work. But the fact is that all the plant was perfectly ready when the arrangements were made. The noble Marquess does not expect that it is to be made like the Great Northern Railway. It is to be what is called a contractor's railway, its primary object being of a military character; but it may be used in order to be converted into a permanent railway. It will, however, be much more easily managed, and will be constructed much faster than the substantial and expensive railways to which the noble Marquess has referred. make a railway, even at the rate of one mile a-day, where an accurate survey has been made, and where beforehand every kind of railway material has been provided, where the country is in perfect peace, and the best organization is at command, is a very considerable achievement. I think it was done by Sir Richard Temple in the case of the Dacken Railway, and everybody was much surprised at it; but when the Government undertake to make a railway in an enemy's country without any survey, when, apparently, they have not ordered a single bit of railway plant beforehand. -when they undertake to make this railway at the rate of two miles a day, it really suggests that the Government have somehow or other found Aladdin's lamp, and that they intend to make use of it. It is impossible, considering the past history of this question, and considering what the influence of Parliamentary events has been upon our military preparations, not to feel some anxiety for more abundant information, that shall assure us that the intention to make those 280 miles before the autumn is serious, and that some adequate pre-engineers connected with railways in paration for so gigantic a task is being made. I wish to press upon the noble Lord that, if he cannot give this information to-morrow, he will give us it without delay, and that he will let us have the contract, or something in the nature of a specification, to assure us that we are dealing with a serious matter. LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA : I believe it will be convenient to your Lordships if I explain that the railway, for military purposes, may be of a very temporary character, which could be rapidly constructed. In the invasion of a hostile country, where animal transport is deficient, it is necessary to supplement it by a railway, however temporary, as soon as the advanced posts are sufficiently established. Such a railway will greatly facilitate a more permanent structure, if such should be desired. I have had much communication with Egypt and other Eastern countries, who were quite confident of the possibility of making the railway from Suakin to Berber without any extraordinary difficulty. They are men of experience in the construction of railways in Eastern countries, and their judgment may be relied upon. Another point which I consider it desirable to advert EARL GRANVILLE: The remarks to is an opinion expressed in the Press of the noble Marquess are somewhat and elsewhere of the desirability of enter discouraging. Her Majesty's Governing into negotiations with the Mahdi. ment have been frequently urged to make this railway, and the moment they undertake it the noble Marquess comes forward to represent the enormous difficulty of accomplishing the undertaking. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of doing it in the time. EARL GRANVILLE: I am unable to speak from technical knowledge. The noble Marquess has far greater knowledge of railways than I have. The noble Viscount sitting near the noble Marquess speaks of this railway as if it were a perfect myth, as if no preparations had been made, as if no plant was ready, and as if it were a matter of extraordinary chance that one of the most eminent firms of contractors in the country would be able to carry out the The Marquess of Salisbury From first to last, the Mahdi has not shown the least disposition to treat with anyone. General Gordon's overture was met with the message "Put on my uniform, also become a Mussulman, and I will spare you; otherwise I will sweep you off the face of the earth. I think that evinced the spirit of an irreconcilable fanatic, and as such he ought to be treated. To talk of negotiating with such a man was absurd. We had either to beat him or let him alone; and I hope we shall beat him. SOUTH AFRICA (EAST COAST)—ST. LUCIA BAY.-QUESTION. tory, and whether he can state what this-that we have asserted, or that we extent of the coast to the north of Natal have re-asserted, a Sovereignty to St. is under British protection? The noble Lucia Bay; but the territory at the back Earl said, he did not wish to discuss of St. Lucia Bay is Zululand. At the the Colonial policy of the Government; time when I had the honour of holding but as there had been so much misun- the Seals of Office Zululand was not derstanding on the subject, he thought English territory. I should like to it would be a great relief to have some understand this distinctly, assuming our information on the point. claim to St. Lucia Bay is made, whether or not we have a continuous territory from the interior down to St. Lucia Bay, or whether, as I rather gather from the reply of the noble Earl, there is an intervening tract of land at the back of St. Lucia Bay cutting St. Lucia Bay off from the rest of our Possessions in South Africa? That is an extremely important Question, for the absence of this continuity of territory may give rise, and possibly will give rise, to serious complications hereafter. THE EARL OF DERBY: Behind St. Lucia Bay and that part of the coast that belongs to Zululand, to the southward, is the Reserve, and over that we have assumed protection. What our claim to St. Lucia Bay is I have already stated; but the territory immediately behind that is the territory of Zululand, not forming part of the Reserve. THE EARL OF DERBY: I have to say that St. Lucia Bay was ceded to the British Crown a little more than 40 years ago by Panda, the then King of Zululand, who undoubtedly exercised Sovereign powers over the territory in question. No steps were taken at the time in consequence of that cession, and nothing has been done in the long interval which has occurred until the close of last year, when it seemed to us desirable to re-assert or keep alive what was assumed to be our right to the ceded territory by hoisting the British Flag. It was not a new annexation, but simply intended to remind those whom it might concern that we had rights over that coast which were undoubtedly ours, and which we had never given up. The flag was accordingly hoisted, and it remains there. I do not think it would be quite fair to the THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I unHouse if I did not add that we have re-derstand, then, that our territories are ceived communications from the German continuous from the Reserve down to the Government expressing unwillingness sea coast. to recognize the validity of our title upon various grounds, one of which was the long time during which the claim has lain in abeyance. The matter is still under discussion between the two Governments; and while that is the case I cannot, in the interest of the Public Service, give any further details. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I have already stated what is the present position in regard to St. Lucia Bay; but as to the rest of the coast to the north of Natal, that part only which forms part of the Reserve is under British protection. THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I do not propose to comment on the rather serious statement which my noble Friend has made with regard to the intervention of foreign policy or difference in this question; but I wish to clear up one point which seems to me of very great consequence, and which arises out of the last words which he used with regard to Natal. I understand from my noble Friend that the state of the case is THE EARL OF DERBY: No; I understand the noble Earl to ask me with regard to the territory, not on the sea coast, but at the back, and I answered accordingly. That has not been ceded to England, and we have no other rights over it than over the whole of Zululand. VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH said, he hoped that the Government would fully realize the value of St. Lucia Bay. The claim of England to that Bay was laid down many years ago, and though it had fallen into abeyance that was no reason why it should be abandoned. House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, 5th March, 1885. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN-John - Bill committed to a Select Committee, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection. Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented not later than three clear days before the sitting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Five be the quorum. POLICE AND SANITARY REGULA- APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee not exceeding Seven Members, to whom shall be referred all Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers which deviate from, or are in extension of, or relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations repugnant to, the general Law.”—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.) MR. SEXTON said, he objected to the Motion, on the ground that it contained proposals of a novel character, and carried the principle of delegation too far. It was proposed that the Committee of Selection should usurp the functions of the House, which would lose all efficient control over its own Committees. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate, in order to afford time for the House to consider the question and deal with it. MR. THOROLD ROGERS said, he had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill; but he proposed to withdraw that Motion in favour of that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He had a Petition to present against the Bill from the working men of London, who feared that the measure would diminish the quantity of shipping near London Bridge, and thereby cause a diminution of employment. He was fully prepared to admit-and he ad-That the Debate be now adjourned." Motion made, and Question proposed, mired the public spirit and generosity of the Corporation in the matter. They were undertaking to construct this bridge at their own expense; but he was afraid that it might be found necessary to pay a large amount of compensation to wharfingers and others, and that the traffic might be seriously impeded. Question put, and agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Com mittee, Five to be nominated by the House, Question put, and agreed to. (Mr. Sexton.) Nor MR. H. H. FOWLER said, the hon. Member was not correct in stating that the proposals contained in the Resolution were of a novel character. A similar Committee was appointed last year in precisely the same manner. was there any delegation in the matter whatever. Some difficulty arose a year or two ago, in consequence of Bills which contained provisions imposing police and sanitary regulations, at variance with the general law, being referred to different Committees. Great inconvenience was occasioned, owing to the The different decisions that were arrived at | from coming to Parliament and obtain-for instance, annuities were allowed ing powers which deviated from, or were in one case to be spread over 40 years, in extension of, the general law. and others over 50 years; and, in one provisions of every Bill were carefully case for so long a period as 100 years. considered, and every proposition of that It was most desirable that some uniform nature was rigidly excluded from the mode of dealing with the provisions of measure. He did not think that any such Bills should be adopted, and that advantage would be derived from an these applications to Parliament for adjournment of the debate, and he special powers should not be varied in hoped the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. different cases. A Committee was ap- Sexton) would not press the Motion. pointed, which was presided over by the He was not aware that there were many right hon. Gentleman the Member for Irish Bills promoted this year which North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), would be brought under the cognizance who prepared a careful Report, which of the Committee. There were none in was discussed in the House, and a the two previous years; and he admitted general approval given to it. Last year that if there were Bills from Ireland a Committee was again appointed, which which would go before the Committee, was presided over by his hon. Friend it would be desirable to have the serthe junior Member for the University of vices of some Irish Members upon it. Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), also with the full approval of the House. It was proposed this year that a similar Committee should be appointed to consider all the Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Authorities containing provisions relating to police or sanitary regulations which were at variance with the general law, and more especially in reference to the financial position of the towns by which such Bills were promoted. MR. SEXTON asked who the Committee were last year? MR. DAWSON said, he took it that his hon. Friend's objection was principally to the proposition that an important Committee should be appointed by another Committee, and that, however desirable it might be to nominate the Committee, it ought to be appointed by the House. The Committee might have done its duty very well in the past; but to provide that it should be appointed by the Committee of Selection was to delegate to the Committee of Selection, chosen by themselves, a duty which ought to be discharged by the MR. H. H. FOWLER said, that, if he House. If the seven Members of the recollected rightly, it consisted of his hon. Committee did their duty so well, and Friend the Member for the University were so competent to discharge the imof Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), the hon. portant functions intrusted to them, why Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel not appoint them directly by the House, Goldney), the hon. Member for Perth and come down with a recommendation (Mr. C. S. Parker), the hon. Member to the House to appoint a Committee of for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), seven Members for that express purthe hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. pose? The proposal made by the hon. Carpenter Garnier), the hon. Member Gentleman the Under Secretary for the for Ipswich (Mr. West), himself, and one Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) or two other Members whose names he was a usurpation of the distinct funccould not recollect at the moment. tions of the House, and amounted not Most of the Members of the Committee to the regular appointment of a Commitlast year had sat upon the previous tee, but to the appointment of a SubCommittee in 1883. The general prin- Committee by an existing Committee. ciple which guided the decisions of the His own opinion was that that was a Committee was that there should be breach of the Privileges of the House, some kind of uniformity adopted in re- and that it ought not to be carried furgard to Bills of this character. It was ther. He should have thought that the certainly most undesirable to have one hon. Member the Under Secretary of law in Liverpool, another in Man- State would have been one of the last chester, and another in Leeds. The men in the House to give his counteobject of the appointment of the Com-nance to such a proposition. It must mittee was to prevent, as far as possible, be clearly understood that those who Corporations and other public Bodies were in favour of adjourning the debate VOL. CCXCV. THIRD SERIES.] D had no desire to impugn the importance | a series of sittings last year. These were of the duties to be discharged by the the principles the Committee laid downCommittee. They did not impugn the disinterested character of the motives by which the Committee would be actuated, nor did they intend to imply that the tribunal would be otherwise than impartial; but their contention was that the House itself had certain duties to discharge, and that they were not justified in delegating those duties to the Committee of Selection. MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M⭑CARTHY said, he had great pleasure in supporting the protest made by his hon. Friends in this matter. He was of opinion that the delegation, in important matters of this kind, of the functions of the House to the Committee of Selection involved a very serious principle. There had been two previous Committees of this kind appointed, and he understood that the name of no Irish Member had appeared on either of them. It must be remembered that, in the case of a Committee of this nature, its decisions were practically final; because, whatever decision was laid down by such a tribunal, it was always accepted by the House. Important Irish Private Business might be within the scope of this arrangement, and the Irish people might find themselves placed at a disadvantage by the adoption of this system. The fact that for two previous years the plan had worked fairly well was hardly a sufficient justification for the continuance of the arrangement. He earnestly hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would persist in his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. MR. J. G. TALBOT said, that, as Chairman of the Committee of last year, he was anxious to say a word in support of the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler). First of all, in regard to Ireland. As a matter of fact, only a single Irish Bill came before the Committee last year, and all the Bills taken into consideration by the Committee were Bills which contained provisions in excess of the general law, and which proposed to take powers which, in the opinion of a large majority of the House, ought not, without grave consideration, to be given to any Municipal Body. Perhaps the House would allow him to quote from a Report of the Select Committee adopted at the last of Mr. J. G. Talbot 'They have in every case amended the Bills, endeavouring to the best of their ability to limit the large powers sought by the Corpora tions and other Local Authorities upon two main principles, which they believe to be accepted by the House-namely, first, that no local powors should be given which are in excess of the general law, unless strong local reasons exist for such powers; and, secondly, that no statutory enactments should be permitted for purposes which can be effected by bye-laws." Those were the two principles laid down by the Committee, and upon those two principles they endeavoured to regulate all the Bills which came before them, and, he believed, to the satisfaction, if not of the promoters of the Bills themselves, at least of all those who took a reasonable interest in the matter. It was said that it was an unconstitutional proceeding for the House to delegate to the Committee of Selection the right of appointing a Committee for dealing with a number of Private Bills. Now, he failed to see any difference between appointing a Committee to deal with a single Bill and appointing a Committee to deal with a number of Bills. It must be borne in mind that the Bills referred to the Committee were all of the same character, and that they related to regulations in regard to police and sanitary matters. It was a special Committee to take into consideration a certain number of very important Bills, to which it was their duty to devote most careful consideration. They did not at all slur the work over, and he thought they sat as many as 30 times last Session, coming in each case to a deliberate conclusion. No doubt, the Committee was appointed by the Committee of Selection; but, as hon. Members well knew, the House of Commons itself appointed the Committee of Selection, and gave them certain powers in regard to the appointment of other Committees. MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question now be fore the House is the question of the adjournment of the debate, and he would not be in Order in discussing the Main Question. MR. J. G. TALBOT said, he was sorry for having transgressed. He would only add that he trusted the matter would not be adjourned, because it was of the utmost importance to come to a conclu |