Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page



BWBMBJBWBBBWMWBBBgilWBMBBMBb' IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. THE CRISIS IN EGYPT. In the HOUSE OF LORDS, July 10, Earl Granville said My Lords, on Thursday last 1 Informed your lordships' House of the state of affairs then existing in Alexandria, and I stated that Her Majesty's Government were not aware that pre- parations of a hostile character were goiug on at Alexandria. Since then the British Admiral has reported that last week guns were being mounted on the fort outside the harbour. Yesterday we were informed by the Admiral that prepara- tions were going on for action, and that guus were being mgunted, and he proposed this morning to send an Ultimatum. I have 110 doubt that the Admiral has notified this morning to the local authorities that unless there is a temporary surrender of the forts for the purpose of disarm- ing them be will open fire upon them to-motrow morning. (Cheers.) It is a painful tiling for a Power like England to be obliged to exercise force against those who ara weaker, but I believe there is no alternative. (Hear. hear.) These hostile preparations have been going on in defiance of the wishes of the Khedive, in defiance of the orders of the Sultan, and despite the assurances of the local authorities themselves. The act is simply an act of legitimate self- defence. (Hear, hear.) Lord Carlingford movfd the second reading of the Preven- tion of Crime (Ireland) Bill, the object and provisions of which he explained at some length. Lord Oranmore believed that this Bill ought not to be passed in a hurry. It was a long and complicated measure and would bear improvement in Committee. Lord Waveney regarded the measure as moderate in its provisions, far-reaching in its scope, and calculated if firmly administered to do a great amount of good. The Marquis of Salisbury, while expressing willingness to accept the Bill on the responsibility of the Government, eould not but note that much of the difficulty in dealing with Ireland had arisfn from the disinclination of the Go^rnment to look the state of things boldly in the face and deal with it accordingly. In agreeing to pass the Bill without amendment, he could not help thinking that, it would have been better in cases where difficulty might be expected in securing a fair trial in Ireland to have made provision for change of venue co-tK&eu- • with the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than to have suspended trial by jury. He trusted th" Government would administer the act with zeal and thm. ness when it became law at the same time, he feared that much of the existing evil was due to the vacillation with which they had hitherto applied the principles of legislation, and through which the people gradually unlearned the be- lief they formerly entertained in the strength of purpose of the English Government. The Bill was then read a second time. A number of Bills having been advanced a stage their lordships adjourned. In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, a considerable time at the beginning of the sitting was occupied by a discussion on the London River-side Fish Market Bill, a private measure intro- duced on account of the inadequacy of Billingsgate to supply the wants of the metropolis. The Lords' amendments to the Bill stood for consideration, and were ultimately rejected without a division. In answer to questions from Sir 8. Northcote and Mr. Onslow on the critical state of affairs in Egypt, Sir C. Diike gave details as to the communications which had passed between Admiral Seymour and the Egyptian authorities reference to the earthworks erected and the other menacing preparations made at Alexandria. He con- cluded, amid cheers, by announcing that ths Admiral had, with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, given the foreign Consuls notice at daylight on Monday morning that he would commence action twenty-four hours afterwards unless the forts'in the isthmus, and also those commanding the entrance to the harbour, are temporarily surrendered for the purpose of being disarmed. In answer to Sir W. Lawson, who asked whether, before the fleet attacked the Egyptians, any declaration of war would be made, Mr. Gladstone denied that au attack on the Egyptians was an accurate description of a measure which the Government regarded as purely defensive and necessary for the security of the fleet. CETYWAYO'S VISIT TO ENGLAND. Mr. Gibson asked the Attorney-General what would be the status of Cetywayo within the iimits of the United Kingdom would he be regarded by Her Majesty's Govern- ment as free or as a prisoner of war if he was treated as a prisoner, and a writ of habeas corpus should be applied for on his behalf, what legal justification would be offered for his detention; was the Colonial Act passed for his detention spent by his release and was it intended to pass an Act for the indemnity of those who might assist 4n his future detention, similiar to the Act passed in the year 1816, in consequence of Napoleon Bonaparte having been detained and kept in custody in the Island of St. Helena?" t The Attorney-General, m reply, said: I fear I cannot- answer the five questions of the right hon. gentleman quite so briefly as I should wish, for, without some explanation, my answer might give rise to misunderstanding. Cety- wayo is coming to this country at his own special request. In order to do so, he quits the legal custody in which he now is upon certain terms. He has agreed to obey all directions given to him, and acquiesces in the right of her Majesty's Government to make such future dispositions as to his custody as may he thought right. While in this country ha will not unless circumstances shall arise which are not now contemplated, be subjected to the actual re- straints which generally accompany the position of a pri- soner of war, but he will necessarily be always accom- panied by some one who will be approved by the Government. This will, I think, give a practical answer to the right hon, gentleman's first and second question, but I do not desire to shriiik from bearing the responsibility of the opinion given by the Solicitor-General and myself in March last, Sod which is referred to in Lord Kimberley's despatch of March 9. We advised the Colonial Office that Cetywayo could, if the Government thought right, be treated as a prisoner of war, and we adhere to that opinion. Mr. Gibson: Treated now as a prisoner The Attorney-General: Yes, now. I am aware that a different view has been expressed elsewhere, and while I speak with sincere respect for that opinion, my learned friend and I adhere to the advice we have already given. "While the country was at war with Cetywayo as King of the Zulus, he v.a.8 taken prisoner by our forces. No treutv of peace lias been made with him, and no peace has been made which affects his statue. My view is that the right to detain a prisoner of war continues until the country which captured him agree to bis release. I am glad to think that this view has been expressed by Lord Ellenborough and Lerd Eidon. In reference to our light to detain Napoleon Bonaparte, the former Bald:—"From the consequences of that state of war he cannot be re- deemed but by the terms of such treaty of peace as we may make with him individually, or with others for him. Being once an enemy he can only be at peace with us by our act and consent, and, of course, upon such terms onJy as we shall mutually agree upon" And Lord IGJdou said" The question is whether, if we have a right to treat him as a prisoner of war, it can possibly be incon- sistent with justice or the law of nations that till some tysnce is made by treaty with some person considered as his Sovereign, cr till some peace is made with him, we keep him in prison ill some part of the King's dominions. I presume if we can keep him as a prisoner of war for a moment, we can keep him until some peace is made with him or including him" The opinion thus expressed appears to have been entertained by the late Government, for Cetywayo was detained as a prisoner of war from the termination of the war in August, 1879, until July, 1880. when he was handed over to the authorities of the Cape Colony. As to the third question. I cannot auticipftto that any writ of habeas corpus can be applied for, or that any such motion would be entertained but if it be, a return would be made setting out the fscta according to the truth. To the fourth question, I say that I think that as soon as Cetywayo passes from his present detention, the powers of the Colonial Act will be spent; but that Act was pas.ed to justify Cetywayo's detention by the Cape Colony on the ground that the colony, as such, not having been at war with him, there was no power to detain him in the colony. Imperial rights are not interfered with by its powers being expended. The last question of my right hon. friend is calculated to give rife to a false impression. The Act of Indemnity passed in 1816 did not contain any indemnity on account of the detention of Napoleon Bonaparte, but only on account of certain orders which might have been given or acts which might have been done at St. Helena under the urgency of the occasion in order safely to detain him. I will only add that on introducing that Bill into this House" in March, 1816, Lord Castlereagh said he did not thinlj that any Act of Indemnity was necessary,' for he maintained our right to detain Napoleon Bonaparte as a prisoner of war, although a treaty of peace with France had been concluded, and Mr Brougham said ?-HWhether we consider Bonaparte as a prisoner of war not claimed by his own Government or in any other light, we have an un- questionable right to detain him, even by the law of notions, without any Act of Parliament." I believe I have now answered ail the questions put to me by the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Gibson Will he be allowed any change of residence, and will he be allowed to go to Ireland ? ITo answer. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. AN AUTUMN SESSION. In a House that had become densely crowded, Mr. Glad- stone rose and said that hon. members would probably expect to hear a few words from hm in reference to what occurred on Friday afternoon. That occurrence (the ad- verse division on the Crime Prevention Bill) was, as far as he knew, without precedent in the annals of the House, and he had his own opinion res pec ling it; but he thought it his duty to examine what had happened in relation to its practical bearing and the pecu- liar responsibility of the Government at the present moment. The House had placed in the hands of the Government a Dower which the latter deemed to be unnecessary; but as the nowers of the Bil' generally were discretionary, it would he the dutv of the Government to exercise such, and such only, as thev might find to be necessary, and with regard to this par- ticular nower he cherished the hope that no such necessity wduld arise Tf, however, the necessity did arise, it was ShvimiB that the Government would be under the same obligation and responsibility with respect to this particular ^w!r as they Vere with regard to the other powers of the BilL As to the future business of the Session, he pre- sup- posed thatthe t wo Ms h BUIs would become law; but if anything intervened to prevent them, or either of them, from becoming law, then, in reference to the statement be was about to make, the Government would reserve to themselves full liberty of action. He went on to explain that he had abandoned all hopes of pacing any of the Bills announced at the commencement of the Session, with the excepeion of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Further, It was, in view of the Government, quite impossible, with the prospect ef business before them, to introduce in the present Session any measure for the amendment of the Irish Land Act. After the two Irish Bills had become law, there- fore, they would wind up the ordinary business of the Ses- ion, and ask the House to adjourn for a considerable time. One question was whether he couid pot3ibly ask the House to enter do now into the question of the Rules of Procedure. j That, however, was a question which could only be dealt with at a time when members could attend in large numbers. He should, consequently, propose an adjournment of the House to some day in the second half of October, when he would ask it to apply itself to the subject of Procedure from day to day, and, unless the necessity arose, not to trouble it at that period with any other subject. At the close of the discussion on Procedure the prorogation would take place in the usual manner. 8ir S. Northcote, remarking upon this intimation, said it was to he understood that if there should be occasion at any moment to challenge the <>>reign policy of the Government, the Government would afford the House an opportunity for that purpose. With regard to the serious statement, of the Prims Minister as to an autumn Session, he asked whether it was really intended to have another Irish Session in 1883 ? (Mr. Gladstone here signified dissent) He also suggested that it would be fairer to the House if they had a more complete statement of the intentions of the Government in respect to the rules of procedure. ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL. The consideration of this Bill in Committee was resumed. Sir 8. Northcote moved an amendment to Clause 1 to the effect that the application to the Land Commission for the settlement ef the arrears of rent must be a joint appli- cation by both landlord and tenant." This was opposed by Mr. Gladstone as being contrary to the principle of the bill, which was that of compulsion and gift, and after a lengthy discussion was negatived by 248 to 170. Mr. J. Lowther then proposed an amendment removing the jurisdiction in cases of arrears from the Laud Commis- sion to the county court judges, but this was negatived by 249 to 177. Some further amendments were disposed of, and the clause was still under discussion when progress was re- ported. After some other business, the House adjourned atfiva minutes to two o'clock.




[No title]

[No title]



[No title]