Sitting of 9 August 1884

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee—Report—Post Office Protection [297].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Bishopric of Bristol [309]; Matrimonial Causes [175]; New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts Amendment* [312]; Improvement of Lands (Ecclesiastical Benefices)* [298], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TRIAL OF THE TUBBERCURRY PRISONERS.
  MR. LYNCHasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, as the present Commission Court in Dublin is certain to continue for more than ten days, it would be possible for the Crown to serve notice of trial on the Tubbercurry prisoners, and to try them at the present Commission; and whether, taking into consideration that they have been several times remanded, and are now in prison for a very long period, the Crown will adopt this course?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), in reply, said, he was aware the hon. Member took great interest in this matter; but the suggestion he made would not be legally possible, inasmuch as if it were complied with the trial would be abortive.
  MR. LYNCHasked whether, having regard to the length of time these unfortunate men had been in prison, and the number of times they had been remanded, he would sanction or recommend their release on substantial bail to come up for trial when called on?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was considering the matter. Some of the men had already been discharged.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [Lords.]

      [BILL 309.] COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      MR. GLADSTONE: In moving, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair, I may remark that we read this Bill last night at an hour when there did not appear to be in the House many of those who entertain any doubts on the subject of the measure. The second reading was, therefore, taken without any statement as to its object; but there are, as I know from a document I have received, some Gentlemen who take what I may call an adverse interest in this Bill, and as I see my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in his place, and as it is quite possible that other Gentlemen may appear, I think this is a time when I ought to state briefly to the House the grounds for this Bill, which are of a very simple character. I will say now to the hon. Member for Carlisle, and to those other Gentlemen who were good enough to make known to me those hostile sentiments, that I feel a pretty strong confidence in the reasonableness of their minds; and, therefore, I am quite certain that when this case is laid before them as it really stands, they will see that our duty to endeavour to pass this Bill is of the plainest and most elementary kind; and there is nothing what-

      359
      ever which ought to lead to opposition to the Bill. I will mention two things which are perfectly well known to the House. In the first place, this Bill makes no demand on any public funds so as to alter its appropriation. It will make, through the liberality of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, a somewhat different allocation of the episcopal funds now existing, but no new demand either upon any public fund, properly so called, or upon any ecclesiastical fund now available for parochial or other purposes. The second point is that it introduces no new element whatever into the system by which the greater part of the Bishops now sit by rotation in the House of Lords. The number of Episcopal votes will remain precisely as it is now; but one will be added to the number of those Bishops who do not sit in the House of Lords, and, so far, I should think that fact will be in the nature of a recommendation to those hon. Gentlemen who are hostile to the Bill. There are two points of view in which this measure ought to be considered, and I am anxious to keep them distinct, because my appeal to the opponents of the Bill will really rely upon one of these, inasmuch as I know that I should find them lamentably deaf to any appeal that I might make on the other ground. The one point of view upon which I deem it least necessary to dwell is that this measure is a measure for increasing Episcopal superintendence in the Church of England, in conformity with principles which have had the recent and repeated acknowledgments of Parliament. Certainly I, individually and as a Liberal politician, do not estimate the authority of the late House of Commons as highly as some others may do; but, at the same time, it was the branch of the Legislature of the day, and that Legislature passed, I think, more than one Act for the purpose of increasing the Bishoprics of the country, without putting the country to any expense whatever. I was not very favourable to all the provisions of that Act; but I take it as I find it. It had been acted on in various places, and, I am bound to say, with very great benefit to the community. I have myself been concerned, and others who preceded me were concerned, in some appointments which have been extremely beneficial. The Newcastle and South-
      360
      well Bishoprics have been of great advantage to the general spiritual interests of certain districts of the country. Nothing could be more gratifying to anyone, quite irrespective of what may be his religous communion, than the manner in which Dr. Ridding, the new Bishop of Southwell, has been received by all classes of town and country, aristocracy, gentry, and people in the district over which he is to preside. I cannot avoid saying this. We have recently had a certain number of religious Censuses in the large towns, and it is impossible to go through these Censuses without a sentiment of pain. Some of them disclose a state of things that is disgraceful to the country. The religious Census of Liverpool, I do not hesitate to say, is a disgrace to Liverpool and to the country generally; and, considering that the Established Church of the country is de facto under a very heavy charge of duty with respect to these populations, it is a very great responsibility, I think, to interfere to prevent voluntary action for the purpose of doing something to mitigate this grievous deficiency which now exists. That is all that I will say on the religious and ecclesiastical aspect of the question. But I now go back to what I would call the historical aspect of the question; and I put it with the utmost confidence to every Gentleman who hears me, that if he will follow the few historical facts I will put before him, he will agree it is hardly compatible even with the decencies of Parliament to refuse to Bristol that which undoubtedly it now seeks. Sir, I am obliged to go back—but the subject is not without interest, and I shall not long detain the House—I am obliged to go back to the time when the disseverance of the Sees of Gloucester and Bristol took place. That was effected, in the first place, by the recommendation of a Royal Commission, in 1835. The recommendation was embodied in the Act which followed in 1836, and which adopted in the lump, and in the gross, the recommendations of the Commission. At the time of the passing of the Act of Parliament, there was an idea which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would call—and which I should join him in calling—a superstition that it was a matter of terrible omen to appoint a Bishop in this country who was not to be a Peer of

      361
      Parliament. That was the foundation of all the proceedings of Church Reform at that time. It is interesting to look back upon that, as it shows that we have moved, and, as I think, moved onward. We have moved in a considerable degree since that time. The urgency of the case for the division of the most populous dioceses was then, in the case of Chester and York, extreme. In Chester it was absolutely overwhelming, including, as the diocese did, the two great towns of Manchester and Liverpool, besides other great towns, or what would be considered as great but for their neighbourhood to other gigantic towns, and reaching, as it did, far away to the North of Lancashire. The pressure was so great that it was deemed necessary to found two Sees—those of Manchester and Ripon. There is another thing which shows the distance we have travelled since those days. When these Sees were founded by Act of Parliament there was no consultation with the people of Manchester, or with the people of the diocese of Ripon. The people of Manchester were considerably surprised at the arrival of a Bishop, whom they had done nothing to invite or attract. At this time there was the idea that every Bishop should be a Peer of Parliament—it was the fashion to entertain that idea. So far was that notion carried out, that at one time when we had a Bishop who was not a Peer of Parliament—namely, the Bishop of Sodor and Man—even that little See was laid hold upon by the Royal Commission and Parliament of that day, 48 years ago, and it was enacted that it should be absorbed in the diocese of Carlisle. What happened? Why, a feeling of hostility to the Act sprang up among the people as soon as it had been enacted. In the first instance, the indignation of the people of the Isle of Man required that the Bishopric should be restored; and in a short time an Act was passed—I think by a Liberal Government—for re-establishing the Bishopric of the Isle of Man. There were three of these absorptions or unions enacted in 1836—the Isle of Man with Carlisle, Bangor with St. Asaph, and Bristol with Gloucester. The first of these ill-omened and unhappy marriages, to be almost immediately dissolved by a sentence, for which I have more respect than I have for other sentences of dissolution, was the Union of
      362
      Man with Carlisle. Then came the union of Bangor with St. Asaph. The people of Wales were then, as they are still, Nonconformist. The nation is a nation of Nonconformists; but in those days they were, if possible, more so, for you had then a cold, indifferent, neglectful Church, whereas it has now been admitted, both as to the Bishops and clergy in Wales, in the North, and in the South, the Church is now served by a hard-working set of men, who do all they can do under the circumstances which now exist. But even in those days, and not at all confined to the Churchmen in Wales, after the Act had been passed for the re-establishment of the Bishopric of the Isle of Man there arose a popular feeling for the re-establishment of the separate Bishoprics of Bangor and St. Asaph. I do not hesitate to say it was in conformity with the sentiments of the Nonconformists of Wales. ["No!"] I do not hesitate to assert it in the most positive manner. If there is any Welsh Member present—any Member representing any district of North Wales at the present moment in the House, I am quite confident that he will support my statement. My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) will confirm what I say; he does not recollect the Act; but I am quite sure I am correct in saying that that Act for the severance of Bangor and St. Asaph was not what can be called a sectarian Act, and that the passing of it was a tribute to the feelings of the people of Wales. There were three of these unions. Two of them have been dissolved, and now all that is asked by the people of Bristol is that they should not be alone left under the burden, and in a certain sense the stigma, of the ill-omened union which was enacted in 1836. Is not that a reasonable demand? The case of Bristol is a peculiar one. How it came about I do not quite know. I have not the least desire to see imposed on either Gloucester or Bristol the discredit of being the secondary portion of the See; but it is a peculiarly hard case that, whereas Gloucester is a City of 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, Bristol is a City not more ancient, but yet more renowned and more conspicuous in history, possessing, I believe, five times the population. I think it is a very great disparagement to Bristol that there should now be a Bishop of Gloucester

      363
      and Bristol, the sole relic of that most unfortunate and superstitious Act of Parliament of 1836, which united those Bishoprics clearly for the purpose of giving full effect to the slavish fears then entertained as to the danger of having a Bishop not a Peer of Parliament. The opponents of this Bill will, if they do oppose it, give a mark of their reverence for this superstitious feeling. They will make a struggle to keep alive the only relic of the proceedings that unhappily marked that date. I need not say Her Majesty's Government have had nothing to do with the origin of this movement—absolutely nothing; and I am bound to say it is impossible, with the facts of the case before us, on the grounds on which the Bishoprics of Ripon and Manchester were created, or the ground of the demand proceeding from Bristol—not only from the ecclesiastics of the City, but from its responsible municipal officers, from the Mayor, the head of the elected Municipality, with an assurance that he acted by no means in an individual but in a representative capacity, and a public meeting having given concurrence to the proposal—it is impossible on these grounds to reject this proposal. And on the ground that a large sum of money has been subscribed, that the two Members for Bristol, of whom one, at any rate, is among the most conspicuous and really splendid ornaments—speaking of him in his personal capacity—of the Nonconformists of the present day—seeing that both these Gentlemen, I do not how far as expressing their individual opinions, but as representing the feeling of Bristol, are in favour of the Bill, I ask, is it possible to resist this demand? It is no such easy matter the people of Bristol propose to undertake. They have to raise—what? Why, they have to raise a sum, I do not know exactly what, but it certainly cannot be less than £60,000. I believe I am giving a very limited estimate of the amount of capital they will be obliged to raise for the purpose of making the necessary endowment—not for the purpose of producing some vast, immediate, visible result that will appeal to the eyesight of men, and tell its own story, but for the purpose of sinking it in an endowment for the restoration of its ancient Bishopric. That, I imagine, is a tolerably severe task to apply to the sincerity of the
      364
      people of Bristol. What have they done? They have applied for an Act of Parliament. Before any application was made to us we required that there should be a large element to which we could appeal for the purpose of showing that they were in earnest. We required that £20,000 should be subscribed before any application was made to Parliament. They said—"It is much to ask people to subscribe this large sum of money when they do not know, after all, whether Parliament will accede to their application or not." It was impossible for us to say to them—"You must go on, and on, and on, requiring every man you can get hold of to make a subscription and raise the full sum for the foundation before you come to Parliament." It was evident the proper course was—the course which has been followed on previous occasions—that we should require a large sum to be raised, that we might have ample proof of the sincerity and earnestness of those who led the movement. That being done, we could not possibly refuse to act in conformity with recent precedents established by the Legislature—in some cases almost without objection. I venture to say from recollection that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, or any other Gentleman, will have the goodness to refer to cases when the Bishopric of Man was detached from Carlisle, and the Bishopric of St. Asaph was detached from Bangor, he will find it was done without opposition from the Nonconformists of this House. There were plenty of Gentlemen then in the House who were then, as now, not friendly to the connection between Church and State; but that is a matter I do not intend to enter upon at all. I think that so long as two parties have got to live together, they had better live together on decent and civil terms. That is the maxim upon which I have always acted with regard to Church matters, and on which it seems to me to be rational to act. I do entreat the House not to refuse to Bristol—which, with its vast population, has a much stronger claim than had the others—that which has been granted almost without objection to the Isle of Man and the people of the North of England.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was one of the few Radicals left in the House who had not been melted away by the hot weather. He would not have intervened, but that he was pointedly referred to by the Prime Minister; so he would say a few words in defence of his principles. This was, so far as he could understand, a "Local Option" Bishopric. He had no desire to interfere with the people most interested. Nobody was more anxious than he was that every sect and denomination should have the means of promoting their own interests. His objection, he was happy to say, was not on the superstitious ground, as the Prime Minister termed it, that the Bishop would not be a Member of the House of Lords; and he might add that he highly approved of the action the Bishops in the House of Lords took on a recent occasion. His objection was on the simple ground that he did not think that the House, which was a political and secular Assembly, was a fit Body to appoint ministers to discharge spiritual functions. If they made more Bishops, they were only increasing the difficulty of getting rid of them again when the time for Disestablishment came, as it soon would come.
      MR. CAINEsaid, he thought the country would be surprised to find that at the fag-end of a Session, on a Saturday, the House was occupied in discussing whether the Church of England should have another Bishop. There were other matters upon which the time would have been better employed; and he wished to enter his protest against the Bill being proceeded with. It was no use dividing the House or taking hostile action; but he thought Nonconformists should take some exception to the Bill being hurried through in the last moments of the Session, without a full discussion of whether it was desirable to add to the great number of Bishops now existing within the Church of England. The Prime Minister had urged as one reason for the Bill the spiritual condition of the country, which, as disclosed by a recent religious Census, was deplorable, or, as the Prime Minister said, a disgrace to the country, It would have been better to have said a disgrace to the Church—not meaning the Church of England, but the Church Universal. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Liverpool as a notable in-
      366
      stance of spiritual destitution. Upon no other subject would he venture to contradict the Prime Minister; but he (Mr. Caine) was well acquainted with Liverpool, and he would venture to say there was no town or city in the country where the influence of the Church of England was so paramount as in Liverpool. That, then, taking the lowest view, was no strong argument in favour of creating another Bishop. But he would not take up the time of the House beyond lodging his protest against the measure, and the manner in which it was now being pushed forward on a Saturday afternoon, when measures like the Sunday Closing Bill and the Bill for the Protection of Young Women had been abandoned for want of time.
      MR. MONK, as having been for 20 years Member for Gloucester, and for 30 years officially connected with the diocese, supported the Bill. He was yesterday asked by the junior Member for Bristol (Mr. Lewis Pry), who regretted that circumstances prevented his being present, to say for himself and his Colleague that this measure had their hearty concurrence. Also, on behalf of the Bishop of Gloucester, he was authorized to say his Lordship cordially supported the measure. It was not a new creation; it was merely the restoration of an ancient See. It was a question of bringing dry bones into the full vigour of ecclesiatical life. The people of Bristol had shown by the amount of their subscriptions their desire for the restoration, and they had very recently restored their beautiful Cathedral.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was rejoiced to find there was no active opposition to the Bill, and he tendered the Prime Minister thanks for his support to the Bill. The hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the restoration of their Cathedral by the people of Bristol. He might have added the restoration of St. Mary, Redcliffe; and the people of Bristol had now two of the finest ecclesiastical buildings in the Kingdom, restored at their own expense. He observed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) objected to that House, a temporal Body, appointing spiritual ministers; but as he did not point out any other machinery by which Bishops could be appointed, that, which was really the only objection that had been

      367
      urged against the Bill, fell to the ground. He (Lord John Manners) tendered to Her Majesty's Government and the Prime Minister his hearty thanks for having brought in and persevered with this Bill.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he was one of the five Members who had blocked the Bill; and the reason why he had not been present last night to oppose the second reading was that he had understood the Prime Minister to say that it would be brought on to-day.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had understood the Question put to him yesterday to be, whether a stage of the Bill would be taken to-day, and he had replied in the affirmative.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he did not mean to suggest that there had been any breach of faith on the part of the Government. It was probably entirely his own fault, and he merely wished to justify his speaking now. He would not go into the merits or demerits of the Bill; but he wished to enter his protest against the mode in which the Nonconformist section of the House had been treated in regard to the introduction of this and other ecclesiastical measures brought down from the Lords at the very close of the Session, when there was no time to consider them. They were now asked to sanction the passing of a Bill, to the principle of which many Members of this House were opposed. The House of Lords had very little claim upon their consideration; they rejected the Commons' Bills with very inadequate reason. Considering the loyal support the Nonconformist Party had always given the Prime Minister, he thought they had good cause for complaint. The Prime Minister said that the creation of this new Bishopric was earnestly desired in the locality, and his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle spoke of it as Local Option in Church matters; but he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had good reason to doubt if many of those to be included in the new See were favourable to its creation. He had received communications from the churchwardens and others of throe parishes informing him that they had not been consulted as to the Bishopric in which they were to be included. The people concerned were not unanimous in desiring this measure; and, but for the fact that a considerable section knew
      368
      nothing about it till it had passed the House of Lords, it would have met with the strongest opposition in this House.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clauses agreed to.
      Schedule.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had an Amendment to move in page 2, line 10, sub-section 2, to omit the following:—"Eastou-in-Gordano, with Pill, Port-bury, and Portishead." His reason for moving this Amendment was because the parishioners themselves had not been consulted upon the matter; and, according to the representations made to him, they were strongly opposed to the Bill.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 10, sub-section 2, to omit the words, "the following parishes in the county of Somerset, heretofore in the diocese of Bath and Wells—that is to say, Easton-in-Gordano, with Pill, Portbury, and Portishead."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was of opinion that the authority quoted against the inclusion of these parishes in the Bill, that of a churchwarden who had not summoned a meeting of the parishioners, could not be regarded as of very great weight. The meeting for the consideration of the whole question of the Bishopric was held in Bristol a few months ago.
      MR. MONK: On the 1st of January, 1884.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, on the 1st January, 1884. It was advertised under the head of "The Restoration of the See to Bristol," and the question of the inclusion of these parishes was much discussed; and Mr. Weatherby, whose name happened to be known to him, was a man of great respectability. But the case was this—he would not say it was one of the details of the measure—the parish of Portishead being upon the Avon, at the mouth of the Avon, had been judged by local opinion generally to be much more naturally associated with Bristol, on which it so greatly depended, than with the diocese of Bath

      369
      and Wells, to which it now belonged, and to which it had no natural connection. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dick-Peddie) would not press his Motion.
      SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked how the opinion of the parishes was arrived at?
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not aware. All he could say was that he was aware the thing was much considered, and it was quite evident there had been no general remonstrance on the part of the parishes, which had been perfectly cognizant of all the proceedings. There was no objection to it in the parishes, and there was a strong primâ facie case in favour of the Bill.
      MR. HOPWOODsaid, that though he sympathized with his hon. Friend (Mr. Dick-Peddie), he thought he was mistaken in his reasoning. He should recollect this was a State Church, whose proceedings were done by a State process, like the present Bill. They ought not to be very keen to inquire what particular parishes wanted. That was opposed to the idea of a State Church. His hon. Friend was proceeding on the notion that it was a Voluntary Church they were dealing with, insisting that those concerned should be consulted. He thought the best thing they could do in this instance was to allow the thing to go on its own way, and the result would be that the Bishops of the Church would be considerably watered down, so to speak, by a large number of Bishops who would not sit in the House of Lords, and who would not share that position of Peers of the Realm which had always hitherto been considered more or less essential to the status of a Bishop, and they must refrain from resisting this process under the idea that this was in no sense a Voluntary Church. For his own part, he should like to see it brought to the state of a Voluntary Church. He advised his hon. Friend, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that as he had no wish to trouble the Committee he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

      POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL. [Lords.] [BILL 297.]
      (Mr. Fawcett.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
      Clause 4 (Prohibition of sending by post explosive, inflammable, or deleterious substances, or indecent prints, words, &c.)
      MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment in line 20 of this clause, Section (c.) The words, as they now stood, were these—
      "Has on such packet, or on the cover thereof, any words, marks, or designs of an indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive character."
      He fully agreed with the propriety of not allowing documents to be sent through the Post that had anything indecent upon or about them; but he was afraid that the words "grossly offensive" might be taken to mean something very different to indecent or obscene. He knew it was a principle, in the construction of Acts of Parliament, very often to construe the latter part of a sentence with the words preceding; but he thought, in this case, when they knew what kind of construction might be placed upon the words, they should be omitted. They knew that many people—even many Members of that House—frequently sent letters through the Post with very amusing pieces of scurrility upon them. Sometimes there was a kind of feeling between the sender of the letter and the Postmaster, by which no objection was raised; but, under this clause, a very heavy liability might attach to it. He did not care what was written; but there were people who did object, and it might happen that one man would use words—for instance, he might write "swindler" or "liar" upon the outside of a letter—which were not really indecent or obscene, only what they would call vulgar, and see what a tremendous penalty the clause imposed for that—imprisonment for 12 months. That penalty would not be too much for anything approaching indecency or obscenity; but it was a great deal too much for what might be called coarse or vulgar abuse. When two men had a

      371
      quarrel, if one wrote something that was scurrilous upon the back of a letter sent to the other, it would be very hard that they should give the one the power of turning the tables upon his opponent by enabling him to give his opponent 12 months' imprisonment. That might be done under this clause, even after there had been mutual abuse carried on between them by means of post cards through the Post. As he had said, he took no objection to the words "indecent" or "obscene;" but the words "grossly offensive" might be taken to mean something that was extremely offensive to the person who received it, although it did nothing more than lacerate the feelings of the person receiving it. As these words might boar that construction, he proposed to amend the clause by moving two Amendments, though they were practically one and the same Amendment. Whether it was one or two Amendments, the word "or" would require to be inserted after the word "indecent;" and he would, therefore, move, in line 20, to insert the word "or" after the word "indecent." He hoped the Amendment would be acceded to, because 12 months' imprisonment was too serious a penalty for this kind of offence.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after the word "indecent," insert the word "or"—(Mr. Warton.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'or' be there inserted."
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) was really to leave out the words "grossly offensive," and upon two grounds; in the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought they might be misinterpreted; and, in the next place, that the penalty was too great to be connected with words of a doubtful character. Well, his hon. and learned Friend had already referred to that well-known rule of construction which included the last words in connection with the former; and when they read "indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive," he thought there was no doubt that any tribunal would understand it was "grossly offensive" in the sense in which indecent or obscene were offensive, not offensive to a particular person, but offensive to public morality, to the gene-
      372
      ral community, and as such the offence would be characterized and dealt with. The words "indecent" and "obscene" were very broad; but he could conceive outrages committed upon the outside of letters or post cards which might not be covered by those words, and would yet be so offensive to public morality and order that they ought not to be permitted. The second objection was as to the extent of the penalty. As the hon. and learned Gentleman would see, the penalty of 12 months was a maximum penalty. As there were offences of this kind which came forward now and then, deliberate offences, offences repeated again and again, it was necessary to have recourse to those rigorous punishments in order to put a stop to them. On these two grounds, he thought the hon. and learned Member would see that they ran no risk, and he could not discredit the Judges of the country so much as to suppose there would be a miscarriage of justice. He did not consider there was any danger, and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this statement, and not to press his Amendment
      MR. WARTONsaid, he was unwilling to press the question too far; but with regard to the rule of interpretation, it might possibly be in the minds of hon. Members that the Lord Chief Justice of England had entirely changed the construction of the law of blasphemy; he had broadly laid it down that offences against Christianity were not offences against the feelings of the people. With regard to this clause, they had the words "indecent and obscene," and he should have thought either word would have clone. They did not know what construction might be placed upon the words "grossly offensive;" and when they found what was supposed to be a safeguard with respect to Christianity watered down to something else, it might also be that some attempt would be made to send a man to prison for 12 months, because he sent upon a letter some theological views that might be offensive to someone else. Though it was perfectly true this was the maximum penalty, the very fact of having it so high was to increase the average severity of the punishment. Twelve months' imprisonment was a very serious matter, and he must really press the Amendment.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would point out that the preceding section of the clause which had been passed imposed the same penalty for offences that might appear to be of a much less serious character.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he had even noticed that; but it did not touch the question of what was grossly offensive—it only touched indecent photographs, and all filthy articles that might be sent through the Post. What he was afraid of was this—that some day they would see an angry contest carried on between two men, that they would abuse one another, call one another scoundrel and liar, and that the main offender, by proceeding by indictment against the other, should have the one who had not offended so greatly as he had done himself imprisoned for 12 months under this clause, whereas he already had his remedy by the law of slander.
      Question put, and negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to move the next Amendment?
      MR. WARTON: No; the other was consequential upon the first.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
      Clause 7 (Prohibition of fictitious stamps).
      MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to this clause, in page 4, line 3, to omit the words "or of any foreign country." This was one of those things he pointed out last night; it was one of the additional clauses in the Bill which showed how Post Office protection had grown. He was not, however, going to make any very serious objection to the clause, which was to prevent any commission of what he would have thought was a legal crime—that of using a used stamp. However, as it was for the object of protecting the Post Office, he did not see the use of the words "or of any foreign country." He did not see why they should protect the stamps of foreign countries. Many people amused themselves by collecting postage stamps, and almost every kind of innocent forgery was practised upon people who were fools enough to go to shops where they thought they could get rare postage stamps. It was a piece of trans-
      374
      parent tomfoolery, which illustrated the old line—
      "It is greater pleasure to be cheated than to cheat."
      It really did not interfere with the Post Office in any way, as these stamps could not be used in this country; and he should, therefore, move to omit the words "or of any foreign country."
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, to omit the words "or of any foreign country."—(Mr. Warton.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. FAWCETTsaid, this clause had been carefully considered by the Inland Revenue, and he was sorry his hon. and learned Friend objected to these particular words. If he had had longer Notice upon the point, he would have consulted with the authorities of the Inland Revenue, and have pointed out these words. All he could say was that they were, in some cases, interested in the amount of postage which foreign countries received on letters sent to this country; and, therefore, they were interested in the same protection being given to foreign stamps as they were in protection being given to their own stamps, and that he believed was the reason why the Inland Revenue wished to have this clause, which was carefully considered by the authorities of the Inland Revenue. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Motion.
      MR. WARTONsaid, by this course of proceeding, the Post Office made their conduct a perfect farce. He did not care twopence for all the clerks; Bills were very badly drawn; and it was their business to consider them with their own common sense. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell him of a single case where anyone had suffered from the use of a fictitious foreign stamp, he would withdraw his Amendment at once; but, in his opinion, it was an utterly impracticable and absurd rule.
      MR. FAWCETTsaid, the difficulty he was in was this. This Bill, or a similar Bill, had been before the House the whole Session, and he had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to state to him his particular objections; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had done so, he would have carefully considered

      375
      them; but he had never been able to ascertain what his particular objections were; therefore he could not, upon the spot, answer the particular question which the hon. and learned Gentleman had put to him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had given him Notice yesterday, he would have made inquiry at the Post Office; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had not done so, he thought he was more responsible in the matter than he (Mr. Fawcett) was.
      MR. WARTONsaid, with regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he wished—["No, no!"]—yes, he must; the Postmaster General had attacked him in the most friendly way, and he must make a few observations. He thought the scope of the Bill was a monstrosity, and there must be some notion of the sanctity of the Post Office Department. His objection was to the whole Bill; but he wished only to refer to one or two points that struck his mind; and as the Postmaster General could not tell them a single instance that showed any necessity for the provision he must press the Amendment.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 8 agreed to.
      Clause 9 (Commission of offences in post office, and obstruction of post office).
      MR. WARTONsaid, on this clause he proposed to omit all the lines beginning with and including "uses" in line 29, down to and including "office" in line 32, in order to substitute other words. Of all the monstrous provisions this was the most monstrous, for it embraced an immense number of wholly unnecessary matters provided for by the law already. It appeared to be the very quintessence of absurdity. Why it should be so wrong to use these words inside a Post Office he could not see. He quite agreed that people should not be allowed to obstruct an officer of the Post Office, and that there should be a summary conviction; but why should committing a nuisance be worse in a Post Office than anywhere else? By this clause the humblest letter sorter or smallest telegraph boy was invested with special sanctity just as much as the highest officials. That seemed to him most absurd; and he hoped the Postmaster
      376
      General would alter the clause in the manner he had suggested.
      MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was most anxious to meet the hon. and learned Member as far as possible; but this Bill was not intended to give the Post Office extra power, but simply to provide certain necessary protection both to the Post Office and to the public. If the business of the Post Office was obstructed and important letters were delayed, the inconvenience was not to the Post Office, but to those who were expecting the letters. Therefore, this was solely in the interest of the public; but he thought he might partially amend the clause as the hon. Member suggested.
      MR. COURTNEYobserved, that the work of the Post Office might be obstructed merely by improper conduct, without there being an absolute obstruction of a particular officer. If it would satisfy the hon. and learned Member, he thought the clause might be amended so as to provide that "any person who obstructs an officer of the Post Office while in the execution of his duty," or "who while in the Post Office obstructs," &c, should be liable to penalties.
      MR. WARTONsaid, that would be quite enough to meet his object.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 30, to omit all the words from the word "uses" down to "obstruct," inclusive, in line 32, in order to insert the words, "obstructs an officer of the Post Office while in the execution of his duty."
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      Question put, and negatived.
      Words omitted accordingly.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Words inserted accordingly.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 10 agreed to.
      Clause 11 (Forgery, delay, and improper disclosure of telegrams).
      MR. FAWCETT, in proposing an Amendment, to omit all the words after the word "section" in page 5, line 39, down to "telegraph" in line 43, explained that the Amendment was the

      377
      result of an arrangement with the Telegraph Companies. The object of the clause was to give security against news sent by foreign telegrams being improperly interfered with, or being stolen. The Telegraph Companies had objected to the proposed control by the Post Office over their telegrams, as at first provided in the clause; and as he had no desire to exercise any unreasonable control over the Companies he had agreed to accept this Amendment, and an amicable arrangement had been come to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 39, omit all the words after "section" in line 39, down to and including "or" in line 43.—(Mr. Fawcett.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. WARTONsaid, he thought it was well that these words should be omitted, for the real spirit of the Bill was a domineering and dictatorial interference with private Companies when there was no right to interfere.
      MR. FAWCETTdemurred to the remark of the hon. and learned Member, for the Post Office had no desire to interfere with the Telegraph Companies. The clause had been introduced at the request of several hon. Members, after a recent trial in which it was found that the public had not proper security in regard to news sent from abroad. Therefore, the clause was not introduced through a desire on the part of the Post Office to interfere with the Telegraph Companies.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he thought this illustrated the dangers of legislation. A trial took place, and then some hon. Members who did not understand the law rushed off to the Postmaster General and induced him to bring in a Bill; and then, when people who knew what they were about, raised objection to the Bill, Amendments were made, and clauses struck out.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Words omitted accordingly.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Remaining clauses agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
      (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)

      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

      EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE—FAILURE OF THE POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.—OBSERVATIONS.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, in whose name the following Notice of Amendment stood upon the Paper:—
      "That the European Conference having failed to give to Her Majesty's Government the means of good administration in Egypt, the continued expenditure of the money and use of the forces of this Country in Egypt cannot be justified,"
      said, that after the extraordinary conduct of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in not permitting the debate on Egyptian affairs to proceed on Thursday evening, he felt it necessary to bring forward the subject to-day, more especially as he understood that his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had to leave London in the evening, and he himself would not be in London on Monday when the debate was to be initiated. He did not, however, propose to move his Amendment, although it expressed his sentiments, because to do so would not be respectful to Lord Northbrook, who had undertaken an onerous task, and ought to be allowed some time in which to try to fulfil his purpose. No man was more capable of dealing with Egyptian affairs than Lord Northbrook, and he felt sure that Egypt would be the better for having its affairs looked into by so competent and able a man; but he was satisfied that neither Lord Northbrook nor any other man could so arrange that two and two should make five; yet that was the task to which his Lordship was set. One of the effects of the mission of Lord Northbrook would be that it would lead to a little delay, and he had just a scintilla of hope that in the meantime Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France might come to some terms, and that some arrangements might be made. His principal reason

      379
      for speaking to-day was that he took a very grave view of the failure of the Conference, for it seemed to him that the failure left Egypt in a most terrible difficulty. Some hon. Members talked of that failure as leaving the Government with a "free hand;" but rather than that it seemed to him that it tied their hands more fast, or if there was any real result it left the Government foot-free to turn round and scuttle out of Egypt. He and his hon. Friends regarded that as a good result in one way; but what was required from the Conference was that the hands of the Government should be untied, so that so long as they remained in Egypt they should be able to carry on the administration of that country in a decent and proper manner. In the Papers relating to the Revenue of Egypt there was matter for very grave reflection. They showed that we were extorting a great deal too much from the people of Egypt. If the Government were to be responsible for the affairs of that country there were several matters imperatively demanding attention. He referred to the settlement of the question of the land revenue, the abolition of the system of corvée, and the regulation and improvement of the irrigation system, so as to get rid of the horrible and disgraceful system of dragging Natives long distances from home without any tools, and getting a minimum of gain out of them at the cost of a maximum of labour and of injury to health. The settlement of such questions as these would necessitate the expenditure of a great deal of money. Another consideration which ought not to be lost sight of was the possibility of our having to engage in war for the protection of the country, for there was no great division between the Mahdi and Egypt. What we called the Mahdi was a general uprising of the people of the Soudan in the cause of freedom. That might give us a great deal of trouble. There were at present 9,400 British troops occupied in defending Egypt, and should the proportions of the rebellion increase we might find ourselves engaged in a very difficult task. Then there was the question of the tribunals, which exacted the debts of the unfortunate fellaheen. All these matters made it impossible for the Government to carry on the administration of Egypt satisfactorily while their hands were tied. If the Conference had not
      380
      failed an arrangement might have been come to with France, which would have been of immense advantage. France had assured us that if we quitted Egypt she would not enter the country. That was a most important assurance, and if it had been accepted we might soon be in a position to leave Egypt with credit. The neutralization of Egypt, like that of Belgium, would have been an excellent plan.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: If Egypt were like Belgium.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, continuing, said, Egypt might not in some respects be like Belgium; but still he thought it would be a capital thing if the Powers of Europe entered into a self-denying ordinance in regard to it, as they had done in regard to Belgium. But the Conference had come to an end without settling anything. He much regretted this. The result was that our present position in Egypt was an impossible one. As he had said, some people talked about our now having a "free hand" in Egypt. But we had nothing of the kind; the fact was our hands were tightly tied. We were pledged to support the Law of Liquidation and the International Tribunals by which alone the Law of Liquidation was enforced. The Government had declared over and over again that they regarded the Law of Liquidation as an international agreement, which could not be altered without the consent of all the Powers. In face of those assertions, the Government could not alter that law. Were any attempt made to alter that law, we should give just cause of offence to France, and he trembled for the consequences. The Government had, as he thought most unfortunately, agreed to the extension of these tribunals for five years, and to that extent our hands were absolutely tied. Were we going to use the British Forces in Egypt for the purpose of extorting this money from the fellaheen? The Egyptians did not want us in Egypt. They would far rather have a little misgovernment after their own fashion than a great deal of misgovernment after our fashion. He foretold that a half-and-half Government would not answer—a Government half Native, half British, and the evidence was now overwhelming that everybody was discontented with it. We were really doing nothing to benefit Egypt,

      381
      and the people would much rather be rid of us. If they were left to manage their own affairs on the Darwinian principle of letting the best come to the top, they would get along much better. He had great hopes that by a power of passive resistance, and by a want of agreement among the Powers of Europe, they might yet manage to stave off those who wanted to take the last drop of their blood, and so would be much better off than they were now. It seemed to him that we were a very hypocritical nation, for we were always talking about the good we were going to do to others, while the real idea was that of British interests. It was often said that we had a very special interest in Egypt, because the Suez Canal was the road to India; but that idea had been disposed of long ago. It was shown to be baseless in an article written by the Prime Minister in 1877. He hoped that the Prime Minister would peruse and re-peruse that article in the coming Recess, and that copies of it would be sent to every Member of the Government, for he was sure that if they studied that article, they would follow the course which he and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) advocated. The idea of a road to India through Egypt was an utter delusion. In time of war our true way to India would be by the open ocean. The Prime Minister in that article pointed out that the difference of time in the two routes was only three weeks; but it was now found to be only 10 days longer for the large vessels of the present day to go to India round the Cape. For the sake of saving those 10 days, would it be worth our while, in time of war, to undertake the enormous burden of protecting the whole Mediterranean? In time of peace they might rely on the Canal being always open for traffic. It was the interest of the Mediterranean Powers that it should be open, for the tendency of the Canal was to throw the trade which used to come to us more and more into the Mediterranean ports. He, therefore, felt sure that in times of peace the other Powers would combine with us in keeping the Canal open. And in time of war we should not be much the worse for not being able to use it. He hoped the Government would realize that our only creditable course, consistent with justice to the Egyptians and justice to
      382
      the taxpayers of this country, would be to wash our hands of the whole affair, withdraw our troops, and have nothing more to do with it. This would bring the bondholders to their senses, and they would then, no doubt, offer to reduce their interest one-half, or 1 per cent, if we would only stay. But he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would, notwithstanding, withdraw from Egypt. Let them release Arabi, and in no way oppose Ismail Pasha, or the Mahdi, who might be a very respectable and amicable gentleman, and lot them leave the Egyptians to manage their own affairs and choose their own rulers, and do their best according to their own fashion. His great hope was that the European Powers would be so totally unable to agree among themselves that the result might be the freedom of the Egyptians. He had no fear of the wave of Mahommedanism. It was a very good religion, and he did not see why we should oppose it. Neither had he any particular dread of the Mahdi. They were accustomed to Mahdis in India, where, to use an expressive phrase, they were to be found as thick as thieves. If the Egyptians chose to accept the Mahdi, let them do so. At any rate, we should have our consciences free.
      SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he regretted that the question of Egypt was being discussed in so small a House. At the same time, he was glad to find that, although the number of Members present was not large, the quality was good. The Front Opposition Bench was well represented by one of the Leaders of the Conservative Party (Mr. J. Lowther), who, whatever they might think of him in other respects, was always straightforward, and said what he meant. On the present occasion the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in speaking his mind, because the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had gone to Manchester, and the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench were, therefore, at liberty to say what they liked. It seemed strange that they should have to discuss this question almost on the last day of the Session; but throughout the whole period the Session had lasted Egypt had been the prominent subject which the House had had to discuss again and again. He thought it quite right that it should be so, be-

      383
      cause it appeared to him that the House had made itself in some sort of way responsible for the welfare of the 5,000,000 of people who inhabited Egypt. The way in which this question was always cropping up was a proof that when once a false step was taken, the consequences were such that it was difficult to escape from them. When once they committed an act of political injustice Nemesis was sure to follow sooner or later. He now spoke on behalf of the fellaheen, who were the great body of the cultivators of the soil, and whose sufferings were all the more sad when the House remembered the abominably bad government by which they had been brought about, and by the oppression to which they had been subjected. Her Majesty's Government said they were not responsible for what had been going on there; but he maintained that they were. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had said a year ago that so long as England kept even a corporal's guard in Egypt so long would she be responsible for what went on in that country, because the Egyptian people would not take the necessary steps to insure getting a good Government for the redress of their grievances so long as the emblems of England's power remained among them, as they would never be sure that British Forces were not coming back with the view of getting rid of that Government. The Prime Minister had only the other night remonstrated with him and with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for having implied that the Egyptian Government was a sham, which was kept up by Her Majesty's Government; and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have assumed that by expressing that opinion they who uttered it were making it more difficult for Her Majesty's Government to arrive at any satisfactory settlement or consolidation of power on the part of the Egyptian Government. That remonstrance had not convinced him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that they were in the wrong. The question was not whether they called the Egyptian Government a sham, but whether it was a sham. If it was a sham, and he did not call it so, he and those who thought with him would be shams. What they wished was to get at the truth of the matter. They wished it to be understood in this country that the English Government were
      384
      governing Egypt, and that when they talked of the Government of Egypt, or the Government of the Khedive, they were talking of a merely nominal Government, their object being that the English people might decide for themselves whether they should not ask Her Majesty's Government to withdraw from their present responsibility in that country. The House was told that the English had been for two years in Egypt, and had done some good. He asked what good had been done? He asserted that the Egyptians were no better for what England had done. The Undersecretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had tried to make out that the people of Egypt were getting on well; but all he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) could make out had really been done was, that we were attempting to build new prisons. He did not know whether they had been built; but if they had, that was not a very comprehensive work for the welfare of the people. The fact was that we had done nothing to make their lives happier and better, or to render them better citizens. What, he asked, was the great grievance of the Egyptian people? The root of the whole evil was that they were oppressed by an enormous debt of something like £100,000,000 of money. It was this which drained the very life-blood of the people, who were compelled to provide the interest of that debt, as well as to carry on their own government. It was his opinion that the Egyptian people were not morally responsible for that debt. It was incurred by tyrannical despots for their own purposes, and he should be delighted to see the people repudiate it, and send the bondholders about their business. But that was not the view of Her Majesty's Ministers. We were told when we went there that we were going to support the rights of the Khedive and the rights of the bondholders, who said—"We will keep there and have our pound of flesh at whatever cost to the honour of this country or of suffering to the Egyptians;" and what was the course taken? The great military Powers of Europe had joined with England in the effort to see how they could get the last farthing from that miserable people. Was there anything noble in that? He would admit that the English Government had endeavoured to do their best to put matters on a footing that would

      385
      do as little harm as possible, and they tried to reduce the interest; but they had failed. The Conference that had been summoned reminded him of a group of hungry vultures sitting on a tree, and watching the dying struggles of their intended prey, consulting among themselves as to when the right moment to pounce upon it would have arrived. The Conference had now been brought to an end, and the question was, What was England to do? When Her Majesty's Government came to the House at the close of the Conference everybody was anxious to know what would be their policy, and all they were told was that the Government were going to send out Lord Northbrook; no doubt he was a very able man, and they were much obliged to him for having undertaken the office; but when they were told he was to be the saviour of Egypt, a sort of blank astonishment came over the House. They all sat and wondered what Lord Northbrook was to do. Even the Fourth Party were dumb. He had said Lord Northbrook was an able man; but they had sent able men to Egypt before. They had sent out Lord Dufferin, who was England's only Ambassador, just as Lord Wolseley was her only General. Well, what had Lord Dufferin done? He had written a long and able despatch, which had, however, done no good that he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had heard of. They had sent out the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and they had also sent out Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but they had had to bring Mr. Clifford Lloyd home again. Then there was Sir Evelyn Baring; and what had he done? He did his best, no doubt; but he had done no good. Who now thought that Lord Northbrook would prove the saviour of the country? What was he to do? Lord Northbrook was, in fact, the Egyptian policy of the Government. For his part, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) could not understand what Lord Northbrook's mission was. Was it to inquire into the finances of the country? He had thought they knew all about them when they held the Conference. Was it, then, to find out the misery of the country? There could, he thought, be little doubt about that. Was it to ascertain the unpopularity of the Khedive's Government? Well, everybody knew that. Lord Derby, who had joined Her Majesty's Government
      386
      two years ago, had stated that their policy was to keep the Khedive on his legs, because he could not stand upon them by himself. Was Lord Northbrook going to raise money from the Egyptian people? He did not think the noble Lord would be able to do that. They had a saying in the North of England which was that "Solomon was a wise man, and Sampson was a strong man; but neither of them could get brass from a man who had not got it." It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government had sent Lord Northbrook out on a mission it was absolutely impossible for him to fulfil. He was going to get blood out of a stone. He was, in fact, going on a mission that was absolutely foredoomed to failure, unless he could pledge the credit and resources of this country for the putting of everything straight. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) was one of the few men in that House who had a straightforward Egyptian policy. That policy was annexation. It was that we were to take possession of Egypt; but that was a policy which he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) hardly thought his right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench would agree in, because if there was one thing more cheered than another during the last 18 months it had been their announcement that they would not annex Egypt. He thought that a very important moment had arrived in regard to this question. It was true that Her Majesty's Government were even now not really free from European concern in this matter; but they were free for the moment, and might be said to stand at present in the "parting of the way." What, then, he asked, was to be the policy of the Prime Minister? Was it to be a policy against which the Prime Minister had over and over again protested? or was it to be a policy of giving Egypt to the Egyptians? There were only three courses open in regard to this question. They were—annexation, occupation, or retractation; or, in the vulgar tongue, the policy to be pursued was that of grab, muddle, or scuttling. That of grab was one which they could not now discuss, because they did not think the present Government would ever adopt it. The policy of muddle was one that could not long go on. The Government of Egypt was now the

      387
      laughing-stock of the whole world, and, as he had said already, it was a sham, Her Majesty's Government accepted no responsibility unless they chose to do so. If anything went wrong, it was the miserable Egyptian Government; if anything went right, it was Sir Evelyn Baring. It would waste the time of the House to discuss this policy. He never heard anyone approve it. What else, then, remained? There was only the policy of scuttling. This was a slang word, and its use might be objected to; but he asserted that the policy of withdrawal was the very highest and noblest policy our statesmen could adopt. They had heard a good deal about our withdrawal from the Transvaal, and Her Majesty's Government had been much blamed for that; but he thought they had been honest and right in that policy, and that the noblest act of the Prime Minister had been to disregard the outcry from the Opposition Benches, and at once to withdraw our forces from that part of the world. It was a nobler step than any victory they might have gained. There were only three persons in that House who had a definite policy with regard to Egypt—the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and himself. He would say, let the Government adopt his policy and leave the wretched Egyptians to their own devices. The answer to this was that if they did so the French would go in. He did not think our experience was likely to encourage the French to do that. He did not think the French, seeing what we had done, would be inclined to go and govern the Egyptians. It was said if they repealed the Union with Ireland, somebody else would go and take that country. Well, if anybody else should desire to take such a step, it would be, all things considered, a most extraordinary thing. If the French, who were pledged to national freedom, chose to go and burly the Egyptians, let them do so; but, at any rate, let England be clear of that wickedness, and clear herself from the oppression and plunder and misery of the Egyptian people. The Prime Minister, who was unfortunately not present, naturally liked to stand up for his own policy. The right hon. Gentleman was not pleased with him (Sir Wilfrid Law-Eon) two years ago, when he had implored
      388
      Her Majesty's Government not to use force in Egypt; but he thought that, looking back to what had since occurred, he and those who had taken the same view were much dearer friends of the Government than those who had encouraged them in a different course. He thought he was acting the part of a true friend of the Government in urging them to calmly reconsider their course now that there was an opportunity to withdraw from the policy of interference in Egypt. He felt as sure as that he stood on the floor of that House that the only course that could bring credit to Her Majesty's Government was that they should at once reconsider their policy and alter their course of action in regard to this great question.
      MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he heartily concurred with the hon. Baronet (Sir Wrilfrid Lawson) in the conclusions he had drawn with regard to the policy of the Government, however he might differ from that of the hon. Baronet himself. It was impossible to controvert what the hon. Baronet had said as to what he had described as the policy of muddle pursued by Her Majesty's Government—a policy alike disastrous to the people of Egypt and discreditable to this country. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the sham of the so-called Egyptian Government. Could anything be much more ridiculous than the references made from the Treasury Bench to the Egyptian Government? If any Question were asked of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) on the subject of Egypt, he always talked of consulting the Egyptian Government, and on the next day he told the House Sir Evelyn Baring had curtly informed that Government that any advice emanating from him was to be accepted, and that no action was to be taken by the Government of Egypt without a reference to him, under the further obligation of a communication with Downing Street. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had said that every reasonable person in England and on the Continent concurred in denouncing the monstrous sham of attempting to govern Egypt from Downing Street by means of mere puppets who were removed at the will of the English Government, unless they happened to carry on intrigues to enable them to shake off the domination sought to be imposed on them, and to

      389
      get up complications which led to the abandonment of those English officials who had been sent out with a view of carrying out the policy of the Government; and the result had usually been that the last stage was always worse, if possible, than that which had preceded it. Reference had been made to the fact that from time to time Her Majesty's Government came down to the House and stated that some important step was about to be taken. They had had a good number of these announcements already, whenever a Vote of Censure was seriously threatened and the voice of the country and of the civilized world made itself heard. They were told very recently, with respect to the mismanagement of the Government in regard to Egyptian affairs, in sonorous though no louder tones than those in which the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) and other Members of the Government were at that moment conversing, that an important step was about to be taken. They had some time ago an important statement that Lord Dufferin was to be sent to Egypt with a view of informing Her Majesty's Government, by means of a Report, as to the steps that should be taken in that country. They knew what that had ended in. It had resulted in a very interesting Blue Book, which clearly placed the views of Lord Dufferin before the Government. There was no person more capable of giving good advice, provided it was to be followed, and what was the result? Why, that Lord Dufferin's suggestions had all been uniformly and systematically ignored. When this striking policy had ceased to have any effect on the anxious mind of the public at home, and when the cry for more energetic action was raised, they had the announcement that General Gordon was to be sent to the Soudan for the purpose of insuring the safety of the garrisons, and of carrying out measures of great importance. They also knew what had happened then. As soon as the despatch of General Gordon on his perilous mission had had the effect for which it was prepared—namely, of assisting the Government through a momentary Parliamentary difficulty, General Gordon was abandoned to his fate, in the same way that Lord Dufferin and his Blue Book had been consigned to oblivion. After a while it became necessary that
      390
      some further announcement of an important nature should be made; and the House was informed, in stately and stilted tones, that the Government had convened a Conference of the Great Powers of Europe to consider the important question of Egyptian finance. They knew perfectly well what had come of that. The Conference had suffered a most discreditable collapse, and had collapsed amidst a scene of indescribable confusion. And now, again, they had another important announcement. They were told that Lord Northbrook was to be sent to Egypt. The hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had asked what was Lord Northbrook to do? He would not go into any question as to the fitness of Lord Northbrook for such a position; but what was he to do? He was to prepare another Report, he supposed, to be put alongside the Blue Book of Lord Dufferin on the dusty shelves on which it had for so many months reposed. He was not to take any action, but merely to report to his Colleagues. He should be told Lord Northbrook would occupy a position of greater strength than that of Lord Dufferin, who certainly was not inferior in experience or knowledge of Egyptian affairs to Lord Northbrook. It would, however, be said that, unlike Lord Dufferin, Lord Northbrook enjoyed the inestimable advantage of being a Cabinet Minister. He (Mr. J. Lowther) saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in his place. That right hon. Gentleman would appreciate the great advantage a Cabinet Minister enjoyed, and would understand the way in which his suggestions were capable of being carefully considered and eventually ignored by his Colleagues, even in instances where his Colleagues did not promote intrigues in the Press and otherwise against him. Lord Northbrook might succeed, after the lapse of a few months, in obtaining some consideration for his suggestions; but what would be the result? The Prime Minister had informed the House that the financial affairs of Egypt were so critical that he could not even refrain from taking steps without waiting for the consent of Parliament. A Conference he had announced was to take place, and that without a decision of that House being taken. Well, what had become of the critical state of the

      391
      finances of Egypt? The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had said that if money were raised by a despotic Government without the assent of the general community the debt so incurred ought to be repudiated. But hon. Members opposite might, perhaps, have heard of a much heavier loan—the National Debt—which was contracted for purposes with which some of them had no sympathy, and under the auspices of a Government which did not possess that popular sanction which the hon. Baronet and his Friends considered necessary to all good government; and if the doctrine were allowed to go forth that the National Debt was to be repudiated on those grounds at the dictation of a detached section of the Liberal Party, the national credit of England would receive a fatal blow, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not find himself in a very enviable position with respect to his consolidation schemes. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had been brought up in the old school in which the principle was recognized that the first duty of a community, as of an individual, was to pay its debts; and he could not depart from that principle when nations, instead of individuals, were concerned. The hon. Baronet represented a section of his Party which had great influence with the Prime Minister, who was notoriously believed to have sympathy with the views of that section. They were now called upon by that section to repudiate that portion of the Egyptian National Debt which it might not be convenient for the Egyptian people to pay. Coming to the subject of the Conference, he thought that the Anglo-French Agreement reflected great discredit upon all the parties to it; and by this time Her Majesty's Government were fully aware that the country would have refused to be bound by it. The Conference had broken up without arriving at any conclusion; and what was the position in which we now found ourselves? True, we were free from that Agreement; but we were completely isolated throughout the world. The Government were endeavouring to attach an exaggerated importance to some apparently commonplace expressions of civility which were alleged to have passed the lips of the Italian Envoy, and were also attaching enormous importance to having secured the co-operation of one of Her Majesty's
      392
      most ancient allies, with whom he was glad to find that, even at the eleventh hour, the Prime Minister was cultivating friendly relations. He referred to the Porte, which was described not long ago as the one anti-human specimen of humanity. But what was the attitude of the rest of Europe? The Prime Minister had declined to express any opinion upon the proposals submitted to the Conference. They were not entirely dependent upon Protocols for information as to the attitude of the European Powers towards this country. The Government had evidently succeeded in irritating and alienating all the rest of the Powers. But even the Protocols showed that Germany very clearly signified that the most vital and important element in the administration of Egypt had been dealt with in a manner which called for the intervention of Europe. The great central Powers had shown in clear terms, both official and otherwise, that they were not disposed to lend countenance to the vacillation which had been exhibited by the Government throughout in their treatment of this question. Of course, they would be told that the Government had been consistent throughout the whole of their policy. That he candidly admitted. The Government had consistently tried to disorganize the internal administration of Egypt, and to complicate the relations with Foreign Powers, and had swerved neither to the right nor to the left in pursuing this, to their minds, desirable consummation. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said that he would have allowed Arabi and Ismail, and he did not know how many more persons of a not particularly uniform frame of mind, to fight the matter out among themselves. He (Mr. J. Lowther) could understand that, in the first instance, some of these persons might have expected that they would have the support of the Prime Minister in the inauguration of a system of disorder in any part of the world. The Government had charged themselves with an extraordinary mission in going to Egypt. They had succeeded in introducing disorder, where order previously existed, in various portions of the globe. The hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had referred to South Africa, and he and the hon. Member

      393
      for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had referred to the disorder in North Africa. What had caused the change of policy on the part of the Ministerial Bench? The happiness of persons in Egypt was one thing; but the interest of England in Egypt was not confined to establishing any particular form of government, or to meeting the wishes of the people who happened to reside in that country. The Delta of the Nile had an interest for England on account of that highway to our Indian Empire—an Empire which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was prepared to cast to the winds. Our excuse, and our only excuse, for being in Egypt had reference to the vital interests of this country, which interests were generally admitted throughout England. The idea that because people in Egypt would like any one form of government, or the adoption of any one policy, we were to abandon the paramount interests of England in that country, involved a proposition so monstrous that it had only to be named in order to be received with indignation throughout England. The Government considered the Egyptian Question a matter of secondary importance. The Prime Minister considered that the only thing of primary importance was to try to stimulate a revolutionary agitation in this country. But this "secondary" matter ought to be dealt with by the Government in such a manner as should convince the country that they at length realized the extreme gravity and importance of the situation. The Government should endeavour, during the Recess, to give as much time as they could spare from the personal direction of agitation to a serious consideration of this matter. The Prime Minister said it was not possible to think of more than one thing at a time; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) hoped that during the Recess the Government would consider the relations of this country with Foreign Powers, which relations apparently never stood in a worse position than at present. He did not think that the hon. Member need have apologized for bringing the subject under the notice of the House. It would not be very easy to obtain a large attendance of Members during the remainder of the Session, and those Members who would not be able to take part in Monday's discussion were perfectly
      394
      justified in expressing their views that day. It was to be hoped that the Government would give hon. Members an assurance that there was to be an end of this wearisome reiteration of their desire to evacuate Egypt, followed by announcements of reinforcements of troops, and the whole perplexing round of vacillation which discredited Her Majesty's Ministers at home, and lowered and injured the position of England in Egypt particularly, and throughout the world generally.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he said that he could find no fault with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy for bringing forward this question. He went even further than that, and said that it was almost the duty of the hon. Member to take the course he had taken. Why had there been no discussion on Egypt that week? The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was too kind to his own followers. It had been arranged that the debate should take place that week; but suddenly the right hon. Gentleman found that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was going to some garden ticket meeting in Manchester again to go through the farce of one of his public reconciliations with Lord Salisbury, and therefore everything was to be put aside in order that the House might have the privilege of hearing the noble Lord on the affairs of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) had elaborated no sort of policy, but had contented himself with saying that the whole of the Members of the Government were the basest of human beings, and that the Prime Minister was the basest of them all—that the Government had, in fact, committed wrongs in every part of the world. They knew that that was the contention of the Conservative Party, and they accepted that position of the Opposition as an admitted fact. He was somewhat sorry that the Conference had broken up, because he thought the proposal to put the administrative expenses first, and to give the bondholders whatever remained, was a desirable proposal; and he should therefore have supported the Government in their proposal to vote the £8,000,000, because they had been placed in this difficulty by the action of the previous

      395
      Government, and it was necessary they should have a full understanding that henceforth Egypt was to be a neutral State. With regard to the conduct of the French, he thought they ought to express their opinion very strongly upon it, for from beginning to end of the Conference, as Lord Granville had said, they did nothing but urge the rights, as they called them, of the bondholders. It was well known that the French Ministers were all in the hands of financialists; and it appeared to him that these French Ministers were not supporting the interests of France, but of the financialists who had got the bonds at the present moment. We ought not to pay much attention to this, because the French were a peace-loving nation, and when it came to a question of fighting they objected to going to war. This was made clear when we took our Expedition to Egypt. M. Gambetta was in favour of the French joining in that Expedition; but the Members of the French Assembly received an intimation from their constituents that if they voted for that warlike Expedition they would lose their confidence; and one of the most powerful Governments that had existed in France for a considerable number of years was unable to carry the proposition in the Chamber. He did not think that we need be in the least afraid of France on these matters, or pay very much attention to what she said or thought. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what the policy of the Government really was; and he was very much surprised that he should have done so, because both in and out of Parliament the Prime Minister had shown that it was the intention of the Government to evacuate Egypt. In an article in a review, written in the year 1877, the right hon. Gentleman held that the sooner we quitted Egypt the better for us, and pointed out almost prophetically the cost and the trouble that would ensue upon a continued occupation. The Government were bound by a covenant entered into by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and considered that they should go as far as to set the Khedive on his legs and give the Egyptian Government a fair start. As he (Mr. Labouchere) understood it, the policy of the Government at present was—and he gave them his most cordial support in sending out Lord Northbrook to carry out
      396
      that policy—the reduction of taxation. He did not say that it was a policy of absolute repudiation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said the Government would weaken the credit of England; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to carry back his historical studies a little, and he would find that there had always been a Parliament in England, and that every farthing of public money expended had been voted by that Parliament. And what he (Mr. Labouchere) and those who thought with him held was that when Ismail Pasha made the Egyptian Debts he joined with the financialists in robbing his country; and if this money had been expended otherwise than for the benefit of Egypt, Egypt had a perfect right to repudiate the Debt. Now, the Prime Minister held that the Egyptians had been overtaxed, owing to the price of cereals having fallen. These taxes could not be paid by the Egyptians, and the first stop for Lord Northbrook to take would be to lower the taxation. The next step would be to call together the most enlightened of the Egyptians—the Notables of the country—and form some species of Government. Then, if the Prime Minister only carried out his own assurances, we should leave the country "bag and baggage," for there were only two policies open to the Government—namely, evacuation or annexation. The arguments in favour of evacuation were, he thought, much stronger than those in favour of annexation. England was pledged to every country in Europe to evacuate Egypt, and it would be a matter of national disgrace if, after Europe had trusted in our word, we refused to go out of the country. At the same time, he was of opinion that we had a right to say that France should not go there. He did not think France was likely to do so; but it was only reasonable and fair that we should tell her she should not, and if we did tell her she certainly would not attempt to enter Egypt. But he could not see that any good whatsoever would result from the perpetual attack made by the Opposition on the Government. Let the Opposition state what their policy was. Let them explain whether they were in favour of the annexation of Egypt. If they were, they ought to oppose every step on the part of Ministers who were not in favour of that policy; but if they merely

      397
      wished to make the work of the Ministry still more difficult than it was already by perpetual nagging and captious criticism, they were certainly not taking a patriotic course. What was the opinion of the country? Hon. Members could easily find out by attending any meeting. A friend of his was at a meeting in the country the other day, and in the course of one of the speeches some man in the audience called out—"We do not care about the Mahdi or the Sow-dan, or any of them gentlemen. What we wants to know is, what are you going to do with the House of Lords?" To his (Mr. Labouchore's) mind, that person was a thoroughly sensible and practical man. It was our business to leave Egypt and the Egyptians to sink or swim as they pleased, to look after legislation in this country, to do all we could to benefit our nearer neighbours, and, moreover, to do all we could to put an end to the objectionable acts of the neighbours of that House.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he could not help thinking that the feelings of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), when he moved the recond reading of this Bill and then saw the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) rise to make a speech, must have resembled those of the guest in Coleridge's well-known poem, who, when about to enter the building in which high festival was being held, was forbidden to do so by the Ancient Mariner until he had listened to his well-known story. The Ancient Mariner considered that, owing to the death of a certain bird, an Albatross, great misfortunes would happen; and apparently the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) imagined they had got that bird at the Foreign Office. He begged, however, to assure his hon. Friend that he was under a complete misapprehension, and that the bird was not at the Foreign Office. He hoped, therefore, when the hon. Member started for Arabia and the hon. Member for Carlisle started for Cumberland, they might start with the feelings of satisfaction aroused by the statement he had just made. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: What statement?] Both hon. Members had explained to the House with perfect frankness that they had made their speeches to-day because they could not be there on Monday. No doubt, at such a period of the
      398
      Session that was a natural and satisfactory explanation, and he wished he could say the same; but the fact was he must be in attendance on Monday as well as to-day, whether he liked it or not, and he could assure his hon. Friends that he had no desire to make another speech this Session on Egypt. The feelings of the House must have been touched by the beautiful exchange of compliments between the two hon. Members who had first spoken and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther). The hon. Member for Carlisle told the right hon. Gentleman what a thoroughly honourable and straightforward man he was, and that everybody knew it; and the right hon. Gentleman, touched, no doubt, by those beautiful words, rose and told the two hon. Gentlemen that they represented the voice of the whole civilized world. That was rather hard on the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, who early in the Session announced that he represented the whole of the civilized world. But the right hon. Gentleman soon threw overboard all the compliments, and before he sat down he gave the two hon. Members a tremendous dressing, and informed them that on one subject, so far from representing the whole of the civilized world, they did not represent anybody but a section of their own Party. When the right hon. Gentleman rose to address the House from a place next to that occupied by the Leader of the Opposition, who, after very grave consideration, had decided not to bring forward the Egyptian Question until Monday, it was naturally expected he was not going to make what might be called the usual stock Opposition speech, or, in other words, to indulge in those attacks on Her Majesty's Government with which they were so familiar, and which, indeed, they almost knew by heart. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to explain that which he hoped would be explained before the end of the Session by somebody on the Front Opposition Bench—namely, how the present extraordinary state of muddle and confusion had arisen in the Councils of the Opposition. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have explained to the House how it was that at the close of a Session, at the commencement of which the Opposition certainly expected they were going to turn out Her Majesty's Government on ques-

      399
      tions of foreign policy, not only had nothing of the kind happened, but, on the contrary, they found the Opposition in a state of great confusion, only temporarily arranged by what was called un mariage de convenance. As all this had not happened to the Government, and as the debate on Egyptian affairs had, after full consideration, been fixed for Monday, although it might be perfectly natural for hon. Members who could not be in the House on Monday to make their speeches now, it would hardly be desirable for him at that hour to prolong the debate; and he should, therefore, merely say that the questions of detail which had been raised were naturally all subjects of interest and importance, and subjects which must come before Lord Northbrook on the mission he had undertaken, and he had no doubt that, at the close of the mission, it would be possible to make a statement upon them, but not before.
      SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that before the debate closed he should like to say a few words, because, although he should be present on Monday, he might not then have as good an opportunity of addressing the House as he had at that moment. A few days ago he sided with the Government on the question of the Vote of Credit, feeling very strongly in favour of the proposal, and being quite ready to support a much larger Vote than was asked for. At the same time, he strongly objected to the retention in the Vote of the words which implied that the necessity had not yet arisen for the taking of measures to relieve General Gordon; and he had given Notice of his intention to strike out the words "if necessary" when the Report should be brought up. He had, however, learnt from the Clerk at the Table, after conference with the Speaker, that the Amendment could not be then put. The Government were very much to blame for not having brought forward their proposal at an earlier period. Before he actually arrived at Khartoum, General Gordon, on the 12th of February, sent a telegram to Egypt asking for a certain sum of money, and 200 Indian Cavalry to assist him in his operations. General Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th of February, and on the 26th he wrote another despatch asking for 3,000 Turkish troops. Therefore, on two occasions, at the very
      400
      earliest stage of his proceedings in the Soudan, he had asked for military assistance. Subsequently, there were no specific requests for a certain number of men; but the whole tenour of the gallant General's despatches showed that he was continually expecting assistance, and in March he actually sent out scouts to see if the troops he had asked for were on their way. The Government at one time told him to leave Khartoum, and at another bade him stay; and, through the vacillating way in which they had treated him, we stood disgraced in the face of Europe and the world. The people of England called on the Government no longer to hesitate in the course they pursued. They had now got the necessary money, and they ought at once to send reinforcements. Only in yesterday's papers it was stated that General Gordon was surrounded by 16,000 Arabs, thirsting for his blood. To-day it appeared that the vacillation and hesitation of the Government were again conspicuous; that the much-talked-of scheme of the Berber Railway had been thrown overboard; and that the materials which were to have been used in its construction were to be sent to India. The Government now proposed another mode of rescuing Gordon—namely, by sending a force up the Nile and across the Desert to Berber. He called upon Ministers to hesitate no longer, but to behave like men and Englishmen in this matter. Let Lord Wolseley, whom he had noticed in the Gallery on the preceding evening watching the debate with interest, be sent at once with the necessary troops. He would suggest that those troops should be drawn from the ranks of our Native Indian soldiers, who were accustomed to a hot climate and to the habits of Oriental people. In any event, he trusted the Government would not let another moment go by without satisfying the country that the Government were alive to the responsibilities of their position, and that they would lose no time in rescuing General Gordon from the perilous position in which he was placed.
      MR. FRANCIS BUXTONsaid, he was of opinion that the Government should lose no time in withdrawing the British Forces entirely from Egypt. He hoped that before the Prorogation there would be a definite statement from Ministers that they were going to fulfil the

      401
      many pledges they had given from the very day they went to Egypt, to the effect that their stay there was to be only temporary. Early in the present Session the Secretary to the Treasury stated that, as far as he was concerned, the Egyptians should be left "to stew in their own juice." If he (Mr. Buxton) and many others had their way, the Egyptians would be left "to stew in their own juice." He was afraid, however, that at the present moment, from his point of view, things looked very dark. There were many signs that the Government, instead of withdrawing, were going to advance still further into Egypt. If it were not so, for what reason had they taken a Vote of Credit, which might mean not only that they intended to rescue General Gordon, but that they were going to stay at Khartoum? The House would rise for the Autumn Recess under a grave feeling of anxiety as to what the Government were going to do next, and he feared that before they met again, they might hear much more decided views than were now expressed as to the intentions of the Government and the future of Egypt. He knew not what other meaning to attach to the sending out to Egypt of a Member of the Cabinet with mysterious powers, the extent of which nobody knew, but which might lead to great changes in the policy of the Government.

    NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—INSUFFICIENCY OF WAYS AND MEANS.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had to apologize to Mr. Speaker and to the House for not having appeared in his place in time to submit the Amendment to the second reading of the Appropriation Bill which stood in his name. This was the result of an accident. The folowing were the terms of his Notice:—
      "That the provision contained in the Bill for securing the general objects for which Her Majesty's Navy is maintained is insufficient."
      He considered that it was a duty on his part to bring this subject under the attention of the House, since he (Mr. Newdegate) was the survivor of a Party in that House led by his lamented friend the late Lord George Bentinck, who, during the years 1848 and 1849, strongly contested the relaxation of the Naviga-
      402
      tion Laws then proposed, and afterwards carried. Of this any hon. Member might satisfy himself by a reference to Hansard. That great question was pending in the House when the late Lord George Bentinck died. A greater loss neither the House nor the country could scarcely have sustained. The form of the question before the House at the time to which he referred was not in detail the same as the form in which he desired now to submit it for its attention. Armour-plated vessels of war had not been introduced in 1848–9; but this rendered the preservation of the Mercantile Marine to the largest extent of great national importance, both as regards ships and men. The nationality of the Mercantile Marine was then an obvious object for the purposes of national defence, since this country, from this source and through these means, had obtained the command of the seas during the long War which ended in 1815. He (Mr. Newdegate) not only acted as Whipper-in to that Party at that time, but studied the subject. This was his reply to hon. Members who had observed in private—"What can the Member for the centre of England know about maritime affairs?" He (Mr. Newdegate) had never lost sight of the subject, and was perfectly aware that the subsequent practice of armouring, and of building iron and steel vessels of war, had produced a revolution in the system of maritime warfare, which had rendered the distinction between vessels of war and those of the Mercantile Marine infinitely more absolute than they were at the period to which he had referred. He (Mr. Newdegate) found that an impression was rife among hon. Members of that House that the Mercantile Marine could still be brought to a large degree as effectively in aid of Her Majesty's Navy now as it had been before the system of armour-plated war vessels had been introduced. This he believed that he could show upon good authority to be totally erroneous, and therefore a dangerous impression, for this false impression might be used by way of apology for insufficient Navy Estimates. He had it on high authority that an armour-plated war vessel of any considerable size could not be built in less than four years, at least. This was enough to indicate the danger which might arise from this mistake; he thought it, there-

      403
      fore, his duty to lay before the House a document which, supported as it was by other evidence, had produced a deep impression on his mind. The author of this letter, Admiral Symonds, was an officer of high rank; and he (Mr. Newdegate) understood, from everyone of whom he had inquired, that Admiral Symonds not only had been an efficient officer, but was a trustworthy man. The letter he was about to quote was sent to him (Mr. Newdegate) by the editor of a newspaper, entitled The Naval Engineer. He would not trouble the House with the commencement of the letter, which was filled with statistics to prove that the author, Admiral Symonds, had spared no pains to satisfy himself whether any portion, and, if any, what portion, of the Mercantile Marine could be quickly rendered, under existing circumstances, available for the actual purposes of maritime war. He would merely lay the statement and argument of the Admiral before the House. The statement ran thus—
      "The sailing vessels are very numerous, and more than half the commercial tonnage—useless during war, for if not kept safe in port, an enterprizing enemy would make bonfires of them from one end of the sea to the other. Remember the Alabama; in such a case the vessels composing the steam mercantile fleet would be far too few for its carrying duties, and could spare nothing to the fighting Navy (without being robbed), even if fit for such service, which I do not think they are, being easily sunk, set on fire, with engines, steering gear, &c., exposed to shot and shell. In fact, I have no hope of assistance to the fighting Navy; on the contrary, these vessels would add immensely to its duties. With the loss of more than half its tonnage by the necessary withdrawal of the sailing vessels, an additional steam fleet would have to be constructed, or the nation starve. This would give full occupation to the private yards. So I deem it a delusion expecting assistance from the Mercantile Marine and its private dockyards during war with a strong, active, naval Power. I rise from the study of its component parts with the greatest possible disappointment, on account of its excessive weakness, through the vast sailing fleet, &c., for the carrying duties it has to do, Britain being only provisioned for a few months of the year. The power of the engines is also generally too small to escape capture. Imagine this flock of sheep chased by wolves in war. The replacing the captured ones, accidents, &c., producing vessels of greater speed and coal-carrying power, &c., would give the private yards as much as they could manage; and at what expense could we hire? Under the above circumstances, it behoves us to keep our Navy in the best of good order, with 20 of the most modern and powerful iron-clads in reserve as our fortifications, of which iron-clads we have not one
      404
      afloat, with their accessories, such as torpedo vessels—not boats—attendants like the best Transatlantic steamers, of which I would have 25 ready in case of war, which would be both useful and economical in peace, as transports, troopers, store-ships, colliers, &c., and a good school for officers and men when at sea.—I am, sir, your humble servant,
      "Admiral of the Fleet,
      "THOMAS SYMONDS.
      "Torquay, June 20th, 1884."
      Admiral Symonds had subsequently published another letter; but since the matter of it was nothing like the importance of that which he (Mr. Newdegate) had thus ventured to lay before the House, he would not now advert to it. He (Mr. Newdegate) considered it his duty to bring this subject at once under the attention of the House. He hoped on Tuesday next to be permitted to venture some further observations upon this subject, which it was not possible to deny to be one of deep national importance.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not wish to say a single word which would have the appearance of depreciating the gravity of the subject which the hon. Member has brought before the House, or of depreciating the importance of the opinion he has quoted; but I do not think the hon. Member quite understands the position of the matter. Admiral Symonds is in the habit of writing letters; he writes many letters, and one of these, either by reason of its appearing in one of the public prints or in some other way, has fallen into the hands of the hon. Member, who seems to have been greatly struck by it. I may remind the hon. Member that Admiral Symonds does not occupy any special position as Admiral of the Fleet; he is one of several distinguished officers holding that rank; and I can assure the hon. Member that anything that officer says on this subject comes to the knowledge of the Admiralty and is fully weighed by them, and it is only after a full consideration of his views that the Government have made their proposals to the House. The question has been fully discussed on many occasions in Committee of Supply—I am not sure that I have had the pleasure of seeing my hon. Friend during those nights—and I do not think the House will expect me now to commence again any defence of the proposals of the Government, or to enter upon a disquisition on this subject. So far as the Ad-

      405
      miralty is concerned, they are fully aware of the necessities of the case, and I trust that the proposals we have made will be found to be sufficient.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

      MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.

        CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
        Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he had to complain that these Amendments had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members, who, consequently, had no opportunity of knowing what it was they were agreeing to.
        Lords' Amendment considered accordingly, and agreed to.

        MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [Lords].
        (Mr. Attorney General.)

        [BILL 175.] COMMITTEE.
        Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
        MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would now move that the Bill be read a third time, and, in doing so, would mention the fact that it had the approval of the President of the Probate and Divorce Division, and had been carefully considered in the House of Lords.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
        MR. WARTONsaid, he must protest against the Bill being hurried forward in this abrupt manner, particularly as it contained provisions contrary to what had been the law for centuries.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed.
        House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock till Monday next.