said, the Papers had already been laid upon the Table in relation to the prohibition by the Egyptian Government of the landing of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt in Egypt. As those Papers had only been laid upon the Table that day, many hon. Members might not have had an opportunity of reading them. He would therefore state as briefly as he could the nature of their contents, and he would then ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain the reason why Her Majesty's Government had taken the course they had in the matter. Mr. Blunt had been before the country for a long time in connection with Egyptian matters. It would be remembered how, in 1882, he had warned the Government of the natural result of their policy in Egypt; and if they had accepted that warning, they would have been in a very much better position than that which they occupied to-day. Indeed, if there was one man to whom more than another the whole of the country and Her Majesty's Government were indebted, it was Mr. Wilfrid Blunt; and there could be no doubt that the political prisoners would have been executed but for the efforts of Mr. Blunt. Mr. Blunt had certainly rendered great service to the Government. Last autumn Mr. Blunt determined to go out to India, and he stopped in Egypt on his way. He did not engage in any political mission there, the political questions in which he had been engaged having been thoroughly threshed out, and Mr. Blunt could do no more in regard to them. He merely called there, and, having called there, he was treated as any other English gentleman would have been by Her Majesty's Representatives, who entertained him and entered into communications with him. He then left Egypt and went to India, and after remaining in India for some time, he returned, but was not allowed to land in Egypt again. All he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had now to do was to state the reasons given in the Papers laid before the House that day why Mr. Blunt was not allowed to land. It must be remembered that these reasons had been indorsed and approved by Sir Evelyn Baring and Earl Granville. All that was material as to the action of Egypt in the matter, so far as preventing the landing of an English subject, would be found on page 3 of the Papers which gave the letter of Cherif Pasha to Sir Evelyn Baring. That letter opened out the whole business. Cherif Pasha said—

"You are doubtless aware of Mr. Blunt's relations with Arabi and of the campaign undertaken by him in London to cast upon His Highness the odium of the massacres at Alexandria. I have no intention of reverting to past events, but I shall confine myself to acquainting you in a few words with the attitude adopted by Mr. Blunt during his recent stay in Egypt. On his arrival at Cairo he immediately entered into communication with the families of the rebels and with several other persons compromised in the recent events."

Now, ho did not suppose that anybody knew there was a law in Egypt, or in England, that nobody was to confer with the families of rebels; but he was informed by Mr. Blunt that all the stories about interviews prolonged far into the night were untrue; that while in Egypt he was in bed regularly by half-past 9 or 10 o'clock; but that on one occasion he had received an invitation to dine with the officials connected with the British Embassy. The next thing stated in the letter was that—

"In his walks in the Bazaar he was continually conversing with the merchants with regard to Arabi."

That was the second charge. The third was that—

"Having learnt that a certain Abdel Rajah was detained in prison as implicated in the matter of the anonymous letters, he presented himself at the Zaptieh for admission to see the prisoner."

What really took place was, that Mr. Blunt asked Sir Evelyn Baring "to obtain permission for him to look over the prison," but receiving no answer, he walked in and saw this man, no one interfering. Certainly there was not much harm in that. Mr. Blunt was next charged as follows:—

"Having met with a refusal on the part of the police officials, Mr. Blunt endeavoured to evade the orders, but not having succeeded he departed, abusing the guards and boasting that he would shortly return with an order from Her Majesty's Representative which would open all doors to him.

Mr. Blunt stated that there was no truth whatever in that charge, that nothing of the kind occurred, and that he spoke to and abused nobody. The fifth charge was—

"Mr. Blunt further employed himself in starting a newspaper, the intended object of which was to create popularity for Arabi, and to weaken the authority of the Khedive. On his being informed that in order to publish a newspaper in Egypt the sanction of the Government must previously be obtained, he is reported to have replied that, if necessary, he would obtain that sanction from London."

Mr. Blunt informed him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that he never had such an idea in his mind, and that he never thought of starting a newspaper in Egypt. The sixth charge was—

"You are further aware, my dear Minister, of the ideas he tried to disseminate in the country with regard to the foundation of an Arab Empire, and the imbecility of the present system of government."

Mr. Blunt said that he pleaded guilty to the charge, with the exception of not having advised the foundation of an Arab Empire. He certainly thought the Government of Egypt most imbecile, and had said so on many occasions. The right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), indeed, two of the Members for Lincolnshire, and the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) went up and down this country calling the Members of Her Majesty's Government imbecile, but they were not banished, for nobody cared a bit what they said. As far as be could make out from reading the Papers, these were the sole charges against Mr. Blunt, on account of which he was not allowed to land in Egypt; and he should be much surprised if the Committee were to arrive at the conclusion that this was a proper way to treat a British subject. It was monstrous that a Liberal Government should act in the way the present Government had acted towards Mr. Blunt. He did not suppose that Mr. Blunt was particularly anxious to go to Egypt at the time he was refused permission to land, and he did not think that Mr. Blunt sustained any serious amount of inconvenience. A gross indignity, however, was put upon him, simply because he had told the truth; and the matter threw a flood of light on what was going on in that country. It showed that they were in Egypt for nothing more than to bolster up a system of cruelty and oppression, and to stifle freedom of opinion. Unless the Government could give a better reason than they had yet given for this extraordinary proceeding, as explained in the Papers laid before the House, he should certainly feel disposed to move the reduction of the Vote in order to see whether the Committee would be inclined to join him in protesting against the odious, dangerous, and unjust policy which Her Majesty's Government were encouraging in Egypt. He should like very much to hear what the Government would have to say in defence of the extraordinary course they had taken.

said, that he was, on the whole, glad that his hon. Friend had called attention to this subject, because it would enable him to bring out the real facts of the matter. Hon. Members would probably have read the Papers which had been presented, and he wished they could have been presented sooner; but, owing to want of time, it had been impossible. It would at once be seen that the whole of the question lay in a nutshell. As to the main facts, there was no dispute. His hon. Friend said humorously that Mr. Blunt had been refused permission to land in Egypt, because on his former visit he had been in the habit of sitting up late at night; but that it was owing to the hospitality kindly extended to him by the members of Her Majesty's Mission, and that sitting up late at night under such circumstances was not likely to do much harm. But he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could not help thinking the Committee would see, on reading the Papers, that that humorous version of Mr. Blunt's proceedings was scarcely borne out. The whole case, in reality, turned on two things—in the first place, on the right of the Egyptian Government; and, secondly, on the facts stated in the letter of Cherif Pasha to Sir Evelyn Baring on the 8th of October. As to the right of the Egyptian Government, and the legal aspect of the case, there could be no doubt at all. It was a matter of the right of self-preservation, which all Governments at times were obliged to exercise in periods of great difficulty. Occasionally, the exercise of a strict legal right did appear to interfere with that complete liberty which, as a rule, it was the desire of every civilized State to extend, not only to its own subjects, but to those of other nations. Mr. Blunt, exercising his rights, which nobody would question, some time ago did take a leading part in Egyptian affairs; but, having chosen to take a certain line, he must also take the con-sequences. Mr. Blunt, to use an old proverb, could not claim to "eat his loaf and to have it also." He could not claim to express opinions hostile to the Egyptian Government, or to conspire against them, and then claim their assent and protection. Mr. Blunt claimed that those who had been in active rebellion against the Government were in reality patriots, whose names were held in honour by the country, and when they entered into a conspiracy against a Government of which they disapproved, he seemed to imagine that they ought to be protected by that Government. Now, it was necessary to take a clear line in a question of that kind; no man could be on both sides. He could not claim the protection of the Government, and also to be allowed to enter into agreements and conspiracies against it. His hon. Friend said that Mr. Blunt did admit one charge, and the admission was an exceedingly important one—namely, that, while in Egypt, Mr. Blunt did attempt to disseminate ideas which nobody could deny were hostile to the existence of the Government of that country.

asked where that admission was to be found?

said, it was what the hon. Baronet had said himself. His hon. Friend had controverted Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Cherif Pasha's letter; but, on referring to the last paragraph, he had understood him to say that Mr. Blunt did not dispute the allegation contained in it.

explained that what he had said was this. That Mr. Blunt distinctly denied having tried to disseminate ideas in favour of the foundation of an Arab Empire; but what he did not deny was that he had spoken of the imbecility of the Egyptian Government.

said, that was Mr. Blunt's way of putting it; but his hon. Friend would be aware that when a gentleman of Mr. Blunt's great talent and ability, with excessively strong and decided opinions, went about and was constantly denouncing the imbecility of the Government, he was not, perhaps, very far off from desiring to put something in the place of that Government. They all knew that Mr. Blunt had hostile ideas with regard to the Government of Egypt, which he had urged with very great ability, and therefore it seemed to him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) that his hon. Friend's admission on behalf of Mr. Blunt covered what he had said. He thought it must be acknowledged that the statements made by Cherif Pasha in regard to Mr. Blunt were justified. Under those circircumstances, all he had to examine was the further question—what were the rights of the Egyptian Government in the matter? It was the right which every Government was bound occasionally to consider—the right of saying under what conditions strangers or foreigners should be admitted into the country. In this case, the Egyptian Government came to the conclusion that it was dangerous to the security of the State, and the peace and maintenance of public order, to allow Mr. Blunt to remain in Egypt, and accordingly they proceeded to take the steps which his hon. Friend had described, and which the Committee would find detailed at full length in the Papers. The only step which Her Majesty's Government took, as distinguished from that of the Egyptian Government, was to refuse to interfere. He would ask hon. Members to ask themselves this question—whether, considering that the Egyptian Government was not only a friendly Government, but a Government which Her Majesty's Government were pledged in a particular degree to maintain, it would have been right for Her Majesty's Government to intervene? It must be clearly understood that the steps against Mr. Blunt were not taken at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, but that they were taken by the Egyptian Government on their own responsibility; and that the only step which Her Majesty's Government took was to refuse, when appealed to, to interfere. His hon. Friend had quoted from the letter of Cherif Pasha of October 8; but the case did not rest simply upon the statement of Cherif Pasha, whom some persons might imagine to take an unfavourable view of the proceedings of Mr. Blunt, owing to Mr. Blunt's knowledge of the affairs of Egypt in past years; but when Nubar Pasha came into Office without any prejudice upon the question, and was appealed to, at the instance of Mr. Blunt, who thought he would reverse the order of Cherif Pasha, Nubar Pasha, so far from reversing it, confirmed it. Therefore, when hon. Members found two Ministers of the ability of Cherif Pasha and Nubar Pasha agreeing in the same policy, it would be hard to say that their well-considered verdict was wrong, and that they were not justified in thinking that the continued presence of Mr. Blunt in Egypt was a source of danger. These were the whole facts on which this controversy had turned. As he had already said, the facts were very few, and the whole matter lay in a nutshell. He thought the Committee would be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government had exercised a wise discretion in not interfering in the matter.

said, he did not know what the opinion was of hon. Members who sat immediately behind the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as their opinions were generally made for them; but he was satisfied that hon. Members who sat below the Gangway would be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government had exercised an unwise discretion in the extraordinary tyrannical and unjust course they had adopted. There was a most curious incident in connection with this visit of Mr. Blunt to Egypt—far more curious than the general public had any idea of. If hon. Members would turn to page 9 of the Papers laid upon the Table, they would find a letter from Mr. Blunt to Earl Granville, dated the 1st of May. At the bottom of that page, in the third paragraph from the bottom, he would invite the attention of the noble Lord to a passage in which Mr. Blunt made these remarks—

"Having abandoned all active interest in Egyptian politics, I was encouraged last September, in the highest official quarter, again to visit Egypt, with a view to consulting with Sir Evelyn Baring as to a possible development there of English policy."

He (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought that passage would provide a much better elucidation of this unfortunate occurrence than that which the noble Lord had endeavoured to give. Many hon. Members would be aware that Mr. Blunt had strong views of the revolution brought about by Arabi and of the future of Egypt. Probably, few Members would be found who would agree with him upon those points; but he did not think there was a man in the House who would be prepared to say that Mr. Blunt was not a gentleman of the highest honour and integrity, although he had come prominently before the public in relation to Egyptian affairs. Although Mr. Blunt held strong opinions, and did not hesitate to put them forward in the strongest possible manner, no one, not even an official of the Government, had over questioned or treated with suspicion his integrity, veracity, or high honour. Therefore, when he saw a statement of that kind in the Papers laid before the House, that Mr. Blunt had abandoned all active interest in Egyptian politics, and had been encouraged last September, in the highest official quarter, again to visit Egypt, with a view to consulting with Sir Evelyn Baring as to a possible development there of English policy, he had thought it right to put himself in communication with Mr. Blunt, in order to ascertain what was the explanation of that passage. Mr. Blunt informed him that he was visited in September last by a gentleman, notoriously enjoying the friendship and the confidence of the Prime Minister—Mr. Knowles, the editor of The Nineteenth Century. That gentleman informed Mr. Blunt that the moment was well chosen for his again revisiting Egypt. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not vouch for these state- ments himself; but Mr. Blunt made them, and nobody yet had questioned the honour or veracity of Mr. Blunt; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought the case was of such a nature that it ought to be put before the House of Commons. Mr. Blunt stated that Mr. Knowles went to him, and suggested that the moment was auspicious for again revisiting Egypt, with a view of ascertaining whether there was any probability of the revival of the National Party, and whether there was any probability of arranging some method by which Arabi Pasha might be restored to his native land. In the interview, as Mr. Blunt states, Mr. Knowles made a very free use of the Prime Minister's name. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He had no doubt that if the Prime Minister would get up at the Table and deny that statement, the Committee would accept his denial; but, according to the representation of Mr. Blunt, Mr. Knowles made a very free use of the Prime Minister's name. Was that so? [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Mr. Knowles would not have thought proper to make a direct use of the Prime Minister's name without direct authority, and Mr. Knowles was a gentleman who worthily enjoyed the friendship of the Prime Minister, and would not be presumed to use the name of the right hon. Gentleman without authority. Mr. Blunt, who was an enthusiast, took fire at that suggestion that there was a chance of the National Party in Egypt being recognized by the English Government, and he placed himself in communication with no less a person than the Prime Minister's Private Secretary, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Blunt communicated to Mr. Hamilton what had passed between himself and Mr. Knowles. He stated to Mr. Hamilton that he was encouraged by what had reached him to make a journey to Egypt on his way to India, and he communicated fully to Mr. Hamilton the exact steps he meant to take when he got to Egypt, and the parties with whom he intended to communicate when he arrived there. If he (Lord Randolph Churchill) recollected rightly, Mr. Blunt had two interviews with Mr. Hamilton some time before he started, and unless the Prime Minister contradicted him, he should decline altogether to believe that Mr. Hamilton, who, as everybody knew, was one of the most excellent and intelligent Private Secretaries any Minister ever had the good fortune to possess, did not communicate to the Prime Minister the result of those interviews, knowing well, for a long time, what great interest the right hon. Gentleman had taken in the affairs of Egypt. Mr. Blunt alleged that he never saw the Prime Minister himself. He started on his tour in the month of September, and at that time the Prime Minister was taking that little yachting voyage to Copenhagen, which all remembered. The day before Mr. Blunt left for Egypt, he received a letter from Mr. Hamilton, begging him to call upon him. Therefore, Mr. Hamilton, knowing that Mr. Blunt was going to Egypt, sent for Mr. Blunt to call and see him before he went. Mr. Blunt proceeded to Downing Street, where he found Mr. Hamilton installed in the Prime Minister's apartment, and exercising, no doubt, more or less Ministerial authority. Mr. Hamilton questioned Mr. Blunt very closely as to the proceedings which he intended to take, and gave him to understand that he would be favourably received in Egypt by Sir Evelyn Baring. Mr. Hamilton acquainted himself with the whole of Mr. Blunt's proposals, for Mr. Blunt was not the man to keep anything back, and Mr. Blunt then took a farewell of Mr. Hamilton, and departed for Egypt, feeling certain that Mr. Hamilton must have communicated all that had passed to the Prime Minister. If there had been anything very objectionable in the course Mr. Blunt proposed to pursue, he felt certain the Prime Minister, either then and there, or immediately afterwards, the moment he heard of the contemplated proceeding, would have undeceived Mr. Blunt in the strongest possible manner. But nothing of the kind took place, and, from that day until the day Mr. Blunt was forbidden to land in Egypt, no line, word, or communication of any sort reached him. Was it probable, then, that the Prime Minister was not aware of Mr. Blunt's journey to Egypt, or that he disapproved of it? Mr. Blunt having arrived at Cairo, at once waited upon Sir Evelyn Baring, and, as hon. Members opposite who were not particularly prejudiced in favour of English officials in Egypt might imagine, Sir Evelyn Baring was horrified at Mr. Blunt's presence and Mr. Blunt's pro- posals. He did not sympathize with them at all; he put his foot down upon Mr. Blunt at once, and declined to give him any assistance of any shape or kind. So much was this the case, that Sir Evelyn Baring actually refused to get permission for Mr. Blunt to visit a gentleman who was confined in prison in Cairo, not upon any charge, but simply upon suspicion. Mr. Blunt asked Sir Evelyn Baring to procure him permission to visit this gentleman, and Sir Evelyn Baring peremptorily refused. There was hardly a country in the world in which such a course would have been taken in reference to a prisoner confined only on suspicion, against whom no charge had been brought. In any other country such a man would have been allowed to see his friends; but in Egypt, under the wise and enlightened Administration of Her Majesty's Government, political prisoners did not possess that advantage, and therefore the Representative of the British Government refused permission in Egypt for Mr. Blunt to visit a friend who happened to be confined in prison. Mr. Blunt, however, saw other friends in Cairo, and ascertained that there was no danger whatever at that moment of any movement being made in favour of the National Party, or even of the admission of the idea that there was a National Party, and, least of all, that there was any feeling in favour of the restoration of Arabi Pasha. Having ascertained that through his friends, and without any proceeding which partook of the nature of conspiracy, Mr. Blunt left Egypt for India, having nothing more to do. He had gone to Cairo and seen these gentlemen. His journey to Cairo had been suggested in the highest official quarters. He had done nothing wrong. He had asked to see a gentleman who was in prison. He had been rudely refused permission, and he then reverted to his original idea of proceeding to India, and of abandoning Egyptian affairs altogether. While in India, Mr. Blunt received an intimation that he would not be allowed to land in Egypt on his return. Now, that was very hard treatment indeed, whether the person subjected to it was an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, an Italian, or the subject of any other country. Surely, it was a hard measure of justice to prevent a man from land- ing in Egypt against whom no charge whatever had been brought. The hardship and injustice of it became far greater, however, when they considered the circumstances under which Mr. Blunt went to Egypt, and his conduct while there. He came now to the conduct of Cherif Pasha. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State had informed the Committee that Cherif Pasha had acted upon his own motion. No doubt, the noble Lord fully believed that that was so. Very likely the noble Lord only believed the information furnished to him from certain sources in Egypt; but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) took leave to disbelieve that statement altogether, and to repudiate it as utterly worthless. The Government of Cherif Pasha had no existence except through the action of Sir Evelyn Baring, and nothing would induce him (Lord Randolph Churchill) to believe that Cherif Pasha, of his own motion, dared to forbid the landing of a British subject in Egypt. The idea was too ridiculous to be stated except in the House of Commons. It was said that Cherif Pasha took this course of his own motion, and that he said the return of Mr. Blunt to Egypt would be fatal to the Government. The charges made by Cherif Pasha against Mr. Blunt were extremely amusing. Among other things, he said that Mr. Blunt employed himself in starting a newspaper, the intended object of which was to create popularity for Arabi, and to weaken the authority of the Khedive. That was the first charge. But why was a newspaper started in Cairo to create popularity for Arabi to be prohibited, while the proprietor of a scurrilous journal called The Bosphore Egyptien was allowed week by week to appear in Cairo? The reason was that The Bosphore Egyptien was kept up in the interest of the French Consul (M. Barrière), and was directed to oppose the best English interests. For that reason Her Majesty's Government were very bold in dealing with a British subject, while they displayed the utmost timidity where the interests of a Foreign Power were concerned. At all events, Her Majesty's Government had adopted a very different policy in regard to The Bosphore Egyptien from that which they had adopted in the case of Mr. Blunt. So much for the newspaper question; but he thought it was a point upon which the noble Lord ought to give an explanation to the Committee, to show why there was one measure of justice for a Frenchman and another for an Englishman. There had been some talk about stopping The Bosphore Egyptien; but it had, nevertheless, been allowed to go on. Cherif Pasha proceeded, in his charges against Mr. Blunt, to say—

"You are further aware, my dear Minister, of the ideas he tried to disseminate in the country with regard to the foundation of an Arab Empire, and the imbecility of the present system of government."

It would be perceived that Mr. Blunt's great crime lay in the last sentence—the ideas Mr. Blunt tried to disseminate in regard to the imbecility of the present system of government, and that was the reason why Mr. Blunt was to be kept out of Egypt. He wanted to know why The Times Correspondent had not also been turned out, because ever since the Egyptian troubles begun he had sounded one trumpet only—namely, the imbecility of the Government, Native and British, unable to decide which was the most imbecile. The imbecility of the Government was not only the talk of the Bazaar, but of everybody in Egypt, the burden of the song in which every foreigner, high and low and rich and poor, joined. All concurred that it was impossible to produce anything except in the shape of disunion. Why was everybody allowed to talk about the imbecility of the Government of Egypt, while Mr. Blunt, who went out in a blameless and harmless capacity, was to be the one exception to the rule, and not to be allowed to criticize a solitary act of the Government? Mr. Blunt, a British subject, had been forbidden by Sir Evelyn Baring to land in Egypt, because he had expressed a strong opinion as to imbecility of the Native Government. Surely this was a nice state of things, under a Liberal British Government and a Liberal Prime Minister. Cherif Pasha says—

"We feel ourselves all the more justified in acting thus in the present case, because, thanks to the calm which has fallen upon all minds, and to the perfect tranquillity which reigns throughout the country, His Highness intends to order the immediate suppression of the Special Commissions and of the Court Martial at Alexandria, in order thus to enter upon an era of peace and concord."

Mr. Blunt was kept out of Egypt in order that he might not interfere with the calm which had fallen upon all minds, and the perfect tranquillity which reigned throughout the country, in order that an era of peace and concord might be inaugurated. That was in the month of October. Three months later, Cherif Pasha and all his tribe were kicked out of Egypt by Sir Evelyn Baring in order to preserve the tranquillity which reigned throughout the country, and the era of peace and concord which had been entered into. The Prime Minister, to use his own picturesque language, said that he had shattered the Native Government. But it was in order that the Native Government should not be shattered that Mr. Blunt was prevented from landing in Egypt. So much, then, for Cherif Pasha. He now came to Nubar Pasha. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State made a great point of the action of Nubar Pasha. He said that not only Cherif Pasha, but Nubar Pasha, a new man, had adopted the same course of action in regard to Mr. Blunt. But why was Nubar Pasha put into the Government at Cairo? It was solely because he was likely to be a passive instrument in the hands of Sir Evelyn Baring. Cherif Pasha had at times displayed a little tendency to insubordination and to independent opinions. Cherif Pasha was therefore dismissed. As to the statement that he had kept Mr. Blunt out of Egypt of his own motion, there might just be a possible scintilla of truth attached to it; but with Nubar Pasha there was no possibility of that. Nubar Pasha only excluded Mr. Blunt from Egypt in response to the demand of Sir Evelyn Baring. Sir Evelyn Baring wrote to Nubar Pasha to know if he shared the views in regard to Mr. Blunt entertained by his Predecessor. Nubar Pasha knew what the views of Cherif Pasha were; but he knew also how he had come into Office, and he was not likely to express any disagreement with Sir Evelyn Baring. Therefore, he wrote to say that he fully concurred in the views of Cherif Pasha. He wrote to Sir Evelyn Baring—

"I have to inform you, M. le Ministre, that the Government of His Highness find themselves obliged, to their great regret, to adhere, as concerns Mr. Blunt, to the decision formerly arrived at by His Excellency Cherif Pasha."

As to the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State that that made the case worse against Mr. Blunt, that argument was really worth nothing at all. The only complaint was that Mr. Blunt had been unfairly and unjustly excluded from Egypt. He had already pointed out that there was nothing in the circumstances of Mr. Blunt's case to justify his exclusion, and that if there were circumstances about Mr. Blunt's visit which did justify it, the same measure ought to be applied to hundreds of other persons who were at the present moment in Cairo. The real fact was—and it was the explanation of the whole matter—that Mr. Blunt had property in Egypt which he had held for some time, and the Egyptian Government had taken advantage of his absence to plunder it. They had made exorbitant demands upon him for Land Tax and other matters, amounting to £105, hoping, no doubt, that in Mr. Blunt's absence the matter could not be attended to, and that they would be enabled to retaliate upon Mr. Blunt by seizing his property. Fortunately, Mr. Blunt had a friend in Cairo who settled the demand. But would it be believed that, owing to the action of Sir Evelyn Baring, Cherif Pasha, and Nubar Pasha, Mr. Blunt was not only unable to laud at Suez, but he was forbidden to see his agent from Cairo who had been looking after his property. He was forbidden to land by the British Agent, although he had gone to Cairo originally, under the sincere belief that he was acting with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister himself. Mr. Blunt did no harm in Cairo. He left Cairo, abandoning all his ideas, and on his return, thanks to the discourtesy of Sir Evelyn Baring, he was forbidden by a low official—the lowest official who could be possibly found to do the work—in the rudest manner, to land, and Mr. Beaman, his agent, was prevented from going on board the vessel to communicate with him. In Mr. Blunt's letter to Earl Granville, he positively stated that pressure was put on Mr. Beaman to prevent his meeting Mr. Blunt on board the China.

What is the date?

replied that Mr. Blunt's letter was dated. May the 1st. He knew that Sir Evelyn Baring stated that, as far as he was aware, no pressure had been put on Mr. Beaman to prevent his meeting Mr. Blunt on board the China; but the fact remained that Mr. Beaman was prevented from seeing Mr. Blunt, and as the people at Cairo only acted on the authority of Sir Evelyn Baring, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) declined to accept the disclaimer of Sir Evelyn Baring in a matter of this kind. It was a matter which ought to receive the direct attention of the House of Commons, in order to decide whether Her Majesty's subjects had a right to go to Egypt. If all persons who were distasteful to the Egyptian Government were to be excluded from that country he did not know where the matter would end. He knew of no country where such an arbitrary course had been adopted except Russia. [An hon. MEMBER: And Ireland.] He did not know that it was the case in Ireland; but Russia was, he thought, the only country in which such a thing could occur. He believed there were people who had been kicked out of Russia; but it must be borne in mind that this course was taken in Egypt in an era of peace and concord, with perfect tranquillity reigning throughout the country. In order to show how low and miserable a thing a British subject was, it was only necessary to refer to the treatment accorded by the Egyptian Government to Mr. Wilfrid Blunt. He thought that Mr. Blunt was entitled to ample reparation at the hands of the Egyptian Government for the injury which had been done to him.

said, he thought that the facts of this case were very remarkable. Without exaggerating them, what were they? Mr. Wilfrid Blunt was a well-known gentleman, who had taken a great interest in Egyptian politics, and who had certain views of his own in regard to them. Mr. Blunt had always stated those views in this country. He went to Ceylon to visit Arabi and other exiles, and he was then told that he would not be allowed to return to Egypt. That decision was taken, not by the desire of Sir Evelyn Baring, but by that of Cherif Pasha, and it was subsequently confirmed by that of Nubar Pasha. It came, there-fore, practically to this—if they examined the charges it would be seen that no overt act was complained of on the part of Mr. Blunt. No doubt, spies acccompanied him, who watched him during the night, and told absurd stories of his having been seen talking to certain people; but if hon. Members would carefully examine the despatches they would see that the real reason why Mr. Blunt was not permitted to land in Egypt again was on account of the views he had expressed in his writings in this country in regard to Egyptian policy. What did it amount to? We had really spent a large amount of money for the benefit of Egypt; and we had, therefore, a distinct interest in the good government of the country. If a Frenchman, or a German, or an Austrian were to go to Egypt, was it pretended for a moment that the Egyptian Government would have ventured to prevent him from landing in consequence of anything he might have written in regard to Egypt in his own country, or because he had been to Ceylon and had visited Arabi? Therefore, it came to this—that from the mere fact of our spending money in Egypt, and having an Army there, any Austrian, Frenchman, or German might land, but an Englishman could not land, unless he was in accord with the Egyptian Government as to the way in which the Government should be carried on in that country. If he were to go there during the Recess, with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—[An hon. MEMBER: Go.] "Go," said the hon. Member; but they could not go. If they did, they would certainly be stopped at once. There was nothing Mr. Blunt had said which he and his bon. Friend had not said, and they had even said much more. But if they went to Egypt it would only be to find spies put upon them and to get in difficulties with the Government. Thousands of persons in this country entertained the same views as Mr. Blunt. There was one thing he should like to know definitely. It was no use talking about the authority of the Egyptian Government. It was the authority of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing could be done without our authority; and he wished to know if it had come to this pass in Egypt—that every Englishman was to be stopped from landing whose views did not tally with those of some Nubar or Cherif or other Pasha, who was the dummy, for the time being, of the English Government?

said, he had asked himself, while listening to the debate, whether some hon. Members who had spoken regarded with proper weight the condition of things in Egypt, and had any real desire to ameliorate the condition of that country? If the House of Commons was to be deluded by the speeches to which they had just listened they would imagine that Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, as an Englishman, was one of the most harmless persons possible. Whatever the views of Mr. Blunt might be—and to some extent he had always shared them—[ Cries of "Oh!"] Yes; he had certainly shared the desire of Mr. Blunt for the advancement of the Native cause in Egypt; but he had never been able to associate himself with the means Mr. Blunt had adopted in carrying them out. [An hon. MEMBER: What means?] If hon. Gentlemen would allow him to proceed he would endeavour to make his statement as short and as succinct as he could. Mr. Blunt's great offence was this—that his policy had not succeeded, and that Her Majesty's Government had determined not to adopt it; but, on the contrary, had decided to maintain the authority of the present Khedive, and to assist him in fulfilling his duties towards Egypt. The Khedive had shown courage that would have been remarkable in any man, but which was peculiar in an Egyptian. He was accused by Mr. Blunt of many shocking crimes—crimes which would have disgraced a common malefactor. It was Mr. Blunt who instigated the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in bringing forward charges against the Khedive in that House, which he had utterly failed to prove. [ Cries of "No!"] He appealed to the conscience of the nation and to the good sense of the House of Commons, who had come to the conclusion that the noble Lord's statements were reckless and without foundation. Well, the noble Lord, having been instigated by Mr. Blunt to make these statements, now came forward in the House of Commons and spoke of Mr. Blunt as though he were a person who could do no mischief, and who desired to do no mischief in Egypt. Mr. Blunt's presence in Egypt at a moment when he was returning from a visit to Arabi Pasha in Ceylon could do no- thing but injury to the cause of order in Egypt. The Egyptians could never be relieved from oppression by putting them in opposition to the governing power of the country. No doubt, they had been oppressed; but they would not continue to be oppressed as soon as there was a capable Government established in the country. [Ironical cheers.] Surely the efforts of the present Government were directed towards the establishment of good order and freedom in the country. It was all very well for hon. Members, some of whom had never visited Egypt, to make a jest of this statement; but nations like Egypt were not to be compelled into freedom all at once. Even some Members of the House of Commons, at a critical moment, did not always know how to act with complete propriety. He could only trust that Her Majesty's Government would interrupt everybody, whoever he might be, who endeavoured to disseminate opinions which they regarded as inimical to the good government of Egypt; and he hoped that further experience would teach even Members of the House of Commons that well-regulated liberty depended on the observance of good temper. He trusted that, in the present state of affairs in Egypt, having at heart the good of the Egyptian people as well as any hon. Member of that House, the Home Government would assist the Egyptian Government in keeping out of the country, at the present moment, all those who wished to depose the Khedive. [ Cries of "Oh!"]

said, he did not think the circumstance whether Cherif Pasha or Nubar Pasha was the real agent in the matter was a feature which called for the judgment of the House. The responsibility would have been the same, and the course pursued would have been quite as justifiable, if Sir Evelyn Baring himself, as the chief power in Egypt, had, for reasons best known to himself, pronounced that Mr. Blunt was a dangerous British subject, who had once been admitted into Egypt, but who ought to be excluded in future. For the very reason that English interests were paramount and must be regarded, Sir Evelyn Baring might, under certain circumstances, have been justified in excluding him. At the same time, he could not help thinking that a grave indignity had been inflicted upon this country and its interests in excluding an Englishman in the position of Mr. Blunt from Egypt at the mere bidding of Cherif Pasha or Nubar Pasha, when such a course would never have been dreamt of in the case of any person entitled to the protection of the French or German Government. He could not undertake to pronounce an opinion whether Mr. Blunt ought to be excluded from Egypt. If he were a bad subject; if he were engaged in fostering rebellion; if he were acting contrary to the policy of the nation which was protecting Egypt, he admitted that under such circumstances it would be justifiable to exclude Mr. Blunt, but not upon the fiction of putting forward creatures such as Cherif Pasha and Nubar Pasha must be conceded to be to bear the responsibility. He held it to be a serious matter, and contrary not only to British but to International Law, that any nation, without assigning a good and proper cause, should endeavour to prevent a British subject passing along the high road of the world from calling at any particular place.

After the reference which has been made to me by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), I feel it incumbent on me to say a few words. The noble Lord appears to have been led into some error. He thinks that Mr. Blunt ought not to have been excluded from Egypt, and he further thinks it a peculiar hardship that Mr. Blunt should have been excluded from Egypt considering the circumstances under which he went there, those circumstances, according to the noble Lord, being that the journey was suggested by Mr. Knowles, who is a gentleman well known to me, who possesses my confidence, and, therefore, that the visit of Mr. Blunt to Egypt had my approval.

I said that it raised a presumption.

The noble Lord now says that the circumstances raised that presumption. The noble Lord connects my name with that of Mr. Knowles, and says that Mr. Knowles led Mr. Blunt to believe that the journey which he recommended would command my approval. Now, so far as Mr. Knowles is concerned, I have had some pleasant intercourse with him, and I hope, under favourable circumstances, to have some more. I am not at all ashamed of the association with Mr. Knowles in which the noble Lord places me; but any account of Mr. Knowles is idle without mentioning the fact that he is editor of The Nineteenth Century, and he is no doubt wise, being editor of The Nineteenth Century, to make the most of that position. Indeed, he is the editor of it from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot. In every day, and in every hour of his life, whenever you find that Mr. Knowles has had an interview with—be it Mr. Blunt or anybody else—you may rely upon it that the upshot and aim of that interview are wholly The Nineteenth Century. I may tell the noble Lord a little more. If Mr. Blunt had gone to Egypt and had satisfactorily executed his purpose, and returned to this country, Mr. Knowles would have gone to him and said that nothing could be more interesting than an article by Mr. Blunt in The Nineteenth Century. That is the full explanation of the course taken by Mr. Knowles. At one time I used to see a great deal of Mr. Knowles; but since I came into Office my opportunities have been very limited indeed, and I do not recollect to have exchanged any opinions on Egypt with Mr. Knowles, except, perhaps, a few words of the very slightest importance. I now turn to a more personal matter. As regards Mr. Hamilton, the question is rather more serious, for Mr. Hamilton is not the editor of a magazine, and he has no purely literary purpose in view. I am very glad that the noble Lord, in referring to Mr. Hamilton, did justice to his character as a Private Secretary, and to his claims, which cannot be too highly estimated, upon my gratitude for the services he has rendered to me. It is merely a question of memory between Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Blunt; and although we may presume that both gentlemen are incapable of the slightest wilful misrepresentation, there is a fundamental difference in the account they give. I have in my hand a little memorandum which Mr. Hamilton wrote for me on this subject a couple of months ago; but I never read it until within the last few weeks, when I learned that Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Blunt had been friends. I will not say that they are not personal friends now, but they had been personal friends; and Mr. Hamilton, considering the part Mr. Blunt had taken in Egypt, discontinued, not in an un friendly, but in a conventional manner, his intercourse with Mr. Blunt when the difficulties in connection with that country arose. He writes as follows—

"I heard that he was going abroad, and as I had purposely avoided seeing anything of him for a year I felt some reproach to myself that he should go away again without my saying good bye to him, and I therefore wrote to say that I should like to shake him by the hand before he left England."

Therefore, according to Mr. Hamilton, this interview was simply an act of friendly courtesy and a kind of reparation for the absence of an intercourse which had been more frequent, and the entire suspension of which might appear to be an unkind act. He says that he never heard of the story about the intended visit of Mr. Blunt to Arabi until Mr. Knowles mentioned it. Mr. Hamilton then goes on to deal with the story that he discussed the projects of Mr. Blunt with regard to Arabi. He says that he does not believe they were ever made known to him until two or three days before his memorandum was written. He then goes on to speak of the interview to which the noble Lord has referred. He observes that Mr. Blunt freely admits that he was deceived about me, and Mr. Hamilton says—

"My own distinct recollection is that our short parting conversation was limited to friendly conventionalities. This accords with the line I have invariably pursued with regard to him ever since the Egyptian War—namely, that the vexed question of Egypt was to be avoided between us, especially as our previous communications had been liable to be misunderstood."

The noble Lord will, therefore, see that Mr. Hamilton's recollection of the nature of his communications with Mr. Blunt is utterly at variance with that of Mr. Blunt. I now come to the suggestion that Mr. Hamilton made an important communication to me. Mr. Hamilton's recollection and my own are that he never made any communication to me whatever on the subject of Mr. Blunt's visit to Egypt. So much for that vexed question. With regard to the subject in dispute, there are two matters at issue. One is whether Mr. Blunt should have been admitted into Egypt, and the other is, who is responsible for his exclusion? In my opinion, although I am extremely sorry that any restriction should be placed upon the free movement of any of my fellow-countrymen, it was perfectly justifiable to exclude Mr. Blunt from Egypt under the circumstances of the case. I have no charge to make against Mr. Blunt; but I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), when he says that he shares Mr. Blunt's views to a certain extent, inasmuch as he heartily desires the maintenance of national feelings in Egypt, and has always been disposed to do the best in his power to assist them. But Mr. Blunt had relations with Arabi, and assumed to be cognizant of Arabi's movements, which undoubtedly made it inexpedient, on public grounds, until Egypt was again restored to its normal condition, that he should visit Egypt again. Therefore, while fully agreeing, much as I regret the necessity, in the reasonableness of Mr. Blunt's exclusion, I have no motive whatever for casting the responsibility upon the Egyptian Government; and I am disposed to say that we accept the responsibility of this exclusion, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, as much as if our responsibility was direct and immediate. That, I think, is quite clearly understood; not that I have any charge to make against Mr. Blunt, but because we are bound to have regard to the nationality of Egypt, and to the restoration of the authority of the Khedive. Having said this much, I must now say a few words with respect to the tone which has been adopted in this debate in reference to the Egyptian Government. When my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) spoke of the Government of Egypt as in any sense a reality, he was met with scoffs and jeers by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett).

I neither scoffed nor jeered.

The jeers came from the other side.

The noble Lord really moves with such rapidity that at my period of life I am unable to follow him. Those jeers were in perfect conformity with the views which I know prevail in certain parts of this House, and they excited no surprise whatever on my part. Those jeers are perfectly natural when they come from hon. Members opposite, and they embrace a desire to prove the utter nullity of any authority now exercised by the Egyptian Government, with a view to the putting forward of that which they really desire—namely, the establishment of British dominion in Egypt. That is perfectly intelligible, and I quite understand all those jeers. I fully accept them, coming from that quarter. They are impartial in their nature. There is a motive power in them which is aimed at the realization of certain views. But the noble Lord just now observed, and observed with perfect truth, that the jeers were not confined to that side of the House. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) joined in those jeers; and I wish to say a serious word to my hon. Friends. Do they wish to realize the prospect of the establishment of British dominion in Egypt? [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: No.] They do not. Then I will only tell them that the words they use, and the jeers they make use of, apply with all the force they possess towards the establishment of that state of things. I have ventured to express that opinion before to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). And having some means of forming a judgment, I tell him now, from this Bench, that those who desire the establishment of British dominion in Egypt have no more effective ally than hon. Members who scoff and jeer the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), when he says that he desires the maintenance of the authority of the Egyptian Government, and to see it converted into a reality. It is known to the House, and I freely admit that the position of England in Egypt at this moment, and the heavy responsibilities with which she is charged, have required, in our view, that we should assert a title to interpose in matters connected with the government of Egypt where we consider it absolutely necessary in the circumstances in which we stand. But that is not the annihilation of the Egyptian Government. I admit it freely, that if we were acting in a spirit of disparagement towards the Egyptian Government, and that if our object was to undermine their credit and dignity, it would be in our power to do so. But what we seek is to limit our power of interference; and, therefore, I own, it is a matter of grief and astonishment to me, whatever may be the indications which come from other quarters of the House, to hear from Gentlemen like my hon. Friends the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who profess—and I must believe in the sincerity of their professions, notwithstanding appearances and the danger of what they say and do in this House—to entertain a desire that the practical domination of England shall not become permanent in Egypt—it is a matter of grief and astonishment to me to hear the jeers with which they greeted the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). I have thought it necessary to say this, because it is with us a sacred duty to respect, as far as the necessities of our position will permit, the independence and dignity of the Khedive. I admit that it is a qualified independence, and that every opportunity is taken for disparaging that independence; but, still, I affirm that our sole purpose is to maintain that independence and dignity as far as it is in our power to permit of their being maintained. And I must say that we are entitled to look for assistance, and not discouragement, in the prosecution of that object, from my hon. Friends the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and those who think with them on this and other matters, who have at all times professed a warm desire, under the circumstances which have heretofore existed, to limit the scope of English intervention, and to shorten its duration. I may assure them that they can only accomplish that purpose by endeavouring to cherish and foster something like liberty of action on the part of the Khedive, and I confess that I should have expected support and encouragement in that work from that quarter of the House, rather than derision and jeers.

I hope I may be allowed to say a few words by way of explanation. I stated, in the first instance, that I did not put forward the statements of Mr. Blunt as my own. I never have done so. I said that I was here to state Mr. Blunt's case as well as I could; but I never intended to put it forward as my own. But there appeared to me to be nothing at all improbable in the idea that Mr. Blunt's case was correct as it had been given to me, because everybody knows that the sympathies of the Prime Minister are in favour of freedom of nationality; and it occurred to me that as Mr. Blunt went out to Egypt at a very difficult moment indeed, it was not improbable that the Prime Minister, acting as another great man once acted before—Louis XV.—was really bent upon carrying on a little diplomacy on his own account, unknown to Sir Evelyn Baring or Earl Granville. I was certain that his opinions were on the side of the National Party, and I thought I might support them by trying to take a step in the same direction. The right hon. Gentleman has rebuked me for having laughed at the idea of the existence of Native government in Egypt. He said that it was only natural that I should receive such an idea with jeers. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, the jeers came from his own side of the House.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I said it would be natural that jeers should come from certain quarters of the House; but I think I admitted that they came from this side also.

Personally, I have never said a word in favour of the annexation of Egypt, and if I have lately advocated the extension of British power in Egypt, it was because I thought that it was only by such means that a real National Government could ever be established. I think that annexation is to be avoided by every possible means, and I have always hesitated to recommend it; but, at the same time, I have considered it my duty to place the interests of the Egyptian people far and beyond those of the Egyptian Government. These have been my views ever since the Egyptian difficulty began. The Prime Minister, I noticed, did not defend the exclusion of Mr. Blunt from Egypt, the special feature of that exclusion being the difference of treatment meted out to Mr. Blunt to that meted out to French officials, or the subjects of any other nation.

As everything that is said by an Englishman in reference to Egypt is liable to be misinterpreted, I want to make one matter quite clear. It is only a small point. What I said in regard to the charge against Mr. Blunt, of having interviews with the rebels, which were prolonged far into the night, was that the only time he was up late at night was an occasion when he was dining with the attachés of the British Embassy at a table d'hôte. Upon another point the charges brought against Arabi are certainly not true. He has been charged in this House of having been guilty of the massacres at Alexandria; but when an inquiry was made the Government officials wrote home to say that a very good case for defence might be made out. But now, when the Government of Egypt is attacked, no inquiry into the charges made against the Khedive dare be made. I must say that I regret the course taken by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in bringing up the communications of Mr. Blunt with Mr. Hamilton, because I do not think they have any bearing upon the real question at all. What I wish to say is this—that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State has put the question upon a very serious footing. He said distinctly that Mr. Blunt, having been opposed to the Government of Egypt, and having been a friend of Arabi, and having expressed strong opinions, must take the consequence of those opinions. The Prime Minister appears to take the same line, because he has endorsed the opinions of my hon. Friend near me, the despot from Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who says boldly and plainly that we ought to trample out everything that is antagonistic to the Government of Egypt.

I did not say anything of the kind.

Well, then, what was it that my hon. Friend did say?

What I said was, that in the interest of those who were charged with the Government of Egypt, I desired to keep out a man whose policy had utterly failed, and whose return would simply lead to further difficulties and complications. For that reason, I objected to the reopening by Mr. Blunt of questions that have been settled.

Exactly so; keep all the opposition out. Anybody who happens to hold an opinion which is opposed to that of the reigning Government is to be kept out.

No.

Well, it amounts to that, and I am surprised to find hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench quarrelling with me for contesting the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) on that matter. In bygone times we used to hear something of the Civis Romanus sum doctrine. We hear very little about it now. What has become of it? I have been very much abused for the opinions I presume to entertain; but I think there is enough of the Civis Romanus about me to convince me that I should not be allowed to land in Egypt as long as I presume to hold opinions contrary to those of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. I am sorry that I shall feel compelled to take the opinion of the Committee on this matter. What I want to know is, whether people are to be excluded from any country in which we possess influence, and by our own act, simply because they hold opinions contrary to those of the reigning Government? It seems to me that if we endorse that view it may become a very serious matter, and that everyone who dares to say a word in favour of a poor, suffering, down-trodden, and oppressed people may find himself persecuted in consequence. For these reasons I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.

rose to Order. He had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of an item of £7,000; and he wished to know how the proposal of the hon. Baronet would affect that Motion? He was sure the hon. Baronet had no desire to shut out any subsequent discussion; and the point of Order he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished to raise was that the hon. Member might be proposing a Motion which would interfere with the further discussion of the Vote upon important and substantive matters. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had himself given Notice of his intention to move the omission of a certain item in the Vote; but the hon. Baronet now proposed to reduce it by a much less sum; and he wished to ascertain whether, under the circumstances, the proposition of the hon. Baronet would have precedence?

What is the proposition of the hon. Baronet?

What I intended to propose was the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100; but it was simply with the object of taking a Division. If in consequence of that Motion the hon. Gentleman will be precluded from taking a Division upon any more important question, I should be very sorry to stand in his way, and I will withdraw my Motion.

I think I am entitled to ask my hon. Friend why he proposes this particular reduction, or whether his real reason in abandoning it is that he thinks the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not back him up?

I have no reason to suppose that the noble Lord would not back me up.

The Question is—

"That a sum, not exceeding £157,975, (including a Supplementary sum of £35,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."

I should like to know, Sir Arthur Otway, what your ruling is on the point of Order?

I have no ruling to give. I understand that the hon. Baronet has withdrawn his Motion.

There is one question of great importance which I desire to mention—namely, the legal aspect of the question in regard to the right of excluding a subject of Her Majesty from the dominions of a friendly Power. Some of the Great Powers have always asserted diplomatically their right to exclude particular individuals even when the exclusion has been applied to a British subject. It is quite clear, however, that this very point did arise in Sir Evelyn Baring's mind, because he says, on the 13th of October, that he is—

"Doubtful both as to the precise powers possessed by the Egyptian Government to prevent him (Mr. Wilfrid Blunt) landing, and as to the modus operandi which should be adopted in the event of your Lordship agreeing with me that he should not be allowed to land. Can the Egyptian Government, acting through its own officers, prevent an English subject from land- ing in Egypt, or must they act through the Consular authorities?"

Nubar Pasha seems to have declined to express an opinion, probably because he felt a doubt as to his legal position; and, therefore, Sir Evelyn Baring referred the matter to Her Majesty's Government at home. Now, Her Majesty's Government have never replied to the legal question which was raised by Sir Evelyn Baring; but by not interfering and acting as they have done they have given their sanction, as it were, to the principle adopted by the Egyptian Government, without absolutely expressing any opinion for or against its legality. Considering the position of all British subjects, not only in Egypt, but in all parts of the world, I think it is very desirable indeed that the Law Officers of the Crown should give us an opinion as to the legality of the position taken up by the Egyptian Government with respect to the exclusion of Mr. Blunt. I have no doubt whatever that this exclusion of Mr. Blunt will be used as a precedent in the future; and I look upon the consequences, therefore, with great apprehension, when British subjects hereafter find themselves excluded from a country, as they sometimes are, by an arbitrary Government. My own impression is that the course which has been taken in this case is likely to injure our diplomacy very much, and to be used as a precedent against us in future. It becomes all the more important when we know that the case has occurred in reference to Egypt, where we all know that the Egyptian Government is acting practically under the authority of the British Government. And, further, the position taken by the Egyptian Government is fortified by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has himself taken over the whole of the responsibility, and that the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman will be quoted in future wherever a British subject is excluded on account of some supposed political offence. Under such circumstances, I should like to know what is the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject, and whether, in their opinion, the Law Officers of the Crown have acted upon their strict rights; if so, what is the authority upon which they acted; and, if they have not acted upon any strict right, what justification there can be for Her Majesty's Government sanctioning the proceeding in any way whatever?

Of course, Her Majesty's Government cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country; and, whatever the law of that country may be, so long as it is applied equally to all foreigners this country would not complain. But if a subject of this country were refused arbitrarily, and without any sufficient reason or cause, admission to any foreign country, and a complaint were made to the Government in that sense, the Government would make a complaint in the proper quarter; but if they came to the conclusion that the foreign country had acted with good faith, and had applied the law in it generally and without any regard to a particular person, then Her Majesty's Government cannot scrutinize too minutely the reasons which led that Government to carry the law into operation. Therefore, all we ask is that foreign countries should not arbitrarily, and without any foundation, treat the subject of one country differently from that of another. Therefore, it is clear that in this case the Egyptian Government have not acted arbitrarily and without sufficient cause. The reasons which have been given by Nubar Pasha for the exclusion of Mr. Blunt are reasons sufficient to justify the English Government in saying they could not interfere with the exercise of their discretion in the matter. If no sufficient reason had been given, on the other hand, and if the Egyptian Government had said that they would not admit a person without giving any reason whatever for so doing, the English Government would have been placed in a different position, and the matter would then be one for serious consideration. I may mention, however, that this case does not stand alone. A similar course to that which has been pursued in the case of Mr. Blunt has been taken with regard to a French subject in reference to whose movements the Egyptian Government felt called upon to interfere.

When and where?

): My noble Friend will give the details.

The case was that of a Frenchman who wished to join the Mahdi, but who was prevented from doing so by the Egyptian Government, who interfered with his movements in a manner which was certainly quite as liable to excite observation as anything that has been done in the case of Mr. Blunt. The occasion of the interference was when the movements of Mr. O'Kelly were attracting some attention in the House. I was asked a Question about it at the time, and I stated that this French gentleman—a newspaper Correspondent—was proposing to accompany Mr. O'Kelly when he was stopped. Only to-day I stated, in reply to a Question that the Egyptian law, which enables foreigners to act in a certain manner in reference to newspaper articles, was being seriously considered with a view to its alteration. The whole condition of the Press Law in Egypt has attracted the attention of the Egyptian Government; and a Circular upon the subject has, I believe, been addressed to the European Powers. No doubt this has been the result of the impunity which has hitherto enabled foreigners to set at defiance the remonstrances of the Executive Government.

said, he thought the memory of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State was at fault when he described the case of the French Correspondent as one which was analogous to that of Mr. Blunt. It was the case of a newspaper Correspondent who desired to join the Mahdi in company with Mr. O'Kelly. The Egyptian Government stopped both of them, but did not expel either from Egypt. Consequently there was no parallel whatever between the two cases.

said, the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had anticipated a remark which he was about to make. It was perfectly certain that there was only the most remote analogy between the case of the stopping of Mr. O'Kelly and the French Correspondent at Dongola, and that of Mr. Blunt. The Government, in this instance, had placed themselves in a thoroughly ridiculous position. It was evident, from the statements of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—statements which had been made with great force and truth—that the treatment of Mr. O'Kelly and the Frenchman bore no comparison with that of Mr. Blunt by Sir Evelyn Baring and the Egyptian Government. There was nothing novel, however, in the facts which had been adduced. Parliament was accustomed to see British subjects insulted and trampled on, their interests despised, their rights set at defiance; while foreign subjects, backed up by their own Governments, were allowed any amount of immunity. He wished, however, to call the attention of the Committee to the remarkable inconsistency of the statement of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman informed the Committee that Mr. Blunt was stopped because his entry into Egypt would be dangerous to the order and peace of that country. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) desired to say, in the first place, lost the few remarks he had to make might be misunderstood, that he was not a believer in Mr. Blunt's views with regard to Egyptian policy. He thought the noble Lord had well described the views of that gentleman as those of a sentimentalist and an enthusiast; well meaning, no doubt, but mistaken in their aims. But when the Prime Minister gave, as a reason for the interference with the movements of a British subject in Egypt, that that interference was necessary for the protection and safety of the country, he would ask them why on earth they had been so unwilling to send a telegram to that gallant and unfortunate officer, General Hicks, forbidding him to proceed? Such a despatch would have had the effect of saving that officer and his army of 13,000 men, and an immense amount of subsequent ruin and bloodshed. [A laugh.] The Prime Minister laughed. He did not know why the right hon. Gentleman should laugh. Perhaps he was about to repeat the statement he had made once before, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, that he had heard enough of General Hicks. It was perfectly notorious that if that unfortunate officer had acted upon his own views, he would not have started upon his ill-fated expedition; and a single telegram sent to Egypt by Her Majesty's Ministers would have stopped him, with the result of saving his life, and securing the safety of the 13,000 men who accompanied him. Therefore, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) said that to defend the action of the Government in the case of Mr. Blunt upon the necessities of Egypt, and to refuse intervention on the same ground in the case of General Hicks, was a contradiction of terms. He had placed a Motion on the Paper for the reduction of the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring. It had been his intention, upon that Motion, to have entered, with some detail, into the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government under the advice of Sir Evelyn Baring; but the statements which had been made that night in regard to another debate, that was to take place shortly, would prevent him from carrying out his original intention. He thought, however, that he might fairly complain of the want of consideration the Prime Minister had shown in this matter towards some Members of the House. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman if he did not think it would be better to postpone this debate until Tuesday, and to bring it forward then upon the Diplomatic Vote; but the right hon. Gentleman gave no hint that the Vote was to be taken before the debate came off. It was with great personal inconvenience that he had been able to be present that day, and he had pressed for an answer so that the inconvenience to which he had referred might have been avoided; but the Prime Minister gave the House no intimation whatever that an important Vote relating to Egypt was to be taken on Tuesday. This had caused considerable inconvenience not only to himself (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), but to other hon. Members. Perhaps that might be a matter of congratulation for the right hon. Gentleman; but, heretofore, the Government had been accustomed to consider the feelings and convenience of the House generally. For some time the Prime Minister had been pressed to fix definitely the day on which the Diplomatic Vote would be taken; but he had avoided doing so. There was now only one statement which, in view of the debate to-morrow, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would make in regard to that part of the Vote which applied to the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring, and that was that the policy which that gentleman had recommended to Her Majesty's Government had been, in the main, singularly unfortunate. It was owing to his advice that the Prime Minister had been led to make his extraordinary statement at the Guildhall last year that our Forces in Egypt were to be reduced; that Cairo was to be evacuated, and that orders to that effect had already gone forth. It was unnecessary to remind the Committee how very far from being carried into effect that statement was at the present moment. He believed that Sir Evelyn Baring was largely responsible for the existing state of affairs in Egypt, and for the enforced evacuation of the Soudan, which took place in November and December last. One word of justice to Cherif Pasha. He had been attacked by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) as being incapable of giving any advice that was contrary to the views of Her Majesty's Government. In that assertion the noble Lord did Cherif Pasha great injustice, because Cherif Pasha had shown himself not only willing to act contrary to the advice of the British Government, but he had actually resigned his high Office of Prime Minister of Egypt, rather than carry out the orders of Her Majesty's Government. His last words were—

"Nothing shall ever induce me to abandon the Soudan to the misery of the Madhi's rule. Time and posterity will judge between me and Mr. Gladstone."

This policy of evacuation, which Sir Evelyn Baring had recommended in December last, had caused untold misery to hundreds of thousands of human beings; it had caused the loss of some 30,000 lives, and the expenditure of millions of money, and which, so far as they could see, only represented the beginning of a new epoch of bloodshed and expenditure with regard to the Soudan. The announcement made on Saturday last showed that the Government had not advanced one stage towards that end which they professed themselves so anxious to achieve—namely, the restoration of order in Egypt and the evacuation of the country. Although they were now, through the collapse of the Conference, able to congratulate the Ministry and the country on the failure of the most mischievous proposals ever made by a British Government, they could not, at the same time, free the Ministry from responsibility for the advice which had led to those misfortunes. He thought there was ample justification for moving the reduction of the Vote by the amount of a portion of Sir Evelyn Baring's salary, although he admitted that there would be far more justification for moving a reduction in respect of the incomes of the Ministers themselves. Sir Evelyn Baring had in this matter played only a subordinate part, taking his cue from Downing Street. He had not dared to initiate that independent policy which ought to have commended itself to his judgment. There was evidence in the Papers that Sir Evelyn Baring recommended that an expedition should be sent to relieve General Gordon as early as March last, although he had previously written against it. The chief charge against Sir Evelyn Baring was, as he had pointed out, that he took his cue from Downing Street. Finally, he asked the Committee to consider the extraordinary reasons given to them for not despatching an expedition to the relief of General Gordon. In drawing attention to this point, as he had already stated, as there was to be a debate on Egyptian affairs, he did not intend to go into the question at large. The reasons, or rather the excuses, put forward by the Government for not taking action in this matter were so unworthy, and he ventured to say so discreditable, that they deserved special attention from hon. Members. The statement had been made by several Ministers that General Gordon had, at a certain moment, changed his policy, and that he had developed a policy of going out of his way to attack the Mahdi. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) admitted that it might have been wiser if General Gordon had concealed his intention in those periphrastic mystifications which the Government so well knew how to employ for the purpose of concealing their meaning; but General Gordon was a soldier, and said exactly what he meant. That phrase "smash up the Mahdi" meant nothing that was not necessary, in his judgment, to be done for the peace of Egypt. General Gordon, for obvious reasons, actually tolerated slavery; he waited till he was besieged in Khartoum until he took any measures of force. To say that he had changed his policy or attitude was a gross injustice to General Gordon and a perversion of his meaning. He asked Her Majesty's Government what else they were doing but endeavouring to smash up the Mahdi's followers? What were the British Forces doing at Wady Halfa and Assouan, and what were their officers at Suakin and other places doing, but smashing up the tribes which followed the Mahdi? He would not move the reduction of the Vote in view of the larger debate of to-morrow; but he hoped that Members who were anxious to begin to discuss the tactics of the Government with regard to General Gordon would not find that they had been deprived of the opportunity of doing so by the unsatisfactory way in which the Government had arranged the Business of the House. He trusted that the Prime Minister would bear in mind the statement made by him on Saturday, that the Vote for the relief of General Gordon and for the restoration of order in the Soudan would be put down for to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman had promised that a special Vote for General Gordon would be put on the Paper, distinct from any other Vote which the Government might have to bring forward, in order to pay for the destruction of property at Alexandria, or on account of the other blunders they made in Egypt upon that special Vote. He hoped that a clear statement would be made by Her Majesty's Government as to this question of relief or non-relief of General Gordon.

said, he was hardly disposed to sympathize with Mr. Blunt; but there were, no doubt, many Members of that House who would agree that his exclusion from Egypt was, at least, very extraordinary. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that some years ago Lord Palmerston introduced into the House a Bill called the Conspiracy Bill, which had for its object to obtain powers for excluding from this country persons deemed to be dangerous conspirators. Now, the measure which had been adopted by the Government of the Khedive, and which had received the direct sanction of Her Majesty's Government, savoured of the nature of that Conspiracy Bill, because the worst that anyone had said of Mr. Blunt was that he was a person who was intriguing against the Government of the Khedive; and for that reason he had been, no doubt, excluded from Egypt, not by the Government of the Khedive; but by the direct action of Her Majesty's Government. He did not know whether any previous speaker had called attention to the details in the Papers laid upon the Table; but they certainly seemed to be worthy of attention. If the Govern- ment of the Khedive, considering that the action of Mr. Blunt was of a dangerous kind, had endeavoured to prevent him, by warning or otherwise, from coming back to Egypt, it would not have been open to them to take that step; and however much the Government of this country wished the exclusion of Mr. Blunt, they would have entered a protest against the action of the Egyptian Government. Sir Evelyn Baring, believing there was some illegality on the part of the Egyptian Government, telegraphed to Earl Granville for instructions as to the course he was to take; and the answer which he received from the noble Earl was singularly diplomatic; it said nothing, but meant a great deal. "You may abstain," said Earl Granville, "from opposing the action of the Egyptian Government; " which was the same as saying—"We do not think you should sanction it; but we think you should take the responsibility of objecting to it." But, after that, another despatch had been sent by Sir Evelyn Baring to Earl Granville, saying that he proposed to forward a copy of Nubar Pasha's letter to Mr. Blunt, and should be glad to receive instructions as to whether the letter met with the approval of Her Majesty's Government. Well, the answer to that was in terms equally extraordinary; instead of replying that the action of Nubar Pasha was sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government, Earl Granville said—"Act as you propose in your telegram with regard to Mr. Blunt." But, as a matter of fact, Sir Evelyn Baring had made no proposal at all with regard to Mr. Blunt. He would leave that matter to the consideration of the Committee. He maintained that this question was not merely one as to the exclusion of a British subject by the arbitrary act of a Foreign Government, an act which the Attorney General said was always to be regarded with the greatest suspicion, and to be guarded against with the greatest care—it was the exclusion of a British subject with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, and as such the Committee ought to regard it. The position of the Government in this matter he held to be mischievous and absurd. He thought the case was even worse than that which he had brought forward in that House on a former occasion. This action of the Government could only compare with their action in the case of the crew of the Nisero and with their abandonment of General Gordon. It appeared that the Government had failed to recognize the Constitutional principle that a British subject was entitled to the protection of the British Government.

asked for some explanation of the law stated by the Attorney General with reference to the exclusion of Mr. Blunt from Egypt. He had always supposed that when a Government acted beyond the law it acted arbitrarily. That was precisely what the Egyptian Government had done in this case. But they had done more than that—they had acted directly contrary to the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, What law? The answer was the Capitulations. By the Capitulations every foreigner had a right to land in Egypt, to trade and live there, and to be judged by particular tribunals. Therefore, if this case had occurred to any other foreigner, that foreigner would only have had to go to his own Government and claim that they should interfere in his behalf in accordance with the Capitulations; and Mr. Blunt had just the same right as any other Englishman to go to the Foreign Office, and to ask why in his case the Capitulations were not to be enforced. Mr. Blunt had a Treaty and legal right to land in Egypt; and when the Egyptian Government refused to allow him to do so, they acted contrary to law, and in an arbitrary manner.

said, he could speak with personal knowledge on this matter. He had a very intimate acquaintance with the Capitulations; and he begged to say that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was perfectly right in the statement he had just made. He knew that by the Capitulations which were in operation in both Turkey and Egypt any Englishman had full right to land in any part of the latter country, and to live and trade there as long as he liked.

said, his statement had been that his recollection of the Capitulations was that every English subject observing the law of the country had a right to remain in the country. Therefore, if there were no objections to Mr. Blunt's conduct, he would have a cause of complaint against the Egyptian Go- vernment, which he could put forward through the Consul General in Egypt. But, as to whether Mr. Blunt had made any complaint, he knew nothing. Nor did he know whether there was sufficient ground for the exclusion of Mr. Blunt, although, as to the principle on which his right to land in Egypt rested, he thought there was no question whatever. Sir Evelyn Baring had consulted Mr. Cookson, the man who in all Egypt was best qualified to advise on the subject; and it was after Mr. Cookson's advice had been received that Sir Evelyn Baring took the course which he had pursued.

said, he did not think it right that the Attorney General should hold up Mr. Cookson to cover his deficient knowledge of the law.

said, that Mr. Cookson had been consulted, and that there was no justification for saying that Mr. Cookson concurred in the view put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan).

asked if the noble Lord would take upon himself the responsibility of saying that Mr. Cookson was of opinion that under the Capitulations Mr. Blunt was not entitled to land in Egypt? He had known that gentleman for many years at Constantinople; he knew the extent of his authority in a question of this kind; and while he might, without presumption, set his own experience against that of Mr. Cookson, he ventured to affirm that Mr. Cookson could never have advised that Mr. Blunt had not a right under the Capitulations to land and attend to his affairs in Egypt. If he could give such advice, he was little fit for the office of Consul and Judge.

said, he believed that Mr. Cookson had been consulted by Sir Evelyn Baring with regard to the subject generally. Similar powers to those exercised by the Egyptian Government it was well known had been exercised in Turkey, foreigners having been excluded from that country in exactly the same manner as Mr. Blunt had been excluded from Egypt. The position under the Capitulations was that certain rights were given to foreign subjects; but they were contingent upon the rights not being abused. It was improbable that any Government would give a general power to foreigners to land and abuse their laws. No State could exist for any length of time with such a law in operation. There were in Egypt certain well-recognized rights of foreigners who enjoyed the benefit of the Capitulations, on condition that their privileges were not abused. If a man thought he had been unjustly treated he had a right to appeal to his Consul; but the Consul was not under an obligation to extend his protection to foreigners who abused their rights.

said, that the case put by the noble Lord was that if a foreigner landed in Turkey or any other country and abused his privileges he was not entitled to protection from his Consul; but that was not the case with Mr. Blunt, who had been prevented from landing, and had, therefore, had no opportunity of abusing his privileges. There could have been no abuse of privileges by Mr. Blunt; and he gathered from the Papers that he was excluded from Egypt not on account of anything he had done there, but for something he had done in England.

said, it could not have been clear that Mr. Blunt was properly excluded from Egypt, because Sir Evelyn Baring wrote to Earl Granville in those words—

"Can the Egyptian Government, acting through its own officers, prevent an English subject landing in Egypt, or must they act through the Consular authorities? I am unable here to obtain any satisfactory answer to this question, and I beg your Lordship will be so good as to furnish me with instructions as to how I am to act."

If the Capitulations were so clear, Sir Evelyn Baring would have been able to ascertain in Egypt whether Mr. Blunt could land or not.

I said Mr. Blunt had no right to plead the Capitulations when he had abused the privileges conferred upon foreigners under them.

said, he thought the subject of Mr. Blunt's exclusion from Egypt had been well threshed out; and, therefore, he would ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on a subject of more importance. He referred to the Slave Trade in Egypt, and he asked the noble Lord whether the execution of the Convention with regard to it was coming into effect on the 17th of August, 1884? He had already addressed a very plain question on this subject to the noble Lord; but the answer which he received had somewhat obscured the position. The proposition of the Earl of Dufferin not only declared that slavery should be prohibited, but that it should be altogether abolished. Sir Evelyn Baring was of a contrary opinion, and he expressed himself to that effect in a despatch which the noble Lord had referred to. But the question he had put to the noble Lord on a former occasion was as to whether it was intended by Her Majesty's Government to press upon the Khedive of Egypt to give effect not to the proposal of the Earl of Dufferin, to which Sir Evelyn Baring was unfavourably inclined, but to the original Convention now standing, and the Decree of the Egyptian Government, by which the trade in human beings would become unlawful, and prohibited under the severest penalties on the 17th of August, 1884. He expressed an earnest hope that the noble Lord, in the answer which he gave to this inquiry, would not throw any doubt on the state in which the law in Egypt would be on that date in reference to slavery. He hoped the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be able to assure them that the answer he had previously given did not imply a doubt that the British Government would be less zealous than they would have been if they had not been in Egypt at all. He trusted the noble Lord would be able to assure the Committee that Her Majesty's Government would impress on the Khedive of Egypt the obligation which rested on him, under the Decrees which would come into force on the 17th of the present month. Referring to the subject, the Earl of Dufferin had stated that, with regard to Egypt Proper, under the Convention of seven years ago, the selling of slaves from family to family would cease on the 17th of August, 1884; and then, Affairs might possibly say these were assuming, as a matter of course, that the Convention would come into effect, the Earl of Dufferin went on to say that we should press the Egyptian Government to inflict the heaviest possible punishment in case of a violation of the Convention. He (Sir George Campbell) had only now to ask the noble Lord if it was intended that the Convention and its Annexes would come into force in Egypt on the 17th of the present month; and if the Government were prepared to press the Khedive of Egypt to give full effect to the Convention? This was a question of the utmost importance in the interests of humanity; by the Convention a great step was taken towards the abolition of slavery. They were now in a position to press the execution of the Convention upon the Khedive with greater authority and power than they would have been were they not in possession of the country; and therefore he hoped the noble Lord would at once tell the Committee that his words were not intended to derogate the authority of this Convention.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) who had asked the question that night about the subject of slavery, and who had now re-introduced the subject, had done public service in bringing forward this great question of slavery in connection with Egypt; but if the hon. Gentleman expected that Her Majesty's Government were going to do anything to diminish slavery in Egypt, or to do away with it altogether, he would be grievously disappointed. He would be put off with vague phrases and promises. He (Mr. Ashmead - Bartlett) thought the country would notice with surprise what he ventured to call the hypocrisy of two of the Ministers of the Crown, not in that House, who attended the great anti-slavery meeting at the Guildhall the other day, and made fine speeches in favour of the abolition of slavery all over the world, while the Government had been doing their utmost to encourage slavery of the most cruel and abominable kind throughout the whole of the Soudan, and to tolerate it in Egypt. How many thousand persons had been subjected to cruel slavery and outrage in consequence of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government during the past two years? The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might possibly say these were vague observations; but he would give the strongest possible proof that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, with regard to Egypt and the Soudan, had promoted, and would continue to promote slavery, although Earl Granville and the Earl of Derby attended the Guildhall meetings and talked clap-trap about doing away with it. He would call attention to a despatch from General Gordon to Sir Evelyn Baring. General Gordon was sent out to the Soudan with insufficient resources, and it was no fault of his that he was obliged to issue a Proclamation when he arrived in the Soudan, countenancing, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the existing slavery in that country. By their subsequent despatches and policy, Her Majesty's Government had shown most clearly that they endorsed that action of General Gordon. General Gordon, writing to Sir Evelyn Baring on the 21st of February, stated that, in answering questions regarding the liberation of slaves, he had said that the Treaty of 1877 for its abolition could not be carried out by him; and Sir Evelyn Baring, writing to Earl Granville on the same date, said—

"It was obvious from the first that the revival of slavery in the Soudan would be the result of the policy of abandonment."

That despatch of Sir Evelyn Baring was in the hands of Her Majesty's Government five months ago; but no protest was made by the Government; so that, in addition to all the other human misery the Government had caused, the revival of slavery was to be laid at their door. That was a fact which ought to be kept before the country as constantly as it could. The in-consistency, and he did not hesitate to say the hypocrisy, of two Ministers of the Crown, who were responsible for the revival of slavery, attending anti-slavery meetings to denounce slavery, when they had not the slightest intention of doing away with it, warranted the strongest expressions of condemnation. It was evident from the Blue Books, and what hon. Members knew of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, that their Egyptian policy had not only caused an immense expenditure of blood and treasure, but was leading to a revival of this infamous traffic.

said, that as the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had charged him with making reckless statements, he would ask the indulgence of the Committee while he vindicated himself from the charge by reading from Hertslett's Treaties the actual text of the Capitulation which settled the point, and in full recollection of which he had expressed the opinion disputed by them. The Capitulation in question was renewed, slightly modified, in the Treaty of the Dardanelles between this country and Turkey; and its very first Article was to the effect that every English merchant, and all other merchants sailing under the English flag, might freely land, travel, or reside in any part of the Ottoman Empire—of which Egypt was still a Province—and, in the undisturbed possession of their privileges, have full liberty to attend to their affairs. He had merely contended that, according to the Capitulation quoted by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), Mr. Blunt had a clear right to land in Egypt, and the Egyptian Government had no right whatever to prevent his doing so. If the words he had quoted from the text of the Capitulation had any meaning at all, this was beyond argument.

said, he did not wish to revive the controversy about the Capitulations, but simply to say that it did not seem to him that what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Coan) had just said proved the accuracy of his former statements. The hon. Gentleman had not attempted to answer the arguments of the Attorney General or himself (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice)—namely, that the Egyptian Government had rights which overrode the rights given by the Capitulations, and that a condition of the enjoyment of the privileges of the Capitulations was that foreigners enjoying them should not abuse them, and that if foreigners did abuse them they must take the consequences. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he could only say that he could not understand that by his answer at Question time he could in any sense be understood as announcing on the part of Her Majesty's Government any intention to recede from supporting the rights which had been given in regard to slavery by the Khedival Decree, which came into force on the 17th of this month. Sir Evelyn Baring's despatch, as he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) understood it, was to the effect that he did not make any express declaration to support the views of the Earl of Dufferin. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not know that it was absolutely necessary to indulge in any such express declaration, while in regard to the positive statement, which he understood the hon. Member had found in the despatch, and which, to a certain extent, had disturbed his mind, all he could say was, speaking from recollection, that there was nothing in the despatch at all to show that there was any desire or intention to suspend the operation of the Khedival Decree. All that Her Majesty's Government could do was to impress on the Egyptian Government to do whatever was possible under the circumstances; and his hon. Friend might be perfectly certain that whatever could be done by the Government towards the abolition of slavery would be done. It was not likely that in the year that this country had been celebrating the jubilee of the abolition of slavery there would be any laxity on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers in using whatever influence they had upon Foreign and Colonial authorities to secure an abolition of those practices, which were so repugnant to every Englishman, no matter to what Party he belonged. He could only express regret that upon such a question as this of slavery the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was not able to resist the temptation to indulge in a violent attack on the Government. The hon. Gentleman had used the word "hypocrisy"—[Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, hear!]—and now he cried "Hear, hear!" Surely, after all, the hon. Member must know that in regard to this question of slavery there was no division of Party at all; and when he accused the Government of hypocrisy in this matter—[Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Two Ministers.]—well, two of the most important Ministers—Earl Granville and the Earl of Derby—be could not seriously mean what he said. Earl Granville and the Earl of Derby had both exerted themselves in every way to promote the abolition of slavery. If it were in Order for him so to do, he could with perfect ease show that during the time Earl Granville had presided at the Foreign Office, he had exerted himself in the cause of the abolition of slavery in a way which entitled him to the gratitude of every man.

explained that his mind was not at all disturbed by the despatch of Sir Evelyn Baring; but it was disturbed by the answer which the noble Lord gave him earlier in the evening; and it was somewhat more disturbed by the observations the noble Lord had just addressed to the Committee. The Question he had asked was whether the Convention was to be put in force on the 17th of August or not, and the noble Lord had said Her Majesty's Government would do the best they could in the matter; a plain answer was not returned to a plain question. He merely asked, and he hoped the noble Lord would answer him, "Yes" or "No," was it or was it not the intention of the Government that the Convention solemnly entered into in 1877 was to come into force, as arranged, on the 17th of August?

The question is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he wished to take the advantage of this Vote to call attention to what he considered the singular neglect of Her Majesty's Government and of the Ambassador of Her Majesty's Government in Italy to safeguard to the best of their ability the international rights of the Catholic subjects of Her Majesty involved in the unfounded spoliation of the Propaganda. Now, on a consideration of this question, they must bear in mind two very different and distinct matters—namely, the position of the national Catholic institutions in Italy, and the position of the international Catholic institutions in Italy. Now, to take an example of the former, let them take at once, say, the monastic institutions established in Italy on Italian soil for the special service of Italian people, and supported and endowed out of Italian funds, and for local Italian objects. Like every Catholic, and he hoped like every honest man, no matter what his religious belief might be, he held that the confiscation of national religious institutions was none the less robbery though it might be done according to certain Parliamentary forms. With regard to the national Italian institutions, he could not help thinking that the way in which they had been robbed by the Italian Government was most unjustifiable and iniquitous in the extreme; but the Catholic subjects of Her Majesty made no claim on Her Majesty's Government to interfere in respect to Italian national institutions, even though of a religious character. Their spoliation was considered by Catholics a great shock to religion in Italy, and directed against religion at large; but they freely acknowledged that Catholics in England and Ireland and elsewhere throughout the British Empire had no claim upon Her Majesty's Government to interfere for the protection of Italian Catholics on a question of Italian national religious institutions; but it was an institution of a totally different description which had been assailed by the Italian Government of late—it was an institution partaking of the international character of the Papacy which had been assailed. The institution of the Propaganda was not, and never had been, merely or mainly concerned with the Catholic religion in Italy and for Italians—it had been mainly concerned with the Catholic religion throughout the world, in the British Empire as much as elsewhere, and, in fact, in the British Empire more than in, perhaps, all the other nations of the world. It was an institution, in the first place, for promoting the missionary enterprize for the conversion of the heathen; and, in the second place, an institution for carrying on, and aiding the carrying on, the Catholic religion in all countries. Its funds had been supplied by the contributions of Catholics throughout the whole world, the endowments were formed, and the securities for their productive investment were taken and established entirely with a view to its international character. The Propaganda was founded, in a geographical sense, on Italian soil, which was now under the established Government of the Sardinian dynasty; but the creation of a temporal Government in Italy in no way took away the international character of the great institution which long preceded the Sardinian dynasty in Italy. It was necessary for the world before the Sardinian dynasty was established, and it was just as necessary for the world today; it was an institution which in an especial degree concerned the Catholic subjects of Her Majesty in the British Empire, and that simply arose from the fact of the enormous Colonial Empire ruled by Her Majesty. Throughout India, throughout large portions of the British Empire, in consequence of the historic circumstances at home, millions of Catholics had been and were vastly dependent upon the discharge and full liberty of the teaching functions of their Church—upon the complete liberty of the institution of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda. Now, the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) brought this question forward in the House on two occasions in February last, and called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the gravity of the proceedings that were about to take place in Italy; and, in reply, the Prime Minister expressed himself with a certain amount of that large and copious language which, perhaps, was the most useful kind of language for giving expression to opinions that, for one reason or another, it was not desirable too definitely to express. But, at any rate, one promise was made by the Premier on the 18th of February last—namely, that the British Ambassador in Italy would take every opportunity to maintain and support the claims of the Catholic subjects of Her Majesty's Government. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said that—

"Sir John Lumley will be instructed to use his good offices in the matter, in case he should see any opening for that purpose."—(3 Hansard, [284] 1200.)

Whether openings for that purpose had occurred or not, there was issued the other day a Decree of the Italian High Court bringing the construction of the Propaganda under the ordinary law with regard to Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland. That Decree had been in operation ever since, and at any time since the British Government was aware of the strength of feeling of all Catholics on the subject the British Ambassador could and ought to have made serious representations on the matter. Instead of any representations having been made, the Premier to-day reiterated, but in a somewhat different form, the answer he gave last week, the gist of which was that the British Ambassador had, down to the present, done no single thing whatever towards safeguarding the rights of the Catholics at large, and of British Catholics in particular, on the international question of the international institution of the Propaganda. To-day the language of the Premier certainly displayed an improvement upon his former answers, because today he distinctly expressed the opinion that the whole question was an Italian legal question; his answer implied that the whole importance of this institution of universal Catholicism was dependent upon a private local law of one particular nation—namely, the Italian nation. Why, following the view expressed by the Premier to-day, if the Italian High Court chose to bring the Papacy itself, which was undoubtedly a Corporation sole, under the law regarding Ecclesiastical Corporations in Italy they could do so. The would just have as much legal claim to come to an opinion of that sort with regard to the Papacy itself, as they would in regard to this necessary and inseparable portion of the Papacy, the institution of the Propaganda. The very first function of the Church was to teach all nations, and the College of the Propaganda was specially an institution for that universal and world-wide purpose; and if the Italian High Court could do what it pleased with the College of the Propaganda, it could, with exactly as much legal right, declare that the Papacy was an Italian Corporation, that the Pope was an Italian Bishop, and the complaints of the Catholic subjects of Her Majesty, against even the most violent interference with the direct spiritual authority of the Pope, might be answered by some future Premier that that was an Italian legal question. That was the position against which Catholics protested, and he begged to remind the Premier that there were no divided counsels in this matter amongst Catholics. The question had been raised by Catholic Members of the House, who sat amongst the usual supporters of Her Majesty's Government; and only a few days ago the Party who followed the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) passed, in the most emphatic and solemn way, a request to that hon. Member to bring forward this question on behalf of their Body; so, whether Catholic Members sat on the Opposition or the Ministerial side of the House, there was absolute unanimity upon the gravity of this question affecting Catholic interests throughout the British Empire. He (Mr. O'Donnell) quoted today from a despatch which, in reply to a Petition of the Vicar Apostolic at Gibraltar, was sent by the Earl of Kimberley to the Governor at Gibraltar, on the 16th of January, 1871. Just before that date Rome had been seized by the Italian troops, and the Vicar Apostolic at Gibraltar had sent in a Petition to Her Majesty's Government for some assurance with regard to the freedom and security of the Papal functions. The Earl of Kimberley, in his reply, distinctly acknowledged that—

"The deep interest which is felt by many millions of Her Majesty's subjects in the position of the Pope renders all that concerns his personal dignity, and independence, and freedom to exercise his spiritual functions, fit subjects for the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and they have not failed to take such steps as are in their power to afford to the Pope the means of security in case of need."

So far did Her Majesty's Government go in 1871. It was impossible to conceive anything more essential to the freedom to exercise the Pope's spiritual functions than the security of the Propaganda, and the declaration of the British Government in 1871 absolutely and entirely covered the security of the Propaganda. Now, only 13 years after that declaration contained in the despatch of the Earl of Kimberley, they had the Premier stating that this infinitely grave question of the Propaganda was a mere Italian legal question; and, so far from there being any acknowledgment that it was a matter which required the notice of Her Majesty's Government, they were told that during all the months that had passed the British Government had not seen an opportunity for calling any attention whatever to the matter. Of course, he did not wish to use any language to which the Premier might reasonably object; he intended to confine himself strictly to exposing the important facts of the case. At the same time, there was a remarkable difference between the declaration of Her Majesty's Government 13 years ago, that everything affecting the freedom of the Pope to exercise his spiritual authority and functions was of the utmost concern to Her Majesty's Government, and their present declaration that their Ambassador had not found an opportunity of uttering even a word of protest in this most important matter of the Propaganda. There was a vast and, apparently, inexplicable difference between the two declarations. He did not know whether that difference could be at all explained by the course recent delicate negotiations had taken. If he remembered aright, the Premier had admitted that the solitary European Government which supported him in the recent Con- ference fiasco was the Italian Government. ["And the Turkish!"] But the Premier would be the very last man to admit that the Turkish Government could be considered an important European Government. He (Mr. O'Donnell) confined himself to the Italian Government, which, properly speaking, was, after all, the only European Government which could be quoted in that connection. The complaint Catholics had to make was that if the Government of King Humbert claimed to deal with the property of the Propaganda, as a religious Corporation, they might just as legally claim to deal with any other portion of the property administered by the Papacy. He did not go at all into the question of the amount of loss that had been inflicted, or that might be inflicted upon the Propaganda by the measures of the Italian Government. He was content with arguing the question on principle. He found that an Italian High Court, interpreting an Italian local law, had ventured to declare that that Italian local law dealt with the endowments of an institution of universal Catholicism, and he protested against such a declaration. The carrying out of that declaration would be fatal to the freedom of the Catholic Church in all its parts and functions. If the Propaganda could be despoiled at the domination of the High Court, the High Court might put forth an Italian secular claim to all the contents of the storied halls of the Papacy. It was for these reasons that he had taken the opportunity, on the Vote which included the salary of the British Ambassador at Rome, to call attention to what was undoubted neglect on the part of the Government of the Ambassador—he left it to them to settle between themselves whether it was the Government or the Ambassador who was the more at fault in the matter. The Committee could not close their eyes to the fact that a Catholic institution, in no way local, in no way merely national, in no way merely territorial, had been, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, who were bound to guard the religious interests of all the subjects of Her Majesty, made liable to the application of an Italian local law, and might have its property dealt with in this fashion today and in that fashion to-morrow. When the Government admitted the claim of the Italian Law Court to deal with this universal institution of the Church, they destroyed the value of the declaration which, even as late as 1871, they made to a spokesman of Her Majesty's Catholic subjects that everything that concerned the free exercise of the spiritual functions of the Papacy was, and must remain, a subject for the notice of Her Majesty's Government. He had to propose the omission from the Vote of the item which represented the salary of the British Ambassador at the Court of Rome, who, bound on behalf of his Government to protect the interests of all British subjects, had most glaringly failed to discharge his duty with regard to the Catholic subjects of Her Majesty, in a matter of the most vital importance to their religion. This was a subject in which all parties were interested. Personally, he should be just as emphatic if an institution of universal Protestantism, or a universal missionary enterprize, established and endowed by the contributions of sincere Protestants throughout the world, were ceased or confiscated by a Government, no matter which. Every institution must have some local basis, must be under some roof, and within some walls. This was a question of universal justice—it was a question of universal religion. Nothing more was required by any Catholic subject of Her Majesty than that Her Majesty's Government should maintain the international character of the Propaganda, and distinctly refuse to consider that that international institution was to be confounded with the more local and more national institutions such as local Bishoprics or conventual establishments, against whose spoliation Catholics might justly protest; but which spoliation differed very widely from the grave injury inflicted on the Sacred Institution of the Propaganda.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £7,000, for the Salary of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, be omitted from the proposed Vote."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)