The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-05-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN.
In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 18, Lord Wemyss
called attention to the state of things in the Eastern
Soudan, and submitted a resolution declaring that the
interests of civilisation, of the native population, and
of commerce, as well as the security of Egypt
and the honour of England, required the establish-
ment of a settled Government there, and that until
this had been accomplished we could not relieve our-
selves of the responsibilities we had incurred.
The motion having been seconded by Lord Napier of
Magdala,
Lord Wentworth moved an amendment accepting
with satisfaction the promise of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to recall our forces from the Soudan, but assert-
ing that the construction of a railway from Souakim
by military force through a hostile population would be
inconsistent with the pledge given to Parliament and
the country; and further declaring that the House
declined to assume any responsibility for commercial,
civilising, or philanthropic enterprises outside the
admitted obligations and interests of Great Britain.
The Duke of Argyll objected to the Amendment, as
displaying a weakness of which he was ashamed, and
said he had no alternative bit to vote for Lord
Wemyss's pCtoposal. The intention to abandon the
Soudan, the noble duke said, had created terror in
Egypt and imparted new strength to her enemies. On
the whole, he felt that her Majesty's Government were
turning their backs on their positive duty, and he
owned that it was with some shame he read the
qualification they had employed about abandoning
Souakim unless some other Power stepped in.
Lord Granville, in defending the Ministerial policy,
failed to see how. the fact that England had been
drawn by the force of circumstances into Egypt and the
Soudan for a temporary and necessary purpose should
entail the necessity for a permament occupation of the
territory into which she had been compelled to advance.
We had, no doubt, incurred great responsibilities, but
these were capable of fulfilment by the policy of the
Government. As to the Soudanese, he believed that
self-government would be better than what could be
expected from Egypt, while a purely English Govern-
ment over them was entirely out of the question.
Lord Salisbury, though of opinion that it was im-
possible to exaggerate the failure of the Ministerial
policy in the Soudan, declined to support the resolution.
If he thought any good could come from passing a Vote
of Censure on the Government he would vote for it.
But he had to look to the.fact that it was something
more than a Vote of Censure; that it indicated the
course to be taken for the future, and departed from
the general rule that the devising of a policy was to be
left to the responsible Government, and the judgment
on that policy to Parliament. Moreover, even if the
resolution were carried, its fulfilment would be left in
the hands of the present Government.

After a few remarks from for-d—lie-rby and the Duke
of Marlborough,the resolution and the amendment were
both withdrawn.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Lord E. Fitzmaurice in-
formed Mr. Slagg, with regret, that the commercial
negotiations with Spain had come to an unsatisfactory
termination, in consequence of the Spanish Government
having refused to fulfil the fundamental conditions of
the Declaration of December. 21st, 1884. Our Minister
at Madrid had, therefore, been instructed to inform
the Spanish Government that the negotiations were at
an end.

THE AFGHAN BLDE•BOOK.---MR. GLADSTONE ON HIS
RETIREMENT.
The House having gone into Committee of Supply,
after some preliminary discussion on a point of order
resulting out of the count out of Friday, a vote on ac-
count of the Civil Services amounting to
£3,360,500 was moved, and Lord R. Churchill,
with the view of compelling the Government
to come again to the House within a short time,
moved the reduction of the vote by £2,000,000. This
motion he grounded on the recent Blue-book, which he
described as most "melancholy reading" and a sorry
"record," which, he believed, had deeply offended the
national sentiment. It showed frequent gaps and signs
of having been carefully edited. Travelling through the
salient points, he dwelt first on the "sacred covenant,"
which he showed had been imagined by Mr. Gladstone
without any sufficient warrant or foundation in the as-
surances which had been given by the Russian
Government. No such agreement as had been
stated by the Prime Minister on March 13
had ever been arrived at. As to the support pro-
mised to Sir P. Lumsden, he maintained that no
effective support had been given him, and that if
the Government had declared that any attack on
the Afghans would be regarded as a " cases he'll" they
would have prevented any attack being made on
Penjdeh. Dealing with the series of suppositions in
Mr. Gladstone's speech on the previous Monday., he
insisted that there was no proof whatever that the
Ameer was willing to give up Pendjeh, and urged the
Government to say at once whether they contem-
plated making a concession which would be flying in
the face of Sir P. Lumsden and all other officers of ex-
perience in the question.
Mr. Gladstone said it was impossible to enter into
the details of the Blue-book without having an oppor-
tunity of carefully looking into it, which he had not
yet been able to do. He failed to see how the Govern-
ment could have prevented the Pendjeh catastrophe,
and refused to admit that it could be inferred that the
Ameer set a value on Pendjeh because his troops had
defended it. The Government had given all the sup-
port they could to Sir P. Lumsden, and had done all in
their power to allay the excitement caused by the
affair at Pendjeh. Some cries of "No " from the
Opposition led the Prime Minister to protest' against
this modern style of conducting debates. I can
assure hon. gentlemen (continued Mr. Gladstone)
that if take any notice of these into ruptions it is no:
really upon my own account. They matter very little to :
person whose
ai
muchr o
m ore f
likelyutu re
to js
bt eer venti
measuredo n in b
yweekspolitical
tlan by
months, and certainly by months more than by years.
It is because of the deep conviction I have that a great
blow has been struck at the dignities and liberties of
this House—(cheers and cries of "Oh," and laughter)—
by the modes of proceeding which have within the last
few years—the last very few years, speaking with the
greatest respect to the right hon. baronet—been intro-
duced into the debates of this House. (Cheers.) As
to the agreement of Mar& 13, Mr. Gladstone added he
desired to defer a full explanation until he had had the
opportunity of referring to what he had said in the
House; but he pointed out that the reasons why it had
failed to prevent bloodshed had been made the subject
of a reference.
Sir S. Northcote, who pointed out that the papers
already published contained very inadequate informa-
tion, twitted the Government with always avoiding
discussion because of the absence of papers. He
strongly objected to being always met with the argu-
ment that there were more papers to come, and was
anxious to know how far the country could rely upon
statements made by Ministers, especially when it was
found that in one important particular at least they
had been proved to be inaccurate.
Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett thought the papers showed
great mismanagement at the Foreign Office; and Mr.
Onslow complained that the services of Sir P. Lumsden
and other British officers had not been adequately
recognised.
Mr. Biggar also spoke; and Lord IL Churchill having
asked leave to withdraw his motion, Mr. Biggar insisted
on taking a division, when the amendment was lost by
74 to 11.

THE CROFTERS BILL.
The next business was the adjourned debate on the
introduction of the Crofters Bill, and
The Lord Advocate, in resuming, explained the main
provisions of the bill. In the first place it does not in-
corporate rural townships as the Commissioners re-
commended, but it deals with the other demands put
forward on behalf of the crofters—viz., security of
tenure, fair rents, compensation for improvements on a
more liberal scale, and more land. The bill enacts that
a crofter shall not be removed except for breach of
statutory conditions, which include payment of rent,
subdivision of holdings, injury to holdings, and assign-
ments. This, he contended, was nothing more than to
give legislative sanction to the custom which had
existed on all benevolently managed estates, and there
was a precedent for it in the old Scotch Act of 1449.
There would, however, be no power of assignment or
sale, and there would be no limitation of rents which
would come under the bill. Adequate machinery
would be provided, through the medium of valuers or
arbitrators voluntarily appointed, for the fixing of fair
rents and compensation.. But with • regard to the
demand for "more land" or enlargement of small
tenancies, the Government, he said, had not seen its
way to make any compulsory proposals.
A shcrt conversation followed, in which the Bill
was generally approved of, and leave was in the end
g:ven to bring in the bill, which was read a first
time.

The House was counted out at five minutes to three
o' n 1 nelc

In the HOUSE OF LORDS' May 19, the Earldom of
Mar (Restitution) Bill and the Arbitration 13i11 were
read a second time. The Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill
and the Consolidated Fund No. 3) Bill passed through
committee. _