Lords Sitting of 26 June 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiries) * (164).
Committee—Lunacy Districts (Scotland) (117).
Committee—Report—Poor Rates * (113); Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers (143).
Report—Gas Provisional Orders * (157); Water Provisional Orders * (158); Somersham Rectory * (116).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (150); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (145); Artillery Ranges * (119); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh) * (78), and passed.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been called to certain statements made by The Times Correspondent to-day; and, whether he remembers an answer which he gave to me with respect to the attitude of the Sultan as regards the first proposal of the Conference? I do not know if the noble Earl's attention has been called to it; but it appears that the noble Earl was mistaken with regard to the particular measures which subsequent facts have shown were to be taken. I do not know whether the noble Earl wishes to make any explanation with respect to them?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I shall be delighted to make any explanation the noble Marquess wishes if he will give me Notice for another day. I really must say that it is not an idle crotchet of mine to require Notice of Questions, and I very much concur in

351
the view expressed by a Colleague of the noble Marquess the other day, who said he was really astonished at the Government being so ready to answer Questions without Notice, and that he himself made it a rule in Office never to do so. I think it is not reasonable to expect me to answer Questions of great importance off-hand. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well that, without the slightest trouble to himself, he might have given me Notice of the Question in the morning; and the necessity of Notice is obvious when the difference of a word or two respecting what is said here may spread all over Europe.

AFFAIRS OF TUNIS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the affairs of Tunis, and to move for further Correspondence on them, said: My Lords, under ordinary circumstances, it would not have been improper to ask for further Papers about Tunis. We know nothing, officially, at least, of what has taken place during the autumn, although protracted struggles between the French and Arabs seem to have continued. We know nothing, from official sources, of the impression produced in France by the celebrated trial, in which M. Roustan and M. Rochefort were opponents. We are also wholly uninformed as to how late events are viewed by the Italian Government. After a series of Papers on Tunis, towards the end of last Session, one on Tripoli was issued. Since then reticence has followed. We are only led to think, by sounds and flashes which pass through it, that behind the curtain a drama has been actively proceeding. So much might have been said for further Correspondence upon Tunis under ordinary circumstances. But ordinary circumstances do not now present themselves. Night after night the two Houses of Parliament are agitated upon Egypt. The connection of Tunisian and Egyptian difficulties by those who have watched them both will hardly be disputed. It was long ago predicted that an Egyptian Question would arise from the Tunisian one. In the course of my remarks, I hope briefly to explain in what manner the subjects are related to each other. It may first be convenient to remind the House, although in a very perfunctory
  352
  manner, of the events which formed the Tunisian complication. We need not dwell upon the language of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to M. Waddington at Berlin, because, whether or not the circumstances justified it, it does not seem to have had any influence on subsequent proceedings. M. Waddington was deprived of power, and never acted upon any lesson which the noble Marquess had suggested. Beyond that, the system of M. Waddington in Tunis might have been wholly different from that which has been actually exhibited. We next have before us the unfortunate career of a British subject—Mr. Levy—violently driven from one tribunal to another. All recollect the measures of the Bey against the Kroumirs, and the marches of the French against the Bey, which ended in the Treaty of Bardo, and the astonishing compulsion of the Regency to accept as First Minister the Consul General of France, by whom the war had been promoted. At this stage authentic knowledge ceases. The prudent combination of the Government has been—on Egypt, slow and fragmentary light; on Tunis, sudden and unmitigated darkness. We are only led through journalists and travellers—particularly Mr. Wemyss Reid, to whom the best acknowledgments are owing—to believe that the French Protectorate was soon resented by a considerable body of insurgents; that Kerouan, the sacred city, has been occupied; that the Regency has been disturbed by intricate campaigns, by hard-fought battles, and by general confusion; and that the Bey—a virtual prisoner of France—has been compelled, ostensibly at least, to direct his arms and his resources against the loyal masses who were struggling to release him. It is only, too, through sources of that kind we are led to think that the origin of the war was investigated last December in a Parisian Court of Justice, and, after great forensic efforts on both sides, was attributed by a jury, whom no power could abash, to the intrigues and follies of the late Consul General. Such may be regarded as a chain of the events, if they are all confirmed—if none of them are fabulous. The conclusion they suggest, although they do no more, is that the true line of Great Britain would rather be to favour the departure of the French than sanction a Protectorate which de-

  353
  tains their forces in the territory they have occupied. I admit, again, that a conclusion of the kind is but suggested by the narrative in the possession of your Lordships. It requires more than such a narrative to vindicate it. However it may be sustained by this consideration, the best despatch writers of France have ineffectually laboured to establish that Tunis does not enter into the Ottoman Empire. They urge that France has not acknowledged its dependence. They might there be checked, as France on various occasions, and all through the Crimean War, acknowledged its dependence. Let it be granted that she never did so. Have other nations recognized its independent nationality? They have not. The doctrine, therefore, is that dependence is annihilated if one State refuses to acknowledge it; while independence may subsist, although a large majority of States refused to acknowledge it. But recognition or acknowledgment is more essential to independence than dependence. The only escape is that when the voice of France is in one scale, and that of Christendom, together with the Caliph, in the other, the voice of France ought to preponderate, and that of Christendom, together with the Caliph, to give way. Whether or not that ought to be so, the Foreign Office do at present hold that Tunis belongs to the Ottoman Empire, in the same way as Tripoli, or Egypt, or Bulgaria. The occupation is a blow, therefore, to the authority and prestige of the Sultan. Great Britain is perpetually seeking to control or influence the Sultan. At this very hour she is doing so in the midst of a most critical occasion. To restore the credit of the Sultan, so far as the Tunisian occupation has impaired it, would be consistent with her language, and auxiliary to her objects. There is something else to be considered. According to official phraseology, a French alliance ought to be guarded now as sedulously as it was before 1870. The principle is excellent. But when France occupies the territory of an Empire which we desire to maintain in its integrity, a strict alliance with her is not possible. If Governments attempted, national opinion would prohibit it. If no obstacle precluded it, all through the East it would be fatal to our objects. But there is a far more grave considera-
  354
  tion as to Egypt. I began by stating that the difficulties of Egypt and of Tunis were connected. It is here that the opinion ought to be supported. Until the subject is more thoroughly elucidated, the disastrous movement of Arabi Pasha can be ascribed to no more likely cause than to the spectacle which late events in Tunis have exhibited. It is a movement against the Egyptian status of the Western Powers, of which one has actively promoted the humiliation of the Sultan; the other silently acceded to it. The events in Tunis, cold, pre-occupied, and distant as we are, have made on our minds a shadowy impression. How far more serious has the impression naturally been on the Mahometans of Africa, who recognize the spiritual power of the Caliph? How much more deeply than ourselves must they have felt the quick surrender of the pretexts by which the expedition was defended; the rapid war, without a declaration to commence it, against a Potentate whose absolute supremacy was first ironically blazoned; the indignities by which the Treaty was extorted; the grasping stipulations it included; the enforced subserviency of the Bey to a foreign, hostile, and encroaching Representative; the accumulated miseries a neighbouring dependency has suffered? But, my Lords, we are not left to any speculative argument. An Egyptian journal, cited in the Papers now before us, has distinctly justified the movement on the ground that the population feared lest France should meditate in Egypt what in Tunis had already been effected. Mr. Blunt, who is a witness as to facts, although he may not be an arbiter of policy, who is, besides an organ of the movement, a negotiator for the rebel, a few days back, in a letter to The Times, advanced the same interpretation. To what opinion can we come, except that the departure of the French from Tunis is among the first conditions of establishing tranquillity in Egypt? Let me now endeavour to review, with the permission of the House, the modes of prosecuting a result observed on these conclusive grounds to be desirable. It will hardly be brought about by the sole exertions of Her Majesty's Government. It is true they never gave their sanction to the war, except in absolute reliance on the good faith of the assurances that it was directed only to secure the Fron-

  355
  tier of Algeria against incursion from the Kroumirs. It is true they might consistently protest against continued occupation. But the language of the Government after the Treaty of Bardo will hardly sanction any hope of their activity in this way. The despatch of May 20th informed France that the Treaty of Bardo, and the proceedings which it crowned, had not made "a favourable impression" on our public; but did not even venture to admit that the Government partook the feelings of the country it was acting for. No one who studies that despatch will rely upon the conduct of the Government as a means of extricating Tunis from the force which seems, at least, to be oppressing it. If Her Majesty's Government had influence to close the occupation, they would have had influence to guard against it. Again, if they desired to close the occupation, they would not so long have left the struggle of France and Tunis in obscurity. It is the very line by which the action of the former is protected. The authorities of Italy, no doubt, have strong convictions that the French ought to withdraw. But, in spite of strong convictions, they have looked on from the beginning to this moment. A great interpreter of Italy, Signor Gallenga, holds that she has not become a military nation. On that point he may be possibly mistaken. At least, Italy cannot, like France, look back to old traditions of success and many centuries of warfare. Italy might lend Great Britain important aid; but is not likely, by assuming an initiative, to direct or supersede her. The imaginary essence sometimes described as the European Concert—a term unknown to former annals of diplomacy—will hardly form the agency desired. Since the Crusades there never has been such an union. The existing Conference, indeed, may be thought to resemble one of the Crusades, since it has seized Constantinople, against the wishes of its Ruler, as a basis of the further struggles which it meditates. I only mention that in passing. The real fact is, that Europe has in later times been always balanced and divided. Even in 1815, when a greater number of Powers were drawn into a League than at any other moment—they are all enumerated in the life of Mr. Herries, who acted as their subsidizing patron—France, a large exception, was not in-
  356
  cluded in the system. The Concert now poetically fancied is not bound together by any Treaty whatsoever, a fact last year discovered to your Lordships. During the autumn the component parts have been in discord as to Egypt. It will be of no more value to deliver Tunis than it was of value to defend it. By these reflections, steadily pursued, we may be led to think that the influence of Germany is the only influence sufficient for the object. The position of Germany at Metz, if nothing else, secures a locus standi with French counsels. If Germany resolved that the Tunisian occupation ought to cease, although it lingered on, it would not be enduring. But as soon as an attempt is made to gain the influence of Germany, two objections are not unlikely to present themselves. The expenditure of France in Africa has been regarded as a barrier to any other war she might attempt. It might thus appear to be a sacrifice on the part of Germany to put an end to the embarrassments of Tunis. This argument, no doubt, admits of being replied to. It is unfortunately strengthened by another. When, in 1879, Germany had withdrawn herself from Russia at great risk, the year after—1880—Great Britain lent herself to Russia by submitting to a Prime Minister who had lately been the ardent champion of that Empire, and by submitting to him against all the usages, the pledges, and engagements which ought to have ensured a wholly different situation. An appeal to Germany would, therefore, be as unbecoming as it might be ineffectual. What alternative presents itself? To correct the Ministerial position by which Germany is well entitled to be alienated, and in regaining credit for ourselves to pave the way for the recovery of Tunis to the Sultan. I move an humble Address to the Crown for further Correspondence on the affairs of Tunis.
  Moved for, "An Address for further correspondence respecting the Affairs of Tunis."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, there are some considerations which the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) has brought under your notice to which I should not myself find it easy entirely to reply. If it were necessary

  357
  to reply, I think the burden would probably rest more on others than myself. I will, therefore, address myself to a statement which the noble Lord made, and also to the suggestion of the policy he has advised Her Majesty's Government to take. He complains that for some months past no Papers have been presented to your Lordships with regard to Tunis. There are no Papers of any very great importance; but what Papers there are, I shall be most happy to accede to the noble Lord's Motion and present them to your Lordships. I may say, at the same time, that since the last Papers were presented our relations with the local authorities are on a much more satisfactory footing than they were. I do not wish to make any complaint against any particular Representative of any Foreign Power; but it is quite natural that in consequence of the tension produced by the state of things following the entrance of the French troops into Tunis, there was a degree of irritation among the Consular authorities which did not conduce to the harmonious conduct of Business. Since then the personnel of the French representation has been changed, and I am happy to say, however, that at the present moment nothing could be more harmonious, nor could the desire on the part of the French Representative to meet all the just and reasonable claims of other Powers be apparently stronger. Several subjects which have been mentioned to your Lordships have been more or less settled. We have heard a great deal of the Enfida case. That case, which never reached a point at which we were advised that we could take formal action, is now entirely taken away from becoming a question calling for any international interference by an arrangement which is perfectly satisfactory, as I understand, to all the parties concerned. All the Powers concur with England. With regard to several other matters, they are still either under the consideration of the two Governments or we are waiting for further information, in order to hear the opinion of our Legal Advisers as to what course we ought to pursue. With regard to the question of our policy, it is rather a serious matter to deal with the matter to which the noble Lord alluded. The noble Lord says it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to favour the
  358
  withdrawal of the French troops from the Regency. On that point, I may say I do not think Her Majesty's Government would make any objection if the French Government withdrew their troops from Tunis; but I think it is not likely that France will withdraw her troops. With regard to the adoption of any stronger measure, such as that of forming a League for the purpose of driving the French out of Tunis, I am not aware that the Government have any intention of proceeding on the noble Lord's advice.
  Motion agreed to.

IRELAND—THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION—ARREARS OF RENTS AND INTEREST.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether Her Majesty's Government will cause the Church Temporalities Commission to postpone their claims on estates on which the rents have not been paid; and to move for a Return of the amount of arrears of rents and interest due to the Church Temporalities Commission, said: My Lords, when your Lordships passed the Land Act of 1881, it was on the understanding that it would produce little alteration in the bulk of the rents in Ireland; but now that a uniform reduction, frequently much in excess of 25 per cent, has taken place on the large estates, as well as on the smaller ones, purchased from the Encumbered Estates Court, a corresponding reduction should have been made in the amounts payable to the Church Temporalities Commission, by estates of which the power to pay these charges had been diminished by a fourth. Indeed, before your Lordships passed the Land Act, the Prime Minister had said that there would be no ground for asking for compensation for the landlords, owing to any general reduction; but that, should the contrary prove to be the case, the question of compensation would arise. It is, therefore, a matter of surprise that Mr. Gladstone should since have taken a different view, notwithstanding that he and his family had received £68,000 compensation for their slaves in the West Indies. Now, however, the Government has failed to secure the ordinary course of law in

  359
  Ireland, and Members of the Government, not content with encouraging, by their speeches and attempts at legislation, those who have brought about the failure of legal processes, have alternately accused those who are suffering by the interruption of law and order, of remissness and harshness; and it would have been only natural to expect that the Government should have itself set the example of avoiding undue harshness, by remitting the payment of taxes upon a non-existent income, and those rent-charges due to the Church Temporalities Commission, which has now become a branch office of the Inland Revenue, since no spiritual services are rendered to those who have to pay what formerly were tithes. Instead of such moderation and forbearance, we find that the Government have been exacting Income Tax and all the charges due to the Church Temporalities Commission. Many Irish landlords have paid Income Tax on income that they have not received, and the Government have not been ashamed to allege their payments of Income Tax as proofs that rents are being paid in Ireland. Not only are the Government exacting taxes imposed when the country was in a normal condition and still possessed a Government, but they are contemplating fresh exactions from the impoverished Irish landlords. This would be incredible, were it not established by the evidence of Mr. Godley on the first day that the Committee on the Land Act sat. In answer to Questions 326–332, it came out that the Government intended to require stamps of an unknown value to be affixed to the agreements made under the Land Act. What the Government are doing by allowing the Church Temporalities Commission to insist upon their claims is well and clearly stated in a letter of Mr. Caledon Dolling, in The Irish Times, of June 17—
  "An estate which I know in King's County, rental £1,500, is charged to the Church Temporalities Commissioners with a yearly head rent of £400 and an interest of £100 a-year. The tenants refused to pay on this property, and there is more than two years' rent due on it. The head rent to the Church Commissioners is in arrear two years. The interest had to be paid, or they would have charged penal interest. The estate is 20 per cent under Griffith's valuation. The landlord, being continually pressed by the Church Temporalities Commissioners, took proceedings. He issued 40 writs, and proceeded to sell out 10. The costs up to this
  360
  date are £500. The total amount sued for is £620. If he proceeds to evict the 10, it will be close upon another £100 between caretakers' and other expenses. What is he to do? Who is to blame for these evictions? Is it not by reason of the Church Temporalities Commissioners pressing that these evictions have taken place; and, is not Mr. Trevelyan responsible for the Church Temporalities Commissioners, now the Land Commission? If he brands the landlords with eviction, is he not guilty of it himself? Should not the Government, on their side, give an order to the Land Commission to stay all proceedings for head rents, tithe rent-charges, and interests for the present, and why do they not do so? Because they fear to show the rental of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, which has such enormous arrears on it."
  So that, whilst the interests of the United Kingdom require that forbearance should be exercised on all hands in the matter of claiming the payment of debts, the Government, like the wicked servant in the Gospel, turn round upon their fellow-servants, the landlords of Ireland, who have been patiently waiting for what their tenants may please to pay them, and exact from them payment of taxes and of penal interest to the Church Commission. But the conduct of the Government is even worse in morality than that of the wicked servant—for he only claimed his own, and was wicked, because he refused to others the merciful consideration which had been granted to himself. The Government, however, are claiming taxes which have not been earned, since the Government has ceased to fulfil the duties and functions of a Government and to secure the lives and properties of its subjects. After the recent murders in the Phœnix Park, the Spanish Press asked how it was that loyal and orderly subjects continued to pay taxes to a Government which had forfeited its claim to them? But it is unnecessary to quote foreign contemporary opinion. It is one of the earliest of sound Whig principles that taxes should be refused to an unjust Government; and what Pym and Hampden and Sydney thought right must be right now. With regard to the Return of Arrears due to the Church Temporalities Commission, for which I have given Notice of Motion, there can be no difficulty in making it out, if the books of that Commission are kept regularly; and any objection to give such a Return can only be caused by its showing, either the harshness with which that Commission exacts its dues, or else, because it would show that

  361
  the Church Fund is not so large as has been anticipated. In view of the pressure put upon Irish landlords by the Government through the Church Temporalities Commission, at the same time that it has put every discouragement in the way of their obtaining the payment of their debts, and has lately described such efforts as unpatriotic, it becomes a duty to remonstrate against the careless language used by some of Her Majesty's Ministers. Idle words would seem to be a better term than careless language or reckless utterances, because it appears to be almost impossible to bring those who utter this language to any account here, and that these words must be left to be accounted for by them hereafter. The evictions that have been most notable of late are those on Lord Cloncurry's estate; in those cases the tenants could pay, but did not, at the bidding of the Land League. It is evident that, since the announcement of the Arrears Bill, the payment of rent has ceased nearly every where in Ireland, not only by those small tenants who might be affected by the Bill, but also by the larger tenants. Yet the Chief Secretary for Ireland speaks of the number of evictions as appalling. A short time ago the Attorney General for Ireland, in answer to a Question as to whether Mr. M'Gloin had shot his would-be murderer, replied—"I am sorry to say that the statement is substantially true." As he went on to mention evidence that the man who was shot had intended to commit murder, he ought to have said that he rejoiced to say. The Lord Lieutenant has, however, rebuked this language, as it deserved, by his recent action in a similar case, when he sent £10 and a double-barrelled gun, with a letter of commendation, to a man who had courageously repelled some midnight assailants. It is useless now to recapitulate the Prime Minister's rash speeches, or the encouragement to outrage and murder contained in Mr. Bright's exultation over the fact that landlords were running away for their lives; but it may be well to remind noble Lords on the Front Bench that they are accountable for such speeches, and for their results, so long as they sit in the same Cabinet with their authors. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question and making the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Moved for, "Return of the amount of arrears of rent and interest due to the Church Temporalities Commission."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he would call their Lordships' attention to a case of hardship, that of a tenant under the Church Temporalities Commission, who was compelled to pay to that Body the whole of his stipulated rent without reduction, while his own tenants were applying successfully to the Land Court for a reduction.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he also wished to mention a case of hardship. It was the case of some near relations of his own, possessors of valuable property in Tipperary, which they held under very heavy head-rent from the Church Temporalities Commissioners. The land, to the best of his belief, was not rented above Griffith's valuation, and the rents had not been raised during the last 50 years. During the last two years they had scarcely got a penny of rent. Last year they had got none, and still they were compelled to pay this head-rent to the Church Temporalities Commissioners, who, if he were not mistaken, were simply Government officials. It seemed to him an extremely hard case that while the Church Temporalities Commissioners were pressing these unfortunate landlords, and thereby forcing them to bring pressure upon their tenants—a proceeding which gave rise to violent feeling in the locality—there should be an outcry amongst Liberals, as lately shown in a speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, against the heartless and unpatriotic cruelty of starved landlords who were compelled, in order to pay the Government, to take steps against their tenants. It did seem to him that the position of the Irish landlords, between tenants who would not pay, and the Government who made them pay, was like that of a person who was being ground, and that not very slowly, between the upper and the nether millstones.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): I need hardly remind my right rev. Friend that the words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had no relation whatever to the case of tenants who can pay and will not pay; but I will not go into that matter. I am not quite sure

  363
  that I have to-day sufficient information to answer the points raised or not by the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord who has preceded him (Lord Oranmore and Browne); but I have information from the Commissioners which, I think, will be satisfactory to the noble Lord who asks the Question (Lord Stanley of Alderley). The Land Commissioners inform me that they do not press for payment of money due to them out of estates where they are satisfied that the rents have not been received. That is the information which I have received from the Land Commissioners, and, owing to its satisfactory nature, there appears to be no ground for the interference of the Government. With respect to the Return asked for by my noble Friend, there will be no difficulty in producing it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consideration of the statement of the Prime Minister on public business on the 20th instant, in which he specially alluded to the necessity of amending (1) the leases, (2) the labourers, and (3) the purchase clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1881, and followed up his allusion to this subject by stating that—
  "Although in reference to it he could give no positive intention on the part of the Government, he could only give assurances that the Government will endeavour to make up their minds at what they think the proper time,"
  it might not be advisable for Her Majesty's Government, when they have definitely made up their minds upon the provisions of this proposed Irish Land Act (1881) Amendment Bill, to introduce it into this House, with a view of giving the country some knowledge of what is proposed as well as of accelerating the progress of the Bill through Parliament? The noble Earl, after apologizing for the length of the Question as it appeared upon the Paper, said, that during the last two years they had
  364
  been accustomed, on every occasion when the Prime Minister made a statement on which a Question afterwards arose, to have his words explained away in one manner or another; and therefore he (the Earl of Galloway) had thought it only right to quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman before alluded to. He would call their Lordships' attention to what he might call the right hon. Gentleman's prefatory remarks, spoken on Tuesday last, with respect to Public Business, and intended, no doubt, as much for the benefit of that as of the other House of Parliament. The Prime Minister first repeated what they were all aware of—that the Government stood pledged to proceed in the first place with the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, a statement which would be approved on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say that Her Majesty's Government felt it of importance that they should proceed with the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, and that they were going to ask that it should have precedence over all other Business except the Prevention of Crime Bill. Now, they all knew that the Arrears of Rent Bill contained principles which were of an entirely novel kind, and which, so far as they could glean from gentlemen connected with both sides of politics, were considered of an almost unprecedented nature. In consequence of that opinion, there could not be a doubt that before it came away from the other House it must go through an amount of sifting and searching criticism which would make it a considerable time before it could come to their Lordships' House. It was a Bill which he had no doubt would go down to posterity as the "Kilmainham Treaty Bill." The Prime Minister then observed that the Government intended to persevere with the Corrupt Practices Bill; fourthly, he thought it would be necessary to introduce a measure for the disfranchisement of certain boroughs; and, fifthly, to bring in a Bill, not for the continuance, but the amendment of the Ballot Act. Sixthly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Procedure Resolutions; and he said he was to give a special night for the discussion of the Egyptian Question. All that information was given on Tuesday; and since then, in answer to a Question of his noble Friend

  365
  below him (the Earl of Sandwich), it was stated that Her Majesty's Government intended to persevere with the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill. All these measures had been introduced in the other House of Parliament, and it was evident that none of them would come before their Lordships until they had passed the ordeal of the other House. In the statement made last week, before the right hon. Gentleman used the words to which he (the Earl of Galloway) was drawing attention, he alluded especially to the fact that the amended Irish Land Bill should certainly embrace three particular points—the amendment of the Leases Clauses, the amendment of the clauses with respect to Labourers, and the amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say—
  "I can announce no intention, no positive intention, upon the part of the Government; I can only give assurances that we will endeavour to make up our minds at what we think the proper time."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 1774.]
  That statement was open to three questions. It was open to anybody to ask the proper time; whether the Government intended to make up their minds; and when they meant to endeavour to make up their minds? Before proceeding further, he wished to remind their Lordships of what had happened in regard to the Irish Land Act in their Lordships' House. It would be within their recollection that, at the beginning of the Session, their Lordships decided, by a substantial majority, though against the wish of the Government, that it was expedient that an inquiry should be made into the working of the Land Act of last year. It would also be within their recollection that that determination on the part of their Lordships produced a certain amount of rancour and hostility in the mind of the Prime Minister, and that it took a practical form. As regarded the result, however, he (the Earl of Galloway) did not know there was any other than a waste of the public time for three nights. But within a week of the exhibition of that rancour and hostility the right hon. Gentleman made the admission that it would be necessary to inquire into the working of that same Irish Land Act. Now, he (the Earl of Galloway) thought he was right in saying that that admission was
  366
  made by the Prime Minister nearly four months ago. Therefore, the statement last week was merely a reiteration of what he stated four months ago. He thought it would be quite evident to their Lordships that that Bill, even if Her Majesty's Government did succeed in making up their minds, could not be brought into the other House of Parliament before the month of August; and it did seem to him that Her Majesty's Government were bound, in their intention to deal with it, that a Bill of such moment, involving interests of such magnitude, and which had caused a great deal of discussion and feeling in Ireland, should first be brought before their Lordships. He did think Her Majesty's Government were entitled to accede to the proposal, and in order that the country might have an early opportunity of seeing the provisions of the Bill it should be introduced into their Lordships' House. It used to be the custom of the other House to allow an interval of three weeks between the introduction of a Bill and the second reading; but he feared that that salutary practice was now obsolete. Perhaps circumstances made such an interval impossible in the present day; but, as far as the public were concerned, much the same result would be obtained if the Bill were first introduced into their Lordships' House. Otherwise, if the Government could not introduce it into one House, and would not introduce it into the other, it might be thought, after the Prime Minister's recent statement, that they were trifling with the patience of the country and dignity of Parliament. The dangling of a Bill in that way before Parliament, as a sort of horoscope, was much to be deprecated.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the Irish Question was so constantly before that and the other House, that hardly anything that could be said would throw any new light upon it. The statement of the Prime Minister was, however, of vital importance, coming as it did less than a year after the passing of the Land Act, and at a time when its action had put the landlords and tenants of Ireland in the peculiar position not only of suffering for what had been done, but in not knowing how much they would suffer in future. When the Land Act was discussed early in the present Session, the opinion was generally ex-

  367
  pressed on the Ministerial Benches that the worst cases of rack-renting came first into Court, and that the Commissioners would not, as time went on, make such general or such large reductions of rent. But it had altogether worked in another direction; for, since that debate, the prophecies made on the part of the Government, and in defence of the conduct of the Commissioners, had not proved true, and the experience of the cases which had come before the Land Courts had taught them that the Land Act had already deprived the landlords of about one-fourth of their property. Now, he should like to know what guarantee there was that the new changes shadowed forth by the Prime Minister would not take away the few remaining rights of the landlords and the residue of their income, for the proposal of the Government looked very like carrying out the recommendations of Mr. Redmond's Bill. It might not be a Treaty, but here were the "suspects" all out, and part of a measure proposed by the Representative of the extreme Irish Party brought forward, and the other items promised to be brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. If that was not a Treaty, he did not know what was. What were Irish landlords to expect, or how could they possibly make any arrangements, when there was a new sword of this kind hanging over their heads? What could they expect from the Purchase Clauses of the Act, which were the only means they had of escaping from the unfortunate position they were in? When they knew their rents were to be reduced in the future, they certainly consoled themselves in the hope of getting the arrears of the past; but there was introduced a compulsory measure which released the tenant of his obligation to pay his arrears. The Bill would not reach their Lordships' House till late in the Session, after the passing of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, when the noble Earl the Leader of the House would press upon them the necessity of accepting it without delay; but surely, if they were threatened with the loss of a large part of arrears due under the sanction of a Bill in Parliament, they ought to be allowed time to discuss it.
  EARL GRANVILLE, interposing, said, that the Government were as anxious as anyone could possibly be, and most desirous to introduce the Arrears of Rent
  368
  (Ireland) Bill at the earliest possible time; but whatever faults it might possess, and whatever difficulty there might be in discussing it later on, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was clearly out of Order in doing so at the present moment.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he did not intend to discuss the Bill, however much it might be a common practice in that House. The tenants who were making efforts to pay up rents were, in consequence of the introduction of that Arrears Bill, now paying none.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDrose to Order. The question was, whether a certain Bill should be introduced in that House or "elsewhere."
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I do not know that I am in the least out of Order. It would be well my noble Friend should read the Notice on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think the noble Lord has already made two or three speeches.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEproceeded to say the statement referred to of the Prime Minister would tend to increase disorder in Ireland. It had already prevented arrangements being come to in regard to rent, and also the payment of arrears, and it would greatly embarrass the action of the landlords. Landlords were so placed that they did not know what to do, and they were often compelled by circumstances to act in a way they would not in a more settled condition of things. There was a report that the Prime Minister was well satisfied with the results of his Irish legislation, and that they did not disturb his rest. That showed that he had got a fine constitution; but if he could see the unfortunate results, it would not be surprising that his rest, like that of Macbeth and Richard III., should be disturbed by the ghosts of those who, through his mistaken policy, were now in another world.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, it appeared evident to him that the House did not intend to be led away by the allurements of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) to enter into a discussion of the Irish Question upon this inquiry, which had been accurately described as one relating simply to the procedure of the two Houses of Parliament upon a possible

  369
  Bill; and he should absolutely decline to follow the noble Lord by attempting to discuss the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill now before the other House. The noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway), he thought, had not quite accurately conveyed the purport of what was said the other day by the Prime Minister when, in the course of a long statement, he referred to the Land Act. The Prime Minister made no announcement on the part of the Government of any intention to bring in a Bill relating to any part of the Land Act, excepting, of course, that which was before the other House dealing with the arrears. What the Prime Minister said was that there was the question of the Purchase Clauses, which would, sooner or later, have to be dealt with. The noble Earl spoke of the subject as if it were the property of Mr. Bright; he seemed to have forgotten the Report of their Lordships' Committee on that subject. The Prime Minister added that certain suggestions had been submitted to the Government by the Land Commissioners, as to leases and labourers—that was, as to the effectiveness of the provisions in the Land Act with respect to labourers—but he said that the time had not arrived when it would be possible for the Government to say whether they could deal with these points by a measure during the present Session. The Prime Minister also said that when the Government knew they were through the two Irish Bills now before the House, they would decide whether or no they could attempt to remedy the defects of the Land Act this Session; and, if so, that would be the time for them to consider in which House the Bill should be introduced. But, of course, they reserved that question until they had decided whether there should be such a Bill at all.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that the formation of a Labourers' League in Ireland, for the purpose of promoting the interests of labourers, and ready to seize upon any idea that might be thrown out to them, indicated the danger of the situation, and made it desirable that the views of the Government as to whatever was to be done should be formulated as soon as possible. It would be very undesirable, and it could not be the wish of the Government, that that League should assume the same
  370
  character as the League formed by the tenants.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had thought it necessary to refer to the words of the Prime Minister, because certain questions respecting the Labourers' Clause had been the subject of recommendation by the Land Commissioners to the Government; and there was also a question as to the Purchase Clauses. Those were both important points, and, while acknowledging what had fell from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), he should be glad to have some assurance from the Government as to when they intended to make up their minds on the subject.

LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

(NO. 117.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (General Board may alter or vary districts, subject to modification, &c. by Secretary of State).
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 28, leave out ("may be requisite") and insert ("they may think fit"); and in page 2, line 1, leave out ("such") and insert ("any"), and after ("board") insert ("interested").
LORD BALFOUR, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 1, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("or the parochial board of any parish or combination interested"); page 2, line 1, after ("supply") insert ("or"), and after ("magistrates") leave out ("or parochial board"); line 2, leave out ("modify") and insert ("annul"), said, its object was to provide means whereby the districts into which Scotland was divided for lunacy purposes might be varied. There was formerly a power vested in the prison boards to petition the lunacy boards to vary their districts when the necessity arose. As their Lordships were aware, however, prison boards had now ceased to exist in the counties of Scotland, and it would be necessary to appoint some other body to exercise the power formerly belonging to the prison boards. The Bill proposed that the commissioners of supply in counties, and the magistrates in burghs, should exercise that

371
power. That, he ventured to think, was perfectly right, because they were the nearest representatives of the old prison boards; but the Bill further provided that the parochial board of any parish interested should also have power to petition for this purpose. He had asked, when the Bill was before the House the other day, why it was necessary to give this power to the parochial boards, because, heretofore, they had not been a unit—if he might use the expression—in the administration of the Lunacy Acts in Scotland, and it seemed to him a novel and unnecessary power to give to bodies constituted as parochial boards in Scotland were; and in view of getting their Lordships' opinion on the point, he had given Notice of the Amendment that stood in his name on the Paper that day. Since he gave that Notice, however, it had been represented to him that there were some large parishes which ought to have this power, as they provided asylums of their own, the population being sufficient to warrant them in doing so. He ventured to think that that was no reason why all parochial boards in Scotland should have that power given to them, because it was necessary to give it to a few large parishes. Therefore, he should be inclined to move his Amendment, unless he heard from the noble Earl who bad charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the Government would be prepared to assent to words that would limit this power to petitioning to boards which were large-sized, or had already built asylums of their own. For the sake of raising the question, therefore, he begged to move the Amendment that stood in his name; but if the Government were prepared to accept a modification of the clause he would not press it.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was glad to be able to tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) in the House what he had already told him in the Lobby—namely, that the Government were quite ready to insert an Amendment on Report which would meet the objection of the noble Lord.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—MR. WILFRED BLUNT.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTONrose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a letter which appears in the "Times" of Friday the 23rd instant, from Mr. Wilfred Blunt, addressed to Mr. Gladstone, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "You are aware, Sir, that I was engaged during the past winter as mediator in a variety of unofficial but important negotiations carried on between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin on the one side, and the Chiefs of the National Egyptian Party on the other, negotiations in which I engaged my personal honour for the loyalty of Her Majesty's agents; also that I have been in close communication with those Chiefs since my return to England;"
  and to move for any public correspondence which has passed between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin and Mr. Wilfred Blunt. The noble Lord said, this letter involved the character of certain important officials in Her Majesty's Government. Their Lordships were aware that, during the last two months, two gentlemen had been very actively occupied as amateur diplomatists in Egypt; and, in his opinion, a great deal of the unfortunate condition of affairs in the East was due to the action of these two gentlemen. This was apparent from an account which he would read from The Standard of last Saturday, of an interview the correspondent of that paper had had with Arabi Pasha. He said—
  "To-day I had an interview with Arabi Pasha. He was surrounded by about a score of officers. …. His bearing was quite haughty. ….. He displays no desire to communicate his views to England. 'My friends, Blunt and Gregory,' he is fond of saying, 'have told all that there is to tell that is true. What is the use of asking me to recapitulate their observations?' At the same time, he so far unbent himself as to converse a little with me. He said, 'I attribute all the evils of the present crisis to Malet, Colvin, and several of the correspondents of the English newspapers. They have all with one accord made it a point to mislead the English public by persistent misrepresentations. England had the whole truth from Blunt and Gregory, but she preferred to believe not these honest men, but the lies, official and unofficial, to which she lent a too-ready ear. Let her, then, take the consequences of her folly. I hold her responsible.'"
  Without saying anything as to the insolence of Arabi Pasha, the passages he had quoted showed the influence which those

  373
  two gentlemen—Mr. Blunt and Sir William Gregory—had exercised in Egypt, an influence which he (Lord Lamington) could not but say was mischievous. Sir William Gregory, who was well known in this country, had passed the winter at Cairo, whence he sent long letters to The Times upon the Egyptian Question. He (Lord Lamington) was much surprised at the publication of those letters by such a great organ of public opinion, and he did not hesitate to say that those letters were copied and sent back to Egypt as the expression of public opinion in England upon the subject, and that a great deal of harm had been done by this attempt on the part of Sir William Gregory and Mr. Blunt to create an ideal for the National Party in Egypt. With regard to Mr. Blunt, he must ask the Government for an explanation. Had he held any position under the Government? In the letter to which he had referred, Mr. Blunt stated that he had been engaged as mediator in a variety of unofficial but important negotiations, carried on between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin on the one side, and the Chiefs of the National Egyptian Party on the other; negotiations in which he engaged his personal honour for the loyalty of Her Majesty's agents; also that he had warned Her Majesty's Government of the danger they were running from a false appreciation of facts, and that he had repeatedly urged the necessity of their coming to a speedy understanding with those in whose hands the guidance of the movement lay; that he had counselled them to the best of his ability during the recent crisis, and spared no pains to urge them to come to that settlement of their differences with the Khedive to which they had then happily arrived; and that in this he took upon himself a great responsibility. As in the case of Arabi, he would say nothing of the insolence of the general tone of Mr. Blunt's letter; but it was most desirable that the public ought to have some statement from Her Majesty's Government as to what Mr. Blunt's position really was; whether he was authorized to act as a negotiator and mediator between Sir Edward Malet and the Chiefs of the National Party. Having regard to this letter, it was, in his opinion, most desirable to know from Her Majesty's Government what was Mr. Blunt's precise
  374
  position; and he, therefore, begged to move for the Correspondence on the subject.
  Moved, "That there he laid before this House, copy of any public correspondence which has passed between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin and Mr. Wilfred Blunt."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships are aware that Mr. Blunt is a man of ability. He was formerly in the Diplomatic Service; he is a personal friend of Sir Edward Malet, and he is also, from long residence in Egypt, acquainted with many Egyptians. It appears that he has had certain personal and unofficial communications with Sir Edward Malet on Egyptian matters; and, on one occasion, in December of last year, he was requested by Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin to obtain a promise from the War Minister that no disturbance should arise at the moment when the Controllers refused to allow an increase in the Army. I am sorry to say that Mr. Blunt's views were such as Sir Edward Malet—and I must say that I entirely agree with Sir Edward Malet—disapproved of. The noble Lord asks for the private communications which Mr. Blunt has had with the Government. They are simply these—When Mr. Blunt arrived in London I was very glad to see him, and to hear what he had to state, whether I agreed or did not agree with him, on a matter on which he was well informed. He spoke to me very eloquently upon his views. Those views did not produce any impression on me; for though I could agree with him that it was not the part of this country to prevent a prudent development of Egyptian institutions, I entirely differed with him as to the part Arabi Pasha had played in this matter. Since then I have not been in communication with Mr. Blunt on Egyptian affairs. It is hardly necessary for me to state to the House that the Foreign Office have not endeavoured to support Dervish Pasha in any illegitimate mode of getting rid of Arabi Pasha.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, if the noble Earl would produce a despatch of the 24th of December last or thereabouts relative to this subject?
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, he would inquire whether there was a despatch of that date; and, if so, whe-

  375
  therthere was any objection to produce it. He had forgotten to state, with reference to the question raised by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington), that there were no Papers, and, therefore, he supposed the Motion would be withdrawn.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.—(No. 143.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to present a Petition from school teachers in Scotland in favour of an Amendment he had on the Paper to the Bill proposed by the Government. The present Bill was really the result of a Motion made by Sir Herbert Maxwell in the other House, and the effect of his Amendment was, that teachers should not only receive notice of the intention of a school board to pass a resolution for dismissal, but the ground upon which such notice was issued. The prayer of the Petition was entirely in unison with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal would be able to accede to it. By adopting the suggestion in that Petition, the grievances of the teachers would be remedied.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Three weeks' notice to be given to members of school boards and teacher of motion for dismissal).
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved, as an Amendment, words providing that the circular convening a school board meeting to consider the question of a teacher's dismissal must state the reason for such dismissal. When a teacher received warning, it was, he contended, only fair that he should be informed of the reason. This Amendment really was to give effect to the prayer of the Peti-
376
tion that he had already presented to their Lordships.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 22, after the word ("meeting"), to insert the words ("and unless in such circular and in such notice the reason or reasons be specially stated by the member or members proposing it."—(The Earl of Galloway.)
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment. At the present time the school boards of Scotland possessed a power of dismissal which was very considerably limited by the Bill. It was limited in a way which was satisfactory to almost everyone who took any interest in school administration. It was provided that ample notice should be given to a teacher before the question of his dismissal was considered, and also that it should only be considered at a full meeting of the board. His noble Friend (the Earl of Galloway) wished the notice to contain a statement of the proposed ground of dismissal. That, he (Lord Carlingford) thought, would be a most unfortunate alteration in the Bill, and certainly one which would not be in the interest of the teachers themselves. It was not in the interest of the teachers that the cause of dismissal should be published to the world, and remain for ever on record. The noble Earl was mistaken if he imagined he was acting in conformity with the wishes even of the school teachers. He (Lord Carlingford) had had communication with many teachers, who earnestly desired him to have the Bill carried as it stood, and not to accept the Amendment now proposed. Among others, he had himself received a voluntary communication from a very important body in Scotland—the Educational Union—in which they earnestly pressed him to the same effect. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would not press his Amendment, which he could not accept.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that after what had been said by the noble Lord he would not persevere with the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE DUAL NOTE TO THE KHEDIVE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they will lay upon the Table of the House the Dual Note presented to the Khedive on the 8th January 1882, by the representatives of England and France in Egypt? Said, that before putting the Question which stood in his name, he would like to make two or three remarks on the subject. It appeared to him that the Dual Note, which was presented to the Khedive by the Representatives of England and France, formed one of the most important episodes in the transactions which were taking place in Egypt. It was the result of many communications between the Governments of France and England, and it must have had a very important effect upon the Khedive and upon the Sultan. He (the Earl of Dunraven) was not aware whether the exact text of the Note was contained in the Papers which had been laid before Parliament. There was a telegraphic dispatch from Sir Edward Malet, saying he had presented the Dual Note on the 8th of January; and there was before that a dispatch from the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to Sir Edward Malet, giving him his instructions, telling him that, after consulting the French Consul General, he was instructed to make simultaneous representations. The noble Earl, on the 6th of January, wrote to Sir Edward Malet—
  "I have accordingly to instruct you to declare to Tewfik Pasha, after concerting with M. Sienkiewicz, who has teen instructed to make simultaneously with you an identic declaration, that the English and French Governments consider the maintenance of his Highness on the Throne on the terms laid down by the Sultan's Firman, and officially recognized by the two Governments, as alone able to guarantee for the present and the future good order and general prosperity in Egypt, in which England and France are equally interested. The two Governments being closely associated in their resolve to guard by their united efforts against all cause of complications, internal or external, which might menace the order of things established in Egypt, do not doubt that the assurance publicly given of their formal intention in this respect will tend to avert the dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be exposed, and which would certainly find England and France united to oppose them. They are convinced that His Highness will draw from
  378
  this assurance the confidence and the strength which he requires to direct the destinies of Egypt and its people."
  It was very difficult to understand that the whole of the Identical Note was contained in these words, because the whole tenor and effect of it was completely changed by the reservation or reservations which were made by the noble Earl. If the dispatch which he (the Earl of Dunraven) had read contained the whole of the Identical Note, it appeared to him that it was utterly impossible, but that the scope and intention of the Note must have been misunderstood by the Khedive. In December, the noble Earl first wrote to M. Gambetta, agreeing that the time had come when the two Governments should consider what course had better be adopted by them. Her Majesty's Government also then thought that it was desirable that some evidence should be given of their cordial understanding, but that it required considerable and careful consideration as to what steps should be taken. After some further consideration the matter was a little more advanced. The noble Earl wrote to Lord Lyons—
  "The time has come when the two Governments should consider what course had better be adopted by both Governments. Her Majesty's Government also thinks that it is desirable that some evidence should be given of their cordial understanding."
  After some further communication, the noble Earl stated that he agreed that it would be advisable
  "To convey collectively to Tewfik Pasha the assurances of the sympathy and support of France and England."
  That led to the draft of the Identical Note, which was prepared by M. Gambetta, and submitted to Her Majesty's Government, and that appeared to him (the Earl of Dunraven) to be included in the dispatch which he first read to their Lordships. The words contained in the dispatch were very strong and very distinct. They conveyed the assurance that the two countries, France and England, would be found closely associated in the resolve to guard, by their united efforts, against all dangerous complications, and it stated that France and England would be united in opposing any dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be ex-

  379
  posed. The Dual Note was agreed to by the noble Earl, but agreed to with a reservation. It was not very easy to understand whether the noble Earl made one or two reservations. In a letter to Lord Lyons he stated that Her Majesty's Government assented to the draft declaration, with the reservation that they must not be considered as committing themselves thereby to any particular mode of action, if action should be necessary. Now, at first sight, that would appear as if Her Majesty's Government merely reserved to themselves the natural right of determining upon the mode in which action ought to be taken, or of deciding upon the particular form in which action ought to be taken; and that was the view of the reservation taken by M. Gambetta, because in a dispatch, dated January 7, he said he observed with pleasure—
  "That the only reservation of the Government of the Queen is as to the mode of action to be employed by the two countries when action is considered necessary, and this is a reservation in which we participate."
  But there was another view of the reservation taken which was mentioned in a letter from Lord Lyons to the noble Earl, which was received on February 4th. Lord Lyons there spoke of a conversation which he had with M. de Freycinet, who very naturally wanted to know what was the meaning of the reservation of the noble Earl, and Lord Lyons said—
  "I presume Her Majesty's Government is to be understood as reserving to themselves, as a matter of course, the right to determine whether action is necessary, but especially to guard them selves against being supposed to commit themselves to any particular mode of action if action should be found to be necessary."
  Now, that was quite another matter. That reserve was not only as to the mode in which action should be applied, but the right to decide whether any action of any kind was considered necessary, and was to be applied. This view of the reservation was evidently that of the noble Earl, for in a dispatch to Lord Dufferin he said that—
  "It was not true, as reported in the newspapers, that the French Government had proposed to us, or that we had agreed to promise the Khedive, material support."
  It was difficult to understand how two great nations like England and France could use their united efforts in oppos-
  380
  ing anything, or could be found opposed to causes detrimental to the Khedive, if they had determined not to give him any material support. But he the Earl of Dunraven) had nothing whatever to say against any reservation on that ground. It was perfectly right and proper that Her Majesty's Government should judge for themselves whether action was necessary, and what action was necessary. What he really wanted to know was, whether the fact of the reservation was made known to the Khedive; because, if not, it appeared to him the meaning of the Note must have been entirely misunderstood by the Khedive. With the double reservation the Note appeared to him (the Earl of Dunraven) to mean almost nothing. The noble Earl did not seem to have thought very highly of it, if he was correctly stated in the French Parliamentary Papers to have said, in conversation with M. Challemel Lacour, that he "never thought it would be of the slightest use." If the Note could not be of the slightest use, then what was the use of troubling the Sultan and Khedive with it? The Sultan, however, seemed to have taken a different view of it, and thought that it did mean something; because he remonstrated in the most vigorous terms, and stated that he objected to it altogether, as it was an infringement of his Sovereign rights. He (the Earl of Dunraven) did not suppose that if the Note had been read with that reservation, the Porte or any other Government could possibly suppose that Sovereign rights were infringed. But what he (the Earl of Dunraven) principally wanted to know was whether the reservation of the noble Earl, and its proper meaning and character, were incorporated in the Dual Note which was presented to the Khedive; and, if not, whether the reservation, and the meaning of it, was communicated to the Khedive at the same time that the Dual Note was presented? It appeared essential that the House should have some information on these points, because it was otherwise impossible to judge of the meaning of those Parliamentary Papers which had already been presented, and impossible also to judge of the motives and action of the Khedive and of the Sultan. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it is a somewhat inconvenient course to pursue to give Notice of one Question and then to put another. With regard to the Question of which the noble Earl has given Notice, taking the interest that I know he does on this great and important subject, I think he has read all the Papers, and that it is from a slip of memory he is not aware that the Dual Note was included in the Papers presented to the House so long ago as the 7th of February last. With regard to the discussion he has raised, I really mean to adhere to what I have already stated, unless I am called upon by the House to do otherwise—namely, that, although individual Peers may think it right to make light of, and to invite a discussion of, this important question, it appears to me that the subject should be discussed as a whole, when I shall be prepared to defend the conduct of Her Majesty's Government both with regard to the Dual Note and the reservations, as well as the other points connected with these long negotiations.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are we to understand that the noble Earl declines, on this occasion, to state whether the reservation was communicated to the Khedive?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have not declined to do anything of the sort. The reservation was not communicated to the Khedive.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLONIAL INQUIRIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1880, with respect to Colonial Courts of Inquiry—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 164.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.