Lords Sitting of 23 February 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Roman Catholic Disabilities (Advowsons, &c.)* (18); Marriages Legalization * (19).
Select Committee—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland)* (6), The Earl of Milltown added.

EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN—THE VOTE OF CENSURE.

  NOTICE OF RESOLUTION, &c.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEY: I beg to give Notice that I propose on Thursday to move the following Resolution:—
  "That this House, having taken into consideration the statements that have been made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, is of opinion that—(1.) The deplorable failure of the Soudan expedition to attain its object has been due to the undecided councils of the Government and to the culpable delay attending the commencement of operations; (2.) That the policy of abandoning the whole of the Soudan after the conclusion of military operations will be dangerous to Egypt and inconsistent with the interests of the Empire."
  LORD WENTWORTH: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I shall move an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Marquess, to leave out all the words after "That" to the end of the Question, in order to insert the words—
  "An humble Address be presented to the Queen, humbly representing to Her Majesty that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in respect to the affairs in Egypt and the Soudan has involved a great sacrifice of valuable lives and a heavy expenditure without any beneficial result, and has rendered it imperatively necessary in the interests of the British Empire and of the Egyptian people that Her Majesty's Government should not employ the British forces to occupy the Soudan or to pre vent the exercise by the Egyptian people of their right to select their own government."

IRELAND—STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the £50,000 granted by Parliament in the Session of 1883 for the purpose of migration of tenants in Ireland has been advanced for that purpose; and, if so, to what person or company it has been advanced? He would also move for a Return from the Land Commission in

  1003
  Ireland showing what part of the purchase money of the Kilclooney estate—bought by the Company of which Mr. Parnell was Chairman—was advanced on loan from the Treasury.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "Return from the Land Commission in Ireland, showing what part of the purchase money of the Kilclooney Estate (bought by the Company of which Mr. Parnell is chairman) was advanced on loan from the Treasury." —(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in reply, said, that no part of the £50,000 allotted for the purpose of what was called migration had been applied for, and therefore no portion had been advanced. He would agree to the Motion of the noble Lord for a Return respecting the purchase money of the Kilclooney estate.
  Motion agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE—(ADMISSION OF STRANGERS)—ADMISSION TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is his intention to propose any such new Rules relative to admission to the House of Lords as have been made by the Speaker of the House of Commons relative to that House? Ho remarked that the fact that the House of Lords was a Court of Justice during the daytime rendered it inexpedient to apply to it precisely the same regulations as were made for the other House. The matter was one of importance, although public attention had been diverted from the doings of the dynamitards by the disastrous events which had recently taken place in Egypt. In that country they had to grieve over the loss of a most capable and disinterested Englishman. The Government was bound to protect him, whereas by gross negligence and delay they sent out relief to him at a time when it was impossible it could be of any use to him.
    EARL GRANVILLErose to Order. A Notice of Motion had been given as to the conduct of the Government, and he objected to a discussion of the affairs of Egypt upon the question of the protection of the House of Lords.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, ho was drawing a contrast. Their Lordships were not accustomed to be so particular. The noble Lord was proceeding with further observations, when——
    THE EARL OF LONGFORDrose to Order.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he would only add that, in view of recent occurrences and of the conspiracy known to be existing, it was absolutely necessary that proper steps should be taken for the protection of the House.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could quite understand the anxiety of the noble Lord which had led him to put the Question. The course which he had himself proposed, to refer the matter to the Committee of Black Rod, had received the full sanction of the noble Marquess opposite and of the House. He only wished to relieve the noble Lord from one apprehension by saying that neither he himself nor any of the noble Lords beside him were favourable to the blowing up of that House, or even indifferent to it, especially when they were in it themselves.

  AFRICA (RED SEA COAST)—OCCUPATION OF MASSOWAII BY ITALY.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to move—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence between Her Majesty's Government, Turkey, Italy, and other European Powers relative to the occupation of Massowah by Italian troops,"
    said, that at the present moment they were so much occupied with the critical state of affairs in Egypt and the Soudan that there was a danger of passing over almost in silence what, perhaps, would at other times attract a larger share of attention. But if it were so in the case of that which he had wished to bring under their Lordships' notice in the Motion now before the House, there were not inwanting timations in various quarters of what was taking place on the shores of the Red Sea, and of which he was not aware that any information had been given to their Lordships by Her Majesty's Government. They had recently been informed from other sources that Italian troops had taken possession of and occupied Massowah, a position of some importance on the Western Coast of

    1005
    the Red Sea; and they were further told that additional Italian troops were to be sent there, with artillery and guns for forts which were about to be constructed. It was true that they were not in possession of any official information as to what the object of the occupation of that Egyptian territory might be, or whether it had received any kind of sanction from other European Powers; but it appeared that a protest against it had been made by the Porte, it being a part of the Ottoman Empire. It had also been alleged that the landing of Egyptian troops had been opposed by the Italians, who had forcibly occupied Beilul, near Assab, some distance south of Massowah. The districts of Suakin and Massowah were, he believed, made over by Turkey to Egypt, subject to a tribute, sometime ago; but they no less remained a part of the Ottoman Empire, the integrity of which, as their Lordships were aware, was guaranteed by Treaties. If they for a moment looked to the critical state of affairs in the Soudan, and consequently on the littoral of the Red Sea, the noble Earl opposite would not, he hoped, consider it unreasonable or inopportune to ask for some information on the subject to which he had referred. Words had recently been uttered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chambers expressing a greater community of interests as now existing between this country and Italy; and it was hardly possible to separate these words entirely from late events, but rather as implying an understanding, or, it might be, tacit consent, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to what had taken place, and which was virtually a violation of Turkish territory and a disregard of Treaties. This was surely not a time for widening the breach between this country and Turkey, which unhappily, by the action of Her Majesty's Government, had been assuming very serious proportions. We had been rending an alliance which tended greatly to strengthen British influence and British interests in the East, and thereby making more and more difficult the present action of England in Egypt, which was resulting in a war that could lead to nothing but bloodshed and massacre. He trusted the noble Earl opposite would be able to inform their Lordships to what extent encouragement or consent had been given by Her Majesty's Government to
    1006
    the occupation of Massowah by Italy, and whether it had been done with the sanction of the Sultan. In conclusion, he begged to move for the Papers in question.
    Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence between Her Majesty's Government Turkey, Italy, and other European Powers relative to the occupation of Massowah by Italian troops."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
    EARL GRANVILLE: If the noble Earl will not press his Motion to-night, I will undertake to present Papers at the earliest possible moment. In the meanwhile, however, I may state shortly what these Papers will contain. On the 3rd of November the Italian Ambassador inquired whether Her Majesty's Government were in any way opposed to an extension of Italian jurisdiction to the north of their settlement at Assab, so as to include Beilul, in the same way as Raheita had already been included in the south. I assured him that Her Majesty's Government felt no jealousy of the extension of Italian influence over that part of the Red Sea Coast, but would, on the contrary, welcome it. Her Majesty's Government could not, however, undertake to give away that which did not belong to them, and I suggested the desirability of the Italian Government coming to an arrangement with the Porte on the matter. On the 22nd of December Count Nigra inquired in what manner Her Majesty's Government would view a provisional occupation of Zulla by Italian troops. I informed him that the Egyptian Government being unable to continue their hold on all the African littoral of the Red Sea, the ports naturally reverted to the Sultan, whom Her Majesty's Government had advised to retake possession of some of them. If the Italian Government desired to occupy some of these ports, it was a matter between Italy and Turkey. Her Majesty's Government, for their own part, had no objection to raise against the Italian occupation of Zulla, Beilul, or Massowah. On the 10th of January Musurus Pasha referred to the reports current as to the intentions of the Italian Government on the Red Sea, and I stated that it was to be regretted that Turkey had not acted on the suggestions of Her Majesty's Government that she should herself occupy these ports. When the

    1007
    Porte protested subsequently against the Italian occupations, I expressed a strong hope that Turkey and Italy should amicably arrange the matter, but informed the Turkish Ambassador that Her Majesty's Government must disclaim any responsibility, as their advice to the Sultan to occupy the ports had not been acted upon. I also stated to His Excellency that though there was no engagement or special alliance with Italy, we were on terms of warm friendship with that country. Papers will be laid on the Table in due time.
    Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—THE HOSTILITIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that their Lordships might naturally have Been in the public newspapers accounts of the conduct of affairs by Prance in Chinese waters, and also of the action taken by the British Government. In The Ttmes of the 21st instant a Correspondent at Hong Kong writes thus—
  "The so-called 'blockade' is only effective against European merchants. In Tamsui we are now without 10 mails from Europe, and we cannot get away. Several French war vessels run along the coast, and sink every boat which they meet, taking the crews to Kelung, where they are treated barbarously. The proceedings of the French are unparalleled in the history of modern civilized warfare. … The latest French action on the Formosan coast has excited the greatest indignation. The French vessels are to receive 10 days' provisions and five days' coal; Saigon is considered their nearest port; but the Triomphante received more—why, no one knows. Letters from every quarter in China and Japan tell me that England is condemned for allowing the French to use Hong Kong as a base."
  Now, it was not necessary for him to say that he did not for a moment suppose that Prance had been carrying on her operations there in the manner described by the Correspondent of The Times. He had no doubt her Commanders were operating in a manner consistent with civilized warfare and the action of civilized nations; but he did not feel quite so clear that what the Correspondent said about the action, or want of action, on the part of Her Majesty's Government was not accurate, because he must say that no reasonable man, after the experience of last year, could, be suspected to believe, or, at all
  1008
  events, to feel sure, that Her Majesty's Government had any distinct comprehension of its duties, or distinct determination to carry them out. As far as he understood the matter, there was no distinct declaration of war between Prance and China; but, at the same time, France claimed the right which was conceded only to a belligerent, that of searching neutral vessels, and she was also conducting the blockade of ports. The inconvenience and uncertainty in this matter was exceedingly great. He did not know whether we considered Prance was at war or not. The practice of conducting military operations and bombarding operations, and not going to war, was spreading all over the world, and was causing very great inconvenience. It would be obvious to their Lordships that vessels carrying goods which we re contraband of war to Japan would be liable to be seized on the way and detained, and, possibly, the goods confiscated. He was aware that in one case in which a vessel was going out to China the insurance was raised from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. He was aware that several British ships going to Shanghai had to discharge their cargo at the intermediate port of Singapore, on account of the exercise of the right of search. That was causing great disturbance and great derangement of the whole trade with China, and it was right that such a matter should be inquired into. If France and China were at war, we must submit to the inconveniences of the right of search; but, at the same time, if war was declared, we, as neutrals, had certain duties which we were bound to perform, and he was not at all clear that we were performing them. If we were not performing them, it was abundantly clear that we might cause ourselves infinite trouble in the future. If, for example, an American or Italian vessel was stopped and seized, and her cargo confiscated by a French cruiser that had obtained coals or provisions in our ports more than she was entitled to if the French were treated as belligerents, serious difficulty might arise. At present there appeared to be a great deal of uncertainty in the matter, and that uncertainty ought to be cleared up. He therefore begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether there has been a declaration of war between Prance and

  1009
  China; whether the "right of search" is exercised or claimed by either of those Powers; and whether the rules regulating the conduct of neutrals towards belligerents are applied to French and Chinese vessels in British Ports?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, no formal declaration of war has been issued by France and China. Up to a recent period the French Government maintained that they were not at war with China, but that their hostilities there were only in the nature of reprisals. They consequently repudiated the intention of exercising the belligerent right of search over neutral vessels, and insisted that the blockade which they had notified of the ports of Formosa was a "pacific blockade" and not a "belligerent blockade;" but that any neutral vessel attempting to break it would be captured. Her Majesty's Government were unable to accept those views, and at the same time they were averse to taking any step which would aggravate the situation unnecessarily as regards our own rights as neutrals and beyond the wishes of the belligerents. They therefore announced to the French Government that, in their opinion, a state of war did exist in China which compelled them to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act; that the blockade of Formosa was recognized by them, but only as a belligerent blockade; and that so long as the hostilities were confined to certain localities, and neutral vessels were not interfered with on the high seas, Her Majesty's Government would not deem it necessary to take any further measure for the observance of their neutrality than the enforcement of the Foreign Enlistment Act. This took place in the month of November last, and the decision of Her Majesty's Government was communicated to the Governors of the British Possessions in the East. In consequence of recent complaints from the Chinese Minister in this country that the Foreign Enlistment Act was not being strictly enforced in Hong Kong as regards the repairing and equipping of French vessels of war, it was deemed necessary to issue special instructions to the Governors of the Eastern Colonies for their guidance in carrying out the decision of Her Majesty's Government. Those instructions did not in any way modify the attitude of Her Majesty's
  1010
  Government, or their decision arrived at in October last, and announced at the time to the French Government. The French Government, however, have now found it necessary to exercise the right of search on the high seas in order to intercept contraband of war destined for Chinese ports, and as the prohibition of the export of munitions of war from neutral ports is not an obligation imposed by the Law of Nations, it is not unnatural that the French Government should resort to the remedy which that law affords to the belligerent. They have at the same time assured Her Majesty's Government that the right of search will be exercised by them with all the consideration and forbearance towards neutrals which the circumstances permit. Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary at present, therefore, to modify their decision of November last, which insures a just and equal measure of neutrality towards both belligerents and the scrupulous observance of British law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After the very moderate speech of my noble Friend, the noble Earl opposite has, I think, shown considerable reluctance to make a plain statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this point. It is a point of extreme importance in the view of International Law, and also in regard to our countrymen trading in the Eastern Seas. I understand the noble Earl to say that France has claimed the right of search at sea in order to stop the import of munitions of war, and that this has not been objected to by Her Majesty's Government. Does that mean that France, which is only blockading one or two ports in Formosa, claims the right of search with respect to all vessels going to any of the ports of China in order to find out whether they have munitions of war? I apprehend that if any claim is made on the part of the French Government it is practically setting up that which the Declaration of Paris destroyed—namely, the system of paper blockades. France assented to the provision of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, that blockades, if they are to be carried out, must be genuine blockades; and the claim to search vessels on the high seas, no matter what port they are going to, merely because one or two ports are blockaded, appears to me to be one

  1011
  which has placed that doctrine in great peril, and which Her Majesty's Government should not have admitted so easily as the have done. Another point alluded to by my noble Friend was not touched by the noble Earl, and that is the question of permitting French vessels to make English ports a base for operations against China. I remember that during the Confederate War—a war which raised these questions of belligerency and blockade in a very acute form, and caused them to be examined and discussed with great minuteness—the rule was adopted that England would allow neither of the contending parties to send its ships into English ports for a longer space than 24 hours. They were not allowed to ship more either of coal or provisions than would be necessary to take them to the nearest port belonging to their own nation. This can hardly arise in the present case; but if there were two ships belonging to opposite belligerents in port at the same time, and if one of them left, the other was not allowed to leave without a delay of 24 hours. Now, I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that France is carrying out her blockade against those ports by watching ships within British ports; that a French gunboat or man-of-war lies alongside the particular trader whom she has reason to suspect, and watches her and follows her out. If anything of that kind has taken place it is a gross breach of the international practice in this respect. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell me that the public reports to that effect are erroneous; but, at all events, it appears to me that, both as to the extent to which the right of search is permitted and the extent to which hostility is given to belligerent vessels, the answer of the noble Earl is very imperfect, and I hope he will supplement it by laying Papers on the Table, and give us, at the same time, the text of the instructions which have been issued to the Colonial authorities.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have no objection to lay Papers on the Table; but do I understand that the noble Marquess thinks it wrong to allow France to search any vessels on the high seas?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: General right of search with reference to whether the vessels are going to blockaded or unblockaded ports.
  EARL GRANVILLE: France said they were not at war, while we said they were; and, having done so, they, of course, claimed the right of belligerents.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The right of search applies not only to blockades, but also to contraband of -war for the use of belligerents.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Has France the right of searching vessels going to all parts?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must refer the noble Earl to the Foreign Enlistment Act.

  THE AUSTRALASIAN COLONIES—CONFEDERATION.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will introduce into this House the Bill to enable the Australian Colonies to form a Federation for certain purposes; and, if so, whether he proposes to take the second reading before Easter? He further asked whether he had been correctly informed that the noble Earl was still in correspondence with the Colonies about this measure; and would delay its introduction till replies had been received? He observed that, as far as he knew, he was the first person who had publicly raised this question some 14 or 15 years ago. He did not wish on this occasion, or on a mere Question, to enter at length into the matter. He had advocated a different modus operandi from that now proposed; and he wished to make arrangements to be present when the second reading of the Bill was taken.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: In answer to the Question of the noble Earl, I have to state that I shall be prepared to bring in the Bill to which he has referred, and I think it will be better to introduce it in this House. With regard to the Correspondence on the subject, I may remind your Lordships that on the 11th of December last I sent out a despatch to the various Governments concerned, suggesting that certain alterations should be made in the draft Bill which they had sent home. That despatch has been laid on the Table. I have received only one answer as yet and that came from Western Australia. The remainder of the replies are daily expected. Obviously the noble Earl will see that it would not be courteous to the

  1013
  other Colonies who have been expressly consulted to proceed without waiting until the answers which they may have to give have been received. I cannot, therefore, pledge myself to bring in the Bill before Easter. It is, however, the desire and the intention of the Government that there should be no unnecessary delay.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked whether New Zealand was included in the scheme?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Bill was one empowering Colonies to join, but not compelling any Government to join, for federation purposes; and it would, therefore, depend upon New Zealand itself whether it came within the scheme or not.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the answer of the noble Earl to the first part of the Question was quite satisfactory; but, in regard to the second part, he should be sorry if his noble Friend allowed any undue delay to arise in this matter. That was just one of those questions which, when once they were brought forward and when circumstances were sufficiently ripe, ought to be dealt with at once, as the opportunity should not be lost. He said this from having clearly before his mind what occurred in similar circumstances in the confederation of Canada. This was a question which had excited a great deal of attention, and one which was preceded by negotiations and conferences: and when at last the matter came before the Government, of which he was a Member, some said that it was time, others demurred to that opinion, while others said that it was a question as to whether delays at the last moment were not politic and seasonable. Those, however, most directly connected with that measure thought otherwise, and that it was an occasion which, if lost, might not have readily presented itself again. He was, therefore, anxious that there should be no undue delay in this matter. The Australian federation scheme was not merely preliminary to the federation of the Australian and New Zealand Colonies, but it was a high step to that Imperial federation which many of them so much desired. There was, however, one other step towards Imperial federation which had been taken, and which had proceeded unexpectedly from the Colonies themselves. He referred to those splendid and munificent offers of
  1014
  military assistance which had been made to this country by the Australian Colonies. When he referred to the munificent offers of the Australian Colonies he did not mean the Governments of those Colonies alone; it was not merely the Governments, but the individuals in those Colonies, who were combining with one another in princely liberality. He could hardly remember such a splendid outburst of patriotic feeling. Whether these offers proceeded from the Australasian Governments or from individuals, he implored the noble Earl not to allow official technicalities or rules to stand in the way of the acceptance by the Government of those great offers in the fullest and amplest manner. There was one aspect of these offers which he viewed with especial satisfaction, and that was the proposal that all the Australian Colonies should constitute their forces into one general body. That was a great step indeed in the direction of federation; and he should sincerely regret if anything should be said or done to throw cold water on that proposal. There was a school of politicians who depreciated our Colonial connections; but their eyes must recently have been opened upon seeing so splendid an outburst of national feeling on the part of the Australian Colonies and Canada. Our Colonists, he always believed, were in spirit as much Englishmen as ourselves; and he must honestly confess that of late years he had often thought that many of our English virtues had crossed the seas, and existed there in much greater force and reality than with us. Certainly the offers of the Australian Colonies, whether made on behalf of the Government or of individuals, were a complete answer to all those objections that had been urged—to the effect that their Colonies would be unwilling to bear their share in the common liabilities of Imperial responsibility, and also a complete answer to some of the doubts of foreign critics as to our present condition. So long as the English Colonies could produce such a spectacle as had been seen during the last few weeks England might count on their support. Amid all the unfortunate circumstances of the past year, and amid all the present gloom in so many directions, the conduct of the Australian Colonies was the one bright spot upon which he looked with satisfaction.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he thought that while they spoke of the Australian Colonies they should not forget that the Dominion of Canada had not been behindhand in her desire to rally to the support of the Empire. When connected with the Colonial Office he had always regarded the Colonists as Englishmen, to all intents and purposes, only separated from England by the expanse of ocean beyond which they they lived, but under the same Sovereign and with the same rights as those at home. Nothing was more gratifying than the manner in which they had recently shown their attachment to the Empire. It had been rumoured that the offers made by certain of the Colonies had not been received by the Government with that warmth and gratitude which was desirable. He hoped that the noble Earl would be able to state that such reports were unfounded, and that he fully appreciated the offers made, not only from one, but from all the Colonies.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) with respect to the liberal offers of the Australian Colonies did not arise out of the Question on the Paper; and he had, therefore, not alluded to the subject. But if any Member of the House wished, as the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne) seemed to wish, for further explanations as to what the Government proposed to do with regard to these different offers, it would be more convenient for him to give Notice and bring the matter regularly forward. For the present it would be sufficient to refer to the declarations made by him in that House, and by the Prime Minister in the other House, which showed that there was on the part of the Government no such ingratitude and coldness as the noble Lord had referred to. With regard to the precise manner and time and extent to which the Government could avail themselves of these offers, these were not matters to be decided simply from a wish to do what was most agreeable to all parties concerned. They involved many considerations which must be decided in conjunction with the Military Authorities. For instance, the arrangements for the Suakin Expedition had been already made, and to largely increase its numbers now would probably be to raise
  1016
  questions of transport and supply, which might considerably add to the difficulties of the undertaking. He must beg noble Lords not to suppose that because they had delayed acceptance of the offers at the present moment it was to be held to imply indifference to the feeling which dictated these offers, or any intention ultimately to refuse them.

  GENERAL GORDON—TELEGRAMS AND DESPATCHES.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table at once copies of the whole of the telegrams and despatches received from General Gordon during the siege of Khartoum? The noble Earl said he was anxious to know whether the telegrams and despatches that would be presented would be intact? It had been stated in the other House that parts of the telegrams relating to personal matters would be omitted. He thought it exceedingly desirable that the whole of them should be published. The country would not be satisfied without seeing every word that was sent to the Government by the late lamented General during the siege. It would be desirable to have all the telegrams from General Gordon in one book, instead of being scattered over several books. He should also like to know whether the Government could give the House any further information as to General Gordon's diaries?
    EARL GRANVILLE: All the despatches and telegrams that we have received have been laid before Parliament. With regard to the objection of the noble Earl to any omission whatever of a personal character, I entirely dissent from that objection. If the personal matters were merely reflections on the Government, that would be a public thing; but they are not, and it would be most unfair to General Gordon and to the individuals mentioned if we were to publish to the world observations about those individuals which he certainly did not intend to have published.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that all the Papers have been laid before the House?
    EARL GRANVILLE: All that we have received.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has not answered the Question as to the diaries.
    EARL GRANVILLE: We have not yet received them, so we must wait until we have received them before we can give you the opportunity of seeing them.
    THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Earl had not answered the Question whether he would consent to bring forward in one single Paper all the telegrams?
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would be highly inconvenient to do so, as it would destroy the chronological sequence.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I may take it that the only omissions made in the telegrams are those of a personal character reflecting on individuals, which, therefore, cannot be published?
    EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; and there are some which might have an injurious effect upon the military operations.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKEremarked that there was no index to the Blue Book presented that day, which was an unusual omission.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—THE SUAKIN-BERBER BASE.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    VISCOUNT BURYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that in the summer of 1884 Lord Wolseley demanded that a force should be sent forthwith to Suakin? The noble Lord pointed out that the Suakin-Berber base now being established had been pressed upon the Government from almost the beginning of their military operations in the Soudan, and especially by General Stephenson, the reason of whose supersession on the 28th of August last year was that he advocated that route. He would make the Government a present of this proof of their inconsistency, and would only say that those who had any conversance with military matters, and who looked at Lord Wolseley's present position, drawing, as he must do, his whole supplies from the Nile Valley, and the imminent danger of his being cut off by any advance on Dongola, could not help feeling that the gravest responsibility rested upon Her Majesty's Government for their sins of omission and commission. It would be remembered that the
    1018
    Suakin-Berber route was urged upon Her Majesty's Government with all the insistence, persistence, and knowledge of all military officers; and the Government must expect to find the matter brought up against them in the House again and again so long as they remained at the head of affairs.
    THE EARL OF MORLEY,in reply, said, he would not discuss the alternative route at the present moment, but would only say one word as to the Question put by the noble Viscount. He could not help thinking that the Question was based on a somewhat remarkable idea of the functions of the Adjutant General of the Forces. The responsibility for any military operations rested upon the Ministers of the Crown, and not upon their Military Advisers; and the Ministers of the Crown were perfectly prepared to undertake all their responsibilities. No doubt advice would be asked of the Military Authorities as to the military measures necessary to give effect to a particular line of policy; but he did not feel quite certain whether it was judicious to inform the House what was the confidential advice given to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War by his Military Advisers. He might, however, say that at the time and before the time when it was determined to send out an Expedition there was, of course, a very considerable amount of discussion as to the various routes. No doubt, military opinions differed as to the best route for such an Expedition to take. Those opinions had been most carefully weighed; and after a most careful consideration, and with the full concurrence of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Wolseley), it was decided that the route by the Nile was the only route possible, at the time when the Expedition was finally decided upon by the Government. In answer to his noble Friend's Question, he would say that he was not aware that Lord Wolseley ever did insist upon a force being sent to Suakin at the time mentioned. He would also like to mention that the noble Viscount was mistaken as to the supersession of General Stephenson. That gallant officer still remained in the position he held at that time. He, having given an adverse opinion to the Nile route, could not fairly have been called upon to conduct the Expedition which it had been decided to send by that route.
    VISCOUNT BURYread a telegram from the War Office to General Stephenson to the effect that after anxious consideration Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that it would be unjust to that officer to ask him to be responsible for directing the operations, and that they had, therefore, decided to send Lord Wolseley to take generally the command in Egypt. When an officer was told that he, being in chief command, was to be replaced by another officer, it was impossible to say he was not superseded. It was only playing with words, and not dealing fairly with the House, to say that General Stephenson had not been superseded.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, with regard to the supersession of General Stephenson, of course the noble Viscount was technically right; but the simple fact was that General Stephenson gave it as his opinion that an Expedition by means of boats up the Nile was not likely to succeed, and no one could call upon a General to undertake the command of an Expedition which he could not recommend. That being so, what could be more natural than that Lord Wolseley, having given his opinion that the Expedition up the Nile was feasible, should be called upon to take the command? There could be no possible slur upon General Stephenson in that.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.

    QUESTION.
    THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, Why the office of Secretary to the General Post Office, Dublin, which has been vacant for many months, has not been filled up; whether it is intended to fill it up; and, if so, when?
    LORD THURLOW,in reply, said, that the office referred to by the noble Earl was not at present actually vacant; but he believed there had been some temporary interruption in the performance of its duties owing to certain legal proceedings which had taken place, to which he need not more particularly refer. Pending an appeal, which was shortly expected to be heard, the Postmaster General was unable to make any final arrangements.

  GENERAL GORDON'S PAPERS AND DIARIES.
  EARL GEANVILLE: I wish to state to the House that a telegram has been received from Lord Wolseley announcing that all General Gordon's Papers are safe and on their way to Korti.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES (ADVOWSONS, &C.) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to remove the disabilities of Roman Catholics being owners of advowsons and rights of presentation—Was presented by The Viscount BARRINGTON; read 1a. (No. 18.)

  MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to remove doubts as to the effect of certain irregularities on the validity of marriages—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 19.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.