Lords Sitting of 15 February 1884

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Talbot de Malahide, after the death of his father.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders Committee, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Intestates Estates * (6); Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts)* (7); Matrimonial Causes * (8).

POLICE—AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether any addition is to be made to the police in consequence of the number placed in charge of public buildings? The noble Lord said he put this Question now, though he intended to ask it on the first night of the Session, in consequence of a large number of constables being in charge, or having the custody of, public buildings; and he also asked it because, during the last year or two, as he understood, not only Judges in Ireland, but some in England, had to be guarded by the police, and also some of the Members of Her Majesty's Government. Now, as so many men were thus taken from the service of the public generally and the ratepayers, and from their ordinary duties of protecting the public, he wanted to know whether any addition had been made to the force? Surely, something ought to be done in that direction.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, there was no intention of increasing the police force, since a large number had been added last year for the purpose referred to.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked how many? He did not want the noble Earl to tell him the number of the
  996
  police—that might not be prudent—but only to say how many had been added.
  [No reply.]

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE TELEGRAMS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK, in asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the particulars of the telegrams and other documents which he read to the House on Tuesday last? said, that yesterday he was unable to put a Question to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) because he did not come down before half-past 4. What he wished in the Notice he gave was, not the Papers which had been published that day, and to which the noble Earl referred on Tuesday night, but certain telegrams quoted by the noble Earl, and more especially the one from Sir William Hewett and Sir Evelyn Baring, and his reply. He did not speak of what was called "a private telegram," though he was not aware that that was a distinction which was usually made. He wished also to know whether they could have the telegram with reference to Tokar and Sinkat, and also the telegram sent to General Gordon with respect to the relief of Tokar; whether in that telegram he was informed of the fall of Sinkat; or whether he knew of it before sending his reply, and whether they could have that reply?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I would certainly have come down to the House 10 minutes earlier last night, if the noble Viscount had given me Notice of his Question when I met him riding in the morning, or if he had sent me a note in the morning, telling me he intended to complain of my conduct. I observe that the noble Viscount said yesterday that I was quite right to quote despatches which had not been printed, but that it was unfair——
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKexplained that what he said was that the noble Earl was right in quoting the despatches; but that he was acting unfairly towards the Opposition by not producing them.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It could not be unfair to anyone else. I have been somewhat longer in the House than the

  997
  noble Viscount, and nothing is more usual than for a Minister to refer to despatches which have not been printed. Of course, he is bound to produce them if they are moved for by the Opposition. If it were not so, and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) were to ask me Questions, I should frequently be unable to answer him. Suppose, in this case, I had been interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition and asked for information, would it have been right to withhold that information because the Papers which have been printed do not come down to that date? As your Lordships are aware, I am in the habit—and a bad habit, perhaps, it is—of generally addressing the House without notes; but, on this occasion, I used notes in two parts of my speech. One was when I gave the analysis of the events up to the 18th of January. I am not quite sure, but I think all the despatches on which that analysis was founded are included in the Blue Books which are in your Lordships' hands. As to the other notes, I had seen that afternoon a telegram about to be despatched by my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook); and as he was not able to be in the House, and I thought the House might like to know what orders had been sent as to the filling up of the garrison at Suakim, my noble Friend was good enough to give me a memorandum, which I read to the House. I have consulted him on the subject, and he has no objection to the despatch from which it was prepared being laid on the Table; but he objects, on the ground that it would be a bad precedent, to produce the private letter which was sent from Sir William Hewett to the Admiralty. This, however, we can say—that we sent out a larger force than the Admiral suggested. In the same way, I would refer to the private letters of General Gordon and Sir Evelyn Baring. I also quoted from a long telegram from the military commander, which I had not seen until it was put into my hands. That, also, I will put on the Table to-night. I believe I have nothing to add, except to say that all the communications between General Gordon and ourselves with respect to the operations at Suakim will be in the hands of your Lordships to-morrow, and then you will have everything we know.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the answer of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) was perfectly satisfactory. He did not give Notice of his Question yesterday for this reason—he came down to the House confidently expecting to find the Papers, and not finding them he put the Question.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that, in connection with this Egyptian service, he wished to mention a matter which was the subject of some complaint, and justly so, in the Army—namely, sending out officers from the headquarters staff in London to fill high positions in the Expedition now ordered to the Soudan. The whole force was to be furnished from the garrison of Egypt; the service was altogether on Egyptian territory; and it was only reasonable that the officers serving on the spot should have the privilege of commanding their own men.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  D. Somerset.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Winchester.

  V. Halifax

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Clinton.

  M. Bath.

  L. Saye and Sele.

  Ld. Steward.

  L. Balfour of Burley.

  E. Devon.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  B. Carnarvon.

  L. Boyle.

  E. Cadogan.

  L. Monson.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Digby.

  E. Chichester,

  L. Carrington.

  E. Powis.

  L. Hopetoun.

  E. Verulam.

  E. Colchester.

  E. Morley.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. De Tabley.

  E. Amherst.

  L. Sudeley.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Belper.

  E. Lathom.

  L. Ebury.

  V. Hawarden.

  L. Hartismere.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Penrhyn.

  V. Hardinge.

  L. Wolverton.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  All Petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall he presented during the present Session referred to the Standing Orders Committee unless otherwise ordered.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.