I venture to thank the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for having introduced the Triple Alliance. I am aware that there are Members of this House who consider that questions of foreign policy ought not to be considered by Radicals below the Gangway at all. That is an opinion with which I do not concur, because it is well known that the Radical Party are not only dictating the policy of the Government at the present moment, but that they are going to do so more and more in the future. In making this remark, I allude to the adoption of the Radical policy of Free Education, which shows how Her Majesty's Government are taking up the views of the Radical Party at the present moment. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us last night that—

"If the results of Lord Salisbury's policy so far were to be measured by its popularity and its acceptance with the country, he believed the Government could not wish to go to the country on a better issue."

I have no doubt that the policy of Lord Salisbury is thought very well of, but it is not because it is Lord Salisbury's policy. It is because he has given up the Jingo policy of the Tories and others, and has adopted the Radical policy. The Under Secretary went on to tell us—

"As the hon. Gentleman desired that the policy of Lord Salisbury should be contrasted with that of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, he would remind the hon. Member that, in 1888, after he had offered an explanation to the House, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his satisfaction with that explanation, and the Debate thereupon came to an end."

But that was only as far as it carried out the policy of the Liberal Party, and that is the reason why we are satisfied at present with the policy of a Tory Government. So far as both Front Benches are concerned, I think they have been equally bad in dealing with these matters, and we have invariably been unable to get any information from them. They may be fittingly described on one side as "Tweedle-dee," and on the other side as "Tweedle-dum." We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that our relations with France have been entirely cordial. Now, I do not agree with that statement at all, because there can be no doubt that the present Government have done a good deal to annoy the French Government and people. We refused to join with them in the Exhibition of 1889. And when I visited the Exhibition I found from officials there that much dissatisfaction was felt at our action. I was told distinctly that Her Majesty's Government were not only offending the French Government but the French people. I know that the City of London took a different view, and Sir T. Whitehead and Sir Polydore Keyser did their best to show the good feeling of the City towards the French Republic. As the Government objected to take part in the Exhibition at Paris, I certainly cannot understand why they propose to join in that which is to be opened in the United States. I do not understand why they should be more friendly to one Republic than the other, unless they are in reality more afraid of offending the United States than France. What I desire is that all Governments should be treated alike—whether they happen to be an Empire, a Monarchy, or a Republic. I join most cordially in all the statements which were made last night by the hon. Member for Northampton in regard to the action of Lord Salisbury and the Government. I am afraid that upon the part of what is called the aristocratic class in this country there is a feeling against France because they have a Republic. But it is of no good to fight against the Republics. We are practically a Republic ourselves. I do not care what you call the head of the nation, Emperor, King, Queen, or President of the Republic, so long as the practical head is the majority of the House of Commons. In objecting to the French Republic we are really objecting to our own Government. We know that Republics are spreading, and before long it is not at all unlikely that there may be other Republics on the Continent with which it will be our duty to he on good terms. I am aware that to-day we are receiving the German Emperor in a most enthusiastic manner, and I have no doubt we should have been quite as enthusiastic if we had been giving a reception to the President of a German Republic.

^* : The Question before the House is the Vote for the Foreign Office. Perhaps the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the proceedings of the Foreign Office during the past 12 months.

I apologise if I have been at all irregular. I may say, however, of the proceedings of the Foreign Office, that I think they have done a considerable amount of harm. I think we ought to have had less difficulty, and might have been more successful in settling matters in the interests of the people of Newfoundland, if we had pursued a different policy. With regard to the Triple Alliance, I object to it altogether. The sort of alliance I should like to see is an alliance between all the great Powers in favour of the principle of arbitration. In that case I think we might do some good. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask what the Government of this country have done in the interests of arbitration? I do not know what they may have been doing in the last 12 months, but I know they have been doing a little towards carrying out the policy of the Radicals and Democrats below the Gangway. I shall be glad to learn what it is they have done in that direction; which will be infinitely more satisfactory than the knowledge that they have joined, either directly or indirectly, in this Triple Alliance. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary told us last night that there is some understanding, in regard to the Triple Alliance with which we are connected.

^* : I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I said nothing of the kind.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction, but I must have misunderstood what he said. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Government of this country are doing in the interests of arbitration, so that we may know what our foreign policy is to be in the future? Have we joined with America and two or three of the Continental Powers, big and little, in favour of settling the disputes of nations by arbitration instead of war? I am satisfied that in asking the Government to do something in that direction, instead of keeping up large armaments in order that we may be ready for some great war, I am representing the opinion of a very large majority of the people of this country. Instead of turning their attention to a Triple Alliance, they should cultivate an alliance of all the Great Powers in favour of arbitration. [ A laugh. ] The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord laughs. I know that he is not in favour of arbitration, but all I can say is that he has not got the country with him. The people of this country, to whatever sect they belong, are in favour of settling foreign disputes by arbitration. As Lord Derby told us some years ago, the people are aware that that is their greatest interest, and that we can only secure permanent peace by inducing all nations, whether little or big, to go to arbitration rather than war. I would further ask the Government whether they will not allow the House of Commons to consider Treaties with foreign Governments before they are made, and not afterwards? There is no use in asking either House of Parliament to consider a Treaty after it has been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) stated in Edinburgh some years back that he was in favour of some sort of policy of that sort, and I want to know if the Government have considered. it. After a Treaty has been entered into it is made a Party question, and is taken as one of confidence or no confidence in the Government. It is all very well for the First Lord of the Treasury to laugh, but he does not know, perhaps, how little time may elapse before he adopts this doctrine, just as he has taken free education from the Radical programme. I want to impress upon the Government the necessity of our adopting in our foreign policy the good example shown us by the American Government and the American people. Indeed, I think we should do well if we asked the Americans to run our Foreign Office for a certain time. In conclusion, I say that our policy should be non-intervention and absolute friendliness with every Power on the Continent, little or big.

I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend in the remarks he has made. I am bound to say that I have not such an intimate knowledge of the doings and motives of foreign Governments and foreign potentates as is possessed by my successor in the representation of Peterborough. I wish, however, to make an inquiry respecting the Anti-Slavery Convention and the Brussels Conference. I gather from the Blue Books, and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the fact, that the blockade of the African coast by the united fleets of Germany and. England has been apparently very successful in diminishing the export trade in slaves across the water. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can hold out any hopes as to the likelihood of the general Act of the Brussels Conference being immediately signed by the Great Powers? The French Deputies declined the other day—I hope only temporarily—to allow their Government to sign that Agreement. I am glad, however, now to see that the French Government have agreed to the postponement of the matter. This shows that they hope ultimately to obtain leave from their Parliament to sign the Convention. Of course, the other Powers will be much hampered in their action if the French do not allow their vessels to be treated in the same way as those of the other Powers. I gather from the reports I have read that when the French Chamber arrived at their decision the other day they acted under considerable misapprehension as to the terms of the Convention, and the likelihood of what would ensue if it were signed. I cannot help thinking that when the Chamber of Deputies come to consider the matter more carefully, and when they see that there is no political question connected with the Convention, they will arrive at a different decision. The Convention gives no right of search to other nations over French vessels. All it gives is that in the case of a small native craft running up a European flag, if there is reason to believe that the vessel is acting fraudulently in using the French or any other flag, there shall be power to overhaul it and examine its papers. If there should be any doubt, the question would have to be tried by the Courts of the nation whose flag was used. I hope they will ratify the general Act of the Brussels Conference to which all the other Powers are ready to give their assent, and which will do very much indeed for the cause of Christianity and for the cause of humanity.

With reference to the Triple Alliance, as the French people, whether rightly or wrongly, have chosen a Republic as the form of their Government, there unfortunately seems to be an inten- tion in several parts of Europe, and especially among the great military Powers, to isolate the French Republic, but I hope no such feeling will influence our attitude towards France. The result has been that, when any question has arisen the effective treatment of which demanded concert on the part of Europe, it was found that France naturally did not join heartily in it. The Slave Trade is one of these questions. France, unfortunately, has for a long series of years been regularly wrought up into a condition of exasperation, and one of the causes of this has been the attitude and policy of England in Egypt, which country we have constantly pledged ourselves to evacuate, and as constantly broken those pledges. The particular circumstances in regard to England and the Triple Alliance, to which the hon. Member for Northampton referred last night, had had a similar effect, and justify, it seems to me, the feeling of distrust that prevails in France with respect to this country. It is true that we had a very satisfactory explanation from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman is only the Under Secretary, and though we may listen to his statements with satisfaction, yet we cannot help feeling that there is a much greater man—if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so—behind him, the Prime Minister, who assumes a rôle of independence with respect to foreign politics which has often led the country into difficulty. Hon. Members cannot have forgotten the unfortunate transactions some years ago with reference to our relations with Russia—the fervent assurances that were made on behalf of Lord Salisbury as to the attitude the Foreign Office had taken up, and the subsequent publication of the Schouvaloff Memorandum. In these circumstances, the House would certainly like to hear something more positive than it did last night from the right hon. Gentleman as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Triple Alliance, so as to remove all doubt as to the existence of some secret understanding. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the telegrams on the subject in the Times of this morning. One telegram was from the Times' Correspondent at Berlin, and in it were these significant words—

"The emphasis of loyal English friendship for Italy in such circumstances bears the character of a pre-arranged demonstration which removes the last vestige of a doubt as to England's attitude and position towards the Triple Alliance, irrespective and regardless of the fact whether this position be expressed by any written engagement or not."

We have been glad to suppose that the visits of the British vessels to the Italian or Austrian ports were merely normal visits of a friendly character and in the course of ordinary naval manœuvres, and were not prearranged demonstrations made for the purpose of inducing public opinion in Italy or Germany to suppose that we have entered into some engagement which connects us intimately, in a naval sense, with the Triple Alliance. In presence of such words as I have read, I should like to hear from the Foreign Office some more definite assurance that this is not the case than has yet been made. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that our sympathies will be with those who kept the peace and not with those who break it, a remark which at the time might appear harmless, but when closely looked into may bear a dangerous construction. The sympathies of the Liberal Party will always be with peace and with those who struggle to maintain it; but is it to be said that if France—it may be unwisely and injudiciously—thinks it desirable to make some attempt to regain the provinces she lost in 1870, and which are overwhelmingly French in sentiment and aspirations, we are at once to give, not only our sympathy, but our moral support to Germany? I do think it very important at a time when the Press of Europe is filled with all kinds of insinuations as to the intentions of the Foreign Office of this country, and with all kinds of constructions put upon the manœuvres of our fleet and on the welcome now being given by us to the German Emperor, that it should be clearly understood abroad that the people of this country are absolutely opposed to any policy whatever which connects them with Continental quarrels in which they have no part; that, while they are anxious to make any sacrifice for the maintenance of purely British interests, they absolutely repudiate any secret understanding which may lead them into alliance with Continental military Powers for objects in which they have no national concern.

I desire to call the attention of the Committee to another subject connected with the Foreign Office. I have already asked several questions as to what is being done by the Government to secure the safety and deliverance of Miss Kate Greenfield, an English girl of 14 years of age, who was carried off in May last from the village of Hajiabad, in Persia, by some disorderly Kurds. The case is one which ought to secure a great deal of sympathy. I hope that in this matter no indifference will be shown by the British authorities to what is due to the honour of this country, though I cannot help feeling that, if we had kept ourselves freer from the intrigues in which we seem lately to have been engaged with one country and another, we should have been able to speak out much more firmly and effectively in such an important matter as this. It appears that Miss Greenfield is the daughter of a gentleman, now deceased, who owned considerable property in certain villages on the borders of Persia. Her mother and three brothers lived with her. In May last, when her three brothers, who cultivated the estates, were absent on business, the girl went out with a servant for a walk, and was set upon by some Kurds lying in ambush and was carried off. When Mrs. Greenfield heard of the abduction of her daughter, she took horse and pursued the robbers, but lost sight of them. She then reported the case to the British Consul, who made representations in the proper quarter. The Ameer Nizam, Governor General of the province, telegraphed to So-uj-Bulak, the place where the girl was taken, ordering her to be set at liberty, but the Acting Governor of that place at first denied that the girl was there, and declared that she had been carried across the frontier into Turkey. This, however, was proved to be absolutely false; the girl was in the place. The next day a mock inquiry was held, and it was then alleged that the girl had declared herself to be a Mahomedan, the difficulty of religion being thus raised in the matter. I do not know how far the correspondent of the Daily News is correct, but he says that a person representing Kate Green- field declared in her name that she had always been a Mahomedan, and desired to remain one. There may be ground for suspicion as to the truth of this, but whether it is true or not, it does not bear on the real question involved. Even if this girl of 14 had declared herself to be a Mahomedan, that would not justify the Kurds in violently carrying her off from the custody of her mother and the protection of her friends, nor would it justify any indifference of the English Government as to her treatment and fate. The British Consul, however, seems to have done the utmost he could in the matter. He persisted in his representations, and was then asked to go to the girl himself and ascertain what her feelings were. At first he thought it would be imprudent for the safety of the girl to take this step, but he afterwards went with the Turkish Consul, and then found that she was surrounded by armed men, who prevented access to her. They declared that she had turned Mahomedan, that it was simply a question of religion, and they threatened to slay anyone who interfered. I want to know from the right hon. Baronet what has been done, and what is being done, to secure the safety and emancipation of this girl? We are told that the Turkish Government are in fault. Here comes in the question how much influence has our Government with the Government of the Porte? It is said that we have rendered great services to the Porte—too many, in the opinion of many persons; but be that as it may, the Porte is, no doubt, under obligations to this country. But of what use is our friendliness with the Porte if we cannot get redress in a matter like this? If Her Majesty's Government had spoken with sufficient firmness, and said that this was regarded as a serious question by the people of this country, Turkey would not have allowed her officers to stand in the way of the girl's liberation. We are told that a Persian force has gone there, but that they are paralyzed by the communications which are going on between one Government and the other. If, instead of an English girl being captured in this savage manner and held in slavery, the British flag had been insulted, Her Majesty's Government would have been ready to go to war to protect the honour of the country. Surely the honour of an English girl is part of the honour of the British flag. If this country possessed the influence it ought to possess I cannot help thinking that the demand of the Government for the liberation of Miss Greenfield would at once have secured attention. I ask the Under Secretary to say whether the account in the Daily News of this morning is correct, and to tell us distinctly what has been done to make the Ottoman Porte and the Persian Government amenable to the righteous indignation of this country, and to secure the speedy release of this unfortunate young lady.

^* (4.20.) : These discussions are necessarily somewhat discursive, and, of course, there are many questions as to which hon. Members desire information. Perhaps I shall best consult the convenience of the Committee if I answer the question of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) first. I can assure the hon. Member that before the question of the capture of this English girl was mentioned in the House Her Majesty's Government had taken energetic action to procure redress in the matter. After the news arrived here, Her Majesty's Government addressed themselves both to the Persian and the Turkish Governments to urge the absolute necessity of having this British subject set at liberty and returned to her friends. There has been no delay, no hesitation, and no want of vigour. The result was that the Turkish Government withdrew all opposition, and the Persian Government has been informed that Her Majesty's Government expect them to take the necessary steps. The conditions attached by the British Government to the inquiry that must take place were that it should be in a place where the girl should be perfectly free and not be exposed to intimidation; and, secondly, that it should be in the presence of persons both of the Mahomedan and Christian religions and her friends, so that she should not be overawed, and that her statement as to whether she had gone over of her own consent or whether she remained a prisoner may be perfectly distinct and unbiased. There is a curious incident in the case of which the Foreign Office has been informed, and which does not appear in the Daily News, the account in which seems, so far as I can judge in the short time I have been able to give to it, to be fairly correct, and that is that the mother of this girl was a Persian subject, possessed of considerable property, and by the laws of Persia it would seem that unless the girl became a Persian subject—that is to say, unless she married a Persian subject—she could not succeed to this property. I do not think Her Majesty's Government could possibly have done more in the case than they have done—and they did not wait for any pressure whatever from this House. The matter is now in a fair way of settlement. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) no doubt represents the feelings of a great many people in this country who form judgments on foreign affairs without studying them very much. If the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member were adopted, it would be impossible to make any Treaty at all. A Treaty is the result of diplomacy, and if the House is to settle beforehand all the conditions on which our negotiators are to go into negotiations, I am afraid we should have shown our hand in the first place, and rendered the negotiations utterly unavailing. The hon. Member says that arbitration should be the rule in international affairs, and that there should be a general bond of nations to induce that method of settling all disputes. That would, indeed, be a golden age, but at the same time it would be attended with certain inconveniences. Supposing, for example, a foreign Power were to ask that we should refer to arbitration the possession of some territories we had acquired, but to which they thought they had an ancient right, we should not be willing to refer that to arbitration. There must be many things in which nations cannot agree upon the terms of reference. For instance, in the matter of the differences which exist between this country and Venezuela, the difficulty about going to arbitration is that neither Power as yet will concede that so wide a territory is in dispute. It is absolutely necessary, in the first place, to arrive at a basis of arbitration. But Her Majesty's Government have shown no indisposition to refer disputes in which they are concerned to arbitration. We have about three arbi- trations going on at the present time. We have been willing to refer all matters in dispute between us and the French Government in Newfoundland except those which touch the sovereignty of the British Crown. We are willing to refer the question of the respective rights of the United States and England in the Behring Sea; also the differences between ourselves and Portugal last, for we had an arbitration with Germany on the East Coast of Africa, and so on. There is no indisposition to refer matters to arbitration, but there are certain preliminary conditions to be settled, namely, that we do not give up the indefeasible rights of this country. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Buxton) has alluded to the Anti-Slavery Convention, and the attitude of France in relation to it. That Convention has been a work of much care and patience, and the result of a remarkable concurrence of agreement by the principal nations of the world. Much skill and credit attaches, especially to the British representatives, in the contracting of this agreement. Unfortunately, it has for the moment been interrupted by the vote of the French Chamber. Now, I utterly repudiate the assertion of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope),that there has been, on the part of the French Government, any unwillingness to confirm that Convention, or that the failure is the result of strained relations. That is absolutely without foundation. I have before me the Report of the Committee of the French Chamber to which the Convention was referred. There is no word of imputation upon this country in that Report, but there is a reference to the jealousy which France entertains of a visitation in any shape of their vessels by a foreign marine. That is a principle that France has always maintained. She has not been a party to any of the old Anti-Slave Trade Conventions which gave a moderate right of visitation, and so she has seen in this modified power of visitation a certain infraction of the sanctity of her flag—a sanctity which she has always maintained. Without wounding the susceptibilities of the French it is possible we may have their co-operation; indeed, that we may give effect to this Convention, which will deal the greatest blow that has yet been delivered against the inhuman traffic which disgraces civilised times. It must not be forgotten that in this Convention we not only have made greater provision for extinguishing the Slave Trade by sea, but we have taken power to attack it at its source, and to remove the terrible miseries which afflict the people of Africa—miseries far greater than those which were connected with the seaboard trade. The hon. Member for Wednesbury is suspicious of the foreign policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I thank him for the generous sentiments which lie ascribed to myself; but as he well knows, I am merely the mouthpiece of another, but I regard it as a privilege to represent in this House, as I have for the last five years, the judicious spirit which has guided our foreign policy. It is altogether inaccurate on the part of the hon. Member to describe the meeting of the Italian and British squadrons in the Adriatic as premeditated. It was altogether unpremeditated, as unpremeditated as will be the visit of the French Fleet to Portsmouth in a few weeks' time. These friendly meetings between our Forces and the Forces of foreign countries show that although we are well armed and able to protect our commerce and our liberties and our power, yet that armed force lies behind our moral force, and implies in no sense a belligerent disposition or any hostility to foreign Powers.

I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope this Convention will be carried through, and the adhesion of foreign Powers obtained. I think we must all feel that there is no matter to which the combined action of the Powers ought to be more earnestly addressed than the suppression of the Slave Trade; and I am certain that there is no part of the Government's foreign policy which will receive more hearty and more unanimous support. I rose for the purpose of calling attention to another matter—the refusal of France to ratify the Convention on the liquor traffic among deep-sea fishermen. There seems to have been some little want of diplomatic courtesy, for the refusal has not been conveyed through the ordinary channels, but seems to have been intimated in the French Chamber in the course of debate. I hope that the resources of diplomacy have not yet been exhausted, and that the ratification of France having been obtained, the Convention will be carried into effect. This liquor traffic in the North Sea is the cause of peril to the fishermen, and of the loss of many lives.

^* (4.40.) : I wish to call attention to the case of King Ja Ja, now dead, I believe, through the action of Her Majesty's Government. The removal of Ja Ja was considered to be temporary, and there were discussions from time to time with reference to his detention in the island of St. Vincent. I asked questions upon the subject from time to time, and about 12 months ago a Member of this House was informed that the return of Ja Ja to his country, Opobo, was under the consideration of the Government. On August 13, 1890, a Despatch was sent to the administrator of the Island of St. Vincent, promising Ja Ja's liberation and his return to Opobo on condition that he conducted himself loyally to Her Majesty and abstained in future from all disturbances. Ja Ja, in a formal and written undertaking, at once accepted the conditions of the Despatch as preparatory to his transference to his native country. On the 11th December following the right hon. Gentleman informed me that Ja Ja's health was unsatisfactory, and added that his return was inexpedient before a more effective form of administration had been established at Opobo. But I hold that a promise deliberately given in Her Majesty's name ought to have been observed. If the condition of Opobo was not satisfactory, that was the fault of the Government, who had charge there for three years. This state of things lasted a little time, and then Ja Ja was removed to Barbadoes, and not to his native country. His doctors, I believe, had recommended a change. He sailed thence, some weeks back, on his way to Opobo, and got to Teneriffe on June 7th, and died there without reaching his native land. I think in this matter somebody has blundered, and blundered badly. Not to have fulfilled the promise made was most injudicious and unwise, and we shall have potentates on the West Coast of Africa placing less reliance on the representations of this country than ought to be placed upon them. I think the cause of the blunder ought to be brought to light, and I hope that in future our relations with the native races on the West Coast of Africa will be free from a repetition of such deplorable blunders.

^* (4.52.) : To return for one moment to the question of the liquor traffic among the deep-sea fishermen, I would observe that it is a crying evil which has been fully realised by the North Sea fishermen. Many lives have been lost in consequence entirely through the worst descriptions of liquors supplied by the floating grog-shops, though the evil has been greatly mitigated mainly through the instrumentality of the Mission to the Deep-Sea Fishermen. But if the French Government do not carry out the engagement into which they entered, I am afraid there will be a revival of this liquor traffic. I hope my right hon. Friend will do the utmost in his power to bring about a completion of the Convention.

I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the exiles, Arabi and his friends, at Ceylon. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the question. I merely wish to point out that Arabi and the other exiles wish to be transferred to a more healthy place. I have here a letter from Sir A. Campbell to Sir William Gregory, Governor of Ceylon, stating that the exiles are in bad health. They might be removed to Aden or to the place opposite, but that would be a miserable place.

^* : They suggested Zeyla themselves.

Yes; but I think it would be a mistake, there being a great scarcity of water there. With regard to Cyprus, there is the technical difficulty that it is in the Ottoman dominions; but the exiles might give a pledge that they would not leave Cyprus if they preferred to go there. They have not any means of their own; they are educated Mahommedans with their families, and are dependent upon an allowance from the Egyptian Government, which is handed to the British Government to be doled out to them What they desire is, that they shall be removed to a place where the climate is better than that of Ceylon.

^* (4.56.) : I wish to call attention to alleged outrages inflicted on British subjects by the Portuguese authorities in South Africa. The seizure of the Countess of Carnarvon took place some months ago, and a statement has been made on the subject by a Portuguese Minister in the Portuguese Parliament. I have repeatedly asked questions in this House on the subject without getting a satisfactory reply. I have been told that the case has come before a Portuguese Court, and that the vessel has been released on the undertaking of the Vice Consul, that the owners will abide by any agreement come to between the British and Portuguese Governments regarding her. Beyond that, the right hon. Gentleman has told me that the information he possesses is still incomplete, and that he is unable to produce any Papers on the subject. Here we have the seizure of a vessel on the allegation made, on the one hand, that she was carrying a contraband cargo of arms, and, on the other hand, that the nature of her cargo by no means justified the seizure. Again, we have not had the facts given us; and I submit that when an event of this kind occurs affecting a great commercial nation like Great Britain, the House of Commons is surely entitled to a statement of the facts and to know what steps are being taken for the protection of British interests abroad. Then came the attack on Sir John Willoughby's expedition. Two or three vessels connected with that were laid hold of by the Portuguese authorities. Again we had contradictory statements of facts, and again the right hon. Gentleman told us he had not received complete information, although statements were made in the Portuguese Parliament. I think it is not creditable to the Foreign Office that this country should be so far behind Portugal in acquainting itself with the real facts of the case. This seizure by the Portuguese was followed in a few weeks by an attack on the expedition of Major Johnston, also on the Pungwé River. Here again took place the seizure of a vessel and the hauling down of our flag—a stereotyped form of outrage in these regions. The House of Commons, I maintain, is entitled to full information as to the facts relating to these cases, which involve the alleged violation of our flag and outrages upon subjects who may or may not have been pursuing a perfectly lawful business, but who are British subjects, in whose doings and sufferings the country must necessarily be interested. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to supplement the information on the subject, and to promise us Papers regarding it.

^* (5.5.) : I desire to direct the attention of the Committee to the omission of political economy as one of the compulsory subjects of examination for the Diplomatic and Foreign Office Service. These examinations have recently been amalgamated. Previously political economy was compulsory for the Diplomatic Service Examination, but not for the Foreign Office; but now it is altogether omitted from the list of compulsory subjects. Though it is true that the elimination of this subject has been recommended by the Royal Commission which recently sat on Civil Service Establishments, I yet consider it to be a subject worthy of the attention of the Committee, especially in view of the fact that many salutary changes proposed by the Royal Commission have been more or less studiously disregarded by the Government. In my opinion, it is quite as needful for our Representatives abroad to be equipped with the best knowledge practicable as it is needful for the Army and Navy to be equipped with weapons of offence and defence or for a barrister to be equipped with a knowledge of law and the contents of his brief. It is of importance to the great industrial centres of the country to know that this subject is not being overlooked. It is necessary that our Representatives abroad should be able to hold their own against foreign Representatives in regard to commercial matters. I noticed the other day that in an examination paper set by the Belgian Foreign Office commercial subjects held a prominent position, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish that our Representatives should in this matter be at a disadvantage. We have already had some very able Commercial Reports by members of our Diplomatic Service, among them being Mr. Kennedy's on Italy, and Mr. Arthur Hardinge's on Spain. These are greatly valued in commercial circles, and the appearance of similar Reports is awaited with much interest. I do not know that political economy is a subject which is naturally acquired late in life, and it seems to me far better to interest a young man in it, whilst if he is taken through the elementary drudgery connected with it he is more likely to continue to study it than if it is left to mere chance. We have been told that for political economy an extra European language has been substituted—that a knowledge of either Italian or Spanish is required. I have not a word to say against the acquisition of extra languages by members of our Diplomatic Service, but I submit that it is far easier for a young man of intelligence and ability to pick up a language during a few months' residence in a country than it is to take up a subject like political economy. Therefore, I would urge that political economy should be retained as a compulsory subject. We who represent great commercial districts which send goods to every quarter of the globe cannot too strongly insist on the importance of this. I will give an illustration of how English goods get abroad. A friend of mine who was travelling in Africa was possessed of a handsome pair of revolvers which attracted the admiration of a Native Chief. The Chief first offered palm oil and ivory, but my friend not requiring such things refused. Then the Chief offered him a slave; that, too, he was obliged to decline, and at last by a happy inspiration the Chief produced a soup tureen, which on examination was found to have been manufactured by a firm in my constituency. I can only say, in conclusion, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain the reasons for the change in the curriculum.

I should like to say a few words in support of the appeal of my hon. Friend. The Reports on commercial matters which have of late years been produced by various members of the Diplomatic Service have proved of considerable value not only to Members of this House, but also to those engaged in business, and I venture to say they could not have been drawn up by anyone entirely ignorant of the principles of political economy. Again, labour questions are now very much to the fore, and everyone knows how political economy is involved in the consideration of them. I think we shall lose very much, indeed, if we allow young men to enter the Diplomatic Service without a substantial knowledge of political economy, and I cannot understand why in the world it was dropped from the list of compulsory subjects. As to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, all I can venture to say, speaking from experience, is that any recommendation by a Commission seems to afford a strong reason for the Government adopting a very opposite view.

^* (5.20.) : I should like to supplement the questions which have been put to the right hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow. I understand that my hon. Friend has dealt particularly with the various attacks on British ships on the Limpopo and other rivers, and no doubt this was one of the most difficult points in connection with the recent settlement of South African affairs. I hope the Government will take care that it shall be made absolutely clear in future that there shall be thoroughly unimpeded communication by means of the South African rivers between South Central Africa and the Coast, and that the Articles in our Treaties will be fairly and thoroughly carried out for the benefit of our traders and settlers in that region. There is considerable ignorance as to the actual navigation of many of these rivers, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will take care that in the event of other discoveries being made the arrangements with Portugal shall be sufficiently elastic, so as to enable us to take advantage of the best navigable routes into the interior, and that they shall be effectively open to our commerce. I wish to ask the intentions of the Government with regard to the presence of Gungunhana's Envoys in this country. No doubt those Envoys represent accurately the feelings of their fellow-countrymen when they say they would be safer under our protection. I hope that whatever we may do, and whatever reception may be accorded to them, it will, at least, show that the Government have no desire to lightly disregard their wishes, and that they will be assured that the protection which the Government desire to offer to the natives in other parts of the country will not be withheld from them. They occupy a very important position on the strip of territory which intervenes between our possessions and the coast. I should also like to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to give us some further information with regard to the future government of Nyassaland. We have been told that Mr. Johnston, who is Consul at Mozambique, is now Commissioner in Nyassaland, but we have no particulars as to the exact powers he is to exercise there. It has transpired that the African Lakes Company has been bought up by the British South Africa Company, the latter of which is, as far as I can understand, practically financing the Government of the country. Arrangements of that sort seem to be open to considerable objection, and I think it is very desirable that it should be put beyond dispute what powers Mr. Johnston exercises, and over what territory. On my own account, and on behalf of my constituency, which has always evinced great interest in Nyassaland affairs, I should like to say I feel that the Government have done their utmost to provide a fair settlement in connection with the government of that country; but I do not wish, now that matters are reaching some termination which may be looked upon as fairly satisfactory, that there should be any flaw or uncertainty on the subject.

^* (5.25.) : I will endeavour to reply to the various questions which have been addressed to me. The hon. Member for Aberdeen asked as to the North Sea Liquor Convention. There has been no diplomatic intimation as to the non-ratification of the Convention into which France entered with other Powers bordering on the North Sea, and it was only in the course of a Debate on the question, I think, of the Brussels Convention that the French Minister intimated that he did not intend to submit the Liquor Convention for ratification. There is little doubt that the same difficulty as operated in the case of the Slave Trade, is at fault here; but we are not informed of that, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has been asked to ascertain the reasons of the French Minister. When we have received a statement of these reasons it will be our duty to endeavour to remove the objections if possible. Her Majesty's Government attach very great importance to the interests of the fishermen, and will not allow the Convention to fall through if they can possibly prevent it. With regard to the death of King Ja Ja, it is a matter of regret that it should have happened. It has been stated that he died in our hands. But the disease of which he unfortunately died was not presumably caused by his detention. We understand that he died of dysentery. He had been in a very bad state of health for many months past—in fact, what might be called decline. It has been said it was a breach of faith on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to send him home before. It has been the desire of Her Majesty's Government, as soon as it could safely be done, to allow him to return home, but, in consequence of the information we received of the state of feeling among the tribes, it was deemed undesirable that he should be sent back immediately, and it was delayed in order that he might return in the company of the Commissioner. The hon. Member asked why we had not got the country into a proper condition, so that there would be no danger in the return of Ja Ja. I would point out that we cannot build up a settled Government in such a short time. We have sent out an administrator of proved capacity with a sufficient staff of assistants, who will gradually bring this region under a more regular Government. The hon. Member for Northampton has asked for information concerning Arabi Pasha and the Egyptian exiles. Her Majesty's Government have not imposed any non possumus with regard to a change of residence for these persons. There are difficulties in the way of their removal to some places that would be agreeable to them. The Egyptian Government are not willing that they should return to Egypt. These men, it should be remembered, were condemned to death, but the British Government interfered and obtained a remission of the death sentence on condition that they should be exiled. They have been maintained in comfort in the Island of Ceylon, and have been allowed to communicate with their friends both personally and by letter. It is evident that their confinement is not rigid, and when complaints were made that their health had suffered from the climate of Ceylon a competent Medical Commission was appointed on the subject. The Commissioners reported that the climate of the island was not calculated to endanger their lives or to injure their health. Of course, no exile will find any country as sweet as his native land, but Her Majesty's Government are at the present time trying to arrange for their removal to another place where they will have all the advantages which the hon. Member has pointed out. I cannot say more on the subject at present. With regard to what has occurred in Delagoa, Bay and its neighbourhood, I may say that the Portuguese condemned the Countess of Carnarvon, and it was only on the active representations of the British Consul that the condemnation was suspended. We have made a considerable demand for damages on the ground that the Portuguese were utterly in fault in seizing the ship. In the case of Sir John Willoughby, also, we hold that the Portuguese were in the wrong, and there is no doubt that in many cases the local Portuguese officers, who are not always men in very high positions or with much education, have acted in a very arbitrary way. I am quite free to confess that in many cases we were very forbearing, with the Portuguese. Possibly if it had been a stronger Power, or one involved in fewer difficulties, we might have been more prompt in our demands for redress. I think, however, we have taken a proper and a generous course. In cases, however, in which British subjects have been clearly wronged and treated in a way which International Law will not justify we insist upon redress.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information regarding the attack on Major Johnston's expedition?

^* : I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member about that case. I had no notice that the question would be asked, and some of these matters are difficult and complicated. I shall be happy to deal with it either on the Report stage or at some other time. As to the changes recommended by the Royal Commission in the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, one of the recommendations was that gentlemen should be transferable from one branch of the Service to another, and that has been carried out. The examinations in French and German have been made much more particular than they were before, and certain other subjects have been introduced or extended. It has not been thought necessary to include political economy in the examinations, but it must not be supposed for a moment that an officer's education terminates when he gets into the Service. An officer who has to deal with matters which show him the defects of his own education naturally turns his mind to the subjects in which he finds his knowledge deficient, and on which the possession of greater information is necessary for the efficient performance of his duties. Of course, a man ought to be acquainted with labour questions, but the Reports which are received from our Diplomatic and Consular officers show that considerable demands are made upon their attainments and knowledge. I know those Reports are more and more appreciated in the country. The omission of political economy from the examination was a moot question, but it was the opinion of the Secretary of State that it was not so important at the beginning as the other subjects. The hon. Member for Edinburgh said the South African rivers should be open to our commerce. I trust that will be the result of the negotiations. He asks as to our relations with an important Chief, whose name I have not thoroughly mastered. Her Majesty's Government have for a long time recognised the Portuguese sovereignty over the coast line opposite that territory. Although Her Majesty's Government desire to maintain friendly relations with Gungunhana, and some part of his territory, I believe, lies within our sphere of influence, most of it does not, and we must be perfectly faithful in regard to the arrangements we have made with the Portuguese as to the limits of cur sphere of influence. Reference has also been made to the administration of Nyassaland. Mr. Johnston has received instructions to maintain friendly relations with all the Chiefs and to respect their just rights, and proper means have been taken for the protection alike of British subjects and natives. Indeed, instructions, based on the principles to which I have referred, have been given to all the officers recently appointed, with the object, if possible, of avoiding the difficulties which previously beset us in Africa and of removing abuses which have long afflicted that part of the world.

^* (5.47.) : I think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation with reference to the prolonged delay in dealing with ex-King Ja Ja is not satisfactory. I think that Major MacDonald ought long ago to have reached Teneriffe and taken Ja Ja to his own home. I wish all the more to call attention to the matter and to ask for information about it, because it has been stated that the Opobo territory is likely to become a British possession. If so, what a lurid light it throws upon the proceedings of the Government! Several years ago the King was kid-knapped, placed on board a vessel of war, subjected to an irregular trial, and then sent to St. Vincent. At the end of three years—the British Government administering his territory in the meantime—it is decided that be shall return home on certain conditions, which are duly exacted from him. Still there is further and most unjust delay, and finally the King dies while in the hands of the Government without having received justice. Then it is that we hear for the first time that it is intended to make a British colony of the King's territory. I contend that the delay of which the Government is guilty in this matter and the whole history of the case are very discreditable. I hope we shall hear a repudiation of the rumour that it is intended to make this addition to our possessions in Africa, for the Oil River Settlement is not a healthy district, and its possession would not lead to either our commercial or general prosperity.

^* (5.50.) : I think the real facts with regard to the delay shown by the French Government in observing and carrying out the regulations of the North Sea Fisheries Convention are hardly sufficiently before the House. Nearly four years have passed without any steps being taken by the French Government, although I believe all the other countries interested have promoted the necessary legislation. Now, we are told that France has not ratified the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government know nothing about what they are going to do. I should like to point out that we are likely to get into very serious difficulties because, under the 7th Article of the Convention, the citizens of any nation have a right to interfere with the so-called grog-boats. This is a very serious matter, and I really think the Government ought to see whether anything cannot be done to induce the French Government to carry out the Convention so as to prevent difficulties arising from conflicts with French grog-boats.

I should like to say a word or two in favour of Arabi Pacha. It is all nonsense to say he was condemned by the Egyptian Government. It was the British Government that condemned him, and the Egyptian Government had no more to do with the matter than my umbrella. If it is a fact that the reforms of which we hear so much have been carried out by the British Government in Egypt, surely there ought to be no difficulty whatever in allowing this very able gentleman to return to his country, and spend the rest of his days there. I trust the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is not responsible for the detention of these exiles, will ask Lord Salisbury to reconsider this matter with the Egyptian Government.

I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the question of emigration to the Brazils. A considerable number of the emigrants who have gone there went from my own constituency, and the privations they have undergone are something terrible. It is desirable that something should be done, not only for those who are already sufferers, but to prevent others going to Brazil. Would it not be possible to put into the hands of intending emigrants the most reliable information as to the position in whicb British emigrants find themselves in Brazil?

^* : I do not think that anything more thorough can be done than is being done now for the advice, the direction, and protection of emigrants. I am constantly in com- munication with the Emigrants' Information Office on the subject. That office sends out large posters to every Post Office in the Kingdom, and to a great many other buildings giving all the information they can, and warning emigrants against going to unsuitable countries. In spite of the plainest warnings against going to Brazil, emigrants have continued to go there in large numbers. It is extraordinary to see how large the credulity of some people is, and how difficult it is, short of using actual restraint, to prevent them going to unsuitable places. Charitable contributions have been forwarded from Bradford to distressed British emigrants in Brazil, and means have been taken, I think, to send some of the people home.

^* (6.0.) : I confess I am disappointed with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the subject I brought under his notice, namely, the exclusion of political economy from the examination subjects for candidates for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service. The right hon. Gentleman says it is a subject which can easily be "got up," and that the knowledge derived from the study of text-books cannot be very valuable. But that is an argument which can be brought against any subject for examination. I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has met my argument that knowledge on the subject would be a useful equipment for candidates, and as a protest I shall move a reduction of the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £47,460, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the salary of the Secretary of State.—( Mr. Leveson-Gower. )

If my hon. Friend desires to take a Division I may, before we pass from this subject, refer to another change in the regulations, which provides that examinations in history shall begin with 1789 and go down to 1871. This excludes knowledge of the events which led up to the Revolution, and the state of Europe before that time, and such an examination cannot, I think, be called eminently satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman says political economy is only got up as a cram subject. Well, I remember a well- known tutor at Cambridge, who used to divide subjects into three divisions, translation, composition, and cram. The right hon. Gentleman seems to adopt a similar classification, for I do not know any other subject that would not come under his definition of "cram." It is only a "cram" subject in the hands of an incompetent examiner, but under competent examiners there is no subject which better tests a man's power of thinking and applying principles to facts than political economy, and it is a subject eminently suited for candidates for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service. There is no more important Department of the Foreign Office than that which concerns our commercial relations all over the world, and the Consular Reports, which are becoming increasingly useful to the commercial classes of the community, require for their preparation considerable knowledge of the underlying principles of political economy. I hope the Committee will take the opportunity of showing the importance attached to this study by expressing the opinion that it is a subject which ought to be included in these examinations. It is a subject not to be dispensed with, and which a man is well able to study at the age of 23.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will yield on this point. I think he must admit that it would be an advantage to the country if Consuls and members of the Diplomatic Service had some knowledge of political economy. I say this, not because I am myself a great believer in political economy, but if it is to be a choice between knowing and not knowing, I think it is better that a member of the Diplomatic Service should have the knowledge. There is, be it remembered, an enormous demand for places in the Diplomatic Service, and we may be quite sure there will be no lack of applicants if this subject is included in the examinations. A main point in the qualifications of a diplomatist or Consul is that he should know foreign languages, and, after that, what we want is an able, all-round man. The best diplomatists in the world are, I believe, admitted to be the Russians. I have a Russian friend, now a Minister, and I remember on one occasion asking him about these examinations, and he said, "I passed my examination very much to my own surprise, for I thought I displayed very little knowledge of the subjects in which I was examined. Still, I came out among the first. Having an acquaintance with one of the examiners, I afterwards asked him how it was I was passed, and he replied, 'We perceived that you knew nothing about the subject, yet so cleverly did you conceal your ignorance that we came to the conclusion that you were eminently fitted for a diplomatist.'" Well, the opinion was justified; he has been successful, and is an Ambassador somewhere now. This is a very small point the hon. Member has raised, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might as well yield it.

The right hon. Gentleman admitted what the hon. Member said as to the advantage of knowledge on this subject, but he said it was knowledge a man could acquire after entering upon his duties. Of course, we are all learning while our life lasts, but we have to consider what is most necessary as equipment before entering upon a profession. Subjects have degrees of importance. Composition is important, but proficiency is not to be obtained in a short time, and study in this branch must continue after entering the service. It is far more important that a candidate should be grounded in a knowledge of political economy than that he should be master of an elegant style of expression. The importance of the subject is admitted, and yet composition is given the first place. I am glad the hon. Member is going to take a Division, and I shall vote with him as expressing the opinion that political economy is an essential subject in the education of a diplomatist.

(6.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 151.—(Div. List, No. 342.)

Original Question again proposed.

^* (6.20.) : I rise to move a reduction of the Vote by £200, part of the salary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I do so with the object of calling the attention of the Committee to the continued misgovernment that prevails in the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan, and especially in Turkish Armenia. Perhaps I shall be asked by some hon. Gentlemen why I confine my attention to Armenia; why I do not include within the scope of my observations all other parts of the Ottoman dominions that remain under the direct rule of the Turk? Everywhere, I may be told, where the Turk exercises authority and sway, there tyranny and oppression are to be found. That is perfectly true, and I have not a word to say in favour of the direct rule of the Turk over any Christian population in any portion of the Ottoman dominions. The Christians of Macedonia have wrongs to be righted just as much as the Christians of Armenia, and whenever the time arrives for the Slays and Greeks of Macedonia to be re-united with their liberated brethren in free Servia, free Bulgaria, and free Greece, I, for one, shall very heartily rejoice. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) told us last night that diplomatists were among the most ignorant of men. I do not know what may be the opinion of diplomatists in regard to this Eastern question, but men who do not close their eyes to facts must be aware that the Ottoman Power is, and has long been, on the decline. The Turk has been got rid of in Hungary, in Servia, in Bulgaria, and in the liberated portion of Greece. I trust the time is not far distant when the Turkish authority will disappear from Macedonia and Crete as well. But, on the present occasion, I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the case of Armenia, and I do so because in my humble judgment the case of Armenia is the most urgent case so far as the Turkish Empire is concerned, and because, also, it happens that in regard to Armenia we have fuller information than we possess in regard to the Christian populations in the European provinces of the Sultan. The Armenians, by universal acknowledgment, are an enterprising, intelligent, and industrious people. There are, I suppose, 5,000,000 of the race in various parts of the world, and of these we may say 3,000,000 are to be found within the dominions of the Sultan; 1,750,000 are subjects of the Czar, and 250,000 are under the authority of the Shah of Persia. It is with the 3,000,000 of Armenians who are subjects of the Sultan, or rather with that portion of them inhabiting Turkish Armenia, that I am now and here more particularly concerned. What is the condition of Turkish Armenia at the present time? Everyone who has made himself acquainted with the facts as they have recently been made known will agree with me that the condition of affairs is most deplorable. A description of the state of Armenia at the present time offers another exemplification of the truth of the proverbial saying, "Where the Sultan's horse-hoof treads grass never grows again." their ravages. Mr. Clifford Lloyd goes on to say— Contemporary Review for May and June, she says— She agrees with Mr. Clifford Lloyd in holding that the Government abets and connives at outrage. Mr. Lloyd published a most important Minute on October 2nd, in which he proved conclusively the responsibility of the local authorities and the Imperial authorities for the misgovernment of this Province. He wrote— and consent to outrage. A legal sanction is given to abduction. The process is this: when the relatives present themselves in court to claim the abducted victim the ravishers are ready with a brace of Moslem witnesses, who declare on oath that the kidnapped woman pronounced in their presence the regular formula of the Moslem faith, "There is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet." The evidence on the other side is not heard, or, if it is heard, no heed whatever is paid to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, at an earlier stage of this evening's proceedings, directed the attention of the Committee to the case of Miss Katie Greenfield, and it is a case which I hope will receive the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government, and as to which I trust they will be able to give some particulars to the Committee. Miss Katie Greenfield is the daughter of an English lady, who is a landowner in a village 45 miles east of So-uj-bulak, near the North-West Frontier of Persia. She is 14 years of age. Last May she was out walking with her servant, an old Kurdish woman, when she was suddenly seized and carried away by a horseman of the name of Aziz, who had been lying in ambush with three other Kurds. They profess that she has become a Moslem, and they refuse to allow the British Consul, Mr. Paton, to have access to her. Some of those who are detaining her are Ottoman subjects, and the Porte, according to its wont, declines to take effective measures for her release. But some hon. Members may say that, whilst the case of Miss Greenfield is one in which we can rightly and properly interfere, because she is a British subject, we have no right or title to interfere in the case of the Armenian Christians. The Under Secretary may get up once again and make another speech which practically amounts to asking the question—"What have we to do with the matter? Am I my brother's keeper?" The hon. Member for Leicester referred to a time—some 200 years ago—when the voice of this country in foreign affairs was a potent voice. The great protector had only to have brought before him cases of gross outrage and abuse, and he spoke out in thunder tones. Did Cromwell ask "Am I my brother's keeper?" at the time of the massacres in Piedmont? Did Milton, when in Cromwell's name he wrote the State letters to the Duke of Savoy, and penned the immortal sonnet beginning with the lines:—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item A, of £47,460, Salaries, be reduced by £200, part of the salary of the Secretary of State."—( Mr. Summers. )

^* (6.43.) : It is with a certain amount of regret that one feels the necessity of telling the same old tale of suffering and misery on the one side, and of oppression, apathy and inertness on the other. But if one is forced to do so, it is because the facts are still the same. There is no improvement, so far as can be seen, in the state of affairs in that part of Europe to which reference has been made—indeed, if anything, things have gone from bad to worse. Mrs. Bishop, who with an intrepidity, and at the same time I think I can say with an impartiality which do alike credit to her courage and her judgment, has traversed this wild country in pursuit of truth, and that without Party bias of any sort, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secrerary will himself admit after hearing her very lucid and interesting exposition of her experiences given in a Committee Room of this House not very long ago. The Armenians are not the only persons suffering from the present state of things in that part of the world, but there is also a small community of Nestorian Christians poorer and more destitute of resources than the Armenians themselves. These people dwell chiefly on the Persian frontier, but are exposed to the same exactions and tyranny as the Christian Armenians. As far as I can judge, the origin of this evil is twofold. It lies in the activity of the Kurds and the hopeless irremediable apathy of the Turkish Government and those placed in authority under it. It is said that the Kurds are naturally a wild and nomadic race, whom it is impossible to reduce to subjection. I would point out, however, that on the other side of the Turko-Persian frontier there is a population of 30,000 Christians living in the plain of Urmi in comparative content and quiet, although there are Kurds in the same district, and their co-religionists on the Turkish side of the frontier are exposed to molestations and oppression. Now, what is the reason for this better condition of affairs here? The reason is that 10 years ago the Persian Government felt that the condition of affairs in the from tier provinces was so bad that they read the Kurds a severe lesson, and since then they have adopted agricultural pursuits, and have ceased to plunder the Christian inhabitants. I say, therefore, that what is possible in Persia is also possible in Turkey if the right means of going to work are adopted. Since the troubles in Erzeroum in October last, matters have distinctly and decidedly become worse. According to Mrs. Bishop, the Kurdish population are armed with modern rifles, a constant search is made for arms in Christian houses, and no disarmament of the Kurds takes place. Indeed, the Kurds are being enrolled by the Turkish Government and formed into a kind of irregular militia—a very irregular militia I should say. I quite admit that the intentions of the Turkish Government in this matter may be good. They may think that by putting these people under discipline, however irregular, they are conferring a benefit on the country they inhabit, but whatever the intention of the Government may be, it is not looked on by the Beys and Kurds in that light at all. We are informed that after being enrolled by Zekki Pasha, Commander of the Fourth Army Corps at Eryingian, many of these Kurds passed through the Christian bazaars making gestures in imitation of cutting throats, and told the Armenian merchants they now had the Government on their side. It is also the custom of these armed Kurds to go to the Christian villages to demand whatever they may think fit, practising a system of "forced loans" similar to the "benevolences" of Charles I., and to threaten to kill, and in many cases actually to kill, when their demands are not complied with. There is an impression in many quarters that the Kurds deliberately adopt this policy in the belief that a general massacre would call the attention and arouse the indignation of Europe to their proceedings, but that if they only kill individuals not so much notice will be taken of the matter. Instances of outrage are reported in consequence of which men who at one time were in affluence are now in the lowest depths of poverty, and reduced actually to begging corn for a livelihood. It should be remembered also that these scenes have not occurred in wild, unfrequented districts, but in fertile plains crossed by good roads and the telegraph. As an instance of how Christian villages are plundered, I may mention that from a group of Christian villages in the Pas-sin Plain, within a comparatively short time, 754 cattle were driven away by the Kurds, while the Mussulman villages were left untouched, showing that it is not merely plunder, but a systematic attack which is made on the Christian population. In that state of things it would not be surprising if there were some disloyalty among the Christians. But I am informed that there is not; that while among the educated Christians there may be some desire for a change of Government, among the lower or peasant order their whole desire is that they should be left to enjoy their property securely and in peace. They will welcome relief from, whichever quarter it may come. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can point to any amelioration or real act of protection during the past year; whether he can deny that the present state of things in Armenia is worse than it was in the summer of last year before the Erzeroum massacres? Our remonstrances are apparently disregarded because there is so little backbone in them. The Sultan's advisers know perfectly well that there is nothing behind those remonstrances. If it were otherwise a very different line of action would be adopted. I believe that if our Government saw fit to take decided action to show that there was something behind our remonstrance more than mere words, they would find a very appreciable difference not only in the tone of the replies but in the action of the Turkish Government towards the Christian populations.

^* (7.2.) : I rise to express my sympathy with the Armenian nation in their sufferings, and to express my satisfaction that we have now before this House and the country the evidence of an absolutely impartial witness. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has previously pointed out that there was a suspicion that our information with regard to the treatment of the Armenians came from a tainted origin. I now call attention to the independent testimony of Mrs. Bishop, who went to Armenia rather prejudiced against the Armenians. When, however, she saw the sufferings to which they are subjected, the quietness of their habits, and their devotion to agriculture, she changed her opinion entirely, and has written a very realistic and truthful account of what she saw. No impartial person can read the account in the Contemporary Review, or have listened to the address she delivered in the Conference Room of this House, without feeling indignation. Her account is one long narration of violence, arson, robbery, and murder, and I am glad to know that she has left the names of the individual cases to which she refers in her articles in the hands of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. She has not been able to give them publicly for reasons which can easily be imagined. In describing her journey, Mrs. Bishop says that at one place where she slept she heard "volleys fired all during the night." The Kurds, she says, took possession of nearly all the crops, leaving only sufficient to ensure that the farmers would have the means of furnishing a future crop when the Kurds should again come that way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has mentioned a case in which 2,282 sheep and 754 head of cattle were carried off within the year in one valley. But I think the instances given by other speakers are quite enough to convince us that the state of Armenia is at the present time deplorable. The marauders do not call it robbery, but "making demands," and the Kurds imagine that by what are called "individual murders" rather than massacres they will not attract the notice of the great Powers. Mrs. Bishop states that many of these robberies and murders take place within the reach of the Army Corps of the Sultan, and that troops could easily be employed in overawing and controlling the Kurds. It seems to me that the force which is employed to obtain the taxes from the Armenians should be employed in defending them. Mrs. Bishop says that the cruel wrong is that taxes are demanded from the Christians which the Kurds have not left them the means of paying. It is hard to squeeze blood out of a stone, and it seems to me that the Turkish method of extracting taxes from the Christians is of the most cruel description. The position of affairs in Armenia cries out for a remedy, and I believe there are many ways in which Her Majesty's Government might bring pressure to bear upon the Porte—means which it may not be wise or politic to mention in debate. All I can say is that the question is no longer one of politics, but of humanity.

I think the position of this question in that part of the world to which the hon. Member has referred is in all probability worse than it is in any other portion of the Turkish Dominions. From my own experience, Christian subjects of the Porte in Europe are at all events well able to look after themselves, and if not they are carefully looked after. I think there is some slight exaggeration in the accounts we have received of these Armenian grievances. I have listened to Mrs. Bishop's account of her tour in Armenia, and I have come to the conclusion that there must be some slight pardonable exaggeration in her statement, and I infer that if her account were absolutely correct it would be practically impossible for any Christian to live in Armenia. [An hon. MEMBER: "It is so."] The hon. Member opposite differs from me. I have no doubt that what is going on now in Armenia has been going on for many hundreds of years. I think it will be found, if the Armenian Blue Books are carefully perused, that some of this agitation as to the Armenian atrocities is due to the Daily News correspondents at Odessa and other places, and also to a body of wealthy gentlemen styled the Armenian Patriotic Association, established in Manchester. I have no doubt that these influential Armenians are able to make their influence felt, and to get up an agitation in respect of their country. The hon. Member opposite found fault with Her Majesty's Government. I presume that the liability of the Government in regard to the Armenians of Asia Minor is owing generally to the Cyprus Convention and our occupation of Cyprus. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that the Cyprus Convention was purely a conditional arrangement. We occupy Cyprus as long as Russia occupies Kars and Batoum; the moment she evacuates those places we shall evacuate Cyprus. We are supposed to guarantee the integrity of the Sultan's Asiatic Dominions on the condition that he gives reforms which everybody knows that he is not in the least likely to introduce—at any rate such reforms as will satisfy hon. Members opposite. Assuming we have any liability in this matter, I wish to ask how are we going to enforce our wishes? We are, it is universally agreed, admirably represented by our present Ambassador at Constantinople, and there is no one who is likely to have as much influence with the Sultan as Sir William White. Still, it is not easy to convince a Foreign Government as to the course they ought to pursue, and the only means by which we are able to exercise pleasure is to cut off supplies or employ actual force. The first expedient is difficult, and the second is not to be thought of—at least I do not suppose hon. Members opposite will be inclined to advocate force. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian employed force in the case of Duncigno, but fortunately in that instance, we were enabled to persuade the rest of the Powers to fall in with our views. It is difficult to persuade Foreign Courts to accept representations that are made to them. The House will recollect that we had representations made by an hon. Member of this House, and also by the Lord Mayor, to the Czar of Russia who, however, declined to receive either the representations made to him or the deputation it was proposed to send. In the same way the Sultan might refuse to listen to our representations, and our Ambassador would have no more right to interfere with Turkey than any other signatory Power which signed the Treaty of Berlin. We have not the means of bringing pressure to bear. If Russia wishes to bring pressure to bear she has the war indemnity at her back, and if the Sultan refuses to grant any wish Russia may express she has merely to remind him that the war indemnity is in arrear and she will get anything she wants. It should be pointed out to these Armenians in Manchester, and to other representatives of Armenia, that it is not the duty of this country to enter upon an Armenian crusade without the assistance of Europe, and that matters must be allowed to go on until Armenia at length becomes a Russian province, whatever we, may say or do to the contrary.

I sympathise with a great many oppressed peoples; I sympathise with the Chinese as well as with the Armenians; but I cannot for the life of me understand why we are to look calmly on while the Chinese are oppressed, when at the same time we are to interfere in the case of the Armenians. If our representations as to the Armenians were to be listened to, I should have no objection to their being made, but representations have been made again and again on such subjects, and yet in all parts of the Turkish Empire Christians are oppressed. I admit that they are more oppressed in Armenia than in European Turkey, and for two reasons; one is that it is very difficult to get at the facts, and the other that Armenia is on the Russian frontier. In Armenia the people are divided between Kurds and Armenians. The Armenians are hostile to the Government of Turkey, and the Kurds are in favour of it; therefore, the Porte is necessarily obliged to accept the service of the Kurds to keep down the Armenians. The only way in which the Kurds are paid for their services is by allowing them to plague and oppress the Armenians. My hon. friend might have given the Committee some suggestions as to how he intends to remedy the present state of things. Representations to the Sultan are obviously useless. We do not, I presume, mean to use the Convention of Cyprus as a means of insisting on the establishment of good government in Armenia. We have to recognise on the other hand that we have guaranteed the whole of the Asiatic Dominions of the Turks. It is said we might bring all the great Powers unitedly to urge the Sultan to treat the Armenians better. But in the first place you would have great difficulty in the present state of Europe in getting all the signatories to the Berlin Treaty to act in the same way. In the second place, if you did this you would have the Turks saying they intend to do better, although in the end you would find they would not do better. What, then, will you do? Do you propose to give to Russia power to intervene, or do you propose to intervene yourselves? If we intervene we shall want troops, and that would involve enormous cost. The only way is to put a ban on the Turks in Europe. They should be cleared out of Asia Minor and European Turkey, where they are nothing more than brigands, and cannot be regarded as really governing the country. They have oppressed all the subordinate races, and will continue to oppress them. Are you pre- pared to do this? The present Government are not. What, then, can we do? We can only leave things alone. We regret that the Armenians are ill-treated, just as we regret that the Chinese are ill-treated. I have no objection to Russia laying hold of Armenia or the whole of Asia Minor. I believe it would be a desirable thing that the Russians should have an outlet to the sea, because, until she gets that outlet, she will be continually disturbing the peace. I believe that much as we desire to see the Armenians relieved of their oppressors they will not cease to be oppressed, and that the best thing we can do is to encourage Russia to go there.

I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs intends to answer the observations of my hon. Friend?

^* : I will give way to the hon. Member.

I was somewhat anxious to hear what the Government had to say on this subject; but if the right hon. Gentleman refuses to reply, I feel it necessary to make a few observations. The hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire observed that Mrs. Bishop's account was probably exaggerated, and that the present state of things had existed for hundreds of years. I think he was hardly correct in that, although, no doubt, the state of things has not been satisfactory for a long time in Asia Minor, where the Christian population has had a good deal to suffer. I believe the extraordinary occurrences there and the exascerbation and disorder which have occurred are mainly due to the late war. The Kurds were armed, their possessions were lost, and the Turks being annoyed because of what had occurred in Bulgaria, began to oppress the Christians more severely than before. If the Armenians are not entirely extirpated, it is not because the state of things is exaggerated. For my part, I have been unable to find the least exaggeration, and I believe that Mrs. Bishop has given to the Foreign Office a circumstantial statement of the names, places, and dates which she has referred to in her articles. I should like to know whether any attempt has been made at Constantinople to verify her facts and to take any action in consequence? Mrs. Bishop has said little more than what has been stated in a briefer form by Mr. Clifford Lloyd. If the hon. Member will read the Report of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and the Minutes enclosed of October, 1890, he will see that they fully bear out the details of the reports made by Mrs. Bishop. I will ask hon. Members interested in this matter to compare Mrs. Bishop's account with Mr. Clifford Lloyd's Report. The hon. Member has compared remonstrance with the Sultan in regard to the Christians in Armenia with remonstrance with the Czar respecting the treatment of the Jews. But the two cases are radically different. The Jews in Russia are not under the protection of the Powers. We sympathise, of course, with the Jews, not only in Russia, but in other parts of Europe, and would all be glad if any Memorial or representation from this country could alleviate their suffering. But we clearly have no right to interfere. The treatment of the Jews by Russia is entirely a matter of domestic policy on her part, just as our government of Ireland is a matter of domestic policy on the part of the United Kingdom. We have no right, therefore, to officially interfere. As to the Sultan, the case is very different. The Christians of Armenia are under the protection of Europe. At first, by the Treaty of San Stefano, Russia undertook the protection of the Christians in Turkey. But that Treaty was objected to by Lord Salisbury. A Congress was called and met, and the result was the Treaty of Berlin, by which the Christians were withdrawn from the protection of Russia and placed, first under that of the Powers of Europe; and, secondly, under our own protection. We are much more bound morally than any other European Power, because we deprived these people by our action of the protection which Russia had guaranteed them. That is so under the Cyprus Convention, which, however, has been described as a lapsed engagement, and I hope that while the Government will lose no opportunity of impressing upon the Porte the fact that it is a lapsed engagement, it will not be forgotten that by it we undertook the protection of these Armenians. I submit, therefore, that there is a moral responsibility as well as a legal responsibility resting heavily on this country which amply justifies any representations that can be made to the Porte on the matter. There are one or two special points on which I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has referred to the arming of the Kurds. That act is a significant index of the attitude of the Turkish Government towards its Christian subjects. Here you have robber troops and fanatics living by plunder, and accustomed to descend upon their Christian neighbours, carrying off their flocks, abducting their children and killing them, chosen by the Turkish Government to be provided with a fuller equipment for their work of slaughter, pillage, and outrage. On a former occasion the Under Secretary compared the arming of the Kurds with what was done with the Highlanders of Scotland after the insurrection of 1745. But he should remember that these Highland regiments were sent to maintain the glory and increase the dominions of England abroad, that they were called upon to fight in all parts of the world, and that to them we owe many of our conquests. The cases of the Kurds and the Highlanders cannot, therefore, be said to be parallel. For the arming of the Kurds it has also been attempted to find a parallel in Indian policy. But would not the parallel have been more complete if the fanatic troops of the Black Mountains on the borders of the Punjab had been planted in the North-West Provinces, and given an opportunity of murdering their Hindoo neighbours by the withdrawal of British Forces? I should like to ask whether the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Clifford Lloyd last January has been filled up, and if not, why not? Is there any truth in the rumour that it is intended to make any alteration in the existing arrangements, and to transfer the Consulate from Erzeroum to Trebizond, having only a Vice Consul at the former place. Erzeroum is in the centre of Armenia; it is the place where conflicts have recently occurred, and we need there a man of force, of character and experience, and one who will have weight with the Pashas of the district. No doubt Trebizond is a good centre for the collec- tion of information, but that work can be done just as well by a Vice Consul as by a Consul. I have inquired the views of gentlemen of high official position on this point. I am not at liberty to mention names, but they have expressed to me in very strong terms their sense of the imprudence and un-wisdom of making any such change. They hope that Erzeroum will continue to be the centre of British influence and authority in that part of the world. I have little more to say now. I hope the Under Secretary will tell us what special efforts the Government have made during the last six months on behalf of these Christian populations. I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that it is not easy to get the Turks to listen, but I fear that the Foreign Office have never shown that they have made such efforts as we have a right to expect them to make, or that they have put sufficient pressure on the Turks. Mr. Clifford Lloyd and other high authorities have been of opinion that if sufficiently vigorous pressure were brought to bear on Turkey it would certainly have the effect of bringing about an amelioration in the treatment and condition of the Christians of Armenia, and we want Her Majesty's Government to use that pressure. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that there are clouds on the Asiatic horizon, and that the only way of averting dangerous outbreaks is by bringing about reforms. I have endeavoured to present my case entirely apart from any question of Party politics. I have put it forward solely on the grounds of humanity, and I hope, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will feel it is not only our right, but also our duty to inquire from time to time what action the Government are taking, and how they are endeavouring to discharge the responsibility which this country has incurred, and by which, in the eyes of Europe, it is bound,

^* (7.42.) : I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen will acquit me of any want of respect in not rising until he had spoken. It was stated by the hon. Member who preceded him that he was going to speak, and, therefore, I thought it was well, especially as I should be the only Member of the Government who would address the House on the subject, to wait and hear what the hon. Member had to say before I replied. The modern practice of taking Votes on Account has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the latter is that we have to state the case and discuss it twice over. The subject in question, for instance, was fully dealt with in March last, and the Reports of Mrs. Bishop were referred to in the Debate that then took place. I am afraid, therefore, I have not much that is new to tell the Committee on this occasion. There are, however, things said on these occasions which one cannot accept as seriously advanced. If we were to embark in the enterprises shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Huddersfield we should require a very large military establishment indeed. We are all aware that the state of administration in Kurdistan is deplorable, but wherever particular instances have been brought forward in which the administration has failed to preserve the liberties of the inhabitants, representations have been made to the Porte, and not without good effect. Measures have been taken to improve the administration, and I was disappointed to find that Mrs. Bishop in the journey she took saw so little proof of the more efficient Governors who, as our Representatives informed the Foreign Office, had recently been sent by the Porte to that part of the world. In Papers, which will no doubt be laid before Parliament, there is distinct testimony from our Representatives at Van and Erzeroum and elsewhere as to the benevolent intentions on the part of the local authorities. Wherever, I may say, representations have been made, either of misconduct or of want of efficiency in an official, those representations have been listened to. But what is it hon. Members ask? The hon. Member for Huddersfield says he looks forward to the time when Macedonia and other Turkish Provinces shall pass from the rule of Turkey. The hon. Member for Northampton used still stronger terms. He used language most insulting to the Government which the Foreign Minister is asked to approach in order to ameliorate the condition of its subjects. Reference has been made to the advantages of a knowledge of political economy for the Diplomatic Service; I venture to think that a rudimentary knowledge of the principles of diplomacy would be a profitable study for hon. Gentlemen who counsel such approaches to a foreign Government, and at the same time fill their speeches with insults, threats, and menaces to that Power. Is it conceivable we should approach the Government of the Sultan with any advantage when that Government can point to speeches in the British Parliament by gentlemen who say they wish to see the Turks driven out of Europe, and provinces detached from the Turkish Empire? All I can say is, that is not my idea of the way to produce any good effect, and I believe it is more calculated—

I did not suggest that any representations should be made to Turkey. My contention was that we might just as well talk to a blind ass as to Turkey.

^* : That is most unfitting language—I will use no stronger term—to use towards a Power friendly to this country. It tends to deprive Her Majesty's Government of any hope of advantage in endeavouring to carry out the wishes of the House. I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government have instructed our Ambassador at Constantinople to lose no fitting opportunity of counselling the Porte to carry out more efficient reforms in Armenia; and that Sir W. White has lost no opportunity of following those instructions. In my opinion, the suggestion of a Conference to concert measures for the better government of Asia Minor could not be followed with any prudence. We could not expect to be supported in the Conference by Powers which do not second our efforts at the Porte. With reference to the Cyprus Convention, I went too far, perhaps, on one occasion in speaking of it as a lapsed Convention; I should rather have said a Convention in abeyance, because it was a provision of that Convention that we should concert measures with the Porte for the better government of the Asiatic Provinces. The Porte, as is well known, is never willing to concert with any foreign Power in the government of its Provinces. We have always been ready to fulfil our part in connection with that Convention, and have gone, perhaps, beyond our rights in constantly offering counsel to the Porte, although we have not been admitted to concert. Nor do I think hon. Members are entitled to speak with such disapproval of measures that are intended to form some of those Kurdish tribes into regiments. I did not draw the parallel in this matter with what was done with the Highlanders; but, when others did so, I pointed out how clans which had at one time been infinitely troublesome to their peaceful neighbours had become useful subjects of the British Crown, and I believe it is the case that some of the hill tribes which fought most fiercely against us in India have proved orderly and useful soldiers. The discussion of this matter is rather apart from our own business, but I will ask whether these Kurds are more likely to be brought into order by being subjected occasionally to the punishment of the Turkish Governors, or by being brought under regular pay and discipline? I should say that the latter course, if properly carried out, is far more likely to keep them in order. The cautions that have been offered will, I hope, induce the Porte to take such precautions as will prevent the evil effects hon. Members fear. I have been asked whether any measures have been taken in consequence of the representations that Mrs. Bishop has made. Yes; Sir W. White was instructed to remind the Grand Vizier of the experience of Mrs. Bishop in Kurdistan, and the evidence she has brought of the necessity of much stricter measures for the repression of disorder. It would be difficult to ascertain the exact truth of the statistics given, but I have no doubt that in the main Mrs. Bishop saw districts exposed to the ravages of wild tribes. I think she has been more successful in bringing matters home to the Porte than those who have made previous representations have been, and I trust that the result will be that more efficient steps will be taken for the protection of the Christians in the unsettled Provinces. Here, however, we ought not to exaggerate our responsibility in connection with this matter. I strongly deprecate the use of unseemly language, which, if persisted in, is likely to render the Ottoman Government perfectly insensible to any representations that may come from this country.

I would not have risen to take part in this Debate but for a sentence which fell from the right hon. Baronet. On this side of the House we have always strongly disapproved of the Anglo-Turkish or Cyprus Convention, because it binds Great Britain in the future to act in a warlike manner upon circumstances which it was impossible to foresee. In that Convention we made, what I consider, a most unwise and most monstrous and most mischievous condition, namely, that we were on certain conditions to guarantee the maintenance of the Asiatic possessions of the Porte. The language of the Under Secretary to-night with respect to that Convention may, I think, be regarded as satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of it as a "Convention in abeyance." Well, we know that titles in abeyance are often not called in abeyance; they cease to exist. I wish to note specially what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the conditions upon which the Anglo-Turkish Convention is founded not having been fulfilled, for it is very important. The conditions of the Convention not having been kept, our hands are, of course, left perfectly and free unfettered. That was the view taken in 1880 by the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and it is a view which I still hold very strongly.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

I desire to call attention to the agreement for arbitration with France in relation to the Newfoundland Fisheries. The first observation I wish to make is that the choice of arbitrators is not calculated to inspire confidence. The Board of Arbitration consists of a Russian, a Swiss, and a Norwegian, and by the terms of the arbitration agreement their decision is final. The only question left for arbitration is that relating to the lobster fisheries. These fisheries have only existed for the last seven or eight years; consequently, whatever the result of the arbitration may be, the main question will be left unsettled. I submit that this lobster fishery question ought never to have been submitted to arbitration at all. The Treaty gives France the right to catch fish and dry it on land, but it is not lawful for them to erect any buildings except stages made of boards and huts necessary and usual for the drying of fish. Assume the French have a right to catch lobsters. They cannot prepare them without erecting factories, which are plainly against the words of the Treaty, and our duty is to insist on the stric words of the Treaty on behalf of the colonists. Why do less than the French for their subjects? Mr. Waddington stated on June 21, 1886—

"A resolution has been taken by us to exercise to the fullest extent and with the utmost strictness rights which we possess by the Treaties."

Moreover, the effects of the arbitration in its decisions will be utterly disproportionate between the colonists and the French. The colonists have 70 factories and the French only six. So if the decision should be against the French six factories only will be closed, whereas if it goes against the colonists 70 factories will have to be closed, and great destitution and misery will thereby be caused. On several occasions our officers in Newfoundland have represented that if the lobster factories are closed very distressing consequences must ensue. By the Treaty of Utrecht, as hitherto understood, France is prohibited from erecting permanent factories; but the terms of the arbitration are so wide that the arbitrators can interpret the Treaty as they please, and, as a matter of fact, the French have already built permanent factories, as is shown in various Reports sent to this country. If the arbitrators' award is in favour of France, can it be doubted that these permanent buildings will be left standing and used as bases for further encroachments? As to the arbitrators themselves, I cannot see how the Government can have any knowledge of their qualifications. I remember that in a French opéra bouffe one of the chief characters was described as a Swiss Admiral, and it seems as if the Government had been imitating—

I appeal to the hon. Member whether it is wise, when we are entering into an arbitration, to discuss the qualifications of the arbitrators. I think it would be against the public interest for the hon. Member to proceed with the argument which he is apparently about to submit to the Committee. I venture very respectfully, but earnestly, to suggest that it is against the interests of the country to engage in such a discussion as the hon. Gentleman is initiating.

I am glad to accede to the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman. But intimately connected with this subject is the question of the sovereign rights exercised by the French, owing to the negligence of our Foreign and Colonial Offices. The French merely possess by Treaties an easement, namely, the right to fish and dry fish on shore. King George III. made the following declaration:—

"His Britannic Majesty will take most positive means for preventing his subjects from interrupting in any manner by their competition the fishery of the French during their temporary exercise of it"—

meaning, of course, that he would undertake all measures of police on the coast himself. Owing to neglect by our Governments the French have taken upon themselves this duty. Their war vessels are in the territorial waters; they claim to determine when any infraction of the Treaty is committed, and to take redress into their own hands in the absence of English cruisers. Speaking in another place the Prime Minister said that even if we were at war with France, France would not take the trouble to land in Newfoundland. The reason of that is that in consequence of the laxity of our Government they may land in Newfoundland in time of peace. This is what M. Waddington gave as his conception of the duty of the French officers—

"Our officers are directed to seize and confiscate all instruments of fishing belonging to foreigners, resident or otherwise, who shall fish on that part of coast reserved for our use."

In obedience to these directions French officers have taken up the nets belonging to English subjects, causing great damage. The owners applied for compensation, but all the answer they got was a complete justification for the action of the French officers.

^* : I sympathise most fully with the colonists, but I feel that, as the matter is entering upon the first stage of arbitration, it is unwise to discuss it. I appeal to the hon. Member for Coventry not to pursue the discussion, and let us see what will be the result of the arbitration. I much regret that the arbitration should have been of so limited a character, and I must say that one order I have seen with dismay—that instructions have been given to put down a certain number of English lobster factories. I should like to know whether the French factories will be put down also.

^* (8.26.) : I should like to be permitted to say that I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than a debate on this subject at the present moment. The matters are of the greatest delicacy, and they are only prevented from going into the acute stage by the mutual forbearance of each Government and their officers. We are now proceeding to submit one branch of this great question to arbitration. I venture to think that the House would do well to leave the question alone, hoping for the best—for the settlement which we hope to reach of this question. The closing of the factories referred to can only be to give effect, under the Act of Newfoundland, to the modus vivendi that no new lobster factories shall be opened by the subjects of either country.

I have always regarded arbitration agreements with the greatest satisfaction, and I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not be wise to enter into the details at this stage. I am extremely pleased that instead of a political arbitration we are to have a purely judicial arbitration. I do not know anything about the arbitrators, but I think it is probable that a very good selection has been made. I hope, too, we may appeal with confidence to our fellow-subjects in Newfoundland not to work against the modus vivendi. If 60 lobster factories have been erected, they must have been erected in opposition to the arrangement.

I should like to know whether we have had the same opportunity of considering the terms of the arbitration as the French Legislature? I feel that the colonists are in a bad position, and I should be sorry to say anything which would endanger that position.

I desire to take this opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us some explanation of the state of affairs on the Congo? Of course, I know we have no right to interfere with the internal government of the Congo Free State, but there are a number of English subjects there, and they, for a long time, have found their rights and position imperilled by the action of the Congo State Government. The general feeling among them is that the interests of the English traders are not sufficiently protected. The distance at which the English Consul resides involves a long and costly journey of some 400 miles, in some cases, before complaints can be placed before him. Commercial enterprises established for many years are prejudiced by the tariff imposed, and practically a large amount of capital and the result of years of commercial industry is confiscated by the State. The grievances under which these merchants suffer have come under my notice in correspondence from Mr. R. E. Dennett, of Banana, who carries on the business of a merchant there, who is the son of the Rev. Dr. Dennett, sometime attached to the Consulate as chaplain at Valparaiso, and now residing at Ashton Rectory, near Chudleigh, Devon, proves him to be a man of education and position, well entitled to belief. From the fact that he has authorised me to make his name and statements public, and that doing this is likely very much to prejudice his position in the Congo State, it is evident he feels a very strong sense of wrong. But there are points he draws attention to apart from the want of support received by English merchants on the Congo, acts of officials in the State, not at all such as are imagined by the outside world, and the facts are of such a character that, it seems to me, though we cannot absolutely interfere, they may well be made the subject of inquiry and remonstrance, through the King of the Belgians. Mr. Dennett refers to instances of actual slavery under the guise of commerce, and in a recent letter he says—

"The State send their soldiers out into the roads and fields to seize all the women that are planting; these are then exchanged for so many carriers. I actually heard an employé of the Belgian Company telling the Chief of the Magasins Generaux that the quantity of carriers the State received entirely depended on the quantity of soldiers they had;"

—that is to say, upon the number of women they could capture to exchange for carriers—

"A Mons. Bureau—a Belgian officer—as a ransom for a prisoner, claimed so many sheep and goats; her unfortunate relations had not the number and could not therefore pay the ransom. It was proposed that the relations should give the Commissaire du district Matadi, the said Mons. Bureau, two female slaves, to finish the palaver. The people brought two old women, but these were not accepted. Mons. Bureau now, however, keeps the young girl, eventually given to him, as his concubine. I have looked through the Code Napoléon, but cannot find anything there to justify Mons. Bureau. Mons. Deghilage, an official of the Congo Free State, murdered two poor negro boys in the short space of three-quarters of an hour by thrashing them to death. Even the Belgians inquired into this atrocity and found the man guilty. The Judge and Commissaire du district Vandorp publicly let out that he meant to fine the brute £10 per victim, and this three weeks before the case was actually judged. Mons. Deghilage, who was then chief of the station, has since been promoted, and is now busy recruiting and looking for a new route to the new slice of Portuguese territory the State has annexed. This beast dances naked with the natives by way of recreation."

Well, a great many other complaints are brought against officers of the Congo Free State by Mr. Dennett, but I will not weary the Committee by repeating them. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has knowledge of some of the complaints which have been put before him, and perhaps he will be able to give us some explanation to-day, either a denial, or that ho will say a proper remonstrance has been addressed to the Congo Free State. Personally, of course, I have no knowledge. I make the statements on the authority and responsibility of Mr. Dennett, who has no wish to have his name concealed. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I hope the right bon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory reply.

^* (8.35.) : In the first place, I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have brought these charges in the House against the conduct of certain Belgian officers upon statements privately made.

^* : They have been made publicly.

^* : I am not aware of that. I believe that whenever such allegations have been made they have been emphatically denied. It is not my business to have knowledge or express an opinion on the action of Belgian officers in the Congo State. I am in no way responsible, but I do regret that debate in this House should be made the vehicle for such accusations against officers in the service of a friendly nation. Such charges should be made in a quarter not protected by Parliamentary privilege, where they could be subjected to proof. If it is alleged that British merchants are treated in any way contrary to the law in the State, or to Treaty, undoubtedly any specific case submitted with particulars will be immediately inquired into; but allegations, vague and general in character, cannot be made the subject of inquiry. If anybody is aggrieved by the action of officers of the Free State, and can show a primâ facie case that his treatment is in violation of Treaty rights, au application for redress of grievance will have immediate attention, and this is all, I think, I can say. The hon. Member for Peterborough just now asked me a question in reference to the Newfoundland arbitration, and to this I have to say our position is this: Her Majesty's Government would be most happy to come to any arrangement that would be mutually satisfactory to the French Government and the Newfoundland people. We have no separate interest in the matter. The terms of arbitration will be agreed upon to the satisfaction of both parties I hope, but it will not be necessary to take the sense of the House upon the arrangement, or discuss it here, for it is no part of our constitutional system that we should do so.

There is one more subject I desire to refer to, the Niger territory. There have been some very serious complaints as to the condition of affairs there. The territory has been handed over to the control of one Of those Chartered Companies, of which we have had several established in recent years, only one of which I believe is being worked for profit as a commercial undertaking. Complaints and allegations have been staved off by Her Majesty's Government, because they sent a Commissioner to inquire as to what was going on, and we were told we must wait the result of Major Macdonald's inquiry. We waited in patience the result of his inquiry, we had reason to believe that Major Macdonald was a very competent officer, and we expected that his Report would throw some light on these dark places, and this Niger territory is a dark place of which we know little or nothing; the glimpses we have only creating suspicion. But now we find that the result of this inquiry is not to be made known; the Government positively decline to make the Report public. That seems to me is likely to create the impression that there are things it is not convenient to make public. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to us a little more fully than he has done in his answers to questions why it is, after his many references to this Commission of Inquiry, he so positively refuses to give us any information as to the contents of the Report?

^* (8.11.) : I would remind the hon. Gentleman that on many occasions when I have been asked questions about Major Macdonald's Report, I have said that the Report was intended to be confidential.

Only since the Report was received; not before.

^* : I beg pardon; more than once while Major Macdonald was on the Niger I said that his Report would be confidential. I am sure I did so. The fact is that, so far as we know, there is no occasion to publish the Report. If there were a primâ facie case of anything improper, any wrong or injustice to traders or population, there would be reason perhaps for inquiry, possibly a Parliamentary Inquiry, but to the best of my knowledge there is nothing of the kind. Undoubtedly, there were one or two cases of suspicion of natives being killed by Europeans, and these were dealt with according to law, but I am not aware of any case which renders public and special inquiry necessary. If anything is alleged against the action of the company it will, of course, be inquired into. I am glad to say there has been a delimitation of the territory of the Chartered Company and the Oil Rivers District which will remove causes of trouble which have been referred to by the hon. Member behind me, and lead to harmonious management in the future. (8.45.)

Up to the present time I have not been considering the money mentioned in this Vote at all. There are a number of items I should have liked to call attention to, but under the circumstances I will only refer to one which I will move to omit. I refer to the item of £300, an extra allowance to the Permanent Under Secretary of State for the administration of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. I move to omit this item on the principle on which I object to Secret Service money altogether. Some time back the late Lord Hammond was paid £600 a year for the management of this fund out of the Secret Service money itself. Now there appears to be £300 a year paid to the Permanent Under Secretary, but, so far as I can see, it is only for the management of that portion which is used in connection with the Foreign Department. Presumably, there is someone else who is also paid out of the Secret Service Fund itself for the management of the rest. I believe that all payments that are made out of this fund ought to appear on the Votes. We ought to know all about them. We want to prevent the expenditure of money on bribery and corruption, and everything that the Government is afraid of being known to the House of Commons. I have no doubt I shall be voted down, but I must say it seems to me that the Permanent Under Secretary, who receives a salary of £1,500 a year, and who, I presume, does the work in connection with this Secret Service money in ordinary business hours, is sufficiently well paid without this extra £300. I should like to get some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary as to whether this £300 is paid in excess of the salary the Permanent Under Secretary receives. Even if we do not get rid of the Secret Service Vote altogether, we ought not to pay extra allowances if the work is done in our time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

^* (9.22.) : I would point out to the hon. Member that the answer which was given 20 years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has ever since been the text of successive Governments in replying to this question. The short effect of that reply is that the administration of the Secret Service money, which is a distinct fund, has to be placed in the hands of a very high official, who, from the very nature of the case, cannot receive that amount of assistance in dealing with the fund which he receives in connection with his ordinary duties, that the duties are responsible and onerous, and that £300 is not an excessive remuneration for the services rendered. Originally £500 was charged on the Secret Service money for these services of the Permanent Under Secretary, and that continued to be the rule until 1872, when the charge was placed on the Foreign Office Vote. A very active reformer in this House—Mr. Rylands—objected to the payment out of the Secret Service money, and induced the Government to place it on the Votes of this House. That has, accordingly, been done since, and successive Governments have recognised the fact that taking charge of this fund—which is not spent for an unworthy object, but solely in the interests of the public—deserves at least the remuneration of £300 a year.

Is this £300 given for the management of the whole fund or only for that portion connected with the Foreign Department?

^* : For the management of that portion which relates to the Foreign Office.

Then somebody else, I suppose, is paid for managing the other portion?

^* : I do not know.

Under the circumstances, I will not trouble the Committee to divide on this; but I will raise the question again on the Secret Service Vote.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £27,382, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration."

I propose to move to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State by £100, in order to direct the attention of the Committee to his conduct with reference to the Chartered Company of South Africa. I myself am opposed to all these Chartered Companies. I agree with the views which have been very ably expressed by the Under Secretary of State for India with regard to them. But assuming that there ought to be Chartered Companies, it is admitted that financial questions are a secondary consideration, and that their real purpose is connected with philanthropy or the development of the Empire or something of that kind. But I am sorry to say that the South African Company is a financial scheme in the worst sense of the words, and people are led by the connection of the Government with it to believe that its shares are a sound investment. They ought to know that the Government is not responsible, but they do not. I think the Committee will be astonished when it hears what the financing of this company has been. There is a territory called Matabeleland and Mashonaland, ruled over by Lobengula, a Chief rather than a King. A mining concession was obtained from him in regard to this territory. In 1888 two sets of financial gentlemen sent emissaries to Lobengula to obtain the concession, one of them consisting of a Mr. Bight, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, Mr. Rudd, and one or two other gentlemen.

I do not quite see what the action of the Chartered Company in 1888 has to do with this Vote.

My contention is that the Secretary of State ought never to have recommended a charter to that company, and that because he has done so he deserves to have some reduction made in his salary for not having better fulfilled his obligations and duties. I am obliged briefly to show what the financial position of the company is, and under what circumstances the charter was given.

The charter was not granted by the Department of the Secretary of State. What we have to discuss here is the action of the Secretary of State towards the company.

The Secretary of State, instead of finding out who the persons were who sought for this charter, and whether they would make good use it, allowed it to be given to persons who had abused his confidence. Now, I hold that the Secretary of State ought to have been informed of all these facts, and that, being now informed, he ought to get up and say, "Now that I know what has taken place, I will make immediate inquiry into the whole matter. Give me a little time, and I will make full and ample inquiry." These gentleman and the Exploring Company obtained a concession for mining rights, and nothing but mining rights. Then the Central Search Company was formed, and the two sets of gentlemen sold their concession to that company for £92,000. In the Session of 1889 I was frequently told by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that no charter was to be given, and yet, as soon as Parliament broke up, I discovered that one had been given. In the following Session the right hon. Gentleman said he had informed Parliament of the intention to grant a charter in reply to a question put by the hon Member for Kirkcaldy. I certainly think that this was rather sharp practice. I maintain that the charter ought not to have been granted while Parliament was not sitting after the repeated statements of the right hon. Gentleman during the Session that a charter was not to be given. Then the Secretary of State said that gentlemen of importance must be connected with this concession in order that a charter might be given, and it was thought that the Duke of Fife and the Duke of Abercorn fulfilled this condition; but I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear me out in the statement that it can hardly be supposed that those two noblemen are great financial geniuses. The charter is of a very large and wide description, as it gives the company full power of Government in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. The capital of the company is put down as £4,000,000, of which £27,000 is the utmost that was ever paid in cash. This was done in order to foist the company upon the public, and investors in England actually gave £6 or £8 for shares for which only 3s. had been originally paid. I think, therefore, there is some cause for the Secretary of State looking into this matter, and openly stating that he and the Government are in no way responsible for this financing, and warning the public that, although there is a Chartered Company, all that glitters is not gold. The Secretary of State interfered actively to aid and abet the company in obtaining possession of Matabeleland and Mashonaland. Colonel Carrington was directed by Her Majesty's Government to aid in procuring a large police force, which was to be under the command of the Chartered Company in Matabeleland, and that gentleman told persons that if they joined the police force they would not only receive pay, but also a farm. The Under Secretary of State afterwards said, in reply to a question put in this House, that all the promise meant was that a farm would be given to the men when the company had a farm to give. The whole thing, therefore, is a perfect absurdity. Then the company prevented persons from entering Mashonaland and Matabeleland unless they signed an undertaking to obey the laws of the company, and, in addition to this, they exacted trade licences. What I want is an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will look thoroughly into all these matters. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman from whence he obtained his information, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had got it from the employés of the company, who naturally gave a very favourable account of the doings of their own company and, therefore, one that ought not to be implicitly relied upon. Then, again, I have frequently seen it stated that there was a very large black population in these territories who might be put to useful work. He knows, however, what has happened in Cuba and other places where a black population have been put to useful work in the mines, and I shall protest against this large black population in South Africa being put to "useful" work of a similar kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the Committee that some reliable and independent person will be appointed to look after the interests of the black population in these districts, and to see that they are fairly treated, and that no attempt is made to force them to work against their will. I shall also be glad of an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will watch to see how the powers conferred upon the company by the charter are administered, and that nothing is done in the territories under their control which will be injurious to the Public Purse, to the public welfare, to commerce, or to industry.

^* (9.40.) : If the hon. Member will read the terms of the charter he will find that it contains ample provisions for the intervention of the Imperial Government in the event of the company violating the conditions it imposes upon them. I am afraid that I can give the hon. Member no information on the subject of the finances of the company, because, as I have already repeatedly stated, Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the finances of the company, and I desire that that fact should be thoroughly understood. The hon. Member appears to think that the company has violated the conditions of the charter by acquiring further concessions than those which they had at the time that the charter was granted, but the fact is that they were expressly authorised by the terms of the charter to obtain further concessions. He also alleges that there has been something underhand in the way that the charter has been obtained, but I informed the House in 1889 that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant a charter to the South Africa Company, and the necessary period prescribed by law in order to permit of objections to the granting of the charter having elapsed, the charter was granted in due course, after the objection to it made by the hon. Member had been discussed.

That was before the charter was granted.

^* : Certainly it was, because it would have been useless to have attempted to raise the objection after the charter had once been granted. I will not follow the hon. Member in his objections to Dukes taking part in the management of the company's affairs, because it is possible that a high position may add to a person's capabilities for management, and afford an additional guarantee of their being in the highest degree respectable and responsible. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No.] However that may be, up to the present time there was no reason to doubt that every condition that had been imposed in the charter had been fulfilled by the South Africa Company. The hon. Member said that he had been informed that every person entering the company's territories was bound to give an undertaking that he would obey the law, but that was a condition which it was usual in all civilised countries to require from those who sought to be domiciled in them. In uncivilised countries, where then was no law at all, such as that over which the company exercised its jurisdiction, it was certainly not too much to ask from those who sought to take up their residence in them that they should undertake to acquiesce in regulations that were intended to preserve law and order. That is a proposition which I do not think even the hon. Member will dispute. Then the hon. Member said that he understood that certain payments had been exacted from those who entered the company's territories. That is perfectly true, because a licence has to be taken out by such persons. I, however, do not think that the hon. Member, with even his advanced views, will consider that it is improper that he should be called upon to pay police or paving rates. The South Africa Company are bound by the conditions of their charter not only to maintain law and order, but also to make roads and telegraphic communications at their own expense, and certainly they are justified in recouping themselves for the expenditure which they have been compelled to incur by making a small charge for a licence. As far as the treatment by the company of the black population was concerned, the hon. Member has not brought forward one single case where the natives have been treated otherwise than with humanity. The hon. Member has complained that Colonel Carrington has been engaged in obtaining recruits for the company's police. The facts in connection with that circumstance are very simple. It was absolutely necessary, in the interests of law and order in the company's territories, that a certain number of police should be obtained, and nothing could be more natural than that the services of a military man like Colonel Carrington should be retained for the purpose of selecting the men who were most fit for the service, and who were to be employed at the expense of the company. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that it would have been improper to have allowed the company under the sanction of a Royal Charter to have occupied such large territories without requiring them to find means for the preservation of law and order. The hon. Member may take it from me that Her Majesty's Government will have nothing to do either with the finances or with the administration of the company as long as they do nothing to infringe the terms of the charter. If it is brought to the knowledge of the Government that the company are violating the terms of their charter in any way the Secretary of State will at once act, and the company will be compelled to comply with those terms. I trust that the explanation I have given the hon. Member will be satisfactory to him.

^* (9.55.) : I hope that I shall be permitted to state to the Committee what the financial arrangements of the company have been. In 1886 or 1887 various expeditions were sent out to Bechuanaland and other parts of South Africa with the view of obtaining mining and other concessions, and with the object of developing the country. Many of those expeditions were unsuccessful, but in 1888 Lobengula, finding that he was no longer able to control those who entered his country and seeing that it must be developed, placed his whole mining rights in a body of persons who were represented by Mr. Rudd and other gentlemen. This body of persons found that it would be necessary to include others in their group, who had either obtained personal licences to mine, or had acquired a position of influence in the country. Relations were established with Lobengula, and steps taken to accustom the natives to the presence of the white people. Various goodwills and interests were acquired. The amount expended was about £50,000 or £60,000, and for the purpose of convenience the whole thing was put into a private syndicate. It must not be supposed that £121,000, about £27,000 being working capital, which additional sum was also spent, was the real value of the concessions; it was merely a figure adopted for the purpose of apportioning the shares among the various people interested. Then the position in the middle of 1889 was that there was a private syndicate, with a concession and various good-wills and interests, and that syndicate had to consider what to do. Capital was necessary in order to develop the country. The syndicate had three courses open to them. They might have sold their concessions for a lump sum of money; or they might have formed a large company with a capital partly in cash and partly in fully paid up shares. But both those courses would have been open to the objection that the concessionaires were anxious to part with their interests before they had shown not merely the value of them, but that they had any property at all. They, therefore, adopted the third alternative of forming a company—the British South Africa Company—leasing to it certain rights, and themselves undertaking certain obligations. It was considered fair that the concessionaires should retain 50 per cent. of the net profits. There was no request made to the public for subscriptions, a capital of £1,000,000 was privately subscribed, the greater part of it by the concessionaires and their friends, and thus there was on the one hand the developing company with this fully paid cash capital of £1,000,000, and on the other side what may be called the founders' shares, with a nominal capital of £121,000, coupled with an obligation to pay £400,000 for constructing a railway into the interior of Africa. That was the financial position at the time the Charter was granted. It had always been intended to have floated a large company to represent the interests acquired under the concession, and some people had been promised shares or their value at par. Therefore the time came when it was proper to fix the value of this half interest. The thing had to be done somehow, and the figure arrived at was the £4,000,000 to which the hon. Member has alluded. The shares of the British South Africa Company — £1,000,000 — were at that time changing hands at £4, and therefore it was considered that the par value of the other half might be put down at £4,000,000. The public got none of the shares. There was no subscription, and they have not been dealt in. The value of the shares may since have declined, no doubt. I have given the financial history of the company. The hon. Member says it demands 50 per cent. of the profits of the miners going into the country. That is not so, for alluvial gold mining small monthly licences have to be obtained, but for quartz gold, which it is well known an individual digger cannot work with advantage, the arrangement is to float a Joint Stock Company, of which the Chartered Company gets half the vendors' scrip.

I am not very much interested in the financial aspect of this question, but I admit we have had a very plain statement from the hon. Member for North Donegal, who probably knows more of the matter than any man living, because he himself went to Lobengula and got the concessions, and the chances when he went were three to one that he would never come back alive. I congratulate him that he is here, although I doubt if the shareholders in the Chartered Company have reason to be satisfied with what he has disclosed. Will the Under Secretary for the Colonies tell us what concessions the Chartered Company have got. They certainly have not got Lobengula's mining rights, because they are only the tenants of the persons to whom the concessions were granted. The hon. Member is quite mistaken if he thinks that Lobengula was not very well acquainted with white men. Lobengula's father had given concessions long before to the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield of the whole of the mineral rights in Matabeleland. My hon. Friend and his son were there for many years. Mr. Beathe managed a mine there for 10 years. Robert Moffatt was there, so were John Mackenzie and Francis Clarke, and many other white men, indeed, not a year passed without dozens of white men going to Lobengula's Court; there were permanent traders, and any number of hunters, so that the natives were well accustomed to the presence of white men. I wish, however, to deal with the policy we are going to carry out. Look at the past history of Chartered Companies. There seems to be some fatality in our connection with South Africa. I want to know what our future policy is to be, and what part the Imperial Government will take in it, for, notwithstanding all those millions on paper, the £4,000,000 my hon. Friend has got in his company, and the £1,000,000 they have got in the Chartered Company, these companies will before long burst up, and the territory will be thrown upon our hands. The company is already nearly at the end of its tether, and the Imperial Parliament will probably before a year has elapsed be asked to come to its assistance. We certainly ought not to follow a policy of handing over the natives to company promoters and company mongers. Mr. Mackenzie, who was a Commissioner in South Africa for many years, has suggested that we should aid in the development of the country by sending officials to see that the natives are treated fairly and are not plundered. You have in south Africa a migration of whites towards the North, and a movement of the black races towards the South, and surely the wiser and better policy for a country like Great Britain, which claims a kind of Suzerainty over the whole of South Africa, would be to send officers to see that the natives are not outraged, and that some kind of law is enforced. Lobengula cannot control, nor will he have anything to do with the government of white men. If we had sent a Resident to Lobengula to see that the natives were not plundered, that would have been better for the people than handing them over to adventurers. My hon. Friend got certain mineral rights from Lobengula, but I maintain that he does not hold from Lobengula, or from any properly authorised person, a single acre of land in South Africa. I also understand from what has fallen in the Debate that Mr. H. H. Johnston, our Consul, is partly in the pay of the Lakes Company, which is a puppet of the Chartered Company of which my hon. Friend pulls the strings. He is partly our servant, and partly a servant of the company, and I understand that he is going about hunting for more concessions in return for the half of his salary which the company pay; and then Colonel Carrington, who is paid by this country, has also been acting in the interests of the companies in getting certain guarantees on their behalf. What is the actual position of affairs? A company is formed which has not a single acre of land; under false pretences it gets a Charter from the Government, for it makes believe it has valuable concessions, whereas, at the most, it has only short leases. It promises farms to those who will develop the country, although it knows it cannot possibly fulfil the promises; but it relies on the fact that when these people take possession of Lobengula's territory they will have to fight for it; it hopes that Lobengula will be smashed and then it will claim to keep his territory. Further than that, the company has been attacking Portugal. These adventurers first took Matabeleland, and as Lobengula claimed to be Suzerain of the Mashonas, and the other tribes, they claimed also that they had a right to everything this Chief claimed; so they went on and claimed territory which the Portuguese were working, and in respect to which they had granted concessions to French and British companies. Three companies formed in London were working the concessions obtained from Portugal; but these adventurers went to one of the Portuguese vassals and made a Treaty with him, and in my opinion this was one of the worst things done by the filibustering company. I was glad to hear the Under Secre ary for Foreign Affairs state that the Government have had nothing to do with Gungunhana, but that as he is a Portuguese subject, communications have been made through the Portuguese, and that we do not intend to hand over Gungunhana's territory to the, filibusterers.

^* : I never said that Gungunhana was a Portuguese subject.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he recognised that the territory of Gungunhana as within the Portuguese sphere of influence.

^* : I said most of it was outside the British sphere of influence.

Yes, but we have delineated our sphere of influence by the Portuguese, and if the territory is outside ours, it must be within the Portuguese sphere.

^* : I do not wish to be misunderstood. I observed that the matter did not come strictly within my Department. I added that the British Government have abstained from dealing with that part of the coast long recognised as Portuguese, and that the main part of Gungunhana's territory behind it is beyond our sphere of influence. But farther I added my belief that part of the territory is within our sphere of influence and in respect of that we desired to be on the best terms with him.

I take it that the part within our sphere is Umtassa's District. What I wish to urge is that it would be unfair to steal Portuguese territory. I am sorry that the British Government, considering the filibustering we have had in South Africa, and the way in which some Republics have been formed, have aided and abetted these particular filibusterers to whom I am referring in attacking this territory. Bearing in mind the responsibility which attaches to us, we ought to have somebody in the country to see that the Chartered Company is fulfilling the conditions of its Charter. I do not think the country has turned out to be so valuable as was anticipated. The gentlemen who had got £4 and £5 for their shares in this company are well out of it, but I fear that a large number of less fortunate speculators will be considerable sufferers. It is a bad policy on the whole, and I regret that the Government have gone into a joint partnership with the Chartered Company. The sooner the Charter is withdrawn and this country takes charge of the territory the better it will be for everyone. As to the value of the concessions, Lobengula has repudiated the concession made to my hon. Friend, and the Chief has said that the wording of the concession was neither explained to him nor did he mean to grant it. From beginning to end the whole affair has been based on fraud. The large number of promises which have been made can never be fulfilled except by stealing the country. It is a most disgraceful episode in our South African history. It is to be hoped that this important territory will not be left in the hands of a company with £8,000,000 of capital, but that it will be taken charge of by officers responsible to the Government, while Great Britain will have the courage to vote the money needed for its protection and control.

I give the hon. Member for North Donegal full credit for his great pluck in obtaining the concessions, but I think that anyone who has heard the statement as to the floating of the Chartered Company cannot help coming to the conclusion that the manner in which the undertaking has been started is, to say the least, exceedingly remarkable. I think that everyone will feel that the Government ought to watch with special care what was going on in this great territory under the auspices of gentlemen who have been the authors of this financial undertaking. I maintain, notwithstanding the statement of the Under Secretary, that this country is responsible for the government of that territory, and I do urge the right hon. Gentleman opposite to thoroughly investigate the affairs of the company. The Colonial Office should send out some completely independent persons to stand between the natives and the governing powers in this portion of South Africa; and in view of what has been stated by the official defender of the financial character of the company I submit that some official ought certainly to be there in order to see due justice administered to all concerned with this territory.

^* (10.30.) : I have the greatest possible respect for the hon. Member who has just spoken. I like to hear him attacking the House of Lords, and Magistrates who exceed their duty. As an exponent of domestic policy and of Radicalism I generally agree with him, but I am bound to say, if I may do so without disrespect, that the hon. Member takes a somewhat parochial view of Imperial and Colonial questions. I do not object to the presence in the House of men with parochial minds, but I object altogether to gentlemen with parochial minds taking in hand the Imperial interests of this country, for I am bound to say I do not think anybody who approaches these great Imperial interests from the point of view of a vestryman is very likely to make a distinguished success of his task. What is the grievance of the accusation of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)? He objects not only to the South African Chartered Company, but to any company, or any measure, or any treaty, or any undertaking in the world which may extend British influence in parts of the world where it does not exist already. I do not agree with him. I do not know whether it will be said that in what I say I am influenced by my financial interests in South Africa. I have a very few shares in the British South Africa Company, and I am quite willing to sell them to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.

I must decline to give any coin of the realm to the British South Africa Company.

^* : Having made that frank confession, having stated my tiny interest in the concern, I am all the more free to say that I consider these companies one of the most legitimate means of the extension of British influence and of our Empire in countries such as Africa. I do not see why we on the Liberal side of the House should be always opposed to the extension of British influence throughout the world. There cannot be a greater mistake made in this world. If the question were fairly put before the electors, and if they were really told who made the British Empire, and how it was made, I would not be afraid, as against my hon. Friend's great experience and wit, to take my chance in any meeting of English working men in urging that the maintenance and extension of the British Empire is a good thing for them. The creation of the British Empire and its present existence are due just as much to British working men as it is to any British Monarch or any aristocratic class. It cannot be fairly said that those of us who are Radical and Democratic in this House have no interest in the British Empire, on the contrary, we are all interested in the British Empire. As regards these Chartered Companies, I do not believe there is a more legitimate way of extending the British Empire. Any extension of British influence is good, not only for England, not only for the working men of this country generally, but it is the best thing that could happen to the unfortunate natives. There is no rule, on the whole, so just, so fair, so equal, as the rule of Englishmen and the English Government over native races. These companies will grow to such an extent, and our responsibilities in connection with them will so increase, that we shall in time find ourselves in such a position that we must take the territories they administer just as we took over the territory and administration of the East India Company. It is impossible that this country should refrain from legitimate annexation in a country like South Africa. My hon. Friend and Members who think like him talk very glibly about this military expedition. The hon. Member threw scorn upon the forces sent up to maintain authority in this territory, but I think it cannot be denied that in the end the taking up of a sufficient force for the maintenance of order is the very best thing that can happen to the natives themselves. My argument is one that can be borne out, not only in theory, but in practice, namely, that in taking over these territories by the Chartered Companies, or by direct annexation, we are doing, not only a good thing for the Empire and a thing which finds employment for our workmen, but we are doing very best thing in the world for the native races themselves. I believe my hon. Friend is wrong, not because he wants to be wrong, but because he does not fully understand these Imperial questions, and I sincerely trust I shall find the House willing to assist aims which are good, aims which consistently carried out must inevitably lead to the addition of one of the best parts of the world to our Empire, a consummation of which is to be wished for, and which I hope will come about as soon as possible.

Whilst there may be no fault to be found with the action of the Chartered Company, I still think the company is doing what ought to be done by our own Government; but the Government could not undertake what the company is doing because the opposition that would come from the other side of the House would be so strong that the Government would not be able to get the necessary money. The company having been formed, and having commenced its operations, there is not much fault to be found with it, and, indeed, its admistration seems to be satisfactory; but there is the prospect of trouble in the future, The day will come when the Imperial Government will have to step in and occupy the position now held by the Chartered Company; and there will be difficulties when that has to be done. What I object to is the policy that appears to be pursued by the gentleman who is at the head of the company and also of the Cape Government. He has clearly placed before the world a policy which ought not to commend itself to this House. That gentleman's policy is that the power of the Cape Colony should be extended, if possible, up to the Zambesi. Neither the geographical position of the Cape, nor its history, justifies the ambition to govern so large a territory. There is another view of colonisation, and that is that colonies are to be limited in area, are to be given self-government, and then are to unite together in some sort of federal union. The policy of Mr. Rhodes is the converse of that—it is to extend the sway of the Cape Government up to the Zambesi. Does this policy meet with the approval of Her Majesty's Government? There is Natal, the South African Republic, and the Orange Free State, and their comparative inequality with a vastly extended Cape Colony would place great difficulties in the way of successful federation. The Government appear to have fallen under the influence of Mr. Rhodes, and to be disposed to give him a free hand. Let them be wise in time. Does not all experience show that a colony should be confined within a limited area? Does not the experience of Australia show that, although we did our best to go against the teaching of that experience last year, when we gave not only constitutional government but half a continent to a population of 40,000 persons? Would it not be well, before power is wrested from our hands, to put our veto on a policy which is really repugnant to our own views? I suspect the hon. Member for Caithness agrees with me [Dr. CLARK: Hear, hear!], and I believe the last speaker will be disposed to do so, in spite of the support he has given to the company. I hope that similar sentiments will be expressed on behalf of the Government.

I have put down a Motion in order to obtain an opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the position of the Zulu Chiefs at present confined in St. Helena. I do not take up this subject in any factious or Party spirit. I am not going to plead for making these people independent again or anything of the kind. I think when once white men come into relations with coloured races it is almost inevitable, however much we may regret it, that sooner or later the coloured men will come under the rule of the white men; but at least we should see that that rule is such as we need not be ashamed of. We first entered Zululand in 1843, but up to 1879 the Zulus were an independent nation. Then we came into conflict with Cetewayo, and he was imprisoned. Four years afterwards it was thought best that their King should be given back to the people. Mr. Osborn was the British Resident in Zululand from 1880, and I think it was a mistake that when the King was sent back Mr. Osborn should be left to carry out the new policy, to which he was opposed. After Cetewayo's death in 1884 the Dutch overran the country, and such confusion resulted that half the country was given to the Boers and we retained half under our influence. The manner in which we exercised that influence was not, I think, the best. Earl Grey, in a letter to the London Times on the 29th of January, 1889, said—

"The present Government adhered to the policy of refusing to assist the Zulus in making any effective arrangement for preserving peace in their country, and went even further than the preceding Government in doing them wrong b y concluding a convention with the Boers, giving the sanction of this country to their taking a large part of Zululand from its rightful owners in order to form a new Dutch Republic in a territory to which the usurpers had no claim whatever, except that arising from their being in possession of much land acquired, for the most part, by fraud and violence. The injustice to the Zulus of this Treaty is manifest, and it has been rendered more injurious to them by the fact that, although the territory which was still left to them was eventually declared to be under British protection nothing to this day has been done towards making that protection really effective, by providing means for maintaining order and security within its boundaries. The result has been what was to be expected—new disturbances have occurred, and quite lately it has been considered necessary to employ a force under British officers against those who are described as Zulu rebels. some of these rebels have been killed, others have been taken prisoners, and are, it seems, to be punished for what they have done, though it would be hard to show that they are as much to blame as the British Government for the fighting that has taken place."

Earl Grey shows that we were neither willing to leave the Zulus to themselves nor to take them under our protection and administer the country for their benefit, and the inevitable consequence was that great difficulties ensued. It was thought well to let another tribe of the Zulus, who were opposed to Dinizulu, the son of Cetewayo, into the country. There had previously been a blood-feud between the two tribes, and hostilities now took place. The result was that certain Chiefs were charged with high treason. We have very good proof that they did not intend to fight our Government. We had a small force of Zulu police under two or three white men in a fort close beside the place where the battle between the two tribes occurred, and they were entirely unmolested. If there had been any desire to call in question the Queen's authority, the police would have been entirely wiped out by the force of 3,000 or 4,000 Zulus. Another proof that no attack was intended on our Government is that the Zulus, who had carried off some cattle, permitted a few, police to recover 250 of them. It was resolved to try the Zulu Chiefs for their complicity in the warfare, and the men submitted themselves to the Government to be tried. The constitution of the Court that was to try them was, of course, a matter of the first consideration. It consisted of three men—a Civil servant, Mr. Wragg, and two Stipendiary Magistrates.

^* : Mr. Wragg is a Judge of the Supreme Court of Natal.

^* : Well, it might have been better that some person less closely connected with the administration of the country should have been appointed. I am bound to say that the authorities at home showed the greatest disposition to secure a fair trial for the Chiefs. They sent various messages to the Natal Government impressing on them the desirability of making it apparent that the trial was a fair one. In one Despatch Lord Knutsford said that the proceedings would be watched by the natives with great interest, and it was, therefore, of the highest importance to secure as far as possible that the Court should be regarded by them as impartial and independent, and as one which would win their confidence. When the counsel who was engaged for the Chiefs inquired into the case he saw it was impossible within the required time to get up the evidence sufficiently, and it is greatly to the credit of the Government that a six weeks' adjournment was granted. There was, however, a strong body of opinion in the colony that the best was not being done under the circumstances. Here are extracts from the Times of Natal, of 6th and 7th December, 1888, a newspaper which, I believe, is on the Government side. I have carefully abstained from using extracts from opposition papers. Daily Chronicle wrote:— The men are now confined in St. Helena, and I understand that no native of Zululand not furnished with a special permit is allowed to land on the island. Would it not be better they should now be liberated than that at the expiration of their sentence in a few years they should return to their country carrying with them a sense of wrong? We all know how Miss Colenso with full knowledge of the case has taken up this subject, and how she has come over here and spent her time in trying to influence public opinion with regard to it. We know what this lady's father was; how he was beloved in the country, and what he did for the natives. She was brought up among them and understands their language. I do think it is a serious matter that we should do anything that is so much called in question by a person of her experience and self-devotion. She is not the only person who has felt strongly on the subject. Mr. Escombe, a leading man in the Colony of Natal, has spent £1,000 out of his own pocket in connection with the question. He was in England when the trial began, and he hastened back to South Africa to assist the prisoners. Then there is Mr. Fairbridge, a Cape barrister, who, writing on 20th December, 1889, says—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £37,682, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—( Mr. Webb. )

This question is by no means a new one. The hon. Member has expressed the views entertained by Miss Colenso, who, I am sure, is thoroughly sincere, but who for many years has played a part in Zululand which has not been conducive to the welfare of the natives or the peace of the country. [ Opposition cries of "Oh!] If hon. Members will refer to the Despatches sent to this country from Africa they will find that I am not speaking without warrant. During the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, on the 7th December, 1882, Sir H. Bulwer wrote to Lord Kimberley—

"…It is impossible to resist the conclusion that it was upon the strength of what was said by her ( i.e. H. Miss Colenso) to Ndabuko at Bishopstowe that the latter decided to take up arms on his return to Zululand."

If I had time I could quote other Despatches in confirmation of the views of Sir Henry Bulwer. We have not now to discuss the action of Zibepu, which followed on many hostile acts of Dinuzulu against him. The line taken in defending the Zulu Chiefs is that Dinuzulu, Ndabuko, Tshingana, and others collected their forces and raided from fear of Zibepu, and not from hostility to Her Majesty's Government. The answer is threefold: — First, that they committed acts which showed resistance to the British Government in 1887, before there was any thought of repatriating Zibepu—or, therefore, any fear of him. Secondly, Zibepu did not take any hostile steps against them, or do anything which should have caused them uneasiness before June 1, 1888, when he was called up to the Ndwandwe Magistracy to strengthen the forces there; but between April and June, Dinizulu and Ndabuko collected forces, resisted the police, refused to give up men against whom warrants had been issued, and made raids on Chiefs solely because they were loyal to the Government. In the third place, after Zibepu had been utterly routed at the Unduna Hill, and after all fear must have been at an end, they kept their forces collected at Ceza, committed acts of violence, and kept the country in a state of unrest. The case of the defenders of Dinizulu and others appears based on two contradictory arguments: first, that their acts of violence are not directed against the Government, but against Zibepu; and, secondly, that their acts were directed against the Government, but that they ought to be condoned on the ground that the acts of the previous Government and of officials under the present Government drove them to commit the offences with which they are charged. These prisoners have in fact, defied the authority of the law, and, like others who do so, must expect to be punished. Not only have they rebelled against the authority of the Crown, but they have committed acts of great violence. They have been described as martyrs to British injustice and tyranny, when the fact is that they are rebels in the true sense of the word, and that some of them are actual murderers. In my hand I hold a list of the murders ascribed to them. On the 3rd June they murdered a Boer named Dirk Louw, near Ceza; on the 4th June, three men, a woman, and a child were killed by Dinizulus; on the 5th June two of Zibepu's men were murdered; on the 6th June Klaas Louw and a native boy were murdered; on the 8th of June one of Zibepu's men was killed; on the 18th June a native was murdered near Shalo, and three natives at Mabedhlana; on the 28th June were murdered Ashby (white trader), two native women, and two children; and on the 3rd July was murdered C. V. Tonge, trader. There is undoubted evidence before the Commission that these men were directly implicated in these murders.

There was no evidence that the men were answerable for all these deaths which technically were murders.

^* : There were many cases beyond those with which they were actually charged. Evidence was not given in all cases; some charges were withdrawn; but there was evidence before the Commission that in many cases these men were more or less directly implicated. I am astonished to hear the statement that the tribunal which tried the cases was an improper tribunal. It was properly constituted, presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court of Natal, and took evidence according to the rules of legal procedure. The sentences passed were extremely lenient considering the nature of the offences brought home to the prisoners, and even then the Secretary of State, anxious to err on the side of mercy, further reduced the sentences on the three Chiefs—Dinizulu and his relatives—and they were deported to St. Helena. It is said that the fact of these men being exiled from Zululand is the cause of the country being kept in a state of agitation and disquiet, but that is not so. From the moment they left Zululand, peace was restored, and the country has never been so quiet and prosperous as since these three men were removed. I think, then, we are justified in concluding that these were the disturbing elements. The hon. Member has spoken of these men suffering great hardships in St. Helena; but the fact is, they were never more comfortable in their lives. They have the ordinary comforts of civilisation, they have none of the hardships of barbarism, they are allowed to see their friends in the Island, and, as a matter of fact, these Zulu prisoners live in St. Helena under peculiar conditions of comfort. I really cannot see any case of hardship has been established. I can assure hon. Members that the case of these prisoners has been most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government; their punishment is most lenient. What may be the action of Her Majesty's Government towards them after a lapse of time, and if they continue the good conduct which happily characterises them now, I cannot say; but at the present moment I cannot hold out any hope that their case will be re-considered by the Secretary of State.

I very much regret to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the case of these Chiefs cannot be re-considered. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his estimate of the result of Miss Colenso's action. Admitting that Dinizulu rose in rebellion, something can be said in justification of this rebellion. The Zulu nation were dissatisfied in 1887, before Usibepu went back, so dissatisfied that they came to the determination to oppose the great White Queen, and the Chiefs determined to do their level best to drive the British out of Zululand. Admitting that, and taking the case at its worst, yet something can be said in favour of re-considering the position. Rebellion, of course, is a very serious crime, but then, in 1887, Dinizulu was King of Zululand, recognised as absolute King of the country by us and everybody else. Without his knowledge and consent we annexed Zululand, and in 1887–88 Dinizulu, to maintain his position, rose in rebellion. He was absolute King one day, he became a rebel the next day. Well, rebellion is justifiable sometimes, and gets the name of patriotism. In 1887, at the time the partition of Zululand was going on, I happened to be in Zululand, and I saw Dinizulu, and I know that at that time Tshingana and Undabuko, the two brethren of Cetewayo, were anxious to get the aid of the Boers to drive out the British, or the aid of the British to drive out the Boers. They found themselves encompassed — the New Republic on the one side, the British on the other. A third of Zululand was in the hands of Mr. Melnotte Osborn, and called the Zulu Reserve, where the loyal Zulus were, and to the north and east were the Boers of the New Republic. Tshingana and Undabuko, the King's uncles, were anxious to get the British to drive out the Boers, and then they were willing that the British should remain, or to get the aid of the Boers to drive out the British from the Reserve, the Boers of the New Republic retaining the land they held as the price of their services. Of course, neither the British or the Boers would enter into any arrangement of the kind. They proceeded to divide the territory, and the interests of the Zulu King were ignored. I protested in this House in 1887 and took a Division—Sir Henry Holland being then Secretary of State—against the partition of Zululand and the handing over of a large territory to the New Republic. But the partition was carried out, and hundreds of miles where white men had never set foot—the ancient tribal lands of the Zulus—passed to the Boers. In 1884, when the Boers came in, they drove out Usibepu who, up to that time, had been Zulu King after Cetewayo had been put out. The pressure and agitation was such that the British Government sent back Cetewayo, but Usibepu was too strong for him. Cetewayo was defeated and driven in to the bush, where he died. The Boers then came to terms with the young King Dinizulu and his uncles, Tshingana and Undabuko, and, with the aid of the Boers, Usibepu was routed and driven into the Reserve. Dinizulu remained King, but he found his new allies were eating up the whole of his Kingdom; their farms were covering the whole of Zululand. For years negotiations went on between the authorities of the New Republic and Mr. Ecott. He came to London and saw Mr. Stanhope and Lord Derby, but no terms were settled until 1887, when Sir Henry Holland came to terms with the Boers as to division of spoil, and the interests of the Zulus were sacrificed. Dinizulu protested, and when I saw him he, not without cause, was very discontented. We offered pensions to Dinizulu and his two uncles, £300 a year, but the King protested against the ancient tribal grounds of his race, the graves of his grandfathers, the burial place of the great Chief who was the Napoleon of the Zulu nation, being handed over to the alien Boers. But the annexation was carried out. I should not have objected to that course, which probably would have been the wiser course under the circumstances; but what can now be said in favour of these unfortunate men is that because they were dissatisfied Sir Arthur Havelock, knowing the evil that would result—and in Despatches he has admitted it, as the Usutos were dissatisfied—determined to overawe them, and to coerce them, sent Usibepu back with 1,000 men for the purpose. A portion of Undabuko's land, including his chief kraal, was given to Usibepu. Undabuko cleared out; but when he came to take away his corn from his pits, he found they had been rifled. Usibepu was ordered to pay a fine of cattle, but he refused, and the result was there was fighting between Usibepu and his followers and the Usuto section of the Zulus. The British took the side of Usibepu, the Usutos were driven across the border, and Dinizulu, Tshingana, and Undabuko might now be in a position of hostile independence; but yielding to the advice of Miss Colenso they came to Natal and demanded their trial. Before a jury of white men and the Court at Natal the facts might have been brought out, but they were tried by a Special Commission on a charge of murder. Well, there had been a tribal war, and many lives were lost of course, and, technically, you may call that murder. They were charged with murder, that being the only crime under which they could be removed. But Dinizulu has never been tried for murder. He has been taken away on a false charge. It was a mere farce, a mockery of a trial, and Dinizulu's witnesses were not allowed to give evidence. Everybody knows this was so. [Baron H. de WORMS expressed dissent.] Well, everybody but the right hon. Gentleman—

^* : There is not a shadow of foundation for these allegations.

I have seen the sworn depositions of men who were prevented from giving evidence. On a false charge these men giving been removed. They demanded a fair trial, and why did you not allow them this trial before the High Court of Natal and a jury of white men, who, if prejudiced at all, would certainly not be prejudiced in favour of the 'Zulus? But after the pretence of a trial they were condemned and sent to St. Helena. I think very harsh treatment has been used towards the Zulu reigning family. The course pursued towards Cetewayo was a mistake and a crime. When replaced in 1884 the Government should not have replaced him in the midst of his enemies to be driven out at once and practically murdered. The man who carried out the arrangement, Sir Henry Bulwer, was totally opposed to the Royal Zulu Family, and he employed Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Sir Henry Bulwer wrote Despatch after Despatch protesting against the policy pursued, but he should have resigned his office, and should not have pretended to carry out a policy his judgment condemned; he never should have been entrusted with the duty of carrying it out. Cetewayo was replaced under conditions in which it was impossible for him to maintain his position. Usibepu had a large army; Cetewayo had but few followers. When Dinizulu was recognised by the Boers we ought to have come to terms, but we allowed anarchy to reign, and when we divided the territory with the Boers the sending back of Usibepu was an incitement to civil war. Like Kilkenny cats, the Zulu people were allowed to fight to clear the land for white men to settle upon it. We are told there has been peace since the King and the Usuto Chiefs have been removed, and we have annexed Zululand. I think the wisest course would be to let bygones be bygones, proclaim a general amnesty, annex Zululand to Natal, and let it be administered under a responsible Natal Government. Send back these Chiefs, give them pensions, and settle them on their own tribal lands, make them British subjects. Let the matter be arranged, not by men like Mr. Addison, but by responsible neutral persons who have not taken sides in the disputes, and I think you will find that Zululand will comfortably settle down. I think we have been wrong from the beginning in our treatment of Cetewayo and his family, and if we continue our present policy we shall perpetuate the wrong. Lord Knutsford knows the question very well. I hope he will re-consider the whole question, re-settle the Usuto Chiefs on their tribal lands, annex Zululand to Natal, and give Natal a chance of developing a stable and responsible Government.

I am quite certain that if hon. Members generally devoted a little more attention to this Zulu question and the claims of these Zulu Chiefs, there would not be two opinions as to where our duty lies towards the Zulu people. But the conditions of our Parliamentary life are such that it is impossible for any large number of Members to pay close attention to the circumstances, the difficulties, and troubles connected with our distant possessions and dependencies. Concerning itself as the House does with the affairs of every parish in the Kingdom, as well as the government of a great Empire, I suppose it is impossible to induce any large number of Members to pay close attention to a question such as this. I feel certain that if an appreciable number of Members would give a small amount of time to inquire into the circumstances attending our conquest of Zululand and our treatment of it in 1886–7 until it was divided between the Boers and the English, and the circumstances attending the trial by Spe- cial Commission and the banishment of these Zulu Chiefs—I say if any appreciable number of Members on either side would look into these matters I am certain there would be such a pressure of opinion that the Government would be induced to re-consider their decision in this matter. The late Mr. Bradlaugh was one of the few who turned attention to the subject, and often in conversation did he express his extreme regret that in two Sessions he lost the opportunity of bringing it before the House; and again and again I have heard him say that, after taking a good deal of trouble in going into the case, lie found there was a clear and complete case on the side of these Zulu Chiefs. His opinion was strong and decided that the only fair policy towards these three Chiefs—the only wise and just policy towards the Zulu people, and in the interest of that part of South Africa—was to liberate the prisoners, make them subjects of the Queen, and remove the soreness that must exist until the young King and his uncles are restored to their people. The Under Secretary has tried to put Miss Colenso out of court by dragging out of a Despatch from Sir Henry Bulwer in 1882 one sentence, showing that probably Miss Colenso had used some influence, arousing the Zulus to protest against certain forms of injustice which had been used against them. It seems to me that a mere isolated sentence in a Despatch, from one having such strong aggressive views as Sir Henry Bulwer, counts as nothing against that devotion and self-sacrifice with which Miss Colenso has taken up the Zulu cause, sacrificing time, money, and convenience in the effort to influence the Colonial Office and Parliament. I really think the right hon. Gentleman ought to find some worthier argument in reply to what has been said on either side than a mere isolated extract from a Despatch from one who adopted such an aggressive policy towards the Zulus as did Sir Henry Bulwer during the time he was at Natal. Altogether I think that our treatment of the Zulu people has been worse than our treatment of any native race—certainly in South Africa. I have always considered the conquest of Zululand a mistake and a crime. We made a lion of Cetewayo here in England; we made a fool of him again in Zulu- land, sending him back into the midst of his enemies. One of the worst forms of treatment England employs in the subjection of native races is the encouragement given to the enemies of the King or Chief. From the beginning Usibepu was a traitor to the Zulu King, and we did everything to support and strengthen him against Cetewayo, and afterwards against Dinizulu.

It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

I wish to call attention to the question relating to the erection of the Central Police Barracks in Belfast, the money for which has appeared in the Estimates from year to year. I have asked questions from time to time, and the Secretary to the Treasury has stated that there would be no delay. The police of Belfast are at present housed under most insanitary conditions, and the men suffer in comfort and in health. The outbreak of an epidemic disease in Belfast is attributed to the insanitary condition of the police station: On the 2nd of March last the Secretary to the Treasury said that all the difficulties had been got rid of, that the site had been acquired, and that the building would be immediately commenced. This matter is a very serious one. The Corporation are the landlords of the site. Long since the Board of Works acquired part of the site, and the present tenants undertook that if the site was taken from them before March, 1893, the former tenants shall pay a fine of £3,000. The impression has got abroad that there is an intrigue between the Board of Works and the Corporation to procrastinate for two years in order that the fine of £3,000 may be escaped. It was mentioned to-night in answer to my question, that there was some doubt about the foundations, but there were buildings there before, and why cannot there be buildings there again? I trust that the matter will be attended to, though I know the difficulty of obtaining anything like diligence in connection with Irish affairs.

^* : The hon. Member has addressed a question on this subject to the Chief Secretary, and I think it is hardly in accordance with Parliamentary usage that a question which has been put to one of my Colleagues should now be referred to me without any notice being given. The architect of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the Inspector of Constabulary have come to the conclusion, I am informed, that the first thing to do in the interests of the Service is to proceed with the erection of the barracks for the men, there being no emergency with regard to stables. The poor man has died since, therefore I cannot refer to him. I think the hon. Member himself has given reasons why it is desirable to proceed with the barracks before May, and inquiry shows that is the arrangement which has been made.

Year after year we find these sums not appropriated in a regular way, but spent by the Board of Works or the Post Office, or some other Department as they deem fit. The fact remains that the amount voted for the Board of Works is not expended in the manner the Treasury have represented it would be expended, and this is not an isolated instance. It is one of the cases that are always to be met with. Even the Secretary to the Treasury himself has told us that the Board of Works do not know how these things are done, and I think the matter one which is very properly brought under the attention of this House. I therefore ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give us some sort of assurance that the promises which have so often been made shall be kept.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 3 (see page 736) agreed to.