Lords Sitting of 5 December 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading — Committee negatived— Third Reading—Yorkshire Registries Act (1884) Amendment (14), and passed.
Third Reading—Representation of the People * (5); Consolidated Fund (No. 1), * and passed.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES ACT (1884) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 14.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES ACT (1884) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 14.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a and that Standing Order No. XXXV. be considered in order to its being dispensed with."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the Bill ought not to be allowed to gallop through Parliament without notice, or some explanation. The Act which it was intended to amend had only been passed in the First Session of 1884; and though, no doubt, it was a complicated measure, those who were responsible for it should not have allowed a piece of legislation of such a slovenly character as to require a special Bill to amend it. Some Member of the
  834
  Government ought to be responsible for the careful and proper drafting of Bills.
  LORD FITZGEEALD,in explanation, said, that the object of the Bill was merely to correct a clerical error in the Act of last Session with regard to dates. If the error was not provided against at once, some deeds of consequence relating to property in Yorkshire might be defeated or materially delayed in registering. The Bill had passed the other House without any dissent.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.

  APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES) moved that the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Camperdown.

  Ld. President.

  E. Granville.

  D. Richmond.

  E. Kimberley.

  D. Saint Albans.

  E. Redesdale.

  D. Bedford.

  E. Lathom.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Hawarden.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Hardinge.

  M. Bath.

  V. Eversley.

  Ld. Steward.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  E. Devon.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Tankerville.

  L. Monson.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Ker.

  E. Bradford.

  L. Aveland.

  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that he did not object to the Committee being appointed; but he hoped that the noble Lords on it would find a convenient room for Members of the House to write and sit in when they had business to attend to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he noticed among the names of the proposed Committee that of the Marquess of Lansdowne, who was not now in England, and was not likely to be so for some years to come, and who, therefore, could not attend the meetings of the Committee. For that reason he begged to move the omission of the name of the Marquess of Lansdowne, and the substitution of that of Lord Sudeley.
  Moved, "To leave out the name of the Marquess of Lansdowne."—(The Earl of Camper down.")
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, that no doubt the Marquess of Lansdowne would not be able to attend the Committee at the present time; but the practice had always been to appoint the same Peers on the Committee from year to year, and it was not usual to put one noble Lord off and another on.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was very desirable to nominate the same Peers on the Committee; still, it would be better to appoint Peers who could and would be likely to attend the Committee.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that before the Motion was agreed to he wished to point out that there was no Representative of the Cross Benches upon the Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEdesired to ask the noble Lord whether he could say who was the Leader and who were the Representatives of the Cross Benches? On the previous evening three Peers belonging to it spoke in three different senses.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the same Peers sat in not inconsiderable numbers upon the Cross Benches, and it would not be difficult to find a Representative. Moreover, as it was the noble Earl himself who had given to the Cross Benches a Parliamentary "status" by his frequent reference to them and his allusions to the Cross Bench "mind," to no one better than to the noble Earl could be left the selection of a Peer who might duly represent that disposition.
  On Question? agreed to.
  Then the original Motion, as amended, was agreed to.
  Committee appointed accordingly.

NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—ADMIRALTY INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwished, before the House adjourned, to ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question of which he had given him private Notice. In the course of the debate on the state of the
  836
  Navy the other night allusion was made to the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty by a noble Lord on the Opposition side, but on that occasion his noble Friend, did not refer to the remarks made on that subject; and he therefore thought it would be of advantage if the First Lord of the Admiralty would now give the House such information as he could with regard to the constitution of the Intelligence Department at the present time. It had only been constituted some two or three years; and he knew nothing about it except what he had heard outside the House.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was much obliged to his noble Friend for putting that Question. In the interesting discussion of the other night he was afraid that he had inadvertently omitted to notice an observation of the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) in respect to the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty. That Department had only been formed about two years ago; and the Board of Admiralty was much indebted to his gallant friend Admiral Tryon for the pains he had taken in organizing it. The Intelligence Department had done most excellent work since then. The head of it was Captain Hall, a very able officer, who had had charge of it for the last two years. The work of the Intelligence Department did not come before the public, being performed for the confidential information of the Board of Admiralty; and he was speaking the opinion of Sir Cooper Key, who superintended the work of that Department, when he said that they were much indebted to Captain Hall and the staff under him for the manner in which the important and valuable work of that Department had been commenced and was now being carried on with great advantage to the Public Service.

  EGYPT—EMPLOYMENT OF ENGLISH OFFICIALS.—QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the cadets who went out to Alexandria a year ago, in view of police service, did so on any given understanding; and, if so, whether, in contravention of such understanding, they had been peremptorily dismissed; and, if so, on what grounds? The noble Lord explained that he put

  837
  his Question in consequence of a paragraph which he had seen in The Times relating to that subject.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he must explain that he answered this Question, not because he was a Member of Her Majesty's Government, or considered that Her Majesty's Government were called upon to give any explanation on a matter which affected, not Her Majesty's Government, but the Government of the Khedive of Egypt; the only reason that he rose to answer the Question was because he happened, when in Egypt recently, to have conversation on the subject with the Khedive, and with his Prime Minister, Nubar Pasha. He was not able to tell their Lordships exactly why those young men were sent out from England to join the Police Service of Egypt. It was not, of course, a matter with which the English Government had anything whatever to do. When he was in Egypt, the Khedive and Nubar Pasha —indeed, he might say all the Egyptian Ministers—often told him that they felt very greatly indebted for the services of the many able and distinguished men, English, French, German, Austrian, Italian, and others, who were in the Egyptian Service. The Khedive and the Ministry reoognized that in many branches of the Administration it was necessary for the benefit of Egypt to obtain the services of men of experience who were not natives of that country in the different branches of the Administration. For example, no body of men anywhere engaged in Egypt had acquired for themselves a higher reputation and had done such good service as Sir Evelyn Wood and the officers of Her Majesty's 2Army under him—the very best officers we had got—who had been lent to the Egyptian Government for the purpose of organizing the Egyptian Army. He merely gave this as an instance. There were other officers equally distinguished in other branches of the Administration, and their services were recognized by the Khedive and by the Egyptian Ministry, and, he might say, by everyone with whom he had come into contact in Egypt. On the other hand, however, the Khedive and the Egyptian Government considered that it was not fair to the Egyptians that young men, whether Englishmen, Italians, French, or German, should be taken into the Egyptian Service for the purpose of being trained and in-
  838
  structed to fill offices in the Government of the country. They said that when young men were to be employed they should be Egyptians; that they should be natives of the country; and that they should be introduced to the lower grade in the different branches of the Services, and should be trained and promoted to be higher officers. What was wanted, they said, was not young men, but men who had acquired knowledge and experience which might be brought to bear on the different branches of the Egyptian Administration. Those were the views of the Khedive as expressed to himself more than once, and with which, he might say, he not only entirely agreed, but which he felt assured would meet with the sympathy of every person in this country, because he was certain that nothing could be further from the minds of their Lordships or from the minds of the English Government and the English people than that Egypt should be made a preserve to which young men should be sent for the purpose of getting employment at the cost of the country, unless it should be clearly shown that it was for its benefit. But it was not for the benefit of Egypt to employ those young men in the Egyptian Administration, whereas it was to the benefit of Egypt to employ trained and experienced men. He was unable to explain the circumstances in which those young men were sent to Egypt; but they received a tolerably high rate of salary, as high as men who were much older, and a higher rate than the natives of the country would receive. Those young men were employed in connection with the reorganization of the Egyptian police. It was determined that the Egyptian Government should dispense with the services of those young men; and although the Question was put to him, and although he had no authority to give any expression of opinion on the part of the Government, yet, speaking as a private individual, he thought that in this matter the Egyptian Government were perfectly right, and that it had been a wise step to take. No blame attached to the young men in question, and he had no doubt the Egyptian Government had dealt with them fairly and liberally in this matter. This was all he knew of the matter, and that was the only answer he could give his noble Friend.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he gathered from the observations of the noble Earl that he was not able to give an answer to the Question which he had put. He wanted to know whether or not there was any distinct engagement on the part of the English Government, or on the part of the Khedive's Government, that those young men went out to render service and to receive appointments in the Police Service? He inferred from the answer of the noble Earl that he was not in a position to say whether this was so or not.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord is, no doubt, important as regards these young gentlemen themselves. It appears to me, however, taken in connection with the answer of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to show that questions of public policy of very considerable importance have been brought to the front. I think that some of the observations made by the noble Earl rather indicate an important change of policy on the part of the British Government. As I understand him, it is now admitted that we are not to press for the employment of British subjects except in the one case where men of considerable age and experience are required, and where there are no Egyptians who have been educated to the work. That is, undoubtedly, a very important decision. There is no doubt that there is something to be said for it. The constant appointment of foreigners is very galling to a certain number of the Khedive's subjects in Egypt, and also the burden of paid salaries, which are very heavy, has pressed severely on the finances of the Government of Egypt; but still it is a resolution which ignores the motives which many years ago induced the Government and Europe to urge or favour the appointment of Europeans to take service in Egypt. I am not sure whether Her Majesty's Government have sufficiently contemplated all the results which must flow from this decision. In the first place, I hope the decision will not apply to Englishmen alone. I hope it is understood that no favour will be given to foreigners as against Englishmen in the employment of the Government of Egypt. If the Egyptians are always to have preference I hope it will be a preference over Frenchmen, Austrians, and Italians, just as
  840
  much as over Englishmen; for our position in Egypt, however long we stay there, will be one of extremest difficulty if we allow all the offices to be filled by those who are hostile to our policy and to our presence in the country. There is another matter of importance, and that is the question, what does the noble Earl mean by an Egyptian? Does he mean a man born in Egypt? I think the present Prime Minister of Egypt will hardly satisfy this requirement. Nubar Pasha is an Armenian. But the noble Earl, when he talks of natives, does he mean Egyptians, or does he mean subjects of the Sultan? If he means subjects of the Sultan, I do not dispute that internationally his view is correct; but I fear that his views will not carry much solace to the people of Egypt if they know that Turkish employés are to be more numerous than they have hitherto been. But the decision taken by the Government implies the abandonment of many of the reforms for which the Government have hitherto pressed. Does the noble Earl really believe that European ideas of government, European ideas of punishment, European ideas of sanitary questions, of gaols, of criminal prosecution, or of law, can be taught as you can teach the three R's to a number of Egyptians admitted to a school? Does he believe that you can transfuse the traditions of one race of men to men of another race by the simple process of education in a school? I think it is a chimerical idea to indulge in if he thinks such a result is possible. If you make up your minds to have Egypt administered by Egyptian employés, you must make up your mind to have it administered by Egyptian ideas. You must not complain if, from the point of view of humanity, or from the point of view of liberty, your European ideas are thwarted and affronted at every turn by the course which is taken by the purely Egyptian Administration you are setting up. The noble Earl indicated this policy as though it was a matter of course to which he had assented without very much thought, in a spirit of good nature, with the idea that it was painful to the Egyptians to see Europeans placed over them. I do not deny that some movement in that direction is desirable, or that there is an evil in the undue employment of Europeans.

  841
  But if there is a change of policy, as the noble Earl's words would seem to indicate, I think there are many consequences likely to flow from it for which the mass of the English people are hardly prepared. I should be very glad if some touchstone or test were given to us by which we could know where Egyptian responsibility commences and where English responsibility ends. What is the Egyptian Government? Is it independent, or does it act according to the wishes of the English Government? Are we responsible for what it does, or are we not? Is it absolutely independent? Because, if it is, then, no doubt, all questions in Parliament as to what the Egyptian Government does are superfluous, and even impertinent. But we have seen in the past that the largest questions of policy —even such a question of paramount interest as the choice of a Minister—may be decided in accordance with orders transmitted by telegraph from Downing Street. Are we, with that state of things before us, to believe that the Egyptian Government is independent? If it is not independent, it is no longer answerable for its own acts; someone else is answerable—the Power on which it is dependent is answerable. Somebody must be responsible for what is done. It is the person with whom the power lies; with whom does the power lie—with England or with Egypt; and on whom does the responsibility rest? I do not think this matter is treated with sufficient clearness and freedom from ambiguity by Her Majesty's Government. If they would plainly tell us that the Egyptian Government is independent and can do as it likes, they would put a stop to a world of inconvenient questions; but if they cannot do that, I do not think it becomes them to decline responsibility in the manner in which the noble Earl has declined it.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am really quite relieved by the observation the noble Marquess has made. If there could be some understanding between us as to the Egyptian Question, our respective situations would be perfectly harmonious and not misunderstood. The noble Marquess, whether he qualified it afterwards or not, in his preliminary observation appeared to point to this—that what was desirable in Egypt was that we should take advan-
  842
  tage of the exceptional position we hold there to have a complete English Civil Service commissioned in Egypt.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No!
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess says "No!" But it is a monstrous thing if he thinks that to every junior office in the lowest grade of the Egyptian Civil Service an Englishman should be appointed. I think that is very much what he did argue for. I quite admit, and we have felt from the beginning, that it is an evil, on the one hand, to have a large number of foreigners gradually introduced into all the offices. I am not speaking of Englishmen, Frenchmen, Austrians, and Italians; but there were too large a number of Europeans, exciting very naturally discontent and dissatisfaction on the part of the people of that country. It is not denied by us, or by the Khedive, or by the Government of Egypt, that it is excessively important that some of the offices which depend very much on the sort of experience and knowledge which is obtained in European countries should be filled by Europeans; but to insist that Englishmen are to be put in every small place that can be held is a proposition with regard to which I entirely dissent from the noble Marquess. If the noble Marquess were in the Office which I now have the honour to hold, ho would be aware that almost daily I get piles of applications from every sort of person asking me to give them every sort of place in Egypt, and I entirely decline any responsibility for recommending them at all. What I believe the noble Marquess wants is that we should define our responsibility, and that I can only do in a broad way. We are in an exceptional position; we are in military occupation of that country; and, according to the great rules of policy, while we are there we are certainly responsible to give the best advice, and we have a right to expect that that advice should be taken. But I entirely decline the responsibility of deciding from Downing Street whether a young policeman is to be retained or dismissed from the service of His Highness the Khedive?
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past One o' clock.