THIRD READING. (Hansard, 22 September 1893)

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said, he should not have risen but for the personal attack made upon him by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Tuesday last. On that occasion he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) had attributed the crisis that occurred last December in Egypt to some indiscreet utterances of the present Prime Minister before he came into Office. The hon. Baronet made a violent personal attack on him. The hon. Baronet not only denied the accuracy of the statements he had made, but he also accused 1897 him of serious unfairness. The hon. Baronet alleged that the late Conservative Government had adopted a similar; policy with regard to Egypt to that advocated by the Prime Minister. The statements he referred to as having been uttered by the Prime Minister were those made at Newcastle in October, 1890, and reiterated in Midlothian in July, 1892, in which he described the occupation of Egypt as a burden and an embarrassment, and advocated the immediate evacuation of Egypt, and in which, in connection with Egypt, he denounced our military expenditure as excessive. He challenged the hon. Baronet to say that Lord Salisbury, or any Conservative Leader, had ever used language of that kind in regard to Egypt. The utmost that the Conservative Party had ever done in regard to Egypt was to say that they were willing to arrange for the evacuation of Egypt, when that evacuation could be carried out without any injury to the interests of the Egyptian people or to the interests of this country. The Drummond-Wolff Convention, which the hon. Baronet accused him of unfairness in not referring to, was never carried out. [Cries of "Divide!"] Before he sat down, he must read one quotation to prove the accuracy of the statement that he had made, that the crisis in Egypt was caused by the unfortunate utterances of the Prime Minister before he came into Office. In the French Chamber constant reference was made to the pledges which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had made when out of Office. The quotation he referred to was from the leading organ of the French Foreign Office—Le Temps—and the words were practically identical with those used by the Deputies in the French Chamber. They were— Europe requires to know once for all what the Liberal Prime Minister meant by his declarations of not so long ago, and whether he thinks with Mr. Milner and others that Egypt is henceforth to be one of the jewels in the Imperial Crown of the Empress of India? That was the universal feeling in France at the time, and for the hon. Baronet to accuse him of political unfairness because he associated the Egyptian crisis with the utterances of the Prime Minister, or because he did not admit that Lord Salisbury or other leading Members of 1898 the Conservative Party had ever made similar utterances, was, in his opinion, a serious violation of the rules of fair argument in that House. If the hon. Baronet had been in his place he would have advised him in future to model his replies rather upon those of the Prime Minister—who, whatever his faults might be, was always courteous to his opponents—than upon those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose innate passion for hectoring led him frequently into making deplorable exhibitions.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think I should abuse the patience of the House as much as the hon. Member has done if I make any reply to the speech of the hon. Member. Everybody this Session will have observed that the hon. Member has undertaken the conduct of foreign affairs for the Opposition, without any support from other gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. A gentleman whom we all respect—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester (Sir J. Fergusson)—on one occasion distinctly repudiated the hon. Member's utterances on foreign affairs, and I think that is a sufficient answer to give to the hon. Member.

§ MR. H. FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)
said, as that was the last occasion on which notice could be taken, he desired, on the part of the Sanitary Ports of the Kingdom, to utter a protest against what he believed to be the unjust treatment they had received at the hands of Her Majesty's Government in the matter of the heavy expenses they had been put to in guarding the country against an invasion of cholera. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mainly responsible for not granting assistance to the Sanitary Authorities out of the Imperial Funds. If the House had had an opportunity of discussing and dividing upon the Motion which had appeared many times on the Paper it would have received a large measure of support, not merely on the Opposition side of the House, but on the Ministerial side. Therefore, he did not raise the question in any Party spirit, because it was not a Party question. Undoubtedly the Port Sanitary Authorities had had cast upon them a national duty. They were the first line of defence against that dread enemy—cholera. Happily, the country, owing partly to climatic con- 1899 ditions, and he acknowledged also to the efforts of the Local Government Board and the efforts of the Local Authorities, had up to the present moment been spared anything like a serious invasion, and he trusted the year would pass by without anything of the kind. But all these invasions were looked upon by the Medical Authorities as a danger which ought to be guarded against; and although there was no prospect of getting any grant this year, he raised the question rather with a view of bringing it to the front next year. He desired to acknowledge fully the way in which the Local Government Board had carried out their duties. The President of the Local Government Board and his efficient Parliamentary Secretary had done their work admirably. That would be acknowledged, irrespective of Party. The Government had, nevertheless, unfairly treated the Local Authorities, and he hoped Ministers would consider the matter.