Lords Sitting of 15 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Petty Sessions (Ireland)* (89); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh)* (78).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*.
Committee—Militia Storehouses* (86); Commonable Rights* (73).

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I wish to ask a Question, of which I gave private Notice on Friday, relative to the affairs of Egypt, Whether the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can give your Lordships any information upon the subject; and also whether he can state anything in regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wished to give an answer to the Question of the noble Earl, and that wish could only be strengthened by the Notice of Question of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who has a right to ask with authority for information. Your Lordships may or may not remember that, on the first day of the Session, I described the objects and policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt. They were the maintenance of the Sovereign rights of the Sultan, of the position of the Khedive, and of the liberties of the Egyptian people under the Firmans of the Porte, the prudent development of their institutions, and the fulfilment of all international engagements, either on the
  648
  part of England, or England and other Powers. Soon after this the Governments of England and of France described their policy in a formal document to the Powers, which will be presented in due time, in almost exactly the same words. This policy was also described in a despatch to Sir Edward Malet in November last, and in the dual Note addressed by the French and English Governments which has been presented to Parliament. My Lords, all the Powers unanimously agreed to adhere to this policy; and Turkey has, on more than one occasion, declared it to be her policy also—that the status quo should be maintained. The other Powers of Europe have admitted the preponderance of England and of France in Egypt. They look to these two Powers to take the initiative; but, on the other hand, they claim that any change in the present state of things is a matter which concerns all Europe, and that Europe cannot be excluded from the consideration of such changes. This claim has never been denied, and, indeed, has been cheerfully admitted by England and France. Some weeks ago the English and French Governments came to an agreement as to the mode of guarding against any infringement of the international engagements of Egypt in the course of the Constitutional changes which are being discussed. We communicated our conclusions to the Powers, who unanimously approved them. They would have been communicated at once to the Egyptian Government; but it was thought better to delay a little in consequence of the unstable position of Egyptian Ministers. Since then, on all points dealing with the present, the ultimate agreement between the two Powers has been complete. I may here be permitted by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) to answer by anticipation the Question of which he has given Notice, with regard to the report of a speech made by M. de Freycinet the other day. Though I think it is only natural that the noble Lord should put the Question, I must, in the first place, say that I find it quite sufficient to explain what I myself write or say, and that I must decline to explain the speeches of Ministers addressing their own Parliaments in foreign countries. But it happens that during a two hours' conversation with the French

  649
  Ambassador on Friday evening, I mentioned the Notice which the noble Lord had given. M. Tissot at once said that he was perfectly certain that M. de Freycinet had not claimed for France an isolated predominance in Egypt to the disparagement of the position of England. He has since been good enough to send me a letter, the translation of which I will venture to read to the House—
  "May 13.
  "My dear Count,—I informed M. de Freycinet yesterday of the sensation caused here by a certain sentence in his speech, and of the question which is to be addressed to you on Monday by Lord Lamington.
  "M. de Freycinet requests me to assure you that he never intended to separate the preponderance of Trance in Egypt from that of England. Another passage of his speech explicitly recognizes this community of influence, and the speech itself, taken as a whole, attributes to the two Powers so equal a share, that no one could misunderstand it. 'Nobody,' adds M. de Freycinet, 'has misunderstood it here.'
  "M. de Freycinet hopes that this frank explanation—which I gave you reason yesterday to anticipate—will enable you to reply to Lord Lamington without difficulty.
  "Believe me, &c.,
  "CH. TISSOT."
  I think that explanation will be satisfactory to the noble Lord. I may say that the only chance of any definite and beneficial result arising from the joint action of England and France in Egypt depends entirely upon the loyalty of the respective Governments and their agents. During the last two years I have been in communication with four French Administrations and three French Foreign Secretaries on Egyptian matters. I am happy to acknowledge the perfect loyalty with which they have all three acted on Egyptian questions. I believe they would say the same of Her Majesty's Government. We have naturally had differences of opinion on subjects so difficult and so complicated; but instead of these differences being increased by frank intercommunications, they have been remarkably minimized. My Lords, some weeks ago we came to an agreement with France as to the course which we thought best to adopt to safeguard such international agreement from changes which were being made in the Constitution of Egypt. We communicated to the Powers, and they unani-
  650
  mously agreed to what we proposed. My Lords, since that time we have been constantly sending instructions to our agents in the same sense; our instructions to our agents have been all along in the same sense. During the last fortnight we have almost daily sent identical instructions to our Representatives. At this moment the position is much clearer than it has been, notwithstanding the great difficulties which still surround it. Tewfik Pasha was considered almost a model Prince up to the time of the first military demonstrations. Since then his course has been fraught with difficulty, opposed as he has been by the only armed force in the country, and what complicated matters was that for a time the action of the Army was represented as one of a national character. It was supported by the Notables. The Khedive, notwithstanding these difficulties, has lately shown great decision and energy in dealing with the situation, and the result of all the information got is that the country is now with him, and that the Notables, unless they get awed by physical force, wish to support him. In these circumstances, England and France have agreed to send orders to three British men-of-war at Corfu, and three French men-of-war in the Piræus, to rendezvous at Suda Bay, in order to proceed to Alexandria, where they will find that orders have preceded them. We have informed all the Powers and Turkey of this measure in support of the policy already agreed upon. England and France are agreed as to the steps necessary to mark our determination to maintain the principles of the policy which I have already described; and, further than this, there is a perfect understanding between the two Governments as to what is to be done in the case of certain possible contingencies, which I hope may not arise. Your Lordships will agree that it is obviously impossible for me, at the present moment, to give any indication of what that understanding may be. But I entertain the hope, and even more than a hope, that such contingencies will not occur, and that peace, order, and prosperity may be restored to Egypt without the employment of force.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think there is nothing in the statement of the noble Earl to which I can take exception. Undoubtedly, the

  651
  affairs of Egypt are in a very critical condition, and it is very desirable that the principles by which Her Majesty's Government are to be guided should be clearly laid down, and consistently followed. There are two main points, as it appears to me, which the Government is bound to keep in mind; and the first has reference to our position as regards France. I quite concur with the noble Earl that all hopes of beneficial action depend upon the cordial co-operation of the Governments and the agents of the two countries; for that cordial co-operation it is necessary that no misunderstanding as to the relative position of the two Powers should exist; and I hope that M. de Freycinet is as fully convinced as we are that England cannot admit that any other Power has a superior interest to our own in the position and the government of Egypt. With respect to Egypt itself, it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government, both by the engagements which they themselves have entered into, and by the engagements which they have necessarily inherited from their Predecessors, are bound to give their support to the present Viceroy of Egypt, so long as his government is in accordance with the principles which they approve. They are bound to give him that support, not merely as a matter of sentiment, not merely in words or in notes, but in something stronger if the need should arise. We know there are important authorities in this country who hold by the modern theory that force is no remedy. I believe that in this country that doctrine is less popular than it was; at all events, I presume England will not be inclined to erect it into a maxim in the conduct of foreign affairs. Whatever measures Her Majesty's Government may be inclined to adopt, whatever policy they may pursue, whatever language they may hold, these things will have no effect whatever upon the population of Egypt or upon the intriguing men who have laid hold of supreme power in that country, unless it is well known that, behind all these words, there is the possibility, nay, the certainty, of deeds. I earnestly trust with the noble Earl that no occasion may arise for solving the Egyptian difficulty by the sword; but we can hope to avert that dread necessity only by its being well understood that the sword is there,
  652
  and what sword it will be. Of course, that is a matter which Her Majesty's Government has considered, and in respect to which I trust they have come to a right conclusion. I do not wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by my criticism; but I hold that the affairs of Egypt are of such supreme importance to this country that a man would be a bad patriot and a bad citizen who allowed any Party feeling to influence the discussion of them. In my judgment—and I have not concealed it—if the sword must be used, it should be the sword of Turkey; that is the best arrangement that could be adopted. The worst arrangement that could be adopted would be to use the sword of France; and any Ministry would be deserving of serious condemnation who gave permission for that alternative, without taking the most stringent material guarantees for the interests of this country. In saying that, I do not intend to insinuate that I suspect the noble Earl of consenting to any such arrangement. I am happy to believe that the noble Earl follows the Palmerstonian, and not the Gladstonian tradition; and I look forward without any apprehension to the decision to which in the case of the contingency we all deprecate he will think it his duty to come. I will only say, in conclusion, I believe that in the case of any difficulty arising, he may count upon the assistance and support of all Parties in this country, so long as he maintains as his cardinal principle of action that the authority of England in the affairs of Egypt is to be not less than that of any other Power whatever.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had practically answered the Question of which he had given Notice. He contended that France had not that paramount interest in Egypt as compared with other Powers which had been claimed by implication by the French Prime Minister. He believed there were more Italians than Frenchmen in Egypt, while 79 out of every 100 vessels that passed through the Suez Canal carried the English flag. Although he agreed in the policy of acting in conformity and union with France, still, at the same time, he was of opinion, looking to India and the Australian Colonies, that in this crisis Her Majesty's Government must

  653
  be prepared to take a very decided course of action.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that after the statement that had been made by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he did not think it necessary to proceed with the Notice which stood in his name on the Paper.

COUNTY BOUNDARIES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of adjusting the boundaries of counties in England and Wales,"
  said, that, in his opinion, the counties, as they at present existed, formed the best area for local administration, although their boundaries, in some instances, required re-adjustment. If those boundaries were re-adjusted in a common-sense way a very large step would have been taken towards the improvement of the present administration of local affairs. In many counties of England detached portions were situate which belonged to otter counties. The county of Worcester suffered in a remarkable degree in this respect. Altogether in England there were 44 detached parts of counties wholly surrounded by other counties than those to which they belonged. Again, many counties had large promontories, as he would call them, running out into other counties. Another source of confusion arose from the fact that many parishes were in two counties. Great inconvenience and harm were caused by this state of things. He thought their Lordships would agree that the inconvenience of a parish being in two counties was one which should no longer be allowed to exist. It was true that some provisions were made in the Highway Acts to obviate these inconveniences; but they were inadequate for the purpose. Certain Acts having reference to the county of Worcester had been passed with the same end in view. But all these measures were insufficient to meet all the evils arising from the present confusion of boundaries. In Devonshire, for instance, he found that 15 out of 20 parishes were in more than one county, and a like complication existed in many other counties.
  654
  If a new measure of local government in counties was to be introduced, it was especially important that the areas of parishes should be so arranged as to facilitate and not to impede local government. The noble Earl concluded by proposing the Motion which stood in his name.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of adjusting the boundaries of counties in England and Wales,"—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that, although Her Majesty's Government were unable to agree to the Motion of the noble Earl, they were under considerable obligation to him for bringing forward this most important subject. It was one which had long occupied the attention of Parliament. In 1834 detached portions of parishes situate in counties to which they did not belong were attached to those counties. In 1844 they were given over for all county purposes, and a total of 146,000 acres and a population of 54,000, as it were, changed hands. By Acts passed in 1854 and 1861, the Local Government Board could annex parishes overlapping counties—which did not exceed 100—to adjoining parishes, or could constitute them separate parishes, and were now engaged in doing so. As regarded Unions, they might dissolve them, or add or take away parishes at pleasure. In 1873 a Select Committee was appointed to take evidence on this subject. A great deal of evidence was given with regard to bringing Unions into the county; but they made no recommendation. In 1880 a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice and others for the purpose of appointing a Commission for the rearrangement of boundaries, so that no Union should be without the county boundary. That Bill was withdrawn; but during the present year another Bill had been brought in requiring the Local Government Board to submit schemes for this purpose to Parliament. The Local Government Board now had in their possession all information about divided parishes, and how far it was practicable to bring Unions into county boundaries. In fact, they had every information that could possibly be wanted. He asked, therefore, what benefit would then be gained if the Motion of the

  655
  noble Earl were agreed to? His speech itself, with all its detail, all its figures, and all its facts, was conclusive evidence that no more information was wanted. An inquiry of that kind would be a lengthy and costly one, and no real good could be done by appointing a Commission to collect information which was already in the possession of the Government. Was it likely that they would arrive at any new conclusion? And, as these recommendations would not have that weight which would attach to a scheme prepared by a well-constituted county authority like a County Board, the best course was to wait till such an authority was constituted, which would be able, with the central authority, not only to inquire into, but to deal effectually with, the whole subject. Under these circumstances, he earnestly trusted their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he hoped the Motion of the noble Earl would not be agreed to. He did not think that any good would come of the inquiry. He had been for many years Chairman of a Board of Guardians, the parishes composing which were situated in three counties; but the Board never experienced the slightest inconvenience therefrom. There might be some small matters of detail in which a rectification of the boundaries might be desirable; but they were not sufficient to justify the issue of a Royal Commission. Moreover, a large number of persons would strongly object to having their counties changed. People often took a pride in belonging to this or that county, and would not like to be transferred to another county against their will.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that although he thought the subject a very important one, he wished to ask his noble Friend not to give the House the trouble of dividing. He believed, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Earl who spoke last, that great inconvenience did arise from the present system; and thus far he was quite ready to agree with his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp). The noble Lord opposite who represented the Government on that occasion (Lord Carrington) had given as a reason for not assenting to the Royal Commission that the Local Government
  656
  Board had every information they could possibly want. That appeared to him (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) to be just the reason why the Motion should be assented to. But he thought that, considering that a measure was actually under the consideration of the other House—the Bill having been read a first time—which dealt with the subject, there would be no necessity, at this particular time, for the Commission for which the noble Earl had moved. He believed that it was unwise to resort to the course of appointing Royal Commissions more than was absolutely necessary; and he trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend would be satisfied with the very lucid statement he had made being put before the country, showing, as it did, the great inconveniences which attached to the present system.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he wished to be allowed to join the noble Duke in asking his noble Friend not to press his Motion to a division. He did not think there was any serious difference of opinion between them on the subject. He apprehended that the noble Earl at the Table was an exception in that respect. A re-adjustment of boundaries was, no doubt, very desirable; but the Motion then before them was one, not for a Commission to make changes in boundaries, but to inquire into the best means of doing so. But they had been inquiring for a considerable time. There were, in fact, few subjects with which those who took an interest in those matters were more familiar, or of which the details were more accurately known. But what they wanted now was some action in the matter. He could only say, on behalf of the Government, that they had hoped before this to deal with the question, along with the larger one of county government; but that hope had been frustrated. They trusted, however, before another year elapsed, to be able to deal with the subject. He was quite certain that the subject of boundaries must be dealt with with the more important one of county government, and that was the direction in which the Government wished, as soon as possible, to move. He hoped his noble Friend would allow the Motion to be withdrawn.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUNDAY OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT, who had given Notice that he would move for any information which might have reached Her Majesty's Government as to any desire on the part of the inhabitants of any district that such Government Institutions as were now opened on Sunday should be closed on that day, said, he wished to know if any feeling had been publicly expressed, on the part of the working classes, against the opening of such Government Institutions as were now open on Sunday, as the Picture Galleries at Hampton Court and the Botanical Gardens at Kew? In the case of the Dublin National Gallery, he noticed that the statistics of attendance showed that nearly as many people went there on Sundays as on the whole of the other days of the week put together. As, however, the matter would be brought before the other House shortly, it was not his intention to discuss it on the present occasion; but he should content himself with calling attention to the Resolution which stood in his name.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, there was no information in the hands of Her Majesty's Government on the subject to which the noble Viscount referred.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.