well recollect, for I sat next to him on the occasion, qualified by the supposition and assumption that the evidence and reports of our officers in South Africa were true, and that the great majority of the population were in favour of the annexation. I believe that the late Government took part in that transaction under the belief that that evidence was sound, and I think that their action was perfectly justified. Therefore, I never uttered one word blaming the foreign policy of the late Government in regard to the transactions in South Africa. I, therefore, come to the discussion of this question with a mind not only entirely unprepossessed against the late Government, but rather prepossessed in favour of the policy they took. A great deal has been said of the fact that when the present Government became responsible for the Speech from the Throne, a paragraph was inserted declaring our determination to re-assert the authority of the Crown in South Africa. Well, up to a period later than that, I myself saw no adequate ground for doubting the conclusion that the majority of the Transvaal Boers were in favour of our annexation. It was the universal report of all our officers that the malcontents were a small though active minority, that things would soon settle down, and that the annexation was popular in the country. My belief in these statements was not shaken until shortly before the action at Laing's Nek. Reports came to the Government before that date showing that the Boers, to the number of 4,000 men at least, had been congregated in various parts of the Transvaal for the purpose of asserting their independence. I believe that the whole fighting force of the Transvaal Boers could not be more than 8,000 men at the very outside; and when you have the fact that upwards of 4,000 men had congregated in arms to resist the authority of the Queen in that country, it became perfectly evident that our officers who sent the reports had been deceived, and that the idea of the general acquiescence in our dominion was wholly a mistake. It was under these circumstances, and before the action at Laing's Nek, that indirect negotiations, or-if that word should be considered too formal, and perhaps it is so-indirect communications were entered into I with a view to peace. The question then arose, were those negotiations or communications with the view to peace to be stopped on account of the defeat at Laing's Nek? That was the question which came before Her Majesty's Government. I do not deny that there were great difficulties in this question. I know that the feeling of military men was universally, and I believe it is now almost universally, in favour of retrieving that defeat before the negotiations were completed. I do not put aside the opinion of soldiers. It ought always to be deeply respected. The honour of the Army is not to be lightly treated, and the sentiment of the Army ought to be respected; but, on the other hand, the opinion of soldiersthe feeling and sentiments of soldiers on such occasions-is not always a safe guide in political affairs. I confess that the evidence of fact in regard to the non-assent of the Boer population affected my own conscience deeply. felt it might be said that we had taken the country of these people, as it were, by stealth. I could not for a moment feel that allegiance in the true sense of the word-that duty which men owe to the Government under which they have been born and bred—was owing to us by the Boer population. Therefore, I felt it was more than probable that there was a great majority of that population who might honestly say-"England has taken our country from us under a mistake; but she obstinately shuts her eyes to the evidence we have produced, and the deputations we have sent, and she will own to no wrong although she is committing a great wrong." Under these circumstances, I think it was not the duty of England to stop the negotiations for peace in consequence of the check at Laing's Nek. There were two other actions which followed that engagement; and let us look at the circumstances in which they took place. I believe Sir George Colley was a most gallant man and a most able and accomplished officer; but I have heard no soldier speak on this subject who did not admit that he handled his forces with great rashness on those two occasions. He exposed small bodies of men unsupported in situations where they could not be supported to overwhelming forces of the enemy armed in a manner that our men were not skilled to meet. In such circumstances, these military defeats were not to be weighed | one, to agree with the course which the in the scale for a moment with the great Government have taken; and although, political question before us. Our troops undoubtedly, it is a course which, owing were beaten under circumstances in to the previous policy of the Government which they really had no opportunity of and the mistakes they had been led into, displaying their military valour. They was full of difficulty and danger, was, I were shot down at great distances by have not the slightest doubt, the right deer-stalkers rather than by soldiers. policy to pursue. I entirely agree with The question for consideration was, whe- my noble Friend opposite in trusting ther it was worth while to get a military that the Government will now, in the triumph over the Boers and to stop all conduct of the negotiations, be firm with negotiations for peace? In dealing with the Boers, and give them clearly to unthis question we had to consider the derstand that the authority of the Crown nature of the forces by which our troops is to be maintained in South Africa in were defeated. The Boers are not an the fullest sense of the word suzerainty, army; they have no regiments, and no and that we shall not allow any portion artillery. They are simply armed farmers of that country to lapse into anarchy. who are accustomed to deer-stalking, and There was one argument used by my who are fighting for the independence of nobie Friend, the relations of the British their country. Now, I ask any soldier Government to the Native population, in this House whether a great military which I cannot help saying has been triumph could be obtained by conquer- greatly overstated. My noble Friend ing such men? None whatever. Who opposite says that in South Africa we can doubt that the British Army which have always made a point of reserving soon afterwards assembled, consisting of our relations with the Native States. upwards of 10,000 men, had the perfect What is the meaning of that? Look at power of conquering the Boers? The what is going on at the present moment. Boer force could hold a mountainous The Cape Colony has been waging war position like Laing's Nek with great against the Basutos contrary to the adsuccess; but on a plain they would not vice of the British Government. My be able to stand for a moment against noble Friend remonstrated, and his Rethe British Army. In my opinion it was presentative in the other House made no question of military glory, it was a some observations which gave great question of policy. Was it wise to stop offence in the Cape Colony. The conour negotiations for peace for the sake duct of the Sprigg Ministry towards the of defeating farmers who had succeeded, Basutos was pursued entirely indepenunder accidental circumstances, and by dent of the advice of the British Gogreat rashness on the part of our com-vernment; and it is rather absurd to say manders, in gaining a victory over us? That was the position of the Government, and I maintain that the Government came to the right decision, that the negotiations ought not to be stopped on that account. I entirely agree with the opinion expressed by my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) that the question was entirely political and not military. In the event of our overcoming the Dutch population of the Transvaal, would that have tended to the restoration of permanent peace in South Africa? Looking to the undoubted sympathy of the Dutch population in the Cape Colony with the Transvaal Boers, there was a serious danger of involving that country in a war of races; the most calamitous of all things in any country, and a result which any Government is bound in duty to avoid, if possible. These were the main arguments which induced me, for The Duke of Argyll that we are more responsible for our relations with the Natives in the Transvaal, which we have held only two years, than we are in the Cape Colony, which we have possessed for many years. LORD BRABOURNE felt strongly that the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government in South Africa would tend to produce the most disastrous results. It was said by the supporters of the Government that the Transvaal ought not to have been annexed except with the consent of a majority of the inhabitants. That, he was sure, was a doctrine which no one would dispute. Those who urged it forgot apparently that possibly enough the annexation of the Transvaal was desired by a majority of the inhabitants at the time it was effected, as being their only hope of safety, and that they changed their views only after the English Govern ment had warded off the danger which | immediately the Boers opened fire, withthreatened them. In any case the fact out giving him any reply or any intimaremained that a serious blow had been tion that he was in the presence of a struck at our prestige in South Africa. superior force. What would Lord PalHe would be told, perhaps, that prestige merston have done in such circumwas not a thing which a nation wanted, stances? He would have demanded and he knew it was a word objected to explanations from the Boers; and if it by some of Her Majesty's Government. had been found-as he believed it would But what was prestige? In its con- have been found that the act was ventional sense it was the reputation beyond the usages of civilized warfare, which a country possessed in the eyes of atonement would have been exacted others. It was very much the same to from the Boers, and the massacred a great country as credit was to a com- troops would have been avenged. Nomercial house, and could equally little thing of the kind was done by his noble be dispensed with. It would be un- Friend. No more official notice was becoming of him to criticize the lan- taken of the massacre of our soldiers guage of the Prime Minister's letter; than would have been taken of the killbut he would observe that it was a mis- ing of so many dogs. He had inquired take to treat the literary productions of of his noble Friend, more than once, the right hon. Gentleman as those of an whether the perpetrators of this outrage ordinary individual. It was well known would be brought to justice, and the that the speeches of the Mid Lothian reply he had received was that the Comcampaign condemning annexation were mission would have power to deal with quoted by the Boer leaders in justifica- the matter, but that the amnesty would tion of their rebellion against British probably cover that act of the rebel authority, and his noble Friend the Se- Boers. Well, in the Instructions given cretary of State for the Colonies would to the Commission, there was not one find these statements in his own Blue word to call their attention to the occurBook, which he could hardly have read rence, and it appeared as if the Boer if he denied that the Prime Minister's version of the affair were to be calmly speeches had anything to do with the accepted, and the testimony of our own rising. Reference had been made to soldiers cast aside as worthless. The the massacre at Brunker's Spruit. That British soldier was not highly paid-his was one of the most disgraceful events was not a lucrative service-but he did he had ever heard of. He had carefully care for the honour of his flag, and up searched the Blue Books and had not to the present time he had always known found a single word from his noble that he could rely upon the support and Friend the Secretary of State for the sympathy of his fellow-countrymen at Colonies expressing his sorrow and in-home whilst fighting in distant lands. dignation at what had occurred. What, in fact, did occur? A detachment of some 250 British soldiers, marching in long convoy and with no knowledge of any state of war, with women, children, and baggage, were stopped by the Boers and suddenly summoned to surrender. That war had not then been declared was proved by the very letter delivered to Colonel Anstruther by the Boers, in which they said "We do not know whether we are in a state or war or not;" but that if he advanced, "we know what we will have to do in self-defence." Selfdefence when even while Colonel Anstruther was reading the letter, under cover of the flag of truce, the Boers were quietly advancing to positions they had, before planned, the distances having been marked by them and a regular ambush laid. The Colonel sent a message back, asking for an answer, but As far as the Government was concerned this support and sympathy had failed him now, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies seemed to consider the slaughter of British soldiers a matter of no moment. From what he heard he did not believe that the Boers were at all inclined to submit to the authority of the British Crown. His noble Friend could hardly expect it. | Why, those men asserted that they were fighting for their independence and for the land of their fathers-a great portion of which, by-the-bye, had been pilched from the Natives within the last 20 years. But in his "Instructions" to the Commission his noble Friend proposed to cut off more than one-third of this land, either to be given to Native Tribes or kept under British authority. Did anyone in his senses suppose the Boers-exulting and victorious -were going to submit to this? Why, in the last Blue Book was printed their notice to a Native Chief not to assist "our enemies the English Government which we have already overthrown." And again they say "We alone are able to work out the English." If we had defeated them, there might have been some show of generosity in our proceedings towards them; but as matters were the Boers, who, no doubt, considered themselves a match for us, would not tamely submit to our terms. There was no hope of tranquillity in South Africa until there was a law-abiding population, under a Government which would assert and enforce equal laws for all; and there was no Government which could and would do that save the British Government. It was well known that the Transvaal rebellion took its rise in the refusal of certain persons to pay taxes to the English, as they had previously refused to pay them to the Boer Government. He wished, too, to know what was to be done for the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal, who had lost their all because they trusted England? There were good words concern ing them, no doubt, in the Instructions; but what power would the Commissioners have to enforce their decisions, or to procure any redress for those men? Judging from appearances, he very much feared that we were only at the beginning of our troubles in South Africa, and he should be only too glad if the result should show that he had been mistaken in his prognostications. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The only sense that can be attributed to the words of Mr. Gladstone's letter are that he considers himself not responsible because no Boers were killed at Laing's Nek or Majuba Hill, and only our own soldiers were sacrificed in vain; but any theologian will tell him that whoever wages an unjust war is responsible for those that fall on both sides. And Mr. Gladstone is responsible for the war, as he did not enter into any communications with the Boers after denouncing the annexation in his Mid Lothian speeches. As to the other matters referred to, I entirely concur with the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock. Lord Brabourne of any town or district alleging in their Petition "That the municipal or other local authority that such town or district may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any Bill relating to the lighting or water supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be entitled to be heard against such Bill." The hon. Gentleman said, that anyone who undertook to propose any alteration in the Rules and Orders of the House, and still more anyone who ventured to invade the sacred precincts of the Court of Referees, incurred considerable responsibility. He possessed, however, some knowledge of the practice before Committees upstairs, and the Board of Trade with respect to Provisional Orders. In the first place, he must be allowed to say that although, undoubtedly, the object of his proposal was to overrule the Court of Referees, he did not intend any act of discourtesy towards that body, who rendered great and important services to the House. But the House would recollect that when any particular practice was objected to, and any wish expressed to alter a precedent established by the Court of Referees, the only way in which a re-consideration of the practice or precedent could be secured was by bringing the question regularly before the House, and proposing an alteration of the Standing Orders or a new Standing Order altogether. proposal which he was about to lay before the House had no reference to any particular case, or to any particular place. The tended that the local authority who best represented the interests of the consumers of the particular district should have a locus standi before a Committee of the House, and should have an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the manner in which the monopoly had been exercised, and of explaining whether there were any reasons why a further extension of capital should not be granted, or to suggest the terms on which it should be granted. It was now the constant practice of the local authorities to purchase these undertakings; and in consequence of the existence of that practice, and of the fact that Parliament usually gave He desired only to discuss the matter | first established Gas and Water Comas one of the general principles which panies, give them an easy power by some ought to govern the relations between simple process of acquiring the addithe local authorities and the Gas and tional capital which might be necessary Water Companies of their particular for the future development of their undistricts. As it stood at present, the dertaking. Parliament decided that it Rule practically laid down by the Court would grant capital to a limited extent of Referees in that House was that when only, and that every subsequent applia Gas and Water Company went to that cation for additional capital must be House for the purpose of asking for made to Parliament itself, so that Paradditional capital, leave to oppose that liament might have an opportunity of proposal was not given by the Court of reviewing altogether the terms of the Referees to the local authorities. The concession. If that were the intention object of this new Standing Order was to of Parliament, surely it followed as the provide that when a Gas or Waterlogical sequence that Parliament inCompany came before Parliament, the local authority of the district should be entitled to be heard generally against such Gas or Water Company. Notice of an Amendment had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), who was himself a member of the Court of Referees, and the object of the Amendment was to limit very much the proposal which he (Mr. Stanhope) made. His hon. Friend wished to lay down by the Amendment that the opposition was to be limited to any matter contained in or proposed to be enacted by the Bill. In his (Mr. Stanhope's) opinion, that would be far too limited a proposal. The practice which he desired to estab-its assent to it, it became more neceslish in that House was exactly the same sary to entrust the local authorities practice as that which now existed at with the power of guarding against the the Board of Trade in regard to appli- unnecessary increase of capital on the cations for Provisional Orders. And it part of these Companies. No doubt, in was the same practice as that which now these days there was some safeguard existed in regard to Private Bills in the by the introduction of "the auction" House of Lords. He thought that the clauses; but perhaps he might be allowed local authority ought to have power to to represent to the House that these appear in the case of any application by clauses did not apply at all to Water a Gas or Water Company for an in- Companies; and that, over and beyond crease of capital. The Gas or Water anything covered by these clauses, there Company possessed a monopoly practi- were many other points which had been cally limited in duration by the amount developed by experience year by year, of its capital; and what was sug- which showed that those who repregested by the Standing Order he now sented a particular district should be desired to propose was that whenever empowered to go before a Committee of the Gas or Water Company desired to the House of Commons. They were extend its capital and came to Parlia- told that the passing of this new Standment to ask leave for that purpose, Par-ing Order would have the effect of inliament ought to have the power of reviewing generally all the circumstances of the proposal, and of imposing any fresh conditions which the circumstances of the case might seem to require. In the first place, he thought that this was the manifest intention of Parliament. If not, why did not Parliament, when it creasing litigation. He could not see why that supposition should be entertained. The adoption of the same principle had not led to any undue litigation in the case of Provisional Orders, or in the case of Committees in the House of Lords. Then why should it be supposed that it would be likely |