Sitting of 14 February 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Printing, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—City of Norwich (Mousehold Heath) Provisional Order * [105]; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order * [106]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (No. 2) * [107]; Valuation Metropolis Amendment* [108]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [109]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Isle of Wight) * [110].
Second Reading—Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment [57]; Dublin Museum of Science and Art * [59].

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND-REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under the Rules sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, it was provided that loans, under the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, to Irish fishermen might be repaid by instalments extending over ten years, as the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries

  851
  would recommend; if it be the fact that the Inspectors have not recommended the repayments of loans to fishermen in the county of Cork and other southern counties for a longer period than three years; and, if so, if he will advise the Inspectors to avail themselves of the powers given to them by the Privy Council, and give a more extended period for repayment of such instalments, the limited time now given being almost prohibitory, and, in many cases, involving the raising of money by borrowing at usurious interest to pay their instalments?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, 10 years is the maximum period allowed by the Privy Council Rules for the repayment of such loans. Generally, the loans granted in the counties of Cork and Kerry have been made repayable by instalments extending over three years; but in some cases the period has been longer. Each application is considered on its merits, and decided according to the necessities of the case, the ability of the persons to repay, and the probable success of the fishing. The Inspectors have not received any complaints as to the time fixed in cases in the county of Cork, and they do not think it is prohibitory, as nearly all the money available under the Act for that county has been taken up by borrowers. If the hon. Member has any detailed information which he thinks would be likely to lead the Inspectors to alter their views, I will be happy to forward it to them for their consideration, if he will enable me to do so. They assure me they will be ready to consider it.

  SCOTLAND—THE HIGHLAND CROFTERS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—TENANTS OF GENERAL BURROUGHS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that General Burroughs, a landed proprietor of Orkney, who refused to give the Royal Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland any assurance that he would not dispossess his tenants in consequence of any statements made in evidence before the Commission, has since evicted two of the crofter witnesses; whether it is true that he has obtained in the sheriff court of the county a decree of eviction against
  852
  the brother of one of the witnesses, to be carried out in case he sheltered his evicted brother or his family; and, whether, in all or any of the cases, the de-decree granted was one of summary ejectment?
  MR. DALRYMPLE: Before the Lord Advocate answers the Question, I may be permitted to ask whether he has received information to the effect that the witnesses referred to in the Question were not crofters, but only relatives of the crofters, and only permitted to remain on the land temporarily as squatters, and whether the relations existing between General Burroughs and his tenants had been of a peaceful and friendly character up to the period of the unfortunate excitement caused by the inquiries of the Crofters' Commission?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is the ease that General Burroughs, in September last, raised two actions in the Sheriff Court, in each of which two defenders were called. One action was for the removal of Peter Leonard and James Leonard from the farms at Digro, at the term of Martinmas following. The father of Peter and James Leonard had been tenant of that farm. He had died within the year, and the object of the action appears to have been to obtain the removal of James Leonard as a squatter, occupying without title, Peter Leonard, who is a cabinet-maker in Kirkwall, having been called only as heir-at-law of his father. The other action was for the summary ejection of James Grieve, his brother, from the farm at Outerdykes, the object in this case having been to eject James Grieve as a squatter without title, Malcolm Grieve having been made a party to the action only to provide for the possible event of its turning out that he had sublet part of the farm to his brother, contrary to the rules of the estate. James Leonard and James Grieve both gave evidence before the Royal Commission. No appearance was entered or defence made in either action, and the Sheriff, therefore, as a matter of course, granted decree as craved in them both. In reply to the additional Question, I have to say that the point whether the men were tenants or squatters was not raised or disputed, as there was no defence; and on the last part of the Question, as to which opposing allegations have been made, it may be right to refer

  853
  to the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and to the letters appearing in the newspapers, particularly to a letter dated 13th October, in which General Burroughs' explanations were given, and which, I believe, will form part of the print appended to the Report of the Commission.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give Notice that on an early occasion I shall call the attention of the House to the conduct of General Burroughs in this matter.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I understood the Lord Advocate to say that one of the witnesses was a tenant and the other a squatter. I wish to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, in the Agricultural Holdings Act, he accepted an Amendment of mine requiring that in the case of a yearly tenant six months' notice must be given, and if that Act is in force, how does it happen that he can be ejected summarily?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. I carefully avoided giving an opinion as to whether the men were tenants or squatters, not having information on which I could form a conclusive opinion. The matter has not come before the Courts for decision. The latter part of the Question is very easily answered. The Agricultural Holdings Act did not come into operation until the 1st of January of this year, while they were removed in October of last year.

  OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR—REPORT OF PROSECUTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Papers regarding the inquiry into the question of Public Prosecutions will be laid before the House; whether he has Reports of the present Prosecutor, showing the working of his office, the cases in which he has prosecuted or refused to prosecute, and the grounds of his action or refusal, and will produce them; and, whether any decision has been come to for placing the office on a more satisfactory footing?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, the Departmental Committee on Public Prosecutions had the question of preparing Reports under consideration; but as to the exact time of their production he
  854
  could not say. The Reports of the present Prosecutor, showing the working of his office, were sent in from time to time. Some of them extended over six years, and were very bulky, giving detailed reasons for prosecuting; and he was afraid it would not be possible to print them and lay them before the House.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—JUDGES ON CIRCUIT.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any measure is in contemplation for obviating the inconvenience resulting to the administrators of Justice from the present system of sending the Lords Justices and Judges of the Chancery and Admiralty Divisions on Circuit; and, whether it is intended to rearrange the Circuits for greater convenience and economy of judicial strength?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, the Lord Chancellor had been in communication with certain Judges, and also with the Law Officers of the Crown, endeavouring to form a scheme by which the Judges would be relieved to some extent from constant absence from town, visiting counties where the business of the Assize was very small. No final decision had been come to in reference to the scheme, but every attention had been paid to it.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked if the re-arranging of the Circuits was under consideration?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Judges were considering as to what extent further re-arrangements could be made.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. PETER O'BRIEN, Q.C., AND DR. BOYD, Q.C.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the language used by Mr. Peter O'Brien, Q.C., Crown Prosecutor for Green Street, to Dr. Boyd, Q.C., during the Barbavilla Murder trial; whether he observed that Mr. Peter O'Brien, while withdrawing the observation complained of at the direction of the Chief Justice, refused to apologise; and, whether the Government will continue him in his office under the Crown?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Sir, I saw

  855
  at the time, in the public Press, the report of the proceedings in Green Street Court-house, that during the hearing of the Barbavilla murder cases, Mr. P. O'Brien and Dr. Boyd, having both lost their tempers—an infirmity from which lawyers are not exempt—Mr. O'Brien, in an under tone, made some observation to Dr. Boyd. Dr. Boyd called the attention of the Lord Chief Justice to the observation, and Mr. O'Brien apologized for using the expression in the presence of the Court, but declined to apologize to Dr. Boyd. I may add that both gentlemen are now excellent friends again, and the Government have no intention of interfering with Mr. O'Brien's office.
  MR. BIGGARasked whether the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to the fact that Mr. O'Brien had also used a very coarse epithet in reference to Judge Johnson, and whether the use of that epithet did not justify his removal from the position he held?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): My attention has been called to that circumstance by an observation of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in debate, and I am in a position to give it a complete contradiction.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CHARGE OF FORCIBLE ENTRY.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, On what date was Mrs. Fallon of Loughrea committed to gaol, and upon what charge; to what offence did she plead guily at the Con-naught Winter Assizes; what directions were given, if any, by Judge O'Brien concerning her custody; whether he passed any sentence upon her; when Mrs. Fallon was released; who is responsible for her further detention in prison; by whose instructions was she released; and what reason existed for her release at the date on which it took place which did not exist at any time after her plea at the assizes?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Mr. Fallon was arrested at Loughrea on the 22nd July, 1883, upon a charge of taking forcible possession of a house, and for assault and abusive language. On the 10th of December, at the Assizes held at Sligo, she pleaded guilty, by the advice
  856
  of her legal adviser, to the charge of taking forcible entry, and the prosecuting counsel left the matter in the hands of the Judge. The only direction given by the Judge was that she should be discharged when she entered into two recognizances of £10 each before a Resident Magistrate when possession was delivered up, and to come up for judgment when called on on receiving 10 days' notice. This course was assented to by her legal adviser, but no other sentence than that involving this direction was passed by the Judge. Mrs. Fallon was released on the 7th of January, 1884, by order of the Lord Lieutenant. She was detained in prison till then, pending her recognizances. Her legal adviser did not inform the Judge that she had no power to give up possession of the house, and she was released by direction of the Lord Lieutenant, with the concurrence of the Judge, as soon as this fact was communicated to His Excellency, which it was by letter on the 4th of January; and the reason for her release, which then existed, and which did not exist at Assizes, was her inability to perform the condition of giving up possession, which was then for the first time laid before His Excellency.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it was in accordance with Constitutional practice for a person to be kept in prison pending the signing of recognizances, which might involve, if a person was not able to perform it, detention for life?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.
  MR. HEALY: What sentence was passed on the woman? ["Order, order!"] That is involved in the Question I have asked.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MEETING AT RATHMINES—MR. ELLIOTT (A RATE COLLECTOR).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the attendance of Pate Collector Elliott at the recent Conservative meeting in Rathmines, county Dublin; whether, in view of the fact that the making up of the Supplemental List in the South Dublin Union depends largely upon this gentleman, the Local Government

  857
  Board approve of his attendance at partizan demonstrations; and, if it is the fact that a complaint has been lodged with the Local Government Board? In putting this Question, I may say that the last paragraph should read—"A complaint has been lodged with the Local Government Board about the Supplementary Lists."
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen a report of a meeting held at Rathmines to criticize the conduct of the Government in connection with the case of Lord Rossmore, and Mr. Elliott's name is in the list of persons reported to have attended. The Local Government Board do not approve of rate collectors or other Union officers attending Party meetings; but they do not see how they can properly take notice of the fact of Mr. Elliott's attendance at this meeting. I think the hon. Gentleman is hardly aware of the number and diversity of cases such a precedent would open up. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, the hon. Member has made a proper correction. No complaint has been lodged against Mr. Elliott in particular, but a communication has been made to the Local Government Board by the "County Dublin National Registration Association," calling attention to alleged errors in the lists of voters prepared in several Unions in the county of Dublin, and the Local Government Board are in correspondence with the clerks of these Unions on the subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—MR. MACRAE, PROCURATOR FISCAL FOR ORKNEY.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Mr. John Macrae, procurator fiscal for Orkney, is the private agent of General Burroughs; whether, in connection with proceedings consequent on the receipt of a threatening letter by General Burroughs, Mr. Macrae proceeded to the Island of Rousay in a gunboat, along with the superintendent of the Kirkwall police, and arrested Frederick Leonard and Samuel Mainland, lads of fourteen and fifteen years of age respectively, and sons of obnoxious crofters; whether Leonard was examined as a person suspected of complicity in the crime, or as a witness; if as a prisoner, would he explain why was he not examined in the presence of
  858
  the sheriff, and if as a witness, why was he made to give specimens of his handwriting by writing to the fiscal's dictation; whether Mainland was arrested and brought to Kirkwall for examination as a witness or a suspected party; if as a witness, why was he not cited for precognition in the usual manner, and why was he examined before the sheriff, and, if as a prisoner, why was he not detained in the hands of the police until examined, and whether he received the usual caution that anything he said would be used against him; whether it is a fact that Mainland was subjected to two hours' examination and made to sign his name several times; and, if he would lay before the House a copy of the boys' precognitions or declarations, and also of the warrants, if any, under which they were arrested?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I am informed that Mr. Macrae, the Procurator Fiscal, is the private law agent of General Burroughs. In connection with a threatening letter received by General Burroughs, the Sheriff of the county accompanied by the Procurator Fiscal, and the Superintendent of Police, who is also a Sheriff's officer, went in a gunboat, which was then at the service of the Sheriff, as member of the Fishery Board, to the Island of Rousay. Frederick Leonard was not arrested, but voluntarily gave evidence in precognition as a witness. The Procurator Fiscal states that when Leonard's examination was concluded, he was satisfied that he could give no information bearing on this charge, and he then asked him to give a specimen of his handwriting for the boy's exoneration. Mainland was arrested on suspicion under warrant of the Sheriff, and brought to Kirkwall. He was permitted by the police officer, on his own responsibility, to sleep with his brother, instead of being detained in prison. He did receive the usual caution from the Sheriff. His declaration was very carefully taken by the Sheriff, and occupied something over an hour. He signed each page in the usual way, as well as the marginal additions. The case is still under investigation, and I must decline to depart from the invariable rule under which the precognitions are kept private, and also the declarations, while inquiry is pending. I have, however, no objection to lay on the Table

  859
  of the House the warrant for Mainland's apprehension, if it is desired.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I ask whether any measures are in progress to obviate the scandal of allowing a public officer like the Procurator Fiscal being at the same time private agent for other parties?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): That question was very fully gone into by the Royal Commission of 1868, appointed to examine into the administration of justice in Scotland. Speaking from memory, I may say that the majority of the Commissioners thought that there should be no absolute rule laid down against Procurators Fiscal accepting private business; but in point of practice recently, where the salary has been such as to make it possible to obtain a suitable person, who would devote himself exclusively to the duties of Procurator Fiscal, we have made it our business to obtain such a person.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Is it not a common practice for one person to be jointly Public Prosecutor and private agent? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that this tends to the proper and impartial administration of the law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Except in a very few of the larger places in Scotland, the salary is certainly not such as would obtain the sole services of the proper sort of official for the post; and accordingly it is for the public to consider whether they will pay a very largely increased salary to obtain such sole services. Further, the question is not one of money only, but also of efficiency. Even if Prosecutors Fiscal were uniformly confined exclusively to their public duties, they would in many of the smaller places have little to do, and, therefore, would possess very much less of the qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of their duties than they now have, from being men actively engaged and experienced in business. I am bound to say, speaking for the Procurators Fiscal of Scotland as a body—and I see no reason for making an exception in this case—that whenever they find, even those who are not restrained by the terms of their office, that there is the least likelihood of there being even any apparent conflict between the discharge of their public duty
  860
  and their private business, they surrender their private business in favour of their public duty.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to give Notice that, on an early day, I will call attention to this subject, and move a Resolution.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—PROPOSED FEVER AND SMALL POX HOSPITAL AT WINCHMORE HILL.
  MR. COOPEasked the President of the Local Government Board, What application was made by the Southgate Local Board to the Local Government Board with reference to the purchase of a site, at Winchmore Hill, by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, for the purpose of the erection thereon of a Convalescent Fever and Small Pox Hospital; and, why no opportunity was afforded to the Southgate Board of being heard before the decision of the Local Government Board?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Local Government Board received a communication from the Southgate Local Board on the 11th of January last, in which they stated that they were not aware to what extent the matter was under our control, but that they trusted that they might rely on such assistance as we could afford in averting the erection of the hospital at Winchmore Hill, which is within their district. The proposal of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District to purchase this site had not at that time been submitted to us. When the application of the managers was received, we, having given the subject our careful consideration, saw no sufficient reason for withholding our consent to the purchase by the managers of the site in question, and we informed the managers that we assented to the proposal. After this communication was made to the managers, we received a letter from the Local Board asking us to receive a deputation on the subject; but, having assented to the proposals of the managers, we did not consider that any advantage could result from receiving a deputation, as proposed. I may add that the proposal of the managers, which has been sanctioned by us, is to purchase the site for a hospital for convalescent fever patients, and not for convalescent fever and small-pox patients. The site comprises more than 36 acres.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE OF CIRCULARS.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the advisability of extending to the country towns the practice of accepting payment in cash for the postage of circulars and letters despatched in large numbers through the Post?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the system of payment in cash for postage in bulk, which formerly was only allowed in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, has lately been extended, when the postage amounts to £5 and upwards, to certain Provincial cities. I think there would be serious objections to extending the system, as the hon. Member suggests, to all country towns; but I will gladly consider whether it cannot be extended to other Provincial towns besides those which are now included in the arrangements.

  PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WESTMINSTER HALL—THE WEST FRONT.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he proposes to make any alterations in Westminster Hall; and, if so, whether he will allow a plan of them to be exhibited in the Library for a reasonable time before the work is carried out?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the architect, Mr. Pearson, has not yet completed his plans or his report upon the restoration of the west front of Westminster Hall. But I hope to have them before the end of this month. I have already promised that nothing shall be done until the House has had an opportunity of considering the proposals.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA).
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that only 373 miles of Railway have been constructed in India during the last year against 726 miles in 1881–2, and 836 miles in 1880–81; and, if he can state the reason why the Railway development of India has been so retarded?
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was true that the opposition to the extension of Railways in India for some time back was due to the distrust enter-
  862
  tained by the Natives of the promotion of the Railway Company; whether some of the opponents of the guaranteed Railway in Hyderabad were not removed forcibly from Hyderabad territory with the consent of the British authorities; and, whether the guaranteed Railway referred to in the Question was not being hawked in London under the auspices of a member of the Supreme Council of India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the only point I wish to notice with regard to those Questions is the last one—the aspersion cast upon the members of the Supreme Council of India. No member of the Council of India has anything whatever to do with the Hyderabad Railway. As to the other Questions, I must ask for Notice of them. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Car-butt), if by "constructed" he means "completed and open for traffic," his figures are quite accurate. But, for purposes of comparison, the number of miles under construction should be added. The result for the three years is thus:—1880–1, 836 completed, 856 under construction; total, 1,692 miles; 1881–2, 726 completed, 2,026 under construction; total, 2,752 miles; 1882–3, 373 completed, 2,338 under construction; total, 2,611 miles. From these figures it does not appear that the railway development of India has been practically retarded.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is not the late Finance Minister of Bengal a member of the Supreme Council, and is it he or his brother who is promoting the railway?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The gentleman referred to by the hon. Member, who was recently a member of the Governor General's Council, is not a member of the Council of India.

  METROPOLIS—CUSTOMS WATERMEN (PORT OF LONDON).
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that great discontent prevails among the established Customs watermen of the Port of London, in consequence of their small prospects of promotion, an officer in the second class having to give some twenty years' service before he reaches the first class, and before he obtains any increase to his salary, and also in consequence of the inadequate system of superannuation, any steps will be taken for redressing

  863
  the grievances of this body of public servants?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this class was under consideration so recently as 1882, and the Board of Customs do not recommend any change in the arrangements then made. Applications for appointments in it are extremely numerous, and far in excess of the number of vacancies. The hon. Member is in error in supposing that these men get no increase in their salary until they are promoted; as a matter of fact, it increases for the first 10 years of service. They get the same rate of pension as other Civil servants. I can hold out no hope of an improvement in their position.

  FISHERY PIERS (IRELAND)—THE GLIN FISHERMEN.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps, if any, have been taken in pursuance of his promise to afford the din fishermen a passage to the important salmon fishing berth on the adjacent beach, where these men will be employed during the fishing season?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I made the inquiries which I promised in this case, both at the office of Inspectors of Fisheries and the office of the Board of Works; but the result did not show any way in which the Government could satisfactorily intervene directly. The dispute as to a right of way is very unfortunate; but it is clearly not a matter as to which the Government could interfere. I have placed the matter before the Fishery Piers Commission, who have the administration of the fund provided by the Act of last Session, and I hope that they may be able to carry out such alteration of the pier or its approaches as will remove the existing difficulty.

  FRANCE AND ITALY—THE PUBLIC GAMING TABLES AT MONTE CARLO AND AIX-LES-BAINS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the circumstance that three suicides and one assassination were lately reported from Monte Carlo in one week; if Her Majesty's Government will make friendly representations to the Governments of France and Italy, with a view to getting
  864
  them to unite in insisting on the suppression of the public gaming tables in the Principality of Monaco; and, if Her Majesty's Government will also make friendly representations to the Government of France regarding the continuance of public gaming tables at Aix les Bains?
  MR. ONSLOW: Before the noble Lord answers that Question, I should like to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will, at the same time, make friendly representations to the same Governments, with a view to uniting with them for the prevention of gambling and bubble companies on the Stock Exchange?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would like also to ask whether Her Majesty's Government has received friendly representations from the Principality of Monaco and the Government of France regarding the continued betting carried on at New market and other parts of England?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think I had better answer the Question put on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been called in any official manner to this circumstance; and they are not in a position to make any representation to the Governments of France and Italy on the subject.

  IRELAND—LOYALIST MEETING AT THE ROTUNDA, DUBLIN.
  MR. RICHARD POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Since, in the month of January, 1883, a prosecution was instituted by Her Majesty's Government against Joseph Biggar, M.P., for having stated in Waterford that—
  "The conviction of Francis Hynes was illegal according to British Law, and that fact was known to Earl Spencer, whom he considered a bloodthirsty English Peer; "
  and that, at a public meeting of so-called Loyalists, held at the Rotundo, Dublin, on the 24th of January last, Mr. Hugh Holmes, Q.C., the late Solicitor General for Ireland, said—
  " Let us not forget that, morally if not legally, pre-eminently and in the first degree, the blood of that young man Giffin rests on the head of the Lord Lieutenant, who, to please a rebel faction, deliberately declined to exercise the powers vested in him; "
  and, inasmuch as such a grave charge of

  865
  murder has since been circulated with the sanction of Mr. Holmes, in a pamphlet form, has any prosecution been directed in reference thereto, and if the Chief Secretary can explain what are the reasons which have led to a different course being adopted in one case from that in the other?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the prosecution of the hon. Member for Cavan was not proceeded with by the Government.
  MR. HEALY: Why, why? ["Order!"]
  MR. TREVELYAN: It was not proceeded with.
  MR. HEALY: Because of the Grand, Jury. ["Order!"]
  MR. TREVELYAN: And it must be remembered that the circumstances of Ireland, and especially of Dublin, at the time when the hon. Member for Cavan made the speech referred to, were such as to make it to be feared that great danger to the Lord Lieutenant, as well as to Judges and jurors, would result from the use of such language. I do not think that the same can be said of the speech of Mr. Holmes, and the Government has no intention of instituting any proceedings against him. I shall not take advantage of this Question to express my own opinion about the language of Mr. Holmes.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the reason the prosecution of the hon. Member for Cavan was not continued was because the High Sheriff of Waterford and some others of the Grand Jury would not return a true bill?
  MR. HARRINGTON: I wish to ask whether Mr. Holmes, when he made that speech, was a member of a secret armed organization in Ireland?
  [No reply was given.]

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE LOWER BANN.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Board of Works upon the drainage of the Lower Bann?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Report on the drainage of the Lower Bann is expected to be in the hands of Government in about a month from now. Until it has been received I cannot say what
  866
  Papers should be laid before Parliamen on the subject; but care will be taken to announce the decision to those interested at the earliest possible moment.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—RETURN OF BRITISH VESSELS IN QUARANTINE IN ITALIAN, AUSTRIAN, AND FRENCH PORTS IN 1883.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause to be prepared and lay upon the Table a Return of all English Vessels that have been placed in Quarantine in Italian, Austrian, and French Ports during the year 1883, stating the period of detention in Quarantine, and the number of cases of Cholera (if any) that have occurred on board such Vessels during the time of their detention?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he had inquired into that subject, but there was no information at the Board of Trade with reference to the vessels detained in. quarantine. He had also inquired at the Foreign Office, and found that they were unable to give information, except in regard to cases where complaint had been addressed to them.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATES.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the arrangement at present subsisting with regard to divisional magistrates in Ireland; and, if he will give a Return stating their names, salaries, staffs, and districts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to say that in lieu of six divisions, comprising 20 counties, under Special Resident Magistrates, four divisions—comprising the same counties—were constituted on the 1st of October last under four Divisional Magistrates, one of whom is an Assistant Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The main difference between the present and the past systems is that the Resident Magistrates, who used to be under the control and direction of the Special Resident Magistrates, act independently of the Divisional Magistrates, and are not under their direction or control. I have no objection to give a Return stating their names, staffs, and districts. Their salaries, which will appear in a Supplemental Estimate, will be £1,000 a-year, without allowances.

  IRELAND—THE LOYALIST MEETING AT THE ROTUNDA, DUBLIN—MR. R. W. GAMBLE, Q.C.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. E. W. Gamble, Q C. who attended an Orange meeting, held in the Rotunda, Dublin, on the 24th ultimo, in support of Lord Rossmore, and in condemnation of the Executive for having superseded him in the Commission of the Peace, and who by his presence concurred in those proceedings, is the same person as Robert Wilson Gamble, Q.C. County Court Judge of Armagh and Louth; and whether, if so, the Government will consider whether it can be followed that a person in a judicial position should publicly associate himself with approval of the conduct of a superseded magistrate and with attacks upon the Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Gamble is not an officer of the Executive Government, or subject to their control. Probably the hon. Member is aware Mr. Gamble is a Judge, and can only be removed from office by an Address of both Houses of Parliament. It might, of course, be the duty of the Government to consider whether in any case they are called upon to introduce or support a Motion for such an Address. In the present case they do not consider they are so called upon. Mr. Gamble appears to have gone to the gallery of the Rotunda in order to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster speak. The advertisement calling the meeting was as follows:—
  "Loyalist Demonstration. An aggregate meeting of Loyalists will be hold in the Round Room of the Rotunda on Thursday, 24th instant, at 8 o'clock p.m. The Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P., and others, will address the meeting."
  That is the whole of the advertisement, and that is all Mr. Gamble appears to have known about the meeting.
  MR. GIBSON: Was it in the ladies' gallery?
  MR. SEXTON: I am obliged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was the meeting at which a member of the Bar stated that the blood of Giffen rested on the head of the Lord Lieutenant, and at which murderous placards were circulated in reference to the meet-
  868
  ing at Kill-o'-the-Grange; and, also, with what official rests the power to reprimand a County Court Judge, and to inform him that he had better not attend such meetings in the future?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That was the meeting at which the language in question was used, and that was the meeting at which placards were circulated which I will not characterize by any epithet; but about which I shall say this—that the persons who issued them were forced to give up the meeting for fear of the consequences which might ensue. There is no official who can call Mr. Gamble to account.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the gentlemen who issued this murderous placard have not been proceeded against under the Prevention of Crime Act?
  MR. DAWSON: Might I ask, also, whether at that meeting there was any hostile demonstration towards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster?
  MR. HARRINGTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Mr. Gamble is the same Judge who, trying a man in Kerry some years ago for stealing, sentenced him to be executed?
  [No reply was given to these Questions.]

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE IRISH LANGUAGE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet had the conference with Sir Patrick Keenan (referred to in his recent interview with the Council of the Gaelic Union) as to the teaching of the Irish language to Irish-speaking children in the National Schools of Ireland; and, if so, whether he can indicate the result?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I beg to say that, instead of a personal conference with Sir Patrick Keenan, I thought it best to submit the Question, by special letter, to the consideration of the whole Board of National Education, and I have reason to know that I shall have a reply from them next week. I shall be very glad to lay my letter on the Table of the House, and I hope to do the same with the reply.

  EGYPT—DEBTS OF THE FELLAHEEN.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has been brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that the usurers in many districts of Upper Egypt have lately made contracts with the Local Governors to collect their debts on condition of receiving a per-centage; and, whether in this way the Government forces, police and soldiers, have been turned into bailiffs, with the result of making the Government more than ever detested by the fellaheen?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No information to this effect has reached Her Majesty's Government; but the whole subject of the indebtedness of the fellaheen is occupying the careful attention of the authorities in Egypt, as the Blue Books already presented will show.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—CHANCERY DIVISION—TAXING MASTERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the delay in concluding Chancery Suits arising from the block of business in the Taxing Offices; whether it is a fact that it is rarely possible to obtain an appointment to tax a long bill under several weeks; and, whether it would not be possible to dispose of the arrears of business by opening the Taxing Master's Offices during a portion of the long vacation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that there was no block of business in the taxing offices of the Chancery Division. One taxing master was in attendance throughout the whole of the Long Vacation.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (METROPOLIS).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Committee on the subject of Artizans' and Labourers 'Dwellings, 1882; and, whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill, without delay, to confer upon the local authorities, in places near London, but outside the jurisdiction of the Metro-
  870
  politan Board of Works, additional powers with regard to new buildings, as unanimously recommended by that Committee?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Select Committee on Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings recommended that many of the sanitary provisions of the Metropolitan Building Acts be at once extended to the suburbs under the control of the several sanitary authorities. This recommendation appears to have been made on the assumption that in the districts described as the suburbs the existing law as to the construction of buildings is, in the matter of sanitary details, insufficient and inferior to that applicable to the Metropolitan area. The evidence submitted to the Committee on the subject was of a vague and meagre character. It does not appear that any members or officers of the local authorities in the suburbs were examined as to the statutory provisions and by-laws in force in their districts and the action of the authorities with regard to them. The urban authorities in the suburbs are, by the Public Health Act, empowered to make by-laws as to the structure of walls, foundations, roofs, and chimneys of buildings, for securing stability and the prevention of fires; and for purposes of health, as to the space about buildings, to secure a free circulation of air, as to the ventilation and drainage of buildings, as to water-closets, ashpits, &c, and as to the closing of buildings unfit for human habitation. The by-laws may be enforced by penalty, and, in certain cases, the alteration or pulling down of work done in contravention of the by-laws. Rural sanitary authorities may be invested with similar powers where necessary. Building bylaws have been made in the several urban sanitary districts in the suburbs of the Metropolis, and with regard to several of the parishes in the rural districts in the suburbs. The Local Government Board in 1877 issued a model series of by-laws for the guidance of sanitary authorities, and in all cases in which by-laws have since been made they have been either wholly or to a great extent based on this model. These by-laws, so far as they relate to sanitary matters, have a much wider range than those in the Metropolitan Building Acts and by-laws of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and are superior to those

  871
  provisions. The provisions in these bylaws, especially as to open spaces about buildings, as to ventilation, drainage, and the details of the construction of water-closets, ashpits, &c, are much more precise and stringent than the regulations in force in the Metropolis. Looking to the powers which sanitary authorities in the suburbs possess with regard to sanitary details in the construction of buildings, it docs not appear to be necessary to extend to the suburbs any provision of the Metropolitan Building Acts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask whether the model by-laws will be laid on the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I shall have no objection to present them to the House; but they are only one set of an immense number issued by the Local Government Board.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks the state of things outside the Metropolitan Board of Works district is satisfactory, not as regards the by-laws, but as regards the buildings?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That embraces a very much wider question—that is, of the composition and power of the local authorities to enforce those by-laws. I fear I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman without introducing matters of debate; but my own impression is that an improvement of the local government throughout the country is necessary to deal with the subject.

  INDIA—BENGAL TENANCY BILL.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that it is not now intended to press the Bengal Tenancy Bill during the present Session of the Legislative Council in Calcutta; and, if so, whether the opportunity will be taken of inquiring, by means of a small Commission, into the justice of the complaints made by the landowners in Bengal and Behar against the provisions of the Bill, alleging it to be confiscatory in its provisions and an undoubted breach of the permanent settlement?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the magnitude and importance of the Bengal Tenancy Bill are such that it is quite possible that it may not be passed during the
  872
  current Session. The Secretary of State, however, has not received any information to this effect from the Government of India. A Commission has already sat and inquired at great length into the whole subject, and I can assure the hon. Member that any complaints against the provisions of the Bill will be carefully considered by the Select Committee of the Governor General's Council, to which it has, in accordance with the usual practice, been referred.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—OVERCROWDING AT SEA—THE "WARWICK CASTLE."
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether complaints have reached him of overcrowding on board the Orient Steam Navigation Company's steamship Warwick Castle, which sailed from Plymouth for Sydney on January 19th with over 600 emigrants; whether the ship underwent, before sailing, any, and what, official inspection with a view to insuring the sufficiency of accommodation for that number of emigrants; whether the ship is of any more than 2,000 tons burden; and, if he will order a further and more searching inspection to be made as soon as may be after the ship's arrival at Sydney?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, Sir, the vessel referred to by the hon. Member appears to be the Warwick, and not the Warwick Castle. She has been chartered by the Orient Steam Navigation Company, and sailed from Plymouth for Sydney on January 19. This vessel is entitled under the Merchant Shipping Acts to carry 632 passengers, and under the Passenger Acts to carry 586 statute adults. On the present voyage there were 623 passengers on board, equal to 515 &½ statute adults. The net registered tonnage of the vessel is 1,648, the gross tonnage 2,527. The vessel underwent before sailing the usual official survey and inspection, and no complaints as to overcrowding have reached the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have, how-over, communicated with the Agent General for New South Wales, and have suggested that the vessel should be inspected on her arrival at Sydney and the result reported.
  MR. STUART-WORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any other complaints have reached him?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of no complaint except that contained in the Question, and a similar Question put to me by another Member of Parliament.

  THE BOARD OF WORKS-DISMISSAL OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true, as stated in The Civilian of February 9th, that five officials of the Board of Works have been dismissed in consequence of dishonest conduct. in connection with public contracts; and, if such dismissals have taken place, whether he will give information to the House as to the names and appointments of the officials in question, and as to the nature of the charges alleged against them?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the de tails given in the paper referred to by my hon. Friend are not accurate; but I am sorry to say that there is much foundation for the substance of the statement. The facts are these. In consequence of changes which I made last year in the Office of Works, it has recently come to light that the contractors for the supply of an article very largely in use in the Public Departments—namely, linoleum, have for some time past been supplying a very inferior article, charging for it the full price for the best material under the contract. They have also, in several cases, charged for linoleum in excess of the quantity delivered. On submitting the case to the Law Officers of the Crown, I was advised that, upon the information before us, it was not expedient to prosecute this firm for fraud, but that the overcharge should be recovered against them. In some few cases the inferior linoleum was rejected by the officers of the Department, but in the great majority of cases the officers responsible for the receipt of these goods accepted them, and upon their certificate as to quality and quantity the contractors were paid. The case was of so serious a character, involving such gross and repeated breaches of duty—if not something more serious—that I have felt it my painful duty, in the interests of the Department and of the Public Service, to dismiss four officers—namely, the superintendent of furniture, an officer with a salary of £540 a-year, and three of his assistants, with salaries of about £200 a-year.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask whether the supply of these articles is open to public competition?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The prices were obtained by public tender about four years ago, and were very low; and on the recommendation of these officers the contracts were renewed during the last four years on the representation that the contractors supplied an admirable article.
  MR. RYLANDS: Is it a fact that there are one or two other clerks in the Office who have been suspended, or whose cases are under consideration?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Two or three other officers are implicated, but not to so serious an extent. I have not found it necessary to treat them with the same stringency as the others, but I have not yet finally decided what course is to be adopted in their case.
  MR. RYLANDS: We may hope that some steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of such conduct.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The discovery took place in consequence of changes made last year.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the discovery with regard to this linoleum will stimulate an inquiry as to other articles of furniture—I mean in the direction of those matters which the right hon. Gentleman may remember I raised last year?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Of course, Sir, inquiry will be made with regard to other articles.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Have these officials been concerned in drawing up the Estimates for the ensuing year?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No, Sir.
  MR. HEALY: I should like to ask whether in future the right hon. Gentleman will give directions that Estimates shall be prepared in every case and public advertisement given?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Most certainly, Sir.

  HOME AND COLONIAL DEFENCES-LEGISLATION.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any proposals for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and of the War Office Committee, with regard to the defence of our prin-

  875
  cipal seaports and coaling stations at home and in the Colonies; and, if so, whether he is able to give the House any information as to the nature of these proposals, or the time at which they will be made?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, this subject has been under the consideration of the Government, and I hope to be able to make a statement upon it on the Army Estimates.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether prisoners in English county and convict prisons are released, upon application, when their health is known to be in such a state that death is near at hand; and, if it is the practice, where death occurs in prison, for the authorities to give up the body for interment to any friends who may apply for it?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; it is the practice in all cases where prisoners are reported to be near death, or where it is reported by the medical officer that further imprisonment would endanger life, that the prisoner is released. That is the general practice, and it is quite necessary to prevent punishment degenerating into barbarity and cruelty. Of course, proper inquiry is made whether the prisoners have a home to go to, where they could receive some degree of comfort, otherwise they would remain in prison. With reference to the last Question, as a general rule, when a prisoner dies in prison and the friends desire to remove the body for burial, it is allowed. I am not speaking, of course, of cases of capital execution, and there might be rare exceptions in other eases in which the practice was likely to be abused. These are the rules pursued in the English county and convict prisons.
  MR. HEALY: Consequent upon the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he can explain why Michael Waters, one of the Crossmaglen prisoners, was kept in gaol until he died, although the Government knew he was dying, for they telegraphed that he was dying to his friends; and why it was that when his unfortunate uncle claimed his body it was re-'fused, and was subsequently buried at dead of night in Glasnevin by policemen?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I remember the general circumstances of this case very well, but I would prefer to have the particulars, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the Question on Monday.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I wish to ask whether, in the recent deaths in Cork Gaol, one prisoner sentenced to 12 months, and one to two months, died in the course of three weeks; and why their friends were not previously communicated with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Because the Home Secretary has answered a Question is no reason why I should be asked over again a Question which I answered a few days ago. I gave the reasons on that occasion why one of those prisoners was not discharged. Those reasons were considered by the Irish Government satisfactory. In the other case I said the Irish Government wanted further particulars.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that his right hon. and learned Colleague has just characterized such conduct as heartless barbarity?

  STATE OF IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Johnston, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fisheries in Ireland, attended and spoke, on the 19th October last, at a political meeting convened by the Dublin Constitutional (Conservative) Club; on the 3rd and 4th of October, at political party meetings and a political banquet at Belfast; on the 4th December, at an Orange Soirée of "The Royal Hobals Black Perceptory," in Dublin, (at which, on the motion of the grand chaplain of the Orange Society, a motion was adopted—
  "That this meeting records its solemn protest against the action of the Government in depriving Lord Rossmore of the Commission of the Peace, and regard the step so taken as a slur on the loyalists of Ireland); "
  on the 8th of January ult. at a political meeting in Lower Gloucester Street, Dublin; and, towards the end of January, at a banquet in honour of Lord Rossmore, a superseded magistrate, in the Rotunda, Dublin; and whether the speeches made by him on several of

  877
  those occasions were calculated to excite ill-will and hostility between Her Majesty's subjects; whether this Mr. William Johnston is the same person respecting whom the Right hon. Gentleman stated, on the 23rd July last year, that he should not have attended a political demonstration at which he had attended and spoken on the 12th of that month, and that he had been informed such was the view of the Government; whether Mr. Johnston is the same official in regard to whom he made the following statement on the 31st July last year—
  "So far as I have been able to ascertain, he was twice cautioned in 1879 by the Government then in office, and reminded of his obligations as a permanent salaried officer of the Crown. I did not ask him to give any pledge, but cautioned him against the repetition of such conduct. I hope he will accept the warning, but if he does not he must take the consequences; "
  and, as Mr. Johnston has repeatedly disregarded those warnings, what the consequences now will be?
  MR. GIBSON: Before this Question is answered by the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to know if all the meetings attended by Mr. William Johnston have not been of an entirely orderly and peaceful description; whether his language, when he has thus attended and spoken, has not been of a loyal and law-abiding character, evincing an anxiety as far as possible to support the cause of law and order; whether, in reference to the particular meetings here referred to, it is a fact that he made no speech at all; whether it is a fact that the Orange soirée was in reality something in the nature of a tea party, and what is called a political meeting in Lower Gloucester Street was merely a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association with the Rector in the chair; whether the part Mr. Johnston appears to have taken in it was not confined to the advocacy of the cause of temperance, and whether he spoke about morality and religion, and advocated stringently the necessity of loyalty in Ireland; and whether the banquet referred to as having taken place towards the end of January was not the ordinary annual meeting of the Constitutional Club, and was not at all in honour of Lord Ross-more; and whether Mr. Johnston made any speech or took any part in the proceedings?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency has this case still under consideration; and though I have seen some of the documents referring to it they do not cover the whole ground. I would, therefore, prefer postponing my reply until Monday.
  MR. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, to save trouble, remember my observations?

  OFFICE OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—MR. R. M. PETERS-SUPER-SESSION OF LORD ROSSMORE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a document, protesting against the dismissal of Lord Rossmore from the magistracy, has been circulated for signature amongst the clerks in the office of the Land Commission in Dublin; whether one of these clerks, a person named Peters, is one of the signatories of the protest; and, whether Mr. Peters is also a member of the committee of management of an Orange body called the Dublin Conservative Club; and, if so, whether any notice will be taken of the conduct of civil servants who display political partizan-ship in this manner?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that they learnt for the first time from this Question that it is asserted that such a document as is referred to was circulated for signature among the clerks in their office. They have made inquiry from their principal officers, and can find no ground for such an assertion; They have ascertained that no such document was signed by Mr. R. M. Peters, one of the clerks in their office. The Land Commissioners decline to ask Mr. Peters whether he is a member of the Committee of Management of the Dublin Conservative Club, and the Government considers that in so declining the Commissioners are quite right. I may say—although I do not choose to name him—that a very intimate friend of my own, who holds a very important office, is a member of the Devonshire Club.
  MR. HEALY: Is he a member of the National League?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot answer that; but I think the hon. Member would find it difficult to name any official who has been a member of the National League who has been turned out

  879
  of office. The Government does not I think that such an inquiry should be made. Civil servants are not prohibited from belonging to social clubs connected with political Parties; but there is a vast difference between such a connection and taking an active part in public Party demonstrations.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the officers who were consulted by the Land Commissioners in reference to this matter are not themselves Orangemen?
  [No reply was given.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—RETURNS OF OUTRAGES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there would be any difficulty in future in printing in The Dublin Gazette some slight particulars of the outrages respecting which a Return is presented periodically to Parliament; and, if not, whether the names and addresses of the parties whose persons or property were attacked, and the date, nature, and place of the occurrence can be printed in the Parliamentary Returns, instead of the bald outline now given?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will consider whether some further information in serious cases might be given. I must not, however, be understood to make any definite promise at present. In the case of minor offences, including threatening letters, I do not think it would be desirable to publish details. The injured persons frequently object to unnecessary publicity, and sometimes even demur to giving information to the police, on the ground that publicity holds them up to popular odium, thereby increasing their danger.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says the injured persons object to publicity. Will he explain how it happens that they give the fullest publicity possible to their cases when they want blood-money?
  MR. TREVELYAN: They do not get blood-money for minor offences.
  MR. HEALY: For everything.

  IRELAND—YOUGHAL-COURT FOR ADMISSION OF FREEMEN.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, By what authority, and upon whose application, the Lord
  880
  Lieutenant sent a power to hold a freeman's court in Youghal at the last revision, and when or where this power was exercised before?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), in reply, said, that the authority was conferred by the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, and that the Court in the instance referred to was held in pursuance of an application made by certain persons claiming to be admitted as freemen.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether a body of freemen had the right to force the Lord Lieutenant to hold a Court for the admission of freemen?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member would find every information upon the subject in the 5th section of the Act mentioned.

  INLAND COMMUNICATION (IRELAND)—STATE OF THE HIGHWAYS IN COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land, Whether it is true that several of the public roads in the neighbourhood of Dingle, county Kerry, are at present allowed to go out of repair, owing to repeated differences between the contractors and the county surveyor; whether the Grand Jury have any power to apply a remedy to this state of things, or have refused; and, whether the people of the districts in question have memorialized the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that, owing to default on the part of a number of road contractors, several roads in the neighbourhood of Dingle have fallen into a bad state of repair. A Memorial on the subject has been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Memorialists have been advised that they should bring the matter before the Grand Jury at the approaching Assizes next month in Tralee. The county surveyor will also bring the matter before the Grand Jury with a view to such action on their part as they may deem necessary.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—DEATHS IN BELFAST GAOL.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  881
  land, Whether it is true that within the past month three prisoners have died in Belfast Gaol; whether he will say how long these prisoners have been ill; and, why it was that the medical officer of the prison did not recommend the release of any of them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this Question has been referred to Belfast for inquiry. As it only appeared on the Paper yesterday, there has not been time for the answers to come to hand.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—" THE IRISH EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL "—INSPECTORS' REPORTS OF INQUIRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay before the House Copies of the Notes of Evidence taken before Head Inspector M'Cullum and District Inspectors Gordon and Moran at the Belfast Model School on 7th May, 1883, in reference to the editorship of The Irish Educational Journal with accompanying Reports and Documents (if any); of the Board's order and instructions under which the inquiry was held; of the Board's decision on evidence submitted, and Minutes of Board's Proceedings relating thereto; of all correspondence leading to or arising out of this inquiry; and, of Articles and Letters in The Irish Educational Journal regarded as "reprehensible" by the Commissioners of National Education, distinguishing matter reprinted from the daily Press, or other publications?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there will be no objection to lay on the Table, if the hon. Member wishes to move for them, copies of the letters in which the Commissioners of National Education conveyed their decision in this matter, of a rejoinder from the teacher principally concerned, and of a letter conveying the final reply of the Board. The first-named communication contains specimens of the articles and letters which the Commissioners considered reprehensible. I cannot consent to the production of the other documents mentioned. Re-ports of the Inspectors of the Board as to inquiries held by them have invariably been regarded as strictly privileged and confidential.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE KING'S COUNTY MAGISTRATES—SUPERSESSION OF LORD ROSSMORE.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the protest of the magistrates in the King's County, in which, referring to the action of the Government in depriving Lord Rossmore of the Commission of the Peace, the following words occur, "the Government have given a distinct incentive to disloyalty in this country;" if one of the signatories to this protest is the high sheriff; if another holds the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county; and, if others are Resident Magistrates, and in receipt of salaries from the State; and, whether the Irish Executive is content to permit the Law to be administered in the King's County by those who publicly proclaim in their official capacity that the Government which they represent has "given a distinct incentive to disloyalty" to the people amongst whom the signatories to this protest are called upon to administer the Law?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the resolution referred to as published in The Daily Express of the 10th of January has appended to it the name of the High Sheriff, but not the Lieutenant of the County, or of any Resident Magistrate, or, so far as I am aware, of any person receiving a salary from the State. I cannot say that the Government is content that such a protest should have been signed by a body of magistrates; but I may remind the hon. Member that the 8th section of the Crimes Act is in force in the county; and that, therefore, these magistrates will not be concerned in the hearing of cases of a Party nature brought under the Act.
  MR. MOLLOYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had assured himself that the protest was not signed by one Resident Magistrate at least?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he certainly was not aware of such a thing; and as the matter was a very serious one, perhaps the hon. Member would communicate with him privately on the subject.
  MR. MOLLOY: Was not Captain Lestrange's name appended to the document?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that there are several Lestranges in the King's County, and I know Captain Le-strange well enough to believe that he would not sign such a document.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS' COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the case that the Committee appointed to report upon Lighthouse Illuminants has been broken up; whether it is the case that experiments upon this important subject are to be made at Dover; if so, when these experiments are to be made; under whose supervision they are to be conducted; and, what facilities will be given to those who are interested in the matter to view or ascertain the conduct of the experiments?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, on the 19th July last the hon. and gallant Member, in asking me a Question, assumed, as the fact was and now is, that the Committee on Lighthouse Illuminants had been dissolved. Further experiments are to be made at the South Foreland under the supervision of the Trinity House, in which the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses have promised to take part. The Trinity House have also communicated with the Commissioners of Irish Lights; and it is hoped that they will join in the observation of these experiments. It further is in contemplation to issue invitations to competent observers from the United States and France, as well as to masters of vessels and pilots passing through the Straits of Dover. A notice to mariners, issued about a month ago, states that the experimental lights will probably be exhibited about the end of this month.
  MR. DAWSON: As a member of the Irish Lights Board, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if the proceedings of this Board were open to the Press, as they ought to be, the necessity for putting such a Question as this would not have been obviated?
  [No reply was given.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—IRREGULARITIES OF TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. M'COANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether ratepayers in townships constituted under 9 Geo. 4, c. 82, have any and what remedy
  884
  against their Town Commissioners in the following cases:—Where one of such Commissioners was co-opted by the others to fill a casual vacancy at the same meeting at which the resignation of the retiring Commissioner was received, and not, as the Act requires, at a meeting specially held therefor, after summons duly issued by the chairman; where the oath was not administered to the person so co-opted by one of the other Commissioners, as the Act directs, but was taken by himself, and where, notwithstanding such irregularity, he has since sat and voted as a Commissioner; where the cost of making or repairing a sewer or drain through the private house of the chairman of the Board has, by a vote of the majority obtained by his influence, been paid out of the rates, instead of by the owner or occupier, as the Act provides; where corporate property has by a vote of the majority, and against protest of the minority, of the Board been let, through private favouritism, at rents much below its ordinary and proper value; and, where, also through favouritism, a scheme for a local public work wholly in excess of the wants and revenue resources of the town, and so involving an oppressive addition to the rates, has been sanctioned by a majority of the Commissioners, in preference to another, at less than half the cost, proposed by an eminent engineer, and approved by all the principal ratepayers of the township?
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Sir, I wish to ask you, on a point of Order, whether the Solicitor General for Ireland is at liberty to give an opinion in this House to any hon. Member who puts a hypothetical Question like this, involving grave charges against members of a Corporation, who, from the way in which the Question is framed, had no opportunity of defending themselves from such gross imputations?
  MR. M'COAN: The statements in this Question are not hypothetical. They are actual facts; but the reason I abstained from giving names is obvious; and I think that, according to the practice of the House, I am entitled to put the Question.
  MR. SEXTON: On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to direct your attention to paragraph five of this Question, where you will find that a motive—private

  885
  favouritism—has been attributed to the members of a certain public Board. I wish to know whether the Standing Order prohibiting the importation of matters of opinion and argument into Questions in this House does not apply to that case?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say that I see any grounds for interposing between the hon. Member who put the Question and the House.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The five Questions which are involved in the inquiry of the hon. Member raise five abstract questions of law. Any illegal election can be contested by Election Petition; any illegal order to pay out of rates can be contested by certiorari, or before the public auditor. Any illegal letting of corporate property can be impeached by action; and with regard to Question five, it seems clearly to involve a case in which the majority, rightly or wrongly, overruled the minority.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S MEMORANDUM.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state on what day did the Government receive from General Gordon "his plan for the pacification of the Soudan;" when will the Papers and telegrams laid upon the Table on the 12th be printed and circulated; and, have any further Papers or telegrams been since received; and, if so, could he conveniently state their purport in a concise form?
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: Will the Government lay on the Table the cable message to General Gordon, to which the message read by the Prime Minister last night was the answer?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: With regard to the Question on the Paper, General Gordon's Memorandum was received on the 1st instant. It has been laid on the Table to-day in "Egypt, No. 7," together with the instructions to Baker Pasha. I believe that copies of this Paper and of "Egypt, No. 6," containing the further instructions to General Gordon, are now in the Library of the House. I cannot give definite pledges as to the further presentation of Papers and telegrams, but I shall continue to make every effort to keep the House informed of anything material, and there will be no objection to lay the
  886
  telegrams on the Table which the Prime Minister has read.
  MR. GIBSON: Yes, Sir; but this is the second night of the debate, and we have not got the documents referred to by the Prime Minister. I will to-morrow ask the noble Lord to state specifically, in terms, what was the form of the telegram in which General Gordon was asked his opinion as to the relief of Suakim, and the very terms of his reply; and I will also ask him to state whether the Government wired to Admiral Hewett, asking him if he could relieve Sinkat, after the failure of Baker Pasha; and, if so, how long after that failure; and whether he will give us the terms of the message?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I may just explain that when I alluded to telegrams, I meant telegrams mentioned not only in this House, but in Parliament—I alluded, of course, to Foreign Office telegrams, and not to Admiralty telegrams?

  CRIME (IRELAND)—THE BARBAVILLA MURDER—MURDER OF MRS. SMYTHE.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, with regard to the Barbavilla murder, a levy for compensation for the family of Mrs. Smythe, the lady who was assassinated, has been made upon her brother-in-law, who was in the same carriage at the moment that the murder took place, and who, it is well known, was the person whose destruction was intended; and, whether any other relative of the deceased lady has been levied upon for compensation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the district upon which the investigator in this case recommended that the compensation should be levied is comprised of the baronies of Fore and Delvin, in the county of Westmeath, and the Lord Lieutenant has been advised that where a district, such as a parish or barony, is to be charged, there is not any power under the Prevention of Crime Act to exempt any particular individual. The hon. and gallant Member's Question appears without Notice, and I have not had time to ascertain what relatives of the deceased lady live in the district. I believe there is no doubt that her brother-in-law does.

  SPAIN—THE TREATY OF COMMERCE.
  MR. MACIVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, notwithstanding the "most favoured nation treatment" mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Protocol of Agreement between the Governments of Great Britain and Spain (Commercial, No. 5, 1884), British ships would, if that Agreement were ratified, remain at a disadvantage as compared with Spanish ships, such as practically to exclude them from the business of carrying manufactured goods from this Country to Spain; if Her Majesty's Government have taken, or, now that their attention has been called to the subject, are taking or intend to take any steps with a view to obtaining equal treatment for British ships as for Spanish ships in the ports of Spain; and, whether the further Papers which are promised with regard to our commercial relations with Spain specifically relate to the subject of equal treatment for British as for Spanish ships in the ports of Spain?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I have already twice informed the hon. Member that Article 7 of the Agreement, which is on the Table of the House, accords "most favoured nation treatment" in all matters relating to trade and navigation. The hon. Member must be aware that this is not the same as national treatment, but the Mixed Commission will have authority to hear the representations of shipowners before a definitive Treaty is concluded.

  AFGHANISTAN-SUBSIDY TO THE AMEER.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is proposed to make any payments of money to the Ameer of Affghanistan during the present year; and, if so, to what amount, and with what object?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I am not aware that it is proposed to make any payment to the Ameer beyond the annual subsidy of 12 lakhs promised him last year, as explained in my answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) on the 13th of August last.

  ITALY—THE SECRET CONGREGATION OF PROPAGANDA.
  MR. MOOREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of
  888
  Government has been called to the recent action of the Italian Government with regard to the property of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, and to the steps now being taken to convert that property into government stock; whether he is aware that the conversion has amounted in similar instances, by the imposition of different taxes and progressive duties, to a confiscation amounting to forty per cent; and, whether, considering that the Congregation of Propaganda is the sole means of communication between the Holy See and some eleven millions of Her Majesty's subjects throughout the globe, discharging all ecclesiastical business for them free of all charge whatsoever, and that this institution is of an international character, being the great focus of missionary enterprise throughout the world, and its property acquired by contributions from men of all nations, Her Majesty's Government will use their good offices, in conjunction with any Foreign Government which has or may be about to intervene with the Italian Government, and endeavour to induce them to reconsider their action in this matter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not had from Her Majesty's Embassy in Rome any information as to the precise state of this Question at the present moment, but they are aware of its general character, which is this—that it is not a matter of legislative or of administrative consideration; but it is one of a judicial character—one for the application of the existing law to be determined, and which has been determined by the existing tribunal. It has been through those tribunals, I am given to understand, and has been decided in the highest Court of Appeal. It does not well appear what ground there may be for diplomatic interposition under those circumstances; but, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government, if they should see an opportunity, will be glad to make use of it, while, however, they have every reason to believe that the Italian Government, so far as it has discretion, will endeavour to apply the law in a fair and equitable spirit.

  EGYPT—CO-OPERATION OF TURKEY.
  SIR EDMUND LECHMEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government has

  889
  proposed any basis for an exchange of views between England and Turkey on the Egyptian question; and, whether, should such a basis not have been proposed, Her Majesty's Government will forthwith adopt measures for securing, if possible, the friendly co-operation of His Majesty the Sultan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the House is already aware, I think, from the Papers that have been laid on the Table, of the communication in regard to the withdrawal of Her Majesty's troops from Egypt which has taken place between the Ottoman Government and the British Government. But this is a more delicate inquiry, to which my answer is as follows. The Porte has expressed a wish to effect an exchange of views with Her Majesty's Government on Egyptian affairs generally, with the view of arriving at a complete understanding on the subject, and Musurus Pasha has been requested to submit a sketch of the basis on which such an understanding should rest. The proposal has proceeded from the Ottoman Government, and it, therefore, appears that in the natural course of the communications the duty of the British Government is to express its willingness or unwillingness, and it has expressed its willingness to entertain the proposal; and the next step in the regular order is that bases should be proposed by the Ottoman Government, from whom the proposal proceeded. Musurus Pasha has also had an interview with Lord Granville on the subject, but he has not yet received instructions for the purpose of giving more definite form to the proposal which has reached Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR EDMUND LECHMEREasked whether the report of the interview between Lord Dufferin and the Sultan as given in The Morning Post was substantially correct?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Government have no information on the subject; but the belief of the Foreign Secretary is that that cannot be a correct account.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE ORANGE SOCIETY AND THE TREASURY MINUTE OF MARCH 15, 1836.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Lords of the Treasury will, in regard to the public
  890
  service in Ireland, enforce the principle and pursue the line of action laid down, in the following terms, in a Treasury Minute of the 15th of March 1836, addressed to all Departments of the Service:—
  "It is the express direction of this Board that every party now a member of an Orange Lodge, or any political society excluding persons of a different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches, should immediately withdraw from such society, and that no person in their service shall hereafter become in any way a member or connected with such a society. And if it shall hereafter become known to this Board that any public servant under their control shall, after this warning, either continue or become a member of such society, my Lords will feel it their duty, without hesitation, to dismiss him from the Service?"
  VISCOUNT CRICHTON: May I also ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that, subsequent to the date mentioned, the Orange Society was dissolved, and that it was afterwards reconstituted in such a way as to exclude the use of secret signs and symbols?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was going to ask the hon. Member for Sligo to put off his Question till Tuesday next. It refers to a matter of great consequence. I recollect the transaction personally; but I should wish to have accurate information before replying to the Question, and the inquiries I have set on foot are not yet concluded.
  MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the Question on Tuesday.

  EGYPT—MILITARY EXPENDITURE—VOTE OF CREDIT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government contemplate proposing any Vote of Credit, or any Supplementary Estimates, to meet the charge of the new Military or Naval expenditure in Egypt; and, if so, when the Votes will be submitted to the House?
  THE CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS): My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has asked me to answer this Question. The right hon. Gentleman and the House are doubtless aware that no Vote of money can be proposed until Supply is set up, and that Supply cannot be set up until after the Report of the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne has been adopted. I have no doubt that it will be necessary to ask

  891
  for a Supplementary Vote; and, as I said on Tuesday, in reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I am in communication on this subject with my Colleagues at the War Office and the Admiralty, and no delay will take place in laying the Estimates be-fore the House. Until the Address is adopted it will be impossible to say when that will be.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S MISSION.
  MR. SALTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether offers of money are being made or are about to be made to any of the tribes in the Soudan to induce them to remain loyal to the Government of the Khedive; and, if so, whether such sums will be included in the estimates of the English or of the Egyptian expenditure?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am disposed to believe that the hon. Member must agree with me in the opinion which I entertain, that it is desirable that no answer should be given to this Question. General Gordon, in regard to these offers, is not our agent, although we are responsible undoubtedly to the Egyptian Government for all that General Gordon does. But I am bound to say that I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity of saying with how much regret I read the other day an intimation sent by some correspondent of one of the London journals from Egypt, that General Gordon had departed from a certain place with a certain quantity of money. I do hope that some discretion will be exercised in these matters. If it is possible to conceive anything likely to endanger not only the mission but the life of General Gordon, it is the circulation of intelligence of that kind. I may say, also, that there is great inaccuracy in the particulars that were stated.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Did the right hon. Gentleman state that General Gordon was not the agent of the British Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I stated, certainly, Sir, that in strictness and officially General Gordon was the agent of the Egyptian Government; but that we, having counselled the Egyptian Government, are responsible for his action.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On what date did General Gordon be-
  892
  come the agent of the Egyptian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should have thought the noble Lord was aware that General Gordon had power to assume—and, I believe, has assumed—the Governorship General of the Soudan in the name of the Egyptian Government.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Might I ask whether the Primo Minister is aware that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War stated in the most direct terms in this House the other night that General Gordon was not in the employment of the Egyptian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood the statement of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. I think my noble Friend is a higher authority as to what he said than the noble Lord; and my noble Friend tells me he stated, and stated with perfect truth, that General Gordon was sent out by this Government to discharge certain functions on the part of this Government; and that he was likewise empowered to discharge certain other functions which might be entrusted to him by the Egyptian Government. The noble Lord seems to mo to be dwelling upon points that are of small importance, because I have already stated, in the most distinct manner, that, substantially, Her Majesty's Government are in the strictest way responsible for the action of General Gordon.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE RED SEA PORTS.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What portion of the littoral of the Red Sea Her Majesty's Government proposed to protect from any attack hostile to the Government of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not certain that I can answer the Question of my hon. Friend as particularly as he may wish at the present moment, but I may say, in general terms, that the engagement of the British Government has reference to the ports upon the Red Sea. I am not aware that the word "littoral" is a word of ours—I cannot speak positively, but I believe it is in respect of ports on the Red Sea. If he asks me what ports, then I should define them by saying that they are any ports which might be endangered in consequence of

  893
  the recent movements of the Mahdi. To give an exhaustive list of them would be beyond my power, but we can obtain particular information on that subject.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE RELIEF FORCE.
  MR. GIBSON: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Is General Graham, who is to command the relief expedition, at present at Cairo; and when did Colonels Buller and Stewart leave London?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: General Graham is not at present in Cairo. I believe he is on duty upon the Nile, but he is expected at Cairo tomorrow. If he did not return as soon as expected, the command of the expedition was to be taken by General Dormer. Colonel Buller and Colonel Stewart, who also hold commands, left London for Egypt on Tuesday evening.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN—GENERAL GORDON'S MISSION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Prime Minister, Whether in respect to that portion of the duties to be discharged by General Gordon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the cost would be met by a Vote of the House of Commons, or would be charged upon the Revenues of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly, Sir; any expenses belonging to the Mission of General Gordon, as originally projected by this Government, would be defrayed by this country. I do not anticipate that they are at all likely to be serious; but the direct action and direct functions in which General Gordon was immediately connected with this Government are, I think, pretty much absorbed in the greater duties of the large Mission which he has undertaken under the immediate authority of the Egyptian Government, with the full moral and political responsibility of the British Government.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate by telegraph with General Gordon, asking him whether he is the agent of the Egyptian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I have given a tolerably complete reply to the
  894
  Question of the noble Lord. With respect to the date of the assumption of the authority, I am not quite certain that we are in possession of the exact day; but that can be without difficulty ascertained.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that any orders or instructions that may be given to General Gordon by the Egyptian Government will be communicated to, or made through, our Representatives in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should like to answer that Question particularly; and, therefore, I would rather have an opportunity of inquiring. I think that when General Gordon went out from this country the arrangement made was that he should receive all his instructions through Sir Evelyn Baring. It is quite possible that that arrangement continues.
  MR. BOURKE: I observe that General Gordon has proceeded to the Soudan to restore the independence of certain people there. I should like to know whether, in executing that commission, General Gordon is executing the orders of Her Majesty's Government directly, or the orders of the Egyptian Government, or of the Sultan of Turkey? I understand the words of Her Majesty's Government in giving directions to General Gordon to restore certain people to their independence in the Soudan must, of course, secure to them possession of the Soudan. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have the commission of the Sultan of Turkey, as the Sovereign of that country, to declare that independence, or whether they are acting entirely on their own responsibility?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no commission from the Sultan of Turkey with reference to the Soudan. The action of Her Majesty's Government has been, I believe, so carefully framed as not in any way to touch or infringe upon whatever rights the Sultan of Turkey, as Sovereign of the country, may have.

  EGYPT (ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION)—ENGLISH OFFICERS.
  LORD ELCHO: I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether he can

  895
  inform the House, without detriment to the Public Service, to what purpose officers holding Her Majesty's commission have been invited to volunteer for this foreign service?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: General Sir Evelyn Wood has lately asked for the services of a considerable number of British officers—I presume with the object of employing them in the now brigade that is being organized. Such English officers as have served the Egyptian Government have done so as volunteers.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT.
  SIR JOHN HAT: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty or the Prime Minister, Whether an explanation will be given with regard to the Papers laid on the Table two days ago as to the appointment of Admiral Sir William Hewett? The telegram says—"You will be invested for the present with full powers, civil and military, at Suakim." By whom will be be invested with these supreme powers? This comes from the Admiralty—"And warn the Arabs that any attack will be repulsed by British troops." I should be glad to know especially how Admiral Hewett is to be invested with "civil powers" in Egypt?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I understood the gallant Admiral to be giving Notice of a Question. If there is any technical question involved in the appointment of Sir William Hewett, I must ask for Notice; but I may say that the Admiralty would not have thought it right to delay taking a step necessary for the safety of Suakim on account of any small technical difficulty.

  CENTRAL ASIA—MERV.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of some importance—Whether it is true that the Tekke Turcoman tribes of Merv have made their submission to the Russian Government; and whether Merv is to be incorporated in the Russian Empire?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; that is a very important Question, and I think I must ask for Notice.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was not within the knowledge of the
  896
  noble Lord that the statement of fact to which he alluded appeared in the Russian newspapers published in St. Petersburg last week?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot read the Russian language, and am not able, therefore, to answer the Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is the noble Lord aware that there are also papers published in German and French at St. Petersburg, and that the news of the surrender of Merv was contained in all those papers? I would also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether on a future occasion he would include in the Estimates the sums required to provide the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the necessary staff of interpreters of foreign languages.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member for Dungarvan that in putting such Questions he is trifling with the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Allow me to respectfully point out to you, Sir, that the noble Lord told me, not in a very respectful manner, in reply to a serious Question on an important matter, that he did not know Russian—hence my Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—EGYPTIAN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

    VOTE OF CENSURE.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th February],
    "That this House, having read and considered the Correspondence relating to Egypt, laid upon the Table by Her Majesty's Command, is of opinion that the recent lamentable events in the Soudan are due, in a great measure, to the vacillating and inconsistent policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government."—(sir Stafford Northcote.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to move, as an Amendment to Sir Stafford Northcote's Motion—
    "That this House, whilst declining at present to express an opinion on the Egyptian policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued during the last two years, with the support of

    897
    the House, trusts that in future British Forces may not be employed for the purpose of interfering with the Egyptian people in the selection of their own Government."
    He said, there had been a very interesting debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and no doubt there would be many more able speeches delivered from both sides of the House on the question; but he did not know that when they divided the Egyptian Question would be very much altered or advanced. His humble object in pressing the Amendment was, if possible, to try to do something which might lead to some advantage to the Egyptian people when all these Party fights were over. He thought they were a people whom we had not treated as we should have liked to be treated ourselves, and a people to whom we owed something. He would take for his text some words that fell from Lord Granville the other day in the House of Lords to the effect that—
    "From the Atlantic to the Vistula it is everywhere admitted that the people should have a share in their own government."
    He wanted to know why the Egyptian people were to be excluded from that most excellent political canon? He believed that it was in the unjust and high-handed proceedings of this country towards the Egyptian nation that all the present troubles had their origin. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was, no doubt, perfectly justified in his Motion in alluding to the lamentable events in the Soudan. They were lamentable, no doubt, and he was himself very much horrified at the massacres that had taken place there; in fact, he had read nothing that had horrified him more since the day that our own troops massacred the Egyptians at Tel-el-Kebir. But there were other lamentable facts; and one very lamentable fact, indeed, was that the Egyptian Government had for so long been allowed—not, perhaps, with our sanction, not for certain by our advice, but by our connivance, as we were ruling in Egypt—to send troops from Egypt who were really slaves driven at the point of the bayonet, to put down those unfortunate people in the Soudan. The people in the Soudan, he maintained, were justified in their rebellion; indeed, when it was a question between established Governments and rebels, he thought that, as a rule, the rebels were generally
    898
    in the right; but, of course, there were exceptions to that rule. General Gordon had said the people in the Soudan were justified in their rebellion, and he afterwards said that the Egyptian Government in the Soudan was nothing more nor loss than the worst form of tyranny. And the same opinion was entertained by Baker Pasha. He thought it was enough to make every Englishman ashamed to think that for many months past those wretched fellaheen had been driven out from their homes in chains to put down the rebellion in the Soudan. These were harrowing facts. And they could not get over the fact that the English Government was more or less responsible for these proceedings. If they read the Blue Books it would be found that over and over again our officials said they were not responsible for what went on in the Soudan; but he could not help agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition when he said—"You cannot get rid of responsibility by crying out that you disclaim responsibility." Our Government was put into a position by the initial error of going to Egypt, by which they could not help being a party, becoming a party, to the horrible things they heard of. Their policy was very well described by Lord Derby in one sentence when he remarked that the policy of the Government was to keep Tewfik on his legs. If they kept him on his legs they were responsible for both his legs; therefore they could not say they were responsible only for his leg in Egypt, and not for the other leg in the Soudan. He was surprised, when the Prime Minister told them long ago that a financial control was sure to end in a political control, that he did not put an end to that sort of thing; and how the Leader of the Opposition could approve of a Dual Control he could not understand. The right hon. Gentleman knew what troubles arose from time to time to his own Party from the Dual Control between himself and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock in leading the Party. He wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman now came forward with a Vote of Censure? He was a year too late. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman had declared to the country that the Egyptian War was unnecessary and unjustifiable, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had said so himself in the House, and had proposed a Resolution

    899
    to that effect; but the right hon. Gentleman would not help him, and when asked why, he said because he could not think of going into the Lobby with him. He would have condemned the Government willingly long ago for vacillation; but the right hon. Gentleman had come forward with his Motion at the wrong time. In fact, just as the Government were beginning to do right and get out of the Soudan, he came forward to condemn them. The right hon. Gentleman did not condemn them for doing wrong, as he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished to do. He condemned them for not having succeeded in doing wrong, which was a very different thing. For the interests of the world and everybody concerned, it was very much better that the Arabs should have beaten the Egyptian troops, than that the latter should have beaten them. The Soudanese had been the worst treated people on the face of the earth. [Mr. HEALT: Except in Ireland.] He hoped they were not going to have an Irish debate, as they had one every other night. Nobody would suffer from the abandonment of the Soudan except a few rascally Pashas, who were, he believed, the greatest scoundrels to be found anywhere in the world. When the right hon. Gentleman censured the Government for getting out of the Soudan, he should also have censured them for ever getting into it. He could not vote for the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. He should support the negative, because he assumed all the Government were doing now was attempting to rescue these unhappy people whose lives were in danger; and, though arguments might be made against it, he thought so strong was the opinion in this country that the rescue should be attempted that the country would back them up. He for one was not disposed to throw any severe censure upon the attempt, because he did not think they could do anything else in the Soudan. But the Vote of Censure should be upon those who got us into this trouble, and he would toll the House who they were. They were the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) and Lord Salisbury. They began it at Willis's Rooms in 1882, when they went and made fire and thunder speeches, under the presidency of the chairman of the bondholders. That was at the bottom of the whole thing; and not only were they responsible, but
    900
    their Party also admitted their responsibility for egging on the Government to do the deeds which he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and very few other Members had opposed. The whole of the Tory Party voted for the expenditure of the Egyptian War, except the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham). He wished the Primo Minister had listened to his true friends on that occasion, instead of to the voices of the Tory Party at Willis's Rooms. Ever since they had got into Egypt they had been trying to get out of it, and they could not get out; but that was the history of their foreign transactions—we joyously got into a country, and dolefully got out of it. It was so with the late Government, only when they got in they tried to stop in. We got into Afghanistan; we had great difficulty in gutting out; and everyone was very glad when we did get out. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not desire to introduce what the Prime Minister called controversial matter. We got into Zululand, and then into the Transvaal, and at length we got out. We had begun by acting unjustly to these countries, and had ended by acting justly. As they had done with other countries, so let them do with Egypt. That was the sole end and object of his Motion, and the Government ought to support it, because they had solemnly asserted they did not mean to stay in Egypt; but they wanted strengthening by somebody like himself, because there was no doubt there would be a popular clamour to stay in Egypt. As a friend remarked to him the other day, "Englishmen liked to get something;" and he felt quite sure that if the Tory Party got into power they would say that, having got Egypt, they had better keep it. That was just what he did not want. Getting Egypt and keeping it would inflict cruel wrong on a great number of people. It was all very well to talk of "reforming the Government;" but that was not what we went for. We wont to Egypt to get money, and if their Tory Friends got into Office they would be sure to go upon that principle. The hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. Villiers Stuart), who knew the country intimately, stated that our presence in Egypt had brought back the usurers whom Arabi banished, and who were now engaged in dispossessing the Natives of their land. Formerly the

    901
    usurer could not take the Native's land; now he could make sure of either getting his money or the land. Arabi drove out these pauperizers of the people; but we had them brought back, by converting unsecured debts into first class mortgages. That was not a right policy. It was a policy of British interests, at the expense of the interests of that country; and he contended that British interests should not be regarded at the expense of the rights and liberties of other nations. The policy of the Government, as he understood it, was to render what the Prime Minister termed a small service to humanity by attempting to rescue these unfortunate people who were in the beleaguered garrisons. He saw no particular objection to that policy, which he might describe to be this—rescue and retire. He thought it was time they should retire. They had been told by the Prime Minister that the Government went to Egypt with the intention of giving it a fair start. We had already been 18 months there, and what had we done? First of all, we bombarded Alexandria; a large portion of it was consumed by fire, and multitudes were left to perish in the desert. Then we destroyed the Army at Tel-el-Kebir—an exploit which had given rise to great laudations and rejoicings—an army which, it now appeared, lay down its arms screaming when it saw the enemy. For this they had made a great warrior a Peer and given him £25,000. Having done all this, we next connived at another army being sent into the Soudan. We had crushed out the National movement which had Arabi at its head, and which represented the real feeling of the country, although no one would believe him when he said that would be the case; and we handed the leader of that movement over to his bitterest enemies, who were thirsting for his blood. If that had been done by a Government with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) at its head, he would have had to go out of Office in a fortnight. We next set up the Khedive. They had heard the Prime Minister speak many words of praise of Tewfik, and it was popular now to describe him as next door to being an angel; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would quote the words of Tewfik's own father, who knew him even better than did the right hon. Gentleman. Ismail Pasha, one of the
    902
    shrewdest, though not perhaps one of the best of men that ever lived, had said of Tewfik, "He has neither head, heart, nor courage"—a pretty good opionion for a father to have of a son; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) believed that Ismail was right. Notwithstanding all the eulogiums they had heard passed upon the Khedive from the Treasury Bench, he thought Tewfik the most contemptible Potentate living; and he challenged the Treasury Bench to tell the House any good of him. The only good thing he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had heard of him was that he had but one wife. A friend of Tewfik's father was speaking to him of Tewfik, and said, "I suppose he would be out of the country directly the last British regiment left?" And Ismail replied, "Bless you, he would be out long before that." They had supported the Egyptian Government, which had ground down the fellaheen more cruelly and brutally than ever it had been done before, and they had virtually created anarchy while pretending to put it down. He would ask the Treasury Bench how much more they could have "started" the Egyptians for the promotion of Christianity and civilization—which they were told all wars were for? That was what the Manchester Radicals supported war for; they were even more anxious for those objects than to sell their goods, though he was not sure that that had not something to do with it. He agreed with General Gordon, who said that those who had attempted to civilize the Soudan stood quite as much in need of civilization as those whom they attempted to civilize, and who told them of the remorse he felt in having carried civilization to the Moodies, who said—" We do not want to be civilized; we do not want to see the Pachas; we want our lands; and you may go away." He hoped the Government would stand firm, and not be led away by the clamours of public meetings called by the Lord Mayor. The Egyptians did not want our Evelyn Barings, our bondholders, and our Europeans governing them; they wanted us to go away, and, above all, to get rid of the abominable government of Turks and Circassians, supported by the Egyptian Government for the benefit of Jews and bondholders and stony-hearted traders. He had foolishly thought that the great Election of 1880 had put a stop to that sort of thing for

    903
    ever, that there would be no more bullying of weak nations for British interests; but he was misled. When the Government came in they said, "We are pledged to do this because the Tories did it be-fore." [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no.] He was very sorry, but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other night that the whole trouble had arisen from the Tory Party. He accepted the explanation, however, and added that he only meant to say that the Liberal Party came into power to reverse the policy of the Tories. He thought that was the meaning of the Mid Lothian campaign, and of the principles which were taught them—those noble and generous principles which, he believed, so long as the Government had adhered to, had been successful. The Prime Minister had said that his principle was to acknowledge the equal rights of all nations, and he was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak in the same strain on Tuesday night. He spoke in the old Mid Lothian strain, and he was glad to hear him repeat it again to-night, because it gave him confidence in supporting him, believing that he was returning to the paths of justice, and that after consideration and reflection he would come to the conclusion that Egypt was no exception to the rule laid down for other countries. It was probable that some hon. Members might say, "How do you propose to act?" That was a fair question, but it was a difficult one. He was no prophet, but he would say what he believed. The only thing he heard said in reference to Egypt was, "You are in a horrid mess." Was there no Statesman to keep us out of the moss? Where was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who said the other day that he saw no way out of it? When no one suggested anything this gave him confidence to speak; for he was a modest man, and if anyone else had come forward, he should not have liked to interfere. He said—
    "Let us be just and fear not; let us withdraw our troops and leave the people cither to stew in their own juice, or establish a Government of their own; let us withdraw and tell Egypt that it shall no longer be a happy hunting ground for bondholders and usurers."
    In reference to the National movement in Egypt he expressed the opinion that the Government had been misled by their officials. Arabi was supported by
    904
    all sections of the people. Quoting from Arabi's National programme, issued in December, 1881, he said it insisted that, among other things, the country should be governed by a Council of Deputies, that foreigners should pay taxes like other people, that the freedom of the Press should be respected, that the Army should have the full complement of 18,000 men, and that all men should be equal before the law. It also said that the principal object of the National party was the intellectual and moral regeneration of the country by a better observance of the law, and to aid in obtaining for Egypt the blessing of self-government. Surely a party with a programme such as that was not a party to be ruthlessly destroyed by the Armies of England. What sense could there be in such a course? That programme was such a one as the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) might have put forward in this country—it was a Reform programme, and how would he like the Armies of Russia to slaughter him and Mr. Schnadhorst? He said, without joking, there was just as much sense and justice in that course as there was in our proceeding to Egypt.! Mr. SULLIVAN: A good deal more.] No, I do not know that. That observation came from a Party man. No; let them, he said, have done with this miserable business, because nobody could look back on it with pleasure, and the Government, he was quite sure, were in their hearts—he would not say ashamed of it, but bitterly sorry for the course they had been unadvisedly led into. Let the Egyptians work out their own political salvation. By doing that they would be true to the real Liberal policy—to the great principles of peace and of justice which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was the noblest living exponent. By doing so, and by our upright and honourable conduct towards others, we should do more than all the armies that ever marched, or all the fleets that ever sailed, to secure for England the respect, esteem, and friendship of other nations.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had received an anonymous letter, stating that the writer and his friends had been discussing in reference to this matter which of the two was the greater fool, the hon. Member for Carlisle or himself. It seemed to him that in this particular

    905
    case they were not such absolute fools, because, while most hon. Gentlemen in that House did not know precisely what they would have done, or what they would not have done, in Egypt, he and his hon. Friend, at least, knew exactly what they desired to have done in that country. The Leader of the Opposition brought forward a Motion of Censure on Her Majesty's Government for acting in a vacillating manner in Egypt. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) enunciated one cardinal article of the Liberal faith, that when this country was connected with a country like Egypt, we should, in no sort of way, interfere with their political institutions. He preferred that Amendment to the original Vote; but when a Vote of Censure was proposed it seemed to him that everyone on that side of the House, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, should consider the effect of its being passed. What would be the effect of passing the Vote of Censure? The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the Motion were passed, would become the Advisers of Her Majesty, and then the country would lose the services of those now sitting on the Treasury Bench. Naturally, therefore, he had endeavoured to find out whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite had any policy with regard to Egypt, and although he had listened attentively he had been unable to find that they had any. He observed that they indulged in some high festival the previous night, either as a sign of triumph of their success in "another place," or to condole over their future failure in that House. One of the eminent Leaders then explained that they were not going to state what their policy was, because their great medicine man—Lord Beaconsfleld—had told them that it was very bad policy to do so; and having explained this, he went on to give another reason, which should have saved him from the necessity of giving the first—namely, that they did not happen to have any sort of policy at all. It was Lord Salisbury who made this speech. Of course, he did not make the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) answerable for that, and Lord Salisbury explained it by saying that he had not seen any of the confidential documents that might have passed. He confessed that Lord Salisbury would have in his mind the fact that when he was in power
    906
    he inaugurated a system of not laying before the country a great many documents; and the excuse given seemed a fair and reasonable one for him to make. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech, and referred to what he called "our friends, the Press," and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought he had gathered from them what the policy of the Government really was. It was the old and exploded Jingoism, that Jingoism which had been weighed in the balance and found wanting at the last General Election. It was that they wished to revert to. The object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was the establishment of a British Protectorate in Egypt, and it was ridiculous to suppose that the Radicals were such very innocent and simple persons as to allow salt to be put upon their tails in this matter. It was not because they thought that the right hon. Gentlemen who were now in power might have interfered less that they were going to exchange against them right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who unquestionably would interfere more. That would be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire which could hardly be expected at their hands. He was not prepared to say that the Government had not made mistakes; but he ascribed them mainly to the circumstances of the case. The primary cause of the whole situation of affairs in Egypt was that the Conservatives had insisted on interfering in that country; and the primary fault of the Liberals was that on coming into Office they did not break away from the policy of their Predecessors in regard to Egypt as they did, with the approval of the whole country, in regard to Afghanistan. The lesson to be gathered from the present complication was that Liberals ought not to endeavour to carry out an anti-Liberal policy. It was, perhaps, just as well that they had not succeeded in the attempt. Her Majesty's Government, while they had been in Egypt, had been continually confronted with their own principles. They had felt themselves obliged to a certain extent to act in one way; and, on the other hand, in thus acting they felt they were not conforming to the principles of the Liberal Party. It was said that they were under engagements there, through the establishment of the Dual Control, to maintain Tewfik Pasha on the Throne; but since then

    907
    the Dual Control had been done away with, and the necessity of maintaining Tewfik ceased. He must confess that at one time he was almost of opinion that it would be a good thing to take possession of Egypt because of the importance of the Suez Canal; but an article in The Nineteenth Century, written in 1877 by the Prime Minister, clearly defined the position which England should assume with respect to Egypt and the adjacent countries, and that article had absolutely converted him. Having quoted a passage from the article in question, the hon. Member remarked that the right. hon. Gentleman seemed not only to have been a Cassandra prophet, but to have been obliged to aid in developing the course of events which led to the fulfilment of some of his own evil predictions. It was to be regretted that he had not shown more firmness and determination and broken off entirely our connection with Egypt. For himself, as the supporters of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle were in the minority, he would have the pleasure not only of voting for his hon. Friend's Amendment, but also with the right hon. Gentleman when he proposed to negative the Vote of Censure. Dismissing the past, the practical question was—What were they going to do in Egypt? The Prime Minister said they had a mandate from Europe; but on looking at the Papers he saw no proof of that. They had in the Conference at Constantinople signed the Protocol de Désinteressement with other Powers, and they asked for a mandate; but the Conference broke up without granting their request, although there had been since acquiescence on the part of the Powers in what we had done. We were, therefore, not in the same position in regard to Egypt as Austria occupied in regard to Bosnia. They had established order and tranquillity in the Delta; an Army had been formed under Sir Evelyn Wood; and, as they had lately been told by an Under Secretary of State in November last, that life and property were as secure in the streets of Cairo as they were in London. The Mahdi was but a temporary incident, which would pass away in a few months; and, therefore, he asked, was the policy enunciated last year of clearing out of Egypt as soon as they had started Liberal institutions—although he did not think much
    908
    of them—and had organized an army and secured tranquillity to be still adhered to? He did not wish to palliate the massacres and other cruelties perpetrated by the rebels in the Soudan; but it should be remembered that, as the despatches showed, the Soudanese had learnt these practices from their Egyptian opponents. If General Gordon succeeded in pacifying the country, that would, indeed, be one of the most magnificent triumphs of peace over war that it was possible to imagine; but it seemed rather a doubtful policy, while sending General Gordon on his mission of peace, to attempt the relief of the garrisons. The question was, was it our duty to do so? He did not complain of the Government sending to relieve Tokar; but, at the same time, he thought no blame attached to them for not having relieved Sinkat before they sent out General Gordon. He saw by the Blue Books on the subject that when we undertook to defend Egypt we undertook to defend the ports of the Red Sea; and, as far as he could gather, our object was to put down the Slave Trade. But he very much doubted whether we should succeed in doing anything of the kind. In the course of a conversation with Sir Edward Malet he had asked him whether the possession of Suakim and those other ports of the Bed Sea would really put an end to the Slave Trade, and Sir Edward Malet had replied that he did not think it would. It appeared that some of the slaves were taken to Tripoli and some to Egypt; but that most of them were taken across the Red Sea, which was narrow enough to allow of their being carried over to Arabia in a night. We should not gain much then by the possession of Suakim and the other towns on the Red Sea; but supposing we had possession of them, what were we going to do with them? If we returned them to Egypt, they would fall into the hands of Governors who would certainly encourage slavery. Only a short time ago, upon a change of Governors taking place, there were found a number of persons in prison who had been kept there without any trial merely on a vague charge of disaffection. If we were to recognize the independence of the Soudan, the best thing that could happen would be that the Soudan should have these towns as its ports. A great deal of abuse had

    909
    been lavished on the Soudanese and on the Mahdi; but he thought that we were somewhat hasty, when we considered the mode in which the Egyptians had governed that country, in saying that the Soudanese and the Mahdi were entirely wrong in rising against them. Why should we call them scoundrels? As a matter of fact, the worst Arab of the desert was probably superior to the very best Pasha who ever lived at Cairo or Constantinople, the Khedive included. He asked hon. Members opposite whether we ought to occupy Egypt for the benefit of the Egyptians, or for our own advantage? We had been told some time ago that it was necessary for us to have Egypt on account of the Canal; but little now was heard of the Suez Canal. It seemed to have almost passed out of men's minds; and as its possession appeared of doubtful advantage to us, he thought it might be fairly said that we should derive no benefit from holding Egypt. What did the Prime Minister say with reference to the Canal? He used these words—
    "Suppose the very worst—the Canal is stopped. What then? We shall he the greatest losers. But it is a question of loss, and of loss alone. It is a tax, and a tax only. What will Russia have gained after she has brought into the hard form of fact the impossible and the incredible? The answer is that she will have introduced an average delay of about three weeks in our military communications with Bombay, and less with Calcutta.… It seems very doubtful whether confident reliance can be placed upon the Canal for our military communications with India under the varied and shifting contingencies of war… Why is the territorial occupation of Egypt needful or useful for the military command of the Canal in time of war? Why will it not suffice, supposing this command to he necessary and to be practicable, to secure it by the proper measures at sea, and, if needful, by land, at the proper time? "
    The Canal, then, was no advantage to England; and, as regarded expense, we might judge the future from the past. It had cost us about £2,000,000, and was very likely to cost us another £1,000,000. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have an idea that we gained by the mere enlargement of Empire; but Egypt was not a rich country, and if we were to take it to-morrow, he did not think that it would be found that it would pay. That was not his view. To hold Egypt would require the establishment of a very large Civil Service, and a
    910
    considerable number of troops; and he thought that, until we had altered and amended everything which required alteration and amendment at home, we ought not to undertake unnecessary responsibilities abroad. He observed that as soon as Conservatives came into Office they began shouting for some great war and to boast about their great Imperial instincts; but we should consider whether what we had done hitherto had in any way benefited the Egyptians. We had bombarded Alexandria, and we had added £5,000,000 to the Debt of Egypt; and what advantages had been given in return? Perhaps in some minor details they would be better governed; but as to Liberal, representative, institutions, Sir Evelyn Baring had said that he was not prepared to say that any Native Minister could be found capable of carrying out the policy proposed by Lord Granville. Nubar Pasha, it was well known, was essentially the man of the bondholders, an astute Armenian, who had had £100 a-year and was now worth £1,000,000 sterling; while, as for Tewfik, the fact that his subjects did not like him took away his sole title to his position. Then, again, as to the fellaheen, were they any better off financially than before? The fact was, everything had been sacrificed to the bondholders. Even Lord Salisbury had written a despatch about the payment of the coupon. It was as follows:—
    "The French Ambassador has communicated to me a telegram which he had received from his Government, stating that there is every reason to believe that the Khedive can pay the coupons of the Unified Debt if he chooses to do so. M. Waddington having expressed a desire that you should act with your French colleague in urging this view on the Khedive, I sent you a telegram this afternoon stating that Her Majesty's Government authorized you to do so."
    He believed that was the only case on record of such a telegram being sent. Then the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had gone out to Egypt, not in the interests of the fellaheen, but of the bondholders. He had a perfect right to do what he could in the interests of those whom he represented; indeed, he was bound to do it; but the future financial position of Egypt was based upon the Report of the right hon. Gentleman and M. Joubert, two gentlemen who were avowedly sent out to do the best they could for the bondholders.

    911
    Then there was the question of the Moukabala. He really hoped the Prime Minister would look into this matter. He was the financial genius of the House, and it did appear to be a most extraordinary case. The fellaheen paid a certain rent for their land, and had been allowed to compound for that rent by paying a very large sum—£17,000,000—one half of which was paid by them and one half by the large landholders; £7,000,000 of this was paid in hard cash. But the right hon. Gentleman wanted money for his bondholders, so he calmly made an arrangement to a very large extent disregarding all the rights of the fellaheen with respect to the Moukabala.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did absolutely nothing of the kind. The arrangement referred to was arrived at four years after his own plan had been adopted. On the contrary, he made it a condition of his going to Egypt that the rights of these people should be respected.
    MR. LABOUCHEREwithdrew what he had stated respecting the right hon. Gentleman; but, he added, it did not signify who had done it, the people had suffered. Everything pointed the same way. Lord Granville's despatch said—" You must not go to the Soudan unless you can pay for it." No matter what happened to the country so long as the bondholders were satisfied. The very troubles in the Soudan were caused by the bondholders. Ismail used to pay blackmail to the Chiefs there, and so kept them quiet; but the money was wanted to pay the coupon, and so the disturbance arose. He asked the Prime Minister whether it was not true that he agreed more than anyone else on the question of Egypt with the hon. Member for Carlisle and himself? It seemed to him that their views and his were identical. It was no secret that a few days ago the rag-tag of finance and the bobtail of whiggism presented, or intended to present, the right hon. Gentleman with a manifesto, because they thought the Government ought to interfere more energetically in Egypt. He had not seen the document, but he could not gather that the names appended to it were of the slightest importance. It seemed to him that his hon. Friend and himself had pursued a more open and honest course. They had not secretly
    912
    handed round a manifesto addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, nor used any back-stairs influence. If the right hon. Gentleman would only realize the fact of his own strength, he would see that he had nothing to fear from pursuing consistently and determinedly the course he had laid down in his great Mid Lothian speeches. M. Guizot had said that the fault of the present age was that the feeble wish much and will little. He believed there was no man who wished more anxiously to clear away these foreign complications than the right hon. Gentleman. He felt sure that no one more than the Prime Minister was anxious for our withdrawal from Egypt, and that he would have the support of the country in doing so. All he asked was that he would not only wish it, but will it. He begged to second the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "whilst declining at present to express an opinion on the Egyptian policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued during the last two years, with the support of the House, trusts that in future British Forces may not he employed for the purpose of interfering with the Egyptian people in the selection of their own Government,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker—Sir, the House, I am sure, will understand that, after the extraordinary indulgence with which I was treated on the former occasion, I have not the least intention of entering into the general course of the debate. Two very interesting speeches have been made by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment. With a great deal of what has fallen from them, I sympathize. As to what might be called criticism, I leave that to be dealt with in the general course of the debate. I will only say three things that I think necessary. First of all, I think the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was very happy in his description of the Soudan policy in the words "Rescue and retire," and, in fact, that is the idea on which the Government desire to act. And if the word "rescue" be sufficiently extensive

    913
    so as to include the political objects that we have in Egypt, it might be described as our view of the whole of our Egyptian policy. The next thing is to say that I am sorry my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment commented so freely and unfavourably upon the present Ruler of Egypt. It is impossible to leave Egypt without a Government, and my hon. Friend has no other Government to substitute for that of the Khedive; and I regard any word the hon. Baronet said in disparagement of the Khedive and his Government as not only unwarranted by facts, but as highly impolitic, and calculated to prolong the very thing that he does not desire to prolong—namely, intervention in Egypt. Lastly, Sir, it is quite a mistake to suppose that I have ever attempted to vindicate what we have done by saying that the Tories have done the same. What I attempted to show was that there were certain engagements binding upon us and settled upon us when we came into Office, and under these engagements we have been compelled, as a matter of good faith, to act as we have done. That is all I say upon the merits of the case; but I wish to explain in a very few words the course we take with regard to the Amendment. We must vote against the Question which you, Sir, have put from the Chair—that the words of the Amendment take the place of the original Motion. The reasons for that course, I think, I shall make quite clear. It is certainly not that we have greater sympathy with the words of the original Motion than with the words of the Amendment; but we must do it upon this, as I think, very plain ground. My hon. Friend asks the House to decline to express an opinion on the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government. Well, Sir, I hold it to be quite impossible, alter the merits of our proceedings have been raised in a formal manner by the Leader of the Opposition, and issue has been regularly joined upon the subject, that the House can, with credit, retire from the responsibility of deciding upon that question. We shall take our part, therefore, in voting with the right hon. Gentleman that his own words shall stand part of the Question, in order that we may afterwards ask the House to join us in putting a negative upon those words. That is the first, and, perhaps, it is a sufficient consideration, that leads us to join in opposing the
    914
    adoption of the words of the Amendment; but I am bound to say, on looking at the Amendment, that there are other reasons also which I draw from its terms. I find, in the first place, that I do not think it is desirable to ask the House to lay down a rule of policy to be pursued in Egypt, and for this plain reason, that it tends to carry over from the really responsible persons, the Executive Government, a great responsibility and to impose that responsibility upon the House. It would be very much better, I think, that we should collect the judgment and inclination of the House, as we can, and should remain liable to be judged by the House than that the House should take upon itself the responsibility of laying down a rule for our guidance. And that is illustrated when I come to look at the actual rule that my hon. Friend has laid down, because I do not think it would be satisfactory to the House or to himself. We are asked to affirm "that in future the British Forces may not be employed for the purpose of interfering with the Egyptian people in the selection of their own Government." Sir, the question before us is a much wider one. The interference that has existed in Egypt is a much wider interference than the interference of the British Forces. In the first place, it was an interference of the British people; it was the constitution of a Government under British influence; it was the contraction of certain engagements, both to another Great Power and to Egpyt, which engagements bound and fettered us in our subsequent actions; and if my hon. Friend wishes the House to express an opinion at all on these matters, his Motion ought to be framed, not merely to cover the simple matter of forcible intervention, which is the symptom and effect of causes long previously existing, but the intervention, as a whole, with all its essential characteristics. Sir, on these grounds, which I have not stated at any length, because I think the House will understand them, and quite apart from any general concurrence in many of the sentiments of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, though by no means in all of them, I think I have said enough in explaining to the House the practical course which Her Majesty's Government will think it their duty to pursue.
    COLONEL DAWNAY: Sir, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has spoken with a levity which shows he has not realized the depths to which the country has been sunk by the action of the Government. I do not believe that either the events of the past week, or the speech of the Prime Minister, have improved the position of the Government in the eyes of the country. I listened with the greatest attention to every word which fell from the Prime Minister on Tuesday night, and I wondered if, in the annals of Parliament, a more inadequate defence was ever offered to so grave an accusation. The Prime Minister denounced the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) for not having declared a policy of his own in the Soudan; but when the bones of two Egyptian Armies, commanded by English officers, are blackening under the African sun; when the Soudan garrisons are delivered to starvation and massacre—it is too late to offer an alternative policy. The mischief is already done, and the disgrace which the Government has brought upon the British name is irreparable. The Primo Minister dwelt, with complacency and satisfaction, upon the reforms which he has initiated in Egypt in the land survey, in the prisons, and in the Constabulary. But what has all that to do with the question at issue? The country wants to know why, with 7,000 British troops at his disposal at four days' distance, the Prime Minister abandoned the garrison of Sinkat to its fate? The country wants to know how it is the orator of the Bulgarian atrocities has become the participator in the Soudan massacre? The blood of these heroic defenders, and the blood of their women and children, is upon the head of the Prime Minister, and upon the Prime Minister alone. Six months ago Consul General Moncrieff warned him of their danger, and yet last Monday, after the massacre, the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) that the question—the question of their being relieved—was not ripe, although he knew, days before, that the wretched garrison were chewing leaves to assuage the pangs of hunger. The people of England will not be disposed to relieve the Prime Minister of his responsibilities so easily as he has relieved himself.
    916
    They know that the Khedive, whose capital is occupied by British troops, whose revenues are collected by British officials, whose subjects are crushed down to the earth by taxation for the benefit of British bondholders, is a mere cypher in the hands of British Ministers. Sir Edward Malet and Sir Evelyn Baring are the true Rulers of Egypt, and they take their orders from Downing Street. Ever since the defeat of Arabi, Her Majesty's Government have wielded unlimited power to pursue whatever policy seemed best to them. By their victory at Tel-el-Kebir they have crushed out the germs of national feeling and independence; they have dispersed the Army and laid Alexandria in ruins; and they are bound in honour to do all in their power to defend the interests of that country, which they have rendered powerless to protect herself. The honour of England and the best interests of Egypt both point in the same direction. They cannot be separated, and they both are sacrificed to Party considerations. A powerful section of the Liberal Party, whose object it is to cut England adrift from her Colonies, and to repudiate her National obligations, determined that our troops should be recalled from Egypt at the earliest possible opportunity. It was to retain the support of this section of the Liberal Party that, this time last year, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) indicated six months as the farthest limit of our Military occupation. It was to retain the support of this powerful section that Her Majesty's Government adopted the diastrous doctrine that the officers of the Soudan were outside the limits of Her Majesty's Government's considerations. But was ever a more extraordinary and inconsistent doctrine promulgated than this? That the Khedive, whose political existence depends on the presence of our troops in his capital, who is hardly allowed a voice in the administration of the affairs of Egypt Proper, should, at the same time, possess unlimited authority over the vast territories of the scattered populations of the Soudan—a country as large as India. The first direct result of this policy was the destruction of General Hicks and his army. I will not again go into the painful and humiliating events which

    917
    led to the destruction of that gallant officer, except to say that he was as much the victim of the cruel indifference of the English authorities, as of the infatuated incompetency, if not the actual treachery, of the Egyptian Government. Sir Edward Malet went out of his way to impress upon the Egyptian Minister, Cherif Pasha, that he did not endorse the just and reasonable demands of General Hicks; and I believe, and I think, the country will agree with me that this cruel and hostile declaration on the part of Sir Edward Malet materially contributed to the destruction of General Hicks and his army, for the Egyptian Government, knowing that General Hicks was not supported by the English authorities, treated him as the Prime Minister has treated the garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar—they left him to his fate. He started on his expedition without money, without transport, with unpaid, untrustworthy troops, reinforced by the refuse of General Baker's Army, and supported only by the "congratulations" of Sir Edward Malet. His last appeal was disregarded. Not even the command of language possessed by the Prime Minister will be able to persuade the country that General Hicks was not deliberately sacrificed to the pretended non-intervention policy of Her Majesty's Government. I say, pretended, because the steps taken by the Government, on the news of the disaster at Bashgill, illustrate the falseness and absurdity of this theory in a very remarkable manner. For Lord Granville, whose policy, as he is never tired of telling us, is to abstain from interference with the action of the Egyptian Government in the Soudan, now issues an order to the Egyptian Government that, on pain of instant dismissal from their posts, all military operations are to cease in the Soudan, except those for the relief of the outlying garrisons. He need not have made that exception, for the proclamation of that order had already cut off their retreat and sealed their doom. This was the last desperate effort of a dishonoured and panic-stricken Government to escape from the consequences of their sins; and it resulted, like everything else, in failure. What took place at Suakim on the news being made known, was an example of what occurred all over the Soudan. But although the non-inter-
    918
    ference policy had broken down, as regards British interference in the Soudan, it was still in force as regards the relief of the garrisons. Although Her Majesty's Government had put a stop to military operations with a high hand, they steadily refused to move one single British soldier to rescue Sinkat. Tewfik and his 600 heroes were left to perish, and 1,000 women and children were delivered over to outrage and the slave gang; and why?—in order to conciliate the non-intervention party, and secure their support at the next General Election. Truly, the Prime Minister has fairly earned their support; and I trust the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), will prove themselves truly grateful. But the nonintervention party are not the people of England; and the people of England will never forgive the Prime Minister his cruel desertion of the Egyptian garrisons. It is not so long ago that the Prime Minister professed to have such a horror of blood-guiltiness that he surrendered the Transvaal, rather than avenge the defeat of Majuba Hill. The country has now had an opportunity of testing the sincerity of his professions. The murdered victims of the Irish assasination societies, our faithful Native Allies in the Transvaal, and now the Egyptian garrisons of the Soudan, whose heroism more than atones for the cowardice of the wretched rabble sent to relieve them—all tell the same story. They say—" We stood by Her Majesty's Government in their hour of need; we trusted in that Government for help and protection in our hour of peril, and they betrayed us to our enemies. "There is every prospect that this Vote of Censure will be defeated in this House by a large majority, as I understand that both the Whigs and the Home Rulers are likely to support the Government. There will, in that case, be great cheering on the Liberal side when the numbers are declared; but your cheers will not be able to drown the cries of the victims of the policy which you support, which are ringing in the ears of the country. This partizan victory upon which the Government relies, so far from restoring to them their lost reputation, will only add additional force to the contempt and indignation with which

    919
    they are regarded by every honest Englishman.
    MR. VILLIERS STUART: Sir, the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) involves a rebuke to Her Majesty's Government for interfering with the military revolt headed by Arabi Pasha. The rebuke is, no doubt, administered more in sorrow than in anger; but I cannot admit that it is deserved at all. The Amendment assumes that, but for our interference, the movement would have resulted in a National Government; but those who know Egypt are unanimous that it would have resulted in a military despotism, or a state of anarchy terminating in the occupation of the country by some other Power. Would Her Majesty's Government have done its duty, or fulfilled the wish of the great majority of the people of England, had it permitted either of these events to happen? Is there any doubt that the step it took was taken with the approbation of the great bulk of the Members of this House, and of their constituents out-of-doors? Was it not even reproached for not interfering sooner, instead of first exhausting all means of inducing other Nations of Europe to share the task of restoring order in a country in which it was the interest of all Europe that order and good government should prevail? The other Powers deliberately left the task to England, which her vast interests in the East specially marked out for it. As for the question of how far Arabi's movement was a National movement, I was assured on all hands, by men of various classes, that his recruits were brought to his camp in chains, and that whenever his recruiting sergeants appeared, the male villagers fled to the mountains and deserted their farms. I was further informed that his agents imprisoned the women to extort from them where their husbands and brothers were hidden. Such incidents as these are inconsistent with the supposition that he was generally regarded by the people as a great national champion of the rights of the people. If the dealings of Her Majesty's Government, since Tel - el - Kebir, are chargeable with any fault, it is in having been too conscientious, too scrupulously unwilling to supersede the independence of the Ministers of the Khedive; too anxious to allow them as much freedom of action as possible. Sir, recent events
    920
    have proved that such freedom of action is not compatible either with the carrying out of these internal reforms in Egypt, which are necessary to insure good government, or to secure it from serious military disasters and a fanatical invasion from the South. The time has manifestly come for adopting a different treatment, and for assuming "temporarily" not a half-and-half Protectorate, but a complete one for a limited period. We need not insist on the name; but the time has come when the thing itself cannot longer be postponed. I desire, quite as much as they, to see the day arrive when we shall be in a position to withdraw from Egypt, and to leave it an independent and self-governing country; but those who are eager for that result ought to be foremost in advocating the taking of the reins into our own hands now. We cannot leave with credit, nor, indeed, with safety, until we have reformed the administration of the country, and rescued it from the misgovernment and cruel oppression under which its people groan. Put we shall never succeed in any important internal reform while we endeavour to carry it out through the medium of Turkish Pashas. I have repeatedly heard the Government at Cairo referred to as the Egyptian Government, whereas it ought to be designated "the Turkish Government in Egypt." It is almost entirely alien. Riaz Pasha is a Jew, born in Egypt; Cherif Pasha is a Turk; Nubar Pasha is an Armenian; Mehemet Ali was an Albanian. It consists of corrupt materials from top to bottom. Office is accepted by its Turkish and Circassian constituents with the traditional idea of plundering the people, and enriching themselves. They are to a man, in their hearts, bitterly opposed to all reform. How, then, can it be expected that they will be the intermediaries of any reform? If the Administration were reformed, the hope of their gains would be gone. It is they that have hitherto frustrated all our efforts at reform; they are plausible and specious, and wily and deceptive, to the last degree; they will pretend to be enthusiastic for reform at the very moment that they are considering in their hearts the best method of averting any changes in the old abuses by means of which they have grown rich. But the establishment of good government is the most essential

    921
    condition to our safely leaving Egypt to shift for herself. It was gross misgovernment that gave the revolt of Arabi its powers for mischief. It was gross misgovernment to which must be attributed the disastrous rebellion in the Soudan. were we to leave Egypt tomorrow, with the cruel grievances of the people all unredressed, depend upon it that in no long time another Mahdi would arise there to rally the discontented round the flag of fanaticism, and to leave us to do our work there all over again. A period of honest administration is necessary to teach the people what good government means, and to fit them for representative institutions. The strong hand is necessary to thrust aside those who stand in the way of honest administration. Now that we have learned to conjugate the imperative mood, there is a good prospect that we may succeed in achieving these objects. There is one man in Egypt who would be glad to see our reforms carried out, and that is the Khedive. That is the very fact that makes him unpopular with the Pashas. Thanks to the obstruction of these last, we have not got very far with our reforms as yet; for one thing I fear we have begun at the wrong end. The ignorance of the people, and the fact that they have hitherto been treated as slaves, renders it necessary that good government should come first—representative institutions afterwards. The hopes of the people had been staked upon England; to her they looked to reform their grievances; these hopes have hitherto been disappointed, and they are losing their faith in us—that is a serious matter just now. This idea of reform at the hands of England is not of recent origin. Years ago I have been asked eagerly, by many a peasant proprietor groaning under oppression, whether there was any hope of England taking Egypt. I have often heard it doubted whether the fellah race were capable of self-government. I myself, having an acquaintance with them extending over many years, feel no hesitation in saying that they are by no means deficient in intelligence, and that, though not fit for representative institutions, yet they would be apt pupils, and that after a few years of honest and beneficent government, they might be trusted with the franchise, and a scheme of representative government might then,
    922
    but not sooner, be introduced with every hope of success. Lot us pass in review a few of the grievances which the people of Egypt most loudly complain of. The most easy of these to redress is the date tax. This only produced a gross revenue of £84,000 a-year, from which has to be deducted the cost of collection. It might easily be commuted for the addition of 1s. per acre to the land tax; or, better still, by equalizing the land tax and sweeping away the exemptions on the Pasha's lands. The latter course would remove a deeply-resented grievance. The mischievous nature of the date tax is fully explained in the Report which Her Majesty's Government honoured me by publishing last year. The cruelties, inequalities, and injustice of the forced labour system are a serious element of discontent, as well as loss, by its interference with cultivation. It cannot safely at present be abolished; but it might be greatly improved, and the sufferings of the people relieved by furnishing them with tools and food. The market duties are also much complained of, and give opportunity for extortion, for there is no such thing at the receipt of custom as a table of tolls. They are extremely vexatious, and nothing escapes them. For instance, there is a humble and useful industry prevailing throughout Egypt, of collecting camel and buffalo dung and drying it for fuel. In a country where there is very little wood and no coal, this unsavoury article is almost a necessary of life to the poor. The market dues are not devoted to the improvement of the towns at the gates of which they are collected, but to the Imperial Exchequer. There are a host of petty taxes necessitating the employment of an army of collectors—or rather blood-suckers—who extort far more than their due. I once saw quite a fleet of boats waiting at a railway bridge. On inquiry, I found that they were awaiting the convenience of the tax-gatherer, that they might pay for the privilege of passing "under" the bridge. Then there are the brutalities of the conscription. It is sickening to see men brought in gangs, heavily ironed, to the recruiting station, as I have seen happen, in a town filled with gendarmerie, officered by Englishmen. Another abuse is the unrestricted use of the courbash, men being savagely beaten on the soles of their feet, at the caprice or

    923
    ill-humour of the tyrants who rule them. I am not prepared to say that at present corporal punishment could be entirely dispensed with; but it might be regulated and, we may hope, by degrees abolished. There are minor reforms, but they will never be carried out through the agency of Turkish Pashas, or their subordinates; neither will the cure be effected by Europeans living in Cairo, and drawing heavy salaries there and leaving the Provinces to take care of themselves. We want men on the spot, travelling Commissioners passing from Province to Province, and seeing that the reforms ordered are carried into effect. The greater and more difficult tasks are the purification of the administration of justice in Native Courts, and the reform of the mixed tribunals; the effecting of a liquidation for the village debts due to usurers. The capital amount of this debt is not so serious as the exorbitant interest paid on it. We want also some check upon the despotic powers of the Mudirs, that is, Governors of Provinces, as well as of the Sheiks, governors of villages. Another most necessary step is the reform of the State Domain and Daira management. And finally, the equalization of the land tax. The exemptions enjoyed by the privileged lands is a cause of chronic discontent, and a serious loss to the Revenue. More than one quarter of the entire cultivated land of Egypt, or, in round numbers, 1,300,000 acres, pay only from one-third to one-half the land tax paid by the smaller proprietors. The redress of this injustice would not only remove a much-resented grievance, but it would at once give buoyancy to the Revenue of Egypt; but it will never be carried out by the Pashas. If Nubar Pasha is sincere in his zeal for reform, let him volunteer the reform of this great wrong, and begin by submitting his own estates to the process. I have, at the risk of wearying the patience of the House, glanced at the positions of the task we have to accomplish, to show that time is necessary to complete the work we have undertaken, and which is as yet barely begun. We cannot in honour leave it undone. We should place ourselves in the humiliating position of the man who began to build, but was not able to finish, and we should forfeit all the advantages which we have spent so much blood and treasure to acquire. As to the general question of
    924
    the Soudan, Egypt has not the administrative ability to govern it, nor the military strength to hold it; and assuredly no one would, for a moment, contemplate England's undertaking to hold it for her? It exhausted her finances, it drained away her able-bodied men, whom she could ill-spare for she really has not enough men to develop her own resources. The Soudan was the occasion for the cruellest phases of the conscription, and the one result which might have justified, in our eyes, her occupation of it—namely, the suppression of the Slave Trade, has not been accomplished, and never will be accomplished, under the auspices of Egyptian officials. The most effective blow that could be dealt at that horrible trade of slave-hunting would be the suppression of domestic slavery in Egypt itself. I think, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government have conferred a distinct benefit upon Egypt by terminating her dream of an Equatorial Empire. But the question of Khartoum and a limited territory in its neighbour's land is different; that may yet be saved, and General Gordon is the man to bring that result about. If there is any man living who has the genius to make an effective army out of the raw material now at Khartoum, it is the man who, with much smaller means to begin with, organized the force that put down the formidable Taeping rebellion in China, and earned the title of "the ever-victorious." Sir, the battle is not yet lost. If we only now profit by the lessons of the past, and adopt a resolute and determined policy, we may yet accomplish all that we hoped to do when the battle of Tel-el-Kebir placed the fortunes of Egypt in our hands. After a few years we may be in a position to withdraw our forces from the country with honour, and to point to a regenerated, self-governing and independent Egypt, as the grandest justification of our action. But it is because the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle points to a premature withdrawal, that I do not feel justified in supporting it. Any such course would perpetuate in Egypt the misgovernment that has produced such disastrous consequences in the Soudan; and, believing that a premature withdrawal would bristle with mischievous consequence and involve discredit and reproach to England, I must oppose the Amendment now before the House.
    MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he did not consider the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet went far enough. Having carefully perused the Papers, he had been irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the lamentable events de-tailed were not only in a great measure, but entirely, due to the vacillating and inconsistent policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government. Lord Granville did not deny the charge of inconsistency, but pleaded that it was the inconsistency of a man who put up his umbrella when it rained, and closed it again when the sun shone. He would rather compare the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with that of a man who, notwithstanding the threatening appearance of the sky, obstinately insisted upon going out without any umbrella at all. Her Majesty's Government had fixed for themselves an arbitrary line, which they limited to Egypt Proper, affecting to ignore everything that might transpire beyond that line, but forgetful, apparently, that without the concurrence of the Mahdi, those very pleasant and comfortable arrangements could not possibly be carried out. It did seem to him scarcely credible that the Prime Minister, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, on the 9th of November, should have talked so jauntily about the great improvement in the condition of Egypt, and the consequent contemplated withdrawal by Her Majesty's Government of half the garrison, when only four days previously the unfortunate army of Hicks Pasha had been completely annihilated, and had naturally ceased to exist. It was only by the merest accident that the troops ordered to withdraw had not embarked and been well on their way to this country. They were detained, as Lord Granville, in his somewhat cynical and cold - blooded style, wrote to the Turkish Ambassador, because a great disaster had occurred in the Soudan, "which might possibly produce inconvenience, or even danger, to Egypt." That word "inconvenience" did appear somewhat strange when applied to the effect produced by the slaughter of a brave Commander and his whole army; but only important to Her Majesty's Government in so far as it might affect their policy—if policy it could be called—in Lower Egypt. There was no doubt that the Government had, from the very first, given
    926
    their approval to the appointment of Hicks Pasha, and Lord Dufferin wrote to Lord Granville in high terms of the good effects which Hicks's victories were producing. Her Majesty's Government were always ready to appropriate the results of victory, while taking the very greatest possible precaution against incurring any risk of participating in any of the disadvantages incidental to defeat. The Correspondence teemed with passages showing the nervous dread of Her Majesty's Government and their Agents being held responsible for the actions of Hicks Pasha, and their anxiety upon every occasion to disown him when in any difficulty or trouble. This was shown in the despatches from Sir Edward Malet to Lord Granville. Poor Hicks Pasha evidently thought that his movements might be of some interest to Her Majesty's Government, for they found him writing on the 28th June, saying to Sir Edward Malet—
    "Will you tell mo if any steps have been taken to support me, and ensure my military arrangements being carried out?"
    And again he wrote—
    "We have no money, and a good deal is required; pray represent this."
    The unfortunate man might as well have appealed to the wind. Sir Edward Malet did nothing whatever for him, except to send copies of three telegrams to Lord Granville, showing the unfortunate position in which he was placed. Disaster came at last; and although Sir Evelyn Baring, who had succeeded Sir Edward Malet, reported, in conjunction with his military colleagues—General Stephenson and Sir Evelyn Wood—that the invasion of the Mahdi would be the cause of danger to Lower Egypt, Lord Granville still insisted upon maintaining irresponsibility for affairs in the Soudan. It was impossible to conceive of greater folly than that displayed on this occasion by Her Majesty's Government. If they desired to repudiate the action of General Hicks, then he maintained they ought to have insisted on—or, if they liked the word better, they ought to have advised—his immediate recall by the Egyptian Government. But if they approved of the expedition, which he fancied they did, then they ought to have supported Hicks Pasha by every means in their power; and the proof of what

    927
    he asserted was to be found in the fact that the Government were obliged at last to accept the responsibility which they had so long and so obstinately declined; for Lord Granville, writing on the 4th of January to Sir Evelyn Baring, said that those Egyptian Ministers and Governors who refused to adopt the policy recommended by Her Majesty's Government must cease to hold their Offices. But even when this miserable fiction of irresponsibility had at last reluctantly to be abandoned, and a Government of puppets had been established, with British Under Secretaries standing behind them, at a cost to the Egyptian finances, he believed, of some £15,000 a-year, when we at last recognized what every other country in Europe had well known, but to which we had resolutely for a long time shut our eyes—that Queen Victoria was the real Khedive, and that Sir Evelyn Baring was her real Prime Minister—we found that Sir Evelyn Baring, although an able financier, had been so demoralized by the work which up to that time had to be performed, that he allowed the nominal Prime Minister of Egypt—Nubar Pasha—to oppose the appointment of General Gordon. The greatest fault which must be charged against Her Majesty's Government was their persistent refusal to relieve the unfortunate garrisons in the Soudan, even when they were quite close to the coast line. The question of holding or abandoning the Soudan might have been left open; but the duty of the Government with regard to relieving the garrisons was imperative and perfectly clear. Their unwillingness or their inability to perform this duty, had greatly compromised the influence of this country in Europe. We might affect, if we liked, to despise the opinion of any particular country; but we could not afford to contemn and despise the unanimous opinion of our conduct as it had been expressed by united Europe. The fall of Sinkat appeared especially hard when they thought of its Commander, Tewfik Bey, whose conduct was worthy of the highest praise. To leave such a man in such a position was not the way to encourage loyalty to the British connection. There was ample proof that the Government could, if it liked, have relieved Sinkat, in that it was now about to relieve Tokar. If it could relieve Tokar now, and believed it
    928
    to be its duty to relieve Tokar now, the Government could have relieved, and it was its duty to relieve, Sinkat two months ago. In that case, this horrible massacre of women and children, as well as men, could not possibly have occurred. A good deal was heard in the last House of Commons about a "mechanical majority." There was something worse than a mechanical majority, and this was a servile majority, which was ready to vote "Aye" or "No" at the behest of an imperious Minister. He at one time entertained the highest respect for a Cabinet Minister; but when he saw a Cabinet abounding in the choicest talent, headed by the foremost orator in Europe—an orator who could sometimes, as he did the other night, make the worse appear the better reason—when he thought of the miserable failure of the Cabinet where a dozen good commonplace men of business would easily have succeeded, then his respect for these Cabinet Ministers was greatly diminished—if, indeed, it had not absolutely disappeared.
    MR. W. C. CART WRIGHTdenied that the majority, with which he should probably vote, would be a servile majority. He did not remember hearing a word from any speaker advocating the maintenance of the authority of Egypt over the Soudan. Then came the question whether we had done all that was really incumbent upon us in regard to the complications which had resulted in the present difficulty. For his own part, he confessed he was not altogether satisfied in regard to the action taken in the past by Her Majesty's Government. He could not disassociate the English Government from all responsibility in regard to the Soudan, for Lord Dufferin, in his Report on the lines on which Egypt should be administered, had expressly advocated the retention of Sennaar and Khartoum, and this view had been endorsed by Lord Granville in November last, when he instructed Sir Evelyn Baring to advise only a partial evacuation of the Soudan. It was certain that nowhere in the Blue Books was there to be found any remonstrance against what the Egyptian Government was trying to do in the Soudan, while yet on a thousand points advice was being constantly given by the English Government. It was said that British officers had gone into that country on their own responsibility; and that, therefore, no

    929
    obligation rested on us in regard to what befell them. Technically they had, no doubt, but morally he thought it was otherwise. If these officers had not enlisted in the Egyptian Service with the written assent of the British Government, they had done so with its full knowledge, and without one word of disapproval on its part. To pretend, therefore, to have no cognizance of their participation in the Soudan Expedition was a quibble like pretending to ignore the character of Princes under the transparent veil of an assumed incognito. He did not think there would have been any danger in sending British troops to support the Egyptian troops. He held that the Government could not entirely escape from the responsibility entailed by what had latterly occurred in the Soudan, especially in regard to the slackness they had shown in the measures taken for rescuing the beleaguered garrisons. The question before Liberal Members was whether they were justified by what had taken place in Egypt in withdrawing their confidence from Her Majesty's Ministers. Whatever might be their opinion of the policy which Her Majesty's Government had pursued in Egypt before the 4th of January, it was undoubted that since that date they had taken a new and a firm departure. All were agreed that this country should not burden itself with the maintenance of Egyptian authority in the Soudan. Next to a precipitate evacuation of Egypt an annexation of that country would be the most fatal step that could be taken. Nothing had done the reputation of England more harm in the East than the annexation of Cyprus. But between a precipitate evacuation and an annexation of the country there was a mean course that should be adopted. We were bound to support the man we had set up, and who leaned upon us because he could not walk alone. We could not do better than support Nubar Pasha. He had had the honour of Nubar Pasha's acquaintance for many years, and he had never known an Oriental who possessed greater intellectual powers, who had a more correct idea of the principles upon which a country should be governed, or who had such large and liberal ends in view. It was to him was due the establishment of the International Tribunals in Egypt, which was one of the greatest
    930
    reforms that had been effected in that country. On the whole, after having carefully listened to the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite and of other hon. Members, he had come to the conclusion, although not with perfect satisfaction, that he ought to vote against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote).
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he was reminded, by the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, of a phrase of Lord Palmerston's—namely, that speeches might influence opinion, but would not influence a single vote. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) had delivered a speech which proved that the case of Her Majesty's Government, in his own opinion and that of his constituents, was a bad one, and which concluded with the statement that, notwithstanding the opinions he held, he was justified in supporting Her Majesty's Government. That was a question to be decided between the hon. Member and his constituents; but there was not a single argument put forth by the hon. Member against the case as it had been stated by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition; nor, on the other hand, was there any argument in support of the case as presented by the Prime Minister. At an earlier stage of the debate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had said the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt should be one of "rescue and retire." If the hon. Member for Carlisle would allow him to make an alteration in that phrase, he would put it "rescue or retire," for, if the Government now at the eleventh hour did not put forward a policy of rescue, the indignation of the country would make them retire. Hon. Members opposite were glad to find in the determination now expressed by the Government, of sending troops for the purpose of giving aid to the unfortunate garrisons, a means of satisfying themselves that the policy of Her Majesty's Government deserved their confidence. He, however, did not share that opinion; and he believed it would not be shared by the great majority of the people of England. He would point out that if the Government were not justified in interfering before the fall of Sinkat, they were not justified in interfering now; but, on the other

    931
    hand, if they were justified in interfering, they were greatly to blame for allowing the gallant Tewfik and his troops to be first half-starved, and then to fall before the spears of the Arabs. He defied Her Majesty's Government to escape from that dilemma. All the eloquence and sophistical rhetoric of the Prime Minister could not contradict that; even his oratory would fail to convince the common sense of the country; and it would judge for itself upon the now notorious facts. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? Did he attempt in any way to prove that responsibility did not rest on Her Majesty's Government? Yes; and he failed. How could he get out of the despatch of the 4th of January from Lord Granville to Sir Evelyn Baring, in every word of which responsibility was written; if the Prime Minister really held a different opinion, he ought to issue a new edition of Johnson's Dictionary. The British Government insisted on the abandonment of the Soudan, although that abandonment involved the massacre of the garrisons and people of Sinkat and Tokar. The withdrawal of the military forces from the Soudan gave the Arab hordes the power to massacre; and, therefore, through the abandonment of the Soudan, the Government became responsible for these terrible events. And yet the right hon. Gentleman said the Government had no responsibility. He would venture to say that the Prime Minister had not touched the question at all. The Prime Minister said the Conservative Party did not challenge the policy of the Government because it was vacillating, but only because it was wrong. That was a very large word; but Her Majesty's Opposition really said nothing of the sort. They said the policy of the Government was vacillating, and that they were, in consequence of such vacillation, responsible for the events that had happened in Egypt. The Prime Minister, evading the real point at issue, had endeavoured to fix the responsibility for the present state of affairs in the Soudan on the authors of the Dual Control. That might be an exceedingly ingenious method of fogging those who were not conversant with the question; but it did not in any way affect the real merits of the case. When it was necessary for England to interfere, after the massacre at Alexandria, the Opposition
    932
    dropped all Party feeling, and loyally supported the Government. The Opposition now said that the policy of the Government was wrong, because it was vacillating and inconsistent. If the Government, as the Prime Minister had said, considered that it was no part of their duty to protect the Soudan, and that by so doing they would be oppressing the Soudanese, why did he not mate the evacuation a sine quâ non for English interference in the first instance? If the protection of the Soudan was wrong at the present time, it was wrong when they first interfered in Egypt. The rebellion in the Soudan did not date from yesterday, but from years back; and if the crusade on behalf of the oppressed nationalities were to be undertaken, it was quite as necessary before Tel-el-Kebir, and would have afforded a very cogent reason for not going to Egypt at all. Out of that dilemma it appeared to him it would be very difficult for Her Majesty's Government to get. To his astonishment the Prime Minister had stated that the Conservatives were in the main responsible for the condition of Egypt, owing to the creation of the Dual Control. That was a good stock argument, which did very well when a better could not be found. But the Dual Control certainly had not in its inception any political object whatever—certainly not as far as the leading principle was concerned. Its sole purpose had been misrepresented, for it was not to protect usurers and bondholders, but to ensure the revenues of Egypt flowing into the coffers of the State, instead of into the pockets of the Khedive and his favourites. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not blame the Conservative Government for protecting the creditors of the State. Did they advocate the principle of repudiation, and condemn the Government which enforced legitimate claims? It appeared to him that that was the argument of the hon. Members for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); and if that were so, he could refer them to a recent instance in which Her Majesty's present Advisers sanctioned a loan by bankers in this country to Egypt. How would it be if some Gentlemen turned round and said the Government were assisting the cause of the bankers? And yet that argument was as good as saying that the late Go-

    933
    vernment had the protection of the bondholders as their object. But did they know that the late Khedive was very much under the control of France; and although he (Baron Henry de Worms) had nothing whatever to say against France, could it possibly be to the advantage of England that the French should be dominant in Egypt? If not, that was a good reason why the Government of Lord Beaconsfield preferred half a loaf to no bread, and shared the responsibility with France by means of the Dual Control. At that time the Khedive had with him a certain M. Barraud, whose influence over him was enormous, and who was in direct communication with the Government of France. The principal posts in Egypt were all filled by Frenchmen, and it could not possibly be to the advantage of England, as Lord Beaconsfield, with the sagacity of a great statesman, saw, that France should have preponderance over England in the affairs of Egypt. That led Lord Beaconsfield eventually to carry out that arrangement with regard to the Suez Canal, which gave to England a control in some degree proportioned to the commerce belonging to her. And when hon. Gentlemen opposite considered that the arrangement of the Dual Control was entrusted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), surely that ought to lead them to think that this terrible Dual Control was not established solely in the interests of usurers and bondholders. He would ask also whether, in the course of his great Mid Lothian campaign, the Prime Minister ever condemned the Dual Control, although he now thought that to do so was a very convenient way of getting out of his difficulty? It sounded well to say to the country that all the difficulties we were encountering in Egypt were the result of that Dual Control, which was established by Lord Beaconsfield and carried out by Lord Salisbury, but for which the present Government were not responsible, and against which the Liberals had protested. What was the real cause of our difficulties? He had on a former occasion pointed out to the House what it was that had brought about this state of things. It was the Joint Note—a political instrument which bound France and England together in Egypt. He ventured to say that to the Joint Note signed by Eng-
    934
    land and France might be attributed the rebellion of Arabi Pasha. When it was issued, the advice, or rather the command, given to Egypt was that Arabi should be deprived of his command as colonel in the Army and banished from the country. At that time information was sought for in vain in the Blue Books; and it was only through the instrumentality of the French Yellow Book, in which were published despatches of the Government here to Lord Lyons in Paris, that it was ascertained that the Note was issued by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with France, and that it was never intended to be acted on. The natural result was Arabi's rebellion; and if Arabi had not rebelled, and the rebellion had not assumed the proportions it ultimately did, Her Majesty's Government would not have been under the necessity of commencing a war in Egypt, while if there had not been a war in Egypt, and no Tel-el-Kebir, Her Majesty's Government would have assumed no responsibility at all. In the course of the debate a great deal had been said about oppressed nationalities, and the Prime Minister had said that, in order to protect the 29,000 men who were distributed over a country as large as Germany, France, and Austria combined, 500 men had to be sacrificed at Sinkat; but nothing whatever had been said about British interests, which it was the first duty of every British Minister to protect. The rebellion in the Soudan must not be taken as relating only to the Soudan itself, but as affecting the safety of Lower Egypt. The frontier line proposed by the Government was so utterly absurd that he wondered at its having even been suggested. But the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think much of the safety of Lower Egypt, but mainly as to how soon we could get out of the country. Link by link he (Baron Henry De Worms) had traced the course of events, and shown that to the blunder of the Joint Note the present condition of affairs was due. Did we go to Egypt only to quell the rebellion of Arabi Pasha? If we did, we ought to have retired when that rebellion was quelled; if not, every rebellion should be quelled by the Forces of Her Majesty. The Government policy in Egypt had not been in accordance with the professions of the Prime Minister in the Mid Lothian

    935
    Campaign; but it was an endeavour to reconcile it with the irresponsible utterances of the Prime Minister when he was trying to oust Lord Beaconsfield, that had landed the Government in its present Egyptian difficulties. He ventured to think this country had other interests in Egypt than the mere protection of Tewfik Pasha; this country had to protect British interests. That was our first duty, and he called the attention of the House to the fact": that now, more than ever, were British interests in Egypt in danger. By the policy adopted by the Government just now and when they were in Opposition' the power of Turkey had been so weakened that she was no longer able to offer any barrier whatever to Russian advance or to Russian ambition. The blindness of the Prime Minister to the advances which Russia was making astonished every Englishman. Russia was advancing on Merv, had lately concluded a Treaty with Persia which could have but one object, and that was the making of that country a Russian Ally when Russia should invade India. He also reminded the House of another fact, that now all the Powers of Europe had more influence in Turkey than England had. It was of the greatest importance to this country that it should maintain the road to India through Egypt. France was in possession of Algeria and Tunis; Austria, of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Russia controls Bulgaria and Servia; Roumania is governed by a Prussian Prince. A former Liberal Government abrogated the Black Sea Treaty, and Russia re-obtained, by the Treaty of Berlin, Bessarabia and one of the mouths of the Danube, while on the Eastern shore of the Black Sea Batoum was ceded to her. Who could doubt that in some future European war Constantinople and the right of ingress and egress to the Black Sea would fall into her hands? Under those circumstances, it was of the greatest importance that England should not allow Egypt to sink into a state of anarchy. Egypt should be well governed, not only in the interests of the Egyptian people, but also in the interests of England herself, and in the interests of India, Egypt being the great highway to that important part of our Dominions. It was our interest to protect the Suez Canal, and we had not only important commercial interests at stake, but there
    936
    were great Imperial interests at stake also. He protested against the idea that we were a mere nation of shopkeepers. It was not a mere question as to whether the ships of this country were delayed three weeks or more by the stoppage of the Canal, but whether this country, whose commerce represented that of the whole world, should or should not be able to protect the Suez Canal, and prevent hostile nations in the moment of danger and general war swooping down upon India from Central Asia, paralyzing the influence of Turkey, and closing the road of England through Egypt. These interests the Government were imperilling by the vacillating policy they were pursuing, for which he believed they stood condemned in the mind of every Englishman; and for the reasons he had stated he felt it his duty to support the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down that he is more interested in the present immediate policy of the Government, and in what they would do in the future, than he is in their past policy. If that be the case, I agree with him, and think the country care very much more about what should be done now than about what has been done in the last year, or in the last two or three years. The question is not whether the Government has always done what is right in the matter, but whether the course of action in which they are now engaged be really to the interest of the country and of Egypt. But we cannot altogether forget that that which has been brought before us is a Vote of Censure, and a Vote of Censure is a serious matter. It cannot be voted upon and it cannot be discussed simply upon the merits of the censure without some consideration of the consequences. Sir, we must remember that we are not an Oxford Union, and that we are not one of those associations which we see throughout the country in which young gentlemen, and, perhaps, sometimes gentlemen who are not young, come together and play at Parliaments, with the idea of teaching one another to talk and to make learned speeches, an art which, perhaps, it would be better not so much to cultivate. It is, however, no exaggeration to say that this

    937
    Vote of Censure, if taken seriously—and every Vote of Censure ought to be taken seriously—is one upon which the fate of nations may depend. There has been a Vote of Censure in "another place." It has been carried by a very large majority. I am not one of those who treat that with contempt. Why, the House of Lords is one of the powers of the country. It is not a matter of no moment, and it becomes all the more important that the House of Commons, if it does not agree with the House of Lords, should very clearly show the reason why it does not agree with it. Now, let us consider what would be the result of the House of Commons imitating the House of Lords. I want to put aside consequences, except in so far as they relate to the matter in hand—that is, our duty in Egypt and our relations with Egypt. Of course, there are very few men on this side of the House—I am sure on the other side as well—who cannot help thinking that there are other consequences—consequences in regard to home affairs as well as to foreign affairs; but let us simply take the consequences with regard to Egypt. If this Vote of Censure succeeds, one of two results must follow. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said what would follow must be a change of Government. That would not necessarily result. There might be a Dissolution and change of seats for many of us; but what would be the effect of that on the Egyptian policy? Why, at the very time that promptness and decision and active energy on the part of a Government are required there would necessarily be delay and uncertainty. ["No!"] That must be so; and then comes the other alternative of a change of Government. But when we look forward to that result on any particular question we must consider not only what we are losing, but what we are getting; and, as far as regards Egypt itself, I confess that although I do not entirely agree with the action of the Government until quite lately, yet I see no reason to believe that the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been more likely to receive my approval. I cannot gather confidence from them in Egyptian matters, either from anything they did while they were in Office, or
    938
    from anything they have said while out of Office for the last year or two; and I cannot gather it from the Motion now before us, or from the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) supported that Motion. Now, as regards the Motion itself, I need not refer to that wonderful reply of the Prime Minister. I do not know that I ever heard a speech that was more admirable. I think he had a very difficult task, and certainly he was equal to it, both in point of skill and the eloquence with which he discharged it. And I think my right hon. Friend was probably right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) brought forward no arguments in support of his case. It is quite true that the Motion said the policy of the Government had been vacillating and inconsistent; but the arguments said—" You have been consistent all through in a false policy." That is a very serious charge no doubt, but I think that is what might fairly be said by anyone who read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; or if he could have heard it before he saw the Motion he would have supposed that the Motion attached to that speech must be a charge of consistency in a false policy. I do not in the slightest degree coincide with that charge, but I must confess that I am afraid that I shall now be at variance with many Members on this side of the House when I say that I think there was some reason for the charge that the Government did not quickly enough realize the true policy. I think that they did not quickly enough realize the meaning of what happened more than a year ago—that they did not realize what that battle of Tel-el-Kebir meant. Now, there are those who think that the battle of Tel-el-Kebir ought not to have been fought. I do not now enter into that question. I take facts as I find them. That battle put us in the position that after it there was no Power in Egypt except that of the English Government. I do not think Her Majesty's Ministers quickly enough realized that fact, or I am sure they would have felt that where there is power there is responsibility, and that where you have the power you cannot get rid of the responsibility. We were, in fact, after that battle, the sole governors of Egypt, and on us has rested ever since the responsibility of what has been done and

    939
    of what has not been done. No doubt, it is easy to be wise after the event; and I do not ignore the difficulties of the Government—difficulties which were great both with regard to Foreign Powers and to public opinion at home. At first I do not think the country realized what that battle meant; I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not realize what it meant; but I think the country is now somewhat in advance of the Government in that matter. It is rarely, indeed, in history that we have seen, such a fact as that immediately realized; I am not at all surprised that there has been this delay; and though it is easy to see why there has been the delay, it is, I am afraid, also very easy to see the consequences of our not only taking power, but taking it from those who had it before, and preventing their using it and not fully using it ourselves. I do not think I am exaggerating the position in which we were placed by what happened then. The Prime Minister said—
    "We had taken the responsibility of military operations which reduced the country; the Army was entirely broken up, and the institutions of the country were gone. We had before us the work of reconstitution."
    Well, how did we begin that work? By giving excellent advice. Advice is a good thing, but I cannot conceive anything less likely to succeed than the attempt of a Western nation to govern an Oriental country by advice to Oriental administrators. The Western idea, the Christian idea of government is perfectly different from the Oriental and the Mussulman idea. The Oriental idea of government is a strong, very often an unjust, despotism to individuals; but by its very strength and fierceness it sometimes gives peace and a certain happiness to the people. Our idea, on the other hand, is just government, and we look at matters far more carefully. But if we take things in hand and say to such a country—" You are to be governed by Western nations," and you take from their Governors power, unless you see that your advice is followed, the result is almost certain to be a weak sort of despotism, which of all kinds of government is the worst—worse oven than an unjust Government. Well, what has been the result? There has, I am afraid, been as yet very little result in fact, though a good delay of possible result hereafter. There are better relations between the
    940
    Natives and the Christians and the English and other foreigners; but when we come to reform of the Native Administration, I fear that until very lately we can point to very little that has been achieved. I do not dwell upon that; but we have the reports in the newspapers—we have seen the statements in The Times, showing how things have got from bad to worse; and I confess that I have seen no real answer to them. And remember this—there is one thing that we have done; we have kept order. But what does keeping order mean? It means preventing any rebellion against the Pashas, however corrupt; it means taking away the sole check to an Oriental Government, which is the fear of rebellion. Again, we have levied taxes, and taken care that taxes should be paid that would not otherwise have been paid. By your clover officers you have levied the taxes with greater effect, no doubt, than the Government could do before. The only result was that matters were getting from bad to worse; and I own that, terrible as were the Soudan disasters, and shocking as was the disaster to Hicks Pasha's Army, yet it has been a good thing for Egypt. And for this reason—that it has forced Her Majesty's Government to realize the facts, and has obliged them to displace that Government, to whom they were merely giving advice, and at the same time wearing out the souls of clever, public-spirited, and devoted Englishmen, who tried to carry out these reforms, but found it impossible to do so through a Ministry composed of Pashas or their agents. That has obliged us in England to get rid of that Government, and to put in its place Nubar Pasha, a very able man, I believe, who sees what the real position of matters is, and is not merely willing to hear advice, but will act in accordance with it; and so there is hope in the words used by the Foreign Secretary in "another place "—I trust I am not out of Order in referring to them—in which he says, that "we have a right to see that our advice on all important questions is followed." That, I take it, means that it shall be followed. That fact makes me more hopeful as regards Egyptian affairs, and renders it comparatively easy for me to vote with the Government. If it had not been for this change, while I could not have voted with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am afraid

    941
    I should have been, most reluctantly, unable to have voted with the Government. Let us turn to the Soudan. How could the Government for a moment suppose—having the power which they have in Egypt, and having the consequent responsibility attaching to it—how could they suppose they could divest themselves of all responsibility with regard to the Soudan? I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about what ought to be our views as to the Soudan. I am glad to see in despatches which have come to-day—what I knew were General Gordon's views, expressed in his terse and powerful words—that we should be, indeed, acting disgracefully if we attempt to reconquer the Soudan and put it back under the oppressive rule of the Egyptian Pashas. Sir, there have been different causes assigned for the insurrections in the Soudan. Perhaps they have all had something to do with it. Among those causes are mentioned the efforts to put down the Slave Trade, though these have not been very successful; hatred of those efforts, and the fanaticism of the Mahdi; but the real reason why be has been able to raise and support a large army is the abominable oppression that the people suffered under. My right hon. Friend says that be cannot sanction the attempt to reconquer the Soudan. But I ask why, when you bad power in Egypt, did you not protest against the attempt at its reconquest? Why, when Hicks Pasha's Army was going forward to reconquer it, did you not see that that attempt was made with your assent, and, further than that, by your help—a help, it is true, not enough to insure success, but quite enough to incur responsibility? Who made the Khedive safe in Lower Egypt, and, therefore, left him free to use all his forces in Upper Egypt? Who but the English Army? Then take the effect on Egypt itself. There seems to be a supposition that you bad only to do with Egypt Proper, and bad nothing to do with the Soudan. I do not think you can separate one from the other. Suppose it was so. What was the effect upon Egypt itself? I cannot conceive what the Government was thinking about. Their clever agents must have informed them that Lower Egypt would be affected by the operations in the Soudan. I will
    942
    take two illustrations. Many allusions have been made to-day to one of them—the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) alluded to it. That was the horrible manner in which that Army was recruited, in which men were sent to fight with their wives in an agony of tears—they themselves almost frightened to death—the refuse of the Army that had fought us at Tel-el-Kebir. I am afraid that one regiment that fought us bravely was sent there. Those men would not have gone—the Egyptian Government would not have ventured to send them—if it had not been for our Army, which prevented the possibility of a refusal. A question was asked on this matter of my noble Friend the Under Secretary, and I was perfectly astonished with his answer, which was that he bad no Report. Why, there have been current stories in the newspapers for weeks, and it was the business of the Government to get a Report. Take another effect upon Egypt—the finances of Egypt. I will not say much about the finances, for I have not the technical knowledge which enables me to do so. But there are two or three broad facts. One is that we found, a long time before Tel-el-Kebir, Egypt was tremendously in debt. We found an enormous sum owing to the bondholders—much more than Egypt can pay. I cannot conceive anything which the people of England would more strongly disavow than that English forces should be used to wring taxes out of the starving peasants—to secure the payment to speculators, who well knew the risks they were running, of loans which we well know Egypt is powerless to pay. There may be difficulties with Foreign Governments. But if we are to interfere at all—to have anything to do with that matter—it ought to be to try and make favourable arrangements between the bondholders of this insolvent country, knowing very well, as we do, the reason why it is insolvent. I merely mention that debt to show what was the position of Egypt. Egypt was heavily in debt, and I am sorry to say that debt has been increased since the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. We have not particulars of all the indemnity claims; but I believe they reckon by millions, and will have to be well looked into. I am afraid that justice will require our carefully scrutinizing them. There are large

    943
    claims for the pillage of Alexandria. I should like to ask two questions with regard to that subject. Did the English Government or English residents make any claims in France for pillage at the time of the Commune? Is it usual for these claims to be made? [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Yes.] Has there been any attempt to get the French Government to pay for the English property pillaged at the time of the Commune? If you said an indemnity was to be paid, claims would start up very quickly. I confess I think that point comes up. Again, it is our business to protect English taxpayers, but I do not think the English taxpayer will ask that the poor starving fellaheen shall pay for what belongs to us. I very much doubt whether we can avoid responsibility for what happened after the bombardment. No doubt it was only an error of judgment; but our Commanders did not think it right to land our forces, which would have prevented that pillage. But these are side remarks, and do not apply to my particular argument, which is that we found a great debt, which has since been largely increased. It became our duty to see that this burden should not be still further increased. Well, was it possible for the clever men we had in Egypt not to see that what was happening in the Soudan would almost certainly much increase the debt? We have, indeed, acknowledged our responsibility in this matter. We said—" Turkey shall not send troops unless we can be sure that they will not increase the cost to the Egyptian Government." Well, then, what I say is this—When Hicks Pasha was sending his pitiful letters, by which, brave man as he was, he was trying to bring before his friends at Cairo that he was in a hopeless position, which, consistently with his honour as a soldier, he could not refuse to maintain, why could not our Government step forward, why could not Sir Evelyn Baring step forward, and say—" We think you are unwise, but this will cost money. Remember that you can only get money by the help of our Army protecting your tax-gatherers—that help for this purpose shall not be given." They did not take that course. What has been the result? The increase of the debt by nearly £1,000,000, which is to be advanced by Messrs. Rothschild. There have been a good many questions about that loan. I do not imagine that
    944
    the Government has guaranteed that loan. I do not think so, because the Government would have told us so if they had. But I have a greater fear than that—namely, that the Government have left the Messrs. Rothschild to suppose that we will so far guarantee it that we shall see that these wretched Egyptians pay it. I had rather we paid it ourselves than that. But at last the Government have acknowledged their responsibility with regard to the Soudan. On January the 8th we had forced Cherif Pasha to resign because he would not adopt our policy. Nubar Pasha was appointed, and Sir Evelyn Baring informs Lord Granville that he had "accepted office entirely concurring in the wisdom of abandoning the Soudan." That, again, is a proof to me that the Government now at last realizes the situation. But can anyone deny that from that moment, at least, the Government were responsible for the military operations in the Soudan? This brings us to Sinkat. How sad and humiliating is its story? What are the facts regarding Sinkat? For nearly a month before we dismissed Cherif Pasha because he would not adopt our policy, before we put up Nubar Pasha on condition that he would adopt it, General Sartorius sent word that the garrison was in great straits. It was commanded by a brave man, and brave men are rare in the Egyptian Army. But I do not think he was in the Army; he was in the Civil Service. The Government could have relieved Sinkat. [An hon. MEMBER: How?] How? By doing a week or two ago what they are doing now. What is said to be happening at Tokar now? Notwithstanding the successes of the enemy—notwithstanding the taking of Sinkat—directly it is supposed that the Government are really using their power—the rebels, or whatever you choose to call them, are dispersing. Does any military man doubt that, if these 3,000 or 4,000 men had been sent a fortnight ago from Cairo—there would have been plenty of time—Sinkat would have been relieved? What did we do? We did not do that. We made it much more difficult for Baker Pasha to succeed, because we let it be known that we were going to withdraw from the Soudan. I do not blame the Government for that resolution. I think it was the right resolution. I do not blame them for that resolution becoming

    945
    known, but they ought to have foreseen the consequences at Suakim of its being known, and have guarded against them. The right hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption from below the Gangway]—I shall say exactly what I think. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seemed to think that the position of the other garrisons of the Soudan was not very different from that of Sinkat and Tokar. There was this great difference—that as in our administrative so in our military operations, our responsibilities must be measured by our power. It was in our power to relieve Sinkat; it is in our power to relieve Tokar; I do not know that it is in our power to relieve Khartoum. I believe that the course we are taking there and in the South is by far the best course, and that the heroic genius Gordon may possibly make by the prestige of his name a fresh arrangement there. I rejoice that the Government have taken their present policy. By that we are more likely to strike a blow against slavery than anything we have yet done. But, I repeat, I cannot think that our position with regard to these two garrisons was anything like the other garrisons, because our responsibility is measured by our power, and it was perfectly within our power since January 8 to relieve that starving garrison. Now, I am glad indeed we are going to relieve Tokar. [LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Too late.] I do not think so. I believe the attempt will be successful. I believe it means a great deal; and it makes me feel not only that I can vote for the Government, but I believe that the policy of the Government ought to be strengthened in what they are now doing. It is impossible that 3,000 or 4,000 men can be landed there, and this garrison relieved, without giving the most effectual evidence to all the Egyptians and to foreign nations that we have at last realized our position and the fact that we alone have power in Egypt, and that, therefore, upon us the responsibility rests. I dare say the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) do not quite approve of this. My hon. Friend said it ought to be done because the country wished it. It ought to be done because it is a work of humanity, and because it would be disgraceful if it were not done. I dare say he supposes it means
    946
    more active interference in the Egyptian and Soudanese affairs. I believe he thinks it makes our withdrawal less possible. I do not think so. I believe a half-hearted and halting policy in avoidance of our real responsibility to be a policy of all others which will make withdrawal impossible. There are only two alternatives—the alternative of immediate withdrawal—that is, the alternative of not caring for our interests in Egypt, not caring about our road to India, not caring for our relations with Foreign Governments, for our probable replacement by other countries—by France, and others. More than that. The alternative of going in to upset a Government and then running away and leaving it in anarchy—leaving it, in the words of my hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney), to "stew in its own juice" after we have lighted the fire. There is the other alternative, the acceptance of responsibility while we remain in Egypt. We must fulfil our duties there—we cannot shirk them. If we try to shirk them, we shall only make them more difficult to fulfil. We English people care very little for the taunts and reproaches of foreign nations, unless there is some reason for those taunts. but then we are sensitive. Public opinion at home will oblige the Government to fulfil its duties. And more than that, circumstances will oblige it to fulfil its duties, because circumstances, day after day, make it utterly impossible to avoid them. I am one of those who think that too much was said of our motives in going to Egypt. We did not go to Egypt merely to pre-vent anarchy. We should not have gone to Morocco for that. We went there because we were determined that the road to India should not fall under the control of other Powers. We may have said too much about motives in going in, but I am not sure that we have not felt too little about our duties when we got in. We must do our duty now that we are there. I am not, however, sure that any of us would have done better than the Government in all the circumstances of the case. At last they have discovered what those duties are, and from what has happened during the last two or three weeks I shall give them my hearty support. Who ought to give a Government support more than the man who thinks that at last they were doing

    947
    what they ought to do? I am now going to close my speech, which I do not imagine has given any real satisfaction to the Government or to the Opposition, with this remark, which I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not altogether disregard—I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he does not think it the most patriotic course—I am not sure it would not be the wisest course, even from a Party point of view—to be content with the discussion which has taken place, and not to force his Motion to a Division?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I am glad to have the opportunity of following my right hon. Friend, who is also a candid Friend, because he has put the Opposition case, which we have to meet, so much more plainly and strongly than they have been able to do, that I think I shall have something to reply to. I have never had any personal experience of canvassing, as I represent a very large constituency; but I have been told by my hon. Friends who have canvassed in small boroughs that it often happens that a voter, after expressing all sorts of unfavourable opinions and lecturing them for a long time, winds up by promising his vote. Well, Sir, the Government must be thankful for any mercies, great or small; and I beg, therefore, sincerely to thank my right hon. Friend for the promise of his vote. Before I come to a detailed examination of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there are one or two observations which I must make on the discussion which took place at a period when the House was less full than at present. We had a very fiery speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk (Colonel Dawnay), and we had a very valuable speech from the senior Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart), a speech of which I can only say that I greatly regret that it was delivered to an almost empty House. I will say of those two speeches that I differ from almost every word of what the former hon. and gallant Member said, and that I am disposed to agree with the most part, if not the whole, of what my hon. Friend behind me said. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), in reply to the observation of the Prime Minister on the subject of the Dual Control, said that no one in
    948
    this House had protested against the Dual Control. When challenged, he confined himself to the Prime Minister, whom I leave to speak for himself, for he quoted his own speech on Tuesday night; but, practically, the hon. Member said that the matter had passed without notice in Parliament.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I said, with the exception of the remarks the right hon. Gentleman quoted as having been made in 1876.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am a very much more humble individual than the Prime Minister, but I will quote myself. There were two Controls, and it has been pointed out that our main objection was to the Political Control established by Lord Salisbury, and not to the first Control. The Political Control was established by the Decree of November 10, 1879. The first occasion we had of speaking of it in this House was upon the Address in 1880. Many of us had spoken of it in the country; but in the House nearly all who took part in the debate alluded to the creation of that Control. I ventured to say—
    "There was no allusion in the Speech to the affairs of Egypt."
    And here is a remarkable fact, that this grave measure, the Political Control, was not announced to the House either in Her Majesty's Speech, nor by the presentation of Papers at that time—
    "There was no allusion in the Speech to the affairs of Egypt. Never had this country been committed to so largo a scheme fraught with dangerous complications for the future without the knowledge of Parliament as was now the case with respect to Egypt. The Papers on the subject were last year kept back till they were too late to be of use; and the documents issued showed that the European Controllers were really to exercise almost the whole powers of government."—(3 Hansard, [250] 115–16.)
    That speech did not stand alone; similar speeches had been made by many hon. Members on the same side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) told us just now that the Government had not soon enough realized their responsibilities, although he did not go on to put before us the practical policy which would have come of realizing those responsibilities at an earlier time. But he expressed doubts in the earlier portion of his speech with regard to our general policy in Egypt rather than strong censure. Let me call the attention of the House

    949
    to the fact that the Opposition, now that they have the Papers before them, have ceased to blame our general policy in Egypt. ["No!"] Well, that is my impression. They appear to me, from the debate of to-night, to concentrate their attack upon a single point. But I do not desire to evade discussion on our general policy in Egypt. On the contrary, I wish to challenge it, and I wish to take up the challenge made in the speech and in the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition—that we have been vacillating and inconsistent with regard to our general policy. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have been vacillating and inconsistent, and he appears to deny to us the merit of having been right even by chance and accident in our vacillations. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) most pithily attacked, in his speech, the vacillation and inconsistency of our general policy. Now, let me remind the House what our general policy has been. In 1882 we declared that—
    "Until the administration of affairs has been reconstructed on a basis which will afford satisfactory guarantees for the maintenance of peace, order, and prosperity in Egypt, the occupation of that country by our troops must continue."
    But for the mistaken policy of Cherif Pasha's Ministry as to the interior of the Soudan, it is my belief that we should already have obtained those satisfactory guarantees for the maintenance of peace, order, and prosperity. In 1883 we stated that—
    "It would have been an act of folly to withdraw our troops until we saw a reasonable prospect of tranquillity, security, and stability throughout Egypt, or in the Egyptian Government; but we have not by any means lost the hope—we have not lost the belief—that we shall come to see that tranquillity, security, and stability re-established."
    The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock asked us if we ventured to assort that all the conditions mentioned by the Prime Minister as conditions precedent to evacuation had been fulfilled? Certainly, they have not been fulfilled; and it is because they have not been fulfilled that we have not evacuated the country. The noble Lord did more. He ridiculed our whole proceedings as regards Egypt Proper; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) has stated in a
    950
    much milder manner the same thing tonight. He has thrown a great deal of doubt on the progress that has been made, and he used the words—" There has been very little result to show." The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart) is a greater authority on the present internal condition of Egypt than my right hon. Friend, and he gave testimony to the very serious and real progress made, notwithstanding that he put both sides of the case and made every deduction that could be made. Sir, the Opposition in the beginning of this debate seemed inclined to attack us generally upon the character of these reforms in Egypt. Now, they have told us to-night that the character of these reforms, and the certainty of their execution, have been jeopardized by the fact that we have upset the Egyptian Ministry; and that we have left them no shred of power, but we have left the power to what has been called to-night by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) a puppet Ministry. Sir, I assert that Nubar Pasha is a far more able Minister than any other Oriental statesman, and that he is equal in ability to a European statesman of the first rank. Nubar Pasha is a man who agrees with us in our policy of reform in Egypt. Many of the reforms we instituted there are reforms with which he has throughout his life been connected, and we have, for the first time in Egypt, an active hard-working Minister, who has thoroughly convinced himself of the necessity and importance of these reforms. We do not, by interfering and procuring reforms, weaken the hands of a man like Nubar Pasha; but we confirm his action, and our principle has been throughout to interfere to the minimum extent which is consistent with the security and the development of the country. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock ridiculed and attacked the Constitution which has been framed for Egypt. That Constitution, at all events, deserves respect, because it was devised by a most able man—Lord Dufferin.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never ridiculed the Constitution.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I understood the noble Lord to do so. I am sorry if I ascribed to the noble Lord the sentiments of someone else. At all events, as regards the special matters of

    951
    reform, which have been criticized and ridiculed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, there are great improvements which have been made, and very solid reforms which have been accomplished during the last 12 months, and they have been devised by a very able man as a security for the liberty of the Egyptian people. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that the state of the irrigation in Egypt has not improved. Now, as a matter of fact, we are prepared to assert that that important matter has been dealt with in a very satisfactory way. We were told, too, that the cadastral survey has been starved. Well, that means that 44 European employés have been dismissed, and the reduction of that European staff, which was enormously too large for its purpose, is one of the main reforms which have been effected. We were told, also, that the Capitulations were a very bad thing, and that no real progress could be established in Egypt so long as they continued. I am very much disposed to agree with that sentiment, and to concur in that view; but let me point out that the freedom of foreigners from taxation is a portion of those Capitulations, and a very essential portion, on which we have made our attack; and I may say that we have secured the concurrence of all the Great Powers of Europe in abolishing the exemption of foreigners from one form of taxation. I maintain that, in all these matters, most serious progress has been made during the past 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) mentioned finance just now, and expressed grave doubts as to its condition. Now, if Egyptian finance had been fortunately and happily confined to Egypt Proper, it would have been in a very manageable condition at the present time. Three circumstances have interfered with it; but only two of them are really grave. The cholera did not have any very enormous effect upon the finance; but the two unfortunate circumstances are the Alexandria indemnity and the concealment of the deficits which have arisen from the operations in the Soudan. With regard to the Alexandria indemnity, I can assure my right hon. Friend that wherever similar indemnities have been claimed by foreigners in all parts of the world in con-
    952
    sequence of similar operations, they have always been acknowledged and paid. For instance, there were the operations by the French at Sfax, when a large amount of British property was destroyed, and the British claim was paid by the French Government, and was, as a matter of fact, paid out of the Tunisian taxes. Now, the right hon. Gentleman will be glad, I am sure, to learn that the condition of Egyptian finance proper, apart from the Soudan, is a sound condition; and I may mention to him that it is reported to us upon the highest authority possible that, notwithstanding the stagnant condition of trade, due in great part to the cholera epidemic, the surplus revenues in the hands of the Commissioners of the Public Debt for the half-year ending the 25th of October last were £471,000. Well, Sir, my right hon. Friend, passing on from the general position of the Egyptian Government and the reforms, came to the subject of the expedition to the Soudan. We have had a little variation in the course of this debate from the ordinary monotony of the charges against Her Majesty's Government. The variety, as it usually does in the dull proceedings of this House, came from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, when he varied the attack upon Her Majesty's Government by making an attack with regard to these operations upon the Khedive. He stated the other night that the Khedive, in his opinion, had played a criminal part towards General Hicks. He gave the House no information on the subject, and he quoted no authority and no opinion in support of so grave a statement. But while our opinion of the Khedive is entirely different from that of the noble Lord, I must point out to him that, at all events, if his views of the Khedive'3 character are right, the Khedive was carefully chosen for his position by the Government which is represented by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sure that I may congratulate the House upon the fact that the noble Lord, in asserting that the Khedive has played a criminal part, stands entirely alone, and that that view is not shared by any of the Leaders of his own Party, or, indeed, by any Members of this House. I am glad that the noble Lord thinks somebody else criminal besides Her Majesty's Government; and I am only sorry that

    953
    he selects an unfortunate Foreign Prince as the object of his attack. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition would, I am sure, be the first to repudiate these charges against the Khedive, in the selection of whom he took so large a part. The right hon. Gentleman has often strongly supported the character and position of the Khedive. The right hon. Gentleman asked on one memorable occasion—
    "What are you to take as the voice of the people of Egypt? Are you to take the voice of the first adventurer who raises a military power in order to overawe the voice of the country, or would you rather not listen to the words of sense and prudence of those who are responsible for the administration of that country?"
    That speech was made on the same day as that on which Lord Salisbury demanded the removal of a military adventurer from supreme power in Egypt. I think the noble Lord stands quite alone in supposing that the Khedive organized the massacre at Alexandria, or that he played a criminal part with regard to General Hicks. The Leader of his Party in this House said, on the contrary, that the Khedive had acted with the most perfect good faith throughout; and that, I believe, will be the opinion of Parliament and the country. The Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), in his speech from the Front Bench on Tuesday, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) to-night, have said that we ought to have stopped General Hicks's expedition. But let the House remember that at the time at which it is said we should have stopped that expedition of General Hicks, that officer was at the head of a conquering force—a force which, in its most recent engagement, had inflicted on its enemy a loss of 500 men, with a loss of only two of its own number, and which was apparently driving its enemy everywhere before it. What would my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have said of us if at that time we had violently interfered to put back the frontier 500 or 600 miles behind this conquering army, and had withdrawn the army itself against the opinion of every representative military man, and against the unanimous local opinion, and had incurred by doing so the hatred of the whole country
    954
    against us without exception? Nothing but defeat would have brought acquiescence in the withdrawal of the troops from the Soudan in the minds of the governing people of Egypt. The hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) attacked us, with that great strength of lung with which he is so eminently gifted, in the dead hours of the night which he did so much to waken, for what he called the repudiation of General Hicks. Now, last year we had a very long and careful debate, announced weeks beforehand, about the state of Egypt. That debate took place on the 9th of August last year. At a convenient time before the debate Papers were issued, for we have found from experience that the most convenient time to issue Papers is two or three weeks before a debate. If they are issued earlier hon. Members forget them, and if later the time is too short to enable hon. Members to read them. Well, about three weeks before that debate—on July 24—there was circulated among hon. Members a document bearing on the so-called repudiation of General Hicks. I refer to Egypt No. 13, the telegraphic despatch to Mr. Cartwright No. 57, of the 7th of May. That despatch reads as follows:—
    "I notice that in your despatch of the 10th ultimo you inclose a telegram from General Hicks to Sir E. Malet, on the 'subject of the military operations in the Soudan It is unnecessary for me to repeat that Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the operations in the Soudan, which have been undertaken under the authority of the Egyptian Government, or for the appointment or actions of General Hicks."—[Egypt, No. 13 (1883), p. 65.]
    That policy may have been a wise, or it may have been an unwise, policy; but that policy of repudiation was before you at the time of that debate. It had been for three weeks in the possession of every Member of the House—there it was, printed at full length, and yet not one syllable was expressed in condemnation of it—though the Soudan was by no means ignored in the debate, and was the subject of comment at considerable length by my hon. Friend who opened the debate, the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), who referred to it with a good deal of prescience, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Selater-Booth), who followed my hon.

    955
    Friend, and I think by other Members; but those two Members, at least, spoke at length of the Soudan, but not one word was said in condemnation of that policy which you now take on yourselves unanimously to condemn, and not one word either by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), who is so cross with us to-night. The Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks the other night, made a different charge against us. I understood him to say—be was not very clear on the subject, but I thought he said, and the statement was very distinctly made on his side later—that we are responsible in another way for General Hicks's disaster, because we ought to have sent General Wood's Egyptian Army to his succour. One hon. Member was so enthusiastic that he interrupted the Prime Minister, who mentioned that force with approval, by shouting out—"But you would not use it." With regard to that charge of not sending General Wood's Egyptian Force to relieve General Hicks, let me tell the House what is the position of that gallant and useful force. [A laugh.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at that statement; but, with respect to what an hon. Member said the other night of its character, I assure the House that every military man in authority in Egypt who has come across that force believes in the character of it.
    SIR JOHN HAY: Why not send it to Suakim?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why there is some doubt whether it ought to go even to Suakim, and why there is a difficulty. Every man in General Wood's Egyptian Army was enlisted on the faith of a personal promise that he should not be sent to the Soudan. Service in the Soudan is regarded by Egyptian soldiers as so horrible—it is regarded as such certain death—that the only way General Wood found of getting a thoroughly efficient and trustworthy body of volunteers together was to promise, on the word of an English officer, that they should not be sent to the Soudan. General Wood told me last autumn a remarkable story, that while he was absent from Cairo on leave they tried to get some of his non-commissioned officers from him, but that they failed, although they did get four of his buglers away to join General
    956
    Hicks's Army. When Sir Evelyn Wood returned to Cairo he was justly angered at what had been done in carrying off these four men, and he insisted that at any cost they should be brought back to him. He said it was a violation of his distinct personal promise that they should not be sent to the Soudan. The end of the story is characteristic, and throws light on the condition of affairs in the Soudan. One man, after a great deal of trouble and expense, was brought back, and General Wood believed that the three others had been purposely kept behind; but he found that this man represented the four, the other three having bolted to their homes and made good their escape. I think the fact that men could only be obtained in such a way for General Hicks's Army throws a strong light on the wisdom of the Egyptian Government in resolving to retain possession and control of the Soudan. It has been said by one right hon. Gentleman opposite that in recommending the abandonment by the Egyptian Forces of the Soudan we have exposed ourselves to international difficulties, because we have recommended the abandonment of the subjects of other Powers. Hon. Members opposite, and hon. Gentlemen who ought to know better, are very fond of believing rumours which they see in the newspapers from all parts of Egypt. We know of no European subjects of other Powers in the Soudan.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Greeks.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Greeks in the Soudan are not European Greeks from the Kingdom of Greece; they are the local Greeks, who have been there for generations. There are a great many of them in the Soudan, and it is extremely doubtful whether they wish to leave it, and whether they would rather not remain. General Gordon's opinion is that they do not wish to leave. We know, of course, of a brave man—Lufti Bey—who has for years been waging incessant wars in the equatorial regions against neighbouring tribes who are not connected with the Mahdi, and of Colonel Coetlogon, and another gentleman, in Khartoum, and these gentlemen are the only three Europeans of whom we know anything in the whole of this enormous tract of country. But we have not abandoned these gentlemen. On the contrary, we are going to bring

    957
    them out, if they want to come. The interior of the Soudan is a possession which it is admitted now on both sides of the House has always been a source of danger and a drain upon Egypt; and to the Soudan itself the Egyptian administration has always been a curse. Egypt is unable to reconquer that country. The Khedive himself agrees in that view. I am certain of it, from the evidence of gentlemen who are personally not very friendly to the Khedive. I believe that General Gordon himself has avowed that that is undoubtedly the fact, and we have selected General Gordon to carry out our views with regard to the evacuation of the Soudan, which, in spite of the assertions made in this House and out of it, are his views as well as our own. The Opposition have stated that we have shown great vacillation with regard to the employment of General Gordon; and I will ask the attention of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock to this matter. He spoke of our vacillation in regard to the employment of General Gordon. One right hon. Gentleman who spoke before the noble Lord in this debate said that we had actually accepted the resignation of his commission. That statement is not true. The noble Lord only asked questions in the first part of his speech. He said he wanted to know more about General Gordon's appointment. He then went on to tell us a most extraordinary story. I will quote his words from the only verbatim report I have seen of his speech. He said—
    "General Gordon, in the summer of last year, offered Her Majesty's Government to accept service in the Soudan. The Government telegraphed to him—'The Government decide to accept your offer; wait letter.' General Gordon waited for the letter, and in the letter found the words—'The Government decline your services.' "
    Then the noble Lord asked us—
    "Is there no vacillation, no inconsistency there?"
    And he added—
    "That is a statement which I believe General Gordon is prepared to vouch for."
    Now, before I go into a detailed examination of this extraordinary story, I will answer the noble Lord's request for further information with regard to the employment of General Gordon. We have stated previously every fact with regard to it which we could collect by inquiry
    958
    among ourselves—that is to say, not only the acts of the Government collectively in the matter, but the acts of individual Members of the Government who have seen General Gordon. There is only one further fact which I have to add. It is that shortly after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir, Lord Granville saw and consulted with General Gordon, especially as to the Slave Trade in the Soudan, upon which he is so high an authority. General Gordon at that time gave us most valuable advice, which we took and acted upon. That is the only additional fact I can give the noble Lord as to General Gordon's employment. But now with regard to this extraordinary story which the noble Lord told the House. He has, no doubt, a great many social friends, and, like many popular Members of this House, he has the very unhappy habit of telling all the good stories he hears from them in the House of Commons. It is a very unfortunate habit. When he told this story the other night we knew it was not true, and that he must have been misled and deceived with regard to it; but we did not know what could be the foundation upon which the noble Lord had spoken. I will now tell the House the real story.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Have you communicated with General Gordon?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have seen the original letter and the telegram which the noble Lord thought he quoted the other day. I have seen the originals.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will you lay them on the Table?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: They are military telegrams; but I see no reason why they should not be laid upon the Table. No doubt the noble Lord will ask for them. The real story is this—and, no doubt, the noble Lord will appreciate it as a good story, not only against Her Majesty's Government, but against the Turkish telegraphs. What are the real facts? In October of last year General Gordon telegraphed from Jerusalem, where he was then living, to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief for leave to accept service—where? Not in the Soudan, which was the word which the noble Lord, unfortunately for himself, quoted in the story—but on the Congo—under the King of

    959
    the Belgians. His Royal Highness replied by telegram—" Secretary of State declines to sanction your employment." That was the telegram in reply; but in transmission—and this is the good part of the story which the noble Lord has got hold of—the Turkish telegraphist altered the word "declines" to "decides," and the telegram reached General Gordon in a sense absolutely the reverse, and altogether contrary to the sense in which it was sent. Hence the contradiction with the confirming letter, which, of course, was exactly contrary to the words of the telegram. That is the whole story, and I do not think the noble Lord will move for the Papers now. I can only echo the words of a much greater authority than myself, and a much older Member, and ask the noble Lord to be a little more careful in his facts. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) told us another of these singular stories which have been going about with regard to General Gordon's Mission. He quoted what purported to be the words of General Gordon against announcing the policy of the evacuation of the Soudan. As a matter of fact, I can, on the contrary, inform the House that General Gordon wished that the decision to evacuate the Soudan should be proclaimed everywhere, and proclaimed as loudly as possible; and, as hon. Members will see from the Papers which have this day been circulated, General Gordon strengthened the instructions to himself in that sense. Another story was that which was alluded to by the Prime Minister, and which related to the £40,000. I can inform the House that beyond Assouan, where he was as safe as he would have been if taking a railway journey in this country—where the country is perfectly tranquil and properly governed by police, and as safe as any part of Egypt Proper—General Gordon had no large sum in his possession, and there was no large sum with the party which immediately preceded and followed him. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock repeated a story about the wrong man having been sent to the Sultan of Darfour.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say that—I simply asked a question.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord is gathering caution as he
    960
    proceeds. No doubt he asked a question; but questions often convey impressions that they are asked from a reliance on their truth, and this question certainly gave a sort of impression that the noble Lord believed in the truth of the story that the wrong man had been sent to the Sultan of Darfour. Now, General Gordon knows Darfour, and he knows Cairo. He knew who was the best man to select, and I really feel that we must trust to General Gordon's judgment even against that of the noble Lord.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is the story true?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord cannot expect General Gordon to tell us that he selected the wrong man. General Gordon himself selected the persons who were to accompany him, and I cannot conceive that any man who knows the Soudan as well as General Gordon could select the wrong man.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The Egyptian Government.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I hear the hon. Member for Eye say "The Egyptian Government," as if General Gordon had been deceived by them. General Gordon has been Governor General of the Soudan—the most successful Governor General that ever ruled that country—and he is not a man to be deceived by the Egyptian Government; and he is likely to know better even than the hon. Member for Eye. Before I leave the Mission of General Gordon, let me assure the House that we have now every reason, as we have had strong reason all through, to believe that General Gordon's Mission will be an absolute and triumphant success. We have received this evening from Sir Evelyn Baring a telegram which left Cairo at a quarter to 6 o'clock to-night. He says—
    "Following from Gordon—' Telegraph between Khartoum and Shandy repaired. Am leaving for Khartoum. Believe you need give yourselves no further anxiety about this part of the Soudan. People, great and small, are heartily glad to be free from union which only caused them sorrow."
    I now come to that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) in which he spoke of the relief which he desired might have been sent to the garrison at Sinkat, and to the question of the relief

    961
    of Tokar. The right hon. Gentleman hardly alluded to the possibility of any chance of success for the relief expedition of General Baker. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that General Baker would have told us, and would have told the authorities at Cairo, what he thought as to the chances of success? General Baker throughout expressed the gravest doubt as to the possibility of the force under his command reaching Berber, or of opening the road from Suakim to Berber; but he never expressed a doubt with regard to the relief of the garrisons at Sinkat and Tokar. On the very day on which he started he informed the Government at Cairo that he was marching with every "chance of success"—those were his own words. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) the other night attacked us for our waste of time, after the 5th. It was on the 5th itself that we acted. The moment we had heard of the defeat we stopped the Orontes, which was on its way home with troops, and telegraphed to Aden to stop the Jumna, which was due on the 12th; we sent a force from Malta to Suakim; and immediately sent to Admiral Hewett the whole force for which he asked. And this is now the one point of blame to which the Opposition are narrowing the whole of this great Vote of Censure. We thought we should not be justified in making an attack ourselves, or in reducing our Forces in Egypt Proper, until we had a reply from General Gordon to the message we immediately addressed to him. We received a full reply only on the 12th; but on the 11th we were in possession of partial information as to General Gordon's views, and on that partial information we immediately acted. The facts on which we acted are contained in the Papers now before the House. We knew it was too late to make it possible to relieve the garrison of Sinkat. No despatch of forces would have rendered it possible to relieve Sinkat. A right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked why not have despatched a force a week earlier from Cairo; but no despatch of troops from Cairo would have saved Sinkat.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: Why not?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire asks "why not?" but I repeat distinctly that no despatch of
    962
    forces from Cairo would have saved Sinkat. The time made it absolutely impossible, and Sinkat held out much longer than there was any reason to suppose it would from the Papers in our possession.
    MR. GIBSON: You received a despatch on the 5th, and allowed six days to elapse.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If we had acted on the 5th it would not have been any more possible to have relieved Sinkat. Then there is the question of the relief of Tokar. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) expressed grave doubts whether we shall be able to relieve Tokar, and whether we shall be in time.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: No; I did not.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I was under the impression that he bad expressed a doubt. We shall have a large force at Suakim on the 19th, the Jumna will be there to-morrow, the Orontes on the 17th, and a force from Cairo on the 19th; and we have every reason to believe we shall succeed in the operation of relieving Tokar. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) on Tuesday, and other hon. Members to-night, have ridiculed the notion that it was necessary for us to ask General Gordon's advice. I have shown that if we had not asked General Gordon's advice it would have made no difference to the military situation. The noble Lord assumes that it would, and he ridicules our asking for it. Let the House remember the nature of General Gordon's mission. General Gordon's mission was not only at the wish of the Government, but at his own wish, and it can only be accomplished in his own way—his only chance of success was in a perfectly pacific mission. General Gordon pointed out to us the idea before he left, and he is now carrying that idea into successful execution—the idea of assembling all the leading men of the Soudan, and ascertaining their views about the government of their country. He goes to the men of the Soudan as their friend, and he, in a great measure, shares their views. He is receiving their suggestions for the future government of the country, and he has their sympathy and confidence. It is a grave question whether even at Suakim

    963
    —even at that distance from General Gordon and the Nile—an attack upon any of the tribes, even in a mission of relief, might not be supposed to be other than a mission of relief, and might not have been fatal to the success of General Gordon's mission. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock asked my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Tuesday night what was the distance from Berber to Suakim, as though the distance was so great that the two matters could have no connection with each other. The connection is sufficiently close for General Gordon to have sent messages to Khartoum to the various Chiefs to join him at Suakim. That shows how close the connection is. I have stated to the House the reason why it was necessary for us to consult General Gordon. I have told the House that we were in partial possession of General Gordon's views on the 11th at night, and that we acted on the 12th. It has been stated in the Press—and this is another curious story with regard to General Gordon's mission—that General Gordon answered our inquiries by saying that if we would mind our business he would mind his. I need hardly assure the House that there is no truth in that statement. He treated the matter as most serious, and one upon which he hoped he might give us a clear opinion.
    An hon. MEMBER: What did he say?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think it is desirable to state the terms of General Gordon's replies. I do not know what position my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State may take; but I myself would not produce the telegrams of General Gordon. I should think it undesirable, and I do not hesitate to give that opinion. I believe the House generally will not concur in the view put forward by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) that we wasted a day in telegraphing instead of acting. I have shown what view we took, and how we acted; I have shown we did not waste an hour nor a second; but that the minute we knew of that defeat we took action. But, Sir, I think we did right in consulting General Gordon. I believe we should have been criminal in the highest degree if we had acted without consulting General Gordon. And now let me say a few words about the
    964
    point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), as to our general responsibilities in Egypt. We are doing in Egypt more than we undertook to do. We are acknowledging our responsibilities in a higher degree, and I will state in what degree. We always stated that we should maintain order in Egypt Proper. We are doing more than that. We are maintaining order on the Somali Coast of the Red Sea. That is a large addition to our responsibilities; but I believe that it is an addition which the House and the country will think it right we should make. There is another reason for that view. I do not speak of the argument as to the security of our route to India; but I do speak on the question referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford of the Slave Trade. Indeed, I might say the Slave Trade was very greatly in our view in the acceptance of this responsibility, and I do not believe that this country will ever complain of their rulers accepting large responsibility where the Slave Trade is concerned. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock said the other night that we had reversed the past policy of this country with regard to the Slave Trade.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said the original object of the conquest of the Soudan was to put down the Slave Trade.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The original object of the conquest of the Soudan had wholly and entirely failed. The Slave Trade had not been suppressed by the conquest of the Soudan. That is the opinion of all who know the Soudan, and it is the opinion of General Gordon. I daresay the noble Lord has read the admirable Report of Colonel Stewart. He shows not only the oppression of the Natives, the over-taxation of the Soudan, and the constantly-increasing deficit; but he shows, also, the increase of the Slave Trade. The House knows General Gordon. They know his views, and they know his character; and I would ask the House whether they think General Gordon would have undertaken his present mission if he had not been convinced that, on the whole, the direction of his present mission would be towards the suppression of the Slave Trade? General Gordon has not changed his opinion on that point.

    965
    He said, as long ago as 1877, writing to his sister—
    "I now hold the Khedive's place here, and I, who am on the spot with unlimited power, am able to judge how impotent he at Cairo is to stop the Slave Trade."
    And again—
    "When you have got the ink which is sucked up with blotting-paper out of it, then slavery will have ceased in these lands."
    The other night a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, with extraordinary inconsistency, attacked us for having weakened General Baker's hands by stopping the employment of Zebehr Pasha, a most notorious Slave Trade advocate. Does the noble Lord mean that we ought to have allowed Zebehr Pasha to proceed?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Did you stop him?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We interfered to stop Zebehr Pasha. General Gordon has been, by his own wish, especially instructed by us upon this question of slavery in the Soudan. His opinion on this subject is one which has been expressed by those who best understand the question of the Slave Trade, and that is that the Slave Trade is a question of market. You cannot put down the Slave Trade in the Soudan; you can only succeed in diverting it from one route to another; and the only way to stop the Slave Trade is to stop it at the out-ports, and to put an end to the market. Well, this matter, then, is not affected by the withdrawal of troops from the interior; and we are not only relaxing our efforts on the coast of the Red Sea, but we are, by our present measures, enormously increasing our power of suppressing the Slave Trade by the measures we have taken. We have a stronger British hold on the coast of the Red Sea than we ever had before, and there is less probability that slaves will be run. Our responsibilities, which I admit were great before, are being enlarged in this matter. We do not deny them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford seemed to think that we intended to deny them.
    MR. W. B. FORSTER: Not now.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is a pretty large responsibility that we have undertaken. We have said from the first that we would defend Egypt Proper, and that responsibility in itself is a very large one. The distance from Alexan-
    966
    dria to Wady Haifa, for instance, is 887 miles; there is a railroad for 359 miles only, and there are 528 miles of road. There are about 500 miles of road to Assouan. There is a coast line of 2,240 miles, without counting the sinuosities of the coast. Surely that is a pretty large responsibility, and I do not know that we have attempted to evade it. Our engagement is to secure peace and order in Egypt Proper, and peace and order in Egypt have not yet been disturbed The country at this time is as safe as England. Our responsibility on the Coast of the Red Sea and on the Somali coast is mainly to prevent their occupation by a slave-holding Power. The Party opposite offer us no alternative policy. Some of its less responsible Members seem to desire that we should send British troops into the burning Deserts of Central Africa in order to bring away the Egyptian garrisons.
    An hon. MEMBER: Who said so?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have been told that we ought to relieve the garrisons. The view I take of the matter is that no alternative policy has been put before us by hon. Members opposite. I thought some of them had got a principle. I thought the Mansion House meeting was in favour of the retention of the Soudan; but I fail to gather from the speeches of our opponents in this House which of the two policies they really favour—whether Egypt ought to keep or ought to abandon the Soudan. At all events, put before us one principle and one policy. Now, Her Majesty's Government have a principle and a policy, although some persons think them wrong. I began my speech by stating what they were, and I have stated what are the responsibilities we have undertaken.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What are they?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have stated them as clearly as I can. If the hon. Member for Eye is not satisfied by what I have already said, I will repeat a little. Our policy is to withdraw Egyptian rule where it has been a curse—and to maintain, strengthen, and improve Egyptian rule where it means national government, where it has any life, or where, as on the coast of the Red Sea, it may be used by ourselves or other European nations for promoting freedom and preventing sla-

    967
    very. At the three main points whore decisions on these principles have to be made, we are served by three of the ablest men who ever belonged to this country—Sir Evelyn Baring at Cairo, Sir William Hewett at Suakim, and General Gordon on the Nile. Few countries can boast of such men—men of immense courage and the highest possible sense of duty. We ask for, and we follow, the advice of those men. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), the other night, quoted the Prime Minister's speech, where he asked if we had, or had not, sent the best men. The hon. Member replied, yes; we had sent the best men to Egypt; but with what instructions, and with what support? I reply, that General Gordon drafted his own instructions. We knew the main lines of his policy; we knew that they were in accordance with our own views; we knew that he favoured the withdrawal of the Egyptian Forces from the Soudan; and, believing him to be the highest authority, that he knew more of the condition of things, and that he was better able to form a judgment on the subject than anybody else, we asked him to draft his own instructions. We showed that he had the highest confidence that could be placed in any man. General Gordon has had all the support for which he asked. He will have, I make no doubt, any support which he can need in the prosecution of his mission. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has said that it was true we had sent the best men to Egypt, but we had not followed their advice. I say that we have implicitly followed the advice we have received from General Gordon. Almost in the same sentence as that in which the noble Lord said we had not followed General Gordon's advice, he ridiculed and blamed us for consulting General Gordon before we took military action at Suakim. We have been told by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) that we attempt to evade our responsibilities in these matters. I declare, on the other hand, that we do not evade them, but that we admit them, and ourselves state them to the House. We may have conceived a wrong policy, and, if so, it is your duty to censure us for that wrong policy. But it is a policy which has been frequently and fully declared to the House; and I maintain that we
    968
    have rather gone beyond, than fallen short of, the true conception of our responsibilities.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) have certainly made the most singular speeches, and given the most peculiar reasons, for the votes they are about to give, that probably the House has ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the House of Lords have expressed a decided opinion on the question now before us, and during the whole course of his speech he fully explained, and gave all his reasons, why he entirely agreed with the view of the House of Lords; but he said that, while he concurred with the House of Lords, he still had good hopes in regard to the conduct of the Government in future, although, perhaps, hope may only tell a flattering tale.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I said that the reasons they had given were satisfactory.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman strongly objected to their past action; but expressed a hope that, for the future, it would be satisfactory. But for the hope the right hon. Gentleman expressed, I agree in almost every word that fell from him. In fact, so strong was the language used by the right hon. Gentleman, that the President of the Local Government Board, who has just sat down, said it was the strongest indictment against the Government which had yet been made. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to what he called the powerful speech of the Prime Minister the other night. It struck me that that speech was remarkable for its eloquence and its marvellous ingenuity, and it was full of all the arts of debate. But when persons came to read it over the next day they came to a different conclusion. At the time that speech was being delivered, the ears of all within this House were eagerly strained, and every heart was beating with anxiety to learn what steps the Government were taking to rescue the garrisons that were in such deadly peril; and every eye was watching that one solitary figure of General Gordon as he rode across the desert waste, going to see what he could do for the relief of the garrisons. And yet the right hon. Gentleman spoke for an hour and a-half,

    969
    without even attempting to touch upon the subjects about which all were so anxious to hear. I say that the Prime Minister, in that speech, failed entirely to grasp the situation which at that moment existed, and he disappointed the whole country in the way in which he trifled with the matter. ["Oh!"] Yes; I say it was trifling with the country, and when every person in this House, or out of it, was straining his ears to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in regard to the relief of these garrisons, and what the Government were going to do to accomplish that object and release those who were in such vital danger—at that moment the right hon. Gentleman chose to speak for at least an hour and a-half without touching the point upon which everyone was so anxious to hear him. More than that, the right hon. Gentleman tried in every possible way to trail a red herring across our path, and to draw us away from the real point at issue. The Prime Minister taxed the right hon. Gentleman near me with having delivered a speech which was at variance with his Motion; he said that the Motion talked about vacillation and inconsistency, whereas the speech simply talked about a wrong policy. If the Prime Minister wishes to add to the Motion the words "that the policy of the Government, for the most part, was wrong and weak," I do not suppose that a great number of Members on this side of the House will object. But my right hon. Friend did point out what vacillation there had been and what inconsistency. They have been repeated to-night by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) most effectively, and I need not go further into the matter now. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister tried to place the whole blame for what has taken place in Egypt upon what he calls the Dual Control. He said that he had no great objection to the original proposition in 1876 compared with what took place in 1879, and that it was the action of Lord Salisbury which he thought was the most objectionable. Although, of course, he objected to some extent to what took place in 1876, he had nothing like so great an objection to it as to what occurred in 1879, and the right hon. Gentleman quoted, with great effect at the time, the warning which he gave in 1876. Now, I should like to remind
    970
    the right hon. Gentleman—although it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did speak in 1880 upon that matter—that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was silent during the debate. Not one word was said by him as to the action of Lord Dufferin—not one word as to the action of the Dual Control. The Prime Minister stated in a second debate, when he was charged with not having alluded to the matter in the former debate, that his mind was so much occulted at the time with the doings of the Government in other parts of the world that he really had no time to turn his attention to this particular point. Now, the real issue between us is this. Did the Government ever realize to themselves—did they ever let the world or Egypt know—what was their true responsibility after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir? It is because they have failed ever to realize to themselves what their responsibilities really were; it is because they shrunk from taking the undoubted responsibility which attached to them after that battle, that all the evils that have occurred in Egypt have happened. We are asked—" Have you no policy of your own? What would you have done more than we did?" Well, this is a very fair question to ask; but to it I would answer that we, at all events, would recognize the full measure of that responsibility which, by our action, we had taken upon ourselves. It is by your action that you have become the conquerors and masters of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had said, in very forcible language, that there was no other Ruler in Egypt but yourselves, and no other Minister in Egypt but your Agents and Representatives. During all this time and trouble Her Majesty's Government has been acting, to a great extent, as if the real practical government of Egypt rested with them, their Under Secretaries, and officials; but when any blame had to be thrown they invariably cast it upon the Egyptians, whereas they were themselves practically at fault. No policy? I say that our policy is that we should act up to the measure of our responsibilities. But the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said he is prepared now to defend the shores of the Red Sea, and to defend

    971
    Egypt Proper against all comers. Yes; but that is a responsibility forced upon you by circumstances which have happened since. During all those terrible times in the last 12 months you have shrunk from your responsibilities—you have never avowed them to yourselves, and you have never explained them to others. No one wants to annex Egypt, or to enlarge the boundaries of this great Empire, for enlargement of its boundaries does not strengthen an Empire. Beyond that, Sir, what we ought to proclaim is what our responsibilities now are—the responsibilities which you have put upon the country. What are those responsibilities? I have no difficulty in giving an answer to that question. I have no hesitation in saying that in this great national crisis in Egypt circumstances have made us clearly masters of the situation. There is no Government in Egypt but our own, and the sooner that fact is recognized the better. The only Government now which. I believe will be satisfactory, so far as the government of the country is concerned, is one which will openly and avowedly recognize that fact; but they must take up the responsibility which that avowal entails, both as to the external and internal affairs of Egypt; and they must throw aside for the present this idea of withdrawing the British troops—for they cannot withdraw them for a long time to come—as well as their present notions about reforms which have not yet been established. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to persuade us to-night that the reforms have been going on so well; but when we look into the state of the case, we find that nothing can be further from the fact than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; because we have it clearly shown in the Blue Books that those reforms are still in their infancy. Now, Sir, let us throw away the flimsy veil about this Anglo-Egyptian Dual Control; let us take such steps as time and circumstance may show to be necessary in order to govern Egypt as it ought to be governed, and not with the object of our own selfish interests; because we all know that we shall be glad to see their Government restored to the Egyptians the moment it can be safely and properly done. Only let this be known—that meanwhile we are the governors of Egypt, and that we mean to rule, and I believe that no one will have
    972
    more benefit from it than the Egyptians themselves, and that no one will be more grateful; at the same time, I feel that when the responsibilities you have cast upon yourselves with regard to Egypt are known and appreciated the battle will be soon won, and in half the time that has been spent in pursuing your present policy Egypt will be restored to her own rule. The right hon. Gentleman says we have had no indecision and no vacillation. Why, it was your vacillation and inconsistency, so far as the Soudan was concerned, which has brought about the present state of affairs. You, first of all, gave advice as to the abandonment of the Soudan, which was not followed. You then, when pressure came, refused to give advice. Again, when the pressure became still stronger you were forced to give advice, and when your advice was not taken you compelled the Egyptian Government to accept it. Do you call that a consistent policy? No one can get up sympathy for, and I know that few people will have any sympathy with, the Egyptian rule in the Soudan. The administration there had been almost uniformly unfortunate, and even judged by an Oriental standard there is no doubt that the Government of the Soudan was extremely bad. No one could, therefore, desire that any effort should be made to force upon the Soudan the Egyptian rule, which had so utterly failed. There is no doubt that this question of the Soudan was a question of vital importance to Egypt. The policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is that he would only have interfered in Egypt in matters of vital importance; and I ask whether there can be any matter of more vital importance to that country than the government of the Soudan? Lord Dufferin had pointed out the dangers that would arise from misgovernment of the Soudan, and he likewise pointed out what would be the results of good government there—that the Revenue might be increased, and that other advantages would accrue. The expenses of maintenance were enormous. It was clear that the withdrawal from the Soudan would be a heavy blow to the Khedive, whose authority was very much concerned in the action of the English Government; it was clear that if the country were handed over at the time it would bring great danger to the frontiers of Egypt;

    973
    and it was clear that there was great difficulty in Egypt as to the governing and meeting the expenses of government in the Soudan. How was it, then, that Her Majesty's Government could make up their minds to say that the Soudan was nothing to them; how could they possibly shut their eyes to these facts? Do you think it any answer to say that your attention was occupied entirely by events that were taking place in the heart of the country—that it was impossible to think of what was going on beyond its frontiers? I say it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to shut their eyes to what was occurring in the Soudan. Everyday of delay made the danger more imminent; every shilling spent by the Khedive's Government made the financial position more difficult; and every soldier taken away from him made the presence of English soldiery at Cairo more compulsory. It was then, I say, and not now, that the Government ought to have considered the question of the Soudan. Well, Sir, Her Majesty's Government say they have always placed their best men in Egypt and taken their advice. But it is not so, and it would have been more fortunate for this country if they had. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded very properly to that excellent Report of Colonel Stewart with respect to the Soudan, and to the Report of Lord Dufferin. And what was their advice? They said that, in their opinion, it would be wise to give up the Western part of the Soudan, which had been conquered, and to confine the dominion of Egypt in the Soudan to the Eastern portion. The Prime Minister laid it down that those who gave advice were responsible for carrying out that advice. Her Majesty's Ministers gave advice to the Egyptian Government, and they ought to be responsible for seeing that the advice was carried out. You had it in your despatches that General Hicks had gone forward to reconquer the country around Sennaar—that he had accomplished all that Lord Dufferin wished to be done; and then there was the despatch sent not by Lord Dufferin, but by someone on his behalf, stating that—
    "General Hicks had fortunately completed his work before the rainy season."
    That was the very policy you had ad-
    974
    vised. The rainy season was over; General Hicks was collecting his Army to make an excursion into the Western part of the Soudan, but there were difficulties in the way. Sir Evelyn Baring did not seem perfectly happy about it, and a telegram, dated the 5th of June, came from him to this effect—
    "Your Lordship is aware that it is impossible for the Egyptian Government to supply arms for the Soudan, and the operations are in considerable danger unless conducted on a large scale, and unless the Army is well supplied in every respect."
    Under these circumstances, the question arises as to whether
    "General Hicks should be instructed to con-fine himself to the purpose of maintaining the supremacy of the Khedive between the Blue and the White Nile. "
    Why, that was the policy of Lord Dufferin which you pressed on the Egyptian Government. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but it is, nevertheless, a fact. You did press that policy on the Egyptian Government, and you made yourself in consequence responsible for Lord Dufferin's advice. Now, this question was asked you distinctly—"Will you give this advice or not?" and the answer was—"Her Majesty's Government will give no advice; they are not responsible, and will not assist you in any way; take your own course." Sir, the fact is, they were afraid of the responsibility they had incurred; they dare not acknowledge their responsibility either to Egypt or to the world. There was their vacillation and inconsistency, and it is from that inconsistency that half the evils have come upon Egypt, which have brought about these disasters. That, I say, was the turning point of the Government policy. Well, Sir, with the knowledge of all the disturbance in the Soudan, and of all the difficulty as to the movement of General Hicks, Her Majesty's Government were at the time pressing forward the withdrawal of British troops from Egypt. It is all very well to say that there is a telegram from the Khedive, or his Prime Minister, asking whether the troops might be withdrawn. We all know the story of that telegram; it came from Downing Street, and it was on the 9th of November, at the Guildhall dinner, that the Prime Minister announced that the troops were to be withdrawn, and the announcement, I believe,

    975
    was received with more solemn and significant silence on the part of those present than any statement ever made by a Prime Minister in that room; it created, indeed, a considerable amount of consternation. Meanwhile events move rapidly. There was the disturbance in the Eastern Soudan; there was the defeat at Sinkat, and the massacre of men and women there on the 18th of October; and on the 19th of November there was the defeat of Colonel Moncrieff near Tokar; Suakim was attacked, and a great battle ensued; and on the 22nd of November they heard that General Hicks and his Army were annihilated. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Government withdrew the order for the withdrawal of the British troops. There can be no doubt why that order was given. It was given in order that when Parliament met the Government might be able to say that the British troops had been withdrawn; it was given for Parliamentary reasons. But now General Hicks's Army is destroyed; and what is the telegram that Her Majesty's Government sent to Egypt? They asked—" Does that event involve any danger to Egypt Proper? "Do you not think that subject might have been considered before? They had received distressing telegrams from General Hicks; they had told him they could give no advice and no assistance; they knew he was in great straits, and very likely to be cut off; but they had not thought for a moment what would happen if he were destroyed. They had taken no precautions; they had nothing to fall back upon; and the very first question to their Egyptian Agent is—" Will the defeat make any difference to the defence of Egypt Proper? "Why, of course it would. One would think that anyone but a mere child would have considered what would have to be done in the event of defeat, and that anyone but a child would have taken precautions to have measures in readiness before that defeat occurred. Then comes the question—" Will the Government give advice? "Well, they do give advice, and they recommend the abandonment of the Soudan up to the Second Cataract, although they were told by Sir Evelyn Baring that if that course were pursued it would give a great impulse to the Slave Trade. According to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, from the moment
    976
    you give advice your responsibility begins. That was the only reason why the Prime Minister said he could not give advice before; and when he did give this advice to the Egyptian Government he assumed a responsibility which no accident can shake off. From that moment it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that the safety of the garrisons was provided for. They had been warned in despatches sent after consultation between General Stephenson, Sir Evelyn Wood, General Baker, and other military authorities, that if there was to be a withdrawal from the Soudan it should take place only after the withdrawal of the garrisons; they were warned that they should allow those garrisons gradually to be brought in; but they neglected the warning, and took no steps of the kind. On the 12th of December the Khedive and his Ministers held a solemn Council, and placed-themselves absolutely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. They were in your hands before, no doubt; but that is only a partial statement of the case. Well, the Egyptian Government did not quite like following out your suggestion, and they hesitated to do so; but on the 4th of January you insisted that they should follow your advice; and, surely, from that point your responsibility begins. But did you take action of any sort or description for the safety of the garrisons? Do not say you were taken by surprise; that you did not know they were in danger; because you were warned on the 18th of November, and again on the 26th of November, that there was great fear for their safety. You had heard on the 20th of December that there was no news from Tokar, and that it might fall at any time. What is the use of the Prime Minister saying there was no time to assist these garrisons? Time! You had heard all about them. Time! You had been warned over and over again from the 21st of December. The Prime Minister said he would only act, or take responsibility by acting, in Egypt beyond what he called a point of sufficiency. Point of sufficiency! How far would these garrisons) go before the point of sufficiency was reached? Was it not enough that Hicks's Army had been sacrificed? Was Sinkat also to be sacrificed before the point of sufficiency had been arrived at?

    977
    If that was a point of sufficiency, it was a vanishing point. The Government cannot shake off responsibility; but I believe not only this country, but all the world, will lay the blood of everyone massacred at Sinkat on their heads. You say you had Baker. Baker, no doubt, was sent out with your assent, and no doubt he was allowed to take certain persons with him; but those persons were enlisted not as troops, but specially as civilians and police—persons who were not to go on foreign service or to the Soudan—persons who were enlisted on the clear understanding that they were not to leave Egypt Proper, and who so detested the service on which they were going that, if stories are true of the force that went with Baker Pasha to the relief of Sinkat, 200 got out of the railway carriages rather than go forward on the expedition. That was your force. You cannot shake off this responsibility. How easy it would have been for you at that time to send out troops. Troops! What would have been the effect of troops? If accounts are true, now that orders have been given for troops to go to Tokar, the effect is that the Arabs are scattering all over the plain; and if it had once been known that the English Government were going to interfere for the protection of these garrisons, you may depend upon it that Sinkat would have been saved. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) says he has confidence in you, because you are now following the advice of General Gordon. General Gordon! No doubt there is not a person in this House who does not place implicit confidence in him; but what had you to do with General Gordon? He was nothing to you while all these matters were going on. You had no policy about Gordon whatever while all this was going on. You never saw him or spoke to him. You never heard of him. If the Papers are true, that is so. I have got the Correspondence about Gordon. Take the first time you said anything about Gordon. It is no policy of yours. On the 1st of December you ask Sir Evelyn Baring—"If Gordon were willing to go to Egypt, would he be of any use? "That was no policy of yours. You had no policy down to the 10th of January, and it was not till later that you give any information as to the prospects of Khartoum. You had no
    978
    policy as to whether you would relieve Khartoum or not. It is not clear that, until you heard from Sir Evelyn Baring on the 16th of January that the Egyptian Government had applied for British officers to go to Khartoum, you considered whether you would send Gordon. It was not till the 16th of January, long after you knew all about these dangers, that you had any policy of relief except Baker Pasha for these wretched people in Khartoum and other garrisons. I sincerely hope that General Gordon may succeed; but if the policy is to be that stated in the Papers delivered to us today, General Gordon will have to stay there a long time, or his policy will fail. But the risk you ran was a risk which no Government had a right to run. You shifted all the responsibility on to Gordon the moment you got hold of him; but it was putting him in a position of the greatest danger and peril. It was, as you knew, a matter of the greatest doubt whether he would reach Khartoum safely or not; and it was a risk you had no right to put upon him. It may be, as the Prime Minister says, a great triumph of peace over war if Gordon is happy enough to succeed; but it is no thanks to you. You had no policy at all. You had no means at your disposal for carrying out the evacuation of these garrisons; and you had to trust entirely to Gordon and to Providence to do that which you ought to have done. It is the vacillation; it is the inconsistency—now advising, now refusing advice, now advising again, now interfering, and now not interfering, that has laid upon you this vast responsibility; and even now, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has intimated that he is satisfied, I do not believe the House is satisfied that you realize the full responsibility that rests upon you. You are the Rulers of Egypt, and the Rulers you must remain, whether you will or not; and I say that the people of this country have made up their mind that they will not have any more of this weak tampering with affairs in Egypt. Egypt, so far as you are concerned, is of the greatest importance to us. It is quite necessary in thinking of Egypt to bear in mind that we have the highest interests there; that British interests are the interests of civilization, and of the whole world. You may depend upon it that if you leave Egypt the country

    979
    will call you to account. Blood and treasure have been wasted; blood shed like water, and treasure scattered over the land. This work has been done, and we will not leave Egypt in order that it may be done again; nor will we leave Egypt in order that it may be done by some other Power. This country will call you to account unless you recognize the full measure of responsibility which the present state of things has cast upon you; and if it casts upon us the practical rule of Egypt we will let the world know, and we will let Egypt know, that we are ruling, and by that means I believe peace and order will the sooner be established. The people who will reap the greatest benefit will be the Egyptian people, and so we shall the sooner be able to restore to them their own Government.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. John Morley.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 57.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HIBBERT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to give power to Fishery Boards, wherever they existed, to pass bye-laws as to the size of the mesh for the capture of fresh-water fish. The chief purpose of the Bill was to meet the wishes of the Fishery Board in the Lake District. It was found that neither the Salmon Act nor the Freshwater Fisheries Act was sufficient to protect the capture of trout and char, and other fish of that kind, during the early stages; and that the mesh of nets in use in the English Lakes was so small as to cause almost the destruction of the young fish. An inquiry was made a short time ago by the Fisheries Inspectors; evidence was taken from different persons connected with the fisheries in the Lakes; and there was a general desire expressed that there should be some legislation to decide the size of the mesh. A Memorial was sent to the Home Office, a very short time ago, by the Fisheries Board of the Lake District, in which they stated
    980
    that in those fisheries nets were used for trout and other fish, having a mesh not exceeding one-fourth of an inch, and that the mesh was so small that it took a dozen of the fish caught to make a pound in weight. The result was that hundreds of small trout and char were taken from these waters; and although it might be intended to return them, the very operation of getting them from deep to shallow water practically destroyed them. Further, they said that owing to this mode of netting small fish young salmon were also taken. The desire was that the minimum size of the mesh should be one inch, and the maximum two inches; but he must say that he should be prepared to increase the measure to two and a-half inches. But beyond that he did not think it would be possible to go. The Fisheries Act for Norfolk and Suffolk gave power to the Conservators to fix the size of the mesh of nets for trout; but he believed it was not thought desirable to fix a size different from that named in the Act. He did not know whether any hon. Gentleman would object to taking the second reading; but what he was proposing was in the interest of fresh-water fishing, with a view to increasing the supply of fish as food, and it would also be beneficial to a sport indulged in by hundreds and thousands of people in this country. On these grounds he asked that the Bill might be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. BIRKBECKsaid, he hoped the Government would not press the Bill now, for it had only been in the hands of Members for a few clays. The matter was one of great importance, and Members had had no opportunity of considering it. In his view, there were several strong objections as to the present size of the mesh of nets, and he had that day had a representation made to him strongly urging that the mesh should be increased to three inches. Under the Norfolk and Suffolk Act, the mesh was three inches, and that had been found to work admirably since 1877, when the Act was introduced. He hoped the Government would agree to give further powers under the bye-laws, but that they would not press this Bill until the anglers in the country had had an op-

    981
    portunity of considering it. When the Bill was in Committee he would move certain Amendments, one of which would be to exempt Norfolk and Suffolk from coming under the Act.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was true that the Bill had only been in the hands of Members five days; but there had been no serious opposition raised to its provisions. He had seen a representative of the London Anglers' Association, and that gentleman said that, if the extra mesh were increased, he would be perfectly satisfied. He (Mr. Hibbert) was prepared to propose that two and a-half inches should be the maximum. One inch minimum had been agreed upon. Norfolk and Suffolk were not brought under the provisions of the Bill. Those counties which came under the Freshwater Fisheries Act would be still excepted. In conclusion, he had only to say he would be quite ready to postpone the Committee stage for a fortnight, or a month, if that would meet the wishes of hon. Members.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it was obvious to anyone that the provisions of this Bill would operate upon other waters besides the Lakes of Cumberland and Westmoreland; that, although Norfolk and Suffolk did not come within the scope of the Bill, many waters which were frequented by fishermen would. He was peculiarly interested in this measure, because he represented constituents who were passionately attached to angling. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that no representations against it had been made to him; but perhaps that was owing to the fact that the measure had been for so short a time before the public. The hon. Gentleman had, however, met the House very fairly by offering to defer the Committee stage to suit the convenience of hon. Members interested.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 28th February.

MOTIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. TREVELYANmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and render
    982
    perpetual "The Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Act, 1878."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he could not allow the Bill to be read a first time without uttering a word of protest against the manner in which the Government had dealt with the Irish Sunday Closing Question. He had hitherto been in favour of Sunday closing, and he was now in favour of it. He was in favour of the object of this Bill, which was to extend the provisions of the Irish Sunday Closing Act to the five large towns which had hitherto been exempted from the operation of those provisions; indeed, he would be in favour of closing public - houses on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, as well as on Sunday. At the same time, he could not help thinking that the Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had managed the Irish Business singularly unfortunately. It was extremely unfortunate that in everything they did with regard to Ireland they aggravated the Representatives of the Irish people. The measures for Ireland promised in the Queen's Speech consisted of a scheme for Compulsory Education, which was very badly required by the country, and a scheme for Sunday Closing. It was very naturally supposed that both Bills would be introduced early in the Session, and be proceeded with pari passu. It was well known that there were a number of hon. Members who were viciously opposed to Sunday closing in any form, and that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, which the Government had said they intended to bring in, would be made by those hon. Members an occasion for the most virulent and vehement opposition. The result would be that at the end of the Session it would be found utterly impossible to proceed with the much-needed Education Bill, and the Government would throw the blame upon the Irish Members, and say—" Oh, the Irish have got so much this Session they cannot expect us to take up time by the Education Bill." As a matter of fact, there were several other measures which were seriously and urgently required by the Irish people—measures which had been rejected by the House of Lords Session after Session, yet a Bill was now introduced which must necessarily consume

    983
    an amount of time far out of proportion to its importance. Sunday closing was in operation in every part of Ireland, except the five largest towns, and in those towns even the public-houses were only open from 2 o'clock until 7 o'clock. When the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was originally brought in, the whole Tory Party joined with a small section of Irish Representatives to oppose the measure. The Tory Party, having taken upon themselves to champion the Irish publicans, kept the House sitting from morning till night, and all through the night, to prevent the Bill passing. It was just possible that there might be a repetition of those proceedings, and that the Government would shelve the Education Bill, sacrificing it to the Sunday Closing Bill. He would remind English temperance people that, in point of fact, there was no real Sunday closing in Ireland, except where the police wanted to put down a National publican; and that any Sunday closing scheme would absolutely fail unless police pensioners, or their wives, were prevented from taking out seven day licences. If ox-policemen wanted licences, let them take out six day licences. At present, whenever it was at all possible, favouritism was shown, and breaches of the Sunday Closing Act winked at. What happened in the City of Dublin? There were certain officers of police who took largo bribes from particular publicans, and in consequence allowed those publicans to keep open, and winked at their misconduct. It was only the publicans who had incurred the disfavour of the authorities, because of their popular opinions, who were arrested and prosecuted by the police. In reality, the Sunday Closing Act had never been in operation in Ireland for the prevention of drunkenness, but only for the punishment of persons holding Nationalist opinions. They found the most miserable prosecutions carried on under the Act. His hon. Friends the Members for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan) went down to a meeting at Bandon, and they were entertained at dinner after the meeting by a few friends. The police came in, turned the house upside down, and the few people who were sitting at the dinner table were seized, and afterwards fined by the magistrate, and an attempt was made to obtain an endorsement of
    984
    the publican's licence. The same thing occurred at Charleville. Some other hon. Friends of his attended a meeting there, and at a dinner held subsequently the same system of espionage went on. He should oppose this Bill tooth and nail, unless the Government gave them an assurance to the effect that where meetings were being held, or where the houses were not kept open for the purpose of disposing of drink indiscriminately, persons would be enabled to get their dinner and entertain their friends without molestation at the hands of the police. It was not to put down the sale of drink that the police acted in this manner; but simply to annoy people who held Nationalist or popular opinions. As a matter of fact, the Sunday Closing Act in Ireland was used as an engine of annoyance and oppression. He once wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, complaining of the way an ex-policeman in County Clare was allowed to keep open on Sunday a public-house he had taken. Strange to say, the right hon. Gentleman, de-parting from his usual courteous manner, did not vouchsafe him a reply. He knew the Chief Secretary to be a Gentleman thoroughly in favour of temperance; but when he (Mr. Healy) brought a similar charge against an ex-policeman, in Kilrush he thought it was, he received no reply from the right hon. Gentleman. Men of particular opinions belonging to the police force were allowed to take public-houses, and keep open just as long as they pleased; whereas publicans who espoused the National cause were treated with very great severity. He should oppose the Bill for two reasons—firstly, because Sunday closing in Ireland was enforced with political animus; and, secondly, because the Bill was given an undue importance. There were other measures of more pressing importance. As he had already said, they were promised in the Queen's Speech an education scheme. That ought to be put first. It was mentioned first in the Speech; and he thought, therefore, the Government must have had some idea of the relative importance of the two measures. He would point out to English Members, who alleged that this Bill was intended to put down intemperance, that a great deal of the opposition levelled at the publican party in Ireland was due to

    985
    the fact that all the men in Dublin who were temperance men were Whigs or Conservatives, and all the men who were working actively or subscribing money to carry on the temperance agitation were men of the Orange class. ["No, no!"] He repeated, that all the chief men of the Temperance Association in Dublin belonged to the Whig or Conservative Parties; and they know full well that the publicans were chiefly Catholics, and therefore Nationalists. Certainly, the publican's secretary was a most bitter opponent of Nationalist opinions; indeed, it would be hard to say who was the greater enemy of Ireland—the secretary of the temperance party or the secretary of the publican party. Under the circumstances, the Chief Secretary must not be surprised if, when his Bill came to be discussed, a certain amount of political considerations were introduced. As he (Mr. Healy) had previously hinted, unless the right hon. Gentleman gave them some assurance that this Bill would proceed pari passu with the education scheme, he would find that his efforts to press this measure would not be very Successful.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the introduction of the Bill; but merely to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to give them some explanation of its provisions, as it was a very important one. It was essential that some arrangement should be made to enable single young men in different parts of Ireland to obtain their dinner beer. If this Bill passed there would be no chance for young men who were in the habit of arranging with their landlords for bed and breakfast getting a single glass of beer for their dinner. Such young fellows would neither be bonâ fide travellers nor lodgers within the meaning of the Sunday Closing Act. He would ask that there might be more time granted before the introduction of this measure, as there was an Amendment to be proposed which was not yet on the Paper, and because there was a Motion for Returns on a subject connected with the Bill which the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) proposed to move to - morrow. The Return would, he believed, show that drunkenness had considerably increased in consequence of the Sunday
    986
    Closing Bill. If the Government did not want to increase drunkenness in the cities, as it had been increased in the country places, they should not make the Bill so strict. If they made it too strict, parties who were anxious to drink on the Sunday would be driven to low public - houses and shebeens if they could not get what they wanted in respectable places. The bonâ fide traveller arrangement was a great humbug, for anyone with money in his pocket was always able to get drink if he was not particular where he went for it.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he should also like to ask for some explanation of the Bill. He desired to express his deep regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, through a mistaken opinion as to the views of the great majority of the people of Dublin, had been misled so far as to desire to make the Sunday Closing Act applicable to the cities which had been excluded from its operations. The right hon. Gentleman had acted in the teeth of the representations of the Members for the City of Dublin, and had gone in opposition to the views and matured opinions of the Roman Catholic clergy. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman had gone in the teeth of the opinion of one of the wisest and most prudent and experienced and able men—the Head of the Irish Church. The right hon. Gentleman had miscalculated popular opinion on this subject; and he (Dr. Lyons) regretted to be obliged to say that it would be his duty, and the duty of his Colleague, to give to the Bill very strenuous opposition. For reasons stated by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Sullivan), this Sunday Closing Bill would occupy ground that would much more profitably have been given to other and more pressing subjects. This was a fancy Bill, to meet the strained views of some persons who, he was free to confess, however, were actuated by the best of motives. He regretted that in a Session which was so crowded with pressing Business, and in which they could not reasonably hope for much special attention to the many important Irish questions to be raised, the right hon. Gentleman should throw away—for it would eventually come to that—so much valuable time, which could be given to the settlement of questions on which there was very

    987
    nearly a consensus of opinions, and upon which there might he practical legislation this Session. This was one of the instances in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen coming to Ireland without a full acquaintance with the feelings and wishes and motives of the Irish people were led into practical errors. Having been present during the expression (views put before the right hon. Gentleman, he could only express his great surprise and very great regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have been led into the adoption of this mistaken system of legislation. However, all he would say was, that this Bill, though it was about to be introduced, and although it might be a long time before the House, was not yet, and might never become, an Act.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he viewed with great astonishment and regret—he might almost say with sorrow—the opposition of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) on this most important question. Whatever might be said about that hon. Member, whatever drawbacks there might be about him, it certainly could not be said of him that he had not the welfare of his countrymen at heart. There was no one in the House, he believed, more anxious for the moral and social advancement of his countrymen of every class; and there was no one who would, he was sure, make more sacrifices to bring about their advancement. It was, therefore, with great regret that He (Mr. Blake) saw a man of what he believed to be so high a character in that respect standing up to oppose in any way this measure. He (Mr. Blake) believed that there was no measure ever brought forward in the House of greater importance than this. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; I but that was his opinion; and there was certainly no Irish measure now before the House at all approaching it in importance—so far as the moral and social welfare of the Irish people were concerned—this Sunday Closing Bill. It was far and away beyond everything else in importance. The great, the besetting sin of many of his countrymen was too great a propensity to drink. ["No, no!" and "Oh, oh!"] Yes; he was speaking the truth—that was the besetting sin of many of them. One of the greatest misfortunes under which Ireland suffered was the vast consump-
    988
    tion, and vastly-increasing consumption, of spirits, save in those districts where the Sunday Closing Bill was in operation. ["No, no!"] Well, he thought the hon. Member for Monaghan would not deny that where the Sunday Closing Bill was in operation it had been productive of great benefits; and he was sure the hon. Member would go with him in saying that if the Act were in more extended operation the benefits would be in proportion. He must entirely dissent from the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), when he said that this Bill was at variance with the feelings of the Roman Catholic clergy, and others, in Ireland. He emphatically denied that, and he possessed ample proof, and would produce it at the proper time, that the vast majority of the hierarchy and clergy and people of Ireland were in favour of this measure, and were amongst its strongest advocates. Now, on the part of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), and others, there was a great deal of opposition offered on the plea of the deprivation of one of the comforts of the people in having taken away from them their Sunday drink. It was said that it was unjust to deprive the public of the opportunity of getting drink whenever they might want it. He thought they had ample proof that where the people had had courage enough to give up drinking the very greatest benefits had resulted, and they had in no way suffered in their health. All that was required was the courage to take the first step in abstaining. He would give them one illustration from the many he might offer. He had an old uncle—now gone to his place of rest, which was not an astonishing circumstance looking at his (Mr. Blake's) own years—and this uncle was in the habit of consuming six tumblers of punch every day. At one time he (Mr. Blake) became a teetotaller—a very earnest one—and he wrote to his uncle saying—
    "My dear Uncle,—I should very strongly recommend you to give up drinking, because, in addition to the many advantages that would accrue to you, amongst others it would he sure to lengthen your days."
    In about a fortnight he received a reply, and in that reply his uncle said—
    "I received your very dutiful letter, and I was so impressed by what you said about my giving up my six tumblers of punch, particu-

    989
    larly as you mentioned to me that, amongst other things, it would be sure to lengthen my days, that on Friday last I gave them up. You said it would lengthen my days. I believe you, my boy for by my word it was the longest day I ever spent in my life."
    The hon. Members for Limerick and the City of Dublin would look upon this as an argument in their favour; but the fact was, he at length induced his uncle to become a teetotaller. He became a most decided one, and his days were lengthened in the land, and he often admitted to him that those days were by no means dull ones. That, no doubt, in the end, would be the history of a great many people in Ireland if they could only be induced to give up this drinking. And he very earnestly appealed to the Chief Secretary not to yield to anything that might be said by the hon. Member for Monaghan or the hon. Member for Limerick, or any other Member, but to persevere with this Bill; because, with every respect for those Gentlemen, they represented in this matter the minority of the Irish people. He (Mr. Blake) represented, on this occasion, the vast majority of the people of Ireland, when he said there was nothing more earnestly desired throughout the length and breadth of the country, and particularly in the excluded places, than this Sunday Closing Bill, in order to include the five towns that had not the good fortune now to have their drinking shops shut up on Sundays.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he agreed with what the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said as to the importance of the Education Bill; and he hoped that the Chief Secretary, in whatever he might say, would make it plain and clear to the House that the introduction of the Sunday Closing Bill, and the pressing of it forward, would in no way interfere with that measure. He was sure there was no such idea in the mind of the Government as that the introduction of the Sunday Closing Bill would interfere with the other measure. He also agreed with what the hon. Member for Monaghan had said as to the inequality of the Sunday Closing Law in Ireland; but he would point out that that was the fault of the administration and not of the Act. He had found fault with that administration time after time, and had pointed out to the authorities that
    990
    it was not properly enforced. This matter, however, they could go into in Committee.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the speech of the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Blake) was eminently worthy of that to which it referred—namely, punch—in which it would, no doubt, one day appear. As the Bill before the House, he should not only like to see public-houses closed on Sundays, but he should like to see them closed on every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. He did not, however, think that people would ever be prevented from frequenting public-houses by penal measures of this kind, as much as they would by measures directed to the advancement of education, such as that referred to by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), which the right hon. Gentleman had so unaccountably postponed. He should have expected from a Chief Secretary like the present, who was remarkable for many things, and especially for his literary attainments, that he would have held by the sequence in the Queen's Speech in putting Orders down. Drunkenness seemed to him (Mr. Dawson) to be a effect, and not a cause. He believed it to be the effect of ignorance—the outcome of ignorance and idleness; and he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in his Education Bill, would have aimed a blow at ignorance and idleness, by giving increased occupation to the people by the promotion of technical education in Ireland The only kind of trade in Ireland that was at all flourishing was the public-house trade—all other trades were trivial compared with it. Besides that there were no industries or manufactures, and in it were obtained the only approach to fortunes that were secured in Ireland. The public-house was, therefore, the main resort, as a trade, of those young men who came up to Dublin and the cities to make their way in the world. They opened public - houses for the simple reason that the Predecessors of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench had never fostered, encouraged, nor promoted the industries of the country. Added to that, ignorance drove the people into the public-houses. Outcast Dublin, as well as outcast London, were driven to the public-house for the only little comfort they could get—only the

    991
    outcast part of the population in Irish cities were more ignorant and wretched than their brethren in England. The people who would endeavour to stop drunkenness by measures of this penal character were like those who would stop a torrent at its height, instead of attempting to dry it up at its source by educational and industrial measures. Statistics showed that none of these penal measures had had the desired effect. The grievance had gone on in spite of them; and he did not think it was possible, by deductions from former legislation, for the Chief Secretary to justify the postponement of educational measures in favour of a penal law of this kind. He (Mr. Dawson) had always advocated that "the best way to eradicate a vice "—that of drunkenness—would be to do what an eminent English author had recommended, "put up a virtue in its place." Let them raise up the people in the social scale. What drove them to vice was this—that they were cut off and divided by walls of brass from everything that was elevating and ennobling, and were hunted to those places where they could obtain drink, and which were their only refuge and common resort. If, without education providing that technical instruction which generates manufactures, the right hon. Gentleman was led into this measure, he would find the evil brought down from one platform, where it was evident, to another and more hidden platform, where it would lead to far more disastrous results.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) certainly had not risen for the purpose of giving an explanation of the course which he took yesterday; and it was obvious, from the course which the debate had taken that evening, that there were several Members who were interested in the question who would be very unwilling to allow the Motion to pass in silence, especially after the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The debate which had occurred had not been altogether unsatisfactory, although it had not been so much in reference to the Bill then before the House as in reference to a Bill which was at the present moment in the pigeon-holes of the Irish Office. He confessed that after what had just occurred, he should be able to proceed
    992
    with that Bill—the Education Bill—with much greater heart and hope than he might otherwise have possessed; because he found that it was expected by hon. Members opposite, with an amount of favour, interest, and hope which appeared to throw somewhat into the shade a measure like the one he was now asking leave to introduce, notwithstanding the fact that he believed the measure to be extremely and justly popular in Ireland. The hon. Member for Monaghan condemned the Government for having given this Bill precedence over the Education Bill, and that was, he apprehended, the real point he had to answer. He need not remind hon. Members that there was a great deal of Business to be done by the Government in the course of the Session, and he could only expect to have a limited portion of the time at their disposal. His experience in that House had taught him this—that the best way of making real progress was to take one Bill at a time; to pass that Bill, and then to go on with another; and, further, that in giving precedence to any Bill they should be careful not to break faith with anybody. Then, he thought, as a matter of faith, that the present Bill had a decided preference over the Education Bill. Hon. Members who had spoken of education seemed inclined to expect a Bill relating to compulsory education. Now, the first thing in which anything like a promise was given by the Government as to compulsory education was on the Motion moved by the late Member for the City of Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), and it was made as late as March in last year. At that time the question of compulsory education was in such a crude and inchoate state in that House, and was so little understood, that even the hon. Member himself put forward no complete scheme. On the other hand, the question of Sunday closing in Ireland might be said to be a question already cut and dried. It had been worked out by the experience of a good many years. It had been promised for the last 18 months, and a Bill which was intended to carry it out in every respect was introduced into the House of Lords early last Session, and was before the House of Commons during most of last Session. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen who had no objection to the Bill in

    993
    itself, but who were only anxious to get to the Education Bill—among whom the hon. Member for Monaghan might be classed—would show their zeal by giving the Bill a passage through the House as rapidly as possible. The hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) said he hoped the House would have a long debate before it was called upon to pass the second reading. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was quite certain that the second reading would occupy some portion of the time of the House, because he had no expectation of being able to get it without a discussion. The day which he proposed to put down for the second reading was that day week. As to the Returns which had been asked for, they had already been promised to be laid upon the Table. Her Majesty's Government were not afraid of statistics. The statistics of this year fully bore out the statistics of last year and of previous years, and they showed that in the towns where Sunday closing did not exist, the Sunday drunkenness was in a percentage of 20 to 1, as compared with the towns in which Sunday closing did exist. Indeed, there was nothing whatever in the statistics which in regard to Sunday drunkenness would in any respect alter the conclusions which had been drawn from the statistics of previous years. He hoped that hon. Members would now, after the discussion which had already taken place, allow the Bill to be introduced and laid before the House once more; and he was not without hope that the discussion on the second reading of the Bill would prove that Sunday closing was now, as he believed it was last year, and for some time before, a cause which, upon the whole, the majority of the Irish people had at heart.
    Motion agreed, to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN-and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.]

    CITY OF NORWICH (HOUSEHOLD HEATH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Scheme, under "The City of Norwich Act, 1867," relating to Mousehold Heath, in the County of the City of Norwich, ordered to be
    994
    brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 105.]

    METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Scheme, under "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866," and "The Metropolitan Commons (Amendment) Act, 1869," relating to Streatham Common, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Bill for closing Public Houses on Sunday, making exception for the sale of beer during certain hours, and for the Metropolitan district, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Viscount CASTLEREAGH, Earl PERCY, and Mr. CROPPER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 107.]

    VALUATION (METROPOLIS) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Bill to amend "The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869," by giving greater facilities for appeal to owners and lessees of houses paying rates and taxes in the place of the occupiers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TOMLINSON, Mr. Alderman FOWLER, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, and Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (ISLE OF WIGHT) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in the Isle of Wight, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. CLIFFORD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.]

  PRINTING.
    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

      ADJOURNED DEBATE.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [11th February],
      "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing, Returns and Papers presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House."—(Mr. Leonard Courtney.)
      Question again proposed.
      Debate resumed.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee nominated of,—Mr. LEONARD COURTNEY, Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. RAISES, Mr. WHITEHEAD, Mr. ROWLAND WINN, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. PARNELL, and Colonel TOTTENHAM:—Three to be the quorum.
      House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (14).
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 13.)

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF CENSURE—PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.-OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, as I see a Member of Her Majesty's

825
Government (Lord Carlingford) on the front Ministerial Bench, I wish to make one or two remarks concerning last Tuesday's debate. We were placed on that occasion in a most peculiar position. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs quoted a number of documents which he said would be produced, and I thought, of course, that we should receive copies either yesterday or this morning. However, we have not received them, and we are still wholly ignorant of what has passed between the Government and Admiral Hewett and General Gordon. Now, this is a most unfair proceeding both to your Lordships' House and the House of Commons. Of course, I do not know what the explanation may be of the delay in the printing of the documents in question; but we know what facilities there are for printing documents at the Foreign Office and in other Public Departments. Owing to the absence of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), I cannot ask the Question now; but I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the noble Earl to read to us all the documents which have not been printed, and to give us the particulars of every one of the telegrams to which he referred in his speech.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that as a Bill would be presented that evening, giving larger powers to the Privy Council to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease, he begged to move for the Return which stood in his name on the Paper.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "Return of all the cases in which foot and mouth disease has been imported from foreign countries into England, Wales, and Scotland, and also into Ireland, since the outbreak in 1880; giving the name of each such foreign country and the date and port of landing of each diseased cargo;
  "2. Return of the number of outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in England, Wales, and Scotland since 1880, tabulated according to months;
  "3. Return of the foreign countries now forbidden under the Act of 1878 to land live animals in the United Kingdom; giving date of each prohibition, and stating whether the prohibition extends to all animals or to cattle only;
  826
  "4 Return of foreign countries from which foot and mouth disease has been imported since 1880, and which are now permitted to land cattle or sheep or pigs in the United Kingdom; distinguishing countries which have been temporarily prohibited, and giving date of removal of prohibition."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that the Returns should be made to cover the whole period since 1880.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would accede to that suggestion; but he thought that his form would include all particulars of the outbreak, especially those of the last six months.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), said, he considered that the information would be very useful, and he should be happy to give Returns for the whole period, as suggested by the noble Marquess.
  Motion agreed to.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EGERTONsaid, he rose to ask the Lord President of the Council, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction will be presented; and whether the Report on Agricultural Education in Germany, France, Denmark, Holland, and the United Kingdom, by Mr. H. M. Jenkins, could be at once issued separately, before the publication of the general Report? He wished to ask this Question because it was well known that Mr. Jenkins had some time past laid his Report before the Royal Commission; and since the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act of last Session people were looking forward with great interest to that Report. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord could assure the House that the Royal Commission would report immediately, and would include Mr. Jenkins's Report in its own, he would ask whether it was not practicable that that Report could be laid on the Table as early as possible?
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped that the whole Report of the Commissioners on Technical Instruction would be presented as soon as it could conveniently be done, for it was a subject which was regarded with the greatest possible interest at the present time. He should like to say a word in reference to the point which most concerned him. Speaking as a Member of the Royal Commis-

  827
  sion which was inquiring into endowed schools in Scotland, he must say that they would like to have the benefit of the advice of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, and also of the information which they had collected. There were large endowments in Scotland, notably in Glasgow, and a larger one in Edinburgh, which, with the consent of everybody concerned, would be devoted to technical instruction; and it would be quite absurd for their Commission to proceed with any schemes saying how these endowments should be spent until they had got the advice and information of the Commission on Technical Instruction. He would be very glad if anything could be done to hasten the publication of the Report.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he knew the interest with which the Report of the Commissioners on Technical Instruction was expected, and also the importance attached to the Report of Mr. Jenkins on agricultural education abroad. The Royal Commissioners had just had a meeting, and had before them the proposal of the noble Lord; and they came to the conclusion that it would be better not to present the Report of Mr. Jenkins separately, but that it should be presented with the rest of the proceedings. They expected that there would be no long delay, and that the Report and the documents would be published before Easter.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (PARK RAILWAY AND PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the First Commissioner of Works has signified his approval of the Bill which proposes to make an underground railway from Paddington to Westminster; and if the improvement of the approaches to the Houses of Parliament by Parliament Street is dependent on the carrying of this Bill; and to move for Papers. When he first brought the subject of the improvement of Parliament Street forward, the noble Lord gave a promise that nothing would be done without the approbation of Parliament. He had, however, been horrified to find that an underground railway was to be carried
  828
  from Paddington to Westminster under Hyde Park and St. James's Park, and that the promoters proposed to clear away the whole of Parliament Street, over which they were to have almost entire power. It was stated that the Government were to receive a considerable sum from the Company for the privilege granted; but such a privilege had never been conceded to a private body before. It was well known that we wanted public buildings ourselves—a National Portrait Gallery, for instance—and it was understood that when the Houses in Parliament Street were pulled down, the plans for the new buildings would be submitted to Parliament. The interesting collection of portraits which we had, all of which had been donations to the country, were now very badly housed and in great danger from fire, and something ought to be done to make provision for their safety. An opportunity for doing so might be found on the Parliament Street site; yet the Government were going to allow a public Company to have that site. He thought that the works proposed would be most injurious to the Parks, and they would take five years in carrying out. He wished to know whether the Government really meant to break the direct pledge given last year, and whether they had signified their approval of the Bill? He should move for all the Correspondence which had taken place between the First Commissioner of Works and the Directors of the Railway Company.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, in reply to the noble Lord, he had to state that during the autumn a plan was brought before the First Commissioner of Works for making a railway under the Parks from Paddington to Westminster. Nothing could be done, as their Lordships were aware, in respect to the Parks without the consent of the Crown, and the Government had an absolute veto upon all schemes, even independent of an Act of Parliament. It was, therefore, found by the First Commissioner possible to compel the Company to make their proposal in such a manner as, while giving great facilities for the increased traffic, would, at the same time, enable important public improvements to be made at the Westminster end of the proposed line. In the proposed Bill the route would be as follows:—Starting from the Edgware Road Station of the Metropo-

  829
  litan Railway, which would be considerably enlarged for the purpose, the new line would go south-eastwards under the Edgware Road to its junction with Oxford Street near the Marble Arch. At an intermediate point it would be joined by a branch from Paddington, which would connect it with the Great Western. At the corner of the Edgware Road and Connaught Place would be a station occupying the site of Arklow House, the residence of Mr. Beresford Hope. Then the line, always underground, would burrow across Hyde Park to a point between the Albert Gate and Hyde Park Corner, where would be another station, and it thence would pass under Constitution Hill, the Mall, and the ornamental piece of water in St. James's Park to a terminal station at Westminster to the south of Charles Street. In making this station the Bill would deal with very considerable improvements proposed in Parliament Street, King Street, and Charles Street. The Government had given the matter careful consideration, and had finally come to the conclusion that, subject to certain conditions and safeguards being agreed to, it was a scheme which they ought not to veto, but, on the contrary, it was one that ought to be encouraged, that it would be of very great public benefit, that few railways could be constructed with less inconvenience and less destruction to property, and that no damage and very little interference need take place in regard to the surface of the Park or to the trees. There had for some time been a great demand for direct north and south communication, and for access between the railways in the north of London to Belgravia and Westminster. It was also of the highest importance that every means should be afforded to artizans and the labouring classes for travelling from the suburbs to their work, as every day rendered it clearer that in the congested state of London facilities of this sort were the only true remedy for the increased number of houses wanted. On the Metropolitan Railway their total traffic showed that no less than 80 per cent were third-class passengers, and, therefore, it was clear that a line considerably shortening the journey to the northern suburbs would be an enormous gain. It was also certain that the roads and streets between the north and south of "Inner London"
  830
  were gradually getting more and more blocked, and, looking broadly at the matter, it was evident that steps must be taken to relieve the traffic by underground lines. The Government, therefore, decided to allow the Bill to be placed before Parliament in the usual way, subject to preliminary conditions made by the First Commissioner on their behalf, and accepted by the Railway Company, which were the following:—(1) That no ventilators or air-holes of any kind be made in the Park or in the public thoroughfares; (2) that the tunnel should be made at a depth below the surface of the Parks to be approved by the Commissioners of Works; (3) that the Government should have the option of taking out the value of its land and houses, proposed to be taken for carrying out the improvement scheme, in new frontages to Parliament Street, King Street, and Charles Street, subject to arbitration as to the price in the event of difference; (4) that the works in the Parks be executed between September 1 and March 1, and that there should be no disturbance of the surface of the Parks without the consent of the Commissioners of Works; (5) that the buildings to be erected between the proposed station and the public offices in Charles Street should be completed to the satisfaction of the Government before the station was opened; (6) that the buildings to be erected in Parliament Street, King Street, and Charles Street should be of a material and design to be approved by the Commissioners of Works; (7) that the stations to be erected by the Company should also be of an elevation to be approved by the Commissioners of Works; (8) that the improvement scheme, including the rebuilding of houses on the site, should be carried out within a period to be agreed upon. From this their Lordships would see that every precaution had been taken to prevent any inconvenience arising from the making of this railway. It had been argued that damage might be done to trees in the Park, but he might state that the line had been most carefully laid out with reference to trees, and very few indeed would be hurt. The experience gained in the Phœnix Park, Ireland, where there was a tunnel 700 yards long, showed that fine trees 150 years old could flourish over a tunnel. Some portions of the line would have to

  831
  be constructed on the "cut and cover plan "—i.e., cutting out a trench, and when the brickwork was completed filling it in with earth; but the Company had agreed to cover the surface with timber and turf during the construction, so that the progress of the work would be scarcely visible to the visitors to the Park. As their Lordships would have noticed, the conditions provide that no ventilator or air-hole whatever was on any account to be made in the Park. The railway would be ventilated by fixed engines and fans at the stations, and Sir John Hawkshaw, the eminent engineer to the Company, had informed the First Commissioner of Works that there would not be the slightest difficulty in carrying this out. Objections had been raised to the scheme by the Press and individuals, mainly with regard to the possibility of ventilators being at some time permitted, and it had been argued that although they might not be made at first, they would, as on the Thames Embankment, be erected later on. On this point there was not the slightest reason for alarm, as it would be the duty of the Office of Works to see that no infringement was made in the matter, and it was a totally different case from the Thames Embankment, where the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power, except through Parliament, to prevent the opening of the ventilators. The improvements proposed to the approaches of the Houses of Parliament were very great. Parliament Street would be set back in a line with the Foreign Office; there would be a new street formed some 50 feet in the rear parallel with it. Upper Charles Street would be widened, so that there would be a large space between the public offices and the houses, and a new street would be constructed in the rear of Great George Street. The Railway Company would have to undertake the responsibility of clearing this site, and, if not required by the Government, reselling or reletting the large blocks of land which would at once become available for building purposes. There could be no doubt that if the great obstructive pile of buildings at the bottom of Great George Street could be removed and the street set back, they would have one of the finest thoroughfares in Europe leading from Trafalgar Square to Westminster Palace. As he had already shown, the
  832
  Government had the option of taking the purchase-money for their land and houses in the new frontages in Parliament Street, King Street, and Charles Street, and it was likely that many of the new public offices which were still required, and which the noble Lord had referred to, would be erected on these sites; but, of course, that matter had not yet been decided by the Government. The noble Lord had referred to the National Portrait Gallery, and he could assure him that every precaution had been taken to secure the safety of that building. No fires were allowed, and watchmen were continually going round to see that there was no risk of fire. Then the noble Lord objected to the Government joining with a private Company in carrying out what he considered to be a great Government undertaking. There was no doubt that the widening of Parliament Street was a matter that the Government would be bound to give every facility for carrying out—but at the same time it was purely a Metropolitan improvement. Last autumn the First Commissioner endeavoured to persuade the Metropolitan Board of Works to undertake this duty, and on behalf of the Government offered them every facility for the sale of laud on the Great George Street site, so that by setting back the street and obtaining new frontages they would recoup themselves. The Metropolitan Board of Works had not seen their way so far to carry out this proposal. If the Government were to act themselves in the matter, it would be necessary to purchase the additional land and carry out the work themselves, but it would be too much of a land speculation, and, in view of the large sums now being expended on public buildings, they felt they would not be justified in undertaking this. The only other feasible way was the one he had already indicated of uniting this with the railway extension. Their Lordships would remember that this plan of connecting the formation of new streets in the Metropolis with the construction of railways was strongly recommended by the Joint Committee of both Houses, which sat in reference to the Metropolitan Railways in 1864, and also the Committee which sat in their Lordships' House in 1863. This policy had been carried out in the City, and new streets had been formed in connection with the

  833
  Underground Railway, and also in connection with the Thames Embankment, and had been found to work well. He hoped that in the present instance it would also recommend itself to their Lordships. The Bill and scheme would have to go upon its merits through a searching investigation of a Committee of both Houses; but in the event of its becoming law there appeared to be every prospect that the Railway Company, while obtaining a very economical route, would carry out at Westminster a great Metropolitan improvement, and would save to the country the interest on the large sum of money, over £250,000, which had been spent on land purchased on the Great George Street block, now lying idle.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the statement of the noble Lord that this would be a great Metropolitan improvement. The scheme would involve the re-casting of the streets between their Lordships' House and the Treasury, and he could not help thinking that a great change of that kind ought not to be effected without the public having an opportunity of judging of the plans and the character of the buildings that were to be erected. No doubt the buildings about to be removed were of a shabby character. He would suggest that the plans of the new buildings should be deposited for inspection in some public place.

IRELAND—MARINE BOARD (CORK).

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in rising to move for Copies of the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. P. U. P. FitzGerald and the Board of Trade, and to ask the Government why Mr. FitzGerald's name had been removed from the Marine Board at Cork, said, the Local Marine Board consisted partly of the elected members, and partly of gentlemen nominated by the Government, and the meetings of the Board in question took place in the City of Cork. In 1880, Mr. FitzGerald was nominated to fill one of the Government places. He was a gentleman occupying an influential position in the county, of which he was a magistrate and a deputy lieutenant. He resided on Cork Harbour, 23 miles from the City, and had special qualifications for a seat on the Marine
  834
  Board, inasmuch as he took great interest in nautical matters, had passed all the examinations, and held two certificates of the Board of Trade. His appointment reflected great credit on the Government that nominated him. At that time Mr. FitzGerald could not pledge himself to attend regularly to ordinary meetings, and he was told that his duties would be mainly of a consultative character, and that he would be referred to as occasion required. Upon those conditions Mr. FitzGerald accepted the offer. The newspapers reported that he had received a handsome acknowledgment from the Secretary of the Marine Board, who paid a high tribute to Mr. FitzGerald's usefulness to the Board for the information which the Secretary had on various occasions received from him, and had stated that Mr. FitzGerald had constantly attended at the office when he had been in Cork, in order to assist in any matters that were under deliberation. The small amount of remuneration attached to the office Mr. FitzGerald had regularly handed over to the Cork Sailors' Home. One would have thought that a gentleman willing to devote himself to this work would have been one whom a prudent Government would have desired to retain. But early in the present year Mr. FitzGerald received an intimation from the Board of Trade that as he had not attended the meetings of the Board it was not contemplated to include his name among the Government nominees. That was the first intimation he had received of any dissatisfaction or any desire to remove him from a position which he had filled with advantage to the public. The noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) would have to be very explicit in his disclaimer and very careful in his utterances if he would divest the mind of the public of the belief that Mr. FitzGerald's dismissal was directly traceable to political persecution. The Marine Board was appointed by the Board of Trade. The President of the Board, of whose office he (Viscount Midletonj would speak with the utmost respect, was known to hold peculiar views. He had lately spoken of a Member of that House who had given the whole of his life to the Public Service as one "who toiled not, neither did he spin." He also lately indulged in an inflated eulogium of another Member of that House

  835
  who had only lately entered the House, because he took the chair at a dinner in glorification of the President of the Board of Trade. When it was known that Mr. FitzGerald was the accepted Conservative candidate for the Borough of Cambridge, people were very ready to put the interpretation on this proceeding which it was natural it should bear, and he was very anxious to give the Government an opportunity of disclaiming having been guided by any such motive. It had also transpired that on a chance vacancy occurring on the Marine Board a few months ago the President of the Board of Trade consulted Mr. Parnell as to who should be appointed. It certainly startled those who held loyally to the Crown in connection with the Government of Ireland to find that Mr. Parnell was the person consulted under these circumstances. Of course, Mr. Parnell recommended a person strongly affected to his own interests, while one who had been conspicuous for his service to the public, and who was known as a Loyalist and a Conservative, was summarily dismissed from his office without any notice that his conduct had given dissatisfaction, or one word of explanation as to the reason why he was thus sent away. He (Viscount Midleton) would be glad to know that the Government were prepared to lay on the Table the Papers bearing on this subject.
  Moved, " That there be laid before this House, Copy of the correspondence which has taken place between Mr. R. U. P. FitzGerald, whose name has lately been removed from the Marine Board at Cork, and the Board of Trade."—(The Viscount Midleton.)
  LORD SUDELEY, in reply, said: I think I can give the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Midleton) a somewhat different complexion of the case he has raised. Throughout the United Kingdom there are 17 Local Marine Boards, and to each Board there are 10 members. Six of these members are appointed by the shipowners, and four by the Board of Trade. These gentlemen are appointed for two years; and if vacancies occur, either by death or by resignation, those vacancies are filled up, the Board being re-elected every three years. In this month the triennial elections will take place. Mr. P. FitzGerald was nominated by the Board of Trade to the Local Marine Board at Cork in 1878, and
  836
  was re-nominated in 1881. The Board of Trade, however, finding recently that a number of the gentlemen who had been appointed to the Marine Board at different places were not attending as frequently as they could have wished, considered the matter; and they thought it was quite evident that a number of those gentlemen were either unable to attend from illness, or from various other circumstances, and thought it would be wise for them to determine that unless gentlemen had attended at one-third of the meetings during the year, that they should not be nominated, unless special reasons for their absence were forthcoming. Accordingly a Circular was sent out to that effect, and was sent to 20 out of 68. Mr. FitzGerald, who, as the noble Viscount says, has done such eminent work during last year, did not attend the meetings of the Board on one single occasion, and therefore the Board of Trade naturally sent the Circular to him. It is a very simple document, in very few lines. It merely states that the Board of Trade having ascertained that——not being able to attend the meetings often during the past year, they do not propose to re-appoint him as one of their nominees to the Marine Board, as they conclude his engagements do not permit of his attendance. If, after this, any gentleman said that it was from ill-health, or other cause, he had been unable to attend, he would have been re-nominated, and that has been the course taken in the case of other gentlemen to whom Circulars were sent. But Mr. FitzGerald, on receiving the Circular, wrote to the Board of Trade, pointing out that he understood, when he received the appointment, that the office did not expect his regular attendance, provided he kept himself informed of what was being done; the fact really being that he did not attend on a single occasion. But what did he do, besides writing to the Board of Trade? He at once, within a clay or two, wrote to all the newspapers, and appealed to the Press. The noble Viscount makes out that he has been politically persecuted, and tries to show that the President of the Board of Trade, (Mr. Chamberlain) has behaved shabbily towards Mr. FitzGerald. My Lords, there is not the slightest foundation for this charge. The noble Viscount has alluded to another matter, in which he says Mr. Chamberlain asked Mr. Par-

  837
  nell to nominate a certain gentleman to fill a certain vacancy. Whether that is so or not is very immaterial, as it has nothing to do with this case. The decision of the Board of Trade upon the general question was come to after careful consideration; but in the particular case under discussion, the Board of Trade believed Mr. FitzGerald to be thoroughly competent to perform the duties attached to the appointment. The Circular states merely that the Board of Trade do not propose to re-nominate, as it is concluded that the nominee to whom it is addressed is too much occupied to attend the meetings of the Local Marine Board. If, however, any nominee replies that he has been prevented by illness, or other cause, from attending, and is able and willing to perform the duties attached to the appointment, the Board of Trade is quite prepared to reconsider his case.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask if the noble Lord has any objection to lay on the Table of this House the actual Correspondence that has taken place?
  LORD SUDELEY: There is only one letter and the Circular which I have referred to.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in rising to introduce a Bill to amend the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, said: My Lords, although this Bill is not a long or a complicated one, I think it may be convenient, in the circumstances of the case, that I should give some statement of its purpose upon bringing it in. With a very slight exception this is a foot-and-mouth Bill. To put it shortly, the Bill is intended to increase the responsibilities of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council for the purpose of protecting the country against the importation of foot-and-mouth disease from abroad. To any one not familiar with the history of this subject, it might seem somewhat strange that this particular disease, among those which are enumerated in the Act of 1878, should be chosen for legislative treatment now, because, as is well known, it
  838
  is one of the mildest, in its immediate effects, of all those diseases. But the reasons for this course are not difficult to explain. The stock-owner, speaking of the inroads of foot-and-mouth disease, might use the words of the old line—"My wound is great because it is so small," because the fact is, that foot-and-mouth disease not being of the formidable nature of cattle plague or pleuro-pneumonia, it has been found impossible to treat it by the capital and extreme measures which have been applied to those fatal diseases. It has been found to be impossible hitherto to treat it either by way of absolute exclusion of animals from foreign countries or by way of slaughter at home. I may say, in passing, that I am not at all satisfied that the system of slaughter at home might not, in certain circumstances, be applied even to foot-and-mouth disease, supposing that the happy day had arrived when this country was again quite free, or nearly free, from the disease, and when it was necessary to prevent its revival. But it is curious to look back for a few years and to see the change which has occurred in the public mind, especially in the agricultural mind, with respect to this disease. It is only 20 years, I think, since foot-and-mouth disease was struck out of a Cattle Diseases Bill, as not a thing worth dealing with, upon the Motion of Sir William Miles, representing the agricultural interest in the House of Commons. It was not until the year 1869 that foot-and-mouth disease was admitted into the list of diseases for the purpose of legislative treatment, upon the proposal of Mr. Forster. Well, my Lords, after 1869, and before 1878, before the Committee of the other House in 1877 was appointed, and before the Act of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) passed in 1878, was introduced, foot-and-mouth disease had raged over and over again throughout the country, and spread to an even larger extent than it has lately—although the recent extent of the disease is undoubtedly large—and had had the same ups and downs which it has recently, in 1882–3, experienced. But, in spite of that experience, I find that neither those who framed and proposed nor those who discussed and debated at immense length the Bill of 1878 in both Houses—which is the Act now administered by the Privy Council

  839
  —ever thought for a moment that the system of exclusion, the rule of prohibition as against foreign countries, was to be applied to this disease. I cannot find the slightest trace of such an idea ever entering into their minds. It was described at the time by a high authority, Mr. Henry Chaplin, as a Bill for the purpose of stamping out foot-and-mouth disease by the two methods of restriction at home and the slaughter of animals at the port of landing. And the prohibitory discretion which the Bill contained, and which was only repeating what the former Acts had contained, was mainly directed, not against foot-and-mouth disease, but against cattle plague. Well, my Lords, since the passing of the Act of 1878, I venture to say that the Privy Council has endeavoured by its able permanent staff to administer the Act faithfully and in its spirit. I believe they have done so, and I believe also that great care has been taken by some of the local authorities in the country, I cannot say by all, because their administration of the Act has varied very much, and in many cases, I am bound to say, there has been great want of carefulness and energy. Nevertheless, there have been restrictions enough imposed both by local authorities and the Privy Council; the system of slaughter at the ports has been carefully administered; and yet, in spite of all this, the disease has not been got rid of. Not that the precautions taken both at home and in regard to foreign cattle have been without effect. I am convinced that by the system that has been pursued—however annoying and harassing it has undoubtedly been—very good effects have been produced, and the mischief of the disease has been reduced both in point of time and extent compared with what would otherwise have been the case. Still, my Lords, we all know that foot-and-mouth disease continues to retain its hold on the country. It still returns from time to time, and breaks out from year to year. For reasons which it is not easy to trace, it is more severe one year than another. It dies out for a year or two, and then revives. This is the state of circumstances with which we have now to deal. In the face of this recurrence of a most annoying and mischievous disease, I fully recognize the fact that all parties concerned in the matter have grown more and more weary of it,
  840
  and agree that more effective means should be taken to restrict it. That feeling, indeed, is shared by the Privy Council itself. The evil must be met, in order to put an end to this state of things. Before I go further I must say this—that the impatience—the natural impatience—of the farmers, the local authorities, and all concerned, especially during the last year, and, above all, during the last six months, has been immensely aggravated by the notion that the increased outbreak of 1883 has been caused and fomented by the introduction of fresh infection from abroad into this country. To those who have looked carefully into the facts, the amount of misapprehension and of exaggeration which has taken place upon this subject is something extraordinary. I could give 50 instances of it, for they are only too familiar to us at the Privy Council. The other day, for example, when I received an important deputation, I greatly surprised one of the speakers by telling him that foreign animals admitted for immediate slaughter did not arrive at, and were not kept in, the same wharves and lairs with the animals from free countries that were about to be distributed throughout the interior. Then, the Privy Council has been deluged with memorials and resolutions from all parts of the country, especially, I think, from Lincolnshire, demanding the immediate exclusion of foreign animals, in the apparent belief that not a week nor a day passed without the disease being kept up by these constant arrivals. My Lords, I confess I am not surprised that these ideas should take hold of the minds of men loss informed when I read some of the utterances of those to whom they may naturally look up as their guides. For instance, I saw it asserted the other day in "another place" by a right hon. Gentleman, that Her Majesty's Government had, by not keeping out foot-and-mouth disease, been allowing it to rage throughout the length and breadth of the land. Now, what are the facts in regard to 1883? I am not referring to the origin of the disease, or even to its last introduction, but to the circumstances of 1883; and I undertake to say that the increase of foot-and-mouth disease during the last half of the year 1883 had no connection whatever with the

  841
  arrival of any fresh foreign infection. There is no trace of any such connection to be found. The facts are these. In the first three months of last year 68 cargoes, containing more or less foot-and-mouth disease among them, arrived in the ports of this country. In former years, and with our former notions upon the subject of foot-and-mouth disease, this would have been treated as an ordinary case. It is a number which has often been largely exceeded; but the cargoes came one after another, especially from French ports. Accordingly, the Privy Council prohibited the importation from France in March, and has maintained that prohibition since. This is the first time that the power of prohibition has been thus used under the Act of 1878 in the case of foot-and-mouth disease. Germany and Holland had been infected also, and we communicated, through the Foreign Office, with the Governments of those countries, and cautioned them that if they continued to send foot-and-mouth disease among their animals it would be necessary for us to prohibit their imports also. The figures as to the rest of the year are very different, indeed, from those of the first three months. Since the 1st of June, 1883, only five foreign cargoes have contained any animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Since the 8th of July there have been only two such cargoes; and for more than three months past there has been no sign of foot-and-mouth disease in any foreign cargo. No connection can be traced between the facts I have stated and the facts relating to the unfortunate outbreak of the disease at home. For instance, the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the first week of July was 60, and no aggravation took place until the month of August. In one week in September the maximum reached 1,505 outbreaks, and since that week they have steadily declined. In the week before Christmas the number was 387. An Order was then issued stopping markets and fairs in all counties except those which were perfectly free from foot-and-mouth disease. Since that Order came into force the outbreaks have been reduced from 387 to 53 in the last week; and I have great hopes that that process of reduction will continue. Well, my Lords, I say that there is no connection to
  842
  be traced between the disease at home and the facts I have before stated as to the cargoes which came with foot-and-mouth disease in the earlier part of the year into our ports. It is known to those who have studied this subject that that is also the general conclusion to be drawn from former experience. Mr. Forster, in the debate on the second reading of the Bill of 1878 in the other House, challenged anyone to show that, under the former Act of 1869, there was any relation between the arrival of foot-and-mouth disease in foreign cargoes and its prevalence in the country; and then the system was far more imperfect than that which was established by the noble Duke's Act, inasmuch as there was no positive and general rule for slaughter at the port. I am convinced that it has been a very great misfortune to the agricultural interest that they have, during the past year, persuaded themselves, or allowed themselves to be persuaded, that their great and immediate danger was from abroad, instead of being, as it was, in fact, at home. Instead of fixing their attention on the vital matter of stamping out the disease at any cost in their own districts, they have been haunted by this fiction of a constant influx of fresh foreign infection, which, if it had been true, would have made all their efforts futile. For instance, let me ask you to consider the importance of the arrival at Grimsby last autumn of a single vessel with some pigs on board which were infected with foot-and-mouth disease. At that moment there were about 5,000 infected places in Great Britain, and this was simply an additional infected place. And let me point out that of all the infected places in the country this was the one which was beyond all comparison the safest, and the one where there was the least danger of any infection escaping. It was subject to the same rule as that which applies to rinderpest, and all the animals were slaughtered at once. There is not a pretence for supposing that any infection from that cargo escaped from the foreign animals' wharf at Grimsby, and added anything to the foot-and-mouth disease in Lincolnshire. I should like for one moment to point out the vital importance of stamping out disease at first in the particular place, upon the particular farm, where it shows itself. That is an idea which seems not to

  843
  have taken possession of the minds of all who are interested in getting rid of this disease, and yet it certainly filled the minds of the authors of the Act of 1878. The essential principle of that Act was to give power to local authorities to stamp out the disease wherever it appeared in the country. If that object could be attained, of course all local restrictions with their attendant inconveniences would become unnecessary. That this can be done, I think, is amply proved by the experience of the last few years. The disease has often been effectually isolated and stamped out in Wales, Gloucestershire, Somersetshire, and in several other counties in England, and in Somersetshire especially, where, although it has broken out several times, it has been stamped out through the energy and excellent arrangements of the local authorities, and in. no instance has it been allowed to spread beyond the infected place. When it broke out in any place in that county, therefore, it may be safely asserted that it was imported from beyond its boundaries. The same thing may be said with regard to Scotland, where I am bound to say the provisions of the Act have been admirably administered. In the three or four Northern counties of England the measures adopted by the local authorities have been attended with the greatest success. Thus the Chief Veterinary Inspector of Durham states in his Report—
  "Foot-and-mouth disease in this county has invariably died out on the spot where it appeared, showing how well the local Inspectors attend to their duties, and also how willingly the owners of stock assist in carrying out the regulations. In the Infected Circles Order, if properly carried out, you have a sufficient safeguard without placing the whole country under restrictions."
  Mr. Dunne, the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmoreland, one of the highest authorities on this subject, also reports that in 1877 the disease broke out on 9,000 farms in those two counties, attacking 240,000 animals, and that since the Act of 1878 there have been only five or six fresh outbreaks, which have never been allowed to extend beyond the place originally infected. Such an energetic and enlightened administration of the law relating to this subject is evidently of vital importance at the present moment, and it will become of yet greater im-
  844
  portance when we succeed in reducing the disease within a very narrow compass. Then the mode of dealing with every fresh outbreak will become a very serious matter indeed, because the question whether the infected place shall be isolated and the disease stamped out, or whether it shall be neglected and permitted to spread, will be a matter not only of local or county interest, but of national interest. Whatever steps we may take, however, we may be assured that we can never expect that the country can be hermetically sealed against foot-and-mouth disease. We must do all we can to exclude it, and to limit the area of the outbreaks of it when they do occur. But we know that it made its way into this country in 1840, when the importation of all foreign cattle was absolutely prohibited. Then, only the other day, it made its way into Ireland, into which there is, practically, no importation of cattle; and it seems to have been carried there, not by any animal imported, but by Irish drovers who had come over to this country, and been in contact with diseased animals here. I believe, therefore, that no restrictive system that we can devise will afford us complete security against the introduction of this disease into this country. My own belief, indeed, is that infection has very rarely escaped from the foreign animals' wharf. There is, however, the case of the French cattle in 1880, which has evidently made a deep impression upon the mind of the country. There is, undoubtedly, a great probability, though no proof, that the disease was re-imported into this country after it had become almost extinct, and that it came from a French source. This fact has naturally alarmed the country, and if it has happened once I cannot deny that it may happen again, and the feeling that it might happen again naturally affects the public mind, and especially that of the agricultural classes. In these circumstances, we cannot expect to obtain the hearty co-operation of the farmers and of the local authorities, which is so essential to success in carrying out measures for stamping out the disease, unless we are able to give them satisfactory assurance that they will be protected from fresh infection from abroad. This assurance we desire to give them by the Bill which I am about to introduce. We are fully prepared,

  845
  in case of danger, to use our present powers to the utmost; but we recognize the great advantage of giving to the minds of those interested in the matter—of those whose co-operation is absolutely essential to success—the assurance that can be given by more stringent legislation upon the subject. We are willing to assume a much heavier responsibility than we have at present in this matter, although our responsibility with reference to it is weighty already. For that purpose, and with the view of protecting the country against the introduction of foot-and-mouth infection from abroad, the Bill, while defining in the most ample manner all the discretionary powers of the Privy Council, and applying them to foot-and-mouth disease expressly, will also impose upon them an obligation to exclude foreign cattle from the country under circumstances which are thus described—
  "They shall prohibit such landing whenever they are satisfied with respect to any foreign country that, having regard to the sanitary condition of the animals therein or imported therefrom, to the laws made by such country for the regulation of the importation and exportation of animals and for the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and to other circumstances, a reasonable security does not exist against the importation from such country of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease."
  It will, of course, become the duty of the Privy Council to inform themselves as to the state of things in foreign countries in this respect. I am unwilling to say much about the Bill of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), because he has not yet had an opportunity of stating its provisions; but I must say that Her Majesty's Government find themselves unable to accept that Bill, and for this, among other reasons, that it would require the Privy Council to act like a machine on information reaching them that a single case of foot-and-mouth disease had occurred in any foreign country. That, we think, would be going beyond the necessities of the case. We cannot adopt a measure which would lay down so hard-and-fast a line. We cannot make this country depend for its supply on such a fact, apart from all other circumstances. It is evident that the noble Duke intends by his Bill to abolish absolutely the
  846
  system of slaughter at the ports in the case of foot-and-mouth disease; and he is so thoroughly aware of the revolution which he proposes, that he very considerately postpones the date when his Bill is to come into operation until October 1. We do not think that it would be wise to abolish the alternative system of slaughter at the ports. Between the cases in which in future there must be prohibition, and the cases in which there must be free admission, as from Canada and Scandinavia, it will be advantageous that we should retain the middle course of slaughter at the ports. The safety may not be enough to do without it; the danger may not be enough to justify absolute prohibition; therefore, we think it most desirable to retain the alternative. There are two minor clauses of the Bill of which I have charge to which it may be convenient that I should refer—the one gives power to make special exceptions of animals intended for exhibition, or in other exceptional cases, the same as is now possessed in regard to countries whose animals are admitted for slaughter; the other will enable the Privy Council to exercise the power of admission without slaughter in relation to any part of a foreign country which they can at present exercise with reference to the whole of a foreign country. That will enable us, for example, on sufficient ground shown, to admit store cattle from certain States of the American Union, when we might not be justified in admitting them from the country as a whole. That is, if it can be done with safety. I am not prepared to say that it can be done at present, although I know it is very much desired by many important interests. At present the Privy Council have no power to do it; and by this clause we take the power. Then it is thought advisable that the compulsory part of the Bill should be open to review by Parliament at no distant time; and, therefore, it is proposed that this part of the Bill should be temporary, and only last for two years. If your Lordships accept this Bill, as I hope you will—and we are anxious to lose no time, and shall take the second reading as soon as possible—the Government will do all in their power to carry it without delay through the other House, and the Privy Council will do all in their power to carry it into effect.
  Bill to amend the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878—Presented (The LORD President).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had listened with very considerable attention to the statement of the noble Lord who had just sat down. The noble Lord devoted the greater part of his remaks to the progress of foot-and-mouth disease for many years back, characterizing it as one of the mildest diseases known amongst animals, and proceeded to show that all the provisions which had been put into operation by the Privy Council, and all the arrangements which had been made under it, had reduced this disease down to such a small and infinitesimal extent, that it was beginning to die out. If the argument of the noble Lord were carried to its logical conclusion, it would show that there was no need for this measure, which the Government had, nevertheless, thought right to introduce. In some criticisms on the Bill which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) intended to ask their Lordships to approve next week, the noble Lord had raised an objection to the date fixed in that Bill as the date when it should come into operation. The noble Lord's reference to that Bill seemed to him most irregular, seeing that it was not immediately be-fore their Lordships; but he begged to assure their Lordships that he had mentioned October 1 as the date, because he had no hope of the Bill passing through the House of Commons until a very late period in the Session. He would very gladly alter the date, and say that the measure should come into operation from the date when it should become law. He would not, however, go into a criticism of the Bill on that occasion, but would prefer to give his opinions upon it on the second reading, after he had seen it in print. The noble Lord said that farmers in this country were mistaken in thinking that foot-and-mouth disease was of foreign origin.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): I beg pardon. What I said was, that farmers were mistaken in thinking during last year that the disease was constantly fomented by fresh arrivals from abroad.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had evidently mistaken the noble Lord's meaning. That
  848
  they were suffering now from disease which had been imported from abroad, he thought there was no ground for disputing; but he would go into that question fully when he had an opportunity of moving the second reading of his own Bill. Whether the Bill just introduced by the Government was a good Bill or a bad Bill, it seemed to owe its birth to the suggestion of the late President of the Council, and to the action of Mr. Chaplin in "another place." In the Speech from the Throne it was noteworthy that no reference was made to the suffering agricultural interests of the United Kingdom, and he thought they might fairly assume, without any exaggeration, that as late as 6 o'clock on the opening day of the Session the Government had not the smallest intention of introducing a measure dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. His own Bill might not have had the effect of drawing this Bill from the Government; but he suspected that what led to its introduction was the Notice of Amendment to the Address by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, in which he proposed practically to censure the Government for not having carried out the Resolution carried in the House of Commons in July last. Probably those Gentlemen who had the management of the Business of the House of Commons informed the Government on the Wednesday following, that unless something was done Mr. Chaplin would probably carry his Amendment, and then, on Wednesday afternoon, the House was informed by the Prime Minister of the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. If, however, the Government measure passed into law, and if it was found to be a good measure, the farmers would have to thank the Opposition, and not the Government, for its introduction. His noble Friends on that side would give full consideration to the Bill of the Government, with that spirit of fairness which characterized them.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, that what the country wanted was a clear measure. That under discussion depended upon the responsibility of the Government; but if the carrying out of the measure was to be governed by certain Members of the Ministry, like Mr. Mundella and Mr. Chamberlain, he feared the Bill would be of no use whatever. He, for one, refused to

  849
  place much reliance upon the responsibility of such Ministers. He hoped the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) would insist upon his measure, because it seemed likely that the responsibility which the Government might assume would be only of a temporary kind.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 14.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that at present he would name Tuesday for the second reading.

PARLIAMENT—THE HOUSE OF LORDS—THE CROSS BENCHES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he had often observed that on occasions when any subject of great interest was to be debated in that House it was very difficult to find seats on the Cross Benches. He apprehended that the demand for places on those Benches was not likely to be diminished, but to be annually increased. The accommodation was so limited on fighting nights that there was scarcely any possibility of getting a seat on those Benches. It was a very simple matter. The Cross Benches were so far apart that it would be perfectly easy to provide a remedy. Could not the noble Earl direct that additional Benches should be provided?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am afraid the noble Earl has not addressed himself to the right person. Officially, I have no power to order changes in the distribution of the furniture of your Lordships' House. Individually, I rather sympathize with the late Lord Derby than with the noble Earl, as to the view which should be taken of the "Cross Bench mind." I am so old-fashioned a Party man that, while I am certain I prefer a good Liberal, I am afraid I also prefer even a good Tory to one who sits on the Cross Benches, and who is neither fish, flesh, nor good red-herring. The Cross Benches are usefully available for some Peers. The illustrious Members of the Royal Family, to whatever side their individual opinions may incline, most properly wish to avoid any appearance of being mixed up in Party dissensions. I admit that the noble Earl himself has a good right to a Cross Bench, because, although he invariably votes on one side,
  850
  yet I believe that, in his own Cross Bench mind, he equally and impartially condemns both Parties in the State, thinking himself alone to be in the right. No doubt some of our noble Friends have gone to the Cross Benches, and appear to have deserted the Party to which I have the honour to belong; but, notwithstanding their peculiar views on some points, we shall be most ready to welcome them back to the roomy Benches on this side of the House. There are others whose Conservatism is of so much more fossil character, than that even of the Opposition Front Bench, that I am sure they might be squeezed into some corner of the crowded space opposite. I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord, who had better try some process of elimination than crowd the space with unnecessary Benches.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.