Lords Sitting of 21 April 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (77).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* [66]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) * (67).
Committee— Infants (46–78).
Report—Solicitors (Ireland)* (53).

EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.
  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—ATTACK OF THE RUSSIANS ON THE AFGHANS AT AK TEPE—DESPATCHES OF SIR PETER LUMSDEN.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I will ask him two Questions of which I have given him private Notice. The first relates to the Egyptian Loan Bill, which stands for second reading to-night. The noble Earl and the House must be aware that this Bill has not yet been printed, and, of course, has not been read. Under these circumstances, I cannot but doubt that the noble Earl

    283
    will consent to put it off to a future day. I think the noble Earl has suggested Thursday next for taking the second reading; but I would point out that Thursday next is not altogether a very convenient day, because on that day the Colonial Secretary proposes to move the second reading of a Bill dealing with the Australasian Confederation, which may possibly raise some discussion. I hope the noble Earl will consent to fix the second reading of the Bill a little later. Having said that, I wish to ask another Question, and it is this—Whether the noble Earl will consent to lay on the Table either the despatch of Sir Peter Lumsden or the substance of it? I ask the Question for two or three reasons—first of all, because the Russian account of this matter has now been before the world a great many days. It has been published and freely commented upon, not only in the English Press, but in that of Europe, and has, no doubt, having received no contradiction or qualification, exercised a certain influence. Secondly, there is this further reason—that Her Majesty's Government have as good as admitted that Sir Peter Lumsden does contradict, in fact, the statement made by the Russian General; and, thirdly, there appears in one of the morning papers today a very clear and detailed statement telegraphed from Tirpul, which not only contradicts the Russian account, but which purports substantially to confirm the account Sir Peter Lumsden is supposed to have sent. Under these circumstances, I feel quite sure that no one can be a gainer by the withholding of this despatch—neither Her Majesty's Government nor the country at large, nor even the Russian Government itself, when we are in this state of doubt. I would, therefore, very strongly urge on the noble Earl that he should comply with that which is undoubtedly the wish of the very large majority of this House.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the first Question put to me by the noble Earl, I have to state that I think it would be more desirable that the Egyptian Loan Bill should be taken without delay. I should very much regret that there should be any delay on our part. The noble Earl stated that the Bill has not been printed. It is in my hands now; but I have a very strong
    284
    notion, derived from the interest recently shown by the noble Earl in politics, that the noble Earl would have been able to proceed with the Bill at five minutes' notice. Still, I feel it more respectful to him and to your Lordships, the request having been made, to postpone the second reading till Thursday. In the meantime I will communicate with my noble Friend the Colonial Secretary, and ascertain from him whether there is any reason why the two Bills should not be proceeded with on the same night. At any rate, I will fix the Loan Bill for Thursday. The noble Earl also made another very reasonable request with respect to the unfortunate events that have taken place at Ak Tépé. I stated the other day that we had not received a despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden, though we expected one in answer to the categorical questions we put to him. I have now to say that a telegraphic message has been received this day, and I sent it to the Russian Ambassador soon after it arrived. I propose to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House, and I hope it will be in your Lordships' hands immediately.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBY: Can the noble Earl state how long that message from Sir Peter Lumsden took in transmission? The matter of time is of great interest to us.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I regret that I am not able to state without Notice what time is required for the transmission of messages from Afghan territory to St. Petersburg or to England.
    LORD ELLENBOROUGH: Does the noble Earl know whether there is any truth in the announcement published in the newspapers, or will he inquire whether it is a fact, that the Russians are making a military road by means of forced labour from Sarakhs to Herat?
    [No reply.]

NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS, 1885–6 (VOTE OF CREDIT).

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I stated the other day that I proposed shortly to make a statement as to the basis of a Vote—a considerable Vote—of money which is either being asked for at this moment "elsewhere," or will be asked for in the course of the even-

  285
  ing. In accordance with the understanding that Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered our military position, not with reference alone to the Soudan, but to the general condition of public affairs, and to all the probable demands upon the military resources of the Empire, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to hold all these resources, including the Forces in the Soudan, as far as possible available for service wherever they may be required. Under these circumstances, the Vote does not include any provision of money for further offensive operations in the Soudan, or for military preparations with a view to an early advance on Khartoum. It does, however, include items having reference to such contracts or undertakings as, being already considerably advanced, could not be stopped with any appreciable advantage, and, at the same time, do not involve any necessity for hostile action. It provides for river steamboats which have already been contracted for, and for the completion of the Wady Halfa Railway, towards which extensive preparations have already been made, and which will have advantages altogether apart from military necessities. As to ulterior steps we reserve our entire liberty of action, subject to the approval of Parliament. I may here add that this does not imply any change of view or intention as to the defence of Egypt and of its Frontier. My purpose is simply to explain the basis of the Vote. With regard to the Suakin Railway, it was projected and commenced as a military work in support of the Nile Army. With the cessation of active operations on the Nile any considerable extension of this railway will be suspended; but until some other permanent arrangement can be made it will be necessary to hold the Port of Suakin with British or Indian troops. The experience of last summer, however, proves that in order to hold Suakin for any useful purpose, and, indeed, to hold it without undue exposure and risk to the garrison, it may be necessary also to occupy one or more positions in its neighbourhood. The Military Authorities will be consulted as to the positions which it may be considered necessary to occupy, and as to the points up to which, on the ground above stated, the railway should be advanced. It is proposed to complete the Suakin Railway up to the
  286
  point which may be determined to be best for the security of the garrison, and while this is being done to consider our future course as to any prosecution of this railway beyond that point. We consider that if the Nile Railway is an advantageous work for general purposes, the prosecution of it need not be discontinued, as it does not involve any question of hostilities. The addition to our resources which will be effected by holding the Soudan Forces available for service elsewhere is an addition quite independent of the demands which have recently been made upon us by the Government of India for large reinforcements. Those demands will be entirely met by provision at home, leaving the Force released in Egypt and the Soudan as an additional reserve for employment in India or elsewhere. In fact, we are providing for (1) what the Indian Government has already asked for; (2) for the mobilization at home of a Force which, with that released in Egypt and the Soudan, will constitute a complete Army Corps; (3) for guns and submarine mining defences, in addition to and in aid of the naval preparations. The Vote asked for amounts to £11,000,000. The amount wanted for the Soudan is £4,500,000, and for special preparations other than such as are connected with the Soudan we ask for £6,500,000. Our strong desire is to remain on friendly relations with all Foreign Powers, and this increase of our military and naval means will not affect our wish to settle any differences between us and other countries in a peaceful manner honourable to all parties concerned.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, the grave announcement just made by the noble Earl is one which has carried the knowledge of the House a great deal further than it has been carried heretofore; but we are still kept in ignorance of the state of affairs in India, and also with respect to the question which has been so lately paramount in this country—namely, what is being done in the Soudan. At present, as far as I understand the noble Earl, that question is left in abeyance. The noble Earl has made a very careful statement, and I presume that every word of it has been carefully weighed; and I understand from his statement that we may still look forward to an Expedition to Khartoum at a period not yet decided

  287
  upon. The noble Earl has left us, at all events, with the impression that the war operations in the Soudan may have to be resumed. That is a very serious question, and we have heard no new statement as to the objects or the intentions of the Government, because the noble Earl limited his observations as to the intentions of the Government to the statement that they adhered to the previous pledges given by them with reference to the defence of the Frontiers of Egypt. But the question of the Frontiers of Egypt is a very large and wide one, and one which I understand is not wholly decided upon by the Government themselves, and it certainly is not one as to which there can be any general agreement on the part of the Government. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government ask us to hold the sword over a great district in Egypt without telling us what use they are going to put their operations to, and we do not know when we are going to withdraw our troops from the Soudan. As I understand the noble Earl, it is not intended to withdraw those troops at once, and to bring them home; but they are to remain in Egypt as a reserve in case of necessity. It appears, therefore, that we are keeping a large Army in the Soudan without knowing what the intentions of the Government are with respect to that country. That is a matter, I think, upon which those who have not any confidence in the past or present policy of Her Majesty's Government may at least request further information. With respect to the other great question, the noble Earl has promised that we shall be placed in possession of the despatches of Sir Peter Lumsden, in order that we may know what the English officers say of the untoward event which has taken place in Afghanistan, for, according to all the maps, I believe the event did take place in Afghanistan, and not in territory belonging to Russia. But I can understand that the Government may wish at this moment to have their hands free, and not to be questioned too closely about the negotiations with the Russian Government. With respect to those matters, therefore, I shall be silent; but I cannot be silent about the Soudan. There has been a terrible slaughter in the Soudan of thousands of Arabs, and I want to know for what purpose that has been done, and
  288
  what are the intentions of the Government with regard to that country?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, it is quite impossible to have listened to the words—the calculated and carefully prepared words—of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, without feeling that we are in the presence of a very grave conjuncture of public affairs. I have hitherto taken no part in the discussions in this House on the Egyptian question; but I cannot help now expressing a very warm opinion that, except on the ground of public necessity and military necessity, with reference to the position of this country in other parts of the world, it would be a great and terrible mistake to go back from the policy announced by the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament on February 19. That announcement was made after the fall of Khartoum; it was made after it was known that we could no longer hope to rescue that extraordinary and gallant man, whose memory will remain for ever in the history of this country. It was a deliberate announcement on the part of the Prime Minister that the Government, after full consideration of the circumstances in which they were then placed, knowing that General Gordon's life had been lost, knowing that the garrison of Khartoum had been sacrificed—it was an announcement to Parliament and the country that, nevertheless, they felt it necessary for the honour of England and the safety of Egypt that their original policy with respect to Khartoum should be pursued. My Lords, it has been an open secret that since that time a considerable portion of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government have wished that that announcement had never been made; and public meetings have been held expressing the opinion that it was wrong for England, now that Gordon had been sacrificed and no lives could be saved in the garrisons, to pursue the campaign in the Soudan. I had hoped that the Government would stand firm to the policy they had announced. I am so far relieved by the carefully worded announcement, read rather than spoken by the noble Earl, that it is still an open question with the Government; and I rejoice to hear that the ground upon which the suspension of those proceedings is founded is the ground of military necessity, of the necessity of holding a great Army of Reserve in the

  289
  case of further proceedings in Asia. I could not allow this discussion to pass without expressing my earnest and anxious hope that the Government will be able to pursue their original policy with respect to Khartoum. I hope that the preparations which they are making with regard to the Afghan Frontier will not be necessary; and I believe that if both Governments are really sincere in their desire for peace a solution of the difficulty may easily be found. But I hope that these preparations will not be made an excuse for divided councils at home. I hope they are not now made the excuse for backing out of the pledges which were given by Her Majesty's Government on the 19th of February. It is my firm conviction that unless the power of England to overcome the resistance of the Arab population of the Soudan and of Upper Egypt is proved by force of arms, we shall never have peace in Egypt, and we shall have exposed ourselves to the taunts and reproaches of the other nations of the world. I will add my conviction that the opening of those regions by the making of the Suakin-Berber Railway is a necessary condition for the further civilization of the great African Continent—an object in which all the nations of the world are now expressing their interest and taking their respective parts. I hold that—not by our own will, but by a series of events over which, as the Government have told us, we had no control—we have been led on step by step and by such steps as indicate our manifest duty to take our part in the civilization of that region; and my belief is that civilization will never be secured there, and the horrors of the Slave Trade will go on for ever, unless England does her duty with regard to the Soudan. I have nothing to say as to the military necessity for the moment of keeping the Army of Egypt as an Army of Reserve; but I will repeat my hope that the circumstances in which we are now placed with regard to the Afghan Frontier will not be made a mere excuse by the Government for a vacillating policy and for divided councils.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I understand that of the Vote of £11,000,000, £4,500,000 are to go to the Soudan. Are we to understand that the proposed railway from Suakin to Berber, which has made considerable progress already, is not to be continued? I ask the Ques-
  290
  tion because I understood the noble Earl to say that there was a doubt whether we should go on with that railway. I also understood the noble Earl to say in another part of his speech that the contract entered into still continued. My understanding was that the contract with Messrs. Lucas and Aird was for the construction of the railway and its continuance until within about 100 miles of Berber. Have the Government decided to alter their course as regards that railway?
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I wish to ask a Question which arises out of the statement made by the noble Earl. Your Lordships will remember that some weeks ago a Royal Proclamation was issued authorizing the calling out of the Army and Militia Reserve. No action has been taken on that Proclamation, and I cannot help thinking that some steps should be taken at an early date which would indicate the intention of Her Majesty's Government as to the calling out of the Reserves, because the uncertainty as to whether they are to be called out or not, and as to the number that may be called out, has a most injurious effect on the circumstances of these men, and also of their employers. A considerable time has now elapsed, and I trust it will be possible for the Government to say what their intention is with respect to the matter?
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Could the noble Earl state whether it is still the intention of the Government to proceed to Khartoum? I took down his words, and they were—"We do not contemplate an early advance to Khartoum."
  EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the Questions which have been put to me, I thought the House understood what I stated—namely, that we intended to continue the Wady Halfa Railway, which would be useful for military purposes. With regard to the Suakin-Berber Railway, it is the present intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue it as far as is advantageous for the defence of Suakin itself and the outposts, as the Military Authorities may think necessary. With respect to Khartoum, I stated that we reserved to ourselves entire liberty of action.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: My Lords, I am not quite certain that I correctly understood the noble Earl

  291
  the Minister for Foreign Affairs to say that the Forces in Egypt were to be held as a Reserve to meet any emergency that may happen to the country. Is it the case, then, that if such emergency should arise the Forces would be suddenly withdrawn from Egypt, leaving the country to anarchy? No preparations have been made for any supplementary Force to replace the present troops when withdrawn from Egypt. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision to abandon their declared intentions regarding the Soudan. Lord Wolseley received the instructions of Her Majesty's Government to take Khartoum. That was their declared intention. In pursuance of that intention the Expedition from Suakin was undertaken. It will be a great national disgrace if we retreat from the Soudan. It cannot be that the power of England, if vigorously exerted, is insufficient to carry out the intentions announced regarding Egypt and to meet any dangers that may arise. We have destroyed a certain amount of civilization in Egypt, which existed to a far greater extent than we were aware of, and I consider that it is our duty to replace the Soudan in that condition from which we threw it down. We have made no increase to our Military Forces notwithstanding the difficulties that surround us. The Militia have not been embodied; the Reserves not called out. It is said that the confidential officer of the Government, the Adjutant General, has demanded 10,000 men to work the present Army system. It is said that the Viceroy of India has demanded 10,000 men more to hold India. But it will be a great disgrace to this country if the Government abandon the Soudan, and I trust they will maintain their original purpose. If we withdraw from Suakin we shall disgrace ourselves in the eyes of the world, and I hope the Government will reconsider that matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I very earnestly hope myself that Her Majesty's Government will not follow the advice of the noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down, and engage in military operations in the Soudan for the purpose of spreading civilization in that country. I am one of those who form, it may be, but a small minority in this House, but who do not believe that civilization can be spread very easily by
  292
  warlike operation; and I must certainly strongly deprecate such an extension of the policy of the Government already announced as would be involved in any attempt of that description. It is perfectly true that the Government last February gave orders under the circumstances which then existed to Lord Wolseley to make an advance upon Khartoum if the military conditions of the country would allow of it. But when that announcement was made there still remained a certain amount of uncertainty as to the fate of General Gordon; and it was perfectly obvious that the first duty of the Government under such circumstances as those was to take whatever steps might be necessary to ascertain fully the fate of that gallant and deeply-lamented man. I certainly never understood the Government to declare the smallest intention of conquering or occupying the Soudan for the purpose of introducing and spreading civilization in that country. For my own part, I certainly heard even the declaration then made with regret, because, while I was as ready as any man in this House to support the Government in taking any measure that might be necessary for ascertaining the fate of General Gordon and fulfilling honourably our engagements and duties in Egypt, I failed to see that these obligations involved the necessity of an advance to Khartoum. I am glad, therefore, to learn now from my noble Friend below me that Her Majesty's Government, while they do not declare their intention of not taking that measure, hold themselves perfectly free with regard to it to follow whatever course under the circumstances of the time may appear to them to be most advisable. I cannot but think that, looking at the complications which have arisen since February last in various parts of the world, Her Majesty's Government are bound to keep for themselves the most perfect freedom of action in the position in which we are now placed. The noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down said—and said, as I think, very truly—that it would be impossible for us, and improper on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to abandon the defence of the frontier of Egypt. But I perfectly understood my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to declare that it was the full intention of

  293
  Her Majesty's Government completely to adhere to their obligations with respect to the defence of the frontier so long as they occupy that country. We have duties in Egypt which we must fulfil, but I find it difficult to believe that in the fulfilment of these duties the Government need undertake an advance on Khartoum; and I am very glad to hear that it is their intention to keep themselves entirely free with regard to any such operation.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I hope the noble Marquess who has just spoken does not express the sentiments of the Government, because I believe those sentiments are the cause of half, if not two-thirds, of the trouble we are now suffering in India, at the Cape, and in Egypt. Whether the Government were right or wrong in making their solemn pledges in regard to Egypt—and I am of opinion that they have been wrong throughout—it is evident that no confidence can be placed in them by our Allies if they are always prepared to yield finally under the influence of pressure.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I cannot congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the advocacy they have obtained from the noble Marquess, for they are in this position. If they accept that advocacy, they certainly bring themselves under the censure of the noble Duke who spoke just now. None of us, and indeed no sensible man, would object to the disposition of the troops by holding them in hand for any military emergency that might arise or that might affect affairs at large. What we take objection to is the opportunist policy, or no policy, which has distinguished the Government, and which has existed in South Africa and in other countries, and which we apprehend will also exist here. But I did not rise for the purpose of continuing this discussion, and if I did I should find it difficult to do so, because it is difficult to argue with persons who will not argue in reply. I rose for the purpose of asking a Question about another Military Expedition to which no allusion has been made. That Expedition has been fitted out on a very large scale, costing no less than£l50,000 per month; it has been in existence some time, and may be in existence for a long time to come. The objects of the Expedition and the conduct of it are very uncer-
  294
  tain. I allude to the Expedition under Sir Charles Warren in South Africa, and I want to know whether it is included in the Vote of Credit now asked for, or whether it is to be over and above the £11,000,000 which we are told is to be the amount of the Vote?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, one or two Questions have been asked to which I may be permitted to reply. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Limerick) has complained that delay has occurred in acting upon the Proclamation calling out the Reserves. I may say that an Army Circular has been issued today with regard to the mobilization of the First Class Army Reserve. The terms of the Circular are (1) that a sufficient number of Reservists belonging to regiments having in India battalions which are not up to their establishment will be recalled to the Colours with a view of completing the establishments of battalions in India. This will require about 2,000 men. (2) All the First Class Army Reserves are warned that they may be recalled to the Colours at short notice.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Army and Militia?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I am speaking only of the First Class Army Reserve. At once a certain number of Reserve men, those belonging to the 15 regiments of the battalions now in India, which are at present below their strength, will be recalled to the Colours; and the men belonging to the 14 other regiments will be warned that they may also be recalled to the Colours at very short notice, but they will not be actually recalled pending further instructions. There is no intention at present of calling the Militia Reserve to the Colours. The First Class Army Reserve consists at present of about 39,000 men, and of these about 2,300 will be at once recalled to the Colours for the purpose of making up the full establishment of the regiments in India which are at present below their establishment. In answer to the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Napier of Magdala), I may say that, as regards the Army in Egypt, which has now 20½ battalions of Infantry, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not intend to imply that the whole of that Force might be at once withdrawn and employed as an Army of Reserve elsewhere. What he intended was

  295
  that as long as no forward movement was made in the Soudan so large a Force is not required for the safety of Egypt. The battalions—say 10—would thus be relieved, and, supplemented by a like Force from home, would give us a Force equivalent to an Army Corps of Reserve for general service. The noble Earl opposite has referred to Sir Charles Warren's Expedition. That Expedition has been provided for out of the Estimates for the year.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, in the present state of affairs I think we ought not to lose any opportunity of rallying round the Government. It is impossible to overlook the gravity of the announcement made this evening, for if it means anything, it means that the Government are in the greatest possible alarm as to the safety of the Empire at large, and that they think that the dark cloud which has so long threatened on the side of Russia is only too likely to burst. I can imagine nothing more grave than the announcement made to-night, and I think that in view of this great emergency we should all be on one side and support the Government through thick and thin. One reservation only I must make, and it is that if this extraordinary change of policy with regard to Egypt is carried out, the country should be plainly and fully informed what the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt is. If they call upon us to rally round them regardless of Party, we have the right to demand that there shall be a clean breast made with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. As a matter of fact, the country is in a position of wild alarm, and it is utterly in the dark as to what we have been doing and are doing in Egypt. If they do really wish that, in the grave emergency they foreshadow, the country as one man should rally round the national flag, we have the right to a clear statement of the views of the Government as to Egypt. We really know nothing as to them. One month we have one policy and another month another. At one moment one party in the Cabinet seems to gain the day, at another moment another party; at one moment it is the Peace party, and at another moment what people vulgarly call the Jingo party. At such a moment a good patriot is only doing his duty in saying that the
  296
  matter should be cleared up. Do not let it be said that retirement from our position in Egypt is a light matter, and one that may not involve serious cost hereafter. Remember what we found when we deserted Suakin last year after those brilliant victories over Osman Digna. We had to do the work over again and to spend British life and treasure more largely than before. For one, I should wish heartily to support Her Majesty's Government in an emergency like this; but I do feel confident that the people of the country will require some clear explanation of the policy of the Government as to Egypt, if they are to submit to the enormous sacrifices they are called upon to make.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, there could be no doubt that all would be ready to stand by the Government in this emergency. He desired to know what provision would be made for the wives and families of the Reserve men when they were called upon to rejoin the Colours?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the wives and families of Reserve men recalled to the Colours would be treated, as regarded separation allowances, on the same footing as those of soldiers married with leave.

INFANTS BILL.—(No. 46.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
INFANTS BILL.—(No. 46.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee," said, that Notice had been given of an Amendment by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) which went to the root and principle of the Bill; and if the Amendment were carried, he should consider it his duty to abandon the Bill. The principle of the Amendment ought really to have been discussed on the second reading of the Bill. The object of the Bill, which had its origin in the other House, was to amend the Common Law which gave the father of a family absolute control over his children to the exclusion of the mother. Under the law great cruelties had been practised and great hardships suffered. The Bill declared that in certain circumstances the mother should be guardian or joint guardian. It had had been erroneously supposed that the

  297
  late Earl Cairns was an opponent of the Bill; but he was not. Earl Cairns said that it would interfere largely with social relations, and that the details could not be settled satisfactorily except by a Select Committee; and the Bill had been carefully considered and amended by a Select Committee. The Bill of last year was supported in the other House by the Law Officers of the Crown, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Horace Davey, Mr. Bryce, and 17 Members of the Government. It was opposed by Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir R. Assheton Cross. The present Bill differed in some particulars from that of last year; but its leading principle was to confer upon the mother the right to which she was morally and inherently entitled of appointing guardians for her children in case she survived her husband. Some objection had been taken to the proposal to give jurisdiction in these questions of guardianship to the County Courts. It was said that questions of great delicacy and difficulty might arise unfit for such a tribunal to adjudicate. But he thought it was impossible for any injustice or inconvenience to arise, inasmuch as either party was entitled, without assigning any reason, to require the transfer of the matter to the Chancery Division of the High Court. The Amendment swept away the whole principle of the measure, and if it were carried, he should abandon the Bill.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the Bill entirely overlooked the interest of the children, which was sacrificed to the sentiment on behalf of the mother. Nothing could be more injurious to the welfare of the children than a divided guardianship, and the law of England had not been unwise in throwing upon the father the entire responsibility of bringing up the children. The mother had not equal rights in the matter with the father. There was no reference in the Bill to the case of the mother remarrying. It was important to remember that, as the father was the head of the family, the mother, on a second marriage, became part of her second husband's family. Then there was no provision for divorced persons, and a divorced woman, whose children had been placed by the Court under the
  298
  protection of the husband, would still, under the Bill, be entitled on the father's death to the guardianship of the children. If their Lordships passed this Bill, they would be introducing a principle which involved the utmost confusion in our families. The Bill would introduce discord between husband and wife, it would place women in a position of equality with men which by nature they did not possess, and it would open out sources of the gravest disaster in order to meet some exceptional cases which certainly had not been laid before their Lordships. All cases of litigation were cases of difficulty and doubt. What their Lordships had to consider was how our existing law affected our English homes in our every-day life. In his opinion, that law was for the benefit of the children. He did not deny that there were exceptions to the general rule; but for the sake of exceptions which were limited in number, and for which the proposed remedy was exceedingly doubtful, they had no right to upset the principles regulating the relations of a father towards his children. Perhaps he might be told that a Select Committee had carefully considered the Bill; but really this question was one not so much for the consideration of lawyers as for the consideration of fathers of families. The Select Committee did not pay so much respect to the interests, the position, and the duties of fathers of families as they did to the somewhat exaggerated and hysterical view of the case which had been made out for mothers as against fathers. He thought he had now shown that the Bill itself was full of dangerous matter. He quite admitted, however, that there was one point in which the law might be amended with safety. As the law at present stood, the mother did not become guardian of the children if the father made no appointment at all. He thought there could be no doubt that when the guardian nominated by the father was dead, or if the father waived his paternal rights, it was right and proper that the mother should become the guardian of the children. This was one reason why he had hesitated to move the rejection of the Bill; but he thought he had shown that the measure would introduce novel and dangerous principles into our legislation, and therefore he intended to move, in Com-

  299
  mittee, the Amendments of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked, that if the noble Earl's speech were of any value at all, it did not stop short of the total rejection of the Bill. He had listened to that speech with much regret, because it showed that his noble Friend had not a just appreciation of the legitimate claims and rights of the mothers of this country, and of the scandalous state of the law, which at present entirely ignored them. He had hardly expected to be so soon reminded of the enormous and irreparable loss which that House had sustained in the death of Lord Cairns. The noble Earl had spoken of the Select Committee as if it had been composed of men who approached this question with the feelings of lawyers only. Some of those who sat on that Committee, including himself, might accept such censure; though lawyers, as well as others, were husbands and fathers, and, if influenced at all by professional prejudices, were not likely to be so in the direction of change. But was there a man in that House who would say that Lord Cairns had not considered the question with a mind open to broad and generous views of the rights and interests of fathers and children? He would now make a few observations on the criticisms of his noble Friend. In the first place, there was not in the Bill a single word which interfered with the rights of a father. He denied that a father, after he was dead, was capable of discharging the duties of guardian of his child, and he also denied that any person whom the father might put in his place could possibly succeed to the father's position and to his natural rights, however earnestly he might desire to discharge the duties intrusted to him. The objection of a divided authority had been raised; but surely such an objection would have no validity, because the Bill introduced no change of principle in that respect. As things were now, more guardians than were might be appointed by the father, and the authority might be divided between them. In the event of a disagreement between the guardians, the Bill provided that the Court might be appealed to, and would make such order as might appear to promote the welfare of the children. In his opinion, the welfare of the children was intimately bound up
  300
  with their relations to their parents, and the law, at all events, had enough of humanity in it to treat the mother as a child's guardian, when there was no other. And what was the title it gave her? The language of the law was "guardian by nature and nurture." He thought it would be a very unfortunate day for their Lordships' House on which such a Bill as this were rejected on such grounds as had been urged against it.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEexpressed his fear that the Bill would give rise to a large amount of litigation, which, as their Lordships knew, meant ruin to the purse and continued hostility between the parties concerned. The Bill would, in fact, bring about a totally new state of society. The domestic habits and relations in this country were as good if not better than in any other part of the world. The onus probandi of the existence of the evils which this Bill was intended to remedy lay with those who were responsible for the Bill, and yet the noble and learned Lord in charge of the measure had not cited any cases of cruelty which did not come under the law as it is at present, and therefore showed no good cause for new legislation.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he objected strongly to that clause of the Bill which empowered a mother to appoint a testamentary guardian to act jointly with the father. If a father should object to being associated with a guardian of that kind, he would be compelled to prove before the Court of Chancery his fitness to have the sole charge of his own children.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHthought it would be a great mistake to refer questions of such extreme delicacy as those connected with the custody of children to County Court Judges. He, therefore, on that ground alone, would be prepared to support the rejection of the Bill, if it should be moved, on the third reading.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 2 (Surviving parent to be guardian).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, at the end of line 9, to leave out ("if surviving"), and insert ("unless the father shall have by deed or will otherwise appointed"). He thought they should be acting much more wisely by retaining the right which the father now possessed. He believed the system, on the

  301
  whole, was conducive to the peace of families. In cases of this kind they usually heard a great deal about the law of other countries. According to the law of the United States, the father had the right of appointing a guardian to his children. That was an argument which ought not to be disregarded. He entreated their Lordships not through the consideration of exceptional cases to upset a well-ordered system of English law which had existed for upwards of 200 years.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 9, leave out ("if surviving"), and insert ("unless the father shall have by deed or will otherwise appointed").—[The Earl Beauchamp.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the exact point involved in the Amendment was that though there might have been a divorce through the husband's fault, and though the children might be in the wife's care during their father's lifetime on account of his misconduct, he might by will appoint a guardian who was to supersede the mother.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 5; Not-Contents 40: Majority 35.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 78.)

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act, 1875—Was presented by The Lord GREVILLE; read 1a. (No. 77.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.