asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to a destructive disease extensively prevalent during this and last year among the salmon of certain rivers in England and Scotland; and, what steps, if any, he proposes to take to inquire into the nature and origin of the disease with the view of, if possible, checking its recurrence?

There is no doubt that this is a very serious matter, and I have had a specimen of one of these diseased salmon placed in the Library for the inspection of hon. Members by one of the Inspectors of Fisheries who has directed his attention specially to the subject, and I shall order an inquiry to be made into the matter with the objects indicated in the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he is now able to state the total number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men respectively of the Imperial Forces and of the Native Contingent who have died in South Africa from the date of the declaration of war against Cetewayo up to the present time?

All I can say, in answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, is that up to the 20th instant Lord Chelmsford reported the number of killed as 1,186, and the number of deaths by disease as 86. I have not felt quite reconciled to the figures, and I give them for what they are worth. However, these are the figures we have got, and until more detailed Returns have been received I cannot give an accurate statement as to numbers.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Report of the Thames Traffic Committee will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Thames Traffic Committee have almost reached the end of their labours, and we hope to be able to lay their Report upon the Table shortly after Whitsuntide.

asked, Whether the Committee would report on the danger to the navigation of the upper Thames which arose from small boats and steam launches?

I fear I cannot give my noble Friend as much information as I should have desired, having only just had Notice of his Question; but I can state generally that I feel sure the Thames Traffic Committee have given their fullest attention to all matters connected with the traffic on the river, and I will take care that this particular subject shall be brought to their special attention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return of the proceedings at the "Princess Alice" inquest will be laid upon the Table of the House?

I have had a communication from the Coroner, informing me that the Return of the proceedings will be one of great length—probably 5,000 folios; and he wants to know who is to bear the cost of making it. I have no means of paying that expense; but I have written to him again to say that the Order of the House must be obeyed.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What arrangements have been made for the government of the island of Cyprus, now that Sir Garnet Wolseley has been appointed to a command in South Africa?

, in reply, said, that Colonel Greaves was now Acting Governor of Cyprus, and he would continue to be so for the present.

As locum tenens or as successor to Sir Garnet Wolseley?

replied, that when Sir Garnet Wolseley came home it had been found necessary to appoint some one to conduct the administration of the affairs of the Island in his stead, and that Colonel Greaves had been appointed with that object and remained in that position.

said, the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the government of Cyprus was not clearly understood by several hon. Members, and he therefore wished to put a further Question on the subject. They were informed that Sir Garnet Wolseley had been appointed High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief in the Transvaal; and they wished to know whether, at the same time, he remained Governor of Cyprus, and whether Colonel Greaves was only his locum tenens?

I thought I had made my Answer clear. Sir Garnet Wolseley came home from Cyprus a short time ago for purposes of a Departmental character. Since he has been in this country an arrangement has been perfected by which he is to go out as Governor of the Trans- vaal and Natal. That arrangement has been quite recently made. The affairs of Cyprus were left under the administration of Colonel Greaves. They still remain under his administration; but no decision has been at present arrived at as to what will be done hereafter.

Is Sir Garnet Wolseley to be Governor of Cyprus as well as of the Transvaal and Natal?

I think the hon. Gentleman really must see what the state of the case is. I do not quite see what is the motive of his question. Sir Garnet Wolseley, being Governor and High Commissioner of Cyprus, came over here on leave for purposes of a Departmental character. Within the last two days, in fact, he has received an appointment to another post. The matter is one which, of course, has occupied a great deal of the attention of the Government. Colonel Greaves is left in charge of Cyprus; but what arrangements are to be made at Cyprus is a matter at present under the consideration of the Government. It is impossible for me to say more than that.

The right hon. Gentleman says he does not understand the motive of the Question. My motive is simply to know in what hands the government of Cyprus is going to be placed, and to know whether Colonel Greaves merely represents Sir Garnet Wolseley during his absence, and whether Sir Garnet Wolseley holds two appointments at the same time? It is not my purpose to find any fault with the Government, inasmuch as I cordially approve of their appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has been able to give further consideration to the case of the convict Edmund Galley, reprieved from sentence of death in 1836; whether (as it has been stated in a weekly journal) he has had the assistance of the Law Officers of his department in considering the evidence; and, what is the result at which he and they have arrived as to the innocence of the man?

I have nothing more to say on this case at present than what I have already stated. The matter is to be brought before the House, as I understand, by the hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot); and I must reserve any remarks further until he introduces the subject. I think it will then be seen that due attention has been paid to the matter.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the men who are engaged to work in the parishes of Dudley, Tipton, Sedgley, and Rowley, are paid by such parishes partly in wages and partly in "truck" as it is called; whether he is aware that great complaints are made by the men as to this mode of payment; and, whether he can take any steps to provide against a continuance of this system?

, in reply, said, the out-door paupers relieved by the Guardians of the parishes referred to had the labour test applied to them—a system which he thought very conducive to the interests of the poor and the rights of the labouring classes.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will have any objection to place upon the Table of the House the Reports from the constabulary authorities or resident magistrates of the county of Tyrone, if any such exist, for the years 1878 and 1879, which tend to show that certain districts in and about Holyhill are infected with ribbonism and infected with illicit distillation?

Sir, I am afraid I cannot lay these Papers upon the Table, as they are always treated as highly confidential, and their production would be attended with inconvenience.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he proposes to introduce the Bill relating to the Salaries and Pensions for Irish National School Teachers; and, whether, having regard to the delay which has occurred, and the anxiety felt by the teachers, he will state what course the Government are prepared to adopt?

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman will take a glance at the Order Book, he will, I think, be disposed to concur with me in the opinion that in its present condition it does not hold out much encouragement to the Government to introduce more Bills. I hope, however, that the progress of Public Business will be such that it may be in my power to bring in a Bill upon this subject before very long.

A typographical error appears in the printed Paper of my Question, the word "terms" being printed instead of "tenour." I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state to the House the tenour of the instructions agreed upon by Her Majesty's Government for the guidance of Sir Garnet Wolseley in South Africa in reference to terms of peace?

Sir, there is a considerable difference between the Question as it now stands on the Paper and the Question as put by the hon. and learned Member last evening. As I stated in the course of the discussion yesterday, I could not undertake to state precisely the terms of Sir Garnet Wolseley's instructions, but as to the tenour of those instructions we have no difficulty; and that tenour was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies last night. The object of Her Majesty's Government, and the tenour of their instructions to Sir Garnet Wolseley, is to bring this war as speedily as possible to an honourable termination, consistently with the safety of the Colonies; and it will be an instruction to Sir Garnet Wolseley that he should examine and carefully consider any bonâ fide overtures of peace that may be received from the Zulu King. It is not the object of Her Majesty's Government, as has been more than once stated, to encourage any annexation or extension of territory; but to bring about a satisfactory peace, consistently, as I have just said, with the safety of the Colonies.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention ha^* been called to certain proceedings at the Monaghan Board of Guardians on the 30th of April, May 7th and 21st, and the correspondence between Mr. MacAleese, the proprietor of the "People's Advocate," and the Local Government Board, Ireland, with reference to the exclusion of the reporter of that journal from the board room of the Monaghan Board of Guardians, whilst the other local Tory journals are admitted to report the proceedings thereat, and the refusal of a Mr. Jesse Lloyd to receive the following notice of motion:—

"I beg to give notice, that I will move on this day month, that the resolution passed by this Board on the 1st May 1878, excluding the representative of the 'People's Advocate' from the meetings, while the reporters of the other local papers are admitted, be rescinded, as unworthy of this or any other Board of Guardians in Ireland;"

whether it is in the power of a Board of Guardians, where meetings are open to the Press, nevertheless to admit only certain journals advocating Tory politics, and to exclude the representatives of a Liberal journal; if a chairman of a Board of Guardians can of himself refuse to receive a notice of motion admittedly legal, and within the rights of any individual guardian to propose, and so prevent the matter from being formally brought before the Board; and whether a clerk of the peace, who is the clerk to the magistrates, and from the nature of his office incapable of acting as a magistrate, is nevertheless legally qualified to act as an ex-officio Poor Law Guardian?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I wish to put a Question, of which I have given private Notice, to the Chief Secretary. It is, Whether it is customary in Ireland that the Chief Secretary should decide whether the proceedings of each Board of Guardians shall be reported; and if so, whether it is customary that the Chief Secretary should decide whether the representatives of particular papers should be allowed facilities for doing so?

I have put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman not as Chief Secretary for Ireland, but as ex officio Chairman, of the Local Government Board.

The hon. Member for Dundalk is, no doubt, quite correct in saying that his Question is addressed to me, not as Chief Secretary, but in the capacity of President of the Local Government Board. I had rather, however, not undertake at present to say how far I may be the proper authority in either capacity. As I only saw the Question this morning, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly postpone it till a future day.

I beg to give Notice that I will repeat my Question after the holidays.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true, as stated in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of Friday last, that the Director of Naval Construction and a large portion of his staff are actually engaged within the walls of the Admiralty at Whitehall in designing plans for the construction of a powerful ironclad ship for the Argentine Confederation; and, if so, whether, considering the strained relations now existing between that republic and a neighbouring belligerent, such a proceeding is, if not a breach of neutrality, an unfriendly act towards a State with which we are on terms of amity?

I rise to Order. This Question involves matter of argument which ought not to be introduced, and particularly as that argument bears prejudicially on the affairs of a State with whom we are on terms of friendship; and still more, especially as far as I am aware, there is not the slightest foundation for the statement involved.

I see no ground for interposing.

There is no truth in the story at all. It was contradicted by The Pall Mall Gazette itself yesterday or the day before.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Cyprus Ordinance of the present year, which enables the government of Cyprus to exile without trial any persons whatever?

I stated a few days ago that all the Ordinances passed by the Government of Cyprus would be placed in the Library, and I shall be glad to carry out the promise in a short time. We have not got them all yet, and I do not think there is any necessity for making an exception in the case of the Ordinance alluded to by my hon. Friend. I cannot quite accept the description given by the hon. Baronet of the particular Ordinance to which he refers as one allowing the Government of Cyprus to "exile without trial any persons whatever." It gives power to the High Commissioner, with the consent of the Legislative Council, to pass a resolution stating that any person whose presence in that Island is likely, in their opinion, to be prejudicial to the good order or safety of the Island should not be allowed to reside there. That is the purport of the Ordinance in question, and it will, I hope, be in the Library in a few days.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, On what day the Greek Papers will be in the hands of Members?

said, in the case of the Greek Papers, it had been found necessary to send some to Athens, others to Constantinople. It would also be necessary to send others to Paris, Vienna, and Rome, before they could be published. He hoped, however, they would be in the hands of hon. Members before long. He did not like to make any promise, but he hoped they would be distributed after the holidays. In regard to the further Papers relating to Cyprus, he had formally presented these that day, and they would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.

asked, Whether the Greek Papers would contain any despatches in reference to Crete, or whether any Papers relating to Crete might be expected?

replied that the Greek Papers did not contain any despatches relating to Crete. That subject had been treated by itself, and Papers were being prepared with regard to it. A Blue Book had already been published relating to Crete, and it was proposed to continue to keep the despatches respecting Crete separate from the Greek Papers.

I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether any communication has been received by Her Majesty's Government relating to the tone of an influential portion of the French Press, and especially of the newspapers intimately connected with the present Administration in France, towards Her Majesty's Government on account of their policy and proceedings in Egypt; and, whether there is anything in the present relations of the two Governments which justifies the hostile tone of those French journals, which are usually most friendly towards this country?

I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will be glad to hear that there is nothing in the communications which have passed between the Government of France and the Government of England that can give grounds for the allegation that there is any difference whatever in the policy of the two Governments with respect to Egypt. We really know nothing of any of the alleged disagreements which have taken place.

The hon. Gentleman has only answered a portion of my Question. He has left unanswered that part which asks whether any communications have been received by Her Majesty's Government relating to this matter?

The hon. Gentleman is usually so fair in the Questions which he puts in regard to foreign affairs, that I should be very willing to give him all the information in my power. If, however, he alludes to communications which have been passing between Her Majesty's Government and our Ambassador at Paris, I am sure he will see that it would be impossible for me to give even the faintest idea of what those communications are about, as they are, of course, confidential. Therefore, in the present state of affairs, I do not think I can give him any more information than I have already given—namely, that there is no ground for the allegation that there is any substantial difference in the policy of the two Governments.

said, the Government were willing that the Commission which had been asked for by the House should be issued at once. The names were very nearly settled; but they had not yet been submitted to Her Majesty. There would be no further delay, and he hoped that immediately after the Recess the Commission would begin its labours.

asked, When Consul Blunt's long-promised Report would be laid on the Table of the House?

The House is well aware that this Report has been prepared for many months, and is quite ready for presentation to Parliament; but that for reasons which it is not necessary I should enter into it has not been presented. Her Majesty's Government have no objection to present it; and I hope I shall be able after the holidays to tell my noble Friend that the Government have come to a decision on the subject.

rose to a point of Order, and said he would be glad if Mr. Speaker would settle a point affecting the convenience of a number of hon. Members who frequently sat on the cross-benches below the Bar. A few evenings ago, Mr. Speaker had ruled an hon. Member to be out of Order in attempting to address the House from those seats, on the ground that they were outside the House. He had it on the authority of some Members who had sat in the House for a great number of years that in former days there was one hon. Member who was in the habit of addressing the House from those seats, and that it was in the power of any hon. Member, if so minded, to address the House from any portion of the Gallery. He thought it would be for the convenience of the House generally if Mr. Speaker would state why those seats were debarred from privileges which belonged to other seats in the House?

I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies of which I have given him private Notice. I desire to ask him, Whether he has received any official corroboration of the statement in the "Standard" of yesterday, that the Zulus have burned the grass in their country, thus rendering the advance of the Cavalry impossible. Also, if he has received any official corroboration of a statement in the correspondence of the "Times," that a portion of the Cavalry—the Dragoons—has been sent into the Transvaal for the purpose of overawing the Boers.

A moment ago, I received from the doorkeeper the Notice of the hon. Member's Question. I submit that that is not a sufficient Notice of a Question to be asked in this House. I have not seen the statements in the morning newspapers to which the hon. Member refers. I had other business to attend to which prevented me from reading the papers. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War informs me that he believes Dragoons have been sent to Standerton, but I do not know for what reason. As to the other matter to which the hon. Member refers, I cannot give any information.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the second reading of the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Bill would be taken?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears very anxious to know when this Bill is to be proceeded with; but I am afraid I cannot tell him, because, of course, that will depend on the state of Business. I shall be glad to give him notice before the day is fixed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him no Notice whatever; but, perhaps, he may be able to answer it. I wish to know, Whether he can give us any information now as to the authenticity of a despatch of Sir Bartle Frere which was published more than a week ago in the "Standard;" and, if the despatch is in his possession, whether he will lay it on the Table?

I have not yet received that despatch.

said, that as he wished to avoid the practice of conducting anything like a cross-examination of a Minister of the Crown at Question time, he did not follow up his Question, though the right hon. Gentleman, he must admit, had made an answer which, in a great degree, was satisfactory. But he rose now, as they were about to adjourn, to ask the Government to follow up—as he hoped the Government would—the exceedingly grateful and welcome announcement which was made near the close of their proceedings on the day before by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which had been confirmed so far by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The latter right hon. Gentleman dealt, however, with only these two points—that no annexation of territory was to be attempted in South Africa, and that there was a benevolent intention to end the war if Cetewayo made overtures for peace. He had no doubt in the world of that intention on the part of the Government. He did not believe that the Government were anxious to prolong this war for one day longer than they, in their policy, thought necessary; and it was to their policy that his Question had been directed. The real pith and substance of the Question had been put to the Government on the previous night by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). Would the terms of peace imposed, or sought to be imposed, upon Cetewayo be such as to cause the war to be a protracted and bitter one, or a short war with a happy ending? They knew the terms of peace offered to Cetewayo before the invasion; and they now desired to know whether the circumstances of the moment warranted the Government in desiring to conclude peace on terms less exigent or more exigent than those that were put into Sir Bartle Frere's Ultimatum to Cetewayo? The Government must know the terms of peace which Sir Garnet Wolseley would be empowered to offer. Were they to be less or more severe than those which Cetewayo from first to last had from us? It was no use to say that they were ready to receive proposals for peace; that was merely a civil phrase, and amounted to nothing. What the country desired to know was whether the Government intended to put upon Cetewayo the same rude terms that drove him into the war; or would they give him a chance of coming in upon terms more nearly reflecting the spirit of that noble despatch which the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrote to Sir Bartle Frere condemnatory of his policy? If the papers were to be trusted, and if they could believe all they heard, it was almost too late, for Zululand had been again invaded by the Imperial Forces, who had waited and waited until they had a powerful and overwhelming strength at their command. During all these weeks the Zulu King seemed Lo have avoided retaliatory measures upon their Colonial Possessions If he were animated by such, bloodthirsty designs as would warrant the Government in that which was now about to be done, he had his opportunity of giving effect to them, but he had not availed himself of it. No; in his own rude, barbaric way, the man had been silently making an appeal to their chivalry and generosity, and there was that about to happen which would prevent him from sueing for peace. Unless something was done they would be in the midst of scenes of carnage and bloodshed and the havoc of war, and they would find Cetewayo, if he were the brave man he took him to be, sealing his own lips and saying he would make no further offer to us. He urged the Government to make every effort to bring about a speedy peace, and not allow Cetewayo to say that when we were weak he allowed us to wait without attacking us, but when we were strong we invaded his country once more. The Government should not wait for the advent of Sir Garnet Wolseley in South Africa before they made an attempt to conclude peace, if that was their object. He made that appeal in no embittered spirit; but he would say that at the outset of the war it was intensely unjust, and now the time had arrived when the Government should terminate the struggle, and not bring disgrace upon the British flag by prolonging the war.

did not yield to anyone in the desire that such terms should be offered to the Zulu King as might lead to the termination of the war, on conditions consistent with the safety of our Colonists and compatible with that humanity which was as creditable to a great country as was the utmost display of bravery. At the same time, however, he was sensible of the great responsibility which rested upon anyone who spoke on that (the Opposition) side at the present moment. So far as Gentlemen on that side were concerned, they had reason to congratulate themselves on the outcome of recent events; because, a few months ago, they earnestly advocated the supersession of Sir Bartle Frere, and now the Government had superseded him. ["No!"] That was, they had deprived him of the power of doing what many feared he was about to do—namely, to carry on a war for objects which they did not believe to be legitimate objects. They ought, therefore, to be satisfied with that. It was row admitted that the policy which was sought to be pressed upon cetewayo at first was not the policy which they were disposed to insist upon at present. The sending out of Sir Garnet Wolseley was, in his opinion, an event of very happy augury; and the Government would be worse than blind if they did not see that the country desired an end of the present state of things, so long as it could be brought about in a way compatible with the honour of the country, and less than that it would be impossible to accept. It was their policy and their wisdom to let the Government see what they desired to be done, and leave it to them to carry it out. And what was it they now wanted to gain? They desired that measures should be taken to secure as speedy and satisfactory a termination of the war as possible; and he was not sure that this object would be best secured by pressing the Government too much on the subject at the present moment. There were many occasions on which it was legitimate and, right, as well as absolutely necessary, for the Opposition to press the Government; but, at a moment when the Government appeared to have come round to the Opposition policy, though only doing now what they ought to have done two months ago, it was rather for the Opposition to encourage them, and show a desire to afford them as much support as they legitimately could in carrying out that policy. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) made it his principal complaint against the present Government, that although they were often right, they were generally right about two months too late. Just so it was with regard to the presentation of Papers on all these important subjects; the Government presented ample Papers, but they were almost always about two months too late to be serviceable for debates. The Opposition might argue that the step which the Government had now taken was as much as to say that they admitted that the conditions which were attempted to be imposed upon Cetewayo at the commencement of the war were not the conditions which they were disposed to insist upon now in sending out Sir Garnet Wolseley. For his own part, he should not have discountenanced the continuance of any discussion by which practical good was likely to be obtained; but, Members of the Opposition having already fully expressed their sentiments, it was now their policy and their wisdom to let the Government see that they desired to encourage them in carrying out the policy which they seemed now to have adopted, in the hope that under Sir Garnet Wolseley the past might in some measure be retrieved, and that we might soon see a speedy termination of the unhappy war in South Africa—a war which was begun without necessity, and in the conclusion of which the principles of magnanimity, generosity, and humanity ought to be allowed to have full weight.

wished to explain, that in questioning the Government on this subject he did not desire in any way to find fault with the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley. On the contrary, he thought the only point was whether the Government ought not to have adopted that course many weeks ago. He desired, however, to ask again, though in a different form, the Question he put yesterday—whether Sir Garnet Wolseley, in accepting the office of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, would still remain High Commissioner of Cyprus; whether, in fact, he was to hold the two appointments simultaneously; or whether he was to be succeeded in Cyprus by Colonel Greaves? As Sir Bartle Frere also held the office of High Commissioner in South Africa, he wished to know what steps were being taken to prevent a conflict of authority between him and Sir Garnet Wolseley? Another point he desired to refer to. There was a wide-spread feeling that there had been much unnecessary discomfort, not to say unnecessary illness, amongst the troops who had already arrived in South Africa. It had been reported that 25 per cent of the men who had recently gone out there were laid up by disease; and if the Government were in a position to give the House any information on that subject, it would be gratefully received. If there was any truth in the statement, he trusted the Government would take prompt measures to supply the existing want both of doctors and medicines at the seat of war. He trusted also that Sir Garnet Wolseley would have authority to exercise his discretion in taking advantage of any opportunity for speedily terminating a war which could do us no honour, and which must bring grief and woe to many homes in England.

said, he thought the right hon. Member who formerly held the office of Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had rightly asked the House not to press the Government for details as to what it might be necessary to do at the Cape. Indeed, he thought it was unusual for an Executive possessed of the confidence of the country to be pressed to the extent to which Her Majesty's Government had been; and he (Lord Elcho) had noticed with satisfaction that his noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition was very careful when he spoke yesterday to avoid this fault, remarking that he only spoke upon the subject at all after the Government had themselves done so. Now, there could not be a doubt that this appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley was a great change, and it had been received by the House and the country and the Press as a happy augury. He trusted that it might prove to be so. Sir Garnet Wolseley was a man of great administrative ability, with a sound military knowledge of strategy and tactics; and he (Lord Elcho) had no doubt that what ability, intelligence, and also kindliness of disposition could do to bring this war to a satisfactory termination would be done by that distinguished gentleman. He had the pleasure of Sir Garnet Wolseley's acquaintance—indeed, enjoyed his friendship, and he looked with great satisfaction upon his appointment. But he could not but couple this feeling of satisfaction with the feeling which naturally arose from the fact that this war had shown us that, without calling out our Reserves, we had, practically, no Army; and the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley looked very much as if, in the opinion of the authorities who were responsible for the safety of the State, we had but one General. He need not dwell on that further than to express a hope that what the nation expected from this appointment would be realized, and that there would be soon in South Africa a satisfactory and permanent settlement of the present unhappy state of affairs. But, while thus speaking, and while anxious to do justice to Sir Garnet Wolseley, hefelt that but scant justice had been done to Sir Bartle Frere in speeches which had been made in that House, and in this matter he could not even except Her Majesty's Government. He had not the pleasure of Sir Bartle Frere's acquaintance—he had, indeed, only seen him once in his life—and, therefore, spoke entirely without any personal feeling, but solely according to the dictates of conscience. He thought that in the speeches made and the course taken with reference to Sir Bartle Frere, hon. Members did not sufficiently put themselves in the position of that gentleman when he was sent out to South Africa with the high powers which were conferred upon him by his commission—powers, be it remembered, of peace and war—powers which were not granted to an ordinary Colonial Governor, but which were given to him as High Commissioner. Hon. Members did not sufficiently put themselves in the position of a man who, well known for his humanity and for his negrophilism, if he might say so, in other parts of the world, found himself suddenly confronted with what, acting to the best of his judgment, he believed to be imminent danger to the Colonies for whose safety he was responsible. If we had had difficulties to contend with in that army of organized Zulus, what did that show? It showed how great the danger was; and the greater our difficulties the greater was the danger shown to be. That much was clear from the course of the war. They had heard a great deal of the extraordinary gallantry of that savage race. No one could speak of it too highly. He did not believe that our nation ever in its history encountered so physically brave a people as the Zulus. Indeed, if he could prophesy, he could confidently predict that the day would come—as certainly as this country would prosper and progress as a great Imperial Power —when the Zulu troops in the British Service would occupy the same position towards us in South Africa as the Sikhs and Goorkhas now did in India. Therefore, let it not be thought in anything he said about the Zulu Chief and his Army that he failed to appreciate their most remarkable physical qualities. But what was the character of King Cetewayo, who was in this House held up to their admiration? While listening to a speech lately made in "another place," he happened to find himself standing by the side of a member of the Austrian Embassy, and said to him—"Why, they talk of this Zulu King, who is, practically, a gorilla, armed with guns and assegais, instead of fighting with his tail and claws, as if he were the Emperor of Austria." ["Oh, oh!" "Withdraw!"] He (Lord Elcho) had nothing to be ashamed of, and he had nothing to withdraw, but he had a good deal to prove, or rather, wherewith to prove his statements. What had they on record? Why, that King Cetewayo was as cruel as he believed he was crafty; that he murdered, having first what he called smelt them out as guilty of witchcraft, all persons whose property he wished to get possession of; that he flayed men alive, covered them with honey, and, while they were still alive, planted them in ants' nests. They had it from his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that he killed his prisoners; and why? Because he had no prisons. His prison discipline, therefore, was of the simplest, and so was his poor law, for they read that the aged and infirm were buried alive. And now as to his troops. He said this with great reluctance; but he thought the time for plain speaking on that question had come. He gave the Zulus credit for their gallantry; but he had seen a letter which showed them the type of man they had to deal with in that country. He had seen a letter of which sheets and sheets were written in pencil after the battle of Isandlana, and the writer said that every soldier who fell was disembowelled; that the hands, feet, and heads of many were cut off; and that drummer boys were found with their hands tied behind their backs and hung up on meat hooks. This was the sort of King they had to deal with, such were his soldiers. Now, he ventured to think that our Colonists were entitled to be considered in this matter, and that Sir Bartle Frere, defending a long frontier with a fordable river adjoining a great Colony, ought not to have had such hard measure dealt out to him as he had received at some hands on account of the steps which he had found it necessary to take under a heavy weight of responsibility. Whenever he heard speeches in that House strongly taking the Zulu side and ignoring that of our Colonists, who were in danger from that sword of Damocles which was hanging over them, he was led to reflect thus'—If for the Tugela, they read the Thames, and for Natal they read Chelsea; if for Zululand, they read Surrey, and if that condition of things existed on the other side of the Thames in the wilds of Wimbledon and the forests of Coombe Wood, which existed in Zululand, they would not have had such Motions made in the House as had been made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); and the inhabitants of this side of the Thames would be only too thankful to any man of courage who took upon himself the responsibility of grappling with the danger and securing their safety. Passing, however, from that point, he would observe that they had heard from the Government what, generally speaking, the policy now to be pursued in South Africa was to be. ["No!"] He had said "generally speaking." He had gathered from the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that day that what the Government looked to, and what Sir Garnet Wolseley was supposed to be the most efficient instrument they could find for obtaining, was an honourable termination, consistently with the safety of the Colony, of the present war; that they were ready to receive any overtures from Cetewayo; and that they did not look to any addition of territory. All that he trusted was that Sir Garnet Wolseley would not go out too much fettered, either in his civil or military capacity, as to the measures which he might think it necessary to take to attain those objects—the safety of the Colony and a permanent peace. Annexation was a word which seemed to shock hon. Gentlemen; but he asked them for a moment to look at the map. He repeated, what he had often said, that if they could speak in the House as counsel upstairs did before a Committee on a Railway Bill with maps before them, many things would not be said which were said on questions under discussion. He now held in his hand a map of South Africa. All the parts marked red were British territory, while a little yellow patch, not more than one-twentieth of the whole, was not British. Now, looking to the course of the world and of history, looking to what went on in America and the rest of the globe, did they believe it was physically possible that, sooner or later—lie did not say now—the country so situated would not be annexed? ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] He was glad to find that the strength of his argument was so readily admitted. As had happened in America, wherever a civilized Power came in contact with a barbarian Power, especially with one so dangerous and so armed and organized as this, the result must be, sooner or later, for the sake of peace and of humanity, the uncivilized Power must be absorbed by its civilized neighbour. He, for one, should not be surprised if it turned out, sooner or later, that in order to obtain the object which they all contemplated by the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley, it might be necessary even to annex the Zulu country. On the other hand, he had heard objections raised to what was called the establishment of fortified posts in that country. He happened at dinner lately to be seated by a French officer, who was one of the most intelligent and able men whom it had been his fortune to meet in the course of his life. The conversation naturally turned on what was uppermost in every man's thoughts.

"It seems to me," said this officer, "that your position in South Africa is very similar to what ours was in North Africa—in Algeria. We had Colonists there whom we were bound to defend, and they were constantly liable to inroads and fights with the Natives who, when beaten, retired. This went on for years and years, until the appointment of Marshal Randon, who said—'If I am empowered to carry on this war and to make the Colony secure in the way which I believe to be the best, I engage that peace shall be maintained, and that the Tribes shall be no longer dangerous to our Colonists.'

Well, the Marshal proceeded by making roads, and establishing fortified posts as he went on. He hoped that as far as these fortified posts were concerned, the hands of Sir Garnet Wolseley would not be tied, and that it would be open to him to take such military steps as might be necessary to secure the safety of the Colonists. He had no more to say than this. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition side below the Gangway.] Of course, he did not suppose that his views would meet the approval of a section of the Party opposite; but he had deemed it right, in justice to Sir Bartle Frere and in the interests of his country, to make the few observations he had done, and which, if no one had led the way, he would not have ventured to utter. He hoped we might see a permanent and satisfactory peace established. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, though they might dispute his argument and differ from him, would, he trusted, give him credit, at least, for this—that he was at heart not less humane than themselves. Equally with them he hated unnecessary war, and he could assure them that those who had suffered from war knew the sorrows and the miseries it produced. But he believed it to be essential, not only for the sake of humanity, but for the sake of civilization—for the sake of the Colonies, aye, and for the sake of the gallant savages who were now fighting against us—that the war which, sooner or later, was inevitable should be settled finally and in a permanent way. He also thought that, looking to the future and to the further organization and arming of these savages which, sooner or later, would have taken place, it was well for all concerned—for them, for us, and for our Colonists—that this war had come upon us sooner rather than later.

I cannot allow the speech of my noble Friend to pass without remark. It appears to me that it is a speech which does not express the views entertained by the House in general or by hon. Members on the other side. I do not now at all complain of the words of kindness and consideration and honour in which my noble Friend spoke of Sir Bartle Frere. I think Sir Bartle Frere has been placed in a position of the greatest difficulty, and has the strongest claims upon our sympathy, as well as our generous regard. He was sent out to Africa at a time when, I fear, the seeds of this difficulty had already been sown by prior proceedings for which he was not responsible. He has had a task of the most arduous character to conduct; and certainly I, for one, have not been able to concur in all the opinions which he has formed upon a complicated state of facts; but I am confident that when Sir Bartle Frere returns to this country, or in whatever position of life he may be found, he will continue to draw to himself the admiration and regard of his fellow-countrymen. ["No, no!"] I must, at the same time, draw a distinction between my dissent from the particular opinions which he may have formed in a particular combination of affairs, and the views which I think we are bound to entertain towards a man who, in a long course of years, has occupied so honourable and distinguished a name in the service of the Crown. I must say that I hope hon. Members will not be disposed to widen unnecessarily the field of this debate. An appeal has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) to the House to refrain from pressing the Government for any particular declaration; and the hon. and, learned Member for Louth, who commenced this debate, and with whose general views I, for one, very much concur, showed at once his sense that it was necessary that something should be said, and his desire to reduce to the lowest point compatible with his conscientious convictions any demand he made upon Her Majesty's Government for information. It is in the interest of the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Louth that we should not press for information at this moment. Her Majesty's Government, whatever I or anyone else may think of their former proceedings, have to deal at present with a ease of very great difficulty. They have made an important approximation towards the views generally entertained on this side of the House by the declaration they have made of their desire, at least, with regard to the annexation of Zululand. It may be—and I trust it will be—that in other respects they will find themselves nearer to the views of those who have disapproved of Sir Bartle Frere's policy than might at one time have been supposed. They have before them other questions than the question of annexation. They have before them the various subjects that were raised in the terms of the Ultimatum. They have before them those demands which what is called the public opinion of the Colony make—in my view of this question a most fallacious guide—that may be influenced either by mortification from the disaster they have sustained, or by exultation with the successes which followed. They have to consider, likewise, the difficulties in which they are placed in respect of the relations subsisting in the Transvaal territory; and, upon the whole, I do not feel I should discharge my duty to the country by pressing upon them for any declaration whatever, after the steps they have taken. What I hope is, that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth, and that the general tone of this discussion, and the general tone of the House upon the whole subject, may incline them both to a course of mercy and of moderation. It is not necessary for us to follow my noble Friend who spoke last in discussing the character and proceedings of Cetewayo; but I think there are two observations which may be fairly made—that for cruelty, and for the aggravation of cruel customs existing in savage lands, no apology is to be made; but that, on the other hand, our main duty is to regard the conduct of this man in his relations with ourselves. If they have, on the whole, been such as to present a hopeful character, if his proceedings towards us admit of a fair and charitable construction, then, I think, we should hope that the savagery of his proceedings at home which, I am afraid, is in many particulars undoubted, may be mitigated hereafter by friendly intercourse with a Christian and a better instructed people; for I have little hope, I confess, of conquering evils of that kind by the infliction on his nation of the horrors of war. If it were a question of dealing with him individually, and punishing his crime upon his own person, then, indeed, I could understand the argument we have heard. The argument is, that the barbarous character and manners of this man have exhibited themselves in cruelty to the aged and infirm, and in the oppression—the bloody oppression—of his own subjects. If that be true, and, possibly, to some extent it may be true—it is surely an unfortunate inference that those subjects are to be made to bear all the cruel inflictions that war may bring upon them. I hope Her Majesty's Government will make note of this discussion as tending to confirm the tendency on their part that, while we would do nothing that would injure the safety of our Colonies, yet when that safety is secured, the more moderate and more merciful their views, the better they will meet the convictions and desires of their country. My belief is that we shall do a greater service to the cause of humanity by leaving this matter, than we possibly could by calling upon the Government now to make declarations which I feel it would be difficult for them to make, and by challenging them to promises that they will do things which they may well be inclined to do if they are reasonable, but in regard to which it may also be a fact that their declaration of that intention may be the greatest obstacle to carrying it out. For my part, I decline to put any pressure upon the indisposition of the Government to declare their views. My hopes and desires run earnestly and strongly in one direction, and I believe that to be the direction of the general opinion of the country; but I would not ask for an express declaration from Ministers at a time when I feel it is difficult for them, consistently with their duty, to lay such declarations before us.

thought that his noble Friend, in saying things that would irritate the mind of the country at the time when Sir Garnet Wolsoley had received his new appointment, had chosen an unfortunate moment for uttering his sentiments. From the brilliant abilities and great military character of Sir Garnet Wolseley, they might be perfectly confident that whatever military operations he would undertake would be carried on satisfactorily, and to the honour and glory of this country, he still thought it was the duty of the Government, at the earliest opportunity, to make peace; and he hoped that they would give no encouragement to any desire of revenge that some persons might feel with reference to the cruelties which had been inflicted on our men.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), he did not propose to continue the discussion any further. It would be in the recollection of the House that on Friday last he gave Notice of a Resolution which bore on the subject before the House, and he thought it would be convenient that, under the circumstances, he should state that, in his opinion, the terms of the Resolution had now become inappli- cable to the situation, and he, therefore, proposed to remove it from the Order Book. He was glad to think that the greater part of the suggestions contained in that Resolution had been practically conceded by the Government. They had, in the strongest language, deprecated a war for revenge, or a war for the increase of territory, and had declared their intention to instruct Sir Garnet Wolseley, not merely to receive, but to entertain, any proposals that might be made for peace. There was only one point upon which the Government had not up to the present expressed their opinion. He did not press for an explanation; hut he wished to point out to the Government that if they did not take care that Sir Garnet Wolseley was instructed not to insist on the full terms which wore demanded by Sir Bnrtle Frere, then, most certainly, this country, against the wishes of the Government, against the wishes of Parliament, and against the wishes of the majority of the people of this country, would be drifted into that annexation against which they all so much protested. He trusted that care would be taken to prevent such a thing occurring.

said, he entirely agreed with what the hon. Member had just said; and he thought that after the declaration of the Government, which was of a character which must be satisfactory to the House and to the country, it would be idle to pursue the discussion any further. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) ought to be satisfied with the conversation which had taken place, and with what had been said by the Government. As he stated yesterday, he rejoiced that the Government had taken the course they had done, and he thought it was an augury of a satisfactory solution of the question; but he must protest against one expression which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to Sir Bartle Frere. No doubt, he was a man of great social position and of great ability, and one who had done great services to the country; but, then, they must remember that in South Africa he had been a signal failure; and he was sure that if the Government had acted earlier in the matter, as they were wanted to do, and as they were now doing, a great deal of trouble and difficulty would have been obviated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was always very ready to give credit to those who sat near him when anything good was done. But it was from below the Gangway, and not from the front Opposition Bench, that the question had been given in the present case; and when he heard hon. Gentlemen say they were glad to find that the Government had at length come round to their "views," he said that was not a fair way to look at the position. If hon. Gentlemen had read the Papers, as he and many others had read them, they would have seen that the policy of the Government from the beginning was contrary to that which Sir Bartle Frere had pressed upon them. Although he had been as vigorous as others in opposing the policy which had been pursued in South Africa, he had always maintained that it was a policy which was forced on the Government contrary to their wishes and their intentions, as indicated in the Blue Books in their hands. He would only add the further observation, that he most earnestly hoped that in sending out Sir Garnet Wolseley to South Africa, he was sent there with a message of peace. They read only that day that arrangements were made for sending 23,000 men into Zululand. God forbid that that should be done! When the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to see the honour of the country maintained, he replied, so did they who had agitated on the question. The honour of the country was as dear to those who had resisted the aggression as to any hon. Gentleman on that Bench. But what they did want to see, where there was an enemy, with whom we had quarrelled, who sought our friendship, and who sought mercy at our hands, was, that now we should not refuse to him that mercy, but make with him those terms of peace which he was anxious to obtain—

"The quality of mercy is not strained;

It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven,

Upon the place beneath: it is twice blessed;

It blosseth him that gives, and him that takes."

He hoped that would be the principle which would guide Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the question. He hoped that with all the power of this country they would endeavour to make peace, and to show mercy to an enemy who had resisted, but against whom there was now such a formidable Force in the field; and he must warn the Government that if, in sending out Sir Garnet Wolseley to the Cape they intended to promote a system of aggression, the country would be as dissatisfied with Sir Garnet Wolseley as they had been with Sir Bartle Frere. He believed the intentions of the Government were other than those; and with that hope, and in that expectation, he looked forward to the prospect of an early peace and a satisfactory settlement of that grave and serious question.

explained that what he had said was that the Government had come round to the policy of those who wished Sir Bartle Frere to be superseded, and he himself had spoken in the late debate to that effect, so that he had assumed nothing but what was, as regarded himself, strictly true.

wished the Government to make some statement with regard to their intentions in respect to the Transvaal. Sir Garnet Wolseley was to go out to South Africa not merely as Governor of Natal, but also as Governor of the Transvaal, and was to supersede both Sir Henry Bulwer and Colonel Lanyon; and he thought it would be satisfactory to the House, if some statement was made with regard to the instructions which were to be given to the High Commissioner with respect to the Transvaal. He thought the conduct of the Boers had been worthy of respect and consideration. A good deal had been made out of the camp at Pretoria; but really the camp at Pretoria was nothing more than an unmistakable demonstration against the annexation of their territory, and the Boers had carefully refrained from adding to our embarrassments when we were at war with the Zulus. He complained that notwithstanding this action on the part of the Boers, and their friendly reception of Sir Bartle Frere, the moment his back was turned a battery was sent into their territory to overawe them. It would be extremely satisfactory if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House some assurance of a general character that the attitude of the Government towards them was not one of determination to retain, against all resistance, any power of supremacy which had been obtained, in the first place, through fraud, and which had since been maintained by force.

Sir, with reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), I can only say that, at the present time, we are waiting for, and expecting, a communication from Sir Bartle Frere, which will give us fuller information as to the proceedings that took place at Pretoria. We have, to a certain extent, that information, having received it in a telegraphic form; but we shall receive fuller information from the Memorial which we understand has been drawn up and given to the High Commissioner to forward. With regard to the stories which have appeared in the newspapers as to a Force having been sent into the Transvaal for the purpose of overawing the Boers, we are only informed that a party of Dragoons has been ordered into that part of the Colony, but for what purpose is not stated, and it would, therefore, be premature to express any opinion as to the rumours which are floating about. Whenever a communication is received—which, I have no doubt, will be very shortly—Her Majesty's Government will take it very fairly and fully into consideration, and will give the necessary instructions to Sir Garnet Wolseley with regard to it. I do not think this is a convenient opportunity for raising a discussion on that large question. With regard to the conversation which has taken place to-day, though there have been expressions used and opinions stated which I regret, yet I am not disposed to take exception to the general tone of the discussion. But I hope I may be excused from entering, on the part of the Government, as largely and freely into this question as some hon. Members have felt themselves able to do; because it must be borne in mind that the Government are, in this matter, under very heavy and serious responsibility. What we may say is one thing; but we have to consider both the effect of what we may say and the effect of what we may do, not only in this country, but in the Colonies and in the large regions for which we are responsible. And bearing in mind how very complicated the circumstances of the case are, and how many considerations must be taken into account, I feel that the tone of the House generally has been the true and right one. But whilst hon. Members are anxious to express their opinions, and to put before the Government the considerations which they think ought to weigh with us, they would not desire to force us into declarations which may be embarrassing from their minuteness, or which may impede, possibly, the very objects which we all desire to bring about. I have noticed a certain inclination in different parts of the House to credit the Government with a new policy. I am bound to say that I do not admit the justice of the observations which have been made, nor that any step which the Government have resolved upon taking offers any concession whatever, or any departure whatever, from the line of policy which we have hitherto pursued. Under the circumstances of the case, as they at present present themselves, we have thought it right to take a particular step, which we believe to be a right and wise step, and the motives for which we have explained in the few words which I addressed to the House yesterday, when I stated that it was necessary to concentrate the civil and military powers of the different authorities in a single hand, and it was important and desirable to take the opportunity of Sir Garnet Wolseley going out to South Africa to give him full and confidential, and fresh instructions as to the policy which Her Majesty's Government desired to pursue. What is that policy? We have explained from the beginning it is not one of annexation; neither is it one of what might be called revenge.

I have but a very few words with which to detain the House. What I was saying was this—that the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to South Africa had neither been a policy of annexation, nor certainly a policy of anything that could be called revenge. It was a policy the main object of which was directed to the establishment of secure and satisfactory relations for Her Majesty's Colonies in that part of the world. We have to consider the position of those who occupy the territories under the Sovereignty of the Queen. We have to consider what arrangements ought to be made in order to promote the welfare of those Colonists, and preserving peace between them and their neighbours. Now, it is quite obvious that for that purpose it is important we should be—and should appear to be—strong and powerful ourselves, so as to maintain satisfactory relations with our Native neighbours. These are the relations we desire to promote, and we earnestly hope we shall be successful in their establishment. I do not think it would be at all likely to promote that object that we should attempt too tightly to tie the hands of a man like Sir Garnet Wolseley, who goes out with all his experience of the country, with a thorough knowledge of the spirit which animates the Government, who possesses sympathy with that spirit, and who has an earnest desire to do all that he can not only to bring the war to any early conclusion, but to bring about a satisfactory settlement which may be of an enduring character. We are anxious in every possible way to promote that; and I trust the result of the step we take will be an end of the war, and that the Colonies will enter upon a state of peace, of which they have had but little ex-Perience.

thought that if the House was quite satisfied that the reasons given by the Government for their change of front in their Zulu policy were the exact opposite of their real reasons, they would be very well contented with what had been done. When he had brought forward his Motion, some time since, he pointed out that the Government having censured Sir Bartle Frere ought to remove him from his post, which they at that time refused to do, and stated that he continued to have their confidence. But now they had taken a step which was tantamount to removing him, and the reason they gave was that it was necessary to concentrate the command. But, as a matter of fact, there would be no concentration of command at all; for just as Sir Bartle Frere was High Commissioner, so Sir Garnet Wolseley would be High Commissioner now, in a portion, but not the whole of South Africa, and Sir Garnet Wolseley would hold the supreme command in that part just the same as Sir Bartle Frere did before. It would now be necessary to cancel the commission which was given to Sir Bartle Frere, because the powers given by that commission were obviously the powers that would in future be exercised by Sir Garnet Wolseley. They must, therefore, accept the action of the Government as a change of front in policy, whatever reasons they might put forward for the change. With regard to the speech made by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) he was very sorry, indeed, to hear such statements made, which, he feared, were calculated to stir up an ill feeling in the country, and to prevent that peace which all so much desired. He also wished to state that the stories which he gave to the House with regard to Cetewayo—and notably that in which he was stated to have covered his prisoners with honey and put them in an ant's nest—had no foundation, and there was not the slightest scrap of evidence to support them. He strongly deprecated such statements being made.

said, he could not help feeling that the House and the country should know on what grounds the Government were going to act, or what they were doing. It was quite evident to hon. Gentlemen in the House that the sending of Sir Garnet Wolseley into South Africa was not simply to concentrate the command—that was put forward as a specious reason. They knew there was a much graver and more pressing reason on the minds of the Government, and the point which he wished to press on the Secretary of State for the Colonies was this. Was it intended that the powers conferred on Sir Bartle Frere by his commission should continue so as to overlap and conflict with those given to Sir Garnet Wolseley? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] He was glad to hear that, and therefore he presumed the House would be justified in assuming that the powers given to Sir Garnet Wolseley would be supreme, and would reduce those given to Sir Bartle Frere; but he should, like an explicit statement on the question.

said, he rose to speak in defence of an absent man. In his opinion, he was a most ill-used man. He had been sent out to act in circumstances of considerable difficulty, and when he had done his best in those circumstances he was visited with censure. He called upon the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea to say whether there were in the instructions given to Sir Bartle Frere nothing to vindicate his action in Africa? He thought he had been treated most unjustly. The Government, whose policy was distinctly annexational in the time of the Earl of Carnarvon, had given him very largo instructions, and though Sir Bartle Frere had not exceeded those instructions, the Government had now left him in the lurch. His conduct being disapproved of by the Government, it would have been merciful, kindly, yea only honest, to have recalled him at first, instead of throwing him overboard in the way they were doing now into the humbler position of mere Governor of the Cape.

gave Notice that in consequence of the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), he would use all the Forms of the House against any further Votes of Supply for the Zulu War until the Government had submitted to the House the terms on which Cetewayo would be admitted to peace.

I should not have thought of detaining the House for a moment if it had not been for the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir George Balfour). He appears to me to be under an entire misconception as to the action of the Government with reference to Sir Bartle Frere. He spoke of him having been thrown over and dismissed with disgrace. Nothing whatever of the sort has occurred, or is intended. The whole course of this debate and that of yesterday shows, I venture to say, the great disadvantage of attempting to discuss a question without the Papers relating to that question. Had the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) only waited till he had seen the terms of the commissions which are drawn up, and will be issued at once, he would have seen that the functions of Sir Bartle Frere and Sir Garnet Wolseley are distinctly defined, those of Sir Bartle Frere having to do with one district of the country and those of Sir Garnet Wolseley with another, and that neither will interfere with the conduct of affairs by the other. I was glad—and I am sure the House also was glad—to hear the expressions of sympathy which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich with reference to Sir Bartle Frere. He has borne eloquent testimony—such testimony as, perhaps, he alone could bear—to the abilities and character of Sir Bartle Frere and to his conduct amid difficulties which were almost unprecedented in the history of any Colonial Government. But I will venture to say for myself that neither in this House nor out of it have I ever for a moment hesitated to bear similar testimony to the utmost of my power. It has been asked what the position of Sir Bartle Frere will be on the arrival of Sir Garnet Wolseley in South Africa? His position will be similar to that occupied by previous Governors and High Commissioners of the highest standing. It is further asked, Why is it necessary to make this change? It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to assume certain reasons, which exist only in their own imaginations, and not to credit the Government with a belief in the reasons they themselves put forward; but the real reason for the change is precisely what was announced to the House in the course of yesterday's discussion by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no other. The reason is this—that it is necessary, under the present circumstances, to unite in the hands of a single person the functions of civil and military administration in that district of South Africa which is in the neighbourhood of the seat of war; and that is utterly impossible for anyone holding the position of High Commissioner in South Africa at the present crisis to conduct affairs in the district, and, at the same time, to deal with the important matters with which he must deal at Cape Town. It is very well known to the House that for months past Sir Bartle Frere has been absent from the scene of his ordinary labours at Cape Town. During that time questions have arisen connected with the Cape Colony and its borders of the very gravest importance to this country and the Colony. I may refer to one—the settlement of the question now pending between the Government of Cape Colony and this country as to the expenses of the late war. I may refer to another—the position of the Province of Griqualand West in relation to the Cape Colony. Again, there is the question how the valuable Acts passed by the Cape Parliament for the defence of the Colony in the last Session can best be carried out. In connection with all these measures the co-operation, and even the direction, of Sir Bartle Frere are absolutely required by the Ministers of the Cape Colony. But beyond and above all this is the great question of the Confederation or Union of the several Colonies or Territories in South Africa that Sir Bartle Frere was specially sent to endeavour to promote, to which he has devoted singular and special attention, and which he will be instructed at once to bring before the Cape Parliament when it commences its Session next month. These are all matters of the gravest and highest importance to the interests of South Africa and this country, and are amply sufficient to tax the energies of any one man, even though he possess the abilities of Sir Bartle Frere; and I will venture to add that if hon. Members will consult their maps, as they have been advised to do by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), and bear in mind that Cape Town is 1,000 miles from the seat of war, the extreme difficulty and delay of any postal communication, the impossibility of conducting serious affairs solely by electric telegraph, and the great distance even of the nearest point of the telegraph from the seat of war, they will see that it has become absolutely necessary for a time to divide this great office, and give that portion of it covering the seat of war to a new head, and into the hands of a single person. These are the reasons for the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, and they will be still more fully expressed in the Papers, which I hope will be in the hands of hon. Members on Thursday or Friday morning. The terms of the commissions will be included in those Papers; and if any further question or discussion should arise on them the Government will be prepared to meet it.

I must say that there is not one single reason among those which the right hon. Gentleman has now stated for the course the Government has taken which did not exist in full force two months ago, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea brought his Motion forward. The right hon. Gentleman says that Cape Town is 1,000 miles from the seat of war. Why, it was 1,000 miles away two months ago, he says the telegraph is not adequate to carry on detailed communications; but the telegraph communication is not less adequate now than it was then. You knew that you had to send out reinforcements; that you were going to enter on a campaign; that Sir Bartle Frere must meet his Parliament at the Cape, and conduct all these transactions with reference to Confederation; and really for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to get up gravely now, and tell us these things—every single one of which was in their minds and in full force two months ago, when we had the debate on the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea's Motion, when the Secretary of State himself told us that no man except Sir Bartle Frere, from his knowledge of the circumstances, whatever errors he might have committed, could conduct these affairs successfully—is, I think, presuming too much on the patience of this House. It is also, I think, calculated to have a prejudicial effect on the public mind, which the Government should deplore. I venture to say that the reason why both sides of the House and the country outside approve of the course the Government have taken is for a totally different reason from any of those stated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The reason why the House and the country approve of that course is because they believe and hope that Sir Garnet Wolseley will carry out the policy of Her Majesty's Government in a very different spirit from that in which it was carried out by Sir Bartle Frere. It is the real cause of the satisfaction with the change; and what possible object the Secretary of State for the Colonies can have in destroying that expectation, that hope, and that conviction in the public mind, by putting the reason for the course they have pursued on a totally different basis, I cannot understand. If the country has really to take his account of the matter, they would derive small satisfaction from it. It is because they thought that the alleged reasons were not true—that the true reasons were totally different—that the course taken by the Government has given satisfaction. Therefore, I do regret that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should have thought it right to give such reasons. It may be all very well to set up this theory for their action, for the sake of Lord Chelmsford or Sir Bartle Frere; but it is not from that point of view that the change is regarded with satisfaction, but because the people believed that Sir Bartle Frere was pursuing—honourably and conscientiously no doubt—a policy which the Government did not desire, and which the country did not desire. That is the reason they are glad to see it placed in different hands; and to tell us that it is merely a matter of concentration of power is unsatisfactory. I think it a great pity, when the Government come forward to announce a determination of this character, that they should not have had all the Papers ready and delivered them to the House at the time. We see that continuous Cabinet meetings have been held, and I cannot see why they should not have had these important Papers ready to deliver. All I can add is, that I hope the real reasons actuating the Government in making this change in the affairs at the Cape are not the reasons which they have alleged; because if they are, I believe they will have destroyed the whole satisfaction which the country has felt.

said, he was pleased with the frank but tardy conduct of the front Opposition Benches, in at length acting upon the policy so long since advocated by the seven Irish Home Rule Members. If the Government could not, within the ordinary time available for Public Business, give an opportunity for the discussion of urgent Irish subjects, they should reduce the Whitsuntide Holidays in order to afford the necessary time for that purpose. Much of the time of the House had been taken up by discussions provoked by the innumerable blunders of the Government. He rose for the purpose of calling attention to the deplorable and unendurable condition of the landed interest in Ireland. It was impossible that agriculture could be developed in Ireland—that Irish tenants could put that labour, skill, and capital into the land upon which the flourishing state of agriculture depended, so long as insecurity of tenure hung over the head of the tenant. The present system was a premium in favour of sloth and negligence, and an obstacle to diligence and the advance of every kind of prosperity. Two hundred and ninety landlords owned one-third of the Island, and 744 owned about half; and the question was, was the prosperity, or the chance of a livelihood, of 1,000,000 homesteads to depend upon a small battalion of 760 persons, monopolizing half the land—750, with their sisters, and their cousins, and their aunts, in comparison with the entire population of Ireland? The Land Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was a monument of the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman rather than of the capacity of English Parties to deal with Irish questions. If Irish tenants were to continue to be subject to the evils of capricious eviction, to the screwing up of rents beyond the point of endurance, to confiscation of improvements—if that was to continue much longer, Parliament would have to solve a greater problem than that which startled them a few years ago, when the whisper of liberty reached Ireland from the other side of the Atlantic. He should move an Amendment to the Motion for adjournment to the effect that the adjournment be only till June 2nd, instead of till June 9th. He did not know whether those who were devoted to Irish legislation would present such attractions to English Members as to induce them to give up the enjoyments of the country in order to take part in Irish discussions; but he was sure that the majority of the popular Irish Members would be quite prepared to take full advantage of any extra time that might be given to them for the consideration of Irish Business. If the English Members absented themselves, it would only be carrying out the policy they generally pursued. They usually absented themselves from the discussion of Irish Business, and presented themselves only when it was necessary to vote down Irish demands. If during the extra week, which he proposed to give for the discussion of indispensable Irish Business, the English Members absented themselves from the Divisions, as well as the discussions, he was not sure that it would not be hailed as a long-desired improvement. If the Government were not prepared to grant them the House next week, he hoped they would grant thorn time for the discussion of two or three of the most pressing Irish grievances which demanded a remedy. By attempting to postpone the redress of Irish grievances—particularly the unendurable evils of the Irish tenant system.—they would not succeed in avoiding or evading the energetic prosecution of those questions by the Irish Representatives in Parliament. He concluded by moving his Amendment.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had not the slightest desire to interfere with the holidays of hon. Members; but he thought it would not be right that the House should separate for the Whitsuntide Recess without some words being spoken as to the question which was most important to the Irish people. They had been occupied three hours in discussing the foreign policy of the Government. Not a moment of that time was wasted. It was most properly given up to that great subject. He only regretted that it had not been possible to extract more clearly the genuine intentions of the Government with regard to South Africa. But that time having been occupied fairly, it was not too much to ask the House to give a few minutes' consideration to a question of the greatest importance to Ireland. Think of how little importance to Ireland, except for the loss it entailed in men and money, was this war with its doubtful glory! Let them, therefore, turn their attention to the Land Question in Ireland. He knew there was a theory that when war was going on the attention of the Government was absorbed in it, and that it was almost impossible to withdraw their attention to matters of domestic interest. But even if they accepted that ancient theory with regard to the great Leaders of the Government, it could not be held that the heads of the various Departments were equally absorbed. He could not imagine that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was passing anxious days and feverish nights turning over the maps of South Africa to find a policy for his Chief. He had very little doubt that were the Chief Secretary provided with a mission to South Africa, he might with his blandishments tempt Cetewayo over very soon to good terms of peace; but he had no such mission, and it was not too much to expect that even amid the clash of arms the right hon. Gentleman should be able to give a little of his attention to Ireland. The Chief Secretary had an able Colleague in the Irish Attorney General, who was officially free to take only an historic interest in these great wars, and who might find some time to bestow on the Irish Land Question. He was perfectly certain that the distress in Ireland had become so great as to render an attempt by Parliament to deal with the question imperative and unavoidable. They heard from farmers, priests, and peasants alike, that the crisis was imminent, urgent, even perilous. He was speaking the other day with an Irish landlord on the Conservative side of the House, who assured him that he had never known a season so bad for many of the Irish tenants. He told him that he had written to his agent only to press for rents from the men who really could pay, and to be lenient with those who could not, and that the agent wrote back to say that none were able to pay, and that they were all sufferers alike. That was a condition of things representative of the Land Question in at least one or two counties in Ireland, and surely it was one which ought to attract attention from the House of Commons. One or two Motions had been introduced during the Session which seemed to point to some promise. There was the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Heading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) on the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act. They had a flat denial of assistance from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and then a liberal promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, the Irish Members would like to know before the House separated whether anything was going to be done—whether any efforts were to be made to improve the condition of the tenantry of Ireland; or whether the only contribution the Chief Secretary was about to offer was his piece of legislation for the regulation of dogs in Ireland? That Bill rather reminded him of an amusing-passage in the pleasant story of Alice in Wonderland, where some one of the mysterious personages found Alice weary, and tired, and gasping with thirst, and said to her—"Oh, you poor little girl, I know exactly what you want—you want a dry biscuit." That was the kind of contribution which the Chief Secretary had made to the settlement of the Irish Land Question, he appealed to the House not to go away for the Holidays until the Government had made some promise and given some assurance with regard to the Irish Land Question. He hoped he would not be met with the stereotyped excuse that such an appeal was interfering with the Business of the House. Nothing could be more legitimately or more urgently the Business of the House than that the Government should give some assurance to the Irish peasantry which might send them a gleam of hope, and let them know oven when Parliament was not sitting there, yet that some thought would be taken of their condition, and that some effort was about to be made to improve their future.

supported the Amendment, and expressed a hope that some Member of the Government would answer the two able speeches that had just been delivered. When a majority of the Representatives of a nation came solemnly before the Legislature to make a proposal, it was their duty to urge the proposal in and out of season, at convenient and inconvenient times, and to select especially those occasions on which they were likely to attract the attention of the country. This was the position of the Irish Members in that House with regard to the Land Question. He complained that there had been a want of candour on the part of the Government in appointing a Committee on the subject of the Irish Land Laws the Session before last. After that Committee had been at the trouble of investigating the subject, and coming down to the House with distinct recommendations, the Government had taken no pains whatever to carry out those recommendations. They had even failed to give any satisfactory promise that they intended to carry them out. Again, when a private Irish Member had this Session presented a Bill to secure fixity of tenure, it had been received with but scant courtesy from the Government. How long did they think the Irish people would submit to have their grievances postponed for the convenience of the Government? The patience of the Irish people was well nigh exhausted; and if Parliament did not come forward within a reasonable time with some measure of legislation calculated to relieve the depression of the present state of agriculture in Ireland, scenes would arise in Ireland that would be far more dangerous to the rights of property and to the order and tranquillity which should prevail in that country than any that Ireland had been afflicted with in her long struggle with the ignorance, if not the incompetence, of the English Parliament. If these warnings were unheeded, and Parliament should plead for further delay, the consequences must be fixed on their own shoulders.

said, there could be no doubt that there was alarming distress amidst the agricultural interests not only of Ireland but of Great Britain, and was sure that when the case was fairly and reasonably presented to hon. Members they would feel that, however serious might be the state of matters in Afghanistan and South Africa, they ought to turn from those places to the interests of Great Britain and Ireland. An hypothetical advantage might be gained from this country making another sweep of territory in South Africa, a territory which they could not colonize, but precious land at their own door was at that moment being thrown upon the hands of landlords, because tenants were not able to cultivate it. He would neither express, nor join in expressing, any wholesale indictment against the landlords of Ireland. They fell, in his opinion, far short in many respects; but he had never failed to admit that in their errors and shortcomings they might be the creation and the creatures of circumstances, and that they possessed a great many excellent qualities which were not always remembered. When he looked at the English newspapers, what was the story which he read on every hand? It was a story of farms, untenanted and arable, to be let; but, at the same time, and more important in its significance, and certainly very commendable to the English landlords, it was a story of reductions of rents on the part of those gentlemen. It was with extreme pleasure he observed that amongst the first of the English landlords who had adopted this kindly, humane, and just course of procedure, was the first Commoner of England, who had the proud privilege of presiding over the deliberations of the House of Commons. But let them cross the Channel to Ireland, and did they there see a similar line of conduct to that of the English landlords as a palliative to the fast prevailing distress? He was bound to say that he saw nothing like it. There might be a solitary instance or two where the example had been followed; but there was no attempt on the part of the body of Irish landlords to imitate the English landlords in this particular matter. It was not from any intention to play the part of Shylock that this state of matters arose; but an evil tradition prevailed in Ireland, whereas a kindly custom prevailed in England. The tradition, as regarded Ireland, was that the distress was all pretended; and in England the landlord felt that the tenant was part of himself. He entered quickly into his sympathies, and he provided for him when the necessity arose. In the depth of the Irish Famine, when it was already eight or ten months old, that Famine in which 1,000,000 souls were lost, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who was not a hard-hearted gentleman by any means, absolutely declared at a farmers' dinner in England that the cry of famine in Ireland in 1847 was a pretence of agitators. The hon. Member laughed at it. He scoffed at it, and there was a considerable misleading of public opinion on the subject. There was yet sufficient time on the part of the Legislature to take preventative measures and to grapple with the evil. He maintained that the House owed a great deal to the Irish agricultural interests, and that Great Britain had never repaid in money, or in money's worth, what was due by it upon a fair balance to Ireland when England adopted Free Trade. England adopted Free Trade because the manufacturing element was predominant in her councils; and the agricultural interests of Ireland were sacrificed to what was rightly believed to be the general interest of the time. England was a manufacturing country, and it was her right to have Free Trade; but the agricultural Ireland was destroyed for the moment by that measure, which meant the sweeping away of thousands of acres, and. which involved the destruction of thousands of Irish farmers, and the enforced emigration of thousands of the Irish peasantry. At the period of which he spoke it would only have been a just act on the part of England to have compensated Ireland with, at least, £20,000,000, £30,000,000, £40,000,000, or £50,000,000. Parliament would be forced to deal with the question of what was to become of the agricultural interests of the country. He recollected the present Prime Minister achieving one of his greatest triumphs by moving a Resolution as to the necessity of considering distress which prevailed amongst those interests; and he hoped that on the present occasion the country Gentlemen in the House would, irrespective of Party, agree to unite in impressing upon the Government the desirability of affording an assurance that, on the re-assembling of the House after the Holidays, an opportunity would be given for considering the position of the Irish and the British farmer—in other words, that an hour would be taken from the Antipodes to consider the exigencies of our position at home.

said, he had listened with respectful attention to the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), because the condition of agriculture, both in this country as well as in Ireland, was that of the gravest depression, and there was no doubt they were justified in saying that the depression was of such a character that it deserved the attention of the Government. What, however, he wished to point out was that he did not think any practical result could be found by pressing the Motion on that occasion; because he had placed a Motion on the Paper to inquire into the condition of agricultural affairs in the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland. After the Motion for the adjournment of the House was carried, a ballot would take place, and he hoped to be successful, and secure a day after the Whitsuntide Recess; but if he did not, he fully intended to ask the Government if it would not be in their power to afford him facilities for bringing forward a subject of such vital importance to a large portion of the population, not only of England and Scotland, but also of Ireland?

said, he knew from experience that great agricultural distress prevailed in Ireland. He was talking the other day with a collector of the cess tax, who told him that lie had never had such great difficulty since 1847 in getting money from the farmers. Owing to the great depression, and to the competition of the American market in corn, meal, and butter, the profits of the farmer had gone down considerably, and he knew that both the graziers and the small farmers experienced the greatest difficulty in making both ends meet. He believed that even on fairly-rented properties, it was a necessity for the tenant to have such security of tenure as would develop to the fullest the capabilities of the soil. Ireland at present was not more than one-third cultivated as it ought to be, and even its cultivated lands ought to produce three times as much as they did. It was necessary for the House to consider how best to devise a measure for the protection of the industry and exertions of the tenant—a measure of protection for the value which he added to the land; and he had no hesitation in saying that they must be prepared to adopt an exceptional measure of land reform for Ireland, as compared with England. He would not prolong the discussion on that occasion; but, unless the Government were ready to afford some opportunities for the consideration of this subject after Whitsuntide, and unless they intended, at all events, to do something in the direction of the recommendations of the Select Committee that sat upon the matter last Session, under the Presidency of the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), the question was one which would have to be taken up by the Irish Members in a firm and determined fashion. It was one which deeply affected their constituencies; and even if they were disposed to hang back a little on the subject, the constituencies would not allow them.

thought the Irish Representatives were entitled to know whether Her Majesty's Govern- ment were prepared to adhere to the declaration which was made by the Chief Secretary during the last debate on this subject—That any proposal calculated to give the Irish tenant security in his holding was a measure which might be called a measure of confiscation and of Communism? He had listened to a great many debates on the Land Question in that House. He had heard a great many unfavourable replies from Governments on both sides; but he had never listened to language which had produced a greater sense and feeling alike of consternation and of anger throughout Ireland than that of the right hon. Gentleman. It was only natural that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) should ask for some declaration on the subject before the House adjourned for the Holidays. He was glad to find that the Motion of which the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had given Notice would include the case of Irish agricultural depression; but he warned the Government against the way in which they appeared to be treating the question. Did Her Majesty's Ministers suppose that the interests of good government in this country, or the Business of the House of Commons, would be promoted by their obstinately preserving a contemptuous silence on the matter? The Irish Members were in earnest on the question. They knew their own minds upon it; and they were backed by 5,000,000 of people across the water. They were determined to vindicate their rights, by quiet and orderly means if possible; but they were prepared, if need be, to resort to all the means which the House had put into their hands in order to bring before the Legislature and the country the great interests which they were sent there to represent.

said, the hon. Gentleman had complained that Her Majesty's Government viewed with nonchalance the distress which existed among the agricultural classes in Ireland. If the sentiments evoked in the breasts of the Government were those of nonchalance, it, at any rate showed that they were not too thin-skinned with respect to expressions which hon. Members made use of about their individuality. He did not complain of the plain-speaking in which the hon. Gentleman had indulged, and must claim a similar privilege himself, and say that he must adhere to anything that he had said standing in that place on former occasions; but that in nothing which he or any of his Colleagues had said had they ever expressed any want of sympathy with the depression which he admitted to exist in the agriculture of Ireland. He was glad, however, to think that that depression, although undoubted, was neither so prevalent nor so acute as the depression at present existing in other parts of the United Kingdom. He thought that the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had done good service in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the Motion which he proposed to bring forward would deal not merely with an isolated branch of a great subject, but would deal with the entire question in all its bearings. That Motion would afford a legitimate opportunity for the expression of opinion on the part of hon. Members representing all sections of the United Kingdom. In the course of the debate, allusion had been made to the landlords of Ireland as not having been so generous as the landlords of England in regard to agricultural depression; but it was the fact that great personal sacrifices had been made by many of them in their efforts to relieve the present distress. In justice to the landlords of Ireland, he had thought it right to say so much. He trusted the House would not disperse for the Recess in the spirit of the hon. Member for Galway, or with any idea in their minds that the landed distress in Ireland was viewed with unconcern by Her Majesty's Government, who had every desire to see what could be done to remedy it.

remarked, that the first stage of this Resolution was taken very late last night, and was passed pro formâ on the understanding that the subject should be discussed at a later stage, and that the present stage should be taken at a reasonable hour. There were many Members who exceedingly objected to the course which the Government proposed to take in the matter; and, therefore, if the present stage was to be also regarded as only a matter of form, he hoped that a full opportunity for discussion would be given at a later stage.

said, a full opportunity would be given; but it was desired to take that stage in order that the Bill might be printed. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had just given Notice of an Amendment on the second reading, which would, no doubt, raise a discussion.

regarded the present stage as purely formal.

opposed the Motion, remarking that he was sorry to offer any opposition to the majority of the Scotch Members; but his action was certainly not in opposition to the majority of the Scotch tenants. He had hoped that the Scotch Members would have thought better of it, and would not have persevered with a measure which affected the whole rights of property. He would not waste the time of the House by repeating the arguments which were manifestly against the Bill. His hon. Friend (Mr. Vans Agnew) said that the law, as it at present stood, gave the landlord greater protection than all the other creditors. Of course it did. The land during the lease was, in point of fact, made over to the tenant to do very much as he liked with, and the landlord ought to have prior claim for his rent over the tradesman who supplied the farmer with manure or with food and clothing. He much regretted that the Government had given their support to this Bill, and he trusted that even at that stage it would not be pressed.

also thought it very undesirable that a Bill of this kind should be hurried through the House without that full discussion which hitherto it had not received. Hitherto he had taken a somewhat neutral position on this question; but he must protest against the assertion that there was a universal feeling in Scotland in favour of this Bill. His doubts were not in the interest of landlords, and in that he did not share the feeling of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie Cochrane); but he thought the opinions of the Scottish people were not so unanimous as had been represented. The fact was, that although there had been, doubtless, a considerable agitation and a very strong feeling on the part of an influential class of largo farmers in support of the Bill, the remainder of the population were inactive, not understanding the nature, effect, or scope of the Bill, and thus not actually opposed to it. The constituency he represented was, of course, an urban constituency; but although they had been told that the passing of this Bill would be favourable to those who traded with farmers, he had failed to discover any enthusiasm in that constituency on the subject. He felt that those who had a practical knowledge of the matter would be more likely to understand it than he who had spent great part of his life away from Scotland; and if he had believed that any strong feeling existed in favour of the Bill, he might support it in deference to that feeling. Personally, as a matter of principle—and he had occasion to consider the matter narrowly—he did see great objection to the Bill as it now stood. He believed that if the measure passed in its present unqualified shape, it would render it exceedingly difficult to conduct necessary contracts between landlords and tenants, and especially in the case of the smaller tenants; and it was in the interest of the latter class that he asked that full consideration should be given to the subject. It must naturally result from the passing of this Bill that not only the larger rural hypothec, but the smaller hypothec and the urban hypothec, and also the Law of Distress in England, must be abolished. He was convinced that it was necessary to cut the Law of Hypothec clown to the narrowest limits; but if it were totally abolished, it would be illogical to retain the principle in any other form in any part of the Kingdom. It seemed to him, as the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) stated on a former occasion, that the conduct of the Government in the matter was open to the gravest suspicion, and that it was clearly the result of the prospect of the contest in Mid-Lothian. The Government could not honestly support the Bill, unless they were also prepared to support the proposition to abolish the Law of Distress in England and Ireland, and to abolish urban hypothec. He had consulted one of his constituents—a large grain merchant—who was likely to be well informed on the subject. That gentleman said to him—"You ought to support the Hypothec Bill." He replied—"That's all very well; but which is the Bill you would like me to support, because I could not approve of the abolition of hypothec without any restriction whatever?" The grain merchant said—"You are perfectly right; and he would be a fool who would propose simply to abolish the present hypothec, without something to take its place." That principle was universal in old countries, and also prevailed in new ones—America, for instance, and he doubted whether they could get rid of it.

thought it unnecessary that he should now meet arguments which had been already used and discussed. Those arguments had, in fact, been thoroughly thrashed out, not only this Session, but in previous Sessions; but in reply to the hon. Members for the Isle of Wight and Kirkcaldy, who said there was not a consensus of opinion on this point in Scotland, he would remind them of the Division which took place four years ago, when, out of 45 Scotch Members, 42 were in favour of the abolition of hypothec. Again, the second reading of the present Bill was carried by a majority of 127, and out of 49 Scotch Members who voted, 47 were in favour of the second reading. He thought that was a complete answer to those who said it was not the wish of the Scotch constituencies that this Bill should pass; and he was very sorry that a Bill which was so thoroughly wished for in Scotland should be opposed by hon. Members who either represented or came from Scotland.

said, he could not understand the views of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and must express his regret that the hon. Member had been so long out of the country, and had not had the benefit of the discussion on hypothec which had been going on for the last 20 years. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not require another 20 years to convert him on the question. As regarded the views of the smaller farmers, the hon. Member might safely leave that matter to the representatives of small farmers. The whole of the county Members, with one exception, had agreed that in the interest of the smaller farmers, as well as in that of the larger, hypothec ought to be abolished. With regard to the consideration of the question in the meantime, he hoped the Government, or their legal Representative in Scotland, would put Amendments on the Paper which would really deal with the somewhat difficult legal questions involved in this Bill. When the measure was in Committee he thought it went rather quickly through, and that the House had not proper time to consider it; for he doubted whether the legal Representative of the Government had, at the time, fully realized the effect of the Bill as it then passed. He thought even the hon. Member (Mr. Vans Agnew), who had charge of the Bill, did not at that time fully comprehend what would be the effect of his measure. He hoped, and thought, the House had a right to expect on such a question the legal Representative of the Government should become responsible for the amendment of the existing law, in order to carry out the intention of the House, without the risk of involving the country in great legal difficulties after the Bill became law. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to become responsible for the Amendments which appeared on the Paper, he had no objection to the Bill going through after admission on the question, whether Clause 2 stood part of the Bill, upon which he felt compelled to take the opinion of the House,

considered that after the principle of the Bill had been settled on the second reading, and the details of it in Committee, it was very hard, indeed, upon those in charge of the Bill that it should be stopped in this manner.

expressed an opinion that the Bill would place the tenant in a worse position than before. Instead of giving the landlord a remedy by distress, it gave him a remedy by ejectment; and it was, practically, an invitation to the landlord to put this extreme remedy in force.

was urging that the alterations which had been made in the Bill had rendered it as much a measure of pains and penalties as a measure of relief, when——