health, and have a chance of returning in reasonable numbers to their native land.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN said, the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) might be apposite if the whole general question of the war in South Africa were under consideration; but the House had before it a much smaller and more pressing question. He would not go back to considerations connected with former arrangements in those districts where war now prevailed, but rather would adopt the right hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Peel's) view; and he much regretted that the speech from the Treasury Bench since he spoke did not seem to warrant the roseate view the right hon. Baronet had taken. The subject was a question of engrossing importance. Not a town or village they went to, but they found what was going on in Zululand discussed by all classes; and in view of this universality of interest, he asked why it was that this statement they had heard was made only two days before the House was to adjourn for the Whitsuntide Holidays? He inferred that this statement might have been made a week ago, and yet they had chosen that time to inform the House-not that Sir Garnet Wolseley had been put in command of 17,000 men to South Africa; there was nothing extraordinary in that, for the House had seen how General Biddulph, at the Peiwar Kotal, and other Generals in Afghanistan, were sent to carry out previous arrangements; but then there was the clear expression of the Government policy from the lips of Lord Lytton. But here, he asked, on the eve of the House breaking up for a fortnight, was the old policy to be pursued in Zululand with stronger vigour? He thought he had a perfect right to ask this Question. The Secretary of State for War had made use of one pregnant observation. He had said "We had Sir Garnet Wolseley home for military operations."

COLONEL STANLEY: No, that must not go forth. What I said was, that Sir Garnet Wolseley was home to assist on a Committee of a military character, and for that purpose alone.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN, continuing, accepted that statement; but he had noted the words at the time, and several hon. Members understood the right hon.

and gallant Gentleman to say Sir Garnet Wolseley was coming home in connection with military affairs. If that was the reason Sir Garnet Wolseley came home, then it was fair to ask, was it from reasons not military he had been selected to proceed to the Cape? All the debate might have been saved if Government had at once stated what instructions Sir Garnet Wolseley would carry out. In the absence of that, the House must fall back on surmise, and it was his surmise that the Admirable Crichton of the British Army had been selected to go to Zululand because of his military capacity. All recognized his military distinction, but he would not say there were not a thousand of equal ability in civil life in England. But why was he selected, and why was the House to be told in a whisper he was selected, because of his civil distinction? He repudiated such an idea, and believed the House would join in asking for an answer. For what had Sir Garnet Wolseley been selected to go to the Cape? When did this change come over the opinion of the Government as to the power and ability of Sir Bartle Frere, and the military capacity of Lord Chelmsford? And if there was no change, if Sir Bartle Frere's intelligence was still as great, and Lord Chelmsford's military genius so transcendent as hon. Gentlemen opposite would maintain, why were they suspended? He would like to learn how, in every military club in London, where this subject would be discussed with some knowledge, to what this action. of the Government would be attributed? It could be but to one cause-that having sent an indiscreet man to take civil control in South Africa, and a man of no special military distinction to take the military command, the Government at last saw the error of their ways, and to save Questions of an unpleasant character being put to them, they selected an opportunity to acquaint Parliament when they thought there would be a narrow attendance, the only Business anticipated being the voting of a sum of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] They made this passing statement, and the House was to submit in perfect quietude. He was wrong in calling it a statementthis assurance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might well try to interrupt him, for

peaceable character. That clearly appeared in the Blue Books; but they had over and over again expressed their regret that their views had not been carried out. That was the real root of the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it had been found no longer advisable to leave the control of the civil and military affairs in South Africa in the hands of four different persons. What did that mean? Did it mean that there was a conflict of opinion as regarded the manner in which the war was to be prosecuted? They knew that there was a conflict of opinion between the officials in South Africa in the discussion of what led to the war. Was it only in the most critical time of the proceedings that the Government had found out what they ought to do? Those were important Questions, which were suggested by the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was only reasonable that the hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should be anxious for complete information on the subject before they consented to adjourn for the Holidays. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had said that our soldiers were fighting with the courage of Englishmen, but it might rather be they were fighting with the courage of Irishmen, especially under the circumstances that an Irishman was now selected to retrieve our fortunes in South Africa. He only regretted that the valour of our soldiers was being exhibited in a bad, unjustifiable, and dishonourable war.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the Question addressed to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid). He desires to know, firstly, for what reason Her Majesty's Government propose to make this change in the civil and military command in South Africa; and, secondly, what will be the position of Sir Bartle Frere in future. I think it will be far more convenient to the House if I ask hon. Members to wait for a few days, until they receive the Papers which will be laid on the Table of the House, and which will fully explain the reasons for this change and the position of the several officers in South Africa. But I may say these Papers will fully establish the absolute necessity for vesting the whole supreme

civil and military command in the district affected in one person, and will also show that Sir Bartle Frere will retain not only the functions of Governor of Cape Colony, but the functions of High Commissioner that were vested in his predecessor, Sir Henry Barkly. The point, however, that has principally occupied the House this evening is, what is the nature or purport-I may say the spirit-of the instructions with which Sir Garnet Wolseley is going out? Ido not think I need say much in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Mayo, who seemed to think that, whatever instructions were given, it was pretty certain they would not be obeyed

MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Oh, no; I never said that Sir Garnet Wolseley would not obey his instructions. What I said was that those already in South Africa had flatly disobeyed their instructions.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: However, I recognize the natural desire of hon. Members to know the spirit of the instructions to be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley; but I would point out the extreme difficulty-nay, the danger to the Public Service-of complying with such a request at the present moment. Supposing these instructions were read from beginning to end by myself or by my right hon. Friend, what would be the result? They would be immediately telegraphed to South Africa, and published there, before the officers intrusted with the duty of carrying them out had arrived, and the very effect that we desire by these instructions to produce might thus be rendered absolutely impossible. This, however, I will say, in addition to what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for War-that Sir Garnet Wolseley's instructions will be consistent with the spirit and the letter of the expressions of opinion, with which the House is acquainted, on the part of Her Majesty's Government-to obtain as soon as possible an honourable peace; and that, therefore, as a matter of course, so far from any measures tending to the extermination of the Zulu people, or driving them to despair, Sir Garnet Wolseley will be told that it is the object of Her Majesty's Government not to extend the British territories in South Africa, but to secure for the future the safety of those now belonging to us; and that he will be not

only authorized, but directed, to receive and entertain any bond fide overtures that may be made to him by the Zulu King, in order that, as soon as possible, the end of his mission may be accomplished.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I think that probably the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfactory to the House; but I cannot but regret that it was not made sooner. I must also point out that the reason which the right hon. Gentleman has given for not stating the instructions to Sir Garnet Wolseley more in detail seem somewhat inconsistent with that which was given at an earlier period of the evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that Papers would be laid on the Table and be almost immediately in our hands, If that be so, it would then be possible for the contingency that the Secretary of State for the Colonies dreads to take place; for these instructions would be telegraphed to South Africa, and be discussed there, before the arrival of Sir Garnet Wolseley. I assume that the Government will lay the Papers upon the Table as soon as, in their opinion, they can be presented without any injury to the Public Service; and I do not know that under the circumstances we can expect more than the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot sit down without saying I have heard with great satisfaction the announcement made by the Government this evening. We, on this side, must look upon it, to a very great extent, as a justification of the course that we thought it necessary to take a month or two ago. It is not with the policy of the Government, as laid down by them, that we have had to find so much fault. What we had have to find fault with is, that the policy was placed in the hands of men who evidently held different views, and that the instructions given by the Government were not carried out. The selection of Sir Garnet Wolseley-a man in whom the country has every reason to have great confidence, who has had the opportunity of holding personal conferences with Her Majesty's Ministers, and who, I may assume, is personally acquainted with those views, and is also in perfect agreement with them-is of such a character that the

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach

affairs of the country will be in very different hands, when Sir Garnet Wolseley reaches the Cape, from those in which they have hitherto been unfortunately placed. I think the Government cannot be surprised at the great anxiety that has been expressed for information this evening. We cannot help looking upon this as a very critical turning-point in this matter; and although we know the general views of the Government on the subject, I think the House will have heard with satisfaction that the instructions Sir Garnet Wolseley will take with him will emphasize those views which have already met with the approval of this House. We, on this side, do not yield to any hon. Members opposite in our desire that the conclusion of the war shall be one that will give safety to the Colony, and, at the same time, honour to this country. But what we do wish clearly to understand is, that the honour of the British arms does not require the slaughter of an indefinite number of Zulus, and we also desire to know that the Government are not pledged to the opinion, which we know is held by Sir Bartle Frere, that there is no possible security for our Colonists in South Africa until the military organization of the Zulu Kingdom is entirely destroyed. I gather from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that these are not the views held by the Government, and that the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley will be in conformity with those despatches from the Colonial Office which have met with most approval in this House.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he had that morning sent to the Secretary of State for War a letter written by Bishop Colenso and referring to the messengers reported to have been sent by Cetewayo to Lord Chelmsford to ask for peace-a subject on which the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had already asked a Question. From this letter, the Secretary of State would see that these messengers were men who had formerly brought most important messages from Cetewayo to our Government, and that, in Bishop Colenso's opinion, they were of sufficiently high authority to be the bearers of overtures of peace.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT desired to ask the Colonial Secretary, whether the commission at present held by Sir