SECOND READING.

HC Deb 09 April 1885 vol 296 cc1287-97

Order for Second Reading read.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that after the conversation early in the evening, from which it was understood that the more serious debate should take place on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that after the conversation that took place at the commencement of the Sitting it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by making any lengthened remarks upon this matter. But he could not help protesting in the strongest way against taking the second reading of such an important measure as this on this particular day; because, by the ordinary practice and custom of the House, the day on which the House reassembled after the Easter Recess was always supposed to be one on which no Business of any great importance was brought forward. It was all very well to say that it was necessary to proceed with the Bill as fast as possible; but surely the House of Commons had a right to express its opinion upon the matter. Judging from the character of the division which took place the other night it was quite clear there was a large proportion of the people of the country who held very strong views upon the subject. No one could have spoken more strongly than the Prime Minister himself did, just 30 years ago, as to the danger of an agreement of this kind in giving opportunities to the Powers who joined in a guarantee of interfering politically in the country in respect of which the guarantee was ourselves. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented] The Prime Minister shook his head; but, probably, before next Thursday, he would have an opportunity of reading again the speech he made in 1855, after he had referred to some of the precedents quoted the other night. It also appeared to be clear, from the attitude of the Government at the London Conference, that they, at that time, held the same views which the Prime Minister did in 1855— that it was one of their chief objects there should be no Joint Guarantee. He did not wish to enter into debate on this point now, but simply to enter his protest against the explanation given in regard to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was quite sure that anyone who read the Protocol must be struck with the idea that the Government felt at the time that document was drawn up that it was absolutely impossible to propose to Parliament an International Guarantee. If anything else were wanted to establish the view which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) took, and which he held very strongly, it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Wednesday afternoon that he announced the result of the negotiations with the Powers. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the Government did not object to an International Guarantee, provided there was an understanding, a promise, or an arrangement, or something or other, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would not quarrel about words, that it should not lead to anything like International interference in Egyptian affairs; and it was perfectly clear, from the cheers which followed the statement of the rig-lit hon. Gentleman, that the House took it as an assurance that the Government had provided ample security against any such interference. But when the Agreement itself appeared there was a feeling of universal dis- satisfaction and disappointment, because it was found that no such securities existed. All these, however, were matters for serious debate on a future occasion; but he could not help, on the second reading, making this protest. He was not one of those who cared to put off until going into Committee the debate upon the principle of a Bill. He believed the feeling of the country was against the arrangement which had been made; indeed, anyone who referred to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite in debate on the Resolution upon which the Bill was founded would find that they were against the proposal of the Government, though the votes of hon. Gentlemen were in favour of it. Having entered this protest against the second reading of the Bill, he would reserve any further observations until a later stage.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on the rather peculiar course which he had pursued. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying he would not enter into a discussion after the arrangement that had been made at an earlier hour; but then he went on to make every statement and every allegation the most extreme, and the most extravagant, that he could possibly have adduced in the most elaborate argument. That was a course which was extremely inconvenient. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not choose to follow the right hon. Gentleman by doing what would be the proper counterpart to his speech — namely, making a series of contradictions to his series of propositions; it was not a convenient or usual way of conducting a debate of grave importance in this House. The Leader of the right hon. Gentleman having agreed to postpone the debate until the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, the right hon. Gentleman now took the opportunity of saying that that was an inconvenient practice, so that even the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford North-cote) was not exempt from the right hon. Gentleman's profuse and exuberant criticism. The right hon. Gentleman went back to a speech of his (Mr. Gladstone's), which had nothing to do with the matter, made several years ago—a speech in which he referred to a case very unlike that of Egypt. The reference simply illustrated the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman protested against the measure of the Government, and he (Mr. Gladstone) protested against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he had no intention to prolong the discussion unduly; but he thought one might very fairly, upon the second reading of the Bill, make one or two observations in the way of inquiry. The House was hurried—he might even say hustled— into passing the Resolution upon which the Bill was founded; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed, by the remarks he made earlier in the evening, that he regarded that Resolution as the vital and most important part of the whole proceedings, so far as this House was concerned. But a good many things had happened since that Resolution was passed; and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought the House might well ask whether those occurrences affected this country in any way, or altered the circumstances under which this loan was proposed to be raised? Since the Resolution was passed in this House, the French Chamber had been seized of the measure, or one analogous to it; but it was now said that the debate upon it was to be adjourned till the 4th of May. A significant and important statement had also been made with regard to the Austro-Hungarian share in the transaction. Hon. Members had learned by telegraph that the legislative sanction of Austria could not be granted until the autumn of the year. He supposed that there also the matter would be hung up and postponed. If that were so, it was entirely contrary to the understanding upon which the Resolution was passed before Easter.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he must express his surprise, not about the anxiety of the Government to get this measure passed, but at the fact that they were now discussing the second reading of the Bill at all. He was in the House on the 30th of March, when the Resolution of the Committee, on which the Bill purported to be founded, was brought up for Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up the Resolution, and then, on the Motion that the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, and while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was addressing the House, an hon. Member moved that the House be counted. The House was counted out, and the Resolution was never, as far as he recollected, adopted by the House at all. He was, therefore, very much surprised indeed to see that, in his Parliamentary Papers of the following day, the Resolution was given as passed, and that it was on the further question that leave be given to bring in the Bill the counting out took place. He referred to the newspapers, especially to The Times, and there he found that his recollection was perfectly borne out—namely, that it was on the question that the House agree to the Resolution of the Committee that the count out took place. If his recollection was right, and if the report in The Times was correct, the Resolution never reached the stage which would admit of the House being called upon now to read this Bill a second time; the report in The Times and his own recollection were entirely against the entry in the Votes and Proceedings. He did not think they had reached the second reading stage of the Bill at all.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought that the Resolution upon which this Bill was founded was not passed on the 30th of March. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The Resolution was passed; he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) moved it, and it was passed. On the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose, and during his remarks the House was counted out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had said that several things had occurred since the Resolution was passed on the 30th of March, and had asked what was to happen if the approval of the Convention was withheld by the French Chamber and the Austro-Hun-garian Legislature. As to the last point, he had no information; but as to the first, he might say that until the French Chamber assented to the Convention it would be impossible to raise the loan. But by the passing by this House of the Resolution authorizing the loan, and approving of the Convention, the credit of the Egyptian Government would be sufficient to enable that Government to borrow the amount necessary to make the requisite payments in April without violating the Law of Liquidation. It would not have been able to do that if the Resolution had been either postponed or rejected.

MR. RYLANDS

asked if he was right in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that until the French Chamber and the Austro-Hungarian House of Representatives had passed their respective measures in relation to the Convention, no steps would be taken to raise the money for which the House were now asked to pass this Bill?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he was not prepared to give a detailed statement on the subject; but it was clear that it would be impossible to raise the actual loan until the different Chambers had adopted their Acts.

MR. W. H. SMITH

asked, whether the Correspondence between the Government and the house of Messrs. Rothschild would be laid before the House?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

thought, the right hon. Gentleman had better give Notice of his question.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the credit of the Egyptian Government would be sufficient to enable that Government to borrow the necessary money. Hon. Members were well aware of the means by which the money was to be obtained. Last year money was obtained as the result of correspondence between the Government and the house of Messrs. Rothschild. He wished to know whether the Correspondence which had taken place on this occasion would be produced? It would be remembered that the Correspondence which passed last year was laid before the House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give Notice of the question.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his observations with regard to the nature of the Bill, because he had no wish to incur the anger of the Prime Minister. He thought it his duty, however, to say a word in respect to the way in which the Bill had been hurried through the House. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was under the impression that the Resolution which gave rise to the Bill was not passed on the 30th of March. He (Mr. Warton) was quite willing to accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Resolution was passed, and that it was on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill that the count out took place. He was not a little surprised, however, that very early the next day, Tuesday, when scarcely any hon. Members were present, and certainly before any of the Leaders of the Conservative Party had come down to the House, the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) should, with that agility and dexterity for which he was famous, walk up to the Chair, and move quietly that leave be given to bring in the Bill. The thing was done in a second of time, and the day appointed for the second reading. [Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR dissented.] The noble Lord might shake his head; but he certainly did the thing very skilfully. He (Mr. Warton) protested against today being fixed for the second reading of such an important Bill as the present. It had always been understood that the day on which the House re-assembled after the Easter Recess was one upon which they did not enter upon any very important Business. He hoped that the future stages of the Bill would not be taken as quickly as the previous stages. To-night, the second reading had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer without a word of explanation. That, in itself, was hardly respectful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire Sir R. Assheton Cross), a distinguished Member of the Conservative Party, who had evinced considerable interest in the measure.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he would like to ask what was the exact position they were in with regard to the proposed loan? It appeared to him that if they were to allow the Bill to be read a second time the position of affairs ought to be clearly defined. It was generally believed that the loan would be a joint one; but, as a matter of fact, Austro-Hungary had not yet given its assent, the French Chamber had postponed the consideration of the matter, and it was needless to point out that Russia was, to say the least, placed in a very delicate position with regard to ourselves in the guaranteeing of this loan. Before the House agreed to the second reading of the Bill, they ought to receive some information from the Government as to whether it was to be understood that the guarantee was really a joint and several one, and as to what position the English Government would be placed in in regard to the loan in the event of the joint and several guarantee failing.

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to remark that he also was present on the 30th of March, when the Egyptian Loan Vote was reached. He remembered perfectly the Motion upon which the House was counted out. He was quite at a loss to understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If leave had been given to bring in the Bill, it would have been necessary to state who were prepared to bring in the Bill, and certainly no such statement was made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I said there were two Motions—one agreeing to the Resolution, and the other for leave to bring in the Bill.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he was surprised that no Member of the Government had given any answer to the very pertinent question of his hon. Friend behind him (Baron Henry De Worms). He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) did not wish to anticipate by any remarks the discussion upon the question which would come forward on Thursday next; but he must point out that they were practically the guarantors of the loan, and, therefore, he could not conceive what advantage there could be in taking the guarantee of other countries. If Egypt could not repay the money, England, as a rich country, would be able to do; and assuming that Egypt was unable to redeem the loan—the possibility of which the right hon. Gentleman had intimated—England would, no doubt, have to do it. In view of the circumstance that we were taking the whole re- sponsibility upon ourselves, it seemed to him that the taking of other guarantees could only have the effect of involving the country in difficulties for no reason whatever. His object in rising was to express the hope that some Member of the Government—perhaps the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), or the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs— would return an answer to the question of his hon. Friend.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought they were a little anticipating the discussion of the question which would take place next Thursday, on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" but he would offer one or two remarks to the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) appeared to him to be a little inconsistent with himself on the present occasion; because he was one of those who protested against the Convention on the ground that it involved the joint and several guarantees of Foreign Powers. Now, he seemed to be complaining that this guarantee might not be effective, and that in that case this country would be solely responsible—an den which he had supposed the hon. Member and his Friends had in view. In reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), he thought that the answer which he expected had been anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had, in his (Mr. Chamberlain's) opinion, put clearly before the House the position in which they stood with regard to this matter. The Convention which the House was asked to agree to was a Convention for a Joint Guarantee of this loan; that Convention had to be confirmed by the Resolutions of the Parliaments of those countries which had Parliamentary institutions; and it was, of course, but reasonable for the Government to wait a proper time in order to allow those Parliaments to be consulted. In the meantime, no embarrassment could arise; because, on the faith of the Resolution of the House, the Egyptian Government could utilize its own credit at once. The hon. Member had put forward the supposition that, this matter having been referred to the several Parliaments, one or more of them should refuse to confirm the Agree- ment which this Government had made, and had asked what would then happen; but that was one of those hypothetical questions to which he did not think the Government ought to be called upon to say anything in reply.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

rose to ask Mr. Speaker whether leave could be obtained to introduce a Bill of a public character without Notice being placed upon the Paper? Since the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, with perfect correctness, that leave had been given to introduce the Bill on the 31st March, the day after that on which the House was counted out, he had looked into the Votes and Proceedings, and found that in the time occupied by Private Business, without there being any Notice upon the Notice Paper, or in the Orders of the Day, upon the Motion of someone, the question had been put from the Chair that leave be given to bring in the Bill. He asked whether it would not be in accordance with the Orders and established practice of the House of Commons that, when leave was applied for to bring in a Public Bill, there should be a Notice on the Notice Paper; whether it was in accordance with the usual custom to move for leave without Notice, and at an unusual time?

MR. SPEAKER

The course indicated by the hon. Gentleman is in Order. The Bill was brought in in accordance with a Resolution previously agreed to. Under those circumstances, no Notice was necessary. The Bill was based on a Resolution passed, and was brought in in accordance with the usual practice.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that the fact that other Powers might retire from the arrangement altogether changed the aspect of the question. The Bill did not say that England was to repay the money borrowed by Egypt; but assuming that, as would probably be the case, two or three Powers retired, would the country be satisfied with having to pay £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 for this purpose?

MR. TOMLINSON

drew attention to the fact that the Bill only empowered the Government to join in a guarantee with the other Powers named in Article VII. of the Protocol, and in accordance with the Articles of the Protocol set out in the Schedule. He referred to the fact that by a note attached to the Articles, but not forming one of them, the Russian Government had limited the share in the guarantee. He thought that consideration ought to be given to the question whether the Bill as framed would empower the Government to participate in a guarantee to which all the Powers named did not join on terms of equality.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.