§ Resolutions [19th March] reported.
- (1.) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
- (2.) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, in aid of the Local cost of maintainance of Pauper Lunatics in England and Wales."
- (3.) "That a sum, not exceeding £10,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, for certain Advances to be made in Aid of the Emigration and Colonization of Crofters and Cottars of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including Expenses of Administration."
- (4.) "That a sum, not exceeding £39,766, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, as a Grant in aid of Completing the Adjustment of Accounts between the British and Egyptian Governments."
- (5.) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending an the 31st day of March, 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
- (6.) "That a sum, not exceeding £10,970 14s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for
324 Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1888, viz:—
| CLASS III. | |||
| £ | s | d | |
| County Courts | 10,426 | 18 | 8 |
| County Court Officers, &c. Ireland | 336 | 12 | 6 |
| CLASS IV. | |||
| Queen's Colleges, Ireland | 207 | 3 | 0 |
| Total | £10,970 | 14 | 2" |
§ First and second Resolutions agreed to.
§ Third Resolution read a second time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)I only wish to say, in reference to what was announced last night by the Government in relation to crofter emigration, that, having carefully read and digested that statement, I have no doubt whatever that, as the result of the mixing up the question of crofter emigration with the general question of emigration from congested districts of Great Britain, this important and special question, in which Scotch Members are interested, will certainly be lost sight of. It is a problem not easy of solution. It is hard to say whether the remedy lies in emigration, migration, or something else; but it is a very difficult and delicate question, and it has excited the deepest interest in Scotland. I do hope the Government will reconsider the matter, and tell us that they will direct a special inquiry into emigration as affecting the congested districts in the Highlands. The matter was left in an uncertain state last night. The Government will not continue the remedy they have been applying; but at the same time there is no prospect, within measurable time, that we shall have, as the result of inquiry, the elucidation of this special phase of the subject. I do hope the Government will grant a special 325 inquiry that shall include migration, and every means by which admitted distress may be alleviated. The Lord Advocate has alluded to some of the special difficulties; but I understand there is a desire all over the Highlands to get rid of sheep farms, and it is by no means improbable that some means might be discovered by which the land might be rented by the crofter population, instead of having recourse to emigration only.
MR. R. C. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)I am not one of those who believe that emigration should be checked; rather I think it will be necessary; but I must say a word of warning on the special circumstances under which the Government scheme has been applied. It is being applied under circumstances that make it decidedly unpopular, and I much fear that the question of continuing a system of State-aided emigration may be retarded, or may not be so successfully undertaken in the future, because of the scheme carried through at great expense, and which, from the number of families assisted, has done very little good in the districts where applied.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Fourth Resolution read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ *SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL) (Kirkcaldy, &c.I must claim the indulgence of the House. [Interruptions.] Hon. Members should direct their displeasure against Her Majesty's Government, because this vote was taken under circumstances when, I believe, scarcely a Member of the Committee knew exactly upon what he was being called upon to vote. It is not fair that an important matter of this kind, involving an important principle and considerable expense, should have been smuggled through, as it was, after midnight. [Interruptions.] Hon. Members may cry "Oh, oh!" but 326 I am entitled to speak, and feel it my duty to do so. If the hour is inconvenient I am not to blame for that. The Government took the unusual course of putting down Report subsequent to Committee of Supply, and so prevented discussion at an earlier hour. Therefore, however unwilling I am to detain hon. Members, I am driven to it by the course the Government have adopted. This is a most important matter of policy as affecting the taxpayers of this country. [Interruptions.] Hon. Members who interrupt me will only cause me to detain the House rather longer. This is the only time when I can bring the matter forward. It is proposed to lay on the taxpayers of this country a burden of £39,766, in round figures, £40,000. I am not one of those who have joined in any personal attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to his connection with Egyptian affairs. I rather thought that his earlier connection with Egypt, personal rather than official, made him rather more careful that comparative justice should be done as between Egypt and the taxpayers of this country. I am surprised, therefore, that in this particular matter, and for reasons that do not appear, the right hon. Gentleman should propose to put this burden upon the country. The Chancellor spoke as if this were merely a question of settlement of accounts, but I deny that; I say it is a gift to the Egyptian Exchequer to secure the credit of the Egyptian Government, and enable them to pay the bond holders. I have been lately in Egypt, and I have had an opportunity of making inquiries. The money in question—this £39,000 odd—is not merely a debt owing by the Egyptian Government, but money on deposit in the Egyptian Caisse, not touched by the Egyptian Government but held as deposit, and the question now is whether the money is to be paid back to its true owners, the taxpayers 327 of this country, or to be made a present to Egypt. That is the question to be settled by this Vote. It may be said it is only a paltry £40,000, and that may be a paltry sum as compared with the millions expended on warlike operations in Egypt and the Soudan, but it is not insignificant when we compare it with the money grudgingly given to the assistance of crofters and others who have the misfortune to be white and our own countrymen. The Government will not attempt any scheme of migration for fear of the possible loss on advances by bad debts, on an advance say of £100,000 or£200,000 for the purchase of farms and stock, a loss that would be less than this £40,000 that it is now proposed to make a gift to the Egyptian Government. I think, therefore, I am entitled to lay this matter before the House. I have often said that we have done great injuries to Egypt, and if this were for the benefit of Egypt I should not be prepared to resist it. If it were left to the Egyptian people I should not resist it; but in my view it is a gift to the bondholders to enable their interest to be paid in full. We sent eminent representatives on several occasions to look into the finances of Egypt, Lord Dufferin, Lord Northbrook, Sir Drummond Wolff, and they all came to the conclusion that the taxpayers were overburdened and it was impossible to tax them further. By continued effort and after long negotiations the question was reduced to figures, and the Powers consented to a reduction in the payment on bonds for two years. Five per cent was deducted from the bonds due to foreign holders for interest, and I do not know on what principle ten per cent was deducted from the Suez Canal payments due to the British Government. This was done in pursuance of the policy resulting from a minute investigation of Egyptian finance made by a succession of English Ministers. The pre sent Egyptian financial adviser, Sir 328 Edgar Vincent, against whom I say nothing, took a different view; he adopted the French view as distinguished from the English view. He was of opinion that Egypt could pay her bondholders in full if only she were made to pay, and he proceeded partly by good management and partly by taxation to substantiate his opinion. He has succeeded by reorganization of finance and management to a considerable extent, and partly by taxation. The land revenue has not been remitted; the railway rates, which were declared too high, are increased; the taxes on waterways, declared wholly unjustifiable, are also increased; and a heavy tax has been imposed on tobacco. The result seems to me that he has gone in a direction entirely contrary to the policy of the Government. Instead of the money deducted from the foreign claims being devoted to the relief of the people of Egypt, as was intended, it has gone into the pockets of bondholders. The deductions are being paid back, but now it is proposed that our taxpayers shall not have the benefit with others, that this country shall not get its money back, it shall go in aid of the finances of Egypt. The truth of the matter is, Sir Edgar Vincent having now come to a bad year, in which he has a financial deficit and put to his wits' end to find money here and there to secure his financial equilibrium, has hit upon the idea of applying to Her Majesty's Government for this gift of £40,000. Now, it does seem to me there is no reason why the taxpayers of this country should make this gift, not for the benefit of the people of Egypt, but to secure payment in full to the bondholders. If we are to pay it, there is one thing I do especially object to, and that is that payment should be made on what seems to me the preposterous pretext that it is a set-off against payments of the Egyp- 329 tian Government in respect to the Nile Expedition of 1882. We have heard much about this Nile Expedition. This country has undertaken expeditions at greet expenditure to relieve Egyptian officers and soldiers cooped up in the Soudan. Having undertaken this Egyptian object for the benefit of Egyptians we were called upon to pay for every assistance offered by the Egyptian Government in fighting battles for that Government, treated almost as hardly as the Imperial troops are treated by our own Colonists when we go to fight Colonial battles. Having paid demands year after year, the Egyptian Government now make this posthumous claim, as I may call it. Two or three years ago Her Majesty's Government, having looked into the matter, agreed to pay a very large sum—nearly £300,000—to Egypt on account of this Nile Expedition, and, somewhat irregularly, paid her from a Vote of Credit; the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that to be a final settlement; and I think it is a breach of faith to come now with this pretext. I must express my surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer lends himself to such an operation. If an excuse were wanted, there was Suakin offered a much better one. If Suakin is British interest, or rather a British fad, I am bound to say I might have had difficulty in resisting a demand on account of Suakin. I do not want to detain the House. Do not let me be misunderstood. I recognize the good the present financial adviser of Egypt has done in some respects; but there is the fact that he has gone counter to the advice of the British statesmen who have examined Egyptian finance, and I protest against this Vote.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 67.—(Division List No. 36.)
§ Fifth Resolution agreed to.
§ Sixth Resolution read a second time.
330§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. T. M. HEALY) (Longford, N.I think we were treated in a most unfair way last night in relation to this Vote. I know it was only pressure of public duty that compelled the Government to do as they did, and I do not complain of it, but it must be borne in mind that the entire evening had been given to Scotch affairs, and that this Vote was sprung upon us at a late hour in the morning, and closured before anything like an adequate debate had taken place with regard to it. As far as we are concerned, we should be satisfied if we had had anything like an adequate reply from the Government. That we did not receive, but for to-day, as we know, Sir, that you and the officers of the House are anxious to get away, we will not continue our opposition to the Vote if the Government will treat us with anything like fairness. We ask that we may have papers relating to this matter placed on the Table—the correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Government, and, if there is any, between the magistrates included in this Vote and the Lord Lieutenant, and between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Secretary to the Treasury. Our case is that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland being a Member of the House of Lords should have had no knowledge whatever of the action of the Public Accounts Committee, and that the Lord Chancellor, as Lord Chancellor, should have had no knowledge of the decision of the Lord Lieutenant, because we are informed that the Privy Council take no action in advising the Lord Lieutenant, but act merely in ratification of the decisions of the Irish Law Officers. What I want to get at is, how the Lord Chancellor of Ireland came to be made aware that it was the intention of the Government to cancel the 331 appointments as Resident Magistrates, and how it was that the Lord Lieutenant was got to make these men Justices of the Peace. I find on referring to authorities that the Lord Lieutenant before issuing the Commission of the Peace sends out a form to be filled up, and that one of the inquiries in that form is as to the amount of land possessed by the person about to be appointed. That shows that it was always supposed to be the law that Justices of the Peace should be persons of property. The Goverment have unmade these men Resident Magistrates, and, in order to give them a salary which could not be legally paid to them as Resident Magistrates, they are created Justices of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor, who is an Irish Judge, and is not supposed to be in touch with the Executive Government at all. The Lord Chancellor has an office at Dublin Castle—a practice instituted during Earl Spencer's régime, I am aware—but we nevertheless hold it to be unconstitutional that this judical functionary should be so closely associated with the Executive.
§ *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I should be delighted in any way in my power to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter. I think there has been some misapprehension of the relations of the Lord Chancellor and the functionaries in question, whose duties are not judicial. That there is any correspondence such as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned I very much doubt; but I will ascertain in the morning, and if there is, unless there should be some objection which I do not foresee, I shall be glad to place it on the Table.
§ MR. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.I am at a loss to know how the functions of these gentlemen can be described if they cannot be called judicial. I 332 would ask, amongst the other informa-given to us on this subject, that we should be furnished with a Return showing the precedents which can be cited for attaching a salary out of the public purse to the office of Justice of the Peace; also a Return showing the qualifications of these gentlemen, and the dates on which they became Justices of the Peace and ceased to be Resident Magistrates.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)If the hon. Member will move for these Returns I will do my best to supply the information he desires.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWe will rely on the faith of the Government and accept that promise.
§ Resolution agreed to.