one thing more important than another, it was that legislation should be allowed to rest. He should not detain the House, because they wished to hear, not what he, but what the Government had to say. MR. DODSON said, that what he had to say on behalf of the Government could be said without hesitation, and in almost as few words as those employed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. This Act was introduced and passed by the Government a little over two years ago, and came into operation on the 1st of January, 1881. It had, therefore, been in operation a very little over two years. Under those circumstances, the Government were certainly not prepared, at the present time, to accede to any proposition for altering it in the manner proposed by this Bill. He would go further, and say he had taken very great interest in the working of this measure, and had reason to be satisfied with the results it had produced. He believed it had worked, on the whole, beneficially to the working classes, and that it had not worked in juriously or unjustly to the employers of labour. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said it was very important that legislation of this kind should not be too frequently altered, so that employers and employed should know and understand their position respectively to each other. He did not wish to enter into controversial matter; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had in troduced and passed this Bill with the intention that it should be, so far as such measures were, a lasting measure; but, on the Motion of a noble Lord, then the Leader of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged, a clause was inserted in the other House limiting the operation of the Bill to two years. By a subsequent compromise, when the Bill came back to the House of Commons, the operation of the Bill was limited to seven years instead of two. He would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Act was, therefore, in the nature of an experimental Act, and would necessarily come under the review of the House before many years. For the present, the Government were satisfied with observing the working of the Act, and could not support the Bill now before the House. VOL. CCLXXX. [THIRD SERIES.] SURREY (TRIAL OF CAUSES) BILL. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Wednesday 4th July.”—(Mr. Warton.) MR. MONK said, the Bill was introduced on the 16th of February; but it had never yet been printed. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had been guilty of most extraordinary conduct. He obtained leave to bring in the Bill last year, and actually induced the House to give it a second reading, although it was not printed, but existed only in the brain of the hon. and learned Member. A few ago he actually blocked his own Bill; and, under those circumstances, it weeks must be evident that the hon. and learned Gentleman was simply trifling with the House, and seeing how far he could try its patience. Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for Second Reading be discharged,”—( Mr. Monk,)-instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. WARTON said, he had no wish to try the patience of the House. The Bill was introduced to remedy a longstanding grievance of suitors in respect to the delay which occurred in the trial of their causes in Surrey. S And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow. ΜΟΤΙΟΝ. :0: EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Education in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND. Bill presented,andread the first time. [Bill 226.] House adjourned at five minutes wwwm. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 14th June, 1883. NAVAL DISCIPLINE AND ENLISTMENT THIRD READING. Order of the Day for the Third Reading read. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3*." -(The Earl of Northbrook.) VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH said, that if he had thought there was any chance of success, he would have moved the rejection of the Bill even at this stage; but he should have to content himself with a simple protest against it. He wished to take this opportunity of explaining that on the second reading of the Bill he had advocated the retention of corporal punishment only for the very gravest offences. The cases of corporal punishment which the Leader of the House had cited in the debate on the second reading were instances which had been held up to universal abhorrence by the whole Navy. He believed that they occurred some 60 or 70 years ago. The noble Earl might as well have referred to the Bloody Assize, and endeavoured to induce the public to believe that the judicial descendants of Lord Jeffreys, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, would crop the ears of any recreant Tory who might be guilty of "veiled Obstruction or any similar offence. It was a most painful thing to propose that the power of inflicting corporal punishment in the Navy EXPEDITION)—should be, in the face of public opinion, THE MANCHESTER REGIMENT AND retained; but he contended that public MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE - First Re- Report-Municipal Corporations (Unreformed) EGYPT (MILITARY THE SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERSFIELD ALLOWANCE.-QUESTION. VISCOUNT ENFIELD asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to granting "Field Allowance" in the recent Egyptian campaign to the 1st Battalion of the Manchester Regiment and the 1st Battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders? The subject had been alluded to some weeks ago in Parliament, and the noble Earl had promised to give it consideration. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am happy to be able to inform my noble Friend that I have approved of the grant to both the battalions in question of the full six months' field allowance. The War Office has been duly informed of this decision. opinion had not been expressed against the retention. The noble Earl had referred to the House of Commons; but there had been no expression of opinion there against this punishment in the Navy. No single instance had been given in which a man had been deterred from entering the Navy by the prospect of corporal punishment. It was certain that all professional opinion was in favour of the old system, which had always been regarded as essential to the discipline of the Service. Much as he detested corporal punishment, his opinion of its necessity corresponded with that of the Profession at large; and he submitted that it should be retained, in order that the committal of crimes of a disgraceful character should be deterred. For his own part, he wholly failed to see how the substitutes proposed could be either effectual or convenient. Nothing could be less satisfactory than that a man should be court-martialed, and sentenced to imprisonment while his ship was engaged in a blockade, or was kept at sea for any length of time for any other reason. It seemed to him, too, that imprisonment was much more likely to injure a sailor's morale than corporal punishment. He supposed it was useless now to oppose the Bill; but he protested against it, and believed that in time of war it would be impossible to maintain discipline without the old punishment. Unless it was resorted to in such a crisis, the British Navy would fall into a disgraceful state. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, he wished to bring before their Lordships the hard case of a man who had not been flogged. He was a very young sailor, and had struck a petty officer, and had got five years' penal servitude for this. The Admiralty had reduced this to three years; but that amount of penal servitude was too much, and would ruin him for life. This happened in the Pacific Ocean, and the man had already been in prison for a long time on board ship. He was sure this man would much rather have had a flogging and have done with it. THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK said, he could not agree with his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that this punishment was by any means disproportionate to the offence. The noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) had not touched the contention of his noble Friend in the speech to which reference had been made. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) asked in the speech whether it was likely that our officers were not as able to maintain discipline without flogging as the officers of Foreign Navies were? The Bill, as a whole, had been carefully considered by, and had met with the unanimous approval of, the Naval Members of the Board of Admiralty, on whom it was his duty to rely. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that the observations of the noble Earl differed very much from the view of the case which he presented when the Bill was last before the House. He then represented the matter as a political one, and said that, as practical men, we could not keep up a punishment that public opinion had condemned. He did not tell the House that the Naval Members of the Board of Admiralty had arrived at the conclusion embodied in the Bill. THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK said, what he represented was, that the position the Government took up was that flogging could not be maintained in the Navy, and that this position, and the provisions of the Bill for altering the law, were entirely and unanimously accepted by the Naval Members of the Board of Admiralty. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, the first was a political question, as to which the authority of the Naval Members of the Board of Admiralty was worth less than that of the Members of the House. Whether the particular punishments to be substituted were practicable might be more an opinion for the Naval Lords. As far as he heard Naval opinion, apart altogether from the political question, it was that considerable injury would be done to the Navy by the abolition of this punishment. He did not think the matter was one on which it was desirable their Lordships should interfere, for this reason-that, to a certain extent, the Executive Government had power to disregard any opinion their Lordships' might give. They had already forbidden the practical application of the punishment; and, so long as the present Government was in Office, the punishment of flogging would not be inflicted. He did not think, therefore, there would be any advantage in going through the form of refusing to pass the clauses, seeing that the Government had the power to disregard the opinion to which they might come. Corporal punishment might be required in time of war, and it was possible it might be restored. When the noble Earl spoke of the experience of the other Navies of the world, he ought to remember what he had apparently forgotten, that they resorted to a much more free application of capital punishment than we did. Practically, that was the issue; in times of crisis, if we did not allow of the application of the milder punishment, there was no doubt that the death penalty to offenders on board ship would be necessary to save the lives of others. VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH said, that, in conversation with Germans, he had been told that the disgraceful punishments | He did not ask them to adopt the Bill that were inflicted in the Army prompted as their own, but only to give to it such Germans to maim themselves in order to avoid the Service. Motion agreed to; Bill read 3 accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, an amount of sympathy as would secure for it a reasonable consideration in the other House, and so do that which would namely, utterly refute the description be very much to their own creditand prophecy made by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough). CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL.-(No. 58.) The Bill in itself was so simple, so rea and sent to the Commons. (The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.) THIRD READING. sonable, and so necessary, that if it were only brought before the House of Com Order of the Day for the Third Read-mons he had not the slightest doubt that ing read. the justice of that House would pass it. In conclusion, the right rev. Prelate moved the third reading of the Bill. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." (The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.) THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, he hoped the Bill might be sent down to the other House with such momentum as to give it some THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY rechance of passing. The speech made marked, that, as regarded the intention upon the second reading by the right of the Bill, he need hardly assure the rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peter- right rev. Prelate that the Bill received borough) had been much considered, the general approval of the Government; and had had a great effect in the coun- but he was unable to promise that facilitry; but he (the Bishop of Carlisle) was ties would be given by the Government disposed to hope that, notwithstanding for passing it through the other House, that speech, the Bill would have a better because any such facilities must depend chance of being passed than the right upon the state of Public Business there. rev. Prelate had prophesied. The right Considering the uncertainty of doing rev. Prelate said that he (the Bishop of Business in the House of Commons, the Carlisle) might just as well read the right rev. Prelate could hardly expect Bill a second time in his own study as him to give an assurance that the Bill in that House; and he pointed out that would be taken up by the Government. the Government would not pass a Bill of this sort through the other House. The Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordright rev. Prelate referred to the positioning; an Amendment made; Bill passed, of Parties, and said that the passing of and sent to the Commons. any ecclesiastical legislation would be impossible, and that the Bill would never get beyond that House; but he (the Bishop of Carlisle) wished to point out that this was not a Private Bill, but that it had been prepared, after mature consideration, by a representative body of noblemen and gentlemen, who were appointed by the Government to deal with the questions referred to them, and this Bill was the result of their consideration. It was absolutely necessary to prevent the labours of the Commissioners from being altogether futile; and, therefore, it ought not to be on the footing of a Private Bill, which had to knock its way through the House of Commons in the best way it could by its own unaided efforts. He thought he had a right to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to give a Bill of this kind something in the nature of sympathy and support. Viscount Sidmouth SOUTH AFRICA-BASUTOLAND. QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. LORD EMLY in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to inform the House what are the proposals he has made to the Cape Colony for the settlement of the Basuto question; and whether he intends that the carrying out of these proposals should be contingent in any way on the action of the Orange Free State? said, if the news published that morning of the annexation by the Cape Colony of a part of Bechuanaland were true, this was an auspicious day to bring forward any question with regard to South Africa; for it showed there was a desire on the part of the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and his Colleague-Mr. Merriman-to settle in a fair way the questions which affected the Native races My noble Friend de scribed the geographical position of the Basuto country. He laid more stress than I should be inclined to do upon its military importance. But there is no doubt that it holds a central position as regards the British Possessions in South Africa, having the Cape Colony on the West, the Orange Free State on the North, Natal on the East, and a large number of protected or semi-independent Native Chiefs on the South. In that position it is clear that any disorder or disturbance there is calculated to create considerable trouble and uneasiness in other parts of South Africa. The Basuto Tribe were free and independent up to the year 1868 or 1869. Like most other African Tribes in that condition, they had been frequently involved in quarrels among themselves and disturbances with their neighbours on the Borders, which finally resulted in a war with the Orange Free State. That war, after various vicissitudes, ended in a complete defeat of the Natives, and the almost entire conquest of the territories by the people of the Free State. Great alarm was caused by that state of things in the Cape Colony and South Africa generally, not arising entirely out of sympathy with the Basuto Tribes, but from a very natural and reasonable calculation that if a considerable number of warlike Natives were to be there. After briefly sketching the his- | complications. tory of Basutoland since the year 1869, he urged the desirability of reverting to the state of things which at one time prevailed, under which the Basutos were united with this country. We had a clear duty to perform towards the Basutos; and he did not see why the performance of that duty should be made contingent on the action of the Orange Free State. The question for the Basutos lay between annexation by us and utter extinction. Unless they were supported by us they would be forced to emigrate or starve. A French missionary, M. Cassilis, had given an interesting account of Basutoland, where he had laboured for 40 years, and had done more than any other man to bring the Native Tribes into their present civilized condition. They were subjects of the Queen, and the great majority of them would desire to return to the state of things which existed in 1869. Basutoland was the Switzerland of South Africa, commanding Natal, Griqualand, and the Orange Free State; and if we desired to stay in South Africa it would be little short of madness to abandon Basutoland. He believed his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Wolseley) would bear him out in saying that whoever held Basutoland held the key of South Africa. Unless we took measures to protect that country it would be occu-driven out of their homes and thrown pied by people whom we should little desire to see there. He earnestly hoped the Government would take this opportunity of settling the last difficult question with which we had to deal in South Africa. THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am glad to hear from my noble Friend that he considers that I have taken the direction of South African affairs at a peculiarly opportune moment. I was not aware of it myself, so far as the general condition of things in South Africa is concerned, for, however hopeful one may be as to the ultimate result, it is impossible to say that they are in an altogether satisfactory condition at the present time. But, my Lords, to return to the immediate subject before us, I think I shall probably be able to give a more satisfactory answer than I could otherwise give, if I say a few words of explanation as to the antecedents of the Basuto territory, and as to the circumstances which have led to the present loose upon the world, that would be a source of disorder and confusion in all the surrounding districts. Pressure was, in consequence, put by the Colonial authorities upon the Government at home. The Colonial Office yielded to that pressure; they intervened, and saved the Basutos from the destruction which was impending over them. They settled terms of peace, and then annexed the Basuto territory with the consent of the inhabitants; all went well for some time; but in two or three years it was found desirable to transfer the management of the Basuto country from the Imperial Government to the Government of the Cape Colony. Shortly after that a responsible Government was given to the Cape, and so the management of Basuto affairs passed out of the hands of the Colonial Office into the hands of the Ministers of the Cape Colony. I do not attempt to enter into the details of the transactions of that time. They are not material now. I have not |