Lords Sitting of 26 March 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading— Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* (57); Criminal Law Amendment* (58); Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*; Capo of Good Hope (Advance)* (59); Lunacy Acts Amendment* (60).
Second Reading—Municipal Voters (Belief)* (39).
Committee—Elections (Hours of Poll)* (43).

SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HARRISasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it was true, as reported in The Morning Post of yesterday, and telegraphed from Cape Town, that Sir Hercules Robinson had ordered the proceedings instituted by Sir Charles Warren with regard to the murderers of Mr. Bethell to be stayed, and had further arrested his general course of action in Bechuanaland?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord I have to say that we do not know anything at the Colonial Office of any proposal to stay the proceedings instituted with regard to the murder of
  622
  Mr. Bethell; but as regards another matter to which it is possible the writer of the telegram may have referred, I may say that it is the fact that Sir Hercules Robinson has expressed an opinion that the proceedings against Mr. Niekerk for the murder of Mr. Honey are ill-advised. One of these transactions may have been confounded with the other; but I am not a ware that in that case any step has been taken by Sir Hercules Robinson to veto, or to put an end to those proceedings. I may add that there have been differences of opinion on points of policy between Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson; but nothing that has come to my knowledge would justify the statement which has been telegraphed that Sir Charles Warren's course has been arrested. Both Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson have referred their differences to Her Majesty's Government, and I am in telegraphic communication with them upon the subject. I need hardly say that both of these gentlemen are very able and efficient public servants, and I venture to hope that their differences will be made up, and that the country will not lose the advantage of their co-operation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to ask whether Sir Hercules Robinson has taken these proceedings upon the advice of his Ministers, or has he acted simply as an Imperial officer?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: As to the case of Bechuanaland, I apprehend, as that is beyond the jurisdiction of the Cape Colony, he would be acting entirely upon his own responsibility as High. Commissioner, and not as Governor of the Colony; but no doubt he would consult his Legal Advisers.

ARMY AND MILITIA RESERVE FORCES.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
  Delivered by The Earl of KIMBERLEY, and read by The LORD CHANCELLOR, as follows:
  VICTORIA R.
  The present state of public affairs and the extent of the demands on the military forces of Her Majesty for the protection of the interests of the Empire having constituted, in the opinion of Her Majesty, a case of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide additional moans for Her military service, and, therefore, in pursuance

  623
  of those Acts, Her Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Lords that Her Majesty is about to cause Her Reserve Force and Her Militia Reserve Force, or such part thereof as Her Majesty shall from time to time think necessary, to be called out for permanent service.
  V. R.
  Ordered, That the said Message be taken into consideration To-morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Earl has not given any Notice of this, I wish to ask what the course of proceeding will be with regard to the consideration of Her Majesty's Message?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Her Majesty's Message will be taken into consideration to-morrow.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in presenting a Bill to amend the Acts relating to lunatics, said, it would be convenient that he should explain that the present law was divided into two branches. One related to the class which it might be convenient to describe as Chancery lunatics, whose property was administered by the Court under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices. The other related to lunatics not in that position. The law as to the former was very ancient, going back as far as Edward II. It recognized the right of the Crown to the care and custody of the estates of such persons. There were Masters and other officials in Lunacy, who acted under the authority of the several Acts of Parliament, hold inquiries, and administered estates, rendering accounts to the Court. This part of the law it was not proposed to alter by the present Bill, although one or two clauses would effect some extension of the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices. The principal Acts of Parliament which had reference to this subject were three in number, passed respectively in 1853, 1856, and 1862, and there were in various other Acts particular sections and clauses referring to the same subject. The Chancery lunatics were comparatively few—they did not exceed 1,800 in number; and the rest of the lunatics throughout the country were on a different footing. He did not think any Acts
  624
  were passed with regard to the latter class of lunatics until the Reign of George III., and it was not till 1845 that the subject was placed on a firm and lasting footing. There were now nine Acts, beginning with the Act of 1845 and coming down to an Act passed in 1863, upon that subject. It was most desirable and important that all those 12 Acts and sections of certain other Acts should be consolidated; but it would be better not to attempt to pass a Consolidation Bill until it was seen what alterations in the law would be made in consequence of the present measure. When that was done, all the Acts would be embodied in a Consolidation Bill, which would be introduced either in the present, or, more probably, in another Session, and by means of which the whole law relating to lunacy would be presented in one aspect. With regard to those lunatics who were not Chancery lunatics, and who constituted the great majority of the lunatics throughout the country, he might state briefly the present state of the law and its administration. They might be divided into two great classes—pauper lunatics, and private lunatics who were not paupers. The pauper lunatics were by far the most numerous class; last year they numbered 70,470, and of these there were in licensed houses 1,398. Of those licensed houses there were 85 in the Metropolis and 62 in the Provinces. At the time the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) addressed the House last year, there were in those houses altogether 4,779 patients. There were of hospitals, which were of a more public character than licensed houses, 13 for lunatics and two for idiots, or a total of 15, maintained either by endowment or subscription. Last year those hospitals contained 3,146 patients. In public asylums for lunatics generally, there were 686 private and 45,164 pauper patients. In workhouses there were 17,377 patients; the outdoor pauper lunatics were 6,078. There were 314 in naval and military asylums; and in criminal lunatic asylums 535. Besides those already mentioned, there were 449 single patients kept in other houses, conducted for gain or profit, and visited by the Lunacy Commissioners. They were a body constituted in the year 1845, consisting of three medical and three legal Commissioners, all of whom were paid, and five Commissioners, with the

  625
  noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) at their head, who were unpaid. They had a general supervision and very extensive powers over the whole of this great system. Of the Commissioners he could not speak without paying a humble, though very inadequate, tribute to the invaluable services which had been rendered to the public by them, and particularly by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had been their Chairman for more than 50 years. Under their auspices, the enormous abuses which once prevailed had been swept away. A Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed in 1860, and another in 1877, to consider various points in connection with Lunacy Law, and they had taken a considerable body of evidence on the subject. Some of the cases which had been subjects of complaint were investigated by the Committee in 1877; but the Committee did not think that any serious case of abuse had been established before them. He would not refer to any particular cases since that time which had come before the Courts of Justice; but several of the Judges before whom these cases had come had expressed strong opinions as to the insufficiency of the securities for the liberty of the subject under the present state of the law. Their Lordships would find embodied in the Bill most, if not all, the recommendations of the Committee of 1877. The Bill was an honest and carefully-considered attempt to deal with the subject; but he could not conceal from himself that there were some points in it on which considerable difference of opinion existed, and on one very important provision he regretted that the proposition he had to recommend to the acceptance of the House was not approved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and his Colleagues on the Lunacy Commission. The Bill did not deal with the administrative establishments either of Chancery or the Lunacy Commissioners, which, on the whole, had worked well and proved satisfactory. He did not say that some changes might not hereafter be necessary in them; but, as they formed a collateral branch of the subject, it was not necessary to encumber this measure with any clauses dealing with them. The point to which he first wished to allude was the important one as to the state of the law with regard to the initial measures for the
  626
  confinement of persons as lunatics. It had been stated that any man in the streets could confine anybody else as a lunatic if he got any two medical men, however inexperienced, to sign a certificate. He could not accept that mode of stating the case. He did not believe that anything which could properly be so described had ever happened, or was ever likely to happen. But what was really possible was that an opinion might be obtained from two medical gentlemen, who had to sign the certificate, upon insufficient grounds, by relatives or friends of an alleged lunatic, who might be acting in good faith, but whose motives might not be of that absolutely impartial and disinterested character which was desirable. It was possible, though he was not satisfied that there was proof of the fact, that abuses had taken place in that way. In legislating on a subject of this nature, while care should be taken to give the utmost reasonable security for the liberty of the subject, nothing should be done that would prevent the prompt treatment of patients in the early stages of lunacy. It should be clearly understood that, in a large number of cases of lunacy, a cure might be effected by prompt treatment, while delay might be fatal in many of them; and, therefore, the greatest caution should be exercised in interposing between patients and speedy treatment. By the law of Scotland no person could be confined as a lunatic on the solo authority of any private individual. The practice was to present a petition to the Sheriff, accompanied by a statement of the particulars of the case, and supported by the certificates of two medical practitioners, on the strength of which an order could be made for the reception of the lunatic into an asylum, or other proper place of custody. If the Sheriff was not satisfied with the certificates, he could make independent inquiry. The Scottish law also provided means for dealing with cases of urgency without delay. Similar provisions existed in the legal system of New York and other parts of the United States, in France, and in Germany. The Committees of the House of Commons which had sat in this country in 1860 and 1877 to consider the Lunacy Laws had both reported against that kind of public intervention, the former considering that it would do more harm

  627
  than good, and the latter being of opinion that even if such intervention might do no harm it would do no practical good. But, unless he greatly mistook the expressions of learned Judges and the demands of public opinion at the present time, this question did not stand now as it stood either in 1860 or in 1877. In principle, it did not seem open to doubt that a man's liberty ought not to be interfered with for any long or indefinite time without the sanction of some public authority; and in practice, the experience of Scotland and other countries proved that this principle might be satisfied without injury to the unhappy class whose liberty was in question, if a measure for that purpose was attended by precautions to prevent its unguarded application. The Bill he was introducing proposed that no person, not a pauper or criminal lunatic, or under the guardianship of the Lord Chancellor, should be received or detained as a lunatic in a hospital, asylum, licensed house for lunatics, or for payment in any other place, without the order under the hand of a Judge of a Superior Court, of a Judge of a County Court, of a Stipendiary Magistrate, or of a Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction where the lunatic was. Should their Lordships, during the progress of the Bill, suggest any better authority in these cases than that of all Justices of the Peace, the Government would be ready to give further consideration to that part of the subject. There must be certificates of two medical men, one of whom was to be, if possible, the ordinary medical attendant of the patient; if not, the reasons were to be stated. The Committee of 1877 had suggested that there should be statutory declarations; but it did not appear that any advantage would be gained by this, while there would be the disadvantage of multiplying the stages at which application must be made to a magistrate. There was, however, a clause providing that, in certain cases, the same penalty should attach as if an oath or statutory declaration had been made. If the magistrate should be satisfied with the evidence of lunacy appearing by the medical certificates, he might at once make an order, or, if not satisfied, appoint a time when a further investigation should be made. The inquiry was to be conducted in private, and those necessarily present
  628
  were to be bound to keep everything secret that had taken place in the course of the examination, unless required to divulge it by lawful authority. The patient was not to be present; but the magistrate might, if he thought it necessary, visit him. The magistrate was required to give his reasons in writing if he thought it desirable to dismiss the petition. The 3rd clause provided for cases of urgency, which were to be dealt with, substantially as in Scotland, until a magistrate's order could be obtained. They had thus done what they could to prevent the occurrence of the evils apprehended by those who objected to the introduction of the magistrate. With regard to pauper lunatics, the Bill contained provisions founded on the same principle. Besides the securities which they had endeavoured to provide for the initial stages, the Bill, in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee of 1877, proposed that, within a month after the reception of the patient into any authorized establishment, a report, additional to those now required, should be made to the Commissioners of Lunacy, and subsequently an official visit should be made as soon as practicable to the newly-received lunatic by a Commissioner or by the Visitors in the district. It was proposed that every order made should be limited in duration to three years, unless the proper medical authorities certified that the patient ought to be detained, in which case the order was to be renewed from year to year. At the request of any private person, two medical men, if authorized by the Commissioners, might visit any lunatic, who, with the sanction of the Commissioners, might on their report be discharged. The Bill also proposed to give to the Commissioners large powers, on receiving any information that any person was treated as a lunatic in any private house or any religious establishment, to call for information, and, if necessary, to visit the place. Power was given to the Attorney General and the Home Secretary to initiate proceedings for any offence against the Lunacy Laws. The question of licensed houses was one of the most important connected with this subject. Great objection had been frequently made to licensed houses, on the ground that it was inexpedient that any person should have a pecuniary in-

  629
  terest in the care and continued detention of a lunatic who might possibly be better off elsewhere. At the present time the asylums provided by the County Justices were mainly for pauper lunatics, and private patients could only be received when there was superabundant room, and they must then be treated in the same manner as paupers. It was proposed by the Bill to give greater facilities for extending the public asylum system, so that it might by degrees become adapted to the reception of private non-pauper patients. The County and Borough Justices were to be authorized to provide for the reception of paying patients, either in the same buildings with the pauper patients, or in special asylums. For the purpose of carrying this out, the Justices were authorized, if necessary, to borrow money. These special asylums might be either for idiots or lunatics. In addition to the powers proposed to be given to the Justices, it was also intended that the Secretary of State should have the same compulsory powers with respect to private patients that he now possessed with regard to paupers. It was hoped, therefore, that the system of public asylums would gradually become, in a natural way, a substitute for licensed houses. At the present time, and looking to the large number of licensed houses and the outlay that had been made upon them, it had not been thought advisable, or indeed possible, to abolish them compulsorily. But there would be nothing to prevent the Justices from buying the licensed houses; though the Bill did not propose, as had been proposed in Bills introduced into the House of Commons in 1880 and 1881, that this should be done upon terms to be fixed by the Act, or that the amount should be ascertained by a jury or by arbitrators. To suppress those houses on which a large outlay had been made, and to do it suddenly, without having in the meantime made adequate provision, for the large number of lunatics to be dealt with, was a stop which could not be recommended. It was, however, proposed that after five years no paupers should be received in licensed houses, and that no fresh licences for private asylums should be granted by Justices without the consent of the Commissioners. There were many other provisions in the Bill, on a variety of subjects, and particularly some as to asylums for imbecile chil-
  630
  dren capable of profiting by instruction, which he hoped would meet with their Lordships' approval. Having laid this summary of the Bill before the House, he trusted that their Lordships would read the Bill a first time.
  Bill to amend the Acts relating to lunatics—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR); read la. (No. 60.)

GERMANY, AUSTRIA, AND RUSSIA.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the meeting of the three Emperors at Skiernievice, in September, 1884; and move an humble Address to the Crown for any diplomatic correspondence which exists from Her Majesty's Representatives abroad as to the new concert or alliance between the Courts of Germany, of Austria, and of Russia, said: My Lords, it will not, I think, be difficult to show that the Notice I have given, although going back to an occurrence of the autumn, bears upon the difficulties which cause anxiety at present. But noble Lords may first inquire where is Skiernievice? It is certainly among the places on which geography is rather mute, till history has discovered them. Who ever heard of Königgratz before 1866? Who knew anything of Sedan before 1870, except as a town where a peculiar kind of chair was manufactured or invented? It is difficult to find Skiernievice on actual maps. It will be easy upon future ones. It appears to be distant about an hour and a-half by railway from Warsaw, on the Southern journey to Cracow and to Vienna. My Lords, the Conference at Skiernievice was not the first event which intimated the re-union of Austria, Germany, and Russia. Last year the Royal Speech at Berlin partially acknowledged it. On the 4th of April, when the subject was referred to in this House, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) declined to question its existence. What took place at Skiernievice gave it a degree of form, of pomp, and of publicity which had not previously existed. It also showed, by vivid details I pass over for compression, that Russia was the power to direct, as she has often been the power to achieve, this kind of combination. The three Ministers of the respective States assisted,

  631
  and had long interviews together. The Chancellor of the German Empire, who is never present at unmeaning ceremonials, by joining it himself declared its substance and reality. The choice of the locality in Poland was not insignificant. These facts will hardly be disputed or viewed differently; but it may still be asked on what account an open and accentuated union of the kind ought to be regarded with extraordinary interest?
  It cannot be denied, of course, that these august Personages are entitled to assemble when and where they may think proper. It may be granted, that each, regarded as an individual, has special titles to regard, sympathy, or approbation in Great Britain. It is true also that domestic circumstances and traditionary habits explain a disposition upon their part to recall from time to time the Treaty of September 14, 1815, by which their brotherhood was constituted. But there are important grounds on which their formally avowed re-union always tends to apprehension among men who reason closely as to international affairs.
  The system has been invariably hostile to the objects of Great Britain. If it were not, why should Mr. Canning, when acting for Lord Liverpool and the Conservatives from 1822 to 1827, have been immersed in struggles to resist it? If it were not, why should Lord Palmerston, when acting for the Liberals from 1830 to 1841, have been in no less animated and perpetual collision with it? Whatever page you open of their Correspondence is nearly certain to betray the attitude I have referred to. But, going beyond the range of our interests, the system involves too vast a preponderance of military power to be consistent with the general security. These Empires united can maintain 1,500,000 men, at least, for any object they determine on. Their Fleets are far from inconsiderable; they are reckoned to include 77 iron-plated vessels. I before remarked that the union has been generally brought about by Russia for her objects. It owed its birth to Catherine II. It was reorganized in 1815 by Alexander I. and Madame Krudener. The life of Madame Krudener, by Capefigne, explains the subject with authority and detail. Although I will not recall the history of the system, as I
  632
  did last year, two illustrations which belong to our time may be remembered. In 1847, against the vehement remonstrances of other Powers, it annihilated the independence of Cracow, which dated from the Congress of Vienna. In 1877 it culminated in the late invasion of the Ottoman Empire, the fall of its Assemblies, and the revival of the arbitrary power which weighs upon it at this moment. The union will be always dangerous to Sweden on the one side, to the Porte upon the other. Its effect inevitably is to create a distance between Great Britain and the German Empire. The German Empire cannot lean at once to Russia and Great Britain, even if the latter Powers are drawn together by the momentary ardour of a Government. Governments are variable; nations go back to their orbit. But when Germany and Great Britain are estranged, the latter is left alone and unsupported to contend with France in a variety of quarters. The France of M. Jules Ferry may be irreproachable; but who can guarantee the coming form or future disposition of that country? These may be mentioned as the standing inconveniences of the alliance now in question. But noble Lords who have been in the Consular or Diplomatic Service of the Crown may be aware of many which escape me.
  It is, however, oven more important to consider the results or consequences which have followed the revival of this memorable system since the beginning of last year, when it became visible on the horizon. Russia has advanced to Merv, and, later on, to Sarakhs. Herat is seriously threatened. There is no doubt whatever that the posts retained are within the Afghan Frontier. The possibility of having to defend Afghanistan by arms has now become the daily topic of the journalist. A world of controversy between Great Britain and Germany, which did not formerly exist, has sprung into activity. The Chancellor of the German Empire has felt bound, in the Assembly at Berlin, to reprimand the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office, to say nothing of elaborate apologies in this House, has deemed it proper to send written explanations to the House of Commons. A Treaty with Portugal about the Congo has been abandoned, because too many Powers determined to oppose it. A Con-

  633
  ference in London was dispersed, because it was in vain endeavoured to render it subordinate to any object of Great Britain. These are the fruits which, within a twelvemonth, the new alliance seems to have created.
  It is, therefore, a vital matter to consider in what manner it originated. I rely on the indulgence of the House while dwelling for a moment on this topic. It is beyond my power to do it justice. It must be remembered that in 1879, under the direction of Prince Bismarck, the alliance vanished altogether. Well might enlightened politicians at that time have exclaimed that fate bestowed what hope could scarcely realize or dream of. In 1880 the dreaded union was remote. Germany and Austria were both emancipated from the influence of Russia. What happened to revive it?
  My Lords, if I touch upon domestic incidents, it is only because some of them have been a potent factor in European history, and are thus immediately connected with the Notice I have given. The General Election overthrew Lord Beaconsfield. A Liberal majority was formed, of which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and a noble Marquess who for six years had acted with him in the House of Commons were the accepted and indisputable Leaders. The two were not identified with Russia in any marked degree, although it would be incorrect to say that they had shown peculiar vigilance in watching her encroachments. It is, however, true that when a great occasion took place at St. James's Hall in 1876 to form a Russian Party they were both conspicuously absent. There was nothing, on the whole, to prevent a strict co-operation upon their part with the line which Germany and Austria had adopted. It was essential to the foreign policy of the United Kingdom that they should, according to the programme held out for upwards of five years when Lord Beaconsfield retired, themselves fill up the vacancy created. What followed? To the dismay of Europe beyond the Russian Frontier, in oblivion of engagements and of usages, with no political necessity or popular demand to justify so violent a measure, the noble Earl and noble Marquess took upon themselves to reinstate the Leader who had abdicated for them. I mention it historically, and not in any spirit of invective. But that distinguished per-
  634
  son had become the open and indefatigable advocate of Russia over a series of events well known to your Lordships. In the March of 1880, he had more signally proclaimed his allegiance. He was forced by the two noble Lords, who had the whole position in their hands, into what many felt to be disastrous, but what all saw to be at least uncalled for and unnecessary, eminence. Lot me remind the House in what manner a new Holy Alliance inevitably followed so astonishing an incident.
  My Lords, when, in 1879, the authorities at Berlin broke up the Alliance of the Three Powers, which had maintained itself since 1870, without secret or official knowledge we may see that they did so at no little hazard, at no inconsiderable sacrifice. Ever since the death of the Czarina Elizabeth, which gave its last turn to the Seven Years' War, Russia has perpetually aimed at influence in Berlin. Military orders have been lavished, favours have been multiplied, diplomacy has been exhausted, to obtain it. Beyond that, the two capitals, although separate 1,000 miles, from no great centre intervening, seem to be next door to one another. There is a steady flow of thought and intercourse between them. Ties of blood have interwoven the two dynasties. The Czar Nicholas alluded to them with solemnity and even pathos on his deathbed. The two Powers have been intimately blended by the struggle with the First Napoleon. The fall of Poland has increased their solidarity. In 1870 Russia was thought to have placed German arms under important obligations. It is, of course, remembered that she was once a formidable enemy of Prussia. In spite of all these weighty and alluring grounds for permanent connection, in 1879 a new conclusion was arrived at, a new departure happened. At that time the support of this country in the higher path adopted might be counted on. Great Britain was not under the control of Russia. Nor was there any reason to suppose that the lapse of power from Conservatives to Liberals, if destined to occur, would bring Great Britain under such an influence. By Liberals the Crimean War had been sustained. By Liberals the Treaties of 1856 had been established. The two Leaders of the Party had the aspect I have spoken of already. The startling

  635
  event it has been requisite to glance at placed our country in alignment with the Power which Germany had quitted. But still no prompt retaliation was adopted, and no vindictive step was taken. A protest came, indeed, from Austria. Otherwise a locus pœnitentia was afforded. A First Minister, who has been Russian in his language, may not be Russian in his policy. Or if he is, his Colleagues may be led to throw off an irregular usurping yoke to which they have submitted in a moment of despondency or weakness. Unfortunately, a series of transactions closed all hope, all possibility of that kind. Its last and most emphatic phase appeared at Copenhagen. Is it not rational to think that the German Empire may be led to disregard the vast inheritance of Peter the Great, and the agglomerations which have followed; but not to poise itself against the power of the Czar and that of the United Kingdom both together? Is it not just to reason that the German Empire may be drawn to independence of the greatest Military Power of the world; but not when the greatest Naval Power of the world is flung into the same compartment of the balance? In the meanwhile, M. de Giers—it is not a reproach, but, on the contrary, a tribute—has been an indefatigable agent. No wonder he was listened to, when he could urge that he was only leading the German Empire from a path on which its just and indispensable support had been capriciously annihilated. The evil first betrayed itself at Dantzig. It grew apace. It was matured at Skiernievice. It is invincible until you take away the cause which has produced it.
  But if we consider how the new alliance was produced, we see at once how it may gradually be terminated. A Russian flag must cease to hover over Downing Street and Whitehall. But I do not ask your Lordships to be sanguine. The effect may not be instantaneous. You cannot blot out Skiernievice from the annals of diplomacy. It would ill become the Rulers in Berlin, whom we have driven to the arms of Russia, to shake off the embrace the very moment that it ceases to be essential to their safety. They must be faithful to propriety; they must be jealous of appearances; they must be loyal to engagements. But when it is no longer dangerous and imprudent
  636
  to revert to it, new incidents may soon arise to re-establish the policy of 1879, which we have blindly forced them to surrender. In the case supposed, events may happen to release both Germany and Austria from the new Alliance, they have incurred no reproach and no responsibility in joining. My Lords, it is common out-of-doors to ask—in very unreflecting quarters — why the German Empire is so much less friendly to Great Britain than it used to be; as if no provocation had been offered; as if no outrage had arisen; as if the wanton resolution to unite with Russia in 1880; as if the persisting march along a Russian line for five years subsequent, was Dot, after the event of 1879, a cause of unavoidable estrangement?
  It may be asked, perhaps, in reference to the Motion I submit, is any information wanted? My Lords, a description of what occurred at Skiernievice and the impression it produced from the Consul General at Warsaw would be, in a high degree, appropriate. For an event of this kind we ought not to be dependent wholly upon special correspondents, however graphic and industrious. It would also be desirable to know from our Representative at Buda-Pesth in what manner the new union is regarded in Hungarian assemblies which have so great an influence over the policy of Austria. M. Tisza, the Hungarian First Minister, endeavoured to persuade the world on one occasion that Russia has been absorbed by Germany and Austria, instead of reaching her original ascendancy. Can that opinion be corroborated? Of all revelations the most precious, if we could have it, would be the judgment of the late Lord Ampthill as to the re-union of the Emperors. It is true his lamented death took place on the 26th of August, and the conference began on the 15th of September; but for many months he must have been prepared for such a demonstration. Few in the House would disagree with me as to the gravity with which he would be heard or read upon a subject of this character. His long residence at Berlin of nearly 15 years had made him not only a Representative of the Queen, but an accepted member of the German Empire. His photograph may be seen in shop windows of its capital. He is remem-

  637
  bered by the lowest as well as by the highest circles of society. His mental power was esteemed where the standard of mental power may well be deemed a high and an exacting one. The most discordant elements united in regarding him with confidence and favour. He joined, more than any other man, the solidity of a Professor to the accomplishment and tact of a Diplomatist. Having often seen him at his post, I am in some degree a witness. If an Ambassador could have maintained the German Empire on the path embraced in 1879, he would have been qualified to do so. But no Ambassador could overcome the motives to abandon it, which I have touched upon this evening. His parting counsels may be in some degree elicited.
  There is one objection against which the Notice ought, perhaps, to be defended. It is thought by some that Egypt ought alone to occupy the House when foreign policy is mooted. I cannot acquiesce in that opinion. Egypt is but a corner of the area in which important problems are arising. We forget sometimes that Egypt is in Africa. But, setting that aside, does anyone suppose that the united force of Austria, Germany, and Russia has no influence on what may pass between Khartoum and Alexandria? Remember there are two Powers who would drive you out of Egypt altogether, if at liberty to do so. France would drive you out; because, according to traditions from the beginning of the century and the First Napoleon, they claim ascendancy over that region. The Sublime Porte would drive you out; because it is the Suzerain authority, and because Great Britain went there without a mandate from the Sultan. The gigantic combination I have brought before the House to-night may render either of these Powers irresistible by merely whispering behind it.
  Another objection is that, as the Conference at Skiernievice happened in September, it might have been discussed while this House was sitting in the autumn. No doubt, the facts were then, as much as now, in evidence before us. No doubt, the same considerations on the tendency of such an union might have been submitted. But at that time it was not possible, as now it is, to indicate the mode by which the danger may be obviated. To speak on the Holy Alliance,
  638
  unless you have some counsel to suggest, would be as puerile a labour as to debate upon tyrannicide, the freedom of the Press, the death of Charles I., or any large and long-exhausted topic, on which our minds in younger days may have been exercised. In October and November it was thought that the existing Ministerial arrangements were essential to a particular transaction—a particular solution on an internal topic generally aimed at. They are essential to nothing now except the aggravated prospect of a war with Russia, and the obvious inability to guide it. They are essential to nothing now except the deeper risk, the more complete humiliation of the Empire. I beg to make the Motion of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for any diplomatic correspondence which exists from Her Majesty's Representatives abroad as to the new concert or alliance between the Courts of Germany, of Austria, and of Russia."—[The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am exceedingly sorry that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) is not present, having been called to Windsor; and I am more sorry because he would have been able, from his great knowledge of foreign affairs, to have followed the noble Lord through the very intricate maze of considerations upon the subject which he has unfolded. I was unable to follow the noble Lord, and the House will pardon me if I do not make a speech upon foreign affairs generally, and enter upon the theme of the speech of the noble Lord, which covered events from the Treaty of the second partition of Poland down to the Treaty of San Stefano.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he had referred to such events last year, but not on this occasion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then I am still more at a loss, because I thought the noble Lord's speech had reference to the Holy Alliance; but whatever that may be, I have very little to say upon the Motion. Her Majesty's Government have no official knowledge of what passed between the three Sovereigns; but they are perfectly willing to accept the non-official statement which has appeared, that the object of the meeting was for the purpose of showing the union which exists between the

  639
  three Great Powers, and talking over politics generally; but that there was no Treaty between the three Sovereigns, and no intention on the part of the Sovereigns there assembled to do anything which would be inimical, but rather to do that which would be favourable, to the peace of Europe. Beyond that I cannot say anything about that meeting. Then as regards Papers, there are none which can be produced. There are a few of a confidential character, but they cannot be produced.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it is to be regretted that the noble Lord brought forward his Motion at a time when the noble Earl the Secretary of State is not present, for I have no doubt the noble Earl would have given more consideration to it; but, at the same time, I do not think we can discuss it with advantage in his absence, and, perhaps, the present state of affairs does not lend itself to a discussion such as the noble Lord invites.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that if no Correspondence on the subject was available for being presented, the Motion might be withdrawn without any impropriety. As to the remark of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), he ought to mention that he had gone on, in the absence of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with the express concurrence of the Government.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GRAHAM'S FORCE— ACTION ON MARCH NEAR SUAKIN.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, perhaps, before putting the Question I have placed upon the Paper, I may explain that it will be more convenient if I ask the Question of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War. The reason why I addressed the Question to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was that I thought no one would be so well able to explain to the House the particulars of this unfortunate and calamitous affair as His Royal Highness; for we all know the very long experience which His Royal Highness
  640
  has had in connection with the Army, and his opinion would have been received by the country with some sort of feeling of comfort. I can hardly help stating now that there is a feeling existing, not only in the country, but in the Army, that these disasters which have occurred would not have happened if ordinary precautions had been taken. Since putting this Question on the Paper I am told that a zereba has been destroyed, and I believe it is now occupied by an Arab force. I am also informed that a convoy of camels on its march has also been entirely destroyed; and I should like to know if there is any truth in the report that a number of camels, or other beasts of burden, supposed to be conveying water to the troops, had not, when they arrived, a drop of water in their water tanks? I will, therefore, ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the unusually heavy loss of officers and men, and the almost complete annihilation of transport in the advance made on Sunday last from Suakin, attributed to the neglect of the most ordinary military precautions, when advancing in an enemy's country, the General commanding on that occasion still retains the confidence of the War Department? But if my noble Friend would prefer it, I will willingly postpone my Question until after the Easter Holidays, when, perhaps, more information may have been obtained.
  LORD DE ROS: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the Question of the noble Lord has been transferred from His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief to the Under Secretary of State for War, because I think that it is quite contrary to all precedent in this House that a Question, of that kind should be addressed to His Royal Highness, and that His Royal Highness should have to answer such a Question as that. I cannot help thinking it is very impolitic to put a Question of that kind at the present time to anybody. The Under Secretary cannot know all the circumstances of the affair, and I do not see how he can answer it. It would be positively unfair to make an answer to such a Question without having the fullest cognizance of every single detail connected with the matter. I do not wish to go into the particulars; but I would say that the despatch which was

  641
  gent from General Graham had this one paragraph—
  "That he deeply regretted the very serious loss, but that he was of opinion that General M'Neill had done everything that was possible under the circumstances."
  That, my Lords, was the report of General Graham, the Commander of the Forces at Suakin. If we are not to accept the telegraphic reports which come from our General Officer, I really do not see how we are to carry on the business of war. The authority of those in command over those under them would be weakened, and it would be impossible to expect them to do justice to the work in which they were engaged, if their conduct was impugned in this manner, without full examination and inquiry. Though I abstain from mentioning details in this matter, I would say that General M'Neill served with great gallantry at Lucknow. He was in the Red River Expedition, and in the New Zealand and Ashantee Wars; and I am sure, if this matter comes to a Court of Inquiry, he will be perfectly able to answer every charge that can be brought against him.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: My Lords, I beg to say a word in support of what the noble Lord has stated. I think it would make the service of this country in the field extremely difficult, if officers were to be put on their trial in this House on the information of a telegram, or of sensational letters from special correspondents. General Graham commanded with great success at Tel-el-Kebir, and won the confidence of his Commander and of every man under whom he served. He afterwards gained two decisive victories upon the ground where he is now operating, and we may be sure that he is perfectly competent to judge of what took place upon the spot, and we shall have full information from him upon the affair when he is able to send it. We shall then be able to judge of what has been done, and whether General M'Neill's conduct has been in accordance with the principles of war, or whether it has not. At pro-sent it would be quite premature for your Lordships to form any opinion upon the question raised by the noble Lord, and I trust that the noble Lord will think it wise to withdraw his Question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I also trust the noble Lord will
  642
  listen to the appeal which has been made to him. I think it is the view of the House that the Question should not be put. I confess that, after what has been stated by distinguished military authorities, and this being a somewhat new case, I am disposed to move that the Question be not put.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am advised that there may be a difficulty in the way of the noble Marquess making an actual Motion, because what is before the House is not a Motion, but a Question. I agree entirely with what the noble Marquess has said as to the impropriety of the Question being put. It is perfectly obvious that this is neither the time nor the place to examine into this affair. I express no opinion whatever beyond saying that this is neither the time nor the place, and I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the Question.
  LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, after what has fallen from the other side, and from the noble Lords on the Front Benches, I shall certainly withdraw the Question.

ARMY—THE MILITARY EXPEDITION TO THE SOUDAN—DEFECTIVE AM- MUNITION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY, in rising to call attention to the fact that at Abu Klea and at Metemmeh the ammunition supplied to the troops was defective, and that at the former battle the machine gun supplied to the troops stuck and became useless; that the same thing occurred again to the machine gun used in the affair at the advance zareba on the 22nd instant; to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government will produce and lay on the Table a Report in which General Sir Frederick Roberts made complaint of similar defects to those now adverted to; and to inquire, further, whether any other officers had made similar complaints? said, every thing that affected the welfare of our soldiers was of importance; and if it were true that some of the cartridges served out to the troops were defective, he should like to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of saying what had been done to remove the complaint. Although the information they had received was from the letters of special correspondents only,

  643
  yet the fact that in many instances they were very distinguished men rendered their opinion of considerable weight. They were told that at Abu Klea and several other battles the cartridges stuck in the Martini-Henry rifle to a very considerable extent. The rifles that became jammed were useless; and if this happened in the midst of a sudden rush of the enemy, our soldiers had not fair play and disaster was courted. Not only did the special correspondents now in the field speak of the defective cartridges, but he had heard in conversation the same complaint made by many military officers. No later than last year in India, during some field movements on an extensive scale, he was told that the number of rifles that became useless was extraordinary. He knew that Sir Frederick Roberts had sent home a short pithy Report so condemnatory of the cartridges that he trusted to hear that the matter had received the immediate and serious attention of the Authorities.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord opposite that there could be no more important question than this. With regard to the case of the small arms ammunition, he was aware that there had been a report as to the jamming of the Boxer cartridge at Abu Klea, and Lord Wolseley had also made representations with regard to the cartridge. Before that time, however, he was bound to say they had had no complaints, and there had been no reason to suppose that the supply of ammunition was defective. The noble Viscount had referred to the great authority of Sir Frederick Roberts. He had inquired in every hole and corner of the War Office as to any Report from Sir Frederick Roberts with reference to the Boxer cartridge, which he might say was recommended by the Committee who sat in 1871.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that the Report he referred to was dated March, 1884.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he should like to know how the noble Viscount obtained that Report; he himself knew nothing about it, and it had not yet reached the professional officers in the War Office. The only Report he could find was one issued in 1880. At that time a Circular had been issued to the officers commanding British regiments under General Roberts
  644
  with a view of ascertaining whether the Martini-Henry rifle and ammunition acted satisfactorily in action. The question of whether the Martini-Henry was liable to jam in action was answered favourably, and General Roberts reported that the rifle was, on the whole, satisfactory and had jammed but slightly, except on its first issue, necessitating some slight alteration. As far as he knew, the only complaints made were of a certain number of accidents attributed to the presence of sand in the rifle. Some years ago complaints had been made of accidents due to a weakness in the form of the extractor, which had been put right. No complaints had been made as to the Boxer cartridge. He would point out that at present they knew very little about the causes of this jamming. Lord Wolseley had made certain representations on the subject, and it was under consideration whether they should not at once send out a supply of what were called solid drawn cartridges if possible. It was, however, by no means certain that solid-drawn cartridges would not have jammed under the same conditions. The Boxer cartridge had one considerable advantage over the solid-drawn, in that it was lighter than the solid-drawn by about two ounces in every 10 cartridges; and he need hardly point out how important it was that any addition to the weight carried should be guarded against. No doubt the solid-drawn cartridges had certain advantages over the Boxer. They were not so liable to injury by wet or from rough usage. In the absence of any detailed information he was not very willing to attempt an explanation. But there was no doubt that the presence of sand in the rifle might, to some extent, account for what had been complained of. With regard to the Gardner gun, it must be borne in mind that the five-barrelled gun was only supplied to the Navy. They had no report of its jamming last year or at present, although he admitted that in the newspapers reports had appeared that the gun had jammed in action. They had at present no information on that subject. The five-barrelled Gardner was not sent out for the use of the troops, except those from the ships, the military weapon having two barrels. He could assure the noble Lord that the Authorities were investigating this matter, and would take care that any representation

  645
  from Lord Wolseley was promptly attended to.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked whether it was not the case that there were various descriptions of Martini-Henry cartridges, and that an inferior description had been adopted on account of its cheapness?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYexplained that there wore two descriptions of Martini-Henry cartridges. They were both of metal, but one was rolled and the other solid-drawn, the former being called the Boxer. It was actually a fact that in 1871 a Committee had recommended that the solid-drawn cartridge should be used for practice, since the cases could be refilled, and the Boxer on general service.

ARMY—THE ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—NEW BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the estimate for building the new wing at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, was provided for in the Army Estimates of 1885–86 and subsequently struck out; whether it is the case that 240 young gentlemen of 18 years and upwards are now lodged in 181 rooms; and whether the contributions of the extra cadets, amounting to about £1,600 a year, might not help to provide the interest and a sinking fund for the cost of the new building, said to be estimated at £22,000?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, that no such provision as that referred to in the first part of the Question had been made in the Estimates of this year; but he was bound to say that the question of providing additional accommodation had been considered before the Estimates had been framed, and in consideration of the great expenditure upon other Services it had been omitted from this year's Estimates. He was authorized to say that the Secretary of State for War was reconsidering the question of whether Estimates should not be prepared. He would like to correct one figure given by the noble Viscount. There were only 203 cadets instead of 240, and it must be remembered that of these 181 rooms 32 were especially adapted for three cadets.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.] (NO. 57.)
  A Bill for regulating the police and sanitary administration of towns and populous places; and for facilitating the union of police and municipal administration in burghs in Scotland: And
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.] (NO. 58.)
  A Bill to make further provision for the protection of women and girls, the suppression of brothels, and other purposes: Were presented by the Earl of DALHOUSIE; read 1a.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
  Read 1a; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with (The Earl Granville).

  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (ADVANCE) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (The Earl Granville.) (No. 59.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.