was presented on his behalf, and who died without medical attendance; and, whether the dispensary committee have yet complied with this direction; and, if not, whether the Local Government Board have taken steps to compel compliance? MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Committee were so requested, but they took a different view of the case from that adopted by the Local Government Board, and they declined to act on the suggestion of the Board. In order to enable them to hear the statement which the medical officer had to make, and any further observation the Committee had to offer, it was decided to hold an inquiry by one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, and that inquiry was fixed to take place to-day. SOUTH AFRICA (EXPENSES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS)—ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURE.-QUESTION. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is still satisfied that his Estimate for the War in South Africa is sufficient, or recognizes that it must be increased? He added, by way of explanation, that he was aware there had been no formal Estimate; but he referred to the £1,500,000 spoken of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Member is quite right in saying that at present there is no Estimate on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), however, has already given Notice of his intention to ask a Question with regard to the Estimate of the cost of the war in South Africa immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays; and I think it would be more convenient to defer answering the Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy until then. TURKEY—THE ANGLO-TURKISH CON. VENTION CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS IN ASIA MINOR.-QUESTION. MR. J. HOLMS asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the statement showing the different Consular or other appointments proposed to be made in Asia Minor, together with particulars of the salaries and other expenses connected therewith? SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he could not fix the actual day; but he hoped to be able to lay the Papers upon the Table within the next fortnight or three weeks. FRANCE-PROLONGATION OF THE TREATY OF COMMERCE. QUESTION. MR. W. CARTWRIGHT asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the prolongation of the existing Treaty of Commerce with France is limited to six months from December 31st of the current year; or whether the terms of prolongation include an engagement that the Conventional Duties under the present Treaty shall continue in force for six months after the date, whenever that may be, when a new Tariff shall have been enacted in France? MR. BOURKE: Sir, no change has taken place in the arrangements between the French and English Governments since I made a statement on the subject a few days ago. The duration of the Treaty, as well as the duration of the Conventional Tariff, as fixed by laws and Treaty, is to be prolonged for six months after the promulgation of the General Tariff now before the French Assembly. TURKEY-ANTI-SLAVE TRADE TREATY.-QUESTION. MR. W. E. FORSTER asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Anti-Slave Trade Treaty with Turkey has yet been concluded, which he informed the House last February had then been not only submitted to the Porte, but had passed the Council of Ministers? MR. BOURKE: Sir Henry Layard, when in England, undertook that when he returned to Constantinople he would lose no opportunity and no time in pressing on the Porte the subject of that Treaty, and we hope to hear shortly that it has been signed. CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL-REPEAL OF STA TUTES.-QUESTION. MR. ANDERSON asked Mr. Attorney General, If it be true that, while the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill repeals in whole or in part about 80 Statutes, it leaves unrepealed about 650, all bearing on Criminal Law; and, if so, if he will take steps to make the codification more complete before asking the House to go through further labour in discussing details? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, if the hon. Gentleman asserts that, in addition to the statutes intended to be repealed by the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, there are as many as 650 other Acts bearing on the Criminal Law, I presume he has made a careful calculation, and has satisfied himself of its accuracy. The number of Statutes mentioned must, however, to a great extent, be made up of Acts of Parliament relating to offences punishable on summary conviction, of Acts which are obsolete, and of Acts which it is not desirable to re-enact. I have already explained why the provisions of all the Statutes relating to indictable offences are not codified by the Bill, and I dare say a further statement on this subject will be contained in the Report of the Commissioners. I consider the Bill contains a very large measure of codification, for it codifies all the common, or unwritten, law relating to Criminal Acts generally, and all the statute law relating to such indictable offences as are ordinarily considered to be embraced under the term "crimes." This being so, I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I shall take steps to delay the passing of the measure. PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.-QUESTION. MR. CHAMBERLAIN asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will make arrangements to allow the House to express its opinion on the Recommendations of the Committee on Parliamentary Reporting before they are carried into effect. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Government have not yet been able to consider these recommendations; but if they should propose to apply them, undoubtedly an opportunity will be given to the House to express an opinion upon them, because it will be necessary to submit a small Mr. Anderson Vote as a test of the opinion of the House on the subject. PARLIAMENT-ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.-QUESTION. MR. W. E. FORSTER asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What class of Civil Service Estimates would be taken on this day fortnight; and whether there would be a Morning Sitting on the day after the re-assembling of the House? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that with regard to the Estimates to be taken on the first Monday after the Whitsuntide Recess, something would depend on the progress made to-night. If the Estimates now on the Paper should not be finished, they would be taken again; otherwise the Army Estimates would be taken. In any case, the Army Estimates would probably be put upon the Paper. On the first Tuesday after the Recess there would be a Morning Sitting for the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. SOUTH AFRICA-EGYPT-FURTHER PAPERS.-QUESTIONS. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON; I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the statement he made in the earlier part of the evening, Whether the Government intend to lay on the Table further Papers relating to South Africa, and when he expects that they may be in our hands? I should also like to ask, When further Papers may be expected relating to affairs in Egypt? MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask, If the Papers which are to be laid on the Table in reference to South Africa will contain the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have already stated that the Papers relating to South Africa will be laid on the Table before the House rises to-morrow, and I hope they will be in the hands of Members in a few days, but I can hardly say off-hand what they will contain. With regard to the other Question, I believe that further Papers with regard to the affairs of Egypt are being prepared, and that they also will be in the hands of Members in a few days. SOUTH AFRICA-THE CIVIL AND EXPLANATION. SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask a Question or two in reference to the statement that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think at an unusual time—such statements being generally made after, and not before, the Questions. I do not wish to conclude with a Motion; but I trust the House will permit me to say one or two words in explanation. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Sir Garnet Wolseley had been appointed both Civil and Military Governor of South Africa. ["No."] Then, of some portion of South Africa. should be allowed to make remarks unless MR. SPEAKER: As long as the right hon. Gentleman puts a Question, and confines himself to that Question, and to such information as is necessary to make that Question plain to the House, he is in Order. SIR ROBERT PEEL: The Question is one of very great importance, and it is this-Whether it is to be understood by the House of Commons and by the country that the confidence of the Government has been withdrawn from the General Commanding-in-Chief, Lord Chelmsford? I wish also to inquire whether Sir Henry Bulwer, the comTHE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-petent Governor of Natal, is superseded? QUER: I said Natal and the Transvaal, and those portions of territory to the North and East of those Colonies. I wish also to inquire whether Sir Bartle Frere is supposed no longer to exercise the functions which he has hitherto discharged in that part of South Africa? I hope the Government will also allow me to inquire whether it is intended before the vacation-either tonight or to-morrow-to offer to the country any statement as regards the position of affairs in South Africa? morrow evening be dismissed to their homes for a fortnight; and, if they were to judge from the past, they might expect on Wednesday or Thursday to re SIR ROBERT PEEL: Well, I wish to know what is the effect of that appointment in regard to superseding officers already there-among them Sir Henry Bulwer, one of the most competent men in South Africa? I wish to know from the Government, Whether it is to be understood by the House and MR. SULLIVAN said, he wished to the country that the confidence of the put a Question to the Chancellor of the Government has been withdrawn from Exchequer on the same subject, and he the General Commanding-in-Chief; and also had no intention of concluding with whether the statement which has ap- a Motion if he could avoid it, but the peared in the Cape papers that Sir circumstances were peculiar; the emerBartle Frere has no intention of re-gency was severe. They would tosigning the position he holds is correct, or whether he has acquiesced in the censure that has been passed upon him by Her Majesty's Government? I wish to put another Question and make an ex-ceive some stunning surprise. planation. I do not wish to conclude with a Motion; but I am particularly anxious that this subject should be discussed before the adjournment for the holidays, and should be prepared to raise the question to-morrow on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair; but I will not do so if the House will permit me to make an explanation. It has to be remembered that at this present moment there are at the Cape forces amounting to nearly 22,000 men, and I want to know whether anything has occurred MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I rise to Order. I think it is unfair to other Members that the right hon. Baronet It was, therefore, strongly pressed upon him that He must would be up. [Cries of "Oh!" to know whether the appointment of Sir "Move!" and "Order!"] He would Garnet Wolseley was an augury of conclude with a Motion. He decidedly peace, or whether he only went out to objected to Members being dismissed to South Africa as a messenger of still more their homes without some specific infor- violent war? They had felt-and that mation on a subject which was deep in had been one of the grounds of the Mothe heart of the country. They wished tion he had made-they had felt that as for peace; and they wanted a positive long as Sir Bartle Frere was High Comassurance from the Government that missioner, and enjoyed the confidence of they would not renew the invasion of the Government, and as long as his policy Zululand for any mere idle pretext of was unchanged, there was no chance of what was called vindicating the disaster peace until the Zulu power had been utof Isandlana. They wanted to know terly destroyed. That kind of peace they how much bloodshed the Government regarded as no peace at all, but only the thought must be poured out before beginning of further difficulties and that vindication took place. It was to danger. They felt that unless a new him abhorrent that, 10 days hence, they Representative of Her Majesty were should find a war, brutal and barbarous, sent out, there would be no hope of a in full swing, and no House of Commons peaceable settlement of this most unforsitting to put even a Question to the tunate affair-a war commenced in inMinister of the day. He would tell his justice, and which they did not wish to hon. Friend the Member for Birming- see continued-a war commenced in inham (Mr. Chamberlain) that his Motion justice and wrong-a war commenced would come too late, for they would without any necessity-a war in which then be told, "Our arms were in the the country would never have engaged, field, and our gallant soldiers in the if the House had had an opportunity of grip of a deadly foe. Do not paralyze expressing an opinion upon it. He setheir arms at a moment like this; to conded the Motion for adjournment. do so would be eminently unpatriotic.' He appealed to the Government to tell the House that Sir Garnet Wolseley would be the messenger of peace-he need not be a coward for that, for he had already vindicated in Africa and elsewhere the traditional courage of the British Army-and that he would take in his portfolio some decision of the Government which would enable him, before carrying fire and sword into Zululand, to make offers to Cetewayo which might effect a settlement of the question. He begged to move the adjournment of the House. MR. CHAMBERLAIN asked leave to second the Motion, and begged most earnestly to support the appeal made to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). A moment or two ago he ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Papers shortly to be laid on the Table would contain the general instructions which had been given to Sir Garnet Wolseley? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made what he (Mr. Chamberlain) chose to call a very cavalier reply-That he could not be expected to say what would be contained in the Papers." That seemed to him an extremely unsatisfactory position in which to place the House. They wanted Mr. Sullivan Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Sullivan.) MR. O'DONNELL trusted that in the satisfactory assurances which, he hoped, were about to be given, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to say that Sir Garnet Wolseley would be instructed to grant to the people of the Transvaal, who had been fraudulently robbed of their rights, as full and complete an instalment of independence as was consistent with the safety of our South African Colonies. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not understand, Sir, that the House desires now to open up a general discussion upon South African policy; but I do fully understand that hon. Members who were not present when I made a statement at the beginning of Business would wish to hear what I then said. What I stated at that time was, that after a full consideration of the condition of affairs in South Africa, Her Majesty's Government had decided that the arrangement under which the chief Civil and Military authority in the neighbourhood of the seat of war was distributed between four different persons could no longer be deemed SIR HENRY HAVELOCK said, he had no desire to enter into any general discussion; but he thought it would be convenient to the House and the country that there should be a fuller explanation as to how the new arrangements would affect the position of Lord Chelmsford. Sir Garnet Wolseley was a lieutenantgeneral, and Lord Chelmsford held the local rank of lieutenant - general in Africa. He wished to know whether Lord Chelmsford's position would be that of second in command, or would he revert to the command of one of the two main columns, or would he revert to the command of the troops in Cape Colony, 1,000 miles from the seat of war, or would he be entirely superseded and set aside? He knew the eminent capacity of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and he hoped he would take out a message of peace, honourable to this country, and conduct the military operations to a successful and speedy termination. adequate. By these four different per- entering upon a discussion of South sons I, of course, mean Sir Bartle Frere African policy. as the High Commissioner, Sir Henry Bulwer as Civil Governor of Natal, Colonel Lanyon as Administrator of the Transvaal, and Lord Chelmsford, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. I therefore said that Her Majesty's Government had determined on appointing Sir Garnet Wolseley as Civil and Military Governor in Natal, the Transvaal, and the Native territory to the Northward and Eastward of those Colonies which are now the seat of war. Sir Henry Bulwer is the Lieutenant Governor of Natal, and Sir Garnet Wolseley will be the Governor. Similarly, he will be the Governor of the Transvaal, and he will be the High Commissioner who will conduct the relations of the Crown with the Native Tribes to the north and east of those territories. It will be remembered that that country is more than 1,000 miles distant from Cape Town, and that Sir Bartle Frere is at present-and will be for some considerable time-detained at Cape Town by important business which he has to transact in Cape Colony. With reference to the Question of the right hon. Baronet, Sir Bartle Frere has not yet answered, or we have not received, any answer to the despatch to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think it would be convenient that I should attempt, on the present occasion, to enter into any fuller explanation further than to say thisthat we propose immediately to lay upon the Table Papers which will explain the precise nature and the reason of the appointment which has been made of Sir Garnet Wolseley. Of course, the instructions which will be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley will be laid upon the Table, and will be circulated as quickly as possible, but we were anxious to save time; and I am not sure whether it will be possible to include those instructions in the first batch of Papers which will be laid on the Table. Of course, they will be laid upon the Table, and I hope they will be very shortly in the hands of hon. Members. The Papers which relate to the nature of the appointments will be laid immediately. Of course, I cannot object to any discussion which hon. Memhers may choose to invite us to; but I hope it may be considered that this is not a very convenient opportunity for MR. WADDY thought hon. Members were fully justified in asking for some further information than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet given. He had given entirely the go-by to the letter, if not to the spirit, of the Questions addressed to him on this side of the House. What ought to be distinctly underststood was, whether the instructions to be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley would place him in the position of being a messenger of peace, or a messenger of war, charged with the extermination of the Zulu people? Everyone, of course, knew the high merits and capacity of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and they had heard something about the vindication of the honour of this country; but were they going to tell the world that it was necessary to vindicate the majesty of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by exterminating these wretched Zulus? To say such a thing was almost an insult. It was, therefore, essential to know what Sir Garnet Wolseley was instructed to do in Africa. How long were we going to continue this war against this wretched Zulu Kingdomagainst a country which, in fact, had never attacked us? It had already been stated that the war was an unjust one, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had demurred to the statement. But what could be stronger than the censure passed by the Government on Sir Bartle Frere |