I do not think any one will consider that it is premature or inopportune at this period of the Session to ask the Government for some explanation of the present state of things in Eastern Europe. It is now nearly two years ago since what may be called the Eastern Question has been the charge of the Six Powers, ordinarily called the Concert of Europe, or, as Lord Salisbury has preferred to call them, the Federal Legislature of Europe which gives the law to Europe. We have to ask what is the result of the Concert and the outcome of the Federal Legislature. There are three questions, all of great importance, which have arisen in the East. There was first the question of Armenia, We know how far the question of Armenia was dealt with by the Concert of Europe. We were told at the time that Armenia and the Asiatic provinces of Turkey were to receive reforms which were to be approved by the Concert of Europe. The first question we should like to ask is, What is the situation of those reforms? How far have they been given effect to by the Federal Legislature of Europe? What is the law which they have passed on this subject? The next question that the Concert of Europe undertook was the settlement of Crete. It is more than a. year ago since that question, which was supposed to have been settled in the previous year, broke out in a shape which led to a military and naval occupation of Crete by the Six Powers. The third question is a more recent one, and relates to the terms of peace as between the Sultan of Turkey and Greece; and with reference to that also I desire to ask for some explanation from Her Majesty's Government. First of all) what were the pledges which the Government have given to this House and the country on the part of the Concert with which they were acting? The Government pledged themselves, first,, that no part of the territory which had been removed from Turkish rule should be restored to the dominion of the Sultan. That is a general pledge. With reference to Crete, they pledged themselves to establish an absolute autonomy for Crete, to the removal of the Turkish troops and to the appointment of a. Christian Governor. What progress has been made in the fulfilment of any of those declarations? The. French Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke of Crete in relation to the Powers as "a deposit." He said that Crete had been given into the hands of the Six Powers to deal with, and had been removed from the authority of the Sultan; and I was surprised, a few minutes ago, to hear the Under Secretary stating with extraordinary calmness that he hoped the Sultan was not going to send Djevad Pasha to Crete, as it might give a false impression. It is an intention which was declared by the Sultan himself, who considered the Powers had made such a mess in Crete that it was time to take the matter in hand and send a large body of troops to do that which the Powers had been unable to accomplish. It is only within the last 48 hours that the Sultan has abandoned—if he has abandoned at all—the intention of re-taking Crete out of the hands of the Six Powers. I have seen it stated that the Sultan proposes to send 12,000 additional troops, and that is the accomplishment of the undertaking that the Turkish troops should be removed ! What is the present condition? In The Times this morning there is an account, writen by their own correspondent at Canea, of the disturbances in Canea. It says: —

"Here in Canea the situation is again growing critical. Emboldened by the glad news that the Porte contemplates sending troops and that Djevad Pasha is coming to Crete, the Turkish authorities, in concert with the leaders of the Mahomedan population, put all sorts of obstacles in the way of the international authorities, in order to frustrate the work of Europe. Accordingly, acting on a definite plan, the Mahomedans have assumed a defiant attitude towards the European police and show their temper to the helpless native Christians. Peaceful citizens and peasants within the town and in the outskirts are freely insulted. Christian goods and produce are boycotted or trampled under foot. Mahomedans attempting to deal with Christians or serve Christian interests are thrashed by the populace, sometimes even by gendarmes. Mahomedan servants and shop boys cannot be had for Christian families, while boatmen and porters, the only means of conveyance available in the towns, who are all Mahomedans, refuse to serve Christian masters. In short, there is a systematic reign of intimidation towards the native Christians and counteraction of the measures adopted by the European authorities. To cope with such a critical situation the naval and military authorities contemplate adopting severe measures, but the coexistence of a hostile Turkish Administration will render all efforts futile. This state of things should be stopped without delay by suspending the Acting Vali and appointing a provisional Governor from among the European officers here, who are already familiar with the condition of the island."

Then there is another telegram: —

"Canea, July 17: —In consequence of the events of the past few days, and the turbulent conduct of the Mahomedan population, it has been intimated that, if a European soldier is maltreated, the foreign Admirals will be compelled to bombard the town, first withdrawing the European troops and taking all foreign subjects and protégés on board the warships."

But why is this defence only for the European soldiers and the foreign subjects? What is to become of the Christian subjects?

We know nothing about it. We have had no information on the subject.

It is a great pity that statements of this kind are going forth. [Ministerial' cheers.] It is very curious that, after a year of the "deposit" of the island of Crete in the hands of the Powers, this should be the report of The Times correspondent. am not making· any charge; I am simply asking what information the Government have on this subject and the behaviour of the Turkish troops to the native population in Crete. If there is anything at all corresponding with such statements as these, what steps are the Government taking for the removal of the Turkish troops? Then comes the important question of the terms of peace between the Sultan and the Greeks in Thessaly. I should like to have from the Government a definite declaration of their policy in this matter. Do they adhere to the declarations which they have so often made that no territory which has passed away from the rule of the Turk should be again restored to the dominion of the Sultan? If so, how far are the Government able to state the present position of the peace negotiations, and how soon do they expect that they will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion I ask this with no desire to embarrass the Government in regard to those negotiations, which every one must desire to see terminated at the earliest period. I am not going in what I am now saying into old controversies. I observe that here and elsewhere it is said that, whether the Great Powers of Europe have done anything or not, at any rate, they have not made war. Well, it is extremely satisfactory that the Six Powers of Europe are not disposed to make war upon one another, but that is not settling the Eastern Question. [" Hear, hear !"] It is no satisfaction to the Armenians to be told that the Six Powers have not made war upon one another; it is no satisfaction to the people of Crete to say that what the Concert has done for them is not to make war upon one another. Surely there is something more to be done than the passing of a self-denying ordinance on the part of those Great Powers. [Cheers.] All I desire in the meantime is to ask the right hon. Gentleman how these things stand at present in the East—first, reform in Asia Minor; secondly, the evacuation of Crete; and thirdly, the peace between the Sultan and the Greeks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman wilt be able to give to the House and the country satisfactory explanations and assurances upon those subjects.

desired to raise two or three questions concerning another part of the world. Egypt was pressing forward, under the advice of Her Majesty's Government and with the support of the British troops, up the valley of the Nile. The Government, owing to French claims, would be forced, above Khartoum, to proceed by the right bank of the Nile. On the right bank there was but a narrow strip of territory between the Nile and the dominions claimed by Menelik, and hence the enormous importance of the arrangement which hail lately been concluded between the Government and the Emperor of Abyssinia. He was not aware whether the Government themselves yet knew fully all that that agreement contained, but if they could communicate anything about it, it was information which the House ought to have. The statements made last year by the Government as to the immediate object of the then expedition had turned out to be erroneous and misleading. [` Hear, hear !"] They told the House that the province of Dongola was the granary of Egypt. Now there had lately been laid before the House two reports, sent through Lord Cromer, showing how utterly erroneous the statements to that effect were. The Times, which gave one of those re ports, summed it up by saying that its conclusions, unfortunately, were not very encouraging; and from the other report it appeared that there never were at any time more than 90,000 acres of land that could be cultivated in the whole province of Dongola, that only 30,000 were cultivated now, and that the 90,000 acres could only be cultivated by slave labour. His own view in regard to these expeditions, which he admitted was probably that of the minority in the House and the country, might be given in the words of Lord Lansdowne at Bristol, when he said:—

"We must insist that we shall embark in no Quixotic enterprises, even if all the Christian virtues are invoked in support of them."

[Cheers.] Turning to our position in the further East, he could not see there, any more than in connection with Crete and Greece, any sign of what the hon, and gallant Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire called the "strong and resolute wilt of Lord Salisbury." What had happened in Corea was a sort of test case as regards our influence in northern China. The Leader of the House went out of his way in February 1896 to invite Russia to occupy a port in the northern Pacific. In considering these matters we must never have out of our minds what was the character of our interest and trade in northern China. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of extending a welcome to Russia obtaining a port, which was a port of China, only reachable by cutting off a portion of northern China and exposing it to Russian domination in a way which had since been made public by a treaty which was no longer denied. He also said it was a transaction from which British commerce would be a gainer. That was a very questionable statement. He questioned whether the bringing of any additional countries under Russian domination, and especially any portion of the Empire of China, in which we hitherto had done 80 per cent. of the total trade, could be conducive to British trade. There appeared to be some uncertainty in the policy of the Government, and very shortly afterwards British marines were landed at Corea, nominally on the excuse of protecting British property against possible danger, but really, he thought, to manifest British interest in the future of Corea. The Russians had landed a force of marines at Corea, and we landed British marines at the same time, thus showing our continued interest in Corea. After that came another curious development of our policy—the fuss we made over Li Hung Chang, certainly a case now admitted to be one which on another occasion Lord Salisbury had described as putting our money on the wrong horse. Since that time the policy so well expressed by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his remarkable book, "Problems of the Far East," seemed to have been abandoned, and Corea, left to its fate, came under Russian influence together with the whole of Northern China. There was a Blue-book which contained assurances which had been received from Russia with regard to the future of Corea. Russia pledged herself not to occupy or to interfere with Corean territory. But there was a very large Russian staff at the present time drilling the Corean troops and the palace guard. Russia had obtained concessions in Corea for the working of timber and the mining of gold; she had made over the railway to be constructed to a French company, and she had received a special frontier tariff. He thus failed to see any sign of that strong and resolute will in the conduct of foreign affairs which the hon. Member for Wirral described. As to Crete and Greece, Lord Salisbury. the other day told the country that the Concert of Europe had localised the war. On the contrary, some of the Powers had made the war. The Sultan and the King of Greece had been on the point of coming to terms, and used the same language as to what had happened—namely, that they had been on the point of coming to an agreement which the King of Greece believed would be satisfactory to the Greek kingdom, but that the Powers stepped in and made the war. He made that statement on a former occasion, and he reaffirmed it now. He did not say that the Government knew it, but some of the Powers made that. war inevitable, and the only sense in which they had localised the war which some of the Powers made was that they had prevented the Slav States from joining in the war. They had interfered against one side. Up to the present time it had taken about 70 days for the Concert of Europe to make peace. They had told Greece to put herself in their hands, and they would set to work and negotiate peace with Turkey. Seventy days had elapsed; and we were being played with as a cat played with a mouse. Meantime a poor Power was being starved and her future destroyed by the stress laid upon her by the Turkish occupation. The Turks were acting in Thessaly as if they were at home. When the war broke out the Powers insisted that neither Party should gain territory. [Mr. CURZON: "No, the aggressor."] He preferred his own way of stating the case; and he remembered vividly the declarations made on behalf he believed of our own Government, and certainly on behalf of the Powers in the Concert, that neither was to be allowed to gain territory. Lord Salisbury said that no territory which had been Greek should be allowed to revert to Turkish rule; and the Turks themselves, in their circular in declaring war, said they did not intend to take an inch of territory. Now, however, consideration was being given to a rectification of strategic frontiers, which meant some cession of territory, and the Turks were acting in defiance of the will of Europe. The Turks. had cut the grain crops and they had appointed bishops, a marked act of sovereignty in the East of Europe, and a subject of first-class political importance. But there was no sign whatever on their part to move; on the contrary, they were reinforcing the army of occupation. He pointed out that as soon as the critical position of the Eastern Question was moved from Armenia to Crete this country became all-powerful. It needed only a little courage—[cheers]—because there was not the faintest risk of war. We could have imposed our own terms as to Turkish policy in the islands, and we ought to have rejoiced when we saw the critical situation moved from Armenia to Crete, because the position was moved from a place where we were powerless to one where we were powerful. There was not much credit to be taken for maintaining peace between the Powers, because it was never in jeopardy for an instant. Lord Salisbury said that the war was not caused by Germany and Russia, but that it was caused by some Members of the House of Commons who sent a telegram to the King of Greece. [Ministerial cheers.] He doubted whether Lord Salisbury could have made himself acquainted with the terms of the telegram. It was an absolutely necessary expression of opinion[" Oh !"]—by those who had not turned their backs, as some had done, on the traditional policy of this country. [" Hear, hear !"] His view was that the King of Greece could not have acted in Crete but as he did act; that under incredible provocation during a period of six months he had held his hand and restrained others, while the Powers had encouraged him to believe that reforms would be carried out; and when nothing was done except to violate promises in favour of one side and against the other, he had only one course open. At all events, his action in Crete was action which in every previous case of the kind this country had approved; and they would have been false to their views had they refrained from expressing their sympathy. [" Hear, hear !"] Lord Salisbury had described the Greek occupation of Crete as a filibustering expedition. Did he hold the same view of Lord Palmerston's action with regard to Sicily? [" Hear, hear !"] Greece, he held, was fighting the battle of Western civilisation, which as regarded our influence in the farther East, was the battle of this country. ["Hear, hear!] She had been crushed by the two Emperors' combination; but it had been fatal to British influence and a reversal of all our past policy. He failed to see in this case, any more than in the case of China, any sign of the strong and resolute will of Lord Salisbury. [Cheers.]

said although he could not in all respects endorse the details of the policy which Her Majesty's Government had pursued with regard to the Eastern Question, and with regard to Turkey and Greece, yet he must take the strongest exception to the views which had been put forward by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman was a great master of detail, that was to say, he was very particular that other should be accurate in their statements but as he had had occasion to point out before, the right hon. Baronet was not always so accurate with regard to his own details. Now, in his speech that day he had made three statements which were at variance with facts. He had stated that Lord Salisbury said that no territory which was Greek should ever become part of Turkey. What he believed Lord Salisbury said was that no territory which was Christian should come under the Mussulman rule—a different statement —he thought it an unfortunate statement — [Nationalist laughter]—but a very different one. He would give his reasons for thinking so hereafter. In. the second place the right hon. Gentleman said that the Great Powers jointly issued a Note to the effect that neither of the b coming combatants should obtain any accession of territory. That was not the fact. The Great Powers stated that in no case should the aggressor, whichever side was the aggressor, obtain any accession of territory; and that too was a very different statement from what the right hon. Gentleman had said. In the third place, the right hon. Gentleman put words into some proclamation of the Turkish. Government that they "would not take an inch of territory." He believed that no such expression was used by the Porte. The Sultan did say that he undertook the war without any desire of aggrandisement; but that again was a. very different statement from that made by the right lion. Baronet. He now came to the main part of the right hon. Baronet's speech, in which he dealt with the policy and conduct of the Greek Government towards Crete and towards the Powers. He hardly thought that even the right hon. Baronet would have had the hardihood to reproduce in that House such a tissue of distorted views and statements as he had just before then. Similar statements were frequently made six or eight months ago, before the world knew the truth with regard to these matters. The right hon. Baronet tried to make it appear that Greece by her intervention and by sending Colonel Vassos and his forces to Crete wished to promote civilisation and restore peace. A more extraordinary perversion of fact was never put before the House. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's premises were incorrect. When the Greeks began to interfere in Crete—and it was an interference first private or semi-official, and then afterwards official by the dispatch of Colonel Vassos—Crete was settling down into a state of order and satisfaction. [" Oh!"] The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—who was necessarily well acquainted with what took place in Crete—had told the House that the insurgents, or rather the Cretan Christians, through their leaders accepted the autonomous constitution offered by the Powers with gratitude, and were prepared to be satisfied with it. That statement had been repeated by M. Hanotaux in the French. Chamber, and he believed it had been repeated by the Foreign. Ministers of other countries. The fact was that the interference of Greece was not to preserve order and peace or to promote the Christian civilisation of Crete, but it was to prevent the Cretans getting autonomy. The one thing which Greece and the Greek Government dreaded more than. anything else was the establishment of autonomy in Crete, because they knew that autonomy in Crete would be a deadly blow to Greek ambition. [" Hear, hear !"] Had the Cretans been in the enjoyment of autonomy only a few months, they would have been so pleased and satisfied that the probability of Crete coming under Grecian rule would have disappeared for ever. So they sent agitators and rifles into the island, and when that proved insufficient the Greek Government deliberately sent Colonel Vassos with 4,000 men. The intervention. of Colonel Vassos turned Crete into a perfect pandemonium of blood and ruin. ["Hear, hear!"] That was the fact with regard to the intervention of Greece in Crete which the right hon. Gentleman had wholly distorted and perverted. The Greeks, with a recklessness that was quite unpardonable and which had recoiled upon themselves, lost all sense of responsibility in the later phases of the Cretan affair. They decided to go on in their course of aggression and provocation against Turkey, hoping that some European intervention would occur at the last moment to save them from the consequences of their folly. Eventually they resolved upon the fatal course of mobilising their army in Thessaly, and allowing those piratical incursions across the Thessalian border which thoroughly justified Turkey in declaring war. The point of view from which he approached this question was quite different to that of the right hon. Baronet and of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition —["hear, hear!"]—who opened the Debate on the subject in a speech, he was bound to say, of remarkable moderation for him. [Laughter.] It was quite clear that the responsible Members of the Opposition did not feel *heir position very encouraging with regard to this question. They realised the fact that public opinion, which they once thought to be wildly with them, was now wholly indifferent if not against them. Therefore, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly moderate in tone, and he hoped he would take no offence if he said that it was rather devoid of interest. [Cheers and laughter.] But the danger in which we stood at present was, in his opinion, a very different one from that which had been put forward by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. At this moment the British Government was taking the lead in a policy of menace, if not of coercion towards the Ottoman Empire. [" Oh !" and "No "] It was quite true that the Sovereigns of other Great Powers —Austria and Russia—had addressed messages to the Government of Turkey advising the Sultan to accept the decisions of the Great Powers with regard to the Thessalian frontier. But the tone and language of those messages was very different from the tone and language which the British Government had used towards the Turkish Government. [" Hear, hear !"] Now he could not for the life of him see why the British Government should take the lead in the coercion of Turkey at the present moment. He could not see why we should pull the chesnuts out of the fire for Russia. Of course it was very grateful to the Government of Russia, which had made several mistakes of late in the East and had lost some of its influence in the Ottoman Empire and at Constantinople — it was grateful to the Government of Russia to see the British Government taking the lead in depriving the Turks of what they at all events, were justified in considering the legitimate fruits of their action. But why should we do it? What did we gain? In the first place, our demands on Turkey were unjust. Turkey had asked, he believed—he addressed a question the other day to his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in order to be satisfied as to the truth of this statement but he believed that Turkey had expressed a willingness to accept a very moderate increase of territory, to accept the line of the Peneus in Northern Thessaly—this line, if accepted, would give Turkey less than one-sixth of the territory which she gave up to Greece some years ago. It was, he understood, a good line of division between the two countries. Why should the British Government take the lead in preventing Turkey having this slight accession of territory? What had we to gain by it? The Turks were clearly in the right in the war. They were the provoked mid the attacked party. They conducted the war with courage and skill. Their troops behaved well throughout, and their generals had shown the greatest possible humanity towards the conquered Greeks. Why, then, under the circumstances, should the Government of this country take the lead in endeavouring to coerce Turkey and prevent her from getting this slight accession of territory? There was no use in shutting one's eyes to the fact that if we did it we should be guilty of something worse than Midsummer madness. ["Hear, hear!"] The British Government controlled the greatest number of Mussulman subjects under any One Government in the world. There were 60 million Mussulman subjects of the Queen in India, and in these days when information spreads so rapidly it was no longer safe to adopt a policy which was repugnant to them. There had recently been a great development of cohesion and solidarity among Mussulmans throughout the world. For this statement he had the authority of Professor Arminius Vambery, who conversed with him on the subject some weeks ago. The present situation in India, was such as to cause some anxiety, and in these circum stances the Government ought to be most careful not to do anything having the appearance of coercion and attack directed against the Sultan, who was regarded by the great majority of the Mussulmans of the East as the Caliph of their religion. Considerable subscriptions had been sent from India to help Turkey in her struggle against Greece, and numerous offers had been made by Mussulmans to provide for the orphans of their co-religionists murdered by the Cretan Christians. ["Hear, hear!"] When every act of the Turkish. Government was vilified and denounced on the other side of the House, and when even the Ambassador at Constantinople had said at a meeting of the representatives of the Great Powers that England was determined to prevent any territory which had been Christian from ever becoming Mussulman, he was justified in uttering this warning warning to the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] A consideration that it would, be well now to bear in mind was that the war with Greece had shown how great was the military strength of Turkey. The value of Turkey as a military ally was now obvious. [Ironical Nationalist cheers.] Two of the most powerful countries in Europe were showing how highly they estimated the value of the Turkish alliance. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a great deal of jealousy between Russia and Germany with, regard to their respective influence at Constantinople. That jealousy had arisen because Germany had deliberately adopted a policy of wise protection towards the Ottoman Empire with a view to securing its military alliance. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said that the British Government had accepted the policy of war between Turkey and Greece because it had been imposed upon them by Russia and Germany. There never was a more preposterous idea. There was no alliance between Russia and Germany with regard to Greece or Turkey; but there had been a plot on the part of Russia to break up the Ottoman Empire, and it would have been carried into effect but for the action of the German Monarch. [" Hear, hear !"] If we had at Constantinople an agent who was on even fairly good terms with the Sultan and his Government, the jealousy between Germany and Russia might be turned to our advantage, and the Christian subjects of the Porte might be benefited. If there should ever be a struggle between Germany on the one side and Russia and France on the other, half the Russian power would be paralysed by the fact that Germany had gained the alliance of Turkey; and the result would be victory for Germany. Supposing Russia were to obtain the control of the fighting power of Turkey we could not hold India for any long period against a combined Russian and Turkish attack. So the Turkish forces represented at this moment the balance of power both in Europe and the East. For these reasons he urged the Government to be exceedingly cautious about adopting a policy of hostility towards Turkey. With regard to Armenia and the question of reforms, he was glad to know that the position had been very much improved. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] Eighteen months ago the state of affairs in Armenia was terrible, but he was glad to say that during the last 15 months there had been but two painful disturbances. [Derisive Nationalist cheers.] If hon. Members preferred, he would say that there had been only two massacres. In the case of Tokat, which was greatly exaggerated at first, the number of killed being 83, not 700 as at first suggested. The Turkish Government took immediate action, and the military governor, the heads of the police, and other responsible persons were suspended, arrested, and tried. Sentences were passed, and excepting the capital sentences they had all been carried out. That showed great improvement in the action of the Ottoman authorities. With, regard to the capital sentences, it should be remembered that it was not always easy for a Monarch to enforce the death penalty. A case in point was that of Major Lothaire, who was guilty of cold-blooded murder. Major Lothaire was acquitted by the Belgian Courts. Even the King of the Belgians dared not punish Major Lothaire, because the public opinion of the country was on the culprit's side. Then there was 'the recent case of the filibusters into Cuba, who, though taken red-handed, were acquitted in the United States by the tribunal that tried them. When such failures of justice occurred in highly-civilised States, it being found impossible to disregard public opinion, surely some allowance ought to be made for the Turkish Government if it hesitated to carry out the death penalty in the case to which he had referred. He believed that the condition of Armenia had greatly improved, and that it was the desire of the Turkish Government that it should be still further improved. He was glad to know that this country was able now to look in a fairer and less passionate manner at the difficulties which undoubtedly hampered the Turkish Government. Those difficulties were enormous and unparalleled. [Cheers, and Nationalist laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite would sympathise with him when he said that the English Government had found difficulty in governing Ireland; but the Turkish Government had not one, but twenty Irelands to govern. [Nationalist cheers and laughter.] In that empire there was such a collection of diverse races and creeds as was not to be found in any other parts of the world, some of them the wildest and the most difficult to govern in the world. The policy of Turkey in the past had been to allow perfect liberty of religion to all, and that very moderation had given rise to the very difficulties the Turks had now to encounter. If Turkey had followed the same policy as Russia, namely, of forcing into one religion all the people, nine-twentieths of their difficulties would never have occurred. The Turks had always followed a policy of moderation. Hon. Members might go into any town in Asia Minor and might see a. Christian procession passing through the streets with a cross at its head and choristers chanting the service, and yet Protestant missionaries could not speak their views in the streets of Cork. [Cheers, and Nationalist laughter.] He considered the proposals put forward by the Turkish Government with regard to the terms of peace had been exceedingly moderate. [" Hear, hear !"] He believed the amount of the indemnity had been practically accepted by the Great Powers. Though the abolition of the capitulations had not been accepted, he believed considerable modifications had been agreed on. There remained only the question of boundary and even on that, he believed, there was no dispute that Turkey should be put in possession of such a military boundary as would secure her against further attack by Greece. He hoped that if the Turkish demands were not to be conceded, at all events Her Majesty's Government would allow some other Power to take the lead in an attitude of hostility to Turkey. This country dared not appear before the world as the coercers of Turkey. Whatever might be the reasons for refusing the demands of the Turkish Government, he hoped no more would be heard of the statement that they could not be allowed because they were made by a Mahomedan power against Christians. [" Hear, hear !"] The late war had shown that Lord Beaconsfield in 1878 did not put his money on the wrong horse. [Cheers.]

said the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a distinct attack on the representative of this country at Constantinople. The hon. Member had referred three times to the unfortunate attitude of our Ambassador; but he should hardly think such speeches as that of the hon. Member would strengthen the hands of the Government in this matter. The hon. Member had attributed to Sir Philip Currie the statement that no territory taken from Moslem Power rule should be restored.

I said that if Sir Philip Currie said that it was an unfortunate utterance. If he did not say it I should rejoice exceedingly.

said that what Sir Philip Currie did say was that no territory taken from the Turkish rule should ever be restored. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a great distinction between those two statements, because one involved a question of race and religion, while the other had reference only to the notorious action of the Turkish Government in the past. Then the hon. Member made what he supposed he would call a hypothetical attack on the Government when he said they were now taking the initiative in regard to the coercion of Turkey; but in the absence of any information the Committee must assume the attack of the hon. Gentleman to be premature. He would rejoice if there were some foundation for such an attack. It was very much to be hoped that the Government had taken the opportunity of shewing something of that initiative in which they had been so lacking. The hon. Gentleman also indulged in controversial statements with regard to the origin of the Greco-Turkish war, into which it was hardly necessary to enter; but in any case he did not think that either the hon. Member or any hon. Member who had spoken, had been able to contradict the statements as to the origin of the war made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. It certainly remained the fact that the action taken by Greece in regard to Crete, which gained for them so much sympathy in this country, was not the action that directly promoted the war. The raid into Turkish territory, which was undertaken against the wishes of the Greek Government, could hardly be looked upon as a justification for the war. The Greek Government had no more responsibility for that raid than the British Government had for the Jameson raid. [" Hear, hear !"] What began the war was the action of the Turks in firing on Greeks in the Gulf of Arta. Although, no doubt, the origin of the war might give rise to some controversy, it could not be denied that the Sultan was the aggressor. [" Hear, hear !" and "Oh!"] He thought the Committee ought to press the Under Secretary for information as to what was going on now in Constantinople with regard to the terms of peace. As far as could be gathered, the attitude of the British Government and the Powers was a very reasonable attitude, namely, that not one inch of inhabited territory in Thessaly should be handed back to the Porte. If that was the view they held he did not think any reasonable fault could be found with it; but unfortunately the incidents of the last few months gave no guarantee for the hope that if any resistance was offered by the Porte, they would take any steps to prevent that territory remaining in the occupation of Turkey. Then there was also the question of the indemnity. In that case also he thought the time had arrived when an authoritative statement on the subject should be made by a responsible Member of the Government. The wildest rumours had been flying about as to the amount of the indemnity and if it was to be £4,000,000, not only did it appear to be a sum very much in excess of any damage that might have been incurred by Turkey, but it did not take into account the loss incurred by the Greek Government and the inhabitants of Thessaly, owing to the loss of the harvest and the devastation caused by the war. Then. upon another matter concerned in the terms of peace the Powers should intervene, and that was the abrogation of the capitulations. This was a matter which he submitted ought not to be left to be decided between Turkey and Greece alone, it was a. matter in regard to which the Powers of Europe or those most interested in the welfare of the Greek kingdom ought to have a direct voice, more especially the three Powers who were parties to the Convention of 1830, by which the capitulations were established giving a guarantee to the Greek subjects of the Ottoman Empire, without which they would be in the same position as the Armenians. The capitulations should not be left to be abrogated under existing circumstances when Turkey had the "whip hand" of Greece; but England, France, and Russia should have direct voices in this matter. Although he did not wish to trench too much on controversial subjects, yet there was one matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, who argued as a fact that should give rise to action on the part of the Government that we had only one ally of any consequence in the Eastern Mediterranean in the future and that was Turkey. But the hon. Member appeared to have left out of sight that assuming that the Turkish Empire was not a permanent institution in the corporate life of Europe, then at all events the Greek element scattered along the coast of the Levant presented a basis for the establishment of progress and order, and he earnestly trusted that in any development of policy which the Government might pursue in the future, they would not leave out of sight that most important factor the Hellenic nation. One other matter had been mentioned, the state of affairs in Armenia. The hon. Member found some improvement in the fact that wholesale massacre had succeeded a much more gradual method of extermination. But a pamphlet issued a few weeks ago on the impartial authority of the head of the. French Missions to the East, founded on the information from their own organisation and information of French Consuls as well as from Armenian sources, showed that the improvement was entirely on the surface. There had been no recent massacres, but persecution was just as terrible as it was some months ago. There were isolated cases of ago murder, such as that of Yussuf Yunan, who was an agent of the Duke of Westminster's Armenian Committee. was killed in cold blood by persons employed by others in a. superior position, and not these last were arrested, but the tools who carried out the murder. They had been sentenced to death, but the sentence had been referred to the Court of Cassation at Constantinople, and there was reason to believe the Sultan would be influenced to exercise his power to pardon. In regard to the massacres at Tokat there was no evidence that the sentence imposed had been carried out. He entirely contravened and contradicted the statements of the hon. Member. There had simply been a lull in the massacres, but the system in the Ottoman Empire as applied to its Christian subjects, might still be described as a system of toleration tempered by massacre. ["Hear!"]

I have been asked a number of questions on a great variety of topics, but perhaps I may be allowed to postpone the answers to those dealing with matters in the East of Europe until I have replied on the other points. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean made inquiries with refer- ence to the arrangement made with King Menelik. It is true, as I have before stated in reply to a question, that a treaty has been concluded on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by Mr. Rennell Rodd with that monarch. But it will not be in the public interest—and the right hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate this—that I should make any public statement of its contents at this moment. I hope in due time the treaty will be laid before the House, when hon. Members will have an opportunity of ascertaining what has taken place. The right hon. Baronet then asked some questions about Corea, and I do not in the least deprecate his allusion to British policy in regard to that part of the world. I am always very glad when I find Members taking a great interest in that which I think myself a most important subject of Imperial politics. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the views I have myself ventured to express, I do not know that they very substantially differ from those which have been entertained and acted upon by the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to state what are our interests in Corea. Well, I imagine that the independence of Corea is an international interest, but the right hon. Gentleman knows enough of the history of the Far East to know that Corea is feeble and has never been able to stand alone. For years, and even for centuries, she leaned upon China, and now, since the war is over, she, by virtue el a sort of common agreement, leans on Russia and Japan. The right lion. Baronet seemed to think that Corea had been abandoned to her fate, and that she was to be left to share the fate of Northern China, but I must say I do not agree with his account of recent incidents. British interests in Corea are, of course, not identical in character or in moment with the interests of the other Powers I have mentioned. We have not a contiguous frontier with Corea, as have Russia and China, and, in the second place, we do not gaze at her across the seas, as does Japan. We have, of course, commercial interests in Corea—interests which I should be the last to minimise, but interests not assessable at a very high figure, and which have never yet persuaded any British firm to embark on mercantile enterprise there. Our interests in Corea, other than commercial, are first, to see that the inde- pendence of Corea is maintained, and that it is not territorially or administratively absorbed into any of the surrounding states; secondly, that Corean territory and Corean harbours are not made the base of schemes for territorial or political aggrandisement, so as to disturb the balance of power in the Far East and give to any one Power a maritime supremacy in the Eastern seas. Commercial expansion is a thing we must expect, and which we must endeavour with the means at our disposal to meet, but any such attempts as I have been describing by any Power would find us ready to protect our own interests there. ["Hear, hear!"] Next I turn to the subject of Armenia, about which the Leader of the Opposition has asked me questions. To answer all these questions fully would cover a wide area and would be difficult within reasonable limits of time. I do not know from a perusal of the reports that I can describe the state of affairs as very reassuring. No doubt great distress continues to prevail, more especially in the eastern provinces of Asiatic Turkey. The Turkish tax-gatherer has never been distinguished for bowels of compassion; there is widespread deficiency of supplies, the Kurds are never altogether under control, and the gendarmerie, being unpaid, help themselves to what they can. That is one side, and, I think, a most distressing and deplorable side of the question. On the other hand, there are some relieving features. A considerable number of Turkish officials who have been proved guilty of participation in massacre, persecution, or disorder have been deprived of their posts. We have concurrent testimony from a great many quarters that high officials, civil and military, have exerted themselves to the utmost of their ability, in co-operation with the Consuls, to prevent the recurrence of disturbances and to bring about a more tranquil state of affairs. Then, again, the forced conversions so greatly complained of some two years ago have entirely ceased, and no obstacle has been put in the way of these unhappy persons reverting to the practices of their own religion. The British military Consuls in all parts of the country have rendered absolutely invaluable assistance by travelling about among the people and keeping on friendly terms with Turkish officers and with all classes. It is worthy of mention, perhaps, that since the lamentable incidents at Tokat in March last—though there may have been isolated cases of murder—there has not been any organised attack on Christians on a large scale in any part of Asiatic Turkey. As regards the reforms which were secured by the Powers more than a year ago, they have been put into operation in parts of Asia Minor, but I do not know that the result has been altogether satisfactory. Christians have in some cases been appointed in due proportions to the police and the gendarmerie; but so far as I can gather from our reports, although the experiment has been tried, it has not been particularly successful, and in many cases the Armenians thus appointed have subsequently resigned. Now I turn to the wider and perhaps the more important questions opened up in the majority of the speeches to which I have listened; and many as have been the occasions on which we have discussed this Greek question this Session, and wide as have been the differences of opinion by which we have been separated, I do not think there ought to be any difficulty on the present occasion in finding a common basis of agreement at which the bulk of us can arrive. I was encouraged in that hypothesis by the tone of the interrogatories addressed to us by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not know that there has been anything in subsequent speeches to detract from the tone with which this Debate was initiated. I shall not myself say anything about the events that led to the war except to comment on one observation that fell from the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke). He introduced, I think, not for the first time, a very strange story to the effect that an agreement between Greece and Turkey was on the verge of being arrived at when, through the malevolent intervention of some other Power or Powers, this happy arrangement broke down and war ensued. It is a very remarkable thing that Sir Edwin Egerton at Athens, who has enjoyed in the highest degree the confidence of the Greek Government, and Sir Philip Currie at Constantinople, who has been by no means remiss in providing us with authoritative information of what is pass- ing there, do not seem to have heard one word of this suggested arrangement. I really think the right hon. Baronet—who has put forward time after time, and repeated, with an air of authority suggesting the highest sources of information for what he says, this story in the House —ought to be prepared to enlighten Her Majesty's Government, who are in deep ignorance of the matter, as to what those sources of information are, so that we may estimate them at their proper value. I will say nothing more about the events prior to the war, nor do I desire to say anything about the responsibility that may be claimed by, or may legitimately be placed upon, either this party or that for the war. Such a discussion now can, I think only lead to recrimination, which would divert our attention from the main point at issue, which is what has been happening since the war was over, and since the Powers have taken the interests of Greece into their hands. What the Committee, I think, expects me to endeavour to tell them is the manner in which the Powers have been discharging the obligations which they assumed at the close of the war, which to some extent were imposed upon them by the exigencies of the moment, but which also, I admit, were the natural legacy of the whole of their policy during the past year. Hitherto our discussions of this question have always been divided into the two separate topics of Crete and the mainland, and as there is an essential difference, both in character and in treatment, between the two, perhaps the Committee will allow me to observe that distinction in what I have to say. As regards Crete, after the war the Greek troops were withdrawn, and the last batch of them left the Cretan shores on the 26th of May. Simultaneously, the blockade, although it was retained as a necessary measure of police to prevent arms and armed volunteers from entering the country, was relaxed as to merchandise and provisions, and therefore practically it may be said to have ceased to exist.

Are provisions free to go in now?

I believe so. More recently the Admirals have reported to us a decided change in the attitude and approach of the insurgent leaders. Frequent and friendly negotiations have taken place between the Ad- mirals and these men. The old cry of "Annexation or death," which used to figure at their interviews, has now ceased to be heard, and autonomy, involving the appointment of a European Governor, the cessation of all Turkish control in the internal administration of the island, and the ultimate withdrawal of the Turkish troops, is now more widely understood and more generally appreciated by them. We hear of the Christians meeting at the present moment to elect delegates for the forthcoming Assembly, and although, of course, this Assembly will, so far as at present can be judged, only represent the Christian element in the island, at the same time it will be able to voice their opinion and ought to be able to lend material assistance to the Powers. The Admirals have given free passage to those of the inhabitants who desire to go to and from the meetings for the purpose of electing these delegates, and I believe the election is proceeding satisfactorily.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this Assembly. Will he state when the Assembly is expected to meet?

Of course, this Assembly is rather an informal and irregular thing, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the original Assembly represented the whole of the island, and contained delegates both of the Moslems and Christians. The Christians, no doubt with a desire to show their intention to meet the Admirals, are electing deputies to represent their opinions. Whether the delegates so elected can legitimately be called the General Assembly it is difficult to say. I was about to allude to the two localities in which special and local disturbances have, or are said to have, taken place. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition read out from The Times a long telegram from a correspondent of that paper, which appeared this morning, as to the incidents of disorder that are occurring—that are said to be occurring—in Canea. So far we know nothing of them. Of course, I cannot say whether they be or be not true, but it is remarkable that, although we had, only yesterday, telegrams from our Consul, who is now at Canea, he said nothing whatever about them, and gave us no intimation whatever that matters there had reached, or were likely to reach, the rather critical state which was described by this correspondent. But as regards Candia I should like to say a word. The situation at Candia is very exceptional. There are in the town something like 52,000 Mahomedans, of whom less than one-half are the normal population, while the remainder arc fugitives who have been driven within the walls from all parts of the interior. The force of European and of Turkish soldiers who are stationed there is really inadequate to keep this great host in perfect control. There has been, no doubt, as I think some previous speaker has remarked, a considerable revival of Turkish feeling—a natural, I think perhaps a pardonable, revival—owing to the success of their main campaign on the Continent. At Candia the trouble has, in the main, centred around two points—the water supply and the grazing area. The water supply has over and over again been cut by the Christians, threatening, of course, the Moslems in the town with starvation. On the other hand, the Moslems in the town have not been able to take their cattle outside the walls to find grazing or fodder for their sustenance. Ambuscades have been constantly laid by the Christians, who have waylaid and have decapitated unhappy and innocent Moslem peasants. Thereupon the Moslems have retaliated by nocturnal raids, sweeping down on some of these Christian villages and making short work of their inhabitants. The water supply question has, I am glad to say, practically been settled by agreement between the Admirals and the insurgents. The sources of water and the intervening channels have been visited by a force from the town—on one occasion a mixed Italian and English force marched out without molestation as far as nine miles into the interior—and our latest information is that water is flowing freely and without interruption from either side. But the same cannot be said about the grazing difficulty. This grazing question is very acute. The Committee must remember that the lands outside the town of Candia are lands belonging to the Moslems—["hear, hear!"]—who have been driven from them inside the walls. These poor people creep out at night, under cover of darkness, to visit their old homes. They find their houses pulled down; they find the crops which they sowed reaped by others and they find every trace, it may be, of their own property swept away. ["Hear, hear!"] That is a situation which wholly apart from the question of the religious sect of the different parties, must appeal to the sympathies of any inan—[cheers]—and the Committee will understand that it requires the utmost tact, and I may even say statecraft, on the part of Colonel Chermside to cope with a situation of that description. ["Hear, hear!"] He has really, on the whole, been most successful. Open plundering has been suppressed; wherever he has had a chance he has given warning of these raids to the party likely to be attacked, and they have, I think, been successfully frustrated. Since July 16 an order has been procured from the Turkish, authorities that no man shall be allowed to carry arms without written permission. The Admirals have agreed that the irregular troops in the outposts, who were, the Committee must remember, Cretans of Mahomedan faith, should be replaced, where possible, by Turkish regulars, experience showing that where the latter have been stationed few or no disorders have broken out. Nevertheless, I must admit that the situation at Candia is one of some danger, and is likely so to continue for some time. As long as the abnormal conditions on the one hand, of this congested population and, on the other hand, of scarcity of food supply continue, so long I think must we have some trouble in the town. I turn from that to the larger question—about which I have been asked some questions—of the future government of the island. The Powers have not receded from any one of the declarations and engagements they have publicly made in that respect, and if I be asked here how it arises that the autonomy Which they have promised has not been definitely and finally set up, I think the answer is a very simple one. For the moment the representatives of the Powers are engaged upon a task undoubtedly of more immediate and urgent importance et Constantinople. They are endeavouring to arrange the conditions of a permanent peace between the combatants in the late war, and to relieve Greece on the one hand and Turkey on the other from the strain and expense of maintain- ing on the one side a large number of refugees at Athens, and on the other side a great army on the footing of war in the plains of Thessaly. These negotiations would, in the opinion of the Government, only be complicated, and might be endangered, if the Ambassadors endeavoured to do two things at the same time. Let them first discharge the more important task which is now immediately occupying their energies, and then let' them take the question of Crete in hand. Meanwhile, as I have endeavoured to show by reference to what is passing in Crete, I think the problem in that island is to scone extent solving itself. I should not like, however, to give the Committee the impression that the Powers have, in the mean- time, forgotten this question of autonomy. On the contrary, they have been considering among themselves, and they have agreed among themselves, as to the bases of such autonomy. They have agreed on the appointment of a European Governor, and hon. Members will see the name of a candidate of the highest eminence and reputation for statesmanship, mentioned in the newspapers. Whether or not M. Droz will accept the post, I do not know, but the attitude of the Government has been throughout that they were quite willing to accept any governor, civil or military, although their own personal preference was for a military rather than a civil governor, whose name recommended itself to the Powers. The Powers have also agreed in principle to the enrolment of a gendarmerie and to the principle of a loan to enable the new rigime, when it is started, to be set afoot. Also they have agreed to a convocation of the General Assembly, which I have already mentioned, and to the progressive reduction of the Turkish troops. These principles have been acquiesced in without exception by all the Powers. Naturally, there has been some difference of opinion as to detail, but there is a substantial agreement on the bases which I have mentioned. A question was put to me as to how it is that the Turkish troops have not already left the island, or are not at the present moment in process of departure. I have already stated that the discussions at Constantinople have turned for the moment upon more important points; but I think it would be futile, and more than futile— that it would be dangerous—to remove the Turkish troops before you have something to put in their place. ["Hear, hear!"] Let the new governor be established, let him be supplied with an ample force, and I think the question of the removal of the Turkish troops will have reached a more satisfactory stage. There remains only one more difficulty with regard to Crete which I should like to mention. In the towns there are congregated at the present moment some 10,000 Mahomedan families. These people have been driven from the interior. Their homes and their crops have been confiscated or destroyed. On the other hand, they are residing for the most part in houses belonging to the Christians. The restitution of these unhappy people to their homes in the country will undoubtedly be a task of the greatest difficulty. They can only go back under military protection, and when they arrive at their old homes they will find ruin staring them in the face. But it may be that by some exchange of property between the two religious bodies in the island, by the aggregation of the Mussulmans in certain towns or portions of the island, and by giving assistance to those who wish to emigrate, the difficulty may be overcome. In the meantime it is no good ignoring these difficulties which we have before us, and it is perfectly plain that the difficulty of the interior of Crete is not a Gordian knot which can be cut by a slash of the sword, but is one which will require the patient manipulation and delicate unravelling of skilful diplomatic fingers. I do not say that the condition of the island is satisfactory, but I do say it, contains elements of greater hope than I was able to point out on the last occasion when I addressed the House. It cannot surely be expected that in an island which has suffered from chronic disturbance for over 2,000 years, Mahomedans and Christians should join hands and consent to dwell together in unity at the first appearance of European forces. I turn now to a subject of vastly greater importance namely the negotiations for the settlement of a permanent peace between Turkey and Greece. It is well known that at the beginning the Porte asked for the restitution of the old frontier which existed at the time of the Berlin Treaty. The Porte also asked for an indemnity of ten millions Turkish pounds, and for the abolition of the capitulations under which Greek subjects live and trade in so many parts of the Ottoman dominions. From the first the Powers united in resisting these demands, and were in agreement as to the modified conditions which they are prepared to concede. Upon these lines the negotiations have tranquilly, though I dare say slowly, proceeded. Although I am not in a position to say that the line for the strategical rectification of the Thessalian frontier agreed to by the Military Attachés has been finally accepted by the Porte, the principle which underlies it has, I believe, been acquiesced in. Financial experts have been appointed to examine into the financial resources of Greece. with a view to determining the maximum indemnity which that country is capable of paying, and the largest sum that she can reasonably be expected to set apart from year to year for the interest upon the indemnity loan. These conclusions have also been accepted in principle. Finally, the Dragomans of the various Embassies have been engaged in drawing up a list of the abuses in the capitulations of which I spoke, which have been discussed with the legal advisers of the Porte, and about which there is a disposition to arrive at a conclusion on both sides. I should mention, as correcting some false impressions given by two or three previous speakers, that what Lord Salisbury has throughout laid special stress upon has been the impossibility of handing back settled Christian territory to Turkish rule. He has insisted upon the principle, upon which all the Powers are agreed with him, that if any small groups of Christians are included within the strategical line sketched out by the Military Attachés, they shall be allowed the option of emigrating and accepting compensation awarded to them, by an impartial tribunal. It is quite true that the progress cannot be described as rapid. Speed is not a characteristic which is ever predicable of the progress of diplomatic negotiations at Constantinople. But circumstances for the moment there render these delays peculiarly explicable in character. There is a military, and I think also a militant, party in Constantinople, and the Sultan has advisers who do not take the same view of his obligations as the Great Powers do. There is the solid fact that there is a large army of many thousands of men still on the plains of Thessaly. There is the sentiment of religious fanaticism which, has been aroused by the recent conflict and stimulated by the victory in which that conflict resulted. No doubt there is among many sections of the Turkish people a feeling, a revived sense, of military power which their easy successes have brought about. All these are factors which are perfectly obvious and which cannot be lost sight of in estimating the complexity of the situation with which the Powers are called upon to deal. These are all of them, of course, obstacles to a rapid issue of the negotiations now in progress. But possibly from one point of view they have not been without advantage, because I think that all these difficulties, delays, and obstacles have tended still more to emphasise the sentiments of agreement with which the Great Powers have been acting. ["Hear, hear!"] In the two months of negotiation of which I have been speaking I cannot remember any occasion on which there has been any substantial disagreement—I think I may carry it further, and say any disagreement at alt—on the points connected with those negotiations between the Powers at Constantinople. [Cheers.] The Governments and their representatives have been acting in absolute harmony, and I see no reason whatever why that harmony should not be continued. [Cheers.] Of course, we have heard to-night, and no doubt we shall hear again, the familiar accusations against the Concert of Europe. They are taunted with delays for which they are not responsible. There are Gentlemen in this House, and there are writers in the newspapers, who attempt to attach to them the odium of a situation which I maintain they did nothing, themselves to provoke. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not expect such hon. Gentlemen to stay their hands, but I do invite them for one moment to consider what the situation of Greece would have been at this moment if there had been no Concert of Europe to intervene. [Cheers.] It is perfectly true that the peace negotiations may be proceeding somewhat slowly at Constantinople. But for the Concert of Europe much severer terms might have been dictated by a victorious Turkish General at the Acropolis. Take, again, the question of evacuation. But for the Concert of Europe it might not have been the evacuation of Thessaly, but of Attica itself, that would have been at stake. Take, again, the question of the indemnity. It might not have been the amount that Greece could pay, but the amount that Turkey chose to exact. I will not, therefore, for my own part admit the failure with which the Concert of Europe has been arraigned. They could not prevent, and they never undertook to prevent, war between Greece and Turkey. What they did do was to prevent the conflagration extending over a much wider area. The Leader of the Opposition made great fun of the Concert, and sail, "You claim for yourselves that you prevented each other from flying at each other's throats." No, that is not the claim. The claim is that the Concert prevented other and smaller States of Europe from flying at each other's throats, or from trying to get their share of the spoils—from which condition of things a situation of great danger to the peace of Europe must have arisen, and in which, one after another, the Great Powers might have become involved. That is the claim which the Powers make for themselves. In the meantime, they did exert themselves, as soon as opportunity presented itself to them, to intervene to bring the war to a conclusion. The whole object of my remarks to-night has been to impress on the Committee that the Powers are endeavouring at Constantinople to arrange terms which shall be reasonable for the victorious and moderate for the vanquished. [Cheers.] I do not know that it is particularly my duty to answer those taunts or to defend the Concert of Europe. After all, the Concert of Europe will be judged by the permanent verdict of history—[Opposition cheers]—and not by the transient impression of the House of Commons. [Cheers.] What, I imagine, a Secretary or Under Secretary, whoever he may be, speaking on behalf of his Government in the Chamber of which he is a Member, has got to do is to deal with is the conduct and responsibility of his own Government rather than with those of other Governments. On that issue I feel no alarm whatever. [Cheers.] Of course, it is impossible while the negotiations are proceeding to lay full details on the Table of the House. But I hope I have gone as far in the way in the direction of confidence and disclosure as I could reasonably be expected to do. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole of my argument has been that we are at the present moment labouring to re-establish a condition of permanent peace in Eastern Europe, to mitigate the sufferings that have been entailed on Greece by her own rash acts. and to see that while Turkey receives the legitimate she does not receive more than the legitimate spoils to which she is entitled. To secure those ends the Government have been working during the past two months. They have not been working alone, and they do not propose to work alone. [Cheers.] They desire to secure those ends in conjunction with the other Powers: being perfectly convinced as I have so often said before, that any isolated action or any single-handed policy could only retard, and it might ultimately jeopardise, the results which they hope they are not over-sanguine in expecting the combined policy of Europe still to secure. [Cheers.]

, who was received with cheers: My first due is to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clear and rapid statement he has made to the Committee, and for the full and fair way in which he has dealt, as I think, with an admirable selection of the points which are most interesting to the Committee at the present time. I do not know that what he has said invites any lengthened comment from me. I wish he could have told us something a little more hopeful in regard to Armenia, but I know I ought not to have expected it, because affairs in Crete and the war between Turkey and Greece have entirely thrown Armenia into the background, and the scheme of reform has not practically taken effect. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Christians had been employed in the police in Armenia, and that the attempt had not succeeded. It would be very interesting to know why it was the attempt did not succeed, because that was a point in the scheme of reform on which great hopes had been placed, and it would be well to know how far the particular point was worth pressing in the future. I must say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Crete was much more favourable than the reports in the newspapers had led me to expect. I read only this morning in an article in The Times that not only was there no progress in Crete, but that things there were apparently going from bad to worse; and I gathered that not only was there a failure to secure the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from the island, but that Turkey was bent on sending fresh troops there, which had rendered both parties more disorderly—the Christians full of fear and apprehension of what was going to happen, and the Mahomedans thinking that things were surely coming round to their side. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the condition of things in Crete at the present time is better than it has been in the past will be thoroughly justified by events in the future. One thing I wish to make clear. If our criticism this evening has been moderate—and I do not intend to depart from that moderation—it must not be argued from it that we view the point which events have now reached with complete satisfaction. ["Hear, hear!"] I could wish that the right hon. Gentleman had not said so much in defence of the actions of the Concert of Europe. The Concert, no doubt, will, in the long run, be judged in history mainly by results. But if the historian were to judge the Concert to-day by the results achieved so far, I do not think the verdict would be a favourable one. ["Hear, hear!"] Indeed, I do not think that Lord Salisbury is quite satisfied with the action of the Concert. ["Hear, hear !"] It was only a few days ago that Lord Salisbury lamented that there had not been in the Concert some personality of the ascendency of Prince Bismarck, who might have made things move a little bit quicker. ["Hear, hear!"] Some of us have a doubt as to whether Lord Salisbury might not within the Concert have exercised more influence than he apparently has done. ["Hear, hear!"] But I do not wish to press that point tonight, first, because the results of Lord Salisbury's policy are still incomplete, and, secondly, because we have no authentic information before us yet as to what the policy of the Concert has really been. But as regards the action of the Concert as a whole—though I do not wish to say the responsibility specially rests upon Her Majesty's Government—there is among the people of this country a widespread dissatisfaction with the slowness and feebleness of the action of the Concert. ["Hear, hear!"] I quite admit that the Concert has secured certain results of which the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night, but we have to judge what we expected from the action of the Concert, not by those more or less negative results which have been achieved, but by the wider and higher aims of the Powers, and by the enormous strength they had behind them to carry them out; and judged by that standard I say the action of the Concert hitherto seems to me to have been slow and to have been feeble. [Cheers.] But is there any better prospect for the action of the Concert in the future? I can understand that it is possible that we may have some results from the Concert in future more pronounced and more effective than we have had in the past. It is possible, no doubt, that when war between Greece and Turkey first arose some members of the Concert with interests deeply concerned may have been seriously alarmed as to how far the disturbance would spread. They might have held even that if the Concert were to apply measures of coercion to the Sultan it might have been an encouragement to other States than Greece to take part in the war. But that danger has passed away; and we are told that on all points there is unanimity in the Concert of Europe—that none of the different Governments intends to separate from it, but that they are all determined to carry out the policy to which they have put their hands. But if it be convinced of that—if it be relieved from the great anxiety which may have been weighing on some of its members earlier in the year, then we have some reason, not only to hope, but to expect and to claim, that the results of the next few weeks will be more decisive and more effective than those earlier in the year have been. And though we shall never be able to clear from our minds the suspicion that the Concert, as a united body, might, if it liked, have prevented some of the suffering which has occurred, yet in the end it may secure effectively those two points on which so much stress has been laid to-night — first, that no Christian territory is to be placed again under Turkish rule; and, secondly, that in Crete an effective autonomy should be established, which may remove in perhaps no distant time, not merely the present disturbances, but those causes of misgovernment, which I believe to be at the root of the disturbances in Crete, and which, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, have continued now for hundreds of years. [Cheers.]

said the criticism of the Government had been of so moderate a character that it was evident that right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not really disapprove of the Government's policy. As to the pacification of Crete, he did not think that the statement of the Under Secretary was particularly reassuring. Sir A. Billiotti attributed the delay in the pacification to the too-great indulgence which had been shown to the insurgents. At any rate, the Cretan Parliament which was about to meet was to be entirely Christian. That brought us no nearer to a solution of the difficulties if the Mussulman population was to be wholly excluded. As to the larger question between Greece and Turkey, the position was more promising. Of course, there was delay in the negotiations, and there was likely to be delay, considering that the amount of the indemnity was not yet settled, and considering the circumstances under which Thessaly was ceded to Greece in 1881. There was everything to be said for the Turks in this case. A grossly unprovoked attack was made upon them; but throughout the campaign their conduct had contrasted favourably with that of their antagonists. It was only fair that reparation should be made to them; and if it had been decided that the reparation were not to take the form of territorial expansion a substantial indemnity ought to be paid. To that indemnity the historical hundred Members ought to contribute generously. [Cheers.] All the treaties governing action in Eastern Europe were formed on the assumption that the Turks were to be protected from the Russians; but those two Powers were now more closely united than any others in Europe. Turkey was in process of assimilation by Russia; Russia was not likely to allow the interference of other Powers; and if Russia would not act herself, the peace negotiations must naturally proceed slowly. He would not admit that it was our duty beyond any other Power to get the Greeks out of the difficulty in which they had placed themselves by their own folly. He would urge patience upon Gentlemen opposite, for he was convinced that if their leaders had been in power they would have pursued exactly the same course as Her Majesty's Government had done. ["Hear, hear!"]

drew attention to what he said was nothing less than a breach of faith on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The breach of faith was this, that they had over and over again promised the House of Commons that they would abolish the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar Protectorate, and after they had been two years in office they had only partially abolished it in the island of Zanzibar and Pemba alone. The right lion. Member the Under Secretary had stated on June 24:—

"That no Member of the Government had ever been asked to abolish the legal status of slavery except in the islands, that the Government had never given any other pledge, and he had never heard the question of the Main. land argued in that House."

He would prove that these three statements were unfounded. Since March 8. 1895, he had in repeated questions, and in every speech he had delivered, argued in favour of abolition on the Mainland, and so late as January 19 last had pointed out how, in so far as the responsibility of the Government was concerned, the recognition of the legal status on the Mainland was worse than that on the islands where the Sultan shared the responsibility. Besides memorials presented to the Government on the subject Bishop Tucker had authorised him to say that as recently as December 8, he had advocated the abolition on the Mainland, and t hat on Mr. Curzon himself. Bishop Tucker stated that the slavery is exactly the same kind of agricultural slavery as that which exists upon the islands. How could Mr. Curzon come down to the House and assert the Government had never been even asked to abolish it? Mr. Chamberlain in March 1895, was asked—

"whether it was consistent with all that we had done and said in the past, that what was practically the British flag should fly over slavery?"

The hon. Baronet, who was then Tinder Secretary, stated:—

"that the Government had asked for a Report as to the best way of doing it, and this thing had got to be done."

The Report makes it clear that the quest ion of Mainland abolition was included. Mr. Piggott was asked by Mr. Hardinge to, report on the Mainland, and in the Blue-book, Africa No. 7, his letter, dated August 1, 1895, commenced:—

"I have the honour to report on the question of the abolition of slavery in the British Protectorate in East Africa."

The Leader of the Opposition, when Leader of the House in 1895, stated:—

"It was the duty of the Government to use their exertions at the earliest possible moment to put an end to slavery both in Zanzibar and elsewhere,"

and the present First Lord of the Treasury, in. the Debate on August 21, 1895, used these words: —

"We are called upon to lay a detailed plan before the Committee with regard to the particular machinery and methods by which the abolition of slavery in East Africa is to be accomplished. The question of slavery on the East Coast of Africa is one that has long engaged the attention of Governments, and in Ice Debate of last February we pressed this question on the Government of the day,"

and it was only on the understanding that the Government would deal with the gigantic evil without delay that the hon. Member for North Cork withdrew his Motion.

asked the hon. Member to quote any words of his on the part of the Government to abolish the status of slavery on the mainland. That was a definite challenge.

I accept it. The hon. Member went on to trace the course of events in relation to the question from the time of the late Government, and coming to the present year stated that at the beginning of the Session he moved an Amendment to the Address drawing attention to the situation on the Mainland as being worse than on the islands, and it was only on account of the pledge then given by the right hon. Gentleman that he withdrew the Amendment to the Address. He accepted the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, and here were his words:—

"The Government bad arrived at a decision of policy, and that decision was in strict fulfilment of the engagements which he had entered into more than once in that House. The pledge which had been given was that Mr. Hardinge would receive instructions to abolish the legal status of slavery in the Protectorate of Pemba and Zanzibar."

Is the hoe. Member quoting from "Hansard."

I am quoting from "Hansard"—[cheers]—of 19th January 1897.

"That these would be a complete fulfilment of the pledges which he had given, the House might rest assured."

That was that the legal status of slavery would be abolished in the Protectorate. There had not only not been a complete fulfilment in regard to the Mainland, but he held that the Government had not carried out their pledge and secured complete abolition with regard even to the islands. The right hon. Gentleman on 24th June defended the inaction of the Government on several grounds. Tie said there were more slaves legally held in the islands than on the Mainland; that he. had not heard of any grievance or hardship; that if a slave desired to escape he could obtain his freedom more readily on the Mainland, and that the Government had had only two years' absolute control over this district. He held that the Government had done nothing in the two years during which they had complete control. Then he argued with regard to compensation, and said that if the policy of compensation was applied to the mainland, the question would assume enormous proportions. That was an argument why the Government did not apply their policy of abolition of the legal status of slavery over the administrative area over which they had direct control. Then he went on to argue that certain control had been given by the Sultan to the possessors of legally held slaves, and so the Government could not ignore that guarantee. But that did not prevent the Government from taking subsequent action, and for eight years they had recognised legally held slaves and taken no steps to bring the institution to a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman used an expression which conveyed an inaccurate version of Sir John Kirk's views. He said that Sir John Kirk saw no necessity for taking similar steps on the mainland. That was rather a shock to hon. Members who always regarded Sir John Kirk as a keen abolitionist. He took the liberty of writing to Sir John Kirk, who replied: —

"I have for long urged the Government to take the step of abolishing the legal status of slavery."

And again: —

"I am glad to be able.… to state my views as to slavery on the mainland."

The only objection that Sir John Kirk had to the Government's action with regard to the abolition of slavery was that they had not gone far enough. All the concubines on the islands were still retained in the position of slaves, and, as any number of concubines could be retained, most of the women who were in the prime of life on those islands were still in a condition of bondage. With regard to the question of compensation, he wished to know what the Government were going to do on the mainland. The First Lord of the Treasury said the other day with regard to the abolition of the status on the mainland that the Government were going to carry out what they were in process of carrying out on the islands. All precedents really were against this principle of compensation, and he, wished to know whether the Government were going to ask the House for a Vote in order to pay compensation to slaveholders on the mainland. The Under Secretary of State had said that the Government were carrying out the policy which had been advised by Sir John Kirk; but in a letter which he had received from Sir John Kirk that gentleman said,—

"I object to female slaves being exempted from the operation of the new law and left in slavery, and I do not consider that any practical difficulty would have arisen had the law been made of universal application I regard the giving of compensation as not only needless, but most unwise."

As to the question of fugitive slaves, the Government ought to have been aware of the illegality which was being pursued by their officers, and ought to have taken steps of their own accord in regard to it. It was obvious from a perusal of Lord Salisbury's Dispatch of 1889 that the giving up of these fugitive slaves had been part and parcel of Lord Salisbury's administration. In 1889 Lord Salisbury issued the following Dispatch to Colonel Euan Smith,—

"I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acquaint you that his Lordship approves your action in giving to each of the 550 runaway slaves a printed certificate of permission allowing them to continue in the mission station until claimed. I am at the same time to instruct you to warn all mission societies against harbouring runaway slaves, without making any exception. No legal right to do so can be claimed, and where a refuge and asylum are granted in extreme cases of peril and out of humanity it is done at the risk of the person giving the shelter."

On June 25 the Under Secretary had stated that the documents produced on the previous evening were entirely new to Her Majesty's. Government. How could that be said, when he had read them in the House on June 3 to the right hon. Member, and the First Lord was also in his place. The Government had really ignored the matter until forced later on by a Vote in the House to take action. The attitude of the Government had been to belittle and minimise this evil of slavery. Over and over again the Under Secretary of State had used arguments indicating that the missionaries were opposed to the abolition; but he possessed letters from. these missionaries which were quoted in the Blue-books showing that their views had been misconstrued and that they were opposed to the action of the Government and were in favour of the abolition of the legal status of slavery. The Government had long trifled with this question. Two years ago they pledged themselves to action, and little or nothing had been done on the mainland, while on the islands only about half the slaves had been liberated. He protested against. what he considered to be a breach of faith on the part of the Government, against the system of compensation which the Government had created, against the recognition of concubinage, and against the reasons 'which had been put forward by the Under Secretary of State in justification of the Government's inaction on the mainland.

said he conceived the answer to the hon. Member's charges would be that when we were in a foreign country that was under an authority which recognised slavery as an essential principle in regard to the rights of property, we must recognise it. He understood, however, that British subjects had been t prohibited from taking any part in the execution of the law which established slavery. With regard to the Far East, there was no doubt that Russia hail made enormous advances, but he did not share the apprehension of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, because, owing to the great distances, the advantage of access would be rather with the Power which sent goods by sea than' with the Power which had a single line railway. He was glad to see that the Armenian question had been put to sleep. The right hon. Baronet opposite who had spoken, and whom they were glad to see back again, did not seem even to have read the Blue-books. He wanted to know why the reform—the cardinal reform which involved the employment of Christian gendarmes or policemen, had not been carried out. If he had read the Blue-book he would see that the only reason why that reform had not been carried out was because the Christians absolutely refused to serve.

said he had not asked why the reforms had not been carried out.

said it had been perfectly well known that this proposed reform could never succeed. With regard to Crete, he understood that information was to be gathered from a one-sided assembly or convention of Christians.

said that was not a correct impression. He had said that an assembly even of Christians alone would enable them at all events to ascertain what were the views of the Christians.

said they must get the views of both sides if any settlement were to be arrived at. With regard to Candia, he understood that a sort of neutral zone had been established with great success. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that everybody in Candia was prohibited from carrying arms, but that surely did not include those engaged in protecting the neutral zone. As to the question of peace between Greece and Turkey, he said that the Concert had been denounced as useless, ineffective, and a failure. This might be so; but Turkey had accomplished what the Powers had failed to achieve. Colonel Vassos had been turned out of Crete and Greece had been kept in order by being vanquished in the field. He was glad to hear that the Concert meant to see that Turkey obtained her legitimate spoil of victory. This was a great advance in the education of the European Concert, though it seemed to him a little unreasonable that the settlement of Turkey's just claim must be subject to the condition that no settled Christian territory should be given back to Turkey. Greece had never been in full and lawful occupation of Thessaly, because she had failed to carry out her obligations, undertaken 16 years ago, to pay a portion of the debt. The Eastern Question was the European Question of "Who is to rule on the Bosphorus?" He was pleased to see signs of a returning sense of the importance of this question in the minds of Ministers. Turkey had been put to great peril and expense in the late war in order to carry out what the Concert of Europe had failed to obtain. No one could contend that she was not en titled to some indemnity, and if Turkey were entitled to an indemnity, the Sultan was entitled to occupy the conquered territory until that indemnity were forthcoming.

said that, having been recently in the Sandwich Islands, he wished to call attention to the revolution in Hawaii. It was important that the circumstances should be known. The rightful ruler of Hawaii was the Queen, who at the Jubilee of 1887 was the guest of Her Majesty, who spoke English admirably, and who governed her country with moderation and success. This Queen was deposed by a kind of Nonconformist-Jameson raid. In a revolution the missionaries seized the Government of the Sandwich Islands, with the aid of United States blue-jackets and marines. The power was wrongfully seized by the missionaries, but, in accordance with an undertaking given by the missionaries to the Queen, the matter was referred to President Cleveland. Mr. Cleveland referred it to a Commissioner named Mr. Blunt, who was sent to the Sandwich Islands to make inquiries. Commissioner Blunt took evidence on the spot, and made a report. In consequence of that report, President Cleveland sent instructions to Mr. Willis, and stated that he wished the Queen to be restored by peaceful means. In order to restore the Queen, however, it would have been necessary to use force, and the missionaries organised a standing army of 250 men, which was described by an American newspaper correspondent as the—

"so-called soldiers of a rotten Government and consisted of illiterate Portuguese, drunken Germans, and riff-raff beach-combers."

In all the evidence available through public documents it was clear to his mind that the power had been wrongfully seized by the missionaries; it had been wrongfully upheld by the missionaries, and wrongfully used by the missionaries. The missionaries declared that gambling and betting were illegal, and the result was that horse-racing there, the favourite pastime, had been very nearly extinguished. The missionaries went further, and made attendance at church compulsory on Sundays. It was not wonderful that in these circumstances the missionaries became unpopular, because they governed regardless of stipulations, rites, customs, privileges, or wishes of the nation. Indeed, the missionary government was a usurpation of much the same nature as if Dr. Jameson's raid had succeeded and the Government of the Transvaal were upheld by British bayonets. The proposed annexation of Hawaii by the -United States concerned ourselves, and must be looked upon from our point of view as well as from that of Hawaii. Hawaii was the most important coaling station in the Pacific. We had subsidised a line of steamers between Vancouver and Australia and were anxious to promote trade between Canada and Australia, and all the steamers must coal at Hawaii. It was not only the rights of British subjects in. Hawaii, but the rights of the British people which must be maintained, and considering the importance of Hawaii as a coaling station it would be unfortunate if America took possession of it and established herself there. If we could look on America as an absolutely friendly Power it would not matter so much, but in view of recent occurrences which had agitated the public mind it was difficult to assume that America was, and always would remain, a friendly Power. The basis of good relations between countries was reciprocity of good feeling, and that good feeling was likely to be disturbed if one used provocative and insulting language towards the other. When we had so recently exhibited our great strength to the world, it became us to be slow to wrath, and in shaping our policy in the future the persistent unfriendliness of America should be taken into account.

said he was acquainted with Hawaii, and took an interest in its affairs. He regretted what the hon. Member had said. The hon. Member must have been misinformed when he said the revolution in Hawaii was brought about by the missionaries. It was not at all the case, and the hon. Member must have been imposed upon by statements as to the puritanical character of the rule that the missionaries sought to establish.

said he derived his information from people on the spot.

said that even people on the spot were apt to exaggerate. He regretted to hear the hon. Member suggest that America should be regarded by us as an unfriendly Power. Such a suggestion should not be allowed to pass without emphatic protest. ["Hear, hear!"] He denied that there was an unfriendly attitude towards England on the part of the bulk of the American people. But nothing would be more likely than a Debate deprecating the annexation of Hawaii to arouse the party of annexation in the United States. He believed the annexation of Hawaii would be injurious to America, and he approved of the policy the Government had followed in Hawaiian affairs as one of judicious reserve. He wished to repeat a question he had asked earlier in the Session as to a speech of M. Hanotaux, in which he said that in November 1895, one of the Powers suggested that the Powers should "enter the Dardanelles and seize in his Palace the man who had been responsible for so many calamities." He wished to know whether Great Britain was the Power that made that proposal, and in what Blue-books and where in them any reference to the proposal was to be found. Upon the speech the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made that evening he had only a few observations to make. The Under Secretary had admitted that the position of things in Armenia and Asia Minor was bad and that the promised reforms were not satisfactory. No reforms would work satisfactorily unless placed under the supervision of an independent European Commission. Such a Commission was part of the scheme of reform proposed in May 1895, and unless it were adopted any so-called reforms would be valueless to improve the condition of the people. A series of articles as to the condition of the Eastern Christians had recently appeared in The Tablet, and he would be glad to know when they might expect the latest Consular reports bearing on the condition of the people during the last six months so that they might see how far the statements referred to were borne out by them. He hoped the Foreign Office was prepared to !ay these reports before Parliament as soon as possible. If they could be presented before the end of the Session so much the better. In reference to Greece, he would ask the right lion. Gentleman whether the offer to appoint M. Droz Governor-General of Crete had really been made or was in contemplation.

replied that he could not say that the offer had been authoritatively made, but the candidature of M. Droz had been seriously considered.

said the only other question he desired to ask was why the irregular Mussulman troops, whose presence it was admitted had led to so much mischief, had not been removed from Crete? As to the result of the European Concert, they could not anticipate the favourable verdict of history. The result had been to destroy Crete, to make the Turks triumphant as they had not been for centuries before, to increase Mahomedan fanaticism over the whole of the East; to throw back civilisation in Asia Minor, Syria, and Armenia; and expose the whole of the Christian population of the East to even greater dangers than they had hitherto encountered. If, considering the effect of the Concert up to this date, anyone had confidence in its future results he must be a sanguine man. ["Hear, hear!"]

in replying, said there was no reluctance on the part of the Foreign Office to present the latest Consular reports about Armenia; but the recent labours of the Foreign Office in preparing Blue-books had been heavier they they had been for years. The Foreign Office had during the past year prepared four large Armenian Blue-books and three Cretan Bluebooks and was engaged on a fourth. The right hon. Gentleman asked him a question with regard to a subject which formed the topic of more than one Parliamentary question early in the Session —viz. as to certain proposals made in November 1895, by one of the Powers of Europe. He was afraid he had not much to add to what he had said before on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman asked what reply was given by the British Government. He could not at this distance of time charge his memory; he had no recollection of the proposal having bean made, and he could not therefore recall what reply was made by the British Government. But when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to inquire why there was no mention made of it in the Blue-book, he thought it would be found that there were no papers or documents of any kind connected with it, and therefore there was nothing in the Blue-book. The only other observation he wished to make had reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. A. Pease). That speech, he ventured to say, was most unusual in its tone and almost offensive in its imputation of breach of faith against the present and the late Governments, and, as he gathered, he attributed personal dishonesty against himself.

I never attributed dishonesty.

It might be that the hon. Gentleman did not in actual words, but that was the meaning of what he said, and there was no ground for it. The point of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that the promise to abolish the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar related in the case of the late Government and of the present Government to the protectorate on the Mainland, and was not confined to the islands. He was not responsible for the late Government, but the hon. Baronet who represented that Government was perfectly competent to say whether their promise did or did not extend to the Mainland, though his (Mr. Curzon's) impression was that it was confined to the islands. However, he was not concerned to speak for the late Government. But in the case of the present Government he could speak with confidence. He rose in his place and directly challenged the hon. Gentleman to quote any passage of any speech in which he had at any time promised on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the abolition of the legal status of slavery they had undertaken to carry out in the islands should also be carried out on the Mainland; and the hon. Gentleman proceeded to read an extract from a speech which he alleged to have been delivered in that House. He (Mr. Curzon) asked if be were quoting from "Hansard," and he replied "Yes." He had furnished himself with "Hansard," and he had before him the passage. He found that the sentence which the hon. Gentleman read out did not occur in it. He might explain that the report of his speech in "Hansard" was not subsequently corrected by himself—it had no asterisk affixed to it, and therefore it might be taken to be a correct representation of what he said at the moment. The speech, which was made in the Debate on the Address at the beginning of the Session, on January 19, the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, contained these words,—

"The Government had arrived at a decision of policy, and that decision was in strict fulfilment of the engagements which he had entered into more than once in that House. The pledge which had been given was that Mr. Hardinge would receive instructions to abolish the legal status of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba."

That was what he said; but the hon. Gentleman read in the word "Protectorate." He asked at once, "Does that come from "Hansard," and he replied "Yes." Here was "Hansard," and what had the hon. Gentleman to say in reply? [" Hear, hear !"]

My reply is that I thought I had taken it from "Hansard," but it may have been from The Times newspaper that I got it and copied it out. However, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having misquoted him. [" Hear, hear !"]

said that of course he fully accepted the apology of the hon. Gentleman and would say nothing more about it, except that the House would agree that it was very hard that such a charge should be brought against the Government and against himself. Whether rightly or wrongly, the obligation the present Government had entered into had never been more for the moment than the abolition of the legal status of slavery on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. He said "for the moment" deliberately, because the Government had more than once stated that, in their opinion, this was a work which must be carried out by progressive steps. There was every reason to hope that they should be able to continue the movement to the mainland at no distant date: but there were reasons which he could not enter into at present why they had not so far been able to do so; although it remained a portion of the policy they had always adopted and still hoped to carry out. He had only risen to meet the particular charge of breach of faith.

said that he hail referred to the Debate, awl he did not find, as far as he was concerned, that he made any statement with regard to the mainland. He would like to point out that in the Debates on this question of slavery in East Africa certain misunderstanding had taken place, and an amount of heat had been generated which was really due, not to the particular line which had been taken by the Government, but to the line taken by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side when they were in Opposition. When the Liberal Government were in office they said that this question was one beset with difficulties, and that they required time to deal with these difficulties. But when they put forward that plea they were met by hon. Gentlemen opposite—notably by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies—with the demand that no time should be allowed them, and that they ought to overcome the difficulties at once. His complaint, as far as he had any complaint to make against the Government, was not with regard to their action. His complaint was that when they came into office they immediately claimed that their difficulties were very great, and said they must have the time which when in Opposition they had refused to grant their predecessors. He did not wish to raise that again, however. He wished to say plainly that this ought not to be a question for recrimination between different Governments. He fully recognised front the experience he had obtained when in office that the present Government must have great difficulties to deal with. He did not. complain because they had not disposed of the whole question with one sweep of the pen. He recognised that they had made a beginning, and that still further steps must conic in the course of time, and if that was their object and intention he, for one, should not take the line that was taken when the late Government was in office and say that it was unreasonable to put forward difficulties as a reason why a certain amount of time was necessary for the full achievement of the object both parties had in view. ["Hear, hear!"]

appealed to the Committee to pass the Vote, so that they might have an opportunity of discussing the Colonial Vote that night.

said many Members on that side of the House would like to speak on the Vote. He himself had thought of making a few remarks after dinner. He imagined the probability was that the I right hon. Gentleman would be able to take the Vote that night.

referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Beckett) on the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, remarking that he wished to give an emphatic contradiction to almost every statement he had made. He had been to the Sandwich Islands, and from investigation he was certain that the missionaries had not fomented the revolution, and, with the exception of a small pro-English faction, all the white population were in favour of the annexation. As to the comparison between this revolution and Dr. Jameson's Raid, he would ask hon. Members whether the Raid would have been condemned had it been as successful as the revolution? The hon. Member talked about good feeling and reciprocity between Great Britain and America, and assumed that all the good feeling was on the side of England. Let him give the Committee a sample of the good feeling and gentlemanly language that obtained here in England with reference to America. A paper with a very wide circulation in London, read probably by more people in that city than any other, had said, within the last few days, dealing with this very question of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands,—

"Spain and Japan versus the United States. That is the latest report of the news agencies, which remains for the moment in the region of rumour; but the combination is possible and useful, and would give America a great deal of trouble. In the interests of humanity, the alliance would be desirable. Our Yankee friends want a little blood-letting to bring them down to a sensible international policy, and it would be best to have it done by any other hands rather than by those of England."

He quite agreed with that; for England had tried her hand at blood-letting on America on several occasions in the past, and they knew on which side victory remained in the end. But if they wanted the Press and the statesmen of America to reciprocate good feeling, then he ventured to advise them to begin at home. [" Hear, hear "] He wished to call the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to a matter less controversial—he referred to a memorial which had been addressed to Her Majesty by the Egyptian exiles in Ceylon. It was well known that these men had now been in banishment for 14 or I5 years, and in view of the fact that the Khedive was not opposed to their return, and that the only opposition shown was by Lord Cromer, he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would on behalf of the Government show that they were sensible to the appeal to their sympathy contained in the memorial of the exiles. He would only read one or two paragraphs from the petition, but what he would quote would appeal to the sympathy of every man in that House, irrespective of party differences: —

"The memorialists are not now the active military leaders which they were 15 years ago; they are now old men, spirit-broken exiles; only desirous of seeing their beloved children and other relatives whom they left behind in Egypt when they were exiled. Some of those children during the past 15 years have married, and their children form another link to bind the memorialists to their old country. But your memorialists have no desire to return to Egypt; they feel that would be too much to ask. They are desirous of being as near to Egypt as circumstances would permit, and they humbly venture to suggest that, if they are allowed to leave Ceylon and reside in Cyprus, all that they wish for will be realised. Cyprus is so near to Egypt that the memorialists' children and grandchildren (the latter of whom they have never seen) will have no difficulty in visiting the memorialists occasionally; and the memorialists pledge their honour, as officers and gentlemen, that if they are allowed to live in Cyprus they will still keep their word, and abstain from all interference with political questions."

He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to give a harsh reply if he was called upon to say anything to this memorial. Surely these men, broken in spirit, aged beyond the possibility of entering into any other political conflicts, could not do any injury whatever to the interests of England in Egypt if allowed to go to Cyprus so as to be near their relatives when the end of their days arrived. Surely this great Empire, which was governed from that House, could afford to be lenient to men of this stamp. If any other country in the world had profited so much in Egypt as Great Britain had done by the patriotic revolution set going by these men, then he ventured to say, they would not have been left in exile as many months as they had been years.

did not desire to prolong this Debate after the pathetic appeal which had been made to the Committee by the First Lord of the Treasury. He commented on the fact that, although the right hon. Members of the Front Opposition Bench did not believe in the policy of the Government in regard to their conduct of affairs in Armenia, Crete, and Greece, yet the tone of their speeches was moderate. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was the perfunctory performance of a man who had an uncongenial duty to discharge, and if he were a Member of the Opposition he should blush for his Leaders. He declared that the Concert of Europe, so far as it related to Armenia, Greece, and Crete, had been not only a failure but a disgrace. The hon. Knight who was Counsel-in-Ordinary to the Sultan of Turkey seemed to congratulate the world and this country on the fact that the condition of Armenia was nut so bad as it was. But two months had not elapsed since they had, by Questions, elicited from the Government the admission that there had occurred in Armenia, while the Concert of Europe remained inactive, a series of massacres and outrages at which civilisation stood aghast, and at which this country some years ago would have been prepared to draw the sword. So much— for the progress of civilisation and the policy of the Tory and Conservative Party? Turning to the affairs of Greece and Crete, he said it was not difficult to prove, front the Blue-books, that there was a decidedly pro-Mahomedan tone from first to last. With regard to two points in particular, the Christian Cretans had given every proof of their fair play and a desire to act with the Concert of Europe. But it had been impossible for them to act with the European Powers. The two points to which he wished to refer were, first, the reforms which were promised in Crete by the Porte last July or August, and, second, the reorganisation of the gendarmerie. Had a single one of the reforms so promised been carried out by the Porte from that day to this? No. The Blue-book teemed with instances which showed that the Porte had determined to secretly instigate arid foment disorder, with the result that the reforms were never carried out. With regard to the gendarmerie, if the Bluebooks proved anything they proved that the representatives both of the Christians and Mahomedans were most anxious for the reorganisation of the gendarmerie. It was proposed that a strong foreign element should be introduced into the gendarmerie. The Porte opposed that all along. Finally it yielded, but it yielded when it was too late. The gendarmerie so formed had since been disbanded, and of course it could have no part in the pacification of the island or in repressing the disorder and outrage there. This last work of the Concert of Europe had been a blunder, and a bad blunder, because of lack of courage, and because they had failed to speak to the tyrant of the Ottoman Empire in the language of Christians, or men, or of politicians who realised the age in which we lived.

thought that it would be most unfortunate if an impression should go forth that there was a sort of careless feeling on the Cretan question among the leaders of the Opposition. If such an impression were to be given it might have a bad effect on the negotiations at Constantinople. It would be unfortunate for the interests of Greece, Armenia, and Crete if it should be thought in Turkey that there was not a deep feeling here for the people of those countries. He wished the Government to understand that there was a strong disinclination to give to the Sultan an unlimited lease of power. The people of this country had rot forgotten the Armenian massacres; neither had they forgotten the inability of the Concert of Europe to prevent those massacres, or, apparently, to take such steps as would prevent their recurrence in future. He was glad, therefore, that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been able to announce authoritatively that at last in Crete the dominion of the Sultan was going to cease for ever. At the same time he was a little disconcerted when he considered what was actually going on in Crete. There was there a very peculiar form of government, not known to Aristotle or John Stuart Mill. lie had heard of an aristocracy and a democracy, but this was a new form of government which would perhaps be known hereafter as an admiralocracy. [Laughter.] It was rather difficult to obtain information in that House as to what was really going on, because the Under Secretary seemed disposed to keep them as much in the dark as possible. The right hon. Gentleman's answers consisted for the most part of "No, Sir," and "Don't know, Sir." [Laughter.] His answers were variations, skilfully played, upon those two discouraging strains. But government by "jolly tar" did not appear to him to make directly for democratic freedom. These maritime gentlemen seemed to govern the island in the interests of Turkey. They had been made aware that leave had been asked by the Government of this country from the Government of Turkey to occupy and protect Crete. Having no dialectical sophistry or scholastic subtlety they understood from that that they were to govern the island in such a way that the Power that had given the leave would not be disappointed. Apparently the whole of their policy was to put down the insurrection—that was, the uprising of the insurgents, who were provoked beyond measure by apprehensions of oppression and the traditions of the oppression which their predecessors had suffered. In one of his earlier Dispatches Lord Salisbury said that if England joined in blockading Crete she would really be taking the part of the Sultan. He wanted to know how the change in Lord Salisbury's views was brought about. How was it that the Government who had refused to blockade the insurgents in July consented to blockade them in February? What were the circumstances which justified the Prime Minister in so complete a reversal of the policy of liberty which he had stood up for a few months previously? The Cretans, it should be remembered, were striving to free themselves from the yoke of a unique tyrant and despot. He trusted that the Government were really going to drive the Sultan out of Crete and to erect a true autonomy, properly safeguarded. He could not, however, help feeling grave doubts as to the establishment of a form of autonomy which would be pleasant to Russia, agreeable to Germany, and which would throw Austria into raptures. [Laughter.] In fact, he was not sure that real autonomy was possible in Crete at the present moment, because there had been such exasperation between the two parties that whichever party obtained political predominance it would be under a strong temptation to be unjust to the minority, and he did not want to see Mussulmans oppressed any more than he wanted to see Christians oppressed. ["Hear, hear!"] In the circumstances, therefore, it was possible that the autonomy invented by the Powers would be so restricted as not to amount to autonomy at all. He trusted that the Government would leave no stone unturned, force if necssary being resorted to, in order to put the people of Crete into the position to which they were entitled. [After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.]

said he rose for the purpose of uttering a sentence or two in support of the appeal made by the hon. Member for South Mayo on behalf of the Egyptian exiles. He doubted whether any solid reason could be urged against allowing them to return to Cyprus on their giving an undertaking not to interfere henceforth in politics—an undertaking which, in fact, they had given. He would urge the Government in this matter to emulate the example set by President Kruger in the case of the revolutionists in the Transvaal. He did not wait 15 years to show his clemency, but almost immediately after sentence was passed he gave a free pardon to the revolutionists on their giving an undertaking not to interfere in the country's politics in the future. He thought they might with propriety follow that generous example and extend their clemency to Arabi Pasha and his fellow-conspirators. The present position in Egypt entitled them to do this with great security. Their position was irresistibly strong, and no one could suggest that there was the least possibility of the rebellion which was instigated by Arabi Pasha being again entered upon. In these circumstances he hoped the Government would show themselves, at any rate, as humane and generous as President Kruger.

said the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given them an extremely rosy account of the con, dition of the island of Crete. If they had never heard a speech from the right hon. Gentleman on this subject before they might attach some importance to his statement in this respect, but for more than a year they had been listening to cheerful and encouraging accounts from him of the condition of Crete, and, he regretted to say, his cheerful anticipations had been sadly disappointed on every previous occasion. Nearly a year since they were triumphantly and truly informed that the Christians of Crete had accepted with gratitude the reforms which were obtained for them by the intervention of theEuropeanPowers, and which they hoped would lead to a real measure of self-government and security against the oppression under which they had suffered so long. Yet, though it could not be offered in excuse that the Greeks had interfered, from August to February Crete was left in a condition of chaos and disorder. The promised reforms were never brought into working order, and these unfortunate people, who had placed their whole hope in the pledges and promises of the European Powers, were most miserably and disastrously disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman gave as an excuse for the present condition of Crete and the delay in carrying out the autonomy, that it was quite impossible fur the Ambassadors of the Great Powers to carry on at the same time the negotiations for peace and the negotiations with regard to the Cretan question. He would ask the Government to remember that it was the condition of the Cretan population that brought about the war. If the Cretan question had been settled last autumn, or any time before the month of February last, there would never have been any war. Therefore one would suppose, after the lesson taught the Great Powers by the events of last winter and autumn, that their first care would be to settle the condition of the island, hut, just as in the past, the island proved equal to embarrassing the whole of Europe and threatened to plunge the whole of Europe into war, so, if it were now left in its present condition of chaos and disorder, it must, at any moment upset the negotiations at Constantinople and bring about a fresh outburst of disorder and insurrection. In these Debates the -Under Secretary had always been in the habit of treating any information coming from the newspapers with the utmost possible contempt. The right hon. Gentleman had always taken up the position that no attention was to be paid to it, and no reliance placed upon it until he was in a position to communicate the despatches which were received at the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office was frequently three or four days, and sometimes even a week, behind in its news as compared with the Press; and, though he was far from saying that everything was true that appeared in the newspapers, he thought the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman towards the Press in these matters was perfectly preposterous. They were now told in all the great London newspapers, without distinction of party, that, instead of improving, as the right hon. Gentleman asserted, the condition of affairs in Crete had been going from bad to worse, and that, both in Canea and Candia, a state of disorder and chaos reigned. Now it seemed that under the control of European troops the murder of Christians was a matter of indifference. The town of Canea was set fire to. They knew that only ten days ago the Mahomedans went round and deliberately set fire to Canea again. Now the right. hon. Gentleman told them that the Admirals would bombard it if any injury were done to the European soldiers. He did not believe that that view was founded upon facts, or adequate information. He could not remove from his. mind the fact stated in The Times, Standard, and other great newspapers, that the condition of Canea was in a condition of chaos. If that were true, it was clearly a matter for the attention of the European Powers. What was clear to him from reading the dispatches was that Colonel Chermside had taken up a pro-Turkish attitude. That was why they had failed to maintain order. Having read the. dispatches of February 1896 the hon. Member declared that the spirit there evinced, the protection of the Mussulmans and the assertion of the, Sultan's rule in Crete, still predominated to this present hour. The Admirals had shown a desire to open fire on the unfortunate Christians at the earliest moment. They had become responsible for good order in Crete six months ago, still they saw that the island was in a. state of disorder. They had heard of murders, but the excuse was that the Mahamedans had got out of hand. They were told that as soon as the Greek tromps left Crete order would be restored; but now, long after they had gone, they were told in The Times that things were going from bad to worse. The Greek troops had left Crete two months ago, but security for life and property was much worse than it was when Colonel Vassos was there. It was not possible for them to put pressure on the Government, but it was no wonder British people had ceased to put faith in the European Powers in this matter. He hoped they would be permitted to see the Correspondence before the Session was over. The right. hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said the Government might count in those negotiations on the support of the House. That would depend upon the character of the negotiations. He presumed that in addition to the Irish Members there were on the Radical Benches hon. Members who would not support the Government if the Government were wrong, but would see that justice was done.

said possibly there were some Gentlemen who were of opinion that it was desirable that the House of Commons should exercise no control over our foreign relations; but no one would deny that that control, small as it always had been, had got considerably less during the present Parliament. The House was unable to raise matters of the greatest importance in regard to certain foreign relations until the facts were accomplished and the utility of discussing them had disappeared. He had always thought that it was desirable that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be in the House of Commons. It had occurred often in Liberal Governments that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was not in the House of Commons; but in those Administrations the Prime Minister had always been in the House of Commons, and sharing as he did with the Foreign. Minister the direction of foreign affairs the Prime Minster had been able to tell the House clearly what was going on. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was placed in a position of the greatest difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman did not speak on his own authority at all, but brought down from another place a cut and dry answer to a cut and dry question. Under these circumstances the House of Commons did not get all the information, they had a right to ask for. Then again a new Parliament had been called into existence. Lord Salisbury had said that the Concert of Europe was a federal Legislature of Europe. This federal Legislature decided not only the policy of Europe, but the policy of this country in regard to European affairs. In this federal Legislature everyone was bound to follow the majority. If this country found itself in a minority it must not withdraw, because it was said the moment anyone withdrew the component parts of this federal Legislature would fall upon each other and go to war. And who were the majority? Three Emperors—three despots as Mr. Gladstone properly called them. [Cheers and laughter.] He had no doubt that Mr. Gladstone did not mean despots in the bad sense of the word. What the right hon. Gentleman meant was that in the countries over which these three gentlemen ruled there was not the same amount of liberty as, fortunately for us, there was in this country. We might have thought that France would join us in the federal Legislature, for France was a country that loved liberty; but, unfortunately, owing to the exigencies of the situation, France was dragged at the heels of one of the despots, with the result that if we maintained the principles which had always guided us we must always be in a minority, and being in a minority we must allow ourselves to be dragged at the tail of foreign reactionaries. The Concert had done nothing to stop the massacres in Armenia except to chatter, chatter, chatter. [Laughter.] Then came the Cretan question. The Cretans demanded that they should be annexed to Greece. We protested against the action of the Cretans in endeavouring to throw off the yoke of Turkey. Greece then interfered, and we protested against Greece. And so step by step we arrived at the point that we, who for years had protested against the cruelty exercised by Turkey over her subjects, actually bombarded the towns of the Cretans in order to enforce them to remain under the suzerainty of the Sultan. Then came the war between Greece and Turkey. We encouraged the Turks in every way possible to go to war, and we laid down the principle that it was the solemn duty of every respectable State in Europe to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. He did not agree with hon. Gentlemen who spoke mildly of Her Majesty's Government. [Ministerial laughter.] He had the lowest and worst opinion of Her Majesty's Government in regard to its foreign policy. [Renewed laughter.] Never had England sunk so low as it had of late years. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite liked to swagger about the might and majesty of the British Empire; but the Government which they supported had cringed to Russia and to the Concert. [Laughter.] Why this country could not have withdrawn from the Concert he never understood. It was said that it would lead to war, but with whom no one could explain. The policy of Her Majesty's Government was as false from the mere point of view of personal interest as it was morally wicked. [Ironical laughter.] Russia had already established her authority on the shores of the Black Sea; and it was our policy to give a moral support to Greece so that Greece might form a barrier against Russian aggrandisement. [Laughter.] He could riot go into the whole question of Egypt. [Cheers, and laughter.] lie would only ask one question: When were we going to leave Egypt? [Laughter.] Would the right hon. Gentleman candidly and frankly tell him that? Lord Salisbury had said that Egypt was a serious danger to us, and now that Lord Salisbury was the autocrat of foreign affairs he ought to act on his convictions. That was what he complained of. His own principles and Lord Salisbury's were almost identical. [Laughter.] The difference between them was that while he was ready to stand by his principles, Lord Salisbury backed out of his when it came to action. And what was meant by "our conquest of the Soudan?" The country had a right to know why we were going there—why, in the name of common sense, the life of a single English soldier should be risked in reconquering the Soudan. It was a. valueless country, and it did not belong to Egypt. Egypt abandoned the Soudan, and since then there had been a native Government de facto in the country. [Laughter.] It might be a laid Government, but we could not go careering about the world rectifying bad Governments. [Ministerial cheers.] It was said that the Egyptians were to govern the Soudan, and at the same time our excuse for being in Egypt was that the Egyptians could not govern themselves. The fact was, we had a greedy desire to lay hold of all parts of the world, and we did not care more than a magpie whether what we grabbed was useful or useless. [Laughter.] We were sending an expedition to the Soudan because we were afraid of some one else taking it. He should protest, as he always had protested, against any action on our part in regard to the Soudan, and he should always vote against any British or Indian money—and the Government were very fond of taking Indian money—being used for Soudan expeditions. It was very desirable that at the end of the Session the only opportunity of reviewing the policy of the Government should be seized. That policy should be laid before the country, and the more they knew of it the less they would like it. Little by little by its action in these matters the Government would "get the sack." Though the General Election might not be as soon as he wished, yet Members of the Opposition must continue to sap the position of the Government, and they would do themselves, their Party, and their country good by constantly calling attention to the wickedness, the iniquities, and the follies of the present Government. [Laughter.]

said that he wished to call attention two matters of vital importance to the People of Scotland and Great Britain generally. The first related especially to Scotland. It was a question of Scotch herrings—[laughter]—the duty on which, in Russia and Austria, was excessively heavy. He had asked the Government to try and obtain the reduction of the duties. The Under Secretary of Side for Foreign Affairs had referred him to the Lord Advocate, who in turn had referred him to the Foreign Secretary; and he had been generally bandied about from pillar to post. He wished to know what steps were to be taken, because this was a very important question, closely affecting a large section of the community. Last year the export of Scotch herrings was 1,148,000 barrels. The hon. Member, in order, as he said, to obtain some satisfactory information from the Government, was proceeding to move a reduction of the Vote, when—

claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

rose almost at the same time as did the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, and was met with cries of "Order!"

seated and with his hat on, asked whether he had not moved the reduction of the Vote before the Closure was put.

said the hon. Member was in error, the closure having been put before the hon. Member's Motion for reduction.

said he had challenged the Vote.

said he did not think he spoke in his own name only but in the name of many hon. Members on both sides of the House when he said that they regarded it as something approaching to a piece of sharp practice—[Opposition cheers] —that the Committee should be asked to consider this Vote under the circumstances at that time of night. What were the circumstances? Here was the one subject which of all other subjects had been moving and agitating every class of society and every section of both Houses of Parliaiment for the last two years; there had been attempt after attempt to prevent any reasonable discussion of it in Parliament—[loud Opposition cheers]—attempts which up to that evening had met with success; it was now very near the end of the Session; they had been told that the days which would be given to them for discussion were numbered; there had been no question approaching in interest to the Colonial question in all its branches—he was interested in one great section of that question, but there were innumerable other matters of interest involved—and yet they were to be told that it showed adequate and reasonable respect to the House at a quarter-past 10 o'clock on a hot summer's night—[Ministerial laughter]—when only an hour and three-quarters of the legitimate time of the Committee was left for the purposes of discussion, for he believed that the time spent in discussion after 12 o'clock was wasted time—to ask them to discuss a question of such enormous importance. He did not think such methods would succeed. The whole of this South African matter ought to be discussed. They had been put off time after time by being told that this matter was sub judice, but now it was no longer sub judice. He had asked whether, if this Vote were not taken that day, any other opportunity of discussing the matter would be given, and he had been told that no pledge could be given. Within the last few days this matter had been complicated, and they were told that during the Recess the whole administration of the Chartered Company was to be dealt with by the Government in consultation with the directors of that company. [Opposition cheers.] But the majority of the directors had been shown to be unacquainted with the subject matter under discussion. And what was to be said about the minority of the directors, who were to be consulted by the Government as to how this part of Her Majesty's dominions was to be administered? It was shown that the minority had grossly abused the confidence placed in them by the House—[Opposition cheers] and in acting as directors they had done things which the House and its Committee had condemned. He thought it was time that the House should have some discussion of this matter. [Cheers.] He had watched the course of the proceedings with reference to the South African Committee, and he had come to the conclusion that there had been throughout this matter a conflict of wealth and influence on one side, and national interests on the other. [Opposition cheers.] Up to the present time wealth, and influence, and position had triumphed, and national interests had gone to the wall. [Cheers.] He might be told that he was troubling the waters and interfering with a satisfactory settlement of the question—that it would be better to adopt the maxim, Quieta non movere. He was, however, strongly impressed with the fact that there was very great danger to the country now and in the future if they left the matter where it was. If the Session closed without a clear declaration on what had taken place the procedure would be raised into the rank of a precedent. It was all very well to say that there was the Report of a Committee, and that there were certain censures in some newspapers, and eulogiums in others. But that was not what the House wanted; they wanted a clear expression of opinion by the House of Commons that a proceeding of this kind was detrimental to the public welfare. Four or five years ago he declared his belief that it was impossible to intrust the prerogatives of a great country to a small knot of men who were avowedly acting with the object of making money, and the facts had more than justified his fears. [Opposition cheers.] He believed that the majority of the people at the back of all this business in favour of "letting things slide" were animated at the bottom by one consideration. They said— "There is some great public service which has been performed which ought to condone, if it does not excuse, the faults committer' The superstructure of the myth was built on one colossal delusion. It was believed outside the House that the prime mover in the South African policy had conferred some enormous boon on this country, that Mr. Rhodes had secured for this country some great boon which would not have been secured but for his efforts. [Ministerial cheers.]; But what were the facts? The whole of the territory up to the Zambesi was, as far back as 1882 and 1883 in the power of Her Majesty's Government to, take for the mere trouble of dosing their grasp upon it. Sir Charles Warren had been sent up the country, and had made treaties with the chiefs; but Sir Hercules Robinson refrained, on the ground of expense, from annexing the territory. Then came the Chartered Company. Mr. Rhodes promised largely. What had he performed? He was to go out to South Africa to assuage the eternal feud between Englishmen and Dutchmen. But he had lighted a brand which might take a hundred years to extinguish. He was to conciliate the natives and restore confidence among the black population of South Africa. What had he done? He had succeeded in goading the most miserable race in South Africa— the Mashonas—into active and cruel war. He had started a great money-making concern, but not a farthing of dividend had been paid by the Chartered Company, and, unless he was wrongly informed, there was little prospect of any dividend being paid. It was said that Mr. Rhodes himself had become rich. But the commercial undertakings had failed. Mr. Rhodes had sneered at the British Government for its incapacity to understand, much less to grapple with, South African problems. But those parts of South Africa—Basutdland, the Lakes territory, and Nyassaland—which had the good fortune to be administered by Great Britain were the best-governed and best-administered parts of South Africa. It did not lie in the mouth of. Mr. Rhodes to make such sneers. If hon. Members would carry back their minds they could judge for themselves what had been the value to this country of the services of Mr. Rhodes since he undertook the functions of the Imperial Government. When they came to ask where the advantage lay as between Mr. Rhodes and President Kruger, he must be an enthusiastic admirer of Mr. Rhodes who was not prepared to admit that President Kruger had won all along the line. [Cries of "No, No!" and "Hear, hear !"] He thought there was no dispute about that. It was true that President Kruger had more than once refrained from carrying out his intentions of doing things that were unjust to this country. Restraint had been put upon him by the Colonial Office and not by Mr. Rhodes. This was a summary of what they owed to Mr. Rhodes. But there was one thing above all they owed to Mr. Rhodes, but ought to thank him least of all for—the introduction of the influence of money in directing and controlling the prerogative of a great nation. He had justified the imputation that money had been the greatest factor in his policy. Lastly, Mr. Rhodes had taught them that it was possible for a gentleman in his position, trusted by his Government, to deceive his superiors, to deceive his equals, and, worst of all to deceive and trick his subordinates. Unless there was a great contra to all this, which he himself did not understand, it was about time that this Rhodes myth was dropped. ["Hear, hear!"] They would be told that these things were all bygones, but he wanted the possibility of the recurrence of these things provided against. There had been no inquiry into the matters he himself was most concerned about. If it had been desired that it should be fruitless. the inquiry could not have been constituted or conducted in a way more calculated to render it so. Holding that view he could only wonder that the result had not been still more unsatisfactory. As to the charge of par-tisanship—

said the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the composition of the Committee. He would be perfectly in order in discussing their Report.

said the points were of great importance, and as he suggested at the commencement of his observations only proved that a full opportunity should be given—[cheers]— for discussing this, which, was in one sense a dominant factor in, the situation. ["Hear, hear!"] But if they were to come to the Report of the Committee, it did seem to some of them to be a very inadequate and unsatisfying document. It revealed things Which were very unpleasant. It revealed a method of procedure—for instance this flashing of telegrams all over the world under aliases—things which would have been insignificant and unimportant in themselves, had it not been that they were dealing with the lives of men and the fortunes of a large number of people. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was a pity that a little more was not said about the undesirability of conduct of that kind, and how unbecoming it was that responsibility should be undertaken so lightly and wielded so clumsily that the consequences should be not the shaping of nations, but the death of certain honest if not very clear-headed men, who were hastened to their fate by this unfortunate mental activity on the part of one or two busybodies. He did think that one more word of censure might have been put on record. He would recall to the memory of the Committee, though it was hardly necessary to refresh their memories—he would recall that telegram which to the everlasting disgrace of the English name was sent to this country and published in this country on the eve of the raid. He did not think enough had been said of this gross abuse of the best sentiments of men's hearts. This ridiculous message, concocted by a party of four round a table, kept stewing for a month in some man's pocket, was sent to London under a forged date and published in a great newspaper—a message appealing to the best passions in every man's breast, to their love for their fellow-creatures, to their love for their womankind. He held that they required no further condemnation of these men and their methods than that which had been stamped with an indelible brand by the facts in connection with that letter as set forth in the Report of the Committee. [Cheers.] He now came to a matter which they might discuss freely, because it was no longer sub judice. He came to the proceedings of the Chartered Company. He protested against those proceedings, and he held that everything that had been said against the Company was lawfully said. They had been deprived of the inquiry which they were promised, and of which he ventured to say weeks ago they would be deprived. He wanted to know why the inquiry was stopped? ["Hear, hear!"] If the Chartered Company had come to an end, he should have been perfectly willing to accept the situation on the principle that in such a case the least said the soonest mended. They might have said —this Chartered Company, after years of failure, getting worse from beginning to end, is now dead and done for, and buried; let us forget it. But it was dead and done for, and it was not buried. They knew something of the proceedings of this Company, however, although the inquiry they were promised had not been made. No thanks to the Committee of inquiry, they knew for absolute fact that this Chartered Company—born on the Stock Exchange, flourishing on the Stock Exchange, and drawing its inspiration from the Stock Exchange—had so far degraded the fair name of this country that it had deliberately re-introduced into South Africa under an alias so transparent that no one had the slightest doubt as to its identity—they hail re-introduced the practice of individual slavery. [Cheers.] Had the Committee told them anything about this? Not a bit. Did any Member of the Government tell them? Not a bit. What happened was this. Some months ago the Colonial Secretary in the exercise of his discretion—which seemed to him to have been admirably used—decided to send somebody out to inquire into the proceedings of this colossal failure, of this Chartered Company; and with the judgment that was characteristic of him, he said:—

"This man shall be a man against whom the finger of criticism cannot put a mark. He shall be, at any rate, a man who is not obnoxious to the charge which has been brought, and justly brought, against the Chartered Company and its officials of haying a pecuniary concern in the affairs of the Company;"

and he selected a gallant officer in Her Majesty's service, Sir Richard Martin, to make this inquiry. Sir Richard Martin went out, and he reported. They had been asking time after time that the Report of Sir Richard Martin should be produced in this House; but they were told that the matter was sub judice and could not be discussed. He was not responsible, he had nothing to do with it, but he knew that one of the public prints had published large extracts—which he presumed were authentic—front that Report. What did these extracts tell them? He must say that those who, like himself, had studied the proceedings of the Chartered Company were perfectly well aware that they had been carrying on their proceedings ill a way that was absolutely certain to produce the evils which had followed their rule—that they had been for months and years driving these wretched Matabele and Mashonas into war—[cheers]—that they had deprived the natives of their cattle, and had compelled them to labour on terms which were the terms of slavery—["hear, hear!"]—and that they had added to the indignity of slavery the compulsory association of those whom they compelled to labour with men whom they regarded as infinitely below them in the social scale. They had done all these things, and the public had been told of them over and over again by competent observers on the spot, who he believed were speaking the truth; and now they were beginning to find that all these things were true, and had been true for months past; and he held that it was a pity that some steps had not been taken at an earlier period to acquaint the House and the country with what was being done. It was no use saying these things were not proved. If they were not proved, why were they not? [" Hear !" and laughter.] Yes, why were they not? He and those who agreed with him had been only too anxious that they should be inquired into and dragged into the light of day. All these evils were the necessary and certain result of allowing money to be the dominating factor in politics. The Report stated that in the opinion of the Committee pecuniary motives and stock-jobbing motives had not had any influence on these events in South Africa. He did not know exactly for whom that passage was intended; but there was not a man in the country, gentle or simple, who saw what was passing under his own eyes who would take that passage quite literally. ["Hear, hear!"] How were they to know there were no stock-jobbing transactions connected even with this one particular item? They were told by certain witnesses that there were no such transactions, but they had been told a great many things outside the Committee by Stock Exchange witnesses, some of which had turned out not to be true. [" Hear, hear !"] Personally, he should have liked an opportunity of testing there statements. If the Chartered Company were a limited company every single transaction, every transfer of shares, would appear on the register at Somerset House, and then they would have some power of ascertaining, not by mere vague denials of ibis kind, but by evidence as to which there could be no doubt, whether even in this one particular instance this defence was justified or not. ["Hear, hear!"] He declared that the whole thing, from beginning to end, had been based upon money. If it had not been, then it would have no raison d'être at all. ["Hear, hear!"] He had always sympathised with and admitted the grievances of the Johannesburgers, but the witnesses before the Committee proved that these had been enormously exaggerated, and that there was nothing to justify an outbreak in Johannesburg was proved by the fact that there was no outbreak there. [" Hear, hear !"] There was certainly nothing which could justify the sending of the telegrams from Cape Town to London by which it was attempted to bamboozle that House and the country into the belief that. this extraordinary failure was the result of some deep and splendid patriotic yearning. ["Hear, hear!"] He had given some reasons for believing they ought to have a clear expression from that Parliament as to what had been happening in South Africa. It was not only as regarded the past, but also as to the future, that he desired to say a word. He had heard rumours that some of the officers who had been engaged in what he would call a conspiracy against the welfare of this country were to be rewarded by promotion. He should like to know whether it was the fact that it was intended to promote one, if not two, servants of the Crown who had been engaged in a prominent degree in this conspiracy. [Cries of "Name !"] He alluded to Sir Graham Bower and Mr. Newton. When a Turkish officer committed some offence which Europe had to judge—this country forming part of the European Concert mid acting, on the adjudicating tribunal —his conduct was condemned, representations were made to the Porte, and such a man was removed from the scene of his labours and failures and degraded only to be immediately promoted. ["Hear, hear!"] Were they to follow that example or were they to give this encouragement. to public servants who had so acted—because if they were they should be setting a very dangerous precedent indeed? He thought the whole of the last two years had been replete with dangerous precedents. [Cheers.] The fact that so many men had gone scot free bad tended to establish a precedent which they should regret. He could not help turning his thoughts to other branches of Her Majesty's Service, and asking himself what would be the effect in them if this precedent were established in one particular branch. ["Hear, hear!"] Before now men. who had served their Queen and country for the greater part. of their lives, and who had attained pre-eminence in their professions, had been practically ruined as the result of a calamity for which they were not responsible. This had occurred to men in the Navy who were guiltless of any crime, and the career of many a soldier had been similarly blasted for some small dereliction of duty which was really not his own. Were they going to tell these unfortunate men that it they had served in another branch of the public service they might have deceived their superiors, that they might have done so in the course of their regular duties, and that they would have received a nominal censure only? That was all that he desired to say— [loud Ministerial cheers and counter-cheers,]—at that moment because there must be other opportunities of discussing this subject. It was a question that concerned the Empire, and its discussion could not but be advantageous. If the House should resolve to approve the course of action which had been taken he must of course acquiesce; but if it should resolve to censure this action that censure ought to be expressed in a manner which could not be misunderstood—[" hear, hear!"]—so that what had been possible in the past should not be possible in the future for this Chartered Company, which having in its pursuit of gold conquered Mashonaland, Manicaland, and Matabeleland, and failed to conquer the Transvaal, and had inflicted all this shameful history upon the. Empire. [Opposition cheers.] [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY and Mr. WYNDHAM rose together, and there were some cries for the latter, but the hon. Member gave way.]

If my hon. Friend the Member for Dover desires to address the House I, at all events, shall not stand long between him and the Committee. From the hints, innuendoes, and suggestions of accusations—[Opposition cries of "No!" and cheers]—accusations in part sketched out, but not fully developed—to which we have just listened I have been able to extract two or three distinct charges in which the Government may be said to be indirectly involved, and with these two or three charges I propose for a very few moments to occupy the time of the Committee. The first charge of my hon. Friend—who has had the advantage of speaking to us now for nearly an hour— [loud Opposition cheers]—the first charge of my hon. Friend was that this Debate was brought on at a time so inconvenient that no useful, no serious Debate was possible. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend has had the advantage of speaking at the very moment when many Members of great position in this House desired to address us, but were not able to do so, and I cannot imagine an hour more suited to the Parliamentary ambition of my hon. Friend —[Opposition cries of "Oh !" laughter, and cheers]—than the one which the for-tune of Debate has given him. My hon. Friend has charged the Government distinctly and deliberately with a conspiracy extending throughout the whole Session to suppress all discussion upon what he called "the thing," which afterwards appeared to mean affairs in South Africa. I presume my hon. Friend meant discussion in Committee of Supply, but, as the House knows, discussions in Committee of Supply under the new rule are invariably and without exception given on the most convenient days to the Leader of the Opposition whenever he asks for them. ["Hear, hear!"] He knows that, in addition to that, if any large section of the House desires to have a discussion of these matters, a time for I he discussion during the 20 days allotted to Supply is always found, and if this be, as it undoubtedly is, the first day on which the Colonial Secretary's salary has been in question, it is for this reason, and for no other, that no demand has been made by any large section of Members in this House—[" Oh, oh !" and cheers] —and that the Front Opposition Bench, to whom we only look—[cheers]—for demands for time for the criticism of the Government's policy—that Bench has made no request at all—[cheers]—and, if my memory does not deceive me, I do not think he ever asked for a day; and the only Member of the House whom I distinctly recollect as asking for a day to discuss South African affairs is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield.

The Committee only reported last week.

If the Committee only reported last week, what is all this talk about a conspiracy? [Cheers.]

It surely must be within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that, I think, on Thursday of last week I put to him a direct question as to whether he could give a day for the discussion of this particular matter, and he then positively refused to give us any day at all. [Cheers.]

A conspiracy to burke Debate on this subject, which began on last Thursday—[cheers and laughter]—and which has therefore extended only over One Parliamentary night, which Parliamentary night had for many weeks been mortgaged for another purpose, appears to me a conspiracy of a not very formidable character. [Cheers.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman say he will give us a day? My impression was that the right hon. Gentleman had declined to give us a day. [" Hear, hear!" and cries of "Give it now !"]

My hon. Friend asks me whether I propose to give a day. A day so far has only been asked for by one single independent Radical sitting below the Gangway. [Cries of "Oh, oh !" and" Hear, hear !"] It will be admitted. that if at this time of the year and of the Session days were to be given on the demand of "a single Member, however able, the task of leading the House, arranging the business of the House, and bringing it to a conclusion would be absolutely impossible. [" Hear, hear !"] I have never refused a day, I have never been asked for a day by the responsible Opposition—[cheers] —if there be a responsible Opposition. [Loud cheers.] If it had, I can assure hon. Members that I should treat it as I always treat demands coming from such a quarter, with the utmost respect, and, in such cases, with invariable compliance. But I am not going to be put off by my hon. Friend's interruption. ["Hear, hear!"] His charge is, not that I have refused a day since last Thursday—his charge is that I have done so during the whole of the Session—a charge which is absolutely unfounded. [Cheers.] I repudiate now, and I shall have to that repudiation the assent of every man in the House, on whatever side he sits, who has followed the course of the Debates of the Session. [Cheers.] So much for the first of the specific charges of my hon. Friend. There were two others I extracted from his speech; one was based on an answer I gave him a. few days ago that in considering the question of the future government of the territories of the South Africa Company, among others, the directors of that company were to be consulted. My hon. Friend brings that before the House as if it were the last extreme of political injury; but my hon. Friend forgot to quote the whole of the answer on which he based his charge. I did indeed say that among the persons who would be consulted would be the directors of the company. ["Hear, hear!"] Is that a foolish policy, is that a flagitious, is that a corrupt policy? I think it is an eminently reasonable policy. [Cheers.] I admit it might have deserved the hard epithets he has used had the directors of the company been the only persons to be consulted, but the other persons I said who were to be consulted were Sir Alfred Milner, the Imperial Commissioner in South Africa, and the Government of Cape Colony. ["Hear, hear!"] Who in addition to those does my hon. Friend desire us to consult? [An HON. MEMBER: "Himself!" (Laughter.)] My hon. Friend is a person of great ability, and any observation or suggestion he makes to us we shall, of course, consider. But who among public bodies? My hon. Friend is not yet a public body. [Laughter.] What great official would he have us consult? I am at a loss to see who I have omitted in the answer I gave him—[An HON. MEMBER: "The House of Commons !"]—that we should consult the directors of the company, Sir A. Milner, and the Government of the Cape. So much for the second of my hon. Friend's specific charges; and what is the third? It relates to the Report of Sir Richard Martin with regard to the methods of government and the policy adopted by the South Africa Company. The hon. Gentleman asks to whom are we indebted for the Report. Was it to the Committee, was it to the Government? Well, I do not know on whom the credit does devolve, except it be on the hon. Gentleman who has unearthed the Report.

We have asked for the Report repeatedly from this side of the House. [" Hear, hear!"]

Then am I to understand that the credit of the Report is with those who asked for it, and the merit must be shared between my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Let me say that in my judgment the credit for the Report is with those-who appointed the person to make the Report, who caused the Report to be made, and the merit is with my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

Why do we not have it? [Cries of "Why not produce it?" "It is a public document !"]

said he gave every credit to the Colonial Secretary for the Report.

Eulogiums on my right hon. Friend were dispersed rather arbitrarily in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but did not notice that he gave any eulogy for this Report. [Cries of "Yes!"] Then I missed that, and I entirely withdraw the criticism on that portion of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I understand he is not asking whether he owed this to the Government; what he asked was whether he owed it to the Committee. [Cries of "Where is it?" "Why suppress it?" "We want the Report!"] I think hon. Gentlemen are rather unreasonable in this connection. The Report has been brought to the notice of the Committee, it has been laid before them, and questions have been asked in this House, and no attempt of course has been made to prevent it becoming public by the Government, or would have succeeded; the Report has been laid before a Committee of the House, and is palpably a public document. [Cries of "Where is it?"]

suggested it would be better to allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech, and then it could be answered.

It is not an explanation I require, but the right hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately represented to the Committee what has happened. What we wanted to see was the Report, and the Secretary for the Colonies said he was considering this, and that it was not usual to produce it to the House, after submitting it to the Committee until the whole of the evidence laid before the Committee was before us. I rather think he was willing, but his willingness has not come to the point of laying the Report before us.

If I may be allowed to say so, I do not think this matter has the importance some hon. Members seem to attach to it. My answer was, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, mid also that the Report was a Report made by an individual, by a Deputy-Commissioner of the Imperial Government, and, therefore, no doubt entitled to consideration; but a Report which, as he himself has said, he had been unable to get sufficient and satisfactory evidence to support. I thought I was bound to semi the Report to the company, who were in a position to obtain evidence, and the moment the Chartered Company had seen the Report they protested against some of the statements, and asked leave to make a reply. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I told him all this, and I said in addition it was a question whether the Report ought to be produced after handing it to the Committee, and also a question, whether it was fair to produce the Report without the reply of the Chartered Company. The Chartered Company had to communicate with South Africa on the subject, and consequently I heir reply is not even in my hands. But I promised the reply during the present week. If I receive it during the present week I intend immediately to lay on the Table of the House both the Report and the reply. [Cheers.]

My right hon. Friend has, with an authority on such a. matter which. I, of course, cannot pretend to, for I can only get my information from him, made the matter perfectly clear, and the Committee will be able to appreciate what amount of substance there is in the notion which my hon. Friend has endeavoured to disseminate that, in this matter of Sir Richard Martin's Report, those responsible for the Report are exorcising the arts of concealment in order that the public may not know what it contains. I think I have now, so far as the Government is concerned, dealt with the only three specific charges which I can, at all events, extract from my hon. Friend's speech. With that part of it which deals with Mr. Rhodes it really is hardly my business to trouble the Committee. Ho has condemned Mr. Rhodes. [An IRISH MEMBER: "So has the Committee!"] He has used very strong language about Mr. Rhodes, but does my hon. Friend suppose that he is wisdom crying in wilderness on tins subject? Is he the only person who has condemned the raid, or whose moral sense has been outraged by the raid? My hon. Friend must know perfectly well that the Committee, in the most explicit terms, has said, with at least as much force as he has employed, that the raid is a thing which is wholly unjustifiable and which Mr. Rhodes himself has never attempted to justify— [Opposition cries of "Oh !]—has never attempted to justify. [Cheers.] Why my hon. Friend, under these circumstances, should, in addition to his attacks on Her Majesty's Government, who are legitimate objects of criticism in this House, and who have no right to complain of such criticism and never do complain of such criticism, have dealt in his long invective against Mr. Rhodes, whose fault neither Mr. Rhodes himself, nor any other man, so far as I know, has endeavoured to extenuate, but who nevertheless has rendered services—[loud cheers] —to South. Africa in particular and to the Empire as a whole, and why he should have attempted to make these pecuniary insinuations against a man of whom I know very little, but of whom the whole world testifies that he is himself in no sense open to that species of corruption —[cheers]—why he should have done that I know not. Of course, it is inevitable that, if British South Africa be, or be thought to be, a great field of enterprise, there will collect around it a great many transactions and persons connected with transactions which are not particularly interesting and in some cases, it may be, not particularly honourable. All we have to desire is that the administration of the country itself shall be a pure administration—[cheers and counter-cheers] —that it shall not be illegitimately moved by base pecuniary considerations —[cheers]—and that the Governors of British South Africa, as the Governors of every other part of Her Majesty's dominions, may have at heart not merely the benefit and the welfare of a few speculators, but the general benefit and the general welfare of every class, native and British, who may be under the British flag, and own the Queen as their Sovereign. That this great end may ho attained is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government, and we shall do everything we can to secure it. [Cheers.]

I do not rise to continue the controversy between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, though I confess I do not Understand the justification for the warmth of the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. With a great part of the observation of the hon. Gentleman I must say I entirely sympathise—[cheers, and Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—but it is too late to-night to enter into a discussion of a question of such importance as this. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman, has said that he was waiting for an invitation from me to give a day for the discussion of these matters, including the Committee whose conduct has been impeached. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows very well what my opinion open that subject is —that when there is a matter in which the House is so deeply interested, as it is in this question, time ought always to be given by the Government. [Cheers.] It is not at this moment that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of my opinion upon that subject, and he need not have waited for my public invitation to give that time. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] But, as the right hon. Gentleman, has said that he was waiting for my demand, I make it now. [Cheers, and counter-cheers.] I should think that any Member who has any experience of the House of Commons must know that, whatever their opinions may be upon any particular question or issue, it is wise, proper, and right that the House should be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon all sides of the question. [Cheers.]

said that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he should endeavour to find time for a discussion. That, however, must be raised on a specific resolution. [Cheers.] He could not, however, promise that he should find a whole day.

said the difficulty of the discussion of this Vote had been greatly increased by the action of the Member for Belfast. He should have been content if there had been no discussion on the Colonial Vote at all. Whatever information the hon. Member for Belfast might have, ho did not see that they could usefully intervene in the affairs of South Africa. The hon. Member for West Belfast had made a wholesale attack upon the inhabitants of Johannesburg. Was it fair, or just, or good taste for the hon. Member to read out a string of names of the leaders of society in the town noble men, with wives and children, who conferred a benefit on mankind—[ironicallaughter]— certainly they conferred a benefit on mankind by applying all the discoveries of science to procure a greater output of gold. There was too much cheap satire against men whose lives hon. Members had not taken the trouble to understand. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had also said that there was all attempt to allege some great public service on the part of Mr. Rhodes which, it was held, ought to atone for the political crime of which Mr. Rhodes had been found guilty. He had never heard that said; but he had heard it said that a man who had rendered such signal service to his country must always hold a place in the gratitude of his country. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had also asserted that the claim made on behalf of Mr. Rhodes that he it was who brought the country from Rhodesia to the Zambesi under the British Crown was baseless. If the hon. Member talked with statesmen in South Africa he would find that there was not a single man who denied that that had been the policy of Mr. Rhodes throughout, that he had advanced it by his own private purse, and that it was his untiring energy that had brought it about. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member also spoke of Mr. Rhodes as one who had done nothing to bring Boer and Briton closer together in South Africa. It should be known that now Boers were fighting side by side with men of British blood; that even in the Cape House of Assembly Mr. Rhodes had the support of many Dutch members, and that in South Africa generally leading Dutchmen said that however much they regretted Mr. Rhodes's connection with the Jameson Raid, they were not going to unsay the words of gratitude to Mr. Rhodes which had passed their lips. The hon. Member had said that in the matter of the treatment of the native races Mr. Rhodes had goaded the Mashonas into war; but the hon. Member had forgotten that Mr. Rhodes, with Mr. Colenbrander, had brought peace to the Matabele, showing that it was possible for a man who understood the natives to bring peace amongst them and get their affection and love. The hon. Member for West Belfast had done his best to draw an injurious comparison between the work of Mr. Rhodes and that of Sir H. Johnston, and nothing would be more fatal than for the House of Commons as it were to back one great colonial administrator against another. It was derogatory to the dignity of the House and must be of sinister consequence. ["Hear, hear!"] It was hard on the spur of the moment to take up all the charges which had been flung about. The Committee was debarred from discussing the Report of the Committee, but the hon. Centleman had thought it fair to place upon words in that Report the most injurious construction which they were capable of bearing. The hon. Member seemed to think the words condemned not only the political propriety of Mr. Rhodes's conduct, but almost his moral character. He wished to repudiate with all his strength the kind of attack which had been made on Mr. Rhodes as a man. ['' Hear, hear !"] Some of his acts might be politically reprehensible, but as a man Mr. Rhodes still commanded the love, respect, and gratitude of a great number of his fellow-countrymen. [Cheers.]

said that he had been six months in South Africa, and though he did not pretend that that enabled him fully to speak on all the problems, yet it gave him a greater knowledge, of the country than hon. Gentlemen who had not been there. He was sure that the hon. Member for West Belfast would modify a great deal of what he had said if he had studied the question on the spot. The hon. Member said that Mr. Rhodes's policy was as bad for the natives as for the British Empire. The hon. Member quite forgot that Mr. Rhodes's legislation on the native question was one of his greatest titles to fame; and whatever might be said of Mr. Rhodes's connection with the Raid, Mr. Rhodes had a direct title to the respect and gratitude of Englishmen for the way in which he bore the acquisition of Rhodesia on his own shoulders for a very long time. As to the Colonial Secretary he was bound to say that there was a time when he disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman's policy; but looking back now, and realising the difficulties which had to be contended with, he felt convinced that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had directed the policy of this country was worthy of admiration, and that the policy was the right one to pursue. As to the Raid, the House of Commons would be doing a great injustice to Mr. Rhodes if they condemned him without regard to his past services. He suggested that it would be well for hon. Members in discussing South Africa to try and moderate their language, because it would be for the advantage of South Africa. He was sure it would be the most difficult task the Government had ever had to try and replace the Chartered Company by any other form of possible administration.

asked the Leader of the House whether he proposed to take the Vote to-night?

said the Vote was closely associated with a Motion which, he understood, was to be moved on some subsequent day, but so far from that being a reason for not taking the Colonial Vote, it seemed rather to be a reason in favour of that course. But, of course, he would not press the matter.

asked the Colonial Secretary whether he could hold out any hope of the early release of the Zulu chiefs who were banished to St. Helena about eight years ago. Their banishment all these years for what, after all, was a mere technical rebellion, was a monstrously heavy punishment. For a good many years he asked the Colonial authorities about these Zulu chiefs and was led to believe that in a short time they would be allowed to return to their native country. Nothing however, happened. He believed, indeed, that in 1895 a ship was chartered to convey them back to Zululand, but three days before embarkation, a telegram came from the Colonial Office instructing the governor that they were still to be retained at St. Helena. From that day to this no encouragement or hope has been held out that their punishment would be terminated. The reason of this, he believed, was the opposition of Natal. Natal had since those days got responsible Government. It had constantly asked to have Zululand handed over to it, and he believed the opinion of the Colonial Office was that Zululand ought to be handed over to Natal. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that unless there was some very strong reason for it their punishment had been a monstrous one for a comparatively trifling offence. He knew no reason to fear that their return to Zululand would provoke the inhabitants to a rising, and he earnestly hoped these unfortunate chiefs would be released.

asked if he might give notice of the exact terms of the Motion that would be made?

said the proper time to do so would be on the adjournment.

appealed to the Leader of the House not to take the Vote at that hour of the night.

, in associating himself with the appeal of the hon. Member, said there had been no discussion upon a Colonial Vote since May, 1896. There was a day given towards the close of last session, but that day was entirely consumed by a discussion on the desirability of the appointment of the South Africa Committee,—there was no discussion on South African affairs generally or on Colonial affairs. The Leader of the House adopted a new argument which he had never heard before, when he said the vote was not put down because the Leader of the Opposition did not ask for it.

I never said that.

said he was very sorry if he had misunder stood the right hon. Gentlemen—["hear, hear !"]—but he distinctly said that the Vote was not put down because it was not asked for by the Leader of the Opposition.

What I said was that if the Leader of the Opposition had asked for it it would have been put down. The logical mind of my right hon. Friend will quite see the distinction. [Laughter.]

thought the distinction was rather dialectical that logical. He was surprised to hear the Leader of the House reply to the attack of the Member for Belfast, instead of the Colonial Secretary. He hoped that the House would be given an opportunity by the postponement of the Vote to discuss questions connected with South Africa which could not be discussed on the Report of the Committee. As to the Transvaal, they wanted to know what had been done by the Colonial Secretary to fulfil the pledges given to the Uitlanders eighteen months ago. It would be absurd to attempt to discuss these questions after midnight.

said that the Questions as to the Zulus and other points ought tc be raised at a more fitting opportunity than the present, and he supported the appeal which had been made.

said there were many points in the Colonial Vote which required examination, and which could not be entered into that evening. There was besides the most interesting question connected with the Canadian tariff and its results.

said that the Leader of the House intended to consult the directors of the Chartered Company, Sir A. Milner, and the Cape Government as to affairs in Rhodesia; but he did not mention the House of Commons.

urged that the Report of the South African Committee should be fully discussed before the Colonial Secretary's salary was voted.

hoped that the minutes of evidence and Sir Richard Martin's Report would be circulated before the further discussion of the Vote.

said that if he consented to postpone the Vote, he could not promise any other day for discussion. Still, if the House desired that the Vote should be discussed in the place of some other Vote, he would endeavour to meet that view. He was willing to go on. ["Hear, hear!"]

considered that the remark of the right hon. Gentleman was very ill-timed. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that any good was to be gained by further discussion to-night of the action of the Committee and the policy of the Colonial Office in view of a day being pledged to be given for that discussion? It seemed to be a waste of time to go on to-night. They were promised a day, and they were going to have a day for the discussion of the whole of the South African question. That day had got to be given, and why was it not going to be given after the day on which they were going to discuss the Report of the Committee? They might have a discussion on the Report of the Committee and on the question of South African policy this week. Why not take to-morrow and the day after?

said it would cause great inconvenience, as Wednesday and Thursday had been appropriated for some time past for Scotch Bills.

said surely that was an argument in favour of the point of view he was pressing on the House. According to the right hon. Gentleman, they could not have the discussion he had promised on South Africa until Monday next; and he supposed he would not give them any hope that Monday would be given.

thought they might take Monday or Tuesday.

said that it was only a matter of the day for the question of the Colonial Secretary's salary. There was absolutely no business promised for Tuesday that could not be postponed wiihout inconvenience. The inevitable result, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, was that if Monday was given for the discussion of South African affairs, the Colonial Secretary's salary could not be taken; because he would give no pledge that it would be taken after the discussion of the Committee's Report.

said he thought he must be obscure, or the hon. Gentleman had not caught what he said. He had no doubt that the discussion of the Committee in Report must precede the taking of the Colonial Vote.

That is what I want to make clear.