LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, that two years ago he had been asked by those who were interested in the China trade to put the first of the Questions now put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but he had to postpone it as the Government had not then come to any decision. The Chinese Government had fulfilled their part of the Treaty, and quite recently an English traveller had journeyed unmolested from Shanghai to Burmah. It was putting Sir Thomas Wade in an unfair position to send him back to Pekin with the Chefoo Convention unratified by us. Kong and China would be arranged in | tive trade is being carried on, and, no a manner satisfactory at once to the doubt, it brings a considerable revenue Colony of Hong Kong and to the Chi- to the Chinese Treasury. The proposal nese Government. As regarded the open- of the noble Lord-more Chinese in his ing up of intercourse between China views of trade than the Chinese themand India through Thibet, it was most selves-is, that we should close up the desirable, before we attempted to send avenues of this trade and dry up these another mission of exploration, that we sources of revenue, and then tell the should be sure there was no risk of the Chinese we are compensating them for repetition of the disaster which had the non-settlement of the question of occurred in attempting to open inter- li-kin for opium. I think they would course between China and India through repudiate their advocate. This is not a Burmah. question of hypothesis. By the Convention, the Chinese are only bound to open these ports on the performance of the stipulations with respect to li-kin. They have not waited for the stipulations; they have opened them at once. Do you imagine they have done it out of pure benevolence? Certainly not; for they know it is for their interest as well as ours that the trade between the two countries should be unrestricted. The difficulty which arises under the clause of the Convention is a very simple one. In the first place, the proposal with respect to li-kin on goods in general is that it should be levied on all goods going into China except within a very limited area which is called "the Concessions;" and to that limitation some foreign Governments take strong objection. Therefore, it is provided that the stipulations shall not come into operation until an understanding has been arrived at with them. They have not yet accepted these stipulations of the Convention, and, therefore, it is clearly impossible they should come into operation. That is a matter over which we have not any control. The li-kin is not the ordinary taxation of the country; it is a species of octroi levied at the boundary of every Province; it is levied very much at the discretion of the provincial Governors; they can raise it or lower it as they please; but there is always this security for the foreign trader-that, as long as the collection of the duty is left in the hands of Chinese officials, smuggling, when the duty becomes high, is not a very difficult matter, and, therefore, there is a natural check upon these provincial Governors which prevents them raising li-kin to an extravagant amount. With respect to opium, this Convention proposes what undoubtedly would be a very drastic remedy-that the collection should be placed in the same hands as that THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is perfectly true that, owing to certain defects in the structure of this Convention, it has not been hitherto possible to ratify it; and we are awaiting the Report from Sir Thomas Wade of his communications with the Chinese Government before we can proceed further in that direction. I am wholly unable to agree with the noble Lord the late Under Secretary (Lord Hammond) in thinking that we have done thereby any injury to the Chinese, or that we ought to compensate them for that injury in the manner the noble Lord suggests. He pointed out that the Chinese, by virtue of this Convention, have opened to us a certain number of ports. That stipulation, he says, has been performed; but the stipulation with respect to submitting opium to li-kin has not been performed. We ought, therefore, in honour, he says, to give back to the Chinese that which they have given to us, by withdrawing from those ports which they have opened. My impression is that if the Chinese could be asked they would be ill-satisfied with the demands of their advocate. Certain ports have been opened to British trade-not an injurious thing to the nation in which those ports are situated. I believe a tolerably ac which collects the Customs-that is to say, European hands. In that case smuggling would be absolutely barred, and the tax upon opium might be raised to any amount provincial Governors pleased. That would be a result which, practically, would neutralize the policy which hitherto has been pursued by this country in respect to that drug. Nevertheless this is the interpretation which some persons have placed upon the Convention. I think my noble Friend who asked the Question (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not fall into that error. He said, by the last sentence of the 3rd clause of the Convention, that the amount of li-kin collected should not be left to the discretion of these Governors, but that it should be settled, in the first instance, how much li-kin should be levied before they gave to the levying of that li-kin the additional security which the Convention offered. The clause says that the amount of li-kin will be decided by the provincial Governments according to the circumstances of each; but it seems to be a question whether this is, or is not to be, done before the Convention is put into operation. We propose to wait until that clause is put into a less ambiguous form and a distinct understanding is arrived at with respect to it. I do not think this country will be entitled to say that no additional duty in the form of li-kin should be levied upon opium. I conceive there may be circumstances in the financial position of China which would make that a harsh decision. Probably, a certain rise in duty may be effected without a serious interference with the trade; but when we are told that the probable rise is to be something like 300 per cent, it at once becomes evident that if this clause were carried into operation in the form in which some people understand it, the result would not be a benefit to the finances of China, but simply a protection to the growth of the native poppy; and that is a result we cannot favour. Under these circumstances, we felt it necessary that further explanations with the Chinese Government should be entered into, so that a Convention of this important character should be free from doubt as to its exact meaning. The policy which the Government has consistently pursued should be steadily adhered to. I hope we shall soon have a communication from Sir Thomas Wade which will justify The Marquess of Salisbury us in concluding that a definitive arrangement has been arrived at. With respect to the second Question-that concerning the mission of exploration to Thibet and thence to India-not much progress has been made. Since this Convention was signed the affairs of Central Asia have become much more troubled on the boundaries between Russia and China, in Kashgar; and, again, on the Western boundary of Thibet a very considerable disturbance has occurred, which re-acted on the Government of Thibet-the most jealous Government in the world-making them unwilling, even at the bidding of their superiors at Pekin, to admit an English expedition. We should be incurring dangers which the advantages to be gained would not at all justify if we insisted, in the face of these circumstances, on pushing forward any expedition. With respect to the third matter-the appointment of a Commission to regulate the differences between Hong Kong and the City of Canton-if you look at the 7th section, you will find that this is a unilateral provision in favour of the British Government on account of the interference of the Customs Revenue cruisers with the junk trade of the Colony. It was a provision inserted in order to redress grievances felt by the Governor of Hong Kong. He has reported that the grievance it was intended to remedy has ceased, and there is, therefore, no further reason to appoint the Commission. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) BILL [H.L.] A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts-Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 76.) House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 9th May, 1879. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN-Robert 1) Pro-Staffordshire. It was, Whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer can explain to e-comm) the House why an incorrect translation of the 3rd paragraph of the 22nd Article Lands of the Treaty of Berlin was laid upon (Ire- the Table of this House by Her Majesty's ERN f Eastern ial troops te of the e present vernment le passage acuated cease and Government on the 15th of July last, whereby the period accorded to Russia for the passage of troops across Roumania, and the complete evacuation of the Principality, was incorrectly stated. to be nine months instead of twelve months; and, if he can explain to the House why, in the translation of the 4th d given Article of the Treaty above mentioned, ancellor the French word "avant" was transfication lated "after" instead of "before." reaty of MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am glad that the phs two hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexof that ander Gordon) has asked his Question English just after that of my hon. Friend behind me, because my hon. Friend has given the explanation which I was going to give in answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question, and which, in fact, was given by me last year in this House. It will be in the recollection of the House that I took the opportunity, last year, in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir to state Julian Goldsmid), of saying that there ken from were certain inaccuracies in the translain which tion of the Treaty which I had laid upon entatives the Table of the House, and that those retary of inaccuracies arose in consequence of the be laid very great hurry that took place in the and pub- translation and the anxiety of the Goofficial vernment not to lose a moment in placing = it con- the Treaty before the House. That is nslation, the explanation I gave last year, which the House, having all the circumstances in its recollection, was good enough to accept. I then took occasion to express my regret that those inaccuracies should have taken place; but I stated that no o put the substantial inconvenience, except that ly would caused temporarily to Members of the y fixes a House, would result, because a correct e of Rus- translation would be laid upon the any date Table when the ratification of the Treaty at before took place. The hon. Member for North shall be Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) has just exthe Rus-plained that another translation was laid ltimately upon the Table after the ratification. nat Pro- The hon. and gallant Member for East h Rou- Aberdeenshire has not been kind enough to adopt that; but has quoted from the ent underher period previous translation, which, as I said | before, was inaccurate. But I do not think anybody will say that the subsequent translation was inaccurate. With regard to the last Question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire, I have to state that the evacuation of Eastern Roumelia will take place with all reasonable despatch. I think I may also say that if my hon. Friend will refer to historical precedents upon subjects of this kind, he will find that this is as complete an answer as can be given by the Government. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he was not aware that an explanation had been made last Session, or he should not have put his Question. CRIMINAL LAW-ALLEGED CRUELTY AT HANLEY.-QUESTION. EARL PERCY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Hannah Martin, a farmer's wife, who is reported to have been charged before the stipendiary magistrate at Hanley, on the 7th of April last, with having, for a trifling offence, beaten her child of nine years old while naked, and afterwards rubbed turpentine and salt into the wounds; the child being in consequence of this treatment "" one mass of wounds from neck to feet"; and, whether it is true that "The magistrate, taking a lenient view of the case, cautioned the woman and inflicted a nominal fine and costs, which amounted to one guinea ?" MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, this is an instance of a newspaper paragraph grossly misrepresenting the facts of a case, so far as I am able to ascertain them. I only wish that, in reporting these cases, the persons responsible would be more careful in being accurate; because I am sure that, unintentional though it may be, such a representation of the proceedings of a Court of Justice is calculated to have a very bad effect throughout the country. The magistrate who dealt with the case writes to me"It will be in your recollection that, a few weeks ago, I was in communication with you relative to another case which I tried at Stoke upon-Trent, a report of which, as it appeared in some of the London papers, was a sensational one, and the invention of some local reporter. Mr. Bourke 1 The same statement applies to this case. The woman charged was the aunt, not the mother, but was in her usual dress; and no turpentine of the child. The child beaten was not naked, or salt was used. In deciding the case, I was of opinion that the girl had received no more punishment than she really deserved, and I hesitated whether or not I should dismiss the living several miles off, and had taken out a summons; but as the mother was a poor woman summons, influenced by the fears of her daughter and some falsehood which had been told her, I ordered the costs to be paid, and inflicted a nominal fine of 1s." I may add that a Question was given Notice of the other day with regard to another case. I presume the hon. Member found the statement untrue, and accordingly has not put the Question. DOMINION OF CANADA FORTUNE BAY, NEWFOUNDLAND.-QUESTION. MR. MACDONALD asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there be any further papers in respect to the occurrences which took place in Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, January 1878, than that which closed with a letter from the American Ambassador, date 9th November 1878; if so, will he lay them upon the Table, or if the matter has been arranged, will he state the terms of the agreement? MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, no communications had taken place between the British and American Governments since November 9 on the subject mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Question. ARMY - COMMISSARIAT AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENTS.-QUESTION. Secretary of State for War, Whether, SIR HENRY HAVELOCK asked the with reference to the replies given by the War Department during the last three years, the promised Warrant reorganizing the Commissariat and Transwhen it is likely to be issued; and, port Departments is yet decided upon; whether it will meet the grievances of the officers to which consideration has so often been promised? the promised Warrant re-organizing the COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, Commissariat and the Transport Departments had been decided upon; and he had reason to believe, if it had not already gone to the Treasury, it would go to them in the course of this week. As to when the Warrant was likely to be TREATY OF BERLIN-EASTERN ROUMELIA.-QUESTIONS. MR. HANBURY said, he had given Notice that he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What modification has been introduced into the Treaty of Berlin in reference to paragraphs two and three of Article twenty-two of that Treaty, which, in the official English translation, stand as follows: "The period of the occupation of Eastern SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he had also a Question to put, consequent that of the hon. Member for North upon Staffordshire. It was, Whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer can explain to the House why an incorrect translation of the Treaty of Berlin was laid upon of the 3rd paragraph of the 22nd Article the Table of this House by Her Majesty's Government on the 15th of July last, whereby the period accorded to Russia for the passage of troops across Roumania, and the complete evacuation of the Principality, was incorrectly stated to be nine months instead of twelve months; and, if he can explain to the House why, in the translation of the 4th Article of the Treaty above mentioned, the French word "avant was translated "after" instead of "before." MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) has asked his Question just after that of my hon. Friend behind me, because my hon. Friend has given the explanation which I was going to give in answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question, and which, in fact, was given by me last year in this House. It will be in the recollection of the House that I took the opportunity, last Roumelia and Bulgaria by the Imperia! troops is fixed at nine months from the date of the exchange of the ratification of the present Treaty. The Imperial Russian Government undertakes that within nine months the passage of its troops across Roumania shall cease and the Principality shall be completely evacuated "year, in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), of saying that there were certain inaccuracies in the translation of the Treaty which I had laid upon the Table of the House, and that those inaccuracies arose in consequence of the very great hurry that took place in the translation and the anxiety of the Government not to lose a moment in placing the Treaty before the House. That is the explanation I gave last year, which the House, having all the circumstances in its recollection, was good enough to accept. I then took occasion to express my regret that those inaccuracies should have taken place; but I stated that no substantial inconvenience, except that caused temporarily to Members of the House, would result, because a correct translation would be laid upon the Table when the ratification of the Treaty took place. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) has just explained that another translation was laid upon the Table after the ratification. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire has not been kind enough to adopt that; but has quoted from the |