Lords Sitting of 30 June 1884

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch), after the death of his father.
Took the Oath for the First Time—The Marquess of Normanby.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading —Indian Marino * (170).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs and Inland Revenue * (147).
Committee—Newcastle Chapter* (130).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (141); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12)* (142); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13)* (143); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) * (136); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (137); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) * (139); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6) * (140).
Report— Secretary for Scotland (157); Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment* (154).
Third Readinq—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (127); National Debt (Conversion of Stock) * (145), and passed.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS— CASE OF R. JOHNSTON v. MARY MCATASNEY AND PATRICK MOAN.

  MOTION TOE PAPERS.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—

  "1. Copy of the shorthand writers' report of the evidence taken before the Irish Land Commission in the cases which cams before the court upon the landlord's application for a rehearing in which R. Johnston was landlord and Mary McAtasney and Patrick Moan were tenants, together with the shorthand writers' report of the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice O'Hagan, and a copy of the order of the court on the said application:

  2. Copy of the reports of the official valuers appointed by the Land Commission in the same cases:

  "3. Copy of the questions which the landlord applied to the Irish Land Commission to have stated in the same cases for the opinion
  1640
  and decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, together with the order of the court refusing the said application:

  "4. Copy of affidavit of H. A. Johnston, dated 28th June 1883, on which an application was made to the court of the Irish Land Commission to have the said cases reconsidered, in pursuance of section 48, subsection 5, Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881:

  '5. Copy, letter of H. A. Johnston to Secretary of the Irish Land Commission, dated 8th September 1883, and the reply thereto, dated 13th September 1883." — (The Lord Castle-town.)

  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  (NO. 157.) REPORT.
  Order of the Day for Report of Amendments to be received, read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to say a few words in reference to the Bill. He did not know whether that was the proper time to give Notice of an Amendment he intended to move on the third reading of the Bill. He had also to apologize to the House for not being present on the clay when the Bill was considered in Committee. The fact was, he had been in Scotland on business; and having mistaken the day on which the Bill was to be taken, he had not got back in time. He had only one word to say in regard to the decisions their Lordships had come to; and that was, that he thought it was a very great mistake to place the appointment of the Supreme Judges, the Judges of the Court of Session, in the hands of the new Secretary. Considering that the Judges in England were appointed by the highest functionaries of State, he thought it would do serious injury to the status of the Scotch Judicial Body, if its Members were named by an official of inferior rank. That being his feeling on the matter, he begged to give Notice that, on the third reading, he would move that the clause which had been amended at the instance of, and on the Motion of, his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery), and which vested all legal patronage in the new Secretary, should be amended by the introduction of the words "with the exception of Judges of the Court of Session."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he also wished to give Notice that, on the third

  1641
  reading of the Bill, he would move that the Bill be read that day three months. He would do that mainly as a matter of form, in order to bring on a general discussion in reference to the objections against the provisions of the Bill.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  THE EARL OF CAMPBEDOWN, in moving an Amendment, to omit from the Schedule of the Bill the words which transfer the management of endowed School education in Scotland from the Committee of Council to the new Secretary, said, he was going to ask their Lordships to omit these words, because he thought he should be able to show their Lordships, in the first place, that the present arrangement had been adopted as the result of experience; and, in the second place, that there was no other system whereby he, at all events, could suggest that Scottish opinion could be better arrived at. For that purpose, he would remind their Lordships of the recent history of endowed education in Scotland. Under the Act of 1878, endowed education was placed virtually in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, in practice, when the schemes came to be dealt with, it was found that the most convenient mode of dealing with them was to refer them to the Education Department; and; therefore, although by law the administration and supervision of these schemes vested in the Secretary of State, in reality they were referred to the Education Department for advice; and the advice of the Department was in almost every case adopted. It was quite clear that that arrangement was made because it was found convenient in practice. In 1882, when a new Bill was brought in to deal with the whole subject, the entire matter was handed over from the Secretary of State to the Privy Council; and under the provisions of that Act the Commission was appointed which had worked up to the present time under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour). This system was working, he believed, perfectly well and with general satisfaction, and appeared to him to call to its assistance a body composed of the most eminent Scotsmen that were to be found. The complaint made was, that they did not arrive, by the present system, at what Scottish opinion really was;. but the Commis-
  1642
  sioners included, in addition to the noble Lord opposite, a noble Baron who was not now present, Lord Elgin, Lord Shand, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, he thought, also, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, and there were one or two other Commissioners. The schemes were prepared by them, and were all forwarded to the Privy Council, and, in. the ordinary course of business, they passed through the Education Department. The present permanent head of the Department was a very eminent Scottish official—Mr. Cumin—and there were also under him other able Scottish officials in the Department. Prom them the schemes passed on to the Scottish Committee of the Privy Council. He was not quite well aware who were the Members of that Committee; but, among others, his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) was one, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) was another; Mr. Baxter was also a Member, and the Lord Advocate was a Member ex officio. He believed there were other Members, and did not know whether the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) was one of them; but he had said enough to show their Lordships that those names were a sufficient guarantee that eminent Scotsmen, holding very different opinions, had the opportunity of seeing all these schemes, if the present system of administration was properly worked. Therefore, always provided that the Committee was duly called together, and that the schemes were submitted to the Committee as they ought to be, he did not know, and could not suggest, any system, whereby one could be more likely to arrive at what Scottish opinion on any subject connected with educational endowments was. Then, what was the system proposed to be substituted? It was proposed to put in the place of the Scottish Committee the new Secretary for Scotland. But that Secretary would almost be necessarily a Member of the Scottish Committee. Therefore, the proposal came to this — to substitute for the Committee which he had named one Member of the Committee, and to place the control of endowed education entirely in his hands. He was sure that the most excellent choice would be made for this Secretaryship; but, at the same time, he could not perceive how it could be more conducive to the elucidation of what was

  1643
  really Scottish opinion to place one man in control of endowed education, rather than to leave it as at present. There would be practical inconvenience in the working of the system now proposed. He had said the other day, when they were talking with respect to the transfer of Scottish education altogether to the new Secretary, that, from the best interpretation he could put on the Bill, that Secretary would require to have an educational establishment down in Edinburgh. He was told, however, that that would not be the case. If so, it seemed to him that one or two things must happen—either that the Secretary must have some small educational establishment of his own in London, or should have under his control, for the purposes of endowed education, some of the officials of the present Education Department. He could not help thinking there would be considerable practical inconvenience in the working of a system of that sort. He did not wish to put the matter on too high grounds; but it certainly seemed to him that the present arrangement was in every way better than that which it was proposed to substitute for it. It had been remarked the other evening by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) that neither he (the Earl of Camperdown) nor the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) represented Scotch opinion upon this point. Well, he did not in the least profess to represent Scottish opinion. He could not speak as to what Scottish opinion might be; he could only say what he himself thought; hut he very much doubted whether the details of the scheme had really been put before the people of Scotland, and he thought it was very desirable that all the Bodies —the Commissioners of Burghs and others—who had passed resolutions with reference to this subject, should really have these details before them, and should really understand what the change was. Their Lordships, moreover, should remember that, if they retained these words in the Schedule of the Bill, they would, after all, be plating only half, and a very small half, of the education of Scotland in the hands of the Secretary. The other night it had been argued, and, he thought, very fairly indeed, by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour), that he was quite content to accept this issue—that either all
  1644
  Scottish education should be put in the hands of the Scottish Secretary, or none of it; and, for himself, he could not understand how it would be more conducive to the elucidation of Scotch opinion to have one Scotchman in charge of the endowed schools, instead of five or six. Their Lordships had decided, the other night, that elementary education should not be placed in the new Secretary's hands; and, that being so, it appeared to him that it would be very much better to retain also the endowed education in the hands of those who were at present conducting it—namely, the Privy Council. He would now move an Amendment to that effect.
  Schedule, Part II., page 4, moved to leave out ("Educational Endowments, 45 and 46 Viet. c. 59, except Section 32.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that his own feeling had always been that, if a Scotch Department of Administration was to be created at all in England, having its headquarters in London, and superseding, or at least over-riding and over-ruling, all the various Bodies in Scotland—supposing, he said, that it was the wish of the Scotch people that such a Department should be created, he had always felt that education, above all other subjects, was one of the things that ought to be entrusted to that Department. The Scottish system of education was much older than the English; and it was regulated on different principles; and, for his part, he rather regretted that the principles of the English administration of education should have been introduced in Scotland; but that had gone to a very considerable extent, and he was afraid it could not now be undone. If a satisfactory Deportment was really to be created in London for Scottish affairs, his voice would certainly be in favour of giving it to the administration of primary and secondary education as a whole. But, then, their Lordships, he understood, had decided by a considerable majority that, for the present, primary education ought not to he entrusted to that Body; at all events, until they saw how the new Department worked. He could, therefore, quite understand the objection of those who said that as primary education was not to be transferred, secondary education

  1645
  ought not to be transferred either. He believed that the present administration of the Department in London, as regarded endowed schools, was very well conducted; and they had had the advantage, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) had said, of very able officials. They lately had the advantage of the services of Sir Francis Sandford, and they now had the advantage, not less valuable, of Mr. Cumin, to whom they were much indebted; and if education was removed to the new Department, those permanent officials should be connected with it. His noble Friend had alluded to one matter on which he did not think the noble Earl himself knew the working of the present administration—namely, the Scottish Committee on Education. It was perfectly true that he (the Duke of Argyll) and some other Members of the Scottish Peerage and some Members of the House of Commons were Members of that Committee; but those who were acquainted with the working of that Body knew that they were very seldom called together—they very seldom met. He did not think he had attended it for a very long time, and practically the administration fell into the hands of the ordinary Committee of the Privy Council and the permanent officials. He had nothing, however, to complain of in that matter. He did not know any evil that arose from the present administration; and, if any important question should arise, he had no doubt the Committee would actually assemble, and give their opinion; but as regards the practical and daily administration of the Education Department, the Scottish Committee was a non-existent Body. Personally, he should be disposed to say that the two branches of education should go together; and, as the House had already decided that elementary education was not to be committed to the new Secretary, he would agree that the words which the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) proposed to omit should be struck out of the Bill.
  THE EARL OP DALHOUSIEsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment was supported by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), because he would be glad if both classes of education were transferred to the new Secretary; whereas the noble Lord opposite (Lord
  1646
  Balfour), who had raised the question the other night, in the debate in Committee, advocated the striking out of secondary education, on the ground that he was anxious neither should be transferred. Their Lordships ought to remember, however, that this was a tentative measure; and if the question of transferring the whole education was, as it seemed likely, to come before their Lordships again, surely it was better that some step of a tentative character should be embodied in the Bill. He had explained in Committee the considerations which influenced the Government to place the educational endowments in the Schedule of the Bill. The desirability, he thought, of making some experiment in order to see how the new Department would be able to work educational matters was a clear justification of the course adopted by the Government in placing the educational endowments in the hands of the new Secretary.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not consent to passing a Bill which had in it, as the Schedule now stood, the transfer of the working of the Educational Endowments Act to the new Secretary, and leaving out of it the working of elementary education. He had said on different occasions, and would say again, that, however opinions might be divided on the general question, he did not believe that there were a dozen persons who were in favour of having the administration of general elementary education and the administration of the educational endowments separated the one from the other; and further than that, he had heard no reason given in that House by the Government, or anybody else within or out of the House, for making the separation. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) thought it would be desirable that an experiment should be made, to see how the new Secretary would deal with education. All he (Lord Balfour) had to say in reply to that was, that he rather objected to the Commission being made the corpus vile on which the experiments were to be tried. He thought he would have the sympathy of their Lordships when he said that, as the Commission of which he happened to be Chairman had been at work for about 18 or 20 months, they were at that stage when the first of their work was just coming before the Education Department, and would

  1647
  shortly be before Parliament. It would obviously be very inconvenient, if it had now to be submitted to the new Department; in fact, it was the most inconvenient time at which such a transfer could be made, They had established a modus vivendi of a most satisfactory kind with the Scottish Education Department; and he should be extremely sorry if they had all that work to go through again with the now Secretary, when he, perhaps, would take a different view of certain matters from that which the Department had taken, and the whole matter would have to be re-discussed. Upon that ground, he should deprecate the proposed transference at this time, especially as it was in the nature of an experiment, for which he could see no reason whatever. He did not wish it to be thought that the Commission had any dread or dislike of being under the new Secretary per se. The point on which he wished to found his plea was, that the separation of the two branches of education was in itself so inconvenient a thing, that it could not possibly be satisfactory, and would not, he believed, be approved of in Scotland. It would introduce a dual control of a most unfortunate kind. The real reason why some noble Lords wished this line retained in the Schedule was, that it might be a lever for hereafter getting the whole of education transferred to the new Office. He wished that matter to stand or fall entirely on its own merits. If elementary education had been transferred he would not have said another word in the matter, neither should he have dreamt of putting down an Amendment on the Paper; for he should have regarded the one decision as ruling the other. The noble Lords opposite had, in Committee, used as their most powerful argument in favour of transferring elementary education the fact that educational endowments were in the Schedule; but the decision of the Committee having gone against them, he really hoped that those who had supported it would not abandon the position that it was necessary for the two things to be transferred or not together. If it should really be the case, as the noble Earl who represented the Government seemed to imply, that they should hear of this matter again, he hoped they should hear of it as a whole. If the Amendment were pressed to a Division, he should support it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he entirely agreed with everything that had just fallen from his noble Friend behind him (Lord Balfour). He was very much astonished to hear the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) say that it was a tentative measure. What did the Government mean by a tentative measure? It would be satisfactory to their Lordships to know how long they were to be occupied in experiments; how long they were to be kept in suspense, before they knew whether a Secretary for Scotland was to be one of the institutions of the country. The noble Earl might have told them whether the Bill was to last three, five, or seven years; and whether, at the end of that time, the Act would come before the House; and whether, if the Secretary for Scotland had not acted in a manner that was very satisfactory, his Office would then be abolished. To transfer the management of endowed schools to the Secretary for Scotland would be exactly undoing what Her Majesty's present Government set up in 1882, when the Commission of which his noble Friend was Chairman was appointed. In that year, the endowed schools were placed in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and were after wards handed back to the Privy Council, because it was found the Home Department could not deal with them. The Education. Department at present dealt with all the endowed schools of £50 and under, and the endowed schools of that class were very intimately connected with primary education in Scotland. Therefore, the Education Department, who were charged with carrying out the primary education in Scotland, were the very body best able to deal with such endowed schools. If the Scottish Education Committee in London did not meet too frequently, that was the fault of the Lord President of the Council, and not of the Scottish Education Department. He would not say that it did not meet as often as it should. The mere ordinary details which went through the routine of the Office did not require any very great consideration, and did not require the meeting of any Committee. The proposal of this tentative Bill was to take all these matters out of the hands of the Privy Council, and out of the hands of the Scottish Education Department, and place it in

  1649
  the hands of one man, who might or might not know anything about the subject. In the interests of education in Scotland he protested against such a proposal; and therefore he should, with the greatest pleasure, support his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Camper-down) in keeping the endowed school system under the present Education Committee and the Privy Council Office.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the course of the debate had led to some remarks being made which he thought it was duo to his side of the House that they should take notice of. In the first place, he wished to state that, inadequate as their arguments on that side of the House might have been, they preferred them as stated by themselves, rather than as represented by his noble Friend who spoke last but one (Lord Balfour). He did not recollect that anyone—or, at most, there was only one— on that side of the House, who used the argument that the Scottish endowments and the system of Scottish primary education were absolutely inseparable. If there was any exception to that statement, there was not more than one. But passing from that, because the question of who used the argument was a very small one, he would wish to allude to another remark that fell from his noble Friend, which was, that they ought not to make this transference, because the noble Lord was Chairman of the Commission on Endowed Schools, that it had been sitting for 20 months, and that it was at the most interesting period of gestation, and that, under these circumstances, it would be a great misfortune to Scottish education generally, if the relations, so advantageous and cordial on both sides, between the Commission and the Education Department were separated. He attributed the less weight to that argument, because he recollected the circumstances which led to the appointment of that Commission, and he thought the appointment was about coeval with the separation of endowments from the Home Department. What had then taken place showed very conclusively that the difficulty of separating primary education and endowments was not so very great as it was now represented to be; because, if they were separated departmentally up to two years ago without any very serious consequences, he did not see
  1650
  that the interregnum, of two years made an absolute and impassable gulf between the present and the past. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had said the endowed schools were taken out of the hands of the Home Department, because the latter was incapable of dealing with them. His (the Earl of Rosebery's) recollection of the transaction, however, was that these endowments were separated from the Home Office, not because the Secretary of State found himself unable to deal with them, but because the Home Office had lately been overcrowded with work. If up to two years ago these endowments were in the hands of the Home Department with excellent effects on both sides, there did not seem, to be much reason, when they were forming a sort of new Home Department for Scotland, why they should not transfer the endowments in Scotland to its charge. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said that he would be inclined to support the Amendment, because he did not very well see how primary and secondary education could be separated in Scotland; and he added that, as the question of primary education had been settled by a very large majority, he, for one, did not feel inclined to support the clause as it stood. It was, no doubt, a large relative majority; but the numbers who took part in it were not such as to settle absolutely a large national question. The figures, he thought, were 37 to 18. He could not believe that Scotland or "the other place" would accept that decision as one either representing the opinion of their Lordships, or the feeling of the country at large. He inclined to think that if the battalions who were usually ranged behind the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had been present when he gave his vote in reference to the question of elementary education, the decision would have been much more conclusive the other way. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had argued that the Bill ought not to be described as a tentative Bill, and that was the only remark he (the Earl of Rosebery) wished to take notice of in concluding, because his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) had not the right of reply. He (the Earl of Rosebery) took it for granted that the Bill was tentative, in-

  1651
  asmuch as it was an experiment in the formation of a Department; and the Government wished to confine the experiment in this matter of education, because they wished to see how that matter would work. That was the ordinary meaning of the word tentative, and he did not see what objection could be taken to it. He hoped that the Government, though they did not seem to have much promise of success in the Division after what had fallen from both sides of the House, would adhere to the proposal in the Bill, because he knew that the whole question of education would be raised "elsewhere," and it would strengthen the hands of those who wished to enlarge the basis of this Office.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) in wishing to enlarge the basis of the new Office, because its success would much depend on that object being carried out; but when they came to details, he did not think that educational endowments and elementary education could be separated from each other. If the House chose to reverse the decision come to the other night, he should be perfectly willing to join the two subjects; but, it being the decision of the House that the management of elementary education was to remain where it was now, he thought educational endowments ought to be in the same position, and that the two ought not to be separated.
  LORD NORTON, in supporting the Amendment, said, it had been stated that the Government wished to try how far a transference of Scotch Business to the new Office would work, and they had selected education for the purpose of that trial. He should have thought any other subject would have been better than education for experiment. In the recent Report of the Commission on Industrial Schools the disadvantage of separating some schools to a non-educational Department was noted. Education was the most special of all subjects, and one with which it was least in the public interest to make experiments in a variety of Departments. It was desirable to make endowed schools for the middle classes separate from elementary schools; but there was no more reason to put any of the schools in Scotland under the Home Department than
  1652
  under the Foreign or any other Department. Under the plan provided by the Bill, moreover, two sots of Inspectors would be required, and a different standard of education introduced.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that this appeared to be essentially a subject on which the wishes of all Scotland ought to be considered. Although it did appear, from the conversation which had taken place, that there was some difference of Scottish opinion, yet he knew that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in framing the Bill, took immense pains to ascertain, not only the opinion of the Scottish Peers, but also the opinions of the Scottish Members on this subject, and the great majority were decidedly in favour of the Schedule as it stood.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he thought there was ample evidence that the public of Scotland were in favour of the separation of education from English control; and he did not believe that public opinion would approve of the management of educational endowments and of primary education being separated. He should vote for the maintenance of educational endowments as contained in the Schedule of the Bill.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 55; Not-Contents 38: Majority 17.

  CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bradford, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Cadogan, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bagot, L.

  [Teller.]

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  [Teller.]

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

  Borthwick, L.

  Boston, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lathom, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Digby, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Donington, L,

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.,

  Milltown, E.

  Morton, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Powis, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  1653

  Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.

  Norton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Shute, L, (V. Barrington.)

  Ventry, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Long ford

  Wemyss.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.-)

  Churchill, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick

  Grafton, D.

  Marlborough, D.

  Greville, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Normanby, M.

  Monson, L. [Teller]

  Oxenfoord, L. (E Stair.)

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie

  Kimberley, E.

  Minto, E.

  Reay, L.

  Morley, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rose bery.)

  Sydney, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Abinger, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Braye, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Wrottesley, L

  Amendment agreed, to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday the 8th of July next.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)—ANGRA PEQUENA.

  QUESTIONS. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising—(1) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as stated in the public prints, that a telegraphic despatch of his with reference to Angra Pequena has been communicated to the German Parliament by Prince Bismarck, and, if such should be the case, whether he will lay that despatch and others that have been made public on the Table of this House; (2) to move for a despatch or report addressed by the commanding officer of H. M. S. Valorous, a few years ago, to the Admiralty on the same subject; and, (3) to move for a, letter addressed by a mercantile house in the Cape Colony to the Colonial Office in
  1654
  July 1883, on the same subject; with the Secretary of State's answer to that document, said, that, years ago, the English flag had been hoisted on the islands close to Angra Pequena, and those islands had been granted to a firm of British merchants by the Crown. The territory on the mainland was purchased by the same firm from a duly-accredited Chief, who acted not for himself alone, but for others also. The head of the house, as he was informed, had sunk £30,000 in making improvements and putting up buildings. The firm had resigned property in Table Bay to the Cape Government entirely on the ground that they were to be allowed undisputed right to those islands. The islands were not really outside the harbour. There were one or two of them so near the mainland that at low water you could actually walk across. He was informed that H.M.S. Valorous visited the place some time ago, that formal possession was taken of the harbour, and that a Board which was set up claiming the territory was still there. About 15 months ago German settlers arrived in considerable numbers; they built a kind of fort, on which they placed cannon; and, finding that the British Government took no notice, they applied to Prince Bismarck, who they could not but admit had acted in a way in which many of them would wish our own Government should act. Immediately Germany discovered this country had no jurisdiction, the protection of that country was extended to the Colony. He was sorry that the protection of the Home Government had not been afforded to British subjects there in the manner which they had a right to expect.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of a letter addressed by a mercantile house in the Cape Colony to the Colonial Office in July 1883, with reference to Angra Pequena, with the Secretary of State's answer to that document." — (The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he believed the noble Viscount had put a Question on this subject to his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), who had replied to that part of the Question relating to the visit of a British ship to the Colony; and, if he remembered rightly, he put the same Question to himself a few days ago. He then gave reasons why he

  1655
  could not accede to the noble Viscount's Motion.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty had reference to the visit of H.M.S. Boadicea in the autumn of last year. His present Question referred to the Valorous, which was there some years ago, and to the Report of the commanding officer of that vessel.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he must ask the noble Viscount to postpone that part of the Question. In answer to the first part, he might say that he had sent no telegraphic despatch such as the noble Viscount had described; but there was little doubt that the German Embassy did send a despatch, recording the result of the communications which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the German Embassy. The result of those communications gave every reason to hope that the question was likely to be settled, which, at one time, seemed calculated to lead to considerable friction. Her Majesty's Government, after considering the whole circumstances of the case, and after considering the statements of the German Government, and more especially with regard to the declarations made some years ago by the Government as to the limits of the Cape Colony, came to the conclusion that it was not possible nor desirable for them to oppose the protection of the German Empire being extended to German subjects having establishments in Angra Pequena. Her Majesty's Government would be ready to give a formal recognition to that protection after an agreement was come to which, he had no doubt, would secure all acquired rights, would prevent any chance of a convict establishment being founded there, and would secure the interests of British subjects, whether they had had concessions from the Native Chiefs, or whether they were Englishmen trading in those parts. As to the confines of the Colony, there was no doubt that, with regard to Wallfisch Bay, which was at some distance from Angra Pequena, and also with regard to the adjacent islands, they were British.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he hoped the Government understood the importance of the subject. He would point out that these islands were practically part of the mainland, being attached to
  1656
  it at low water. There was a very valuable property involved in the possession of the islands, for they were covered with guano; and if the Germans got possession of them, they might exclude us.
  THE EARL or DERBY, in answer to the third part of the Question of the noble Viscount, said he had no objection to lay on the Table the letter referred to. He presumed that the noble Viscount wished it to be produced with the rest of the Correspondence relating to the same subject when it was complete.
  Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)— P. P. No. 22 (1884).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to call attention to Parliamentary Paper, "Egypt, No. 22, 1884;" and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs especially as to the meaning of the first two lines of his Despatch (which comprises the whole of that Parliamentary Paper), viz., the "words—
  "As the original plan for the evacuation of the Soudan has been dropped, and as aggressive operations cannot be undertaken with the countenance of Her Majesty's Government," &c.;
  also whether any explanation can be given why this Parliamentary Paper, which appeared in the newspapers on the 12th instant, was not delivered to Members of this House until the 17th instant? said, he would recall to the minds of their Lordships the massacres of Sinkat and Tokar, and would point out that it was after those two events that aggressive operations were undertaken at the bidding of the Government. In January, when they had no policy of their own, the Government invited General Gordon to come and advise with them as to what their policy should be. The policy advocated by General Gordon was that he should be sent out to the Soudan in order to determine what should be done. The Government accordingly sent General Gordon out to the Soudan in order to create a policy for them. Turning to the Memorandum written by General Gordon, while on his way to Egypt, a document which he thought had not been sufficiently considered by either House of Parliament, he pointed out what it was that General Gordon

  1657
  undertook, how Be was aware of the difficulties which faced him, and how he proposed to encounter them. He would call their Lordships' attention to various passages in that Memorandum, and would particularly emphasize as being worthy of notice the passage in that document referring to the arrangement for the evacuation of the Soudan, the measures to be taken for the safe removal of the Egyptian employés and troops, and to General Gordon's opinion that it would be advisable to postpone any decision in the matter until such time as the inhabitants made known their own opinion in respect to the towns of Kassala, Khartoum, and Dongola. The Government, he thought, practically admitted that they had no policy of their own in Egypt until they sent out General Gordon, who was appointed Governor General of the Soudan by the Khedive under their special approbation. The question then came to be, What was he to do—what was the plan for the evacuation of the Soudan which had received the approbation of the Government, and which he was trying to carry out? After the massacres of Sinkat and Tokar, the Government thought it necessary to take active operations by sending a joint military and naval force to the Red Sea littoral. When General Gordon was asked for an opinion on the subject of attacking the forces of Osman Digna, there was only one answer which could be expected from a man like him. He had undertaken a mission single-handed, and when he had left the country he wrote and warned the Government, three times, that he did not expect to be able to execute hi a pacific mission to evacuate the garrisons of the Soudan without fighting. Then he received, either at Abu Hamad or Berber, a telegram from the Government asking whether he would approve their pursuing offensive operations on the Red Sea littoral. When asked whether he approved of these operations, General Gordon said "Yes" at once; and his natural idea, no doubt, was that the Government were prepared to send an organized force from Suakin to Berber. It would have been a wise step to have sent a Cavalry force from Suakin to Berber after the Battle of Tamanieb. That alone would, in General Gordon's own words, have "smashed the Mahdi." The Government, however, were not
  1658
  ready to follow up the advantage they had gained by a desert march of Cavalry, and thus insure the release of the garrisons, which, in. the words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was the grand object of Gordon's pacific mission. They were now told that the original plan of the evacuation of the Soudan had been dropped. What was the meaning of that? Did it mean that the Government were now going to leave the garrisons entirely to themselves, and were even going to drop General Gordon? The fact was, throughout all these operations in the Soudan, the Government had had no policy at all. At the beginning of the Session he (the Earl of Galloway) had heard Sir Wilfrid Lawson describe the policy of the Government as one to be summed up in the words "rescue and retire "—a definition which the Prime Minister accepted. The rescue had not yet taken place. Was it the meaning of this despatch that the Government intended to retire without rescuing? The House had a right to demand an explanation. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he should confine to a small compass the few remarks that he desired to make; first of all, because it would be difficult to go at any length into the different points on which he should like to obtain information, without trenching to a considerable extent on the important debate which would to-morrow take place in their Lordships' House; and, secondly, because, although he expected an amiable and kind reply from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), he scarcely hoped for much definite information. The object of the Question which he had placed on the Paper was more particularly to point out a very important portion of the subject-matter of the coming debate, around which there was much doubt. He desired to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it would be possible, without prejudice to the deliberations of the Conference, for Her Majesty's Government to give any indication of the provisions they are prepared to recommend during the proposed three years' military occupation of Egypt for meeting the additional expense which maybe incurred in the event of military

  1659
  operations being undertaken to protect Upper Egypt from the advance of a hostile force under the Mahdi or any of his adherents? In the Correspondence which was lately laid before Parliament there were statements which, judging by the interpretation put upon them in the House of Commons and in the French Chamber, were by no means clear. There appeared to be two interpretations given by the two different Ministries. Nothing, for instance, showed this more clearly than those statements respecting the military occupation, which, as he had said, would form a very important portion of the subject-matter of the debate tomorrow. As regarded it, the Prime Minister's interpretation was in the form of a negative, while that of M. Ferry was in the form of an affirmative. M. Ferry said there was a positive engagement to retire at a certain date. Mr. Gladstone said there was nil engagement to retire only if culled upon to do so by the Powers. There appeared to be a great difference between these statements; and this showed that there was much doubt as to the meaning of certain passages which occurred in these Papers, and which should be made clear before the debate took place. They were, after all, only dry bones without flesh upon them—the résumé, in diplomatic language, of conversations that occurred between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and M. Waddington. To his mind it was an extremely regrettable fact that Her Majesty's Government had not taken Parliament and the country into their confidence, because it was perfectly impossible to judge of the proceedings of the Conference until they were in possession of this information. No subject in all these despatches was, it appeared to him, of so much importance as the financial question. In a letter, written by the noble Earl, to M. Waddington, on the 16th of June, it was stated that the Commissioners of the Dette Publique would be empowered to veto any proposed expenditure which would cause an excess on the Budget, except in certain circumstances of emergency involving "peril to peace and order." Supposing that during the next three years, while British troops still occupied the country, Egypt was invaded by the Mahdi or any of his followers, and the Government were forced to send an expedition, to Egypt of
  1660
  10,000 men, and to carry on a war at a great distance and at enormous expense, either the English or the Egyptian Exchequer would probably have to meet an expenditure of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, what provision did the proposals of the Government make for such a contingency? The arrangements with regard to France and with regard to the occupation were all practically minor points; but what they all turned upon was the financial question; and it was extremely important, not only in the interests of the country, but also in the interests of the Government, to put the House in a position of knowing something of the plans likely to be adopted. It was something like a public scandal that a formal statement of the arrangements between the Governments of this country and France had appeared in the daily Press; and he challenged the noble Earl to deny that it represented textually that arrangement. As an independent Member of their Lordships' House, he approached the subject with an open mind. He was himself perfectly prepared to be converted to anything, either by the late, or by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but his present wish was rather to be convinced by the noble Earl; but he must have something upon which he could form a judgment, as he could not go blindly into the Lobby and vote in favour of the Government. He should not say anything as to the merits of the financial proposal to be made; but the point he wished to arrive at was whether it had been arranged that there should be a stable and secure arrangement which should not be altered, and he thought it extremely unfortunate, in that view, that the debate should take place to-morrow without full information being in possession of the House. At the present time, the Government were not only making themselves responsible for the good government of Egypt, but also for the credit of Egypt. If not, they were doing infinite harm to that country. All he wished to ask the noble Earl was, whether, in the attempts which he had, no doubt successfully, made to arrive at an understanding with the Powers, he had considered the important matter of the exterior troubles to which he was exposed? As the Government were prepared to occupy Egypt for three years, during' those three years they might be

  1661
  responsible for £2,000,000; and he therefore wished to ask the noble Earl, what financial arrangements he intended to make to meet such a contingency; or whether the burden would fall upon the taxpayers of this country?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, with regard to the Question of the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), I really do not think I have any reason to complain of anything he said in the short preface he made. He gave Notice of asking a Question on a very important matter—a matter which, I am glad to say, has been considered by the Government; for it would have been wrong if they had not done so; but at the same time, both from the words of his Notice and still more from what he has let fall in his speech, he does not expect it is likely I can give premature and somewhat piecemeal information with regard to the financial question which will be discussed by the Conference. There is one other point upon which I agree very much with the noble Duke, and which is, that it is not a very desirable thing for the public service that this House, or any other House, should discuss matters without a complete knowledge of the whole of the subject. But then there are two ways of dealing with that—either that the Government should be bound, contrary to all diplomatic usage, at the outset of a Conference announced to all the world, to show their cards on the matters to be discussed in that Conference; or whether the House should have a little patience and wait until they can properly-—as it has been pledged that they shall—discuss the whole subject. I do not think, even upon that point, there is much disagreement between the noble Duke and myself. With regard to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway), I listened with both my rather indifferent ears as much as I could, but, unfortunately, without much success, because there was such a buzz of conversation during the whole time— apparently from some information that had reached your Lordships—that I had great difficulty in following him generally so as to understand what he said. I shall therefore confine myself to answering the two Questions he has put to me. One is as to the original plan for the evacuation of the Soudan being dropped. Now, if the noble Earl will merely refer back to the instructions
  1662
  which were given, he will see that General Gordon was sent out merely on a mission to report from Suakin as to the best mode of evacuation.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Prom Suakin?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; but on arriving in Egypt he was requested to go to Cairo, where, after conference with Sir Evelyn Baring and the Egyptian Government, his final instructions were given by Sir Evelyn Baring, which subsequently received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government and in which General Gordon entirely agreed. So far those were operations in the Soudan with which Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed; but when it became a question of making Zebehr Ruler of the Soudan, and of sending an expedition to crush the Mahdi, it was quite clear the first plan must be abandoned. General Gordon was the means of enabling some 2,000 people to come from Khartoum, and arrive safely in Egypt; and I have no doubt that the effect of his name and reputation produced at Khartoum a very considerable check to the advance of the Mahdi. As regards the complaint respecting the delivery of Parliamentary Papers, I am always most anxious that they should be presented as soon as possible; but in the case referred to by the noble Duke, it appears that your Lordships' House having risen for four days, the messengers did not distribute them in the interval. I think the dates will show that they were sent round on Monday, the 16th of May; and that, if Peers were not in London to receive them, they were sent by post on the evening of the 17th. I hope the answers which I have given will be satisfactory.

  INDIAN MARINE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the regulation of Her Majesty's Indian Marine Service—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 170.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.