Sir, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name with regard to this Bill—namely—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Sutton District Water Bill, to insert a Clause in such Bill by which provision shall be made for the offer of any additional capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained, unless the Committee on the Bill shall report that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which their opinion is founded."

Now, Sir, in 1877 the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), when occupying the position of Chairman of Ways and Means, introduced a Motion into this House having for its objects exactly the same provision as that which is contained in my Motion, with this exception—that he proposed to change the Standing Orders in their then state for the purpose of inserting this Auction Clause, as it is called, into all Bills promoted by Gas Companies. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain, in two or three short sentences, what this meant. When a Gas Company or a Water Company come to this House with a Bill asking for powers to create a Company, or to carry an undertaking on in a particular fashion, a monopoly is granted; and Companies established under such conditions—conditions similar to those laid down in the present Bill—have been able to pay a dividend of from 7 to 10 per cent on their share capital, and the shares of such Companies are quoted on the Stock Exchange and in the public market at from 50 to 75 per cent premium. I will take this particular Company. The shares of the Company now stand at something like 100 per cent premium—that is to say, that £25, which is the price of an original share in the Sutton Water Works Company, can be sold for £50. The same thing was the case with regard to Gas Companies; but in 1877 the right hon. Member (Mr. Raikes) brought in a Standing Order which provided that any Gas Company coming to this House to ask for powers under a new Bill to raise additional capital should be compelled by the terms of that Bill to offer the capital to be subscribed by the public at large—that is to say, by auction, and the clause now known as the "Auction Clause" was inserted in Gas Companies Bills. The object of the clause was this. If the Directors of a Gas Company desired to raise additional capital, and were not required to issue the new shares to the public, they might issue them to themselves at par. That is to say, that they might issue a £100 share at £100, and the next day sell it for £125, £150, or £175, as the case might be, with this result—that the Directors, supposing they took these shares themselves, would mulct the unfortunate people who had to pay either the gas or water rates the difference between the par value and the premium value obtained from the sale. This was felt to be unfair to the public, and an injury to the public, as well as being injurious to the fair working of the large monopolies conferred upon Companies in reference to the supply of gas and water; but in 1877, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, all that was altered in the case of Gas Companies, and I remember that the Motion made at that time was supported by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Earl of Iddesleigh, whose loss we all so much regret. What I propose now is that the sumo rule which applies to Gas Companies now when they desire to raise additional capital should be made to apply to Water Companies. I am obliged to take this action, in the first instance, against one particular Water Company; but when the Motion is carried, as I have no doubt it will be, I propose to submit a Motion to amend the Standing Orders so as to include all Water Companies who may in future come to this House. The only argument ever used against this change was that it might be injurious to the public in restraining undertakings of this kind; but I think I shall be able to show the House how forced that argument is. It matters nothing to the public so long as the Water Companies get the amount of money they require; but the cheaper the rate at which they raise their capital—that is to say, the smaller amount of money at which the shares are absolutely issued by the Company—the greater the benefit will be to the public. But there is another very serious matter which comes into consideration. For instance, in this very case of the Sutton Water Works—and here let me say that I know nothing about the Company, nor am I even, acquainted with the names of the Directors—but what I wish to mention is that a leading member of the Local Authority in that district wrote to me yesterday informing me that it is the intention of the district to purchase out the present Company who are to receive these powers under this Bill. Now, how will the Local Authority be affected? I do not say that the Directors of the Company intend to do anything wrong; I know nothing about them, and I desire to make no accusation against them; but I presume that they will issue the £60,000 they require to raise in shares to themselves and their friends at par; and, if so, they would then be able to sell them on the following day for £90,000. Therefore, when the Local Authority comes to purchase these water works they will be in this position—that they will not only have to purchase the shares at the price at which they were issued, but will have to pay the value of the premium at which they will stand in the market. As a matter of fact, they will have to recoup the shareholders and re-purchase the £30,000 or £40,000 that will have gone into the pockets of the Directors and their friends. The present share capital stands at £60,000, although only £40,000 have been paid up, and the new shares that it is proposed to issue will also amount to £60,000, and will stand at £90,000, so that between £40,000 and £50,000 will represent the profit which will go into the pockets of private individuals, and will eventually have to be purchased by the Local Authority when it desires to buy up the works. I know it will be said that the same thing happens in the case of every Water Company; but that is the reason why I take the earliest opportunity of endeavouring to correct what I think was a great mistake committed by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge when he introduced his Motion for the alteration of the Standing Orders by applying it only to Gas Companies. It was evidently an error, and the new Order ought to have applied to Water Companies as well. Therefore, I propose to put this Motion to the House to-day in order that it may be applied to Water Companies as well as Gas Companies; and then I propose to follow it up immediately by another Motion to amend the Standing Orders, so that in future it shall apply to all existing Water Works Companies. By this means we shall save a large sum of money to the Local Authorities under any future Local Government Bill which may be proposed for England and Wales from having to purchase profits made by individuals contrary to the interests of the public at large. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.

I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion, and in doing so I will simply call the attention of the House to the fact that the conditions imposed by the Resolution are of a very moderate character. There is one thing I desire to say in justification of the course which I took the other day. I stated that no notice of the intention of the Sutton Water Company to apply for a Bill had appeared in any local paper until the 22nd of January. I find that I understated the case. As a matter of fact no notice whatever has appeared in any local paper; but there was a notice in a paper published many miles off at Guildford. Therefore, I challenge contradiction to my assertion that the Bill was brought in with a secrecy which I think ought to excite the suspicion of the House.

On behalf of the promoters of the Bill I think we have no reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) has brought this matter before the House. The only reason which the Directors could have for opposing a provision of this kind, if it is proved to be for the public interest, would be that it would be applied to an exceptional case; but I understand that the hon. Member proposes to introduce a new Standing Order, which is to be inserted in the Bills of all Water Companies. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that if such a proposition receives the concurrence of the authorities of the House I shall not be prepared to offer any opposition to its acceptance. The hon. Member stated that he had received a letter from some Local Authority at Sutton, informing him that the district intends at some future time to purchase the Sutton undertaking. Now, I wish to say that this is a District Water Company; that it is not connected with any single parish; and that at the present moment there is no Local Authority in existence which would be able to purchase it. The President of the Local Government Board may have some measure in contemplation which may make the purchase practicable, and in that case the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member may be of some value. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly), I do not think the House would wish me to enter into any discussion new as to the circulation of different local papers; I will only say that the notices of the Water Company were inserted not only in a local paper of large circulation, but also in The London Gazette. However, as we are all agreed in regard to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member, I will only add that I trust the Sutton Water Company will continue in its present prosperous career.

I am glad to hear that the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy). There is no reason to doubt that the Instruction involves a principle which, ought to be considered by every Private Bill Committee to which a Bill of this kind is referred. As a matter of fact, it is already within the province of a Private Bill Committee to go into such matters, and in some cases Committees have inserted such a clause. I am glad that the Sutton Water Company accept this Instruction, and I am also glad that it is proposed that the Motion should be followed up by another of a more general character. It certainly ought not to stand alone, but it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a general way. If the hon. Member will do me the honour of consulting me before he moves his Resolution, it is probable we may come to some agreement as to the alteration which ought to be made in the Standing Orders.

On behalf of the Government I am very glad indeed to find that there is a general agreement in all parts of the House in respect of this Instruction, and also upon the general question. The Government are entirely of opinion that it is not only desirable this Instruction should be carried, but also that there should be an alteration of the Standing Orders, so as to make the principle apply to every Water Company. It is for the interests of the community that whenever an issue of fresh capital is required for enterprizes of this kind, that capital should be restricted to the amount which is to be raised and to the actual value of the shares. Of course, if the shares are of more value than the sum at which they are issued so many fewer shares would be required. If, hereafter, a general principle should be adopted which would enable Local Authorities to purchase undertakings of this kind, it should be only incumbent on them to pay the real value of the undertakings. It is, therefore, clearly in the interest of the public, when fresh, capital is required for the purpose of carrying out the obligations cast on Water Companies, that that fresh capital shall be strictly limited to the amount which it is necessary to raise, and, that being so, that the share should be sold at their real value, and no profit put into the pockets of anybody. Therefore, the Government entirely support not only this Instruction to the Committee on the Sutton Bill, but also the suggestion, which has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney), that there should be some alteration of the general law which should prevent the evil which the hon. Member's Resolution calls attention to.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you a Question on a point of Order. I notice, Sir, that a Motion was last night placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), to the effect that he will call attention to the general condition of agriculture, as requiring the immediate attention of Parliament. I wish, Sir, to know from you whether the effect of that Notice will be to prevent the discussion of the agricultural situation on the Report of the Address this afternoon?

I consider that the right hon. Gentleman will be debarred from discussing the question, inasmuch as a Motion on the subject is on the Paper for a future day.

Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that as soon as I can obtain a day, I will call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade and Agriculture, and to the continued depression of those two branches of industry in the United Kingdom, and move a Resolution.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What value is given the public or fishermen of Lough Neagh district by the Conservators of Fisheries under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 92, in return for the heavy Licence Duty so rigidly levied by them, seeing that they are unable to erect wooden jetties to enable the fishermen of Lough Neagh to land their fish; and, whether the whole of the duty paid is consumed by the payment of the official staff under the above Act; and, if so, will the Government propose its repeal?

The value given to the fishermen in this as in other districts in return for the Licence Duty which they have to pay is the increased production of fish owing to a proper system of protection, without which the fisheries would soon deteriorate. The whole of the Licence Duty is consumed by the payment of officials, principally water bailiffs, and other necessary expenses incurred in the protection of the fisheries.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he intends to proceed with the new Admiralty and War Office buildings?

A Committee of the House of Commons was unanimously appointed last April to reconsider the whole question of the new Admiralty and War Office buildings, and in consequence of that decision under-takings were given to Parliament by my Predecessor and by myself that no building operations should be proceeded with until the Committee should have reported. That Committee lapsed with the dissolution of the last Parliament. But it is the intention of the Government to propose the appointment of a similar Committee this Session, and I hope that the Motion for that purpose will be made within a few days.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the cause of the delay of the Local Government Board in not sending down their Inspector to the Ennis Poor Law Union to hold the necessary inquiry under the Labourers' Cottages Act, notwithstanding the repeated applications of the Chairman of the Board that they should do so; and if it is a fact that all the necessary Documents have been lodged with the Local Government Board Solicitor since November last?

The Local Government Board report that a number of Petitions from other Unions were lodged much earlier than that of the Ennis Board of Guardians, and must be dealt with first. It is not the case that the necessary documents have been lodged since November. On the contrary, none were received until about Christmas, and some have not yet been received. As soon as the documents still wanting are sent in, and the services of an Inspector are available, the inquiry will proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is a fact that the Chief, First Class, and Local Inspectors of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police are not able to attain the rank of Divisional Superintendents without reverting back to duty in uniform at a lower rate of pay; and, if so, whether he will take steps to remove a restriction on the attainment of the highest ordinary post in the Force, which must have a prejudicial effect in obtaining the best officers for the Department particularly charged with the detection of crime?

I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that the fact is not as stated in my right hon. Friend's Question. The Chief Commissioner is responsible for the efficiency of the officers in each branch of the Service; and his method of selection and promotion has had no prejudicial effect on the efficiency of the Criminal Investigation Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The South Eastern Gazette of 20th December last, with reference to the collection of tithes in the parish of Biddenden, Kent—

"A Protected Tithe Collector.—Duiing last week Mr. Peterson, junior, attended by a police constable, collected nearly all the outstanding tithes due to his father, the Rev. W. Peterson;"

whether the services of the police constable were paid for out of the county police rate or by the Rector of Biddenden; and, whether it is to be understood that the active assistance of the police can in like manner be obtained by the farmers and shopkeepers of Biddenden in the recovery of their debts?

I have no authority over county police and no control of their movements, nor any knowledge of the way in which any particular service is paid for. In this case I am informed by the Chief Constable of the county that the police constable in question was in attendance with the agent appointed to collect the tithes, because he was informed that a breach of the peace was likely to occur, but that he did not go off his beat or leave the main road. The active assistance of the police can be obtained to prevent breaches of the peace, but not for the recovery of debts.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Avoca River has been poisoned for some years and the fish destroyed by the drainage from the mines, and that a strong desire exists to remedy the evil; whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the district have had plans and estimates made by Mr. W. G. Strype, C.E., from which it appears that the purification of the river could be effected for £8,000 or £10,000; and, whether he will cause the Inspectors of Fisheries to inquire into the matter with a view to the accomplishment of so important an object?

The Inspectors of Fisheries report that it is the case that the Avoca River has for many years been poisoned by mines, and that some persons connected with the locality are desirous of remedying the evil. Nothing is known officially of the plans of Mr. Strype. The Inspectors will inquire into the matter as suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the removal, without lawful authority, of a corpse from a grave, whether in a churchyard or in the burial ground of a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, is indictable at Common Law, and this for the express reason that it is an offence against public decency, and an outrage on the feelings of the living; under what authority the Home Department issues licences for the removal of the dead from their place of burial; whether it is the practice of the Home Department to grant licences for the removal of the dead, as a matter of right, on the mere application of any person who can show a legal title to the ground in which such dead are interred, or whether any, and what, discretion is exercised as to such licences; whether it is the practice of the Home Department to grant such licences without previous direct communication, by the Department itself, with the surviving relatives of the persons whose bodies it is intended to remove, for the purpose of affording such relatives an opportunity of themselves arranging with the Department for the removal of their dead, and their re-interment at a place in a manner consonant with their natural feelings and religious views; whether it is the practice of the Department to take any, and what, precautions for the purpose of effectually securing that any removal of the dead which may take place under the licence of the Department shall be conducted in a manner consistent with public decency, and with a due regard to the feelings of any relatives who may still be surviving; whether, on the 5th November last, a licence was granted by the Home Department for the digging up and removal to the parish churchyard of the bodies of three persons—namely, Mrs. Mary Irwin, Anna Maria Coad, and Robert Elliot Coad, who had for many years laid buried in a burial ground attached to a Nonconformist Chapel in the parish of Morthoe, North Devon; whether such licence was granted by the Home Department at the sole instance of the Trustees of the Chichester Estate; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which the Chichester Estate had acquired such property—namely, that, about 50 years since, Mr. T. Smith, a landowner in the village, gave to his sister, the late Mrs. Mary Irwin, a piece of freehold land on which to build a chapel; that, some time after the gift had been made and the chapel had been publicly opened, and the burial ground openly used as a place of interment, an exchange of some lands which were intermixed was made between Mr. Smith and the Chichester Estate, and, on the occasion of that exchange, the chapel and burying ground were, without communication with the persons who had erected and used the chapel and burial ground, turned from freehold into a leasehold, determinable on Mr. Smith's death, and that on the death of Mr. Smith in March last, the Chichester Trustees took immediate possession of both chapel and burying ground and forthwith ejected the congregation, and refused to listen to any offer whatever by the congregation and the relatives of the persons interred therein for the sale to them of the chapel and burying ground; whether he is aware that the husband of the deceased Mrs. Mary Irwin is still alive, at the age of 83 years, and resident close to Morthoe, and that her daughter and son-in-law were also the parents of the two other persons whose bodies were removed, and that they and numerous other relatives are resident in the locality; if he will explain why, when the Home Department determined to sanction the removal of these three bodies, a previous intimation was not directly given to these relatives, to the effect that they might themselves within a certain time, on application, obtain a licence for the removal and re-interment of the bodies in a manner in accordance with their feelings, and that, in default of application by them within the time named, a licence for the removal of the bodies would be granted to the Chichester Trustees; and, whether no communication whatever (other than an official acknowledgment of their letters) was made by the Department to any of the relatives of the deceased; whether the actual removal of the bodies took place on 17th December last; and, whether some days before the Parliamentary Representative of the Division drew the attention of the Home Department to the case by an official communication, enclosing to the Department a letter from one of the relatives, expressing willingness, if sufficient time were afforded, to arrange for the removal of the bodies; and, whether in reply both to that and also to another communication from the relatives, a mere official acknowledgment was sent, and the fact that the licence had been actually issued, and would be forthwith acted on, was omitted to be communicated; whether the removal of the bodies took place in the dead of the night, and whether the following statement by Mr. Coad is a correct account of the manner in which it was effected—

"This is how it was done; the bones of my dear wife's mother were picked up and put into a bucket, and thus brought from the tomb. The coffins of my dear son and daughter were taken up, and then it was found that one of the new coffins brought in at midnight from Barnstaple was not large enough, and the dear girl's corpse was put back into the grave again. The other two bodies were taken to the churchyard, and left unburied from four o'clock on Wednesday morning to Friday morning; then the three corpses were buried in the dark as though they were three suicides;"

whether the manner in which the removal of these bodies was conducted was in accordance with the regulations of the Home Department; whether he is aware that the proceedings which have taken place in this case have been condemned by the Archdeacon of Barn-staple, and by the Secretary and Registrar of the Bishop of the Diocese; and, whether he will take measures to in future prevent any licence for the removal of bodies being issued without previous communication with the relatives of the deceased, and to prevent any similar proceedings taking place under the shelter of a licence from the Home Office?

To remove a dead body without authority is an offence indictable at Common Law, and also summarily punishable under statute. Licences are issued under the Burials Act, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81, s. 25. On application being made it is usual to refer to the Inspector of Burial Grounds, by whom, in cases where he thinks it necessary, Circulars are issued (1) to the applicants; (2) to the relatives, asking if they had objection to the removal. In this case the latter Circular was not sent, the Secretary of State having been informed by the applicant that the relations had caused application to be made for the removal, but that no progress had been made. The licence for removal is granted on condition, among others, that the removal be effected with due care and attention to decency. It those conditions are not complied with, the penalties attach under the Act. At the time of granting the licence I had no knowledge of the history of the family or of the property. Before the licence was acted on I was informed that no deed of gift from Mr. Smith to Mrs. Irwin had ever been produced or mentioned; that Mr. Smith exchanged the site of the chapel and burial ground for other lands belonging to the Chichester Estate; that Mr. Smith took a leasehold interest in that site; that the three persons named were buried in the burial ground while it was vested as a leasehold in Mr. Smith, and without the consent or knowledge of the freeholders, the Chichester Trustees. When the lease came to an end in 1886 the relatives of the buried persons were twice invited by the Trustees to effect the removal themselves, and were offered a month for the purpose. Under such circumstances, I saw nothing that would justify me in interfering with the execution of the order of removal, provided the sanitary conditions laid down in the licence were observed. The removal of the bodies was effected, as I am informed, with propriety and decency, in the presence of a representative of the relations, who expressed himself satisfied. I am not aware that the proceedings have been condemned, and I see no reason to alter the usual practice of the Department with regard to the issue of licences.

asked a number of further Questions on the same subject, inquiring, amongst other things, whether it was not the duty of the Secretary of State to make inquiries before granting licences; whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the description of the removal of the bodies quoted in the printed Question was written by a relative of one of the deceased persons; and whether he thought the requirements of decency had been complied with?

I am not aware of any of the circumstances alluded to by the hon. Member.

I give Notice, then, that I will draw further attention to this matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is in accordance with the spirit of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, that teachers under the Board should be members of the Orange Society; and, whether it is true that Mr. James A. Irwin, teacher of the Carrick-awilkin (County Armagh) National School, in which a number of Roman Catholic children are pupils, is a member of the Orange Society, and attached to the Lodge of the District in which the school is situate; and, if so, what action the Commissioners of the Board of National Education propose taking in the matter?

Under the Rules of the National Education Board in Ireland teachers should avoid political meetings, and I am informed that the Commissioners would regard attendance at an Orange Lodge as a breach of their Regulations. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the circumstances alleged in the Question as to Mr. Irwin; but they will direct their Inspector to make inquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Harriet Sonter, lately one of the principal teachers of the National Schools in Belfast, who died in November last; whether this lady was over 34 years in the service of the National Board, and during that period had discharged her duties zealously and efficiently; whether she has left five children entirely unprovided for; whether it is the case that if she had lived for two months longer she would have been entitled to £300 compensation, money on retirement, and that she was actually in correspondence with the Board immediately prior to her death as to her retiring compensation; and, whether the Board propose, under the circumstances, to make any provision for Mrs. Sonter's children?

Mrs. Sonter served under the Commissioners of National Education as stated, and died a few months ago. Had she lived to retire from the Service she would have been entitled in about two months' time to a pension of £30 a-year, terminable with her life; but the pension scheme provides no retiring gratuities for female teachers of 50 years of age and upwards. In no circumstances, therefore, could Mrs. Sonter have been entitled to £300 compensation money on retirement, as alleged in the Question.

inquired whether, as the deceased had served so many years in the Public Service, the right hon. Gentleman did not think it was a case where a compassionate allowance should be made to her children?

There are no funds in the hands of the Education Board for compassionate allowances; but I have brought a similar case to this under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, that His Excellency might decide whether a grant should be made from the funds at his disposal; and I will look into this case and see whether I can do the same.

inquired whether a grant had been made in the other case to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.

I am not quite sure what was the result.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he will make provision in the next Agricultural Returns for ascertaining, as in 1881, the number and acreage of arable farms in England and Wales now unoccupied?

The Returns are now being printed; but I am endeavouring to have a column added for the information asked for in the hon. Member's Question.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to introduce this Session a Bill to amend "The Weights and Measures Act, 1878," as the Standard Department of the Board of Trade reported that "further legislation" is necessary to make the Act effective for the prevention of fraud?

The question of legislation in connection with the Weights and Measures Act is receiving the careful attention of the Department, and the Board of Trade hope to be able to arrange the preparation of a measure as soon as the state of Public Business will admit of it.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to, or take any action upon, the Report (dated the 7th August, 1885) of the Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the subject of the existing Rules as to the distribution of business in the Courts and Chambers of the Chancery Division, and the distribution of the Clerical Staff?

The Report in question was, in fact, considered very carefully immediately after it was presented, and so many of the recommendations as appeared to be matters of practice requiring Rules of Court were adopted by the Rule Committee of Judges in the issue of the Rules of the Supreme Court of December, 1885. The working of those Rules, and the observance of uniformity of practice in the Courts and Chambers of the Chancery Division, as recommended by the Committee, rests with the Judges of that Division themselves, and not with the Go- vernment. The remaining recommendations of the Committee, as the hon. and learned Member is aware, are based upon the assumption that a sixth Judge should be added to the Chancery Division, a condition precedent depending upon the sanction of Parliament.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in the daily papers of Monday the 14th February instant, to the effect that Lord Annesley had telegraphed from India, refusing to give any reduction in the present rents to his County Down tenants, who had presented him with a Memorial in which they expressed their inability to pay the same; whether the reduction given by the Land Commission at Belfast, on 30th November last, in the rent of one of his tenants—namely, Mrs. Elizabeth Savage, of Backaderry, Castlewellan, was upwards of five times the amount of the reduction given by the Sub-Commission, from whose decision the tenant appealed; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will endeavour to secure for Lord Annesley's tenants a reduction in their present rents commensurate with the tall in the prices of produce and with the necessities of the case?

A newspaper statement to the effect mentioned has been published, but I do not know whether it is correct. The facts as regards the case of Mrs. Savage are that her rent was reduced by the Sub-Commissioners from £37 6s. to £36, and further reduced on appeal to £31.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not said whether, under the circumstances, the Government would endeavour to secure for Lord Annesley's tenants a reduction on their present rents commensurate with the fall in the prices of produce and with the necessities of the case.

I do not think it necessary for me to interfere.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to apply pressure within the law in this case?

I have explained to the House the circumstances under which we acted. I do not think this is a case in which the Government are called upon to take any steps.

Then am I to understand that the tenants must rely upon their own endeavours to obtain justice?

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Board of Works, having finished the works on the pier on the Blacksod side of Belmullet, for which a grant was made by the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, purpose fixing a rate of tolls to be levied thereat in future on all goods landed on that pier; so that, when handed over to the county, the Grand Jury may have some revenue to keep it in repair; if not, whether he will direct the Board to do this, under the powers given to them by one of the Acts of Parliament relating to such works, so that the Grand Jury may be able to collect the tolls when the pier is transferred to the county?

, in reply, said, that when the pier at the Blacksod side of Belmullet, for which a grant had been made by the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, was transferred to the Grand Jury, the Board of Works would, as in all similar cases, on the request of the Grand Jury, fix a schedule of tolls to be levied thereat.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the pier and harbour at the Broadhaven side of Belmullet, for which a grant was made Thy the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, will be finished; at what date was it commenced; and, what is the reason of the delay in completing the works.

(who replied) said: The works on the pier and harbour at the Broadhaven side of Belmullet were commenced on February 10, 1886, and all the masonry was finished on January 13, 1887, with the exception of the granite coping, which had been detained since December 8 last at Blacksod Point by stress of weather, but was now being carted overland. The excavation of the channel would be tedious. The date of its probable completion could not be stated at present. There had not been any delay that could have been avoided.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an officer of the Constabulary in Ireland is allowed £50 a-year for a horse as well as an allowance of 9d. a mile for every mile travelled over six miles from the headquarter station; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the amount paid to each County Inspector on account of this mileage allowance during the last year for which the accounts are complete?

All Constabulary officers receive an allowance of £50 a-year to enable them to keep a horse and purchase a fresh one when necessary. The Question set down by the hon. Member, however, appears to be intended to apply only to County Inspectors, as the reference to the six-mile limit is applicable only in their case. For travelling on their quarterly inspection duty they receive the mileage allowance stated, outside a radius of six miles from their headquarters. On other duties they are paid the actual expense of travelling by public conveyance, so far as such is available, and mileage for the rest of the journey.

asked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the statement made by him that a grant of daily pay would be given to all Volunteers taking part in future marching columns, Whether the same privilege, and to what amount, would be extended to members of the Yeomanry Cavalry who might also form part of the same columns?

No, Sir. The marching allowance to which my former answer applied relates exclusively to the Volunteers. The Yeomanry are, under similar circumstances, already provided for by the rate of pay applicable to them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the report in The Daily News of 3rd December 1886, of a case heard before Mr. Paget, at the Wandsworth Police Court, on the previous day, relating to the irregular attendance at school of the child of a Mr. John Carmichael, in which the Magistrate is represented to have said that—

"The defendant took advantage of the Board School to have his child educated out of the rates,"

and that—

"If the defendant submitted to the degradation, as a respectable man, of having his child educated out of the rates, he must conform to the rules;"

whether such language was actually used; and, whether Mr. Paget has by statute any right to decide on any other matter beside the validity of the reason given for the irregularity of the attendance at school?

I have received a Report from the learned magistrate on this case, and he says that, at this length of time, he cannot state the exact expressions that he used; but that he certainly used none which he should consider inappropriate to the circumstances of the case. There is no statute regulating the discretion of magistrates in making such comments as they think proper on any particular case. The only decision given by Mr. Paget was that the defendant had incurred a fine of 6s.

Did Mr. Paget say it was a degradation for a man to take his child to be educated at a Board School?

I have communicated to the hon. Member who put the Question and to the House the effect of the answer I have received from the learned magistrate, and I have nothing to add to it. I can hand the right hon. Gentleman the magistrate's letter if he desires it.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the particulars of any tenders sent in to the Port and Docks Board, Dublin, were made known to interested parties before the same were officially laid before the Board for consideration; and, whether the tender last accepted for canvass was not 10 per cent higher than the tender of Messieurs M'Cann and Co., who, for the two years preceding, supplied this article without fault or complaint?

The Board of Trade have no control over the Dublin Port and Docks Board, and are unable to give the hon. Member the information he desires.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received from the Chairman of the Sligo Board of Guardians a copy of a Resolution expressing the unanimous opinion of his Board that the expense of the revision of the Parliamentary Voters' List should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund instead of being chargeable on the union; and, whether, in consequence of the general complaint on this head, the Government purpose introducing a Bill on the subject?

The Resolution was duly received; but I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to a similar Question yesterday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there was a procession of Orange bands in Bally-money, North Antrim, on Saturday night; whether windows were broken in the houses of leading supporters of the Liberal candidate; whether the Resident Magistrate (Mr. Rutherford) had a sufficient force under his charge to maintain order; and, what steps, if any, were taken to prevent injury to property, and bring the perpetrators to justice?

The Resident Magistrate reports that three Protestant bands played through the town of Ballymoney after the declaration of the poll. They did not march in procession, but went separately. Some roughs, who followed these bands, broke a few panes of glass in the course of the evening. This occurred after dark, and no one could be identified. There was no disturbance or breach of the peace, the police force present being sufficient to prevent any such occurrence.

asked, was the right hon. Gentleman aware that a meeting of the North Antrim Constitutional Association condemned the outrages, and offered to pay the amount of damage inflicted on the Liberal inhabitants of Ballymoney by the Orange rioters?

The damage does not appear to be very much, and I am glad to hear somebody is going to pay it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the anxiety expressed by Government to promote the material prosperity of the country, What steps are intended to be taken to develop the mining industries of Ireland, especially in the County of Wicklow, where gold has been found, and where iron, lead, and copper ores are known to exist extensively?

The particular matters on which I have expressed my anxiety to promote the material prosperity of Ireland are those which have been referred to the Royal Commission—namely, arterial drainage, deep-sea fisheries, and improved means of communication. I do not see what can be done to develop the mining industry, especially having regard to the present low prices of the principal minerals.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Return of Evictions for the quarter ending 31st December, 1886, from which it appears that 3,369 persons were evicted during the quarter; that 90 were re-admitted as tenants, and 2,142 as caretakers, leaving 1,137 persons homeless; whether he is aware that evictions are still of daily occurrence; and, whether, in view of the hardships and.sufferings caused to these poor people, many of whom are helpless women and. children, Government will consider if it is possible by any means to put a stop to evictions in midwinter?

I very much sympathize with the wish expressed in this Question that evictions should, as far as possible, be avoided in midwinter; but I doubt whether it would be practicable entirely to stop them then. But it is satisfactory to notice that the number of evictions, comparatively speaking, has been decidedly low in the quarter ending December 31, 1886; and I may remind the hon. Member that the Guardians are bound to provide shelter and relief for any homeless or destitute persons.

Would it be possible to establish a close season for evictions?

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the provisions of the 20 & 21 Vict., c. 60, s. 350, and of General Order 245, both requiring an official assignee to account once in every six months in every bankruptcy and arrangement matter, were observed by the late Mr. C. H. James; whether they are observed by the present official assignees; whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to insure that the irregularities proved against Mr. James will not be repeated by the existing officials; whether the powers given by the 20 & 21 Vict., c. 60, s. 21, of making Rules to regulate the audit of official assignees' accounts have ever been put in force; and, whether there is any reason why the accounts of official assignees should not be audited periodically by a public auditor?

, in reply, said, he was informed, with regard to the first paragraph, that such a Rule was only observed in some cases. Steps had been taken to put in force the powers referred to in the third paragraph. A Committee some time ago drew up certain recommendations, which were being carried out, and a satisfactory mode of auditing would, he hoped, be adopted.

asked if the Report of the recent defalcations would shortly be laid on the Table?

was unable to say when such Report would be presented.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the disclosures in the recent trial of "Hunter v. Lever," the Government propose to increase the stringency of the law dealing with the bribery of Corporation officials by means of commissions on purchases made by them?

The question of increasing the stringency of the law as to commissions received by agents was carefully considered by the Home Office Authorities in 1877, and a Bill was drafted for the purpose. However, in deference to the strongly expressed opinion of the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns), that the civil remedies of the existing law were sufficiently strong, the Bill was not proceeded with. The subject is one well worthy of consideration, no doubt; but the Government do not at present intend to propose any alteration in the law.

I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the case of "Hunter v. Lever" is not of sufficient importance to be placed in the hands of the Public Prosecutor?

So far as I am aware, there is no law at present under which Mr. Hunter could be prosecuted criminally. There are, however, plenty of civil remedies in the matter. The case has not been sufficiently brought to my attention for me to give a decided opinion upon it.

Is the Home Secretary aware that this man is a magistrate, and does he not think that he ought to be removed from the Bench?

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his Order of the 30th November last, making uniform the Rule as to annual holidays, has not yet been put into operation in the Dublin Office; and, whether he will take steps to secure the uniformity prescribed in the Order?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Rule to which he refers is about to be applied to the Dublin Post Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he will introduce the promised Bill to provide for the superannuation of Police and Constabulary Forces in Great Britain?

As I informed my hon. Friend last Session, I am fully aware of the importance of this subject; but looking to the present condition of Public Business he cannot expect me to make any definite pledge as to legislation. I can only say that I will do my best to further the efforts already made by my Predecessors in Office to place the present system of police pensions on a more satisfactory basis.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has received any Papers regarding the operations of a Naval Expedition reported to have visited Jeannet Island, New Guinea, and burned several Native villages, to avenge some murders committed by the inhabitants in October last; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?

Great excitement has been caused in the Australian Colonies by the massacre of Captain Craig and the crew of the Emily while pearl-fishing off Jeannet Island. An indignation meeting has been held at Cooktown, and the matter has been the subject of excited debate in the Queensland Parliament. Captain Clayton, in Her Majesty's ship Diamond, was sent by the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian Station to inquire into the matter; but from the information we have received it appears that he has been unable to punish the murderers, as they escaped into the bush on the approach of the ship.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government recognize, and, if so, in what measure, the rights of the Egyptian Government to conclude Commercial Conventions or Treaties with Foreign Powers; and, whether, under existing Treaties, the sanction of the Porte is necessary in each case?

Her Majesty's Government certainly recognize the right of His Highness the Khedive to conclude Commercial Treaties and Conventions with Foreign Powers which are not in derogation of the Political Treaties of the Sultan, nor of His Imperial Majesty's sovereign rights over Egypt, the matter being expressly regulated by the Firman of Investiture granted to the present Khedive, and dated the 2nd of August, 1879, which will be found at page 51 of the Parliamentary Paper, Egypt No. 1, 1880.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made with the negotiations contemplated in the Convention with China, signed at Pekin on the 27th July, 1886, which provides that the frontier between Burmah and China shall be settled by a Delimitation Commission, and that the conditions of frontier trade shall be settled by a Frontier Trade Commission?

The condition of affairs in Upper Burmah has hitherto prevented any progress being made with the negotiations for the delimitation of the frontier between China and Burmah; but I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter has not been lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that a Mrs. Charles told the Paddington Guardians, on Wednesday last, that she was sent seven years ago to a lunatic asylum and retained there until the other day, although she was perfectly sane; whether the statement is true; by whom she was thus immured; and, whether any and what steps can be taken to punish the persons who placed her in the asylum, to compensate her for the injury done to her, and to prevent such occurrences for the future?

The Question of the hon. Member appears to be founded on a misconception of the nature of the statement made by Mrs. Charles to her fellow guardians. That lady did not state that she had herself been in a lunatic asylum. Her statement referred to a female of whose case she was giving particulars. The Lunacy Commissioners inform me that it is impossible to make any inquiry or answer any question unless they are supplied with the name of the person and the approximate date of her admission to an asylum. The name of the asylum should also, if possible, be given. I have directed a letter to be written to the Paddington Board of Guardians with a view of eliciting this information.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the grant of Presidency Allowances, such as are drawn by officers of the Public Works Department, will be extended to officers of the Telegraph Department, the power to grant such allowances having been vested in the Director General of Telegraphs by Letter No. 1,001, E.G. dated 15th July, 1876, from Government of India Public Works Department?

I have no official information which enables me to answer this Question; but the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What action he has taken with reference to the case of an old man, over 70 years of age, named William Jones, who is now undergoing a sentence of two months' imprisonment in Gloucester Gaol on a charge of trespass and setting traps to catch birds in the Forest of Dean, and to whose conviction, by the Coleford Bench of Magistrates, his attention was specially directed on Monday morning last?

Yes, Sir; I have considered this case, and obtained a Report from the Justices upon it. It appears that this prisoner was tried and found guilty on two separate charges—(1) of setting traps to catch wood-pigeons on the 9th of January; (2) of trespassing in search of game with a gun on the 22nd of January. He had been cautioned several times previously for similar acts. Under the circumstances, I do not feel justified in advising any interference with the sentence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that the mat-weaving trade suffers severely from the competition of prison labour; and, if so, whether, in view of the scarcity of employment resulting from the general industrial depression, he will take steps to preserve the existence of a useful and extensive industry by directing that prison-made mats shall not be offered for sale at less than the market price?

Since the Commissioners took over the local prisons every effort has been made to gradually reduce the number of prisoners employed on this industry, with the result that, whereas the daily average number of prison mat-makers in 1878 was 2,959, it was only 1,681 in the year ending the 31st of March last. It may be added that, within the same period, the mat-making trade has been entirely abolished in all convict prisons, the number of convict mat-makers employed having at one time been as high as 266. With regard to the question of price, all mats made for sale at prisons are disposed of at a uniform rate, fixed with due regard to that which prevails in the mat-making trade, which is not undersold. The policy of the Department was stated in a letter directed by the late Secretary of State to be written to the hon. Member for the Sudbury Division of Suffolk (Mr. Quilter) on Juno 11, 1886, to be that prison industries should be as varied as possible; that steps should on all occasions be taken to ensure their obtaining the highest price that any dealer can afford to give; and that prison labour should, as far as possible, be employed in work of all kinds for other Government Departments.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the paragraph in The Pall Mall Gazette of Thursday, describing "an outrage of a peculiarly cruel and dastardly nature" in form of a false and unsigned telegram being sent to a certain person, who was nearly killed by the shock it caused him; whether it is the fact, as therein stated, that the—

"Author of this abominable outrage is known but will probably escape punishment, as the Post Office declines to take up the matter, and the Public Prosecutor has so far paid no attention to the representations made to him;"

and, whether he proposes to take any and what stops in the matter to further the ends of justice?

, in reply, said, that the facts, as stated in the Question, did not disclose any case upon which the Public Prosecutor could take action. The recipient of the telegram referred to had made no complaint either to the Director of Telegraphs or to the Public Prosecutor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the wishes of the miners of the district, Her Majesty's Government will appoint a practical miner to the vacancy which exists in the Assistant Inspectorship of Mines for the Western Division of Scotland?

I beg to assure the hon. Member that I shall appoint to this office a person who, in my opinion, possesses the necessary qualifications for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the working miners will be consulted in the matter?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that about £11,300 is paid to the Permanent Staff by Volunteer Corps, under the head of extra pay; whether the Permanent Staff are not paid by the Government; whether, as the Report of the Committee which is just published is that such payment is inadmissible, he will take measures to put a stop to this expenditure; and, whether, if the pay of the Permanent Staff is insufficient, he will consider their case, with a view to increase their pay?

It appears from the Tables prepared by the Volunteer Capitation Committee that the Permanent Staff received in the five years 1881–5 the average annual sum of £12,681, under the head of extra pay. The Permanent Staff are paid by the Government at rates of pay which are considered sufficient, and I think the principle of additions to the Government allowance objectionable. I will consider whether Regulations should be issued forbidding the grant of extra pay.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in reply to a communication from the Rector of Attleborough, Norfolk, he has informed him that he cannot lawfully conduct a Burial Service in the new cemetery until some portion thereof has been consecrated; whether the 12th section of "The Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880," protects from censure or penalties Ministers of the Church of England who may perform the Burial Service in any unconsecrated ground or cemetery; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence or Telegrams between the Home Office and the Rector or the Burial Board of Attleborough?

The Rector of Attleborough was informed on the 1st of January, in answer to his inquiry, that until the legal requirements had been complied with, he could not conduct a burial service there. The view taken in the Home Office at that time was that the 12th section of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880, exempts from censure or penalties ministers of the Church of England who perform the Burial Service in unconsecrated ground; only where such ground has been legally established as a burial ground, and the provisions of the Burial Acts have been complied with. I must not be understood to assert that this view of the effect of somewhat complicated statutes is the right one. There is no objection to lay on the Table the correspondence and telegrams between the Home Office and the Rector and the Burial Board of Attleborough. But as it is voluminous, the object of the hon. Member might, perhaps, be best attained by his paying a second visit to the Home Office, and perusing the correspondence there.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the balance remaining in hand of the "Greenwich Sixpences' Fund" (contributed to by seamen for five years previous to December 31st, 1834) is large enough to enable him to increase the pensions of the small number of interested seamen that now survive?

said, that there was no such Fund as the Greenwich Sixpences' Fund now in existence. The claims of merchant seamen were fully investigated in 1881, and it was shown that the benefits received far exceeded the amount of the contributions.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the soldiers employed in suppressing the riots in Belfast have had extra pay granted to them; and, if not, will he consider the claims they undoubtedly have considering the arduous duties imposed upon them?

The case of the soldiers engaged in suppressing the riots at Belfast has been considered. I am not, however, able to sanction the grant of extra pay; because, although the duty was a disagreeable one, it was part of the ordinary functions of a soldier in support of the civil power.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he is aware that the police constables, whose ordinary duty it is far more than a soldier's to suppress disturbances of this kind, received an extra allowance of 3s. 6d. per day?

I am not aware of the circumstance mentioned by the hon. Member.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any information as to the ill-usage of British seamen in the ports on the Pacific coast, and if any representations to that effect have been made to the Foreign Office, either direct or through the Board of Trade; and, if so, what measures are proposed to be taken?

If some indication could be given as to the time and place where the alleged ill-usage occurred, inquiry will be made; but no such representations have been received lately.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table, a Return giving the following particulars with respect to the Privy Council of Ireland:—Dates of meetings held from 1st August 1886 to 31st January 1887, inclusive; and names of Members of the Council present at each such meeting?

A Notice of every meeting of the Privy Council in Ireland is invariably published in the Dublin newspapers on the following day. That Notice includes the name of every Member present at the meeting. There can, therefore, be no difficulty in getting the information asked for in the Question; but an official Return can be prepared, if it is thought worth while to move for it. Perhaps the House will permit me, as certain statements have been very widely made in this House and out of it, to say that it is a complete delusion to suppose that the learned Judges who happen to be Members of the Privy Council do any act or give any advice in the slightest way influencing the action of the Executive, much less have anything to do with the decisions as to the initiation of prosecutions. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Morley) will bear me out in that statement.

assented.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the importance attached to the systematic collection of sea fishery statistics by the Royal Commission of 1864, the Parliamentary Commission of 1878, and the Royal Commission of 1885, and of the time which has elapsed since the receipt of two of these recommendations, the Board of Trade will present to Parliament at an early date the statistics supplied to the Department by the Coastguards and other officials at the different fishing ports and villages in England during the past year; and whether the Government will also obtain a further Return of the tonnage of fish conveyed inland by the various Railway Companies for the year 1886?

The hon. Member will find that the information he desires is contained in the Statistical Tables and Memorandum relating to the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom—a Return which was laid on the Table of the House on the 14th instant, and which will very shortly be circulated. A monthly Return as to English Sea Fisheries has also been issued and circulated by the Board of Trade since the beginning of last year; and this Return is now published monthly, along with a corresponding Return for Scotland supplied by the Scotch Fishery Board in the Board of Trade Journal.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has recently received information regarding an increase of the Slave Trade from the Soudan and on the Red Sea Littoral; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps in regard to that trade?

The Slave Trade continues, notwithstanding all efforts to suppress it; but there is no reason to believe that it has recently increased. On the contrary, Her Majesty's Consul at Jeddah reports that he believes it to have decreased owing to the watchfulness of the British cruisers. The Consular and Naval officers are doing their best, and it is not believed that it is necessary to take further steps.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will have the final Report of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade and Agriculture printed in a form cheaper and more accessible to the mass of the people?

I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that some weeks ago I gave directions for the issue separately, at a low price, of the Reports of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade and Agriculture; and I am informed that, in accordance with that direction, the Reports have been printed without the evidence, and have been on sale since the 9th instant at the price of 6d.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the statements made by the Deputation from Sheffield to the President of the Board of Trade, on Saturday the 12th instant, as to the extent of the fraudulent nature of the manufacture and false marking of goods prevailing in the Sheffield industries; and, whether, as there is reason to believe that similar practices prevail in other industries to such an extent as to cause serious loss to our Foreign trade, the Government will appoint a Royal Commission, with power to take evidence on oath, to ascertain the extent of the evil, and to obtain such information as will enable effective legislation to be framed to deal with the subject?

I have read the statements made by a deputation from Sheffield to the President of the Board of Trade relative to fraudulent manufacture and false marking of goods. Her Majesty's Government have not been made aware by evidence communicated to them that these practices prevailed to such a considerable extent in other industries as would justify them in proposing to Parliament the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence on oath; but they are quite prepared to give full consideration to any information that may be brought before them. They will also press on the legislation which they have already announced to Parliament to protect the industries of this country from such a system of fraud, and without waiting for the help of a Royal Commission, which would probably cause a delay of from two to three years before effective legislation was possible. I must, however, express my surprise that, as the evils of which the hon. Gentleman complains are not alleged to be the growth of the last few months, the hon. Gentleman did not, if he was of the same mind 12 months ago, use his influence with the Government of which he was a Member to secure a Royal Commission.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered, or would consider, the precedent set with reference to the same town in the year 1867, when Commissioners were appointed on the 23rd of May and reported on the 2nd of August; and, whether the same course might not be now pursued, the manufacturers, instead of the workmen, being now the culprits?

I would invite evidence of any practices which would justify Her Majesty's Government in proposing to Parliament a Bill of the character that the hon. Gentleman suggests; but inasmuch as no such evidence has yet been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government they do not feel justified in making that proposal.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as reported in The Times, that 25,000 prisoners have been released from the gaols of India, in commemoration of the Queen's Jubilee; what proportion of the released prisoners were confined for political offences, and what proportion were ordinary criminals; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to further manifest the Royal clemency during the Jubilee Year by granting an amnesty to prisoners confined in Ireland for political and agrarian offences? The hon. Member also asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to fix tend the same elemency to prisoners in British prisons?

I have to reply that the release of prisoners in India is a matter entirely within the power and discretion of the Viceroy. It is a general Oriental custom to celebrate occasions of public rejoicing by the release of prisoners; and about 16,000 were released on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of India in the year 1877. No official information has been received at the India Office on the subject; but a Report has been asked for. I have to answer the latter part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman by saying that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Advisers to recommend the Queen to extend this ancient Oriental custom to the United Kingdom.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is a general Oriental custom, on the occasion of Jubilees to burn down the houses of the subjects of Oriental Potentates?

Order, order!

asked, Whether there were any instances on record of similar clemency being shown in this country?

, asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether arrangements can be made that Answers given by Ministers to Questions asked in the House, often of great public importance, may be published and circulated in the "Votes and Proceedings" for information of Members; seeing that such answers are generally imperfectly reported in the Press, and often inaudible in the House itself, and are not recorded in the Journals of the House?

I entertain the view which is held by many hon. Members that a considerable eco- nomy of public time might be effected if Questions which are not of great public importance were not replied to in this House. That is a matter for the consideration of the House itself; but I cannot share with my hon. and gallant Friend the opinion he expresses that the newspapers do not report Answers to Questions of great public importance with accuracy. On the contrary, I believe that they report with great accuracy generally the replies to Questions on subjects of public importance.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, By what means it is proposed to charge Income Tax upon the profits of a Foreign Company or firm trading in this country when such Company or firm is only represented by an agent; and when the goods are not invoiced to or through such agent, but invoiced direct to the purchasing firm by the Foreign Company or firm?

It is impossible to answer the Question fully at the present time, as it refers to matters which are subjects of appeal to (he High Court of Justice. But, speaking generally, the tax would be charged by means of assessment on the agent of the foreign firm or Company in this country.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can inform the House when the Bills promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, dealing with Railway Bates and Land Reform, will be introduced into Parliament?

The Bills referred to by the hon. Member will be introduced as soon as sufficient progress is made in the Business already before the House.

said, he did not intend to proceed with the Amendment in reference to the condition of agriculture, which had been postponed, at the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury, till the Report stage of the Address; but he took this opportunity of stating that it was his intention to submit this important matter to the notice of the House on a future occasion.

, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to insert, at the end of the 3rd paragraph—

"But, at the game time, humbly to express to Your Majesty that steps taken on behalf of your Government, without the concurrence of the other signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, to prevent the abdication of Prince Alexander of Battenberg, were not in accordance with the interests of this country, and were fraught with danger to the peace of Europe,"

said, he was afraid that, in speaking on the subject of this Amendment, he should be obliged to weary the House. But it was necessary to do so. He complained of certain acts of Her Majesty's Government, and these acts were recorded in a Blue Book; and it, therefore, became necessary for him to read copiously from the Blue Book in order to establish his case. Originally Bulgaria was a province of Turkey, and Russia desired to free Bulgaria from the rule of the Turks. At that time the Conservative Party were in power, and did their utmost to prevent the Russians from freeing the Bulgarians. The Russians, however, were successful, and the Treaty of San Stefano was signed. By hat Treaty Bulgaria and Roumelia were united together, and a considerable portion of Macedonia was freed from the Turks. Her Majesty's late Government came forward, and insisted on a Conference being held at Berlin, when another Treaty was also signed, by which Macedonia was left still under the rule of the Turks; while Bulgaria was divided into two States—Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria. It was now admitted, even by the Conservatives themselves, that this was a great mistake, and that, if Russia was anxious to extend her territory, and trying for a large stake in Turkey, we were playing her game by establishing two separate States instead of one large State. The Treaty of San Stefano was signed and the Treaty, of Berlin was signed. After this Prince Alexander was selected by Europe as the Ruler of Bulgaria. He was at that time a protégé of the Russian Government. When he went there—he referred to this because there was a good deal of interest attached to Prince Alexander, especially by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury)—the first thing he did was to swear to the Constitution. His second act was to violate the Constitution. He almost commenced his Reign with a coup d'état, in which he imprisoned and banished the men who were accused of imprisoning and banishing him. The two Provinces then were united. Then the Servian war broke out, and that war was entirely due to the refusal of the Conservative Government of the day to concede the union of the two Principalities. A year ago Russia disapproved of this union, and, as he understood, Her Majesty's Government approved of it, as did the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). In Bulgaria itself there were two Parties. One was the Panslavist Party, which was grateful to Russia and wished to be under the hegemony. The other Party was opposed to Russia because they thought their independence was in danger. The latter was now called, he believed, the "English Party," who were opposed to the paramount sway which Russia seemed anxious to exercise in Bulgarian affairs. Now he (Mr. Labouchere) came to the Blue Books. On the 21st of August the Prince was seized and removed out of the country. At that time Sir Frank Lascelles, Her Majesty's Representative in Bulgaria, was absent on leave, and Mr. Condie Stephen—a clerk in the Foreign Office—was sent to represent him. Mr. Condie (Stephen was a sort of stormy petrel who was kept in the Foreign Office; and whenever it was thought desirable to stir up public feeling in any part of Europe against Russia, Mr. Condie Stephen was sent to aid and abet. The first information received by Her Majesty's Government of the revolution, appeared to have been a despatch from Sir Savile Lumley to the late Lord Iddes- leigh—whose name he was obliged to in troduce, although without any desire of reflecting upon the actions of that statesman. On August 23 the late Lord Iddesleigh telegraphed to Sir Edward Thornton a very sensible message, to the effect that he had not seen Lord Salisbury, and that the Government could do nothing till they were in possession of the facts. But that course was not continued, and action was taken before the Foreign Office was in possession of the facts; because on August 23 Sir Augustus Paget telegraphed from Vienna that the attitude of the Bulgarian people was one of "complete apathy," and mentioned that the troops had sworn fidelity to the new Government. The telegram went on—

"In view of this general indifference, and of the conspiracy embracing men of all political parties, Count Kalnoky said he did not see what can be done in favour of the Prince."—(Turkey, No. 1,1887, p. 86.)

What was the conduct of Mr. Condie Stephen during that time? Revolutions took place in other countries; but it was not the business of the British Envoy to interfere. He recognized the Government de facto. But Mr. Condie Stephen seemed to have known perfectly well the views which his Government entertained; so in a telegram received on the 26th August he wrote that, as he feared Prince Alexander might be exposed to dangers, he had insisted on seeing the military leader, and had told him that he was responsible for the Prince's safety, as the coup d'état had been a military one. What business had Mr. Condie Stephen to do this? And he proceeded—

"I declined to discuss the political side of the question; but I demanded to know whereabouts of his Highness, and details of what had taken place, as British Representative accredited to Prince Alexander."—(Ibid, p. 98.)

Mr. Condie Stephen went on to state that he took steps independently of his Colleagues, who seemed little inclined to move in any way without having received instructions. That was to say, that the Representatives of the other European Powers were more wise, and did not take any active steps which might compromise their Governments one way or the other. On the 25th of August, three days after the revolution, Lord Iddesleigh telegraphed to Sir Edward Thornton, in strong terms, to do what he could in favour of Prince Alexander's return to Bulgaria. On the 26th of August Lord Iddesleigh telegraphed to Sir Savile Lurnley—

"Impress upon the Porte with great earnestness that it would be politic on their part, now that Prince Alexander has recovered his freedom, to summon his Highness to return to the Principality in order to restore order there."— (Ibid, p. 101.)

Then, on the 27th, was received the first of a long series of snubs from the Powers of Europe to this country. This was from the Italian Government, for on that day Sir Savile Lumley wrote that Count Robilant thought it desirable to await the issue of the meeting between M. de Giers and Prince Bismarck, which would probably be followed by some proposal if they came to an understanding. Meanwhile, Mr. Condie Stephen was taking active stops in favour of Prince Alexander. The Government kept applying first to one Power and then to another, and all with the same result. In fact, this country was the only one in Europe which concerned itself in any way on behalf of Prince Alexander. Prince Alexander returned to Bulgaria on the 29th August, after having wandered about Europe; and it was obvious that some non-official communications had taken place between him and Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Kennedy, our Representative at Bucharest, writing to Lord Iddesleigh, said that the Prince's chaplain, who was to meet him at Lemberg, would "urge him in the strongest terms to return without delay." He (Mr. Labouchere) supposed that Mr. Kennedy had been told to urge this, and very likely other means had also been adopted; because about this time Sir Edward Malet wrote a despatch to Lord Iddesleigb, of which only an extract appeared in the Blue Book, in which it was said that Prince Bismarck continued to hold that the interests of Germany were not primarily engaged in Bulgaria, and that the policy of Germany would still be directed to the preservation of peace. That was No. 232 in the Blue Book. Then there was the despatch of Lord Iddesleigh to Sir Augustus Paget dated August 30. This despatch confirmed the fact that there had been private communications with Prince Alexander. To the Austrian Chargé d'Affaires, who wished to know whether the Prince was acting according to his own judgment or on the advice of Her Majesty's Government; Lord Iddesleigh replied that the Government had not been in official communication with him. That was very likely true, the phrase "official communication" having a special meaning in the language of diplomacy; but the statement by no means proved that there had not been communications. From the despatches sent at the time by Sir Prank Lascelles, Mr. Condie Stephen, and other of Her Majesty's Representatives, one would suppose that the whole Bulgarian nation were in favour of the Prince's return to the Throne. The Prince himself, however, told Sir Francis Lascelles that the military conspiracy was much more extended than had been at first supposed —that the Army was highly disorganized, and that he could place no reliance on the civilians. When the Prince made these statements, he recognized that it would be impossible for him to remain in Bulgaria without the support of Russia, and that Lord Salisbury was contemplating a course which must involve us in war. On September 2 Prince Alexander wrote to the Czar, saying that, as his Crown had been given to him by Russia, he was prepared to resign it at her bidding; and the Czar replied, that he could not approve the Prince's return to Bulgaria, and that it would probably result in fresh disasters. The Government learnt on the same day that the Prince had placed his Throne at the disposal of the Russian Emperor, and yet Lord Iddesleigh sent despatches to our Representatives at Berlin and Vienna, in which he said a point had been reached when it was of great importance that the Powers should be consulted; that it was possible, if time were lost, other Powers might take the initiative in a sense unfavourable to what the Government deemed to be the real interests of Europe, or that some untoward event might occur to cause confusion. Lord Iddesleigh then intimated that the Government were in favour of supporting Prince Alexander, and charged our Representatives with the duty of at once consulting the German and Austrian Ministers for Foreign Affairs. It was plain that at this time the Government wished to enter into an alliance with Germany and Austria against Russia, the object of the alliance being to main- tain Prince Alexander on the Throne of Bulgaria. But the despatch did not meet with very great favour at the Courts to which it was addressed. Count Bismarck told Sir Edward Malet that Prince Bismarck could not advise the formation of an alliance such as was proposed; and that his opinion was that, although Prince Alexander had been placed upon the Throne by the Great Powers, it was not incumbent upon them to maintain him in his position either jointly or separately. To Sir Augustus Paget Count Kalnoky said, that the Czar's answer to Prince Alexander left no hope that he would listen to any proposal in favour of the Prince, who, it was also evident, would not be supported by Germany; that the Prince was so discouraged and depressed that it was very doubtful whether he himself desired to remain in Bulgaria; and that, in the circumstances, the only thing to be done was to await the development of events. This, however, was precisely what Her Majesty's Government would not do. On September 6, Sir Frank Lascelles, who was then in Bulgaria, telegraphed as follows—

"I am convinced that His Highness's presence is likely to prevent disorder, whereas his departure would probably be the signal for an outbreak of something that would resemble a civil war, which might furnish Russia with a pretext for a military occupation of the country."

The Earl of Iddesleigh at once telegraphed back—

"I have received your telegram of the 6th instant informing me of a suggestion of Prince Alexander that a European Commission should be appointed to administer the country on his departure. The difficulties in which both Bulgaria and Europe would be involved through the abdication of Prince Alexander, are of so serious a nature that Her Majesty's Government desire you earnestly to urge upon His Highness that he should remain and guide the country through the present crisis."— (Ibid, p. 138.)

At this time Mr. Condie Stephen was in England, and he wished, with reference to that gentleman's presence here, to put the following definite Question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs —Did Mr. Condio Stephen receive a letter from Lord Iddesleigh addressed to an eminent financial house in the City, and did he go with this letter of introduction to the firm referred to, and say that it was desirable that the firm should enable him to obtain for Bulgaria a loan of £500,000; and that, if they could obtain the loan, the Bulgarians would do their best to prevent a Russian occupation? To this question he wanted a specific answer. On September 2nd Lord Iddesleigh had said that he did not think that Russia was especially concerned in the affairs of Bulgaria. By the 8th of the month, however, he must have changed his opinion. Sir Robert Morier telegraphed to the noble Earl on the 7th an account of an interview with M. de Giers. The Russian Minister told Sir Robert Morier that he feared we had not calculated on the dangers and misfortunes which would certainly accrue to all concerned, and more especially to the Prince, if we succeeded in our enterprise and restored him to his Throne. But this was, however, our concern— not his; that Russia had no intention whatever to interfere; that the Emperor had said so, and would keep his word. Asked whether, if we were to succeed in restoring the Prince, the Emperor would be likely to reconsider his decision, and to become reconciled to his kinsman, M. de Giers, with unusual warmth, replied that this could never be.

"I could form no idea," he said, "of the intensity of the hatred animating every class of the Russian class, from the highest to the lowest, against the Prince which late events had repealed; and of which he himself had had no adequate conception till he had, as it were, come into bodily contact with it when recrossing three days before the Russian frontier."

He challenged disproof of the charge that while Prince Alexander was in Bulgaria the Government did everything in their power to induce him to remain there in defiance of Russia. On September 7th the Prince left Bulgaria. On the 8th of September Lord Iddesleigh addressed a circular-note to Her Majesty's Representatives abroad, requesting them to ascertain whether a communication from the Porte had been received by the Russian Government, in which the Great Powers were asked to join in an assurance to the Bulgarian Government that the conditions guaranteed to Bulgaria by Treaty should be secured, and that no foreign intervention should take place in the Principality. Lord Iddesleigh was practically inviting the Powers to join in a crusade against Russia. Her Majesty's Government received a severe snub. Sir Augustus Paget telegraphed—

"The Austrian Government will place itself in communication with the other Powers; but in the meantime, declares that it places itself now, as always, on the basis of existing treaties; that there will be no intervention whatever on its part, and that it hopes and is persuaded there will he none on the part of any other Power. Such intervention would be contrary to its views."

M. de Freycinet said he had—

"Merely answered verbally that he could certainly assure the Porte that France had no intention of intervening."

Mr. Scott, the Chargé d'Affaires, telegraphed from Berlin, September 9—

"I have the honour to report that on the receipt of your lordship's telegram of yesterday's date, inquiring whether the Imperial Government had received a communication from the Sublime Porte on the Bulgarian questions, and, if so, what reply the Imperial Government proposed to make to it; I had an interview with Count Bismarck, who informed me that the Turkish circular in question had been communicated to him to-day. His Excellency read it to me, and said that he had given a verbal reply to the Turkish Ambassador, to the effect that it did not seem necessary for the Imperial Government to return a direct answer to the first part of the circular; that, although the fact had not as yet been officially notified to the Powers, Prince Alexander appeared to have already quitted Bulgaria; that the Sultan ought to be satisfied with the distinct and satisfactory assurances given by the Russian Government that it had no intention of intervening in Bulgaria, and Germany had certainly no such intention. With regard to the question addressed by the Porte to the Powers generally, Count Bismarck informed the Turkish Ambassador that the Imperial Government could not give a reply without previously consulting with the other Powers. Count Bismarck then expressed to me his private opinion that if it was the intention of the Porte to ask the Powers for a joint assurance guaranteeing the treaty conditions of Bulgaria the Chancellor would decline to give it, as useless, remembering the official interpretation placed by Her Majesty's Government in the case of Luxemburg upon the obligations of a joint guarantee; but, that he considered that the Treaty of Berlin, which, until altered by general consent, remained in full force, ought to be sufficient security to satisfy both the Sultan and the Bulgarian Government."

Lord Iddesleigh having sent round a Circular suggesting that some guarantee should be given by certain of the Powers that Bulgaria should not be occupied by Russia; France, Germany, and Austria refused to give any such guarantee. A Council of Regency was appointed in Bulgaria pending the election, and Russia sent General Kaulbars thither. The despatches were full of denunciation of the action of General Kaulbars. Our consuls and agents seemed to consider it their business to interfere in every way to impede General Kaulbars. Russia denied the legality of the Assembly which was to be called together, and technically Russia appeared to have been right, for representatives were to be sent from Eastern Roumelia, contrary to the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin. General Kaulbars demanded three things of the Bulgarian Government— first the raising of the state of siege; secondly the release of all prisoners implicated in the disturbances; and the postponement of the elections for the National Assembly. The Bulgarian Government were willing to concede the first point, but no others. General Kaulbars pointed out as to the second point that—

"As the present Government was merely a party Government, it had not the right of judging Members of a party politically opposed to it."

Then Lord Iddesleigh on September 30 telegraphed to Her Majesty's representatives abroad another Circular, in which, he said—

"The embarrassment of the situation is largely due to the facts that the election of a successor to the late ruler of Bulgaria has not yet taken place; while, at the same time, not only must the ordinary business of administration be carried on, but some questions of the gravest importance must be dealt with, such as that of the trial of persons charged with complicity in the forcible abduction of Prince Alexander. The Bulgarian Foreign Minister points out that the Government cannot comply with some of the demands addressed to it by the Russian Agent and Consul General without violating the Constitution; and it is evident that the infringement of the Constitution at a crisis such as the present is a serious matter and ought not to be resorted to without careful consideration and a proved necessity. It appears to Her Majesty's Government that it is very desirable that the elections should take place as early as may be, so as to shorten the time during which the Administration is weakened by the vacancy of the throne. But, whether this be so or not, they are strongly of opinion that the Great Powers should give their earliest attention to the condition of the country, and should offer to the Bulgarian Government such advice as they may think calculated to meet the exigencies of the case."—(Ibid, p. 186.)

Sir Savile Lumley, from Rome, telegraphed—

"The instructions which have been sent to the Italian representative at Sofia are of a general character—namely, to gain time, and to avoid pressing for the elections, which cannot take place until the Powers have arrived at an agreement as to the candidate to be proposed for the throne of Bulgaria."

Sir Augustus Paget telegraphed, October 2—

"In compliance with your Lordship's instructions, I have to-day communicated to Count Kalnoky a copy of your telegram of September 30th. His Excellency, while agreeing in the general principles therein expressed, is nevertheless disinclined to give advice to the Bulgarian Government on any specific point; and referred to M. Tisza's recent speech as being a full and clear enunciation of Austrian policy, which he believes would have an effect at Sofia as well as elsewhere. Count Kalnoky went on to say that, in his opinion, things were tending towards a compromise between the Bulgarian Government and General Kaulbars; and that this might possibly be marred by the other Powers supporting the Bulgarian Government in opposition to Russian demands."—(Ibid, p. 189.)

Sir Edward Malet replied to Lord Iddesleigh, October 2—

"I have the honour to inform your Lordship that I have this day addressed a note to Count Bismarck, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the words of your Lordship's telegram of the 30th ult., stating the views of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the state of affairs in Bulgaria."—(Ibid, p. 191.)

No reply was ever received from Prince Bismarck. He refused to reply to such, nonsense. He know that we were trying to get up an alliance against Russia and to force on a war between Austria and Russia, and he would have nothing to do with it. About this time Her Majesty's Government appeared to have fallen out with Turkey. It was manifest from Lord Iddesleigh's telegram to Sir William White, of October 11, that Turkey had, before this, pointed, out how absurd it was for England to take up such an attitude with regard to the occupation of Bulgaria by Russia, while England herself was occupying Egypt and threatening to remain there. On October 12, Lord Iddesleigh sent another Circular to the Great Powers. In it he transmitted copies of two telegrams received from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Sofia—

"The first of these gives an account of disturbances caused at the elections at Sofia by a band of men from the neighbouring villages, who subsequently took refuge in the Russian Embassy, and of the attitude of the Russian Acting Agent on this occasion. The second telegram reports that the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs had confidentially addressed the Agents of the Powers, begging that their Governments would take the affairs of Bulgaria into immediate consideration. I have to request you to inquire whether the Government to which you are accredited have received information similar to that contained in Sir F. Lascelles' telegrams, and what view they take of the proceedings which he reports, and of the situation described in the communication received from the Bulgarian Government."—(Ibid, p. 203.)

That was to say, having been snubbed again and again, Her Majesty's Government now send another Circular, asking—"Have you received a certain communication," which, of course, the foreign Governments had received. Sir Augustus Paget replied on the 13th—

"I have spoken to Count Kalnoky on the subject of Sir Frank Lascelles' telegrams of the previous day. The information contained in the first had appeared in the public telegrams here; but His Excellency told me that he had heard nothing from the Austrian Agent at Sofia relative to the request of the Bulgarian Government that the Great Powers should take the affairs of Bulgaria into their immediate consideration, with a view to putting an end to the interregnum. Count Kalnoky went on to say that he was not disposed at present to go further in the way of remonstrance with the Russian Government than he has already done."— (Ibid, p. 210.)

The reply of Italy was still stronger. Count Robilant said that the Italian Government had received information similar to that contained in Sir Frank Lascelles' telegrams, and added—

"As the interests of Italy in Bulgaria were unimportant, she would restrict her action within the limits of the Berlin Treaty, according to which the only point now requiring consideration is the election of a Successor to Prince Alexander."

M. de Freycinet, replying on behalf of France, said—

"He would take into consideration the views of the various Governments if they were made; but at present he was in the dark, and certainly could not advance his views."

On the 27th of October the Assembly met. It was then urged by Her Majesty's Government that they were exceedingly anxious that this Assembly should be recognized by the Representatives of the major portion of the Great Powers, and that they should go to Tirnova. Gadban Effendi was sent to Turkey, and in the end England was snubbed again, as she had been throughout these proceedings. The Powers absolutely refused to send their Ministers or the Secretaries; and this Representative Assembly, which was stated to be illegal by Russia, and which neither Austria nor Germany were prepared to say was illegal, was opened without any Representative from England or the other Powers. He really felt for the Government at receiving these successive snubs. On October 20 Lord Iddesleigh received a despatch from Sir Frank Lascelles, in which it was stated—

"Gadban Effendi returned to Sofia last night. He has applied to the Regents for the postponement of the Convocation of the great National Assembly: at all events, until General Kaulbars, who is expected to arrive at Sofia on Friday morning, shall have had time to communicate any fresh instructions he may have received. Gadban Effendi has also given it to be understood that Turkey and Russia have come to a complete understanding on the Bulgarian Question."—[Ibid, p. 224.)

One would have thought that Her Majesty's Government were ashamed at the humiliation of sending these Circulars. Not a bit of it. On the 26th of October another Circular was sent to Her Majesty's Representatives at Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Rome, and St. Petersburg, along with which copies of two telegrams from Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople were transmitted—

"Relative to an announcement made yesterday to the Porte by the Russian Ambassador that his Government proposed to send two ships of war to Varna for the protection of their Consul and the Russian community at that port."

This was a last despairing effort. The only answer which he had been able to find was from Sir Augustus Paget, dated Vienna, October 27. The other Governments were tired of replying to those despatches, and they had evidently come to the conclusion to take no notice of them. Count Kalnoky, having been asked what view he took of the despatch of Russian vessels to Varna, replied that—

"According to the statement of the Russian Government they were small vessels sent for the protection of the Consul at his own request. He did not, therefore, see what objections could be raised, as there was, no doubt, considerable excitement among the population against Russia. His Excellency further remarked that he did not consider it as a preliminary step to a Russian occupation of Bulgaria, more especially as any such intention was disclaimed in the announcement made to the Porte of the despatch of the two corvettes to Varna."—(Ibid, p. 245.)

He had now brought the proceedings down to November, which was a most important date for the House to bear in mind, because it would be remembered that Lord Salisbury on the 9th of November made a very bellicose speech at the Guildhall. On November 5th Sir Augustus Paget telegraphed to Lord Iddesleigh—

"With reference to the language used by Dr. Smolka, President of the Austrian, and Count Tisza, President of the Hungarian, Delegation, in their opening address at Pesth yesterday, I have the honour to report that the organs of the Vienna press credited with enjoying official inspiration are seeking to attenuate the importance attached by public opinion to Dr. Smolka's words, which are regarded as being of a very inflammatory character, and all responsibility for them is repudiated on the part of the common Government. The fact of Dr. Smolka being of Polish nationality, and his advanced age is, perhaps, calculated to account for the tenour of his language, which cannot fail to cause embarrassment to Count Kalnoky at the present juncture. If credence is to be attached to the information which reaches me from reliable sources, the common Government does not yet contemplate any change in the policy of reserve which it has hitherto pursued in the Bulgarian Question; and were it the case it seems highly improbable that they would so suddenly have selected Dr. Smolka as their mouthpiece."—(Ibid, p. 261.)

A few days afterwards the Emperor of Austria made a speech to the Delegations at Pesth. Mr. Kennedy sent this account of it—

"This speech from the Throne is something of a sedative, as compared with the more alarmist cry sounded, especially by the President of the Hungarian Delegation, in the inaugural addresses, with the substance of which I had the honour to acquaint your Excellency in my previous despatch reporting the meeting of the Delegations. It was received with applause by the Austrian Delegation, particularly the passage expressing hope for the maintenance of peace and of the interests of Austro-Hungary."

Lord Salisbury had these facts before him, therefore, when he went to the Guildhall. He knew very well that he had tried to stir up a war in Europe and had failed; that Prince Bismarck was protesting by silence against his action; that Austria refused to have anything to do with it; and that the Sultan had come to an arrangement with Russia in regard to the Principality. Yet Lord Salisbury went to the Guildhall, and, after speaking of the revolution which had broken out in Bulgaria, he alluded to "conspirators debauched with foreign gold" —that was to say, the gold of Russia. He did not think this was fitting language to be used in regard to a Power by a Prime Minister who was anxious to maintain the peace of Europe. On that occasion Lord Salisbury said—

"In the present case the immediate interests of England are not engaged. In this matter Austria is on the look out. The opinion and judgment of Austria must weigh with enormous weight in the councils of Her Majesty's Government; and the policy which Austria pursues will contribute very largely to shape the policy which England will also pursue."

That was to say, Lord Salisbury was urging Austria to go to war, and here he promised that Austria was to decide upon the policy of England—that if Austria would only go to war for a matter in which the noble Marquess himself said the immediate interests of England were not engaged, he would come to the aid of Austria, would join with Austria in a war against Russia— a war which would very soon lead to a European conflagration. There was very little in the Blue Book about Prince Waldemar's election beyond a declaration that Russia would not recognize it. In regard to the election of the Prince of Mingrelia, a telegraphic despatch from the Porto, dated Constantinople, December 3, said—

"The Bulgarian people have naturally given their anxious attention to the question of the vacancy of the throne of the Principality, and have already had recourse to the Suzerain Court their supreme legitimate authority, to indicate a candidate to them for election. Meanwhile, the Imperial Government of Russia has proposed to us the candidature of the Prince of Mingrelia, and the Imperial Government, having as-certained that there is no reason for declining this proposal, has given its adhesion to it with a view to a prompt settlement of the question, being persuaded that the other Powers in their turn will not refuse their assent."—(Turkey, No. 2, 1887, p. 2.)

In a despatch to Sir William White Lord Iddesleigh replied that—

"Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would he most in accordance with the course of procedure prescribed in the Treaty of Berlin on the occasion of the original constitution of the Principality that these deliberations should precede any decision as to the choice of the now ruler. The accounts which have been received by Her Majesty's Government give reason to doubt whether the candidature of the Prince of Mingrelia would be favourably received by the people of Bulgaria. They are, moreover, without information as to the conditions on which the Russian Government would be ready to recognize his election, and they cannot, under the circumstances, undertake to join the Turkish Government in recommending the Prince at Sofia for election."— (Ibid, p. 7.)

With this despatch the Blue Book came to an end. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) asked a question the other day as to whether the despatches subsequent to that date would be laid on the Table of the House. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied that he did not think it expedient to do so. He could quite understand why the right hon. Baronet did not think it expedient, and that the Government were thoroughly ashamed of this Blue Book. He could quite understand the reticences in that Blue Book. He believed their shame would be greater, that they would be driven out of power, even by the Unionists, if all the despatches were to be published. He thought he had conclusively shown that there had been one long attempt on the part of Lord Iddesleigh and the Government to stir up war against Russia. ["Oh, oh!"] The Blue Book was full of it, and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when he got up a few minutes hence would probably boast of it. But whether or not he boasted of it, litera scripta manet. He appealed to any Gentleman of independent mind, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, whether he had not shown that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter had been scandalous and even disgraceful. He did not know why at the present time they were to have no more Blue Books. It almost led him to suppose that there was a hidden reason for it. Just as when Hanover formed part of the dominion of the King of England, we were perpetually interfering in Germany, avowedly for the sake of England, but really for the sake of Hanover; so one would really suppose that there were some sort of dynastic reasons for our urging again and again that this obscure German Prince who had been set over Bulgaria should remain there. Lord Iddesleigh, unfortunately, was no more; but he had no doubt that that noble Lord exercised some restraining influence over Lord Salisbury. At the present time, Lord Salisbury had no such restraining influence. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury appealed to the Prime Minister, and as Prime Minister Lord Salisbury gave every decision in his favour. Therefore, the Opposition would not be doing its duty if it allowed these Blue Books to pass unnoticed. There was no necessity for England to engage in foreign wars, which, to use the language of Lord Salisbury, had no immediate interest for her. That Lord Salisbury was a very able Minister he had no doubt, but most unquestionably, next to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), he was the greatest Russophobe in the whole world. He seemed to have it on the brain. It would be remembered how, when in power before with Lord Beaconsfield, he squandered money broadcast in bringing over troops from India in order to try to get us into a war with Russia; and unless they protested against it, he would eventually, if we gave him uncontrolled power, force us into a war in which we had no concern. He protested against these perpetual wars and against the Executive Government being able to force us into a war without consulting the House. Readers of Mr. Greville's memoirs would perhaps remember that Lord Clarendon told Mr. Greville that the Crimean war was caused entirely by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who forced the war upon us. What would it have been if Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, instead of being Ambassador at Constantinople, bad been at once Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of England? He regarded the present conjuncture as a serious danger, and in order to acquit hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House from the wars which undoubtedly would take place if Lord Salisbury's hand was not checked, he should divide the House upon the question.

I beg to second the Motion.

said, he did not think that the House would expect that he should entertain them with so many quotations as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had read from the Blue Books. Lengthy quotations, he thought, rather obscured than described a policy; but the mind which ran through the whole course of the despatches of the late Lord Iddesleigh sufficiently indicated the policy of Her Majesty's Government in a very different sense from that in which it had been represented. He thought that the words applied by the hon. Member to Lord Iddesleigh, whom he professed so much to respect, could not be justified, and that they would be repudiated by the House and the country. He did not think the Government which succeeded to a situation of difficulty only eight months ago would require to defend themselves from transactions which had passed into a very distant memory. But the House would consider that as no answer to some assertions that the hon. Member had made. He had said that some statesmen who were now earnest for the maintenance of Bulgarian independence tried hard to prevent it. Now, he had himself occasion the other night to notice the exhumation of a like forgotten calumny. He had not got to go far back to remind the House that this accusation was dealt with by the Marquess of Salisbury only a year ago, when he pointed out that the circumstances in which he had recently supported the union of Eastern Roumelia with Bulgaria were very different from those which prevailed at the time of the Treaty of Berlin. Lord Salisbury pointed out that at the time of the Treaty of Berlin, the Province of Eastern Roumelia was actually occupied by Russian troops —both Provinces indeed—and it was certainly not desirable in those circumstances that another Province should be detached from the Sultan's dominions. He also pointed out that he had himself been an advocate for a larger Bulgaria than that determined by the Treaty of Berlin; and it was only the force of circumstances in connection with the maintenance of European peace which rendered it at the time undesirable that Eastern Roumelia should be separated from the Turkish Empire, as was proposed by Bulgaria, that determined the course adopted at the Congress of Berlin. But it was a very different thing when the Bulgarians had obtained so much experience in the art of self-government and shown that they were worthy of their independence, and that the time had arrived when the two Provinces might be united, not only without detriment to the Turkish Empire but with considerable security for the maintenance of peace. He might remind the House that a statesman whom hon. Gentlemen and his Friends opposite professed to support and admire, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), had himself expressed his high satisfaction with the conduct of Lord Salisbury in that transaction. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: For his repentance.] They might call it what they pleased; but the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had expressed his satisfaction with the conduct of Lord Salisbury at that time. The hon. Member had framed a considerable indictment against Prince Alexander. He did not know why the Prince was the hon. Member's favourite aversion; but he would have occasion to notice that in the hostility to Prince Alexander and the opposition to the course taken by the Government there bad been, both by the hon. Member and by many who had taken the Russian side, a great disregard of the feelings and wishes of the people of Bulgaria. That should never be lost sight of by those who criticized the conduct of the Government. The hon. Member, in referring to the two parties in Bulgaria, spoke of them as of equal importance. The hon. Member would probably maintain that the last Election in this country was not decisive. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] Then he was not surprised the hon. Member should maintain that the Election of the Sobranje was not decisive of the public opinion of Bulgaria. He despaired of any election carrying conviction to the mind of the hon. Member as to the feelings of the people of a country if the enormous majority—amounting, he believed, to nine-tenths of the National Assembly—was not conclusive of the desires of the people of Bulgaria. With regard to the seizure of Prince Alexander, how was it effected? There were manœuvres by which the troops were sent away from the capital. Rumours were sot on foot of an anticipated attack from Servia, and these were successful in denuding the place of troops. A few conspirators had then removed the Prince in the dead of night, before the people realized the small number of those engaged. The tables were quickly turned, and despatches were sent off in hot haste to bring the Prince back. What sort of removal, what sort of crisis, was that? What had been done was reversed within three days. The hon. Member had framed an indictment, partly out of Blue Books, but, to some extent, out of his own imagination. He asked why Mr. Condie Stephen was sent to Sofia, and had described him ns a sort of stormy petrel who was sent out whenever the Tories wished to offer offence to Russia. But, as a matter of fact, Mr. Condie Stephen had been sent to Sofia by Lord Rosebery.

observed, that he had objected to such action on the part of any Government.

said, that, at all events, it was Lord Rosebery who had sent Mr. Condie Stephen there; and he would never have expected any suggestion that Lord Rosebery, who had filled the Foreign Office with great dignity and with great advantage to this country, could have sent him out with any sinister motive. Mr. Condie Stephen had been, no doubt, sent because he was a most capable man. It was an accident, as Sir Frank Lascelles had happened to be on leave, that Mr. Condie Stephen was sent to Bulgaria as Acting Agent and Consul General. An extraordinary accusation had been made that Mr. Condie Stephen was to have been sent back to Bulgaria if it had not bean for the protest of a distinguished individual. As a matter of fact, there had been a move upwards when Sir William White had gone to Constantinople, and Sir Frank Lascelles had succeeded to the position of Minister at Bucharest, and Mr. Stephen had gone elsewhere. The hon. Member for Northampton had said a good deal as to the endeavour of Her Majesty's Government to procure supporters for Prince Alexander on his return to Bulgaria, and about the Government not having received the support which they had expected. But what was the support which the Government directed their agent at Sofia to give to Prince Alexander? In intention it was, undoubtedly, a moral and diplomatic support. The value of this kind of support was in the strength that lay behind it, and in the material strength of the Powers who gave it. When Her Majesty's Government declared their readiness to maintain their Treaty obligations, it did not follow that they were to rush at once into war. The world was governed by moral force, and he trusted that it would long continue to be so. But it was the military and material forces behind that moral force which best guaranteed peace. It was not the fact that Prince Alexander was to be supported against an uprising of his own subjects. There was no need for that, because his subjects were enthusiastically in his favour. The hon. Member had referred to the state of things which Prince Alexander had found on his return to Bulgaria, and had asked, how could Lord Iddes-leigh have urged him to remain in the face of the amount of insecurity and treachery which existed there and the opposition of the Emperor of Russia? Now, in the first place, some allowance must be made for the events immediately preceding the return of Prince Alexander. He had shown himself a gallant and capable soldier; but it might be well that his nerves had been shaken by the cruel treatment which he had experienced, and that his faith in those who had served him had been weakened by the disgraceful treachery of which he had been the victim. Was that a reason why Lord Iddesleigh should not counsel the Prince to remain and to rely upon the affections of his subjects? In the very despatch to which the hon. Member had referred Lord Iddesleigh had indicated the probable dangers to European peace which would be the result of Prince Alexander's leaving the Throne of Bulgaria empty. That agreed with the whole of Lord Iddesleigh's despatches and action, by which he held that this country was party to the Treaty of Berlin, under which the Prince was under the guardianship of the Powers who signed it. Lord Iddesleigh had never meant, and had never in any despatch implied, that this country meant to assume an isolated or special responsibility not shared in common with the other Powers. The hon. Member for Northampton had referred to the speech of Lord Salisbury on the 9th of November, in which the noble Lord said—

"The rights of Bulgaria are assured by the Berlin Treaty, the Treaty upon which the present peace of South-Eastern Europe rests. Much speculation has been used as to the attitude which this country would observe with respect to the Berlin Treaty and the violation which, in the opinion of some, it has received. This country has an interest, but it is not an isolated interest. It is a corporate interest. In combination with the Powers of Europe we have signed that Treaty. There rests upon us no isolated interest to maintain that Treaty if it should be broken. If the Powers of Europe, or any considerable portion of the Powers of Europe, recognize the duty of vindicating the Treaty under any contingencies that may arise, I am sure that the English people will not be backward in vindicating their duty also."

Not one word had ever been said or written which was inconsistent with the declarations made on that occasion or in public elsewhere. The hon. Member for Northampton said that Her Majesty's Government had proposed to the other Powers to enter into an alliance against Russia. There was no such proposition to be found in any of these despatches, and there was no foundation for any such report. Nothing had occurred to throw any doubt upon the good faith of the Emperor of Russia, or to lead to the assumption that Russia would not fulfil her obligations under the Treaty. It was recognized that Russia had made sacrifices for the establishment of the Bulgarian Principality, and it was only natural that the country which had made sacrifices for a certain object should possess special interest in it. It was a remarkable thing, in his opinion, that when the irregular Opposition took the line of criticism which they were now taking they forgot the part which had been taken not long ago, in season and out of season, by the distinguished Leader of the Liberal Party with regard to the independence of Bulgaria. In what they had done with regard to securing independence under the Treaty to the people of Bulgaria Her Majesty's Government were only following the traditional policy of this country. Then they had had a specific charge brought by the hon. Member for Northampton, who had said that when Mr. Condie Stephen had returned to England he had received a letter from Lord Iddesleigh to a distinguished financier as to a loan for Bulgaria.

said, that what was stated was that Mr. Condie Stephen had received a letter of introduction to a financial house.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that he had consulted Members of the Cabinet with regard to this question, in case it might be something of which he was not himself aware, although Lord Iddesleigh had always treated him with a confidence which he could never forget. Nobody, however, knew of any such transaction, or anything approaching to it, ever having taken place. Her Majesty's Government never thought of interfering in the negotiations for any loan, and he gave the most emphatic denial to the rumour to which the hon. Member had referred. The hon. Member had referred to a despatch of M. de Giers, as showing the extreme hatred of Russia to Prince Alexander. No doubt, M. de Giers was very frank in the communication referred to, and it was manifest that the public feeling of Russia was very strong against the restoration of Prince Alexander, because he had gone against the will of the Czar. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government desired that greater confidence should be shown towards the people of Bulgaria; but he was glad to say that the negotiations in which the views of each Government had been put forward had been conducted in a perfectly friendly spirit, and the Government of the Emperor had, more than once, acknowledged its sense of the full consideration which was exhibited by us for the peculiar position of Russia in this matter. It was a happy thing that Governments should be able to discuss with calmness questions upon which they entertained strong differences of opinion. With respect to General Kaulbars, it was impossible that Her Majesty's Government should regard with approval his proceedings in Bulgaria, because he appeared to act on the assumption that the wishes of the people of Bulgaria was not the main thing to be considered. Lord Iddesleigh's words on that subject would best explain the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. In the despatch of October 14 to Sir Robert Morier (No. 430 in the Blue Book) he wrote—

"I then went on to say that such language as that of General Kaulbars was open to objection on two grounds—firstly, because it tended to intimidate the Bulgarian people in the exercise of their constitutional duties; secondly, because it was an assumption of a right on the part of Russia to establish a separate authority in Bulgaria, which was an affront to the other Powers, parties to the Treaty of Berlin. I did not know, I said, whether the language to which I objected was the General's own, or whether it was used by order of his Government. In either case I felt bound to take exception to it."— (Ibid, p. 213)

Lord Iddesleigh, in another passage, went on to explain that as long as it was possible to maintain Prince Alexander he thought the wishes of the people of the country ought to be the rule of our support, and he held that the Bulgarian people were justified in resisting any attempt to infringe or to interfere with the regular working of their Constitution. That was our policy as described by Lord Iddesleigh, and he would be surprised if the House would condemn it. He did not wish to touch upon international jealousies and international dangers, of which they knew only too much. Perhaps the description of such a state of things would only tend to aggravate the position; but this he would say—that the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government had been to maintain peace in Europe, not only at present, but for the future, and that would be best secured by adherence to the terms and obligations of Treaties. He did not wish to detain the House too long; but he must not pass by without remark some points dwelt on by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman talked about our interference with Bulgaria. But our interference went no further than our legitimate interest. He also complained of despatches being withheld. But it was evident that when a critical state of things still existed many despatches could not be conveniently produced, because they might tend to create irritation between other Powers, and it had ever been the custom of the House of Commons to excuse the Government of the day for not producing such. There was no doubt that much reserve was necessary if we were not to aggravate evils which already existed, and the consequence of which we might deplore. The hon. Gentleman had sneered at Prince Alexander and ridiculed the endeavours of Her Majesty's Government to maintain him on the Throne according to the wishes of the people of Bulgaria, and, after his departure, to uphold the right of the people to a free election. Was the hon. Gentleman serious in thinking that Her Majesty's Government ought to have been indifferent to the wishes of the Bulgarian people? If so, the hon. Member must throw aside principles which had often been contended for by the Liberal Party, and which were common to all this nation. The people of this country were not indifferent, nor were they likely to be indifferent, in such a matter. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether Her Majesty's Goverement had communicated an assurance to Prince Waldemar that if elected he would receive their support. He denied that either to Prince Waldemar or to any other candidate had Her Majesty's Government given any anterior assurance. In every case they gave the same answer—that until the election of a Prince had taken place in a Constitutional manner and had been submitted to the Treaty Powers they, as the Representatives of one of the Treaty Powers, could express no opinion as to the fitness of a candidate; but if the people of Bulgaria were decidedly opposed to the Prince of Mingrelia, they did not think that his proposal would be wise or expedient. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were dynastic reasons which influenced the policy of Her Majesty's Govermennt? There were no such reasons. It would have been unworthy if there were. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended a covert sneer when he asked such a question. He was tempted to use a stronger expression, but it might be un-Parliamentary; and, therefore, he would only say with regard to the insinuation that it was not courageous. It was no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to involve this country in foreign difficulties for the sake of any Prince. It would be a blot upon the history of Her Majesty's glorious reign if they were ever to involve this country in difficulties where neither her interests nor her obligations were concerned. In the whole history of the affair it was only the question of our national interests and our international obligations that ever entered the mind of Her Majesty's Government. He might leave the matter there. He declared that those attacks made upon Her Majesty's Government were absolutely unfounded. It might have been that in their desire to do their duty Her Majesty's Government had not met with the support which they thought they might have claimed in the circumstances. But the public opinion of Europe and the moral sense of right had been gradually developed in an unmistakable manner. The independence of the Bulgarians had been respected. They had maintained good government in their country in a manner truly surprising considering the difficulties they had to encounter, in a manner which justified Europe for the Constitution it had given them, and justified Her Majesty's Government for their efforts in maintaining the independence and the Constitutional rights of Bulgaria.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) had done his best, and done it very well, to put a good face upon the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government. He could not, however, say that he felt that the right hon. Gentleman had either answered the questions which the House was entitled to ask, or wholly re-assured their minds on the points raised. There was, nevertheless, much in which he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the conduct of the Bulgarian people— the admirable capacity they had shown for self-government, and the general temperance, moderation, and calmness they had observed under very trying circumstances. He agreed also with the right hon. Gentleman in what he had said of the personal merits of Prince Alexander. That Prince was called to the Principality of Bulgaria at a very early ago, and had shown in the course of his career an increasing capacity for dealing with the difficulties of the position in which he was placed. He had displayed not only courage and firmness, but a tact and judgment which would have raised him to a high place, had he remained in Bulgaria, among the Rulors of Europe. His behaviour not only in the war with Servia, but in the last crisis, when he was kidnapped and carried off, had excited sympathy not only in this country, but in almost every country in Europe. But he thought there was better evidence of the faith of the Bulgarian people in Prince Alexander than that to which the right hon. Gentleman appealed. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that he was not addressing an election meeting at Burnley when he referred to the opinion of the people of this country at the last General Election as a solemn and final decision of a great issue. The popular majority at that election was but a small one; the confidence of Bulgaria in Prince Alexander was manifested by a far more emphatic and unanimous declaration. As he had before observed, he agreed with much that the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the personal merits of Prince Alexander, and did not blame the Government for thinking that the continuance of Prince Alexander's authority in Bulgaria offered the best means of securing the welfare of that country. It was fairly open to them to advise him, when he was at Lemberg, to return to his Principality. But what he complained of was that some time after his return, when Her Majesty's Government might have seen that the restoration of Prince Alexander was not likely to produce peace in Bulgaria, or to bring about a happy state of relations between that country and Russia, they not only urged the Prince to remain, but they addressed two despatches to Vienna and Berlin, with the view of sounding the Governments of Austria and Germany as to the view they would take of such a proposal. Her Majesty's Government ought to have known beforehand—and, indeed, must pretty well have known—that overtures of that sort would not be well received. They invited a snub, and they received a snub. Her Majesty's Government, however, continued, after this marked disapproval by Germany and Austria, to insist on Prince Alexander remaining in Bulgaria in face of his own unwillingness to do so, and in face of his telegram to the Czar, and of the Czar's hostile reply. In those respects he thought that Her Majesty's Government had gone beyond the path which dignity and prudence marked out for them. By the action they had taken Her Majesty's Government had given the Prince the worst advice for himself, and had exposed this country to very serious risk. A country that gave advice like that, which was not a mere tender of friendly counsel, but a strong pressure, implied liability on the Government which gave it; and he believed Her Majesty's Government incurred liability of a nature which would have proved very dangerous had not the good sense and foresight of the Prince himself made him refuse to follow it. Now, what was the nature of the interest which England had in Bulgaria? The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that it was not a direct one. It was not one which justified any active intervention. It was a very slender and remote interest, and it scarcely went beyoud that philanthropic interest which England had in the freedom and the peace of a people whose conduct they respected and whose welfare they desired. The Government ought to have felt that the interests of our own people, the lives of our soldiers, and the revenues of this country should not be risked, any more than the bones of Prince Bismarck's Pomeranian Grenadier, for the sake of interests so remote and so distant as those which we had on the Lower Danube. In truth, the policy in reference to Bulgaria had, during the momentous month of September last, answered to Lord Derby's old phrase of "meddle and muddle." It was a policy which had made no progress and which had borne no fruit, and which had exposed this country to a continuous succession of slights and of disappointments. He was, however, inclined to complain still more of the speech at the Guildhall of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury). That speech had put England into an unworthy and humiliating position when it expressed the wish that we should follow Austria, and should be guided by her views and wishes in the Bulgarian Question. In the noble Marquess's view England was to attach herself to Austria as a small boat is attached to the stern of a yacht and towed behind wherever the larger vessel goes. The policy of England ought not to be determined by that of any one other Power of Europe, and least of all by the policy of a Power placed in so difficult and critical a position as Austria undeniably was. He (Mr. Bryce) objected to the speech of the noble Marquess because it was derogatory to the dignity of England. He was sorry to think that the Ministry of a Party which professed to value the dignity of England, and which claimed to be the exponent of a spirited foreign policy, should have placed this country in such a humiliating position. But he had another objection to the speech of the noble Marquess. It was a provocative speech. While it subordinated England's action to that of Austria, it also said to Austria—"Go on wherever you like, and we will help you." It was a speech which thrust Austria forward, and endeavoured to press and urge her nearer the dangers which she was anxious to avoid, and thus it placed England in a position of danger by stimulating Austria to a more active and menacing policy, and by promising that this country would support her in whatever action she might take. A foreign newspaper had well said at the time that Lord Salisbury was barking in order that Austria might bite. What had been the results? There was another Power which had as much interest in this matter as any other Power in Europe, and a greater influence over its determination than any Power except Russia. He would be glad to know that Her Majesty's Government had been equally anxious to keep in touch with that Power as they were to keep in touch with Austria. That Power was Germany. He would have thought that Her Majesty's Government would have seen the advantage of keeping in accord with Germany. It was the great merit of the deliverances of German statesmen in her foreign policy that they were not afraid to speak their mind plainly. The German Chancellor had furnished the most conspicuous example in recent times of a policy of distinct enunciation of principles, and he was inclined to believe that much of his success was due to his perfect frankness and candour. He did not know why we should not be just as plain-spoken, and state what we thought about the interests of our country as Germany was plain in stating her interests. We had no interest in going into an armed struggle with Austria for our only ally, and Her Majesty's Government know perfectly well that the people of this country would not sanction their doing it. But what had been the result of the incitements used to Austria by Lord Salisbury? It was clear that they had obliged Count Kalnoky to use language, in addressing the Delegations of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which went beyond the point to which he would otherwise have gone. Then Russia took offence, and Germany felt the dangers of the situation. Prince Bismarck could not afford to allow Austria to embroil herself in a quarrel with Russia, because there were perils on another frontier of Germany which in that event would show themselves. Therefore, it was probable that many of those alarms to the peace of Europe, which had caused such deep concern to every Member of the House, were due to the unfortunate impulse which prompted the unwise utterance of the noble Marquess. The interpretation which was placed on the Guildhall speech of the noble Marquess was clear from an article which appeared in The Times the next morning, which stated that if Austria was compelled to come to conflict with Russia with respect to Bulgaria she would not be left without the support of England. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) accused the Government with wanting to stir up war with Russia; but he entirely acquitted the Government of any such intention. He fully believed that they desired, according to their lights—which might sometimes be very faint lights—to preserve peace; but that they had been following, so far as Russia was concerned, a policy of brag. They had been under the impression that there was a necessary and deep-rooted hostility between this country and Russia by seeking to alarm and worry Russia—an impression entirely unfounded—and they had acted accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to induce the Powers to fulfil their Treaty obligations by promises of moral support. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by moral support, nor how far he meant to convey that these Treaty obligations were obligations which England was bound to enforce, even though those who were equally parties to them declined to act. The right hon. Gentleman said that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to give moral support and all that that implied. In the last resort, support to those who relied on the promises of a great Power took the form of battalions of men. Her Majesty's Government had sought to push first Prince Alexander and then Austria on by their moral support to a position in which they might have demanded the physical support of this country, and then it would have turned out that this country was unwilling to give them any such armed aid. In carrying out the concert of Europe it was highly desirable that the Ministers of this country should use no language implying that they would give more than they knew the people of this country would sanction. With regard to the actual state of affairs, he (Mr. Bryce) felt a great difficulty in saying anything, because they had no information on the subject—no despatches coming near to the present time. He would quite admit that his right hon. Friend might have strong reasons for not giving the House the despatches up to date, nor would he press for them; but, at the same time, they ought to have something more distinct, something more explicit from the Government than they had received with regard to their present attitude and future policy. The House ought to know whether the policy of the Government was still that of the Guildhall speech, and whether it was a policy of relying upon Austria and Austria alone. The House ought to know, in other words, whether it was a policy of humbly following Austria and, at the same time, speaking so as to provoke a conflict between her and Russia, or whether it was a policy strictly limited to the maintenance of such obligations and interests as the other signatory Powers of the Treaty of Berlin were prepared to maintain against any Power attempting to violate them, and conducted with full consciousness of the fact that the interests of England were not such as to warrant armed intervention in these East European disputes.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Bryce), and who but a few months ago held the responsible position of Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is very well aware that, in speaking of foreign affairs, a Minister undertakes a responsibility which extends beyond the country with which he is identified. The hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, has made certain appeals to Her Majesty's Government. He wants to know whether it is our intention to lead on Austria—to push Austria into the discharge of duties which he implies Austria is unwilling herself to discharge, in order to bring about a disturbance of the peace of Europe. Sir, nothing can be more baseless than the suggestion that that is any portion of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have never, in any utterance which they have made, in any letter or despatch which they have written, in any suggestion, laid themselves open to the charge which the hon. Member suggests. The hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) at the Guildhall. What does the noble Marquess say? He says—

"This country has an interest, but it is not an isolated interest. It is a corporate interest in connection with the Powers of Europe who have signed that Treaty. There rests upon us no isolated duty to vindicate that Treaty if it should be broken. If the Powers of Europe, or any considerable portion of the Powers of Europe, recognize the duty to vindicate the Treaty under any contingencies that may arise, I am sure the English people will not be backward to recognize their duty."

Does that imply that Austria alone is to be pushed backward by the little boat that is being towed at her stern to undertake the liabilities which Austria herself is not willing to discharge? The hon. Gentleman suggested that Austria was the big boat on the river, and was being pushed forward by the little boat towed to her stern. We are supposed to push on Austria to undertake liabilities which she herself is not willing to discharge. There was one other reference to Austria in this speech, and it was simply to this effect—that undoubtedly Austria had a very great interest, and a much stronger interest than this country has, in the events which were progressing in Bulgaria. Undoubtedly she had a much stronger interest; and, therefore, an opinion and expression of feeling on the part of Austria would weigh considerably with Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to express great sympathy and interest with the Bulgarian nationality. What is really the charge against Her Majesty's Government? We were right up to a certain point; we were right, so far as I can gather from the hon. Gentleman, up to the period of the intention being expressed by Prince Alexander to abdicate, and that we were wrong to use our influence to persuade him if we could— a moral influence only—never in any one instance backed by the promise of any material support — a moral influence to induce him to remain in the position to which he had been called by the voice of the people of Bulgaria, a position which had been ratified by the concurrence of the Powers of Europe under Treaty, and in which he was approved and supported by the Porte, the Suzerain Power. What is the charge against Lord Iddesleigh and Her Majesty's Government? It is that they persisted in insisting that it was the duty of the Prince, and to the advantage of the people of Bulgaria, that he should remain. We were told that we did wrong because the other Powers would not, or did not, sustain the opinion and concur in the view which Her Majesty's Government expressed. But it is alleged against us that we have submitted England to a rebuff and to a humiliation, because we did not go about in the first instance to ascertain what the other Powers of Europe would say on a matter of this kind, and because we had the temerity to express an opinion without having first of all gone to them and asked whether it was an opinion which they would sustain, and support. It is a rebuff because we have given an opinion which we believe was a sound one, and which we believed would be to the advantage of that country itself and was consistent with the public honour and with the interests of Europe. I should like to ask whether the results have not justified the opinion which we expressed? Have not the withdrawal of Prince Alexander and the circumstances which accompanied it brought about a condition of affairs which certainly is not one that tends to the advantage of Europe or the security of the peace of Europe—a condition of affairs which might have been averted—I do not say it would have been averted—if Prince Alexander had seen his way clear to remain in Bulgaria? Another remark has been made by the hon. Gentleman to which I must take exception. He said that we have no interest in Bulgaria. He said that our interests there were slender and remote, and purely philanthropic. But that is not the language that was used some years ago when the Prince of Bulgaria was a rebel against the Turks. I say that this country, when it has put its signature to a solemn Treaty, has an interest which it may not be its duty to maintain by force of arms; but it has an interest in seeing that these Treaty obligations are observed, and in maintaining the public faith of Europe. I say that it is our duty to concern ourselves with any affair to which we are bound by Treaty, and in which the public faith of this country is concerned. More than that we have not said, and further than that we have not gone. Well, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that there is not the complete and perfect understanding that he could desire to see existing between this country and Germany. I assure him that his view is entirely incorrect, and that I can satisfy him, at all events, on that point. But I must say one word. I had hoped that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who were in an official and responsible position would have recognized at least this one thing—that it is the duty of Governments to endeavour to preserve continuity in our foreign relations, to endeavour to present as a people a united face to Europe in moderation, in judgment, and in good faith. That is the object Her Majesty's Government have now in view. We have not reversed any one of the steps which were taken by our Predecessors in the Foreign Office—not a single one. We had no reason to do so. We have followed precisely in the lines that were laid down, and with which general approval has been expressed in the country at large. But I wish to say to the House, and to the country, that language held lightly about foreign affairs in the East of Europe at this moment is language which is not to be commended, and is not in the least patriotic. We feel that the responsibility of affairs at this moment is great. We are clear—we are open—in the language we hold as to the policy which we advocate, and which we pursue. There is no difference of any kind whatever. We are aiming at preserving the peace of Europe. We aim at discharging the duties, preserving the interests, and fulfilling the obligations of this country; and if we are asked to particularize we tell you what we said on the first night of the Session with reference particularly to Bulgaria. The instructions which have been given to the Diplomatic Representatives of Her Majesty are, first of all, that they shall have regard to the Treaty obligations of this country; next that their aim shall be to maintain, and preserve the liberties of the people which those Treaty obligations were intended to conserve; and, last of all—I do not wish to put it in invidious terms — that the susceptibilities and interests of Russia shall be observed with all due regard to these two preceding conditions. These are the views with which we still maintain any negotiations and any transactions which we may have with reference to that part of the world. We have nothing whatever to be ashamed of in the course we have pursued. We are perfectly prepared to give a good account of the course we have taken in our dealings with Foreign Powers; but we have regard to the interests which are imposed upon us by negotiations with other Powers; and to their susceptibilities and our relations and obligations to them, and we cannot at the present moment give any further information of that kind to the House.

Sir, if this debate has no other effect than that of having elicited the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), it is entirely justified. I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the responsibility of using lightly language with reference to foreign affairs in critical circumstances. It is because I believe that the rash and mischievous language of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) has been the cause of all the disturbance—the main cause of all the disturbance which has since occurred— that I agree with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith). It was, therefore, desirable to elicit that which I regard not as an explicit, but a substantial, disavowal of the policy of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury— who is a man of peace, and uses very sensible language in regard to foreign affairs—had been selected instead of the noble Marquess to speak at the Guildhall on November 9, Europe would be in a far more peaceful condition. He is not a man of brag, and does not think it necessary to pose before the world as a great master of spirited foreign policy, who afterwards runs away from his valiant declarations. What we complain of in the Guildhall speech is what we believe was the substance of it. The noble Marquess referred to the circumstances under which this country would go to war, and said we only went to war when we had Allies; and he pointed his meaning by referring to the Russian advance on Adrianople in 1829, to the Crimean War, and to the action of the late Earl of Beaconsfield's Government in 1878. He then said it was not an isolated question for us; and, having shown that the question of peace or war for us depended on whether or not we had Allies, where did he indicate we should find Allies? Speaking of the peace of Europe, and the Treaty of Berlin, he made not one single allusion to Germany. Who is the Power I who is interested in this matter, and who I is to take the lead? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms upon my hon. Friend's (Mr. Bryce) illustration of the point was justified. If you say to a man, "You go on, and I will follow," it is very likely you may induce him to go on; and that is precisely the course taken on this occasion. What are the words—"In this matter Austria is on the look out," Well, I suppose we were on the look out too, and so were Germany and Russia and everybody else—

"But the opinion and judgment of Austria must weigh with enormous weight in the Councils of Her Majesty's Government, and the policy which Austria pursues will contribute very largely to shape the policy of England."

What does that mean? It means that if Austria came to issue with Russia, England's policy would be shaped by that of Austria. I say that is both a humiliating and a dangerous policy. Supposing the Prince of Bulgaria, acting on your advice, had remained where he was, would not England have been in a dangerous position? Supposing Austria had come to issue with Russia, we should have been in the position of having induced Austria to put herself in a position of great peril. If you had attempted to give effect to the Guildhall speech, you would not have remained the Government of England 24 hours. Prince Bismarck knew that if he were to take the part of Austria it would bring him into conflict with Russia and France. He was determined that no such calamity should occur. He said to Austria— "I will not have this; I will not have you pushed on by the Guildhall speech, and this Anglo-Austrian Alliance shall not be a peril to Europe."

Quote his words.

That is exactly what I want to do, to quote, and that is why I have asked for the correspondence with Austria, Russia, and Germany, which followed the Guildhall speech. I want to know what has followed upon this offer of England to shape her policy according to the policy of Austria? It is that which has more disturbed Europe than anything that has happened. It was a most invidious statement. It was invidious towards all the other Powers who were Patties to the Treaty of Berlin, and nothing could be more dangerous or inconsistent. The statements of the First Lord of the Treasury and of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson), however, happily show that the Government have retired altogether from the speech of the noble Marquess at the Guildhall. The very object of this debate is to make it plain that they have so retired. That speech was an absolute contradiction of everything that has been said in this debate by the Government to-night. I sincerely hope that the policy of the Guildhall speech is abandoned. It is a most dangerous and mischievous policy, and during the last three months it has done infinite harm in Europe, and I hope that the House will now have an assurance that it is totally and finally abandoned. It has been for years the weakness of the policy of the noble Marquess that he has always been hankering after an exclusively Anglo-Austrian alliance. It is what he calls "Glad tidings of great joy."

A German and an Austrian alliance.

If the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) meant a German-Austrian Alliance, I hope that the next time he goes to the Guildhall he will remember to put the word "Germany" into his speech.

These were the very words he used. He spoke of an alliance between Germany and Austria as being "Glad tidings of great joy."

I am speaking of the Guildhall speech in November of last year, and the marked omission of any reference to Germany was most mischievous and injurious. There was nothing more mischievous than the omission of any notice of the interests of Germany. I have nothing whatever to say against the principles of the policy now stated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. If he would withdraw all that language about the possibility of war depending upon the Alliance they might succeed in securing; if he would say that England would act, not according to the views of Austria specially, but in the views of all the Powers of Europe generally—including Russia—for I am speaking without any of that unworthy jealousy of Russia which has done so much mischief to this country—and, acting in the interests of the liberties of all the Powers of Europe, more especially of the weak and the struggling Powers; if that be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, I think we may even condone the humiliations of this Blue Book, which exhibits England going hat in hand round Europe, and having her proposals rejected by every Power. The sagacious proposals of our Foreign Office have been rejected by every Chancellerie in Europe. This was not pleasant, but it was wholesome, and I hope that in future the Government will not go about exposing themselves at every Court in Europe. Her Majesty's Government sent three or four Circulars to all the Powers of Europe, and all of them were sent back endorsed "Declined with thanks." That is the Blue Book which is laid upon the Table by this "spirited foreign policy Government." I hope that the Government will return to a more sober state of mind, and that they will pursue the great interests of peace by methods which are more likely to succeed.

Sir, the great schoolmaster has just spoken and the uneducated and ignorant lads on the Treasury Bench receive with humble submission the lesson and advice which has been so kindly tendered to them. But whether the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has delivered is likely to be productive of good and beneficial results in Europe remains to be seen. Perhaps it may be that at all the Foreign Courts of Europe a more correct estimate is formed of the right hon. Gentleman and of his influence in this country than is formed by his Friends in this House. I think that the exhibition we have witnessed to-night will prevent the unpatriotic sentiments to which we have been listening from being productive of any ill result in any capital of Europe. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has delivered an oration which consisted mainly of very long extracts from the Blue Books, with comments and glosses of his own. I rather wondered what is the motive which induced him to stay our proceedings in order to make that oration. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby explains the mystery. No doubt it was to enable the right hon. Gentleman to discharge himself of that venom against the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) which has so long possessed his soul. Why, Sir, there was many a more convenient opportunity, even during this present Session, for the right hon. Gentleman to make his charge and his complaints against the noble Marquess. May I ask him, for instance, why he did not deliver that speech on the 27th of January, when the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the most important and powerful position on the other side of the House—the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—touched on the Bulgarian question and the deposition—as it has been called—but which we call the kidnapping of Prince Alexander?

I had not got the Papers.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Has he been confining his observations to the Blue Book? If he thinks he did, I shall quote the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who spoke on the 27th of January without the Blue Book. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said upon that occasion and upon that question—

"On the question of foreign policy I am bound to say that, as far as I know, the Prime Minister, and now the Foreign Secretary, and the late Lord Iddesleigh, as Foreign Secretary, have taken just views of the position of the recently emancipated races in the Balkan Peninsula, and of the reciprocal obligations between them and the Porte. Yet there was a speech delivered by Lord Salisbury, at the Guildhall, which raised in many minds some apprehension, and appeared to lay a foundation for the question whether it was true that we, in our negotiations upon the politics of the Balkan Peninsula, had indicated to one particular Foreign Power that if she were disposed to take a particular course, and that course led to a conflict with any Power, we should be prepared to range ourselves on her side. I shall not enter into any discussion of that matter. I make no assertion beyond the fact that such was the idea conveyed to many minds, and I simply express the hope that upon that subject we shall receive assurances from Her Majesty's Government in the course of this debate which will entirely remove any such impression."—[3 Hansard, (310)96.]

Then, in the course of that debate, these assurances were given; and from that day to the present moment the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has never expressed, in the slightest degree, any condemnation of the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued in that matter. But the right hon. Gentleman has been searching not only Blue Books, but also the speech of the noble Marquess at the Guildhall. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) put his gloss upon every extract from the Blue Book; and the right hon. Gentleman, following his example, has put his gloss upon the noble Marquess's speech. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has stated that from that speech the Government never have receded, and have no intention of receding. To that speech we adhere, and yet the right hon. Gentleman was pleased magnanimously to grant us his condonation on the supposition that we repudiated the noble Marquess's speech, and were going to reverse the Eastern policy of that speech. I ask him to take back his condonation, and give us back his condemnation. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the omission from the noble Marquess's speech of Germany. I suppose that if the word Germany had been introduced into the speech, then the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, would have had no complaint to make. Why, one of the most notorious facts in modern politics is that Germany and Austria are allied in the closest and most intimate manner; and when we talk of Austrian policy, all the world knows that German policy and Austrian policy mean, practically, one and the same thing. Something has been said about Prince Bismarck's speech, which the right hon. Gentleman was challenged to quote. What was the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring? He said, "How could I quote, because I had not the Blue Book?"

That is not what I was asked. I was asked about the negotiations which took place. I did not understand that I was asked to quote Prince Bismarck's speech.

I quite understand now that there has been a misunderstanding. But what I want to remark upon is the right hon. Gentleman's comments on Prince Bismarck's speech, and upon the speech which Count Kalnoky delivered at the Delegation. The right hon. Gentleman, not content to put his gloss upon the Guild- hall speech of the noble Marquess, proceeded further to put an interpretation, first on Count Kalnoky, and, secondly, on Prince Bismarck, and attributed both these speeches to the speech made by the noble Marquess at the Guildhall. Now, observe how the right hon. Gentleman not only penetrates the secrets of the Ministers of his own Sovereign, but penetrates the secrets of the German Chancellor, and quite penetrates the secrets of the Austrian Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman holds that the speech of Count Kalnoky would have been in a very different strain, and would have tended to the preservation of European peace, if it had not been for the unfortunate speech of the noble Marquess at the Guildhall. Then the right hon. Gentleman, having informed us of this, brings Prince Bismarck into the field, and states that Prince Bismarck felt obliged to come to the rescue of his unfortunate Colleague, and to take every precaution that the noble Marquess's speech should not drive Austria and Germany into a war with Russia. The people of this country, and the people of Germany and of Austria, will be of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman knows as much and no more of the secret reasons which actuate the speeches of the statesmen of Austria and Germany as he does of those of his own country. I have confined myself to a few comments on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I feel that the situation at present is still very grave; and when we talk of the policy to be pursued in Eastern or Western Europe, we are bound to speak with the greatest reserve and prudence. After that admirable exposition of the policy of England given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, I shall say no more; but I entreat this House and this country to judge between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

, who had an Amendment on the Paper in the following terms:—

"And humbly to represent to Your Majesty the desirability of reconsidering the proposed arrangement in Zululand with a view of pre- venting an important section of the Zulu people being separated from their own nation,"

said: Since the House met last Session a new policy has been determined upon by Her Majesty's Government in regard to South Africa. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

I was about to say that the new policy of Her Majesty's Government has caused considerable discussion in South Africa, and I believe that one result of that policy is that the Natal Executive Council has strongly opposed the settlement proposed by the Government, and has even gone so far as to petition Her Majesty to remove the Governor who made it. We have been presented with a Blue Book on South African affairs; but the last despatch contained in that Blue Book is dated July in last year, so that this House has had no means of arriving at a conclusion as to the wisdom of the policy carried out in South Africa, especially with regard to the Zulus. Now, Sir, the Zulus are a brave and chivalrous race that I have taken an interest in for many years; they are the finest of the Basutu races; but our policy towards them has been a sad one, and many crimes have been committed against them by both the Liberal and Conservative Governments. The Conservative Government is to blame, or rather is responsible, for the initial crime—for the unwarrantable invasion of Zululand, and the unnecessary and unjustifiable Zulu War of 1879. I say they were responsible, although it is well known they were not in favour of the war. It was forced on by one man— Sir Bartle Frere. I do not desire to make this a Party question, or I would require to denounce, or deplore, the want of moral courage which the Liberal Government afterwards displayed — their cowardly indecision; their mean attempt to evade the responsibility that had been incurred; and their miserable half-hearted settlement of sending Cetewayo back with his hands tied—a condition of things that necessarily meant failure. I have no desire to blame either Party; but I think I ought to say this—that for every Zulu killed in the war of 1879 there have been 10 killed since by war and famine, because we have refused to interfere. It is well known that after the war of 1879 we divided Zululand into 16 Kingdoms, about one-fourth of the entire country being set aside as a Reserve. For several years civil war and anarchy prevailed. When the late Liberal Government attempted a settlement by sending Cetewayo back they sent him back so trammelled by conditions that it was utterly impossible for him to govern the land. He was soon driven out; he became a wanderer, and died either of a broken heart, or committed suicide in the bush. The Zulus were compelled to enter into negotiations with the Boers on the Border. These negotiations were entered into by Cetewayo's Prime Minister and son. They offered terms to the Dutch Boers for their assistance in putting down the rebels who had driven them out of their territory. the Boers gladly went to their aid, but before they could arrive Cetewayo was dead. Terms were soon arrived at between Cetewayo's son and brother and a number of their Dutch defenders, who were able to drive the invaders out of Zululand, and who entered into a Treaty by which they received a large portion of Zululand for the services they had rendered. Now, the Zulus and similar races have no idea of magnitude and value; and it is certain that, although a large territory was ceded, the Zulus did not fully understand what they were doing. I may mention an instance that occurred on one occasion to myself. I obtained some milk from a Native, and I offered him half-a-dozen matches or a shilling. He chose the matches in preference to the shilling. There has now been a new Republic established in Zulu-land, and the original settlers have sold their farms. Now, I think that the policy of allowing the White man to interfere in Native quarrels in South Africa is a very bad one; and I hope the Colonial Government, no matter which side of the House may be in power, will determine on some fixed policy for the future, by which they will be able to prevent the condition of things that has been experienced in Zululand arising elsewhere. The only way, I believe, in which this can be done is by refusing to recognize any grants made by the Native Chiefs or Kings to White adventurers. I do not intend to dispute the conditions laid down by the late Secretary for the Colonies. On the whole, they were probably as satisfactory as could be arranged; but I maintain that the present settlement does not carry out all the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope). We have allowed a large number of White men to settle in Zululand, and it is necessary, doubtless, to recognize the present position of things as accomplished facts. Had the Government merely made an arrangement recognizing those facts, and providing that the land given to the White people should be held by them, the rest of the country being retained by the Zulu people, I should not have brought the subject before the House. But my objection is this—that land that was never asked for by the Boers; land where the Boers had never been; land which has always been in the possession of the Natives, has been enclosed within the new Republic; and that a portion of the territory, on which farms have been established and which the farmers are to keep, has been placed in what is now to be called Eastern Zululand. If any class of men have a right to be considered it is the Zulus, and especially the brother of Cetewayo, who, during the Zulu War, assisted us and fought on our side. Yet now we are assisting to drive him and his people away from Zululand, or to leave him at the mercy of this now Republic. The Boers, so far as the North-East of Zululand is concerned, are not there; and consequently the result of the new Treaty is to separate the Zulu people into two districts—one being Eastern Zululand and the other the new Republic. As a matter of fact, Zululand has been divided, as this House is divided with a central portion between the two ranges of Benches. Upon one portion there are about 80 farmers, and by the new Treaty the Dutch farmers are to remain there, so that, as a matter of fact, we have in Eastern Zululand some 80 farms and 400 people with which it is proposed to begin as a new State for the coloured population. I want to know from the Government on what ground they are taking away land of this kind and placing White men upon it, and why this portion of Zululand, which the Boers never asked for, has been given to them? It is stated that necessity of securing a trade route is the reason of the new arrangement. But what is the value of a trade with 50,000 or 60,000 Zulus who are not in the habit of wear- ing clothes? Zululand is bounded by the Transvaal and the Portuguese Dominions, and there is no trade with the interior except through the one or the other, so that the trade with Zululand is of so little value that it cannot be worth considering. And, moreover, under the existing Convention we have every condition necessary for carrying on trade with the different territories freely and safely. We have a right to open up roads throughout the entire territory, and we have a right to have our waggons and goods carried through without any transit duties. The Republic has adopted the principle of Free Trade; the roads are to be kept open, and no Customs duty is charged upon any produce passing through the country, so that everything that could be got from the standpoint of trade exists already. I do not say that we are to recede from the Treaty which hag been entered into; but I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to consider the matter a little more before the Government finally adopt the Convention. This, after all, is only a preliminary Treaty, and it may be possible to get back for the Zulus a portion of the land of which they have been deprived. I do not see how the matter can be affected by any question of trade. It may be possible to give to the White farmers all the land they have occupied, and allow the Natives to keep the land they have at present. This would enable the Zulus to continue possession of land that is much more valuable to them than land nearer the coast. It may be said that it is not wise to bring the Boers nearer the coast; but it only amounts to a question of about 10 miles either one way or the other. Then there is the condition of Swaziland. Swaziland is intimately connected with Zululand. The Swazies are Zulus, and in whatever way you solve the Zululand question you must sole the Swaziland question. Swaziland is now in a condition of anarchy. There is a very curious condition of things established there. You have a King who has granted concessions for money and liquor to Englishmen and Dutchmen. A roaring trade in liquor appears to be carried on there. There is no licence or duty required to be paid; there is no tax of any kind, and ardent spirits are introduced and sold by the Natives at 6d. a bottle; so that drunkenness has become very common. The King has already made large concessions of mineral rights to Englishmen, and of grazing rights to the Dutch farmers. I understand that about one-half or two-thirds of Swaziland has been given away to English and Dutch adventurers. I am told that a somewhat favourite method of dealing with the Natives is to put down the figure nine, and then to add another nine after it, making 99. I hope to hear from the Government whether they have any definite policy with respect to Swaziland and to the general question of South Africa, and on what lines they intend to go until the new conditions have been developed? The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that we have now got gold fields in the Reserve. There are gold fields also in Swaziland and in North Bechuanaland. The question to be considered is whether you intend to have a state of anarchy before you take steps to produce order, or whether you will take time by the forelock and arrange as to the conditions on which the Natives and Whites may live and develop South Africa? The condition of things in the Reserve at the present time is not very creditable to us. Some time ago a vagabond Boer shot Dabulamanzi — Cetewayo's brother, in the Reserve. Now, there is no law in the Reserve, and therefore the murderer cannot be tried in the Native Reserve, nor can he be tried outside the Reserve for anything that occurred within it, nor by the new Republic, and the result is that this gentleman is to this day walking about with a number of other murderers in Swaziland, and he cannot be touched. Something certainly must be done to put an end to the anarchy which now exists. I also strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of not only considering this question, but also the condition of other Native territories in South Africa. You have the Zulu Question, the Basuto Question, the Pondo Question, and the Northern Bechuanaland Question. All of them require settling, and, speaking from the reports and telegrams received from South Africa, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the telegrams which have appeared in The Times as to the treatment of the Zulus by Mr. Osborn can possibly give a true representation of the actual state of affairs? I cannot believe the statements which have been made, because I know that two-thirds of the news sent here is altogether untrue, and I am satisfied that the right lion. Gentleman would soon send Mr. Osborn about his business if he had done anything to justify the charges which have been made against him. I think it is high time for the Government to cease their present policy of doing things by halves in South Africa, and to resolve upon some definite course of action. They ought, as soon as possible, to come to some conclusion and determination upon their general policy which would prevent the Native tribes from falling into a state of anarchy. If a state of anarchy arises you will have expeditions such as that which you have had to Bechuanaland, costing you £1,000,000 or so, and involving an extra expenditure of £100,000 or so a-year. Perhaps the wisest course would be to send out a Commission to South Africa. I see in his place the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler), who has long been a friend of the Aborigines, and who knows something about South Africa, and also my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie), who also knows something about South Africa. Why not send out some gentleman of that kind to ask the Cape and Natal, and also the Boer Republic, to come to some general arrangement which might settle the question? At present you have Natal and the Cape Colony fighting each other by tariffs, and trying to steal the interior trade from each other. If Commissioners went out and obtained accurate information, instead of depending on Reports which are generally the reverse of truth, and doing in the future what we have done in the past, it would be possible to devise and adopt a more prudent policy than it is now. At the present moment, with the best possible intentions, we are simply destroying the nations we profess to serve. I do not intend to press the Resolution I have placed upon the Paper to a Division, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies to see that the policy of this country should not be allowed to press hardly, as I think it does, upon the Native tribes, and that we should not sacrifice the Natives for the benefit of the people of Natal or anybody else. We may, at least, secure to the Zulus the land which is now occupied by them, and upon which there are no White people.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has had an opportunity of bringing this important question before the House, and I listened with great interest to the speech which he made. Both he and I, in and out of this House, have considerable differences of opinion; but it was with much pleasure that I listened to his remarks on this occasion, because there was much in them with which I fully agree. As the hon. Member said, the history of our connection with Zululand is a very unfortunate history, and by one step after another we have reduced that country to a very sad state. The Zulus were a powerful people. We once thought them too powerful; but we have now brought them down to very great poverty. It appears from the Blue Book just delivered to hon. Members, in regard to the affairs of Zululand, that Sir Henry Bulwer was opposed to the policy which has resulted in the destruction of the Zulus. I should have liked, in speaking of this matter, to have done so in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who represented the Colonies in the last Parliament; but, unfortunately, he is not in his place. Lord Kimberley has been blamed for the course he took in regard to the restoration of Cetewayo, and it was strongly opposed by Sir Henry Bulwer. Certainly, it was not likely to be a successful policy when the persons who were to carry it out were strongly opposed to each other. In an interesting and able document at the commencement of the Blue Book we have the views of Sir Henry Bulwer, and I think that Memorandum fully justifies the remarks I have ventured to make in former debates. I know it may be said that it turned out that the restoration of King Cetewayo was an error; but I lay no blame upon Lord Kimberley for that. I myself headed a deputation to the noble Lord, the object of which was to recommend him to take that course which afterwards turned out to be a mistake. At the same time, the evil results of the restoration were in part due to causes that might have been avoided. One of the causes of that mistake is, I think, clearly shown in the Book now before us. There is another despatch contained in it, at page 36, from Lord Granville to Sir Arthur Havelock, which I look upon as a most admirable despatch. There are other Members in this House besides myself who take a large interest in South Africa, and who are anxious to hear the views of my right hon. Friend who now represents the Colonies in this House. One satisfactory result of recent political changes is that the Colonies are now represented in this House by a statesman of Colonial experience and sympathies, and knowing more of Colonial matters than any of his Predecessors. We all recognize my right hon. Friend as a great authority on all Colonial questions in this House—altogether unlike the generality of Ministers, who are too frequently pitchforked into Offices for which they have no capacity. My right hon. Friend has gone to the Colonial Office with a thorough knowledge of everything concerning the Colonies; and I therefore congratulate him as well as the House and the country upon his appointment, and upon the fact that so important a position has been filled by a Minister so admirably qualified for it. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will give to the important questions of South Africa that attention which they eminently deserve. Our present difficulties are due to the fact that, at the close of the Zulu War, we shrank from the responsibility of taking the country, and making ourselves responsible for the government of it. Successive Governments shrank, the House shrank, and the country generally shrank, from annexing Zululand. I believe that after the Zulu War there was but one course left for us, and that was to take the country. We have incurred great responsibilities to that country, and we ought to meet them directly, and undertake the government of it. The hon. Member opposite has mentioned the circumstances of the murder of Dabulamanzi, a distinguished Zulu Chief, brother of King Cetewayo; and yet the fact that no one has been tried for that murder is a forcible instance of the anarchy which now prevails. We were unwilling to take the course of annexing the country; but, seeing the close connection which England has had with the history of Zululand, I think the best course for the Government of this country to have taken would have been to make ourselves directly responsible for the government of Zululand. We see now that a number of English and Dutch farmers are seizing the land from the unfortunate Zulus. That is a condition from which we ought to endeavour to protect them; and the only way in which we can do that is to take over the country, and take a more direct share in the responsibilities of governing it.

I am sure that we are all agreed—at least, all of those who know anything of South Africa—that it would have been much better, after we defeated the Zulus, if we had annexed the country. We made a great mistake in breaking up the power of the Zulus, because the Zulus were never hostile to us; and if they had desired to go to war with any White people, it would certainly not have been with the English. Those days, however, have now passed, and we find ourselves in our present difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) told us that we have reduced the Zulu people to some 6,000 or 8,000, whereas in former times they could muster 40,000 fighting men. I believe that if we rule the Zulus fairly, and give them sufficient land, they will rapidly increase in numbers—much more rapidly than White people. In point of fact, they double their population every 25 or 30 years. All I would recommend is this. It is most desirable that we should, as far as possible, come to a common understanding with the Presidents of the Orange Free State and the South African Republics. It is to be regretted that the Boer population hold views different from those of Englishmen—that they will not admit the equality of Black men before the law, and, as a rule, are not willing to grant the same measure of justice to the Blacks that the English people are. There is no chance of dealing fairly well with them unless we can come to a common understanding with the two Republics. It is also desirable to enter into a Customs union with the Dutch Republics. I believe that if we could enter into some such arrangement it would result in a much better feeling than exists at the present day between the English and Dutch Colonists. At present the Cape Colony and Natal are cutting each other's throats. I would, therefore, implore the right hon. Gen- tleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies to use his influence in persuading the Ministry of Cape Colony, and the Governor and Council of Natal, to enter into some Customs Union between themselves and the Dutch States. By a Customs arrangement such as now exists between the States which form the German Empire, I believe it would be possible to produce a better feeling than that which now exists between the English in Cape Colony and the Dutch in the two Republics.

A short time ago I heard the late Secretary of the Colonies express his regret that it was impossible for this country to remedy the unfortunate state of affairs in Zululand. Now, I do not believe that it is too late. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the Zulu War was begun by the Party who are now in power; but it was continued by the weakness and vacillation of a Liberal Government. In 1884, I headed a deputation to a Liberal Government, represented in the person of Lord Derby, and I spoke in favour of the Zulus. I told his Lordship then that in the opinion of a large number of persons connected with South Africa, who were well acquainted with the policy which had been pursued in that country, we had broken up the Zulu Government, their military system, their social order, and their nationality; that the Zulus were our friends; that they had ever been our allies; and that we had been a cruel and unjust nation in our dealings with them. I urged upon Her Majesty's Government in the most earnest terms I could employ for the sake of the Zulus, for the credit and honour of this country, for the time that was coming, and for the sake of future peace in South Africa itself, to take the Zulus immediately under the protection of Great Britain. I remember, after the battle of Ulundi, the Kaffirs coming to our soldiers with assegais in their hands, and shields on their backs, to ask who was to rule them, and what chief they must look to for guidance and protection. Never, on any occasion since the battle of Ulundi, has a Zulu touched a British subject. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has said, the gallant Zulu people have been crushed by cruelty and by famine almost out of existence, and now we complacently rob them of their land, banish them from their homes, and relegate them to a Reserve, in which—although we claim to possess an authority —there is no law. In Natal itself, to which the Zulus fled long ago from Cetewayo's dominion, they find themselves crushed, and are largely diminishing in number, without the prospect— which they ought to have, of returning back to their native land. It is a singular thing that in March last 42 Members of this House presented a strong remonstrance to Lord Granville against the deplorable condition of things then existing in Zululand being allowed to continue. The Address presented to the noble Lord was signed by sympathizers with the Zulu people on both sides of the House, Liberals and Tories joining together in formulating the document, which concluded by expressing—

"The hope that your Lordship will he pleased to take immediate steps to place the Zulus under British protection, which, we believe, they will welcome."

It is a singular fact that only a month or two before Sir Henry Bulwer had written these words in January, 1886—

"The outlet for the Native question of Natal lies in Zululand; and I will go further, and say that the outlet for every Native question in that part of South Africa lies through Zululand and the Native territories that adjoin it to the vast African Continent beyond the region of European occupation, that way lies a golden bridge for the Native questions of the future. But let that outlet be closed, let that golden bridge be destroyed, and there will remain pent up within our limits, unable to escape, the elements of burning questions which for want of their natural outlet, must some day be kindled into flames in our very midst."

Sir Henry Bulwer, one of the most distinguished men ever sent to South Africa, persistently but fruitlessly urged upon the late Government to take the charge of this Zulu question into their own hands, and to protect one of the most gallant races that ever lived, against the inroads of the Boers who were going into their country under false pretences. In the month of March a deputation of messengers from Umyamana, Ndabuko and Dinuzulu, and the headmen of the Zulu people on the Reserve, made a statement and presented a petition to the Judge of the Native High Court, in which they made an earnest request to the Government to be taken under British protection. What did they say—

"we ask that this son of his (Cetewayo's) may be ruled by Her Majesty, and taken under her wing as she did his father before him, that he may be raised by her and guided by her, that he may govern the land that she gave to his father. That he may be appointed under the same laws as those with which his father was returned, and by which he was guided. We ask that the Boers may be removed from, and go out of, our country; we cannot look at one another; we cannot live in peace with them. We wish to return to our own people—the British—and to live under the Queen who has always ruled over us. The heads of the Zulu people have sent us to do homage for them, and to await the reply of the Government, whether it be that we are to be left to die, or whether it be that we are to be succoured from this our great trouble that is destroying us."

That was about the hundredth petition which the Zulus have presented; it was delivered in person, and it met with no response. We talk of sympathizing with the Bulgarians, and we have heard a great deal of recrimination upon a subject which certainly does not affect the honour of this country as much as the cruel war waged against the Zulu people, our wicked neglect of them, and our indisposition to protect them against the unjust and unmanly treatment they are receiving at the hands of the Boers. The Boers have taken from them the land which was reserved for them and employed it as pasturage for themselves. An arbitration was appointed, and the decision was against the possession of this land by the Boers; but we failed to protect them against the annexation of their territory by the Boers. Moreover, we assisted in the destruction of Seccoconi. Our conduct was not only unjust but illogical, and everywhere we displayed the most cruel neglect of those we were bound to protect. I protest against our unmanly treatment of the Zulu people, and I trust that for the honour of this country something may yet be done to release us of the painful position in which we are now involved. I hope that the Queen's Government will see to it, and some better arrangement is made than now prevails, and so remove the stigma which is now cast upon us. Although Sir Henry Bulwer told us in one of his despatches the other day that we have gone past the time when the evil can be remedied—that, in fact, we are two years beyond the time when it is possible to do anything; I trust to hear from the Secretary of State for the Colonies something that will be distinctly for the advantage of the Native tribes in South Africa, or I am afraid that before long we may witness a blaze such as we have never seen before, which may involve this country in dishonour and disgrace.

I have listened, I need hardly say, with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark); for if there is one man in this House who understands the question, from personal knowledge of the country, and of the different tribes, it is the hon. Member, and therefore we naturally pay great attention to anything that falls from him. I cannot help expressing my regret that he has chosen this time to bring forward this Motion; for, although I have done my best to get the Papers before the House, we have been able only to present Papers which really do not deal with the questions which have been brought forward by the hon. Member this evening. Therefore, we are in some difficulty, because hon. Members are not acquainted with the actual state of facts; and, on the other hand, I am rather afraid of giving too many details on the subject. It is not my business, or desire to go into many of the questions touched upon to-night. Many hon. Members know that, as far as I am concerned, I opposed, and with my hon. and learned Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), voted against the Conservative Government of the day upon the Zulu War. I have always been of opinion that that war was a most unjust war, and I hold that opinion now strengthened as it is by the results. Nor is it my business to contend against the policy of the late Liberal Government, which I consistently and most persistently attacked, almost to weariness, in this House. I disagreed with the return of Cetewayo to Zululand; for I believed he would not return in a position to hold his own against the intrigues which were certain to spring up against him or against the bad counsel of his family. That opinion also proved to be correct. I pass on to the beginning of 1886, when the Memorandum was written by Sir Henry Bulwer, to whose merits only a just tribute has been paid. Now, the position of affairs is very clearly stated in that Memorandum. Sir Henry Bulwer shows that, after the death of Cetewayo, the Boers were invited in to assist the Zulus. Thereupon an arrangement was made between the Boers and the Zulus, of a nature which everyone might expect, with Boers on one side and ignorant Zulus on the other. It was very much in favour of the Boers. The Zulus agreed to give to the Boers land equal to 2,700,000 acres, about half of Zululand; at the same time giving them the right to establish an independent Republic, and placing themselves under the supervision and subject to the control of the new Republic. That arrangement Sir Henry Bulwer justly characterizes as disastrous. Under the circumstances, we had, however, no right to ignore that arrangement, and Sir Henry Bulwer advised that we should negotiate with the Boers. Lord Granville, in a despatch of March 11, 1886, instructed Sir Arthur Havelock to open negotiations with the Boers, and Sir Arthur Havelock acted on these instructions. I may quote a part of the despatch that bears on the position of the Zulus, which is important, since we have heard so much of the Zulus protesting and being much injured by the result of the arrangement which we have concluded with the Boers. Let us, therefore, see what was the condition of the Zulus when Sir Arthur Havelock began the negotiations. At page 50 he says—

"It is clear that the power of the Zulus is utterly broken. They have neither the heart, nor the strength to resist the Boers. Unless they receive support from Her Majesty's Government, they must eventually submit to any terms the Boers may think fit to impose."

That shows that our intervention at this time was nothing short of the salvation of the Zulus, who would certainly have fallen a very easy prey to the Boers if we had not intervened. That action was approved by Lord Granville, and subsequently by my right hon. Friend my Predecessor at the Colonial Office (Mr. E. Stanhope): and Sir Arthur Havelock was requested to use every effort to settle the question before further difficulties and dangers should arise. I am not now going further into the negotiations, which are described in a despatch that will appear in the Papers which I will present at the earliest opportunity; but on the 22nd of October an agreement was signed by the Repre- sentatives of the new Republic, by which the Protectorate over Zululand was abandoned by the Boers, and a new line of demarcation was settled. With respect to that line of demarcation the hon. Member for Caithness finds a good deal of fault, and I admit, at once, that there were great difficulties in regard to that line; and, if it could be done, I should be very glad to see those difficulties removed. They arise from the circumstance that, on the eastern side of the new line of demarcation, there are some 80 farms, held by some 200 or 300 Boers, and those farms are in Eastern Zululaud, and under the protection of British authority; and I fear, as the hon. Member fears, that those difficulties which are apt to arise between the Boers and the Natives may occur. But, with the leave of the House, I will read what, of course, the hon. Member has not yet had an opportunity of seeing—a passage from the despatch of Sir Arthur Havelock, dated October 24th, 1886, in which he states the terms of the arrangement come to and describes the negotiations. He says—

"I do not consider the line of demarcation established under the terms of settlement to be satisfactory in all particulars; but I feel confident that, had I insisted on a line more favourable to the interests, and more in accordance with the wishes of the Zulus, I should have risked a complete failure of the negotiations;"

and I think it will be found that he was right in that. With regard to the trade route, to which great importance was attached, Sir Arthur Havelock was unable to bring the line of demarcation more to the east, and an exchange of territory was made to the north of Zululand. He goes on to say—

"The concession to the Boers of the portion of the country between the northern border of Zululand and the Mkusi River will tend to make more complete than it already is the isolation of Swaziland with regard to Zululand."

Here I agree with the hon. Member in his observation as to the importance of keeping up our communication with Swaziland, and not to have the Boers coming in between us and that country. The despatch continues—

"I have sought to minimize this defect by making it a condition that a free right of passage from Mkusi to and across the Pongolo should be reserved for all persons of all nationalities without let or hindrance, and without payment of tolls or licence. Under the terms of settlement the Zulus will retain fully half the area of Zululand outside the Reserve territory, and this half includes nearly the whole of that portion of the country lying between the White and Black Umfolosi, described as 'the cradle of the Zulu nation,' in which are situated Ulundi, the sites of the Royal residence and of the Royal burial places, and the kraals in which Dinizulu Umyamyana and the principal chiefs now reside."

Therefore, it is evident, from what has been stated, that, so far as the Zulus are concerned, they have not suffered under this agreement when you compare it with the state of things that existed under the arrangement with the Boers made in 1884. In a despatch from my right hon. Friend to Sir Arthur Havelock, dated November 2nd, 1886, it is said—

"Referring to your telegram of October 22, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the agreement signed by you with the Leaders of the Boers, and you have authority to appoint Boundary Commissioners. They will be prepared to recommend to Her Majesty the assumption of British protection over Eastern Zululand, with the consent of the Zulus. The provisions of the Convention will have to be carefully considered, and provision made for giving free passage to traders."

Having run thus briefly through the negotiations and the arrangement that has been come to, I may mention two points in connection with the agreement. There is no doubt that the Zulu Chiefs have protested against this agreement; but their position has been materially and substantially improved by this arrangement, as compared with their desperate condition in the beginning of 1886, which Sir Arthur Havelock called a state of collapse. But it is incorrect to say that the Zulus were taken by surprise. Sir Arthur Havelock, in a despatch, shows that in March, in April, and in May, on several occasions, the Zulu Chiefs were told, in reply to their request, exactly what could and what could not be done for them; and he said to the last deputation of Zulus, who found themselves in difficulties and asked Her Majesty's Government to intervene on their behalf, that the Government were willing to help them; that they could not get for them all, or nearly all they wanted, but that the Government would try and get them something. The Chiefs, after that interview, thanked Sir Arthur Havelock for his reply to them, and therefore it is inaccurate to say that they have been taken by surprise, and it is equally incorrect to say that they were not heard against the arrangement. They had interviews with the Secretary of Native Affairs in October, and interviews with Sir Arthur Havelock in November. Now that they have been told, and understand, that this agreement is final, and that British protection will be extended over Eastern Zululand, the principal Chiefs have expressed their approval of the arrangement; and I would urge on many persons, not only in this country, but in Natal, that the real friends of the Zulus are those who will now encourage them in that course, and not strive to keep up in them a spirit of discontent with the arrangement made. Every one of us would be glad to be able to do more for the Zulus; but it must be remembered that they themselves first placed us in a difficulty by inviting the Boers into Zululand. The Government are bound to the new Republic by the engagement they have made, and they cannot now recede from it. If, on any smaller points, a further arrangement can be made, with the consent of the new Republic, that would tend to remove difficulties or complications in the future, the Government would be only too glad to take that step. The second point I have partly dealt with already—namely, that connected with the trade route and the necessity of dealing with some 200 or 300 Boers and about 80 farms in Eastern Zululand. The compromise come to on that matter may not be altogether as satisfactory as could be desired; but it certainly was not effected without considerable difficulty. As Sir Arthur Havelock has pointed out, if he had insisted upon another line, there would have been probably a complete failure of the negotiations. What will be the position of the Boers in Eastern Zululand? They will possess the ordinary rights of ownership of the lands granted them; they will have no jurisdiction over the Natives; and they will be entitled under the agreement to be secured in those lands. I have been asked—but I regret that I must disappoint the House in this particular—what is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect, not only to Zululand, but to Bechuanaland and to Swaziland, although the hon. Member's Amendment is in terms confined to Zululand. I am free to admit that I think, speaking generally, that the time has arrived for a comprehen- sive scheme for the settlement of the South African difficulties and complications. I am free to admit that, unless some such comprehensive scheme is settled, those dangers and difficulties which were pointed out by the hon. Member for Caithness may be anticipated. As regards Eastern Zululand, the Government are not prepared, as at present advised, to entertain the proposal made that Eastern Zululand should be annexed to Natal. There is no evidence, in the first place, that the Zulus desire annexation to Natal; and I think there is a very considerable, and very grave doubt how far the Natal laws and administration would be suited to Eastern Zululand. The finances of Natal, moreover, are in an unsatisfactory state, and are quite unable to bear the cost of establishing and maintaining Civil Establishments in a new and widely-extending territory; and, therefore, it is not intended, for the present at all events, that Eastern Zululand should be annexed to Natal. Then comes the question as to the government of Eastern Zululand. I can assure hon. Members that the subject is receiving very careful consideration at the hands of the Government. I think hon. Members who have studied the question will agree that the limited control at present exercised over the Reserve would not be sufficient in Eastern Zululand. We must have the power to establish Courts of Law, and to exercise a criminal jurisdiction, not only over Natives, but over British subjects and others within the territory. This we cannot at present do in the Reserve, and the question is now under consideration whether we can get sufficient powers under what is ordinarily recognized as a Protectorate, or whether we should have to annex Zululand at once. It has been suggested that we might bring Eastern Zululand under the control of the Governor of Natal, much in the same way as Bechuanaland is under the control of the Governor of Cape Colony; so as to legislate by Proclamation. I have mentioned those points in order to show that the matter is receiving careful consideration, but that the difficulties are very great. I will, of course, pay attention to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Caithness, with the object of seeing whether some kind of satisfactory arrangement could be made by which the different rights of different countries would be settled once for all in South Africa. It is a very tempting scheme; but when such schemes come to be looked into, they are found to be more difficult than appeared at first sight. I hope I have shown two things to hon. Members—first, that this arrangement which has been so much cavilled at by the friends of the Zulus is an arrangement really calculated to benefit them, and to put them in a far better position than they were in at the beginning of 1886; and, secondly, that the questions connected not only with Zululand, but with other territories in South Africa, are receiving, and will receive, the careful consideration of the Government.

rose to move the following addition to the Address:—

"And humbly to represent to Your Majesty that it is the duty of Your Government to institute a full and searching inquiry into the means by which convictions were obtained against certain persons at present undergoing penal servitude for an alleged conspiracy to murder at Barbavilla, in the county of Westmeath."

In support of his Motion the hon. Member recited at length the circumstances connected with the trial, and reviewed the evidence in order to show that it did not warrant a conviction. It had, he said, transpired since the trial that the evidence of the chief Crown witnesses, —the M'Keowns—was concocted, their statements being nothing short of a tissue of falsehood; and in the whole circumstances he contended that there was an unanswerable case for a full and impartial investigation. In England, whenever a conviction was impugned, the practice was to hold an impartial inquiry; but in Ireland there was no such inquiry. The inquiries held there were of such a character that Irishmen had no confidence in them. If an impartial inquiry was given, he believed that it would result in throwing open the prison gates. He would divide the House upon the question, and, if defeated, would take every opportunity of re-opening it.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he thought that it was a pity that in this Jubilee year of Her Majesty's Reign the Oriental custom which we had adopted in India of releasing prisoners had not been followed in Great Britain, in the gaols of which a large number of innocent prisoners were confined. ["Oh!"] It was the duty of those who held that opinion to bring before that House any evidence of which they had cognizance which would tend to show that those who had been found guilty of a crime had been unjustly convicted; with the object of satisfying the demand for inquiry made by the public, who cried out against these unjust convictions. Seven years ago there was committed in Ireland a foul and most brutal murder—an unjustifiable murder. [A laugh.] Well, all murders were unjustifiable. He did not offer a word in palliation of such a murder. He should be ashamed to say a word in defence of a crime of such a nature. It was an inhuman murder, and it was a crime against the laws both civil and divine. That murder took place at a time when the country was in a state of panic, and when the Government of the day itself was in a state of panic. The consequence was that the Government were anxious to secure a conviction by any and every means. Two ineffectual trials had taken place, and at the third trial the Law Officers of the Crown resorted to that expedient which was becoming so common in Ireland, and which was the scandal to the administration of the law—he meant the system of jury - packing. [Cries of "Order!"]

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not in Order in going into that subject.

said, that he would, of course, bow to the Speaker's ruling; but, at the same time, it had been stated in the newspapers of the day that the jury had been selected for the occasion, probably from the men of independent thought. Owing to the M'Keowns having concocted a story prepared for the purpose of obtaining a conviction of the men charged with this crime, the jury came to the conclusion that they were guilty, and they were now suffering from five to six years' imprisonment. After the conviction of these innocent men, the wife of one of the M'Keowns made a statement acknowledging that her husband had given false evidence, and that she had encouraged him to do so. The husband subsequently admitted that he had committed perjury. After these revelations had been made, a memorial was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant praying for an inquiry into the case of these poor men. That had not been acceded to, and he now joined in the appeal of his hon. Friends to the Attorney General and the Chief Secretary to re-consider the matter, and grant an inquiry into the case.

I do not think that the speeches which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought forward much that is new. Their speeches seem very strongly to resemble those which were delivered in this House in September last, and I am afraid that I can only repeat what I said on that occasion. One expression has been made use of by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject (Mr. Tuite) more than once, which it is necessary that I should notice. He has stated that the appeal which was made to the Lord Lieutenant in the case of the Barbavilla prisoners was decided by persons who had been interested in sustaining the conviction. Now I can assure the hon. Member that nothing can be further from the fact. There were no persons connected with the Irish Government who were interested in maintaining these convictions, or any other convictions which have been referred to from time to time in this House. No Member of the present Administration had anything whatever to do with the Government of Ireland at the time the prisoners in question were convicted. They were prosecuted by law officers nominated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and reference was made to the Lord Lieutenant of that period. There was no reason whatever why the present Administration should not come to the consideration of the case with perfectly open minds. I may at once say that I have not the slightest intention of discussing in this House tonight the evidence given at the trials, which was commented on by the counsel on both sides and referred to by the learned Judges who directed the several juries, and which formed the basis of the verdicts of those juries. The prisoners in this particular case were defended by some of the ablest men at the Irish Bar. I have read the reports of the trials, and I can say that no single topic has been brought forward in this House which was not urged before the juries who convicted the prisoners. Nothing was omitted by the counsel who defended the prisoners. Both the Court and the jury had all the facts fairly before them; all the arguments that could be adduced on either side, and all the statements and reasons which could possibly influence their judgment. In the end they came to certain verdicts. Therefore, I am not prepared to re-try here a case which seems to me to have been tried by a proper tribunal who had all the facts before it. All I propose to refer to is what took place subsequently. The first conviction was obtained before the Lord Chief Baron in the month of April, 1884, and the subsequent conviction on the 9th of Juno in the same year. For some months afterwards no application was made to the Lord Lieutenant for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. But somewhere towards the end of 1884 an application was made to the nobleman who was then Lord Lieutenant to exercise the prerogative of mercy. The case was carefully reviewed, and the result of the investigation was that the law was allowed to take its course.

An application was made a few weeks after the second batch of prisoners was convicted.

All I know is that the case was very fully and carefully investigated by the Lord Lieutenant. I have seen the papers that were before him; I have seen the various subjects into which he inquired; I know the advice he sought, and I am satisfied that no person could have taken more care to see how the prerogative of the Crown could best be exercised than the noble Lord who, at that time, occupied the position of Viceroy of Ireland. The result of the investigation was that the law was allowed to take its course. Now the friends of prisoners have aright to make fresh representations of any new facts which may arise; and they have a perfect right to call on those who represent the Crown to reopen the matter. In this case, the friends of the prisoners were not satisfied, and in the Autumn of 1885 all the facts were brought before Lord Carnarvon. No person could be more disposed to consider a case of this kind with care and caution, and with a strong leaning to the side of mercy, than that nobleman. I can assure hon. Members opposite that he entered into the case in the most full and complete manner; but anxious as he was to temper justice with mercy, he too came to the conclusion that the decision at which his Predecessor had arrived was a right decision, and that the law must take its course. A Viceroy has advantages in making inquiries which no one in this House possesses. He can communicate with the learned Judges who tried the case. In this case he did communicate with the learned Judges, of whom no less than three or four had taken part in the trials, and of course their judgment would guide him very much. If, with all these advantages, the Lord Lieutenant is unable to come to a correct conclusion in reference to a subject of this kind, I think it would be very difficult to ascertain how a correct conclusion can be arrived at. But that is not all. At a later date—I believe in the month of May last year—a different Viceroy of Ireland — Lord Aberdeen—considered the case. He had a right to do so, although the question had been brought before his Predecessor; and the result of his consideration was the same as before—namely, a confirmation of the view which had been taken by two of his Predecessors. In the month of October last the matter was brought under the notice of Lord Londonderry, the present Lord Lieutenant, and the same decision was arrived at. It will, therefore, be seen that the verdicts received the approbation of the learned Judges who tried the cases; and that the subsequent investigation by successive Viceroys disclosed no new facts that would justify the verdicts being displaced. On the last occasion I stated that the case would be brought before the Viceroy. It was so brought, and, after careful consideration, the decision of the Viceroy was announced. In the month of November last the hon. Gentleman addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant. The letter contained no new facts; but it referred in particular to a statement made by Constable Fitzgerald.

I did not state that there were any new facts; but I referred to facts which had occurred since the trials.

The fact is that the statement of Constable Fitzgerald was not only before Lord Aberdeen and Lord Carnarvon, but it was also before Lord Spencer. The statement itself has been read by the hon. Gentleman tonight. I have had an opportunity of seeing that statement, and of comparing it with another statement by Constable Fitzgerald contained in a letter written to his superior officer. Constable Fitzgerald was asked if he had ever made the statement referred to by the hon. Member; and, also, whether he had made the statement which is contained in his letter to his commanding officer. He answered both questions in the affirmative. He said that he had made a statement in the month of September, 1884, and that, in the same month, he had addressed a letter containing the same statement to his chief. Now, it so happened that the letter which he had written was forthcoming. I have had an opportunity of reading it, and I find that there is the greatest possible divergence between the two statements. In point of fact, the statements upon which the hon. Member relies are not contained in that letter at all. After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that Constable Fitzgerald was under the impression that he had made certain statements, but that his letter was written in such a state of mental excitement as rendered it unreasonable to hold the writer responsible for the statements contained in it.

We have the statement made by the constable in our possession, and it is signed with his own hand.

No doubt Constable Fitzgerald made the statement which the hon. Member has referred to; but he always asserted that, at the same time, he had made a similar statement to his commanding officer in November, 1884. We have that letter, and, comparing it with the statement, there is not the slightest resemblance between the two. Moreover, he states in his letter that he has written all he is able to assert. When we find the constable making two statements, in the same month, differing so much in their character, it is impossible to place much reliance on them. They have evidently been written in such a state of mental excitement that it would be cruelty to any man to hold him responsible for them. I do not think it is necessary to say more. We have had precisely the same discussion to-night as we had in the month of September last. I do not think it would be a very useful occupation for the House to indulge in a prolongation of the debate. The facts of the case have been fully considered by the Court and the jury; they were also discussed in the House last year, and it would be most inconvenient to go into these matters again. I believe that whoever occupies these Benches must give the same answer that I have given.

I do not propose to occupy the attention of the House for many minutes, while I call attention to another case in which there was not a single drop of blood shed, and yet a dozen men were sent to prison. If there had been anything like a conspiracy to murder, it would have got abroad somehow or other, and somebody living in the locality would have heard of it. But even the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are pretty well acquainted with the feeling that exists throughout the country, when any conspiracy is being hatched, knew nothing of this; and the general feeling of the country is, that there has been a great miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the unfortunate men to whom I refer. I think it is a case in which, upon the recommendation of the Government, the Prerogative of mercy might be exercised by the Crown. We are often told from the other side of the House that it would be becoming, on the part of the Irish Nationalist Members, if they would assist the Government in controlling the affairs of Ireland. Now, I know of no better means by which the Irish Na- tionalist Members could assist the Government in performing the difficult task of governing unfortunate Ireland than by bringing cases of this kind under their notice. It is all very well for the Government to say that it is their duty to maintain the law; the law may be maintained without resorting to harsh and tyrannical measures. There ought to be justice tempered with mercy; and the majority of the Irish peasants are under the impression that in matters of this kind there is very little either of mercy or justice, although there may be a good deal of law. In agrarian matters the Irish people look for neither mercy nor justice from Her Majesty's Courts of Law. It is unfortunate that that should be so; and I think that something might be done to remedy the state of feeling which now exists in Ireland, if Her Majesty's Government would give the matter their careful consideration.

In regard to the Barbavilla case, I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland that fresh facts have come to our knowledge which are not in the possession of the Government; and there would be great difficulty in putting them in possession of those facts, unless they consent to grant the inquiry for which we ask. I would also point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the jurors who tried the Barbavilla case has distinctly stated that if he had known that the two M'Keowns had had an opportunity of communicating with each other, he would not have been a party to a conviction. We shall be able to prove that the two M'Keowns were in communication with each other, and that they concocted their story in consequence. I can assure the House that we do not go back upon this matter with any amount of pleasure; it is only a sense of duty that induces us to bring it forward. It is a story we cannot look on with anything but a feeling of shame. But we know that at the time the deed was done bribes of an enormous amount were offered which would have had the effect of bringing about perjury not only in Ireland, but in any other country in the world. Under these circumstances I sincerely hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use his influence with the Government to enable us to place before them the fresh facts we have been able to obtain.

It is not my intention to proceed with this Bill to-night, but to propose that the Committee be deferred till Monday. I would, however, like to ask hon. Members below the Gangway oppoposite whether they intend to persist, in the numerous Amendments which they have put on the Paper. If they do so, it will be impossible for me to proceed with the Bill further. The Amendments really open up a wide field of questions which ought not to be discussed at all.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has, by the appeal he has made, put us in a position of some difficulty. The Bill of which he has given Notice to take the Committee on Monday next raises a somewhat large question. I do not intend to discuss the provisions of the measure; but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is really no urgency whatsoever in the matter with which the Bill proposes to deal. Upon a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman has asserted as a reason for bringing in the Bill that the Court of Common Pleas cannot be fully constituted until the appointment suggested is made. That is not the fact. The Court of Common Pleas is fully constituted with two Judges, and under the present system two Judges can sit.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the Bill.

, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, I do not think that it is one which will promote any sort of opposition from any part of the House; indeed, it is one that has already received the sanction of this House, and been read a third time. It is to do away with an inconvenience which those who have to administer justice sometimes feel when they have brought before them persons accused of offences for the first time, and against whom the offences are proved. Often a youth who has committed some offence, or a servant girl w-ho has been guilty of a slight act of pilfering, is brought up and although the case is proved, the magistrates feel very strongly the cruelty of sending such offender to prison, thus making him or her one of the criminal class, and subjecting him or her to the contaminations of the prison surroundings. This modest Bill merely proposes to give the magistrates the power — not to compel them—when a person is brought before them for the first time charged with an off ence punishable with imprisonment only, to direct that he shall be conditionally released upon probation of good conduct. I believe that legislation of this kind is in operation, in some of the American States—in the State of Massachusetts for instance—and I am told that, quite lately, Bills of this kind were passed in some of our own Colonies. I hope there will be no opposition at all to the second reading, which I now beg to move.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the second reading, I will trouble the House with but few observations. The object of all legislation in relation to crime should be to prevent future crime, not merely to inflict punitive vengeance, and it is because I feel that this Bill proceeds in that direction that I desire to support it. The efforts already made in the direction of reformation have diminished crime. I connect that diminution of crime in the last few years more particularly to the progress of education. This salutary effect of education is increasing, as shown by the remarks of the various Judges of Assize. I believe this Bill will so protect some people from being rendered permanently criminal by the contagion of imprisonment, and therefore I heartily support it.

Sir, I think the House is indebted to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Addison) for introducing this Bill; but I should be glad to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) whether he is able to support it as it at present stands, or whether he thinks it requires any amendment. In my opinion, many criminals are sent to prison who would be much better out on probation; and I do not think there is the danger which used to be apprehended of the people whom the Bill is intended to benefit being at large. I trust the Secretary of State will be able to see his way to support the Bill.

Sir, I must admit I have had some difficulty in understanding what the objects of the framers of this Bill are. I think my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Addison), who moved the second reading, must be aware that by the Summary Conviction Act, 1879, all Courts of Summary Jurisdiction have very much the power he proposes to confer upon them. A Court of Summary Jurisdiction may now, without proceeding to a conviction, dismiss any information which is laid before them and order the person charged to pay damages not exceeding 40s. and costs, or either of those things. Furthermore, the Court has power now to discharge. [Mr. ADDISON: Oh, oh!] I hear my hon. and learned Friend express dissent; I think he can hardly have read the section. A Court of Summary Jurisdiction can now, upon conviction, discharge the person convicted, upon condition of him giving security, with or without sureties, to appear for sentence in Court, or to be of good behaviour, or upon payment of damages and costs, or either of them, as the Court may think fit. I hardly know in what way my hon. and learned Friend's view will be promoted by the clauses of this Bill. The intention of enabling any Court—a Court of Assize or otherwise—to avoid sending a first offender to prison is a good one. If that were an object not attainable in the present state of the law, I should be entirely in favour of any Bill having such an object. I believe that by the Act of 1879 the power in question was given to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and that they possess it now in an ample way. I admit that the power in the hands of Judges of Assize or of the Superior Courts or Quarter Sessions is not so ample. I believe those Courts can only discharge an offender upon him giving security to appear for sentence when called upon to do so. That, however, in effect, enables the Superior Courts to release a first offender without sending him to prison; therefore, the objects that are sought by this Bill are perfectly capable of attainment by the law as it stands. On the other hand, let the House consider for a moment what the framers of this Bill propose to do. The promoters of the Bill propose to allow the Court to dismiss a first offender without sentencing him, but to make him subject to the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Acts of 1871 and 1879. I do not know whether the House realizes how extremely penal those Acts are. Under these Acts convicts or habitual offenders are subjected to police supervision, which involves penalties of a penal character. A person who is released on licence is required to report his residence periodically, and if he fails to report himself he is liable to a year's imprisonment with hard labour. It will thus be seen that, by this Bill, if a first offender does not comply with the conditions laid down upon his release, he will be subjected to a year's imprisonment, which is probably a much longer period than that by which his offence in the first instance is punishable. But there are other conditions which attach by the Prevention of Crime Acts of 1871 and 1879. If a licensee associates with, bad characters — a rather elastic phrase, which may extend to various classes of society—he is liable, under the Prevention of Crime Acts, to three months with hard labour. That, equally, might be the utmost sentence which might be passed upon persons for certain offences. Then, again, if the person subject to the police supervision has no possible means of obtaining a honest livelihood, which is a fate not uncommon in many classes of society, he is liable to be brought up and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I really do submit to my hon. and learned Friend that the police supervision to which he proposes to subject first offenders is unnecessary, harsh, and severe. I imagine it is the desire of the framers of this Bill to have some treatment intermediary between sending a first offender to prison and letting him go scot-free, and in that desire I entirely concur; and, if the Bill could be modified to bring about that end, I should heartily welcome it. Then, I think the promoters of the Bill might have introduced some provision with regard to juvenile offenders. I should be extremely glad, for instance, if in the case of juvenile offenders power were conferred upon the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to summon before them the parents, and inflict upon them a fine. I believe some such modification of the mode of proceeding against first offenders would be extremely valuable; but this drastic way of putting first offenders under Acts of Parliament which were intended to deal with habitual criminals and convicts out on licence—the very worst criminal classes we have in the country—seems to me not quite in accordance with my hon. and learned Friend's intentions— intentions with which I entirely sympathize. Perhaps the hardest cases are those in which imprisonment is inflicted because the offenders cannot pay a fine. There are numerous cases where the punishment usually imposed is a fine, and, in default of payment, imprisonment. There are cases of imprisonment, especially in the cases of first offenders, I am very sorry to see. One cannot regard poverty in every instance as a crime; and, therefore, persons who are most deserving of sympathy are left outside the scope of the Bill. The 2nd clause of the Bill-there are practically only two clauses in the Bill—seems to be totally inadmissible, inasmuch as it violates all the rules which Parliament has observed in legislation affecting crime. I do not like to seem so ungracious as to oppose the second reading of a Bill which contains the germs of a useful idea; but I am bound to say that those germs have been hardly properly developed—indeed, I am afraid the Bill will work a bad, instead of a good, change. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) suggested that the Bill might be taken up by the Government, and remodelled. If the sponsors of the measure will be willing to entrust it to the care of the Government draftsman, I will do my best to see it put in such a shape that it will work a beneficial change in the law, and not impose on first offenders hardships and penalties much more severe than they ought to be subjected to. Having stated these objections, I shall offer no further opposition to the second reading.

I desire to say a few words in support of the second reading of the Bill. It is a Bill in which I have taken the deepest interest; and I see many hon. Gentlemen now in the House who will, perhaps, recollect the signal unanimity with which the measure was received in the last Parliament. The Bill passed through all its stages in the last Parliament; indeed, not one word of exception was taken to any one of its provisions. It is true that it was stopped in the House of Lords; and I had some reason to complain of the course the then Administration took as regards it. The Government of the day allowed the Bill to go quietly through all the stages in this House; but they stopped it in "another place," where it was impossible for me to meet any of the objections which were raised to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) has said that he has considerable difficulty in ascertaining what are the motives of the framers of the measure in submitting it to the judgment of the House. The desire of the framers of the Bill is to endeavour to do something to prevent first offenders being turned, by imprisonment, into habitual criminals; to endeavour to do something to convert those who have committed a first offence into honest men and useful members of society. I am sure the House was impressed by the statement of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Addison), that a measure) of this kind has worked for many years with signal success in Massachusetts. It is no new experiment which we are seeking to introduce. What we propose has worked amongst our own race, and under a similar system of jurisprudence to our own, for eight years past, with great success; in fact, the result has been 2,600 reformed lives, and a saving in hard cash of no less than £10,000. I feel sure the House will recognize that that is certainly a tangible result. I wish to repeat the statement of the Mover of the second reading—that what we propose has been adopted in the Colonies of New Zealand and of Queensland. It was unanimously adopted by both Houses of Legislature in those Colonies. The House will, of course, recognize the difficulty I labour under in following the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is so well versed in all the intricacies of the law; but, even after what he has said, hon. Members will, I am sure, feel that the Bill deserves their favourable consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he does see in the Bill the germs of a good change in the law. I hope, therefore, he will allow the second reading to pass. He has said, if we will entrust the Bill to the Government draftsman, he will do his best to make a good measure of it. I shall very gladly adopt that course. No Party interests are concerned in the Bill; and, therefore, I entreat hon. Members of both sides to agree to the second reading. I do so because I am perfectly certain that the Bill is capable of efficient administration, and that it will have a very great tendency to reduce crime, and to reduce the expenses incurred in the maintenance of criminals in the country.

My name appears on the back of the Bill, and I wish to say that the measure has my hearty concurrence. The Bill was brought forward last year; it was passed unanimously by this House, and therefore it is rather astonishing to find the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), who, of all persons, should take an interest in any measure having such an object as this, disposed to throw cold water upon the Bill. I should have thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been the first person in the House to have welcomed any Bill of this character; but he has made a speech criticizing the Bill in all its details; in fact, his speech was a conglomeration of speeches, only fit for the Committee stage. The object of the Bill is one of which we can all approve; why, then, should the Home Secretary, whose duty it is to support every step in this direction, throw cold water upon the measure? My advice to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison) is, that he should proceed with the Bill to a Division, because we are, as a House, pledged to the Bill, and the observations which were made by the Home Secretary are observations which can be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as my name appears on the back of the Bill, I should like to say a few words before the Debate closes. I have taken considerable interest in this subject for many years; but I quite admit the force of all that has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) as to the difficulties surrounding the treatment of the persons we have in. view. I know how serious are the provisions of the law relating to police supervision, and I can understand the alarm with which my right hon. and learned Friend views the proposal to extend such a system to first offenders in certain cases. But what I have always had in view has been to extend, if possible, the power which Petty Sessional Courts and Quarter Sessions have at present to let persons out on their own recognizances; a power which, I think, is most useful, but which is so seldom exercised at the present time. I would urge the House, if it affirm the principle, at all events, of extending to first offenders some more lenient means of punishment than the necessity of prison discipline, which is now almost the only means available. At the same time, I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), who really has brought in this Bill, to adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary, and allow the Government draftsman, in company with my hon. Friend himself, to go over the Bill and endeavour to surmount the difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) has mentioned. We are all anxious to see first offenders treated in such a way as will enable them to come back to society, without being subjected to the contamination of prison discipline. By the adoption of the suggestion of the Home Secretary, it is very probable a solution of the difficulty may be arrived at.

Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the Home Secretary to minutely examine and criticize the details of all Bills dealing with the Criminal Law of the country; and, therefore, so far from accusing the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) of throwing cold water upon this Bill, the House is indebted to him for pointing out what are the obvious defects in the Bill as it at present stands. Of course, I sympathize with the objects of the measure as explained by the promoters. I had great satisfaction in serving on the Summary Jurisdiction Committee some time ago, and in taking part in the drawing up of the very provisions to which the Home Secretary has alluded; and which place it in the power of every Court of Petty Sessions to deal with first offenders in the lenient way the hon. and learned Gentleman has described. There is one provision in this measure which commends itself to me, and that is that the powers in question can be extended either to the High Court or the Court of Quarter Sessions or other Criminal Courts. I trust the House will not be put to the necessity of dividing upon the second reading; but that my hon. Friend (Mr. Howard Vincent) who is responsible for the introduction of the Bill, will accept the offer made to him by the Home Secretary —namely, that the Bill should be read a second time, upon the clear understanding that it should be remodelled under the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I heartily approve of anything that can be done to amend the Criminal Law, so as to prevent the stain of imprisonment attaching to first offenders. There are dangers in the Bill; indeed as it stands I think the Bill might do more harm than good.

As a very earnest supporter of this Bill I hope the House will allow me to express the hope that there will be no more talk upon it. There is another very important measure to come on, and practically, we are all agreed as to the principle. There is nothing more to fight about, and hon. Members on this side of the House are quite content to leave the Bill in the hands of the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) to elaborate it, and make it effective for the humane purpose we have in view. [Cries of "Divide!"]

Notwithstanding the impatience of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, I trust I may be allowed to say a word or two on this Bill, because it is a Bill in which I also have taken considerable interest, and to the provisions of which I have given some attention. The hon. Member (Mr. Howard Vincent) who introduced this Bill last year has made some observations with regard to the fact that the Bill was stopped in the House of Lords. Well, Sir, I do not think that was the fault of any of the present Advisers of Her Majesty; if any blame did attach to anyone, it must be visited upon the heads of the right hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Front Opposition Bench. Probably there were reasons which made it difficult to pass the Bill last year. Certainly this Bill does require some careful consideration, and the House ought to understand its provisions a little more thoroughly, I will not say before they assent to the principle, but before they assent to its passing. I entirely agree that the Bill should be read a second time; but I wish the House to appreciate one or two matters they will have to consider in reference to the further progress of the measure. It is not quite right to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) threw any cold water upon the intentions, or spoke disparagingly of the intentions, of those who have introduced the Bill. I heard the whole of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech, and I think the House will agree with me he simply pointed out the serious defects, not only of detail, but also of principle which require consideration. There is no doubt it is necessary that the Bill should be remodelled, in order that the real intentions of the framers of the Bill should have some practical effect given to them. I would point to a matter which will commend itself to lawyers in this House, and of course it is necessary that a Bill of this kind should be criticized by some of those who have experience of the practice of the law; it is proposed that the Bill should be confined at present to offences for which a person might be sentenced to imprisonment with or without hard labour. Probably those who framed the Bill, not having for the moment all the offences before their minds, forgot that cases of larceny and embezzlement, which can be punished with penal servitude, would be excepted from the operation of the Bill. If it is desired that this Bill shall protect juvenile offenders from the contamination of prisoners, there is probably no offence in respect of which it is more likely to be applied than that of small larceny. There is another very important matter which has already been referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) and others who have addressed the House, and that is that the Bill proposes that the persons who are released upon probation may be subject to the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Acts of 1871 and 1879. I have no intention of detailing the stringent nature of those provisions; it was pointed out with accuracy by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although at the time one of the provisions seemed to be not quite understood by some of my Friends behind me. I venture to suggest that it will have to be considered whether the Bill should apply to first offenders without any limitation as to age. We think that the Bill requires revision, having regard to the fact that if it passed into law, first offenders would be subject to the provisions of the Acts of 1871 and 1879. The words of the Bill are that first offenders should be "conditionally released." I think the House should make up its mind as to what should be required of offenders released under this Bill, because it would not be proper to apply to them the principles which guide Criminal Courts in the cases of older offenders; and I venture to think that those who support the Bill should consider whether a clause should not be inserted to ensure that there should be some check on the conduct of those who are released without punishment. I also think it would be of very great advantage if the House had a little more knowledge of the working in other countries of laws which have provisions similar to those in the present Bill. An hon. Member has told us that a similar law has been passed in Massachusetts, and we know that in some of our Colonies, also, similar laws are in existence; but we have not been informed as to their operation, and I think it is important that those in this House who desire to see this amendment of the law should be told under what conditions those Acts have operated and have been found successful. I have no desire, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no desire, to depreciate the intentions of those who have introduced this Bill. On the contrary, our wish is to give every assistance in properly remodelling it; and it is with the hope of doing this, consistently with the principle of the measure, that I trust the House will agree to the Motion for the second reading.

Sir, it is my duty to state that when this Bill—which was brought in at the beginning of last Session, but was only printed some months later, and just before it stood for a second reading— came before me at the Home Office, I found it to contain principles of such grave importance, that I considered it my duty to refer it for the opinion and report of certain Judges, Chairmen of Sessions, Police Magistrates, and others, whose views, derived from experience, would be of value. These reports, however, had not been received when the Dissolution, after the defeat of the late Government, was determined upon; and I concluded that no further progress would be made with the Bill, when I left town to canvass my constituents. It, however, passed this House in my absence and that of my colleague at the Home Office, but was properly stopped in the House of Lords. I have only to add, on the question whether the Bill is a wise one and one which ought to be adopted by the House, that I consider that it contains the germs of valuable legislation; but it contains much to which there is grave objection, and I trust that if the Bill be read a second time, it will be dealt with in the manner proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

I desire to make a suggestion with regard to this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out that in order to make the Bill of value it is necessary that some reference should take place to those experienced in legal drafting; and, secondly, it is said that we should be guided by the working of similar provisions in other countries. Both these objects would be accomplished, and the Bill would be more likely to pass from this House in such a condition that no difficulty should arise afterwards by its being referred to a Select Committee, and I suggest that it should be so referred, if the Motion for the second reading is agreed to.

Sir, as the hon. Member has protracted his frequent discussion of this Bill until half-past 12 o'clock, I trust he will not be dissatisfied if we, on these Benches, now have our innings. Although I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be very jealous of the treatment of first offenders—that the most severe punishment should not be meted out to them—yet I do not see the advantage of passing a Bill of which neither the 1st nor the 2nd Clause is in harmony with the views of the House. Further, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has stated that, even if the Bill were to get the sanction of the House, these clauses would be inoperative and nugatory. I am sure that this House joins with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Addison) in his spirit of leniency to first offenders; but I think, with all sincerity and seriousness, that it is hardly possible to make a rule that first offenders should get off scot-free; and, further, I am of opinion that it might happen that magistrates in Ireland would avail themselves of the Bill, in order to liberate some of their friends who ought, for first offences committed by them, to be sent to prison. If the Bill does not ensure the object in view, I think the best course would be to accept the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should confer with his Colleagues upon the provisions of the measure. Without any desire to spin out the present discussion, I venture to say that the Bill has not yet received the consideration which the importance of the subject demands; and, therefore, I feel it my duty to oppose the Motion for the second reading, and to move that it be read this day six months.

Sir, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Does any hon. Member second that Motion?

Sir, as I understand the second reading of this Bill will not be opposed by the Government, and as I do not anticipate any opposition to the Motion I am about to make, I need simply state that the Bill is intended to prevent the arbitrary imprisonment of persons and forfeiture of ships in cases of alleged smuggling. The present law is that if a vessel enters a port with contraband goods concealed on board, the ship is absolutely forfeited, and the crew and passengers are liable to detention, a fine of £100, and to imprisonment until payment. My proposal is to provide that this shall not be the law with regard to either the vessel or those on on board unless there is reason to believe that there has been complicity on the part of the owner of the ship or of the persons on board respectively. If the Motion for the second reading is agreed to, I am willing that the Committee stage of the Bill should be deferred.

Sir, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, it is not necessary for me to oppose the second reading of this Bill. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Sir Albert Rollit) has stated to the House the condition on which he takes the second reading—namely, that the Committee stage of the measure shall be deferred, in order that the Government may have an opportunity of considering whether they will accept it in its present form, or propose any alteration. It is not necessary for me, at this late hour (12.40), to detain the House with many remarks upon the character of the Bill; and accordingly I will only remind hon. Members that the proposal which my hon. Friend makes is, practically, to go back to what was the condition of the law formerly—that is to say, before the year 1876, when an Act was passed which did not contain a clause that was in the previous Acts. The House will possibly feel that there will be some difficulty in accepting the words—"Reasonable grounds for the exemption of the owner of a ship from his liability." The offence of smuggling is one that stands very much by itself. I am told it is held by a very large number of people to be an offence not very serious in itself; but I would remind the House that the Customs of this country are responsible for more than £20,000,000 of the Revenue. I think the House will therefore admit that before you make any change in the law which might in any sense weaken the power of those who have to administer it, and assist in the collection of this enormous Revenue, the greatest care should be taken, and the most careful consideration should be given to the question. It is unnecessary for me to say more on the present occasion. I will not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

I feel it right to say one word in reference to this Bill, as hon. Members will probably have seen that until to-night I had a block against the Bill to prevent it from coming on after half past 12 o'clock. I would explain—if I may be permitted to do so—the reason why I put down the block, and the reason why I took it off. I put a block against this Bill, and probably against some 50 other Tory measures, because the Tory Whip placed a block against a Bill of mine before it was printed, and even before I had finished drafting it. Now, I quite admit that the practice of blocking is one that should be used with discrimination; but I cannot conceive that there is any discrimination whatever exercised on the part of the Representative of the Tory Party, when he blocks a Bill which has not yet passed from the drafter's hands. I do not consider, and I do not think any right-minded man in this House will consider, that that is fair treatment of a political opponent. As the only defence in my power, I have placed a block against every Tory measure that I could find. At the earnest instance of the hon. Member (Sir Albert Rollit), who has moved the second reading of this Bill, I removed the block last night, and I am now very pleased to give the Bill my support. [Laughter.] Well, so I am. I understand perfectly well what the measure is—what the object of it is, and what the grievance is it is intended to remove. It is not a matter that has come under my notice to-day for the first time; and if I choose to support a measure, even if it be a Tory measure, I shall do so whether hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh or not. If any hon. Gentlemen opposite feel themselves aggrieved or inconvenienced by the course that has been forced on me—and I know that I have personal friends opposite who do feel inconvenience—I beg to say it is their own Tory Whip who is to blame. So long as he continues to adopt unfair practices, I shall continue the course I originally adopted in the case of this Bill.

I wish to ask your permission, Sir, to put a Question to the Secretary to the Board of Trade, of which I have given him private Notice. Perhaps you will permit me to explain, in one sentence, that the reason I adopt this unusual course is because the Question which I wish, with your permission, to put refers to a matter of Privilege, and, therefore, to a matter of urgency. I wish to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the publication, in The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent newspaper, of a summary of the Merchandize Marks Bill, before the measure was in the hands of Members of this House; and whether, in that case, he can inform the House of the source of that journal's information?

I would ask, as this is a species of debate, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Brightside) (Mr. Mundella) was informed of what is about to take place? It seems only reasonable to the right hon. Gentleman, as this is a matter that concerns him, that he should have an opportunity of being in his place. I really think that, seeing that it is so unusual for a Question to be asked at this hour, if the right hon. Gentleman did not know it was to be put it should be deferred until he is present.

In the course of the evening, as soon as I heard what had taken place, I wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), and sent it to him by one of the messengers of the House.