asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is, as has been stated, proposed to introduce the system of open competition in the appointment of the female clerks employed in the Savings Bank and other Departments of the Post Office?

In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, I am glad to be able to state that it has been decided to apply the system of open competition to the appointments to female clerkships in the Savings Bank and other Departments of the London, Dublin, and Edinburgh Post Offices. As the demand by women for employment is so great, I fear that the number of those who will compete for these appointments will, in all probability, so largely exceed the number to be disposed of that I am at the present time considering, in conjunction with the Civil Service Commissioners, whether some plan cannot be devised which will restrict the number of competitors within reasonable limits. Without pledging myself at the present moment to the adoption of any particular scheme, I think the object to which reference has just been made may be attained by confining the competition to those who have previously passed some public examination—such, for instance, as the University local examinations. The plan which has hitherto been adopted with regard to the appointments in the Savings Bank and Accountant General's Departments has been one of limited competition, three candidates being nominated for each appointment. When I took Office I found that a considerable number of ladies had been promised nominations by my Predecessor. As I was very reluctant to deprive these ladies of the promised opportunity of competing, I have kept them on my list; and I think it is only fair that they, and those whom I have myself nominated, should have a chance of competing before the system of open competition comes into operation. I will take care, however, that there shall be no unnecessary delay in bringing this system into working order, and due notice shall be given of the time when the first public examination will be held, and of the conditions which it will be necessary for the candidates to fulfil.

asked if facilities would be given for conducting a competitive examination at Dublin as well as in London, so that candidates would not be obliged to come to London?

That is a question which rather rests with the Civil Service Commissioners than myself; but I can assure the hon. Member that, as far as I am concerned, I will do everything in my power to give every person a fair chance of competing without subjecting them to the unnecessary trouble of travelling hundreds of miles to London.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the Corporation of London are now preparing to erect, in the centre of one of the busiest parts of Fleet Street, an edifice to commemorate the site of Temple Bar; whether an information of intrusion under the Act 28 and 29 Vic. c. 104, will lie at the suit of the Attorney General against the Corporation of London in respect of this contemplated erection as causing an obstruction; and, whether he is prepared to exhibit such information?

in reply, said, he was not aware that the Corporation had the intention referred to until he saw the Notice of that Question. It was not a matter which would have officially come before him in any way. On the Question appearing upon the Paper, however, a representative of the Corporation com- municated with him; and stated that the Corporation intended to erect a refuge in the centre of the roadway where Temple Bar was formerly situated, and the effect would be that the roadway would form two roads 17 feet 2 inches wide, instead of one 40 feet in width. In the centre of the refuge there would be the memorial commemorating the existence of Temple Bar. The Corporation claimed their right legally to erect such a refuge and memorial, alleging that they had the permission of the Commissioners of Sewers and also that of the representatives of the Highways of the Strand district; while the Government, as represented by the Metropolitan Board of Works, also gave their permission. Under these circumstances, he did not consider it his duty to take any steps in the matter.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in view of "The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854,"s. 20, and the 24 and 25 Vic. c. 66, it is not the duty of justices in Quarter or Petty Sessions to allow any person tendered as a witness in criminal or civil procedure, who shall be unwilling to take an oath and allege a conscientious objection, to give evidence on making the solemn affirmation or declaration provided by those statutes?

in reply, said, he thought he had answered the Question more than once. By the Acts mentioned in the Question, and by other statutes, if any person had a conscientious objection to take an oath, he was entitled to make an affirmation in the circumstances referred to, and the magistrates ought to allow him to make such affirmation.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to the 176,602 shares and 300 shares in the Suez Canal Company, mentioned in a Treasury Minute dated July 17th, 1876, In whose names the said several shares now stand on the register of shareholders of the said Company, whether each or any of the persons in whose names the said shares now stand has executed a declaration of the trusts on which they respectively hold the said shares; whether the statutes of the said Suez Canal Company recognize any trust in shares; whether the said shares are not subject in all respects to French Law; and, whether, in the event of any of the persons in whose names the said shares now stand dying, or becoming bankrupt or insolvent, the shares standing in such person's name would not be part of the general estate of the person so dying or becoming insolvent?

The Suez Canal shares do not stand in any names, being payable to bearer. A Director qualifies by the actual deposit at the offices of the Company of 100 shares, which cannot be withdrawn, except upon production of the document which he receives in return. In the case of the British Directors, these documents were handed over to, and are now in the possession of, the Treasury, which Department, therefore, has absolute hold over the shares, receives the dividends thereon, and, in the event of a change in the Directors, could withdraw the 100 shares in order to qualify the new Director. It was originally the intention of the Treasury that, in addition to the declaration of trust, a bond with sureties should be executed by each Director; but in the circumstances already mentioned, it was obviously unnecessary. The Suez Canal, not being situated in France, the shares are not subject to the law of France, in which country the Company is registered as a foreign Company. The 176,602 shares being payable to bearer, have been deposited in the Bank of England; and under the Act 39 & 40, Vie. c. 67, are vested in the Treasury, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, her Heirs and Successors, intrust for public purposes. In the event, therefore, of the demise of the Sovereign, these shares would pass to her Heirs and Successors in trust for public purposes.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, If there is any intention to remove Millbank Prison, and to erect a new Mint upon the site, or to appropriate it as a public garden?

It is intended to close Millbank as a convict prison when the new convict prison now building at Wormwood Scrubbs, by convict labour, is finished; but it will be some years before such transfer can be made. The Directors have not made any proposal, for the Secretary of State's approval, regarding the disposal of Mill-bank when no longer required as a convict prison.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If an Allied Naval Demonstration is to take place in the Adriatic; and, if so, if he will state the names of the Powers whose forces will be assembled for that purpose, the number of ships to be employed, the arrangements as to the command in chief, and the objects of the proposed demonstration?

My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated yesterday in "another place" what has occurred in reference to the Montenegrin Frontier. In consequence of the failure of the Porte to carry into effect the agreement arrived at in April last, a Collective Note was presented by the Great Powers to the Porte, insisting either on the execution of that arrangement, or on the cession of the town and district of Dulcigno to the Prince of Montenegro. To that Collective Note two replies have been returned by the Porte, the one verbal, the other in writing. It is a question of some doubt whether the effect of those two replies is identical; and the joint answer of the Great Powers to it is now under consideration. The Powers have, however, decided to send a certain number of vessels to the port of Ragusa, which has been placed by the Austrian Government at their disposal, as being conveniently situated, and near to the sea coast which is proposed to be surrendered to Montenegro. In accordance with that decision, the Admiral of the Fleet has been ordered to proceed with the flag-ship and one other ironclad and a despatch boat to Ragusa; and similar orders have been given by the other five Great Powers to the officers commanding their Fleets. As to the details of the arrangements, or the instructions which it is proposed to give to the Admiral, it is, as the House will see, in present circumstances, impossible for me to enter into any detailed explanation. My noble Friend added that Papers on the subject would be laid on the Table before the end of the Session.

Would the noble Lord state what is the object of the proposed demonstration?

I think I could scarcely answer that Question without going into further details on the proposed action than I think it would be desirable to do.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any copy at the Colonial Office of the letter which is stated by Messrs. Kenyon and Joubert, on page 46a of c. 2676, to have been addressed by the Transvaal Boer Committee to Mr. Gladstone a few weeks before May 10th, 1880; and, whether that letter, together with the reply, will be presented to Parliament?

The Colonial Office does not possess the first Paper referred to; but I shall be happy to give the second one.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the fact that, under the provisions of the Royal Warrant on Promotion, 1878, captains of twenty years' service having reached forty years of age have to retire, while in many cases captains who are junior to them in their regiments, and who benefit by their retirements, are of greater age; and, whether he does not think it would be more just to enforce retirement on account of age alone, instead of age and service?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me an abstract Question, whether age or length of service ought, in my opinion, to determine the time of compulsory retirement. If he will do me the favour to refer to the system of retirement from the Navy which I established in 1870, he will see that I think age the better criterion. But I will not undertake to alter, after such short experience, the entire system of retirement from the Army where it depends on length of service.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state to the House, approximately, the amount of the annuity proposed to be created under the Savings Banks (No. 1) Bill, for the discharge of the deficiency of £3,565,000, assumed to exist in the funds of the Trustee Savings Banks, as shown in the Return, No. 200, of this Session; if he will also explain to the House the manner in which it is proposed to deal with the amount to be received by the National Debt Commissioners, so as to extinguish the deficiency; if he will state the present actuarial value of the annuity, assuming the rate of interest to be 3¼ per cent. whether it is proposed to deal with the Post Office Savings Bank Fund on the principles laid down in the Bill; and, whether any steps will be taken to provide for the deficiency of £1,264,000, shown on the Friendly Societies Account?

My right hon. Friend asks his Question on the assumption that the amount of the deficiency to be provided for under the Savings Banks (No. 1) Bill is £3,565,000, which is the amount of deficiency which existed on November 20, 1879, as shown by the Return, No. 200, of this Session. But the deficiency to be dealt with is that which will be ascertained to exist on the 20th of November next, by valuation in accordance with the Bill, plus the deficiency of interest on the year ending on the same date. Probably, however, the capital amount will not vary very materially from the amount on the 20th of November last; and, assuming that sum, the amount of the annuity, calculated at 3 ¼ per cent as directed in the Bill, which would be required to extinguish that amount in 28 years, may be stated at £80,000 per annum. The annuity to be added in respect of the deficiency of interest for the present year will probably require £1,600 or £1,700 a-year more. We may probably, therefore, state the whole annuity to be created at about £82,000. The National Debt Commissioners will deal with this annuity by investing it and placing it to the account. The accounts will be laid before Parliament yearly, showing the progress of the fund. The present actuarial value of the annuity, assuming the rate of interest to be 3¼ per cent. may be stated at about £1,500,000. This calculation may create misapprehension; and I would, therefore, point out that the Government propose to set aside such a sum yearly as, invested at 3¼ per cent. will produce in 28 years the amount deficient. The operation will not be complete, and the deficiency will not have been made good, until the close of the period for which the annuity is granted. The Government have not analyzed the state of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund upon the principle laid down in the Savings Bank Bill. If, in doing so, they find that satisfactory provision has not been made to prevent the occurrence of deficiency, they will take steps to make such provision. No steps are being taken at present to extinguish the deficiency shown on the Friendly Societies Account; but the Prime Minister alluded to it as a matter to be dealt with hereafter.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any further information has been received as to the advance of General Roberts?

I received several telegrams after the one I read yesterday, but they are all published in the newspapers. I have received no intelligence this morning.

I desire to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have not hitherto given public Notice, but of which I have given private Notice— namely, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter of Musurus Bey, in the morning papers, asserting that the statement that the Ottoman Porte was endeavouring to incite the religious feel- ing of the Mussulman population in India against the British Power is totally devoid of foundation?

My attention has been called to the letter in question, and I have little doubt that that letter was written by Musurus Bey, the Turkish Charge d'Affaires, under orders from Constantinople, without immediate reference to, and probably without knowledge of, the statements which have been made in this House. I can only say I have nothing to add to what I have previously stated.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether he would, before the Recess, lay on the Table the Papers relating to the Fortune Bay dispute?

in reply, said, that the Correspondence up to the present date on this matter would be laid on the Table as a matter of form, so as to enable the remainder of the Correspondence, if furnished during the vacation, to be presented before Parliament met again.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he could state what arrangements he proposed to make for providing a refreshment bar for strangers, so that the present bar could be used exclusively by Members?

apologised for his absence from the House on the previous day, and said he quite admitted the inconvenience of the limited accommodation of the present bar. The matter should receive his careful consideration, and he thought he could devise some remedy which would prove satisfactory for next Session.

presented a Petition signed by the Lord Mayor and the former Lord Mayors and Sheriffs and Aldermen of the City of York against trading by Crown servants, and in doing so, asked Whether the Corporation of York could not have been allowed the same privilege of presenting it at the Bar of the House as was now enjoyed by the younger Corporation of the City of London?

Before you answer that Question, Sir, I wish to ask whether the members of any other Corporation besides that of the City of London have the privilege of using, for social purposes, the dining-rooms of the House of Commons?

should also like to ask—[Cries of" Order!"]

With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Chelsea, I have to say that the Corporation of London and the Corporation of Dublin have the privilege of presenting Petitions at the Bar of this House, but that this privilege is limited to those two Corporations.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has received information of the refusal, in June last, of Captain D'Arcy, of H.M.S. "Shannon," to convey Mrs. Pennington, a distressed British subject, from Callao to the Port of Chimbote at the time of the threatened bombardment of the former place; whether it is true that Captain Medleycott, of the "Turquoise," also declined to receive on board a number of distressed British subjects who wished to be conveyed to a place of safety; whether he is aware that, at the same time, passages were given in both ships to several foreigners; and, whether he is able to explain why these ladies and gentlemen should have been taken on board British vessels of war, while the applications which H.M. Consul at Callao, made on behalf of British subjects, including several women and children, were refused?

in reply, said, no information had been received at the Admiralty on the matter; but a few days ago a representation was forwarded from the Foreign Office to the British Consul at Callao, directing attention to the subject, and requesting him to ask for an explanation from the commanding officer of the Shannon.

called the attention of Mr. Attorney General to the discrepancy between the two following descriptions of a Railway, given on the the part of the Board of Inland Revenue:— 1. By Mr. Melvile, Solicitor of Inland Revenue, in his evidence before the Railway Passenger Duty Committee, 1876:—

"A Railway means in this Act of Parliament (2 and 3 Will. 4, c. 120), and in all subsequent legislation, a proprietary Railway. It does not mean a Railroad laid along an ordinary highway; for instance, it does not include Tramways, as we know them now …It would seem by what I explained to the Committee before that the term Railroad embraces a Tramway just as well as what we commonly call a Railway, but it really only embraces a proprietary Railway.…Now I come to Section 50, which says 'The proprietor or company of proprietors of every Railway in Great Britain,' that led me to say, therefore, that the word Railway means a proprietary Railway; you could not apply that to a Tramway made upon a high road …;"

"Railway Passenger Duty is not levied on Tramways under the circumstances alluded to by my hon. friend (when they belong to Municipal Corporations), because the Board of Inland Revenue are advised that, not only on the particular ground stated (the limitation of the proprietorship of the Tramway Company to the rails), but as a general question of law, Tramway Companies are not liable to the Duty;"

in reply, said, he believed that the view taken by the Board of Inland Revenue in charging the duty on railway passengers was that the Company so charged were the owners of the railway. That being so, it was necessary that there should be an actual ownership of the railway, in order to bring it within the scope of the Act. The Board were advised that in the case of tramways there was no such actual ownership, since the place where the rails were laid was the street or highway, and so the passengers conveyed upon such tramways did not come within the operation of the Act. He might add that the Prime Minister had already promised the Railway Passenger Duty Abolition Committee that the present state of the law should be considered by the Government, and that the Board of Inland Revenue had already been ordered to do so.

said, that after a good deal of watching he had been seriously puzzled by the policy of successive Governments in regard to South Africa. This was not a Party question, for there had been a continuity of policy, and from his point of view there had been too much continuity. He had some distrust of the permanent policy of the Colonial Office. Successive Secretaries of State and Under Secretaries—and this applied particularly to his right hon. Friend the present Under Secretary—had always come in with the best intentions; but, somehow, it appeared to him that in the course of time their action hardly corresponded with their intentions, and they acted in the high-handed manner which was, perhaps, in some degree necessary in dealing with these subjects. What he might term the permanent spirit of the Colonial Office was somewhat too favourable to the White as distinguished from the Black Colonists. He was, however, far from asserting that their countrymen in the Colonies were particularly wicked or aggressive. A large proportion were Scotchmen, and he always found that they treated the Natives fairly; and if they did not get too much law—if they did not get too much control over the Natives—they were amenable to reason. He thought the despatch of Sir Garnet Wolseley, dated February the 13th last, ought to be pondered and well-considered by the Colonial Office. He had paid a great deal of attention to the subject of the Native races. After a visit to America, he came back with a sanguine view of the prospects of the negro race. The negro, when tamed and civilized, became a respectable member of society of the Nonconformist religious type. In the great American Republic there were something like 4,000,000 of Blacks out of a population of 40,000,000. Yet the Americans had had enormous difficulty in governing the Coloured population. How much greater must be the difficulty in South Africa? There the proportion was at least 10 Blacks to one White. Could it be safe to intrust the government of that large Black population to so small a minority? Could they thus solve a problem which had proved so difficult in America? It seemed to him that there was great difficulty in granting a responsible Government in such circumstances. What was called a responsible Government, would, in effect, be an independent Government. The policy of the present and the late Government with regard to South Africa, as far as he (Sir George Campbell) could gather from the Blue Books, was to give independent government to each of the Colonies so far as its internal affairs were concerned; and to make over questions of their external relations to a Confederation of the Colonies. He thought that a very great step had been made by the Cape Colony towards doing justice to the Coloured races, and that the views of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Colony might possibly be justified. But in Natal and the Transvaal it seemed to him that independent government had been tried and had failed. In Natal, a few years ago, troubles and disturbances arose. There had been such injustice done to the Native races that the Government had found it necessary to interfere with a high hand, and Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent there and effected a great change. But when the Home Government had not interfered, the result had been that the constitution had been so far successful that the Colonial Government had been able to set the Home Government at defiance. It would appear from a despatch received from Sir Garnet Wolseley on the state of Natal, that the Natives had, in no sense, any direct representation in the administration of that Colony. In fact, the despatch showed that the Black population of Natal, amounting to 400,000, as against 21,000 Whites, was totally unrepresented. That system constituted the worst type of oligarchy which could be found in the whole world. The result, socially, was of the most painful and dangerous character. He believed the system would end in the practical enslavement of the Coloured population. He believed that the government of so large a number of Blacks by a small colony of Englishmen would be productive, not only of injustice to the Blacks, but of dangerous consequences to the British Empire. He thought the best course would be to establish a British dominion which should be responsible and independent of the Colonists, and administered by persons sent from England. He should like to give the Colony self-government as far as the White population was concerned, and to remove the rest of the Natal territory, which was principally inhabited by Natives, from the administration of White Colonists, and place it under special British administration. He thought it was now generally admitted that the circumstances of the annexation of the Transvaal were a mistake, and that the annexation was founded upon insufficient and erroneous information. But now that the enemies of the Transvaal had been conquered, and the fear of being overwhelmed by the Natives removed from the eyes of the White Colonists, it would, he admitted, be quite impossible to restore to the White inhabitants of the Transvaal the whole of the country which bore that name on the maps. These maps were, to a great extent, wrong, and included tracts of land which had never been under the rule of the White Colonists. As a matter of fact, the White Settlers had of late years receded from the limits they at one time reached. In the Transvaal, as well as in Natal, the jurisdiction of the White men might with advantage be limited to the country really colonized by them. He suggested that this should be done, and that then we should say to the Colonists—"We will put you inexactly the same position as that occupied by the Orange Free State; we will make you independent in your limited territory, and then you may consider whether in order to cope with hostile tribes or to meet other difficulties you will join a Confederation of the British Colonies under the British Crown." So much with regard to the internal government of these Colonies. With reference to the external government of the Colonies, he pointed out that even if they were confederated their expenses would be so great that he did not think they would care to take the responsibility of the management of their own affairs. The Government, indeed, had determined to hand over the responsibility of Confederation to the Cape Colony; but he doubted whether that Colony would undertake it. Coming now to the financial part of the subject before the House, he would call attention to the fact that the £2,000 that appeared upon the Votes by no means represented the real financial responsibility that was undertaken by this country. There was much expense incurred in connection with Natal that was not placed before the House. He referred to the late war at the Cape, which was undertaken by the Colonists in their own interests, but the British Government had to pay for it. English troops were sent out at the expense of the British Treasury, until there were at present in Natal and the Transvaal 5,000 regular soldiers, and yet we had to pay for the Colonial troops as well. Not a farthing of the expense incurred through them appeared among the Estimates. To disguise and conceal that expense in the general Military Estimates of the country was hardly a fair way of dealing with the House. The results, he might add, of our existing relations with the Colonists were that we in the end always had to pay the piper. Certainly the Government was told the Colony would pay for their own troops; and, in fact, they had promised to pay £40,000 a-month, but with the exception of paying a first instalment they had not paid a farthing. He was strongly convinced that the Government would not get another penny for the cost of that war out of the Colony, and if we ever became involved in another war we should be placed in the same condition. He did not think that we could satisfactorily get rid of our responsibilities in South Africa as we wished to do it. Africa was not like New Zealand, where there was an increasing White and a diminishing Native population. The circumstances in South Africa were totally different, for the Native population was constantly increasing, and his fear was that the Colonists might become involved with the Natives in some quarrel, and that the result would be that the Whites would be beaten. The Government could not, of course, allow the White Colonists to be driven out by the Natives; and the result would be that we should have to send over troops to their assistance, for which they would be unable to pay, and which would, therefore, have to be paid by the British taxpayers. If it was possible to get rid of the responsibility of our South African Colonies, his opinion was that it would be better to openly assume it ourselves. He would mark out clearly the limit of each Colony, and give it a separate Government; and then, if we could not get rid of our responsibility, his idea was that it would be the cheapest and best way out of the difficulty to take it directly upon our shoulders. It was in that view that he had submitted his views to the House; and he considered that if it was possible to carry out some such system as he had indicated, we might really be doing great benefits to humanity, and establish a dominion in South Africa of which we might be proud.

would, with the permission of the House, address himself, in the first place, to one or two of the many questions involved in a discussion upon the government of South Africa—a discussion which he regretted could not have been raised at an earlier period of the Session—upon which there was little, if any, difference of opinion. And, first, as to Natal. He believed it to be the opinion of most hon. Members upon both sides of the House that it would be, in the highest degree, inexpedient to grant responsible government to that Colony. He entirely concurred in the view taken by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) in his despatch to Sir George P. Colley of the 27th May last, and believed those arguments to be unanswerable. He thought the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was under some misapprehension as to the former Government of Natal. There never had been responsible government there, but only a representative government, which was something between a responsible government and a Crown Colony government. This representative government had not altogether worked well, because the Legislative Council, without having proper responsibility as an executive body, had been able, in many cases, to thwart the policy of the Colonial Government. But it would be difficult now to make any alteration in it which would give more power to the Government. Secondly, as to Confederation. He (Sir Henry Holland) would urge upon Her Majesty's Government to be patient, and not to put any further pressure upon the Colonies to pass any measure of Confederation. They all desired to see Confederation of the South African Colonies; but the movement in that direction must now come from the Colonies. They must themselves be convinced of the advantages that would arise to them from Confederation; and any pressure from the Home Government would only defeat the desired object, and tend to increase the not unnatural jealousy which the Colonists felt of interference in their affairs. They were proud of the great Dominion of Canada; proud of its strength and prosperity; but they must remember that that Dominion was not built up in a day; that the difficulties which had to be overcome were very great, as those who framed the North America Act of 1869 could testify; and that, even after it was formed and welded into one body, one of the Provinces—Nova Scotia—tried to get free again from the union. They must, therefore, wait patiently, holding themselves ready, however, to give every assistance, by advice or legislation, whichever might be desired. Turning now to other subjects which had been brought before the House, he (Sir Henry Holland) desired to say a few words with respect to the recall of Sir Bartle Frere. It would be in the recollection of some hon. Members that he (Sir Henry Holland) had felt it his duty, by speech and vote, to protest against the course pursued by the late Government in that matter. He held then, and still held, the opinion that Sir Bartle Frere, able and zealous as he was, had committed the gravest error that could be committed by a Colonial Governor, in plunging this country into war without the previous sanction or authority of the Home Government. The error in this case was the greater, because the war was, in his opinion, unnecessary and unjust. He would not, at that time, repeat the reasons upon which he founded that opinion, but would content himself with one observation. The main ground of justification for the war, which was advanced by Sir Bartle Frere, was that there was imminent danger of an invasion of Natal by the Zulus. That was always disputed by the Lieutenant Governor of Natal (Sir Henry Bulwer), who surely was in a better position to form an opinion upon the point than those at the Cape; and now, after full consideration of the question, and after any feeling upon the point must have sub- sided, they found Sir Henry Bulwer, in his despatch to the right hon. Baronet the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), of April 4th, 1880, distinctly stating that—

"So far as regards the chances of an invasion of Natal territory by the Zulus, I believed then, and I believe now, that such a movement had never so much as entered into the counsels of the Zulu King and Chiefs, and that it would have been entirely repugnant to the views of the greater portion of the Zulu nation."

"We not only did not anticipate the danger of an invasion by the Zulus, but considered that any overt act committed by us in the way of military demonstration would he a mistake, as being far more likely to bring about war and trouble than to prevent them."

"When we can see our own way clearly in regard to the prosecution of that policy of Confederation, then it will he our duty to consider generally and at large our relations to Sir Bartle Frere, and to decide in regard to that great and able man, from whom we have differed so widely, whether we can leave him to be our Representative, and he responsible for his acts in the South African Colonics. That is not in the slightest degree prejudged…We have done and said nothing which tics us up to any particular judgment as to the continuance of Sir Bartle Frere in the office of Governor and Commissioner in South Africa, except so far as relates to the important course of proceeding which has been fixed and determined on with reference to the initiation of Confederation‖It will he our duty to make an impartial, dispassionate, and perfectly unprejudiced examination of that question when the time comes."—[3 Hansard, cclii. 462–3.]

"The Pondos will see that they will not be permitted to act arbitrarily and unjustly to other Tribes;"

"We are bound to grant redress to the Xesibes —this is a condition of their subjection to us, and nothing has tended so much to lower us in Native estimation as the manner in which we have submitted to the Pondos."

"To compel restitution of stolen cattle, and compensation, is purely a police duty, and not one upon which Her Majesty's forces should be employed;"

"Anxious to keep Her Majesty's forces aloof from small tribal disputes."

"The disputes between the tribes in Pondoland seem to me mainly cattle-stealing affairs, which should be treated as police matters…I see no reason why they should not be dealt with by the Colonial Magistrates and police, and you should discourage any expectation that Her Majesty's troops will be employed in redressing such local disorders."

"To give the Cape Government power to take all necessary steps for supporting the authority of the Crown in, and for legislating in the Colonial Parliament for Pondoland, and other Coast districts."

"gave a general Sovereign authority as controlling the Chief in his external relations, but leaving him at liberty to govern his own people in his own way, within his own territory."

"Wishing to live in peace gives his word and promise that he will, as far as possible, avoid making war on any of the surrounding tribes, and will endeavour to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, and in case of violation of his just rights he will call on the Colonial Government to mediate."

"The Pondos bound themselves to a position of subordination to the British Government."

said, that the recall of Sir Bartle Frere had been alluded to frequently in the course of the debate, and on that (the Liberal) side of the House, at least, his recall had given pretty general, if not universal, satisfaction. But the satisfaction of some hon. Members would have been greater had the recall taken place immediately after the accession to Office of the present Government. And it was argued on the other side of the House that the recall would have been more defensible then than it was now. But he did not himself find any fault with the course pursued. A Colonial Governor might be recalled because the Government condemned his proceedings; or because they considered him an unfit instrument to carry out their policy. Although he yielded to none in condemnation of the Zulu War, it had never appeared to him to have been the duty of the present Government to recall Sir Bartle Frere as a punishment for his action in regard to that War. When they came into power it had already been decided by the then existing Government and Parlia- ment, that Sir Bartle Frere ought not to be recalled; and to have suddenly reversed that decision, simply because there had been a change in the relative strength of political parties at home would have been to establish a precedent of evil influence in the government of the Colonies. The Government had, however, sufficient justification for recalling Sir Bartle Frere, upon the ground that he was not fitted to be the agent of their policy in South Africa. He was not a Governor of a supple type: he possessed in large measure the quality which friends call firmness and enemies obstinacy; Ministries and policies might change at home, but Sir Bartle Frere would not change with them. The spirit which inspired him to indite his vehement phillipics against Cetewayo, still breathed in his despatches respecting the Pondo tribe, the disarmament of the Basutos, and the appropriation of Moirosi's territory. The Papers laid before the House showed how wide was the divergence in the views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and those of the Governor; how great was the estrangement of policy existing between them. To have promptly recalled Sir Bartle Frere would, therefore, have been the proper recourse of Lord Kimberley but for the question of Confederation. It was a critical moment in the history of that question; the recall of Sir Bartle Frere in May or June would have weakened the hands of the Cape Government in dealing with it, and left the Home Government open to the charge of helping to defeat a measure which they had pressed upon the colonists as one of first importance. Looking, therefore, at all the circumstances, he could not but think that the proper course had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. With respect to the withdrawal of the allowance of £2,000 a-year, it appeared to him (Mr. Wodehouse) that that allowance was never meant to last throughout the entire term of Sir Bartle Frere's Administration; it was intended only that he should have it in the early years of his government, when he had to travel far and wide, and when his absences from Cape Town would be long and frequent. When Natal, the Transvaal, and Zululand had been taken from him, he had no longer to visit those distant Colonies, and as his travelling expenses within the Cape Colony were paid for by that Colony, the reasons for the allowance ceased. Notwithstanding the receipt of this £2,000 a year, intended to cover travelling expenses, Sir Bartle Frere had presented a bill for £3,800 spent in travelling. Evidently he had regarded the £2,000 a year, not as a travelling allowance, but as an increase of salary for special powers and responsibilities. Sir Bartle Frere had dwelt upon the immense difficulties and the bitterness of the prejudices and party spirit with which he had had to contend; but this was only the perennial condition of affairs in South Africa. Sir Bartle Frere also spoke of the heavy expenses imposed upon him by social duties; but he was not the first or only Governor expected to be hospitable. If the salary of the Governor of the Cape Colony was inadequate, it ought to be raised at the expense of the Colony; and until it were raised, the Governor ought to cut his coat according to his cloth. He hoped that the bill of £3,800 would be dealt with by the House in a generous spirit. But he doubted whether the records of the Colonial Office for many a long year contained any parallel case of such unsanctioned expenditure by a Colonial Governor. And now a few words upon Confederation, and two points intimately connected with it— namely, responsible government and the withdrawal of Imperial troops from South Africa. All the omens were against the accomplishment of confederation within any definite or measurable distance of time. Hon. Members who had read the recent debate in the Cape House of Assembly would have noticed how timid and faltering was the advocacy of Confederation by the very colonial Prime Minister who professed to stand or fall by it. He condemned the manner in which the question had been brought forward by Lord Carnarvon, and had not a word to say for the South Africa Confederation Act passed by Parliament in 1877. He assured the Cape Assembly that the Conference which he proposed would pledge them to nothing, and yet he failed to carry his proposal. Neither standing nor falling by Confederation, he ran away from his guns when he agreed to a Motion for the Previous Question. No doubt, the failure of the scheme had been attributed to the annexation of the Transvaal and the settlement of Zululand. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) believed the annexation of the Transvaal to have had a fatal effect on Confederation; and the hon. Member's Boer correspondents took credit to themselves for having done much to make the Conference a failure. Mr. Sprigg and other speakers in the Cape Assembly had blamed the recent settlement of Zululand, and represented it to be very prejudicial to Confederation. But, from his own knowledge of South Africa, he (Mr. Wodehouse) thought there was an undercurrent of insincerity running throughout that debate on Confederation. The truth was, Confederation had never found any genuine adhesion in the Cape Colony. The population of the Western Province, being exempt from Native difficulties and dangers, were naturally slow to bind themselves for better, for worse, to places where there were great masses of Natives. Even the ostensible friends of Confederation in the Cape Colony had always had some ulterior motive. An English Party in the Eastern Province hailed it as a stepping-stone to a separation from the Western Province; and a Dutch Party favoured it because they looked upon it as likely to fulfil their dream of "Africa for the Africanders," and prepare the way for a large independent South African Republic. The difficulties in the way of Confederation became apparent when they realized with what different aims and wishes the question was approached on this side and on that side of the ocean. We in England desired to relieve the British taxpayer from the burden of maintaining the internal defence of those Colonies, and, at the same time, we were anxious to secure the just treatment of the Natives. But while the Colonists claimed protection they demanded to be allowed to manage the Natives in their own way. Their idea was to have a maximum of independence in the management of their own affairs, with a minimum of responsibility for the consequences of their acts. As Mr. Sprigg, the Colonial Prime Minister, said, his policy was to be free from Imperial control, and if South Africa was to be governed successfully it was not to be governed from London. At the same time, he was certain to insist on the most generous terms as to the use of the money and the men of the Home Government. But surely government from London was a better thing, where the Natives of the Colony were restless and warlike and greatly outnumbered the European Settlers, than government by local politicians infected with every local passion and prejudice against the Natives, but comparatively secure from the consequences of their own errors in the protection of troops for which they did not pay. It was no easy matter to withdraw our troops from South Africa, as experience showed, for the upshot of all the pressure brought to bear by successive Secretaries of State had been absolutely nothing. Twenty-seven years ago the Duke of Newcastle was telling the Colonists they ought to undertake their own defence; and 13 years ago Lord Carnarvon called on the Cape Government to pay £40 for every infantry and £70 for every artillery soldier. Nevertheless, nothing had as yet been done in that direction. There were 5,000 troops now maintained in South Africa at the Imperial expense. As he feared that the prospect of withdrawing the troops was very remote, and as Confederation had just received a very heavy blow, he hoped the Government would be in no haste to extend the area of self-government in South Africa, and that they would be slow to part with the power of effective control in the administration of dependencies, whose internal defence continued to be an Imperial burden. Why was it that Ceylon, which never gave trouble, contributed a sum sufficient to pay for the entire military expenditure of the Island; while the Cape Colony, upon which we had lavished millions and millions, never contributed more than £10,000 a-year to the Imperial military expenditure? Because the Home Government retained full administrative control over the Government of Ceylon, and had parted with that control over the Cape Colony. He did not go so far as to say that responsible government should be withdrawn from the Cape Colony, but he hoped that we should proceed with extreme caution in Natal and the Transvaal; and if the Colonial Office required greater powers of control there, he trusted that Parliament would not refuse to grant such powers. He regretted that in Natal they were about to return to a Constitution of the worst kind; an half-and-half Constitution, in which the local politicians and Legislature had not the sense of responsibility induced by responsible Govern- ment, but in which they had sufficient power to thwart the policy of the Home Government. He had felt some doubts as to the expediency of retaining the Transvaal; but, upon the whole, he believed it to be the better policy not to abandon it. He would remind the hon. Member for Liskeard that the see- saw policy of undoing one day what they did the day before had been tried more than once in South Africa with questionable results. About half a century ago Lord Glenelg reversed an annexation of Transkeian territory. At a later date British sovereignty was proclaimed over the Orange River territories, and the sovereignty was subsequently withdrawn. But in those cases the reversal of policy led to so much embarrassment, and gave rise to so much ill-feeling, that the Government ought to be cautious before they added one more to the series of such measures. For his own part, he deprecated any hasty extension of the powers of self-government in the Transvaal. There were great elements of disorder there, and when things went wrong the mischief would have to be repaired at Imperial expense. Indeed, he hoped that, whether it were in the Transvaal or elsewhere in the British Dominions, the support of Parliament would never be wanting to the Home Government, not only when it called upon Colonists to bear their fair share of burdens, but also when it claimed full control of the administration of dependencies where there were grave elements of danger, and where the remedies in case of trouble had to be applied at Imperial cost. He believed the more that South African questions were looked into by hon. Members, the more fully would their complexity be appreciated; and the more would it be recognized that they were worthy to receive the attention of the best wisdom and statesmanship which could be found upon either side of the House.

said, the last two speakers had expressed approval of the recall of Sir Bartle Frere, who he considered had been treated in a way which was unjust to him as a man; while, in the treatment he had received, a wrong had been done not only to the Colony, but to the nation. He would, in touching upon this question, ask the House to remember the circumstances under which Sir Bartle Frere was appointed. The condition of things in South Africa was supposed to be one of great difficulty, and the Secretary of State for the time being had to look round for a man having the qualities necessary for the position of High Commissioner, and he selected the man who had shown he was able, courageous, and humane, and that his antecedents were such as promised well for his government in the difficult position in which he was to be placed. There was one point, however, that had not been touched upon, and that was the question of discretion. When His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales went to India Sir Bartle Frere was selected for the difficult post of his adviser; and when he was appointed his praises were naturally sung by those who appointed him; and in 1878 the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said, in a speech he then delivered, that in the Governor of the Colony of South Africa they had a man whom they could entirely trust for his motives, his sense, and his ability to deal with the most difficult case, and that it would be difficult to find another man with such a combination of feelings of justice and of firmness. That being so, it naturally occurred to anyone that, before condemning the action of Sir Bartle Frere in South Africa, hon. Members should consider whether he really possessed the qualities he was believed to possess, and for the exercise of which in India he had been twice thanked by Parliament, and whether a man who was possessed of all those qualities could have suddenly become, as it were, demented, and all those qualities have disappeared. Instead of condemning him, hon. Members would do well to consider whether they had not themselves taken a mistaken view of his conduct in that country. At the time of his appointment the Colonists were in a state of panic, a Defence Commission was appointed, there were demands for arms and troops, the Cape Frontier was in a blaze, and there were raids from Zululand. In consequence of the fear of the Zulus, Colonists were fleeing and taking refuge in the towns; and, as a general officer told him, the state of things was such that a White man in Natal who was not afraid of the Zulus was regarded as a curiosity. Cetewayo was supposed to be the Zulu of Zulus, and to be about to restore that country to the state it was in under its original founder Chaka. That was the state of things Sir Bartle Frere found when he went out there. He went out first to settle the question of the boundary between Zululand and the Transvaal, and he found an award given which he might confirm, nullify, or modify; and he modified it because he found it ignored some 80 or 90 settlers who were to be handed over to the Zulu Government without compensation for disturbance or security for the future. He modified that award to the extent of giving them the security which, as British subjects, they were entitled to. But, on inquiry, he found the state of things in that part of the country so intolerable, and the danger was considered so imminent that, after consultation with those in authority on the spot, with Sir The ophilus Shepstone, Sir Henry Bulwer, Lord Chelmsford, and with Admiral Sullivan, he came to the conclusion that it was necessary that state of things, if possible, should be grasped, that the state of imminent danger to the Colonies should cease; and he thereupon drew up terms that were submitted to the Zulu King. He confessed it was with extreme surprise he heard the despatch of Sir Henry Bulwer referred to by the hon. Member for Midhurst, in which Sir Henry Bulwer said that, after full deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that there was no necessity for the action taken at the time by Sir Bartle Frere, especially when the same Sir Henry Bulwer had given his consent to the action taken by Sir Bartle Frere as completely as it was given by Lord Chelmsford, Admiral Sullivan, and Sir Theophilus Shepstone.

What Sir Henry Bulwer said was, that there was no chance of the invasion of Natal by the Zulus.

said, whether there was a danger of invasion or not, Sir Henry Bulwer concurred at that time in thinking that something must be done to disperse the thunder-cloud of the Zulu Army, and that it was a case for active as distinguished from passive defence. He knew for an absolute fact that Sir Henry Bulwer was acquainted with the terms offered to Cetywayo, and corrected them himself, having them in his possession for 24 hours before they were sent. He would read the words of Sir Henry Bulwer himself, as they appeared in a despatch written December 16, 1878, when the terms in question were being discussed. It would be remembered that 30 days were given for Cetywayo's answer, and that the Army crossed the Tugela on January 20. The passage ran as follows:—

"The High Commissioner has judged it to he necessary, for reasons of the greatest moment to the welfare of this portion of South Africa, to place the condition of affairs in the Zulu country and our relations with the Zulu King and people on a more satisfactory basis than they now are. I concur with his Excellency's judgment on this point, as also on the conditions he has laid down, which have been communicated to the Zulu King, and which are conditions for the better government of the Zulu people and for their greater advantage, and are essential for securing peace in this part of South Africa."

"The whole nation; all the young men were determined on war; and he himself would have been killed if he had not fought."

"The war was looked upon by all the Colonists as certain and inevitable long before Sir Bartle Frere appeared on the scene. The Colonists lived in chronic fear."

remarked, that the debate had extended over a wide range of different subjects, and the variety of these subjects illustrated at once the diversity and extent of our South African Dominions, and the difficulties we had brought upon ourselves by the extensions of territory which the Government of this country had been forced to accept. The first point to which attention was called was the annexation of the Transvaal; and he might say that the Government had no reason to complain of the very temperate and very instructive statement made in reference to that question by his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). On the contrary, he could assure him that they had very great sympathy with his object, and with the statement he had made. He was prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept a great number of the facts which his hon. Friend laid before the House. He was prepared to accept many of the conclusions that he drew from those facts, and he only wished he could accept the whole of them. He thought there was not a single Member of the Government who did not regret the annexation of the Transvaal and the time and the way in which it took place. The House of Commons acted under insufficient, inaccurate information when it approved the transfer, inasmuch as the general belief was that the vast majority of the inhabitants were in favour of it, and subsequent circumstances proved conclusively it was not so. He might go further, and say the Members of the Government would wish it were possible they could recommend that this country should be now relieved of the responsibility of that act. He was quite sure that neither the Prime Minister nor the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would withdraw anything which they had said on the subject in their speeches. It was alleged, however, by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies that those speeches had been a cause of agitation; that they had done something to inflame the agitation in the Transvaal, and had rendered impossible the Confederation which they all admitted to be de- sirable. Now, in neither of those speeches was there a word which committed the Prime Minister or his noble Friend to the renunciation of the Transvaal. All that the Prime Minister did in his speech was to condemn, in emphatic terms, the annexation and the mode in which it was carried out; and his noble Friend went a little further, declaring that the time had come when the whole subject would have to be re-considered, and that he hoped no false dignity would prevent us, if it was found to be desirable, from reconsidering the decision which had been arrived at. Now, he did not believe that speeches of that kind had any effect in promoting the hostility of the Boers or in continuing the agitation. They had evidence before them that the hostility of the Boers to that annexation would have been declared whether those speeches had been made or not. But he regretted that the late Secretary of State for the Colonies had thought it right to indulge in recrimination of that sort, and had endeavoured to fix on the Government a responsibility which did not belong to it. When the speech of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) was made, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take that view of its dangerous character which now seemed to be entertained by the late Colonial Secretary. Not only so, but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer used in his speech in that House language of much the same character as that to which the late Colonial Secretary now took exception; because, after stating that the annexation of the Transvaal was effected by a single British officer with a handful of policemen, that right hon. Gentleman said—"It is a most important matter, and it will require full consideration."If, then, the statement of his noble Friend that the matter required full consideration was a cause of agitation in South Africa, á fortiori the same statement from the lips of the then Leader of the House of Commons was still more calculated to have that effect. He might strengthen his argument by a reference to a despatch from Sir Garnet Wolseley, in which he appealed to the late Government to give him information as to what were their views respecting the annexation of the Transvaal.

said, that despatch was written after the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had arrived in the Transvaal, and on account of the agitation which was created by that speech.

said, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the then Government would give it full consideration; and, on receipt of that statement, Sir Garnet Wolseley doubtless found it requisite to address that inquiry to the late Government, and they declared that they adhered to the annexation. It was not necessary, however, to pursue that line of recrimination. The late Government decided to retain the Transvaal. When the present Government came into Office they considered the whole question most carefully. The hon. Member for Lis-keard thought they came to their conclusion rather rapidly. An immediate decision was, however, absolutely necessary. The Cape Parliament was about to meet, and it was then obvious that if the matter was left open serious evil might result. But they did not come to their decision without a most careful examination of the documents before them; and the conclusion at which they arrived, after some hesitation and regret, but finally with no doubt whatever, was that, whatever they might think of the original act of annexation, they could not safely or wisely abandon the territory. But, after all, the point at the present moment was whether they had reason to hope that the condition of the territory they had thus acquired would be improved in their hands. The hon. Member for Liskeard painted its present condition in too dark colours. He told them of the enormous Army requisite to keep the territory in order; but he omitted altogether an important element in his calculation of the population. There were only 40,000 White Settlers; but there were 800,000 Blacks to be kept in order with a force of 3,000 or 4,000 men, which was soon to be reduced by another regiment. Under our rule the Revenue appeared everywhere to be collected with the greatest regularity and order, which would hardly be the case if the intense hostility which the hon. Member supposed really existed. The unanimous opinion of the officials and the landroosts who travelled through the country apparently was that there was less agitation and less hostility than had been previously experienced. The next point was the question of the restoration of the old Constitution of Natal, as to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) asked for a distinct statement of the views of the Government. It was the intention of the Government to revert to the Constitution in existence in Natal before the Constitution granted by Sir Garnet Wolseley. It was going back to elected Representatives in place of non-elected Representatives. As regarded the great question of Confederation, he agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that, at the present time, this question ought not to be pressed on the Colony. At the same time, he agreed also with the late Secretary of State for the Colonies that they need not consider the decision of the Cape Parliament as the death-blow to the policy of Confederation. Whenever that question came up again the Government would feel it desirable, in the interests of the Colony, and also of this country, to support, though, at the same time, they would not attempt to enforce it on unwilling Colonies. Perhaps the most important question of all, however, was the position of the Government with respect to the supersession of Sir Bartle Frere. He did not suppose anyone expected him to follow the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) into the history of the Zulu War, upon which the opinion, not merely of the present, but of the late Government, and the whole of the people of this country, as represented in the Press and public meetings, had been almost unanimously expressed. It appeared to him that, by this almost unanimous verdict, Sir Bartle Frere had been found guilty of leading this country into an unjust and unnecessary war without the authority or sanction of the Government at home, and with most inadequate preparation. That was, of course, an error of judgment; but it was the most serious and the gravest error of judgment that could be brought home to any person in his position. He agreed that the Government would have been fully justified in recalling Sir Bartle Prere immediately upon entering Office, and he thought it was a natural question— why they did not do so? He could only say that the conclusion at which they arrived was arrived at under a sense of the greatest responsibility. As the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had pointed out, Sir Bartle Frere had been superseded, to a large extent, by the late Government; and, latterly, he had been advised daily, by telegraph, how to act by the Home Government in matters of great delicacy and difficulty, and there was no doubt he would loyally carry out the instructions given to him. Under such circumstances, it was neither likely nor probable that he could do great harm, while his influence at the Cape might enable him to do great good. His very faults had given him an influence with the Colonists not to be expected from anyone else. The present Government thought that they should not do anything to destroy the chances of Confederation being arrived at, and the Government had no reason to doubt his zeal and ability and the earnestness which he brought to the discharge of his duties; but the result had been that the scheme of Confederation had been shelved sine die. There could be no doubt that the differences between the present Government and Sir Bartle Frere were not confined to the Zulu War. It had been stated in the course of the debate that it was an injustice to recall Sir Bartle Frere; but the answer to that had been given by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse). There had been a divergence all along between the policy of the Government and Sir Bartle Frere, and a full account of that divergence might be found in the Blue Books; and, when there had been a complete change of policy with the change of Government, it would have been unfair to have asked him to carry through a policy with which he had no sympathy. That divergence of opinion was also apparent in the despatches with regard to Pondoland. The circumstances were an exact parallel to those which led up to the Zulu War, and they might have been engaged there in another war had it not been for the good sense of Sir Garnet Wolseley, who refused to allow troops to be sent into Pondoland without consulting the Government at home. The Home Government was of the same opinion as Sir Garnet Wolseley, that nothing could be more injudicious than the making of intertribal squabbles an occasion for international war. Then, as to the disarmament of the Basutos. No more imprudent thing at a more imprudent time could have been suggested than the disarmament of the loyal Basutos—men who had been loyal for 40 years, and who had just used those arms, which Sir Bartle Frere wished to take from them, in our behalf. It was true Sir Bartle Frere spoke slightingly of their loyalty; but their loyalty was highly spoken of by Mr. Griffith, an able magistrate and an experienced administrator, and also by competent authorities in the district. Sir Bartle Frere told them, in one of those literary performances in which he defended his policy, that the disarmament of the Basutos was really a compliment to them, and, as civilized men were not armed, it was a compliment to the Basutos to disarm them; but Sir Bartle Frere forgot to mention that, while he was so anxious to disarm the Basutos, he made no proposal to disarm the Colonists. The question was one which might at any moment give rise to anxiety. All the Government could do was to follow the lines which had been traced by their Predecessors in Office, and which had subsequently been followed by Lord Kimberley—namely, to warn the Colonists against too hasty action, and to impress upon them the consideration that in the event of difficulties arising in consequence of any precipitate action on their part they would be expected to provide for their own defence, and that British money and British troops would not be forthcoming in the future. The Cape Government was not entirely subject to control; but from the tone of their latest despatches there was reason to believe that they would not rush inconsiderately into a conflict with the Basuto people. Well, it was evident that so long as Sir Bartle Frere was more Colonial than the Colonists themselves, it was inconvenient to retain him as the Eepre-sentative of Her Majesty's Government at the Cape. As regarded the Basuto question, the Government disagreed with the policy he had pursued, on the grounds alike of expediency and of justice; and with such a divergence between the Government and its Agent it was impossible for harmonious action to continue. Under these circumstances, the situation might be said to have become intolerable. After hopes of a Confederation had been abandoned, the Government had no alternative but to replace Sir Bartle Frere by a Governor whose views were more in harmony with their own. One word he might say as to the general policy of the Government in South Africa. Sir Bartle Frere's view was that by peaceful means or by force the Native populations should, in their own interests, be subordinated to the White man. The policy of the Government, on the contrary, was one of abstention from interference in the domestic affairs of neighbouring tribes and races, except when the peace of the Frontier was concerned; and Lord Kimberley strongly urged that border forays should, as far as possible, be treated as questions of police, instead of as constituting an outrage upon British territory. It was said that Sir Bartle Frere was extremely popular with the Colonists. That was, no doubt, true; but, inasmuch as he identified himself with Colonial opinion, it was not to be wondered at. Her Majesty's Government frankly recognized the enterprizing spirit of the Colonists; but they could not conceal from themselves the fact that that enterprizing spirit might sometimes be inconsiderate in dealing with the Native population. It was a most difficult problem which was presented by the South African Colonies, where there was an enormous Native population surrounding a small White element, composed largely of Dutch Settlers. It could not be said that hitherto England had shown any want of patience or generosity in dealing with the Colonists. England had spent millions of money and thousands of lives in South African wars. As we had made such great sacrifices we might fairly claim to exercise a moderating influence in the South African Colonies; and even if the policy of the Government was less thorough and drastic than that which sometimes commended itself to the Colonists themselves, he did not hesitate to claim their co-operation in the fulfilment of the object which both they and the Government had at heart—namely, the good government of this great Dependency, towards whose population, Coloured and White alike, we had undertaken such heavy responsibilities.

said, that at that late hour of that long discussion he should appeal to the House to listen to him, as being the only defender of the conduct of Sir Bartle Frere on that side of the House who could speak as an old personal friend. He had anticipated strong words of censure such as had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain); but he had entirely failed to hear from that Member of the Cabinet any proof of the truth of the assertions which that right hon. Gentleman had brought against Sir Bartle Frere. He (Sir George Balfour) had had the pleasure and honour of knowing Sir Bartle Frere for many years, both in the Council of India and elsewhere, and he knew how highly Sir Bartle Frere had been appreciated by statesmen of all kinds. Twice had he received the thanks of Parliament for his great services; but those noble recognitions were cast to the winds by a Liberal Government. Therefore, he regretted to find the Liberal Party treating this distinguished statesman in the way they had done. If there were one charge which he would bring against the Liberal Party, it was that they never properly recognized the services of public servants. The way the President of the Board of Trade had denounced the conduct of that able officer in the case of the Zulu War was an illustration of the indifference felt by Liberals to one whose character was dear to the country; and the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had also referred to that distinguished servant, but in much more moderate language than that used by the President of the Board of Trade. In support of these remarks, the hon. Baronet had quoted a letter from Sir Henry Bulwer dated 10th March last; but there was another letter on record from Sir Henry Bulwer, to which, if hon. Gentlemen would refer, they would find that the results of the Zulu War were stated very differently from what appeared in the quoted letter of the 10th March. The President of the Board of Trade had said that what ought to have been done was, that the Zulu King should have been left at the head of the Zulu nation; but Sir Henry Bulwer stated that such a course was ominous for the future safety of the Colony, and that, as the Zulu power had been bent and not broken, the King would have lost no time in reestablishing his great military power and organization. Such a course would have been, according to Sir Henry Bulwer, very dangerous and quite opposed to any settlement of the Zulu question, and would have been one which would have entailed the greatest danger, both present and future. By the abolition of the Zulu dynasty and Monarchy, it might be said that the possibility of that danger taking place was at least removed; so that, in point of fact, they had this Sir Henry Bulwer quoted as a very high authority, stating that great and useful results had followed from Sir Bartle Frere's policy in regard to that war. He contended that it was impolitic in the extreme to act as the Government had done towards Sir Bartle Frere, on the plea that he had not waited for orders from England before taking action against the Zulus. This recall was a great blow to independence of thought and action, so essentially needed on the part of the rulers of the many Colonies. Even at present, it was very difficult to get a man who was both able and willing to exercise that independent thought so essential for the good of, and to undertake the administration of, such countries; and, therefore, the Government ought to have calmly reflected on the evil that would result to good government before they took such a step as recalling that able officer, Sir Bartle Frere. At any rate, they ought not to have done so without a previous warning as to the views and intentions of the present Government, and as to Sir Bartle Frere's readiness, or otherwise, to carry them into effect. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst had set forth a strong argument, showing that they had acted with unfairness towards those barbarous tribes in South Africa. But that plea had a wide application, and was spread over a long period of time. He (Sir George Balfour) would remind the House that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) was the man who first sanctioned any interference with the freedom of action of the Zulu nation and King. In 1872 that Nobleman permitted the Government of Natal to send officers into Zululand not only to crown the King, but to bind him by obligations of an onerous and grave character. For instance, he sanctioned the order that that King should no longer be allowed to put to death those whom he chose; but that he was to report to the Natal Government every case in which he desired to put a subject to death. What was the result of that? In less than four years after that condition was imposed by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Natal Government found that the Zulu King had gone back to the cruel and barbarous way of putting numbers of his people to death. He was found killing young men and young women of his Kingdom because they chose to marry. These murders were so much opposed to his Coronation promises that the result was that Sir Henry Bulwer himself sent to the King to remind him of his Coronation Oath, in which he had promised not to kill his people. What was the King's reply? He said—"Why should the Government of Natal come to me; am I not governor of my own country, and can I not administer my own laws, and kill those that I choose?" Such was the result of the first interference sanctioned by the present Secretary of State. The second was with regard to the repeated raids from Zululand on territories belonging to England, or in connection with us. He observed that the President of the Board of Trade carefully abstained from making any reference to the many Zulu raids that were made before Sir Bartle Frere had incurred any responsibilities. So threatening and dangerous were these raids that Sir Henry Bulwer, of his own accord, interfered with regard to them. He sent several messages to the Zulu King of remonstrance, and that he forbade him to do so, and demanded redress. Yet the King took no notice of the appeals, and the raids continued to take place on the borders of the Tugela, until a body of our troops was sent up to protect the country. All that happened before Sir Bartle Frere arrived in Natal. This precautionary measure was a virtual act of war, as Sir Henry Bulwer himself admitted, and done before Sir Bartle Frere had at all moved in these local affairs. Again, when, in September, 1878, Sir Bartle Frere arrived in Natal, he found the country practically in a state of war. Only 12 days before his arrival the Zulu King had sent a large force on to the banks of the Tugela, and all the reports led to the belief that he was determined to carry arms into Natal and the Transvaal. Then, again, with regard to the Boer question about the land in dispute between the Zulu King and the Transvaal, the entire responsibility for the prompt and fair settlement of those differences was entirely thrown upon Sir Bartle Frere. For many years the discussion had been going on about these disputed territories. Even in the former administration of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the claims and demands of the Boers and Zulu King had been fully made known to him; but he had never tried, as far as could be learned from the Correspondence, to bring these dangerous differences to an end. But Sir Bartle Frere, when ordered to bring them to a close, even though the agents selected to inquire into the claims were not chosen by himself, yet did not hesitate to go into the Border disputes, and, after careful consideration, awarded to Zululand only parts of the vast territory in dispute. That decision was concurred in by the Lieutenant Governor of Natal, and so much approved that he claimed the right to send the decision to the Zulu King. Sir Bartle Frere had in that matter shown himself anxious to do justice, and the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had proved that his action had been approved by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the late Government. He did not mean to say that the action of Sir Bartle Frere was perfect, or free from all criticism; but considering the great affairs he had to control, direct, and attend to, the points on which differences of opinion might be raised were few in number and unimportant, so far as his own responsibilities for their initiation were involved. This, at least, could be justly said of Sir Bartle Frere's administration—that there never was a time when the Cape and the East African Colonists had had the services of so able and such an efficient Administrator as he had been. It should be remembered that one great and useful result had been attained in the Cape Colony. They only now had 5,000 Infantry stationed in South Africa, and of those 4,500 were in Natal and in the Transvaal, and only 500 in garrison at Cape Town. Never before was the force at Cape Town so low. They should also bear in mind what had fallen from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Grant Duff) with regard to the useful and important services rendered by Sir Bartle Frere in regard to the police and local forces raised or in course of formation throughout all the divisions of South Africa, and he thought that all would agree that the country had been well and wisely administered by Sir Bartle Frere. He would ever maintain that the people of this country would have been saved that yearly great expenditure for wars and military forces if the administration of South Africa under Sir Bartle Frere as the High Commissioner had been left. He contended that Sir Bartle Frere had shown himself an excellent Administrator, a man capable of assuming responsibilities and of acting with that sound judgment most useful to the Parliamentary Government of this country. Unhappily, there were signs of hostility to Sir Bartle Frere on the part of those who ought to have been friendly. He regretted exceedingly that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had shown himself so hostile to Sir Bartle Frere, as he should have thought there was no man whom the hon. Baronet would more admire for protecting the Natives against the curse of strong drinks. Now that midnight had passed, he would not detain the House longer; but he thought it necessary to say a few words on behalf of one who had shown himself to be so useful a public servant.

said, that there were one or two remarks in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that were most satisfactory. As regarded the question of Pondoland and its population, he was glad to hear that the Government were settled in their views of that matter, and approved of the action about to be taken by Sir Bartle Frere. He understood that the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had brought that subject before the House. He was not present at that time; but he had no doubt that the hon. Baronet had treated the subject much more fully and effectually than he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) could have done. If no one else had gone into the subject it was his (Mr. Justin M'Carthy's) intention to have done so. There were other passages of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with which he could not so cordially sympathize. He confessed that he failed to see either logic or justice in the action of the Government with regard to Sir Bartle Frere. He must say that he agreed with the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) in thinking that the course the Government intended to pursue ought to have been distinct and clear when they came into Office, and that they ought to have recalled Sir Bartle Frere then, or not at all. It seemed to him to be idle to talk about allowing Sir Bartle Frere to retain office, in order that he might pursue the South African Confederation scheme. The only reason of the Government for recalling him was, it now appeared, that he had shown himself incapable of carrying out that scheme successfully. But everyone knew perfectly well that when the present Government were in Opposition they never talked about the accomplishment of that scheme being a reason for retaining him in Office, or sending him out of it. It was the unanimous opinion of the then Opposition that Sir Bartle Frere ought to be recalled, and that opinion ought to have been expressed in action when the Government came into Office. While the Liberal Party were in Opposition there was no talk about a compromise, by which Sir Bartle Frere was to be permitted to remain in office in order to carry out the Confederation scheme. Another point on which he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman was, as regarded the occupation of the Transvaal territories. He held that if the Liberals thought that that occupation was unjust as they said it was at the time, and opposed to the principles both of statesmanship and morals, they ought not to have any further consideration about the matter, but withdraw at once from that awkward and indefensible position. As soon as they were in a condition to dictate a policy, they ought to have done the same as they had done with regard to Afghanistan and Abyssinia—namely, when they found that a territory had been invaded wrongly, to withdraw from a wrongful occupation. He found fault with the Government for not having been, in those few instances, fairly true to their principles and policy. He believed that the Liberal Party would never be thoroughly strong until they set the example of standing in Office by the very principles that they avowed and maintained in Opposition. It was, as regarded him, and those who thought with him, a matter of personal indiffer.- ence. Neither he nor any of his Party would ever be in Office on one side of politics or the other; but, nevertheless, he did not feel so strong an interest in the fortunes and future of the Liberal Party as to lament any evidence on their part of a lack of fidelity to principle. There should be nothing of inconsistency in the action of that Party; and, therefore, he regretted to see a distinct and palpable difference between the policy of the Liberals in Office on that South African Question, and that which all the House knew to have been their policy when they occupied the Opposition Benches.

said, the Amendment he was about to move meant the cutting off of the salary of the High Commissioner of South Eastern Africa, thus raising the question of retaining authority in the Transvaal, and the withdrawal of Sir George Colley. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had apologized for the continuance of British control in the Transvaal on the ground of necessity. But he (Mr. Courtney) was quite unable to understand why the matter should not have been allowed to remain an open question, as they were not bound to take any immediate action with regard to it. Although the House had been informed that the inhabitants of the Transvaal were becoming more and more reconciled to the authority of the Crown, he had not been able to find any facts in support of that statement. No doubt, Sir Owen Lanyon had reported that there was a tendency in the direction of contentment; but such opinions had been over and over again expressed, and there was nothing to show, even if the statement could be verified, which it had not been, anything more than a certain acquiescence in the authority of the Crown. He believed, in raising these questions, he was pursuing in the best way what was the desire, not only of himself, but of every other hon. Member of the House—namely, a union of States in South Africa; and he believed that in attacking the assumption of authority in the Transvaal he was striking at the part of our rule which hindered that union. He did not like the word "Confederation" as applied to the condition of things which he desired to see established, but would prefer the appellation of United States of South Africa in the sense of their coming together by their own act, rather than being forced by any act of ours, which, in his opinion, would tend more to hinder than advance the object in view. He believed that the States of South Africa, if left to themselves, and thrown upon their own responsibility, would form a union that would be far more lasting, efficient, and worthy of respect than any which we could force upon them. That opinion was founded upon mature consideration, and was also the opinion of eminent and practical men, and, in pursuance of the policy he had indicated, he held that we ought not to retain possession of the Transvaal.

said, he understood the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) to say that having listened to the figures quoted with reference to the Revenue of the Transvaal, he did not understand whether they were actual receipts or estimates, and, in reply, wished to say that the figures in question were taken from the report of a speech made by the Administrator to the Council on the 11th June last. They represented actual receipts, and were not estimates at all. With reference to a point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he had ventured to say that there was no proof whatever of divergence of opinion in matters relating to South Africa between Sir Bartle Frere and the present Government since they came into Office, with the single exception of the question of the disposal of the land formerly occupied by Moirosi and his tribe, and to this view he adhered, in spite of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as to the disarming of the Basutos. Sir Bartle Frere was not responsible for this; but had, on the contrary, exercised his influence with his Ministers in endeavouring to secure that the disarmament should be conducted with all possible consideration, for the feelings of the tribe.

said, that the attitude of the independent Liberal Party had not in any way been affected by what had taken place on Saturday last. It might be said that the true policy for a considerable number of Liberals in that House would be to minimize that Bill, and to leave some means open which would allow the matter to be re-considered when there was more time at their disposal, and not at the very last moment of the Session, when measures must be swallowed wholesale by hon. Members on pain of being considered Obstructionists. It might be claimed, he thought, that the intention of independent Members was to make the Bill as good as possible; and as there was a considerable muster on that side of the House he did not expect the Government would vote upon the two Amendments on the Paper in the names of the two hon. Members on the Liberal side, as they had done last Saturday. He did not think the proceedings of that day were satisfactory for many reasons. The policy of the Government on that occasion was simply that of using no argument whatever, and, so to speak, putting a pistol at the heads of hon. Members, telling them to pass this Bill, or stand convicted before the country of being opposed to Liberal legislation. At least, he thought the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill could be regarded in no other light. He simply said—"Will you have the Bill or not, If so, you must not argue, you must not discuss, you must not object, you must take what we choose to give, and make the House of Commons into a registering machine at the caprice of the Government and the House of Lords." Under those circumstances, he thought that a certain number of Members of the Liberal Party would have been justified in opposing the further progress of the Bill; but he thought there would be manifested a truly Christian spirit on that side of the House if they allowed the Bill to pass, and simply state that it re-enacted, in an exceedingly offensive manner, certain civil and social penalties which had been heretofore borne by a large class of the community, and which would now fall upon a much smaller class which could not make itself heard; he thought those on that side of the House would be showing a just and generous spirit in rejoicing that their Nonconformist friends had fought so vigorous a battle on behalf of men whose opinions they did not share, and even regarded with dislike. He did hope that Nonconformists would remain firm, and would not allow themselves to be led away from advocating those principles which had been so ably advocated during that debate. If they did so, he should have no fears with regard to the matter. For those reasons, although the Bill rivetted the fetters more strongly on some of their fellow-citizens, he believed that those citizens would have the support of the Nonconformists in their legitimate grievances; and, that being so, he considered it his duty to vote for the third reading of that Bill.

said, that although the object that the hon. Member had in view was different from his own, and those who thought with him, still he could not help observing that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) appeared to think exactly as many hon. Members on that side did—namely, that the Bill, in common with some other legislation of the Government, had been forced upon the House, and, in fact, pitchforked upon them. They were not to discuss, nor to divide upon any matter, but to take what the Government chose to give them. He thought they had almost enough of that last Saturday. That Sitting commenced at 12 o'clock, and the consideration of that Bill continued until 10 o'clock at night. Such a Sitting ought not to have taken place on a Bill of that importance. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite did not agree with him; but, in his opinion, it was not right that that Bill should be then considered, but at another Sitting. That consideration ought not to be taken when they were too weary to enter into a fair discussion of it. If they did enter into a discussion of it, then they would probably have a repetition of what had occurred on Saturday, when two of the Ministry, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, were unable to understand each other. He did think it was rather too much to ask that House to consider important Amendments on the Report of such a Bill at live minutes past 1 in the morning. He had no wish to place any obstruction in the way of the measure. He would not say that he wished it to pass; but he looked upon any opposition to that as hopeless, and, therefore, he was anxious to do nothing to prevent its passing. But there was something due to the dignity of that House, and to the country, whose Representatives they were, and they were bound to consider those great questions calmly and deliberately; and he must say that the House, having been occupied with the consideration of that Bill during 10 hours on Saturday, they ought not to be asked to re-consider it at that time of night. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the House must be aware that he would not impute to the noble Earl (Earl Percy) the slightest desire to obstruct the passage of the Bill. He was quite sure, however, that the House would see that that Bill, having reached the stage that it had in that House, and having been passed by the House of Lords, any Motion of delay must take the form of mere obstruction to the passing of the measure. He accepted fully the assurance of the noble Earl, that his only object was that the discussion should take place at a convenient time. In reply, he could only say this —that it was the wish of the Govern- ment to consult the convenience of the House; and he believed, so far as he was aware, that it was the desire of the majority to proceed with the Bill. He believed that it would be more to the convenience of hon. Members that the Bill should be taken then, as many hon. Gentlemen were staying in town waiting for the Bill to be disposed of. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood that the Government had not the slightest intention of pressing upon the House the consideration of a measure of so much importance at that hour of the morning. He might observe that ample time had already been given for the discussion of the principle of the measure, so that they were quite justified in proceeding then with it, if they thought proper. Nothing could be clearer than the explanation of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan), that that Bill was in the nature of a compromise. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke), and those who thought with him, wished that the Bill should be repudiated, and thought that they had better wait until they were able to pass a more original measure; but they must bear in mind that the Bill then before them had been accepted by the House of Lords, and the dignitaries of the Church, and, he believed, was not unacceptable to the Church of England generally. It was for the House to consider whether it were wise to risk a conflict by refusing what had been accepted as a satisfactory compromise by both Parties. He thought it was hardly fair to say that the Bill had been passed by a pistol being placed at their heads. It was a measure which, he believed, was accepted as a settlement of the question by the majority of that House; and he was, moreover, of opinion that that majority was willing to proceed with the consideration of it at that time.

said, that no one objected more to the compromise in that matter which had been alluded to by the noble Lord than he did, because it was a compromise in which it seemed to him that they were giving up everything that could be given up. He should not have much to say upon the question at that time, although he thought they had considerable grounds for complaint so far as the Government were concerned, and for this reason. That Bill, although it had come down from the other House about the month of June, they had not had an opportunity of discussing it practically until the time when the Appropriation Bill was brought in. It must appear to everybody in that House that considerable modifications had been introduced, whether rightly or wrongly he was not going to argue; and surely it could not be said that they were treating a matter, which the noble Lord himself candidly confessed to be one of great importance, in an altogether proper way. Amendments which had been put down had to be considered, and the Bill had to be sent up to the other House for reconsideration within three days of what was then openly proclaimed to be the end of the Session of Parliament. He could perfectly well understand the opinions of the Government in regard to that matter. They had, in fact, been told by the Prime Minister that that Bill had been passed by the House of Lords, and was intended to have been considered a long time ago. No doubt, the reason why it was not considered was that there were other measures which the Government thought of considerable importance, which opinion was, he believed, not shared by the House and the country, and they wished to force those measures upon the House before that Bill was taken; and so far had they carried that policy that it had been almost impossible to discuss even the question of Supply, which was the legitimate function of that House, because they were so anxious to press forward certain measures. He remembered some time ago, when the then Government asked for more of the time of the House for the consideration of their measures, that a great deal was said by the present Prime Minister about almost a conspiracy which the Government had entered into by which they had shut out the right of independent Members to take part in general discussion. They had then simply put down Supply for Mondays; and the present Government had extended the principle which the Prime Minister, when in Opposition, had so entirely condemned and abused. Having said that much, he would mention that it was not his intention to oppose a Bill at that stage, which the Government seemed determined to pass before the end of the Ses- sion. What the noble Lord the Leader of the House had said was true, that it was not the intention of the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) to oppose that Bill simply for the sake of Obstruction; but he could, not agree with the noble Marquess that a great number of hon. Members had gone to considerable inconvenience for the purpose of discussing that Bill. However, he deeply regretted that that debate should be adjourned, although he did not in the least agree with the Bill, or with the way in which the Government had conducted it; but, as it had advanced to that stage, he thought it better that the discussion on it should be completed. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment; but that they might be allowed to go on.

said, that the noble Lord opposite had made an appeal to him to withdraw his Motion, on the ground that many hon. Members were remaining for the express purpose of being present at that stage of the discussion on the Bill who were anxious to get out of town. That appeared to him to be precisely a reason why he should urge upon the House the desirability of not proceeding with it when the majority of hon. Members had already left and many more were anxious to get away. At the same time, it was, no doubt, a disagreeable thing for an hon. Member of the House to stand against the general feeling; and although he would have felt it his duty to do so upon a matter of principle, this was not one of that character, and, therefore, he begged to ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

said, that as he was unable, in consequence of illness last week, to be present when the Bill was in Committee, he wished to say at this stage what he would have said then, when the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) was before them. Civil and religious liberty he had always considered as the special watchword of the Liberal Party. For years they had contended for that principle, until, one by one, the disabilities of former times had been removed; and now, when it was supposed that religious equality was an established maxim of our legislation, it was not a little astonishing to find that maxim limited and qualified by a Bill brought in by a Liberal Government. The right of burial in the parish churchyard was a civil right established by the Common Law of England. The Bill proposed to remove the canonical conditions by which it had hitherto been fettered and restricted, and so to make it operative in its fullest and widest sense; but it did so only in favour of those of Her Majesty's subjects who professed the Christian religion. To non-Christians it said—"Bury your dead in the churchyard if you please; but you shall do so without the consolation of any religious Service, without any outward mark of respect for the departed, without the solace, which all men, Christians and non-Christians alike, for the most part, seek and require in time of sorrow." To Nonconformists it allowed the attendance of their own ministers, and the use by them of such religious Services as were most in harmony with their feelings and religious sentiments. To others, it denied such comfort altogether. Why, he asked, was the Bill so limited? Was it just or wise, or was it consistent with the principles of the Liberal Party and of a Liberal Government? He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not profess or assume to speak the sentiments of the religious body to which he belonged. He had, and he claimed, no authority to do so. He spoke for himself only. The Jews had their own cemeteries, and, so far as he knew, they had no desire to bury their dead in the parish churchyard. Yet it was possible, indeed it was by no means improbable, that a Jew residing in some remote part of the Kingdom, where there was no burial-place except the churchyard, might die there. Was he to be laid in the ground, and, to use a common phrase, "buried like a dog?" That was what the Bill proposed with regard to the Jews and other non-Christians. The Burial Service of the Jews was of the simplest character. It was purely Scriptural. Not one word did it contain which could offend the most sensitive Christian, or in which he could not heartily join. Indeed, one portion of it formed part of the Burial Service of the Church of England. Upon what ground, then, should the Jews be excluded from the benefit of the Bill? There were also other non-Christians who, as well as Jews, were treated in the same way. Such persons, although not of the Christian faith, had their forms of burial, and their means of comfort in affliction; and they desired to pay, and did, no doubt, pay due reverence to their dead. They knew what grief was, and they felt it the same as other men. Why should they be visited with insult and indignity in the hour of trial? To admit a right, and then surround it with every circumstance of humiliation, so as to make the exercise of it offensive and intolerable, was a mockery and an insult, and not to be justified by any consideration whatever. The Bill before the House he regarded as a piece of retrograde legislation. While it relieved some from disability, as regarded the Jews and other non-Christians, it re-enacted and positively riveted disability on account of religion. It ignored, and even reversed, the principles which the Liberal Party had been accustomed to uphold, and for which they had contended with success. As it gave relief to his Nonconformist fellow-subjects, he would not imperil the Bill. On the contrary, he would, for their sakes, support it, as he had always done every measure intending to benefit them, or in which they were interested. But, speaking for himself, as an Englishman and a Liberal, he was bound to say that the Bill was to him a great disappointment, and he had felt it his duty not to allow it to leave the House without his protest.

begged to move the following Clause which stood in his name:—

said, he observed that the President of the Local Government Board was to certify whether a cemetery was a proper one or not. He was afraid that that right hon. Gentleman would scarcely survive such a process, which would end in his being torn in pieces by contending factions. He could not accept the clause.

moved that in the Preamble the words "Channel Islands" be added. He proposed to extend the Bill to those Islands.

asked whether that was not rather an unusual course, as those Islands were almost entirely independent of such Acts. Per- haps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary could explain the matter to them.

said, his right hon. Friend seemed anxious about that matter. He was unable to say distinctly what the effect of making the Bill applicable to the Channel Islands would be, but he would take the responsibility of that.

said, that under those circumstances he should have nothing more to say upon the question.

begged to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out "or" to "following" in line 39. He would not detain the House, but simply say that a large minority voted for that Amendment in Committee. On that account he submitted the Amendment again, and would state the grievance that it proposed to remedy. That was that on 54 days of the year, except by consent of the Rector, Vicar, or Incumbent, no poor person could be buried. Therefore, it might happen that those attending the funerals of these poor people might have to forfeit a day's wage, at any rate, when they were of the wage-earning class. There was nothing to excite religious prejudice, or ought to induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to vote against it. The question was, would they refuse a privilege to the poor by the way that clause was worded? There were only two arguments urged against the Amendment. One was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Everyone listened with respect and pleasure to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman; but he must say that what he had said seemed rather to be in favour of the Amendment than for its rejection. The first argument was that the carrying the Amendment might irritate the clergyman of the parish; but it should be remembered that in Ireland, where religious feeling ran high, the Roman Catholic population had been buried in the Protestant yards on those days without any difficulty or irritation having arisen. Another argument that had been used was with reference to the Nonconformist clergy. It had been stated that they were not in favour of Sunday funerals, because it would increase their labour. He would say, in regard to that, that it would be purely voluntary on their part, and that if they did not wish to take part or officiate in such services they need not do so. It had been also urged by the right hon. Gentleman that drunkenness would probably prevail at Sunday funerals. He was sorry to disagree with that; but he did not think that drunkenness was more likely to occur in connection with Sunday funerals than with those held on any other day. The right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had said that Sunday funerals were not often held, so far as his experience went. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) would say, from his knowledge of the working classes, that in a great many cases they were obliged to have recourse to funerals on that day. When a poor man died, it was not at all unusual for the poor people of the district to wish to attend the funeral, and they were unable to do so without loss unless it was held on Sunday. He felt sure that no impropriety would be likely to occur from Sunday funerals; and he, therefore, hoped that the House would assent to the Amendment which he then begged to move.

said, the question with regard to Sunday funerals had been fully discussed last Saturday. He had Spent a great part of his life in a rural parish, and had never seen a Sunday funeral conducted there. Moreover, during the 10 years he had devoted to this question, he had received thousands of letters from persons in all parts of the country, many of them expressing opinions against Sunday funerals being permitted, while he had not had one single letter in favour of allowing them to take place. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) said the Nonconformists were placed in a worse position than the members of other Bodies; but he reminded the hon. Member that under the law, as it stood at present, a clergyman of the Church of England could refuse to bury on Sunday; and, therefore, as a matter of fact, the Bill gave to the Nonconformists an advantage which the Churchman did not possess. Sunday, in many country parishes, was occupied by the religious services of the Church; but, if the Amendment were carried, it would be treated like any other day of the week. The Amendment could not be accepted; but he should propose, if it were not carried, to exclude cemeteries altogether from the operation of the Sunday clause.

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, on the ground that it only claimed to place the working man who was a Nonconformist in the same position as the working man who was a member of the Church of England. He could not agree with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General who sought to establish an inconsistency, inasmuch as he proposed to allow Sunday funerals in cemeteries, while he denied them to the people who had only the churchyard for the purpose of burial. He felt that the House could not agree to such an inconsistency. With regard to the statement that Sunday funerals would promote drunkenness, he apprehended that when in the interest of sobriety public-houses were closed altogether on Sundays, it would be better that they should take place on Sunday than on any other day in the week. But this was a question particularly affecting the working people who were remarkable for their sympathy with their neighbours and fellow-workmen, and when one of their number died, there was on the part of his fellows a widespread desire to follow his remains to the grave. Now, it was well-known that Sunday was the only day on which they could do this, without sacrificing a day's wages, and, under those circumstances, he thought they would only be doing a humane and kindly act by giving facilities for the burial of the poor which would allow their neighbours and relations to pay the last mark of respect to their departed friends without, at the same time, wronging their families by sacrificing their day's wages. There was one point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General—namely, that out of the large number of communications received by him regarding this Bill not one had been in favour of Sunday burials. But the obvious answer to that was that the class most interested and affected by the disability in question was not that which would be likely to spend their time in the writing of letters to the Lord Chancellor, or the Judge Advocate General; and, therefore, the fact mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was no proof that Sunday burial was not desired by that class. It could not then be used as an argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. He trusted the Amendment would be agreed to, because it would make the Bill an act of justice to the people in the matter of funerals.

said, a churchman had not the right to burial on Sunday, and, therefore, the Nonconformists could not complain if, at all events, they were put upon the came footing. He felt sure that, among the letters received by the right hon. Gentleman, there were many from persons belonging to the classes indicated by the hon. Member who had just spoken, and if the matter had really been felt of importance to them, they would certainly have mentioned it among their grievances.

said, in opposing this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, had brought out a whole armoury of rusty weapons. They had just heard, for the first time, that a clergyman might exercise the right of refusing funerals on Sunday. But that was only a virtual power in the hands of the clergy, and was never exercised. Therefore, for the purposes of the present measure, it had no practical value. He was sure that every Member of that House would be supremely anxious that no real offence should be given to the clergy, and held that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), that no burials should take place on Sunday during the usual time of Divine Service, and the half hours immediately before and after such service, fully met the case. That would apply equally to the funerals of Dissenters and Churchmen, and he thought the Government would act wisely in assenting to it. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) had intimated that he did not propose to raise the question debated under the 6th clause of the Bill. And he thought in so restricting himself he had acted wisely, because the division taken on the question showed that there was something like a balance of opinion among the Liberal Party, and it would not, therefore, be right to press the Government to make the change proposed. But the question now before the House stood on a very different footing, and he pressed its consideration on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, the convictions and instincts of whose mind were clearly in favour of the Amendment now being pressed on the Government by hon. Members on that side of the House. He thought he could almost promise that if that feeling were manifested there would be an almost unanimous desire for compromise, and he hoped that the Government would act in the same spirit with regard to this question as had characterized their other acts during the Session.

said, his experience of Wales, with reference to the absence of Sunday burials, was the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. W. Davies), had, however, testified that the custom of Sunday burial existed in his county. But the House must remember that they were not now legislating for Wales only but for the whole of the Kingdom. It had, moreover, been shown that Sunday burials were very frequent in the North of England, and it would, therefore, be a great grievance to deprive the people of burying their dead on Sunday, especially, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had pointed out, it would cost them a day's wages. He felt strongly that great allowance should be made for the feelings of the clergy in regard to this subject, and would be sorry that anything should be done calculated needlessly, to wound their susceptibilities. Therefore, he cor- dially agreed with the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and regretted to be compelled to differ on this point with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire. He took that opportunity of expressing his deep sense of the valuable services rendered by his right hon. Friend in advancing this measure, and it was to his courage and perseverance during the last 10 years, that they owed the victory they were about to win. He had a strong conviction that the passing of this Bill would be far more to the advantage than the detriment of the Church of England, as freeing it from the continual scandals arising under the recent law in all parts of the country, which had awakened even bitter hostility against her. He trusted this would be the closing of all controversy on the subject, and concluded by saying that if his right hon. Friend had been foremost in promoting this settlement the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), had been the most effectual instrument in preventing it up to the present time. Ten years hence he should like to have the opportunity of ashing him whether the alarm he had felt with regard to the passing of this measure had been realized.

said, that if the Amendment then before the House was negatived, his hon. and gallant Friend behind him had an alternative Amendment, which he believed he would move.

said, he was sorry to trouble the House, but the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil(Mr. Richard) had made a statement to which he must refer. The hon. Member had said that a Dissenter, except on Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day, should give notice of the time the funeral was to take place. But in the 36th line it said—"And it shall take place at the hour so appointed." The effect would be that upon ordinary days they would be able to dictate to the clergyman as to the hour at which the service should take place. ["No, no!"] He believed he was strictly stating the facts of the case. It had been said, also, that Dissenters were not on a footing of equality with regard to the Sunday funerals. The only foundation for such a statement was that it was supposed that the clergyman had no option under ordinary circumstances of refusing to bury on any day that the relatives might appoint. But, in truth, he had already this right with regard to Members of the Church of England, and therefore, hon. Members would see that that inequality between Churchmen and Dissenters was really founded on an absolute misconception of the state of the case. The hon. Member seemed to desire that the Dissenters should have greater powers with regard to burials in churchyards than were granted under that Bill. If so, Dissenters would positively be in a position of superiority to Church people. He fully recognized what had been expressed by the hon. Member—that the Bill was distasteful to the clergy. Representing, as he did, many of the clergy, he would say that there could be no doubt that it was distasteful to them. But it seemed to him that what was suggested would make what was already distasteful almost intolerable to them.

said, that the noble Lord the Leader of the House had complained because his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) had said that that Bill had been passed by a pistol being put at their heads. That certainly was the case. Hon. Gentlemen opposite represented the pistols, and as many Gentlemen as there were on that side so many pistols were there. The numbers taken at the Division in Committee were 103 to 100. He had looked at the Division List, and had found, that of those who had voted for the Amendment, 99 were Liberals, and one a Conservative. Of those who voted against the Amendment, there were 61 Conservative pistols, and 42 Liberals. Of those Liberals, 20 were Members of the Liberal Party, and, consequently, there were only 22 independent Liberals against, together with 61 Conservatives. Therefore, he thought it must be admitted that that clause was entirely passed in its present form by the aid of the Conservatives. There were only two practical objections that had been raised against the present Amendment— one by the Judge Advocate General, and the other by the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross). The Judge Advocate General had said that at present there was no inequality between Dissenters and Churchmen, because the clergy had a right to refuse to allow a Churchman to be buried on a Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the remarks of the Lord Chancellor with regard to that inequality. He thought they had had a good deal too much of the Lord Chancellor in that Bill. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had put the matter fairly when he said that they were obtaining a good deal from the clergy, and that they ought to yield on that one point of inequality on Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary had also stated the case reasonably when he said that the object of the clause in its present shape was to maintain decency and order. But he would ask whether it was a fact that, if the funerals of Dissenters were allowed in churchyards on a Sunday, decency and order would be violated? If so, that was an insult to the whole body. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman, who had stated that, if the clause of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) were proposed, they ought to accept it. He really did think that that inequality and injustice might fairly be removed, and that, so far, at any rate, they might be allowed to escape from the thraldom of the Lord Chancellor.

said, that the Judge Advocate General had stated that he had received a number of communications against that Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite, who represented the Nonconformists, had said that the Amendment had been brought forward in the interests of the working classes. He did not dispute their right to speak in the interests of those classes, but he must say that from what he had seen of the working classes, they appeared to be as thoroughly divided in their opinions as men of other classes. He wished to say a word in favour of a class who worked hard on Sundays— namely, the clergy of the country, of whom there were more than 20,000 in England and Wales, and the Judge Advocate General knew that more than 16,000 of them had signed a Petition against this Bill. If this Amendment were carried, the clergy would feel a far greater sense of injustice. He thought, as regarded the Amendment, that Sunday funerals should be discouraged, whether of Churchmen or Dissenters, because it was certain that if those funerals increased, there would be a much greater infringement of the day of rest. A great deal of Sunday labour must necessarily follow if those funerals increased, and he, therefore, objected strongly to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.

said, they were going away from the question under discussion. That question was not whether Sunday funerals should be abolished, but whether or not a large number of the working classes held their funerals on that day. In his opinion, there was no doubt whatever about that. He happened to have with him an interesting report about Sunday funerals, from the Burial Board of Liverpool. What was the proportion of Sunday funerals, taking a daily average from a return of 42 undertakers? Six declined Sunday funerals, seven merely superintended them in special cases, and the remaining 35 had twice as many interments on that day as upon the other six days. Several larger establishments had three or four times as many. He only wished to establish the fact that it was the custom of the working classes to have funerals on that day. He had made personal inquiries of four leading undertakers of Liverpool. The first told him that he had two to one on a Sunday, the second three to one, a third had more on Sunday than any other day, and a fourth said that the number of funerals on that day largely predominated. Therefore, he hold that objections to those funerals were beside the question. The real question involved was this—whether an individual clergyman was to be allowed to prohibit Sunday funerals in the case of Nonconformists if they wished to hold them on that day. A Churchman would probably be allowed to hold that service, while a Nonconformist was to wait until Monday. That was one law for the Churchman and another for the Dissenter. He would simply add that a similar Amendment stood in his name on Saturday when in Committee, and he was exceedingly sorry he was not present; believing Saturday to be a blank day, he had gone away. He felt strongly that the Amendment was of importance to the working classses, and when he found the Committee was to be taken on that day, he had asked the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) to move the Amend- ment for him. Unfortunately, he also was unable to be present; but he was of opinion that the Amendment was one of great importance to the working classes, and ought to be carried. He should certainly support the Amendment-then before the House.

said, he was surprised that the Amendment had not been accepted. If it was a question that would at all imperil the Bill, he could understand the refusal of the Government to accede to it; but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had given them no such intimation. On Saturday, in Committee, that question was made an open one, and in a most authoritative speech the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that it was well nigh a matter of indifference which way he voted. He was bound to say that it appeared to him that they had not heard the whole of the argument, and that the course the Government were taking was due to some mystery which they did not understand. He did not think that the real reason for refusal was before the House.

said, that in the neighbourhood of large towns Sunday funerals often gave occasion to scenes of drinking of a disgraceful character. The clause should be so drawn as to minimize such scandals, and in such a course they ought to be able to reckon on the assistance of the Nonconformists.

said, he did not rise to continue the argument, but to make an explanation with regard to the matter which hon. Gentlemen opposite especially did not appear to understand. There was an Amendment which his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate General was prepared to accept. It was that of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and although it did not go the length of the Amendment before the House, still it did affect the question, he believed, considerably. It was this—

"That if a clergyman shall refuse, or intimate his intention not to consent to a funeral taking place, he shall be obliged to give his reasons in writing, &c."

said, that, as his Amendment had been referred to, he should wish to say a few words. The House would recollect that on Saturday a division was taken upon an Amendment of his.

rose to Order. The hon. and gallant Member was discussing an Amendment not before the House.

The remarks of the hon. and gallant Member seem to bear upon the Amendment.

said, he had wished to make an explanation with regard to his Amendment. After the Division the other night, the Judge Advocate General had agreed with him with regard to another Amendment which he had drawn up, and which they believed would be acceptable both to him and his Friends, and also to the Government.

The hon. and gallant Member is not now speaking on the Amendment.

proposed, in page 3, line 4, to add—

"If any such day proposed by notice shall be objected to, notice in writing shall be given within a reasonable time by the person receiving such notice."

said, he should advise the House to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not pretend to like the Bill either in its entirety or its details; but there were degrees in all things, and he was bound to say that those who wished the preservation of anything like order in our churchyards and churches must be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had opposed the most mischievous Amendment which had just been before the House.

said, he presumed that the decision arrived at by the House must be regarded as final, and he complimented the Government in having found, on the other side of the House, a number of supporters just sufficient to defeat the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) but that support was not such as they could place much confidence in. It had been remarked from the other side of the House that 16,000 clergymen had, in an emphatic manner, condemned this Bill, and prayed that it might not pass into law. He had no doubt that the opposition to the measure was deep-rooted and genuine. But he would do the clergy the justice to say that if power were put into their hands they would honestly administer it; but he ventured to think there would be numberless instances of capricious refusal on the part of the clergy. The right hon. Gentleman had said the refusal must be in writing; but he had not stated the wording, or what action would have to be taken upon it. The Government were giving the Nonconformists a Bill on the same lines as the Act which was repealed, as unworkable and unsatisfactory in 1868; and he did not think that this fact, when known, would redound to the credit of those who had unnecessarily forced it upon the House. He presumed any further appeal to the Government would be useless, and, therefore, could not but think the present settlement of the matter was scarcely final, and certainly not as satisfactory as it might have been. He trusted the present Amendment would not be hastily accepted, inasmuch as it was likely to lead to a good deal of trouble and bitterness in time to come. If the House would consider for a moment the position of the question, it would be seen that the result of that evening's discussion would be that, in future, all classes of Nonconformists and Churchmen would stand with regard to Sunday burials in the same position as Churchmen stood before in respect of the law and practice. The refusal on the part of the clergy to bury on Sunday could not but lead to angry controversy, notwithstanding the previous notice of burial and the reasonable grounds on which refusal would have to be based.

said, he voted this evening with the Government be- cause he had seen an indication on their part to go as far as they reasonably could. It seemed to him that the Amendment was of real value to the Nonconformists, because, although the Bill as it stood enabled the clergyman to dismiss in the briefest manner an application for Sunday burial, the Amendment would require him to give a substantial reason for his refusal. It was in view of that he had changed his vote of Saturday, and would now support the proposal of the Government.

said, he thought the House would do well to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he should give his support to the Amendment before the House, because he believed it would meet the purpose he had in view nearly as well as the Amendment standing in his name.

said, he believed the exactions of the fees referred to in his clause were the cause of much dissatisfaction amongst Nonconformists, who objected that the salary of persons connected with the Church of England should be increased at their expense. He believed the effect of the clause would be that about £10,000 a-year would be added to those salaries at the expense of the Nonconformists. He had no desire to see the salaries of the clergymen of the Church of England reduced; but he could not see why they should be increased in this manner, and he was surprised that in this respect the Government had imposed more than had been sought to be imposed by the late Government when the Bill of 1877 was brought before the House of Lords and passed. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. The question of fees was a portion of a much larger question than that dealt with by the Bill.

moved, in page 3, line 26, after the word "Christian" to insert the word "service."

wished to point out that, by that Amendment, they were about to make a definition of a religious service. A Christian service was not an ordinary religious service.

said, that he certainly thought such a service was an ordinary religious service.

rose to propose an Amendment that he was unable to move on Saturday. The effect of it would be merely to enable a clergyman to officiate in any chapel or other building standing in the cemetery or churchyard.

said, he should not object to the Amendment; but he thought it unnecessary, for, as a matter of course, if the ground was thrown open, the clergyman could officiate in the chapel on the ground.

said, he could not agree to that proposal; but, at the same time, he should not then oppose it. He would not detain the House, but he wished to say that he protested against the measure; it was based upon a wrong principle, and was not what was required to be done in the matter. They had not by that Bill created any liability by Statute upon any Bodies or Corporations of any sort or description to provide burial-grounds where they were wanted. The real grievance which lay at the root of the evil had not been remedied; but he did not intend to oppose the final stage of the measure.

said, he simply wanted to protest against the Bill, and also against the manner in which it had been forced upon the Liberal Party in that House. It was brought in for the purpose of conferring civil rights on the community; but its effect would be to deprive a large section of their rights. The Nonconformists were, by that Bill, placed in the charmed circle of privilege; from being oppressed they had been placed among the oppressors. He protested also against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had conducted that Bill. Although he had promised repeatedly to answer the arguments brought against several parts of the Bill, he was unable to find that he had given them any answer whatsoever. On Saturday the only argument used appeared to be that they were within three days of the 1st of September. That Bill ought not to have been forced on them in the way it had been. The Government had used the Opposition to defeat their Friends. He pointed out that they were beginning a very dangerous policy. That policy was always a dangerous one. If he were required to show that, he should refer them to the last time the Liberals were in power in 1870. They then had a great majority, though not so great as the present. That majority was first made uncertain, and then destroyed by similar action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when, on the Education Question he called in the aid of the Opposition to beat his own fol- lowers. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) had aptly described the manner of the passing of that Bill by saying that a pistol had been placed at their heads. Although a most loyal supporter of the Government, he begged emphatically to protest against that Bill, as it stood, being passed into law.

said, that at the last stage of that measure, with resistance to which he had been identified in Parliament for many years, and had followed about the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General like his shadow, he must be allowed to offer a few words. They should be short and decided. He simply desired to attest that he had never feared to bring before the House the injustice of the change, and had exposed what would occur if that Bill was passed. Now, he would say in all sincerity, after listening to long arguments that had been employed on both sides, that he was conscious of having done his duty in the matter, and that he sat down unconvinced and impenitent.