Lords Sitting of 27 May 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Metropolitan Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) * (113).
Committee—Report—Commons Regulation Provisional Order* (100).
Third Reading— Settled Land* (52), and passed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CON FIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess."
NAVY — ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS — ADMIRAL SIR THOMAS SYMONDS'S LETTER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that the period served by assistant paymasters of the Royal Navy prior to promotion to the rank of paymaster, which has increased from ten years in 1870 to fifteen and a-half years in 1884, and which appears likely to be further prolonged, is the result of the entry in past years of too large a number of these officers; whether, under the present rules for counting service, these officers are not only suffering by being kept an inordinate time in the junior rank, but that also the later and greater portion of such service is absolutely
  1436
  valueless for increase of full pay or retirement until eleven years have been served as paymasters; and whether he will cause the present rules to be inquired into with a view to ascertain if the alleged grievance, which affects engineers as well as assistant paymasters, can be remedied; also whether he will cause to be printed and laid on the Table Copies of the following Correspondence:—A letter from Admiral of the Fleet Sir Thos. M. Symonds, G.C.B., to the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated 29th April, 1884; a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty in acknowledgment of the above, dated 2nd May; a letter from Sir Thos. Symonds to the Secretary to the Admiralty, dated 5th May, and a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty acknowledging the above, dated 9th May? The noble Viscount said, he had moved for the letters referred to in his Question because they had been noticed in "another place;" and he hoped the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty would regard them, to a certain extent, as public property. Sir Thomas Symonds had distinguished himself in every department of the Naval Service, and any expression of opinion on his part deserved very serious consideration, although he might not always write in a manner which was agreeable to those in authority. He asked the noble Earl to lay the Correspondence on the Table in the interests of the Service and for the information of the general public.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The promotion of assistant paymasters is at the present time slower than I could wish on account of the number of entries having been too great many years ago. The Secretary to the Admiralty has stated, in "another place," that an inquiry will be made into what is termed the "eleven years' rule," with a view to its modification, if this can be done without any serious expenditure of public money. There is no objection to the production of Correspondence between Sir Thomas Symonds and the Admiralty. Sir Thomas Symonds is a very distinguished naval officer, and also a very keen critic of the Admiralty, not so much of the present Board as of their Predecessors, who, in his opinion, did not lay down a sufficient number of ships of war. Sir Thomas Symonds has lately made a comparison between the

  1437
  French and English Naval Estimates, a work which was naturally not so congenial to him as commanding a fleet he has since admitted that his comparison was erroneous; but there is an amicable difference of opinion between Sir Thomas Symonds and my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the amount of the error. My hon. Friend put it at £1,300,000. Sir Thomas Symonds challenged him to substantiate this, and he did so. Sir Thomas Symonds has since written to The Times contending that the error is not £1,300,000, but £1,150,000. I hardly think it is worth while to push the matter further now that it has come so nearly to an agreement.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he wished to move for the Correspondence mentioned in the Question.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that he would produce the Correspondence if it were moved for.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ROTH WELL SCHOOL BOARD.

  QUESTION. OBSVERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in asking the Lord President for the reasons and justification for the order issued by the Education Office to the parish of Rothwell, Northamptonshire, to form a school board, notwithstanding a vote of a majority of fifty-five of the ratepayers against a school board, and the remonstrances to the Vice President of a deputation representing four-fifths of the rateable value; and in asking if this parish of Rothwell is the same parish as that in which the exhibition of a picture of Lord Beaconsfield in a national school had given rise to some complaints; and in moving for Correspondence, said, that this appeared to be a case of great injustice to the ratepayers of this parish, and the conduct of the Privy Council contrary to all precedent. He would read a letter to their Lordships to show how the matter stood. It was from the secretary of a large iron Mining Company in the parish to Mr. Mundella—
  "I beg to inform you that your action in ordering a school board for the pariah of Rothwell, Northamptonshire, in spite of the popular vote having been given decisively against it at a poll, has caused the utmost surprise and indignation in the parish. The majority of the householders consider that it is entirely
  1438
  against the spirit and intention of the Act to force a board unnecessarily upon them against their will, and that the offer of the managers of the National School to provide the extra accommodation required ought to have been accepted by the Education Department. We also think it hard that permanent and needless expense should be forced upon the parish when trade and agriculture have bean so depressed for several years. They think it unusual and unfair for a Minister of the Crown to act suddenly upon the statements of a deputation representing only a small proportion of the rateable value of the parish, without making any inquiry on the spot. It all clearly shows that a Radical will not hesitate to abuse his power and override the will of the people when their vote happens to clash with some crotchet of his or the wishes of his Party. You stated to a deputation that waited upon you representing a large proportion of the rateable value that 'no other course was open to the Department.' I beg wholly to deny the truth of this assertion, as it was certainly within your power to accept the offer of the National School managers to provide the extra accommodation required owing to the closing of the British School."
  He would like the reasons for issuing the order for this school board, and why the parish should be put to this large and unnecessary expense; and, whether the order had been given to please the Members for Northampton?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had to apologize for the unavoidable absence of the Lord President, in whose absence he was afraid he could not answer the noble Lord. He would, however, endeavour to convey the noble Lord's arguments to his noble Friend; and no doubt he would, on the earliest occasion, reply to them.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Will the noble Earl agree to the Motion for the Correspondence?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not do that.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — ELIGI BILITY OF MILITIA OFFICERS TO STAFF APPOINTMENTS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, under the Queen's Regulations, an officer holding Her Majesty's commission in the Militia is ineligible to hold a Staff appointment, either at home or abroad?
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, that officers in the Militia were not at present allowed to serve upon the Staffs of Governors of Colonies; but he might state that the question

1439
was now occupying the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War.

EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE —NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government can give any information relative to negotiations which it is understood are proceeding between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government as to Egyptian affairs; and whether it is the case that any arrangement has been made or promise given to withdraw Her Majesty's troops at a given time? said: My Lords, I am anxious, as many of your Lordships are, before we separate for the holidays, to ascertain somewhat more than we know upon a subject which embraces so much public attention just now. I am the more induced to take the step by the reports in circulation during the last few days-reports so serious that I sincerely trust Her Majesty's Government may be able to give an explicit negative to them. Without going too much into details, it is sufficient to premise that it is said—in fact, it is admitted—that Her Majesty's Government are engaged in negotiations with the Government of France; that such negotiations are going on no one doubts or denies. It is said that a proposal which has been made by Her Majesty's Government for the holding of a Conference upon a purely financial basis has been met by contentious on the part of the French Government for some form or other introducing the principle of International Control in the affairs of Egypt. It is said that both Governments have arrived or are arriving at this compromise—that an international audit, as it is termed, with regard to the Law of Liquidation shall be accepted; and I must argue on that hypothesis. This has been stated very distinctly, and if the Government can deny it no one will be better pleased than I; but I must point out to the House that an audit, a financial audit, differs, as far as I can see, in no respect from a financial control, and a financial control opens the door to the whole administrative control. He who holds the purse-strings controls the policy of the country, and it is abso-
  1440
  lutely impossible either to discuss finance or the control of finance without touching every one of these questions in which British predominance in Egypt is involved. A distinction between a financial audit and a financial control seems, therefore, to me to be flimsy and practically nominal, and I can conceive that no one will be misled by it. It may be said that the audit may be purely an arithmetical one; but I cannot suppose that the French Government will agree with a purely arithmetical audit, or will accept it. Whether the officials who sit round the Table are called Auditors or Controllers of Egyptian Finance, seems to me a matter of extremely little importance; but every person who is familiar with this subject entertains but one opinion—they all regret the introduction of the International Control in Egypt, whether by this name or under any pretence whatever. It means, of course, the subordinating all those questions which we consider British interests, such as the Canal, the high road to India—it means subordinating them all to a certain number of persons appointed by the Great Powers of Europe; and, for my own part, I can conceive of nothing so dangerous to the whole interests of Europe as bringing together representatives from the different Powers to discuss control of Egyptian affairs. If you really wish to introduce complications among all the Powers of Europe you cannot do so more effectually. If this be true, what am I to say with regard to the language of the Prime Minister? Mr. Gladstone, a few days ago, assured the country that he had no idea whatever of reviving the Dual Control; and if, while those words were being said, he was entering into negotiations for what has been called the Multiple Control, I ask whether there could be the slightest logical distinction drawn between the two, and whether the Multiple Control is not the larger which contains the smaller? Mr. Gladstone said, two or three days ago, that the first object to obtain was what he called a perfectly mutual cooperation with France; and he added when once this was achieved he should be perfectly willing to lay all the proceedings before Parliament. I assume, therefore, because those proceedings have not been laid before Parliament, that perfect mutual co-operation has not yet been accomplished. I am inclined

  1441
  to hope that it has not been accomplished, because there is no mystery as to the objects of France, and the objects of France are not likely to satisfy us. There is another matter quite as serious, if not more serious. It is stated that an Agreement at this moment is being discussed for the definite withdrawal of the English troops from Egypt at a given period. Some statements fix that period at five years, and others at two years. I must take the liberty of saying that no proposals whatever, no promise, and no undertaking to withdraw troops from Egypt at a given period seems to me to be anything but full of objections. I do not care whether the periods be two, three, or five years. Who can foresee what the position of this country or Europe may be five years hence? God forbid that it should happen, but you may have a mutiny in India. Are you, then, to sacrifice your position? You may be at war—Are you to vacate your position in Egypt? You may be on the edge of war, your political relations may be strained, and are you at such a moment to bind yourselves with regard to the future withdrawal of troops from Egypt? It is a proposal so mad that I cannot conceive Her Majesty's Government agreeing to it. Again, if you name a period within which you will withdraw your troops you inevitably destroy the sense of security in Egypt and the sense of confidence in you which alone can give good government in the country. Those who have only a short tenure of office cannot secure that confidence. An old man may inspire some respect because no one knows at what time he may die, but a man under sentence of death can inspire no reverence at all; therefore, such an arrangement as this which has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government seems to me to be fraught with all possible mischief. What is to be the position in this case of the British Army? If it is to be an Army of Occupation for two or three years, is it to be subject to the International Board of Control? Those who hold the purse strings hold the key of the position, and I cannot help asking, if this is to be so, is it for this we have borne the burden and heat of the day in Egypt? Was it for this we bombarded Alexandria, that we incurred blood-guiltiness in Egypt, that we allowed the massacre to take place at
  1442
  Sinkat, and shed the blood of 7,000 Arabs? The position would be as painful as it would be ridiculous. For two years we have been in Egypt, and during the whole of that time confusion has become worse confounded. Everybody tells some story of the discontent among the population, of the difficulty of collecting the taxes of the country, and dreads the still greater dangers in. the distance. But it is an endless picture. The Government has been warned over and over again, alike by friends and foes. I know of no similar case. We are on the edge of a very great disaster, and I, therefore, once more appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and I urge upon them not to ratify this ill-omened Agreement, at all events until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, without noticing the language in which the noble Earl has addressed your Lordships, I will, in answering the noble Earl, recapitulate very shortly what the House is already aware of—namely, that it was found absolutely necessary that an arrangement in regard to the finances of Egypt should take place; that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it was needful to make alterations in the Law of Liquidation; and that with that object we addressed a Circular to the Powers proposing a Conference to deal with that subject. Your Lordships are aware of the terms of the Circular which we addressed to the Powers on that subject and to which we still adhere. Your Lordships are aware also that four of the Powers have agreed to the Conference; and France agreed to it in principle, but desired to have an exchange of views on the position of Egypt, which we very readily agreed to make. Since that time communications have gone on between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government, and they are still going on in a very friendly way. It will be impossible for me at this moment to say what will be the final result. As soon as we come to that result we shall communicate with the other Powers, and as soon as that is done we shall communicate the Anglo-French Agreement to both Houses of Parliament; and I may add that we shall do so previous to the meeting of the Conference.
  EARL CAIRNS: My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government is somewhat singular. The noble Earl says that Her Majesty's Government thought it was necessary to make an alteration in the Law of Liquidation in Egypt, and that for that purpose it was desirable, and perhaps necessary, to obtain the assent of the Powers. A proposal was made for a Conference for that purpose. Parliament was taken into the confidence of the Government on that subject, and the Government said to Parliament and the public— "We have invited the Powers to come to the Conference, and in order that you may know what is going to happen we will lay all the Papers connected with the Conference on the Table. "Those Papers were laid on the Table; and when a suggestion was made here and "elsewhere" that the Conference might lead to the discussion of other matters we were told by Her Majesty's Government to look at the language which they had used, which was clear and precise, and was limited to the one question of finance connected with the Law of Liquidation; and we were further told that if any Power went beyond that it would be tantamount to a new Conference, and that as Parliament had been consulted with regard to the first Conference, so if there were anything in the shape of a new Conference, of course Parliament would hear of it before any step was taken. Three or four days ago for the first time Parliament and the public heard to their extreme surprise that we were in a fools's paradise on the subject of the Conference, and that a negotiation was going on with one of the Powers which negotiation might come to a conclusion—and, we hear now, will come to a conclusion—before the Conference will be entered upon. And we are told now that if a conclusion is come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France the result of that conclusion will be submitted to the other Powers and then Parliament will be informed. Informed of what? That the matter has been already concluded. Some Treaties require ratification, and a certain time is given to Parliament occasionally to become acquainted with the contents, and to express its opinion before the ratification of the Treaty. We are told now, however, that what is going on between
  1444
  Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France will not necessarily result in a Treaty, but that some-tiling will be concluded by means of despatches and by correspondence, so that it will be too late for Parliament to express any opinion when Parliament is informed that the whole matter has been settled between England and France. We are about to adjourn for nearly three weeks, and when we meet again, perhaps, Parliament will be informed that the whole matter is over, that it is concluded, and that it is too late to take any steps or to express any opinion. The Government will, of course, offer their responsibility to Parliament, but what does Parliament care about that? Parliament wants to know what is to be done in regard to Egypt. My noble Friend asks this question of the noble Earl—"Is it the case, or is it not, that there is no question about removing Her Majesty's troops from Egypt in a limited time?" If there is no such communication going on the noble Earl has only to say so; and if he does not say so we are entitled to assume that it is going on, and that that is the question which is now being negotiated between the Government of Her Majesty and the Government of France. I protest against the House being thus set at defiance by the Government in a matter of this kind.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was surprised that no Member of the Government had risen to answer the noble and learned Earl. He felt clearly that it was the duty of the Government to say plainly "Aye" or "No" to the Question whether they had made a secret Treaty with France, or had agreed in any way to a fixed period for the withdrawal of the troops from Egypt? He protested in the strongest way possible against the Government concluding- such matters without consulting Parliament. When they met after the Recess, they might find that the matter had been settled beyond a chance of revocation. He, therefore, begged to give Notice that if, as he anticipated, no answer were given, he should repeat a similar Question on the 17th June, when their Lordships reassembled.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are accustomed to carry on their Business in the other House of Parliament by the

  1445
  practice of imposing absolute silence on their own supporters. That is a very convenient way of shortening the proceedings, and of avoiding the necessity of answering disagreeable Questions. It has been so successful in the other House that the example is contagious, and they propose now to dispose of all disagreeable Questions in this House at a moment of grave crisis, when engagements of a most serious character are about to be concluded, by maintaining an absolute silence in the face of speeches like that of my noble Friend behind me. I cannot force them to speak; I have no means of putting them upon the rack; but, at all events, I cannot pass by such an occasion, which may be critical and historical in the destinies of this country, without entering my earnest protest against the course which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing. I do not wish to offer any limitation to the power of the Grown to deal with foreign affairs; but I think there is one practical limit to it which is imposed alike by common sense, and by a feeling for the patriotic instincts of the people. Any engagement which tends to diminish the power of this country, which tends to impose upon it the necessity of humiliating surrender, which forces us to retreat from territories we now occupy, and to sacrifice grave British interests, for which we have made no common efforts—any such engagement ought not to be finally concluded until this and the other House of Parliament have had some opportunity of expressing their opinion. My Lords, I repeat that from the silence of Her Majesty's Government we must conclude that the rumours which have been rife during the last two or three days have only too much foundation in fact, and that the Government are contemplating an escape from all the difficulties which surround them by yielding up Egypt to the anarchy and confusion of a Multiple Control, and that they do intend to neutralize all the efforts and all the sacrifices we have made by determining a fixed period for the withdrawal of our troops from that country, and that by the same step they are making it impossible that any of those who have yet a remaining belief in our power, or a lingering desire to cultivate our good will, should give effect to those sympathies; and that they are making it an absolute necessity for every weak Power, for all
  1446
  the tribes throughout Egypt and the Soudan, for all those who have linked with the name of England and the hope of English interference any prospect of advancement or civilization in that country, to provide for the coming evil, to make peace with the coming man, and to abandon the hope of British interference and sympathy. This is a very grave decision of Her Majesty's Government. It is a decision which will leave a stain on the character and the position of England for many a long year to come. It is a decision that will be felt at every turn of our policy and in every representation we have to make, and in every engagement that we have to undertake it will smite us with weakness equal to a great defeat. It will be a withdrawal of strength equal to many armed battalions. And yet this resolution, so deadly in its effect, is apparently to be taken without giving either to this House or to the Representatives of the people in the other House any opportunity of expressing an opinion on a course of action so vital to the destinies of England. We on our side have nothing left to us but to protest; but I, at all events, hope that this long period of Recess will not be agreed to, and that we shall meet at an early day in order that we may, if time and opportunity shall be allowed to us, and if matters should assume the aspect to which our worst apprehensions point, at least resort to the last power of the Constitution, and present an Address to the Queen, praying Her Majesty that she will not consent to such an arrangement.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, with regard to the minor question, your Lordships would imagine, from the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, that I have surreptitiously proposed a long holiday without consultation with him, whereas it was with his entire approval that I made the Motion to which he now objects.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is quite true.
  EARL GRANVILLE: If, however, the noble Lord wishes that the Holidays shall be shortened, I am perfectly prepared to fix an earlier day for our reassembling in accordance with his desire.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should prefer that the House should reassemble on Monday week.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Well, let it be I on Monday week. I have listened with I some astonishment at the courage of the; noble Marquess in defining the amount of openness necessary on the part of the Government in giving information to Parliament before entering into important negotiations with foreign countries. Your Lordships all know something of what the noble Marquess did in that matter, and it is just possible that I may know still more. The noble and learned Earl and the noble Marquess have accused us of wishing to shirk Parliamentary discussion; but the very object that we have had in promising to lay before the House what has passed between the Powers before going into the Conference is to give Parliament the fullest opportunity of discussing the whole question.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether a proper pedestal would be ready to receive the Duke of Wellington's statue on its arrival at Aldershot, and what sum of money had been subscribed for the purpose? said, the question as to the removal of the statue had never been decided by the House of Commons, who had merely voted the sum of £6,000 for the execution of a new statue by Mr. Boehm, and had refused to reduce that sum by £2,000.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Although I cannot agree with the noble Duke upon this subject, I am bound to say that he made the other evening a most admirable speech in reference to it, presenting very clearly all the arguments that could be urged in support of his view of the; question. I am bound to say, however, that the noble Duke's objection to the removal of the statue is now too late, the site having been already determined upon and the pedestal being in course of preparation. Care will be taken that, in the event of the pedestal not being ready by the time the statue reaches Aldershot, the latter will be carefully housed until the pedestal is prepared for its reception. I am not able to state exactly the amount that has been sub-scribed, but I believe that it will be sufficient to meet all demands.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I do not wonder that the noble Duke has put another Question on this subject. The House will be glad to see that he is faithful to the opinions he has previously declared, and which have made so much impression on your Lordships. I rose to make in a few words, however useless it may be, a last remonstrance with Her Majesty's Government. If they remove the statue altogether, they will do so in defiance of one House, and without the sanction of the other. The vote which took place here on the 24th of March may be ambiguous, but there is no ambiguity in that of last Tuesday's. It has but one interpretation. No vote of the House of Commons authorizes the removal. The noble Duke, however, has explained that part of the subject. Money has been granted for a purpose to which the removal is not in any way essential. What I wish more specially to touch on—as it in some degree escapes us—is that the Government, instead of acting on a decision of their own, have gone through a series of concessions, and may go through one more concession with advantage. In deference to others, who agitated about blocks, they encroached on the Green Park and Constitution Hill. In deference to others, they disjoined the statue from the Arch, when their own scheme—as they have since avowed it—was to move them, both together. In deference to others, they contemplated a site opposite the Horse Guards. In deference to others, they were ready with their melting-pot. In deference to others, they lighted upon Aldershot. It would be quite in accordance with this principle to retain the statue where it is—at least, in London—in deference to a larger, a more enlightened and authoritative body than any which has formerly controlled them. It is true they have a decapitated figure in their hands which well betrays the halting counsels they have followed. It is a compromise. But it will be easier to bring the head back to the trunk, than move the trunk by waggons to the country. This compromise has naturally led to some resentment in the capital. Men, without being pedants, are driven back to the Peloponnesian War and the well known mutilation of the Hermae for a parallel. There is a possi-

  1449
  ble defence. The Government have frequently been told, on grounds which I think irresistible, that what they need themselves is the removal of their head without the serious disturbance of their body. They have resolved that such a process, at least, deserves experiment on a bronze figure.
  LORD DENMANasked the Government whether they could inform the House "what is the present domicile of the head of the colossal statue of the late Duke of Wellington?" describing the decapitated condition in which the statue had been left, and protesting against its removal.
  LORD THURLOW: I can assure the noble Lord that the head is carefully preserved within the enclosure which at present surrounds the statue.

AFRICA (EAST COAST)—ANGRA PE QUENA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would endeavour to arrange that pending the negotiations with Germany on the subject of Angra Pequena no national flag should be hoisted or other act of sovereignty exercised or possession be taken by either Power in the bay aforesaid, or in the adjacent territory? said, he was the more strongly urged to put this Question because within the last few days a German newspaper had used very strong language on the subject, which showed what a hold the matter had taken on the public mind of Germany. He should be glad to know whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers to-day, that possession had been formally taken by the German Government, and that protection had been promised while the negotiations were pending to all German commercial residents? It did appear to him extraordinary that while negotiations were pending a document of be authoritative a nature as that bearing the signature of Prince Bismarck should have been issued.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I fear I cannot give any explanation of what appears in the newspapers; but from the official accounts that we have received there is no reason to think that any national flag is going to be hoisted on the spot. Negotiations are still going on, and
  1450
  any delay that has arisen has been on our side, because my noble Friend the Colonial Secretary was in communication on the subject with the Cape Government when that Government was changed, in consequence of which change of Government I am afraid their reply cannot be received for another 10 days. It is not necessary, I think, that I should take any other steps until that communication has been received.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, (1) Whether Sir Evelyn Baring was still of opinion that the sending of Zebehr Pasha to the Soudan would be desirable; (2) whether there was any truth in the statement that appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette on Saturday, that Turkish troops were about to be employed in the Soudan? said, the whole conduct of the Government in relation to General Gordon threw a light on some of the worst features of Party Government. On Friday night, when a noble Lord called attention to the necessity of taking some speedy steps for relieving General Gordon and rescuing the garrisons in the Soudan, the Foreign Minister, in reply, stated that General Gordon could not possibly claim any military help from us for the evacuation of the Soudan because he went there on the clear understanding that nothing of the kind was intended. From the tone taken by his noble Friend and Ministers on this question one would imagine that they had the public opinion of the world and of this country at their back. Anyone who read the newspapers knew that the world at large were looking with amazement at General Gordon's position in relation to Her Majesty's Government, and what all Englishmen thought he need not say. The other day a foreign Minister told him, that owing to this business England was spoken of very badly all over the Continent, and his retort was that she could not be spoken of worse than she was spoken of by Englishmen themselves. As regarded home opinions, his noble Friend knew that very lately Her Majesty's Government escaped censure, he might say, only by the skin of their teeth, and that

  1451
  it took all the power of the screw of which the Caucus was capable to procure them a majority of 28 out of a nominal majority of 130. Was not General Gordon justified in expecting support from Her Majesty's Government? What were the circumstances under which he went? He went a lone man, a forlorn hope, with his life in his hands, to bring order out of the chaos which the Government had created, and to rescue the garrisons. Although he was not to get military assistance, at least his requests and what he considered the best means of effecting the objects for which he went should have been attended to. But the fact was that those requests had been refused, and General Gordon had been controlled and thwarted in every way before he was finally abandoned, and before he gave utterance to that exceeding bitter cry about the dishonour which would attach to the British Government for the sacrifice of the garrisons. When he announced his intention of going to the Mahdi, that was forbidden by Her Majesty's Government. He ought not to have been prevented, for he was on the spot and ought to have known best what should be done. He proposed first, that Zebehr should not be allowed to remain at Cairo; but that was not assented to. His next request was, that Zebehr should be sent to him to the Soudan. That request was refused, though it was strongly backed by Sir Evelyn Baring. Why was it refused? Was it because the Government believed that Zebehr was powerless to do any good? No; the reason was, because Her Majesty's Government were afraid of two things—first, the Anti-Slavery Society; and, secondly, that the slavery question would be taken up against them by the Opposition. He was bound to say, in all candour, that there were great signs of such a proceeding on the part of the Opposition, and he, at the time, entered his protest against it in that House. But whatever the Anti-Slavery Society or the Opposition might say or do, it was the duty of the Government to stand by General Gordon. Nothing could have been stronger than the opinion which Sir Evelyn Baring held as to the advantage of sending Zebehr to the Soudan, as was shown by the latest records they had in the Blue Books. As late as the 14th of April, in
  1452
  a despatch to Earl Granville, Sir Evelyn Baring said—
  "If any better solution is found I should he the first to admit that I was in error in recommending that Zebehr should be sent to the Soudan."
  But had a better solution been found? He was inclined to believe, from all he heard, that Sir Evelyn Baring still held the opinion that it was very desirable that Zebehr should have been sent to the Soudan, and that, if he had been sent, we should not now be in the miserable position in which we found ourselves. With regard to the sending of British troops to the Soudan, no one desired that such a step should be taken at this time of the year; but what was the cause of the difficulty? It might be summed up in the two words "too late." Those two little monosyllables signified a good deal. The Government had been too late in every proceeding excepting one—the bombardment of Alexandria; though, no doubt the Government had been anxious about the Suez Canal. As regarded his second Question, he would ask why had not the Government employed Turkish troops in the Soudan? Was it because the Primo Minister did not wish to crush the Mahdi? or "Could it be," as asked by a Scotch lady, who had offered to give £1,000 towards the relief of General Gordon, "that General Gordon was to be allowed to perish because of Mr. Gladstone's hatred to the Turks?" He (the Earl of Wemyss) trusted that the Government were going to send Turkish troops to the Soudan, as they would speedily relieve General Gordon and the garrison at Khartoum. They could be better employed in that country than English troops. No doubt, an English force would be perfectly ready to go if necessary; but if the Government sent out English soldiers bloodshed would be the result, and they did not desire to see sorrow again brought to English homes. If, in consequence of another expedition, sorrow was again introduced into British homes, it would unquestionably be due to the action and inaction of the Government. The policy of Her Majesty's Government had, so far as it had gone, brought chaos into the Soudan, and if they were to judge of what had taken place it was likely to end in the abandonment of English interests; the grand consummation of

  1453
  all the bloodshed which had taken place in Egypt appeared to be the substitution of a Multiple for a Dual Control, with all its manifold dangers.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is a little cruel of my noble Friend, with such a charming smile on his countenance, to say such severe and bitter things of Her Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, I admit that he is more entitled than almost any one in this House to ask why we did not meet General Gordon's wishes in regard to Zebehr. It is quite true that when the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for the Colonies was leading an anti-slavery crusade—
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I beg your pardon; I never led an anti-slavery crusade. I shall be glad if the noble Earl will specify any words of mine which lead him to believe that I led an anti-slavery crusade, or in which he can find one single allusion or one single sentence in regard to it. If he can, it has entirely escaped my recollection.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I will have The Times searched, and will endeavour to find what the noble Earl has said. If, however, the noble Earl refers to the ordinary sources of information, I think he will find that he was trying to make Party profit out of the notion that the Government was encouraging slavery. But the only thing I really regret about the noble Earl's (the Earl of Wemyss's) proceedings, is that, having this strong feeling as to the sending of Zebehr, which, as he said, the Government were only deterred from doing from fear of the Anti-Slavery Society and the Opposition, he did not take the opportunity some weeks ago, when the question was of a more practical character, of testing the feeling of your Lordships in this House upon the subject. How many of your Lordships would have followed him into the Lobby in favour of Zebehr? The question was a very important one after the anti-slavery feeling which had been displayed against Her Majesty's Government; but there are other considerations with are more important. Here is a man whom Sir Evelyn Baring did not think safe to be with General Gordon, because his hatred of that brave General was his strongest feature, and it constituted a grave danger to the Soudan as well as to Egypt. Then my noble Friend asked me whether we had
  1454
  consulted Sir Evelyn Baring? The fact is, we have not consulted Sir Evelyn Baring, because the Government had no intention of sending Zebehr to the Soudan. We knew that Sir Evelyn Baring at the time had expressed his opinion in favour of sending Zebehr, and it was to us a matter of indifference whether he continued to hold that opinion or not. I should have been glad to have had an opportunity of speaking to him within the last few days; but my regret on that point is somewhat mitigated by a half-hour's conversation with the great arbiter in this House between the Liberal and the Conservative Parties. Having had that conversation, everything else is of a secondary character. All I can say about the Turks is, that there is a difference between being prepared to take measures for General Gordon's safety which we consider necessary, and being prepared to accede to his wish that Turks should go and make war in the interior of the Soudan, to conquer which has never been a portion of our policy. Therefore, my answers to the two Questions must be those which I have given to the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked whether it was the case that General Gordon did wish that Turkish troops should go into the interior of the Soudan? He could find nothing of the kind in the Blue Books.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl has nearly the same access to information as I have. I think I have read a telegram from General Gordon in which he said he wished to have some Turks in order, to use his own idiomatic expression, to "smash up the Mahdi;" and, so far as I know, the Mahdi resides somewhere in the interior of Africa.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the noble Earl has not answered my noble Friend's Question, whether there is any truth in the statement that Turkish troops are to be employed in the Soudan?
  EARL GRANVILLE: If the noble Marquess will give me a copy of the paper, I shall be glad to see -what is there stated; but I am not responsible for statements appearing in newspapers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is difficult to cross-examine the noble Earl, and, therefore, I wish to ask him are Turkish troops to be employed in the Soudan?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Lord has coupled with his request the Question, whether Turks were going to be sent, in the absence of British troops, at this time of the year, to relieve General Gordon? and I have to inform him that that is not the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not the Question. It is this—Are Turkish troops about to be employed in the Soudan? That is the Question?
  [No reply.]
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: The Question is this—Is it within the knowledge of the Government that Turkish troops are about to enter any portion of the Soudan?
  [No reply.]

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—GRANTS TO COLLEGES IN WALES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTONasked the President of the Council, To how many Colleges in Wales it was proposed to make Treasury grants, and to what extent in each case; and whether there was any intention of giving similar public support to middle class education in England? He said, he understood from the Press that the Government had been induced to promise a grant for a College in South Wales; the North then claimed an equal favour; and, that claim having been acknowledged, Mid Wales put in a sort of a prior claim to both on the ground of having already shown what she could do for herself. One might allow Wales to become as spoilt a child as Ireland; but a principle was in danger of being conceded, and he was anxious to know whether a side admission was involved, of what the Technical School Commissioners proposed — namely, a general public undertaking of all kinds of education throughout the Kingdom for all ranks and classes of people and subjects of study?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)reminded the noble Lord that the subject was thoroughly inquired into two or three years ago by a representative Commission, which unanimously recommended that a grant should be made for the purpose of enabling the people of North and South Wales to establish Colleges. Grants of £4,000 a-year were, consequently, promised by the Government, and voted
  1456
  by the House of Commons, for Colleges at Bangor and Cardiff. The College at Aberystwith had been going on for some years; the question arose whether it was to be discontinued or not; and finally the Government consented to make it a small grant of £1,500 a-year. There would, therefore, be £9,500 a-year divided between three Colleges in Wales. The noble Lord need not be nervous as to any dangerous precedent being established for England; these grants constituted no precedent whatever for a country so rich and possessed of important endowments. The comparison to be made was not between Wales and England, but between Wales and Scotland, or, still more, between Wales and Ireland. Scotland had long enjoyed very considerable annual grants towards her Universities — something like £40,000 a-year; Ireland had for many years enjoyed grants for her Colleges; and of late years she had had further assistance for intermediate education from the Irish Church Fund.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUN HOLIDAYS—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
EARL GRANVILLE: Before moving the adjournment of the House I wish to say a few words. I am quite prepared to move the adjournment to any day most convenient to the noble Marquess opposite; but, of course, I feel myself in a difficulty, having given Notice already of the 16th June as the day for reassembling, and on the faith of which noble Lords and some of the officers of the House have made their arrangements, I think it desirable that there should be no misunderstanding. If the noble Marquess thinks he has any Business to bring before the House by Monday week, I will substitute that date; but it is only fair to state that there is no sort of a chance or possibility of my being able to make a statement on Egyptian affairs on so early a date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be sorry to do anything to interfere with the convenience of the House; but Notice has been given by the noble Earl behind me (Earl Stanhope) of his intention to ask, on Monday week, for information as to the progress of these negotiations and the intentions of the Government with respect to the limitation of the occupation of Cairo. Of course, the whole ground, for limiting

1457
the vacation, and asking that we should be in the presence of the Government at an earlier period, arises from the apprehension that a conclusion will have been come to in these negotiations before we have time to express our Constitutional protest. If the noble Earl will assure us that no engagement shall be entered into limiting the occupation of Her Majesty's Army in Egypt before the House returns, that would be a satisfactory arrangement, and it would be useless to meet earlier than the day formerly named. But we feel that we are in the presence of a very grave contingency indeed; and unless we have some assurance that the Government will not come to any conclusion, it would hardly be decent that the House should separate for three weeks.
EARL GRANVILLE: I do not think there is the slightest chance of my giving any further answer on Monday week than I have given to-day. I certainly cannot give any extraordinary engagement as to communications with other Powers. I have stated what the intention of the Government is. I have no personal convenience of my own to consult; it is entirely a question for the noble Marquess; but if he does call upon us to meet, there ought to be some substantive Motion to deal with.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that the issue of the communications will be laid before Parliament before any engagement is entered into?
EARL GRANVILLE: I did not say that. I have stated that we would give Parliament an opportunity of expressing an opinion before we go into the Conference.
EARL STANHOPE: The question of importance is whether the Government will submit the Anglo-French negotiations to the House and to the country before submitting them to the other Powers?
EARL GRANVILLE: As I understand the noble Marquess wishes the House to meet on Monday week, I will move that the House do adjourn to that day.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF THANKS TO OFFICERS AND MEN OF H.M. SEA AND LAND FORCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he could not help expressing his regret that
  1458
  their Lordships should adjourn without making some recognition of the services of Her Majesty's Forces on the littoral of the Red Sea. They had endured great hardships, and they would feel that they had been neglected, as not the slightest mention had been made in Parliament of their services and efforts, while so much was made of what was done two years ago. He felt the more strongly on the point on account of the fact that in the last Gazette there had been bestowed a good many honours of various sorts upon officers engaged in the two battles of El-Teb and Tamai; but these did not extend to the rank and file. He should have thought that the rank and file during the late engagements might have been deemed worthy of some recognition on the part of the Government.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he could assure the noble Earl that so far were the Government from having the slightest desire to ignore the gallant services rendered by the officers, noncommissioned officers, and men in the recent engagements, that they were deeply sensible of the gallantry displayed by the whole Force. But with respect to the proposal that a Vote of Thanks should be passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Government had looked into the precedents of similar occasions, and this did not appear to them, generally speaking, to come within the precedents on which such Votes had been passed. He might instance the case of the New Zealand War, in which a larger Force was engaged, and the operations extended over a far longer time, but after which it was not thought desirable to move a Vote of Thanks. But he had much pleasure in assuring the noble Earl that the services of the men employed in the campaign would not be forgotten, and they would receive the same consideration in the way of gratuity ns was given in the earlier campaign.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate the powers of the Metropolitan Water Companies—Was presented by The Earl of CAMPERDOWN; read 1a (No. 113.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday the 9th of June next, a quarter past Four o'clock,