Lords Sitting of 27 March 1885

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Shrewsbury and Earl Talbot, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Honorary Freedom of Boroughs* (61).
Second Reading—Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1)* (34); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 1)* (35).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading— Consolidated Fund (No. 2) *; Cape of Good Hope (Advance) (59), and passed.
Committee—Educational Endowments (Ireland)* (44).

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying' to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended from this day to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.

PARLIAMENT—WEST-MINSTER HALL (RESTORATION).—QUESTION.
LORD NORTONasked the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he could now inform their Lordships what the Government were doing as to the designs for the restoration of the west side of Westminster Hall?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the treatment of the west side of Westminster Hall was now out of the hands of his Department, and for the present it had passed into the hands of a Committee of the House of Commons. When it had reported, the evidence and the drawings would be laid before that House, so that the Members could exercise a judgment upon them.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—ARTICLES IN "THE TIMES" NEWSPAPER.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he felt it necessary to refer again

  803
  to the character of the artices in The Times, and to return to the charge he made the other day. The Correspondent of The Times in Paris had commented upon his Question and the answer of the noble Earl the other day; and yesterday The Times had an article in which it took upon itself to interpret the explanation of the noble Earl as being practically an admission that The Times was a semi-official organ. It would not matter if The Times did not go on almost to declare war against Russia. He was sure that if there were any truth in the suggestion that The Times was a semi-official organ, the noble Earl would give some indication of it. He would, therefore, ask the Foreign Secretary, Whether The Times had put a fair interpretation on his reply, or whether that paper was merely a commercial undertaking, which had no connection with the Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am rather unwilling to continue to take part in the discussion which has arisen between the noble Duke and The Times. I believe that what I stated the other day was that there was no doubt of the fact that for a good many years past it had been an opinion on the Continent that The Times either represented Her Majesty's Government or public opinion; and it may be said that under all Governments these two things are not exactly identical. I went on to say—and I gave my reasons for it—that I thought nobody would suspect me of having written or inspired the foreign articles of The Times during the past year. I really do not know that I have anything further to add.

CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel some delicacy in putting a Question to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary; but the Easter Recess is now at hand, and it hardly seems right that the Government should let the House separate without giving, as far as it is possible to give, some indication of the precise state of things in reference to Russia. The Question I would ask the noble Earl—at the same time saying I shall be glad of any information the noble Earl can give us—is, Whether the
  The Duke of Marlborough
  804
  Government can foresee the date at which the demarcation of Afghanistan will be commenced; whether it is understood that the Russian troops are to remain in their present positions until the demarcation is concluded; and, if the understanding does exist, whether the Ameer of Afghanistan is a consenting party to it? I venture to ask these Questions because I think that the reticence of Her Majesty's Government, although very intelligible and, to some extent, in consonance with the practice of most Governments in grave situations, has this evil effect—that it is liable to be misunderstood in the East. Things have been said in the other House of Parliament which have thrown some doubt on the steadfastness and staunchness of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and I should be glad if the language used here were of a character to repel and dissipate any such impression, for we must always remember that we have made it, at a cost of some sacrifice, an essential part of our policy that we should have the friendship and support of Afghanistan. If there be one thing in this matter more certain than another, it is that the slightest indication of flinching on our part will not only cost us the friendship but probably will bring upon us the desertion of Afghanistan.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Marquess, I have to say that I am not cognizant of anything that has passed in the other House or in this House which indicates any flinching on the part of Her Majesty's Government from the course which they may consider it right to pursue. I have stated on a very recent evening exactly the same thing as has been, I believe, stated in "another place"—that we firmly adhere to the policy which we believe is agreed to by the great political Parties in the State, while, at the same time, we desire to avail ourselves of every means of coming to a settlement honourable and satisfactory to Russia, to India, and to ourselves. I was going to say that I am the more ready to give an answer to the three Questions of the noble Marquess, because I feel bound to do him the justice to acknowledge that he has entirely abstained from pressing Her Majesty's Government with troublesome Questions at a moment of very great complication,

  805
  of very great delicacy, and of very great importance both to ourselves and to Afghanistan. Therefore, the answer I have to give in regard to the progress of negotiations is that I cannot fix a date because, in reference to a communication which we made to the Russian Government, the Russian Ambassador, whom I saw yesterday, told me that he had been instructed by his Government to acknowledge the receipt of the communication, and that the Russian Government were considering it and would send a reply. As to the second Question of the noble Marquess, I may say that Her Majesty's Government certainly hold that the Russian Government are bound by the assurance which, as I stated a few days ago in this House, they have given us. With regard to the third point, communications have been made to the Ameer from India, and we believe that orders by the Ameer have been given to the Afghan troops, and that they are being obeyed by them at the present moment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: As I have taken some part in former years in discussions upon Afghanistan, I am supposed to have expressed opinions at that time favourable to Russia. I am anxious to say at the present moment that, so far as I understand the situation of affairs, it is now entirely altered from what it was at the time to which I refer. I was then of opinion, and am still, that it was highly inexpedient to remonstrate with Russia upon what were called her advances in Central Asia, which were in reality inevitable. I was always of opinion that up to the point of the possession of Merv that advance was inevitable, and, on the whole, not undesirable. The result of my researches at that time was that Merv was nothing but a nest of robbers, and that there was no possibility of any peace, or of any progress, or of any commerce in Central Asia until the Tekke Turcomans had been subdued by some civilized Power. But from the moment that Russia arrived at Merv and put one step forward towards Herat, the whole political situation became altered. I must express the infinite pleasure with which I have heard the assurance of my noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government will not be accused of any flinching or weakness in this matter, and that they are determined to hold to what they be-
  806
  lieve to be the policy of this country in regard to Afghanistan, and that they are resolved to support the Afghan Kingdom in the defence, to the utmost extent, of its ancient territory. I should like to ask my noble Friend a Question, although I have given him no Notice of it. I have no desire to put any Question embarrassing to Her Majesty's Government, but will ask this in the hope that he may be able to answer it. Very confident statements were made yesterday in a conspicuous organ of public opinion, The Pall Mall Gazette, setting forth certain alleged facts, which were these—that in the instructions given by the Government to Sir Peter Lumsden for the settlement of the Frontier of Afghanistan, the Penjdeh district was specially mentioned as a part of the debated and debatable ground respecting which negotiations were to take place upon the spot. That was the first statement. The second statement was that since the issue of the Commission, and since it was known to Russia and to Sir Peter Lumsden that this point was part of the debated and debatable land, and was to be the subject of negotiations, the Afghans had violently seized that territory. These statements were made professedly after inquiry from persons who are said to be cognizant of the facts. I may state at once that my own private inquiries have resulted in a positive denial of those facts; and I wish to know from my noble Friend whether he is in a position to say whether these assertions are accurate or not?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am very much surprised that my noble Friend and late Colleague should, without giving me any Notice, have asked me a Question of the most complicated character with regard to the instructions given to Sir Peter Lumsden; and I am almost inclined to say to him, "Et tu Brute!" I must really decline, as I have declined to less important Peers in this House, to answer Questions put absolutely without Notice. But, at the same time, I beg your Lordships to remember that this movement of the Afghans to Penjdeh was made before Sir Peter Lumsden arrived.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I have extracted from my noble Friend the very answer which I wished to obtain. I came down to the House determined to ask the Question, and was anxious but

  807
  was unable to see my noble Friend before the discussion arose, and I did consult my noble Friend at the head of the India Office as to whether he could answer it. I put the Question entirely in the interests of my noble Friend and the Government with the view of eliciting a contradiction of a statement which was injurious to the interests of England. Incidentally, and in spite of the disorder of my Question, my noble Friend has answered it precisely in the manner in which I hoped he would.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (ADVANCE) BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (ADVANCE) BILL.

  (NO. 59.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, its object was to guarantee a loan of £400,000 in order to enable the Cape Government to continue as far as Kimberley a railway the construction of which had been already begun. In consequence of recent occurrences in Bechuanaland, it was highly desirable that the line should be completed without further delay. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill, and he trusted that their Lordships would permit the measure to pass through all its stages at once.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Earl of Morley.)
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived; Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—SECRETARIES OF EMBASSIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any objection to give all the first secretaries of embassies the same privilege that is granted to the first secretary at Paris—viz., the rank of a minister, while acting as charge d'affaires during the absence of the ambassador? If his suggestion were acted upon, it would be of great advantage when circumstances called the Minister from his post.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that although in the case of Paris for some years, and occasionally at other Courts, the rank of Minister had been given to the Secretary of Embassy, there were several inconveniences attached to the system, particularly as regards questions of promotion. He admitted that an inconvenience did occasionally arise under the present system; but he could not help thinking that matters had better remain as they were for the present.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE NEW EGYPTIAN LOAN—THE INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEE.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have been received from Foreign Powers explaining the reasons which have induced any of those Powers to require that the guarantees to the proposed Egyptian loan should be international rather than purely British; and, if so, whether he will lay them on the Table? said: My Lords, in putting the Questions which I have placed upon the Paper to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the Egyptian Correspondence, I may state that they were designed to throw light upon what appears to be, after considerable study of the Blue Book, a very dark place in that Correspondence. If the Blue Book had come into my hands as a telegram, or, say, as some ancient manuscript that had been recovered from Herculaneum, I should have said that a large portion of it had dropped out, and that the sequence of its several parts had become unintelligible on that account. I want to know from the noble Earl whether there really are any Papers which he can supply to us which will fill up these very awkward and perplexing gaps? There is not upon the surface of the Papers anything to show that the Foreign Powers had any reasons for making the request, or even that they did make the request, that the Guarantees to the proposed Egyptian Loan should be International rather than purely British. Ail that we can find is that there was a great deal of very kind, charitable, and philanthropic interest in our own affairs on the part of the Foreign Powers, which induced them to

  809
  facilitate the operations which we have had in view, and to lend us the help of their unimpeached credit in order to support our monetary transactions. For instance, I find that last year M. Waddington first introduced the proposal of an International Guarantee in this way—that, in order to facilitate the task of the English Government, the Powers should be asked to join in the Guarantee of the proposed loan. Then, again, this year M. Waddington said that it was far preferable and more simple to increase at once to £9,000,000 the amount of the loan to be issued, attaching thereto the collective Guarantee of the Powers, and then the motive was given; it was not that he demanded it—he did not desire it in the least—but he said that on those terms the loan might be issued at 3½ per cent, and that there would be no need of any special security or of a sinking fund. The suggestion, therefore, was offered entirely in the form of an assistance to English credit. That was the view which the Austrian Ambassador also took. He said, on the 19th of January, that the sum of £4,000,000 required for the payment of indemnities should be included in the new loan, and that in order to secure a cheap rate of interest this loan might receive the collective Guarantee of the Powers, and, finally, the Austrian Ambassador's view was that the attachment of the signature of Austria would enable us to raise money at a cheaper rate. There is no indication in the Papers of any other motive than that. There is no pressure, there is no expression of a strong desire, there is no argument for it. On the contrary, Italy received the proposal with considerable doubt. M. Mancini, on the 25th of January, said that, as far as his Government was concerned, they had no objection to a collective Guarantee if it were allowed by the other Powers. Russia, in the same way, made conditions, and said that unless all the Powers became parties to the Guarantee she should not be bound by it. Therefore, there was no desire on the part of the Foreign Powers, as far as is indicated by the Papers, to associate themselves in this Guarantee. They simply offer us the assistance of their credit in raising the loan. Perhaps if they knew more of the London Money Market than they evidently do they would not oven think it necessary
  810
  to make the offer. When a similar transaction took place in 1855, Mr. Ricardo said that when a mercantile man saw two names on the back of a bill of exchange, and knew that the first was a good one, he did not care about the second. What I want to know is how it comes about that without a practical pressure on the part of the Powers, or even of apparent wish on their part in favour of this change, this change should have been made? Because this change has been made in the teeth of a very grave objection. The noble Lords and the right hon. Gentlemen who constitute the Government have had to swallow a good deal to make the change, and have had to retreat from the opinions which they so distinctly expressed last year. Mr. Childers, in the most formal way, stated to the Conference that the Government could not expect Parliament to agree to a Joint Guarantee. I observe that in "another place" a noble Lord, who ought to have known better, spoke of the Protocols as something not indicating very precisely what the Plenipotentiaries said, but as being only an abstract. But it is an abstract corrected and approved by the Plenipotentiaries themselves, and every word which appears in the Protocols has been submitted to the men in whose mouths the words are placed. Now, in spite of the strong objection that the Government entertained, and in spite of no pressure being exercised on the part of the Foreign Powers, we find the noble Earl opposite on the 21st of January sending to all the Courts the following statement—
  "As regards the proposal that there should be a loan of £9,000,000 guaranteed by the Powers, to be a pre-preference stock, we have no desire to ask the Powers to share with us the liability which such a Guarantee would involve. Still if it is the desire of the Powers to join in the loan upon the same principle as the Anglo-French Guarantee of the Turkish Loan of 1855 we are ready to concede the point."
  There is the gap, there is the lacuna, which I wish the noble Earl to fill up. I trust that the noble Earl will produce Papers which will show us where this pressure comes from. It must have been made in the form of some communication, and all that we ask is that we should be allowed to see that communication also. The Anglo-French Guarantee of the Turkish Loan of 1855 has

  811
  been brought forward as an analogous case with the present; but so far from being analogous, they are as distinct as it is possible for two operations to be. In 1855 France and England were fighting side by side for Turkey, and it was reasonable that if they wished a loan to be advanced they should share the responsibility attached to it. But now we are doing all the fighting, and not side by side, for the other Powers are merely looking on. It is a very remarkable allusion, because it is an allusion which I think Her Majesty's Government would rather have avoided. That Arrangement was fiercely contested in the House of Commons, and of those who opposed it, and who were in the minority of three, there were three distinguished persons. One was the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, another was the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and the third was the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Their spokesman, the right hon. Gentleman, opposed it by every argument that it was possible for human ingenuity to conceive, and he opposed it with the utmost tenacity, so much so that Lord Palmerston and Sir George Gornewall Lewis actually went so far as to charge him with talking against time. I want to know why they made this unpleasant allusion? Did the Powers merely desire that the Anglo-French Guarantee should be taken as a model, and, if so, what reason had they for doing so? To explain that mystery I thought it well to refer to Mr. Gladstone's speeches, and I find two sentiments in those speeches which, I confess, made me quite understand why the other Powers should desire that the Anglo-French Agreement should be taken as a model, but which did not explain to me why Her Majesty's Government were so yielding as to accept the analogy. Mr. Gladstone made three long speeches, but I will only quote from his speech of the 27th of July, 1855. The first observation the right hon. Gentleman made is certainly alarming. He said—
  "The worst of this Guarantee is, that all the Guaranteeing Powers acquire a political hold upon Turkey."
  Instead of Turkey let us read Egypt, because it is the case of Egypt now. That was Mr. Gladstone's opinion at
  812
  that time; but it was not his only opinion. He went on to say—
  "If you provide in a Treaty to leave the Revenue of a given Power as security for your Guarantee, no one can have a right to charge with ambitious designs the Government that occupies that Province."—(3 Hansard, [139] 1475.)
  What is the use of impounding the Revenues of Egypt unless such arrangements are of the nature of a mortgage? It is a most singular feature of the Convention, and one to which attention has not been sufficiently drawn, that the indebtedness to the Powers of Europe laid on Egypt by the Convention is of the nature of a mortgage. By, I think, the 3rd clause of the Convention there are special revenues of special Provinces that are mortgaged for the payment of the loans which the Powers of Europe guarantee. I confess that it is not reassuring to find that Mr. Gladstone has laid it down that if you provide in a Treaty to have the revenues of a Province as security for that guarantee, you give a right to the Guaranteeing Powers, under certain contingencies, to occupy that Province. The proceeding to which the Government have given their sanction is in a great measure new, and I cannot help feeling that we shall enter upon new difficulties in Egypt in consequence of it. Hitherto we have only had to deal with the debts of Egypt to private persons, and that has been difficult enough; but now we shall have to deal with the debts of Egypt to Governments, those debts being mortgaged on special Provinces, which, according to the opinion of the First Minister of the Crown, will confer upon them the right and power to occupy such Provinces in case of the debt not being paid. It may be said that this is a pre-privileged debt, and that there is no danger of it not being paid. The Anglo-French Loan was privileged, but I am not sure that it was found more easy to get the interest into the Treasury. We shall have further opportunities of considering this matter when it comes before us in the form of an Act, and I hope that it may be possible for this House to do something to dissipate the ambiguity and the danger which seem to me to surround this diplomatic operation. But in the meantime it is of great importance that we should have all the information which it is possible for the Go-

  813
  vernment to give us. There must be some Correspondence indicating how this mysterious desire on the part of the Foreign Powers arose, what reasons they urged, what is the real cause of this Guarantee being inserted. I earnestly trust that some at least of that Correspondence the noble Earl will find it possible to lay before us.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, when I saw the noble Marquess's Notice on the Paper yesterday, I thought he intended simply to ask a Question, so much so that when I was unavoidably compelled to leave I supplied to my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) the answer which appeared perfectly obvious—that was to refer the noble Marquess to the Papers, particularly to the communications with M. Waddington and the Memorandum handed in by Count Karolyi. But it appears that that was not the noble Marquess's object. His object was to take part in the debate which is going on in the other House, and still more to do what he particularly likes to do—that is, to enter into a debate with Mr. Gladstone—whether he thinks or does not think that his Friends in the other House are not quite equal to competing with that statesman in debate. I am not bound to defend the reasons which have induced Foreign Governments to enter into this International Guarantee. I quite agree that our credit is sufficient to float a loan at a very moderate rate of interest. The noble Marquess alluded to the possible motives of Foreign Governments in associating themselves in this Guarantee. I am not given to attributing motives to anyone, and certainly not as to the conduct of the greatest Powers of Europe. At the same time, there is one motive that may possibly have actuated them in the course they have pursued. Your Lordships may remember that on the last day of the Conference of last year the French Government made a proposition which amounted to an ultimatum which we could not accept, and it was impossible to go on, on those terms, with the Conference. We arrived at a deadlock, and surely if anyone desired to get out of that deadlock it was this country in its connection with Egypt. Of late it seems to be laid down as a principle that if a Government—and especially the Government of this country—ever makes a proposition or resists a proposition
  814
  made by any other country, it is an absolute disgrace to withdraw in the slightest degree from that which they have once maintained, or to make concessions, or to give or take in any way. All that I can say is that I do not believe that there is any Court in Europe, except perhaps Monaco, which does not constantly make proposals which it afterwards modifies to a certain degree in order to come to a friendly understanding with other Powers; and if this practice was not usually adopted Europe would be perpetually either in a state of deadlock or of war. I do not think that it is an unfair thing to attribute to the French Government a good motive when making a proposal of this sort, which covered their withdrawal from the position they adopted in their ultimatum; and I do not think it was an unstatesmanlike act in us to meet them half-way in order to relieve Egypt from a dreadful incubus and ourselves from a millstone round our necks. I have nothing further to add.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHpointed out that this was not merely a money matter; it included several points of great political significance, and he wanted to know whether, their Lordships' House being a part of Parliament, and it being announced that the Agreement would be submitted to Parliament, they should not have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Convention?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Duke cannot, I think, have studied the Papers, or he would see that in this Arrangement there were concessions, and very important concessions, made to Great Britain by the other Powers. In the first place, the Powers had insisted upon an immediate financial inquiry. Her Majesty's Government held that such a financial inquiry at the present time would be attended with very serious inconvenience; but the other Powers gave way to that remonstrance on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and the question of inquiry was reduced to the possibility of inquiry two years hence. Then there was a concession on a second most important point, which the Government regarded as vital. The Powers objected to diminishing the receipts of the bondholders; but there is to be a reduction from the interest paid to the bondholders. Then there is the

  815
  third point, which certainly was regarded as one of some moment—namely, the taxation of foreigners, to which the Powers agreed. I merely mention these three points to show that it is an entire misrepresentation or misunderstanding, indeed, to suppose that in this Financial Arrangement there was no concessions on the side of the Powers. If we conceded something the Powers also conceded something.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One observation which fell from the noble Duke requires a reference. This Bill must pass this House as it must pass the other House, and on the stages of that Bill it will be open to take any further discussion. I confess the answer of the noble Earl is not satisfactory. His theory of the reasons why the other Powers pressed for this International Guarantee is that the noble Earl had refused it in July last. He says this is not very logical. It certainly is not. The noble Earl practically says—"If it is any pleasure to you to see me eat my words, I am perfectly ready to do it." That is very kind of the noble Earl. It is a weapon that I think he has exercised before, and found it very useful in conciliating friendships. But as he has started a theory, I will oppose to it a theory of my own, which is one, I think, very generally held, and that is that the Powers pressed for this International Guarantee because some of them, at least, intend to make it a weapon by which they shall obtain a share in the control of affairs in Egypt.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have no right to speak again; but I trust that what I have said will be reported by professional reporters, and that there will not be attributed to me the paraphrase of it by the noble Marquess.

NAVY—THE CHINA STATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to increase the naval forces in the China Seas and Straits Settlements? pointed out the utterly defenceless position of Singapore and the whole of the Straits Settlements, in consequence of the entire absence of fortifications and naval defence. Although no one could forsee the turn events might take, he could not help feeling
  816
  that the presence of a hostile Force in those seas must cause great alarm among those who had property in the Islands, and still more among those who held the Colonial Empire of this country most dear to the interests of England. He felt so strongly on this question that, if Parliament should separate without Her Majesty's Government giving some assurance as to an addition being made to our Naval Forces in those seas, he should move a Resolution on the subject immediately after the re-assembling of the House.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that, in answering the Question of the noble Viscount, he must ask leave to correct his statement of what took place the other day. The noble Viscount had not given any similar Notice on any former occasion. What he did was to put another Question, in which he discussed a great number of naval subjects, and asserted that the Navy of England was not much better than the Navy of France—a statement which the noble Viscount had never substantiated, and which he himself had always positively denied as being in consistent with the facts of the case. The noble Viscount stated, as an argument in support of his assertion, that the Naval Force of England in the Chinese Seas was not so strong as that of France. To that statement the answer was that the French were at war with the Chinese, and that Her Majesty's Government did not think it necessary on that account to immediately increase our Squadron in the Chinese waters to the strength of the French Fleet; also that such an increase of our Naval Force, under those circumstances, would only have the effect of creating suspicion and irritation, and endangering the present state of good will between the two countries. The naval strength of a nation could not be said to depend upon the amount of Force that happened at any time to be in any particular part of the world. Instructions had been given to the Commander of our Squadron in Chinese waters to arrange for the protection of British and other foreign residents at the Treaty ports in China. There was nothing to make us suppose that those duties had not been efficiently performed by Her Majesty's Forces in China. There was no complaint whatever that those Forces were not amply sufficient for the protection of

  817
  British interests; on the contrary, Her Majesty's Government had received assurances from British merchants and others at the Treaty ports in China that Her Majesty's Forces had given them every necessary protection. If Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary for the protection of British interests and commerce in China to increase our Forces, they would do so from time to time according to the requirements of the case. At present they deemed those Forces sufficient. With respect to the fortification of coaling stations, he had always thought that the efficient protection of coaling stations was most desirable. As regarded Singapore, as he had already stated, the work had been postponed till next year. The work at all the coaling stations could not be done at the same time; and where it was a question of time between Hong Kong and Singapore, the former was regarded as the more important of the two. Her Majesty's Government could not pledge themselves to station an ironclad or any particular class of ship at the Port of Singapore. The Admiralty had always resolutely opposed the principle that any of Her Majesty's ships should be told off to remain stationary at any particular port. They considered it necessary that Her Majesty's ships should be free to go wherever necessary in time of war. The Commander-in-Chief in China and the Admiralty were perfectly aware of their responsibilities, and would take such measures as they might think most desirable for the protection of British interests in that part of the world.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he agreed with the noble Earl that the responsibility of providing for the defence of each particular port rested entirely with Her Majesty's Government, and he had no doubt that they would discharge that responsibility to the best of their ability. The noble Earl had not touched upon one point. It was well known that this country was in a position in which it might at any moment be involved in war. At the Port of Singapore there was a very large store of coal, and the possession of that station would be very desirable for any belligerent Power. One Power with which this county might be involved in hostilities had, at the present time, one of its most powerful ironclads in the Harbour of Singapore.
  818
  Could not the Government give some assurance that might alleviate the feeling of apprehension which naturally existed in the country when they saw the state of things that existed in the Harbour of Singapore at this moment? If war should break out, Singapore would be lost to this country in 24 hours, unless some preparations had been made not hinted at by Her Majesty's Government. Another matter to which he should like to advert in this connection, and which also bore on the protection of our people in those seas, was this—What was the position which we had now taken up with regard to neutral rights? It was within his own personal knowledge, as a fact for which he could vouch, that within the last few days a cargo which was to have been taken out to China by an English ship had been, in consequence of the action of Her Majesty's Government, transferred to German bottoms and taken out in them, because the position with regard to the French right of search was such that it was more safe to trust cargoes to German ships than to take them out in English ships.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Why?
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he supposed that it was because the Germans did not take the same exaggerated and over-scrupulous view with regard to the French right of search as Her Majesty's Government did.
  EARL. GRANVILLEsaid, he would remind the noble Viscount of his statement the other night, that the French had given positive assurances as to the equal treatment of neutral ships.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he did not dispute the fact of the French declaration that their right of search was extended to other nations as well as England; but he maintained that we were so oversensitive as regards France that we took their intimations as positively settling the question, while the Germans did not take these assertions in the same sense. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he did not know what questions might have arisen with respect to the right of search between these Powers; but he imagined that the Germans, like ourselves, would hold themselves entitled to the same lights and bound by the same obligations of International Law on that subject. By that law no Power could impose on neutrals with

  819
  respect to trade any regulations of its own which were not in accordance with International Law. Any Power would be entitled to object to, and remonstrate against, any action taken against its neutral rights which might be against its views of the rules of International Law. The proper way to raise this question was not by entering into a discussion before the question arose. If any ship of this country were treated by France in a manner we did not think justified by International Law, we should have a right to remonstrate. If the French should hold that any such ship had broken the rules of International Law—by breach of a blockade, for example, or by carrying articles that were contraband—their course would be to take the ship before a Prize Court in the first instance; and if this or any other Government ultimately came to the conclusion that that had been done which was inconsistent with International Law, it would have the right still to treat it as a matter of International complaint, for which redress should be given.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that he had only instanced a case within his own personal knowledge of a cargo being transferred to a German bottom—a practice which would be very disadvantageous to our trade.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked, that there was no possibility of preventing such an occurrence as that.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought that the question of the light of search was hardly relevant to the Notice which the noble Viscount had put on the Paper. With respect to the protection of our coaling stations, he could assure the House that Her Majesty's Government were quite as much alive to the importance of dealing with that question as anyone could be. He must remind their Lordships that the present circumstances were somewhat extraordinary and exceptional, looking at the situation in the Soudan and South Africa and in Afghanistan. A very large outlay was inevitable, and many things which it was desirable to do might in consequence have to be postponed. Taking a broad view of the question he thought that with regard to the protection of those coaling stations the Government were doing everything that was reasonable, and their Lordships
  820
  were aware of what had been done towards increasing the general strength of the Navy.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that he had addressed this Question, not to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but to Her Majesty's Government, because he considered that it was incumbent upon the Government to see that all our Colonies were safe in the event of war; and his point was whether, if war broke out now, these Colonies would be safe.

INDUSTRIAL AND REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to introduce any measure during this Session respecting industrial and reformatory schools, in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1883; and, if so, whether it would not be expedient to bring it into this House in the first instance, the Chairman of that Commission being a Member of this House? He thought that this was a subject of the utmost importance, and one which could be best considered in that House, owing to the presence of the Chairman, and also owing to the fact that the time of the other House was fully occupied.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he thought that the suggestion made by the noble Earl was a most important one, and he could only wish that he were in a position to make a distinct reply to the Question. He could assure the noble Earl that he, at all events, was the last person to minimize the importance of the Commission over which the noble Earl had presided. The question was under consideration, and a measure was being prepared on the subject; but it was not sufficiently advanced to enable them to state when or where it would be introduced.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—HIGHER EDUCATION IN WALES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD NORTONasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether it is decided what grants are to be made to colleges in Wales; and to how many; and whether any like grants of public

  821
  money for middle-class education are proposed to be made in England?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in reply, said, that the grants voted by Parliament to the Welsh Colleges amounted to£10,500. This sum was divided into three sums—-£4,000 a-year going to each of the two Colleges which had happily been founded in North and South Wales, and £2,500 a-year to the College founded some years ago at Aberystwith. No like grants of public money were in contemplation for England. They did not appear to be needed. The noble Lord would remember that a very important inquiry into Welsh Higher and Intermediate Education was made some years ago by a Committee presided over by his noble Friend Lord Aberdare, upon the Report of which the grants referred to were made. But these Colleges were Colleges for higher education. The subject of intermediate education, upon which there were most valuable recommendations in the same Report, had not yet been dealt with by the Government. He hoped it would be dealt with in the course of the present Session by a Bill, which he would, he trusted, have the pleasure of introducing to this House before the Session closed. It would be for the purpose of providing greater facilities for intermediate education in Wales. As to the distinction to be drawn between England and Wales in this matter, it seemed a very obvious one. Wales was a far poorer country than England, and it was, at the same time, relatively far more poorly provided with educational endownments; and it appeared to the Government and to the other House of Parliament that the case which Wales had to show for some assistance in the matter of higher and intermediate education was at least as strong as the case of Scotland or of Ireland.

  HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable municipal corporations to confer the honorary freedom of boroughs upon persons of distinction—Was presented by The Marquess of RIPON; read 1a. (No. 61.)

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2.) BILL.
  Read 2ª (according to order): Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3ª, and passed.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Five o'clock.