Lords Sitting of 3 August 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Educational Endowments (Scotland)* 220); Poor Law Amendment*(221).
Second Reading— Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) (208); Electric Lighting (212); Turnpike Acts Continuance*(198).
Report—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment*(203); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order*(144).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders*(No. 5) (162), and passed.

EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF A PICKET OF THE 60TH RIFLES.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether he has received any confirmation as to the alleged scare in regard to a picket of the 60th Rifles, which occurred the night before last?
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I have great pleasure in informing the noble Lord that, so far from there being any confirmation of the unfortunate rumour which appeared in one of the daily papers yesterday, we have received a telegram from General Sir Archibald Alison which completely refutes that rumour. The telegram has already been published in the morning papers; but I think it would be satisfactory to the House if I read it to your Lordships—
"Alexandria, August 2, 6.25 p.m.
"Left front picket of Ramleh lines driven in by body of Arabi's cavalry at 2 o'clock this morning. Picket maintained its position 80 yards in rear of its original post. Firing continued some time, and Arabi's men shortly withdrew. Post re-occupied. No casualty."
LORD VIVIAN: Can the noble Earl give any details of the affair?
THE EARL OF MORLEY: Those are the only details which we have received; but I wish to say one word as to the manner in which this report has appeared in the papers. We all acknowledge the great service which newspapers render in time of war. Newspaper correspondents have, I admit, done great services; but in the course of last week, on three separate occasions, rumours of an unsatisfactory character have appeared in the newspapers, which, when explained, were found to be based upon no positive information whatever. The first of these cases referred to an alleged rumour that British soldiers had looted certain houses at Ramleh. The second rumour, to which was given great prominence, was of an alleged British defeat, mentioning the losses which had occurred; and, as the news in this case came from Cairo, it was obviously unreliable. The report of the third rumour was published in one of the newspapers of yesterday. I can only say that these reports, founded, as I have said, upon insufficient evidence,
564
or, as in some cases, upon no evidence at all, cannot but be prejudicial to the Public Service, and must be very disheartening to the gallant soldiers who are made the subject of them. My Lords, I would venture as strongly as possible to appeal to the patriotism of those gentlemen who have the control of these newspapers at home to hold their hands before they introduce into their journals rumours and reports of this kind, without having trustworthy evidence to guide them. I am sure that I need not appeal to them, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) did in the other House a day or two ago, that, in times like the present, they should, beyond all things, be animated by the same patriotic motives that animate your Lordships and all the rest of the country, and should not do that which I cannot but think must be most prejudicial to the public interest.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I am very glad that this Question has been put, and I am very glad to hear the straightforward and manly answer that has been given to it by the noble Earl—an answer which, I am sure, must be most satisfactory to your Lordships. The fact is, that in times of excitement like this, every Englishman has to do his duty. It is not the Army alone that is concerned, but every civilian and everybody who takes an interest in the matter, and who puts himself forward, whether as a newspaper correspondent, or in any other public capacity, in which he gives information, becomes really a participator in what is going on, and he ought to be as careful in what he says and does in his own individual capacity as those more immediately connected with the conduct of the operations. Now, my Lords, as the noble Earl has just stated, on two or three occasions sensational statements have been put forward, which have been proved to be not only exaggerated, but positively false and untrue. I do not for one moment mean to say that gentlemen connected with the Press who put these statements forward were not under the impression when they sent them that they were correct; but in camps and in times of excitement every sort of statement is put forward. A man comes from the front and says that this has happened or that has happened, and if you repeat all this gossip—for it is nothing more—it goes

565
back to the base of the Army; why, every sort of confusion will arise out of it. I contend at the present moment that those gentlemen who have gone out to Egypt to report for the public journals have a very grave and responsible duty to perform, and not only they, but their employers, the gentlemen who are the editors and proprietors of the daily journals. I am one of those who think that it is of great advantage that everything should be made public; but on occasions like this it is of the utmost consequence that nothing should be stated that is not true; and, therefore, I contend that those gentlemen at home who supervise these statements that come from the seat of war are responsible that they should not allow anything to go into their journals on the subject, unless they are convinced that they are based on truth and justice. Take this case, for instance; it was stated distinctly that the Palace of Ramleh had been plundered by our troops. This was a very grave imputation; but there was not a word of truth in the report. Whatever looting took place was done by Native Egyptians. Whether it was done by the Khedive's own servants or by any other Native Egyptians does not signify—but, at all events, it was not done by our troops. What happens when these reports are published? They go all over the world. If they merely came to England it would not so much signify; but they go all over the world, and make it appear that our troops are perfectly undisciplined and unfitted in every respect to take the field. Well, a statement of this kind has been made about a miserable little outpost affair as far as I can make out. From the telegram just read, it appears that there was an outpost, and from that outpost a picket, consisting of a corporal and six men, was thrown forward. It was a very foggy morning, and by some accident the enemy—the Egyptians—approached the picket without being perceived, and the moment they were perceived the corporal and the six men did their duty. They had been sent forward for the purpose of obtaining information; but in consequence of the foggy state of the atmosphere, they had not been able to get that information, and they finally retired upon their main body, and this has been made to appear to be a great defeat. It is perfectly
566
monstrous. If this sort of thing is to be told now, what will happen, supposing these operations to take wide dimensions? If a miserable outpost affair is to be exaggerated into a great defeat, suppose that a whole company happens to be sacrificed—for we must be prepared to hear of these things occurring in war—what will happen then? What report shall we hear then? It is, therefore, important that every Englishman, whether military or civilian, should do his duty by his country; and I do appeal to the editors of the Press who are loyal, and always ready to support the interests of the Crown and country, not to allow to appear in their journals these sensational articles for the mere object of having them sold in the streets by a lot of little boys late at night. I am sorry to say that I have myself sometimes been taken in by them. I hope this little incident may have a good effect; and I would go further and say that if these sensational telegrams are sent home and found not to be correct, the gentlemen who employ these correspondents will be the first to withdraw them from the seat of war, and thus show their dissatisfaction at the manner in which they discharge their duties, which are very important and very serious, and very detrimental to the public interest if not conducted with great care, prudence, and judgment.

CIVIL IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 208.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the introduction of this measure was due to the public spirit of Dr. Cameron, one of the Members for the City of Glasgow. It had been referred to a Select Committee of Scotch Members, presided over by the Lord Advocate, from whom it had come up in its present form. He would not trouble their Lordships by going into the details of the Bill; but would simply state that it made important changes in the law of imprisonment in the case of husbands who neglected to aliment their wives or parent their children, whether legitimate or illegitimate. The law of Scotland at present enabled

567
a creditor to imprison a debtor under the Law of Aliment, and if that debtor had no means or friends his imprisonment was practically only limited by the discretion or vindictiveness of the creditor. He had seen persons in prison for 13 months under an alimentary order. Under the Bill it was proposed that, instead of, as at present, the debtor being imprisoned at the suit and at the expense of the creditor, in future it should be at the expense of the public and at the discretion of the Judge. The second form of imprisonment with which the Bill dealt was a Scottish process known by the name of "law burrows," by which, if one used words or threats of bodily harm, they might, on sworn information, be imprisoned for an indefinite period. This Bill practically assimilated the law of Scotland to the law of England, which gave the alternative of binding an accused party over to keep the peace. The third form was imprisonment for non-payment of rates, which was limited under the Bill to six weeks. Where the rates were of sufficient value to make a person willing to incur imprisonment for six weeks in order to avoid their payment, the law gave ample power to attach the property of the debtor.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.—(No. 212.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the enormous growth of electric lighting in this country, the number of Companies which had been formed for the purpose of furnishing electric light, and the large amount of capital which had been invested in these concerns were sufficient grounds for legislation on this subject, as well as to prevent the growth of monopolies as against the public interest, and to take care that Corporations should have facilities, if they thought it desirable, to purchase these undertakings at a fair rate some future time. This was an attempt on the part
568
of the Board of Trade to grapple with the whole question of the administration of electrical supply—at present in its infancy; and by means of a general Bill to deal with it not only in its present stage, but in its future development. The Gas and Water Companies showed how soon an enormous monopoly might grow up adversely to the public interest. Thus, trading Companies had frequently obtained powers under their Acts of Parliament, which had not always been used for the benefit of the consumer, who had suffered, not only in the price paid, but in the quality and quantity of the article he paid for. In these circumstances, the Government had given great consideration to this subject, and they had come to the conclusion that there should be a central authority who could be put in motion at less expense than would be incurred in obtaining an Act of Parliament. They had thought that the Board of Trade would be a fitting central authority, and it was determined that that Board should grant licences to such Companies as they might think fit, and to make Provisional Orders. Early in this Session a number of Electric Lighting Bills had been introduced, and they had been referred, together with this Government measure, to a Select Committee, where they were very carefully considered. Several Amendments were made in the Government Bill, and the Private Bills had been put aside until this Bill should become law. The representatives of all these Companies were examined before the Select Committee. He was aware that it had been stated that the representatives of the Gas Companies had complained that they had not received proper consideration; but the fact was that, although they all withdrew immediately the Preamble of the Bill had been declared proved, their case was most thoroughly examined in all its bearings, as the counsel for the Municipal Corporations supplying gas remained and argued their case before the Committee, so that it could not be said that the gas interests were not fairly considered. In 1879, a Select Committee went very thoroughly into the whole question of electric lighting, and this Bill was based on their Report. In that Report they stated that—
"It is desirable that local authorities should have power to give facilities to companies or private individuals to conduct experiments. Any

569
monopoly given to a private company should be restricted, to the short period required to remunerate them for the undertaking, with a reversionary right in the municipal authority to purchase the plant and machinery on easy terms. The Legislature should show its willingness, when the demand arises, to give all reasonable powers for the full development of electricity as a source of power and light."
Since then there had been a very great development of electricity; but there was no doubt that electric power was still in its experimental stage; and it was desirable that facilities should be given to Companies or private individuals to carry on experiments in the simplest and cheapest manner. The leading features of that Bill were—first, that it would prevent any monopoly growing up against the interest of the consumers; and next that it would provide for the making of experiments. Power was given by the Bill to the Board of Trade to grant licences to Companies and private individuals for a period of five years, such licences only to be granted with the concurrence of the local authority. In the interest of the general public it was desirable that the process of obtaining licences should be simple and cheap. If the Companies had to go before Parliament, and to incur an expense of £10,000 or £20,000, the whole question of electricity was likely to be hung up for years. The undertakers, on applying to the Board of Trade, would have to show that they had a good case, and that the character of their scheme was good. The Board of Trade would institute an inquiry, and, with the concurrence of the local authority, would grant a licence. The measure further provided that at the end of 15 years it should be open to the local authority to purchase the plant and machinery of the Company on fair and reasonable terms, the basis of the purchase being the actual value of the existing plant without compensation for future profit. The price to be given for the undertaking was to be the fair market value, to be ascertained in the manner sketched out in the Bill, without goodwill; it would be the fair market price less depreciation—such a price as would be obtained by the Company if they were selling to another Company without goodwill and with a reasonable allowance for wear and tear. In regard to the period of 15 years, it should be remembered that in the case
570
of a patent the monopoly was given for 14 years only, but the present Bill gave one year beyond that time. A precedent for this provision had been laid down in the Tramways Act, although in that case the period was 21 years. Clause 16 afforded protection to the public by providing that persons who were supplied with electricity should be supplied on the same terms. It was also provided that the consumers should have power to use what form of lamp they liked, in the same way as in case of gas. The main objection to the Bill came from the Gas Companies, who naturally opposed electricity, and. did not, of course, like a rival. The Gas Companies did not, in so many words, say that they objected to electricity; their objection was to the system of licences, by which they feared that they would be gradually ousted from the field. The reply to that was that the Gas Companies had no monopoly in lighting. That was specially laid down by the Committee of 1879, who stated—
"Gas Companies, in the opinion of your Committee, have no special claims to be considered as the future distributors of electric light. They possess no monopoly of lighting public streets or private houses beyond that which is given to them by their power of laying pipes in streets. Electric light committed to their care might have a slow development. Besides, though Gas Companies are likely to benefit by the supply of gas to gas-engines which are well suited as machines for producing electric light, the general processes of gas manufacture and supply are quite unlike those needed for the production of electricity as a motor or illuminant."
This view was again adopted by the Committee which sat the other day. If the Gas Companies were allowed to oppose those licences it was clear what would be the result. Persons wishing to supply electricity for experimental purposes would have to apply for powers to Parliament, at a cost of £10,000 or £20,000; and they could hardly do that. When the experimental stage was past, or whenever the local authority was not willing to take the matter up, and a Provisional Order was applied for, the Gas Companies would have the fullest opportunity of appearing before Parliament to state their case. The Select Committee which sat the other day were of opinion that if the proposed licences were done away with, and if the introduction of electricity were thrown upon the Gas Companies, it would be highly

571
detrimental to the public interest. If the Bill passed, the Board of Trade would be able to take care that such regulations were made as would provide for the interests of the public, and would be able to control the limitation and conditions of supply, and to take such steps as were necessary for the public safety. It was thought most desirable that they should not be in the position in which they were placed as regards the administration of railways, where it was their duty to criticize with no power to correct, and to make recommendations which they could not enforce. If the present terms failed to give that encouragement to electrical supply which it was the object of the Board of Trade to afford, those terms would hereafter have to be altered. It could never be to the public interest, neither was it the wish of the Government or Parliament, to strangle a useful enterprize by refusing it proper means of remuneration. The Select Committee which sat in the other House was a very strong and representative one. It was presided over by Mr. Edward Stanhope, and had given great attention to all the details of the Bill. He would not now trouble their Lordships with any further particulars; but, bearing in mind its great public importance, he trusted they would give a second reading to the measure.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
LORD EMLYregretted that a Bill of such importance should come before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible for it to receive the advantage of the deliberations of a Select Committee. But he thought their Lordships all agreed that the Board of Trade, upon whom important powers were to be conferred, possessed the confidence of the public. It was natural that the Bill should be opposed by Gas Companies; but he failed to see what locus standi they had for their objections any more than the Stage Coach Companies when railways were first introduced. The great difficulty in the Bill was, of course, the 27th—the Purchase Clause. A Committee of their Lordships' House had reported that every facility should be given to the extension of electric lighting. From the nature of the case all operations in that direction must, for some time to come,
572
be experimental. So much uncertainty still obscured many important questions connected with electricity—for instance, its capability of being stored, its generation by water power, and so forth—that it was impossible that any undertaking could be immediately successful. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that a power of purchase exerciseable by the local authorities after 15 years—that was, at the time when the undertaking would become profitable—was likely to deter any person from embarking on any scheme contemplated by the Bill. It would be possible, however, to remedy some of the defects of the measure in Committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRESsaid, he would like to draw their Lordships' attention to the fact that the clause to which the noble Lord (Lord Emly) referred established a principle that very nearly approached confiscation. The principle it established was that a person should not invest money in this kind of property for a longer period than 15 years. Noble Lords would probably be aware that when a piece of machinery was laid down in a certain place for a definite object, if it had only been worked for a period of three weeks and it was desired to sell it, its value had decreased 50 per cent. It was impossible to sell machinery again at a remunerative price after it had been once placed and used, and this was an important point to consider in connection with the fair valuation of the plant of a Company. He would like to ask the Government whether this Bill was to be taken as a precedent; because if it was it would be a matter of extreme danger, as local authorities might want to buy up the undertakings of Gas and Water Companies at the value of the pipes. He did not wish to oppose the second reading, as the subject was one which greatly interested the public. He believed he was right in saying nearly £9,000,000 had been invested in Electric Light Companies; and that, one would imagine, was a reason why Her Majesty's Government should not endeavour by any legislation to completely choke the enterprize at the very commencement. The statement of the noble Lord, that if the Bill did not work well it might be reconsidered, was most reassuring; and if the noble Lord could only say the Government would recon-

573
sider the 27th clause touching the point he had alluded to it would give great satisfaction.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNfailed to see that any just objection could be taken to the 27th clause. What they desired to do was to avoid the creation of one of those gigantic monopolies which had been found so detrimental to the public interests in the past. Nothing of the character of confiscation was contemplated. The term confiscation could only be applied to existing property belonging to existing persons. In the present case, there was neither one nor the other. Again, no objection could fairly be brought against the limit of time fixed in the Bill. The Companies would have 15 years during which to realize a profit, and if they were not satisfied with the conditions of the undertaking naturally they would not proceed with the work. He would remind the House that many tramways had been constructed on leases running from 14 to 21 years, although some persons had expressed the opinion that they ought to have a 40 years' lease. It was very desirable that, where possible, the lighting of towns should be done by the local authorities; and if such conditions as were imposed by the Bill had been enforced in the case of Gas and Water Companies, enormous sums of money would have been saved to the ratepayers.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that this clause was a most material part of the Bill. The noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) had said that many objections had been raised to it on behalf of the Gas Companies. That might be so; but the observations he was going to make were foreign to any question which might interest the Gas Companies. The noble Lord said that all that was intended was to grant a 15 years' lease, and that everyone knew what a 15 years' lease was. But there were very few instances of Parliament having granted a 15 years' lease, such as was now proposed. It was not a very good principle, and they were not armed with such a quantity of precedents as the noble Lord seemed to think. The science of electricity was still in its infancy. If they desired to encourage the development of the science, they must hold out reasonable inducements for that purpose. But what inducements did such a Bill as this hold out? A certain time
574
was fixed, during which the exclusive right was given to a body of persons to light by electricity; but, no matter what expense they might be put to, at the end of that time their plant and machinery were to be bought at a valuation—most probably at very little more than the price of old metal. The noble Lord who had introduced the Bill said the clause had been approved of by the Committee; but he himself did not read the Resolution as expressing approval of it. The local authority was to purchase only the "undertaking," which was a word of art, meaning trade or business. The noble Earl had said it was not intended that the undertaking should be bought as a going concern. Then, why not say so in so many words? Instead of that it was to be bought at so much for the plant and fixtures. Care ought to be taken that there should be no impediment thrown in the way of the development of so important an enter-prize, and all he urged was that their Lordships should not pass the Bill in too great a hurry. He should be glad to see the measure proceeded with in other respects if the clause bearing on that point were held over for future consideration. He did not see why it should not stand over until next Session. He could not imagine anything more momentous in the interests of electricity than the effect of this clause.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved that the question of confiscation was entirely out of the case, as they could not confiscate that which did not exist. The important question was—Did the terms of this Bill offer a sufficient encouragement to the Electric Light Companies to come forward? In the first place, they had no practical experience at present to guide them; nor was it possible to fix any precise limit as to profits. In this Bill there was no limitation of profits. There had been an attempt by Act of Parliament in the case of the Gas Companies to check the monopoly by a limitation of profits. The case of Tramway Companies was a precedent for the proposition that a lease might be granted for 21 years to a Company, and that at the end of that period the undertaking might be sold to the local authority. He agreed that they ought to be cautious, though cautious in the interests of the public. If ultimately it should be thought desirable to extend the

575
powers of these Companies, that might be done by further legislation. At present this was a mere experiment, the object being to avoid the dangerous monopoly which had been given to Gas and Water Companies. With regard to the Resolution of the Committee, he did not agree that the Bill failed to carry the Resolution into effect. It appeared to him, on the contrary, that Clause 27 gave full effect to that Resolution, the word "undertaking" being expressly used in the clause. In his opinion, there was much to be said in favour of the Bill as it stood, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the second reading, on the understanding that the points referred to would have full consideration in Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the noble Earl had referred to the limitation of profits in the case of the Gas and Water Companies. But there was no analogy between that and compulsory purchase.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that the clause was passed as it stood by the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the attention of the Committee could hardly have been called to the effect of the words they had employed. He thought that the terms offered to the Electric Companies were not quite fair. As the matter stood, these Companies would have to carry on their undertakings with the full consciousness that all the risks would be theirs, and all the profits would go to the public—that was to say, if they failed no one would come forward to help them, and if they succeeded the municipality would step in and sweep up all the benefits. The noble Earl opposite had said, in defence of the policy of the Bill, that they should be very cautious on behalf of the public. For his part, he apprehended that their first duty was to consult the interests of the public, not by thinking merely of the profits which the municipality might or might not make some 15 years hence, but by thinking how soon good would come to the consumers of an article which would benefit them enormously. It was the public who would suffer if these Companies were not allowed to come into the field, and if this new instrument of power, which science had discovered, were compelled to remain useless and unfruitful for several years. The
576
noble Earl opposite talked about going to Parliament next year. But they all knew the difficulty that existed in bringing any legislative undertaking to completion.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he heard with some little surprise the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) that the Bill should be passed, leaving out the Purchase Clause. It was most necessary that it should be known what the terms of purchase were to be. He thought that he could reassure his noble Friends by stating some facts which were in the possession of the Government. There was no wish to discourage the enterprize in any way; but, at the same time, they were anxious not to repeat the fatal errors which were made in the cases of the Gas and Water Companies. It would, no doubt, be satisfactory to noble Lords to know that not only had all the Companies expressed themselves as satisfied with the arrangements proposed in the Bill, but the Board of Trade had information to the effect that one Company, when the Bill passed, would make as many as 95 applications; and there were besides a great number of cases where applications were ready to be made on the footing of the Bill, showing that the persons who best understood the matter and were most interested would not be discouraged in their enterprizes if the Bill passed in its present form. It must be remembered that the Bill contained no limitation as to profit; and he thought that the term of 15 years would give the Companies a tolerably certain prospect of a good harvest being made.
LORD ABERDAREheld that it was absurd to contend that the properties of the Electric Lighting Companies could be bought as old iron at the expiration of the term mentioned in the Bill. They would have to be looked upon as going concerns which would increase in value.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNthought that some limitation should be put upon the amount of profit that could be made by the Electric Lighting Companies.
EARL FORTESCUEthought it would be better to err on the side of precaution; but was understood to add that the terms of the Bill would discourage the application of science in this direction as freely as it was applied in others.
LORD TRUROsaid, that this Bill was not intended to diminish in any way the profits of the Electric Lighting Companies. The action of the Gas Companies in former years had, no doubt, caused some apprehension as to what might happen in the present case; but, as he understood the Bill, the Government were fully prepared to ensure the Companies the legitimate profits which all Companies who embarked in schemes of such a speculative character had a right to expect.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that it should be remembered that these Companies would have to compete with Gas Companies, who already possessed very extensive powers, towards whom Parliament had been too liberal; whereas by this Bill it was proposed to be the reverse, as indicated by noble Lords representing the Government.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

EGYPT—THE RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA—MASSACRE OF EUROPEANS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any Return of the number of Europeans and the number of Egyptians who were killed in the massacre at Alexandria on the 11th of June; and, if so, whether it can be laid on the Table of the House? The noble Earl said, he was desirous of bringing the matter under their Lordships' notice, as statements had been made by Her Majesty's Government which would lead to the impression that the number of persons who were massacred was far below what recent inquiries had shown to be the probable truth. Moreover, Her Majesty's Government had informed the country that the origin of the massacre was not political; but if any outbreak with such fearful consequences ever originated from political causes, it was surely so in this case. There could not be a doubt that the population of Alexandria was highly irritated by the presence of the British and French Fleets, and to them there was every appearance that the affair of Tunis was about to be re-enacted in Egypt. It was impossible to release Her Majesty's Government from a large share of responsibility in this
  578
  matter. It must be presumed there were reasons for the step which was taken; but he had never been able to understand why the British Fleet was sent at that time to Alexandria, especially after the repeated remonstrance of the Porte, who saw the consequences that would ensue. It had been said that it was done to protect British subjects; but it did not require a Fleet of iron-clads to do this. The presence of such a Fleet, under the circumstances, could only be regarded as a menace, which had produced consequences which could not but be deeply deplored. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would be able to give a detailed Return of the loss of life at Alexandria on the 11th of June.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the noble Earl, I may say, on behalf of the Government, that we have no Report upon the subject; but I am told that about 20 Europeans of different nationalities lost their lives. We have no precise information, nor any information as to the number of Egyptians killed. The noble Earl has reminded the House that I stated at the time that the massacre was of a non-political character. That was the fact upon the first occasion when it was mentioned, and it was the impression of the Admiral at first; but it was distinctly stated by Mr. Gladstone, in the other House of Parliament, that it was subsequently discovered that it had been encouraged by the Military Party in Egypt. I am entirely of a different opinion to the noble Earl as to the effect produced by the presence of the Fleet at Alexandria. A Member of Parliament, the other day, who is intimately acquainted with Egyptian affairs, brought forward some conclusive evidence to show why these things should not be connected at all.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA ACT, 1875.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYrose, and called attention to the 50th clause of the Militia Voluntary Enlistment Act (1875), in regard to militia regiments volunteering their services for the garrisoning of Channel and Mediterranean stations; and asked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state, in the terms of the last three lines of that clause, that—
"No commanding officer has certified any voluntary offer (i.e., on the part of his regi-

579
ment) previously to his having explained to every person offering so to serve that the offer is to he purely voluntary on his part;"
he would ask whether, in consideration of the proved disadvantages in regard to maintaining both the numerical strength and the efficiency of militia regiments caused by the regulations of last year, it has yet been decided (as already announced to be in contemplation by the Under Secretary of State for War) to revert to the regulations of preceding years; whether it is intended to give those militiamen who are to be kept out 56 days this year an extra bounty of £1, or else in the case of married men some separation allowance; whether the Queen's Regulations of 1881 for Her Majesty's Military Forces are to be taken to supersede the Militia Regulations of 1880 in cases where they do not harmonize together as far as the militia is concerned?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, before the Question was answered, expressed a strong opinion that it was very undesirable that the volunteering of the Militia should be asked for by officers commanding battalions without the sanction of the Secretary of State for War or the military authorities, as it put those regiments whose services were not thus asked for in an invidious position. Speaking for his own regiment, although he had not thought right to call upon them to volunteer for foreign service, he knew for certain that they were ready and anxious to do so. The new system of drilling at military depôts had not been a success, but unpopular—unpopular to such an extent as to interfere seriously with recruiting. He did not wish to cast any blame on those in command of depôts, but upon the system. The work the men were put to during the course of the preliminary drill was not the work for which they were intended.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: In answer to the Questions put to me by the noble Earl opposite, I have to say that I regret very much that the answer I gave to his Question 10 days ago was so obscure that he has had to repeat the Question to-day. No Militia regiments are at present embodied, nor is there any intention of embodying them, or of employing them out of this country. It is true that many commanding officers have written to the War Office expressing the readiness of their regiments to serve
580
where they may be required. These offers have, I have no doubt, been made by the Militia officers from a general knowledge of the feelings which animate the officers and men under their command. But I need hardly say that before such offers could be officially considered, the regiments would have to be embodied and proper opportunities would be given to the men to volunteer in accordance with the section of the Militia Act referred to in the noble Earl's Question, which will be strictly adhered to. I cannot but think that the offers which we have received evince a highly creditable spirit on the part of the Militia, and prove the alacrity, which was never doubted, to respond to any demands which may, in case of need, be made upon them. That spirit, I am sure, is shared by all the regiments of Militia, although many of them have not as yet thought fit to make any communication on the subject. The selection for service will be made from all the regiments, and will not in any way be confined to those who have already volunteered. As regards the second Question, I explained the other day that the system of drilling recruits on enrolment has not been in operation for a year, and is only applied to regiments which have their head-quarters at the regimental depots. What I then said was that when the Reports are received we shall have an opportunity of judging how the new system has succeeded, and whether it requires modification. At present, of course, these Reports have not been received; and I cannot by any means admit that the disadvantages of the new system have been proved, as the noble Earl asserts in his Question. With regard to the third Question, no additional bounty will be granted to Militiamen because the period of their training has been prolonged beyond the usual time. The bounty has always remained the same, whether the period of training has been 21, 27, or 56 days. The training can be prolonged by Order in Council, and as this is a part of the engagements of all Militiamen, it is unreasonable to grant an additional sum to them for performing their engagement. Separation allowances have never been granted to Militiamen because the training is prolonged. Every facility, however, will be given to the men to remit a portion of their pay to their families. As to the noble Earl's fourth Question, the Queen's

581
Regulations of 1881 do not supersede the Militia Regulations of 1880. Clause 42 of Army Circulars, 1881, governs this question, and runs—
"In all matters which are not detailed in the Regulations for the Militia, 1880, commanding officers will be guided by the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army by the field exercise and by the rifle exercises and musketry instructions."
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.