I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask your opinion. Sir, whether any Member of this House can bring before it a Motion expressed in terms which ask Her Majesty to submit a measure to Parliament? I wish to know whether any hon. Member can address Her Majesty with a request of that character? I venture to think that the language of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) is inaccurate and unconstitutional.

The hon. Member for Southwark, having called my attention to the form in which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow is put, I am bound to say that it is, technically speaking, inaccurate in its phraseology; and, in consequence of this informality, it could not be put in its present form from the Chair. It is not a proper expression to pray Her Majesty to submit measures to Parliament. It is clearly not the function of Her Majesty to submit measures to this House. Therefore, my attention having been called to the matter, I am bound to rule that the Amendment is irregular.

As my Amendment only requires a verbal alteration, may I ask you, Sir, whether I may be allowed an opportunity of making that alteration, so that the Amendment may be submitted to the House in a regular form?

Does the hon. Member ask leave to withdraw his Amendment for the purpose of bringing it up in another form? Is that what I understand the hon. Member to say?

If that be the ordinary course I shall ask permission to do so. I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment for the purpose of being enabled to bring it up in an altered form.

That can only be done by leave of the House. I will therefore put the Question to the House. Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [ Cries of "No!"]

I should like to know, Sir, whether you have decided that the Amendment in its present shape cannot be submitted to the House?

Yes; the hon. Member is quite correct. In its present form the Amendment cannot be properly submitted to the House. I understand that the hon. Member for Carlow desires to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment for the purpose of bringing it up in a more correct form. I ask the House therefore—Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [ Cries of "No" and "Yes!"]

If the House permits the Amendment to be withdrawn for the purpose of amending it, I pre- sume that hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate will not be allowed to speak again.

May I ask you a question, Sir? Suppose the House should refuse to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, would you, Sir, then put from the Chair an Amendment which you yourself have ruled to be disorderly?

If the House refuses to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn it falls to the ground.

I would ask you, Sir, with your permission, whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Borough of Carlow has not already been put from the Chair, and whether, consequently, it is not already before the House? I apprehend, Sir, that a debate could not have arisen on the Amendment of my hon. Friend unless the Amendment in question had been first put by you from the Chair, and had become a question of discussion. Unless it were so all the discussion which has taken place upon the Amendment would have been irregular. I was not able, to be in my place in the House yesterday; but I apprehend that, following the universal custom, you, Sir, put the Amendment of my hon. Friend from the Chair, and that, consequently, it came before the House. Therefore, the point of Order which has been raised by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) is raised too late. As the matter now stands, it is not so much one for your jurisdiction as for that of the House. I apprehend that, previous to the Amendment being put from the Chair, you had full and perfect authority; but that now it has been debated during one Sitting of the House, and is now on again for discussion in another, that it comes more especially within the cognizance of the House. I make these observations, Sir, without intending the slightest disrespect to you or to the House, and without any desire in any way to controvert your ruling; but I certainly do think that the matter is now not so much within the jurisdiction of the House as one for the House itself to decide. I think my argument is supported by what has taken place, because you, Sir, in asking the House whether it was the pleasure of the House that the Amendment should be withdrawn, clearly intimated that it was a matter within the cognizance of the House whether it should be withdrawn or not. The House not having agreed with unanimity that the Amendment should be withdrawn, I submit that the Amendment is still before the House, and must necessarily remain before the House until the House has come to a decision upon it. My point, Sir, is this—that the objection of the hon. Member for Southwark comes too late, seeing that the Question has been put from the Chair, and the matter is now solely within the jurisdiction of the House.

I hope we shall pass away from the argument just placed before the House by the hon. Member for the City of Cork in the mode which, under the circumstances, appears to me to be the most expedient and desirable—namely, that we should permit the withdrawal of the Amendment, and not inquire too nicely as to the matter of form. I think it is somewhat hard on the part of the hon. Member (Mr. Dawson) that we, having allowed the Question to be put from the Chair whether the Amendment should be withdrawn as if it were a regular Amendment, should be rebuked by the hon. Member for Cork, and held bound to the admission that it is a regular Amendment. I entirely differ from the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. He appears to be desirous of putting words of wisdom into your mouth, Sir, of which I very much doubt the necessity; but I humbly and respectfully suggest that the Amendment should be allowed to be withdrawn, and that the debate should go on. That would be convenient to all parties; but I hope, also, that what has fallen from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) will be taken notice of by the House. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to raise the point, because no one would avail himself of his own wrong, and having already spoken to an informal Amendment, would not wish to address the House again on the same subject.

Before the Question has been finally put I wish to say that my attention having been drawn to an informality, I am bound to decline to put the Question to the House, seeing that there is an informality in it. With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) I have no hesitation in saying that Members having already spoken on the in- formal Amendment will not be entitled to speak again on the formal Amendment. As the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) has already spoken to the Question before the House, he is not entitled to bring it up again in an amended form; but any hon. Member who has not spoken to the question is at liberty to do so. I will now put the Question formally—Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Question, to add the words "And we humbly assure Her Majesty that, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to submit a measure for the purpose of Assimilating the Borough Franchise in Ireland to that in England, as promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech last Session."—( Mr. Sexton. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, that when he rose last evening to address the House on the Amendment he did not intend to occupy many minutes of time, nor would his observations now extend to any undue length. The existence of a grievance in regard to the franchise in Ireland had been conceded by the Government, and yet they were practically denied redress. Last Session they came within measurable distance of reform on this question; but this Session it had entirely eluded their grasp. The refusal to afford redress for this grievance was an important factor in the present discontent in Ireland, and an element of disturbance. It would, he contended, greatly conduce to the stability of matters in Ireland and the preservation of the public peace if, instead of compelling those Irishmen who were entitled to vote to have recourse to public meetings and agitation for the purpose of influencing the political affairs of their country, they should be permitted to give effect to their political opinions at the polling booths. The argument by which Irish Members were met was that this matter was not urgent. Well, it seemed to him that in the opinion of the Government nothing was urgent in connection with Ireland except coercion. They had recently heard a great deal about a policy of exasperation. To his mind, the suspension of the Constitution was the real policy of exasperation. ["Question!"] The hon. Member was proceeding to make further observations on the subject of coercion, when—

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing the question of Order upon the Amendment now before the House?

The hon. Member is bound to confine himself strictly to the Question before the House.

said, he would readily obey the ruling of the Chair. He had been endeavouring to show, when interrupted, why it would be better for the Government to accede to the suggestion of the Amendment before the House than to have recourse to repressive measures restrictive of the rights and liberties of the people.

I am bound to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Amendment before the House relates exclusively to the Irish franchise.

would say no more except this—that he believed every topic he had touched upon had been opened by the speeches of hon. Members opposite; and he thought it hard that when the Irish Members were assailed by speeches intended to influence the opinions of the House they should not be allowed to reply. He considered the extension of the borough franchise would be a more healing measure than the proposed suspension of the Constitution; and he thought that a week lost in discussing the question in that Assembly would be a week gained for freedom in another part of the world.

wished to say a very few words—to do more would be to show a great want of taste, this being the 14th day since the publication of the Royal Speech—by way of protest to prevent possible misunderstanding. He drew the attention of the House to the fact that not a single speech had been made on the Amendment before it by Members of the regular Opposition. What he desired to explain was that Conservative Members who abstained from speaking on this question out of regard for the progress of Business must not be understood to admit that the proposed alteration in the Irish franchise was merely a question of time. They reserved their right of protesting against the alteration on a future occasion.

said, that, so far as he was concerned, he regretted that a division had not taken place yesterday. It had been the intention of the Irish Members to take a division, and he was afraid that he was personally responsible for that intention not having been carried out. He came down to the House in time to divide, and found it had been determined, in consequence of his absence, to carry the discussion on to that day. He had not been able to get to the House in time to prevent that determination from being carried out; and he wished to express his regret that in consequence of his absence any Members of the House should have been inconvenienced by the division not having taken place yesterday. He did not, however, see any reason why a division should not be taken now upon the Amendment. He wished to explain why the Irish Members had found it necessary to bring forward this Amendment. There was a very general belief in Ireland—a belief not altogether unjustified by the circumstances of the case—that Her Majesty's Government were not in earnest with reference to this question of the borough franchise. As a matter of fact, the Solicitor General for Ireland would not represent the constituency which he now so ably represented if the borough franchise were enlarged; and if a similar measure were passed respecting the county franchise his right hon. and learned Colleague the Attorney General would find himself in a similar disagreeable position. Such circumstances as these must weigh on any Government. It was not in the nature of the case to suppose that the Government should feel any desire or eagerness to consummate a reform of this character when they knew that it would be attended by many losses to themselves of their supporters in Ireland. When they came to examine the Queen's Speech they found still further ground for this belief. Last Session Her Majesty's Speech referred to the desirability of assimilating the borough franchise in Ireland to that of England; but before the Session was a month old the measure was shelved by the withdrawal of the Bill, and not a single measure desired by the people of Ireland was passed by Parliament. The only measure of any importance passed for Ireland was to take £750,000 out of the pockets of the Irish people and transfer it to the pockets of the Irish landlords. Two small Bills which did not give rise to any discussion were passed without opposition by the House, and were contemptuously rejected by the House of Lords. When they came to consider Her Majesty's Speech this Session the Irish Members naturally expected that Her Majesty would have attempted to carry out her promise of last Session before she proceeded to make fresh promises with regard to Ireland; but, instead of any reference to the Irish Borough Franchise Question, there was merely a promise to bring in a County Government Bill, a measure involving so many important considerations, and so closely connected with county government in England, that it would tax the undivided energies of Parliament during the greater part of an entire Session. As the questions of coercion and Land Reform must come on first, what could the Irish people think of the bona fides of Her Majesty's Speech when it referred to county government, the Ministers knowing quite well that it was perfectly impossible that the promise could be fulfilled. The Irish Borough Franchise Question had been ripened by discussions during the last Parliament, and was a matter in regard to which no second opinion was entertained in that House. It could have been disposed of, as far, at least, as regarded a second reading, in a single Sitting. The Irish Members, therefore, had a right to complain of an apparent want of bona fides on the part of the Advisers of the Crown. The Irish people could think nothing else but that Her Majesty's Ministers were not sincere in their promises. If they looked to the fact that the Government did not know their own mind on the Land Question, which they plainly showed by shrinking from stating what measure of Land Reform they intended to propose, the only possible inference which the Irish people could draw was that the only measure intended for them was the brutal, the worn out, and the useless measure of coercion which was to be forced down the throats of the Irish Members. He regretted that the Government should have yielded to the Conservative Party and adopted the policy so persistently preached by the Conservative organs of opinion. He regretted extremely that the Government had allowed themselves to be dictated to by the Party of re-action; that they should have forgotten the great wave of Liberal opinion which placed them in power, and which expected them to carry out a policy of governing Ireland by goodwill and affection, rather than by the bayonets of the police.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 36; Noes 274: Majority 238.—(Div. List, No. 6.)

Original Question again proposed.

, in rising to move as an Amendment the addition of the words—

"And we humbly pray Her Majesty to guarantee to the people of Ireland their constitutional rights of public meeting,"

said, that the importance of the subject prevented him from offering any apology for bringing it forward at that late period. The condition of the Irish people was such that even the right to complain was withheld from them. The Irish people, instead of being in the condition of a free people, were in that of the French under the rule of the First Napoleon. Their right to meet in public for the purpose of discussing their grievances was at an end. Before they could meet to discuss their grievances in such a manner as to call the attention of Parliament to them, they must first obtain the permission of a class in the country whose interests were opposed to the removal of those grievances. They were altogether at the mercy of any two magistrates, and of any persons who might choose to swear falsely that riot or tumult was likely to result from the holding of the meeting. That this was no idle danger was amply proved by the number of meetings which had been proclaimed, while in no single instance had riot or tumult resulted from those meetings which had been held. Thus in Ireland men were no longer permitted to discharge the duties or to exercise the rights of free citizens within the law. Even in Russia, as long as the subject conducted himself lawfully and did no act which was outside the pale of the Russian law, the subject was permitted to exercise his rights. But that was not the case in Ireland. In Ireland they had reached that state that men, supposed to be living in a free country, to be ruled by a free Constitution, could no longer exercise the rights supposed to be guaranteed by that Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had admitted in that House that, in his opinion, any two magistrates in Ireland had the right to forbid any public meeting. That statement was made nakedly and boldly. He believed that in theory the people of Ireland were regarded as freemen—that they were supposed to enjoy all the liberties and privileges of Englishmen; but the reverse was the case. He would appeal to the English Radical section of the House to say whether such things were in accordance with their ideas of liberty—whether they would be a party to sustaining in their own country, or what they claimed as part of their own country, a law which was so unjust and unequal. What would be the feelings of hon. Members if they were told by the Home Secretary that the English magistrates could forbid a public meeting in England? In the case of Ireland the objections to the exercise of such powers were still greater than in the case of England, because the Irish magistracy belonged to a special class—a class whose interests and feelings ran counter to the interests and feelings of the Irish people. They mingled only with landlords' society, and were imbued with their prejudices. They took every opportunity of straining the law so as to deprive the people of Ireland of even that scant liberty which was afforded to them under existing laws. The Irish magistracy exercised, by virtue of reading a proclamation, a power which a King would not dare to exercise—that if he did exercise he would risk his head. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members might laugh; but he would like to see the English King who would, of his own accord, order the troops to fire on the people. Even in France, under Napoleon, the people were always warned by the beating of the drum before firing. He begged to call the attention of the House to the importance of the Amendment, because if they expected the people of Ireland to obey the Constitution, if they really wanted to conciliate them and to put an end to that tendency crime and outrage, which some hon. Members affected so much to deplore, they must begin by making the people of Ireland understand that this country wished to treat them as, and place them on an equality with, the other constituents of the Empire. They must, in short, stop all police interference with the liberties of the Irish people. In conclusion, he wished to ask the House, and more particularly the Government, whether it was by them deemed advisable, in order to strengthen the existing law, to pass measures which were, in fact, the creation of that Party in the House which had no sympathy either with Liberalism or with the Home Rule Party?

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Question, to add the words "and we humbly pray Her Majesty to guarantee to the people of Ireland their constitutional rights of public meeting."—( Mr. O'Kelly. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Sir, I rise for the purpose of saying what will not detain the House more than two or three minutes. The hon. Gentleman has made a Motion which undoubtedly involves matters of the greatest importance; but I wish to state, upon the part of the Government, without at all attempting to limit the discretion of the House, that we do not think it becoming or expedient for the public interest that we should enter, on the present occasion, into a debate upon this Amendment. In the first place, I think that a question of so much gravity and importance to be brought before the House should not be brought forward without adequate and proper Notice; and, in the second place, I say that there is no cause for renewing the discussion to-day, which the hon. Gentleman himself introduced by one of those inconvenient and irregular Motions made at the time of putting Questions on one of the first days of the Session—more especially when we bear in mind what happened on that occasion, namely, that the hon. Member and his Friends occupied three hours in the discussion of this very subject. It is perfectly plain that at that time their opinion was that no substantive decision was required upon the subject, because, if they thought that a substantial expression of opinion was necessary, all that had to be done was to give Notice of an Amendment to the Address, but instead of that they took the highly inconvenient course of raising a discussion on the adjournment of the House; and we cannot consent to renew it on the occasion of its re-introduction in this manner, which is also highly inconvenient and not befitting the importance of the subject, and also without any Notice at all. But, Sir, without using any words of warning, but eschewing them altogether—for I consider it highly expedient to avoid them—I have, in a single sentence, to state on my own part, and on the part of my Colleagues, that the reason for our declining to enter into a general discussion of this question now is that it would be highly inexpedient in the present state of Public Business. It is not necessary for me to give any opinion further than this—that I think by prolonging the debate I should aggravate the position in which we are placed; and as I am not willing to take any lot or part in aggravating that inconvenience and resistance from which grave consequences may result, for these reasons, and not from any personal disrespect, I must decline to follow the hon. Gentleman into a discussion on the important subject he has introduced.

had no doubt the inconvenience to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was very much felt by the House; but the irregular and inconvenient discussions had taken place owing to the conduct of the Government. As long as the Government permitted armed forces to disperse meetings in Ireland, so long must the Irish Members bring the facts before the House. They cared nothing for considerations of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. They cared nothing for the state of Public Business, and they cared nothing for the question of certain Rules of procedure in the House, when matters which, in their opinion, were of much greater importance were entirely disregarded by those responsible for the conduct of Public Business. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thought it a trivial matter that a meeting of 10,000 persons should be exposed to the buckshot of the Irish Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman wished to avoid discussion on the subject; but he told him straight that if he did not govern Ireland constitutionally he must expect those irregular discussions to spring up again and again. The Irish Members would carefully watch every occasion of interference with the right of public meeting in Ireland, and bring it under the notice of Parliament. If the Prime Minister wished to get rid of the inconvenience thereby caused, he had only to get rid of them. They were quite willing to get out of the House at the very first opportunity, and they had no desire to intrude upon the time of the House if the Prime Minister would only carry the measures they wished.

said, he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had left the House; but he attributed his departure to a disinclination to state the law with regard to public meetings in Ireland. The Chief Secretary was not a lawyer; and, therefore, it was no disparagement to his eminent qualities to say that they did not look upon him as a very high legal authority. However, in the absence of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he hoped the Chief Secretary would rise and tell them on what ground peaceable citizens assembled for a lawful purpose could be dispersed by armed force, so that they might know what to expect in the future. Judging from the tactics adopted by the magistrates and military in Ireland, there was a substantial difference between the law in the two countries. In England the magistrates had power to prohibit public meetings; but they could not disperse a prohibited assemblage until a riot occurred, and until the Riot Act could be read. In Ireland, on the contrary, if a prohibited meeting was attempted to be held, they were liable to be at once fired upon by the military and police.

said, it seemed to him that without any Coercion Act whatever the right of public meeting was now perishing in Ireland. In the county which he had the honour to represent, a meeting was called simply for the purpose of forming a local branch of the Land League. There was but one sentence in the notice convening the meeting on which any hold could be taken, and it was one merely asking the people to assemble in their thousands. But for several days before the day of meeting notice was given—even in the chapels—that no demonstration and no thousands were required; and yet, at the instance of a large landed proprietor in the neighbourhood, informations were made and forwarded to Dublin Castle to the effect that a breach of the peace was to be apprehended if the meeting were allowed to be held. The landed proprietor to whom he referred, perhaps, thought he would be denounced because he knew he deserved to be denounced; but, be that as it might, the meeting was prohibited. In spite, however, of that fact, and of the presence of a large force of military and constabulary in the town, the branch of the Land League—the sole object of the meeting—was formed. Under existing circumstances, what meetings could be held in Ireland? Most landlords and land agents were magistrates, and carried out some evictions, and had reason to fear, in their own inner consciousness, that their acts would be remembered, and their dealings would be censured by the people. So straightway they laid their informations before the Crown, and the right of public meeting perished in Ireland. He had lately remarked that after the General Election, while Her Majesty's Ministers were fresh from contact with their constituencies, they had some feeling and ear for statements of that kind; but Office seemed to be hardening their hearts, and now Irish Members pleaded to deaf ears when they spoke of the grievances of Ireland.

said, he had been in hopes that some Member of the Ministry would have risen to state that the law in Ireland as to public meetings was not exactly what it had been represented to be. He had hoped that there was no such thing in the United Kingdom as inability for men to meet together to express their grievances. It would be a pity that it should go forth to-morrow to the public that Her Majesty's Ministers were in favour of restricting the right of public meeting. It had been a great argument that Ireland was to be treated in the same way as England; but what would be the feeling in England if public meetings could be suppressed? There must be some mistake in the suggestion that Ireland was under such a grievous despotism. If she were, it was high time that some steps should be taken to alter the state of affairs; and he knew no way in which that step could be taken more speedily than by praying in the reply to the Address to the Throne for relief from the grievances under which the hon. Members said they laboured.

said, that this was not a question of the right of free speech, but of life or death to the Irish people. He was really astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not rise at once to give an answer to the representation just made, as it indicated that the Radicalism below the Gangway was breaking loose from the Ministerial chain. The tone of the Prime Minister contrasted favourably with his needless heat the other day; and as long as the right hon. Gentleman maintained his moderate tone, the subject might be discussed with self-restraint. But what was the good of giving Irish Members time to lay their grievances before the House, if no practical result followed in the shape of redress? They wanted the Chief Secretary for Ireland to declare that the right of public meeting was not abrogated, and that the people were not at the mercy of any two Orange magistrates, with the right hon. Gentleman as a mouthpiece. If an English King, on his own responsibility, attempted to disperse a public meeting in England, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland was now occasionally doing in Ireland, it would cost him his head. The English people had shown their feelings on this subject in 1866, when the railings of Hyde Park were thrown down. On that occasion, Liberal Members supported the people in asserting the right of public meeting, and the event had a beneficent influence on the destinies of the country, for if it had not occurred we might have been tinkering away with the suffrage up to this day. In the great social revolt against landlordism which was now taking place in Ireland, there was upon the one side the Irish people, and upon the other that despotic, hungering, and wicked minority of landlords whom British rule planted on Irish soil, and whom British rule was now endeavouring to preserve, when the Irish people had it in its last gasp. In that great war the landlords had not only the armed forces of England behind them—they had not only the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary of a Liberal Government at their back; but they themselves occupied the magisterial bench, and held the scales of justice in their own favour, robbing and slaying the Irish people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to offer a stern resistance to the machinations of the magistrates, instead of allowing them to dictate to him his policy and to raise false cries of danger to peace. The way in which the magistrates abused their power was shown by the proclamation of the Brookborough meeting, which passed off peaceably with an Orangeman in the chair, and demonstrated the community of feeling between Orangemen and Catholics. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had been invited to attend a meeting which was to take place at Drogheda on Sunday; but it was proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, on sworn information that it was to be held "for the purpose of denouncing and intimidating certain of Her Majesty's subjects." He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) knew that paragraph in the information was utterly without foundation. He had seen the resolutions to be proposed, and there was not a single word in them that could have given rise to the proclamation. Yet, in order to prevent the mowing down of the people by the soldiery and policemen who were present to prevent the holding of the meeting, he advised the crowd to disperse and assemble elsewhere, and there was not anything in the speeches made to that assembly that could at all justify the conduct of the Government in the matter. The fact was the Irish people lived under the rule of a despotic Government. How different was the state of things in Ireland from that which ruled in this country! In England the right of public meeting was not only acquiesced in, but upheld by, the Government; but in Ireland it was both denied and trampled upon. Every day that he had lived in England, breathing a free atmosphere, he became more and more indignant at the manner in which his country had been treated by the English Government. In fact, the freedom which existed in England, the liberty of English institutions, and the liberty of public meeting, only brought into deeper relief and stronger contrast the negation of all these rights in the case of Ireland. Yet it was a Liberal Government that attempted to tamper with Liberal principles. If Government attempted to put down the right of public meeting in this country they would bring about a repetition of the Peterloo massacre; and that was what any Administration of the day, be it Whig or Tory, would shrink from. It might, perhaps, be said that he spoke with warmth, but certainly not with a warmth disproportionate to the importance of the question; for, if the system of suppressing public meetings continued, English politicians had better take the advice of Mr. Froude, who said England had the choice of allowing Ireland to govern herself and of ruling her despotically. If the Government were going to govern Ireland despotically, for goodness sake let them say so; but they should not keep up a sham of Constitutionalism, and, at the same time, deprive them of every right of the Constitution. He contended that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had proved himself to be unequal to the situation in which he was placed. They found at the present moment respectable traders in towns dragged off to police cells and refused bail; public meetings were suppressed on flimsy pretexts; and the lives of the people were threatened with soldiers and police. In the face of all this the Government had the audacity to come forward and ask for a further suspension of Constitutional rights. He would guarantee that the discussions in that House by Irish Members would be brought within reasonable limits, if only the Prime Minister would undertake to treat Ireland as England was treated. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been the means of leading the right hon. Gentleman astray. On the head of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, then, the responsibility must rest of having betrayed the Liberal Party, and of having formed direct designs against the liberties of the Irish people. If report spoke true, he had not hesitated even openly to avow this; proving that of all who ever held power the most dangerous was the weak man when he got the reins of the State within his grasp.

supported the Amendment, as he considered the lives of the people of Ireland should no longer be left in the hands of the Irish police, who thought they were commissioned to do as they liked. Instead, however, of being protected from the insolent tyranny of that force, they were now threatened with coercion, loss of liberty, and official ascendancy. Matters had come to a grave crisis in Ireland when per- sons under 21 years of age were taken possession of by the police and taken to Dublin without the knowledge of their parents. He argued that the House ought to legislate for the whole Kingdom, and not for one section of it. The late Government allowed people in Ireland to starve and die without lifting a hand to save them, and now this Government were taking from them their rights and liberty. As to the outrages reported in Ireland, which had been exaggerated one hundred-fold, the poisoner, William Palmer, of Rugeley, committed more murders than had been committed in Ireland in the course of an entire year. Before, then, they pronounced a verdict against Ireland on this point, he held that they were sitting in that House as a jury, and that they ought to have the most reliable evidence before them that they could get. The name of Judge Fitzgerald having been mentioned, he thought that Judge should be summoned to the bar of the House, so that they could have his evidence, and cross-examine him; but he did not think he should hang anyone on the evidence manufactured by the police.

here reminded the hon. Member that he was not speaking to the Question before the House, which was the right of public meeting.

said, that England was a Republic in everything but name, and it was only in Ireland that they found that the British Constitution did not exist. The right of public meeting was not restricted in England, or in any part of the British Empire; and he protested strongly and most emphatically against the right being withheld from the Irish people whenever bad legislation required that they should hold such meetings.

begged to return his heartfelt thanks to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), who had made himself so honourable an exception to the body of English Members by interposing at a critical time, and endeavouring to recall the minds of Her Majesty's Government to the statesmanlike measures they should resort to in dealing with the grievances of the Irish people. The Irish Members had appealed to the House against coercion; they had asked the House to intervene so as to moderate the acuteness of the crisis in Ireland as regarded eviction, and in both attempts had failed. The Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson) now proposed to preserve to the Irish people the right of public meeting, a right so sacred in England that no English Minister could "dare" to attack it without insuring his own expulsion from power. He could challenge the history of all public agitations to produce a series of meetings at a time of such excitement and public suffering marked by such an extraordinary character of self-repression and good order as those which had been held in Ireland. In the course of the last two years 450 public meetings had been held in Ireland, in all its Provinces, to promote the endeavour to procure the safety of the people from the territorial despotism which drove them into the earth; and, at an average of 5,000 for each meeting, that would give a total of 2,500,000, or about half the population of Ireland, who had assembled in an orderly and peaceful manner to demand the redress of their wrongs. The attendance at those meetings involved a great amount of hardship, young men and old often walking to them from a great distance without food; and, such had been the extraordinary self-restraint of the Irish people in this movement, under the influence of the high emotions and strong public principles which guided them in it, so honourable had been their course of conduct, that even the magistrates (who were opposed to it) had not deemed it necessary, except on very rare occasions, to take away from them the temptations to excess which existed in open public-houses. At a great meeting in the County Cavan, he (Mr. Sexton) observed, while his hon. Friend was speaking, a police-constable in the crowd openly taking notes, and, with a want of restraint which often marked the conduct of the police in such cases, exchanging angry and irritating remarks with the people. Foreseeing that a breach of the peace might occur, he invited the constable to come on the platform and take his notes. The constable complied, was courteously received, and the meeting proceeded in unbroken peace. The moral of that was, that if the people of Ireland were allowed, without needless irritation on the part of the agents of the Crown, to hold their meetings, always necessary, and in the present case vital, it would be seen that they were capable of exercising that right in a manner consistent with public order and the interests of the whole community. On the other hand, if that right was interfered with, he ventured to say that the results would be such as would cause the Government to rue the day they ever interfered, and as would greatly increase the extraordinary tension which at present existed with regard to the state of Ireland. Reference had been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and he (Mr. Sexton) desired, at a time when passion ran so high and there was danger of hasty words being spoken under great irritation, to refer to the right hon. Gentleman in language not exceeding in the slightest the tone which he considered due to the occasion. When the right hon. Gentleman came to Ireland he was received, if not with cordiality, at least with respect, as a man who had made his mark by honourable achievements in the field of peaceful reform in England. He (Mr. Sexton) had sympathy enough to feel sorry when a great reputation was wrecked; and he felt that sorrow now when he considered the position of the right hon. Gentleman, who had fallen under an influence which had always proved fatal to every English statesman who had taken part in the government of Ireland—the fatal influence of the Castle. The official class in Ireland were by family and social ties bound up inextricably with the landlord class, and under their influence the right hon. Gentleman had fallen. He regretted to see the spectacle of the right hon. Gentleman returning, after a brief period, to that House, a man morally transformed, no longer devoted to those great principles of justice and of popular right which had always marked his previous career, but returning as the agent of the prejudice and the panic of the landlord class in Ireland—the wild, unreasonable panic—and returning there also as the mouthpiece of what, he dared say, they would presume to dignify as their ideas. The right of public meeting was sacred in England; and he regretted to see, in the language of the Most Gracious Speech, that there was danger of its being interfered with in Ireland. One of the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, Earl Grey, had lost power in 1835 by interfering with that right. Ireland at that time was in a dangerous condition, and there was an important difference of opinion among the Members of the Government as to the prohibition of public meetings. Earl Grey, however, remained obstinate, and, in the end, the result was that he had to retire from power. He respectfully invited the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was now more necessary than in 1835 to abridge the liberties of the people. He wished also to call attention to the various pretexts on which meetings had been prohibited. In one instance the meeting had been prohibited on an anonymous information that had been traced to the Orange Party; in another, the prohibition had been issued, far more justifiably, on the ground that a meeting held near Dublin might affect the course of the trial now proceeding in the Four Courts; and, in a third case, a magistrate, being asked why he had prohibited a meeting, replied—"I have no authority, and I will show none; but if you refuse to disperse I will shoot you down." Now that he had mentioned some of the reasons that had been given for the prohibition of meetings, he hoped that either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or his Legal Adviser, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, would let them know what was the precise and exact state of the law with regard to the right of public meeting. The authorities had acted on various pretences, and had made it difficult for the people to know when meetings might be held and when they might not. He claimed as a right the full exposition of the law upon the subject; and if the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland gave the required explanation, the House would be able to understand what necessity there was for the people to appeal to the Government not to proceed any further in repressing the right of public meeting. If the ordinary law turned out to be sufficient, the House ought certainly to assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend. But, whatever might be the case as to the sufficiency of the ordinary law, he trusted that in this stage of a crisis that was becoming more and more acute every day, the House would use its influence with the Government in impressing upon it the necessity of exercising a wise discretion in not interfering with the right of public meeting. The anger of the people, if not allowed free expression, would take a more dangerous form, and might even result in action of an unconstitutional kind, which, to say nothing of the embarrassment in which it would involve the Government, would unquestionably end in disaster to Ireland.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of giving any exposition of the Constitutional law with regard to the right of holding public meetings, but to point out that Questions had been asked with regard to almost every meeting that had been prohibited, and an answer had been given in every case. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) had, in reality, stated, in a former debate, what he believed to be the state of the law on this question. He also hoped the House would not suppose that he rose with the object of replying to any of the personal attacks that had been made upon him either by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) or by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Sexton) had not engaged in any personalities. He thought hon. Members would find it difficult to make any personal attacks, whatever the amount of their absurdity or bitterness, to which he should reply. After the remarks made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to the manner in which this debate had been raised, he should not have thought it necessary to say a word had it not been for the few words which fell from his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson). Those words ought not to be passed by altogether without reply. He thought his hon. Friend could not have been present during the days which they had been sitting in this hitherto short Session, or he would have known that the right of holding public meetings in Ireland had not generally been interfered with when the object of those meetings had been to advocate any Constitutional scheme, however extreme. He might almost say also that his hon. Friend must have paid very little attention to what had been going on in Ireland for the last few weeks or months. The hon. Mem- ber who just now addressed the House had answered his hon. Friend, who seemed to fear that the right of public meeting, or of meeting together to express a wish for a change of law, or even to denounce the Government or the authorities for not changing the law as was desired, was interfered with more in Ireland than it was in England. Surely his hon. Friend must have seen that day after day meetings had been held; at some of those meetings the language had not been particularly measured; but there had not been the remotest attempt at interference. Four hundred thousand Irishmen were said to have attended those meetings. [Mr. SEXTON: 2,500,000.] Really that ought to be some comfort to his hon. Friend, and he hoped that from it his hon. Friend would see that the right of public meeting had not been altogether done away with in Ireland in the way in which some sympathetic minds seemed to suppose. It had been charged against the Members of the Government that they were more Orange than the Orangemen themselves. As to that, he would remind the House that some of the Land League meetings had been held under the protection of the police and the military, in order to prevent their being interfered with by Orangemen. The fact was that the meetings which had been prohibited had been prohibited only on one or the other of these three grounds. In one case, and certainly not in more than two cases, on the ground that the authorities feared a breach of the peace and loss of life if the meetings were not prohibited; secondly, on the ground that there was a reasonable expectation that individuals would be in danger; and, thirdly, one meeting was prohibited on the very sufficient ground that it was apparently intended to interfere with the trials which were going on in Dublin.

challenged the statement that meetings had been prohibited only on the three grounds mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster). The Curriehill meeting announced to be held on Sunday, the 19th of December, was suppressed under these circumstances—Mr. Owens called on the right hon. Gentleman in Dublin, on Friday, the 17th of December, and, after vainly trying to induce the right hon. Gentleman to suppress the meeting, said he would have his will drawn up with the following statement in it:—"Whereas I have met my death in consequence of the refusal of the Chief Secretary to suppress the meeting."

observed, that there was no truth whatever in that story.

said, he was not responsible for the story, which was, perhaps, too good to be true. The right hon. Gentleman had not, however, denied that he held an interview with Mr. Owens on Friday, the 17th of December.

remarked, that he did not see Mr. Owens on that day.

said, that, at all events, on the Saturday evening, after dark, a proclamation was issued prohibiting the meeting, which was to have been held on the following morning. Not one of these meetings had been suppressed by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland. It was an insult for the Chief Secretary to say he would not have spoken but for the observations of an English Member. He (Mr. Callan) knew that a meeting had been suppressed against the unanimous wish of the magistrates at Drogheda, on the authority of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, of Cavan, the brother of the Mr. Lloyd who led the "Boycotting" expedition to Lough Mask. He had no hesitation in saying that a more orderly or a better conducted meeting was never held than the one at Drogheda to which he had referred. When the second gentleman came up he kept his identity a mystery. He commenced by ordering the meeting to disperse, and as the chairman was going away from the meeting he said to him—"If you meet again I will fire upon it." The answer given by the chairman was that Mr. Forster would not permit such arbitrary and such unconstitutional conduct in Bradford. In that remark he fully agreed. The fact was that an unprecedented course had been adopted by the present Government towards perfectly legitimate gatherings in Ireland.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 173: Majority 139.—(Div. List, No. 7.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Mr. STUART RENDEL, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. GLADSTONE, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. DODSON, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. COURTNEY, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it consisted of two clauses. The purpose was to correct a clerical error in the Burials Act, in one of the clauses of which the word "that" appeared instead of "this." The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Mr. Osborne Morgan. )

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, next.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it came from the House of Lords, and consisted almost of one sentence. When the Lords Justices were appointed originally, there were only two, and they were made Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Since that time, by two Acts of Parliament, four additional Lords Justices of Appeal had been appointed. But there was an omission made. They were not made Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and the object of the Bill was to make all the Lords Justices of Appeal, six in number, Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—an arrangement which was necessary in the public interest, for the good working of that body. The measure would not interfere with the other duties of the Lords Justices of Appeal, who would sit on the Judicial Committee only when their services could be spared from the Court of Appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Mr. Attorney General. )

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it also came down from the other House. By the 26 & 27 Vict., power was given to the Lord Chancellor to sell certain small livings, and a fund was formed, to be applied to their augmentation, not only by means of money, but also to apply £500 to the building or repairing of the parsonage house. One of the objects of the Bill was to extend that power of the Chancellor, if the fund could afford it, to expend more than £500 upon a parsonage-house, provided the incumbent in possession of the living would spend an equal amount for that purpose. Another object of the Bill was to enable the Lord Chancellor, at his discretion, to increase the existing limit of £1 to every four persons, that sum being found inadequate in some instances; but the total amount for a small living would not exceed £200. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Mr. Attorney General. )

pointed out that the Bill had been delivered to hon. Members only that morning, and suggested that if the second reading were now postponed it would not interfere with the future progress of the measure.

urged that the Bill was a very simple one. It only removed existing limitations, which prevented the Lord Chancellor spending money efficiently. He, therefore, trusted that it would now receive its second reading.

, in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), promised to give ample Notice of the Committee on the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

said, the Motion having been proposed from the Chair that the Resolution be read a second time, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the actual circumstances in which it was placed. Owing to the state of Public Business, the Government was disposed to make this Motion to the House without any delay, so that they might make all the progress in their power. At the same time, it was within the knowledge of the House that the usual practice had been to take the Report of the Address into consideration on the evening after that Address had been agreed to; and he would, therefore, only proceed with the Report of the Address provided the House was of opinion that, under the circumstances, it was best that that should be done. If no objection was taken, the Government would propose to go forward with the Report now. It was only with the full knowledge on the part of the House, and for public convenience, that they deviated from the usual course of proceeding.

said, he had intended to move an Amendment on the Report of the Address to the following effect:—

"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that, pending the proposal of the Government measure with regard to the ownership and occupation of land in Ireland, it is necessary to take immediate steps to suspend ejectments in Ireland where the landlords are unable to prove to the satisfaction of the county court that the rent is a fair and reasonable rent."

That would have raised—

I must point out that the Motion is, "That the Address be now read a second time." It would not be in Order for the hon. Member to move his Amendment until the House has disposed of that Motion.

said, he did not desire to oppose the Motion after the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that it was important, in the interest of Public Business, to have the Report agreed to that night. He supposed, as he should not proceed with his Amendment, that it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with the discussion of the Motion with regard to Public Business, and also that it was not intended by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to take the first reading of the two Bills with regard to Ireland.

No.

The two Bills have been already postponed.

The Question is, "That the Address be now read a second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Address read a second time.

, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to add the following words:—

"And we humbly pray Her Majesty to take immediate steps, either by communication with the Government of Cape Colony or by proposing mediation between the contending parties, to prevent further destruction of life and property in Basutoland,"

said, he was quite sure that the House would believe him when he said that he had no wish to cause any delay in the prosecution of Public Business. He fully sympathized with his fellow-Members who thought that the House had been very long in the discussion which had arisen on the Address, and which had been very wearisome. His excuse—or, at least, his justification—for bringing that question forward was that it was perfectly clear, from the state of Public Business, that if he did not, he would have no opportunity for a long period of doing so. He thought he could prove that the matter was worthy of the consideration of that House—worthy of its consideration even in discussing the Address; because, in one of the sentences in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, they were told that measures would be introduced for the protection of life and property. It was true that that sentence referred to Ireland, and that a state of things existed in Ireland which all must deplore. But there had been of late only seven agrarian murders in Ireland; whereas, in Basutoland, at that moment, hundreds of the inhabitants, who were equally subjects of the Queen with themselves, were being destroyed. He believed that whenever there was a disturbance approaching to a rebellion or insurrection in a country there must always be some cause for it. People made rebellions because they had a real grievance, which they—very likely foolishly—thought they could get rid of. He remembered that Mr. Burke said that—

"In all disputes which people have with their rulers, the presumption is at least upon a par in favour of the people."

The Basutos had good ground for complaining of the manner in which they had been treated before they took up arms. He would mention some of the principal events in the history of the Basutos. That history, so far as it was known to us, did not go very far back—not further than 1833, when French Missionaries settled among them. During the time those Missionaries lived in the country he believed that a greater improvement had been made than was ever made by a savage race in a like period. The year 1861 marked a period, as the people were governed by a great Ruler of their own, and he was anxious that his people should become subjects of the Queen, they remaining in possession of the land. In 1868, Sir Philip Wodehouse stopped the cruel war between the Boers and the Basutos, and proclaimed the latter people British subjects. In 1871, there was annexation of Basutoland with the Cape Colony; but in the Instructions given to Sir Hercules Robinson it appeared that the power of making laws for that country was vested in the Governor, an official from this country. In the following year a responsible Government was established in the Cape. According to Lord Kimberley, that step affected the Governor's position in regard to the affairs of Basutoland; but the Basutos received no formal notice of any alteration in the position and power of the Governor. They were not consulted as to the Act of Annexation, of 1871, and were never officially informed of its passing; and his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) belief was that they did not know that the Cape Government had any power over them, but that they believed they were the subjects of the Queen, and that the laws and regulations came from her or her Government. After the Annexation Act of 1871 they appeared to have lived peaceably and happily under the Government till 1879. Up to that date they were governed by magistrates in the way in which such tribes were dealt with by our Colonies. Mr. Arthur Barkly, a magistrate in the district of Masupa, who was one of the Chiefs engaged in the present insurrection, wrote, on the 12th of November, 1877, that nothing could bear stronger testimony to the law-abiding and orderly disposition of the Basutos than the singular absence of crimes of violence from among them. This was the more remarkable, inasmuch as the amount of supervision exercised was exceedingly small. The general good conduct of the people seemed to be due, in the first place, to the prohibition of the sale of liquor in the territory; and, next, to the natural love of order which seemed to be one of the most striking traits of the Basuto character. Such a people were not likely to break out into open rebellion against us without a cause. What were the causes? Colonel Griffin, the Agent General of Basutoland, said they were—First, the appropriation of the large sum of £12,500 which was levied on the territory; secondly, the disarmament of the Basutos; thirdly, taking from the Basutos the land which was occupied by Moirosi; and, fourthly, doubling the land tax. It appeared that Moirosi quarrelled with this country; that we went to war with him; that the Basutos assisted us in putting him down; and when he was put down we parcelled out his land among the White men. Now, we had no right to do so, as the land belonged to the people, and should not have been given to the White men. He did not think, however, that any of the causes he had mentioned would have led to the war without the disarmament. That was the last straw, so to speak, that broke the camel's back, and led to the war. The question was, how did the Natives get these arms? It was simply that when they worked for the White men in the Diamond Fields they were paid in warlike weapons—indeed, were forced to take them instead of money. Then came the order that they should give them up. Besides this, they regarded any attempt to disarm them as a kind of insult. In proof of this he quoted from the evidence of the Governor of Basutoland in 1878, an opinion that disarmament would lead to war; that there was no other cause that would give occasion to war, and that any proposal of that kind would be insanity, and might raise other Black races against us. Sir Garnet Wolseley had emphatically condemned the measure, telling us that such a step would raise the whole of South Africa against us. The belief of the Basutos was that when they were disarmed the Europeans would take their land. That notion lay at the bottom of the whole trouble, and he was not at all sure that it was groundless. Mr. Sprigg, the Prime Minister, was reported to have said what was tantamount to this—that when the struggle should be over, the Colonists would be given the spoils of war. The speech in which the Earl of Kimberley said a month or two ago that Mr. Sprigg had no right to use such words, was described in the Cape newspapers as "startling and serious;" and it was prophesied that this announcement that the Colonists would not have the spoils of war, in other words the land, would have a most serious effect upon the cause. Authorities who understood the country were of opinion that if more time had been given—if matters had not been hurried on—the Basutos might ultimately have submitted to be disarmed. Unfortunately, this policy of delay had failed to recommend itself to those in power. How, he asked, had the war been carried on? One newspaper likened it to a hunt, saying that the great question was not to fight in accordance with the humanitarian ideas of the 19th century, but to fight in such a way as to make the discomfiture of the enemy certain. The war seemed to be a religious war, for the Wesleyan Missionaries advocated it. One of them had said, in reference to it—"Only by the action of the sword can Christianity make its way among the dark races of the African Continent." The fierce spirit in which the war was carried on was well exemplified in the following occurrence:—In a camp about to be abandoned by the Colonial troops a pit was dug and filled with dynamite, in the expectation that a band of Basutos would soon appear upon the scene and be blown up. The officer in charge of the expedition witnessed the explosion from some distance, and saw four Basutos in the air at the same time. If any enemy had done such a thing in warfare with us, what invectives would have appeared in the newspapers! But surely the lives of Basutos were of some value, and surely they should be treated as other soldiers would be. Lord Kimberley said that the Basutos were rebels against the Queen. But they did not themselves think so. They believed they were under the protection of the Queen, and were only fighting against Mr. Sprigg and the Colonists. They called themselves the Queen's children, and at heart desired to be as loyal as any other of Her Majesty's subjects. But if they were rebels, surely it was the duty of this country to help the Colonists in putting them down. It would be as legitimate as arranging matters with the Albanians and Montenegrins, and people of that sort. If they were not rebels, surely this country ought to protect them. If the Government would follow neither of these courses, might they not mediate between the parties? The fact, however, was that the Government were doing worse than nothing—it was virtually "keeping the ring" while the two combatants were engaged in a deadly struggle. The Colonists, too, he asserted, had always been led to understand that if they really got the worst of the struggle they had a reserve power at home, and that our troops would, sooner or later, come to help them. He perfectly recognized the good spirit of the Instructions given to Sir Hercules Robinson, and of the reference to the war in the Queen's Speech. He had, in fact, very little difference with the Government on this matter. They said they would "take" an occasion for mediating in the interest of peace. He wished them to make an occasion. No one could pretend to say that if they did desire to stop the war they could not do it; and it was to save the British name from the danger and discredit of further bloodshed that he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment. The Basuto War, it seemed to him, was an illustration of the saying that one great mistake led to another. It was the outcome of the unreasonable scare about the Black people which was generated by the Zulu War, and the Basuto Chief, Letsea, was very near the truth when he said that he only knew of one fault on his part, that of his having a black skin. He (Mr. Fowler) considered that no people had ever been more injured in any of our Colonies than were the Basutos at the present moment. According to all testimony, they were the most harmless, the most industrious, and the most energetic of all the Black races. They had been constantly loyal, and as the reward of their loyalty we turned round upon them and inflicted upon them all the horrors of war. It was difficult to account in any reasonable way for the apprehension with which they were regarded by the Colonists. When Morosi rebelled, Letsea, the supreme Chief, actually sent a force to our assistance. The French Missionaries, in the Petition they had addressed to the English Government on this subject, said—

"The country, which our Missionaries had found in 1833 nearly desert, as a consequence of dispersion caused by war and famine, has been re-peopled, and the ravenous animals which kept the wretched inhabitants, in constant terror have entirely disappeared. The way to close, peaceful, and beneficial intercourse between the Basutos, the Colony, and the English Government was opened. Commerce and agriculture have made such progress that Basutoland, by its importations and exportations, has become a most valuable province. Thirteen stations or centres of worship and primary instruction were founded by our Missionaries. They have also created 70 subsidiary outstations. … Some 120 young men and 30 young women received instruction in two large normal schools. … Among the many thousands who daily acquired a greater knowledge of the Gospel, more than 6,000 have received it, and become Christians by rejecting the superstitious and evil practices of their ancestors, besides about 20,000 Natives who were regularly instructed. Such being the condition of Basutoland at the time the war arose, Her Majesty's Ministers will understand the anxiety with which the Paris Committee and the French and Swiss Churches we represent behold its present disorder and desolation."

Sir Philip Wodehouse said he was certain there were no more loyal subjects of the Crown than the Basutos. In fact, there never was a word said against them until they were told to disarm. Then, again, there was the despatch, which had been referred to by the previous speaker, of Sir Garnet Wolseley, which stated—

"That the Cape Colony is endeavouring to take the arms from its Natives, regardless of whether they had or had not been previously loyal, is a species of news that soon spreads far and wide beyond our frontiers, and is calculated to raise the bitterest of feelings against our rule. I may possibly attach too much importance to the effect which this disarmament policy will have upon the Native mind generally, but I am sure that it is at least fraught with danger to the peace of our Colonies.

"If it were possible to disarm all the Natives of South Africa, it might possibly be worth while to incur no little risk to secure that end, but to incur the risk of war as we are now doing in the Cape Colony for the purpose of obtaining say 20,000 or even 30,000 guns from the loyal Basutos, whilst hundreds of thousands stand of arms are still left in the hands of the neighbouring tribes, and of the tribes in and around Natal and the Transvaal is, in my opinion, incurring a most serious risk for an incommensurate object."

Sir Bartle Frere contended that because they rebelled they must previously have had rebellious intentions; but that surely was a non sequitur unworthy of Sir Bartle Frere's logical mind. As far as the causes of the war were concerned, he thought that much more of terror than of greed had to do with it. Sir Bartle Frere was not likely to desire the land of the Basutos; but he had shown great fear of the Natives. As to the nature of the war, if they read the newspapers they would find that in the encounters which were described the losses of the Colonial Forces were always much smaller than those of the enemy; and the war, in his opinion, might be characterized as a series of massacres. The Basutos had been encouraged to buy arms; and was it to be wondered at that they were unwilling to give them up? He could not help thinking that if the Basutos had at once submitted to the disgrace which it was proposed to inflict upon them they would have proved themselves to be wanting in the spirit which became a manly character. The wish of those who held opinions in accordance with those of the opponents of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle seemed to be to drive the Black men back into savagery from the condition of semi-civilization to which they had attained. It was all very well to say that the miserable war in which they were engaged was the work of the Cape Government, and that they were solely responsible for it; but the war had been waged with the approval of a Governor appointed by the English Crown, and he could not help thinking that the good name of England had been sadly injured in reference to this business, and he hoped that the Instructions which had been given to Sir Hercules Robinson would have the effect of putting an end to this wretched and miserable war. A more disgraceful business could not be found in the history of our Colonies; and he called upon Parliament to let the world know that they regarded it as unworthy of a Christian people and a great and free nation.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the said Address, to add the words "And we humbly pray Her Majesty to take immediate steps, either by communication with the Government of Cape Colony, or by proposing mediation between the contending parties, to prevent further destruction of life and property in Basutoland."—( Sir Wilfrid Lawson. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, that his excuse for troubling the House with some remarks upon this question was that he had had the honour of serving in the Colonial Office before and during the time when the annexation of Basutoland took place, and also when responsible Government was granted to the Cape Colony. In the first place, he confessed that, looking to the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and comparing those terms with the paragraph in the Queen's Speech relating to Basutoland, he was unable to see what good object could be attained by bringing forward this Amendment at a time when it was not only inconvenient, but inexpedient, to raise a discussion, considering that Her Majesty's Government had promised friendly action in the matter. The hon. Baronet would hardly advance his case much by obtaining from the House an expression of regret that this war should have broken out, as there could be no doubt that not only every Member of this House, but every person in this country, must deeply regret that there should be war with a tribe hitherto loyal and peaceful, and rapidly increasing in civilization. Nor, again, could he expect to force the Government, who had announced, through Her Gracious Majesty's Speech, their desire "if a suitable occasion should present itself, to take friendly action," to proceed to take immediate steps, without consideration whether there was or was not a favour- able opportunity for intervening. There were one or two points of importance which he (Sir Henry Holland) thought should be distinctly brought under the notice of the House with reference to this question. In the first place, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle appeared to think that the Basuto Chiefs had no idea that they were to be annexed to a Colony, but believed that they were always to be under the Administration of the High Commissioner. This was, however, an entire misconception of the facts of the case. From the very beginning the Basuto Chiefs were aware that their ultimate destination was to be annexed to a Colony; and, with the permission of the House, he (Sir Henry Holland) would prove this very shortly. In 1862 Moshesh requested that he and his subjects might be recognized as subjects of the Queen. Sir Philip Wodehouse, then Governor of the Cape Colony, sent up Commissioners to Moshesh, to explain to him fully the change which this would make in his independent position. That negotiation, however, fell through. In 1865, and in 1866, Moshesh again requested to be taken into the hands of the Queen's Government; but again the application was refused. And it was to be noted that again, in 1866, he applied to the Colony of Natal to be annexed to that Colony, which offer was, of course, refused. That showed that he was prepared for annexation. In December, 1867, however, when there was a prospect of renewed and serious hostilities between Moshesh and the Orange Free State, which might endanger the peace and welfare of Her Majesty's Possessions in South Africa, the Duke of Buckingham, then Colonial Secretary, authorized Sir Philip Wodehouse,

"Whenever a fitting opportunity may occur, to treat with Moshesh for the recognition of him and his tribe as British subjects, and for the incorporation of their territory with Natal."

Therefore, Sir Philip Wodehouse, by letter of January 13, 1868, informed Moshesh that he and his tribe would be received as subjects of the British Throne, and that it was Her Majesty's pleasure that Basutoland should, if practicable, form part of the Colony of Natal. He added that he would visit Basutoland in April and discuss the details of the arrangement. Moshesh, in his reply of the 26th of January, 1868, says—

"It matters little to us to know to what Colony Basutoland is to be annexed so long as we are under British protection and rule. Since the Queen has decided that Basutoland should form part of the Colony of Natal, it is all right; we are content."

And in a letter to Mr. Brand, then President of the Free State, Moshesh says—

"His Excellency (Sir Philip Wodehouse) is coming up to make arrangements necessitated by the annexation of my country to a British Colony."

Basutoland was made British territory by Proclamation of March the 12th, 1868; and in April Sir Philip Wodehouse went to Thaba Bosigo, and had several interviews with Moshesh and the Basuto Chiefs and a large concourse of the tribe. He

"Informed them of the intended annexation to the Colony of Natal, and explained at the same time that this step must necessarily be deferred until we had brought to a close our negotiations with the Free State."—[ Despatch of May 2, 1868. Cape of Good Hope Paper, 1869.]

There could be no doubt that Moshesh then decidedly objected to be annexed to Natal, and that he disclaimed ever having seriously made the proposal in 1866; but he urged that all their relations had been with the Cape; and he said that to detach them from the Cape would be "like to separating a child from a mother." It must also be admitted that Mosesh strongly preferred that he and his people should depend on the High Commissioner alone, and that Basutoland should be made a "Native reserve," where Natives alone should be allowed to dwell; but it was quite clear that Sir Philip Wodehouse never held out any hopes to him that that would be, done. Sir Philip Wodehouse had, indeed, no power to assent to such a proposal in face of the special and clear instructions of the Duke of Buckingham. That fact was confirmed by Mr. Keate's independent account of the very last interview with Moshesh in the same month of April. Moshesh again remonstrated against annexation to Natal; and he was told, in reply, that the question as to what Colony Basutoland was to be annexed would be settled after full consideration of whatever might be urged for the benefit of all parties. That statement showed that though there was a question as to which Colony Moshesh desired to be annexed, no assent was given to his proposal to be permanently placed under the High Commissioner. It was afterwards thought by Sir Philip Wodehouse that an immediate union with either the Cape or Natal was not desirable; and the Duke of Buckingham consented that the territory should for the present be under the control of the Governor as High Commissioner. In the year 1870 Lord Kimberley pointed out, in a despatch of October 17, to Sir Henry Barkly, that Basutoland was—

"A district in the position of an inchoate Crown Colony waiting for annexation to one of its neighbours, and in some degree dependent upon one (the Cape) for order."

And he added—

"It is clear that the territory should be annexed as soon as possible either to Natal or the Cape."

Accordingly, in 1871, Sir Henry Barkly, at the opening of the Cape Parliament, urged upon them the annexation of Basutoland. He pointed out that it was tranquil and contented, and that the Cape would get the full benefit of its trade and labour. He pointed out, however, the obvious impracticability of bringing its inhabitants at once under the full scope of Colonial law, and suggested that the Governor should be empowered by an Annexation Act to carry on the existing system of management which he had, as High Commissioner, pursued. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was wrong in supposing that full effect was given to this suggestion by the Annexation Act; but it did provide that Cape Acts should not extend to Basutoland unless specially mentioned, or unless extended to that territory under Proclamation of the Governor, and, to that extent, Basutoland was protected from the ordinary Cape laws. In November, 1871, Basutoland was annexed to the Cape. There was no trace, so far as he (Sir Henry Holland) could discover in the Blue Book, of any previous communication having been made to the Basutos of the impending change. Probably it was assumed, and not unreasonably, by Sir Henry Barkly, who had, as High Commissioner, gained the esteem of the Basuto Chiefs, and advanced the prosperity of their country, that the Basutos were well aware that they were to be annexed, sooner or later, to the Cape; and that they knew the consequences of such annexation. But he (Sir Henry Holland) was disposed to think that it would have been fairer to the Basutos, and more prudent, to have followed the example of Sir Philip Wodehouse in 1862, and to have desired the Government Agent expressly and fully to explain to them their position in the future. This, perhaps, was the more desirable, as the territory had been since March, 1868, administered under the direct control of the Governor as High Commissioner. He (Sir Henry Holland) thought that the statement of the above facts would be sufficient to convince the House that no unfair hardship was inflicted upon the Basutos by annexation to the Cape Colony; that they were, from the first, informed that annexation to a Colony would take place, though for various reasons it was delayed at first. And now he (Sir Henry Holland) would proceed to point out to the House what was the relative position of the Home Government and the Cape Government with respect to Basutoland—a matter of great importance in considering this case, but which had been either overlooked, or insufficiently appreciated, by the Mover of the Amendment. Responsible Government was granted to the Cape Colony in November, 1872; and Basutoland became, thereupon, subject to the same control of the Central Colonial Administration as the rest of the Colony. The position was clearly defined by Lord Kimberley in a despatch to Sir Henry Barkly of November 17, 1871; and there could be no doubt that the administration of the government of the territory rested, after 1872, with the Colonial Government. This was not the time to discuss the question whether responsible Government should, or should not, have been granted to the Colony; but the position of Her Majesty's Government since then had been as follows:—They could tender advice, and require the Governor to urge it upon the Colonial Ministers; but they could not enforce it so far as regarded the internal administration of the Colony. Take, for example, the disarmament policy. They could urge the impolicy of the measure; they could remonstrate against the way in which it was carried out; and they could require the Governor to use his just influence in upholding the views of Her Majesty's Government. But they could do no more, as it was purely a matter of internal administration. He (Sir Henry Holland) would observe, in passing, that it was for this reason that he considered it useless to discuss here the question whether, in the opinion of this House, the Cape Government had acted wisely or unwisely, and, moreover, highly inexpedient to raise such discussion, when the Colonial troops were gallantly fighting against the rebels. Take, again, for an example of the relative position of Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Government, the question that had arisen as to the Quthing district of Basutoland. The Colonial Government proposed to deal with the land in that district in a manner that did not commend itself to the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. He (Sir Henry Holland) heartily concurred in the view taken by Lord Kimberley in his despatch to Sir Bartle Frere of the 20th of May, 1880—a view which was put forward by Mr. Griffith, the Governor's Agent in Basutoland, who had most ably administered that country, and earned the confidence of the Basuto Chiefs and people. But Lord Kimberley did not, as the hon. Mover said, write out that he would not allow the Colonial Government to act as they desired. His Lordship fully recognized that the immediate responsibility of dealing with Natives within the borders of the Cape must rest with the Colonial Ministers, and only justified his interference on the ground of the importance of this question, and the peculiar relations in which, as High Commissioner as well as Governor, Sir Bartle Frere stood with respect to the question toward the Crown; and then he stated the various arguments

"Which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, should be fully considered by your Ministers before deciding upon their course of action … Her Majesty's Government cannot think it opportune to carry into effect the measure which your Ministers have had in contemplation, and I request you to urge upon them its re-consideration."

These examples served to show how absolutely the internal administration of the Cape Colony rested with the Colonial Ministers, and how far in such matters the Home Government could properly interfere. As regarded, however, the ultimate disposal of the whole Basuto territory after the rebellion was crushed, he (Sir Henry Holland) was glad to see a carefully guarded reservation of power made by Lord Kimberley. In a telegram of the 20th of September, 1880, Mr. Sprigg, the Cape Premier, stated that the Colonial Government

"Accepts the consequences of its own policy, whatever they may be, on the distinct understanding that the Colonial Government is in no way to be interfered with in the settlement of the country."

To this Lord Kimberley replied that—

"Her Majesty's Government cannot pledge themselves beforehand with regard to the settlement of the country, which must depend upon the course of events; but they will give due weight to the opinions of the Colonial Government, which is primarily responsible for the good government of the Colony."

That was a wise reservation of power, inasmuch as the final disposal of the territory might, under certain conditions, involve serious consequences, and create complications and dangers outside the Colony. If, for instance, very large tracts of land were confiscated and given up to White settlers, the Basutos might be driven to desperation by being thus ejected in large numbers from the land; and the consequences might be serious, not only to the neighbouring Colony of Natal, but to the Free State and other Native Tribes beyond the borders of the Cape Colony. He (Sir Henry Holland) would conclude by expressing his strong belief that the House might well rest satisfied with the assurance in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech of the intention to take friendly action should a suitable occasion present itself, and that the present Amendment, if pressed to a division, should be rejected.

regretted extremely that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had thought it proper to bring forward this question for discussion at this critical time, alike as respected affairs in Ireland, and the great interests of this country in. South Africa. He, or any other Member, might with equal justification have brought before the House, in the debate on the Address in answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, the question of Afghanistan, or the affairs of Greece, or of the Transvaal. But the hon. Member had taken the Basuto Question, and this at a critical moment when telegraphic communication between Natal and the Cape Colony was interrupted, and news of the debate might reach the Basutos of what they did in that House, and what Her Majesty's Government might decide. Whilst refraining from discussing the merits of the question of disarmament, he (Mr. D. Currie) must say that an arrangement more suitable to the position of the Basutos, and more agreeable to them, might have been carried out. The question, however, was not whether it was right or not, The Cape Government's answer to that question was that the British Government told them to protect themselves, and they had taken the plan for frontier defence which they considered necessary for their self-protection. The Tribes around them and within Cape Colony, they said, were disarmed, and that the Basutos, although they had rendered great service in Zululand, ought to be disarmed also. The hon. Member for Carlisle said that Her Majesty's Government ought to mediate. But why should they show to Basutoland and the Cape Colonists division in presence of the danger of complications in the Orange Free State and along the border of the Transvaal, in addition to the rising in the Transvaal itself? Why should they add to the danger by expressing doubt as to the policy of the Cape Colonists in a war in which they were doing what they judged to be right in their own interests, because they had the right to judge as they had responsible power? Why should this House, by a vote of virtual censure upon the policy of the Cape Parliament, and by inference upon the action of Her Majesty's Government here, interfere with the expression in the Queen's Speech, of Her Majesty's just regard for the people of Basutoland and of the Cape Colony? What is the Basuto Question? In 1828 the Dutch farmers crossed the Orange River from the Cape Colony to seek for a home in that part of the Continent. In 1845 the struggle which had been carried on between the Basutos and the immigrant farmers continued, and a British Resident was appointed. Sir Harry Smith visited the country in 1848, and proclaimed British sovereignty. In 1852 Sir John Cathcart fought for British authority in Basutoland as High Commissioner of the country. But Sir John Cathcart abandoned the country; and President Brand, elected President of the Orange River Free State, was, in 1864, at war with the Basutos. The Basuto Chief Moshesh, with his people, were driven at last to Thaba Bosigo, their mountain stronghold. It was the last gathering of the Basuto people. There were not more than 10,000 souls upon the mountain, and of fighting men there were probably not 1,500 left. Moshesh, who was brave and crafty, applied for protection to Sir E. P. Woodhouse, Her Majesty's High Commissioner, at that time in the Cape Colony, offering himself and tribe to British protection, and the British Commissioner occupied Basutoland with our troops in 1868, saving Moshesh from destruction. The Dutch farmers, under President Brand, were very indignant; but finally it was agreed that they should have that part of the territory of the Basutos to the north and west of the Caledon River, now a part of the Orange River Free State, while the English retained the country now known as British Basutoland. In coming under the Crown of England, the Basutos did not reserve any rights; but they declined to join Natal, and they insisted on joining the Cape Colony. They did not wish to join Natal, because if they did so they would not be allowed to carry arms; and, therefore, they joined the Cape Colony for better or for worse. In 1872 a Liberal Administration gave the Cape Colony responsible Government; and now the House of Commons was asked virtually to vote that the responsible Government of the Cape should cease to be responsible. He remembered a few months ago in that House it was advocated that they should interfere in the Basuto Question; and he (Mr. D. Currie) felt greatly troubled, because he knew that that very night the Cape Parliament were judging the question of disarmament themselves, and that a telegram might go the following day to sway the division which was about to take place. He considered the question to be the simple one—"Was it right or wrong of the Imperial Parliament to the Colonial Parliament?" The debate, however, went on, and the result at Cape Town was that the disarmament policy was carried by a majority which was relatively equal to that now wielded by the present Prime Minister in the Imperial Parliament. That result would surely lead the House to think twice before they interfered with responsibility in the Cape Colony. He thought it would be much better, seeing that responsible Government existed at the Cape, that they should leave the Colonists to their responsible Government, and that they should not try to decide affairs for them which they understood better than we did. It was said that the Colonists were glad to have wars; but he did not know that anyone could rise in that House and say that the Zulu War was brought about by the Colonists, or that the Gaika and Galeka or the Transvaal Wars were due to the action of the Colonists. The Cape Colony had responsible Government, and they were now paying for the war. From 15,000 to 16,000 volunteers and burghers had gone to Basutoland with the fire of their own Colonial spirit as strong as that which burned in the breasts of either Englishmen or Scotchmen, and they had left their farms and gone forward to fight for what they thought was just. It might be right or it might be wrong, but it had proved their resolution; and we would paralyze their exertions if we said one word to interfere with the control of the Cape Government over their levies. We did no harm to the Basutos, who were, for the most part, willing to obey the Cape Government; but they were led by an active and discontented party, and we should leave them to settle their affairs with the Cape Government. He was greatly interested in the prosperity of the Basutos; and while he sincerely wished them, well, he earnestly asked the House to leave the Cape Parliament to deal with them, and not to allow its influence to be used for the advantage of any political Party at the Cape. He exhorted the Government to think of one thing only—namely, what was best for the great future of South Africa? He hoped that the Government would, at the present moment, boldly, clearly, and distinctly steer a cautious and careful course to the advancement of South Africa.

regretted that the question should have been brought before the House at this time, when it could not be completely discussed, and when an imperfect discussion was an inconvenient interruption to important Public Business. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that the Basutos had no right to complain of being annexed to the Cape Colony. But in the following year the Colonial Office granted responsible Government to the Cape; and it was an extremely dangerous and critical matter to confer responsible Government on a Colony which had any considerable number of the Native race among them. He should not be surprised if this was the origin of the difficulty. The fact was that a Native would very readily render submission to one whom he feared, like the Queen of England, because she was distant, and her power mysterious and invincible; but when asked to obey laws made by the White man, he did not see why the privileges of the White man should be denied to him, and he was inclined to resist laws in the making of which he had no share or part. It was very desirable that the House should on some proper occasion fully consider this question. If a Colony had the government of a Native race, it ought to be distinctly understood that the Colony bore all the risk and cost of insurrection. This was the arrangement in regard to New Zealand, which consequently admitted Natives to a share in the representative Government, with the most satisfactory results to the peace of the country. In the Cape Colony the Natives had not been admitted to this privilege, as there had been, unfortunately, no clear understanding that the Colonists should pay the expenses of Native wars. There was such an understanding now; but the Colonists were slow to believe in the assurances they received from the Colonial Office, their experience of the softness of the Mother Country leading them to believe that they would not be left to bear the entire cost. Even in this matter of the Basuto War the Colonists believed that if they got the worst of it they would have the purse and the Army of the Mother Country to fall back upon. Having given the Colonists the power to conduct their own affairs the Home Government ought not to interfere with them in the exercise of that power. He had left his mind completely open on the question of the war, and he did not at all know that when all the facts were before him he should be disposed to lean to the side of the Colonial Government. But with all his desire to criticize Her Majesty's Government, he was unable to suggest anything which they should have done, and had not done. In the presence of the objects for which Parliament was called together, it was the duty of the Opposition, and still more so of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government, not to raise discussions which could have no possible practical result.

was understood to say that the object of disarming the Basutos was to prevent war, and every precaution was taken to induce that people to consent to disarmament. Men of that nation who had come to the Cape knew of the measure resolved upon, and went back to their own country fully content. They induced a large portion of their people to consent to disarmament; but a party rose up which seized the arms that were about to be delivered up. Not a single arm was taken from the Basutos without full compensation being paid; and, therefore, it was wrong for the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to say that they were not compensated. With regard to Sir Garnet Wolseley, he was only adding to the difficulties of the Cape Government by sending the letter which had been alluded to. Nothing could be more injudicious than the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, for its tendency was to increase an opposition which was already dangerous to the Government of the Cape Colony. As regarded the question of expenses incurred, it was quite clear that whatever expenditure might be incurred in the future in carrying on wars in South Africa, the Cape Colony was bound to make good the money expended in their conduct.

So much has been said on both sides of the House upon this subject that my task will be an easy one. I regret that my hon. Friend should have thought it his duty to propose this Amendment. The words in the Address which relate to the Basutos express most clearly the desire of this House to see Her Majesty avail herself of any suitable occasion which may present itself for friendly action on Her Majesty's part with a view to the restoration of peace. What would be gained by adding to these words the words proposed by my hon. Friend? Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to assure us that she is looking for a suitable occasion to take friendly action for the restoration of peace, which restoration of peace will, of course, prevent further destruction of life and property in Basutoland. Does my hon. Friend, by the introduction of the word "immediate," wish us to pray Her Majesty to seize upon an unsuitable occasion? Or is the point of the Amendment to be sought in the words "by communication with the Government of Cape Colony, or by proposing mediation be- tween the contending parties?" If so, I should wish to submit to the House one or two considerations as to the language used. If that language means to refer to anything different from the course set forth in the Instructions to Sir Hercules Robinson, which are in the hands of hon. Members, I should strongly object to it. Her Majesty communicates with the Government of the Cape Colony through the Governor whom she has appointed to represent herself in that Colony, and in no other way. She has already directed that Governor to look out for a suitable occasion for bringing about peace. What more can she do? Further, Her Majesty, although she may propose to mediate between foreign Powers, does not propose to mediate between the Government lawfully constituted for the administration of one of her Colonies and any subjects, White or Black, who may be in arms against that lawfully constituted Government, although she may, by virtue of her supreme authority, intervene between the combatants. I am sorry my hon. Friend should have brought forward his Amendment, and I am sorry he should have made his speech. Lord Granville once said, with great truth, that there was no problem in government more difficult than the government of Colonies; and in the government of Colonies there is, I am sure, no problem more difficult than to keep the balance straight between the rights of the Natives and the rights of those of our countrymen who have gone forth to found new homes in foreign lands. We must take the greatest possible care lest, in our zeal for the Native, we make the White man think that we are his enemies. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Cape Government made a great mistake in policy when they issued the Proclamation for the disarmament of the Basutos. The late Secretary of State warned them, the present Secretary of State warned them, but in vain; all that must be freely admitted. I doubt, however, whether any good is done by reiterating it. We shall not make the Cape Government more willing to listen to our advice by reproaches in Parliament or out of it. The Home Government will be in a far stronger position, should a favourable moment for the Governor's intervention arise, if it keeps to the attitude of a friend to the party which is vindicating the law, although one thoroughly interested in the welfare of both parties, and attempts as little as possible to assert any rights which may lead to controversy. What is true of the Home Government is true also, I venture to think, of independent Members of Parliament. It is the moment rather to put forward what is to be said on the side of the Cape Government than to scold them for a mistake which is now past praying for. Let it, then, not be forgotten that for some years back all reasonable men in South Africa have seen with great uneasiness the accumulation in the hands of the Natives of vast quantities of arms, which could by no possibility be used either for the advantage of themselves or of their White neighbours. Natal has no less than 10 laws directed against the use or possession of arms by the Natives. In the Orange Free State, so ably presided over by President Brand, the restrictions are very severe; and the mind of a civilized man who could contemplate with equanimity the position of some 500 Whites in Basutoland among 128,000 Blacks, of whom a vast number were armed, must be oddly constituted. Of course, it was desirable, most desirable, that the Basutos should cease to carry arms; but a wise end may be obtained in an unwise way. What the Cape Government should have done was, first to constitute a Basuto Militia, and then, having got the amour propre of that body on their side, to have gradually made the carrying of arms in Basutoland by ordinary persons so expensive and inconvenient as to have caused it to become obsolete. Much has been said by my hon. Friend about the loyalty of the Basutos, and the Secretary of State has on more than one occasion paid a tribute to the loyalty which they exhibited before this war broke out; but it must be remembered, after all, that only 12 years have elapsed since the Basutos were saved from utter destruction at the hands of the Boers of the Orange Free State. That was the beginning of their career as liegemen of the British Crown; and a loyalty which is only 12 years old, and has succumbed to the very first temptation, is not, perhaps, of the very best quality. What would my hon. Friend say if an enthusiastic advocate of the Permissive Prohibitory Bill succumbed to the temptation of the first glass of whisky that came in his way? The Cape Government would have been very unwise in presuming too much upon the loyalty of the Basutos. It is hardly in human nature that the Black man, who sees the White man gradually becoming his master in all places where they meet, prevailing with the slow resistless power of a natural force, can be just yet of a loyalty which is above all temptation. Where the Cape Government went wrong was not in their diagnosis of the disease, but in their treatment of it. They were quite right in thinking the position in Basutoland dangerous; but they were most unwise in treating it in the way they did. People at home, however, must not blame them too much. They are face to face with dangers which we only know by report. Besides, the cause of all the mischief that has lately afflicted South Africa was an imported cause: it was a passion for putting everything there to rights in a hurry, which was of purely English birth. A friend of mine lately reminded me, when speaking of this subject, that a wise man used to say that "half the calamities of life had their origin in people not being able to sit still in a room." If Lord Carnarvon had had this power, if he had not been so terribly zealous, or if he had remembered that South Africa is a country in which it is far easier for a statesman to extinguish himself than to distinguish himself, we should have been saved most of the troubles which have recently afflicted us in that part of the world. The Transvaal would not have been annexed in 1877—["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite cry "Oh, oh!" but I am stating a mere matter of fact when I say—

rose to Order. He wished to know whether it was in Order, in a discussion on the Basuto War, to introduce the subject of the Transvaal?

I am not introducing the Transvaal; I am merely answering an interruption. If it had not been for Lord Carnarvon, whose motive I do not impugn, the annexation, the mention of which is so unpleasant to hon. Members opposite, would not have occurred; the Zulu War would not have taken place in 1879; the fighting which is now going on in the Transkei would not be going on; and the Basutos would be living in the Queen's peace. There was a moment in which "the forward policy" was in favour alike in Asia and Africa. Our Governors and Viceroys went out with the words, if not ringing in their ears, at least impressed upon their minds, "above all things pluck; pluck is the order of the day;" and so to several regions of the earth, where rest was commanded by all maxims of sound policy, and among them to the Cape, went a Governor who, with all his merits, was precisely what was not wanted—a stimulant instead of a sedative. It has been said that if the present Government had recalled Sir Bartle Frere as soon as they came into Office the attempt to disarm the Basutos would not have been made. The first Page of the Blue Book which was circulated the other day sufficiently answers that allegation. The Proclamation of Disarmament was issued on the 6th of April, and Her Majesty's present Advisers came into power at the end of the month. In common justice, too, to Sir Bartle Frere, it ought to be observed that, although he was strongly in favour of the disarmament of the Basutos, he acted, not as a spur, but as a bridle to the Ministers. That is proved by the Correspondence between them, which immediately follows the Proclamation in the Blue Book. The feeling of the majority of the Cape Parliament in favour of disarmament was, undoubtedly, very strong. Even after the Opposition at the Cape, and other persons who disapproved of the disarmament without forming part of the Opposition, had set to work every engine here and at the Cape which they could set to work to prevent it, its expediency was affirmed by a majority of eight, which, having regard to the number of the Cape House of Assembly, is equivalent to a majority of 80 in this House. It is only fair to say that since the war began the Cape Government have accepted the situation with great spirit and firmness. They have put into the field a very large number of men, and have made efforts which will try them most severely. If they succeed in putting down the Basuto rebellion by their own strength, or if, which is the same thing in another form, the Basutos speedily submit and place themselves in the hands of the Governor, as representing Her Majesty, a very long step will be made towards the attainment of that end which has been desired for many years by both political Parties in this country—that the Cape Colony should be self-depending as it is self-governing. If that end is once attained we shall see the commencement of the close of our South African troubles. Thus far I am bound to say no information has reached us which leads us to suppose that the Cape Government has the very slightest desire to make a vindictive or unjust use of its victory when it is obtained. As to what may have to be done after the rebellion is over, Her Majesty's Government has expressed no opinion whatever beyond that which is contained in a passage of Sir Hercules Robinson's Instructions, which is in the hands of hon. Members, and it is too delicate a matter for me to say more about at present. If we go one whit beyond these Instructions; if, whether actuated by a generous zeal for the weaker party, or any other motive, we throw difficulties in the way of the Cape Government, it will be at our own peril—we shall be back again in all the troubles of that wretched state of things, which we trust has now ceased, when the Cape Colonists brought about wars which the Imperial Government fought out and paid for. Thus far, for the first time, so far as I know, in our history, we have, in connection with this Basuto rising, not paid a shilling for a Cape War.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had argued that the present Government were not responsible for the Basuto War, because the Proclamation of Disarmament had been made at a time when nothing they could do could prevent its taking effect. He ventured to remind his right hon. Friend that the matter had been debated in the first week of the opening Session of the present Parliament, when the Prime Minister had taken the opportunity of saying that it was not the intention of the Government to recall Sir Bartle Frere. It might, therefore, very well be maintained that as the Government had continued Sir Bartle Frere in office for two months longer, they had made themselves responsible for his policy, and could not claim to be wholly unconnected with its results. However, the policy of Sir Bartle Frere was undeniably permitted by Her Majesty's late Advisers. He hoped that the attention of Sir Hercules Robinson would be called to all the facts, and that he would be directed to call the Cape Parliament together on his arrival in the Colony. His right hon. Friend had said that the majority in the Cape Parliament in favour of Mr. Sprigg's policy was very large. The Appendix to the Blue Book showed it to be 38 to 29. This did not seem to him very decided, especially as Mr. Sprigg was supported by all the influence of the late Governor The order for disarmament was a great mistake, and the Cape Parliament should again discuss the question. He would appeal to the House to do what they could to put a stop to this war, and he thought this would best be done by asking Sir Hercules Robinson to call the Parliament of the Cape together. It was to be regretted that the Government of the Cape had been entrusted to a gentleman who had thought it necessary to take the severe measures against the Basutos stated by him in the Blue Book. He hoped, however, that a milder spirit would in future characterize our government in that country towards a loyal and unfortunate people.

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle would, after the statement of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, see fit to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the hon. Baronet had, practically, got all he had asked for. He took it that Sir Hercules Robinson would, immediately on his arrival, take measures with a view to the settlement of this unfortunate war. He must take exception to the tone in which the Under Secretary for the Colonies had spoken of the Basutos as of men whose loyalty gave way at the first temptation. He had forgotten that before the disarmament the projected confiscation of Moirosi's territory must have justly alarmed and alienated the Basutos. However, having regard to the excellent spirit which pervaded Lord Kimberley's instructions to Sir Hercules Robinson, and to the assurances of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn. Under Sir Hercules Robinson, doubtless, a milder spirit would prevail in the government of the Cape. He thought, however, his right hon. Friend had scarcely done the Basutos justice in saying that the Basutos were advocates of the Permissive Bill, who yielded to the first temptation to an over-indulgence in whisky.

said, that his only desire in bringing forward the Amendment was to urge the Government to protect the Natives in Basutoland; and as the instructions that had been, or would be, sent out to the new Governor, would have the effect of leading to a satisfactory conclusion of the war, he would assent to the appeal made to him and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Address agreed to: —To be presented by Privy Councillors.