EGYPT—THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL—RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 16 March 1888 vol 323 cc1492-537

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

, in rising to move the following Resolution:— That this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown, holding the Office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail in the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government as contrary to Constitutional usage and precedent, as liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home, and as calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with Foreign and friendly countries, said, he hoped that it would be unnecessary for him to disclaim any desire to treat it from a personal or even a Party point of view. The action which he ventured to criticize was so novel—it was admitted by the First Lord of the Treasury to be absolutely without precedent—and it would, if drawn into a precedent, involve such serious consequences that he hoped it might be discussed, as every Constitutional question ought to be discussed, in an impartial spirit. Before approaching it, however, he desired, having held the Office of Judge Advocate General for more than five years, and having a very decided opinion as to its duties, to dispel, if he could, some singular popular misconceptions which had grown up as to its character. There were some persons who believed that military law was like martial law—in other words, that it was no law at all. But every officer knew, and every lawyer ought to know, that that was an entire mistake—that, in fact, military law, though administered by different tribunals, was in reality more precisely denned than civil law, the fundamental distinction being, as he took it, that the Queen, who was the head and fountain of justice in both cases, in one case delegated the administration of the civil authority to the Judges of the land, and in the other case, that of military law, retained it herself as part of her Prerogative. But on the principle that the Queen could do no wrong it was necessary that she should have at her hand a Constitutional Adviser to counsel her on matters relating to military law. That Constitutional Adviser was the Judge Advocate General, who was responsible to the Sovereign on the one hand and to Parliament on the other for the due administration of military law, and who was, therefore, necessarily a Privy Councillor as well as a Member of the House of Commons, and had, he believed, the privilege, which no other Minister except the Prime Minister enjoyed, of asking for a personal interview with the Queen whenever his duties required it. He would merely add that anyone curious as to such matters would find the doctrine he had laid down stated almost in the same words in the 27th chapter of Clode's Military Forces of the Crown, the standard authority on the subject. Now it followed from this that the Judge Advocate General was not merely a Crown Advocate, like the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, but for all practical purposes a Judge; indeed, in his Letters Patent he was called a Judge— The Judge Marshal of all our Land Forces, both horse and foot"— and those Letters Patent contained this provision— And our express will and pleasure is that all officers and soldiers of our Land Forces obey him, the said Judge Marshal in that behalf constituted as aforesaid. When he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was Judge Advocate General the express point arose. He had set aside the conviction of a soldier, on the ground that the evidence did not support the finding. The Adjutant General disputed his ruling and insisted that the matter should be referred to the Law Officers. He replied that while he had the greatest respect for the opinion of the then Attorney General (Sir Henry James)—whom he did not now see in his place, and whose attendances at the House, he was sorry to say, were becoming, like angels' visits, few and far between—the matter was one for his (Mr. Osborne Morgan's) decision, and not for that of the Attorney General, and that it might as well be contended that a decision of the Queen's Bench should be referred for review to the Solicitor General of the day. He added that if such a course were taken, he should insist upon the matter being referred to the Cabinet, and that if the Cabinet decided against him, he should at once resign Office. He need hardly say that he heard no more of the matter, and that from that day to the day he resigned Office the judicial ruling of the Judge Advocate General on legal matters was never again questioned. He mentioned the matter for two reasons. First of all, that the Secretary of State for War, whose absence he also regretted, should understand what a grave Constitutional change he was seeking to introduce in abolishing this ancient Office and what grave consequences it might involve both to officers and soldiers, for at present the Judge Advocate General was the only man who stood between the soldier and an unjust or illegal convic- tion, and he could not help thinking, therefore, that it would be a bad day for the British soldier when that Office was abolished. But his other and principal reason for mentioning this was because he was always under the impression that the fact of his being a Judge disqualified the Judge Advocate General from taking private practice, it being a universal and most salutary rule of English jurisprudence that no Judge was allowed to practise at the Bar. As to the fact itself, there was until lately, he apprehended, no doubt. Indeed, it was admitted to the fullest extent by the First Lord of the Treasury, who said, in answer to a Question, that before 1885 there was no precedent of a Judge Advocate General practising in the Courts of Law, though he drew a distinction, which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) confessed he did not understand, between Courts of Law and Courts of Arbitration. There were at present two ex-Judge Advocate Generals in the House, who would, he hoped, if they took part in the debate, confirm this. He could only speak for himself. When he was made Judge Advocate General it was made a sine quâ non that he should retire from the Bar. He accordingly, at considerably personal sacrifice, returned all his briefs, and had never put on his wig and gown since. He might mention that at the time he had a conversation with the late Sir George Jessel, perhaps the highest authority on the subject, who treated the mere suggestion that the Judge Advocate General should practise as a barrister as something almost too absurd to be argued. When, therefore, the Prime Minister said, as he was reported to have done, that this controversy was of a legal character, and— That there was no harm in the present Judge Advocate General taking the business now in question, as well as other business, it being a well-understood rule that the Legal Advisers of the Crown are entitled to increase their business so long as it does not interfere with their official duties, he made, if he might venture to say so, a somewhat rash assertion, to say the least of it. But he was told that before the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the Government the benefit of his services, he made a special bargain with the Prime Minister that he should be allowed to retain his private practice, and he was told that he fortified himself by the opinions of several most distinguished lawyers, to which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was bound to defer, although he could not agree with them. He did not, therefore, rest his objection to the course taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman merely upon that high Constitutional ground, but upon another ground which he hoped would be intelligible to the House—namely, that "a man cannot serve two masters." A Minister did not get £2,000 a-year from the country for doing nothing, and the rule he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had stated applied equally to every Member of the Government, except, of course, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, who from their position were required to practise at the Bar. Did the present Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), one of the ablest advocates who ever practised at the Bar, or the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), who was Solicitor General for eight months, or the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket), who was Irish Solicitor General in a former Government, find time to practise at the Bar? Then, why should the Judge Advocate General do so? For he defied any man who attended during official hours in the Office of Judge Advocate General in Great George Street to find time for practice at the Bar. All he could say was that Mr. Mellor, who succeeded the present Judge Advocate General in 1886, told him, two days ago, that he found the duties of the Office combined with his Parliamentary work so onerous and exacting that he was virtually compelled to cease from private practice while he held Office. He knew that the Office had been called a sinecure. Of course any office might be made a sinecure, if its holder devolved its duties on his subordinates. It was not part of his case to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did that; he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) did not for a moment suggest it, remembering the able services rendered by him in his able Report on Woolwich Arsenal, which he was glad to acknowledge; but he must express his surprise that he had found time to go out for a lengthened period to an inaccessible country like Egypt, to so distant a place as Cairo—rather a singular mode, by the way, of "taking a holiday," when at any moment his presence might have been required in Westminster to decide a question involving the life or liberty of a British soldier, or the honour of a British officer. He should be the last man to cavil at a Minister taking a holiday; but when he held the Office and went away for a short holiday he always kept within call. But it was right that the House should know in what sense this Office was a sinecure. It revised all general and district courts martial, and occasionally regimental courts martial. All these were sent to him, except those in India, as well as some regimental courts martial. These courts martial in 1881 amounted to 7,474; in 1882, to 6,513; in 1883, to 6,026; in 1884, to 6,108; a total in four years of 26,121. No doubt, many of these cases were of the simplest description, but others, especially courts martial on officers, involved the most anxious attention and took him several days to decide. In 1881 he set aside wholly or partially 246 convictions, or about 4 per cent—not an inconsiderable percentage of injustice or illegality, especially if looked at from the point of view of those who were unjustly convicted. The total number of convictions set aside or modified between 1881 and 1885 was 746. But these courts martial did not constitute the whole work of the Office, which was greatly increased when in 1881, at the request of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), then Home Secretary, the Office took over the duties of Legal Adviser to the War Office, formerly performed by Mr. Clode, thus saving the country £1,600 a-year. He had made a calculation of the number of letters and opinions sent out from the Office when he held it, nearly all of which came under his personal notice, and found they averaged, not 100, as Mr. O'Dowd, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, was no doubt erroneously reported to have said, but 800 in one year. All that showed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of taking his holiday in Egypt, had remained at home he would have found plenty to do. But that was only a small part of his indictment. His case was that by going out to Egypt as a distinguished Member of the British Government, with the prestige and glamour with which the title of Her Ma- jesty's Judge Advocate General would necessarily impress the Egyptian mind, he got far better terms for his client than he could have done if he had gone out as a private individual. And even if that were denied, and he had no doubt it would be, the mere fact that he held a highly paid and important Ministerial post under the Queen ought ipso facto to have disqualified him from acting as the paid agent and advocate of a foreign Prince. True, the First Lord of the Treasury said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was counsel to Ismail before he was Judge Advocate General. What possible difference could that make? When a man had two conflicting duties thrust upon him, his duty was clear—he was bound to elect between the two, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was bound either to throw up his retainer, or to decline Office. But then they were told, further, that he did offer to place his resignation in Lord Salisbury's hands before going to Egypt, and that the resignation was not accepted—at least, that no reply was given to the offer. That might diminish the responsibility of the Judge Advocate General, but it seemed to increase that of the Prime Minister, for, rightly or wrongly, the impression had got firm hold of the public mind, both in England and Egypt, that Lord Salisbury, intending to abolish the Office, kept it alive in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to go out to Egypt as the Judge Advocate General of his Government. And he was bound to say that the language of Lord Salisbury gave colour to that conjecture, for he was reported to have said— The matter was practically settled, not by the Egyptian Government, but by the Egyptian Government acting through the medium of Sir Edgar Vincent. On the other hand, I believe it was really a great advantage to the country that Mr. Marriott was the counsel of the ex-Khedive, and it was fortunate that the interests of the ex-Khedive were committed to the charge of an Englishman. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could not dive into the mind of Lord Salisbury—God forbid that he should try. But he must be pardoned for saying that these words exhibited a most extraordinary confusion of thought. The Prime Minister had obviously confounded the duties of a counsel with the duties of an English Minister. The duty of a counsel, as every lawyer knew, was to do the very best he could for his client, even if he happened to be the very meanest criminal that ever stood at the bar of the Old Bailey. The duty of an English Minister was to do the very best he could for his country. He could understand the argument if right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out as the Emissary of Great Britain, as his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) lately went out to America on that great Mission for which he deserved so well of his country. But the Judge Advocate General did not go out to Egypt carrying the commission of the British Government in his pocket. He carried in his pocket the retainer of the ex-Khedive, Ismail Pasha. He did not go out as the Emissary of Great Britain. He went out as the advocate, the paid advocate, the highly-paid advocate, of Ismail Pasha. Now, what was our present position in Egypt? It was a very peculiar, a very delicate, and a very responsible one. We occupied the country with our forces, and for all practical purposes we governed it. At any rate, it was certain that the Egyptian Government would think twice before it resisted the pressure of Lord Salisbury's little finger. Surely, under these circumstances, it was clear that we ought to abstain not only from such pressure, but from all appearance of such pressure, except for the best possible reasons. Now, what kind of idea would an Egyptian Prime Minister be likely to form of the powers and jurisdiction of Her Britannic Majesty's Judge Advocate General. We had seen that the English Prime Minister had formed a very hazy idea of those powers; but what impression would the title make upon the Oriental mind? An Egyptian could hardly understand that—as was once said in that House—that functionary was neither an advocate, nor a Judge, nor a General. If he thought anything at all about it, he would probably surmise, on the principle of Omne ignotum pro magnifico, that he combined all three characters in himself—that he was an advocate to urge his client's claims, a Judge to decide them, and a General to enforce them—that being the Oriental idea of government. At any rate, one thing was plain—it was certain that when the Judge Advocate General made his ap- pearance in Cairo, the resistance of the Egyptian Government to Ismail's claims fell down like the walls of Jericho before the trumpet of Joshua. And now he came to the transaction itself. Now, of course, he was not behind the scenes. He had to get his information from sources open to everybody. Indeed, the matter was arranged in such a hole-and-corner way—so "squared," if he might make use of the term—that it was very difficult to get at the real facts; but there were hon. Friends to follow him in the debate, who know more of Egypt than he did, and who would supplement any deficiencies of which he might be guilty. One thing he must say; he did think it was rather hard that the Papers in the matter had not been laid before the House earlier, but had been kept to the last moment—in fact, he very much doubted whether, but for the persistence of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), they would have been laid before the House at all, or, at least, whether they would not have been sprung upon them in the course of the debate. He repeated that he did not think that quite fair; for he considered that when a man brought forward a Motion of that kind, he should have a few hours' notice of the documents on which the Government intended to found their case in reply. Was that a course worthy of the Government? Even now there were only five or six copies in the Library, and that fact necessarily placed the House at a considerable disadvantage. It was a mere accident that he saw the Correspondence at all, and he could only say that, having read the Papers, he found the case much worse than he had anticipated. They all knew who Ismail Pasha was. He was the deposed Sovereign of Egypt, and, to say the least, a Sovereign not deposed for his virtues. He did not like to speak against an absent man; but Ismail Pasha had an able advocate in the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton. Most Oriental Sovereigns in such a position were only too glad, to be able to escape with their heads on their shoulders; but Ismail Pasha was fortunate enough to get from the country he had misgoverned a Civil List amounting to £86,473 annually. According to those Papers, of that sum £40,000 was payable—he was quoting from The Times of the 10th February—to Ismail himself and his three wives and the remainder to his five sons and two daughters. The contention of Ismail, according to The Times, was that all those pensions were his, to be disposed of as he liked after his death. The contention of the Egyptian Government, on the other hand, was that upon the death of the recipient they fell into the general Civil List of the Kingdom. But the case was not put nearly so high by Sir Evelyn Baring, who, in his despatch of the 14th of February, says— The allowances were, no doubt, of a temporary character as regards those who were in actual enjoyment of them. The Khedive could, it is believed, from a strictly legal point of view, at any moment have revoked the allowances paid to Ismail Pasha or any other member of the family. But he could not have devoted the amount thus saved to the expenditure of the Administration. That was to say, he could have applied them in payment of his own Civil List, and could, to that extent, have relieved the burdens on the Egyptian Exchequer. It was important to note this, for it disposed of the main justification set up for the bargain made by the right hon. Gentleman. But it was further contended by the Egyptian Government—and this, though not mentioned in the official Papers, was really the strongest and most important part of the case—that they had a counter claim against Ismail, and that he, by his fraudulent conduct, had forfeited his pension altogether upon aground stated by The Times Correspondent in The Times of the 5th of January—namely, that Since the arrangement by which Ismail ceded his lands as a tardy and partial recompense for a misappropriation to a large amount of State funds to his personal use, there is some reason to believe, it is said, that other properties of considerable amount were substracted from that cession by means of their nominal transfer to third parties. It was alleged, in fact, that since his deposition he (Ismail) had received large sums for the sale of property, the cession of which to the State he evaded by means of fictitious registrations. Well, under those circumstances, it was not surprising that Ismail should have desired to commute these annual payments for a sum down. Independently of other considerations, a Turk at 58, with three wives, was not exactly what an insurance company would call a "first-class life." He accordingly pro- posed to the Egyptian Government that, in exchange for these annuities, they should pay him the very modest sum of £4,500,000 sterling. Now, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would do the right hon. and learned Gentleman the justice to say that he refused to lend himself to what Sir Evelyn Baring, in his despatch of February 14, had called "a preposterous claim;" but the claim which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did put forward was—if the Government would forgive him saying so—almost as preposterous. What he put forward was that Ismail Pasha and the members of his family should have their pensions, which were dependent, the House would understand, upon the will of the Khedive, commuted upon the basis of 20 years' purchase. That would give Ismail about £1,700,000. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman contended that £500,000 should be paid in satisfaction of an annuity of £20,000 claimed by Ismail on the death of his mother, but the right to which was altogether disputed by the Khedive. He also claimed £150,000 in consideration of the standing crops as well as three palaces—and putting the various items together, the sum actually demanded came to something a little short of £2,500,000. That would show what was the cost of the transactions to the Egyptian Government—that unfortunate sponge which it seemed that every needy adventurer had only to squeeze in order to get out of it what he liked. Well, this claim was presented to the Egyptian Government, but, it was hardly necessary to say, was, according to Sir Evelyn Baring, by them declared to be quite inadmissible. The Egyptian Government, according to The Times, offered to commute the pensions at 12 years' purchase; but it appeared from the Papers just published that the Judge Advocate General got the amount raised to 14 years' purchase—that was to say, Ismail got for himself, his younger sons, and daughters, Domain lands valued at £1,210,000, to be selected by himself, his own proporationte share being £560,400, with the option to the Princes to take £180,000 in cash. But, whereas two-thirds of the lands of the younger Princes were to be entailed on the recipients and their heirs, in the case of Ismail one-half was to be at his own absolute disposal. In addition to that, the Egyptian Government was to pay £100,000 in cash for the growing crops—£50,000 to Ismail and the rest to his family. But that was not all. Three palaces, one on the Bosphorus and two in Cairo, with the plate and furniture they contained, the whole stated in The Times of March 10 to have been valued by Ismail himself at £550,000, were ceded to him. Now, let the House look at the cost of this transaction to the Egyptians. First, the lands to be coded had to be cleared from mortgage, to the great advantage of the bondholders, who would be paid off at par. For that purpose a loan, as announced by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday, must be raised, the cost of which to Egypt was put by The Times Correspondent at £1,400,000. Of course, there would be some nice little pickings to be got out of the loan; but these pickings would, unfortunately, not go into the pockets of the Egyptians. He could not enter more fully into the matter. He would leave that to his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). Then there was the £100,000 cash, the three palaces, furniture, plate, &c. Talk of spoiling the Egyptians! But the most extraordinary thing was that Members of the House were now called upon, as in the case of Warren Hastings, to admire the moderation of the ex-Khedive and his advisers, and Sir Evelyn Baring actually went the length of saying that—" The great advantage of the present arrangement to the Egyptian Government is that it will relieve them from the necessity of administering Domain lands to the value of more than £1,000,000. Why, a man who robbed another man of his estate might as well say that he relieved him of the necessity of keeping an agent. But Sir Evelyn Baring went on to say that the cession of three palaces was rather advantageous than otherwise to the Egyptian Government, because they cost so much to build; and then he wound up with a magnificent peroration about the ability, fairness, and moderation displayed by Sir Edgar Vincent and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But he thought the House ought, in fairness, to hear the pæan pronounced over the right hon. and learned Gentleman by The Times Correspondent, who said— The one man who never lost hope was Mr. Marriott. If he could not command success, he was determined to deserve it. It is a pity that professional etiquette should seal his lips as to the circumstances of a negotiation, the details of which would make an interesting chapter in legal history. What he does fully admit is the consummate ability with which Sir Edgar Vincent conducted the negotiations on behalf of the Egyptian Government, and the unvarying tact and good sense with which Sir Evelyn Baring played the part of 'honest broker.' It is not difficult to see why the arrangement has been accepted with equal satisfaction by all parties, or why Mr. Marriott should be blessed both in his outgoing from Cairo and in his incoming to Constantinople. Nor is it necessary to seek for any explanation of the effusive cordiality and good will which apparently prevailed between the recent disputants. It is sufficient to pray that it may last and survive the cash payments. If I were tempted to look ahead I should be inclined to prophesy that within a not remote period about £496,000 of the Domain lands will again be in the market, and that some years later a question will arise as to the probability of making some further provision for indigent descendants of Ismail. But 'sufficient unto the day is both the good and the evil thereof.' Poor Egyptians! They had not even now got rid of this Old Man of the Sea. But now let him read to the House a short paragraph from another newspaper, which he had reason to believe represented the opinion of a considerable number of persons in Egypt, and which gave a very different account of the impression left by the transaction. [A MINISTER: What paper?] It was from The Egyptian Messenger, and it said— With or without reason, the Egyptian Government believed that Mr. Marriott was the mouthpiece of Lord Salisbury, and terms were offered which would never have been offered but for that. Ismail was told that in satisfaction of all claims, the Egyptian Government would commute his civil list at 12 years' purchase. But Mr. Marriott has driven a still better bargain.… Once more—let us hope for the last time—Ismail has spoiled the Egyptians; but it is not pleasant to remember that he has done so with the aid of the British Judge Advocate General, and presumably, therefore, with the concurrence of the British Government. That impression might be right or wrong, but there it was and there it would remain. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) might be able to show that his Colleague failed to obtain for his client his full pound of flesh, and that the terms which he obtained fell short of those which, by greater persistence in his advocacy, he might have exacted. If he did, it would not weaken his case. In these cases, they must look not only to what was actually done, but to the impression made on the popular mind. Meantime, he would not pay the Judge Advocate General the very bad compliment of suggesting that he did not do the very best he could for his client. He did not blame him for that—as an honest advocate he could do no less. But what he did blame him for was for doing that which no man had a right to do—for accepting an equivocal position, for going out to Egypt in a double capacity, and for using—it might be unintentionally, it might be even unconsciously—his position as a Minister of the Queen in order to further the pecuniary interest of his personal client. It was that action which, he asked the House to condemn upon the three grounds stated in his Resolution. That it was without precedent, had been already admitted by the Leader of the House; that it had been and was liable to grave misconstruction, he hoped he had shown; that, if followed on future occasions, it would lead to serious complications, it would, he thought, be a waste of words to contend. In any case, he should wait with some interest to see whether in the course of this debate a single Member of this House, be he Conservative, Liberal, or Liberal Unionist, would rise in his place and declare that this whole transaction formed a fitting precedent for the conduct of any man who, by his position, was necessarily charged with the duty of maintaining the high interests of the British Empire and the spotless honour of the British Crown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown, holding the office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail in the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government, as contrary to Constitutional usage and precedent, as liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home, and as calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with Foreign and friendly countries,"—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MARRIOTT) (Brighton)

said, that personally he had nothing to take exception to in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). If the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had taken the course which ordinary men in his position might be expected to take, the House would probably not have been troubled with much that that speech contained. The right hon. and learned Gentleman belonged to the same Profession as he did—he was his Predecessor in the Office of Judge Advocate General—and he had had the honour of his acquaintance for something like 15 or 20 years; and most men in that position, before they proposed a Vote of censure, would have gone to the Minister against whom that Vote was directed and have asked for information with regard to the circumstances of the case. Since his return from Egypt, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not addressed one word to him. He had seen the right hon. and. learned Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, and had noticed him now and then casting an eye upon him something like the eye that a boa constrictor in the Zoological Gardens casts on the rabbit he is about to devour That was all the communication they had had. However, he did not find fault with the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing forward this Motion; on the contrary, he thanked him with all sincerity, because, that Motion being founded on an entire delusion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had afforded him an opportunity of stating to the House, and through the House to the country, the circumstances under which he acted for the ex-Khedive—Ismail Pasha—and of also stating what were the real facts of the settlement effected. The right hon. and. learned Gentleman went into two matters. He first of all discussed the position of the Judge Advocate General, and certainly he greatly magnified the Office. That Office had been attacked on several occasions within the last few years. His right hon. and learned Friend was himself Judge Advocate General in 1885, when a Motion on the subject was brought forward by Colonel Alexander, and a great disinclination was then manifested on the part of the House to pay the salary of £2,000 a-year attached to the Office. It was illustrative of the strong Party feeling in the House that the attack came from the Conservative, and not the Radical Benches. The great advocate of economy, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who was now busily taking notes, did not say a word against the Office and the salary then, nor did a much regretted Member of the House—the late Mr. Peter Rylands, who was a most ardent economist, almost more rigid than the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, however, took part in that debate. He made a long speech, at the end of which he said— He thought he had shown that the Office of the Judge Advocate General was not a sinecure; but that it was one in which a vast amount of work was carried on."—(3 Hansard [297] 1883.) And the impression conveyed to the House was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as Judge Advocate General, had a vast amount of work to do. He (Mr. Marriott) had made Inquiries, and he found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attendance at the Office was excellent. He came down about 11 o'clock, or half-past 11 o'clock, and remained till 4 o'clock, when the House sat. But he had also made inquiries from which it appeared that there was in his time about the same amount of work that there was now, if anything rather less. He had not yet had an opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee on Civil Service Establishments; but he had offered to give evidence, and he might yet be called. He did not think he would be guilty of any breach of privilege if he explained that when he became Judge Advocate General in 1885 he found there a Deputy Judge Advocate General who was a lawyer, and two Deputy Judge Advocates General who were military men. The first received in all £1,000 a-year, and the two latter £700 a-year each. They were also there in the time of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The work of the two Deputy Judge Advocates General amounted to two or three hours a-day, and of the other Deputy Judge Advocate General about an hour, or an hour and a half, and occasionally to two hours. He thought the Office was over-manned, and when a vacancy occurred in the Office of the military Judge Advocates General he declined to fill it up, and thus £700 a-year was saved. The work which had been done by three was now done by two, which gave them about four hours a day each, which, as Public Offices went, was, a fair amount of work. The amount of work required of the Judge Advocate General was hardly ever more than one hour's work a day. When last year the Office was attacked he admitted at once that there was room for great economy, and, as a matter of fact, he placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister, and explained that he had no desire to stand in the way of any change that might be considered desirable by the War Office. There were some curious coincidences in regard to the holding of this Office. He was first offered it in 1885, and soon afterwards the Ministry went out. He was again offered it in 1886, and he accepted it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was first offered the Office in 1880, and he held it until 1885. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was offered that Office again in 1886, but he did not take it; he took instead what some might consider the inferior Office of Under Secretary for the Colonies. And why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not then take the Office of Judge Advocate General? He (Mr. Marriott) took it because he had much greater faith in his constituents than the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in his. In consequence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's not having taken the Office it was given to a very able lawyer at the Common Law Bar, who was the leader of his Circuit and had a large practice, and who, but for his political opinions, he should be glad to see again in that House. Mr. Mellor became Judge Advocate General in the Liberal Government. Now, by some coincidence, Mr. Mellor had written a letter which appeared in that very day's papers in regard to the Office of Judge Advocate General. In that letter Mr. Mellor said that some time ago the opinion of the Attorney and the Solicitor General was taken on that question as to the Judge Advocate General, and they were of opinion that the holder of that Office was not a Judge. The first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Judge Advocate General was a Judge, and his nest that, being a Judge, he should not go to Egypt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had protested, against the Judge Advocate General practising. Now, when the Office was offered to him (Mr. Marriott) in 1885 by Lord Salisbury, he at once said that he could take it only on one condition. He was not in the happy position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not see the good of giving up his practice at the Bar for an Office which he might only hold for a few weeks or months. Well, Mr. Mellor became Judge Advocate General and Lord Herschell was Lord Chancellor, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was Prime Minister. Mr. Mellor continued to practise at the Bar as he had done. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head. He retired from his Circuit; but it often happened that when a gentleman at the Bar had got a large practice and some other gentleman wanted it, the moment he got an official position his comrades gave him a dinner, which was a sort of hint that he was not to come there again. But he had seen Mr. Mellor's name as practising in the Divorce Court and other Courts during and since the time when he was Judge Advocate General. The present Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Chancellor, the present Attorney and Solicitor General, and he presumed the late Attorney and Solicitor General also, were all in favour of the Judge Advocate General continuing to practise at the Bar; and, therefore, he (Mr. Marriott) did not think it presumptuous to put their combined authority against that of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite, although he happened to have been Judge Advocate General. Therefore it might, he thought, be taken for granted that the Judge Advocate General was allowed to practise at the Bar. Turning now to the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend, it said— That this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown, holding the office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail. He (Mr. Marriott) presumed that by "advocate" his right hon. and learned Friend meant "counsel." Now, as a matter of fact, he did not as Judge Advocate General accept any retainer from the ex-Khedive. When he was made Judge Advocate General he was his counsel. His right hon. and learned Friend admitted that he had stipulated, when appointed Judge Advocate General, that he should carry on his private practice; and among his clients was that very terrible man Ismail Pasha. There was no stipulation that the ex-Khedive should be excluded from the number of his clients. There was no acceptance on his part as Judge Advocate General of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive, and therefore the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was inaccurate as to the facts. Then the Amendment went on to say— In the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government. He presumed that his right hon. and learned Friend there referred to what he did when he went to Cairo both in October and at Christmas last. Now, he did not go to Egypt to prosecute a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government. As his right hon. and learned Friend had gone into the claim of Ismail Pasha, he was bound more or less to follow him, but he would do so as briefly as possible. It was in the month either of March or February, 1885, that he was first retained to act for the ex-Khedive. At that time he was not only not in Office, but there was no prospect of the Conservative Party coming into Office in that year. At that time what was this claim? In 1878 a certain loan was raised in Egypt called the Domain Loan. On that occasion not only the Khedive Ismail but all the members of his family gave up every inch of land that belonged to them in Egypt. They gave up something over 450,000 acres of land for the security of that loan. They gave it up of their own free will, and the loan of £8,500,000 was raised on that property. In return for that a sum was to be allocated for the Khedive Ismail's family The sum fixed upon was £360,000 a- year. A certain amount of that sum was to be paid to the reigning Khedive and certain other amounts were to be paid to the different members of the family. At the same time a document was given to each of the members of the family, and he would invite the attention of the House to the words of that document, the date of which was October, 1878. The words were— Each of those members is to receive during his or her life a pension which shall be appropriated to him or her; and after his or her death this pension will continue to be paid to his or her family, children, and grandchildren, and so on, for ever. That land was given up; Egypt had the benefit of it, and also the loan; and in return for that sacrifice every member of the family was told that, whatever was his or her pension, they should enjoy it, and after their death their children, grandchildren, and their descendants for over should enjoy it also. It was what he had no doubt the hon. Member for Northampton would object to—a perpetual pension so long as there was a lineal descendant left. On the 24th of June, 1879, some nine months after the document that he had quoted was promulgated, Ismail Pasha ceased to be Khedive of Egypt. On the 1st of July a Decree was promulgated which gave certain moneys out of this £360,000 to him, to the reigning Khedive £80,000 a-year, to the three Princesses £36,000 a-year, and other sums to other people. The words of the Decree were— To be paid per annum, and which will be paid to you regularly by the Government, and will be transmitted in ordinary succession to your children and grandchildren and descendants for ever. When that Decree was promulgated Ismail was not on the throne, and yet the Council in their decree used the very same words that were used in the document promulgated when the land was given up in 1878. In 1880 the Law of Liquidation was passed. That law, no doubt, made very great changes, but the first charge of £360,000 was not altered in the least, and it had been decided over and over again by the Law Officers that none of that money could go to the Stats, as it had been set aside under an international guarantee for the members of the Khedivial family. But in 1880 the allowances paid to the Khedivial house were reduced. Instead of £50,000 only £40,000 was allowed, and the £36,000 for the Princesses was wiped out. Therefore, in 1880 and the following years, Ismail Pasha received £46,000 less than the sum allowed him by the Council. The action which he brought in 1883 was to recover the accumulated difference between the allowances granted in 1880 and those decreed in 1879. The action also had reference to the palaces, which had been confiscated and their contents, and to the money which had been spent by him and his family on the seed which had been handed over to the State in 1878. The case was supported by the opinions of the present Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) and of the late Attorney General—the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell)—who both advised that the claims were well founded. These were the claims which were put before him (Mr. Marriott) in March, 1885, when he advised that, whatever were the legal rights of Ismail Pasha, it would be absolutely impossible to get the money from the Egyptian Government, and that the revenues of Egypt could not bear any extra burden. The advice was taken; but in 1886 an incident occurred which revived the old claims to a certain extent. Among the sums allocated was one of £20,000 a-year to the Grand Princess, the mother of Ismail Pasha, and when she died this sum ought to have gone to him. It was, however, distributed among the different members of his family by the present Khedive, the contention of the advisers of the present Khedive being that he had an absolute right to dispose of the £360,000 which had been appropriated to the Khedivial family. This advice placed Ismail Pasha and every member of his family absolutely at the mercy of the present Khedive in respect of pecuniary matters. The question was submitted to him, and he advised that three arbitrators should be appointed—Lord Selborne, Lord Bramwell, and Lord Herschell; and Ismail Pasha pledged himself to pay the costs of the arbitration and to abide by the result. Correspondence was carried on for some time, and in August last the Egyptian Government decided that it would not do to have an arbitration presided over by an English Judge. He then saw his client, who asked whe- tber he would conduct the case in the Egyptian Courts—the mixed Courts—and he declined absolutely. The fact that he (Mr. Marriot) held the post of Judge Advocate General at the time influenced him in some degree to refuse, but he also took into consideration the fact that the only languages spoken in the Courts were French and Italian, and that his accent in expressing himself in those languages might be disadvantageous to the interests of his client. He might say, in passing, that the ex-Khedive expressed his horror at the prospect of seeing the whole family disputing in a Court of Law as to the distribution of a sum which it was admitted belonged to them. His right hon. and learned Friend had charged the Prime Minister with knowledge of his visit to Egypt, but he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) certainly did not know that he was going to that country, and he did not believe that any Member of the Ministry knew it. He certainly did not ask the permission of the Prime Minister. Having informed the ex-Khedive that he would not act as his counsel, he offered to represent him as agent or arbitrator on the understanding that his appointment would be acceptable to all the members of the family. After Parliament had risen in September he travelled to Italy and Greece, and then to Egypt. This case had been going on more or less for five years, and he was told that those who were concerned would be only too glad of a settlement, no was asked to stay then, but he could not. He only took his allotted holiday, and he was back in London in November. Up to the 22nd of December he was within call every day at his Office in Great George Street to transact the very important business to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had referred. He did not know what the practice was on the other side of the House; whether right hon. Gentlemen there—when they were in Office—asked leave of the Prime Minister to go abroad, but on his side they did not, because they had more freedom and had that faith in the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister had in them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian shook his head, and he was glad to see that the custom was the same on the other side of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he went out, not as Mr. Marriott, but as Judge Advocate General, and he asked what could awe the people of Egypt more than those three terrible words when they heard them. This was the whole basis of the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Egyptians were frightened, not at the name of the Judge Advocate General, but at the three names combined. He had no doubt that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out himself he would have awed them. As a matter of fact the name had not the slightest effect. He only saw two individuals in this case, and they were Sir Evelyn Baring and Sir Edgar Vincent. Sir Evelyn Baring was a genuine Liberal, but he was a man of such strength of will that nobody—not even the Judge Advocate General—could awe him. Then, with regard to Sir Edgar Vincent. He had known many Chancellors of the Exchequer and many Secretaries of the Treasury, and he was aware how difficult it was to screw a farthing or a halfpenny out of them for anything; but he knew of no Chancellor of the Exchequer who was so firm in this direction as Sir Edgar Vincent. That gentleman had been a perfect guardian of the finances of Egypt, and he would only ask the House to look at the finances of Egypt when Sir Edgar Vincent went to that country and then to consider what they were now. Sir Edgar Vincent was an Egyptian Minister, and he had been a most careful Chancellor of the Exchequer. No Egyptian could have guarded the Egyptian finances better than he had done. Those were the two gentlemen whom he had to overawe. He might have tried, but he was sure that he did not succeed, and he did not think that he tried. It was true that he asked for 20 years' purchase; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman—if he had good ground rents in the City or a property which he thought was his own and which descended to his children—would, no doubt, have asked 25 years' purchase. That would have been the period in an ordinary compensation case; but there were reasons why 20 or 40 or 60 years' were not given. They were obliged to be content with 14 years, and the loan was fixed, not at 5 per cent, but at 4½ per cent, by the Egyptian Government, showing how good the security was. The arrangement made was the best which he with his feeble powers could bring about. He acted for the best and not against the Egyptian Government, and he quoted the evidence of the parties who were really interested as against that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Khedive himself, in his own name and in the name of all the members of his family, thanked him (Mr. Marriott) for having made an arrangement which prevented them from appearing as a public spectacle in the Law Courts. Ismail Pasha also gave him his thanks in an equally warm and hearty manner. He valued those thanks because they came from the parties who knew the circumstances, and he thought it would be seen that the Amendment was founded absolutely on a misconception of the facts.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, he thought that the best proof that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in going out to Egypt in any kind of capacity was the speech he had just made from the Front Bench as a Minister of the Crown. That speech had shown that he went there absolutely as the professional advocate of Ismail Pasha. It was a scandal that the Judge Advocate General should have undertaken this business. He did not think that it was necessary to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman into the discussion of the duties of the Judge Advocate General. He would simply state that he moved a reduction of the salary attached to the Office when he discovered how little the holder of the Office did for the money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Judge Advocate proposed that the Office of Deputy Judge Advocate General, of the value of £700 a-year, should be abolished, but that he himself should keep his salary of £2,000. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that, after the debate on this matter, he offered his resignation to Lord Salisbury. Were they to be humbugged by these offers of resignation which were never accepted? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt that he was occupying a sinecure, as was shown by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and had no right to the £2,000, he should not merely have offered his resignation but should have insisted upon Lord Salisbury accepting it. He looked upon the Judge Advocate General as a sort of odd man in the Government who was sent to address meetings, and he fancied that that was how the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought he was earning his salary. In his opinion, the blame for allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go to Egypt and the blame for not accepting his resignation should rest upon Lord Salisbury. He presumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman received a fee not for acting as arbitrator but for taking the side of the Khedive. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not receive the fee after he was Judge Advocate? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, he did not accept a retainer from the ex-Khedive after he was Judge Advocate General. But he did not receive a fee from the ex-Khedive after he accepted the Office? [Cries of "No!"] Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny it.

MR. MARRIOTT

said, the question of fees was a serious matter, but as a matter of fact he did not accept the retainer while he held the Office of Judge Advocate General; he had accepted it long before.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that they who were not lawyers considered that they had not got a fee until they had it in their pockets. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was playing on the difference between a general retainer and a particular fee. Practically, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that while he had the retainer before he accepted Office he received a special fee for a particular service rendered while he was Judge Advocate General. Whether the claim upon the Egyptian Government was hostile or not depended upon its character. So far from the annuities being perpetual and hereditary, Sir Evelyn Baring spoke of them as allowances of a temporary character; and the assumption that there could be no reduction of them was disposed of by the fact that they had been twice reduced already; while a further renunciation, such as had been made by the present Khedive, would I have meant a great saving to the Egyp- tian Exchequer. The sum of £1,400,000 would not be borrowed at 4½ per cent; it would have to be raised at 5 or 5½ per cent; for this was not a preferential loan, nor was it a loan with, a special hypothecation, and in all probability it would cost 6 per cent. That would be £84,000 per annum; but even at less than that it was an exceedingly bad bargain. Fresh burdens had been imposed upon the Egyptian taxpayers this year; they were no longer allowed to cultivate tobacco without paying a heavy tax; and this tax raised an additional £100,000. The last despatch of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff told us that the burdens on the Egpytian people were excessive, and that there would never be peace and quiet in the country until those burdens were reduced. Far from making this heavy perpetual charge on the country we ought to have reduced the heavy charges for the Khedivial family. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the ex-Khedive's 480,000 acres which he had given up; but they were simply stolen from the Egyptian people, and Ismail was going to receive £1,400,000 as an allowance for giving up this stolen property, and a debtor and creditor account between the Khedive and the Egyptian people would show a balance in their favour. But apart from all these questions, he protested against the right hon. and learned Gentleman going out as a paid advocate. It was known that he was a Member of the British Administration, and that if he insisted upon the Egyptian people being bled they would be bled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not see an Egyptian Minister. Precisely, and that was what was complained of. He saw Sir Evelyn Baring and Sir E. Vincent; and they arranged between them this little plan of taking from the Egyptian people the sum of £1,400,000. It was a scandal that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have gone out for such a purpose. Lord Salisbury must have known it; but certainly if he did not know it at the time, he ought since to have instructed the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of coming to the House of Commons to brag of the part he had played in Egypt, to humbly apologize for what he had done, so that it might be understood that no Judge Advocate General or Minister of the Crown would ever make such a gross mistake again.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N. E.)

said, he did not wish to enter into the personal questions raised in this debate; but the House would probably think that something should be said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and especially of the Foreign Office, which was largely concerned in the affairs of Egypt. First, with regard to the Papers, some copies of which had been that day placed in the Library, it had been said it was unfair to keep back the correspondence from the introducer of such a Motion as this. Undoubtedly, had a Notice been given touching the character and merits of the settlement which had been arrived at on the ex-Khedive's claim, the complaints made would have been pertinent; but it never occurred to him that they were pertinent to the Motion of which Notice had been given, which had exclusive reference to the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown of duties of a professional character. The Motion was indirectly a censure upon Her Majesty's Government for allowing him to do so; and there was no hint of any intention to discuss the character of the settlement. There had been no withholding of Papers, and the last despatches that had been published had not been long received. The point to I which he would first ask attention was the position of the Judge Advocate General in this matter as it affected Her Majesty's Government. It had been stated that he retained his liberty to practise, and that this liberty was enjoyed by his immediate Predecessor. It was hardly necessary for the House to consider the convenience of that arrangement; it had not been stated that the public interests had suffered from the enjoyment of this liberty by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his Predecessors. The circumstances of the present case were unique. Such a thing had certainly never happened before, and in all probability it would never happen again. Before his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Marriott) took Office, he held a commission on the part of the ex-Khedive Ismail. Her Majesty's Government; had altogether declined to enter into any controversy arising out of the claims of the ex-Khedive against the Government of Egypt, which had, fortunately, very competent advisers, and the arrangement which had been come to had been a very successful one. It must be recollected that the claims of the ex-Khedive concerned other countries besides ourselves, and that many delicate and dangerous points might have arisen if those claims had been allowed to come into court, or before a mixed tribunal. The terms which were agreed upon had not imposed any fresh burden upon Egypt. He had prepared a short table which he believed would make the terms agreed upon intelligible to the House. He was aware that the claims of the ex-Khedive were manifestly excessive; but at the same time there was some foundation for them. The original claim for the value of crops on the Domain lands when given up was £364,000, in respect of which £100,000 had been allowed. For arrears of allowances, £1,050,000 had been claimed, in respect of which nothing had been allowed. For palaces and lands adjoining them, £3,030,000 had been claimed, in respect of which one palace with, its precincts at Constantinople and two palace in Egypt without the adjoining lands had been allowed. With respect to the latter, he might observe that the cost of maintaining these palaces exceeded their actual value. The result of the arrangement was that £4,500,000 of claims had been extinguished by the payment of £100,000 and the cession of three palaces which were worthless to the Egyptian Government. In addition to this the ex-Khedive and certain members of his family enjoyed yearly allowances to the amount of about £300,000. Of this sum necessarily paid to the ex-Khedive and the Princes and Princesses concerned, £36,500 had been capitalized and commuted into a grant of Domain lands at a probable future cost to the Egyptian Government of from £65,000 to £70,000 per annum, thus effecting a yearly saving of from between £15,000 to £20,000. It would be seen from these figures that there need be no fear that any increased taxation would be thrown upon Egypt in respect of the arrangement that had been entered into. As to the propriety of the arrangement having been brought about by the Judge Advocate General, that was a matter of opinion; but he thought that the House would think that in the circumstances of the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman was justified in the course which, he had taken. The course which had been pursued was, under the circumstances, exceptional, and he might admit that primâ facie it was not desirable. That the results had been eminently successful, he thought, could not be denied. It was due to his right hon. and learned Friend to say that in his conduct of the affair he had advantages which probably no other gentleman would have had. [Ironical Opposition Cheers]. Hon. Members were pleased to think that that was ambiguous—[Cries of "Not at all!"]—but it might be taken in this way, that he was able to give advice to his client which would be accepted as that of hardly any other man would not have been. He did not think it was any imputation upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman if his professional standing and good advice induced the ex-Khedive to accept terms which were favourable to Egypt and reasonable in. themselves, and calculated to avoid the evils which a dangerous and protracted litigation might produce; and this being so, he thought he might leave the case in the hands of the House.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, there could not be a doubt in the mind of any hon. Member that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Marriott) was in a much better position to give advice than anybody else who went out on behalf of the ex-Khedive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not only in a position to give advice to his client in the sense the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) had just mentioned, but he was in a position to give advice to the Government of Egypt which no other official personage would have been able to give. What was the main fact connected with this transaction, and which nobody in the course of the debate had attempted to explain away or deny? It was that these claims had been pressed upon the Egyptian Government through five long years, and that the ex-Khedive, Ismail Pasha, had not succeeded in getting a single shilling from the Government of Egypt until a Member of the present Conservative Ministry went out to Egypt. It was then that a ransom of £1,400,000 was paid by the people of Egypt, a ransom which even the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) admits that primâ facie it would be desirable they were not obliged to pay. Any person who took the trouble to follow the Papers relating to Egyptian affairs would bear him out when he said that this was not a proper claim, that it wag not a just claim, and that it was not a legal claim against the people of Egypt, and that the reason why, after five years' fruitless endeavour, the ex-Khedive had eagerly grasped at one-fifth of his demand was the reason stated by Sir Evelyn Baring in the Memorandum which they had dragged out of the Government to-day—namely, that the best legal authorities had advised the Egyptian Government that there was not the remotest danger of any tribunal in Egypt giving a judgment against the Government. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General wasted the time of the House by treating it with what seemed to him (Mr. Dillon) to be very unseemly and unsuitable jokes about the Judge Advocate General impressing and browbeating the people of Egypt, he did not in the least improve his position, but, on the contrary, made his position in the face of the House and the country very much worse. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he went out to Egypt not as the counsel of the ex-Khedive, but as his agent—agent was the word used. They had, therefore, this condition of things, and no amount of argument, however plausible, would displace it from the minds of the people of England, that here was a claim enforced by every kind of pressure against the Government of Egypt for five years, here was a claim which during those five years the ex-Khedive and his counsel never dared to bring into the Courts of Egypt, because the counsel could not speak Italian or French. He thought there was probably some other reason besides his want of knowledge of the French and Italian languages, which induced the right hon. and learned Gentleman to advise his client to hesitate before bringing his claim before a Court of Law. The fact could not be displaced from the minds of the people of England that the claimant dare not bring his claim before the Courts of Law, that for five years he was unsuccessful in enforcing it, and that he was given £1,400,000; but not until he had succeeded in paying a Minister of the Crown of England to act as his agent in Egypt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) did not attempt to deny that he took a large fee for his pains. No one in this country knew how large the fee was. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman was receiving £2,000 a-year from the taxpayers of Great Britain, he took a large fee for acting as the agent, not the counsel, of a foreign Prince, and for enforcing the claims of that Prince upon the people of Egypt, and enforcing them successfully. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be in a very jocose and frank humour. It would be very interesting, and certainly germane to the subject, if he took the people of England into his confidence as to the exact amount of his fee. The right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) who spoke on behalf of the Government, said that the Government had always scrupulously abstained from interfering in this matter, or from interfering with Egyptian finance at all. Such a statement might pass muster with hon. Members who took no interest in Egyptian affairs, but it certainly would not with those who took the trouble to read the Egyptian papers. He was perfectly astounded at the courage of the right hon. Baronet in making such a statement. He assorted that in the face of the Papers laid before the House he was entitled to say, in reply to the right hon. Baronet, that no single move was made in Egyptian finance that was not laid before the Foreign Office in London, and approved or disapproved of by that Department. The English Government had planted in Egypt Sir Evelyn Baring, who overrode the Egyptian Ministry on every occasion on which his judgment went contrary to theirs, and who was responsible to the English Foreign Office. An attempt bad been made to persuade Members of the House of Commons that this arrangement was a good arrangement for the people of Egypt. He regretted exceedingly that the time given for the discussion of these complicated affairs of Egyptian finance was so short that it was absolutely impossible for anyone to bring the matter with fulness before the House. As the time allowed to them was so short he would as briefly as he possibly could endeavour to let hon. Members understand that not only had this claim, which he believed was a bogus and unjust and illegal claim, been enforced through the agency of a Minister of the Crown, but that it was a claim which would weigh heavily upon the people of Egypt; that so far from the arrangement being a gain to the people it was a great loss, and that in two ways. The figures were so jumbled up in the Despatches that it required a considerable degree of care to understand how the problem was worked out; but he understood that at the present moment the family of the Khedive, Tewfik Pasha, had a Civil List of £300,000, out of which he allowed £86,000 to the ex-Khedive. Ismail Pasha, and that the payment of that £86,000 he could, according to the best authorities, stop any moment; but such was the law of Egypt that he could not, supposing he stopped it, surrender the money for the Civil uses of the Government of Egypt; it must remain part of the Civil List of himself and family. As he (Mr. Dillon) understood the operation of the arrangement under consideration, the claim of Ismail Pasha was to be bought off by a present to him of £1,210,000 worth of the lands of the Domain, and by an additional grant to him of £100,000 in regard to property on his lands when he surrendered his estates. This £1,310,000 would have to come from the Domain lands, and a loan would have to be raised in order to redeem from the loan which now covered it that portion of the Domain which was to be given to Ismail Pasha. What would be the result? They would have this fresh burden thrown on the Government of Egypt. They would set free £65,000 of the Civil List, but it would not be available for civil government, but would be hypothecated and kept by the law on the Civil List of the present Khedive. Therefore, he could not see at all how it could be shown that the whole of this burden would not fall on the unfortunate taxpayers of Egypt, and that the whole of the interest on the loan which would have to be raised would not have to be put on the shoulders of the taxpayers in the shape of extra taxation. He objected to this arrangement because it would be made the pretext and excuse for raising another Egyptian loan, and they had noticed that whenever there was to be a loan, raised in Egypt they were told that the finances of Egypt were in a most flourishing condition. The next thing they heard, after receiving such an assurance, was that £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 was going to be raised on loan. Would hon. Members notice this fact, that the whole of the operation of redeeming the claim of the ex-Khedive was covered by £1,310,000. He saw it stated in The Times newspaper that the amount of the new loan was fixed at £2,400,000. What was the balance between that sum and £1,310,000 to be devoted to? Yesterday, he asked the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) whether the House would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the loan before it was issued, and the reply he got was that the issue of the loan was no business of Her Majesty's Government. He should like to know whether Sir Evelyn Baring would not be consulted before the loan was issued? He objected to this transaction for three reasons; firstly, because a Minister of the Crown had been paid by the ex-Khedive to procure for him the admission of a claim which he utterly failed to procure through the means of any other agent; secondly, that the admission of that claim would throw an additional burden on already overburdened taxpayers of Egypt; and, thirdly, because the arrangement had been made the excuse for the raising of another Egyptian loan. They never yet heard of an Egyptian loan which did not swell in the hands of the operators. As soon as there was a question of a loan, every department of the administration in that country discovered that there were small arrears and little sums left over from past years which required to be met, and the consequence was that a larger loan than originally contemplated was raised. He maintained that this operation was iniquitous, both in its inception and in the way it was carried out. It would increase the burdens upon the taxpayers of Egypt, and at a time when they were told that Egyptian finances were in a condition of thorough soundness it gave an excuse for another resort to the miserable system of borrowing money.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, he should hardly have intervened in the debate but for the extraordinary observations of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). A more mis- taken idea of either the original or the present position of the matter could not possibly be conceived. In the most emphatic language the hon. Member declared this to be an entirely bogus claim of the ex-Khedive, and that he never was able to exact one penny of it until he had obtained a paid agent from the Government. If these were the sentiments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should hope some hon. Member who had been responsible for the government of Egypt would endorse them. So far from this being a bogus claim, as a matter of fact, the ex-Khedive and the members of his family were receiving £112,000 per annum out of a total sum of £300,000 called the Civil List. Nobody had ever suggested that any part of that £300,000 could go to the taxpayers of Egypt, or could go otherwise than to the family of either Ismail or Tewfik. His right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General had quoted the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and the present Lord Chancellor when at the Bar, to the effect that there was no doubt that that £300,000 was solely a charge applicable to the members of the Khedivial family, and therefore the position was this—whatever might be the merits of the case—that Ismail Pasha and the members of the Khedivial family were in receipt of £112,000 per annum. So far from its being a bogus claim, right hon. Gentle men opposite knew perfectly well that to their knowledge that money was being paid. About the beginning or some time in the year 1887 the mother died, and there arose the question of £20,000 beyond the £112,000, and the claim then made was this. The ex-Khedive said— According to my rights, that,£20,000 should come to me, not as a mere distribution of the £112,000, hut in addition to the £112,000; but Tewfik said he had a right to decide to whom that £20,000 should go. It was true that there had been reductions in the actual amount paid to Ismail Pasha, but those reductions had afforded no saving whatever to the Egyptian people. He wanted to know what was the good of the hon. Member for East Mayo talking about this as a bogus claim. This £40,000 had been regularly paid, and the Egyptian Government would only have been able to say that somebody other than Ismail Pasha was entitled to receive it.

MR. DILLON

explained that the bogus claim he spoke of was the claim of the civil Government of Egypt to redeem a payment which had been made by Tewfik Pasha of his own free will.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, nobody had over suggested that Ismail Pasha had not a claim upon this fund. The only question was between him and Tewfik and other members of the family as to whether he should receive a larger payment than he had received in the past. So far from it being possible to suggest that this bargain was a bad one, the result showed that there was a saving of £20,000 or £30,000 a-year to Egyptian finance by reason of this arrangement which had been made. If the hon. Member for East Mayo would read the Papers he would find that, whereas there had been previously a total payment of £300,000 per annum to Towfik and to the other members of the Khedivial family, out of which £112,000 wont to Ismail Pasha and the members of the family other than Tewfik, this settlement relieved the £300,000 from the payment of £80,000 per annum. The position was this—that the £300,000 was practically reduced to £200,000, and that the benefit would ultimately come to the Egyptian taxpayer. For 14 years' purchase a perpetual annuity of £86,000 had been redeemed. It was true that the hon. Member for East Mayo drew a distinction between the capitalized value of this and the annual payment, but for the purposes of the Egyptian revenue that made no difference. In a very few years there would be a relief in aid of the taxes of Egypt. He thought he was justified in pointing out how little this matter had to do with the Vote of Censure which had been brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). He agreed with the Judge Advocate General that before a member of his own profession made such a charge he might have had the common fairness to ascertain what the real facts were. To the speeches of the Members for Northampton and East Mayo it was necessary for the Government to reply in order that the misleading statements in regard to the settlement might not be allowed to go uncontradicted. He did not suppose that anybody on the Front Opposition Bench or in any part of the House would suggest that his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General had not stated truthfully the position of the matter. Speaking as the holder of the Office which he had the honour to fill, he was as jealous as anybody could be of the principle that nobody who had to advise Her Majesty's Government or who represented Her Majesty's Government, should appear in the position of an advocate for anybody who was supposed to be acting against Her Majesty's Government. After the House had heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, which had been known to many of them, and which might have been known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire, if he had thought fit to make inquiries, what was the position? It was quite clear that Ismail Pasha had made very extravagant claims; it was quite clear, and it was not disputed on the other side of the House, that before 1886 Ismail Pasha had availed himself of the advice of the Judge Advocate General with regard to these claims. It was not true that Sir Evelyn Baring had ever said that there was no chance of such claims being enforced. What Sir Evelyn Baring had said was— If he obtained a decision in favour of his claims—a result of which the highest legal authorities declare that there is no danger, but which, in the proverbial uncertainty of legal matters, must be taken into consideration—a complete financial breakdown must inevitably ensue. The hon. Member for East Mayo had not completed the quotation. It must be remembered that they were not dealing with the arbitration of Lord Herschell, Lord Br am well, or Lord Selborne, which Ismail Pasha was prepared to accept but which the Egyptian Government were not prepared to accept; they were dealing with mixed tribunals, and would any one in that House have the courage to say that there was certainty as to the result of these claims? He did not think that anyone who had any experience of Egyptian affairs would suggest that for a moment. The claim for £5,000,000 was an extravagant claim; but having regard to the fact that the share which Ismail Pasha and his relatives would get out of the £300,000 amounted to £112,000, nobody could seriously suggest that 14 years' purchase was not a most advantageous settlement for the people who had to pay. But there was another matter. It had been suggested that when a gentleman filling the position of Judge Advocate General, whose duties were not directly or indirectly connected with Egypt, who knew no more about Egypt than any other Member of the House of Commons or of Her Majesty's Government, but who happened to be able to have influence over Ismail Pasha, wag allowed to advise him in connection with the question of what was a just settlement of his claim, that was some breach of his duty as Judge Advocate General. For his own part, he asserted that not only had there been nothing inconsistent with the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that it was right and proper that he should continue to advise Ismail Pasha as to the settlement he could fairly make. But there was another position to be considered—one of the alternatives of this dispute, which, was not denied by any one on those Benches. The arbitration of Lord Herschell, Lord Selborne, and Lord Bramwell had been offered by Ismail Pasha. Did any one suggest that, presuming that that arbitration had been held, and had taken place in this country, there would have been anything inconsistent in the Judge Advocate General then appearing as counsel for Ismail Pasha because the question was a claim against the Egyptian Government? He was certain that any right hon. Gentleman opposite who was prepared to approve the Egyptian Government submitting to that arbibration would have been only too glad to know that Ismail Pasha's claims were to be represented and urged by a leading member of the Bar, though he was Judge Advocate General. The position of things was this—the right hon. and learned Gentleman had previously advised Ismail Pasha; claims were being made, and it was little wonder that the Egyptian Government were only too glad to know that Ismail Pasha's claims were to be adjusted by a man of prudence and position, and that there would be none of the ordinary incidents of the conduct of litigation in the mixed tribunals, with all its risks and uncertainties. This Motion had been urged upon the ground that some utterly improper position had been assumed by the Judge Advocate General with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; and it had been suggested, without a shadow of foundation, that the position of Judge Advocate General had been allowed to be made use of for the purpose of advocating the claims of Ismail Pasha. Those suggestions were made without one fact to substantiate them. Whether or not it had been a prudent thing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to engage in this matter, from his own personal point of view was another matter; but that he was thoroughly justified in continuing to advise Ismail Pasha—whose adviser he had been long before he had been in Office—as to what was a fair settlement with the Egyptian Government, he thought nobody could deny. That settlement had resulted in a bonâ fide gain to the Egyptian people. Nothing could alter this fact—that a claim of £86,000 in perpetuity had been reduced to 14 years' purchase. He asked the House, as this Motion was a direct Vote of Censure, to come to the conclusion that, whether with reference to the conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, or with regard to anything which had been referred to, nothing had been done directly or indirectly on behalf of Her Majesty's Government which they had the least cause to be ashamed of or to withdraw.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said, the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) seemed to have made the case, from the point of view of the Government, a great deal worse than it was before he spoke. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson), with that diplomatic fact and experience which he was known to possess, felt he had a bad case, and desired to apologize for the conduct of the Government on the ground that the circumstances were very exceptional and peculiar. The right hon. Baronet said the circumstances were unique and would not occur again. If the Government had chosen to leave the matter there the House might perhaps have asked the Government to have given them an explicit assurance that they would never so act again, and they might have been satisfied with such an assurance. But the Attorney-General, as if he were arguing a case before a common jury, must needs try to brazen the matter out and endeavour to justify the conduct of the Government and of the Judge Advocate General. The Attorney General said that no one would deny that the Judge Advocate General was perfectly justified in advising Ismail Pasha. They did deny it on the Opposition side of the House. They denied it because the position the right hon. Gentleman occupied towards Ismail Pasha was absolutely incompatible with the position he occupied as a Minister of the Crown. The Attorney General spoke of the merits of the settlement; but that was not the question before the House, and he (Mr. Bryce) did not intend to debate it. The Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was— That this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown holding the Office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail in the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government as contrary to Constitutional usage and precedent, as liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home, and as calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with foreign and friendly countries.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan).

MR. BRYCE

said, he was present and heard the whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He had been present during the whole of the debate, and he thought that when the Attorney General rose he would have felt it his duty to address himself directly to the terms of the Resolution before the House. He (Mr. Bryce) asked the House to consider whether the phrases in the Motion were borne out. He maintained that the action of the Judge Advocate General was contrary to Constitutional usage. No precedent for it had been cited. They had challenged the Government to point to any case like it, but the Government had been unable to do so. No case like it could be quoted. It was a strong thing for a Member of the Government to undertake any work whatever except the work he undertook to do for Her Majesty. There was an exception made in the case of the Attorney General and of the Soli- citor General, and the Judge Advocate General had tried to ride off, and so had the Attorney General, by calling this a case of practice. It was not a case of practice. When a Law Officer was allowed to retain his practice he was allowed to appear before the Courts of his own country. But what had the Judge Advocate General done? He had gone out, not as the counsel—the Judge Advocate General admitted that he did not go as counsel—but as the confidential paid agent or Attorney of the ex-Khedive Ismail, receiving a fee, the amount of which he had not stated, but which, from his silence, they knew must have been a very large one. It was an exceptional thing that a Member of the Government should undertake practice. It certainly was an unheard of thing for a Member of the Government to undertake legal business against a foreign Power. He would like to be told of any case whatever in which a Member of Her Majesty's Government had been allowed to practice in the Courts of a foreign country, still more to practice in Courts of a foreign country against the Government of that country. But the case went further than that. The Judge Advocate General had not merely acted against a foreign Government, but against a foreign Government which was practically dependent upon our Government—against the Government of a country whose territory we were occupying and which we were advising, and which took no important stop of any kind without the consent of Her Majesty's Government. He could not conceive any case in which it was more desirable to scrupulously guard against any action of this kind than the present case. Now the motion of his right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that the action of the Judge Advocate General was "liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home." Had the Government denied that? He (Mr. Bryce) happened to be in Cairo at the time the news of the Judge Advocate General's coming arrived, and he remembered the universal feeling of surprise and astonishment among official Egyptians and the upper classes in Cairo generally with which the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's mission was regarded. There was no secret about the matter at all. If any Member of the House referred to the telegrams of The Times correspon- dent, which appeared in the The Times of the 5th of January, and which represented the first impressions of the matter on the part of the Egyptians, he would see that his (Mr. Bryce's) words were fully borne out. He himself was asked with amazement by Ministers in Egypt whether it was true that a Member of Her Majesty's Government was coming out to prosecute this claim against them. He had no doubt in the world that the Judge Advocate General, when he came out, made it his business to explain that he was not officially representing Her Majesty's Government. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that clear to the Ministers of the Khedive, but what must the outside public, the people of Egypt, have thought of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mission? They saw that a deported tyrant, whose memory was detested, and deserved to be detested, was represented by a Member of Her Majesty's Government in an attempt to got more money out of the country he had oppressed and plundered. They did not know what particular office the representative held, and they did not know what a Judge Advocate General was; but they knew that he was a Member of the Government of England, and they naturally inferred that in coming out, he came to support the views of Her Majesty's Government. They knew there were many advocates in England—Queen's Counsel and others—who would be glad to come out and press the claim of Ismail Pasha for half the fee the right hon. and learned Gentleman received, and they asked why was the right hon. and learned Gentleman chosen unless it was because he was a Member of Her Majesty's Government. His right hon. and learned Friend's Motion also declared that the Judge Advocate General's action was— Calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with foreign and friendly countries. He agreed that this was so, and for the very reason that it was the Constitutional practice of Her Majesty's Government in all its intercourse with foreign Powers to be represented by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by him only. He defied the Government to produce a ease in which the Government of England had allowed any one of its Members to go out to make representa- tions to a Foreign Power except under the guidance of the Foreign Office. They were told that Lord Salisbury did not interfere with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mission. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Forgusson) had said he thought it would be very undesirable that Her Majesty's Government should mix itself up in matters of this kind. He (Mr. Bryce) entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be very undesirable for the Government to do that, but they maintained that by allowing the Judge Advocate General to go out to Egypt the Government did mix themselves up in the case. It was impossible for the Government to wash their hands of responsibility in this matter. What was to be gained—what object was there—in allowing a Member of the Government to proceed to Egypt on this errand? It was a wanton breach of usage and propriety on the part of the Government. He did not make this a personal charge against the Judge Advocate General, though he thought that a man more sensitively delicate than the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not, perhaps, have undertaken the duty. If Her Majesty's Government, in whose hands the guardianship, the honour of the country, and the character of the Executive rested, chose to do exceptional and improper things, he did not greatly blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for doing what the Government allowed him to do. It was the Government they blamed. It was the Government they asked the House to censure, he did not enter at all into the question whether this was a favourable settlement or not; but he was bound to say a good deal had been advanced to show it was a highly favourable settlement for Ismail, considering what the previous character and conduct of the ex-Khedive had been. Indeed, he recommended anyone who had a more than doubtful claim to prosecute to employ the Judge Advocate General. He recommended the Irish landlords, for instance, to employ the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Why should Ismail Pasha be treated with special indulgence? Why should he have any compensation at all? As a matter of fact, he was very fortunate in being allowed to leave Egypt with such an extravagant Civil List. If he (Mr. Bryce) were to draw the House aside from the main issue, he thought he could meet the contention of the hon. and learned Attorney General with regard to the merits of the settlement; and could show that the settlement was unfair to the people of Egypt; but he did not desire to do that. He was willing to assume for the purpose of argument that the settlement was a proper one; but what he asked the House to do was to assert that nothing of this kind should happen again, and to warn the Government that they could not with impunity allow themselves to be doubly represented at Foreign Courts, and to appear to exercise an unfair and coercive influence over a dependent Power.

SIR GEORGE ELLIOTT (Monmouth)

said, he would not detain the House more than a very few moments. He had listened to the whole of the debate, and he could not refrain from making one or two observations. He had recently visited Egypt; since, indeed, the business under review was concluded; and he had had an opportunity of seeing and conversing with all the parties concerned in the negotiations—the Khedive, Tewfik Pasha; Sir Edgar Vincent, Sir Evelyn Baring, and several of the Native Pashas. Without desiring to enter into the complicated question as to whether it was right or wrong that the settlement arrived at ought to have been come to, he felt he ought to inform the House that, so far as he could judge, the people of Egypt were well satisfied with what was done. He was not clever enough to enter into the argument as to whether the settlement was a just one or not, but possibly if he had had any hand in the negotiations, the arrangements would have been a little different. [Cheers.] He never liked to be cheered by hon. Members opposite, but, after all, that was all he had to say upon the subject.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, that if he understood the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) aright, the right hon. Baronet suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Marriott) had not directly communicated with the Egyptian Minister, had not made the claim a matter of argument with the Egyptian Minister himself, but had done what he had done through Sir Edgar Vincent and Sir Evelyn Baring.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

No, I said quite the reverse. I said that Her Majesty's Government had declined to interfere in the matter at all, and had said that if the claim was to be preferred, it must be preferred by the ex-Khedive to the Egyptian Government.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, he was sorry if he had misunderstood the right hon. Baronet. He certainly understood that that was the contention of the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General himself. What was clear from the Papers was—

MR. MARRIOTT

My contention was that I had only dealings with Sir Edgar Vincent, who is an Egyptian Minister. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Finance Minister of Egypt, and has acted very well in the interest of Egypt.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say now that such arguments as he addressed were addressed to Sir Edgar Vincent. The Papers showed that not to be correct.

MR. MARRIOTT

It is absolutely true.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, that unfortunately the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote differently, for he wrote to Nubar Pasha—"Faisant suite à notre conversation."

MR. MARRIOTT

Nubar Pasha is one of the Ministry. Sir Edgar Vincent is one of the same Ministry. They meet in council, and when I talked to Sir Edgar Vincent I presumed I talked to the whole Ministry.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, that that did not correctly represent the statement in the Papers. It was clear from the Papers he held in his hand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General made a larger claim on behalf of the ex-Khedive to the Egyptian Ministry than the Egyptian Ministry were disposed to accept. It was dear from the Papers that the claim was urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as advocate for Ismail Pasha upon Nubar Pasha personally. [Mr. Marriott dissented.] Then it was clear the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote what he did not mean. It was clear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that their conversation did not mean conversation with the man with whom they talked, but meant conversation with someone else. There were negotiations with Nubar Pasha quite separate from the negotiations with Sir Edgar Vincent. He would show that the statement of the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General was incorrect. In Sir Evelyn Baring's despatch to the Marquess of Salisbury it was said that at the commencement of the present year the Judge Advocate General arrived in Egypt charged by Ismail Pasha and other members of the ex-Khedivial family to arrange a settlement of their claims against the Egyptian Government, and Sir Evelyn Baring added that this claim put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman differed very considerably from the preposterous claim hitherto advanced by Ismail Pasha and his family. Sir Evelyn Baring went on to say that— Mr. Marriott's proposed settlement of the claim was presented to the Egyptian Government and was declared by them to be quite inadmissible; and then he spoke of the negotiations which took place between Sir Edgar Vincent and the Judge Advocate General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his own letter, dated the 23rd of January, addressed to Nubar Pasha, and replied to by Nubar Pasha separately, referred expressly to the conversation he had had with Nubar Pasha himself. All he (Mr. Bradlaugh) could say was that he knew English, and that when he was in Prance he fancied he knew French. If what he read in the Papers did not mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General talked personally to Nubar Pasha on the subject and discussed the claim with him, the language had no meaning whatever. The right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General did not say in his letter, "referring to the negotiations with your Government," he did not say—"referring to the representations made by me to Sir Edgar Vincent," but he said "faisant suite à notre conversation" and that could only mean that he had had a conversation with Nubar Pasha. Contradictions were valueless in face of the record in writing of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote for it, and by his vote mean— That in the opinion of this House no Member of Her Majesty's Government ought to have acted as the Advocate of a dethroned Prince presenting a claim to a Government which had been rejected by that Government; that especially in view of the position in which we stand towards Egypt no Member of Her Majesty's Government ought, even as a labour of love, still less for personal gain, to have gone behind the backs of the public and of the Ministry to prefer such a claim as this. He should vote for the Amendment for the purpose of showing to the world that there was, at any rate, one man who repudiated the notion of English authority being used by the lips of a Minister to give credence to a claim—not a claim for £86,000, as it was asserted to be by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), but a most preposterous claim, a claim, reduced it was true, but still of a high amount, rejected for years by the Egyptian Government, and only allowed at last in consequence of the moral pressure of English authority.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 218: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 43.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave withdrawn.

Committee upon Monday next.