Sitting of 5 December 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Public Schools; Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market.
First Reading—Public Schools [24]; Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market [25].

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart), to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, What steps Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take with reference to the Recommendations of the International Monetary Conference and the Conference on International Weights, Measures, and Coins held at Paris in June last; and, whether they are prepared to bring in a measure to amend the Metric Weights and Measures Act of 1864, with a view to provide for the verification and stamping of Metric Weights and Measures legalized by that Act; also for the maintenance of Metric Standards in the Department of the Warden of the Standards?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Mr. Speaker—The Conference convoked by the French Government was attended by representatives from nearly twenty States. The Master of the Mint and Mr. Rivers Wilson, from the Treasury, attended on behalf
602
of England rather to watch proceedings than to take any active part. The object of the French Government was to give greater extension to the principle of unification of coinage, which had already been established by the Convention of 1865 between Belgium, France, Italy, and Switzerland. Certain abstract propositions were made and discussed and certain Resolutions passed for the purpose of forming a basis of what might become an international system. The French Government, through Prince Napoleon, the President of the Conference, pressed the Commissioners to urge their Governments not to shelve the question, but to institute inquiries, and to name a day upon which they would state their decision, in order that further steps might be taken; and I believe that formal invitations to this effect have been sent to the different Governments. The representatives sent on the part of Her Majesty's Government have made a Report of the proceedings of the Conference, which is under the consideration of the Government, who will doubtless decide whether they will respond to the invitation by advising a Royal Commission or referring the matter to a Select Committee. I am unable to state at present what course will be taken. With regard to the latter part of the question, it would be obviously premature to attempt legislation on weights and measures, pending the Report of the Commission which was re-appointed last year.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to re-introduce their Valuation of Property Bill of last Session, or any measure analogous thereto?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Government thought legislation on the subject would be desirable; but whether they would be able to introduce a Bill this Session would depend to a great extent on the state of public business.

LAMBETH LIBRARY.—QUESTION.
MR. WALDEGRAVE - LESLIEsaid, he wished to ask the Judge Advocate General, What steps have been taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the safe care and custody of the Books, &c. in Lambeth Library; and also what arrangements have been made for giving the

603
reading public proper access to that Library? The public were indebted to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the liberal arrangements which he had made; but, at the same time, it was desirable it should be known what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were going to do.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, in reply, that as the Question had reference to an Act of Parliament passed in 1866, he had better quote the words of the section, which were—
"Whereas there is in the Palace at Lambeth a Library to which the public have for a long period had access at certain times and under certain restrictions, the cost of the custody and maintenance of which has been heretofore defrayed out of the gross revenues arising from the Estates of the See of Canterbury; And whereas such Estates have now become transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England—Be it enacted, that the cost of the maintenance of such Library, and of the custody of the Books therein, may, if the said Commissioners think fit, by the like authority of a scheme passed by the Commissioners and an Order of Her Majesty in Council ratifying the same, be defrayed out of the rents and profits of such estates."
The House would see that the Library at Lambeth remained, as heretofore, the Library of the Archbishop, and the care and custody of the works remained with his Grace. It was not the duty of the Commissioners to take any steps for the care and custody of the books, or to make any arrangements for giving the reading public proper access to that Library. On the 28th of February last the attention of the Commissioners was drawn by his Grace to the provisions of the section he (Mr. Mowbray) had read; and it was then referred to the Estates Committee to consider and report to the Board as to the carrying of these provisions into effect. The Estates Committee consisted of the Earl of Chichester, Viscount Eversley, the Bishop of Peterborough, the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Howes), and himself. The Committee, having regard to the words of the Act, which throw upon the Common Fund—
"The cost of the custody and maintenance of the library, heretofore defrayed out of the gross revenues of the archiepiscopal estates,"
felt it to be their duty to fix the amount of future outlay by the Commissioners with reference to the actual expenditure on that account of the present and previous occupants of the See, and they accordingly recommended the Board to pass a scheme for authorizing the payment by
604
the Commissioners of an annual sum not exceeding £150, in order to cover the salary of a librarian, the cost of warming the library, of binding and repairing the books, and of all other expenses incidental to the maintenance of the library and the custody of its contents, but irrespective of the cost of any repairs of the structure itself, proof satisfactory to the Commissioners being afforded of the actual outlay of such amount upon the objects in question. On the 4th of July the recommendations of the Committee were adopted at a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On the 4th of August a communication was received by the Commissioners from the Solicitors of the Archbishop, requesting that the further consideration of the subject might be postponed until November, as his Grace was about to obtain the opinion of Counsel. Since that time the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have received no further communication from his Grace.

POSTAL—AMERICAN MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the National Steam Ship Company (Limited), whose steamers ply weekly between Liverpool, Queenstown, and New York, have, as has been reported, offered to the Post Office authorities to convey the Mails one day in each week to New York at the rate of a penny per half-ounce for letters?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, it was quite true that the National Steam Ship Company was one of the Companies who tendered to carry the mails by their ships which sail from Queenstown every Friday, and they offered to take fourteen days for the voyage, under penalties. That offer not being accepted, they made another tender, to take the letters atone penny per ounce in fourteen days, but without penalties—that was taking their own time over the journey. That offer, at first sight, appeared cheap; but it must be remembered that ship letters were already carried at the rate of one penny per letter, not per ounce. All he could say was, that any letters specially directed to go by the ships of the National Steam Company, or any other Company, could always do so, at the rate of one penny per letter paid to the shipowner.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1867.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Solicitor General, Whether any Rules have been issued by the Court of Chancery in relation to Companies applying to reduce their capital under the Companies Amendment Act (1867); and if proceedings can now be taken in the Court of Chancery for enabling Companies to effect this object?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, in reply, that the Judges in the Court of Chancery had not yet found it necessary to draw up any rules relating to companies applying to reduce their capital under the Act in question, but proceedings could nevertheless be taken, and in the Court of one of the Vice Chancellors actually had been taken, for such a reduction of capital. The course adopted was this:—The Judge ascertained, as far as was practicable, the position of the Company and the amount of its debts. He then fixed a time within which creditors were invited by advertisement to State whether they consented or objected to the proposed reduction. At the expiration of this time, the Judge required to be satisfied that the debts of all those creditors who had not consented had either been paid or properly secured. When this had been done, but not before, the sanction of the Court was given to the reduction of the capital of the Company.

TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill during the present Session for establishing Tribunals of Commerce?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: No, Sir. The Government have no such intention. The Royal Commission appointed in September last to inquire into the various Courts of Law and Equity is directed to ascertain, among other things, what charges and improvements may be made "by assigning any matters or causes now within their respective cognizance to any other jurisdiction." It is clear, therefore, that Tribunals of Commerce are within the scope of the inquiry. A Committee of this House sat in 1858 on this subject, and took some valuable evidence which they merely reported to the House. The Mover
  606
  and Chairman of that Committee, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, is a member of the Royal Commission, and will no doubt have opportunities of stating the arguments in favour of these Tribunals. It would not therefore, I think, be expedient, pending the Report of the Commission, to introduce a measure for effecting so great a change in the law of England, with respect to which there is, among practical men, so great a divergence of opinion.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would now beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the Government intend to issue any Regulations informing Chambers of Commerce how they can make use of the 23rd section of the Companies Act, passed last Session?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade have nearly completed a form of procedure which they think best fitted for this object. It consists of a draught memorandum of association, and draught articles of association, which will, with an explanatory letter, be printed, and sent to the various Chambers of Commerce, and which will, without binding the Board of Trade or the Chambers to every detail, serve, I think, to indicate generally the course which should be adopted. If the Chambers enrol themselves as Associations limited by guarantee, instead of as Companies limited by shares, they will avoid expense and trouble, and sufficiently distinguish themselves from Trading Companies.

ABYSSINIA—THE FOREIGN OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention, has been called to an article in The Morning Post of Saturday, November 30, in which the Assistant Under Secretary of State is charged with malversation of office, and also with levying toll from every officer in the Foreign Service of Great Britain; and, whether there is any foundation for these statements?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have seen the article to which the hon. Member refers, and I am very glad that by putting his Question he has enabled me to notice it in

  607
  this place. The statement that the Assistant Under Secretary of State levies tolls from officers in the Foreign Service—meaning, I suppose, the Diplomatic and Consular Service—is simply and absolutely without foundation. If it has reference, as I suppose it has, to the system of agency which still continues in the Foreign Office, the answer is that Mr. Murray ceased to hold any agency when he became Assistant Under Secretary. He derives at present no emoluments whatever from his official position except his salary; and I must say I am surprised that charges gravely affecting the character of a public servant, who has no opportunity of defending himself personally in this House, should have been made in a respectable journal without some previous care being taken to ascertain their truth. As to the other charge which is called in the Question, and also in the article, "malversation of office," I suppose by this is meant the alleged keeping back of papers from the head of the Department. That allegation is founded, I suppose, upon a statement made in a recent debate by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), formerly Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and on that point he would perhaps himself wish to give an explanation. All I can say is that, on referring to the paper in question, I find that the despatch enclosing that paper bears upon it a minute in the handwriting of Lord Russell. Lord Russell therefore must have seen the covering despatch; he must have been cognizant of the existence of the enclosure, and, of course, it would be optional with him either to read it or not. As far as my experience goes, no such practice exists as that of keeping back papers from the head of the Department. Every paper of any importance, every paper that is not of a merely routine character, every paper upon which any decision is to be founded, or any action to be taken, comes under the personal notice of the Secretary of State.
  MR. LAYARD: I wish to say a word or two by way of explanation.
  MR. OSBORNE: If there is to be any discussion upon this point, I hope the hon. Gentleman will conclude with a Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Southwark desires to make a personal explanation, and under these circumstances a statement is generally allowed.
  MR. OSBORNE: Then I shall wish to say something upon the explanation.
  MR. LAYARD: I am not going to refer
  608
  to the general question of Abyssinia. I was going to say that Mr. Murray's character stands much too high to be affected by any such charges as those referred to in the Question. There seems, however, to have been some misunderstanding as to what fell from me the other evening. I stated in the debate that I could not recall to my recollection that I had ever seen the letter of King Theodore to the Queen, and that when I asked Lord Russell he could not distinctly remember whether he had seen it or not. In mentioning that, I did not intend to make any reflection upon the Under Secretary of State, or any officer in the Foreign Office, but merely to show how little importance was attached to the matter. I have been to the Foreign Office today, and have refreshed my memory on the subject. What the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) states is perfectly true. On the covering despatch which was sent to Lord Russell there is a minute in his Lordship's handwriting directing the correspondence to be sent to the India Office, which was the usual and ordinary course taken in all matters relating to Abyssinia. I do not appear to have seen that despatch. The first minute, to which I have alluded, is dated on the 11th of March. On the 9th of March a despatch was received from Mr. Consul Cameron, giving an account of his detention as a kind of prisoner at Axum. That despatch was sent to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Murray, Lord Russell, and myself. We all four wrote a separate minute, stating our conviction that unless Mr. Consul Cameron was at once directed to cease from meddling with Abyssinian affairs and was recalled to Massowah grave consequences would ensue. I did not see the first despatch, and I do not know why. But the explanation is probably this:—The permanent and the political Under Secretaries have two distinct offices. That is the custom I found existing, and I presume it is so still. There is a division of the countries of the world. Half are taken by the permanent, and the other half by the political Under Secretary. It happened that all Eastern matters were in the department of Mr. Hammond, and not in my own. This despatch was therefore sent to Mr. Hammond, and by him to Earl Russell. It came back, and was probably sent to the India Office; and that is the reason why I did not see it. If I had seen it, taking as I do a certain interest in Eastern matters, the fact of seeing a letter in Amharic would certainly not have escaped my recollection.

  609
  Earl Russell appears to have seen the covering despatch, but he considered that the letter did not require an answer, as an answer had to all intents and purposes been sent already, and the despatch was consequently forwarded to the India Office for any observations that Department might have to make upon it. The India Office seem to have been of the same opinion, and there the matter rested.
  MR. OSBORNE: If this, Sir, were a mere common Question, I should not have interfered. But it is no common Question; and as I desire to say something upon it, I shall conclude with a Motion. This omission at the Foreign Office has probably plunged us into a war, and a war of the most expensive and uncertain character. The more I look into the question the more I doubt the policy of the expedition, and the more I am convinced of the great bungling—to use a light word—which has taken place at the Foreign Office while my hon. Friend was Under Secretary. The House of Commons has been called together at an extraordinary time of year for an extraordinary purpose; and as to the House of Commons, after reading the discussions that have taken place and the papers that have been produced, nobody can say that it has not exhibited the greatest docility, almost amounting to stolidity, in treating this question. What have we had? We have had meagre information and rough Estimates, and we are actually embarking in a foreign expedition without knowing the cause of the war, and on information which would hardly suffice to justify the passing of a Turnpike Trust Bill. I was much struck with an answer given by the Secretary of State for India the other night. He was asked a question about condensers. He knew nothing upon the subject, and referred to the Governor of Bombay. It comes to this—that we have for the occasion appointed the Governor of Bombay as Secretary for War. Everything is thrown upon his shoulders. He conducts the expedition, and any questions put here must be telegraphed to him before we can obtain any satisfactory explanation. I want to know whether the House feels satisfied with the policy of this expedition? For myself, after looking further into these papers, I firmly believe that we ought to have sent no expedition at all, but that we ought to have adopted the suggestion of Sir Samuel Baker and sent an Envoy, with a very large staff, exhausting every diplomatic
  610
  means before rushing into the expenditure of millions. We have done nothing of the sort; we have sent out this expedition; and, with all due deference to the character of Sir Robert Napier, I take upon myself, backed up by a great many military men, to doubt the policy of sending such an enormous army to those regions. Well, what are we about to do? We talk of sending 12,000 men. But what do 12,000 men represent? I am told they represent between 35,000 and 40,000 people—to be sent to a country where food is notoriously scarce and water almost unattainable. Why, the supply of water to these 40,000 men will depend on three condensers:—and I believe there is only one there now. Now, I ask, is the House going to separate with an expression of satisfaction at this state of things? Sir, I feel very sure that if you are to send an expedition out at all, you ought to send it on a smaller scale. What was the army that conquered Scinde under another Napier? Why, it was under 2,800 men: and we are sending out 40,000 people to Abyssinia! a country that we know little or nothing of, when, as I believe, if the advice of Sir Samuel Baker had been taken, you could have rescued the captives at a cheap rate. So much for the policy and size of the expedition. I think the House has too much slurred over the question of the policy and cost of the war. Can it be believed that the Foreign Secretary could come down to the House and make such a speech as to the letter from King Theodore, whom, mark you, we had recognised—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's experience of the House must tell him that it is not competent for him to enter into a past debate, or to discuss a speech in that debate on moving the adjournment of the House.
  MR. OSBORNE: I am not discussing a speech, but papers which appear in a blue book, and what, I wish to know, has become of the letter King Theodore sent to the Foreign Office? That letter is important, because the postage of it will come to millions, which we shall have to pay. I want to know what has become of the letter? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) says he never saw it; the Secretary for Foreign Affairs never saw it; and an answer was not sent until fifteen months after—[An hon. MEMBER: Two years]—but nobody knows by whom, and we are now plunging into this expedition. But

  611
  there is another question. When this House was formerly cautioned not to get up any debates on Abyssinia because they would be reported to King Theodore, and would put the fate of the captives in peril, I want to know why that despatch of the 5th of October, 1865, was published in The London Gazette? That London Gazette was sent out; the despatch asking Mr. Rassam to get rid of the Abyssinian alliance became known to King Theodore; and of course the King thought himself deceived, laid hold of Mr. Rassam, and from that day that gentleman has been in durance vile. If we had a Committee to inquire into this subject, the blunders connected with the expedition would appear to be so great that I am sure some hon. Gentleman would get up and move the abolition of the Foreign Office. If we had no Foreign Office we should have had no war, because we should have had no letters from Theodore, no publication of despatches in The London Gazette, and those unfortunate captives never would have been detained. Now, I do hope—though this is but the skeleton of a House, and we seem inclined to vote anything for the expedition—that the attention of the country will be called to this question. I have taken this opportunity of saying a few words upon it because I may not have another. I think the whole matter has been passed over almost sub silentio. I make no attack upon Her Majesty's Government, though I doubt the policy of going to war; but I say that the explanations given by a former Under Secretary of State have been most unsatisfactory to the House, and I believe they will be unsatisfactory to the country. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  COLONEL SYKES, in seconding the Motion, said, that in justice to a gentleman who, he believed, was charged with being the culprit as regarded the detention of this celebrated letter, he begged to state the circumstances under which that letter was received in the Political Department of the India Office. It was sent over to the India Office simply to look at, for their information, and seemingly as an Amharic curiosity, and when it came into the hands of Mr. Kaye, the head of the Political Department, he placed it on his table, supposing he had nothing whatever to do with it. He thought that the letter had been already treated by the Foreign Office, and that the India Office
  612
  had no responsibility whatever with regard to it, as it was not accompanied by any memorandum. It was said that Mr. Kaye had not got a pigeon-hole, and that the letter thus became mixed up with other papers. But he (Colonel Sykes) had it this evening from Mr. Kaye that the letter remained on his desk unnoticed, until some person from the Foreign Office came to him to ask about it, and he replied, "There it is on the table; I have had nothing to do with it. You can take it away. I took it for granted that it had been answered before it was sent to me." Now, the fact of that letter not having been so answered had been the chief cause of the war. When King Theodore sent that letter by Mr. Cameron he did it in amity and from an anxious desire to obtain the goodwill of Great Britain. But what did Mr. Cameron do? Instead of going to Massowah or bringing home the letter, as he was desired, he went into the province of Bogos, and thence to Kassala, a province that had been wrested from the Abyssinians by the Egyptians, and from which yearly raids had been made by the latter into the province of Bogos for the purpose of carrying off women and children. He had put into the hands of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary an account of a raid in which 300 women and children were captured there and sent to Medina and Mecca, where they were sold as slaves. It was said that our Consuls in Arabia were cognizant of those raids, and these acts caused the hatred and resentment of Theodore against the Egyptians. What could the King think when he found that the Consul who had charge of the letter to the Queen had gone into this province, whence these outrages were periodically committed? When Mr. Cameron returned to Abyssinia, instead of avoiding the King, he went into his camp; and when the King asked him where he had been, he said, "In the province of Bogos." "Ah," said the King, "but you went also into the province of Kassala, to my enemies. What did you want there?" "I went," said Mr. Cameron, "to inquire about cotton for the Foreign Office." "So then," said King Theodore, "you have had communications with the Foreign Office, though you told me you could not get an answer to my letter. Well, then, you shall stay with me until you do." That was another instance in which the King had occasion for distrust, and believed that he

  613
  had been ill-treated, and that his friendship was repudiated by us. Again, the Abyssinian Convent in Jerusalem, which had been under the quasi-protection of our Consuls, was taken away from the Abyssinian monks by the Turkish Governor under the eye of our Consul, and the King's inference was that we had allowed it to be done. With regard to the King's letter, it was, he believed, three years nearly to a day before he got an answer; another mistake was the detention of the Queen's presents conveyed by Mr. Flad at Massowah, instead of taking them to the King. Well, we have the result of a series of bungling, and, as his hon. Friend had said, the postage of that letter would probably cost us £5,000,000. He was glad that the country was beginning to look at the matter with a different eye from what it had done when the question was first brought before the House. The prospect of an additional 2d. in the pound at the next payment of the income tax would not be very pleasant, and we should probably hear more about it. Theodore was a bloody tyrant, no doubt, but he knew very well what he was about; indeed, he had the credit of being an able man. It was an absurdity to talk of our prestige suffering! He had said before, and he repeated it now, that there was not one man in 10,000 or even 100,000 in India who ever heard of the existence of Abyssinia. How, then, was our prestige to suffer? Moreover, when it was said we had an important trade below the Abyssinian Ghauts, it should be remembered that the whole of that tract of sea-coast was not in the hands of the Abyssinians, but of the Mahomedans, whom the Abyssinians hated. The little trade that there was came from Bombay to Mocha and Jiddah, and the Arabs carried it over to Massowah, and there was not any direct trade from India to Abyssinia. There had been an unjustifiable mystification on this subject. Again, as to Mr. Rassam, he did not hesitate to say that that gentleman was not a proper person to send to represent the Queen of England. He had been the servant of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark. [Mr. LAYARD: Oh!] The fact was mentioned in the first volume, page 54, of his hon. Friend's book on Nineveh, where Mr. Rassam was spoken of as being employed to superintend the hon. Gentleman's domestic arrangements. Could he have been a proper person to send? Moreover, his hon. Friend must have known
  614
  that Mr. Rassam was not even a British subject, but was a subject of Turkey—to which power the Abyssinians were extremely hostile. If sent at all, however, it ought to have been either as a mere agent to negotiate the release of the prisoners, or an Envoy, with an escort of a squadron of cavalry. It was to these blunders we should owe this unhappy war—for such it was likely to be; unless, indeed, the King of Shoa, by taking Magdala, enabled us to avoid it. Shoa was the southern province of Abyssinia, and the present King Menelek was the grandson of the King, to whom Major Harris had been sent as Ambassador from Bombay in 1841–2. Theodore had conquered his father, and imprisoned him and himself in Magdala; but he had made his escape, and rallied his people, and was holding his own against Theodore, and had sent a letter and presents to the Queen. When speaking of imprisonment, we naturally associated it with an idea of Newgate—long, dark passages, gloomy cells, and all that kind of thing; but the fact was that this prison at Magdala was a large mountain with a flat top. Mr. Rassam, as he himself told us, had a garden attached to his house and had a bower in front of his door of Tomates. There was no need, therefore, for us to be shocked with the horror of dungeons. No doubt it was very disagreeable not to be allowed to go where one liked, and to the indignity of fetters on the ankles; but this was partly owing to Mr. Rassam himself. The moment the King received the Queen's letter he was all hilarity and thankfulness, and released all the prisoners; but Mr. Rassam endeavoured to get some of them out of the country without their having an interview with the King, and then ensued the extraordinary scene he had described on a former occasion. He could not help believing that our proceedings were to be lamented, both as a political question and as they affected the national finances.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Osborne.)
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he did not intend to discuss our Abyssinian policy on this occasion, though he had formed a strong opinion upon it; but wished to ask for information on two points. Great stress had been laid on a letter from King Theodore to Her Majesty not having been re-

  615
  plied to. Now, he wished to inquire whether on any former occasion—especially during 1858—Theodore addressed any other letter to the Queen, and whether, if so, it received any reply? A second Question, which was one of some importance, he would address to the Secretary of State for India. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that with regard to the numbers of the expedition we had entirely depended on the high authority of Sir Robert Napier, and this seemed on the face of it very satisfactory. It appeared, however, that the expedition was being carried on under the auspices, not of Sir Robert Napier, but of the Governor of Bombay, the Governors of Bombay and Madras having supreme authority over their Commanders-in-Chief. Sir Robert Napier, as he understood, was in military matters a mere cipher, and could take no step without the consent of the Governor in Council. There was therefore this anomaly—an expedition was being carried on at a distance from this country by a gentleman of undoubted talent, whom he was proud to call his friend, but of whose military genius nothing was known, since he had had no opportunity of displaying it. Thus the large Staff and the troops and camp followers had been decided by the Governor of Bombay, with whom a large portion of the expenditure rested. No doubt he would study economy, for the sake both of English and Indian taxpayers; but a man in Sir Seymour Fitzgerald's position would naturally be anxious to insure success by the despatch of a large force. Now, in the belief of high military authorities, the large numbers of the expedition would entail its failure. How were 55,000 men to be supplied with food and water? [An hon. MEMBER: 40,000!] He had seen the numbers computed as low as 40,000 and as high as 55,000; but, taking them at 45,000—and the troops had increased from 10,000 to 12,000, and would probably further increase—neither the three condensers nor any other expedient that could be devised would suffice to supply water to such a force. The Government, indeed, had published a letter from a Belgian diplomatist, which was curiously referred to the other night by the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and which stated that the greatest danger attending an English expedition was its being composed of any large numbers. It also stated that King Theodore could not
  616
  put 500 or 1,000 men in line, and that it was not possible for him to oppose 500 British soldiers. Moreover, successful Eastern expeditions had invariably been carried on by small numbers. The expeditions against Burmah, China, and Scinde were instances in point. A totally different policy was now, however, being pursued, and this under the auspices of a civilian, and in opposition to the opinion of men like Sir Samuel Baker and others personally acquainted with Abyssinia. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state whether the Governor of Bombay was not Commander-in-Chief in that Presidency, and whether Sir Robert Napier was not entirely subordinate to him in military matters?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as a Motion of Adjournment had been made for the purpose of securing greater freedom of discussion, he hoped the House would allow him to refer to what occurred a few nights ago with reference to the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), whom he was glad to see in his place. It would be in the recollection of the House that he then called attention to certain expressions reported as having been used by the hon. Gentleman in a former debate respecting Dr. Beke, having previously written to him in order that he might be prepared to substantiate the reflections he had cast on that gentleman, calculated, as they were, seriously to injure him in his position and prospects. The hon. Gentleman had since thought fit to send a letter to The Times, addressed to himself, commenting upon the remarks he had made, and also commenting on the conduct of the House, as having assented to what he (Mr. Newdegate) had said as to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, which appeared to him to have exceeded the proper limits of debate. Now, he wished to thank the hon. Gentleman for the obliging expressions he had used towards himself; but the House having consented, at his instance, to consider the nature of the imputations cast on a gentleman who was not a Member of that House, it was their function to decide on the propriety of the language the hon. Gentleman had used and the imputations he had cast, mostly unsupported by any evidence whatever, and to consider whether there was not a danger of the House being rendered, if such language was permitted, the vehicle of baseless and unproved slanders. He (Mr. Newdegate) was putting the case strongly,

  617
  but many hon. Members felt as strongly as himself, and one had already asked whether, in case of the use of such language, it would not be consistent with the practice of the House to have it taken down by the clerk at the table? To that inquiry no answer had been given. Although he (Mr. Newdegate) had no intimation that the hon. Gentleman intended to return to his place until he entered the House, yet, as a proof that he (Mr. Newdegate) was acting in the spirit of the letter he had addressed to the hon. Gentleman, he would now ask whether he was prepared to justify the language reported to be used by him, and which had been heard by many Members of that House, or whether he was prepared to prove the allegations of falsehood and dishonour which he had made against Dr. Beke? In the answer which the hon. Gentleman sent him he referred to many facts of which the proofs were not before the House in the printed documents furnished by the Foreign Office, and if the hon. Gentleman now attempted to justify the gross imputations—for he must so term them—which he had cast upon Dr. Beke by referring to documents which were in the Foreign Office, he was bound to move for the production of those documents, and if the hon. Gentleman did not move for them, he (Mr. Newdegate) would do so himself.
  MR. LAYARD: After what has fallen from my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Osborne) I trust the House will allow me to say a few words. I have no intention or wish to raise another Abyssinian debate—we have had quite enough of them; but really it is important that the House and the county should know the truth about this letter, of which so much has been said. I repeat that the fact that no answer was returned from this country to the King's letter has had nothing whatever to do with the war. Whose evidence will my hon. Friend accept? Will he accept the King's own statement—the statement of Mr. Consul Cameron, or the statement of Mr. Flad? They are the three persons who are the most interested in the matter. A thousand reasons have been assigned for the King's anger. We have been told to-night that it is on account of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Consul at Jerusalem with regard to the protection of the Abyssinian Church there. Has the King himself assigned this reason? Another person states, on the authority of Dr. Beke, that it was because of the pub-
  618
  lication of Lord Russell's despatch in The London Gazette. Dr. Beke, however, states in his own book that that had nothing whatever to do with it. His own statement is that it was on account of our change of policy towards Abyssinia, and that if we had gone on supporting the King in his policy of going to war with the Turks we should have had no quarrel with him. But these causes have never been assigned by the King himself, nor by anybody connected with him. I think it is only just and fair towards the Foreign Office that this should be known. Here is the King's own statement of the cause of his anger, which will be found in the third blue book in Mr. Rassam's despatch of January 10. Mr. Rassam sends a translation of the charges made by the King in writing against Consul Cameron. He said—
  "I told the Consul that the Turks had taken my country and were my enemies; nor had I a ship to do my work, by the power of God, and I said that I wished that the mission and presents which I intended to send to the Queen should be conveyed safely. I gave him a friendly letter to the Queen, and sent him away. The letter which he brought to me (from the Queen) and the consultation which we had together he abandoned, and went to the Turks, who do not love me, and before whom he insulted and lowered me. I asked him, 'Where is the answer to the friendly letter I intrusted you with? What have you come for?' He said to me, 'I do not know.' So I said to him, 'You are not the servant of my friend the Queen, as you had represented yourself to be,' and by the power of God I imprisoned him. Ask him if he can deny this."
  Now, let us see what Consul Cameron himself states. In the same blue book there is a letter from Mr. Cameron to Mr. Hammond, dated March 16, 1866, in which he says—
  "This morning the King sent a letter containing the charges against us. Those against myself are as follows:—1, Instead of going to Massowah, after my first visit to His Majesty, I went among the Turks, who were his enemies—(namely, to Kassala), I suppose as being in the Egyptian territory, as he considers that his quarrel with the Turks is limited to Egypt, and has nothing to do with Turkey; 2, I abused him while there; how is not known; 3, after returning to his dominions I could give no account as to whether there was an answer or not to his letter to Her Majesty."
  Now, what was Mr. Flad's account? Writing to Lord Clarendon, he says the King thus stated his grievances—
  "Captain Cameron I had imprisoned because he went to Kassala to my enemies, the Turks, and I had given him a letter for the Queen, and he came back without bringing me an answer."

  619
  ["Hear!"] Yes; but the distinction is a very material one. The King does not complain that he did not get an answer to his letter, for he did not know whether there was an answer or not; but that Mr. Consul Cameron, instead of going to Massowah, and there waiting to bring up the answer, had gone to the Turks and come back without bringing any news of an answer. Now, I have been asked, whether in April, 1858, when Lord Malmesbury was at the Foreign Office, a similar letter was not received from the King, and to which no answer was returned? The fact is, as I stated the other evening, that in April, 1858, a similar letter was received by Lord Malmesbury and no answer was ever returned to that letter. [Mr. OSBORNE made a remark.] It was in consequence of these interruptions that I was made the other evening to say things which I now regret. The hon. Member does not like to be interrupted himself, but he is in the habit of constantly interrupting others. I was going to say that we had already answered the King's letter most distinctly. Lord Clarendon, in Mr. Plowden's time, had written to him to tell the King that only on one condition would we receive his Embassy, and that was that he should give up the intention of making war on the Turks. Consul Cameron, as he himself states, positively told the King the same thing. Yet, in the letter from the King which he forwarded to England, the King stated that he was going to attack the Turks, and insinuated that he expected us to assist him, as he had no ship on the sea-coast. The King having been told over and over again that we could not receive an Embassy from him unless he gave up his intention of attacking the Turks, it was quite evident that the letter which distinctly stated his own intention of infringing this condition, required no answer. Mr. Cameron had been ordered to return to Massowah. His exequatur was for Massowah; that was the headquarters of his Consulate, and it was in the Egyptian and not Abyssinian territory. To that place we fully believed he had gone, and whether that letter was answered sooner or later did not signify. We did not want him to go up again to Gondar; we wanted him to remain at Massowah, and to have as little as possible to do with Abyssinian affairs. As soon as we heard of his proceedings in Abyssinia, every member of the Foreign Office—Lord Russell, in the first instance; Mr. Hammond, who
  620
  is, perhaps, more intimately acquainted with Foreign affairs than any man in this country; Mr. Assistant Under Secretary Murray, a gentleman of great distinction and ability; and myself—all wrote minutes almost in the same words, stating our conviction that if Captain Cameron went into the interior and mixed himself up with the affairs of Abyssinia this country would be brought into trouble. We sent him three times the most stringent instructions to return at once to Massowah. What more could the Foreign Office do? [An hon. MEMBER: Why did you not dismiss Captain Cameron?] Suppose we had. At that time he was in the hands of the King, and his dismissal would not have reached him. Besides, it is not easy to dismiss a man summarily and without asking him for some explanation. I do trust that this House and the country, who are fair and impartial in these matters, will take these things into consideration. What has been said about Mr. Murray suppressing a letter is entirely beside the question. Mr. Murray has not the power of suppressing a letter—the course of proceeding in the Foreign Office renders it impossible for any one to suppress a letter—and Mr. Murray, not only in this matter but in every other way, acted up to his duty. If hon. Members will refer to Consul Cameron's own despatch, they will find that the letter to which no answer was returned appears almost to have been extracted from the King by the Consul, as will appear from a subsequent paragraph in his despatch. Consul Cameron says—
  "I wrote to the King to remind him of his promise to write to Consul General Colquhoun, and of all the advantages which such a letter would be to him."
  After the distinct instructions Consul Cameron received, I ask, are we to blame if he entirely violated those instructions? We were powerless. If he had been within reach of the telegraph we could have stopped all these proceedings. But we knew nothing about him or where he was. Now, with regard to Mr. Rassam, who is at present a captive in the hands of King Theodore and whose life may be sacrificed any day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sykes) says that he had been my servant. Nothing can be more unfounded. Mr. Rassam is a gentleman by birth and education. He is a brother of Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Mossul. I have had great experience of Easterns, and I never knew an Eastern so thoroughly unselfish,

  621
  honest, upright, and able as Mr. Rassam. He was my friend for some years. I never could have paid him for his services to me. He served me with zeal and ability which no words of mine can describe, and to say that he was my paid servant—why, the thing is absurd. As to his not being a proper person to send, I will challenge any person to prove that he was not. The choice was very limited. There were only two or three persons whom it was possible to send. Mr. Rassam was Lieutenant Governor of Aden; he had been employed in a most delicate diplomatic mission to the Imaum of Muscat, and settled the disputes between the heirs of that Principality and received the highest commendations from the Indian Government; he had been employed on many other missions, and was thoroughly well-known on the borders of the Red Sea where his personal influence over the natives and Arabs was so great that he was enabled to bring into order all those turbulent tribes round Aden, who had before kept that place in a state of siege. Before his arrival no Englishman was able to go beyond the gates of Aden with safety; but Mr. Rassam used his influence with the natives so powerfully, that he took Sir William Coghlan through a great part of the most difficult portion of Arabia. Mr. Rassam was of all others the man whom I should have chosen for a mission of this kind. He was not chosen from any relations he had had with me—those relations expired many years ago. He had since distinguished himself in the East. It is said that because Mr. Rassam was a Turkish subject he was therefore unfit for the mission; but the Patriarch of Abyssinia is always chosen from among the subjects of Turkey in Alexandria, and therefore, as regards Mr. Rassam's nationality, there was no reason why the King should make any objection to him on that ground. I regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen has passed some jokes as to the captivity of Mr. Rassam. These unhappy captives have suffered a great deal; but Mr. Rassam, although he is chained, retains the King's personal friendship, and the King has always shown him the greatest kindness and consideration. The King tells him he regrets to treat him so harshly, but that he is obliged to do so in order to retain him as a hostage. I have the utmost confidence that if Mr. Rassam lives to return to this country, he will be able to give the utmost satisfactory expla-
  622
  nations of all the circumstances connected with his mission in Abyssinia. I now come to the personal question brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate). I do not object to his having done so. On the contrary, I think that he was quite justified in the course he has pursued, and I regret that, not having received his letter, I was absent from my place on Friday evening. After I had described in my speech of last Tuesday evening the impression which Dr. Beke's communications to the Foreign Office had made upon me, I had done with that gentleman, and had no intention of alluding to him any further, but I was driven to do so by the constant interruptions of my hon. Friend behind me.
  MR. OSBORNE: I never said a word about Dr. Beke.
  MR. LAYARD: Why, the hon. Gentleman was constantly saying to me, "Why did you not send Dr. Beke?"
  MR. OSBORNE: I never said a word on the subject.
  MR. LAYARD: Well, then, it was somebody else. At any rate, I felt it was my bounden duty to tell the House the truth, and though I may occasionally have said things which had better have been left unsaid, yet I think this House will not accuse me of any want of frankness. I may, indeed, have used too strong an expression, and if the House thinks it ought to be retracted, I will retract it willingly, though I shall still adhere to the opinion I have formed of Dr. Beke, because I think he has systematically made statements without any foundation whatever. I repeat that that is my opinion. And here I may remark that I should not have taken notice of Dr. Beke but for the unusual circumstance that letters abusive of myself and others sent by him to The Times and Morning Herald were republished in the blue book, together with a letter, dated the 11th of June, 1866, containing allusions which ought not to have been placed before the House in this solemn manner without opportunity of further explanation being given. I accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate), and shall move for the production of the Correspondence which led to that letter being written. Dr. Beke, I beg leave to remind the House, charged me with having wished to leave Mr. Stern in captivity, because I had had a personal quarrel with that gentleman some years before. Moreover, he

  623
  stated that he had been informed by Mr. Palgrave that instructions had been sent out to the effect that the liberation of Consul Cameron alone, and not of the others, was to be asked for. Both these statements were totally untrue. I never had any quarrel with Mr. Stern. I believe I once met him at Bagdad years and years ago, but I certainly never had a word of difference with him. But what would any hon. Gentleman say if he were deliberately accused of having abandoned this unhappy man because he had had a personal quarrel with him many years ago? Then, there were two accusations brought against Mr. Rassam, Her Majesty's Envoy, a man who is at present in captivity, and who has few friends in this country to defend him. In the first place, he is accused of misapplication of public funds. I know it is said that the terms of Dr. Beke's accusation do not mean that; but I would ask any impartial man whether it be not evident, from the expressions made use of, that what Dr. Beke meant was, that Mr. Rassam had misapplied this money? ["No, no!"] Well, if that be the general opinion of the House, I will retract what I have said; but I must remark that there is not a friend of Mr. Rassam's in this country, nor any impartial man to whom I have shown the words used, who does not put the same construction upon them as I do. Mr. Rassam is also accused of cowardice in not going up to Gondar at once, and for not remaining in Abyssinia as a hostage for the liberation of the other prisoners. Now, the first accusation is groundless, for Mr. Rassam acted upon the instructions and upon the urgent advice given to him by Consul Cameron, who said, "Do not move from Massowah, and do not come up with the Queen's letter till you have received the King's invitation. If you come up without an invitation, and without the King's sanction, your own life and the lives of all the others will be imperilled." Such was the advice given by Consul Cameron to Mr. Rassam—and, in point of fact, there is nothing whatever to prove the charge brought against the latter. As to the other charge, I believe that there is not the slightest foundation for it. I have here a list of statements meant to be detrimental to my own character, to Earl Russell, and to Mr. Rassam, but I will not trouble the House with them. If I have made use of any term which is un-Parliamentary, I shall be most happy to withdraw it; but I must say that such an attempt to destroy the cha-
  624
  racter of an honourable man like Mr. Rassam I never before saw in the course of my life. But I leave the House to pass its judgment on what I have said respecting Dr. Beke's book, and what the statements contained in it are worth. Another charge against Mr. Rassam is that he ought not to have received money from the King, and that he therein acted contrary to the rules followed by all previous Envoys. But Consul Cameron himself states in one of his despatches that he could not get his own interpreter to interpret a refusal of money which had been offered to him, and that Mr. Plowden had been always placed in the same difficulty. Mr. Rassam's object was to stand well with the King, and he found that a refusal of the money would have been regarded by Theodore as an insult. That money, I believe, has probably been retaken from him, as it appears that the King has more than once taken all his property. It might not be out of place to mention that most of the missionaries were not even British subjects, but Germans, and yet all these men were supported by Mr. Rassam, who did all he possibly could to get them released. I think I need not trouble the House further, as I trust that the explanation which I have already made will be to a certain extent satisfactory. I repeat that if on a former evening I used any expression which is un-Parliamentary, I shall be willing to retract it; but I must beg that the House will make some allowance for my own feelings on that occasion. I was labouring under considerable irritation, for I felt that I had been most unfairly dealt with, and my anger was very much raised, not for my own sake, but by the unjustifiable and unfounded attacks made upon a man who was not in this country to defend himself, and who had no friend but myself in this House to speak up for him.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERcongratulated both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion for the adjournment on their able speeches; but regretted that those speeches had not been made earlier, when this question was brought under the notice of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A good many hon. Members, including himself, entertained considerable doubts about this war; but what could they do when they found that the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters on the front Opposition Bench endorsed everything which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exche-

  625
  quer? If blame attached anywhere, it could not be imputed to the present Government, who had received a damnosa hæreditas from their predecessors, and were consequently obliged to do the best they could under the circumstances. At the same time, he regretted that the original cause of the dispute with King Theodore had not been gone into. The late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard) stated that the unanswered letter of the King had had nothing whatever to do with the war, and the hon. Gentleman read several papers in support of that opinion; but, for his own part, he must confess he thought those papers conveyed to his mind a perfectly different conclusion. What he wanted to know was when the letter of which so much had been said reached the Foreign Office—when did it get to England? Was it on the 12th of February last? [Mr. OSBORNE: No, three years ago.] Well, then, could there be anything more astonishing than that a letter sent to the Sovereign of this country by a person whom the country had recognised as a Sovereign Prince, after reaching the Foreign Office, should have been mislaid? Whether or not it was thrown into the waste-paper basket it was impossible to say; but at all events the late Under Secretary of State said he never saw it, while the late Secretary of State said he did not remember anything about it. The matter was so inexplicable that probably no explanation whatever could give a satisfactory solution of the matter. If the papers referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) did not prove that the want of an answer to that letter was not the cause of the war, they did prove one thing—namely, that Consul Cameron had been guilty of gross misconduct. Consul Cameron had adopted the course which he must have known would be objectionable to the King, while at the same time he had no business whatever in that Sovereign's dominions, having entered them in disobedience to orders. Under these circumstances, he did not think this country had any fair cause of complaint in respect of that individual, who was admittedly a wrong-doer—the Foreign Office ought to have said, que diable ullait il faire dans cette galere. Having left the place to which he was accredited he was no longer a Consul, and there was a precedent to show that an Ambassador having gone to a place other than that to which he was accredited an indignity offered to him could not be made a cause of war. Consequently,
  626
  it appeared to him (Sir George Bowyer) that the Foreign Office had no business to send Mr. Rassam to Abyssinia. The hon. Member for Southwark had given the House a description of Mr. Rassam's extraordinary ability, and if his praise were deserved Mr. Rassam should, directly the vacancy occurred, be sent as our Ambassador to Paris. He wished, also, to point out that Mr. Rassam, being a Turkish subject, was not a fit person to be sent by this country as its Ambassador to Abyssinia. Respect for a foreign country required that a subject of Her Majesty should be sent on such a mission; and he did not doubt that the fact of a foreigner, even although he might be the servant or the factotum of the hon. Member for Southwark, being sent as our Ambassador had a good deal to do with the events we were now deploring. But he (Sir George Bowyer) went further, and said that, not only should Mr. Rassam not have been sent, but nobody should have been sent. Owing to the misconduct of Consul Cameron, we had sent to Abyssinia an Envoy whom we ought never to have sent at all, and we had become involved in a war which would cost us £5,000,000 at least, and in the event of our having to replace the troops we had taken from India would cost us far more. He looked upon the war as a most disastrous one. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not taken a more decided view of the matter, and had not taken into consideration the circumstances out of which this unfortunate war had arisen; and he still more regretted that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had not had the magnanimity and the manliness to set before the House the real facts of the case, and to accept, as he ought to have accepted, whatever blame legitimately belonged to the Foreign Office for its conduct while under the control of his Colleague, instead of approving; as he had done, the conduct of the Government and supporting them in the course they had adopted in this matter. The right hon. Member ought to have gone into the whole question, and ought to have acted in a patriotic instead of a party spirit. Landed in war, however, we were now, and he and the country could only bitterly lament that the bungling that took place in the Foreign Office under Earl Russell should have led to such an unfortunate and disastrous result.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. and learned Baronet who had just sat down (Sir George Bowyer) was in error in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the

  627
  Member for South Lancashire had approved everything that the Government had done in this matter. He was present on the occasion of the right hon. Gentleman speaking on the question, and if his recollection were correct the right hon. Gentleman had not approved the conduct of the Government in this matter, but had merely expressed an opinion that the Government having committed the country to a war, it was advisable in the public interests not to withhold from them the support which they demanded from the Legislature. It must not, however, be assumed that in so doing the right hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Members generally of the Opposition, acquiesced in or expressed any approval of the course which had been pursued by the Government. On the contrary, he believed it would be found that those who sat on that side of the House looked forward to the time when there would be an expression of opinion which might be very unpleasant if made at the present moment. It must be clearly understood that the Government were proceeding on their own responsibility. No doubt a time would arrive when the whole matter would have to be fully discussed, and when Her Majesty's Government would have to answer for the course which they had thought fit to pursue; the House, however, had not yet before it the materials necessary for entering into an investigation of the subject, inasmuch as the papers which had been laid before it were prepared in a most imperfect, and indeed, he might say, an offensive form. Had any clerk in the House of Commons at a salary of £100 a year prepared papers in so slovenly a way he would be dismissed as unfit for his duties. The papers from every Department had been thrown together in a heap, and had then been arranged in order of date, without the slightest care being taken that they should follow in a consecutive manner in regard to the circumstances to which they related. It was hardly possible for any one to obtain from them the information he desired on any particular topic. He hoped that before the next meeting of Parliament the Government would take care to have the documents arranged in a more perspicuous form. At least the Secretary of State could lay on the table a classified index, so that Members might read with understanding and proper appreciation the extraordinary facts which the blue book disclosed. Its composition and the short
  628
  time allowed for the perusal rendered it quite impossible, if hon. Members had desired, to discuss the question with advantage to the public. It was therefore a grave error to suppose that the House acquiesced in and approved everything that was reported in the blue book to have been done. Some hon. Members had taken up particular points, being unable to abstain from expressing their views upon them; but that was a very different thing from entering into a discussion of the whole question. No such discussion had taken place, and it must not therefore be assumed that the House had acquiesced in the conduct and policy of the Government.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he did not agree with the observation made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets in regard to the preparation of these papers—on the contrary, he thought that the Government were entitled to the thanks of the House for having presented to them, in however hurried a manner, all the information they could collect in reference to this matter. Their conduct in this respect contrasted very favourably with the conduct of the Government in which the hon. Member for Southwark was the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Either purposely or through negligence, the predecessors of the present Government kept back the information they possessed with regard to Abyssinia, and therefore hon. Members were compelled to move for papers that were not published, as they ought to have been, in the first and second blue books on the Abyssinian question. He thanked the noble Lord for the answer given, which was necessary to the vindication of the gentleman referred to; and if the Motion of adjournment had unexpectedly occasioned a debate, that would not have been a matter of regret, had it led the hon. Member for Southwark to offer some reparation to Dr. Beke for what he had said on a former occasion. In an august assembly like that such expressions as "mendacious," "adventurer," "busybody," "meddler" and the like, were hardly admissible as applied to an absent gentleman, who had neither the power nor the opportunity to defend himself. The hon. Member for Southwark was unfortunate in those whom he selected for attack. One night he blamed Dr. Beke, and another night Consul Cameron; and it could only be trusted that the hon. Member would feel that, as regarded the former, he had done gross injustice to an

  629
  individual who could not in that House defend himself. The House might remember that not many years ago there was an "adventurer," if he might use the expression, who, for the sake of obtaining archæological and historical information, conducted explorations on the plains of Mesopotamia, removed the accumulated dust of centuries, and in the monumental tombs of dead kings made discoveries which added to his fame, and, perhaps, contributed to place him in his present position and to give him the opportunity of making the speech he made the other night, for which, as an attack on the character of another gentleman and distinguished traveller, he was bound to make some reparation.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Even if it be true, as has been observed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the question of the Abyssinian war has not really been discussed, and that there have not been opportunities for a full discussion of it, I think the House will feel it is not convenient to take advantage of a Motion for Adjournment to enter upon a full discussion of any of the topics which have been glanced at. There will be other opportunities of entering into full discussions; and therefore I do not think it desirable that we should attempt at this moment to anticipate inquiries in which we may more conveniently engage hereafter. There are, however, one or two points it is necessary I should refer to. I have already expressed my regret that the blue book was found so inconvenient to hon. Members; but I am rather surprised to hear it described as "offensive," for undoubtedly there was no intention to give offence. The fact is that we hardly knew on what particular points the House would wish to criticize our proceedings; and therefore we thought it best that hon. Members should know all that had been going on, and with what rapidity, and under what peculiar circumstances, the expedition had been organized. The papers being in print for the use of the Departments, we laid them on the table as they were; but we appended a very full precis of the contents of the book, so that hon. Members, with a very small amount of trouble, might turn to the correspondence on any particular point. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) seems to think that Sir Robert Napier is under the orders of Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, and that the Governor of Bombay
  630
  is responsible for the arrangements made for the expedition, even in so important a matter as the determination of the number of men to be employed. Such a view is entirely erroneous. In point of fact, the Governor of Bombay is not the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay army; but Sir Robert Napier, as Commander-in Chief, is an ex-officio member of the Government of Bombay. Many questions of a military character have to be decided by the whole Government, of which Sir Robert Napier is a member, and on matters of military detail the greatest deference is paid to his opinion. As regards the matters which have been discussed and settled by the Government, the aim of the Governor has been as far as possible to restrain expenditure. Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, as the blue book shows, is one of the few persons who have advocated the sending of a force smaller than that which has been sent, and therefore it is a misrepresentation to speak of him as responsible for its magnitude. Sir Robert Napier proposed a large force; the Governor argued for a small one; but, in deference to Sir Robert Napier, waived his objections to a large one. However, the responsibility for the size of the force rests neither with Sir Robert Napier nor with Sir Seymour Fitzgerald; it rests upon Her Majesty's Government; and it has not "grown" to 12,000, for that was the number of troops mentioned in the telegram which the Government had before them on the 14th of August, and which they then accepted. The arrangements as to the transport and the accessories of the force have, to a great extent, been settled by the Government of Bombay, upon the requisitions and suggestions of Sir Robert Napier, the Government, and especially the Governor, exercising their influence to prevent any unnecessary expenditure. So far as Sir Seymour Fitzgerald has exercised any influence, it has been in the direction of preventing any expenditure that was not absolutely necessary. The question whether the force is too large or not may be deserving of full discussion; but I do not think it would be advantageous, or would meet the views of the House, to discuss it now. The Government are prepared at any time, with or without notice, to give explanations; but it would be convenient to reserve a general debate for a more formal occasion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR LAW—WALSALL WORKHOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  Mr. C. FORSTERIn answer to Mr. C. FORSTER,
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, a correspondence had passed between the Inspector of the district and the Poor Law Board respecting the statements published in The Lancet in connection with the Walsall workhouse. The papers were completed, and if the hon. Gentleman was inclined to move for them, there would be no objection to produce them.

ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any recent steps have been taken towards preserving the numerous ancient architectural remains of public buildings and other monuments in India; and, whether he will lay on the table of the House copies of any documents lately issued by himself or the Governor General of India relating to this subject?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, some despatches had been received from the Government of India on this interesting subject, and there had also been a correspondence with the Department of Science and Art at South Kensington. The papers were hardly in a fit state to lay before the House; but when the correspondence was completed they could be produced.

  FOREIGN OFFICE AND THEIR AGENTS ABROAD.—QUESTION.
  SIR PERCY BURRELLasked the Foreign Secretary, Whether Her Majesty's Government will adopt effective measures to deter subordinate Agents from disobeying the orders which they receive from the Foreign Office, so that in future impunity might not confirm them in a course of disobedience such as in the case of Consul Cameron appeared likely to have been a main cause of involving this country in a war with Abyssinia?
  LORD STANLEY: Disobedience to instructions on the part of subordinate agents of the Foreign Office never ought to be, and, so far as my knowledge extends, never has been passed over. If such acts of disobedience were wilful, they would be followed by the recall of the person committing them. If they arose from an error of judgment or from
  632
  a misconception of instructions given, probably an expression of disapproval would be sufficient. The decision in each case must depend upon the particular circumstances of the case—we cannot lay down any general or invariable rule. But with regard to the case of Mr. Consul Cameron, though I quite admit that he may have been more mixed up than was desirable in the politics of Abyssinia, yet if the reference of the hon. Baronet is, as I suppose it to be, to the order which Mr. Cameron received to return to his post, we have every reason to believe that that order did not reach Mr. Cameron until he was detained by King Theodore, and had therefore ceased to be a free agent. It would not therefore be just to punish a man for not obeying an order which it was physically impossible for him to obey.

HALIFAX, BERMUDA, AND ST. THOMAS MAILS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. HUNT, in moving a Resolution approving the Contract with Mr. W. Cunard, for Conveyance of the Halifax, Bermuda, and St. Thomas Mails, said, that the contract was for a sum of £19,500 for ten years, for a service once in four weeks; but in the event of the Postmaster General desiring to determine the contract at the end of five years, Mr. Cunard was to receive £1,000 a year additional. The reason for the maintenance of this service was concisely given in a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated April 26, 1867—
"With reference to my letter of the 31st of July, 1866, respecting the discontinuance of the contract with Messrs. Cunard for conveying the North American mails, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that they have received an inquiry from the Postmaster General as to the necessity of continuing the mail service between Halifax and St. Thomas, viâ Bermuda, which, under existing arrangements with Messrs. Cunard, will terminate on the 2nd of January next. I am commanded by their Lordships to request you will state to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury that their Lordships have informed the Postmaster General that the withdrawal of this mail packet would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to the public service. It is by this route the naval Commander-in-Chief on the North American station keeps up his communications with Jamaica, Barbadoes, and all the various islands and colonies in the West Indies and the Gulf of Mexico, and to cut off this means of communication appears to their Lordships to be most unadvisable."
Under these circumstances tenders were called for, and the tender accepted was

633
the only one presented. The amount was considerably higher than the Treasury had expected, and the Admiralty were therefore asked whether they could not undertake the service themselves. Their reply was as follows:—
"In the event of the service having to be undertaken by this Department, it could not be performed with less than two vessels. The cost of building two suitable vessels is estimated at £70,000, there being none of Her Majesty's ships at present disposable. The annual cost of wages, victuals, coals, and wear and tear is estimated at not less than £25,000."
There seemed, therefore, to be no alternative but to accept the tender. As to the terminal port of St. Thomas, power would be given in the contract to the Postmaster General to change the port to another port in the West Indies if such a change should hereafter be deemed necessary, the terms to be paid to Mr. Cunard for this alteration to be settled by mutual agreement, or failing that, by arbitration.
Moved, "That the Contract entered into with Mr. W. Cunard, for the conveyance of Mails between Halifax, Bermuda, and St. Thomas, be approved."—(Mr. Hunt.)
MR. GILPINsaid, that the last statement had rendered it unnecessary for him to make the remarks he had intended to offer. He was glad to hear that the Postmaster General would be empowered to remove the mails from the pestilential island of St. Thomas, from which ship after ship had brought home the yellow fever. Another reason why St. Thomas should no longer be the central point of our mail services to the West Indies was that the island had now ceased to be a Danish dependency, and had become the property of the United States. The main objection, however, to it was the mortality among the sailors and passengers in the mail packets. Another route might be adopted with equal advantage. He congratulated the country that this power was reserved to the Postmaster General, and hoped it would soon be exercised.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that sufficient time was not allowed in making the arrangements for these contracts, and that they were left to the last moment. He found no fault with the Cunard Company, which did its work well; but why could not some of our Government vessels do this service? Surely it would be a good thing for the men and officers of the Royal Navy to have something to do in this way.
MR. CORRYsaid, that the Secretary of the Treasury had already answered the hon. Gentleman, by showing that the performance of the service by the Royal Navy would not be an economical arrangement. It would be absolutely necessary to build new vessels, for a man-of-war would be as unsuitable to the service as a mail packet would be to perform the duties of a man-of-war. The Board had reduced the squadron to the lowest point compatible with the duties it had to perform; and it would not be an economical step to increase it.
Motion agreed to

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WALPOLE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the good government and extension of certain Public Schools in England, said, that last year a Bill on the subject was brought into the House of Lords, founded upon a Report of the Royal Commission, and had come down to the House of Commons. The pressure of business, however, was then so great that he was unable to bring it to a second reading. He wished, therefore, now to bring in a Bill of nearly the same nature, but containing some few Amendments, and he thought it better to do so at this early period in order that it might be fully discussed when the House should meet after Christmas. He should propose to take the second reading on the second day of the meeting of Parliament after the Recess.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had already given notice for a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of some of the schools which would be affected by this Bill. He would suggest that before the second reading the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of separating two questions which were really entirely distinct—namely, the question affecting the provincial schools, such as Eton and Harrow, and that which related to the schools of the metropolis.
  MR. GOLDNEYhoped the scope of the Bill would be enlarged, and that it would be made to extend to other schools than those included in the measure of last year.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to make further provision for the good government and extension of certain Public

  635
  Schools in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WALPOLE, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 24.]

METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU LORD ROBERT MONTAGU moved for leave to bring in a Bill to give powers for the establishment in the metropolis or its immediate neighbourhood of a Foreign Cattle Market. He said, his object in introducing the Bill now was that it might be before the country during the Recess. He should propose to take the second reading immediately after the Recess, and refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The object of the Bill was to give power in the first instance to the City Corporation to construct a separate market for foreign animals. If they refused to undertake it, the matter would be put into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they would receive power to raise the necessary funds. Failing them, it would be placed in the hands of five Commissioners to be named by Her Majesty.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the Establishment of a Foreign Cattle Market for the Metropolis; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Lord ROBERT MONTAGU and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 25.]
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Income Tax; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000).*
Committee—Sales of Reversions* (5); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (3); Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Amendment (8).
Report—Sales of Reversions* (5); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (3); Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Amendment (8).
Third Reading—Totnes, &c. Writs* (7), and passed.

RAILWAYS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DRIVERS AND GUARDS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a measure to provide that there should be means of communication between the drivers and guards of railway trains?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the subject had been under the consideration of the Board of Trade, and during the autumn experiments had been made on various lines of railway throughout the country, with the view of establishing some system of communication between the guard and the driver. These experiments were to be continued till the close of the year, when the results would be laid before the Board of Trade. There were difficulties in the matter, but the Board hoped to overcome them. The Government would endeavour, if possible, to carry out the object to which the recommendations of the Committee of last year were directed, though he did not think the mode of dealing with the matter which had at that time been suggested was the best one.

  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 8.)
  (The Lord Clinton.)

  COMMITTEE. REPORT.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Report considered.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I have to submit to your Lordships' consideration a clause of which I have not given notice, but to which I hope, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no objection. Your Lordships are aware that the other evening the metropolis was deprived of a very important adjunct to the public convenience by the withdrawal of all cabs from the streets after four o'clock. That was done in consequence of the dissatisfaction of the cab-proprietors and cab-drivers, directed principally against one of the regulations in the Metropolitan Streets Act of last Session. I think it a matter of great regret that those persons should take the course they did, in order to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to what they consider a great
  576
  grievance; because it was a proceeding likely to throw great difficulties in the way of the Government in proposing an alteration of the Act. But I must say that a meeting was held the same evening, numerously attended by cab-proprietors and drivers, which was characterized by great moderation and great good temper; and the result of that meeting was that a deputation waited on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and laid before him their views and their complaints. The principal grievance of which the cab-proprietors complain, and which appeared to my right hon. Friend, as it does to me, to be a fair and legitimate ground, if not of actual complaint, at least one requiring further investigation and consideration, was that in addition to the very heavy duties which they now pay, amounting to £19 or £20 a year, upon each cab, an additional burden is now thrown upon them which is not inflicted upon other carriages—namely, the expenditure involved in carrying lamps. The provision to that effect is found in the Act of last Session, which contained a vast variety of details—it being a great object with both Houses of Parliament that some remedy should be applied to the serious obstructions existing in the streets of the metropolis—and it is possible that some of the details may have passed without that consideration to which they were fairly entitled. But, as far as I am aware, I believe there were not during the passing of the Bill, any complaints on the part of the cab-drivers and proprietors on this particular point. Nevertheless, there certainly is a fair ground of complaint in the additional charge thrown upon them without any alleviation on their burdens. They further complain that the power of enforcing this regulation is left, to a great extent, discretionary with the Police Commissioners, who are to fix the hours during which lamps are to be carried. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt that their statement involved matter which required further consideration, and therefore he proposes to introduce a clause—with which, I understand, the persons interested are perfectly satisfied—namely, to transfer the discretionary power now vested by the Act in the Commissioners of Police to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to provide that no regulations as to lamps under this Act shall be issued without the approval of the Secretary of State.

  577
  That will afford my right hon. Friend an opportunity of fully investigating the subject; and I may add that I believe it is the intention of my right hon. Friend, as soon as Parliament meets again, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole case of the cab-drivers and cab-proprietors of the metropolis. With this explanation, I hope your Lordships will have no objection to sanction the clause, which provides that no regulations shall be made with regard to the carriage of lamps by hackney carriages under the Act of last Session except with the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that when the Bill was before the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, no objection was made to the proposal with respect to lamps. If, however, the change proposed would effect a settlement of the question that was regarded as satisfactory by the parties interested, he should not interpose in any way. But the obligation imposed by the Act was one that in itself seemed not unreasonable, and he hoped it would not be lost sight of in any future arrangements on the subject.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, the only satisfactory settlement of the cab question would be to allow the cab-drivers to charge whatever they pleased—subject only to this condition, that they should put outside their cabs a table of the fares they charged. The whole system of regulating the fares of hackney carriages was a remnant of barbarous times; for competition would apply equally to that case as to anything else in obtaining for the public a supply of the best article at reasonable rates. Omnibuses, for instance, might charge any price they pleased, but they found it to their own interest to keep down their charges. All great writers and political economists were unanimous in thinking that the fact of legislating as to the fares of hackney carriages was as great a mistake as could be committed. In illustration of his meaning he might state a little fact. At one time a society of great political economists, whose meetings were attended, among others, by Mr. Ricardo, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Mill, Mr. M'Culloch, and Mr. Malthus, met together to discuss nice questions of political economy; and it was said of them that the only question upon which they were ever unanimous was the impolicy of putting any limitations upon hackney carriages. He
  578
  hoped their Lordships, when the Committee was appointed, would remember that the regulations affected one class alone.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble and learned Lord must be aware that the introduction of such provisions as he contemplates would be impossible now, and would simply have the effect of preventing the Bill being passed before the Recess.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he did not mean that the question should be dealt with now, but at a future time.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble and learned Lord has undoubtedly raised a very fit subject for consideration. But as he has mentioned one little fact, there is another little fact that I will mention. At this moment the Corporation of Liverpool have introduced a by-law for carrying into effect the very proposal which he now makes—namely, that cab-proprietors shall be allowed to charge what they like, provided only that they put the fare outside their cabs; and the whole of the cab-proprietors of Liverpool are at this moment on strike against that by-law.
  LORD LYVEDENregretted that the question of the lighting of cabs should have been taken out of the hands of the Commissioners of Police, who knew what was best for the public safety, and transferred to the Home Secretary, who was necessarily less conversant with the subject. The cabmen had undoubtedly cause for complaint; but the true cause was the high charges to which they were subjected, and the low fares they received. Lights would be a protection to the public, and of that protection, according to the noble Earl's statement, they would now be deprived.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The public have not been deprived of anything. The effect of the clause now introduced can only be to postpone action, at the outside, for the next three months. Meanwhile, matters remain precisely in the same position as they were before.
  Motion agreed to; Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 8.)

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION.
Paragraph of the Queen's Speech relating to Abyssinia read—
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I can assure you that my object in moving

579
that the paragraph in the Queen's Message should be read is not in the slightest degree to limit the range which any of your Lordships may take in the discussion that may arise on the present Motion; but it is for the purpose of explaining why I do not propose to go back to any previous proceedings connected with this subject, but limit myself to a few remarks upon the Resolution to which I am about to ask your Lordships' assent. My Lords, we are invited by a communication from the Commons to endorse their concurrence in the necessity of an expedition to Abyssinia, and their readiness to co-operate with Her Majesty in her endeavour to release her subjects from captivity, and vindicate the honour of her Crown. The questions arising out of this were, in the first place, is it expedient that the expedition should be sent from India; and, if so, whether it is competent for the Government to avail themselves of any portion of the revenues of India for the purposes of that expedition; and supposing them to be competent, what proportion of the revenues of India ought in fairness to be applied in that way? A further question arises as to the mode in which Parliament should provide for the necessary expenditure; but that question will be dealt with by your Lordships when considering the Motion which stands next upon the Paper—the Income Tax Bill. The question is one which mainly belongs to the House of Commons, and though your Lordships may give a negative to that Bill, you have no power to make any Amendment on it. The first question for our consideration, then, is supposing an expedition to Abyssinia is necessary, is it expedient to send it from India? It is singular that the question as to the expediency of sending the expedition from India has never been raised in the House of Commons, but has been assumed as a matter of course. The motives, however, for so sending it are very clear. In the first place—more especially at the present time—troops can be better spared from India than from Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom. In the next place, the base of operations, being necessarily on the Red Sea, is much more convenient of access from India than from this country. When I say that the base of operations is necessarily on the Red Sea, I should explain that if the invasion of Abyssinia had been attempted from any other quarter it would have exposed us to much misconception and have materially increased the
580
expense. I know that we might with much less difficulty, and undoubtedly with much more certainty, have conducted an expedition up the Nile, and I believe the Viceroy would not only have offered us no opposition, but would have been only too happy to co-operate with us. But all who know anything of Abyssinia know that any invasion from the Egyptian side would have at once combined against us all those semi-civilized and semi-Christian tribes who are at present in a state of revolt against King Theodore; for they would immediately believe we had come with the concurrence, if not in the interest, of their hereditary enemies—the inhabitants of Egypt. Apart from all other reasons, this is strong enough for making the attempt from the Red Sea, and if from the Red Sea, then from India. Another consideration in favour of starting from India, is that the troops there are better fitted to endure the climate of Abyssinia than men fresh from England. Colonel Merewether, our Resident at Aden, has expressed his firm conviction from the first that it would be absolutely necessary to adopt this course, and never thought of anything else but an expedition from India. As I have said before, the House of Commons have never entertained any question on the subject, but took it for granted that the expedition was to proceed from India. Then, my Lords, arises the question whether we are entitled to avail ourselves of the Indian revenue, subject to the consent of Parliament, for the purposes of this expedition. That question depends upon the provisions of the India Act of 1858; and although I called your Lordships' attention to this point, upon the first night of the Session, I may be permitted to notice what took place in your Lordships' House when the particular clause in question was under discussion. When the Bill left the Commons there was a clause which provided that it should not be competent for Her Majesty's Government to make use of the troops of India for any foreign service, except under specified circumstances, otherwise than with the consent of Parliament. That clause was subsequently so altered as to create some confusion, and I had the honour of moving in your Lordships' House the clause as it now stands. I at the time said the object was not to prevent Her Majesty from making the same use of Indian troops which she could make of any other troops; but to prevent the charge of a war being thrown upon the revenues of India,

581
thus evading that constitutional control which Parliament exercises over military operations. The object, therefore, of the clause moved by me was to place the troops of India, with regard to the payment of those troops when engaged in foreign expeditions, precisely on the same footing as the ordinary troops of Her Majesty's service. But, as the noble Earl opposite remarked, a continual security exists with regard to the revenues of India, inasmuch as no sum can be expended without the consent of the Council, who are the Guardians of the Indian purse. Consequently, there is a double check upon the employment of these troops upon service foreign to India—first, the consent of the Council of India must be obtained to any such expenditure, and then the consent of Parliament. But not necessarily before the Sovereign has taken the Resolution involving the expenditure. My Lords, it is an undoubted Prerogative of the Crown to enter upon a war, subject only to the consent of Parliament as far as providing the means of paying for the troops employed is concerned; and though the withholding this consent would certainly be an effective barrier to carrying on a war, no one ever pretended that it was necessary for Parliament to be consulted previous to the declaration of war; and in like manner, as it was the intention of Parliament to place the troops of India upon the same footing as troops in England, there is no need for Parliament's consent to the Crown's dealing with them, except as to their payment. And that is the foundation of the Resolution passed by the Commons—it gives effect to the provision of the India Act. The Resolution passed in the House of Commons provides that the ordinary pay of the Indian troops employed shall be defrayed out of the revenues of India—so that India shall be charged with no expenditure which would not have arisen if this expedition had not taken place. There does not appear, in connection with the various occasions in which. Indian troops have been employed and Indian revenues have been applied towards the prosecution of our wars, any precise understanding, or any rule laid down as to the proportion India should bear under such circumstances. In the first China War, in 1839–40, India gave her troops without payment, and subsequently had to increase her forces for the purpose of replacing them, and no allowance was made by the Imperial Government for that. The present arrangement
582
provides that India shall pay for the troops used in the expedition precisely the same amount which she would have paid had they remained in India, and not been lent for the service of the Crown; but if, in consequence of that, it should be necessary to replace those troops, or incur any additional expense, in that case the additional expense shall be borne by the Imperial Exchequer; so that no additional charge will fall upon India. In the Persian War, in 1856, India contributed the whole of the ordinary and half the extraordinary expenses. It may be said that a Persian war is much more closely connected with, the interests of India than either a China war or a war such as that in which we are about to engage, and therefore that it is not unreasonable that she should contribute a larger proportion in the first instance than she should in the two latter. In the third China War, the ordinary and extraordinary expenses were borne by England; but it should be remembered that at the time our troops were engaged in quelling the mutiny in India, and that there were very serious drains made on the Indian revenue; but even in that case, when a demand was subsequently made on the part of the Indian Government for the reimbursement of £189,000 for the ships supplied towards the expedition, that claim was disallowed, and the sum remained an extra charge on the revenues of India. The present arrangement, as your Lordships will, I think, see; is one which is much more favourable to the India revenues than any which have been adopted on previous occasions, and, as such, it has been generally recognised in the other House; for though there was a slight difference of opinion with regard to the propriety of the course which it was proposed to adopt—the numbers, on a division, being 198 in favour of the proposal of the Government, and 23 against—there was not entire unanimity even among the minority, some contending that India had been let off much too cheaply, and ought to contribute a much larger sum. I may add that in respect to vessels supplied by India all the charges for fitting them out and sending them on this expedition will be defrayed from the Imperial revenues, and no additional expense will fall upon India in consequence of this expedition. I have said there was a difference of opinion in the House of Commons as to the proportion of the expense which should fall upon the revenues of India; and though I know

583
that it is not regular to refer to what has occurred in that House, your Lordships will, I trust, pardon the irregularity, because I wish to refer to the frank and handsome manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) supported the proposal of the Government. I cannot help feeling that that support, coming from a quarter not very favourable—or, at all events, not very prejudiced in favour of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government—is very valuable testimony to the judgment which the Government has formed upon this matter. The language employed by the right hon. Gentleman, as reported, was—
"I confess that on examining this proposal it seems to me, upon the whole, to be moderate in amount, conformable to precedent, with a tendency towards greater leniency than towards greater rigour to India; to be tenable and fair in principle, and therefore one that will meet the justice and equity of the case."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 396.]
Now, there has been no difference of opinion as to the propriety of sending the expedition from India, nor has there been any difference of opinion as to whether the revenue could be applied without the consent of Parliament. Clearly it could not; and the only possible question which can now arise is whether the Government have overstepped the limits of the law—for my own part I do not think they have—in incurring, or proposing to incur, expenses before those expenses have received the concurrence of Parliament? I do not think that they have laid themselves open to that charge, because, as I have before said, in the case of English troops there would be no necessity for obtaining the concurrence of Parliament previous to their employment in such an expedition; and all that we have done is to place the Indian troops in the same position, which I take to be the meaning of the Act of 1858.
Moved that this House do concur in the following Resolution, communicated by the Commons; viz.,
"That, Her Majesty having directed a Military Expedition to be despatched against Abyssinia, consisting mainly of Troops both European and Native at present maintained out of the Revenues of India, the ordinary pay of such Troops as well as the ordinary charges of any Vessels belonging to the Government of India that may be employed in the Expedition, which would have been charged upon the Revenues of India if such Troops Or Vessels had remained in that Country or seas
584
adjacent, shall continue to be so chargeable; provided, that if it shall become necessary to replace the Troops or Vessels so withdrawn by other European or Native Forces or Vessels, the expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such Forces or Vessels shall be repaid out of any monies which may be provided by Parliament for the Purposes of the said Expedition."—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I entirely concur with my noble Friend in the opinion that this expedition, if sent at all, must be sent from India; and I believe that the arrangement made between the Governments of India and England with regard to the payment of expenses is a perfectly equitable one. At the same time, I cannot but regret that it should be found necessary at so early a period after the establishment of the new organization of the Indian army to send any of the troops beyond the seas. I fully admit the justice of this war. According to our views of the Law of Nations, about which the ruler of Abyssinia knows nothing, King Theodore has been guilty of its violation, and has acted not only with injustice but also with cruelty towards several of Her Majesty's subjects, one or more of them being persons accredited to Her Majesty. The war therefore is a perfectly just one. But, my Lords, what is the object of the war? It is certainly one which has never before occurred in history. A large expedition is about to be sent into an unknown and mountainous country, about four times the size of Switzerland, and very much in the same state as that country was at the time Hannibal passed the Alps, to procure the release of some of our countrymen who have been detained for a lengthened period in captivity by a sanguinary tyrant, whose passions are unchecked by any moral or religious considerations, though he appears to be fond of frequently dwelling upon the latter. My apprehension is that the expedition never can succeed in procuring the release of those prisoners. If the ruler of Abyssinia had been a rational person, the ordinary course of proceeding would have been to blockade the coast of his country, and so prevent external communication. But he is not a man of reason, and what I am afraid of is, that we shall produce upon his mind such an impression as the mind of a madman would be liable to, if an attempt were made to coerce him, and that we shall only precipitate a catastrophe such as that which occurred at Cawnpore. In considering any matter of

585
great importance I always endeavour to satisfy myself as to what would have been the opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the subject, and this I endeavour more especially to do when the subject partakes of a military character. Not only looking to the general prudence of the Duke of Wellington, and acting on all occasions in accordance with his military principles, but particularly when I recollect the advice which was given to me by the Duke of Wellington when I was about to proceed to India, with the general direction of the expedition to the coast of China, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that he would have disapproved this expedition. The Duke's advice was, "Remember, the troops depend upon the fleet, and you must never place them in a position in which they will not have easy and secure communication with the fleet." The Duke of Wellington held, moreover, that it was never safe or justifiable to leave any army in a position in which it had not easy and secure communication with the country from which it proceeded. Every army should be in possession of all its communications. It is scarcely possible to conceive anything more unfavourable to this requirement than is to be found in such a country as Abyssinia, where for 400 miles into the interior there are neither roads nor bridges, where the paths are in many places only wide enough to permit the passage of a single mule—a country broken by ravines and water-courses which, in the rainy season, become frightful torrents—it is scarcely to be supposed that in such a country communication by a single outlet can be maintained with the sea. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words with respect to the measures which have been adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers with a view to the success of this expedition. I must admit there has been on this side of the sea, and also on the other, very great zeal on the part of all who have had anything to do with the fitting out of the expedition. But, at the same time, we know nothing of what has been done in India. We have on this side a very ample list of all the articles furnished to the troops; but we do not know how the deficiencies have been supplemented from India. I can therefore only look at the list of articles contributed from this country; and I venture to say there are certain things, in the first instance, absolutely necessary to be provided to insure the success of the expedition which
586
are not included in this list. The first is a floating pier, which is absolutely necessary for the landing of the troops and stores. There is but a distance of 200 yards to be passed over; but there are no means of passing it, and neither man nor beast can be landed without a floating pier. An attempt has been made to supply it by a single steamer, making one trip a day to Annesley Bay; and there has also been an effort to make a pier of stones, but it can only be after a long time that a stone pier can be constructed. Something is said in the blue book with respect to a tramway. Either a tramway or a railway is essentially necessary from the point of debarcation to that part of the road which first touches the hills. More than that, water must be conveyed by pipes from the first place on the hills where it is to be obtained to iron tanks placed in depôts on the shore. More than that, it appears that the track of desert country between the sea and the hills is traversed by watercourses, and before the rains begin it is necessary that provision should be made to establish temporary bridges for the purpose of keeping up the communication, otherwise it will be entirely suspended. Aden, although it may provide water enough to the residents, does not supply enough to meet the demands of the troops. It is to be obtained on the eastern shores of the Red Sea, but only by sending skins, which are used for its transport. So far as I have heard, no attempt has been made to supply these. There is a strange deficiency of many other articles which are absolutely necessary to the success of this expedition. It must be in the nature of a pioneer expedition, for they will not find a single road by which they can march, still less by which they can draw artillery. To enable them to make roads they must have the means of blasting rocks, and pickaxes, spades, and axes in large numbers for cutting down wood. The number of axes furnished is only ten—one to every 2,000. The number of billhooks is only fifty, of clasp-knives only twenty-five, of turn-screws at first only six, but fifty have been added, of spades there appeared to be none, of pickaxes none, and, what is more strange, there are no ropes, no blocks to make them, and no pulleys—the ordinary and accustomed modes of raising guns up steep precipices. All these should have been provided. Then there are no hollowed trees, which are also necessary for carrying up the

587
guns up places where they cannot go upon wheels. There are no nails, no bolts, no screws; and, strange enough, although there is a provision of warm clothing sent from here, it seems intended only for Europeans; the Natives require it still more, and unless the deficiency is supplemented from India the Natives will have none. I mention these things with regret, because I think every disposition and great zeal have been shown to supply everything that might be required for the expedition. I confess it is to me a subject of the deepest regret that it has been determined to send this expedition. I regret it, not only because I think it will be perfectly impossible for the troops to maintain their communications, but because I think it is unavoidable that we should be drawn into great and serious complications. We are told that immediately the expeditionary force obtains possession of the captives it will be their duty to withdraw from Abyssinia; but it seems to me that it will be impossible for them with honour at once to withdraw from the country. How can they do so, and leave all the Native tribes who may have assisted them to the mercy of King Theodore? I cannot understand how the feeling of this country would permit such a state of things. But I deeply regret the expedition also on other grounds. It is impossible to look at the position of Europe—at the position of this country, without feeling that the existing state of things is extremely unsatisfactory. There is scarcely any security from week to week that the peace of Europe will not be disturbed. The very last Paper laid on our table satisfies us that we do not yet sustain entirely satisfactory relations with America. In the present state of affairs I hold it to be our first duty to abstain from any movement whatever which would occupy any portion of our military or naval forces, to keep everything at hand that may in the event of necessity be required for our own security or the preservation of peace. I cannot but feel that while this army is in Abyssinia it may be considered as a hostage in the hands of other Powers. We cannot in a war maintain that army and the vast amount of tonnage and transport by which it can be supported. Our dominions are too extensive and make too great demands on our military resources, which have not kept pace with the increase of our possessions. We are paralyzing ourselves, therefore,
588
until that armament is restored to this country. I do deeply regret that Her Majesty's Ministers, deriving no instruction from the mistakes of other Governments, have not been warned against rearing a Mexico of our own.
LORD DE ROSsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) assumed that the army would go headlong into Abyssinia, without retaining its communication with the shore. Now he (Lord de Ros) had great confidence in the military skill and resources of Sir Robert Napier, nor did he apprehend any insurmountable difficulty from the circumstances to which the noble Earl had alluded. His impression was, Sir Robert Napier would form his depôts as he proceeded up the country. His advance would be very light, but his supports very heavy. His noble Friend talked about the necessity of a floating pier. Now he (Lord de Ros) remembered what the French did at Varna—in three or four days they constructed as good a pier as was necessary, and the troops were landed without difficulty. There was, in fact, no difficulty about it. As he understood, the Transport Office had adopted the system which had been employed in the Crimea of uniting large platforms upon boats, and thus making a way over which guns, stores, and troops were landed with the greatest facility. Besides, there were no large guns in this case, and there was no necessity for hollowed trees. Guns of the calibre required would be carried by mules. The mule artillery of Sardinia passed over the Alps with great facility—and, indeed, there was no difficulty with guns of that calibre. Then, as to water, Sir Robert Napier would have to do as General Bosquet did in Turkey; where there are frequent but very small water springs. What did he do? When he came to the springs, instead of carrying iron tanks he formed tanks in the earth and puddled them. The transport of water in skins was perfectly familiar in the East. The noble Earl seemed to apprehend a scarcity of turn-screws; but the fact was that every soldier had a turn-screw in his knapsack; the cavalry also carried nails. The other deficiencies noted by the noble Earl were of so trivial a nature that he could not imagine a man of Sir Robert Napier's ability could fail in taking every possible precaution. He really did not see how the Government could do more than they had done in the arrangement of this expedition. They had confided it to

589
an able man, thoroughly conversant with its details, to whose hands the safety of the expedition might well be intrusted. So far from anticipating any disaster, if they could but succeed in getting the captives, he was perfectly certain of their getting back and maintaining our honour without any serious difficulty whatever.
EARL RUSSELL: With regard to the Resolution of the other House, in which your Lordships are asked to concur, it seems to me that this is a question in which the honour of this country is concerned, and that we could not allow these captives to remain in Abyssinia without an attempt to relieve them, unless it could be shown that the attainment of that object was utterly impracticable. That has not been shown; but, on the contrary, it appears from the information before us that the arrival of the troops at Magdala and the rescue of the captives are practicable objects. Under these circumstances, the Government would have been inexcusable if they did not make an attempt to rescue the captives. The question of the difficulties which may be experienced in the attempt is not a question on which we are able to form an opinion in this House; but I rely on the ability of the persons belonging to the Engineers and to other branches of our army, which are composed of men of resource, and I believe that they will be able to overcome all difficulties. It has been stated that if in some of the narrow passes of Abyssinia a man should be struck down by a sunstroke, or if a mule should fall down dead, the whole expedition would be stopped. Now, I happened to pass through the Pyrenees shortly after the passage of the Duke of Wellington with his army, and I saw places on the sides of the road where mules and horses had fallen down exhausted and had been thrown over the precipices, so little were their dead bodies allowed to impede the progress of the troops. In such a way are difficulties overcome by energy and skill; and I therefore do not think, that the Government will have any cause to repent of the determination they have come to. With regard to the military operations in preparation, I think that Parliament is bound to extend every consideration and forbearance to the Government, who certainly have undertaken a very difficult attempt. The noble Earl near me (the Earl of Ellenborough) has spoken of the difficulty there may be in getting out of Abyssinia when the object
590
of the expedition shall be accomplished. No doubt, in the months of May, June, and July of the next year, the rainy reason—and we see by the travels of Sir Samuel Baker what a deluge it is—will set in; but it is to be hoped that the troops will have returned to the coast before that time. With respect to the amount of the expenditure chargeable on India, though I agree in what has been stated elsewhere with regard to precedents, yet I would observe that we must beware not to push these precedents too far, and we should have consideration for the interests of the people and the Government of India. Supposing that the colonies of the Cape of Good Hope and New Zealand had undertaken to maintain and pay in those colonies a portion of the British army (two or three regiments), and that afterwards it was proposed to take the regiments away and employ them in some expedition in which the interests of the Empire at large were concerned, it may be readily supposed that the colonists would at once object to pay for them, and that their constitutional Assemblies would say, "If you take away these troops you must take the payment of them on your own Treasury." It is no reason because the people of India have no representation and no organization to express their complaints that they should be dealt more hardly with than were the people of the Cape or of Australia. I will say nothing further, as the noble Earl has not entered generally into the question; but I must express my opinion that the Government are quite right in undertaking the expedition, and I wish they may be successful.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he could not but share in the regret that this expedition had been undertaken, not because of the expense which would fall on this country, nor on the probable sacrifice of life, but because, in his view of the case, this war would be only the complement of a lamentable policy, and would add one more stone to the cairn of political crime. He believed that the gravest consequences would ensue from it, and he hoped that their Lordships would allow him a few moments in which to enunciate his opinions. If, as he believed, the detention of Mr. Rassam and his companions was owing to the culpable mismanagement of the noble Earl lately at the head of the Foreign Department, then war would be unjustifiable as well as unjust. He believed that the duty of individuals to one another was

591
applicable to nations. A man who killed another unnecessarily or unlawfully was guilty of murder; and in the same way a war which was unjust, unnecessary, or unlawful, was a crime also; and that crime was murder, and all who were the cause of it were involved in the guilt. An unnecessary war might arise from the incapacity of a statesman from whose policy it ensued, and the guilt of murder would attach to him; hence the necessity of all statesmen looking to the first principles of justice and morality. With regard to the origin of the Abyssinian war, it appeared from the blue book that Mr. Cameron had been condemned by the Foreign Office three or four times for mixing himself up with the internal affairs of Abyssinia, with which he had no business. He (the Earl of Denbigh) asked, why then the Foreign Office did not recall him? If Mr. Cameron had been at that time recalled, we should have heard no more about the matter; but he was left there, and King Theodore, rightly or wrongly, conceived that Mr. Cameron was mixing himself with internal intrigues in that country, and therefore laid hands on him. If the King was justified in doing this, then the present war was not as justifiable as it would appear at first sight. There were other causes. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) received a letter from the King for Her Majesty, and, according to Mr. Flad, the non-answering of that letter was a great cause of irritation to the King. The noble Earl, whose policy was certainly active in dealing with other States, must needs give orders to the Consul at Jerusalem to mix himself up in the intrigues of the Abyssinians and the Copts; and he (the Earl of Denbigh) was astonished when he saw that the reason given was that the Abyssinian Church was in spiritual communion with the Church of England. It was the first time that he had heard of such a thing, and when he examined the question he found that the Abyssinian Church was closely allied to Popery. Whether Mr. Rassam was or was not a proper person to send out with Her Majesty's letter to King Theodore was a question into which he would not enter. Mr. Rassam was sent out, and his capacity was such as to entitle him to respect. He seemed to have been well received. The Emperor granted his petition, and liberated the prisoners. But confusion arose in consequence of the noble Earl writing another despatch, entirely different from that which was forwarded through Mr.
592
Flad by our Consul General at Alexandria, and when the Emperor saw a despatch written in an entirely different sense his suspicions were awakened, and he was led in consequence to imagine that he was betrayed, and seized Mr. Rassam. If this supposition were well-founded, the noble Earl was responsible for all the events of the war. He did not blame the Government for giving their assent to the expedition, which was really forced upon them, and therefore they were entitled to claim co-operation. He considered that the question as to the lawfulness of war was one that ought not to be lost sight of. The circumstances of Europe at the present time were most peculiar and critical. They saw war waged on all sides without any attention to the rules of war. He would ask the Government to act in accordance with the old and time-honoured rules of law—of that International Law which had been so much violated. Not only had International Law been violated, but so had it been with laws human and divine. He had, he might add, heard it suggested that the noble Earl himself should be sent out as a messenger to King Theodore, inasmuch as he was likely to be the person most fitted to explain his own despatches. He could not help expressing his regret that the laws which had been laid down by Vattel, and which had commanded the sanction of all civilized nations, had been so much departed from. That great authority had laid down that unlawful war was as much murder as it was to execute a criminal without a warrant being drawn out. Previous to blood being shed a formal declaration of war ought to be made, and that declaration ought to be formally conveyed by the Sovereign making it to the other Powers. As a supporter of a Conservative Government, he wished to adhere to these laws and to see them carried out.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, he should not on that occasion enter into the question of the expediency of sending out an expedition to rescue the Abyssinian captives. Now, that it had been determined upon, he thought it was desirable that there should be no division among their Lordships as to the necessity of pursuing it with all possible energy. He assented to the proposition that what they were called upon to consider now, was first whether the expedition ought to proceed from India; and secondly, what proportion of the charge ought to be placed

593
on Indian revenue? His own impression was that King Theodore was not the mere savage he was represented to be, for he seemed to be as well acquainted as ourselves with the contents of every newspaper which commented on the subject. It was therefore of importance that he should see that there was no want of unanimity in the British Parliament as to proceedings which should be taken against him. With respect to those proceedings themselves, some reference had been made to the danger of transferring a part of our Indian army away from India to Abyssinia. No doubt this was a matter which required very grave consideration; because it was very possible that evil consequences might result to our own possessions. So also the question as to the proportion in which the charge of the expedition should fall upon Indian revenue. The Government had put the matter upon the old point, of the necessity of keeping up our prestige in India; and the present Secretary of State for India and his predecessor in office (Viscount Cranborne), had disputed much on that point in the other House of Parliament; while on the very important point—the most important of all—the means by which the expedition was to be carried out—the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) had dwelt very strongly. One of the principal points, he might add, for the consideration of the House was, what was the real object of the war? An important paper had been laid upon their Lordships' table some days before bearing upon that point—he alluded to a letter from Lord Stanley to King Theodore, in which he stated that the only means by which the King could preserve his country from war, and his own Power from overthrow, was by delivering up to the British Commander-in-Chief "all the European prisoners." Now, it seemed to him, he must confess, somewhat strange that we should enter upon hostilities for that purpose, and he could not but think that we should be doing quite sufficient if we were to confine our demands to the release of those persons who were British subjects. Again, some of these captives were "specially recommended" to the care of the Commander-in-Chief; but although those words were familiar to him in connection with cattle shows, he could not understand why they had been used in the present instance, and they stood, he thought, in need of some
594
explanation. He would observe that it was important that Sir Robert Napier should have ample diplomatic as well as military power. He should have authority to make a treaty, and to enforce that treaty by arms. As to the question of charging a portion of the expenditure to the Indian Exchequer, he would remind their Lordships that in the case of the Persian War the Ministry then in office, of which he had the honour to be a Member, transferred a part of the charge of that expedition to English resources. Therefore, while he protested against this being called an Indian war, he thought it only fair, under the circumstances, that a part of the expenditure for it should be borne by India. On a former occasion, the noble Earl at the head of the Government declined, and, perhaps, with reason, to give an answer to the question whether our troops should at once be withdrawn if the captives, for whose rescue we are going to war, were delivered up. He thought, however, that on the present occasion it would become the noble Earl to state what were the intentions of the Government in that respect; because if our army was to insist on the release of other persons than British subjects, we might be engaged in war for years to come on account of persons with whom we had nothing to do. On this point it would be as well to bear in mind the remarks attributed to King Theodore as to missionaries from Europe being followed invariably by diplomatic agents, and these again by battalions, and his preference for beginning with battalions.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he was surprised at the closing observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down. Having incurred so much expense, and run such risk, to send an expedition to Abyssinia, were we to be indifferent to the fate of such European captives as were not our agents? Were the missionaries to be thrown over? If such a suggestion had come from the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh), who, in another place, had said he was an Englishman, but more a Catholic than an Englishman, he should not have been so much astonished at it.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I believe, my Lords, from the discussion which has taken place, that there will be no difference of opinion as to acceding to my Motion; and therefore I should not have thought it necessary to offer any observations in reply, had it not been for the observations of my

595
noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), and those of the noble Baron (Lord Lyveden), who subsequently addressed your Lordships. I must, at the same time, say that between the noble Earl and the noble Baron there seems to be some contradiction of opinion. On the one hand, the noble Baron approves the expedition, but greatly regrets that we are sending troops from India. On the other hand, my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) regrets the expedition; but, at the same time, believes that if an expedition was to be sent, no other troops were available than Indian troops. My noble Friend is so far consistent; and as to his objections against the expedition, I think they have been answered by the speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell), who, adopting the very fair course taken by his Colleagues in the other House, states his opinion that the honour of this country would not have been satisfied if we had not entered into this war, from which very little credit is to be derived, but which we have been compelled to undertake, not only from feelings of humanity, but also for the purpose of maintaining the national honour. My noble Friend goes on to draw a gloomy picture of the difficulties which we shall have to encounter, and of the want of preparations. He prognosticates nothing but a series of failures and disasters. But, my Lords, I confess I cannot see any real ground for his apprehensions on the subject. From the first we were aware that if this expedition were decided upon we should have to expect many difficulties in carrying it out to a successful issue; but, at the same time, we did not believe those difficulties to be insurmountable. The noble Earl has drawn a very discouraging picture of the country of Abyssinia, of the dangers to be dreaded from the climate, and of the difficulties of transport; but there is no good reason to believe that when you have once reached the plateau the difficulties to be overcome are very greatly diminished. These are questions which have had to be investigated; and they have been investigated hitherto with every prospect of success. Only to-day my right hon. Friend Sir Stafford Northcote received a despatch from the surveying party which contains this statement—
"We have just returned from a most interesting and important reconnaissance up the pass from Koomoglee to within five miles by road from Senafé, a distance of forty-one miles. There were some very bad places in one part, but the road
596
has been made now by the Sappers easy for passage of cavalry, infantry, mules, and camels; and it will, I think, prove the chief line of route as leading at once to a good position on the highlands of Abyssinia in the direction we have to go, and to a spot within easy reach."
Further on the despatch states—
"The troops that have landed are, I am happy to say, in excellent health and spirits. The 3rd Light Cavalry have been losing horses from fever, but to-day on my arrival here I was glad to find the disease disappearing. It was clearly owing to the effects of the sea voyage from India, and being cooped up on board ship."
With regard to the climate of Abyssinia—[The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: I never said a word about climate.] At all events, the noble Earl referred to the water supply. No doubt there is a deficiency of water at Zoula; but there is a considerable supply at some short distance from that place, at fourteen miles distance there is a large and permanent supply, and thence on there is such an abundant supply that there is no reason to think the troops will be in want of this prime necessity. The noble Earl seemed to anticipate some difficulty in the landing of the troops and stores; but every arrangement has been made to facilitate this operation. The noble Earl also spoke of what he considers to be a deficiency in the supply of hatchets, pickaxes, nails and I do not know what; but your Lordships will remember that we have given the Indian Government and Sir Robert Napier—than whom, I believe, there is no one more competent for such a command—full power to get what they may conceive to be necessary for the expedition. We have said to them, "Make your own arrangements. What you require to be supplied from this side of the water we undertake to send to you without delay." A noble Friend near me points my attention to a paragraph in the blue book which the noble Earl seems to have overlooked, comprising a letter from General Turner, Inspector General of Magazines, dated from Simla, in which he says—
"An ample supply of entrenching tools is required." And he goes on to say—"I propose to send 300 axes, 450 bill-hooks, 750 pickaxes, and other necessary articles, which I collect will supply one third of the force with a due proportion of blasting tools."
There is an answer to my noble Friend's accusation that we have allowed the expedition to proceed without a proper supply of these articles. Then the noble Earl says our troops are about to traverse 400 miles of country, and that we must

597
provide for keeping up our line of communication, for keeping open the passes, and supporting our advance. Why, we have taken the very precautions my noble Friend says we have not taken, and it is with that very object we are sending out so considerable a force. To prevent our communication from being cut off in traversing such a length of country a large force is necessary, and we have taken this point fully into consideration. I have taken no part in those details; but on behalf of the Departments concerned in them, I take leave to say that never in the case of any expedition has greater care been taken to supply everything necessary for the success of the operations and for the health and comfort of the troops. Throughout, this has been spoken of as a war. I trust it may not be a war at all. It is an expedition undertaken for the purpose of effecting an object which we believe ourselves called upon to undertake by every sense of honour and duty towards those persons, subjects of the Crown, who were sent out upon an official mission, and who are now detained in captivity. I am very sorry that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lyveden) should raise the question as to any distinction between those who are subjects of the Crown and those who are not. I can only say that according to International Law we are entitled, strictly speaking, to demand the surrender of our own subjects, and that we are not entitled to demand the subjects of other Powers; yet that a discretionary power has been assigned to Sir Robert Napier—I would rather not distinctly specify here what those orders are—for it would be most lamentable if we were to find ourselves compelled to return with our own subjects, leaving in captivity the missionaries and others. We have only the right, as I have said, to demand, according to International Law, our own subjects; but I do trust and hope that Sir Robert Napier, acting under the instructions that we have forwarded, will find himself perfectly capable of rescuing from captivity the whole of those now detained by the Emperor Theodore. I am not aware that there are any other points in the discussion which it is necessary for me to notice. I can only express my satisfaction at your Lordships' unanimous concurrence in the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

INCOME TAX BILL.
(The Earl of Derby.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I shall now state very shortly to your Lordships the course which we propose, and which we believe will provide for a very considerable part of the expenditure entailed by the military expedition to Abyssinia. We hope, undoubtedly, that this may not be protracted beyond the month of March next; in which case, according to the best calculations that we have been able to make, the utmost amount which will be required from Parliament will be a sum of about £3,500,000. We do not propose to throw any portion of this sum as a burden upon future years, but to provide, in the first instance, £2,000,000 of the money; and the Resolution by which it was proposed, towards the accomplishment of that object, to make an addition of one penny to the Income Tax was adopted without a dissentient voice in the House of Commons. A penny in the pound of Income Tax is estimated to produce about £1,450,000; but of that not more than £840,000 would come in during the present half year, leaving £610,000 applicable to the service in the next half year. There remains, therefore, a sum of £1,160,000 to be provided for. In the Financial Statement for the present year a surplus of £200,000 was shown, and deducting this from the £1,160,000, a balance of £960,000 remains, which we propose to attain by withdrawing that amount from the balances in the Bank. As these are now unusually high, that course can be adopted without inconvenience. The course which the Government propose in this respect has received the unanimous assent of the House of Commons. I trust, therefore, your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHexpressed a hope that the advances from the Indian revenue on foot of the present expedition would be promptly repaid, as there had been instances formerly where the payment was by no means rapid.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Earl was perfectly right. On one occasion, he believed, they were not repaid for

599
sixteen years. In the present instance, however, arrangements had been made with the Indian Government which, he hoped, would obviate any similar delays.
Motion agreed, to: Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ITALY—THE ROMAN QUESTION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL RUSSELL, who had given notice to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, "Whether he has any Objection to produce the Correspondence with the Government of The Emperor of the French respecting a Conference on the Affairs of Rome," and if there is any objection to produce the Correspondence "whether he will state what has passed on the Subject of any such proposed Conference?" said, the Question of which I have given notice with regard to any Correspondence which has passed on the subject of the proposed Conference I wish to ask, not from any feeling of distrust towards Her Majesty's Government, but from a feeling that, as Parliament will shortly separate, not to re-assemble till the month of February, we ought to have some information about the intentions of the Government on this important subject. We were told some time ago by foreign newspapers that it was intended on the part of the Emperor of the French to invite the Foreign Powers of Europe to a Conference on the state of affairs abroad; and since then we have heard that not only the greater Powers, but some of the smaller ones—the Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt among others—have been invited and have given their concurrence. A report also has recently appeared of a speech by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which he states that he has written to the Government of Italy; and the despatch sums up by saying—
  "We have evacuated Rome. One of our divisions is recalled to France, and the French Government sincerely desires to recall the other division, which is being concentrated at Civita Vecchia. But before the evacuation can be completely effected, the security of the Holy See must be assured. The meeting of the Conference being the basis, the principal element, if it is not the unique element, of that security, the Italian Government have every interest that the Conference should come together at the earliest possible period."
  In another newspaper, The Times, the matter is stated thus—
  600
  "Before the evacuation could be completely effected, it was necessary that the security of the Holy Father should be guaranteed."
  Now, if the Conference is merely to meet and express sympathy with the Holy Father, one does not understand how that sympathy would give him any security at all with respect to his temporal dominions; and, on the other hand, if it is proposed that there should be a guarantee, and that the Powers of Europe should interfere by force, if necessary, in order to secure the temporal dominions of the Pope against all who may attack him—against even his own subjects, the people of the Roman territory—that is a very serious proposition, and one to which, I am sure, no English Minister could assent. I wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether any such document has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government as is said to have been communicated to the Italian Government; and, in fact, what is the position of this country with, regard to accepting or declining an invitation to any Conference?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am sorry to say that I cannot give the noble Earl much information, as the negotiations for a Conference appear to have come to a pause. At all events, as far as this Government is concerned, they have not advanced any further than when I last had the honour of addressing your Lordships on this subject. The question, as far as this country is concerned, stands thus:—My noble relative (Lord Stanley) had answered the French communication to the effect that it would give us very great pleasure to lend any assistance towards putting an end to a very difficult and dangerous question; but, on the other hand, he retained the opinion that it would be useless to enter into a Conference unless before doing so some basis of discussion was brought forward and proposed for the consideration of the Conference, and unless there was also a reasonable probability that the two Powers principally concerned were willing to accept that basis. With regard to the particular despatch addressed by the French Minister to the Italian Minister, I do not believe we have received a copy of it; nor do I know precisely what was stated in any such communication between those two Powers. But the noble Earl knows perfectly well from his own experience that in the present state of the communications it would be impossible for the Government to lay the papers upon the table of the House. There are communications

  601
  going on between France and Italy on one side, and between France and the Court of Rome on the other; but I am not able to say how far these may have tended to facilitate the meeting of a Conference.
  EARL RUSSELL: Am I right in understanding that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has asked what are to be the bases of the Conference, and has not received a satisfactory answer?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My noble Relative has stated that there would be no use in entering into a Conference unless the Powers were furnished beforehand with some basis for that Conference, and unless some reason existed for believing that the two Powers principally concerned would agree to a discussion upon the principle of the basis so laid down.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.