Lords Sitting of 16 March 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Cathedral Churches (2–46).
Third Reading—Pharmacy Acts Amendment* (39); Railway and Canal Traffic * (41), and passed.
Withdrawn—Ecclesiastical Procedure* (28).

CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL.—(No. 2.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL.—(No. 2.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE (Dr. GOODWIN), in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, said, that he had received a representation on the subject of the cathedral church of Manchester, the case of which was a peculiar one. It now appeared that Sub-sections
  1406
  2 and 3 of this Bill, if made law, would enable the Dean and Chapter to drive a coach and four through a late decision of a Court of Law with respect to the funds of the cathedral church of Manchester. No such intention could have been conceived by himself or any of the promoters of the Bill. He ventured to doubt whether the opinion was a correct one. He did not think that under the clause as it stood there could possibly be any interference with the Chapter of the cathedral, and certainly none was intended. But with regard to the whole question of the Manchester Cathedral, he understood from Lord Egerton, who was not now in his place, that it would probably be necessary to introduce a separate Bill. If any noble Lord would move that Manchester be excepted from all action of the Bill, he did not know that he should offer any opposition; but he thought he should be going beyond his proper office if he had excepted from the operation of the Bill a cathedral which was submitted to their consideration by Her Majesty's Commisssion.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee (accordingly).
  Clauses 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 11 (Transfer of canonries between Crown and bishops).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he objected to the proposal in the clause to give to the minor canons and other officials of a cathedral the right to priority of presentation to benefices in the gift of the Dean and Chapter. When an important town living in the gift of the Dean and Chapter of a cathedral became vacant, why should a minor canon have an absolute right to be appointed, although possibly not well qualified? The clause would create now rights, and he feared that the interests of important parishes might suffer if this proposed change were agreed to. Of course the Dean and Chapter of a cathedral ought to have the right to present any qualified official to a living in their gift; but it would not be wise to enact that a minor canon should have a preferential right to appointment at the conclusion of his term of office.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that the question whether a man was fit or not was to be loft to the judgment of the Dean and Chapter.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he could not see why the Dean and Chapter should be limited any more than the Bishop.
  On the Motion of the Bishop of CARLISLE, Amendment made, making the clause applicable to collegiate as well as cathedral churches.
  Moved, to leave out Clause 11 as amended.—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
  On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 6: Not-Contents 44: Majority 38.
  Clause struck out.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 46.)

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN, in rising to call attention to the action of the Prison Commissioners in Scotland; and to ask the Secretary for Scotland, Whether he has any information to show that the concentration of prisoners in a few large prisons, by the closing of local prisons, well equipped and well managed, like that at Cupar, would tend to increased efficiency or diminished expenditure? said, their Lordships would remember that in 1877 Acts were passed for England, Scotland, and Ireland which, transferred the control of the prisons from the local to the Imperial authorities, and which also transferred a portion of the cost formerly falling on the local authorities to the Imperial funds. This last provision might have had a good deal to do with the passing of the measures; but it was right to say that the Government did not put that forward as their main object. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross), then Home Secretary, stated very clearly on the second reading that the only object he had from beginning to end was to promote in the prisons of the country uniformity of discipline, punishment, and management, which he believed to be essential for the proper carrying out of the law; and also, if
  1408
  possible, a saving of cost. He did not wish to complicate the matter by referring to English experience further than by one remark. The noble Lord said that the average cost of the prisons in England was £592,000, and he anticipated that a saving might be effected of £100,000. The last Report of the Prison Commissioners put the cost at £430,000, and, therefore, the noble Viscount's anticipation had been more than satisfied. He mentioned this because it had a bearing on their experience in Scotland. The Scottish Act was avowedly proposed on the same principle and for the same objects, but in Scotland undue stress was being laid on centralization, and not upon those other objects. He found that even before the prisons were transferred, the Prison Commissioners for Scotland announced that they were of opinion that possibly six or seven district prisons might be found sufficient. The Commissioners had since acted on that footing, and had already reduced the number of prisons from 59 in 1876 to 20, and there were now Orders on the Table by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) to still further reduce them. It was, therefore, clear that if any objection was to be taken to the realization of the Commissioners' project, now was the time to do so. He would state briefly the particular case to which he had to refer. The County of Fife was a populous County, with many mining, manufacturing, and other industries. There were two resident Sheriff Substitutes; and before the Prisons Act came into force there were two prisons, at Cupar and Dunfermline. As to these prisons, the Secretary of State had himself written officially to the Commissioners of Supply in August, 1880, that they were, without exception, the best arranged in Scotland, and effective in every respect. In spite of that opinion and of the protests of all the Local Authorities, the Dunfermline prison was closed in 1883, and notice had now been received that the one at Cupar was to be closed at the end of this month. Now, with regard to the prison at Cupar it was thoroughly efficient, especially in respect of econemy, for he found that in 1887 the cost per prisoner all over Scotland was £24; in Cupar it was £22. The returns from prison labour reduced the net cost to

  1409
  £16 10 s. He could further quote the last Report of the Inspector and the unanimous feeling of the County and Burgh Authorities. It was clear, therefore, that in closing this prison the Government would be discontinuing a most efficient local institution, and a natural question was, what was the reason for closing it? The reason given by the Scotch Secretary, in reply to a communication from the Member for the district, was—
  "That the Government must act upon general principles in accordance with the spirit of the Act of 1877, the most material principle being the substitution of large general prisons for the small local prisons then existing."
  But he did not find in the clauses of the Act or in the speech of the noble Viscount, from which he had already quoted, any statement of that principle; and the Lord Advocate, in introducing the Scottish Bill, limited the application of that principle to this statement—that in Scotland the number of prisons had already been reduced from 200 to 59 or 60 in 1877, and that there were still too many small local prisons. But, oven assuming that the Commissioners had acted according to the intentions of the Act, he would ask whether their action had resulted in establishing a system that was more efficient and econemical? The Commissioners themselves foresaw that certain inconveniences would arise, and they proposed that police cells should be provided in every town where the Sheriff held a Court for ordinary criminal judisdiction for the detention of untried prisoners and of persons serving short sentences. According to the system of criminal jurisdiction in Scotland, it was necessary for a prisoner to be brought very frequently before the Procurator Fiscal while the case was being got up, and it appeared to him that the result of this closing of prisons would be to give the criminals of Fife a number of excursions at the public expense. There was another side to this question, and that was the difficulty a prisoner would be put to in getting up his own case. Cells were generally licensed for a period not exceeding 14 days, but in a case of any importance it was unusual for a trial to come on within that period. Untried prisoners, therefore, would be removed from the neighbourhood of friends and advisers, and thus would be put to an
  1410
  unjust disadvantage. The institution of these police cells seemed to him to be reconstituting the very class of small prisons which the Lord Advocate took exception to in introducing the Bill in 1877. Besides the objections on the part of the localities in which prisons were being discontinued, there were also the objections taken by the localities where the large central stations were established, on the ground of the liberation of large numbers of prisoners in their midst, and the expense of the extra watching involved. Captain M'Hardy, Chief Constable of Lanarkshire, had stated in evidence that very serious danger was incurred by increasing the criminal classes in Glasgow, owing to those prisoners from all parts of Scotland being liberated at the gates of Barlinnie Prison. He added—
  "It is the most scandalous sight that any citizen of Glasgow can witness. The state of the road at 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning, when 40 or 50 of the lowest description of Glasgow roughs, and women who are out to meet them, are all hastening in a body along that road."
  Similarly, in Edinburgh, the Annual Police Report stated that while crime had diminished the number of beggars had increased, and that this was due to the assembling in Edinburgh of a number of discharged prisoners unwilling to work, and who remained in Edinburgh instead of returning to their own districts. When they remembered that among the criminals liberated at the prison gates they had not only the hardened criminal, but every unfortunate who might happen to have been committed for a term exceeding 14 days, he ventured to think that the state of things could be described as scarcely loss than a scandal, and did throw some doubt upon whether a system of centralized prison management was really superior to the system it had succeeded. His next point was one to which he would not have alluded had the noble Marquess postponed his order for closing Cupar Prison until it could have been discussed on the Estimates in the other House. As he had mentioned that the Prison Commissioners in England had effected a saving, if the Prison Commissioners of Scotland had been able to do something of the same kind there might have been a defence from that point of view; but he was afraid the facts were different.

  1411
  In 1876 there were voted by Parliament for the Scottish prisons £35,700, and the amount raised locally was £44,000. In 1886 there was voted by Parliament £108,903; and though it was said that there had been a great many new buildings to account for this increased cost, it might be fairly retorted that possibly there might have been extravagance if they had been erected in substitution for local prisons. While, then, the English Commission showed a saving of £150,000, the Scottish Commission, on the contrary, showed a great increase—namely, from £80,000 to more than £100,000. Besides, this sum, while it included the cost of the conveyance of prisoners, did not include the cost of the increase of the Police Force, which fell partly upon the Constabulary Vote, and partly on local funds. In 1887, with 2,970 prisoners, the cost of the prisons came to £24 per prisoner; while in 1887, with 2,446 prisoners, the cost was £30 10 s. per prisoner. It appeared to him that unless the noble Marquess could show that the facts and figures he had now given were without foundation, there was, indeed, ground for inquiry into the operation of an Act passed 10 years ago. The noble Marquess was bound to show that the administration of the Act had been proper, and was likely to result in an improvement of the system. It was somewhat singular that at the very moment when they were expecting a Local Government Bill, likely to increase the power and importance of the localities, they should have to be discussing a question of the discontinuance of certain local institutions, and to remember that the Bill of 1877 was opposed on the ground that it took away from and diminished the dignity of local life by two Gentlemen who, he might say, were now the mainstays of Her Majesty's Government—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for West Birmingham. He admitted that great advantages might be obtained from uniformity of management and control, but he desired to direct the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the consideration of whether it might not be possible to secure uniformity of management and, at the same time, to retain throughout the country those local prisons which were sufficiently well managed, and he was confident the Local Governments of
  1412
  the future would be content with nothing less.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, the speech of the noble Earl afforded a good illustration of the inconvenience, to a certain extent, of the custom of making speeches upon asking Questions in that House. The noble Earl's Question referred, generally speaking, to the management of the Prisons Commission in Scotland, and especially to the question of the closing of the prison of Cupar. But the noble Earl had gone over the whole question of the desirableness of amending the present system, which was to maintain large centralized prisons as against small ones. He had gone into questions of prison management. He had spoken of the administration of the prison at Barlinnie, and the disadvantages of the system of liberating prisoners at the prison gates, as against conveying them to the railway stations. He had gone into the question of how far the existence of the prison of Edinburgh had increased the criminal population there; and he had gone into the question of the cost of the now prisons. He, therefore, felt somewhat at a loss to know where to begin in answer to the noble Earl. He had better take the general question, as to whether it was desirable to have large centralized prisons, or the small local prisons that existed before 1877? Upon that question he thought the noble Earl had granted that it was not only a question of economy which actuated Parliament in 1877, and had distinctly stated the other reasons which prompted the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross) in introducing the Bill. Parliament was so unanimous on the subject that they passed the English Bill with a majority of no less than 210, and the Bill for Scotland was passed without a Division at all. The noble Earl said it was his duty to inquire into the working of that Act, and see whether it was a desirable measure or not. He must repudiate that suggestion altogether. Government would be simply impossible if every Minister were to inquire into the working of every Act after the lapse of a few years. But they had some light on the subject indirectly, for the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, in their Report of 1884, had

  1413
  condemned the system of numerous small local prisons in Ireland. Their Report was published seven years after the passing of the Act which the noble Earl complained of, and the Irish Commissioners had before them the results of those seven years' experience before they came to that conclusion. They said—
  "We are convinced that the fact of there being such a large number of local prisons in Ireland, and the consequently small number of prisoners in most of them, lies at the root of the principal defects of the existing administration.…. Whether, therefore, we study economy of public money, or economy of the time and labour of superintending authorities; whether we regard the efficiency and contentment of prison officers of all grades; or whether we turn to the discipline, reformation, and legitimate wants of the prisoners, we are alike convinced that a reduction of the number of Irish local prisons and the concentration of the prisoners in fewer and larger prisons are indispensable conditions for the introduction of those improvements which are most urgently required in the present system,"
  For himself, therefore, he was not prepared to go back upon the principle affirmed by the Act of 1877. With reference to the prison of Cupar, he did not wish to say a single word against it. It was an efficient prison. Its management was good; but it had been found unsuitable in respect of accommodation for the laundry trade, and wanting in means for the proper separation of male and female prisoners. The noble Earl's speech would have convoyed the impression that Cupar Prison was a large prison. It was not a large prison. The average number confined in it was about 33, and oven some of those had been sent from districts outside the county of Fife for the purpose of maintaining the laundry trade. Cupar was smaller than the smallest prison either in England or Wales with one exception, that of Brecon, and the Prison Commissioners had had to deal with it in the general spirit of the Act of 1877. The noble Earl had quoted from a letter of the Secretary of State of 1880, in which it was stated that Cupar Prison was one of the best in the country; but the noble Earl had omitted to read the concluding part of that letter, which went on to say that Cupar Prison might eventually be closed in accordance with the general principle of the Act of 1877; and in a subsequent letter it was said that if this took place, and the Com-
  1414
  missioners of Supply memorialized the Home Office to license police cells at Cupar, favourable consideration would be given to the case. This was said eight years ago, and it was precisely the position taken up by himself (the Secretary for Scotland) now. He adhered altogether to the undertaking then given by the Secretary of State, and should now be prepared to carry out those arrangements. As to the alleged inconvenience to prisoners getting up their defence, he had consulted one of the Prison Governors in Scotland—a gentleman well acquainted both with the old system and the now—and he was unable to point to a single instance of a prisoner being put to the slightest disadvantage by transference to a prison outside his district, nor had any such case been brought under the notice of the Secretary for Scotland. With respect to the noble Earl's remarks as to the inconvenience of discharging prisoners at Barlinnie, he had only to say that, if this course were not adopted, it would be necessary to take the prisoners to Glasgow and discharge them there—a course which would involve a fresh difficulty as to the place of discharge, and would also occasion a serious increase of expense, as the present system cost only £400 per annum, whereas that proposal would probably cost £1,000. With respect to the case of Edinburgh, where, according to the noble Earl, crime had increased in consequence of the discharge there of prisoners sent from country districts, he had to say that, in the year 1886, only 240 of those prisoners who came from outside Edinburgh declined the offer of tickets with which to return to the places where they were tried; moreover, some of those discharged prisoners, although sentenced elsewhere, belonged to Edinburgh, and naturally preferred to remain there when set at liberty. He hardly thought that the facts supported the contention of the noble Earl that the now system increased the criminal population of Edinburgh. Then as to the cost, if the noble Earl's statement were correct, it was, no doubt, a serious consideration; but, on the whole, after careful inquiry, he found that by the new system, when properly compared with the old one, there was a saving of £13,000 or £14,000 a-year. Since the Act was passed the salaries of prison

  1415
  officers had, of course, gone on increasing by the annual increments allowed by the Treasury scale of pay; moreover, a decision of their Lordships' House, "Mullins v. Treasurer of County of Surrey," had thrown upon the Prison Commissioners the expense, which amounted to £2,000 a-year, of conveying prisoners to prison from the place of their trial, which up to the year 1881 had been defrayed by the several county authorities. In addition to this an annual sum of £1,000, previously paid by the Exchequer, was now paid by the Prison Commissioners. It was quite fallacious to estimate the cost of prison administration by the charge per prisoner, because the larger the number of prisoners the smaller would be the cost per head for their maintenance; and he was happy to say that the number of prisoners had of late years, owing to the spread of education and the decrease of intoxication, greatly diminished. But he thought that some of the credit for this diminution of crime was due to the more efficient management of the prisons. He thought he had replied to all the points raised by the noble Earl, and, in conclusion, could only say that he felt himself obliged to adhere to the system which had been so many years in force, and that he could hold out no hope that the order under which Cupar Prison would be closed on the 31st would be revoked.

THE SOUDAN—KHARTOUM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government the latest news received of Lupton Boy from Khartoum, and if any steps had recently been taken to communicate with him; also to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to pacify the Soudan and produce a friendly feeling with the Natives? said, that that gallant Englishman, Lupton Bey, had had a remarkable career. A mate of a small coasting vessel in the Red Sea in 1878, he was taken by Gordon to Khartoum and placed in charge of the Nile flotilla. He showed such intelligence and integrity that Gordon promoted him to be Governor of the Bahr Gazelle. When he took over the Governorship there was an annual deficit. He soon turned this deficit into
  1416
  a surplus of £30,000 a-year, which he sent to Egypt; and when the rebellion broke out he had £150,000 worth of ivory in store. He defended his post to the last, and only submitted when his garrison were in extremis. This was the record of service of our gallant countryman now imprisoned at Khartoum, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government were using every means available to obtain his release. Lupton Boy's mother, he had heard, was in great anxiety and grief lest her son should be put to death. As regarded the policy of Her Majesty's Government for the pacification of the Soudan, that was a quotation of the first and gravest importance, involving, as it did, the welfare of a vast area of country which stretched over 20 degrees of latitude and 14 degrees of longitude, with its immense population—a question which concerned the whole north-east central portion of the South African Continent and its rescue from barbarism. He would only briefly allude to the incidents which had caused the present deplorable state of things in the Soudan, and for this purpose he would quote half-a-dozen lines from a letter written by the late correspondent of The Times at Khartoum. Mr. Prank Power wrote on February 14, 1884, in this significant and scathing manner—
  "The Soudani and Arabs are splendid follows, ground down and robbed by every ruffian who has money enough (ill-gotten) to buy himself the position of Pasha. For years it has been ' Kourbash, kourbash, et toujours kourbash.' This gets monotonous and the poor devils rebel. The rebels are in the right, and God and chance seem to be fighting for them."
  He would now only rapidly go through those events which had occurred during the rebellion caused by the abominable conduct he had alluded to. There was the battle of Kashgir, where Hicks's Army of 10,000 men, led astray by false guides and wandering about for three days without water, was set upon by myriads and totally annihilated—the gallant Hicks, with his English staff, spurring into the ranks of the Arab spearmen and meeting a soldier's death—to the defeat of Baker's Army, the battles of Teb and Tamanieb, to the Nile Expedition, the battles of Abu Klea and Gubat, to the fall of Khartoum and the death of Gordon, to the battles of Suakin, and, later on, that of the Nile.

  1417
  It had been computed that about 200,000 persons had been killed in this rebellion, and we had to deplore the loss of many of our countrymen. Such a record as this the history of few countries, however troubled, could show, and he believed he was right when he said that thinking men of all nations had been pained at the knowledge of all this slaughter and at the state of chaos now existing. But much as the civilized world felt for this state of things, it was England and English feeling that was alone able to bring peace and civilization. There were, in his opinion—and he said it with all due deference—only two policies which this country could adopt. The one policy, and the right one, would be to recognize that when we interfered in the affairs of Egypt we incurred a responsibility towards the Soudan—a responsibility which implied the placing of Governors in the country who should administer justice and maintain peace among the warring elements by which the Soudan was now divided. This policy would entail an armed force, and he was told that this country would never incur the expense. If this were so, as the country was master, its will was law. But there remained another policy—that of letting the Soudanese entirely alone to manage their affairs and to govern themselves, to foster trade, and to trust to it and other influences and to time for the introduction of civilization. But our policy had been one neither like the first he had mentioned nor like the second. It had been a policy of fighting a bloody battle and then retiring. He could not find better words with which to describe our policy than "kill and retire." Such a policy was not dignified. It neither conduced to the honour of this country nor to the welfare of the people, There were hopes a short time back that this kill and retire policy was at an end. But after 18 months of peace, after 18 months during which the outposts at Suakin had not been fired upon, during which officers at Suakin could go out shooting for 20 or 25 miles into the interior without molestation, so long—and this was a point worthy of notice—as they were the English helmet and not the Egyptian tarbush, when trade was increasing, when cattle were being brought in and sold by the Native tribes, there took place a sudden change. In
  1418
  December last an expedition was got together at Suakin for the purpose of attacking Tahar, which was 40 miles off. Tahar was the great grain and cattle district of that part of the Soudan. This expedition was formed of friendly Armars, Hadendowahs, slaves from the town, and other such persons from Suakin. The expedition arrived in the neighbourhood of Tahar, but the looting propensities of a portion of this motley force were too strong for its cohesion. Some of the friendlies began to loot the cattle of the Hadendowahs, and these cattle happened to belong to the very tribe who were forming part of the expedition. These, naturally enraged at their conduct, knowing that if they submitted they would not see much more of their cattle, joined with the Baggaras in driving the Suakin force away, which they did with considerable slaughter. Since that day no peace had reigned in the Suakin district, no officer could go out shooting or beyond the fortifications, and everything had been disturbed; while at other coast ports, where no hostilities had taken place, everything was quiet. In January an expedition was sent out to take Osman Digna at Handoub, a hamlst some 12 miles from Suakin. Osman Digna and his force were driven out, but he rallied his men, returned to the attack, and defeated the Suakin force. It was during this engagement that the gallant Governor was wounded, and also another English officer in Egyptian employ. Another skirmish took place this month in which an English officer, Colonel Tapp, a gallant officer whose death was a great loss, was killed. These raids were not desirable. They were conducted under Egyptian auspices, and the Soudanese, not unnaturally, imagined that their object was to annex their tribal lands, with the intention of re-imposing upon them the hated yoke of Egypt, with its bondage and terrible taxation. They, therefore, resisted to the very utmost of their power. A great evil in these sorties was that they encouraged in the minds of numbers of friendlies and persons at Suakin a desire for a raid for the purpose of enjoying a participation in the loot that might be obtained. In some cases the loot obtained was very considerable, amounting to thousands of pounds sterling. His idea of the policy which should be pursued towards the

  1419
  Soudan, if the policy of responsibility for its proper government was not entertained, was a policy which would forbid all raids or hostilities unless there was necessity for them for the purpose of defence, a policy which should issue Proclamations in the Native Arabic to the people informing them that England had no Intention of attacking thorn, had no intention of helping Egypt to conquer their territory, and only wished to establish good relations with them. Such a Proclamation should be distributed far and wide, should be sent by camels to Berber and Khartoum and far-off provinces. Such, a Proclamation, he was told, would be attended with the most beneficial results; but it should be sent through our English Consul at Suakin, and not through Egyptian channels. He did not believe the Soudanese would place any confidence in a Proclamation emanating from Egypt. Take a case which was sufficient to destroy all confidence. Hicks's Army wished to cross from Suakin to Berber. The Hadendowahs were engaged to provide camels for the transport of the force. They fulfilled, their contract, doubtless, losing many camels and undergoing many privations. They were promised seven dollars for each camel—not outrageous pay, surely, for this arduous journey, but when they had done their work, instead of the seven dollars promised, they received for payment one dollar. Did not this show very good reason why the tribes should place little confidence in Egyptian promises? He could not help feeling that it was his duty to say what he thought on this matter. More especially did it come home to him when he considered the large areas of desert strewn with the whitened bones of the slain, and when he thought of the great numbers of officers and men of the English Army who now lay beneath the desert sands, and whose death required, in his opinion, some justification by the improvement and pacification of the land in which they fought. And yet another consideration weighed with him of far more importance than even the loss of all these lives, and that was that the honour of this country was bound up in the adoption of measures to civilize the Soudan. Otherwise history would say she had sadly neglected her duty.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFEAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): With respect to the first part of the noble and gallant Lord's Question I have not very much to say, and if I could say much I ought not to say it. As a matter of fact, the last communication we had from him was an undated note which reached our outposts last November, and since that time we have had no communication with him. We believe that he is well, but as to the chances of escape I will not venture to speculate. I need not say that we shall do all that we can, to procure his release, as opportunity may offer; but I should be doing the reverse of my duty if I entered into details upon the subject. The noble and gallant Earl has travelled over a very extensive field, and dealt with events which arose in times for which Her Majesty's present Government are in no way responsible. I am not going to express an opinion as to the acts of our Predecessors. All I will say is that when the responsibility of affairs came to us we found matters in this condition. The British troops had retired from the Soudan; Lord Granville had imposed on the Egyptian Government the policy of abandoning the Soudan, on the ground that they were not in a position to keep it, but he had promised the assistance of the Government to maintain the boundary at Assouan on the Nile, and also to retain Suakin on the Red Sea. That policy, on the ground of continuity of policy, which I have more than once urged upon this House, we have pursued. The British Army is now, I think, almost exclusively confined to the North of Egypt. Suakin, however, has some British troops stationed there. We do not depart in any degree from the policy of leaving the Soudan. As to the civilization which the noble and gallant Earl would impose upon us the duty of restoring, it could only be carried out by a large and costly expedition, entailing enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure, and for the present a continuous expenditure, which I do not think the people of this country would sanction. With respect to the individual cases of collision which have taken place in the neighbourhood of Suakin, there are two points which I think the noble and gallant Earl has forgotten. One is that that very policy of abstention applies equally to the tribes called friendly and to those op-

  1421
  posed to us. We could not, without a far larger force, restrain the friendlies from pursuing such a course as they think fit in the conduct of their desert warfare. The second point is that a defensive position does not necessarily mean constantly standing behind a wall. It is often necessary to attack an offensive position set up outside. I do not believe that anything has been done under the sanction of any British officer which can be described in other language than that it is part of the measures necessary for the defence of Suakin.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: If my memory is correct, I especially excepted measures taken for the defence of our position; I alluded only to attacks on distant places.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I doubt whether the noble and gallant Earl will find that British officers have been employed in these distant attacks. I do not take the optimist view which the noble and gallant Earl has taken of the temper and disposition of the tribes at Suakin. I do not think that any Proclamation from Her Majesty's Government will induce Osman Digna to abstain from his attacks upon Suakin. The disturbing cause is the Slave Trade. No appeals simply to Osman Digna's good feeling, or to his desire for better trade, would prevent him from attacking when he sees an opportunity open. The defence of our retention of Suakin is that it is a, very serious obstacle to the renewal and the conduct of that Slave Trade which is always trying to press over from Africa into Asia. I do not think that the retention of Suakin is of any advantage to the Egyptian Government. If I were to speak purely from the point of view of that Government's own interest, I should say "Abandon Suakin at once." But the retention of Suakin is of very considerable value for the j purpose of repressing the Slave Trade, the Soudan is the one spot in the whole world where the Slave Trade has still the greatest vitality, and if your supervision is relaxed it will be revived in all its ancient force. The evil is not confined to that narrow strip of coast or to the desert of the Soudan. The whole mechanism by which the flower of every tribe in the heart of Africa is drawn down for the purpose of satisfying the slave markets of Arabia, Asia Minor, and other countries still
  1422
  exists, and that machinery would be stimulated into activity at once by the knowledge that there is this outlet to the traffic. That is the difficulty with which we have to contend, and I am afraid until the practice of the Slave Trade is abandoned the peace for which the noble and gallant Earl sighs will not be restored.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought the noble and gallant Earl was justified in asking for some information; but he entirely accepted the statement of policy made by the noble Marquess, that we occupied Suakin for the purpose of dealing with the Slave Trade, and that our occupation was necessary for that object. He was glad to hear the policy of the Government was not to go beyond the defence of Suakin. Judging from the information in the newspapers, he thought the operations at Suakin had gone beyond what was originally intended. He believed there was some danger in the desire of the Egyptian Government to make use of the friendly tribes in operations against the unfriendly, and that that policy was going too far. It was very much to be desired that trade might revive, especially on the banks of the Nile.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I speak from recollection, but my impression is that the hindrance on our side to a renewal of trade along the Nile has been for some time withdrawn. With respect to Suakin, the control of the town is in the hands of the Egyptian Government, under Colonel Kitchener, who is not an English but an Egyptian officer, and that, to a certain extent, diminishes our influence, I will not say over the general policy, but over the details of individual action.

THE EASTER RECESS.—QUESTION.
In reply to the Earl of KIMBEKLEY,
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that he proposed practically that the House should adjourn that day week for Easter; but he was not sure that it would be possible actually to adjourn on that day, because there might be some financial measures which must be passed before the 31st of March. Of course, the Government would take no contentious Business after that day week. He proposed that their Lordships should

1423
re-assemble again on Friday in Easter week, April 13.

DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have directed the Select Committee appointed by them to inquire and report as to the cost and method of the publication of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, on Thursday next at Twelve of the clock:
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Committee appointed by the Commons in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, on Thursday next at Twelve of the clock.
The Lord Basing named of the Committee in the place of the Lord Colville of Culross.

POOR LAW RELIEF.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire as to the various powers now in possession of the Poor Law guardians, and their adequacy to cope with distress that may from time to time exist in the metropolis and other populous places; and also as to the expediency of concerted action between the Poor Law authorities and voluntary agencies for the relief of distress."—(The Viscount Gordon, E. Aberdeen.)
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.