said, he rose to call attention to the surrender of the Cuban refugees at Gibraltar. He much regretted that neither before Easter nor since had he been able to obtain a day to press the Motion of which he had given Notice to a position in which he would have been able to obtain the decision of the House upon it. His only chance of bringing it on was on the Motion with respect to the Easter Recess, and he had then refrained from doing so on the appeal of the Prime Minister, who represented that to bring it forward at that time would be greatly inconvenient to the Public Service. The story which he had to tell was a very simple and a very short one; but he must say that if it were simple, it was sad, and if it were short, it was shameful. He knew of no case in modern times where the British Government had been guilty of such gross neglect as in this. The facts of the case he would tell in the words of the persons most concerned. These Cuban refugees came to Gibraltar, believing that they were coming under the protection of the British Flag. There could be no doubt they were political refugees, who trusted themselves to the protection of that Flag, but did not obtain it, though entitled to it. Senor Castilio's own account, as set forth in the Memorial of the refugees, was that on the night of the 15th of August Maceo and two other prisoners confined for participation in the Cuban insurrection succeeded in escaping from Cadiz and took refuge at Tangiers. On the 20th of August they left Tangiers on the British steamer Hercules bound for Gibraltar, where they arrived on the afternoon of the same day. On landing they applied to the Inspector on the wharf for tickets to enter the city, and they were requested to wait. Subsequently three policemen conducted them to the police-station, where they were kept for some hours. When the Chief Inspector came he gave them to understand that they would be handed over to the Spanish authorities. Maceo protested, saying that they were political and not criminal refugees, and requesting that they should be kept in Gibraltar Prison until the truth of their story could be ascertained. Notwithstanding these protests, they were conducted by policemen outside Gibraltar across the neutral ground and handed over to the Spanish authorities, who were waiting to receive them. In a Petition from Maceo's brother he described what took place, and how they were handed over in spite of their strong protestations, and amid the loud lamentations of the women and children by whom they were accompanied. They were mercilessly given over to their enemies and conducted to a fate worse than death. If this story was true, and there was no reason to doubt it, there had been the most flagrant neglect on the part of someone and the most grievous injury had been done to these men. They were entitled to the protection of the British Flag, and the right of asylum—one of the most cherished—had been grossly violated entirely through the neglect of our own Government. He could not understand the Notice given by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to move the Previous Question unless it indicated that the Liberal Party had so changed its principles that it was a matter of entire indifference to them whether the right of political refugees to asylum on our shores was violated or not. It was clear that in this case there was an arrangement made between the Spanish officials—he did not speak of the Spanish Government—and the English officials at Gibraltar that these persons should be received and handed over. Nothing more disgraceful to either party could be conceived. They might have been sent back by the steamer and not permitted to land. That was within the province of the English officials; but, knowing what they were doing, the English authorities enticed them from beneath the protection of the British Flag, and then, with deliberate treachery, handed them to their enemies. On the 2nd of October, Lord Napier, in answer to a question from the Colonial Office, explained how it was that the Gibraltar police came to act in this way. It appeared that the Spanish Consul wrote to the Colonial Secretary at Gibraltar informing him of the escape of the prisoners, and requesting that the English authorities would insure the expulsion of the refugees in the event of their entering the port of Gibraltar. Thus there was a direct invitation from the Spanish Consul to the English authorities to act in this manner. The Colonial Secretary then wrote to the acting police magistrate at Gibraltar, transmitting the letter of the Spanish Consul and requesting him to give the necessary instructions "to facilitate the apprehension" of the refugees on their arrival. The acting police magistrate reported to him subsequently that the men had arrived, and being without passports had been placed without the line. He added that the Spanish autho- rities had been communicated with, and at once arrested the prisoners. After that the Spanish Consul wrote back to the Colonial Secretary thanking him for what had been done. Although the English officials were very much to blame in this matter, yet the Spanish authorities were quite as blameworthy. They must have known that the Extradition Treaty between the two countries related only to criminals; they must also have known that criminals meant criminals and not political offenders. They must have known that in trying to induce the English officials to facilitate the apprehension of these men they were doing what they had no right to do, and were, therefore, just as guilty as this country was for handing them over. That was the view practically of Her Majesty's Government. It was perfectly clear that the Spaniards were as much in fault as ourselves, and the shameful treatment which the ladies of the party had received was an aggravation of the case. These refugees—Maceo, at any rate—were put into a horrible dungeon, and up to the present time they bad not been released. He did not wish to say a word disrespectful to the Spanish Government. His remarks would apply to the Spanish officials simply. But what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter? Inquiries were made by the Colonial Office, and the officials in Gibraltar, who were to blame, had been very properly and justly punished for their flagrant breach of duty. So far as that went, Her Majesty's Government was right; but, if our people were wrong, so were the Spaniards. He would be able to show clearly that Her Majesty's Government had been guilty of the grossest neglect of duty in this matter, and that there had been such delay in action and such unquestionable indifference to the whole story as was perfectly inconceivable. On the 7th of September a paragraph appeared in The Times giving an account of what had taken place on the 15th of August, and adding that if the facts were as narrated, and the English authorities had been misled, there was reason for a most searching investigation. That paragraph was sent to Lord Napier, who replied in the letter to which he had already referred. On the 11th of October his despatch was received, and on the 16th a Petition came from one of the prisoners. It was referred by the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, which sent back a letter in which the Correspondence was laid before Lord Granville. That letter contained all the letters of the Spanish Consul, the Colonial Secretary, and the acting police magistrate. Lord Kimberley observed in that letter that the acting police magistrate must have been aware that, although nominally removing these persons from the garrison under an Order in Council, he was in effect arranging for a surrender of political prisoners, who, as such, were protected from surrender by the Extradition Act. The Foreign Office, in reply, expressed surprise that an Order in Council, intended to meet a different matter, should have been used for such a purpose. All these facts were known to the Foreign Office on the 19th of October. They know that the men had been handed over by our own police on the invitation of the Spanish authorities. It was quite right that there should be an investigation to discover the guilty parties on our side; but what did the Foreign Office do? They did not utter a single syllable, but sat with their hands folded until a Question was asked in the House of Commons on the 30th of October. The first communication was evidently not from the Foreign Office, but from the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office telegraphed to Sir Robert Morier. Nothing more happened so far as the Colonial Office was concerned, except telling Sir Robert Morier not to take any steps till he received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry. On the 29th of October the Report of the Committee was received. That Report stated that the surrender was deliberately arranged between the Spanish authorities and the officials at Gibraltar. The Spanish authorities were told that the prisoners would be brought to the line and prevented from going back to Gibraltar, and that there would then be an opportunity for their arrest. What action was taken by Her Majesty's Government? Instead of writing to our Minister at Madrid, they referred the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown. That was certainly most extraordinary action. They should have consulted the Law Officers before, if they desired their opinion. On the 26th of December the British Government received another Petition from Maceo, complaining of the treatment he had endured, and of the gross insult and injury inflicted upon him; and to that complaint the only answer vouchsafed, on the 26th of December, was that "the Government had had the matter laid before them, and that it was under their consideration!" It was not until the 29th of January, five months after the transactions took place, that the Foreign Office made any official communication to their Representative at Madrid on the question. During all that five months the men had been confined in a most horrible prison. He thought he had made out this at all events, that not only had there been unwarrantable delay on the part of the Government in this case, but that there had been most unaccountable indifference to the sufferings of these people. If their delay was unwarrantable and their indifference unaccountable, certainly the mode of procedure of the Government, when they did take action, was even more extraordinary. On the 30th of October a Question was asked in Parliament, and the answer given was to the effect that—

"The surrender of the prisoners having taken place by reason of a gross mistake on the part of our police authorities, their re-delivery by the Spanish Government, with a view to the case being dealt with in accordance with the Extradition Treaty between Spain and Great Britain, would be regarded as a graceful and friendly act, which Her Majesty's Government would highly appreciate, but which, in their opinion, must be left to the generosity and chivalry of the Spanish Government."—(3 Hansard, [274] 373.)

On the 4th of November Sir Robert Morier received a telegram to this effect, and also a letter recommending him to make an unofficial communication to the Spanish Government. Sir Robert Morier, in his answer to that communication, stated that the way in which he viewed the transaction was this. He commenced by saying that it was not the intention of the English Government to make any representation to the Spanish Government on this subject. He explained to the Spanish Government that there was no question of any interference in the matter, for the surrender had taken place by the fault of their own police authorities, and the Government did not intend to take any step, but would leave the question to the generous and chivalrous initiative of the Spanish Government. He admitted at once that, in view of what had taken place, no question of the re-extradition of these prisoners could be raised. Surely that was a very curious way of putting forward a request. If you were going to ask for something, was it wise to give up your whole case beforehand, and to admit that the action of your opponent had been altogether right? All this was done before the Government received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry; and surely that formed an additional reason for not abandoning the whole of their own case in making their application to the Spanish Government. On the 29th of January, however, they made their first official communication, being in no better position as regards information than they had been for months previously, and having had a despatch of the Spanish Minister on the question in their pigeonholes for two months. They deserved the bitter irony of that Minister's reply of the 28th of February, 1883, pointing out that, inasmuch as the British Government had admitted that their own officials were entirely at fault, they were hardly in a position to criticize the action of the Spanish authorities. But the question was then raised before the House of Commons, and then, and not till then, did matters take a different turn. In view of the pending action of the House of Commons, a small concession was granted, and Maceo was interned. Sir Robert Morier never even asked for his release But the Government, on hearing of that small concession offered by the Spanish Government, wrote to Sir Robert Morier informing him that he was authorized to accept the proposal of the Spanish Government, and, although he was not to say that the Government were actually satisfied with what had taken place, he might say they were much gratified by it. Sir Robert Morier, however, did more than this. He telegraphed that Her Majesty's Government approved of the solution, and wore much gratified at it, and the Foreign Office never disclaimed this message. Her Majesty's Government had given up the whole case from the very commencement; they had gone on their knees to the Spanish Government and told them they had not a right to claim in any formal shape, and that anything that might be done must be entirely upon the will and motion of the Spanish Government. There was one other point that he must allude to, and he did so with considerable pain. In the long course of Questions which were asked on this matter, the House—he admitted unintentionally—was misled as to what was going on between the English and Spanish Governments. He quoted the answers given by Ministers from time to time in answer to Questions about the fate of the Cuban refugees. Although at an early stage Ministers had deprecated any questions being raised, he had never seen anything in the early communications from Sir Robert Morier to the effect that no representations should be made in the House of Commons. On the 9th of November it was stated that it was difficult for our Minister at Madrid to approach the Spanish Government, and yet he had done so. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Unofficially.] He (Sir B. Assheton Cross) did not care whether it was officially or unofficially. If the Government, through its Representative, went to the Spanish Minister and told him we had not a leg to stand upon, and that it was entirely our fault, and if they afterwards went back and withdrew those expressions, how would the Spanish Minister treat them? Our Representative at Madrid made no distinction between official and non-official words. On the 21st of November the right hon. Gentleman said it "was too soon yet to make a statement as to the steps taken to secure the release of Maceo and his companions," and added that "it was impossible to state what correspondence had passed." Why it should have been impossible to state what correspondence had passed he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid was desirous that no statement should be made until the matter was completed by inquiry. But these or any such words were not, as far as he could find, in the official Papers. At this time they had had a distinct intimation through Sir Robert Morier from the Spanish Minister that as to giving up these people there was no hope whatever. If the whole Correspondence had been on the Table at the time these answers were given the House would have been extremely astonished. That was really the whole case. The Government wore in this position—they must stand on one leg or on the other. They must either say that they did make communications to the Spanish Government, in which case they made them with full knowledge of the facts contained in the letter of Lord Napier in October, or they must say they took no action and made no representations until after they had received their Report, and that the first action they took was on the 29th of January. If they chose to take that line, all he could say was, that the delay was so great and the case so palpable that they were guilty of a gross breach of duty in not taking action before. They had their Report before them on the 28th or 29th of November, and not one single word of official representation was made to the Spanish Government till the 29th of January. He was bound to say that if the Spanish Government had relaxed their action more than they had done, they would have been exceedingly generous and chivalrous. What was now to be done? The whole case was given up by the English Government. They could not address the Government of Spain again, and the only possible chance for these men lay in a generous expression of opinion from all sides of the House. It appeared to be too late now to address any further remonstrance to the Spanish Government; but he hoped there would be such an expression of opinion from all sides of the House, even from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) himself, showing that there was unquestionably a deep feeling that the right of asylum had been violated, and a strong trust that we should never again see such a gross violation of it.

said, he was not astonished that a subject which had excited so much interest should have been brought before the House of Commons; but, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman had in the course of his remarks made statements and allegations which were not on all fours with the facts as revealed in the Papers. The allegation was that, not only had a wrong been done, but that there had been a miscarriage of justice consequent on the action taken by the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman had really evaded the main point—namely, to show on what grounds of International Law action of a different kind could have been justly, fairly and equitably pursued. The right hon. Gentleman's allegation was that not only had a wrong been done in equity, but that there had been gross neglect and delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government; and the right hon. Gentleman quoted dates in support of his contention. He did not, however, quote all the dates, because there were some that tended to give a different colour to the facts referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Now, the first notice ever brought to anyone in this country of the arrest of these men was on the 7th of September in a paragraph in The Times. Within 48 hours the Government took action by calling for an immediate Report in reference to the statement in the public newspapers. When the right hon. Gentleman was making so grave an indictment of negligence against the authorities, it was odd that, as he had studied the Papers, he passed over entirely the only serious instance of omission in the whole case— that was the omission of the Governor of Gibraltar to have any knowledge of what had happened within his own government. It was not the case that there was negligence on the part of the Foreign Office. It was the Foreign Office that called on the Colonial Office to press for full inquiry; but still the matter dragged with almost inconceivable dilatoriness at Gibraltar, until, on the 24th October, Lord Kimberley had to write to Lord Napier urging him peremptorily to hasten the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why the Government did not take action without such a full inquiry being made; but it would have been unwise to take action without a full knowledge of the facts of the case; and he would remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that if they had done so, they might have been afterwards compelled to recede from positions they had taken up; whereas, having waited for full information, they had not been required to recede from a single point, but had, on the other hand, been able to drive the Spanish Government from positions which they had taken up. It would have been unwise also if our Representative at Madrid had made any representation to the Spanish Government before official data were obtained in reference to the case. With all the facts before the House, it was evident that the blame rested with those who, with grave and unaccountable ignorance of their duty, had made at Gibraltar a surrender which was contrary, no doubt, to what was right in equity, though not contrary to the technicalities of law; and, therefore,' all that Her Majesty's Government could do at this time, the 4th of November, was to make an appeal to the generosity of the Spanish Government, with a view to the liberation of the men. If the right hon. Gentleman read the Papers with a candid mind, he would see that the statement he had made to the effect that Sir Robert Morier showed a tendency to soften down the appeal he was authorized to make to the Spanish Government—to be subservient to the exaggerated pretensions of that Government—was very unjust. On the contrary, Sir Robert Morier made the communication fully in the sense of his instructions, and carried out the duty intrusted to him firmly and with great energy, and induced the Spanish Minister to concede points which he had previously refused to do. The Spanish Minister, mounting the high horse, had said that nothing on earth would induce him or his Colleagues, in view of all the facts and surroundings of the case, to entertain the idea of the men being liberated; nevertheless, Sir Robert Morier, by perseverance and by firm language, succeeded in inducing him, in view of the strong feeling which existed in this country on the matter, and in view of the preservation of friendly relations between the two countries, to concede the point and to entertain the idea. Sir Robert Morier treated the matter as one in which a positive claim arising out of existing International Law could not be made, and asked, by way of compromise, that Maceo should be interned. This the Spanish Minister was at first unwilling to accede to, proposing to release merely the companions of Maceo; but Sir Robert Morier intimated that in no sense would this be regarded as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and by his good temper and persistency he gained for Maceo the large concession, the benefit of which he was then enjoying. According to his (Mr. Cartwright's) information, Maceo was at the fortress with the rank of a General Officer, and was permitted the society of his wife and family. Now, what more could have been done, seeing that the whole difficulty was created by the negligence and blunders of our own officials? These were the facts of the case, and he believed, notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no foundation for the charge of supine-ness and indifference brought against Her Majesty's Government, or for saying that they did not value the right of asylum to purely political refugees, which always had been and still was most highly considered among Englishmen.

said, that he did not perceive, as the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) had inferred, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had made any attack whatever upon Sir Robert Morier, nor did he, indeed, conceive that any such attack was possible under the circumstances. The duties of a diplomatist were to carry to a successful issue, so far as he was able, the policy intrusted to him by the Government. It must, however, in his (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) opinion, have been exceedingly difficult for Sir Robert Morier to have carried out what the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had termed the weak and cringing policy of Lord Granville. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had challenged them to produce an authority showing their legal right to call upon the Spanish Government to surrender these prisoners. He accepted that challenge. He believed the Government overlooked, and probably purposely overlooked, facts which, if properly urged, would have placed us in a position to have demanded the surrender. It appeared that Sir Robert Morier, on the 12th of November, 1882, wrote to Lord Granville adverting to the fact that he had been charged to make the Spanish Government a strictly unofficial communication with reference to the Cuban refugees, and that his instructions were to do so in the most amicable terms, and in the spirit of one friendly Government to another. His own contention, on the contrary, was that the blunders of the English officials were not the only grounds on which they had a right to approach the Spanish Government, for it was through a want of candour on the part of the Spanish Consul, so gross as to almost amount to a false pretence, that the prisoners were ever surrendered at all. It would have been absolutely impossible for any circumstance of this character to have occurred in this country. It simply occurred because the Spanish Consul took advantage of a local ordinance to play a trick upon the local Government at Gibraltar. But what right had the Spanish Consul to make use of an existing amicable arrangement between his Government and the authorities at Gibraltar, for the purpose of obtaining the surrender of political and not civil offenders? By Article II. of the Extradition Treaty between Spain and this country, it was laid down that extradition should be granted only for the certain specified offences, and Article IV. declared that no person should be surrendered for any political offence. By a later Article it was provided that application for the extradition of prisoners was to be made to the Secretary of State, and that, where the case arose in the Colonies and other places out of the country in question, the same procedure should be gone through by the Consul. If the Spanish Consul had made application under the Extradition Treaty, the matter would have been inquired into by the Judges, and Maceo and his companions would not have been delivered up. But the Consul evaded that course, and carefully led General Baynes to believe that these unfortunate men were not political criminals. On the 16th of August application was made by the Consul, and a letter was forwarded to the Colonial Secretary, in which it was stated that he had been informed that the Governor of Cadiz had made representations with regard to the apprehension of the transported Maceo. The translation said "exiled," but that was not a correct rendering. Then there was a letter sent to the Governor of Cadiz, in which it was stated that Maceo had arrived there en route for Ceuta. In this letter was the extraordinary expression, "It is inferred that he was undergoing his term of imprisonment." If that wore so, what was it for? The Consul and others saw General Baynes—whom the Government had now sacrified to clear themselves—several times on the subject, and they never informed him that this man was a political prisoner. It was positively certain that, had application been made under the Treaty, the matter would have been inquired into by the Judges, and a habeas corpus might have issued or proceedings been taken to prevent the surrender. The only application that was made was under a local ordinance, to which there was no analogy in this country. The fact was—although Sir Robert Morier had stated in one of his despatches that he had no desire to make any charge against the Government—that the Spanish Government had not acted in good faith, for they had entrapped General Baynes by making a fraudulent use of the local ordinance to which he had referred. But, strange to say, Her Majesty's Government had kindly accepted the interpretation of the Spanish Government, and had unnecessarily exculpated the Spanish Consul from all blame. By the extraordinary action of Her Majesty's Government, the rights which they possessed of affording a political asylum had been surrendered, and he could not but think that the Flag of England had thereby been disgraced. If this were the only instance in which we had been insulted by the Spanish Government it would not be so important, but there were several similar cases. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had lately brought the case of the Leon XIII. before the House; there was also the case of the Tangier; and that now under discussion was additional evidence that the Spanish Government meant to act offensively. Surely we had a right to complain of such conduct? Lord Palmerston had stated that if there was one rule more than another which was observed by all independent States, both great and small, it was the rule not to deliver up political refugees, unless bound to do so by the positive obligations of a Treaty. The general feelings of mankind forbade such proceedings, and persons making such a surrender would be regarded as degraded and dishonoured.

said, he perfectly agreed with the words of Lord Palmerston with which the hon. Member for Portsmouth had concluded his speech, and also with much of the speech itself; but he entirely failed to see how either Lord Palmerston's words or the words of the hon. Member himself had any relevancy to the matter before the House. He always thought that, however good a case might be, it was spoilt by a different line being taken by the Mover and those who supported him. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had made an attack on the Consul.

I said his conduct was almost fraudulent.

said, he should like to read what Sir Robert Morier had written about the action of that official. He wrote that nothing could be more straightforward or loyal than the action of the Consul. He never pretended that Maceo was a convict or a criminal. The hon. Gentleman then went on to complain of the conduct of Sir Robert Morier.

said, he did not blame Sir Robert Morier, but the Government.

said, they were perfectly prepared to support Sir Robert Morier in the whole of his action. The hon. Gentleman had then made a series of charges against the Government which were quite unworthy of him. He accused them of mistranslating a despatch in their own interest. The hon. Member ought to have hesitated before making such a charge. He further insinuated that they sacrificed General Baynes, an innocent man, and were entirely deceived by this most wicked Consul, and that they had thrown over General Baynes to exculpate themselves. Surely the conduct of General Baynes was deserving of the censure passed upon him, as he took none of the steps which he ought to have taken in reference to this matter. He never inquired whether the offence charged against this man was a political offence or not. It was his business to have asked certain questions relating to the nature of the man's offence and the reasons for which his surrender was demanded. So far he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had agreed with the hon. Gentleman on his own basis. The hon. Gentleman assumed that a surrender was asked for.

explained that he had never said so. What he said was that the Spanish Consul had asked not for the man's surrender, but that the procedure should be taken against these people which was usual under a local ordinance.

said, he had understood the hon. Gentleman in another part of his speech to use the word surrender. General Baynes did what he was not asked to do by the Spanish Consul. He handed these men and the ladies who were with them to the Spanish Government when he was not even asked to surrender them; and yet the hon. Member said they had sacrificed General Baynes in order to clear themselves. He now came to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross). One of the main portions of his case was that great delay had occurred. It was necessary, however, to act in this doubtful matter on the highest legal advice obtainable in this country, and the result was that in the months of December and January constant correspondence was passing between the Foreign Office and the Law Officers of the Crown and the Colonial Office respecting the final answer to be given to the Spanish Government. On the 5th of December they received the first main document from the Law Officers of the Crown, giving their opinion on this question. In the latter part of December they communicated with the Colonial Office as to the answers to be sent to Spain. All through the early-part of January communications were passing between the Colonial and Foreign Offices, and he was bound to say that he could not see that there had been any undue delay. The right hon. Gentleman also made somewhat of a personal attack on himself in regard to answers given by him in the House on this subject in November and December. He followed the right hon. Gentleman carefully with the answers in his hand, and while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he only thought there was one point on which he was at all on the face of things open to the charge of having misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that on the 21st of November he stated that Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid had asked the Government, in the interests of this question, not to make any statement till the inquiry was completed. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that no record of that communication appeared in the Papers. The telegram in which the request of Sir Robert Morier was contained was dated the 11th of November, and the substance of it was in the despatch of the 12th of November. The last paragraph of the telegram was not, according to custom, expanded, and was not contained in the despatch. The reason why the telegram was not laid before Parliament had reference to a matter which greatly confused this question for a considerable time, and on which most careful inquiry was necessary—namely, the question as to the exact spot on which the arrest of the men by the Spanish authorities took place. That was the reason why he stated that the Government could not at that time make any communication. The main charge brought against the Government by the right hon. Gentleman was, that in the first days of the transaction the Government gave up their whole case, as our Minister at Madrid, in approaching the Spanish Government unofficially, put the case so gently and mildly as to invite the refusal they afterwards met with. His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) view of the case was this. Either we had a right to demand the surrender of these men or we had not. Our contention throughout was that we had no such right. There had been no conduct on the part of the Spanish Consul or Government to give us an international right to demand that these men should be handed back to us. That being so, was it not in the interests of these men—and that, after all, was the real question at issue—was it not advisable for the sake of saving them from prolonged confinement in a dungeon, that the Government should take the course which was pursued, and which had had the effect of extricating two prisoners from imprisonment altogether, and of greatly ameliorating the severity of confinement of the other prisoner? Having nothing like an international right, the Government appealed to the generosity of the Spanish nation; and he believed that Lord Palmerston, who had been referred to in the debate, would have adopted that course under the circumstances. The demand of the Consul, which was put forward as the ground for the Government taking another course, was a demand which he had a right to make, and the Government had no reason to suppose—indeed they had a distinct statement from Sir Robert Morier to the contrary—that the demand was made in bad faith. The main charge brought against Sir Robert Morier by the right hon. Gentleman was that our Minister did not, in these unofficial communications, pretend he had a case when he had not a case. The right hon. Gentleman really contended that the Government, having no case, ought to have bragged and blustered on this occasion.

explained that that was not his allegation. What he maintained was that the Government had put the case too mildly to the Spanish Government, and that Sir Robert Morier really invited a refusal.

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to contend, although the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had done so, that the Government had an international case. Having no international case, they were to go with a bad case and pretend that they had a good one.

again interposing, said, what he contended was that the Government did not put their case in October as they put it in January.

said, that he had already dealt with that matter of delay. The ascertaining of the facts and the taking of the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown had caused the delay of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. In regard to the main case, he believed the House would agree that if there were one thing worse than having a bad case, it was that, having a bad case, we should go to a Foreign Government and pretend that we had a good one.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had quoted the despatch of the 12th of November, in which Sir Robert Morier described the conduct of the Spanish Consul as being straightforward, and worthy of all praise. But what was the foundation of that opinion? It was that Maceo and his companions were convoyed outside the British lines, "where they fell into the hands of the Spanish Municipal Guard." Here the statement was that they "fell" into the hands of the guard. But it turned out afterwards that instead of their falling into the hands of the guard, there was a preconcerted arrangement between the British officials and the Consul, and that made all the difference. So long as it was supposed that there was a blunder on the part of the English authorities to which the Spanish authorities were no parties, and that it was not a precon- certed arrangement or conspiracy, he could understand Sir Robert Morier's expression of opinion; but it could not be justified when it was known that the Consul had induced an English subordinate officer to exceed his authority. He put it to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether it was consistent with International Law that the Representative of a Foreign Power should induce the Representative of another Power—a subordinate officer—to exceed his authority, and to be guilty of a fraud on the law well known to both of them, and that the Government of that Foreign Power should decline to retract the action of their Representative, and so far adopt it as to keep persons in prison who were handed over to them by that preconcerted arrangement, and then say they were not guilty of any international offence? Did the case submitted to his hon. and learned Friend and the Solicitor General assume as one of the facts on which they were to advise that the Spanish Consul was altogether innocent of any guilty participation in this transaction? That would make a difference to the whole transaction. When it was discovered that there had been a preconcerted arrangement the whole situation was changed. It could not be denied that there had been a preconcerted arrangement, for in Lord Granville's despatch it was said that the surrender was effected in the manner suggested by the Spanish Consul, "by way of preconcerted expulsion and arrest." These refugees were to be expelled out of British territory, and it was arranged by the Spanish Consul that the moment they were expelled they were to be arrested by the Spanish authorities. That was a discreditable arrangement of which there was every reason to complain as a violation of International Law, seeing that a subordinate officer was induced to exceed his authority. It was a totally inadequate answer to say that at the time when the communication was made it was unofficial. The Government wanted to take credit for their immediate action, and what they did was to give up the whole cause of complaint. It might be true that there had been no demand made under the Extradition Acts; but the charge was, that the authorities had connived at this transaction because they knew, there could be no proceedings under the Extradition Acts. For having induced a subordinate English officer to exceed his authority, the Spanish Government ought to have been addressed in a very different tone as soon as the facts became known to Her Majesty's Government, instead of which the Government went down to the dust and entreated them humbly to do something for them as an act of grace.

said, the charge was that there had been trickery on the part of the Spanish Consul, and that English officials entered into conspiracy with him, and that as the expulsion of these men was the result of the trick and of the conspiracy the English Government ought to have assumed a different tone. The question was whether there had been trick, fraud, or conspiracy?

said, he would call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to Sir Robert Morier's despatch of the 16th of August.

said, that the passage referred to was one dealing with the whole transaction; but he was now speaking of the foundation on which the British Government could have alleged fraud, trickery, and conspiracy. British officers were parties to everything that was done. It was by their acts alone that this unpleasant situation had been brought about. He could conceive nothing weaker than for a nation represented by its own officials to throw them over, to repudiate what they had done, and to ground upon that repudiation a grave official demand for reparation because the officials of another nation had acted wrongly. It was admitted that the conduct of the British Government towards their own officials had been perfectly correct, and that they were right in throwing the blame on their own officials instead of endeavouring to cast the responsibility on the Spanish Government.

said, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the following passage in the despatch of Sir Robert Morier on the 9th of March:—

"The point specially insisted upon in my note was that the expulsion thus suggested on the 16th of August was the initiatory step to the carefully considered measures jointly taken by our authorities and the Spanish Consular employés on the 28th of the month, by which the police agents of the two countries, acting under common preconcerted orders, were able to carry out the desires of the Spanish authorities that the fugitives should be replaced in their custody."

said, there was nothing in that inconsistent with what he was endeavouring to say. The Spanish Consul knew that the British officials at Gibraltar had legal powers of expulsion vested in them by Order in Council, and he made no misrepresentation on any point. He did not represent the persons to be criminals, but only stated that he had been charged with the capture of Maceo and his companions, and he requested that they might be expelled from the garrison. When the Consul appealed to the English officials to expel the fugitives, he asked them to do it if they could. It was impossible for the English officials, who knew what extradition meant, to suppose that that was a demand for extradition, or that it meant an appeal to a legal tribunal, and an order by such a tribunal. Therefore, they adopted a mode of putting these unfortunate men outside the lines. But that was the fault of the English officials, who misconceived what was their duty; and it was not because they misconceived their duty that the blame should be thrown upon the Spanish Consul. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and himself had most anxiously tried to see whether they could find cause of blame in the conduct of the Spanish Consul, and if they did they would have pointed it out. But they felt that, for them to torture acts ingeniously, and to endeavour to create an unfounded impression, would have been very wrong when they were called upon to advise the Government whether a claim could be framed against the Spanish official. It was not for them to take up a position which could not be maintained. Therefore his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and himself gave their attention to the proper construction to be placed upon the demand of the Spanish Consul, and, finding no misrepresentation in them, they did not think they could say, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, that there was treachery on the part of the Spanish Consul, who only stated what was perfectly accurate, and did not make illegal demands which could not be supported. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) knew the distinction between representations made in an officious and an official manner. It often happened that a Minister, in order to obtain the desired end, thought that his duty would be better fulfilled by means of non-official representation rather than by official demands. Sir Robert Morier, knowing the Government with which he had to deal, thought that the proper way to approach thorn was not by making demands in a peremptory tone, but by saying—"We make no charge of treachery or fraud, but we do say that the English officials having wrongly given up those men, and placed them where they ought not to have been placed, you ought to put them in the same position as they were before." It was a happy thing, considering the tone of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston, that no threat was used towards the Spanish Government, and that they were not told that their officials had been guilty of treachery and fraud. If that had been done what would have become of these men, one of whom had been released from custody, while the other was kept in honourable confinement? It was because they thought the end they had in view would be better accomplished by making friendly representations, and even by understating the case, that they had arrived at a conclusion which would never have been reached if the tone of his hon. and learned Friend had been assumed. If they made their demand on insufficient grounds, and insisted that the Spanish Government should release the men, how could they enforce that demand? And if they made it officially they should have either to retreat from it or to enforce it. To have retreated would have provoked something of the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon the Government—it would, as he had said, have been "discreditable;" and if a Vote of Censure was asked for, that vote would have been well deserved if they had made a peremptory demand which they did not intend to enforce.

said, there was one line in the Correspondence which proved clearly that the authorities at Gibraltar were misled by the representations that were made to them by the Spanish Consul. On this line rested the whole case against Her Majesty's Government. The translation of this line in the despatches was inaccurate in the English version. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to the Spanish despatch he would see in the last line the words—"Estoc suppone que fue svfriendo cadena." The clear meaning of that phrase was that Maceo was a convict. The English Government were more to blame in this affair than the Spanish Government. After having surrendered, upon the faith of the promise given by a British Consul that he would be allowed to become an exile, Maceo was pursued by a Spanish ship-of-war, and made prisoner in violation of that agreement. The English Government, however, thought that its honour was not involved in the transaction and took no notice of it. Yet if the Government had remonstrated, he believed that they would have succeeded in procuring the liberation of the captured officers. Up to the 6th of this month Maceo was a close prisoner in a Spanish fortress. That was the fact, although he had been told by the spokesman of the Government here that the arrangements made by the Spanish Government had been carried out, and that Maceo had been given a limited liberty. It was possible that the continued ill-treatment of Maceo was due to the fact that the Commandant of the fortress in which he was immured did not understand the real nature of the arrangement which this Government had made. The Spanish War Minister, he felt convinced, would not be a party to any breach of faith in the matter, and he believed that if the Government would take the trouble to put Maceo's case before that Minister the arrangement that had been made would be carried out. In the name of the great principle of the right of asylum he demanded that this man, who had been surrendered to the Spanish Government, should be given absolute unconditional liberty.

said, he was of opinion that the words of the Correspondence to which the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had referred could not be held to substantiate the charge of fraud and conspiracy made by some hon. Members against the Spanish authorities. He agreed with the Attorney General that it was well that this debate was not raised earlier, for it might have influenced materially the conduct of the Spanish Government towards the prisoners. If accusations of conspiracy and fraud had been made while the negotiations were still pending, the chances of the liberation of the two prisoners who had been set free would have been greatly lessened, as well as the chances of better treatment for Maceo himself. Not having abandoned the hope that before long Maceo might be liberated by the exercise of the clemency of the Spanish Government, he felt bound to say that he did not think that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) and of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would assist the Government in obtaining the liberation of the prisoner whose liberation they had so much at heart. He was astonished to hear the charge of delay made against Her Majesty's Government. When he became Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in December last, the first question with which he became acquainted and which was pressed upon his attention was that of the Cuban refugees. No neglect whatever could be shown against anyone in the Foreign Office, and the President of the Local Government Board would bear him out in saying that Lord Granville had given the most careful attention to the subject. Therefore the Foreign Office had a right to complain of the disagreeable charges that had been brought forward against it by the right hon. Gentleman—charges which he had not been able to substantiate. He said there were no despatches on the question.

I never said that. On the contrary, I quoted them.

The right hon. Gentleman said there were no representations on this question, and lie subsequently said there were no official representations.

said, he had pointed out that there was no dispatch from Lord Granville between that of the 28th of November, 1882, in which his Lordship stated that Her Majesty's Government could take no further action in the matter until the Commission of Inquiry had reported, and that of the 29th of January, 1883.

said, that, as stated in one of the earliest despatches, there had previously been representations not of an official character, a course which, as the right ton. Gentleman was aware, was frequently adopted in very delicate questions such as this. Then the right hon. Gentleman said there was a variation in the form of the representations made by Her Majesty's Government at different periods. That allegation had been already fully dealt with by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. There had been no variation. But it had unfortunately happened that the Colonial officials at Gibraltar had placed themselves in the wrong, and the Government had been obliged to make the best of it. If the right hon. Gentleman had no more to say than that, what became of his demand for a full-dress debate? He ventured further to say that even assuming the right hon. Gentleman was right in his statement that there was a variation on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he was not entitled to come and ask for such a sacrifice of the time of the House. All through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he never ventured to impugn what he might call the centre of the position of Her Majesty's Government. Neither did the hon. and learned Member for Lunceston venture to say that the Government were wrong in the view they took of the position of these officials and of the conduct of the Spanish authorities. He hoped the House would pardon his occupying their time at such length. He had made these explanations because it was important that the public should know that there had been no variation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Robert Morier, writing to Lord Granville, quite at the commencement of the controversy, on the 12th of November, said that "nothing could be more straightforward or loyal than the action of the Spanish Consul." Then he proceeded to admit that the British authorities had been in the wrong. In almost the last despatch Sir Robert Morier said that the Spanish Consul—

"Was so well up in his business that, knowing that if he demanded their extradition he would, on the plea of their being political refugees, he probably refused … he suggested their expulsion instead. On their arrival at Gibraltar the expulsion on the land side and the immediate arrest beyond the British line by the Spanish police was, as stated above, and fully proved by the evidence, pre-arranged and preconcerted between our authorities and the Spanish Consular authorities. In all this I gee no act of bad faith on the part of the Consul, but only great zeal in obeying the orders of his superiors, and great savoir faire and ingenuity in availing himself of the excessive readiness of our officials to render themselves agreeable to him. If they, through ignorance were ready to act against the spirit of the Treaty of Extradition, it was not for him to point this out to them."

There was no variation on the part of the Government. Their conduct was perfectly consistent. On reference to Lord Granville's despatch of the 29th of January, it would be found that Her Majesty's Government recognized the situation and had to mark their disapprobation of the conduct of their officials by the dismissal of those most immediately responsible for the error committed. Anyone listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have thought that the refugees were in prison, for he only stated parenthetically that some of them had been released. Anyone hearing the right hon. Gentleman would have thought that the Government had made a terrible fiasco. The simple fact was that they had asked the Spanish Government to accede to their demand for the release of the refugees in the manner most calculated to obtain the desired result. They had succeeded in the main in obtaining that result by the release of two of the refugees, and they did not despair, notwithstanding the imprudent speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston, of inducing the Spanish Government to release Maceo himself. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had asked the Government to take advantage of their own wrong. He would add that using the language of bluster and threatening was not the line Her Majesty's Government were in the habit of taking. The matter had been fully considered in all its bearings. If the Government were to use strong, unnecessary, and violent language when they were in the wrong, they might do themselves injury in cases in which they had the law on their side. He believed he had satisfied the House that there had been no delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and that the line and attitude taken by them had been successful, for it had resulted in the release of two of the prisoners, and the promise of the release of the third, without departing in any way from those doctrines as to the immunity of political prisoners which were always treated as of the highest importance in this country.

said, he thought the subject that had been under discussion was now pretty well threshed out, therefore he would call attention to another question, which was a matter of some urgency. He was glad to learn that the Government had been successful in preserving the rights of asylum and yet had got rid of the old plan adopted by Lord Palmerston of backing up their Agents abroad in all they did, whether right or wrong. He was glad that the Government had set an example in the course they had adopted; it was much better than indulging in an empty display of bluster. As regarded the right of asylum, there was another political offender—Arabi Pasha—who had not been fairly dealt with. The Government sent a force to catch him and handed him over to his enemies, and everyone concerned in the matter had had a sword or a dinner given him. Then there was another political offender being tried on the same charges as Arabi—Ahmed Khandeel—in whose case there seemed to be a very great danger of a miscarriage of justice. Lord Granville, in his despatch of November 23 with regard to Arabi and his companions, required as the conditions of their trial that the trial should be a public one, and that the prisoners should have the assistance of counsel. Khandeel, the Prefect of Police at Alexandria, was said to have been implicated in the massacre, but he was not receiving a fair trial, and the conditions required by Lord Granville had been ignored. Was it fair that the prisoner should be convicted on a preliminary trial when the evidence was not taken in his presence? It was altogether unjust. Mr. Mark Napier, his counsel, had lately returned home because the facilities given to other prisoners had not been given to this prisoner. If the evidence were taken in open Court, it would have a material bearing upon the Egyptian Question. There was positive danger to the lives of this man and his companions if something was not done. His only reason for interposing at this point was because he thought the Government were bound, in the interests of justice and humanity, to send out immediate orders that this man should have a fair trial equally with the other prisoners.

said, he desired to strengthen the case put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The Prime Minister, in replying to a Question of his the other day, said that counsel would be allowed to Ahmed Khandeel when the trial began. He did not think, however, that the Prime Minister was aware that the dossier to which he alluded was the actual trial. He had heard that this was so from Mr. Mark Napier himself. What was called in England a trial was in Egypt called a preliminary proceeding. Nothing was done in the way of calling witnesses; all the Court did was to read the depositions, debate about them, and then give its decision. It was impossible that a man could have justice done him under the most favourable circumstances, because it was open to the Court to accept evidence of any kind they chose. He was certain justice would not be done to this man, because nothing was so difficult in Egypt as to secure an open trial. It appeared that Ahmed Khandeel was the only man who could throw any light on the real origin of the massacre of the 11th June. It was stated—and the statement could be substantiated—that Omar Lufti, the present Minister of War, who was Governor of Alexandria at the time of the massacre of the 11th of June, was the agent of the Khedive in getting up that massacre. It was a Palace intrigue on the part of the Khedive and Omar Lufti for the purpose of injuring Arabi Pasha. Arabi Pasha said that he would preserve order; but to bring him into collision with Foreign Powers, and to show that he was unable to preserve order, Omar Lufti was employed as an agent of the Palace to concoct these massacres. Omar Lufti wanted Ahmed Khandeel to assist him; but Ahmed, a nervous retiring man, was taken conveniently ill, and remained in bed during the time in order to be out of the way. Were we going to support the Egyptian Government in the efforts they were making against Lord Granville's despatch, and against the instructions we had given to the Egyptian Government? Were we prepared to make ourselves parties to the suppression of evidence for the sacrifice of a man who was perfectly innocent? The only way in which we could do justice to Ahmed Khandeel was to treat the whole proceeding by the Egyptian Government as utterly invalid, and to insist on the preliminary proceeding being commenced de novo in the presence of Ahmed Khandeel's counsel. He was certain the Prime Minister would not lend himself to a foul intrigue of the lowest and most despicable kind on the part of Egyptians, compared with whom Arabi Pasha was purity itself, for the sacrifice of an innocent man because he might damage their present position. He asked the Prime Minister to put aside the ordinary traditions of the Foreign Office, which were unfavourable to this man, to look at the matter broadly, and to allow this poor man to have justice done to him, for by so doing he would really strengthen the position of the British Government in India.

Sir, I am in one respect sorry and in others glad that I have heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. I am sorry because of the reference that speech contained to the Khedive, upon whom, as an obiter dictum, and not as a main part of his speech, the noble Lord has cast the most grave charges that can possibly be advanced against any man—that is to say, that in the view of the noble Lord the Khedive had employed other instruments for getting up the massacre of the 11th June.

I said it was believed by competent authorities that Ahmed Khandeel would be able to prove that in his own defence.

It is difficult to be prepared, and I do not think the House would conceive it possible for anyone to be prepared, to meet a charge of this kind. Some credit is due to a man who has been the Chief of the Egyptian community for several years in very difficult times, in a very imperfectly organized country, who has had to confront danger in a hundred forms, and who has never down to this moment to our knowledge been guilty of any proceeding inconsistent with the character of a benevolent and an upright Euler. ["Oh!"] Well, that is the result of our experience of the Khedive, and it would be monstrous on our part readily to give ear to any imputation of that kind, and I thought it my absolute duty to protest strongly against the provisional acceptance of such a charge. Passing from that I come to the more material part of the speech of the noble Lord and the demand of my hon. Friend. The noble Lord has placed before us in a very clear form the nature of the evil which he wishes to provide against, and he likewise explicitly stated the remedy which he thinks ought to be offered. The evil against which he wishes to provide is that the preliminary process, as it has been called—without any opportunity to the prisoners to have the advantage of counsel—is really and virtually the substantial trial—that, in point of fact, if I understand the speech of the noble Lord, it does not appear to him that there is any power on the part of the prisoner to bring in rebutting evidence against that advanced by the accusers. I am bound to say that information, considered as information, is quite at variance with that we have received. The distinct account given to us by Lord Dufferin is that the Egyptian procedure is in essential the French procedure, that this preliminary process and the formation of the dossier, as it has been called, is the process that prevails in the French Courts, and though it may be alien to English notions it i3 familiar and prevalent in a great part of the countries of Europe. But what we understand is, that when in that preliminary process there is gathered together the particulars that form the case of the accusers, that evidence may go before the Court, and it goes there to be examined and sifted, to be cross-examined, to be rebutted, and to be contradicted by counter evidence.

There is no cross-examination in the higher Court.

I am simply stating what was the information given to the Government. I do not hesitate, however, to say I agree with the noble Lord thus far, that if the preliminary proceeding and the calling of evidence on what we look upon as the real trial is simply the arrangement of that written evidence by the Judges, that is not in accordance with our ideas of a trial, nor of the French procedure, nor of the procedure, though alien to ours, which exists in many countries in Europe. That statement having been made, I admit it is one that deserves the attention of the Government; and not only so, but I will say it is not now for the first time the subject has received the attention of the Government, for immediately upon Laving reason to believe that suspicion existed on the subject, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) took means to make communications with the Egyptian Government in order that we might be possessed of the whole state of the facts. I cannot agree with the noble Lord the Member for "Woodstock in saying that our request ought to be that the preliminary proceedings should be recommenced. There is the objection to that course that it would tend to bring into grave disrepute and disparagement all proceedings in Egypt if there was to be a cancelling of what has been done, and a recommencement of the whole question; but what has been done should be sifted and examined, and be liable to be rebutted. That I quite understand, and that seems to me what we should all think among ourselves should be the main object in view, and we shall do all that we believe we are entitled to do. I am not at liberty to say in what cases hereafter we should be justified in interfering with the administration of justice in Egypt—it requires a grave case to warrant it, and our constant interference even for good might end in producing a balance of mischief. In this instance the promise has been given that counsel shall be employed, and we understand that distinctly to mean that the employment of counsel shall mean the bringing out the whole facts of the case without fear or favour. That is the end we shall keep in view, and with that assurance I trust the House will be satisfied.

said, he desired to say, with reference to the Question he had put on the Paper the day before, respecting the Viceroy of India, that he did not withdraw it, as had been insinuated on the other side of the House, from any fear of asking it, but because he was advised by those who were acquainted with India, that it was better not to press the Government on the subject. They were, he understood, disposed to recede so far as possible from the unfortunate position they had taken up, if not publicly pressed. The challenge of the Prime Minister, the day before, as to the facts stated in his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) Question, compelled him now to make a few observations. They would be very brief, as the House was anxious to rise for the Holidays. He did not wish to criticize what the Prime Minister said in defence of the Viceroy; but he believed the present state of India was graver and more serious than it had been since the Mutiny. The introduction of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill had produced exasperation between the two races such as had not been known for 20 years. There had been meetings, Petitions, and protests from the European inhabitants, in every part of India. And now a counter agitation was being fomented among the Natives. It was said to be anomalous not to give the Native magistrates certain powers; but, as a great statesman had said, if we took our stand against anomalies, the real anomaly was in our being in India at all. Let us give the people liberty and good administration; but it was perfectly impossible and ridiculous, so long as we retained our hold on India, to give Native races full equality. This Bill was one affecting 2.00,000,000 of people, the commerce of India, and hundreds of thousands of Englishmen. Why, the loss of India would represent a deduction of 5s. or, perhaps, even 10s. from the wages of every able-bodied working man in the country. He charged the responsibility for this against Lord Ripon, the present Viceroy. Lord Ripon was an amiable and well-intentioned official, but he was a crotcheteer, a sentimentalist, and a pseudo-humanitarian. It was, he maintained, quite true that the Viceroy had been publicly slighted. He had several letters from India to prove it, and these he would adduce when he got authority to quote them. Moreover, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, who opposed the Bill, had been everywhere feted, in marked contrast to the reception of the Viceroy. It might be that Lord Ripon was about to come home, and that the extravagant eulogy of the Prime Minister was meant to cover his retreat with some show of public appreciation. He only hoped that was so, and he would not grudge the Viceroy such praises. Indeed, he would suggest that, as the present Advisers of Her Majesty made Lord Ripon a Marquess for one of the most unfortunate transactions in English diplomacy, the Alabama Negotiations, some 16 years ago, so they should now recall him from India at once, and reward his conduct there by bestowing upon him the honour of a Dukedom.

Sir, I have no right to address the House again; but with its permission, I wish to say a word or two in reply to a speech of the nature of that which we have just heard with respect to a man like Lord Ripon serving his country in a most arduous Office. I do think, Sir, that both sides of the House will agree with me when I say this—that nothing can be more clear than the title of Members of this House to bring charges and accusations against all the persons employed in the service of the Grown; and so far am I from thinking that the eminent position occupied by Lord Ripon exempts him from the application of that rule, that I think, on the contrary, the higher the position the more necessary it is that the freedom of this House and the Members of this House to canvass their conduct should be maintained without limit or stint. But there is a correlative consideration, and that is that in proportion to the gravity of the circumstances there should be care and conscientiousness, and the production of evidence of a trustworthy kind on which these charges are made. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I have not had time.] The hon. Member says he has not had time; but if he has not had the time to obtain evidence, then he ought not to make these charges. I do not know that in this case there will be any very great disadvantage to anyone, for T cannot pretend to express the apprehension that Lord Ripon will suffer in the estimation of any man from what has just been said. The hon. Gentleman said that Lord Ripon was made a Marquess for the conclusion of a most unfortunate negotiation. I am not going to open a chapter which would require time which is not now at our command; but Lord Ripon was not the only person concerned in that negotiation; and when I refer to the participation of other men in it I do so, not for the purpose of casting the burden upon them, but simply of doing them honour for a most patriotic course in bringing about a result with respect to which we, who were the Advisers of the Crown, undoubtedly had the full and ultimate responsibility. But Lord Ripon, according to the hon. Gentleman, is a crotcheteer, a sentimentalist, and an ultra-humanitarian. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BABTLETT: A pseudo-humanitarian.] A pseudo-humanitarian! I am sorry that the artistic touches of the hon. Member should be so marred and blurred when his picture comes to be manipulated by a person like my- self. He says Lord Ripon is a pseudo-humanitarian, a crotcheteer, and a sentimentalist; but, unless I am very much mistaken, I am accustomed to hear language of this kind applied to every Member who sits on this side of the House. What are we all who sit on this side of the House but a set of crotcheteers, sentimentalists, and pseudo-humanitarians? If that be so, I think the hon. Member will see that his time and his breath are wasted in making an appeal to us, because we are absolutely disabled, by internal defects, from appreciating the truth and justice of the charges brought by the hon. Gentleman. Why, Sir, so far from being able to discuss even the first elements of the truth in this matter, we rather believe that Lord Ripon is both a just and a wise man, that Lord Ripon, in the course of a public career which has now reached not very far short of 40 years, has more and more approved himself to the judgment of his Sovereign and his country; that no part of the career of Lord Ripon has been more honourable or more beneficial than the three years which he has spent in India; and that, if the time be approaching—and I know nothing specifically of the approach of Lord Ripon's return—if, unfortunately, according to the tenure of Office, or according to the necessity of health, to be considered particularly in regard to a man of advanced years, the time be approaching when Lord Ripon will have to make over to some as worthy, but not worthier, person the high Office he holds, I believe he will come back to be held in honour among the people of this country, and I believe that he as much as any Viceroy that ever lived has written his name upon the hearts of the people of India.

said, he would not detain the House more than a minute; but after the elaborate eulogy which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon Lord Ripon's Administration, he felt bound to say, with a full sense of responsibility, that there never was a more foolish or ill-advised measure introduced by the Government of India than that denounced by the hon. Member for Eye. It had done what every prudent statesman had been careful to avert; it had brought about a conflict and antagonism between the White man and the Black man. He only wished to enter his protest against the concluding words of the Prime Minister's eulogy of Lord Ripon, for he was perfectly convinced that the Indian Government and the Government at home would have the greatest difficulty in extricating themselves from the dilemma in which they had been placed.

praised Lord Ripon's Administration, and referred to the Indo-European Press as ridiculing the pretended danger from the Ilbert Bill. He knew as much about India as either the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) or the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), and he utterly repudiated as unfounded the statement that Lord Ripon had been slighted by the European population of India. On the contrary, the Government House was never more popular than at present.

said, he desired to express his concurrence in the eulogy passed by the Prime Minister upon the conduct of Lord Ripon in India. He was not one of those who were enthusiastic about Lord Ripon when he went out to India; but he knew something about India, and he had been a careful observer of what had been going on, and he wished just to say that Lord Ripon had gained not only his admiration but the admiration of many others who had watched the noble Lord's career in India.