the rank of navigating lieutenant as a reward. All sub-lieutenants are awarded an addition of time to their seniority on leaving the Britannia training ship proportionate to the certificates they receive for ability and good conduct. Some years ago cadets, after completing their course of study, joined a sea-going training ship, and cadets who had passed exceptionally well out of the Britannia were, on leaving the sea-going training ship, allowed to pass for the rank of lieutenant before attaining the age of 19. The seagoing training ship having since been abolished, no such claim can now be admitted.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty Whether he will instruct the officers in command of the gun-boats cruising on the Coast for protection of the herring fisheries, to give fishermen such reasonable assistance as they prudently can to recover nets abandoned at sea during heavy storms, and specially to endeavour to prevent such nets from being carried off by Foreign fishermen?

Sir, the commanders of gun-boats will be ordered to give such assistance as far as practicable, and it is part of their instructions to protect British fishermen from improper interference by foreign boats.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have decided to recommend the erection of a Naval College at Dartmouth, and if the Grant for that purpose will be proposed in the Naval Estimates this Session?

in reply, said, the Admiralty had finally decided to adopt the recommendation referred to, and the Vote for the purpose would be proposed in the Naval Estimates of that Session.

said, in that case he should move the rejection of the Vote.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he has received the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the power of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests to sell land in the Forest of Dean; and if he will state the purport of that opinion to the House?

Sir, the opinion of the Law Officers upon the powers of the Commissioners of Woods to sell land in Dean Forest has been received, and is to the effect that the Commissioners are at liberty to put a wider interpretation than they have hitherto done upon the clause of the Act 10 Geo. IV., c. 50, which defines these powers. The Commissioners are prepared to act at once upon this opinion, and will instruct the Deputy Surveyor of the Forest to set out in lots for sale parcels of land conveniently situated for miners' dwellings as occasion may require. The first piece of land will be set out immediately.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any reply has been received from Mr. Stanley to Lord Derby's Despatch as to the unauthorised use of the British flag in his fighting with natives in Central Africa; and if he will state the terms of any such reply?

in reply, said, that on the 11th December last a despatch was written by the direction of Lord Derby to Dr. Kirk at Zanzibar, telling him to inform Mr. Stanley that Lord Derby objected to the use of the British flag by him, and conveying an intimation to that gentleman that he should not use the British flag for the purpose of carrying out his operations in Central Africa. It was very difficult to know how this information would reach Mr. Stanley, for his movements were not known at Zanzibar. Some American traders appeared to know where Mr. Stanley was, and Dr. Kirk had requested the American Consul at Zanzibar to convey through them the intimation to Mr. Stanley as soon as possible. The intimation had been despatched to Mr. Stanley; but it was not known whether it had reached him.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in "May-fair" that the Reverend H. M. Jackson the Chaplain of H.M.S. "Hector," and the Reverend C. J. Corfe, Chaplain of H.M.S. "Cambridge," are members of the Society of "The Holy Cross;" and, if such be the fact, whether, having regard to recent disclosures of the doctrines and practices of members of "The Holy Cross," those appointments will be allowed to continue?

Sir, I am not aware whether the statement in Mayfair is accurate. No complaints have reached the Admiralty against either of the gentlemen referred to, one of whom has been for the last three years chaplain to the Audacious on the China Station. The allegation to which the hon. Member refers is not in itself a sufficient ground for cancelling their appointments, though the Admiralty will view with great disfavour any connection by naval chaplains with a society which has incurred the censure of the Episcopal Bench.

asked, Whether the Government had taken, or would take, any steps to inquire into the stability of H.M.S. "Inflexible?"

I can inform my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Board of Admiralty propose to refer the question to a Commission, or Committee, of independent Gentlemen, not connected with the Admiralty, who, being experts in naval matters, will be well qualified to form an opinion. I cannot at this moment mention their names.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any ground for the statement in the "Ruski Mir," a Russian journal, that there is reason to believe that the French Cabinet have come to an agreement with the British Government as to naval operations in the East?

Sir, I cannot undertake to answer every Question raised on every report; but I do not know that there is any foundation for the rumour in question.

said, he would repeat his Question on another occasion.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the House was to expect to have a similar Motion every Monday evening. A fortnight ago, when a similar Motion was brought forward, it was excused on the ground that any further delay in agreeing to the Army Estimates might give rise to a great deal of inconvenience. As the Civil Service Estimates had not been fixed for that day, there was no special occasion for it, and he strongly objected to the large number of Orders, 40 of which were Government Orders, that had been put down for the same day. From the Papers which were put into the hands of hon. Members that morning, it appeared that when they got into Committee of Supply the right hon. Gentleman would ask them to vote £100,000 as a loan to the South African Government, and he considered that Notice an inconvenient one.

said that, as a general rule, the Government desired to take Supply on Monday; but on the present occasion it was thought advisable to take first a very important measure — the South Africa Bill, after which Supply might very well follow, assuming that the discussion on the South Africa Bill did not occupy the whole of the evening. It was also thought desirable that, while discussing that Bill, the House should have notice that a Vote would be proposed for the government of the Transvaal. Such being the state of the case, he did not think there was anything of which complaint could be reasonably made in putting Supply on the Paper, especially as the count-out did not occur early on Friday evening and not until after 1 o'clock in the morning, after a full discussion on a subject upon which an important decision was arrived at. The Government had followed the course which they thought would be most convenient to the House, and it was rather hard that any complaint should be made on the subject.

objected to a Vote of £100,000 being taken up that night, as Notice of it had only been given that morning.

took the same view.

expressed his willingness to postpone the Vote. He thought it desirable, as the House was about to enter upon the discussion of the South Africa Bill, that the House should know what pecuniary help the Government was disposed to give to the work of Confederation. It was with that view the Vote was placed upon the Estimates, and not with any intention of pressing it on that evening on the brief Notice to which allusion had been just made.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it would fortunately be unnecessary for him to detain the House at any great length in explaining details. This measure had now for some time been in the hands of hon. Members, and it would be affectation on his part if he were to assume that they were not perfectly familiar with the grounds on which it had been laid before Parliament, and which had been fully stated in "another place" by his noble Friend the Secretary of State. No doubt, the measure had received the careful attention which it merited from all those who took an interest in the question. It would not be necessary to enter at length into the subject of Confederation, it had frequently been discussed, and the principle had been commented upon in various quarters; but he would, point out that as it had been already in force in the great Canadian Dominion now for some 10 years, we had had an opportunity practically of viewing its application to Her Majesty's Colonies. The circumstances, however, in which that Confederation was established by the British North America Act were different in many essential particulars from the circumstances of the case he was now submitting to the House. The great object which it was sought to attain at that period was greater convenience of administration, and the establishment of an efficient means of uniting the British Colonies on the other side of the Atlantic. In the Canadian Bill many details were given in the original draft which in the present measure were conspicuous by their absence. The reason of that difference was not far to seek, because in the case of Canada an agreement had practically been arrived at previously among all the parties concerned. In the present case the Bill was essentially of a skeleton character, and its details were left to be filled in according as circumstances might arise. He had said that the circumstances of South Africa differed materially from those of Canada at the time of the adoption of the British North America Act. The reason was that the union, which in the case of Canada was a matter rather of administrative convenience, in the case of South Africa assumed a character of urgent and pressing necessity. A union of some kind had long been felt both in this country and in South Africa to be essential to the security of Her Majesty's dominions in those parts. The House was aware that the population of South Africa was mainly composed of large Native elements, with a comparatively small proportion of Whites. At the Cape of Good Hope the coloured population was more than double the white, and in Natal the difference was far greater, for while there were only some 17,000 Whites, there were 280,000 Natives. Then there was another question—namely, the trade in arms. Some common system whereby this dangerous form of commerce could be effectually controlled must strike the most casual observer as a matter of vital necessity. The perusal of this Bill would reveal one element which had now disappeared from the Continent of Africa; he alluded to the South African Republic. And in speaking of that subject he wished to allude for a moment to the observations which had been made with regard to the Vote which stood on the Paper for tonight. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already explained how it was that the Vote of £100,000 in connection with the annexation of the South African Republic appeared upon the Estimates, and, therefore, he should not further allude to the matter, beyond saying that he thought the House would have had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government, if they had asked them to give a second reading to this Bill while keeping them in ignorance of such an essential fact. As regarded the Transvaal Republic, it was a matter to which he wished to devote a large portion of his observations. The White population there was, on an approximate estimate, 40,000, as against 1,000,000 blacks. The House was aware that the Transvaal Republic owed its origin to the emigration in 1834 of some of the white settlers from the Cape, and it was in 1852 erected into an independent State. Since that period the State, under a Republican form of Government, had continued in friendly relations with the British Empire. That state of matters Her Majesty's Government were most desirous to continue, and nothing but circumstances over which they had no control had led to any change in our policy with regard to it. The House was aware that a war had unfortunately sprung up between the Native tribes and the South African Republic. With their internal or external relations Her Majesty's Government had no concern so far as those relations affected themselves alone. It was only when their policy was productive of danger to Her Majesty's dominions that, in his judgment, the Government were justified in at all interfering. It had been said that the treatment of the Native tribes, both within and without the actual confines of the Republic, was not such as to commend itself to the people of this country. But so long as the South African Republic was in a position to carry out any policy they chose and prevent the result of that policy being in any way productive of danger to us, we had no business to interfere; but, unfortunately, they became engaged in warlike operations which it was entirely out of their power to wage. The adult male population was not more than 8,000, and with the necessary deduction for non-combatants, 6,000 odd might be calculated as the entire White population which it was in the power of the Republic to call upon to bear arms. Even if the bulk of this population was brought into the field, their power successfully to encounter the vast hordes in arms against them would obviously be impossible. The South African Republic, therefore, was repeatedly warned by the Secretary of State, through Sir Theophilus Shepstone, on the grave nature of the course they were adopting. The failure of their attack on the Native Chief was a matter of history. It was successfully repelled by the Native tribes. They succeeded in overpowering the Forces sent against them. Now, with the success or the failure of the Forces of the Republic, as with their policy when viewed by itself, we had no concern, so long as their contests affected themselves alone; but he need hardly remind the House that the overpowering of a White force in a country surrounded, and to a great extent peopled, by large Native tribes, was a matter which the Government could not view without concern. The proof of the superiority of the Native tribes over the European settlers most probably would not have been kept within the limits originally assigned to that contest, and the destruction of the Transvaal State would have brought on the whole of South Africa the consequences of a Native war. That was the state of affairs which brought about the present position. In dealing with the matter as he had, Sir Theophilus Shepstone was entrusted with very full powers by Her Majesty. From his large experience of Native affairs in South Africa, it was needless to say, Sir Theophilus Shepstone had the complete confidence of his (Mr. Lowther's) noble Friend the Secretary of State, and therefore, within certain defined limits, he had power to act practically on his own responsibility. When this subject was last mentioned, the Secretary of State said, as he felt bound to do, that the policy of Sir Theophilus Shepstone had not been fully explained, and that he must necessarily reserve his opinion until he was fully informed of it. That fuller explanation had now arrived, and the House would be quite prepared for his (Mr. Lowther's) statement that the policy adopted by Sir Theophilus Shepstone had the full approbation of the Government. The presence of Sir Theophilus Shepstone in the capital of the Transvaal State during many weeks, accompanied as he was by a small body-guard of 26 policemen, might surely be taken as a sign that the feeling of the State was not inimical either to him or to the notorious object of his mission. He fully explained to the authorities of the Transvaal State that the security of Her Majesty's colonists was a matter of the utmost importance, and that he required to take measures for securing that object. The addition of the Transvaal State to the property of the British Crown had been in some quarters termed rank aggression; but he hoped it would not be so characterized in that House. He asked the House to reflect on the fact of an English gentleman, a civilian, accompanied only by 26 policemen, performing the act he had described in the midst of a State consisting of 40,000 of White population, and then say whether that act could in any way be stamped with the character of aggression. He entered freely into communication with the recognized officials of the Republic—he explained the alternative he might be compelled to adopt in the event of their failure to comply with the conditions which he deemed essential to the general safety. His representations were received throughout in the most friendly manner, and whilst protesting, as they considered they were bound to do, against the proposal, no impediment was placed by them in the way of Her Majesty's Government. As no doubt the House were aware, from the Papers that had been laid on the Table, the late President and several others connected with the Government of the Republic protested against the proposed change, and two of them followed up their protests by visiting this country as delegates from the late South African Government. Those two gentlemen were received the other day by the Secretary of State; he (Mr. Lowther) was present at the interview; and, without entering into the details of the conversation, he would mention that it was at once pointed out by his noble Friend that the Act performed by Sir Theophilus Shepstone was irrevocable, that it would be idle to enter upon a discussion of it, that it was accomplished, and that any further discussion of it would be a waste of time; but his noble Friend added that, with reference to the future administration of the State, he should be happy to receive any communication from them, and they cordially assented to the Secretary of State's proposition, and expressed their willingness to enter upon a discussion with regard to the future. It was, further, worth observing that previous to the departure of these gentlemen for this country, they had asked Sir Theophilus Shepstone if he would retain their services in his new arrangements, and make temporary arrangements for the discharge of their duties, and he at once assented to the course they proposed, leaving them free to visit England for the purpose of making representations to the Government in this country. He mentioned these details to show that the spirit in which the negotiations had been carried on was very different from that which in some quarters it was supposed to have been. With regard to the obligations incurred by England on our assumption of the government of this State, he found that the present debts of all kinds were about £220,000. A sum of £25,000 would be required for the removal of troops and the expenses connected therewith, and £25,000 it was estimated would very shortly be required for the payment of interest on the Debt, and to meet other claims, the payment of which could not be delayed; but in making these statements he wished to guard himself against its being supposed that Her Majesty's Government would necessarily admit every claim that might be made against them. While every bond fide debt and obligation would be punctually acknowledged and discharged, it would be imprudent to hold out a hope that recklessly - assumed obligations would necessarily be acknowledged. He had mentioned the dark side of the picture first, but it had its bright side. The natural resources of the country, notwithstanding the smiles of hon. Members opposite at the use of the phrase, were very great. The South African climate was very good for Europeans, and the great bulk of this country was a table land 4,000 feet above the level of the sea. It was cool and healthy; the agricultural and pastoral resources were very great; the minerals required only energy for their development — [Mr. LOWE: And capital]—and we might assume that the essential element of capital would not be deterred from embarking in the Transvaal now that Her Majesty's Government had interfered in order to secure the good government of the district. Indeed, the tendency of that change would be to re-assure capitalists and encourage European imigration. The mines had already been the subject of inquiry; it had been ascertained that gold, copper, lead, silver, and coal existed in considerable quantities; and the development of these mineral resources could only be a matter of time. Their very existence placed beyond doubt the payment of interest upon the Debt, the reduction of its amount, and the future commercial prosperity of the country. The revenues of the State had been up to recently quite sufficient for the expenses. A vast railway scheme was, however, embarked in beyond the powers of the former Government, and, in other ways, extravagance was unfortunately embarked in which he might assure the House would not occur again. They were not taking over a bankrupt community that was unable to pay its way; but it was a country which—although it had unfortunately, through the policy that had unwisely been adopted, got into serious financial as well as military difficulties— need not cause us any alarm or prevent us from anticipating a happy furure. With these remarks, he would move the second reading of the Bill.

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he could not admit the assumption, implied in the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the House was well acquainted with the principle of Confederation as proposed to be applied in these Colonies. On the contrary, there was a great deal of confusion and defective knowledge respecting it, and more especially as regarded the Transvaal. The professed object of the Bill, as presented to the House, was to facilitate the voluntary combination of the colonies, and from that point of view it would be difficult to object to it; but the matter assumed a different aspect when it was known that not one of the colonies desired this scheme of Confederation, that it was altogether inapplicable to them, that it had not originated with them, but in this country, and that the object was to re-acquire for Great Britain certain outlying territories which we deliberately parted with more than 20 years ago. There was no parallel between this Bill and the Canadian Bill; the latter came from Canada to us; the Colonial Office had nothing to do but to express its approval of it; it was negotiated in the colonies, and it was put into shape before it came here; and all that this Government did was to give the new State a name; but the Confederation of South Africa had sprung up here, and its main object was to re-attach to us certain territories which we had resigned. There were difficulties in South Africa which did not exist in Canada, for in South Africa the great mass of European settlers were Dutch in language, habits, manners, and love of independence; and, besides them, there was a large Native population. Troubles arose between us and the Dutch settlers as long ago as the year 1834. The Dutch then went northwards, and founded the Colony of Natal. We followed them, headed them back from Natal, and defeated them. They then went beyond the Transvaal, but we followed them, and held that wherever they went they carried subjection to the British flag with them. In 1852, however, finding we could not follow them any further into the interior of Africa, we recognized the independence and sovereignty of the Transvaal Republic, hoping by this means not only to free ourselves from the difficulties that had grown up, but to interpose between ourselves and the Native States a State which would protect our Colonists from any danger on the part of the Natives. Sir George Clerk, a distinguished public servant, was sent out by Lord Aberdeen's Government to report on the Orange River Free State. He described the sparseness of the population and the extent of the territory, and strongly deprecated the assertion of British sovereignty over such a State. Sir George Clerk's description of the Orange River Settlement was equally true of the Transvaal Republic at the present moment. His opinion was adopted by the Duke of Newcastle, at that time Colonial Secretary, and the Government of that day determined to renounce all sovereignty over the Orange River State, on the ground that its management cost too much in labour, and entailed too heavy a charge upon the British taxpayer. The Orange River Free State was thereupon set up as a buffer between us and the African Native population, but was incapable of being managed as an English settlement or English territory. After we had left the Orange River State, and it had become independent, the people had wars with the Natives, and petitioned to be taken back again under British rule. We refused, although if ever there was danger of disturbance and contagion from one State to another it arose between the Orange River Free State and Natal. In fact, every argument that was used in support of the annexation of the Transvaal Republic might have been applicable with greater force in favour of the annexation of the Orange River Free State, whose territory was to a great extent conterminous with Natal, while that of the Transvaal Republic just touched Natal at one corner, and Sir Theophilus Shepstone took 30 days to get from Natal to Prætoria. The Orange River Free State went to war with the Basutos, and had the worst of it. They persevered for four years, although they sustained frightful losses —not less than one in five, as it was said, of the adult male population having been killed. That calculation was, perhaps, excessive, and one in 10 was, perhaps, nearer the mark. But did the war extend to Natal? Not at all. If, however, it went on for four years in a territory contiguous to our own, how could it be contended that the state of the Transvaal rendered it necessary for our peace and quietness that it should be annexed? In the year 1858 there was a movement to re-annex the Orange River Free State. A change of Government had occurred here at home, and the late Lord Lytton, who was appointed head of the Colonial Department, sent out to consult Sir George Grey as to the feasibility of a Confederation being established in South Africa, and to ask him whether he was in favour of the adoption of such a course. Sir George Grey wrote back, commenting upon the dangers of the existence of a number of small States, and even went so far, without waiting for instructions from home, as to take into consideration the scheme of Confederation; but he was recalled, and there was a change of Government soon after. From the termination of the war with the Basutos he had alluded to, the Orange River Free State continued to grow in wealth, and its present condition was described, in a Natal newspaper as being so prosperous that that Colony was desirous of having it annexed to itself. That reminded him of the Irish gentleman who carried off an heiress, because he said she had every blessing in life except a husband, and he was determined she should want that no longer. Such as the Orange River Free State was now is the Transvaal, and if it were only let alone it would develop its own resources, both mining and agricultural. The Dutch inhabitants would bring its land under cultivation; it would become stronger and stronger, by-and-by probably reverting to a free union with us, but in the meanwhile perfecting its own organization, it would be most useful to us as an independent free Republic. But Sir Theophilus Shepstone, who had done very good work as a member of Native Affairs, appeared upon the scene, and acting with an ambition to which he (Mr. Courtney) might apply the words of Shakespeare—

"Man, proud man!

Dress'd in a little brief authority,

Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven

As make the angels weep,"

seemed to think that a great deal could be done in South Africa, as had been done in Canada. There was also another adviser, Mr. Froude, who, instead of continuing his labours as an historian, and producing a work which might have been harmless, returned to the study of politics, and having gone to South Africa got the notion into his head that Confederation would be a very great thing. The proposals sent out to Africa by Lord Carnarvon displayed in their conception an ignorance, which was almost incredible; and the whole process of the Confederation scheme from beginning to end seemed to have been conducted without due regard to the conditions of life in South Africa. Before communicating with the Governments of the Transvaal and the Orange River Free State in so delicate a matter, Lord Carnarvon published the invitation to them to take part in the Conference respecting the Confederation, which was in itself a delicate matter, and the course adopted had justly been resented by those free States as bordering upon insult. Lord Carnarvon had also asked, of course, the Cape Colony to come into the proposed Confederation, and to send Representatives for that purpose. But there were two Provinces in Cape Colony, and the one was at variance with the other. Lord Carnarvon suggested that certain members should attend the Conference, evidently without being aware of the position in which they stood in relation to each other, for he had recommended, through Sir Henry Barkly, that Mr. Molteno should be a member of the Conference, and that another member of it should be one of those who belonged to what he might call the Home Rule Party in the Colony, which was much the same thing as if the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in that House were invited to take part in a Conference with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). That, of course, created the greatest excitement in the Colony, and Mr. Froude found the place in a flame when he arrived, so that he could do nothing. In the Eastern Province alone a desire for separation existed. There Mr. Froude was received with enthusiasm, just as a man would be received who came from America to Ireland to propose federation with the United States. The people in the Eastern Province said—"Lord Carnarvon has promised to give us Home Rule; we go in for Confederation because it breaks up the union which at present exists." A Conference was held at home, as suggested by Lord Carnarvon when the preceding plan was found to have failed, to which Mr. Molteno was invited, but that gentleman would have nothing whatever to say about Confederation. A representative was invited also from the Orange Free State, but he likewise refused to have anything to do with Confederation; and Mr. Brand, the President of the Conference, said—"lam here with orders not to have anything to do with Confederation, and the moment that question is raised I shall retire from the room." At the Conference at home Lord Carnarvon addressed Sir Garnet Wolseley, two members from Natal, and Sir Theophilus Shepstone. These were the only persons present, and when things were examined closely it would be found that those members from Natal who did come home were treated very badly; because while they were in this country, Lord Carnarvon forwarded to the Cape a draft Bill which was not submitted to the consideration of the members from Natal until it had been sent back again. An examination of that Bill would, he thought, justify every word he had uttered in condemnation of the haste and the thoughtlessness with which the noble Lord's policy was pursued. The Bill was, in effect, the British Canadian Act with certain provisions left blank. The prime object for which the Dominion of Canada was established was not to unite Provinces together, but to dissolve the Provinces which had been united. Now, if any lesson was to be derived from Canada as applicable to South Africa, it had reference to dissolving the union between the Eastern and Western Pro- vinces. But this was not involved in the scheme. When the Canadian Bill was under the consideration of that House, the weakness and utterly unworkable character of a nominated Senate were pointed out. Well, since then it was known to have proved an utter failure, and that it had gathered to itself no respect, no authority, no weight in the Parliament of Canada; and yet Lord Carnarvon sent out this Bill for a nominated Senate in South Africa, although in the Cape Colony an elective Upper Chamber already existed. It was still more extraordinary that such a proposal should have been made to the Free States. Would any independent State think of sacrificing its independence by consenting to be put under the rule of a State, the Upper Chamber of which was nominated by the Crown? It was not proposed to enfranchise the Native population. The consequence was to produce such a disproportionate representation of interests between the two English States that Natal said—"We cannot have this. We have a small English population, but in other respects we bear a fair proportion to the Cape Colony. Can we enter into such an arrangement as will give us only a small representation?" The Natives were treated in different ways in Natal, in the Cape Colony, and in the Dutch Republic. When the scheme for a Conference came to an end and a scheme for a limited Conference at home was proposed, Lord Carnarvon requested the Governor of the Cape to send him the laws of the three States. This circumstance showed that at that period his Lordship did not know what were the laws of the three States relating to this subject. Was it reasonable to ask the South African States to adopt such a scheme as that involved in the Bill now before the House? Bit by bit everything had been taken out of it. It had been so maltreated by criticism in the Colonies that it was now reduced to a mere skeleton, which he did not think that House, with any sense of responsibility, could sanction. It was a Bill to enable certain States in South Africa to join in a Confederation. The Confederation was to be ruled by a Senate to be appointed as the Queen might direct; by a House of Commons consisting of such Members as the Queen might direct, to be apportioned as the Queen might direct, with such rules for the representation of the Native population as the Queen might direct, and such a distribution of powers as the Queen might direct. How was it to be supposed that the South African States would assent to a scheme which conferred such monstrous powers on the Executive? In being asked to sanction this Bill, the House was, in effect, being asked to lay down the abstract principle that we should hand over these colonies, which had absolutely repudiated the whole scheme, to the Colonial Secretary to deal with as he liked. He could not conceive that the House, realizing the force of the situation, would give its sanction to any such scheme; and he contended that they were not justified in putting such confidence in Lord Carnarvon, or any Colonial Secretary whatever. The Canadian Bill, as he had said, was one which originated in Canada, was perfected and worked out in that country, and then came before the British Legislature for approval; but this South Africa Bill originated in the minds of Sir Theophilus Shepstone and Lord Carnarvon, and had been rejected by the Cape Coast Colony, by Natal, and the Transvaal Republic. Besides, the House was asked to sanction a scheme of which the very conditions whereon that sanction was recommended had been ignored. Sir Theophilus Shepstone obtained the commission to go out to annex the Transvaal Republic, but on certain conditions — that, before doing so, he should obtain the consent of the people and the concurrence of the Governors of the colonies. But neither of those cenditions had been fulfilled. Sir Theophilus Shepstone had not used his influence with the Natives; he stopped at the Cape and at Natal, and then, when rumours of peace were rife, he marched out. By that time the dangers were over, and the Native Chiefs amenable. The Under Secretary to the Colonies had put forward as a reason for passing the Bill that there was a danger of the war in South Africa spreading, but that apprehension was not borne out by experience, as in the case of the Orange River State, and the argument had been disproved by the conduct of Sir Theophilus Shepstone himself and the reception he met with from the States now in question. Certainly, the more he considered the matter, the less he (Mr. Courtney) approved of it. The man was authorized to do a particular thing, and now they were to approve quite another achievement. Nor was the moment chosen a good one, for it was still more to be deplored if they considered the particular moment at which the annexation had been perpetrated? Was this a time to make annexations? There were some hon. Members of that House—probably a majority of the House—who looked to a time, perhaps not far distant, when they would have to remonstrate against, and perhaps even to take up arms against another Power. Were they prepared to give that other Power the opportunity of taunting them with what they had done now? Did they consider it good to go to South Africa and annex, on the feeblest of all pretences, this State, when they might have to discuss questions of annexation on the Bosphorus? This case would make them stand ashamed when their enemies were in the gate, and he was astonished that the act of annexation had not been repudiated by the Government. It might, indeed, be said that the thing was done, and could not be undone; but whether it could be undone depended upon the instrument chosen, and it was not impossible to rebuild the Transvaal Republic in a country where the corporate life was very feeble and the whole modus vivendi almost patriarchal. He heartily wished that the only question was the policy of Confederation in South Africa; but that was not so, and the House would have to judge of a policy hastily caught up and unwisely followed. Whether he was supported on that side of the House or not, he should fight against this Bill as much as he could. He opposed it because he believed Confederation to be inapplicable to South Africa, and that it would saddle the English taxpayer with costs and damages in defence of a policy which had been repudiated more than 20 years ago. He opposed it still more because it had involved them in a deed which made Englishmen blush, and which, if ratified, would bring disgrace and dishonour on the English people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.

said, he had not intended to have spoken, but as no one rose to second the Amendment just moved by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Courtney) he, agreeing with it as he did, would do so. It would be absurd in him to go over the whole of the grounds upon which the Bill was liable to objection. The opposition which had been put forward to it by his hon. Friend was not, he believed, very popular on that side of the House; but that was probably because, as he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought, many hon. Members imagined that the question involved in the Bill under consideration was that of the annexation of the Transvaal Eepublic; and it was because he believed that the objections to the Bill would be just as strong, whether the annexation of the Transvaal was involved in it or not, that he wished to address a few remarks to the House. The Bill did not distinctly raise the question of the annexation, and it would be better, therefore, to reserve it for discussion on the Transvaal Vote. He had listened with the greatest astonishment to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in moving the second reading of the Bill, could hardly be said to have spoken one word to the House on the merits of the proposition. He was amazed that the hon. Gentleman should have made his whole speech in defence of the annexation of the Transvaal Republic. There was much to be said for and against that annexation; but that was not the question now at issue before the House. The House had now to vote Aye or No to the Confederation of the South African States, in which the question of the annexation of the Transvaal was not distinctly involved. The Bill, in fact, seemed rather from its terms to contemplate the non-annexation of the Transvaal. In fact, the only clauses in the Bill which alluded to annexation were Clause 4 and one other which spoke of the Colonies voluntarily wishing to come into union; so that the only reference the Bill made to the Republic was one which treated it, not as a British Colony, but as a still independent Republic. With regard to the Bill on its merits, the burden of proof lay with those who proposed it, and it was not for others to give a great body of reasons why the Bill should not pass. He had not heard as yet any such arguments as should induce the House to pass the Bill, which, as had been admitted, was imposed on the Colonies by Lord Carnarvon. The Colonies did not accept it. They might sum up the case as between the Cape and Natal thus— that whatever scheme would be acceptable to the one, would be sure to be distasteful to the other. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had spoken of the Transvaal as having devised immense railway schemes, the proposals for which had thrown light on the financial rottenness of the State. But one of the great advantages from Confederation was the pushing of railway enterprize, and he would ask the Government to explain how railway matters were dealt with by the Bill. There was another question which laid at the root of the measure. What was "South Africa?" What were its "States and Colonies?" In connection with this point, he complained that the Bill was utterly vague in its character. There was nothing in it definite or tangible. The Government might, in fact, use it through the medium of Orders in Council to effect in South Africa any revolutionary change they liked. There was no definition in the Bill of what South Africa was, and under it all the States of Africa might be included in Confederation, not excepting Egypt itself. Besides, it was purely artificial in its construction; it did not indicate what was to be the policy of its authors, and nothing of an explanatory character had been heard from the front Opposition Bench. Further, with regard to the Transvaal, if they were not to discuss the Bill on its merits, he would ask the Under Secretary of State not only to produce his Vote of £100,000, but to give some intimation of the use to which the money was to be applied, as the House could not pass the Bill without being in some measure committed to the Vote. He was sorry to hear the remarks of the Under Secretary about the gentlemen who had come to this country to represent the interests of the late South African Government. His hon. Friend had said that these gentlemen had an interview with Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and that they had been offered employment by the British Government. That statement, coupled with the Vote of £100,000, would lead many to think that this union had been brought about in the same way as the Union between England and Ireland. All the newspapers of South Africa had stated over and over again that there was not likely to be much trouble with the leading men of the South African Republic, inasmuch as they would get high employment under the British Crown. The House ought to have some explanation of the position in which the Transvaal Republic was left by this annexation or semi-annexation. It was said that the Transvaal, at all events, voluntarily entered the union. But a regiment and a-half of British troops had marched in and were still in possession. Perhaps the Under Secretary of State would inform the House how the legislative assent of the Transvaal to the union was to be given to Lord Carnarvon under the Bill? And, then, what was to be the case with regard to the Orange Free State? Considering the unconstitutional nature of the Bill, he should certainly pause, if a different explanation from what we had already received was not given, before assenting to the second reading of the Bill.

regretted that the question of the annexation of the Transvaal had been mixed up with the question of Confederation, because he held the Bill now before the House to be an urgent measure and necessary for South Africa. That was not only his opinion, but it was the opinion of the present Secretary of State, and of two preceding Secretaries of State. Certain charges had been made against Sir Theophilus Shepstone on account of the annexation of the Transvaal. He was glad that the Government had taken the responsibility for the annexation in advance upon themselves; for however great might be the ability and judgment of an officer, it would not be right to place upon him the responsibility of taking so grave a step as annexation. In the instructions to Sir Theophilus Shepstone there were certain conditions attached to annexation, the first being that it should be necessary for the peace and safety of our Colonies. In his opinion it could be shown that the peace and safety of the Colonies were endangered by the state of things in the Transvaal. The next condition was that Sir Theophilus Shepstone should have the assent of a sufficient number of the people to the change. By "sufficient" he thought was meant, not that Sir Theophilus Shepstone should have the formal assent of the majority of the inhabitants, but that he should have satisfied himself that a sufficient number of persons approved of the change, so as to ensure that change being effected not only without disturbance or breach of peace, but to the general contentment of the people. The third condition was that he should submit the proclamation to Sir Henry Barkly. He thought it would not be difficult to show that Sir Theophilus Shepstone had fulfilled these conditions. What did he find? He found on one hand an aggressive Government, relying, mistakenly as the result proved, on their own resources, making unwarrantable claims of territory to East and West of the Republic. This was not done without earnest warnings from Lord Carnarvon, who pointed out more than once that in the interests of South Africa such claims could not be allowed by Her Majesty's Government; that they would inevitably lead to collision with the Natives, and raise complications which might affect the peace and security of our Colonies. He found this Government defeated, absolutely bankrupt, disorganized, distrusted by and unable to defend their own people. On the other hand, he found a warlike nation— the Zulus—flushed with the victory they had obtained over the Boers, proud of defeating the white men, thoroughly well armed, and combining with other tribes around them to attack the white men. He found also a sham peace which had been hastily patched up, and which was characterized as a "happy illusion." As to the Natives being well armed, he would not rely only on Sir Theophilus Shepstone's report of their "almost universal possession of rifles," but would cite Consul Elton's Report of 1877 for the year 1876. He says—

"Trade in arms and ammunition continues to flourish, and it is notoriously a fact that both the Zulu nations and tribes bordering on the Transvaal are now provided with good arms and ammunition."

It was difficult to conceive a state of things more dangerous to the Transvaal and to the colonists. As to the Transvaal, their weakness invited attack from without, and their Government must have fallen from troubles within. It could not be argued that Sir Theophilus Shepstone was prejudiced, and described the state of things in too dark colours, because President Burgers, in his addresses to the Raad, entirely confirms that view. He describes their bankrupt and disorganized condition, which it would require little short of a miracle to put right, and in strong terms he blames the people for their disloyalty to the State. If one reads between the lines of his speech, one sees that he points not only to Confederation as expedient, but to annexation as possible. With respect again to the great danger to the peace and security of the Colonies, he did not rely solely on the statement of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Sir Henry Barkly, Sir Henry Bulwer, and several magistrates all agreed on this point, especially with reference to the Colony of Natal. How could it be otherwise? In Natal there was a handful of white men surrounded by Natives. And these Natives were not, as in other places, disappearing before civilization and brandy, but they were increasing in numbers annually in proportion to the white inhabitants. That, be it observed, was mainly owing to that just and liberal treatment of them which might be said to have been initiated and carried out by Sir Theophilus Shepstone. He thought the other conditions imposed on Sir Theophilus Shepstone had been complied with. A large number of the Transvaal people had assented to the change. The statement of Sir Theophilus Shepstone showed that during his stay in the capital he had numerous interviews with all classes of the inhabitants, who showed a most friendly feeling and a conviction that his mission offered the only possible solution of their difficulties. Numerous addresses had been sent to him, and memorials had been subsequently forwarded to the Government. All the towns and villages had expressed their approval of it. The whole country was rejoicing at the change. Sir Henry Barkly had left before the proclamation was issued; but Sir Theophilus Shepstone was well aware of Sir Henry Barkly's views, and he was not bound in all cases to submit the proclamation to the Governor of the Cape. He had a discretion vested in him by the express terms of his commission, which he had wisely exercised. As showing the necessity for the annexation, he would call attention to the fact that it was approved of in the Cape Colony, though in the Western part of that Colony there would be great sympathy with the Boers: and he believed there had been only one protest raised in the Orange Free State, though that State would be jealously alive to any change that added to the power of the British Government. Turning from this subject to the question of Confederation, it had been said by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that Lord Carnarvon had acted most improperly in pressing this measure on the Colonies and States. But in 1875, when the question arose as to the Conference, a resolution was passed by the Legislative Council of Natal strongly in favour of the Conference and of a closer union of the Colonies, and the same year the subject was favourably discussed by the Orange River Legislative Council, who thanked Lord Carnarvon for the warm interest taken by him in South Africa; so that it could by no means be assumed that Lord Carnarvon's conduct had been treated as improper by the Colonies. Indeed, it would be found that although the Cape Ministry at first opposed the Conference from a misapprehension of Lord Carnarvon's views, the whole of the Eastern part of the Colony and a majority in the Western part were in favour of a careful discussion of the question. He cordially agreed with the object of the Bill—to promote Confederation in South Africa— and with the arrangements by which it was proposed to be carried out. It was to be observed that while Lord Carnarvon had been guided in framing this scheme by the plan which had been adopted in confederating the Provinces in British North America, and which had most thoroughly answered, he did not, when sending it out, in any way bind himself to the clauses as they stood. They were merely sent out for consideration; and suggestions which had been made in the Colonies had been adopted and incorporated in this Bill. It might, therefore, be assumed without doubt that the scheme in principle met with the approval of the Colonies. It might be, after all, that not one of them would adopt the Bill, for it was permissive; but, at all events, it was important to them to have a scheme the details of which they were at liberty to fill up; and it was important to them to know how far they could go with the assent of the Imperial Government; and, further, that any laws affecting the Natives must be reserved for the approval of Her Majesty. The Preamble of the Bill clearly pointed out that it was expedient to declare and define the general principles upon which a union might be established, and to enable the details of the Constitution and of the establishments to be provided for after the wishes of the Colonies and States interested had been duly represented to Her Majesty through their respective Legislatures. The words "as the Queen may direct," which had been commented upon, referred only to the period anterior to the agreement of any two Colonies to confederate; and when once a Union Parliament had met, the authority of the Queen in Council would cease, except as to points in respect of which the Eoyal Prerogative was specially preserved. He heartily commended the Bill to the House, and he was satisfied the Colonies would accept it gratefully, even although they might not choose to act upon it at once.

would vote in favour of the Bill by way of assenting to a general proposition, that Confederation was the best thing that could happen to the South African States; but he regretted the manner in which it had been introduced, because the subject was independent of the Transvaal annexation, which could have been explained at another time, and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies said nothing at all about the real reason for introducing the Bill, nor had he explained any of its provisions as might have been expected. If he had wished to introduce the Transvaal annexation into the debate, he might have done so in a perfectly legitimate manner by stating that which was doubtless the fact—namely, that the Bill had been drawn long before the annexation had been thought of. As far as that matter was concerned, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was bound to say that of the annexation itself he approved, and he endorsed the action of the Government with regard to it. He believed it was not only justified, but that it was absolutely necessary. It was all very well to talk about the beauty of the Dutch Government, of which the hon. Member for Liskeard was so enamoured, but careful study would show that there were some drawbacks to it when administered in the Colonies of South Africa. It was said by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that we were wrong in having annexed the Transvaal, and that our system of government was unsuited to that country, and would not succeed, because we governed upon different principles from the Dutch in South Africa. Thank God we did, and it was because we did that the Natives appreciated the blessings of British rule as much as they detested that of the Boers, whose whole history in South Africa had been a record of cruelty and oppression towards the Natives and of rapacity in annexation of Native lands. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the immigration of the Boers in 1834, and he had depicted them as honest farmers, only desirous of settling down quietly, but followed by the cruel British Government, who never would lot them alone, but drove them from place to place, always claiming sovereignty over them, and eventually allowed them to become a Free State, hoping that they might act as "buffers" between our colonies and the Natives. But the hon. Member's reading of history was by no means correct. What was the cause of the immigration of the Boers in 1834? The Boers immigrated in 1834 because they would not submit to the abolition of slavery, and instead of being a buffer between us and the Natives, by their rapacity and wrongdoing they continually stirred up strife and exposed us to constantly increasing dangers. The truth was that they wished for the advantages and privileges of British subjects without discharging those obligations which Great Britain required from her Colonies. So far as the Transvaal was concerned, full explanation could be given of the annexation when the £100,000 was asked for; but financial considerations must be thrown to the winds when the honour, dignity and interests of the British Empire and the safety of European colonists were as much at stake as they were in this case. The annexation was absolutely neeessary for the security, not only of the British Possessions, but of all European settlers in South Africa. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard, that they should speak in that House under a sense of responsibility, and he was surprised that immediately after uttering that sentiment he had gone on to say that we had "acted with violence towards the Transvaal, accompanied by something very like fraud," and that Sir Theophilus Shepstone had acted as one "clad with a little brief authority," and not as he should have acted. With all respect for the hon. Member for Liskeard, he ought not to have made such charges against the Government and its officials, unless he had been able to say something more in justification of them; and the hon. Member had no right to speak as he did of everything having been done in inconceivable ignorance about the Colonies. In saying this he did not absolutely endorse all the actions of Lord Carnarvon, and, particularly, he never could understand the object of sending out Mr. Froude, who had better have stayed at-home, as his hon. Friend remarked, and finished his history. If the British Government had good and efficient Governors at the Cape and at Natal, all necessary information might and should have been obtained through them, and it was a slight upon them to send out a stranger to carry on negotiations respecting a matter concerning the Colonies which they governed. This was the more inexcusable when they had as Governor of Cape Colony Sir Henry Barkly, than whom there was no man of higher standing, greater ability, and tried probity in the Colonial Service. The hon. Member said that we were reversing the wise policy of 20 years ago, when the Orange River Territory was abandoned. But he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would not scruple to say in his place in that House that in his opinion there never was a greater mistake than that committed 20 years ago. The Orange River Territory was annexed by proclamation issued by Sir Harry Smith. The only possible solution of the existing difficulty at that time was to bring it under British authority. An unhappy idea of economy soon afterwards seized this country, and the troubles that had ever since occurred in consequence were inconceivable. Lord Grey had written a despatch to say that England had no interest in keeping that territory, unless the majority of the inhabitants would support her authority. He left office, and Sir John Pakington, who followed, was in favour of aban- donment. Then came Lord Aberdeen's Government, and Sir George Clerk was sent out by the Duke of Newcastle to do a certain thing, and he did it, and it was under the Duke of Newcastle that the abandonment was effected. There was a party in the State who were in favour of abandonment, but there was a stronger party against it, and it was in order to save expense, and not because it was the wish of the people, that the abandonment policy was adopted by the British Government. In fact there were many Petitions against the abandonment. General Cathcart had just won the battle of Berea, the expense was over, the difficulties past, and all would have gone on well, but for the fear of the Home Government, lest the British taxpayer should cry out, and their consequent fatal policy of abandonment at the very moment when the fruits of success had been obtained and tranquillity established. The territory got into difficulties immediately afterwards, and as his hon. Friend had said, the inhabitants actually petitioned to be taken back under British protection but were unfortunately refused. The hon. Member for Liskeard said that the Orange River Territory had been ever since continually prosperous. He did not know what his hon. Friend called prosperous, but he had himself told the House in his next sentence that one in five of the adult inhabitants engaged in the war with the Basutos had been killed. And what was that war? A contest between the Boers of the Orange Free State and the tribe of Moshesh, in which the Boers, when victorious, always annexed more of that Chief's land until at last he came under British Sovereignty to save the rest. And what was the language of the hon. Member for Liskeard as to the Orange Free State? He said "we took the Diamond Fields to which the Orange Free State had claims, and we have since practically admitted their claim by paying them £90,000 to relinquish it." Well, there were some people in this country who invariably took part against their own countrymen in all these matters, and here his hon. Friend and Mr. Froude were much alike, for so partial was the latter to the Boers that he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had heard that they said of him that he was a good friend to them but must be a bad Englishman. But this language respecting the Diamond Fields gave quite a wrong idea of the real facts. He contended that the action of the late Government in regard to the Diamond Fields was perfectly justifiable, while the payment of £90,000 to settle the claims set up was one of the most questionable acts of Lord Carnarvon's Government. The Orange Free River State claimed the whole of this territory. They made themselves judges in their own cause, and refused all arbitration. When Waterboer, the Chief who claimed this territory, disputed some of the documents they brought in support of their claim, they quietly went on without him and divided it between themselves and the Transvaal Republic. When they afterwards attempted to show some of their proofs to Sir Henry Barkly, their documents were of a very suspicious character, and one purported to be a letter from a Chief named Cornelius Kok, who was proved and admitted to have been unable to write. Waterboer had the best claim, and he had come under British Sovereignty. The annexation was most wise and desirable. he believed that Lord Carnarvon had paid 'this £90,000 for a claim which was worthless, partly with a view to dispose the Free State towards Confederation, but he doubted whether it would have that effect. Since the Transvaal had been annexed, the Free State would be almost entirely surrounded by British territory, and would have less difficulty in resisting the Natives on their frontier. With regard to the Bill before the House, the second reading was not a stage for criticizing the details too closely. Members on his (the Opposition) side would not prefer a nominated Council if they could get an elective Council; but it would not be fair to reject the Bill on this ground until they had heard the arguments of the Government in Committee. No doubt a Confederation of the South African States would be a most excellent thing if it could be effected so that the Natives might have confidence that the same equal laws would be administered over the whole of the South African States. He should be sorry to say anything harsh of foreign colonists, but truth must be told, and there had been acts of oppression committed against the Natives By two of these communities which were a disgrace to any civilized Governments. He sincerely hoped the Orange Free State would willingly come into the Confederation. He believed the Orange Free State would receive considerable benefit from this annexation from the increased security of its frontier. With regard to the second reading of this Bill, he must say that, while he reserved to himself the utmost liberty in the consideration of it in Committee, he could not do otherwise than record his vote in favour of the second reading. He thought it was the duty of anyone who had held the office which he had held, and who knew the great responsibility of managing Colonial affairs, to give a fair and generous support to the Government, which had attempted to do a great work in South Africa. With regard to what had been said respecting the interests of the Cape Colony and Natal being opposed, he did not understand that it was intended that precisely the same laws upon every subject should obtain in every State that might be confederated. But what was intended was that with regard to matters of general importance, such, for instance, as the importation and sale of arms, and more especially as to the manner of dealing with the Native tribes, the same principles should prevail; they would not have English principles upon one side of a river and Dutch principles upon the other, but equal laws would be administered to all in South Africa. He regretted the expressions which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard against the course adopted by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, who was a gentleman of ability and great administrative power, and who had only done that which he felt it was necessary for him to do. He believed Sir Theophilus Shepstone had acted from the best of motives, and he gave his support to the Government with regard to the annexation. He hoped the Colonies of South Africa would be welded into one Confederation, and when they were thus confederated we might hope that South Africa would make a great stride forward in improvement.

in supporting the Bill, defended Mr. Froude from the strictures passed upon him by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and said, it was a matter of considerable importance that the House should learn distinctly from the Treasury, whether they were warranted in supposing, as they had told the House, that a large portion, if not all, of this Supplementary Vote of £100,000 would be returned to us from Local Revenue. The grounds on which he desired to support the Bill were two-fold. He thought it would not only produce the very great advantage which proverbially resulted from union, but that it would produce a great advantage by making the work of responsible government in the Cape of Good Hope more possible and more successful, and ultimately he trusted that the system of responsible government would be extended to all the groups of Colonies which were to be in this Confederation. Another effect of the Bill would, no doubt, be to lessen the evil of the multiplication of instruments of government; for the Colonies had a great tendency to increase indefinitely the different Departments under which they were governed. Those who had studied the history of our South African Colonies knew very well that in times past, when we spent millions upon the Kaffir War, one of the causes of that expenditure was, that the interests of the frontier tribes were not identical with those the colonists of the Cape. It was perfectly notorious that a large portion of commissariat expenditure at that time went into the pockets of the colonists of the Cape. The very circumstance that our South African Colonies were largely inhabited by warlike races constituted a strong argument in favour of Confederation from a military point of view. Confederation would reduce the temptation to engage in war as between the colonists and the Native races. He hoped we were not going to have war; but we must be prepared for that contingency. But, whatever happened at the Cape, he hoped we should not be guilty of our old error of sending large numbers of troops to these Colonies, because experience had proved, especially in New Zealand and at the Cape, that the troops for these Colonies ought mainly to consist of local levies. He hoped the House would pass the Bill; but great care would be necessary in considering its details; for instance, with regard to the Council, he hoped the existing provision would be amended so that it should be an elected, instead of a nominated, Council.

having special and personal knowledge of the course of Sir Theophilus Shepstone's administration at Natal during 30 years, wished to deny the accuracy of the charges that had been brought against that gentleman of having been guilty of aggression and oppression, and of having exceeded his authority. Those charges evinced a reckless disregard of the circumstances of the case, for during that period Sir Theophilus Shepstone had not only administered the affairs of that country without giving offence to the Natives, but had preserved peace throughout the entire district. Long before Lord Carnarvon took steps for establishing a Confederation among these Provinces Sir Theophilus Shepstone had been requested to intervene. There was another matter which deserved the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Sultan of Zanzibar had implored the British Government, through that gentleman, to assist him in developing the immense territory nominally subjected to him which stretched towards the inland lakes of Africa, with the view of putting an end to the slave trade which flourished there.

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in discussing the propositions of the Sultan of Zanzibar on the second reading of that Bill.

ruled that the hon. Member was in Order.

in conclusion, repeated his protest against the undeserved attacks which had been made upon Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and hoped the Government would favourably consider the request of the Sultan of Zanzibar to which he had referred.

said, he felt obliged to vote against the Bill. If it had been drawn with less vagueness his objections might possibly have disappeared. He was not at all satisfied that sufficient precautions would be taken to secure to the Native populations, under the new system, those rights to which they were entitled, and it mixed up the Transvaal question with the other objects of the Bill. The Dutch appeared to be far from satisfied with the treatment their kindred had received from us in South Africa, for in Holland he had seen in circulation a number of protests, on the part of the Dutch population, on the subject, in which everything that the Under Secretary for the Colonies had painted white was in those protests painted distinctly black.

in rising to call attention to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into certain matters relating to Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, said, that the House had recently decided upon placing all the prisons in the Kingdom under Government control, in consequence of a general belief both in the House and out of it, that Government could manage matters of that kind with greater efficiency and economy than local bodies, but the lessons derived from the history of Broadmoor Asylum gave a very different idea of the results of Government administration. That history was not one of old date—it was, in fact, a very recent one, commencing only about 15 years ago, and after that short period, the dissatisfaction existing with reference to the cost of the maintenance of the Asylum, and doubts generally with reference to the arrangements had led the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to appoint a Committee of Inquiry from whom he requested a Report

"on the existing state of the establishment, both in respect of its cost as a lunatic asylum, and of the expenditure required to put the building in a proper condition and maintain it;"

the Committee were also instructed

"to consider whether any arrangement could be made by which the expense of maintaining such an establishment could be reduced, by re- taining the existing buildings or site, or by any alteration thereof, or by the sale of the present site and removal elsewhere or otherwise."

The right hon. Gentleman no doubt was fully justified in appointing such a Committee, but the constitution of the Committee was fairly open to question. He (Mr. Rylands) on more than one recent occasion had called the attention of the House to the practice which had arisen of referring the investigation of matters of administration to Departmental Committees, upon which permanent officials occupied an influential position, rather than to Select Committees of that House. He had strongly objected to the practice as being calculated to lessen the control of Parliament over the various Administrative Departments, and to promote, in the interest of the permanent servants of the Crown, the public expenditure rather than diminish it. Had the present matter been referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, it would no doubt have secured a large amount of valuable evidence upon the subject, and would have led to a Report of a more satisfactory nature than that which had been laid upon the Table of the House. The Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman consisted of Sir William G. Hayter and Mr. Walter, M.P. (who were Members of the Council of Supervision of the Asylum), Mr. A. B. Mitford (of the Treasury), Dr. Mouat (of the Local Government Board), and Mr. Everest (of the Home Office). The Asylum was under the control of the Home Office; but a local element in its management was introduced in the Council of Supervision, which included the names of several gentlemen residing in the locality of the Asylum. The Council of Supervision was clearly to some extent placed upon its defence in the inquiry, and therefore it was open to remark that two of its Members were placed on the Committee, and in fact adopted the Report with the assistance of Mr. Everest by a majority of 1 over the dissenting minority consisting of Mr. Mitford and Dr. Mouat, who had expressed their dissent from their Colleagues in decided terms. Mr. Mitford went so far as to say that "the majority took for granted the perfection of Broadmoor." Notwithstanding, however, the natural disposition of some Members of the Committee to make the best of a bad case, the Report adopted by them and presented to the Home Secretary was quite sufficient to demonstrate the singular incapacity with which the whole affair had been managed. The buildings were constructed under the authority and control of the Government in accordance with the plans of Sir Joshua Jebb, and were opened in May, 1863. The total cost of the buildings and land up to the present time amounted to £166,350, and although they had been in existence only 14 years the construction had been so objectionable as to lead to serious doubts whether it might not be advantageous to pull down the buildings, sell the site, and erect new buildings elsewhere. And this was an instance of the way in which Government managed matters of that kind. Had the magistrates of one of the English counties fallen into such serious mistakes in the erection of their county asylum, as to lead to a proposal to pull it down within 15 years and to build another, the outcry against their folly would be heard throughout the Kingdom, and it would be generally thought that the magistrates would be more fitted to occupy places within the building itself than to superintend its management outside its walls. But that had actually been the case in the erection of Broadmoor by the Government, and although the majority of the Committee did not recommend the pulling down of the building, the minority were of opinion that that would be the proper course to be taken, and all of the Members concurred in the opinion that the buildings were "very badly constructed and in constant need of repair." Within a year of the opening of the Asylum the medical superintendent reported upon the inadequacy of the means originally provided for warming the wards—he stated that—

"The buildings are heated by iron stoves and open fire places. Notwithstanding a large consumption of coal, portions of the buildings such as single rooms remain unwarmed, and damp walls and bedding are the necessary result."

But without going into other particulars of bad construction there was the fact stated that—

"The majority of the looks throughout the building can be picked with scarcely any difficulty."

Not only had the Government failed to secure the erection of well-constructed buildings; but the cost of the institution under their management was excessive as compared with county lunatic asylums. In Broadmoor, the average cost per annum for each inmate was £57 17s. 3d., whilst in the county asylums of Lancashire it was as follows:—Lancaster, £21 18s. 2d.; Prestwich, £24 3s. 2d.; Rainhill, £25 9s.; Whittingham, £26. It thus appeared that the cost of Government management was considerably more than double the cost of local asylums. In the charge for the official Staff the difference was very great. In Prestwich Asylum, for instance, the Staff of attendants cost £4 16s. 4d. per year for each inmate, whilst the cost of the Staff at Broadmoor amounted to not less than £19 10s. 5d. per year for each prisoner. The salaries paid by Government were higher, and the attendants were considerably more numerous. No doubt, the argument would be urged that the inmates of Broadmoor being criminal lunatics of a dangerous and violent character, it was necessary to provide a large Staff of attendants. But that argument must be taken with considerable qualification. There was not that great difference between the character of the inmates of Broadmoor and those of other asylums. Dr. Mouat, in his separate Report, remarked that—

"All lunatics with homicidal or suicidal tendencies, however quiet and harmless they may ordinarily he, and all violent and dangerous maniacs with or without such tendencies, need the most careful and constant watching, with the highest degree of safe custody, whether they he in the criminal category or not."

In some of the county lunatic asylums the proportion of that class of inmates was very considerable. The medical superintendent of Prestwich Asylum, in his report, presented to the magistrates of the county of Lancaster last year, alluded to the fact, that owing to the great pressure arising from want of ac-comodation, the chronic cases who were quiet and orderly were sent to the workhouses of the parishes to which they belonged, in order to make room for the admission of new cases. The medical superintendent upon this remarks that—

"The continual elimination of the quiet element leaves in the asylum a preponderance of violent, sick, and acute patients, the average character of whose insanity is more severe than what is met with in kindred institutions. That our maintenance expenditure will necessarily be affected by these circumstances and conditions is apparent to everyone conversant with the subject. These classes of the insane not only need for their safety and well-being a greater amount of supervision—which means a larger Staff of attendants—but their diet accommodation and all the appliances for treatment necessitate a larger outlay than would be required for the care and management of chronic cases."

Such were the facts in relation to Prestwich Asylum, and yet the cost of its maintenance was not one-half the cost of Broadmoor. But the excessive expenditure was not the only source of loss to the public by the mode in which Broadmoor was managed by the Government. There was reason to believe that prisoners were kept there long after the period when they might safely be set at liberty. Of course, in an asylum managed by local authorities there would be always the desire to save unnecessary charges upon the rates, by removing the inmates as soon as they gave evidence of recovery. But no such course appeared to have been taken at Broadmoor. When a criminal lunatic entered its walls there seemed to be no chance of his ever leaving them. An instance of that kind occurred in connection with the Warrington Union. For several years the Union had been charged with the maintenance of four criminal lunatics, about whom the Board of Guardians could get no information, until at length a deputation from their body were enabled, by the assistance of the right lion. Gentleman opposite, to visit Broadmoor, and they then discovered that two out of the four criminal lunatics charged to the Union for several years past might properly have been discharged from custody. One of the cases was so remarkable as to be worthy of the attention of the House. It was the case of a man named John Urey, of Warrington, who was charged at the Liverpool Assizes, August, 1868, with burglary, was found to be insane on arraignment, and directed to be imprisoned during Her Majesty's pleasure. He was certified not to be suicidal, nor dangerous to others, nor subject to epilepsy, and no medical evidence appeared to have been give at any time of his insanity. The felony consisted of stealing a pair of boots, and might probably have been committed whilst under an attack of temporary insanity caused by drink. If the man had been convicted in the ordinary course, he would have been imprisoned for six or twelve months; but, being treated as a "criminal lunatic," he was committed to Broadmoor in 1868, and had been there ever since, at a cost to the British taxpayer of about £600. His age at the time of commitment was only 19, and he was, therefore, now 29, with the prospect of living many years longer, and but for the outcry raised by the Warrington Board of Guardians, he would probably have remained in Broadmoor until his death, and have cost the country thousands of pounds for his maintenance. There appeared no reason to doubt that on investigation of the case of all the inmates at Broadmoor, other instances of this gross mismanagement might be discovered. When the question was discussed by the Guardians of the Warrington Union, the Chairman said that as rational men they could scarcely believe that a man could be kept in a public building, at the public expense, and yet not a soul on the face of the earth caring anything about him. One of the Guardians said that the case proved the truth of the observation made by the Swedish Chancellor to his son—"Behold, my son, with what little wisdom the world is governed." That was a fair criticism of the conduct of Government officials in this matter, and when it was remembered that Broadmoor was a Government prison under the control of the Home Office, it appeared most probable that the result of the Bill recently passed by the House handing over all the gaols in the Kingdom to the Home Office, would lead to the creation of many abuses in their management, and to a large increase of expenditure.

said, if he had thought that the Report would form the subject of such remarks as had been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, he should not have laid it upon the Table. When the Estimate about Broadmoor came before him some years ago, he was told that £12,000 or £13,000 was wanted in order to put the institution on a satisfactory footing, but he refused to ask for such a sum, because he was not satisfied it was worth while spending any more money on Broadmoor until it had been decided what should be done with the institution itself. When the matter came forward again he thought the better plan would be to obtain information for his own guidance. He believed it was right to associate with the Members of the Council of Supervision a gentleman from the Treasury, another from the Home Office, and a third from the Office of Works, the buildings at Broadmoor having been placed under the care of the latter Department. Their Report was made as a primary step in the investigations of the Home Office under his sanction and entirely at his own wish, in order that the whole thing might be thoroughly considered before an extra shilling was spent upon the place. The Report was made at the commencement of the present Session, and he had not yet had time fully to consider it. He had himself personally visited the place and made himself acquainted with every nook and corner of it, and he hoped to be able before very long to do something which might relieve the country from a certain degree of expense. He agreed that the expense was at present enormous. The hon. Member opposite was wrong in supposing that the inmates of Broadmoor were at all under the control of the Home Office, because practically the asylum was under the direction of the Council of Supervision. How it ever entered into the minds of men, 15 or 16 years ago, to spend a considerable sum of money in buildings such as existed, was a mystery to him; but neither the present nor the late Government was responsible for it. He hoped that before any serious discussion was had on the question another year would be allowed to elapse, and by that time he hoped that he should be able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with regard to it. One word with reference to the Council of Supervision. Those gentlemen devoted themselves to the discharge of their duties to the best of their ability, and had rendered very valuable assistance. A more competent body of gentlemen could not be found, but they had a difficult task to contend with. Comparison had been drawn between Broadmoor and the different county lunatic asylums, but it was difficult to draw that comparison with sufficient regard to all the surrounding circumstances of each case. It was admitted that if lunacy was dealt with in its commencement, the probability was that a cure would be effected; whereas if it were confirmed it would be much more difficult to deal with it; and that when it had shown itself by criminal acts and had become chronic it was very doubtful whether a cure could be effected at all. The first question that had arisen with regard to Broadmoor was, whether criminals who had become lunatics should be sent there to be mixed with those who had been acquitted on the ground of insanity, and who had, therefore, never been criminals at all; and he had come to the conclusion that this mixture of criminal and non-criminal lunatics should no longer be permitted to continue. One of the first things he did, therefore, on coming into office was to direct that no person who had been convicted of crime should be sent to Broadmoor, notwithstanding his subsequent lunacy. He had limited those directions, however, to the case of men, because there was no other place where the women could be accommodated, but he hoped soon to be able to remedy that defect. The lunatic criminals who had already been sent there would remain, but no more would be sent. The hon. Member had touched upon the question of the number of attendants in that establishment. He much regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) on this occasion, because he had wished that the hon. Gentleman should have heard his explanation upon this point. He was satisfied that it was owing to the number of the attendants that so much quiet and order was preserved at Broadmoor. It was fallacious to compare the number of the attendants at that establishment with that at ordinary county lunatic asylums, on account of the dangerous character of the lunatics confined in the former. The hon. Member went on to say that a number of persons were detained at Broadmoor who ought to be discharged. It was possible that that might be so, and he had himself directed two of the former inmates to be discharged, on their friends and relations promising to carefully and narrowly watch them. He had paid special attention to this subject lately, and he had become impressed with its difficulties. There was no doubt it was one of the most painful things which anyone in office could have to deal with, that a man, to all appearance perfectly sane, should remain in a lunatic asylum simply because he had no friends to take care of him. On the other hand, there were many men whom they knew, if let out again, would take to drink, develop the same criminal tendencies, and danger would be the result. As to the expenditure, it would be found that this had been diminished during the last few years. He was happy to say that though the last published Returns showed a cost of £57 per head, in the next one published that amount would be reduced to £54. Although but slightly exceeding the cost at Dundrum, he admitted that these patients still cost more than was absolutely necessary.

in rising to call attention to the recent Report of Vice Consul Freeman as to the insurgent Christians of Bosnia, and to the discrepancies between this Report and the previous Reports of Consul Holmes; and to ask, Whether the Government will be prepared to direct Her Majesty's Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina not in future to use their influence with the Turkish authorities for the purpose of driving the insurgents from the country, but to confine themselves to their duty as agents of a Neutral Power? said, he trusted he might be permitted to detain the House for a few minutes while he referred to a matter of some importance—namely, the action of our Consular authorities towards the insurgent Christians in that most unfortunate of Turkish Provinces, Bosnia, which for nearly three years had been the scene of so much misery, and which was the origin of the present troubles in the East. The House would recollect that some few weeks ago the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a Question as to some alleged massacre in that Province, read at length a despatch from Consul Holmes, which not only denied the specific case alleged, but made general statements as to the condition of the Province, and the nature of the insurrection, and the cause of the exodus of the population, which greatly surprised them. According to this version Europe had been under an entire misconception and delusion as to the nature and causes of the Bosnian difficulty. The insur- rection was a sham; it was entirely of foreign creation. It was the Turks rather than the Christians who had reason to complain. He would not trouble the House by quoting this letter at length, but would summarize it, in the words of Mr. Holmes, under three heads—1. That the insurrection in Bosnia was nothing more than a brigandage on a large scale, promoted by filibusters from beyond the frontier, which it had pleased Slav sympathizers to call "insurrection." 2. That the refugees had been induced to fly the country, not by acts of cruelty of the Turks, but to avoid the conflict between their enraged Mussulman neighbours and their filibustering friends from without. 3. That the murders and atrocities committed by the Turks were a dignified form of avenge for similar acts committed by the Christians according to their opportunity, and just as hideous. Mr. Holmes added that, as soon as he was able, he should take an opportunity of urging the Turkish Governor to take steps at once to sweep these bands of brigands out of Bosnia. There was in the last Blue Book another despatch from Consul Holmes, dated March 29, in which he stated that he had acted upon this intention; he had an interview with the Governor General, and urged upon him the necessity of making an effort to drive out Despotovich and his bands. The Governor assured him that preparations were in progress for driving out these insurgents. In the debate which occurred on the general Eastern policy, he had pointed out that the Government had been entirely misled by Mr. Holmes's statements; no answer was, however, made by the Government, possibly because at the time further inquiries were being instituted by Vice Consul Freeman, who had been directed to proceed to the disturbed districts of Bosnia and to report upon them. A few days ago, a long and interesting despatch from Mr. Freeman was laid upon the Table of the House, containing his Report upon the state of Northern Bosnia and upon the condition of the unfortunate refugees. With respect to some of the alleged outrages, Mr. Freeman stated that he had reason to think that there had been some exaggeration. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not care for his part to go into the pros and cons of particular cases. He could quote from Consular authority alone enough cases if he wished to make the most damning record against the authorities of Bosnia, sufficient of themselves to account for the insurrection and the flight of the people. What he wanted, however, on the present occasion to point out was, the entirely different version of the state of things in Bosnia as described by Consul Freeman from that of Consul Holmes. Mr. Freeman visited the district in the hands of the insurgents, and he entirely confirmed the account of Mr. Evans. Mr. Holmes had stated that the insurgents were nothing but bands of brigands, who had come across the frontier from Austrian territory. Mr. Freeman stated that the number of insurgents under command of Despotovitch might be estimated at about 5,000, almost without exception natives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were spread about the country in bands of 200 to 1,000 men each, but who could be assembled at one spot in time of need. Mr. Freeman said that Despotovitch maintained the strictest discipline among his men, and no one dared to disobey his orders. Although he would not disdain to carry off a Turkish convoy of provisions, or a caravan of merchants' goods, he prohibited all petty brigandage and punished severely, on occasion even by death, any wanton murders. Mr. Holmes had stated that the refugees were driven away by a few of these insurgents. Mr. Freeman said—

"Men are not wanting, for every fugitive would be ready to carry arms if it would insure him food; but the insurgents have no means of procuring arms, and would also find it impossible to provision a large force."

He then went across the frontier to the district where the refugees had found safety. He said—

"From Knin I made an excursion along the neighbouring frontier expressly to verify the state of the Bosnian refugees. They almost, without exception, lack the first necessaries of life—shelter, food, and clothing. They either live in huts through which every blast of wind blows and into which the rain penetrates in torrents (he writes at the end of April), or else in holes and caves in the hill sides, crowded together like animals and breathing the most pestilential air. Their clothing barely covers their attenuated limbs, and it was a piteous sight to behold the young children, wan and haggard, shivering in the cold north wind which was blowing the day I was there." —[Turkey, No. 20 (1877), p. 4.]

He then said that although the leaders of the insurgents entertained certain po- litical notions, the generality of the insurgents and fugitives professed themselves faithful subjects of the Sultan, and regretted what had happened, but said they had suffered too much at the hands of their Beys and the Zaptiehs for them to think of returning to their homes; and an old man, said to have been one of the wealthiest villagers in the neighbourhood of Petrovatz, emphatically exclaimed—

"Ah, Sir, you little know what we have had to put up with, and if my position is not to he bettered I will never return myself, and would sooner kill my children with my own hand than permit them to return."

He had shown that there was an absolute divergence between Mr. Holmes and Mr. Freeman upon every point. Which was the true account could not be for a moment doubted. Mr. Holmes had never been in the insurgent country or among the refugees, and he took his information solely from the Turks, as, whether rightly or wrongly, he was considered so hostile to the Christians, and had the reputation, as he himself stated, of being such a passionate Turcophile, that no Christian ever went near him. Mr. Freeman described the character of the Mussulman troops and inhabitants as being characterized by unbridled licentiousness, whilst Mr. Holmes declared it was praiseworthy. He found, on looking back at these officers' Reports during the past two years, that there was the same divergence or absolute contradiction between them from the very first. It would much amuse the House if he could be permitted to read extracts from these despatches giving these opposite versions. Mr. Holmes, during that period, had often been absent from Bosnia, to Constantinople and different places, on other work; his pen was then taken up by Mr. Freeman. Mr. Holmes, on the one hand, had constantly and uniformly denied during the last two years that there had been any serious insurrection at all in Bosnia; according to him the insurgents were nothing but foreign bands. To quote one or two passages, on the 10th of March of last year, when most people were under the belief that the disturbances in Bosnia had lasted more than 18 months, Mr. Holmes, in a memorandum addressed to Sir Henry Elliot, wrote—

"The so-called insurrection in Bosnia might be better termed an invasion of hands openly formed in Austrian Croatia and Servia. It has never extended beyond the range of their operations, and cannot be called a popular movement."— [Turkey, No. 3 (1876), p. 40.]

He believed this was written while Mr. Holmes was at Constantinople on special duty; yet a few days before, on the 2nd of March, he found a letter from Vice Consul Freeman, dated Bosna-Serai, in which he spoke of the withdrawal of the Austrian assistance to the refugees, and said—

"But yet I fear it will not influence the return of the refugees to their homes. In every direction the insurgents seem to be animated by the same sentiment—a determination to fight to the last rather than again submit to the Turkish authority."'—[Ibid., p. 18.]

In a few days Mr. Holmes returned to Bosnia, and on the 30th of March he wrote—

"During the few days I have been here I have seen the authorities, and most of the chief men of the place, and I have obtained a conviction that, in spite of all predictions to the contrary, the Christians of this country will not rise in arms unless they are forced to do so by invasion from without. Up to the present moment there has been no insurrection in Bosnia, except on the frontiers, where it has been produced in this manner."—[Ibid., p. 68.]

Yet Consul Freeman, writing only seven days later from the same place, said—

" The Turks maintain that these armed bands are composed of Austrians, Servians, and even Montenegrins, but I think it more probable that they consist chiefly of the Bosnian refugees, who, finding the moans of subsistence failing them, and being pressed by Austria to return to their country, have preferred doing so with arms in their hands."—[Ibid., p. 78.]

And writing a few days later, he spoke of a force of insurgents 10,000 or 12,000 strong, and on the 12th of March he said of the refugees—

"They unanimously declare that if the Austrian Government withhold all further assistance they will drown themselves in the Unna rather than again subject themselves to Turkish oppression."

After mentioning several cases of violence and oppression, he said—

"As long as such acts of violence as the above are perpetrated With impunity by the soldiery and native Mussulmans, and such arbitrary conduct permitted by the authorities, it is hopeless to expect a pacification of these Provinces, and I much fear that the new Governor will find himself utterly powerless to strive almost single-handed against such a state of corrupt administration and unbridled licentiousness and crime."

Now, which of these two authorities were we to believe? He had no doubt himself. Mr. Freeman's accounts tallied with those of every other person who had visited Bosnia during the last two years—Mr. Evans, Mr. Stillman, Miss Irby, and some others — while Mr. Holmes's tallied only with Turkish accounts. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not say that Mr. Holmes had wilfully misled the House; but he believed that Mr. Holmes was completely under misapprehension as to the state of things in Bosnia, that he saw only with Turkish eyes, and heard only with Turkish ears, and was therefore prevented from taking a clear and candid view of what was taking place in the unfortunate Province. In a letter dated June 6, which he received a few days ago, dated from Knin, in Dalmatia, the headquarters of the refugees in that part, and written by Miss Irby to a lady who had devoted herself most heroically to the relief of these suffering thousands, she said—

"Mr. Holmes's urging the Pasha to send troops to North Bosnia has driven thousands of fresh refugees across the frontier. This very-day a crowd of miserable wretches, old women and children, who have been hiding in the woods for days, appeared in Knin, telling the tale of their villages having been burnt by the Turkish troops three weeks ago at Gla-mosh. All along this frontier fresh refugees are arriving, who have fled before the Turkish troops or have been burnt out of their houses. Is it," she asks, "in accordance with the instructions of the Foreign Office that Mr. Holmes thus urges the Pasha?"

And that was the question which he had now to ask the Under Secretary, and to which he thought he was entitled to a distinct and clear answer. Was it by the direction of Lord Derby that Mr. Holmes took this course? Had his conduct been approved? He hoped most sincerely that the Under Secretary would be able to tell them that the conduct of Mr. Holmes had been disapproved, and that he had been directed no longer to use his energies in this direction. It was by acts of this kind that the English Government was making the name of England to be hated by the Native Christian population. At least, if we could do nothing for these unfortunate people, if the diplomacy of Europe was utterly powerless to rescue them or to obtain any guarantees for them for better government, or for protection against their oppressors, let us do nothing to aid their oppressors by our advice and encouragement. It was not the duty of this country to throw all the weight of its influence and authority on the side of the Turkish Government against these unfortunate insurgents. The very opposite course would be the one which would be dictated both by humanity and by sound policy. We ought rather to have told the Turks not to trouble themselves about stamping out the insurrection in Bosnia, but to send every available man to the Danube, where the real issue was to be fought out. He thought it probable that the Under Secretary would think it sufficient to say that Mr. Holmes had left his post on sick leave. He regretted the cause of his departure, but he could not regret the fact, and he sincerely hoped that some other sphere might be in future found for his activity, when the state of his health permitted. Throughout the East he was recognized as having so thoroughly identified himself with the Turkish Government, that he had practically lost all influence amongst the Christian population, though he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was bound to say that he had often fully admitted the misgovernment of the Turks. But it would not be sufficient for the Government to say that Mr. Holmes had come back on sick leave. It was necessary that they should say whether it was by their order or their approval that he had acted. Though he did not know the details, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was informed that Mr. Freeman was now carrying out the same policy in Bosnia as his predecessor—advising the Turkish authorities as to the military operations which they should undertake there; and if there were any truth in that, it showed the necessity for the Government taking some action in the matter. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.

said, he was somewhat at a loss to know what had been the real object of the hon. Gentleman's speech, because he had very carefully guarded himself by saying that he did not mean to bring forward any charge against Consul Holmes, yet, at the same time, he accused him of misinforming the Government and taking part with the Turks against the Christians. Those statements were wholly inconsistent, and if Consul Holmes had misinformed the Government or taken part with the Turks against the Christians, he had done what was very wrong; but the hon. Gentleman had not brought forward a single fact to show that he had done either the one or the other. He had certainly put forward a statement of Mr. Holmes which in some particulars was not precisely similar to that of Consul Freeman; but he had not shown that the two Consuls were reporting upon the same transaction or at the same date. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: I mentioned the date of every despatch.] Yes, but the dates were all different. The question was, whether the two Consuls were writing at the same time and about the same thing? The great question was, whether there was any intentional design on the part of Consul Holmes to misinform the Government? There was not one tittle of evidence to support such an idea; and if they took the despatches on the Table and compared them very narrowly, they would find that the two Consuls substantially agreed. He would illustrate this by reference to a despatch written in March. The charge with regard to this transaction was that he had misrepresented it to the authorities in this country, whereas Consul Freeman's despatch, when it was perused, substantially agreed with that of Consul Holmes. The first statement was that there had been the massacre of a private wedding party. That was one of the things reported and believed throughout the country, which had been the cause of his being sent to make further reports. He immediately found that "No massacre of any bridal procession, or any similar outrage, had occurred at Gla-motch; but about three months ago four Christians, said to be on their way to a wedding, had been killed somewhere in the district of Yaitza, which adjoins that of Glamotch; but he could obtain no precise information on the subject." That was another statement for which Consul Holmes was blamed, whereas Consul Freeman had discovered that the whole thing was a myth. It appeared, then, that the story believed all over England merely came to this—that some time ago four persons were killed on the road. Again, the story about the outraging of women turned out to be entirely untrue. Consul Freeman wrote—

"On the 28th. of April I quitted Livno for Otchievo to investigate the outrage on the inhahitants of that village reported by Mr. Evans…I would, however, previously remark how difficult it is to obtain from these ignorant peasants a succinct and consecutive account of what occurred. Their statements were exceedingly contradictory, and it was only after a lengthened interrogatory and careful cross-examination that I could at all make their several stories coincide." — [Turkey, No. 20 (1877), p. 2.]

The men examined said that the outrages had not occurred, women were examined who said that girls had not been touched, and Consul Freeman said he had examined girls, of whom only one said that she and three others had been outraged.

"Altogether," as the Consul said, "the evidence was of a very vague and unsatisfactory character, and did not bear the stamp of undeniable truth."

That despatch coincided with the Report of Consul Holmes. He might go through the whole of it, for really every single paragraph showed that the charges brought by the correspondent of The Manchester Guardian had turned out to be totally untrue, or, at least, not provable by the evidence that could be collected on the spot. However, he could not blame those correspondents, who heard the stories from the natives and allowed their sympathies to be roused; but he thought that the hon. Member for Beading was going too far when he censured a Consul who had done as much as he possibly could. The hon. Gentleman had access to trustworthy information, yet his credulity was such that he believed what he read in the newspapers. Again, one of the charges most clamorously made against Consul Holmes, was that he had stigmatized the insurgents as "brigands." That assertion had been made not only by Mr. Holmes, but by The Times' Correspondent, who took precisely the same view. He said—

"Colonel Despotovich claims a sort of command over a number of small bands established in the mountains; but of the many crimes that have been committed there is none greater than this so-called insurrectionary movement, which is only brigandage on a larger scale."

Those were the words, not of Consul Holmes, but of The Times newspaper; he did not know whether they were true; but the House would do a gross injustice to Consul Holmes in supposing that he had come to his conclusion on too little evidence. Besides, there was nothing in Consul Freeman's despatches at all inconsistent with that view. As for the alleged impalements, he would read some parts of Consul Freeman's despatch—

"In conclusion, I would remark that the result of my late journeys has teen to make me more disinclined than ever to put faith in the stories of Turkish outrage and violence. Such stories have frequently, it must he acknowledged, a foundation of truth, but there is such an inclination on the one side to pervert and exaggerate, and on the other to extenuate and palliate, that it is almost impossible to ascertain the real facts. I think, however, that my tour in the north will have produced a very salutary effect in the country, as it has shown the Mussulmans that their actions are watched and that they cannot give vent to their fanaticism with impunity."

Did not that corroborate Consul Holmes? There were many other despatches in which the Consul criticized very severely the folly and wickedness of the Turkish Government, and from which it would be most unfair to pick isolated sentences in order to make charges against him; and yet he had been charged with doing that which it would be most disgraceful for any public servant to do. It had always been possible to say of foreign Governments that their servants told them just what they wished to hear; but that had never been the case with English Consuls or diplomatists, and was not then. They reported only what was true, without caring whether they gave offence or not. All they wanted was that facts should be correctly reported, and nothing could be more injurious to them, or more degrading, than that the House should give an opinion as to the mode or tenor in which Reports were sent. Hon. Gentlemen who chose to do so could read about the alleged impalements in Consul Freeman's Reports, and he must be allowed to say that, to use a mild phrase, those allegations were a mistake. The whole affair would be found to be based upon the report of two Austrian officers, who said that they saw bodies, but at a distance of from two to three miles. That was one of the stories which Consul Holmes did not credit, and he was vilified accordingly; but it turned out afterwards that Consul Freeman came to just the same conclusion. For himself, he was very sorry that the hon. Member had used his high authority to make such charges, and he hoped it was not too late to defend what he believed to be very honest conduct. Consul Holmes had been in the service of the Govern- ment since 1841, and had performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of all the Governments which he had served, and, certainly, to the satisfaction of the present Government, and they could not do such an unreasonable thing as to complain or disapprove of his conduct because he advised the Commander-in-Chief that bands of brigands were coming across the frontier when his Austrian Colleague was doing the same thing. That matter, however, had passed over, and there was no reason for thinking that Consul Holmes did anything contrary to his duty in recommending the Turkish Government to take steps to drive those brigands across the frontier. The insurgents were as much to blame as the Turks for the untold hardships suffered by the refugees. He did not say they had not suffered immensely, and they had his sympathy; but to say that Consul Holmes did anything wrong in giving that advice to the Turkish Government was not an opinion which Her Majesty's Government felt inclined to adopt. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not disapprove of anything Consul Holmes had done in regard to the refugees. His good name would survive these debates, and the Government did not think he had done anything reprehensible.

said, that the newspaper reports that had been quoted by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been used only in confirmation of the Blue Books, and as showing the discrepancies that all must admit existed in the statements of Consuls Holmes and Freeman. [Mr. BOURKE: As to what?] He understood the gravamen of the charge to be that Consul Holmes had given the Government to understand that the outrages and massacres had been committed by certain refugees over the border, and not in connection with any insurrection at which the Turkish troops were present; whilst Consul Freeman distinctly stated that they were committed by Turks in the presence of Turkish troops. Of the two, he thought the Reports of the latter were more reliable than those of Consul Holmes. The Government should interfere, and say who was right, and endeavour to make the Reports more reliable.

said, that last year, when the Bulgarian atrocities were brought under the notice of the House, the front Opposition benches were anything but full; but that night the whole strength of the late Government was concentrated and epitomized in the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). Before the Treaty of 1871, by which the late Government had boasted that they had strengthened Turkey, they had announced in that House that the state of the Christians had been much improved, when they were all the time in possession of despatches from Consul Holmes to the effect that their condition was not improved. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any Report had been received from any Consular officer in Asia Minor or the Bulgarian Provinces relative to the extreme severities—he would not call them atrocities—practised by Russian troops in the course of their progress in the Danubian Provinces and in Asia Minor, and especially to certain acts of a most ghastly description committed by Russians on 1,500 families in Soukhoum Kale?

said, that as the Government had arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable to be absolutely neutral in this war, it was a matter of considerable importance that our Consular Agents and Representatives should be enjoined to observe the attitude of strict neutrality, and not place themselves in such a position as to lead to the supposition that they were partizans or enemies as the case might be. They had, however, been trained in the East, since the Crimean War, in the old traditional policy of supporting Turkey at all hazards, and believing in the intrigues of Russia, so that they were not in a position to furnish impartial accounts to a neutral Government, and therefore no blame was to be attached to them. It was, however, now very important that Turkey should not be deluded into the idea that the British Government was working for her support, and besides it was necessary that in this war there should not be a bad feeling created between this country and the belligerents. There was nothing worse against Consul Holmes than that he was under the influence of the Foreign Office and had become a partizan of Turkey, while he ought to see things with his own eyes and give an impartial judgment. No one could read the Reports without seeing that as between Consul Freeman and Consul Holmes those of the former were substantially accurate. The atrocities committed last year in Bulgaria were denied or palliated by our Consular Agents, until Mr. Baring was sent to the spot, when he discovered that atrocities the most revolting had occurred, and to a considerable extent.

said, that when hon. Members spoke of our Consular Agents being partial or impartial, their idea seemed to be that when they reported against Turkey, they must be considered to be impartial; but that when they reported in her favour, they were considered to be very distinctly partial. The Under Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs had clearly shown that Consul Holmes had on more than one occasion reported against Turkey; and it was necessary in the exercise of his impartiality to report in favour of Turkey when circumstances required that he should do so. The hon. Member for Reading had said— "Why do you not advise Turkey to employ her troops where they would be of more service—to meet the Russians on the Danube—rather than employ them against the insurgents?" but suppose Consul Holmes had really given the Porte advice of this nature, what an outcry would have been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite! To allege that the Consuls had been partial, was altogether to ignore the facts which had been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the evidence contained in the Blue Book. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) could not have been in the House when the Under Secretary of State took the despatches paragraph by paragraph, and showed that in their main results there was no discrepancy whatever between the two Consuls.

thought the remarks of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were most unsatisfactory. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman had not held out a hope that some representations would be made with the view of preventing the expulsion of Christians from Bosnia. With regard to the Reports of Consul Holmes and Mr. Freeman, they showed the greatest possible difference in spirit and feeling. Everything seemed to receive a different colour in passing through the minds of these officials. In order to illustrate the discrepancies between their Reports, he would refer to two despatches, which he held to be extremely conflicting. One was dated the 5th October, 1876, in which Mr. Holmes, writing to Sir Henry Elliot with respect to an alleged case of impalement, said—

"With regard to the astounding statement made to your Excellency by Canon Liddon and his friend, I have to report that neither the Turkish authorities, the Consuls, nor the people here, have ever heard of anything resembling the cruelties mentioned. No statement of the kind has ever appeared in any of the Slav newspapers most hostile to Turkey, and it is quite impossible they could have occurred without immediately becoming publicly known."—[Turkey, No. 1 (1877), p. 494.]

On the 17th of the previous March Mr. Freeman had written to him to the effect that a man had been impaled at Novi, in full view of an Austrian village; that four other persons had been killed, and their heads exposed on stakes; that the master of the Orthodox school at Priedor had been killed, and his head paraded about the streets with drums and bands of music, together with other outrages. He also said that the Austrian papers in "Vienna gave the names of officers who witnessed all this. Of the contents of that letter Sir Henry Elliot wrote to the effect, that when authentic accounts of these abominations were received in Europe they must excite the indignation of the civilized world. After all, it would have been more satisfactory if the Under Secretary of State had given the House some assurance that, by means of our Consuls, some effort was being made by our Government to restore some of the 150,000 persons who had been expelled from Bosnia to their homes.

rose to call attention to the action of the Treasury in omitting to place a Vote on the Estimates for the financial year 1876–7, for the payment of the salary fixed by statute to be paid to the Junior Clerk of the Writ and Seal Office in Ireland, to which office Mr. R. D. Pigot, junior, was appointed on the 20th November, 1875, as directed by the statute 13 Vic. c. 18, s. 33, and the duties of which he still discharges, and to move—

"That such action is inconsistent with the intentions and spirit of of the Act 17 and 18 Vic, c. 94, by which the payment of salaries, declared payable by statute to the holders of certain freehold offices held during good behaviour, were transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates without any intention of thereby diminishing the security of such payments, otherwise than by subjecting them to the control of Parliament by an annual Vote of the House of Commons."

The right hon. Gentleman said, that by the 17th & 18th Vict, it was provided that the officers of the Writ and Seal Office should hold their offices at the salaries fixed by the statute and directed to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. In 1854 these salaries were placed on the Estimates. Later on the Treasury came to the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, asking that the superior posts in this office might not be filled up, as it would not be necessary to fill them up in consequence of the possible passing of the Judicature Act. The Chief Secretary, however, declined to take that course, on the ground that they being statutable offices, they must be filled up. Then an attempt was made to induce the Irish Judges not to fill up the offices in question, as they were required to do by the statute. But the Judges declined to do so. And with regard to the Clerk of Writs and the second assistant in the office, the Treasury had therefore been obliged to give way. But the provisions of the Act equally applied to the junior clerk. The words were precisely the same in both portions of the statute, and if the Judges were obliged to appoint the superior officers, as was now admitted by the Treasury, so the masters of the Court—under the same mandatory provisions of the statute—were equally obliged to appoint the junior officer. In the first instance, the Treasury did not say they would not pay the salary. All they originally said was that they would not give compensation. In point of fact, the salary of this officer had been paid for a certain time. Mr. Pigot had thus been acknowledged as the incumbent of an office, the duties of which he had discharged, and was at this moment discharging, and to which he had been appointed in virtue of a statute, and it was therefore monstrous that the Treasury should now refuse to pay the salary. The right hon. Gentleman then entered in great detail into the facts of the case, in order to show the validity of the appointment of Mr. Pigot, and from that point he passed to the allegation that the late Lord Chief Justice Whiteside had been opposed to the appointment. That allegation he contradicted on the authority of a letter from the late Lord Chief Justice, who had expressed in very vigorous terms his sense of the perfect regularity of the appointment, it's exigency under the statute, and his sense of the meanness of the conduct of the Treasury in refusing to place on the Estimates the salaries of clerks who had been duly appointed. The letter said—

"Thus making a precedent which would enable the Treasury officials to cheat all other officials by declining to place their salaries on the Estimates, and leaving the ruined officials with places, but without pay."

The Lord Chief Justice said emphatically that Mr. Pigot, being lawfully appointed, only a statute could deprive him of the salary of that office to which he was thus entitled. There being great interruption—

asked the Speaker to call Order. He thought that during the speech of the right hon. Member for Kildare, a Member of the Government should preserve Order in that House. [Cries of "Order, order!"] He was prepared to name him. [Cries of "Order!"] He must protest against the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General laughing in such a contemptuous manner and disturbing the House during the speech of the right hon. Member for Kildare, with respect to a grievance affecting a meritorious public officer.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare is in possession of the House, and is entitled to proceed without interruption.

resumed, quoting other high authorities to prove that the title of the office holders referred to in his Motion was not intended to be prejudiced in any way when their salaries were transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Votes of that House. Although apprehensions had at the time it was passed been expressed as to the effect of the Act removing salaries from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates, it was never contemplated that the Treasury could, at their own caprice, strike those salaries out of the Votes without submitting them, in the first instance, to Parliament. No other mode of redress was open than that of bringing the matter before the House, and he maintained that there was no precedent for such a case of the salary of an official being withdrawn from the official without any charge being made against him by an arbitrary act of the Executive, on the plea that it was intended to introduce into Parliament a Bill by which the office would be proposed to be abolished. He did not often trouble the House, and he thanked them for the attention with which they had heard him. The course pursued by the Treasury in the case was a clear violation of justice and of law, and he begged, therefore, to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, the question before the House was simply that of the abolition of a sinecure office, to which no duties whatever were attached. In the new Judicature Bill intimation had been given to the Treasury in 1875, that it was proposed to abolish the office in question, simply because there were no duties in connection with it to be discharged, and the Treasury were supported in the view that the place ought not to be filled up by a Minute signed by the Irish Chief Justice and Chief Baron. As to the complaint that due notice had not been given that the salary of the office would not be provided, the fact was, that within three weeks of the final act of the Master appointing his son, he had full notice that provision would not be made for his salary in the Estimates of the coming year, and he (Mr. Smith) himself stated to the right hon. Gentleman who now brought forward the matter, that the Treasury did not think it desirable that the office should be filled up, so that fuller or more expeditious notice could hardly have been given. The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the argument that good faith demanded that provision should be made for an officer whose salary was transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates, and he did not wish to controvert the principle thus laid down. But considering that the office had become vacant, that it was known beforehand that Parliament would be asked to abolish it, that there were no duties connected with it, and that the two principal Judges—the Chief Justice and the Chief Baron—had recommended its abolition, he thought the Treasury would have been wanting in their duty to the Public Service if they had not taken the course which they had done. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Motion would not be persevered with.

asked how long the office would be kept open. It involved a legal question which he would like to submit to legal opinion. In his view, the Treasury were bound to fill up the office, and in doing that were bound to make provision for it in the Estimates. The matter rested on the construction of a statute, and the Secretary to the Treasury had last year consented that the point should be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown —whether the Master of the Court of Exchequer was bound to fill up the office of junior clerk. That, however, had not been done. He now made this proposition to the hon. Gentleman—that the question should be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown in England or Ireland.

observed, that so far as he could make out, the place was an absolute sinecure. If the Treasury were to discharge any duties at all, this was surely one of them, seeing that, as guardians of the public purse, they were bound to resist expenditure of money for sinecure offices. When the respon- sible officials had written to the Lord Lieutenant to apprise him that there were no duties to be performed by this functionary, the Government had no alternative but to decline to put the item on the Estimates.

held that so long as the statute referred to was in force the office should be filled up. When the charge of the salary was transferred to the Parliamentary Vote, it never could have been intended to place the officer's salary entirely at the mercy of the Government to make provision in the Estimates, or not, as they might think fit. The real question was whether the Government, without seeking the abolition by statute of a statutory office which they thought no longer necessary, and to which a fit person had been legally appointed could properly withhold from the consideration of Parliament the Vote for the salary of the officer. The question of providing the salary was one which, at any rate, should have been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown as had been proposed to the Government. He must say he thought the course taken by the Treasury was an unconstitutional one.

remarked that this was not a question merely as to a small sum of money. It was a question of principle. The Treasury, as custodians of public money, were bound to discountenance payments for sinecure offices, be the sum small or large. They had been informed by two of the highest authorities, and who were the best judges on the point, that the office in dispute was unnecessary. ["No, no!"] He said, Yes; and, that being the case, it would have been wrong to continue it.

agreed that it was a question of principle, and not one of the expenditure of £250 a-year; but he thought the principle involved had not been correctly stated by the last speaker. Throughout the whole of the correspondence it had never been hinted that the office had been a sinecure. The ground taken was altogether different. The Government said—We intend to make an Act of Parliament, by which it is intended to make extensive modifications in the Judicial Staff in Ireland, and in those changes this office will be in our way, and we will not fill it up. But had the Treasury the power to do such a thing? He contended that they had not. The members of the Judicial Staff were appointed by Act of Parliament, and while the Act remained unrepealed, it was idle to say the office was unnecessary. They had, in fact, assumed the powers of Parliament, and if they were at liberty to say of this small office that it was not to be filled up, they might come to the same decision respecting any other office.

insisted that the appointment was legal, and the holder was entitled to be paid. The whole question amounted to this— had the Treasury the right to repeal an Act of Parliament? It was not merely an Irish question, but involved interests all over the Kingdom.

said, that he must take exception to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), who had contended that action had been taken by the Treasury on their own authority, on the assumption that a Bill before Parliament would become law; and that the action of the Treasury would justify them in practically abolishing any other office. It ought to be borne in mind that there was a great difference between refusing to continue on the Estimates the salary of a person already holding an office, and refusing to place on the Estimates the salary of a person newly appointed to an office. The latter was what the Treasury had done in the present instance. It was also clear that the duties of this office were, if the Judicature Bill did not become law, so slight as to render it almost a sinecure. That opinion was not merely that of the Government, but was also the result of an inquiry held in 1875 by two gentlemen appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The Report that followed that inquiry induced the Lord Chancellor to advise the Lord Lieutenant not to fill up the office of Clerk of the Writs and Seal when it became vacant. The Lord Lieutenant would not, in fact, have filled up the office had it not been discovered some months later that the signature of the holder of that office must necessarily be appended to certain legal documents. Consequently the second clerk was temporarily promoted in order that a needless burden should not be put on the public purse. Then the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and the Chief Baron, acting in accordance with a statute which they considered binding upon them, appointed Messrs. Bush and Burke to the office of first and second clerks. But the Chief Justice expressed his opinion that the office of junior clerk ought not to be filled up. The Chief Baron said he considered he had no jurisdiction in the matter; but he had authorized him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to state, that nevertheless he thoroughly agreed with the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland that it was not necessary to fill up the office of junior clerk. However, two out of the three Masters took it upon themselves to fill up the office by appointing to it the son of one of them, and as reference had been made to nepotism, he might remark that all three clerks, including this young man, were near relatives of Masters or ex-Masters of the Courts of Law in Ireland. There was nothing in the action taken by the Treasury to warrant the argument that salaries were not permanent under existing arrangements. Under the present system the clerks of the Eirst Law were as free from undue interference on the part of the Treasury as they were when their salaries were placed on the Consolidated Fund. All that the Treasury had done was to try to prevent, as far as they were able, an unnecessary office being filled up, and to take care that an unnecessary burden should not be imposed on the public purse by a transaction to which, in his judgment, a much shorter term might be applied.

said, the late Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, in a letter dated the 13th June, 1876, on this subject, expressed a strong opinion as to the "meanness incredible" of the Treasury. The letter further stated that the appointments were signed by the Chief Baron and himself; that—

"He had had a conversation with Beach, who had told him that the office was to be abolished, and it was upon that he had agreed.

The matter had not been dealt with on one consistent principle, for on the 26th of October, 1875, the right hon. Baronet had written a letter in which he had said that it was illegal not to appoint, as the office was a statuteable one, and had to be filled.

said, that though the point at issue involved a salary of no more than £250 a-year, the debate had been very instructive, and had shown how eagerly lawyers resented any reduction of official salaries. Here was an office which the Judge himself had not thought it necessary to fill up; but when that had been done, and the Treasury had refused to pay, they were assailed by lawyers on both sides. But if they voted for economy, they would vote that a man who had nothing to do should not be paid, and that was one of the first and soundest Constitutional principles. In fact, the whole question was, whether they should pay a man who did no work. When the Government had the courage to oppose such a Motion, they ought to be supported by the independent Members.

remarked that if it were a question of abolishing offices to which no duties attached he should agree with the hon. Member; but the point that had been debated was, whether the Treasury alone had the right to decide that the salary of an officer, who had been duly appointed, should be stopped. Two superior Judges had been abolished by the Bill, but their salaries had been put into the Estimates, while those of the junior officers had been left out. The Government had acted without bringing the question before Parliament, and that was what he and his Friends complained of.

rose to call attention to the case of Lieutenant Colonel Wellesley, Military Attaché at St. Petersburg. He said were it not for the absence of his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), the sad cause for whose absence they all so much regretted, the question he had to submit to the House would have been in much better hands; but, fortunately, it was a simple question of justice, or, in his opinion, of gross injustice, that he had to bring before the House. It was a very cruel one, of the supersession of eight or nine officers of Colonel Wellesley's own regiment, to say nothing of a vast number of lieutenant colonels of the Line. Six years ago, an old and lamented friend, an officer of high standing, of considerable military experience, and of tried tact and discretion in his relations with foreign officers, having been military secretary to the general commanding the Army in the Crimean War, was succeeded in his somewhat difficult and delicate position as military attaché at St. Petersburg by a young officer of eight years' standing—a subaltern in the Guards. With regard to this young officer, undoubtedly he was an officer of great intelligence, and very painstaking. He was for some considerable time adjutant of one of the battalions of the Guards, and no one was appointed to that very responsible post that did not most fully merit the appointment. Lieutenant Colonel F. Wellesley, at the age of 18 was appointed to the Rifle Brigade, and in the same year (1863) he was removed to the Coldstream Guards, making him a lieutenant in the Guards and captain in the Army. In April, 1875, he was promoted without purchase to a company in the Guards, making him lieutenant colonel in the Army. When he was first appointed military attaché at St. Petersburg, being a subaltern in the Guards and captain in the Army, it did not affect his promotion; but the appointment of a military attaché, if held by a lieutenant colonel for five years, gives him the rank of a full colonel in the Army, but whether rightly or wrongly it was not for him to discuss. He thought it no qualification, and in this ease it was most unjust, seeing that when the Guards were brigaded together, Colonel Wellesley would probably take the command over the heads of those who had fought and bled in the Service when he was a mere child.

rose to Order, and asked whether it was not the rule that military matters could only be brought on before going into Committee on the Army Estimates?

said, that such was the rule, but that it only applied to Motions when Supply was the first Order of the Day. That had not been the case to-day, and the hon. and gallant Member was therefore in Order.

said, he was about to state that when Colonel Wellesley at tained the rank of lieutenant colonel, certain officers of the Coldstream Guards went to the Horse Guards and strongly expostulated, because if, by any accident, he was continued in his position as military attaché beyond the regulated period of five years, and completed his second five years, he would supersede all the older officers in the Coldstreams. They received a positive promise, that he should return to his regiment when his five years was expired. Instead, however, of rejoining his regiment in July, when his term of Staff service expired, he had been allowed to continue. And with what result? He would actually supersede officers in his own regiment, the Coldstream Guards, who were not only in the Army, but fighting for their country when he was but nine years old. The services of Colonel Wellesley, who first entered the Army in 1863, could not be compared with that of these other officers of his regiment, who had distinguished themselves by their services in the Crimea and in India. Yet if the present arrangement were allowed to continue, he would within the next five years become a full colonel, and with that Army rank rejoin his regiment in 1880 superseding when in brigade the older officers referred to, never having commanded even a company, and having been nine years absent from his regiment, and receiving full pay while other officers had been doing his duty. He held in his hand the records of services of some of those who he thought likely to be thus hardly treated, but at that very late hour he would not trouble the House by reading all. One of these officers—Lieutenant Colonel Fitzroy Fremantle—joined the Army in August, 1854; he was captain in 1857, and lieutenant colonel in 1870. He was in the Crimea from November, 1854, to July, 1855. He was engaged in the Quarries on the 8th June, and at the Bedan on the 18th of June, where he was wounded. He was afterwards all through the Indian rebellion, and at the capture of Lucknow was mentioned in the despatches. Colonel Wellesley, on the other hand, had not—and it was a misfortune for which he was not to blame—seen a shot fired; and although it might be said as a justification for conferring this appointment on Colonel Wellesley, that he had taken great pains in learning the Russian language, yet if the appointment had been offered to other officers of great military experience, would they not have done the same? As a matter of fact, however, French was the language used at the Russian Court. It would also be said, and with truth, that it would be inconvenient to move Lieutenant Colonel Wellesley at the present time; but was such the case last July; or, if so, why was he, at that period, offered the appointment of Consul General at Warsaw? He reminded his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, that in Committee on the War Estimates last Session, he pointed out that the military attachés at St. Petersburgh were underpaid, and now it appeared that the result was that only comparatively rich men could take the appointments, and that they could thus indirectly purchase a higher step of rank than was ever before purchaseable. He thought Colonel Wellesley ought to be ordered to rejoin his regiment, and should not be permitted to supersede men who were in every respect excellent officers, and of whom the Army had every reason to feel proud. They had received a most positive promise, that they should not be superseded in this way, and he hoped, therefore, that the Secretary for War would make arrangements for Colonel Wellesley giving up his present appointment, and returning to his regiment at an early date, so that this injustice might not be inflicted on the senior officers of the Coldstream Guards.

as an old Guardsman, expressed a hope that the Secretary of State for War would see fit to do justice in this case. It was one which had created a very great deal of scandal not only in the Coldstream Guards, but throughout the whole Army. Certain officers of that regiment had stated that they had received a distinct promise from the right hon. Gentleman. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: No.] He must repeat that an allegation had been made by men of the highest honour, and of standing and distinction in society, that a distinct pledge was made to them by the right hon. Gentleman, that Colonel Wellesley should not be made a colonel over their heads. The right hon. Gentleman denied that he had made such a promise; and if that were so, he must have been very ambiguous in his expressions, because the gentlemen referred to, who were treated in this unjust manner, were incapable of attributing to the right hon. Gentleman language which he had not used. At any rate, the matter ought to be cleared up. This young officer, Colonel Wellesley, was a man of the highest social position, and possessed great family influence. He had only had eight years' service, and yet he was appointed over the heads of men of great experience and ability. He believed if the Rules of the House permitted a division to be taken on the question, it would be shown that the House entertained a strong sense of the injustice with which those officers had been treated.

believed that the promise which had been referred to had been made not by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy), but by either the Military Secretary, or by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. The rule was, that no officer should remain on the Staff for more than five years, but this rule was being continually broken. He thought that at the present time the House would not call upon Colonel Wellesley to return to this country, as he was now in a most difficult and delicate position; but he hoped they would have some assurance from the Secretary for War that the five years' rule should not be broken. He very much regretted the question had not been raised a year and a-half ago, when it might have been decided upon its merits.

said, that so long as Colonel Wellesley was retained in his present position, he was the cause of great hardship to many deserving officers, by standing in the way of their promotion. When he became captain and lieutenant colonel, he passed over the heads of 900 majors of the Line, and two years and a-quarter hence, when he would become full colonel, he would pass over the heads of 920 field officers. All those officers had been serving their country in times of war and peace, while Colonel Wellesley had been enjoying appointments which could not be said to be of a very arduous and difficult nature. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that at the termination of the war Colonel Wellesley would be allowed to revert to his regiment.

thought this discussion inopportune, as it would weaken Colonel Wellesley's position at the pre- sent critical time. He would advise the House to remember President Lincoln's saying that it was not desirable to "swop horses when crossing a stream."

said, it was not always easy to find officers fitted for the appointments of military attachés. The appointment of Colonel Wellesley (then Captain Wellesley) was made in 1871, and in reply to a Question put to Lord Enfield, at that time Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that noble Lord replied that previous to the appointment, eight officers had been sounded as to whether they would accept the post of military attaché at St. Petersburg, but for various reasons they all refused. The points which the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland had referred in connection with the double rank held hitherto by officers of the Guards was a matter quite distinct from that of the appointment to the post of military attaché. He did not suppose it would be said that if a fit officer for the post was found in the Guards he ought not to be appointed. A military attaché-ship was a qualifying appointment which enabled a lieutenant colonel to become a colonel, and there was therefore nothing unusual in Lieutenant Colonel Wellesley's obtaining it. Besides, he was well fitted for the post, being not only an able officer, but an accomplished linguist, able to speak Russian; while as to his period of service, the office of military attaché was not necessarily limited to five years, and it was agreed on all hands that, although he had been appointed in 1871, it would have been injudicious to have removed him last year, when events in the East of Europe took such an important turn. Of course, this argument applied with redoubled force to his retaining his post at the present juncture. He was not aware that any promises had been made on the subject of appointments; but if that were the case, they must be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The renewal of Colonel Wellesley's appointment in 1876, was not, in reality, a renewal. Having been appointed in 1871, he continued to serve until 1876, when his service became more important than before, and therefore was continued in his office; but whether he was to be continued for the whole period was a matter for the consideration of the authorities. He was quite satisfied that Colonel Wellesley had done work for the country with which it ought to be well satisfied.

asked the hon. Member for Linlithgow-shire (Mr. M'Lagan), who had charge of the Bill, whether he was willing to accept the Lords' Amendments?

replied that he was, provided a few verbal alterations were made.

thought it right that the House should know that the Amendments very much altered the principles of the Bill, the presumption of the law now giving the game to the landlord, as it did before.

appealed to the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill not to press it to-night, especially as most hon. Members, he believed, were ignorant of what the Amendments were. He therefore moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

hoped the Consideration would not be pressed.

said, the Bill was more in favour of the tenant since it had come from the Lords than it was before.

said, that the Bill proposed considerable changes in the system of licensing, and he objected to its being taken at that time of night.

said, he intended to move in Committee that it be simply a suspensory Bill for one year. Considering a Lords' Committee was investigating the whole question, it was desirable there should not in the meantime be an immense multiplication of these licences over which there was no jurisdiction.

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.