Commons Sitting of 21 July 1876

MINUTES.
New Member Sworn—Francis O'Beirne, esquire, for the County of Leitrim.
Public Bills—First Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bath, &c.)* [264].
Second Reading—Bishopric of Truro [185]; Legal Practitioners* [43] [House counted out].
Committee—Elementary Education [155]—R.p.
Committee—Report—Ardglass Harbour (re-comm.) [200]; Erne Lough and River (re-comm.) [187]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Cardiff) * [243]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* [251].
Third Reading—Exhausted Parish Lands* [252]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation* [241], and passed.
The House being met at Two of the clock, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, on account of indisposition:—Whereupon Mr. Raikes, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker, and after Prayers counted the House, and, Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNITED STATES—THE INDIAN WAR.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If Her Majesty's Government can render any information with regard to the conflict waged between the United States Government and the Sioux tribe of Indians, many of which tribe are subjects of Her Majesty; whether the origin of the conflict has not been a breach of Treaty as regards reserves of land and subsidies, which may probably provoke widespread antagonism between the Indian and white races both in the United States and British territory; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to offer any good offices in the interests of the Indian subjects of Her Majesty and of humanity?
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, that no information had so far been received by Her Majesty's Government respecting this conflict; he was equally unable to give any information as to what the possible consequences might be; nor had any information yet been received which tended to show that any subjects of Her Majesty forming part of the tribe in question were connected with the conflict. As at present advised, there was no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in any way to interfere in the matter.

TURKEY—ALLEGED ATROCITIES IN BULGARIA.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Secretary to the British Embassy at Constantinople has been sent to Bulgaria, and what is the object of his mission?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that on the 17th of the month Sir Henry Elliot was directed to send a member of his Embassy to assist Vice Consul Dupuis in inquiring into the alleged atrocities in Bulgaria, and Her Majesty's Government had heard that Mr. Baring, one of the Secretaries, had been sent upon the mission.

EGYPT—COURT OF SUMMARY JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RALLIasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement which appeared in the newspapers on Thursday evening is true—namely—
  "That, the Egyptian Government refusing to permit the execution of the judgment pronounced against them, Mr. Hachmann, the President of the Court of Summary Justice, declared in open court this morning that he would refuse to accept any actions whatever, and that he now closes the court."
  MR. BOURKE: The Government, Sir, has received no official information on the subject whatever.

ARMY MOBILIZATION—THE SECOND ARMY CORPS—THE IRISH MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. C. BROWN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in pursuance of private Notice, Whether he will state to the House what has been the conduct of the North Cork, the South Cork, and Galway Regiments of Militia, now in camp at Aldershot, and respecting which some disparaging statements have appeared in The Times newspaper?
  Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for asking a Question upon the subject, as it happens that a good deal has been said about it, and a great amount of misconception has arisen respecting the conduct of the Militia regiments. If the House will allow me, I will read a letter addressed to the Inspector General of Reserve Forces by the general officer in command. In consequence of the statement which appeared in The Times, a telegram was sent to this officer, and I will now read his reply—

  1699
  "Camp, Aldershot, July 20, 1876.
  "Dear Wolseley—Your telegram just received, I have read the article in The Times to which you refer, and am very glad to have the opportunity of refuting the charge of misbehaviour and riotous conduct against the Irish Brigade while encamped at Horsham. It is a fact that I telegraphed to the General Officer commanding the 3rd Division, 2nd Corps, at or near Dorking, and that in that message I suggested that the troops of Hussars which were billeted in Horsham, on the march from Hampton Court to Brighton, should be retained for a day or two as a measure of precaution under the following circumstances:—On Friday, the 14th, the Galway Regiment of Militia arrived at my camp. On the 15th, Saturday, the North and South Cork Regiments arrived. I issued orders that the rule laid down in Her Majesty's Regulations, relating to soldiers not being permitted to go beyond one mile from camp would be in force, and that the town of Horsham was 'out of bounds.' It is very doubtful if these orders were thoroughly made known to the men of the several regiments. Small pickets were sent out to patrol the roads in the vicinity of the Camp at 'Retreat'(sunset). One of these pickets on the direct road to Horsham attempted to turn back a party of Militiamen bent on going into the town; and when their numbers became considerable, they or a portion of them passed through the picket, and a mounted policeman (military) came at once to camp and reported the facts. Pickets of 50 men, under an officer, were sent at once under the field officer of the day, who reported to me on his return that although he found a considerable number of men in Horsham, they all returned to camp at once, without opposition on their part, and that nothing approaching riot or disturbance occurred during the night. Feeling assured that exaggerated reports would be spread abroad, I determined to telegraph to the General commanding the Division to that effect, and saying that 'nothing serious had occurred; 'but as I was aware that the fair was to beheld in Horsham on the Tuesday and Wednesday following, it occurred to me to suggest that as a precaution the troop of Hussars might well remain for a day or two. The event has proved that precautions were entirely unnecessary, and I assert, with immense satisfaction, that no troops, not the highest disciplined Regulars, could have conducted them selves more admirably than the North Cork, South Cork, and Galway Regiments of Militia did during their period of encampment at Horsham and up to the present moment. The Brigade marched from Guildford this morning to this camp, after a rail journey, the whole to my entire satisfaction. I mention this circumstance in corroboration of my statement regarding the good order and good feeling that has prevailed. It is due to the able and excellent officers who commanded these regiments that I should make as full an explanation as possible of what has been so grossly misrepresented. Although I may hope that what appears here may remove any doubt regarding the good behaviour of the regiments of my brigade, and assist in correcting opinions formed or misrepresentations, anything I have said will be weak in compari-
  1700
  son with a letter which I hope will reach Mr. Hardy in sufficient time from the Special Commissioners and magistrates of Horsham, Colonel Aldridge, of St. Leonard's Park, Mr. Dickens, and others, who intimated to me their intention of addressing the Secretary of State for War, out of simple justice to the officers and men who had passed many days in their midst without a single complaint against them from the country people or anybody else and without a single 'police case,' and moreover that this year's 'fair' was the quietest known for some years. I have entered at great length into this subject, not more so, I hope, than the subject demands. I have not time to copy this letter, otherwise it would afford me satisfaction to show my opinion to Colonel Aldworth, Colonel Sir Augustus Warren, and Major Daly, who have so successfully commanded their regiments, and whose powerful influence could alone produce such a result.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "Julius Glyn, Major-General."
  I am quite sure that even the length and fulness of this statement will not make it at all the less satisfactory to the House, and that it will render it unnecessary for me to say more.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
[BILL 155.]
(Viscount Sandon, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause—
  (Dissolution of School Board under certain circumstances),—
  ("Where application for the dissolution of a School Board is made to the Education Department by the like persons and in the like manner as an application for the formation of a School Board, under section twelve of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,'and the Education Department, are satisfied, that no school and no site for a school is in the possession or under the control of the School Board, and that there is a sufficient amount of public school accommodation for the district of the School Board, the Education Department may, after such notice as they think sufficient, order the dissolution of the School Board.
  "The Education Department by any such order shall make provision for the disposal of all money, furniture, books, documents, and property belonging to the School Board, and for the discharge out of the local rate of all the liabilities of the board, and such other provisions as appear to the department necessary or proper for carrying into effect the dissolution of the board.

  1701
  "The Education Department shall publish the order in manner directed by 'The Elementary Education Act, 1873,' with respect to the publication of notices, and after the date of such publication or any later date mentioned in the order, the order shall have effect as if it were enacted by Parliament, without prejudice nevertheless to the subsequent formation of a School Board in the same school district. All bye-laws previously made by the School Board shall continue in force, subject nevertheless to be revoked or altered by the local authority under this Act")—(Mr. Pell),
  brought up, and read the first time:—
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the action of the Government last evening in accepting the clause had taken hon. Members by surprise, and made it necessary that it should be carefully examined. He should be glad of a little information as to the extent to which the clause would be immediately applicable and how many school boards there were which would be likely to come under its operation. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was under a misapprehension as to the number of school districts and school boards the clause would effect, because the immense majority of those school boards had got no schools, having not yet had time to provide them, and he expected it would turn out that a very large proportion of those 541 school board districts mentioned in the Return had been not voluntarily, but compulsorily formed.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he did not think the question of the number, whether it was 530 or 540, was at all of the importance which his right hon. Friend attached to it. The Department had no means of knowing the number of those districts which had or had not schools at present. A large number had been compulsorily formed. As he understood the clause, its meaning was that school boards could be dissolved only where they had no school and no site for a school, and where the Department was satisfied there was sufficient school accommodation. It was not a question of number, but an act of simple justice to put the whole of the country in the same position and to give it the option of saying whether the law for securing that all the children of the country received proper instruction at
  1702
  school or elsewhere should be carried out by means of school boards or by the new authorities to be established under the Bill. He demurred entirely to its being considered that the question of the numbers of boards to be affected by the Amendment affected its desirability.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he very much doubted whether there were 40 school boards in the position described.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he did not assent to that number.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas rather surprised that the Education Department had not for their own satisfaction obtained some reliable information as to the number of school boards that would be affected. If there were only a small number of school boards that would be affected by the clause it was a great change to make for the attainment of a very small purpose. The great object of the Act of 1870 was to provide sufficient school accommodation in every school district. With that object an inquiry was made throught the kingdom, and where there was a deficient school accommodation it was the duty of the Department to issue orders for the compulsory formation of school boards. The noble Lord had stated that up to the 1st of June, 1876, 870 compulsory Orders for school boards had been issued; many more would in all probability be required—probably double that number—and in almost all these cases there had been opposition in the district to the compulsory formation of school boards. The noble Lord proposed that the school boards should be dissolved in every district where they had not done their work well. School boards were sometimes remiss; and if they were not remiss, it might happen that in certain districts influences would be set to work, and temptations would always be held out to those who disliked school boards to get up cases for inquiry year by year in order eventually to get rid of the school boards altogether. But it was the desire of the House even now—certainly it was the strong desire of 1870—where there was not sufficient school accomodation, that the district should be made to provide it, and he warned the noble Lord that he had no idea of the immense trouble he would be bringing on his Department by the passing of the Amend-

  1703
  ment. In many localities parties had been forced to establish school boards against their will, and those parties would be very glad of any opportunity by which they could have a chance of getting rid of them. It was not to the credit of the school boards that they should be reluctant to do their work. It should be further remembered that if they got rid of the school boards and further school accommodation was hereafter required, it would take three or four years before it could be accomplished. He wanted the Committee to understand that if the clause passed, a bonus would be held out to every one who disliked to have a school board in his district, to be constantly getting up fresh agitation against having a school board. This clause would apply in the enormous majority of cases to those who had been forced to have a school board, and who, in the opinion of both sides of the House, ought to have been so forced, and there would be immense administrative inconvenience in re-opening the question of school supply. He did hope that even yet the clause would not be allowed to pass.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, he could not understand why so much warmth had been evoked on the other side by the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). So far from the Amendment being unfavourable to the cause of education, it would, he believed, afford an immense stimulus to it. He denied altogether the idea of any insidious attack on school boards. He believed that hon. Members on his side of the House were as much disposed to advance the cause of education as hon. Members opposite, and he said with all sincerity that he had never expressed a word of hostility to school boards where they were wanted and where they were working efficiently; but when they were proved to be useless and opposed to the preponderating voice of the ratepayers, they ought not to be continued. That was all that was required, all the Amendment proposed, and he denied that in asking for it they were open to the charge of being re-actionary. On the contrary, it was strictly following up the leading principle of the Act of 1870, which recognized the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers with reference to the establishment of school boards where they were not wanted. If there was sufficient
  1704
  school accommodation what reason was there for continuing school boards, because at any time when there was a deficiency the powers of the Act of 1870 applied, and the Education Department could force the district to establish a school board. What possible functions could a school board have to discharge without board schools and with sufficient school accommodation for the district? He should support the Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he wished to explain the reference which, he understood, had been made by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council to a school on his (Mr. Knachbull-Hugessen's) property where it was stated that the school board had been discontinued. He certainly could scarcely recognize the case from the manner in which it was described. What occurred was this—In the parish in which he resided, the greater part of which belonged to himself, a school was built and carried on upon the principles of the Church of England. There were two or three other considerable ratepayers in the parish not connected with his estate who declined to contribute any more to the National School. It was, therefore, proposed to have a school board, so that all might be rated alike. A school board was established, and matters went on; four Churchmen and one Nonconformist minister were elected. The Nonconformist minister, he feared, had not perfect confidence in the incumbent belonging to the Church of England, and the incumbent did not appear to have been altogether pleased with the conduct of the Nonconformist minister. Expenses were also much increased, and it was therefore unanimously agreed that the school board should be discontinued, and the school was re-transferred to the old managers, there being a clause in the original transfer to the school board which enabled them to do so. There was a British School within a quarter of a mile, so that everybody was satisfied. The difficulty then arose that the school board could not be abolished, and his noble Friend got rid of that difficulty; the members of the school board became in default for non-attendance; the Education Department appointed the new school board, who were the same persons as the old managers; and now, whilst they carried on the schools in the latter capacity, they remained a dormant school

  1705
  board, without expense, able to frame compulsory bye-laws if they should deem fit. Therefore, by the kind action of his noble Friend, they had everything which this clause would give them. It was a very difficult thing to carry on two educational systems side by side, but the House must remember how this had arisen. We found in 1870 a number of voluntary schools existing which had been doing the educational work which the State had not undertaken. It would have been unfair to sweep them away, and therefore board schools were only established where efficient voluntary schools did not exist. But it was a very different thing to give facilities and encouragement to those who wished to abolish board schools now that the latter had been deliberately established by Parliament. He feared that this—which would be done by the clause—would create strife and discord throughout the country, whereas the action of the Education Department, in the few cases which might arise similar to that of Smeeth, would give all that was wanted without any such danger.
  VISCOUNT SANDONpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) illustration rather confirmed the policy of the Amendment, and expressed his obligations to him for having given it to the Committee. The House wanted this new compulsion to be carried into effect effectually. His right hon. Friend's little board, which he must remind him, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had himself asked him shortly after he took office, to abolish, had had all the powers possessed by school boards in general of carrying compulsion into effect, but as they had not thought proper to make any bye-laws, it was an argument in favour of the scheme now proposed. The Smeeth School Board had for a long time done nothing, it had transferred its school back to the Voluntary Managers—all its members had been declared in default because they had not attended the requisite number of times. It had not passed bye-laws to provide for the regular attendance of children at school, and it was considered so useless, and had so little support in the locality, that his right hon. Friend, the leading person in that locality, had requested him to abolish it. Surely, this board, and those similar to it, were not the au-
  1706
  thorities to whom it would be wise to entrust the working of the new proposed Educational Law. He must consider the question from the point of view of the Government Bill. He wanted the Bill to work well, and under boards in the position of Smeeth he could not think that that object would beattained, and he must totally object to the treatment which the Department had been obliged to adopt to Smeeth—namely, to nominate a school board—owing to the Act of 1870 having made no provision for such cases—being considered to be at all a course which it was desirable to pursue.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that was not the fair conclusion to be drawn from the words of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and he warned the Committee against giving its sanction to a system which would prove costly and injurious in practice, and which would go far to destroy the good results they had already obtained. He feared that if the noble Lord had trouble now, he would have exactly the same difficulty under the Bill. One of the arguments of the noble Lord was, that they would get rid of a constant cost, and also the inconvenience to the Department. But if the noble Lord would adopt the recommendation that had been made, there would be absolutely no inconvenience to the Department when the election took place. When an election was appointed it would take place, and the only trouble to the Department would be simply that of sending down an answer to the letter they would receive.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUdenied that the clause would attack one of these schools, because the Education Department would have to satisfy itself. It was said that this clause would cause an agitation throughout the country; but was not that the first object of the right hon. Gentleman in proposing the establishment of school boards in 1870? The clause, however, would not apply to school boards which had built schools, or to which schools had been transferred. The second object in establishing school boards was compulsion, but it was now admitted that school boards were not wanted to carry compulsion into effect. The country had too much of compulsion under the Bill. He supported the clause because he was for the liberty of the

  1707
  people and local self-government, and he demanded that no Old Man of the Sea should be placed round the neck of the ratepayers in the shape of a school board. The noble Lord now proposed to cut the school boards in half. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), in raising his voice against the proposal, reminded him of the judgment of Solomon, because he said, "Do not cut the child in two," and thereby proved that it was his own child. This clause should be supported by those who were favourable to the liberty of the people; and he called upon the Liberal Party in that House to be in favour of liberty, and to knock an odious yoke off the necks of the rate paying community. If a locality wished to get rid of a school board, they would do so if they were unanimous, and they might attain the object by transferring the school to a denominational body.
  MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, it was remarkable that one line of argument had run all through the present discussion—namely, that the ratepayers had a right to decide for themselves whether they should have a school board or not; but that argument had not been carried to its proper issues. If it was the right of the majority of ratepayers in every place to decide that point, what was to become of the right of ratepayers in those districts where school boards existed, and where owing to board schools having been built, the boards must continue in spite of the majority against them? He regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Education Department had not come down to the House after the night's reflection, and announced his intention of withdrawing the clause. If this proposal, which had correctly been described as a stab in the dark at school boards, became law, from that moment wherever a school board was unpopular with the minority, all the discontented would set to work to turn the minority into a majority for the purpose of getting rid of the objectionable school board. The effect upon the boards themselves would be most discouraging, because they had already, a mass of prejudice to encounter, and their opponents would now say—"We will get rid of you before long."
  MR. A. MILLSintended to give his vote in favour of the clause, but trusted his doing so would not be interpreted as
  1708
  a censure on his part of school boards generally. He denied that the clause was re-actionary. Progress had been made in public opinion since 1870 with respect to the working of school boards, and there was now a strong feeling that localities should exercise their own judgment as to the most suitable and efficient educational machinery. He believed the clause would greatly improve the present school boards, and he repudiated the notion that it could in any degree be regarded as a censure on those institutions. The question was simply whether ratepayers might not disencumber themselves of school boards which, having been in existence for five years, had created to themselves no schools, and had done no act in fulfilment of the purpose for which they were intended.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had said that the Amendment was a very simple one, and that it was one which had been pressed with great force upon the Education Department. If that were so, and if the clause were likely to prove of such benefit and advantage as the noble Lord predicted, why had it not formed part of the framework of the Government Bill, rather than have been first brought under the notice of the House as an Amendment of a private Member. He opposed the clause on the ground that it would prove injurious to the cause of education. A school board, if it did its duty, was sure to make enemies, and in the event of the clause being carried the result would be to keep a sword constantly hanging over the heads of school boards, which would paralyze their action and prevent them, from working with their usual efficiency, from the fear of raising up enemies among those who wished to see them abolished. Many hon. Members opposite were supporting the clause on account of the religious difficulty, but he wished to point out to them that that difficulty would not be got rid of, but increased, if the control of education were transferred to the Town Councils, which were not elected, like school boards, by the cumulative vote, and in which, therefore, those religious bodies which were in a minority would probably not be represented at all.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, the religious difficulty was not raised by the clause, because it only applied to school

  1709
  boards which had no schools, and consequently the remarks just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herschell) were altogether irrelevant. He had been surprised to hear so much wild and incoherent talk from the other side on the previous night as to the clause being dangerous and re-actionary. The amount of temper then displayed could only be excused by the lateness of the hour. He considered that the clause did not touch the principle of the Act of 1870 in the smallest degree. This clause did not affect the educational functions of school boards, because those which it affected had no educational functions, but merely functions of police. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham had charged hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side with stimulating hostility to school boards by the course they were now pursuing. But what had the right hon. Gentleman been doing all his life but stimulating hostility to something or other? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the unpopularity of school boards was greatly exaggerated; but if he wanted to understand the feeling with which these school boards were regarded, he had only to turn to the Reports of the Inspectors. There was a catena of evidence in those Reports as to the odium which attached to school boards. Thus they were described in different passages as being "viewed with widespread dislike;" as "held in extreme dislike;" as "dreaded;" as "neglecting their opportunities;" as "doing worse than nothing;" as "injuring other schools by taking less fees;" as "soon sinking into inefficiency;" as "becoming careless in their work;" and as "soon dwindling into perfunctoriness;" and being the subject of a "general feeling of aversion as a terrible infliction." There were many other expressions to the same effect. If the right hon. Gentleman would read the Blue Books on this subject, he would not again state that unpopularity of these school boards had been exaggerated. The fact was, that there was no institution in the country which was so unpopular, and he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were giving themselves a great deal of unnecessary trouble in opposing such a gentle, mild, and salutary clause as that which had been proposed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had just been accused of introducing into the country an element of confusion and perturbation by the establishment of school boards. A certain amount of confusion and perturbation, however, was the necessary consequence of representative government, though the object of Parliament should be to reduce that inconvenience to a minimum. His hon. Friend had endeavoured to do that by proposing that school boards should be liable to be dissolved, which, however, would only add to whatever excitement and confusion now existed. The effect of the Amendment would further be to throw back that steady progress in educational matters which ever since the Act of 1870 had been going on. He demurred to the argument that because some of those school boards had as yet done nothing they would not in the future have anything to do. The fact was that many of those institutions struck at some of the most cherished prejudices of hon. Members opposite, for they provided undenominational education in the rural districts, and popular representation in the question of education, and that explained the cheers with which speeches declaring these boards to be unpopular were received. He urged that oven if some school boards were doing nothing now, they might do something in a year or two. Municipal bodies were not liable to be dissolved at the request of the electors, nor could boroughs get rid of Parliamentary representation. Once they could, and there was a story at Newbury, that when Henry VIII. had been right royally entertained by the celebrated Jack of Newbury he asked what he would do for the town. To which Jack of Newbury replied—"Relieve us of the odious privilege of having to elect two Members to serve in your Parliament at Westminster." And the King granted the request. The noble Lord the Vice President would be recollected as the 19th Century Jack of Newbury. There was something to him very offensive in the way in which hon. Members opposite took religion under their patronage. Religion had existed before they were heard of, and would exist when they were forgotten; and to identify the Nonconformist party, the party of which an open Bible was the watchword, which

  1711
  had laboured and suffered for its sake, with secularism, was as absurd as it was unjust.
  MR. GREENEsaid, he could not understand what had raised all this opposition to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He was as anxious for the reading of the Bible as the Nonconformists. What he complained of was, that the money of the State was paid to a board which had power to exclude the reading of the Bible, and he would endeavour as far as lay in his power to remove that blot from the Education Act. Power was given to continue school boards, but none to dissolve them; and if the country objected to a system of that kind, although it had been established by a large majority in the last Parliament, he considered that Parliament was bound to undo the most objectionable parts of that system. A great deal of fuss had been made about re-actionary measures; but there was no re-action in the case. It was merely the recognition of the right of the majority. When he sat in that House in 1870, he had many measures poured down his throat which were most distasteful to him. The Irish Church was disestablished, and a third of her land was taken from her; the Army was destroyed, not by Act of Parliament, but by an arbitrary exercise of the Royal Prerogative. For his part, if he had the power, he would undo the work which was then done.
  MR. HAYTERresisted the clause, because it would enable Town Councils, by a majority of 1, to abolish school boards. In his opinion, the effect of the Amendment would be, by means of a side-wind, to get rid of the principle of the Act of 1870. His contention was, that if school boards were to be abolished, they ought to be abolished in a straight forward way, and not by such a hole-and-corner fashion as was proposed.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, on the contrary, said, he did not oppose school boards generally, but he contended that, where a school board had lost the confidence of the local ratepayers, or had become useless and unnecessary, it ought not to be maintained. The people of a district were the best possible judges of whether a school board was or was not performing its functions properly and to the benefit of those who had established it. Should those people feel that it was useless to maintain a board,
  1712
  it would clearly be wrong to force one upon them unwillingly. A board, like a crutch, ought to be thrown away when it could be dispensed with, and not saddled for ever on reluctant parishes which preferred to rely on voluntaryism. All success achieved under the Act of 1870 had been gained by consulting the wishes and feelings of local populations, and now the Opposition said, they were to be disregarded.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcontended that an extraordinary change had come both over the Bill itself since its first introduction, and the temper of the House in discussing its provisions. When it was introduced there was little reason to complain of it, for it was thought to be merely an amplification of the principles of the Act of 1870, and as such was gratefully accepted on that, his own, side of the House. But the acceptance of the Amendment under discussion by the Government had entirely altered the character of the Bill. At the eleventh hour the Government had changed their whole policy, and had hoisted the standard of re-action. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might deny the assertion, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene), who was one of the honestest men in the House, had let the feline animal out of the bag. Judging from what that hon. Gentleman had said, he (Sir William Harcourt) would be inclined to say that there never had been such a flag, or rather oriflamme, raised as the one hoisted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's. He had told them quite frankly that he objected to the Act of 1870. He also told them that he objected to school boards altogether, and was prepared to destroy them and undo what he termed the mischief of the past Government. Well, that showed that the Government were only beginning their progress on the road of re-action. If the noble Lord approved of the Amendment, why had he not introduced it himself as a new clause, instead of accepting it at the hands of a private Member? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's had been rather too outspoken. He had told them that a good many measures which he did not like, such as the Irish Church and Land Bills, he had been compelled to accept at the hands of a dominant majority, and that now the Tory Party in their turn had got a large majority

  1713
  they intended to use it. Well, if the Conservatives were about to make a reactionary battle-cry of education, they must expect that their Bill would be received in a very different spirit from what it was at the commencement. The policy which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's had announced was a very serious policy. If one Party as soon as it obtained a majority were to set itself to overturn the acts of its Predecessor, a Continental state of things would be in fused into English politics which it was very desirable to avoid. By so doing they would embark on a policy of reversal and re-action, and enter upon a course of proceeding of which there was no telling where it would end. His hon. Friend was a young and hale man, and his life might be protracted until there was again a Liberal majority, but when that time did arrive did he think that the cause he had at heart would be benefited by the establishment of a principle that he had been contending for that evening? The principles he had laid down were carried out on the Continent; the consequence was that no political parties were ready to accept the principles of compromise. When they found the noble Lord declaring open war, and acting up to, if not declaring openly, the principles of the Amendment, when he was accepting alterations in his Bill which would overthrow the Act of 1870, they were entering upon a war at which two could play, of which the beginning was obvious, but of which no man could see the end—a war of which the battle-field was the education of the people. Did they think that because the Government might obtain a majority that evening that it would be accepted, or that, after their defeat, they would rest one single moment until they had restored the principles which the Government would have withdrawn, or that they would desist for a single moment to repel that injustice which was sought to be thrust upon them. What was the meaning of the Amendment? The denominational schools found themselves beaten day by day in open competition with school boards, and therefore their supporters cried out to strangle school boards. The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) was not strong enough to resist the cry from those behind him; but, of course, the matter had to be done decently, if possible, and the first step
  1714
  was the Amendment of the previous day. The Government was too wise, too cautious, to propose open and avowed war on the school boards; but the party of re-action behind them wanted to bow string the school boards at once, as was proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. It was because of the pressure from those who sat around the noble Lord that he had thought it necessary to depart from the policy which the Government originally undertook, and to consent in an evil hour to make this war upon the policy adopted in 1870. The noble Lord, in consenting to the Amendment, had given his sanction to an attempt to destroy board schools throughout the country, and he had thereby landed the discussion of the Bill in a spirit and temper altogether different from that in which it had hitherto been conducted. [Viscount SANDON: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord said "Hear, hear;" but did he think that the Government could introduce a Bill with an avowed object, and then change it, and not change the spirit in which that Bill was being discussed? They should be utterly unworthy of the position which they held as an Opposition if they did not enter a protest against not only the substance of that policy, but also the manner in which it had been conducted.
  VISCOUNT SANDONthought it was high time they should take rather a cooler view of things. He had observed that his hon. and learned Friend always came forward when there was a forlorn hope to lead, to throw in the charm of his somewhat imaginative eloquence, heated and warm as it always was, to rally the troops that were beginning to fall away. He (Viscount Sandon) had had the misfortune of sitting there for seven days, during which time he had not had the pleasure of hearing his hon. and learned Friend's voice once upon the Bill, and that fact rather accounted for the extraordinary misapprehension which he had shown as to its whole scope. If his hon. and learned Friend had been present 36 hours ago he would have heard the high testimony borne to the Bill in its great and main features by hon. Gentlemen of the greatest experience in educational matters on his own (the Opposition) side of the House. He would not then have rashly condemned

  1715
  the whole of the Government measure. For his own part, he (Viscount Sandon) was a little disappointed to find such warmth suddenly arise, because he had invited from hon. Members opposite that calm judgment on the Bill which was accorded to the measure of 1870; although it was notorious that it offended the feelings and opinions of many hon. Members belonging to the Conservative ranks who were then in Opposition. Up to that time, though the Bill had received the formal opposition of some hon. Members on two set occasions, and had passed the ordeal of two leading divisions on the Motions of the hon. Members for Sheffield and Merthyr, it had received very large support from the House generally, and, on the whole, a marvellous harmony had been maintained; but he supposed this state of things had been felt to be unnatural, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had said—"We must have a little excitement before the Bill passes." But it was really worth while to consider whether the clause was of such a portentous character as had been represented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had argued that only half-a-dozen schools could be affected by it, and though he (Viscount Sandon) did not give his assent to this view, still no one supposed the number of boards to be affected by it would be really large, and if the influence of the Amendment was thus allowed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) to be reduced to such a small point, surely an immense amount of indignation had been wasted. The assertions of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford showed that he had not attended much to the subject. He talked of the voluntary schools rapidly decreasing, and of the necessity of bolstering them up, when, as a matter of fact, they had largely increased. Then he said they were going to strangle board schools—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no!]; but he seemed to be unaware of the fact that the abolition of the reduction on the 17 s. 6d. grant applied equally to board and to voluntary schools, and that it would relieve the rates in many places which were already complaining bitterly of their pressure under the school board system, and demanding that the State should, in accordance with the hopes held out by
  1716
  the former Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), give a larger proportion of aid in consideration of its higher requirements from the schools. It would give a fresh life to board and voluntary schools alike, and set them free in the race to bring the children forward as much as possible, so as to earn to the schools as large a grant as they could under the Code without fear of the present discouraging deductions. In proof of what he said he must remind his hon. and learned Friend that the most important School Board in the country—the School Board of London—had specially urged the exemption as desirable for the promotion of education. His hon. and learned Friend also said the Amendment desired to make voluntary schools purely denominational.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that what he did say was that under the operation of the Amendment such would be the tendency.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Yes; that they should destroy the voluntary character of the schools, and make them purely and simply denominational. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a considerable number of the Nonconformist schools were supported by fees and by the Imperial grant only, and did he not call them voluntary schools? He was taunted with having accepted the Amendment from his own side without giving previous Notice that the Government intended to take that course; but he received no taunts when he accepted without Notice important Amendments from the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding, and from the hon. Member for Newark. He remembered that in 1870 very considerable Amendments were accepted by the Government of the day from their own supporters, which altered the character of that Bill more seriously than the present measure could be affected by this comparatively trifling alteration as to unnecessary school boards; and he must remind his hon. and learned Friend that when, on going into Committee, he announced various leading Amendments which the Government proposed to bring forward, principally in the early clauses of the Bill, he stated distinctly that the Government must be held quite free to introduce any other Amendments, as well as to accept any Amendments from either side, and the Committee would

  1717
  remember that this particular statement was received with assenting cheers, specially from the Opposition benches, in a full House. The right hon. Member for Bradford, who spoke of the proposal as a great blow to school boards, seemed to forget that the Education Department, the moment a deficiency was proved, could and must, if the deficiency was not duly met, order a board to be formed just as much under the new system of this Bill as under the old system of the Act of 1870. And the districts which the Education Department forced to have school boards, just as much as every other part of the country, would be obliged to carry out fully the Act of 1870, as well as the provisions of this Bill, if it became law. He could not therefore see the bearing of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he thought it was quite possible that the Amendment would tend to promote rather than to discourage school boards, for this reason. At the present moment many localities would not dream of putting their heads in the noose of a school board, because they knew it was an indissoluble tie, whereas if it was felt that it was a mere temporary connection, it was not impossible that a great number of places would be willing to try the experiment. He was unable to discover any further arguments in the speech of his right hon. Friend, who, he hoped, would on further consideration be led to support the proposal on account of the strong educational advantages which he had mentioned. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was mistaken in supposing that the new authorities would have educational duties. As a proof that the Government felt no hostility to school boards, he must remind the Committee that they had strenuously resisted the proposals of the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Lord Francis Hervey) and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond), when they offered Amendments which would prevent a locality from having a school board, unless there was a deficiency of school accommodation, because their schemes were opposed to the principles of the Bill, which was perfect freedom to the country to adopt whichever scheme it liked best, whether that of a school board, or of using the existing autho-
  1718
  rities as provided by this Bill. The course, he repeated, of the Government showed no hostility to school boards; but, when the proposal was once brought forward, it must be felt that it could not be resisted, as, if they considered the Bill, it certainly followed logically that the country should have perfect freedom to get rid of school boards where they were unnecessary. He was quite sure that the change would be held, on calmer consideration, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be a trifling one, entirely consistent with the spirit of the Bill. If he was asked again why the Government supported it, he had simply to say that when they looked at the Amendment they were unable to find any valid arguments which they could assert against it. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee, after that full discussion, would consent to put this matter to the test.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, the noble Lord had omitted to reply to some observations of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) with regard to the operation of the clause upon Town Councils, which was an important one.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it was obvious that the same authority which had the power of asking for a school board must have the power of asking to get rid of it. In that respect the clause would follow the lines of the Act of 1870, and upon those lines the Government meant to take their stand.
  MR. A. BROWNsaid, it was clear from the noble Lord's answer that Town Councils would be able by a bare majority to petition the School Department to dissolve school boards. Was the noble Lord prepared to abolish the school boards of Manchester, Stockport, and other places? ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No, no," but abolition was the logical conclusion of his hon. Friend's Amendment. That Amendment placed in the hands of municipalities a power which would be extremely dangerous. If a proposal were made to abolish Town Councils, or Boards of Guardians, or Highway Boards, it would be scouted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. What had been done by school boards having no schools? According to Returns laid upon the Table of the House, 510 of them, out of 541, had appointed attendance officers and visitors, and were enforcing the principle of

  1719
  compulsion laid down by the Act of 1870. He therefore hoped that they would not be interfered with or disturbed in the good in which they were engaged, and that the noble Lord would pause before he accepted the Amendment. They were all grateful for the courtesy and kindness shown by the noble Lord when he introduced the Bill, but now he said that he would accept an Amendment which they must regard with extreme hostility.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONremarked that hon. Members on his side did not seem to have even yet succeeded in making the noble Lord understand the ground upon which they so strongly objected to the Amendment. The noble Lord seemed to treat it as a mere matter of administrative detail, and called it a small affair, whereas the Opposition considered that a most important principle was involved. That principle was the continuation or the abolition of school boards. The noble Lord disclaimed all intention of attacking school boards, but he put it to the noble Lord, did he seriously think that the effect of the Bill would be to encourage them? On that side of the House they felt that the very opposite would be the result. The adoption of the clause would be a departure, not only from the principle of the Bill, but also a departure from the representations made to the House on the second reading. Did the noble Lord think that he would have had the majority that he did had it been known that there was to be a direct attack upon school boards? If the noble Lord did not actually provide for the extinction of school boards by the action of the Department, he at least provided the means of self-extinction known in Eastern countries as the "happy despatch." It was stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the clause would apply only to school boards which had no schools and no property, and the noble Lord asserted that he had much sympathy with school boards which had done their work well and were efficient. But was the division of school boards into those which were efficient and those which had property an exhaustive division? What about such school boards as those of Burnley and Stockport, which had no schools? He feared it was an attempt to reverse the policy of the Act of 1870. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side had not yet forgotten the metaphors used by the noble Lord in introducing his first
  1720
  Endowed Schools Bill, when he spoke of leading on the forces of the Establishment against the entrenchments of the enemy, by which term he referred to Nonconformists. That language of the noble Lord had united as one man what was then a divided minority, and in that contest they were victorious all along the line. He would now tell the noble Lord that, by every constitutional means, they were determined to oppose the passing of the clause. He hoped that the Government would all remember the lesson of their Endowed Schools Bill. Possibly the Prime Minister might repent himself on this occasion and be induced to read the proposed Amendment. If he were to do so, and to find now as he did then that it was perfectly unintelligible, he would materially expedite the passing of the Bill. But the noble Lord had himself found that there was no necessity for the clause, and that all that it could effect might be done by resorting to the simplest legal fiction, so that surely he might persuade the hon. Member for South Leicestershire to allow this bone of contention to be taken away, by which means, he believed, that business would be greatly facilitated, and that a soreness would be removed from the minds of many which was quite incommensurate with any advantage which hon. Members opposite could expect to gain from the passing of the clause.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) had pointed out the contrast between the somewhat animated aspect of the debate at present and the happy calm which pervaded the House only 24 or 36 hours ago; but he must remind the noble Lord that, in the words of a very high authority, "a great deal had happened since then." Since then the Government had shown the cloven foot, for since then the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had been proposed and had been accepted by the Government; since then, to adopt the metaphor of the noble Lord, the Government expressed their willingness to scout the honourable and permanent matrimony of the school board and prefer a questionable temporary connection. He congratulated the noble Lord on the appositeness of his metaphor, but still more he must congratulate hon. Members opposite on the excellent speech of the hon. Member for

  1721
  Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene). There had been a frank honesty in the policy expressed in that speech which was quite refreshing, accustomed as they were to the reticence of Conservative Members generally, and it had therefore won those approving cheers from the Liberal Benches which seemed to delight the hon. Member. He (Mr. Anderson) had himself for a couple of years been doing his best in a humble way to show the country that the policy of the Conservative Party was always retrograde; that they were always ready to go backward when they could, and as far as they dared; but his utterances had been weak indeed compared with the bold avowal of the hon. Member. The House knew the honesty of the hon. Member, and that when he denounced all that the last Parliament had done and declared he wanted to undo it, that really was what the hon. Member and his Friends meant; and it was well that the country should know it, for he was very sure it was not for that purpose the country had sent a Conservative majority to occupy those Benches. He only wished to say a few words to the Committee regarding this Amendment, from a Scotch point of view. He wanted to know if the noble Lord succeeded in carrying the Amendment would he venture to introduce a similar measure for Scotland? As the House was aware, in Scotland they had universal school boards. He was not prepared to say that, in all cases, those had worked to the entire satisfaction of the people. In some cases they had not; in some cases they had been unnecessarily hasty in building expensive schools and spending too much money; but even that error was only excess of zeal in a right direction, and though many ratepayers might complain, he did not think there was a parish in Scotland that would not reject with contempt any proposal to disboard themselves. And why should it be different in England? He would be apt to think it was not creditable to the intelligence of Englishmen, if he did not know that there was a strong sectarian element underlying the proposal, which accounted for the anxiety of hon. Members opposite to adopt this retrograde measure. The House fully believed in the honest intentions of the noble Lord, but if the Amendment contained a point which he deemed of real importance, why was it not in the Bill?
  1722
  Why did it appear now as a new discovery? Why was the 13th clause postponed to the very end without a word about their intention of so changing it? The country would be very apt to think that this blow at school boards was the real principle and raison ďetre of the Bill; that all they had previously done so complacently was only introductory to this Amendment. They would conclude that it was kept out of the Bill lest it should unduly alarm their sensibilities and rouse a general opposition. Hon. Members opposite said it was only an attempt to give effect to the popular voice as expressed by majorities. He had been much amused at the sudden appreciation of the popular vote thus shown by hon. Members opposite. It was a tenderness quite new to Conservative opinion. He would like to know how far they were willing to go in that direction. If a narrow majority wanted to abolish a municipality as well as a school board, would they be equally willing, or would they consent to a Parliamentary burgh voting its extinction, or when his friends of the Home Rule party pointed to the large majority across the Channel in favour of a Home Rule Parliament, would they equally defer to those majorities? They knew they would not; they knew they supported this particular retrograde measure only because it seemed to suit their Party views, and now that it had been made apparent that the Bill was intended as a thoroughly retrograde measure, the Opposition were bound to resist it by every constitutional means, and to that end he was willing to give his assistance.
  MR. D. DAVIESopposed the clause. He believed it would have a most injurious influence throughout the country. It went entirely to condemn the Act of 1870. He was not so much afraid of the disestablishment of school boards as of the mischief that would be done to education. If the clause succeeded, it would be said by a certain section of the working classes—"We thought you were wrong at the time you passed the Act establishing school boards, and now you see Parliament is of the same opinion too." He was of opinion, further, that there had been something like indecent hurry in this matter. The Government should have waited till they had gained some experience as to how school boards under Town Councils and Boards of

  1723
  Guardians answered before bringing this proposition before the House. He hoped the noble Lord would re-consider this matter.
  MR. WHALLEYalso opposed the clause. The desire to educate the children of the humbler classes up to a certain Standard, without the means of the people to pay for it, was productive of feuds in families and of disobedience in children to their parents. With regard to school boards he cared nothing for them, and he did not care how soon they were done away with. In his opinion, the State should not have anything to do with the education of the children of the country. That was a thing that should be left to the parents of the children. He regretted that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had thrown that "torpedo" into the arena. He regretted he was contending, not with an honest and open foe, but against enemies who were a disgrace to the country—men who were expending millions of the public money in spreading the doctrines of Popery, and in favouring the conversion of men who were passing over the bridge from Protestantism to Popery—a doctrine which was hostile to the Crown. He regarded the men who were favouring such a policy, not merely as secret enemies of the Church, but as the reverend "sepoys" (the parsons) who were sapping her foundations. He was decidedly opposed to any clause that could favour such a system, and it was the duty of every hon. Member to do his utmost to prevent a Bill passing into law that would hand over the children of this country to the clerical party.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I will make no frantic appeal to the emotion of hon. Members, but attempt a calmness which ought to be brought into discussions on this subject. The noble Lord who has charge of this Bill has said that by the adoption of the clause, he is merely proposing to put into the hands of a majority a power which they ought to have, and which they will exercise in the best interests of the country. But I beg him to consider that the word "majority" is an ambiguous one. A majority of a parish is not a majority of a county—a majority of a county is not a majority of the country. This Bill is a sort of supplement to that of 1870, which was passed after much difficulty and against much opposition by a very strong minor-
  1724
  ity. This Bill was brought in, no doubt, with the very best intentions on the part of the noble Lord, but he may still be misled as to what are really the feelings of the majority. I beg him very carefully to consider what the word "majority" here means. Does he believe that is the opinion of a majority which is contrary to the wishes and feelings of the majority of the people of England? I think he ought to be very careful until it is decided what a "majority" is. Does the hon. Member for South Leicestershire suppose that his proposal is one that will meet the wishes of those who are anxious for the education of the people? Does he not know that the establishment of school boards throughout the country has been brought about through much opposition, and that the effect of the Motion will be to set up a standing agitation and opposition, and that thereby it will weaken the efforts of those who are anxious for the education of the people? I was very much struck with the observations of an hon. Gentleman behind me, who said there was a large body of the working men who are opposed to the education of their children. These are the very people we want to conquer—we want to overcome their ignorances and prejudices, and to persuade them to believe that the high efforts which we are making are not only for the benefit of themselves, but for the benefit of the country to which they belong. After grave consideration I rise for the purpose of expressing to the noble Lord my strong opinion that the effects of the clause will be most mischievous to the cause of education, and to the measure of 1870, which has already been so greatly beneficial. Last year I saw at Sheffield a spectacle rarely witnessed. When His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited that hotbed of democracy I saw among the working men a spirit that I am sure was greatly influenced by the education of the children; for it must not be thought that the education of the children does not affect the parents. Education not only goes downwards but upwards; and I believe that no greater measure was ever passed for the benefit of the people of England than that great measure of 1870. I believe, too, that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford will pass down to posterity as that of one who has conferred a large

  1725
  meed of benefit upon his country than any man who has preceded him. I most earnestly entreat the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman on his right (Mr. Disraeli) to re-consider their deliberation in the matter, and to believe me when I say that by what they now propose they will be doing the greatest possible evil to the great principle of education in this country.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had heard in the discussion compliments paid to the school board of the place that he had the honour to represent. It was a mixed board, and was essentially a denominational board; and he must say, although it was not in all respects what he should like to see it, that that board had already effected great service to the cause of education in the borough of Stockport. There were Roman Catholics and men of various religious denominations on the board. Would the noble Lord propose to dissolve that board—a board which was accomplishing the greatest good, and which was productive of the best feeling among the people of that important borough? It must be remembered that the board was elected by cumulative voting which had given the Denominationalists such great strength; but by the proposal before the House, the board might be dissolved at the request of a mere majority in number who were impatient of rates. The proposal to destroy the Bill of 1870 did not come from the people, but from a sectarian class who wished to put down the best measure that was ever passed for the welfare and elevation of the people. He was convinced that if an appeal were made to the country there would be an overwhelming expression of feeling against the proposal to put an end to the best part of the Education Act of 1870. If the Government thought so highly of the principle of appealing to a majority of the ratepayers, why did they not apply it to questions affecting sanitary administration or confidence in the county magistrates?
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he certainly should not have voted for the second reading of the Bill if he had for a moment supposed any proposal would be adopted as a part of the measure that would in any way imperil the existence of school boards in places where they were at present established. He could not but speak in high terms of the working of
  1726
  the Scotch Education Act, a measure which was productive of most valuable results in Scotland, and which, considering the education given in many of the board schools was worked at a reasonably cheap rate per child. Many who were qualified to teach them did so as "a labour of love." In many isolated districts there were children in those schools who, at 13 years of age, were reading Greek, and were otherwise remarkably forward in various branches of useful education. The expense of the election of school boards was complained of, but that rested very much with the inhabitants of the districts. In the parish in which he resided, and which had a population of above, 2,000, the cost of a school board contest was only 16 s. School boards covered every district in Scotland, and he should like to ask the noble Lord whether he intended to apply the principle of the clause moved by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire to Scotland?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was clear that the discussion on the clause could not be brought to a close then, in consequence of the profound feeling which had been aroused on that side of the House. The acceptance of the clause by the Government had created a feeling which he was sure could not be allayed till the clause was withdrawn. As there only remained 10 minutes before the debate must be brought to a close, and as a dozen Members near him wished to speak, he would beg to move that the Chairman should report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he wished to say a few words before the Motion was agreed to. He was very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had been in his place during the latter portion of the discussion that afternoon. He most sincerely wished it had been in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to have been in his place last night when the discussion commenced, for he believed that the deep impression which was at once created on that side of the House by the announcement that the Government intended to support the clause of the hon. Member for South

  1727
  Leicestershire would have led the right hon. Gentleman to the conclusion—whatever his own private opinion or the private opinion of his Friends might be—that it was not worth while to encumber the passage of the Bill by accepting this clause. He doubted whether, among his numerous avocations, the right hon. Gentleman had had time to make himself master of the clause. A day had been unfortunately and unnecessarily wasted in this discussion. It had, however, been wasted, not by the discussion of the clause, but in consequence of the adoption of the clause by the Government. If the clause had not been adopted by the Government he believed the Committee on the Bill might have been concluded that day. But although the day had been wasted, he did not think it was too late, even now, to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it were absolutely necessary to force the clause against what he must feel was the unanimous opinion of that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman could not believe that the clause was essential to the Bill which the Government had introduced, for if it had been essential it would have been proposed by the Government. The Government had had an opportunity of considering the question for a long time, and they had deliberately introduced a well-prepared and well-considered measure which did not contain this proposition. Again, as the hon. Member who proposed the clause had informed the Committee that day, the proposal had been on the Paper for a considerable time, and consequently the Government had had ample opportunity of considering it. It was not included, however, in those important Amendments in regard to which the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council made a statement the other day. For those two reasons, he thought he was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Government could not deem it to be a matter of such vital importance as to consider it necessary at all hazards to insist upon introducing it. After the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman last night it was impossible that he could regard the expenditure of two or three days at this period of the Session as a matter of no concern. The convenience of the House and the prospect of many of the measures of the
  1728
  Government becoming law must be involved in the decision of the Government on this point. He trusted that before the discussion was resumed, the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider whether it were necessary to force on the divided opinion of the House a proposition which the Government did not think it necessary to introduce, and which, if the right hon. Gentleman had been present last night, he would have heard supported by the Vice President of the Council in a hesitating manner and really as a matter of small and trifling importance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 175: Majority 55.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

THE TURKISH DEBT—THE LOAN OF 1854.—RESOLUTION.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the Turkish Loan of 1854 was subscribed for; and to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will direct that a, communication may be made to the President of the French Republic in order to ascertain whether the French Government will unite with the Government of Her Majesty in pressing upon the Government of Turkey the complete fulfilment of the conditions upon which the Turkish Loan of 1854 was subscribed for,"
said, that the circumstances involved in

1729
his Motion occurred upwards of 20 years ago. It was perfectly well known now great was the anxiety that prevailed in this country at the time as to what was called then, as now, the "Eastern Question," although it was at this moment presented to them in a different form. Twenty years ago it was not a contest between Turkey and any of her provinces, but a struggle between Turkey and Russia as to whether the latter should have any such domination over the internal government of Turkey as might lead to the dismemberment of the country, and the substitution of the rule of Russia for that of Turkey over, at any rate, some of her provinces. That anxiety continued for a considerable part of 1853, whilst negotiations were going on at Constantinople; and it was in the summer of July, 1853, that the first act of hostility was committed by the crossing of Russian troops into, and the occupation of, Turkish territory. That was spoken of as not being intended as an act of war, but simply in order to obtain material guarantees for the claim made by Russia against Turkey. Turkey, however, protested against that act of aggression, and having protested in vain, war was declared in October, 1854, and from that time hostilities proceeded. During this time negotiations were continued between the European Powers, great attempts being made to put an end to hostilities. These negotiations, however, failed, and in the spring of 1854 it became clear that warlike measures were about to be taken. A Convention was then framed by which England and France undertook to afford support to Turkey, and in April war was declared against Russia. The resistance which had previously been offered to the Russian troops after they had crossed the Pruth was one for which the European Powers were scarcely prepared in the face of such overwhelming odds, especially when it was remembered that Turkey at the time experienced one want—the want of money to supply her soldiers with arms, she being at the time amply supplied with men. It was not to be expected that any nation engaged in a war of that description should be able to provide the funds for carrying it on out of the ordinary revenues of the year, and France herself had to raise a loan of £10,000,000. Tur-
1730
key attempted to raise a loan of £6,000,000, and the matter was placed in the hands of the Messrs. Rothschild, a house which very seldom failed in carrying such transactions to a successful issue. Something, however, was rumoured of a loan which Turkey had endeavoured to raise before, and of a supposed repudiation on her part, and it became impossible to obtain the money which she wanted in the English market, and the proposal for a loan in the instance of which he was speaking was withdrawn by the Messrs. Rothschild. Still it was felt to be absolutely necessary that money should be obtained, and negotiations on the subjectwent on, though what was the exact form of those negotiations he had not been able to ascertain from the Papers which had been laid before the House. The results, however, were perfectly clear, for shortly afterwards it was announced that a Turkish Loan had been placed in the English and French markets, and which was so placed under what could not be otherwise described as the "auspices" of England and France. It appeared, too, from the prospectus which had been issued in connection with it, that it was not only charged on the general revenue of Turkey, but was specially secured, principal and interest, by the assignment of 30,000,000 piastres (£282,000 sterling), tribute payable by the Pasha of Egypt to His Majesty the Sultan, by virtue of the Treaty of 1841, contracted under the sanction of the great Powers of Europe. "This tribute," it was added, "is to be remitted half-yearly direct from the Pasha in Egypt to the Agents in London." Then came the following paragraph:—
"The undersigned have the satisfaction to acquaint the public that they are authorized by the Earl of Clarendon, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to state that this Loan is negotiated with the knowledge of the English Government; that Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that the Loan and the appropriation of the above-mentioned 30,000,000 piastres (£282,000 sterling) per annum of the Egyptian Tribute are duly authorized by His Majesty the Sultan; and further, that the representatives of the Sublime Porte at Paris and London are empowered by virtue of the Imperial Firmans, to ratify the contract for the Loan in the name of His Majesty the Sultan, and Lord Clarendon relies with confidence upon the Turkish Government fulfilling with good faith the engagements they have entered into. The undersigned are assured that a similar declaration will be made by M. Drouyn de L'huys,

1731
the French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
"Isaac L. GoLdsmid.
"J. Horsley Palmer.
"London, Aug. 16."
There was also a letter signed by Lord Clarendon, which was as follows:—
"Messrs. Black and Durand are duly authorized by the Sublime Porte to negotiate a loan of £5,000,000 sterling, all expenses included, and to offer as a special guarantee 30,000,000 piastres of the annual tribute of Egypt. The representatives of the Sublime Porto at London and Paris are authorized, in virtue of Imperial Firmans, to ratify the contract of the Loan in the name of the Sultan. The contract between Messrs. Black and Durand and Messrs. Goldsmid and Palmer has been concluded with the knowledge of Lord Clarendon, who has confidence in the good faith with which the Turkish Government will fulfil the engagements they have entered into.
"Foreign Office, Aug. 15, 1854."
That appeared from the bond and firman deposited in the Bank of England and the Bank of Paris. A letter also was published precisely in the same words, signed by M. Drouyn de L'huys, the Foreign Minister of France. It was important to see what the engagements were, the fulfilment of which was thus vouched for by the Foreign Ministers of England and France. They stated—
"On the security of the mortgage of the tribute which the Sultan had reserved out of the revenues of Egypt, in re-appointing, in 1841, Mehemet Ali Pasha of that province, and rendering its Pashalic hereditary in his family, and on the encouragement given to the Loan by the allied Governments, the money sought by the Sultan was furnished by English subscribers, and the Loan constituted part of the history of the war. Subjoined to and made part of the prospectus was the following notification:—'The undersigned have the satisfaction to inform the public that they are authorized by the Earl of Clarendon, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to state that this Loan is negotiated with the knowledge of the English Government; that Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that the Loan and the appropriation of the above-mentioned 30,000,000 piastres (£282,000 sterling) are duly authorized by the Sultan; and further, that the representatives of the Sublime Porte at Paris and London are empowered by virtue of the Imperial Firmans to ratify the contract for the Loan in the name of His Majesty the Sultan; and Lord Clarendon relics with confidence upon the Turkish Government fulfilling with good faith the engagements they entered into. The undersigned are assured that a similar declaration will be made by M. Drouyn de L'huys, the French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Isaac L. Goldsmid, and J. Horsley Palmer.—London. 16th August.' As usual in loans, a general bond, dated August 24th, 1854, was
1732
deposited in the Bank of England. This general bond contained the following irrevocable pledge:—'Be it therefore known that the undersigned, deeming it most for the interest and advantage of His Imperial Majesty's Government to raise the said Loan on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained, do, in pursuance of the powers and authorities vested in them for that purpose, hereby bind and oblige the Government of His Imperial Majesty and the revenues of the Ottoman Empire and Government to the payment of the said Loan, principal and interest, as hereafter stipulated, and in particular do specially and irrevocably charge forthwith as the additional guarantee 30,000,000 of piastres or £282,000, part of the tribute payable to His Imperial Majesty by His Highness the Pacha of Egypt, and in order that the said 30,000,000 of piastres, or £282,000 sterling, may be more effectually and irrevocably pledged and appropriated to the payment of the interest and redemption of the said Loan, the undersigned engage that the necessary Firmans and authorities shall be issued without delay for the due and punctual remittance to the Bank of England or the Bank of France, so that the same may be at the disposal of the Agents of the Loan for that purpose.' This general bond bore the signatures of J. N. Black; the Ambassador of the Sublime Porte at Paris, Vely; P. Durand; the Minister of the Sublime Porte in London, C. Musurus."
From that it appeared that this sum of £282,000 was to be perpetually charged with the interest upon the Loan, and that one-half of the interest was to be paid on the 10th of April and the other on the 10th of October in each year. And then followed a rather curious provision, which might be a small matter, but what appeared to him not unimportant, as showing how complete was the concert between the three Governments, for in October, 1854, the Sultan issued a solemn decree in which he stated—
"That the suitable partition of this sum of sixty thousand purses between the two Banks shall be discussed and settled on the spot between the two Allied Governments and my Imperial Ambassadors in London and Paris."
He could not conceive anything showing more plainly that it was under an arrangement between Turkey, England, and France that this money was to be obtained in the English market. The money was at once obtained; but had it been merely on the assurance of Turkey that these engagements were proposed, the Loan would have fallen as flat as the Loan of Baron Rothschild had fallen a few months before. It was subscribed for because the name of Lord Clarendon was security for England, and that of M. Drouyn de L'huys for France, and all parties looked to the engagement

1733
being fulfilled on that account. He must, however, go a little further on in the financial history of this matter, and look at what occurred in the following year. The money, obtained as he had described, was employed in all that was necessary for the carrying on of the war. Lord Palmerston declared that great as were the efforts of England and France, it was in vain that these efforts should be made unless they were seconded by the efficient support of the country most materially interested. His declaration showed how strong were the feelings which the Ministers entertained of the importance of the money being obtained in order that the Turkish Army might be brought into an efficient state. Still the war continued, and it was necessary in the following year that more money should be raised. The money was raised in this way. It was very much discussed in the House of Commons, and Lord Clarendon distinctly stated what was the security on which the money was advanced, in order to show how perfectly safe the English and French Governments were in joining in that decree. The first security was this—The tribute money at that time was £282,000, and all that was required for the Loan of 1854 was £210,000, leaving £70,000 surplus still open to any lien that might be laid upon it. Accordingly, the first security offered for the Loan of 1855 was this £70,000. For the remainder they looked to other revenues of Turkey, which would more than pay the interest and provide a sinking fund. From that time the payments had continued to be made every half-year in April and in October upon the order of the Turkish Ambassador upon the Bank of England and the Bank of France. For 20 years this went on, without a question being raised, and the pledges of Turkey were fulfilled. But now came a time when a difficulty first arose. In the Autumn of last year the Turkish Government came to the conclusion—and it was a correct one—that they could not pay the whole of the interest upon the various loans and the immense floating debt which existed, and it was proposed at once to reduce the interest one-half, the rest to remain for five years upon the security of certain stock. This was understood to apply to the whole of the Turkish Debt unsecured, for which no part of the revenue was pledged, and for
1734
which 18 or 20 per cent had been asked and given on account of there being no security. It was supposed that the pledge with regard to the Egyptian tribute was irrevocable. For the first time, however, a few days before the 10th March, application was made to the Turkish Ambassador in the usual way for an order upon the money pledged to the bondholders, and which was lying in the Bank of England. The Ambassador refused, unless they would agree to take the half offered to the other creditors and which they had been obliged to take. It was thus proposed that a very large sum—about £100,000—of the surplus should be left at the disposal of the Turkish Government. For what purpose? In order that the Guaranteed Loan might be paid in full out of the very money pledged to the bondholders of 1854. It was utterly impossible for the Government to take a single sixpence of the stolen money—it would be stolen money and nothing else; and it could not be supposed that an English Chancellor of the Exchequer would countenance it; indeed, it was an insult to the Government to suppose that they would be in any way parties to the reception of money under those terms. It might be asked what was the course he thought the Government ought to take. Application had been made to the Foreign Minister for assistance, and while he expressed considerable sympathy for the bondholders, he declared that anything he could do must be done, not in his official, but in his unofficial character. That was making a distinction which ought not to be made. The pledges were made not by Lord Clarendon, but by the Foreign Minister, together with the English and French Governments; they were not unofficial, but official, and he could not understand on what conceivable ground it could be said that the support to be given must be unofficial, when all that had been done by the Government previously was in their official capacity. They had been referred to the South American loans. But this case was different, and it could not be said of this as it might of some Spanish or South American debt, you must take your chance upon the credit of the country you deal with. At the request of Turkey, the Foreign Ministers of England and France had given these pledges and had stated their confidence in

1735
the good faith of the Ottoman Government to fulfil the various pledges contained in the firman. Our Government had a right therefore to call on the Turkish Government, at any rate to make good the pledges that that Government had asked them to give. But for this money the Turkish Army would have been an unarmed multitude, but being thus supplied with the sinews of war their forces were enabled to offer a stout resistance to the enemy. It was therefore for the interests of England and France to give this guarantee, but apart from that we had a right to call upon Turkey to observe her promises. He did not ask Her Majesty's Government to send the Meet to Besika Bay; but he thought that Sir Henry Elliot, as the Ambassador of Great Britain at the Porte, might very well be instructed to remind the Turkish Government of the assistance they had received from Great Britain and France, and to call upon them to fulfil their pledges. Without anything like a declaration of war, a moral support might be given by our Ambassador to the claims of the bondholders. He was sure the present Government would not repudiate the action of their Predecessors, and so he would not say a word as to their responsibility in the matter. One word he wished to say on the form of the Motion with which he intended to conclude. He might state that his original intention was to pray Her Majesty to direct Her Ambassador at the Porte to use his just influence in order to secure the fulfilment of the conditions on which the Loan was raised; but it had been suggested to him, very properly, that it would scarcely be respectful to France for England to take action alone, and therefore he had adopted the form of words which appeared on the Paper. He had said nothing of the miseries inflicted upon those who, trusting to the declaration of our Foreign Minister, had advanced their money to the Turkish Government. He felt strongly upon the matter, but there was one thing which, as a Member of the House of Commons, he felt more strongly, and that was regard for the national honour and deep regret that any British subject should be suffering the calamities now experienced by the subscribers to the Loan of 1854, in consequence of the faith they had placed in the declaration
1736
of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will direct that a communication may be made to the President of the French Republic, in order to ascertain whether the French Government will unite with the Government of Her Majesty in pressing upon the Government of Turkey the complete fulfilment of the conditions upon which the Turkish Loan of 1854 was subscribed for,"—(Mr. Russell Gurney,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FRESHFIELD, in supporting the Resolution, said, he coincided in the reasons assigned by his right hon. and learned Friend for bringing forward the Motion. His right hon. and learned Friend had conclusively shown that the Loan of 1854 was raised on principles less speculative and less sordid than was usual in such cases; that, in fact, patriotism had something to do with it. The Loan of 1854 was a loan raised upon a special security at a time when Turkey was not in debt; it was made with the knowledge and sanction of two European Governments, in the interests of Europe, not less than of Turkey, and it was perfectly successful, the security being the annual tribute of Egypt, which amounted to £282,000. But that was not all; for the Government, following up and endorsing the policy of 1854, sanctioned a second loan on the security of the Egyptian tribute, or rather of the £70,000 of it which remained unmortgaged. There could be no doubt that the Government were well acquainted with all the circumstances of those loans, and he thought it was clear that the bondholders had a right to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to use their best efforts to secure the due payment of the interest that was promised. The security was still in existence—namely, £210,000 of the Egyptian tribute, which was set apart for the payment of 4 per cent interest. Up to the last two years that interest had been duly paid by the remission of the tribute to the Bank of

1737
England, and its payment by the order of the Turkish Ambassador to the trustees appointed under the contract as representatives of the bondholders. After the lapse of 20 years the Turkish Government now found itself in some difficulties, and it had suggested that all the loans contracted, including the Loan of 1854, should be paid into a new general loan upon the hotch-potch principle, the special appropriations in particular cases being forgotten or ignored, the interest on one-half of the amount being deferred for five years, all past engagements being forgotten. But Turkey had no right to take away or appropriate to other purposes the money which had been appropriated to the payment of the interest on the Loan of 1854;and, looking at the position taken up by Lord Clarendon and the Foreign Minister of France at the time, there could be no doubt that Her Majesty's Government were entitled to interfere for the purpose of making the Turkish Government keep faith with respect to this particular loan. But for that loan, none of the subsequent loans which had been placed upon the Exchanges of England and the Continent could have succeeded. The contract was so clear, the conditions so distinct, and the security by which the payment of interest was guaranteed so complete, that he thought his right hon. and learned Friend might very easily have made his Motion a great deal stronger than that to which he gave his earnest support. On going through the printed Papers he had been much struck by a telegram from the Turkish Government to the Turkish Ambassador in London, dated the 16th of October, 1875. It was in the following terms:—
"The late financial measure will not be applied to the Loan of 1855, guaranteed by England and by France; and the service of the interest will continue to be made as heretofore."
He looked upon that communication from the Turkish Government as in effect suggesting to the two powerful Governments of England and France—"We are not going to cheat you, or to take away either the interest or principal of the Loan of 1855, we are only going to defraud your helpless and hopeless subjects; we have got their money, and we mean to misappropriate their security." He said that that communication made it imperative on our Government to give it an answer, protesting that they
1738
would not have their interest or their principal paid at the expense of the helpless bondholders, but that Turkey must honourably fulfil her engagements towards the subjects of Great Britain and France.
MR. HAMONDsaid, he was sorry the Motion had been brought forward, as he had hitherto believed it was the characteristic of Englishmen always to have forbearance towards a foe when he was sorely pressed. He regretted to hear the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Freshfield) attribute fraud to the Turkish Government. The Iradé of the 6th of October last was not in the least intended as a repudiation, or as an amalgamation, or as a throwing into hotch-potch of the entire Debt of Turkey, but it merely meant that the payment of half the interest and sinking fund was to be suspended for five years, hoping that at the end of that time Turkey would be able to resume payment in full and go on as she had done previously, the interest of her Debt and her sinking fund being far too heavy for her to bear. That was not attempting to defraud, nor was it holding out to the Governments of England and France that Turkey would pay them in full, but would rob their subjects of half their due. The loan guaranteed by England and France had only £42,000 of the Egyptian tribute appropriated in payment of its interest, the remainder being secured to the Customs of Smyrna. Neither had there been a proposal made by Turkey to the Foreign Office that they would appropriate a greater sum than £42,000 from the Egyptian tribute, as they were entitled to the surplus from the £280,000 hypothecated to pay the Loan of 1854. He doubted very much the propriety of pressing a country like Turkey, under present circumstances, to pay any loan, or interest on a loan, which she had contracted, seeing she was now struggling against a rebellion fomented and encouraged by those who were called her allies, and also fighting for her very existence as a European Power. That was not a time for the British House of Commons to tell Turkey, in her hour of dire necessity—"Pay what you owe me, pay what you owe your foreign creditors—to the last fraction of a pound." Let them be fair to that much-maligned country. The 1854 Loan was the first foreign loan Turkey ever contracted.

1739
She then had a large revenue, and her expenditure never exceeded her income. True it might be that in the throes of her then struggle for her independence, assisted by England and France, the Ministers of those countries went rather out of the way—he allowed this for the sake of argument—and encouraged their respective peoples to lend Turkey their money. But when men entered into a contract the terms of that contract must be looked to. He held in his hand one of the bonds of the 1854 Loan, and in it he saw no engagement on the part of the English or the French Government to pay interest or guarantee either the interest or the redemption money; but the Porte made a contract with the bondholders to hypothecate £282,000 of the then Egyptian Tribute, to be remitted to England to pay the interest and sinking fund. The Porte had done so; and even while he was speaking he believed that condition was being honestly fulfilled by the Khedive, who made the arrangement with his Sovereign and with the assent of Turkey. He did not think that the bondholders of 1854 had a right to call for the special interference of the Government of this country or of France to help them out of their difficulty, because while they had the advantage of the Egyptian Tribute being remitted direct by the Khedive to the Bank of England, the Porte held the sole control over that remittance; and it was only released from being the property of the Porte by the order of the Turkish Ambassador, who directed the Bank of England from time to time to pay the interest and the sinking fund. If there was any Turkish Loan which had a claim on our Government it was that of 1858, which was the first loan contracted after the war; and the Governments of England and France, which had shed their blood and spent their treasure for the independence of the Ottoman Empire, encouraged that loan. Both Lord Clarendon and Lord Russell, he believed, interfered and took active steps to impress on the Turkish Government the necessity of fulfilling their engagements in respect to the Loan of 1858. Moreover, by a distinct hypothecation the Customs of Constantinople were irrevocably pledged for that Loan, and could be received by the contractor of the Loan to pay the dividends. There was no withholding of them,
1740
until an order came from the Turkish. Ambassador, as in the case of the Loan of 1854. The loans contracted by Turkey subsequently to 1858 stand upon the same footing as the loan of that date, because certain taxes had been hypothecated irrevocably for their payment. But, he asked, was this the time at which to press the Turkish Government? He had every reason to believe that this insurrection or rebellion, if it could be dignified by the name of rebellion—being what he himself would call a disturbance of a few of the provinces of Turkey—had been instigated and encouraged by one who professed goodwill towards her and to be her honourable ally. He believed when this question came to be discussed, that it would be found beyond a shadow of a doubt this disturbance had been brought about, not because the subjects of Turkey were dissatisfied and disaffected, but by a universal system of foreign intrigue, which had been carried on persistently for the last nine or 12 months with the view of ruining Turkey financially as well as politically. When the Papers were laid before the House he believed that would most certainly be its opinion. He, therefore, earnestly asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to press the Government upon this matter at the present juncture of affairs. He was in constant communication with the Porte—humble individual as he was—and he had every reason to believe that in a short time, as this political question was settled, a proposal would be made by the Turkish Government—that, in fact, the Turkish Government were entertaining now proposals of a very important character, which within a month must culminate in some point or other, and that that culmination would be a fair and honourable proposal on the part of the Ottoman Government, which would, he believed, place everything fairly and honestly before its foreign creditors, without any reserve or secret whatever, in regard to the financial position of the country. There could be no advantage derived from pressing her at the present moment. What was her position? Unable to borrow a single penny, her credit utterly gone, her interest upon her foreign Debt unpaid, her provinces in rebellion—was it right, under such circumstances, for Englishmen to press her? He trusted that it would not go forth

1741
from the House of Commons that the Iradé of the 6th of October was put forward by Turkey merely with the view of defrauding her foreign creditors. In the Circular of the 16th of October Turkey repeated the terms of the Iradé of the 6th in the most solemn manner, and expressed her willingness to appoint a syndicate of foreign bondholders, and to hand over to them the revenues hypothecated under the different loans, which would be sufficient to pay the interest and the sinking fund under the Iradé. Did that look like an attempted fraud? If a person could not for the moment pay 20 s. in the pound, what more could they do than say—"That is my all—take it?" He earnestly asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after the observations he had made in reference to the Loan of 1854, not to press this matter to a division unless he included in his Motion all the loans, but that we should wait quietly and patiently, and we should soon have an opportunity of judging Turkey. If she was able to stem the present torrent—and he had not the least doubt that she would—then he believed that she would make every possible arrangement consistent with reason to satisfy her creditors to the best of her ability, and prove to the world that she had no desire or intention to defraud them.
MR. GLADSTONEconfessed himself at a loss to comprehend or to reduce to any tolerable consistency the several parts of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Hamond). The larger part of the hon. Gentleman's speech recalled that age of chivalry which Mr. Burke told us long ago had altogether vanished, and appealed in touching and pathetic tones to the lofty and high-minded sentiments and to the warm-hearted feeling of Englishmen, and entreated them not to press Turkey in her hour of difficulty. But how did the hon. Member close his speech? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder for the City of London had made a special appeal to the Government to press upon the Porte, upon grounds which he would presently consider, the necessity of discharging its obligations with regard to £2,000,000 of its Debt, and the hon. Member who had just sat down said "how cruel to press Turkey at the present moment to pay the interest upon those £2,000,000 of Debt," and he re-
1742
quested the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his Motion unless he would consent to include in its terms the whole of the other Debt. In that case the hon. Member was content to forget that he was an Englishman, and put aside all his high-flown principles, and was willing to go into the Lobby with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he would only not insist upon getting these two payments. [Mr. HAMOND: Permit me to explain that I never said so.] He believed that he had stated accurately the relative positions of the hon. Member's speech, and if he were in error the hon. Member would have an opportunity at the proper time of correcting him. He himself, on the other hand, wished to take a course exactly opposite to that of the hon. Member. The purpose of the hon. Member's speech was to mix together the whole of this immense question and to justify the course pursued by Turkey with regard to her Debt of £200,000,000. He, on the contrary, treading in the path of the right hon. and learned Mover and of the hon. and learned Seconder of the Motion, wished to separate absolutely and completely the case of the Debt of £2,000,000 from that of the Debt of £198,000,000. The Debt of the £2,000,000 was entirely isolated from that of the larger Debt. In itself the smaller Debt was a very insignificant matter, because it only involved a sum of some £50,000 or £60,000 per annum, and therefore the whole amount at issue was very trifling, and in a financial sense, perhaps, trumpery compared with the larger sum at issue. And it was a still more trifling affair, because the sum which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder for the City of London asked to have paid over to the bondholders was not at present under the command of Turkey. It might, perhaps, in a negative sense be at the command of Turkey, because nobody else could get at it without her consent. That was what the hon. Member called being under the sole control of Turkey. If £10,000 was in a bank, and a man had power to prevent the bank paying it over to a third party, but was unable to get it himself, it could not be said that he had the sole control over it. Turkey herself could not touch a single shilling of it. The Bank of England did not understand this Iradé as the hon. Member had understood it. He said it was

1743
a proposal to the bondholders, on the part of Turkey, to forego half their dividends. It was a proposal of much the same sort as the executioner made to a criminal to be hanged, after his sentence had been pronounced. There was no choice of any kind whatever left to the bondholders. But this money was laid up in a particular coffer, and although it was perfectly true the Turkish Ambassador held one of the keys on behalf of his Government, the coffer could not be opened except for the benefit of the bondholders. And as this matter was isolated with regard to the Turkish main Debt, so also was it isolated as regarded the general policy of Her Majesty's Government. It was clear, from the quarter from which the Motion under discussion proceeded, and from the speech of the right hon. and learned Mover, that Party feeling had no relation to the question, and he was therefore sorry and surprised that the matter had not presented itself in what he took to be its true view to the eyes of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, he felt it would be his absolute duty to avoid saying a word which could, in the slightest degree, make it difficult for the Government to listen to an unprejudiced view of the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London had given to the bondholders the valuable aid of his high character, long experience, and judicial mind, and it was on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman a perfectly gratuitous service. He (Mr. Gladstone), on the other hand, stood in a wholly different position. He bore an obligation which he could not but discharge, for he was the sole Representative in that House of those Ministers who were responsible for the transactions connected with the Crimean War. He did not know that either he or Lord Granville had any personal share in the particular transaction under discussion; but regarding the question in the concrete he admitted to the full, and absolutely, the responsibility of the Government of which he was a Member, and was prepared to defend it to the utmost on its merits. To him it seemed that this was neither more nor less than a question of honour, and that it was impossible for them to remain as they were, silent and inert on the subject of this loan, without dishonour to this country. Of course, he did not wish
1744
to say that those who hitherto had not adopted so strong a view as that which had been forced upon himself were less sensible of the importance of maintaining the honour of the country than he was; but he felt convinced that, on repeating the true character of the facts, that would be the general feeling and opinion of the country. This being so, the first proposition he wished to place strongly before the House was that the money was obtained from the bondholders of this country and elsewhere entirely and exclusively in consequence of the letters written by Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys. Until they were written the money was refused, and when they were written it was given with promptitude. His next proposition was that it was a mistake to suppose that the effect of the letters was to induce the purchasers of bonds to place reliance on the general credit and revenues of Turkey, although it might be perfectly true, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, that that case might have happened, for Turkey at the time had no foreign Debt and a revenue considerably above her expenditure. But, as a fact, the security upon which these gentleman trusted their money was not worse now than it was then, for if every shilling of the general revenue of Turkey dwindled away and disappeared, their security would remain the same. The Egyptian tribute was their security, and it was irrevocably and absolutely devoted to the purpose up to a certain sum until the loan was liquidated. Nothing could be clearer than the evidence on the point, for it was stated in the contract, which was quite sufficient to fix it upon the British Government, and was likewise in the firman of the Sultan, in different words, but the effect was exactly the same. The Sultan desired that the liquidation should continue till the liquidation of the loan, both principal and interest, was complete. The only question that could arise was, what might happen if the Pacha were to fail in his duty; and taking the circumstances as they stood, the impression made on his own mind was that the Khedive, in the midst of his great difficulties, had a very great anxiety to discharge his obligations. Nothing could be more improbable than that he would make himself a party to that which was regarded as an

1745
act of repudiation, and had all the aspects of repudiation, whether so intended, by Turkey or not. The power of Turkey to pay was complete. It was not as if it were money she had power to apply to other purposes, for she had not that power. Every shilling requisite for the fulfilment of those obligations was ready, although it was in the power of Turkey to prevent its being employed for its legitimate ends. It was, therefore, wide of the question to suppose that Egypt would assist Turkey in any scheme of repudiation. These letters of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys were so strong and firm, and even solemn in their character, that even if they thought these letters ought not to have been written, they could not say that they were sorry their prestige had suffered, but they could not help it, without being guilty of an act of dishonour. He did not enter into the question whether Turkey issued that Iradé with the intention finally of liquidating everything, but the question was, whether England was to use her influence with Turkey to allow this fund to go to its proper purposes. He had seen it stated and imputed to Lord Derby that these letters were very much to be regretted, and were not to be considered as binding. If they were part of the most foolish measure ever passed, they must be fully and absolutely supported, for he maintained that the only principle on which Government could be carried on was to accept fully the consequences of all official acts. But he maintained that these letters were no discredit to the prudence of the Governments which caused them to be issued. At that time England and France were about to enter on enormous expenditure to prevent an invasion of Turkey by Russia, and they accordingly made it clear to the Turkish Government that they could not undertake the whole responsibility of defending Turkey against Russian conquest. The Turkish Government replied that, although they had endeavoured to do it, they had found it impossible to provide for the expenses of a war such as that which was impending out of the ordinary revenues of the country. They did attempt to raise the money, and the effort having failed, it was impossible for England and France to stand by and leave Turkey in a condition in which she would neither have revenue to support a war nor credit
1746
to borrow money. England might certainly have allowed Turkey to borrow £3,000,000 under a letter of recommendation; or was she to have guaranteed the loan? [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No, no.] Well, he would not enter into that question. He did not think it would have been wise, because it might have become the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to Parliament and ask for the means of discharging that guarantee. The remaining course was that England might have given Turkey the money. Well, he did not agree with the system of guaranteeing the loans; and if he did not mistake, his right hon. Friend had in 1855 joined in a protest against that system. That, however, had gone by. What he said was this—that what Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys did was the least they could do. The question was not whether what they had done was the right thing to do, but whether it was not the least and the best thing they could do. If they had not done that, they must either have paid the money or guaranteed it, and either of those things would have been a great deal more stringent. They engaged this country to the minimum that they thought it necessary to go, and under these circumstances it would indeed be strange of they were to object to what Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys did because it was of an insufficient character, and said that they ought to have paid the money outright or guaranteed it. Well, in 1854 the obligation of our Government to these bondholders became complete, and it was even strengthened by what took place in 1855. The Convention of that year was an absolute Treaty between Turkey on the one side, and England and France on the other; and in that Treaty they found embodied the very words that a certain sum of money was to be available for the interest of the guaranteed loans after a sufficient sum had been appropriated for the payment in full of the loan of 1854. It was no extravagant construction of that Treaty to say that Turkey was bound to this country and to France by the words of that Treaty to the full discharge of those obligations. Everyone would have observed the very peculiar form of the proceedings of the Ottoman Porte on the subject. In 1854 the English and French Governments pledged

1747
their honour to a loan; they gave an honourable assurance that the Porte could and would fulfil its obligations. In 1855 they pledged the credit of the nation, and made the money receivable at the Bank of England. What was the language of the Ottoman Porte? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Hamond) treated it as if it had been complimentary to us. He (Mr. Gladstone) must confess that it appeared to him, on the contrary, to be disparaging in the highest degree, for what the Ottoman Porte said was—"We will not cheat you; we will only dishonour you. The loss of money, we know, you could not stand; the loss of credit and reputation is a matter which in these times of modern philosophy you are much better able to bear with." Let them remember that when the loan of 1855 was made there was a distinct recognition of it under the Treaty. What were the declarations of those who dealt with the subject as it passed through Parliament? Lord St. Leonards used the remarkable expression that by this transaction we had become assignees of the Egyptian tribute for the benefit of the creditors. Lord Clarendon and Lord Palmerston, in the most express and clearest manner, spoke of the loan as coming behind the previous charge upon the Egyptian tribute—were these empty words? On the contrary, they acted at once upon the Money Market, for the security was not a speculative one. It had, on the one hand, the full support of the English and French Governments, and, on the other hand, they had prudently arranged for keeping the money out of the Turkish Treasury altogether, and took care that it should be brought direct from Egypt to this country. The result was the loan went to 94½, whereas he believed that the people, if they wanted to sell their securities, could hardly get £30 per £100. He really could not say what constituted s strong case if that was not a strong case He was not prepared to say that there was any limit to the rights of the British Government as against Turkey with regard to this matter. He only said that it was not for them to enter into the question whether it was desirable for the Government to push those rights to an extreme point. The Motion of the right hon. and learned Recorder was drawn with great moderation and great
1748
judgment. It simply stated that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to press upon the Government of Turkey the complete fulfilment of the conditions upon which the loan was subscribed for. Was not that a very moderate statement? Was it possible to deny the leading proposition that the loan was subscribed for in consequence of the letters of recommendation, and could they now proceed as if those letters never existed? Everybody knew that that if it were a far larger question it was in the power of the English and French Governments to insist, and that by a very moderate exercise of their just influence, that Turkey had no right to make them sharers in dishonour. She had no right to parade them before the world as people who deluded the innocent holders of capital in their own countries, and induced them to go into bad security by representing to them with solemnity that it was a good one, for that was what they had done. If it was a bad security, it was one with the joint assurance of the two Governments that it was not. For his part, he thought it necessary to wash his hands of all part in such a transaction, and therefore of the responsibility of being a party to opposing the Motion. He had never known a clearer case submitted to Parliament, considering the manner in which it had been received and the quarter from which the Motion came, and deeply should he be disappointed if, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, or by the decision of the House, it should appear that those much injured parties were to remain without redress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that before he proceeded to make any remarks upon the Motion, he wished to set himself right in reference to an interruption of his during the speech of his right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). His right hon. Friend was speaking of the course taken by Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys in 1854, and stated that in recommending the loan then about to be recommended on behalf of Turkey, they adopted upon the whole the best course that could be taken in the circumstances. His right hon. Friend compared that course with the alternative of guaranteeing the loan, and asked the House in defence of the

1749
policy acted upon, whether it was not a better mode of proceeding than guaranteeing the loan. He interrupted his right hon. Friend by saying, "No," while following the argument in his own mind that the letters of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys involved us in some obligation equivalent to a guarantee. His right hon. Friend reminded him of the part he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took in 1855;but in that year he voted against guaranteeing the loan, and he had no doubt that had the question been discussed in 1854 he should have given a similar vote. The reason for his interruption was this—it struck him that, if instead of encouraging the loan of 1854, we had acted as we did in the following year, then, instead of finding ourselves in 1876 under some kind of obligation, unexplained and indefinite in its character, we should be absolutely clear of any obligation whatever. His right hon. Friend said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have had to ask Parliament for money to pay the sum so guaranteed, but on that point he took issue with his right hon. Friend. He begged to call attention to this rather simple calculation. The nominal capital of the Turkish Loan of 1854 amounted to £3,000,000; but it was issued at 80, and therefore the lenders paid only £2,400,000. In January, 1876, there remained unpaid a sum of about £890,000, representing £1,117,000 nominally. Now if the lender had perfect security, he would not have received more than 4 per cent, because in the following year the loan was raised at 4 per cent. In point of fact, the amount which the lender received in 1854 was £6 on £80, or 7½ per cent. If that 7½ per cent were to be divided between the 4 per cent which the lender would receive on the guaranteed loan, and the 3½ per cent which remained over, and if that 3½ per cent were applied by way of sinking fund, he would in 21 years have got back his capital and something more. In that case, therefore, the whole of the loan would have been paid off. It was because he had that calculation in his mind, that he was induced to say that something better could have been done; that Turkey would have received more efficient help, and we should have been free from responsibility. He now wished to ask for a few minutes the candid and
1750
unbiassed attention of the House to that position in which we stood. Nobody could doubt that the position was a very serious one; and deserved very earnest consideration. No one could doubt that on any question which could by any construction be represented as touching the honour of England, we ought to be very jealous of that honour, and very careful of the course that we might take. But he was quite certain he was speaking the sentiments of his noble Friend, Lord Derby, and of the Government, when he said that the importance of watching jealously over the honourable obligations of England in this matter was as much present to their minds as it was to the mind of his right hon. Friend, or any hon. Member of this House. His right hon. Friend spoke very naturally with some personal feeling in this matter, because he represented in this House the Government by whom that obligation had been incurred. Well, he entirely accepted the proposition laid down by his right hon. Friend that the Government of England was not the Administration in power at any particular time, and that where the Government of one day pledged the national faith in any particular, succeeding Governments were bound in honour to take up the engagement and redeem it. But let them not attempt to say that the present Government, as their Successors, had any greater obligation than they would have had. When his right hon. Friend asked, were not Her Majesty's Government to consider the letters of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys binding? his answer was that they did as far as they would be binding on Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys, but Her Majesty's Government did not say that the Successors of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys incurred any greater obligation. Now, what was the nature of that obligation, for by the answer to that question, the position of Her Majesty's Government was to be measured. And here he would call the attention of the House to the very great delicacy of dealing with matters of this sort. We must not allow hard cases to lead us to the adoption of false general principles. We must bear in mind the proper principles upon which to proceed in relation to the debts owing to British subjects by foreign Powers, and that there was nothing that would be more

1751
dangerous to the interests of this country, or to those whom he might call the leading classes, than that the Government should give a fictitious support to their transactions by holding out to them a sort of indefinite hope that in some way or another the money that they might lend to foreign Governments would be looked after for them by the British Government. If there were cases in which British subjects had advanced money to foreign Powers on the full conviction that those Powers were offering good security and fair interest, they must take the risk. But if we led the lender to think that in case the Power to which he lent money made default, he would get the aid of his own Government to recover his money, we should be encouraging him to believe that he had got a security which he had not. It was all very well to say that we were not to be driven to the use of force in these matters. It was all very well for his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder for the City of London to say—"I do not ask you to send your ships to Besika Bay;" but, in point of fact, if they did begin to acknowledge an obligation, and undertook to press it on a foreign Power and that power treated us with contempt what was the ultimate resort? Were we to go as far as we could, but when the moment for action came were we to say we did not intend to go quite so far? If we acted in that way we should place ourselves in an unworthy and ludicrous position. A half support was a very awkward thing to give, and that remark he would apply to the letters of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys, because those letters, falling short of an actual guarantee, did encourage the belief that a considerable amount of support was given by the two Governments, and we were now disputing what was the amount of obligation incurred by those letters. It would have been far better if we were going to do anything at the time, to have come forward frankly and said that we would give a guarantee. But what we did fell far short of that. Instead of the loan having been raised on the favourable terms on which the loan in the following year was raised when we gave the guarantee, it was raised on unfavourable terms; Turkey did not get what she expected, and it was suggested that we were in some shape or other to assist the
1752
bondholders. His right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, in conjunction with the right hon. and learned Recorder, stated that the loan was obtained entirely and exclusively in consequence of the letters of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys, and the former right hon. Gentleman justified the statement in this way, that when Turkey first began to make efforts to raise a loan, not having that support she failed; but when the support of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys was given she obtained the money. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not know precisely all that occurred before the loan, but this he did know—before the proceedings which terminated in a loan, an attempt was made by Turkey to raise a loan through the agency of Baron Rothschild, and in March, 1854, Baron Rothschild put himself into communication with the Foreign Office with respect to it. Baron Rothschild had an interview with Lord Clarendon, and the result was that he wrote to the Foreign Office and he received from the Foreign Office a letter informing him that—
"The best exertions of Her Majesty's Government would always be used to secure on the part of the Turkish Government the strict fulfilment of the conditions on which, the loan was made."
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich to be as nearly as possible defined by those words. [Mr. Gladstone: No, no!] Then he did not know what his right hon. Friend meant. His right hon. Friend did not ask the Government to come forward and say—
"Inasmuch as we misled you, we are ready to give you a Vote out of the national Exchequer;"
but he said—
"You ought to come forward, and use your best exertions in order to secure on the part of the Turkish Government the strict fulfilment of the conditions on which the loan was contracted."
That he took to be the position of his right hon. Friends the Recorder and the Member for Greenwich. That was precisely what the Foreign Office told Baron Rothschild—that the moral support of the Government would be given, and yet he failed to raise the loan, but subsequently the object was attained—

1753
and how? Not by giving any greater pledge, but by something rather short of that—by the hypothecation of the Egyptian tribute as a special security. It was when that arrangement, conducted under the auspices of the French and English Governments, was completed, and the Government were enabled to announce the fact to the public that the loan was issued. It was not upon any moral obligation, but on a material arrangement, by which so much money was to be paid into the Bank of England in the shape of Egyptian tribute—it was on that basis, when they changed from the moral support to the material guarantee, that the loan was actively carried into effect. That led them to examine the position of this Egyptian tribute. His right hon. Friend said this money which Turkey was called on to apply to the payment of her debts was not under her control; she could not make any other use of it than pay it to her creditors. To a certain extent that was true; but not without certain limitations. She must pay the Egyptian tribute into the Bank of England, and the Bank would not allow her to apply it to any other purpose. That was true; but if Turkey only authorized the Bank of England to appropriate one-half in payment of the loan in February, there would remain the other half standing over, and that might be used by Turkey in the next half-year. At the present moment there was lying in the Bank of England a considerable sum of money paid as Egyptian tribute in February, which was held subject to the orders of the Turkish Government. The Bank of England would not allow it to be appropriated to any other purpose, but it would be available for the interest. He thought these things ought to be known, because it ought to be understood exactly what our position was. But while he said these things, qualifying as they did some of the propositions rather hastily and rashly taken up on that subject by some hon. Member and still more by persons outside, he was very far indeed from desiring to deny or depreciate the amount of responsibility which rested on the English Government to see justice done as far as they could in this matter. He was very sensible of the moral obligation laid upon them in consequence of the assurances given by Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys. The Government,
1754
indeed, were very far from denying the fact that these assurances thus given did raise to some extent an obligation in respect to those loans which would not exist in the case of other loans. At the same time they must be cautious—they must take care how far the language used by Government in respect to any particular loan was to be considered as involving an obligation to act with regard to the recovery of other loans. His right hon. Friend rather reproached the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond) for venturing to introduce the case of other loans, and he said those other loans had nothing to do with this discussion. They ought not to complicate matters by bringing into the discussion other loans. Now, that was a very easy position for his right hon. Friend to take. Care must be exercised that in what we might do, or in what we might allege, we did not affect our obligations in respect of other loans. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would remind the House that the loan of 1862 was materially assisted by the insertion in the prospectus of a very gushing letter from Earl Russell, who was then Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as to the condition of Turkey and its ability to meet its obligations. [Mr. Gladstone: Will you read that letter, please?] He had not the letter at hand at the moment; but his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Office (Mr. Bourke) would find it, and it should be read before the termination of the debate. He was not contending for a moment that the letter of Earl Russell in that case amounted to as much as the letter of Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys in this; but he was saying that we must take care how far we acknowledged any action on the part of the British Government, as involving an obligation on the part of the British Government, going further than it professed to go. Undoubtedly, these letters by acknowledgment did not go the length of a pure guarantee; but it was a question how far they actually did go. If they only went so far as to involve the statement of the belief of the Government of the two countries that Turkey could and would meet her engagements, it might possibly be felt there was difficulty with regard to other loans that were issued with the same kind of acknowledgment. But this was not to be

1755
treated quite in the way his right hon. Friend proposed. It must be remembered that when we were calling upon the Government of Turkey to make any particular arrangement with regard to any portion of its Debt, this arrangement to a certain extent, it might be a limited extent, did affect the position of the other creditors; and it was not unreasonable that we should at least consider in what we did, whether it affected the interests of other creditors. He was far from saying that the interests of other creditors had an equal claim upon us with the interests of those connected with the Loan of 1854. He was far from saying that anything like the same obligation rested upon us; but we must be careful we did not treat these matters as if we could shut out or put on one side every other consideration except this particular case of the Loan of 1854. With regard to that, after all the bondholders had some advantages over the other creditors, because they had at least a material guarantee that the Egyptian tribute, as at present arranged, must come into the Bank of England, and was there held for their ultimate, if not for their immediate benefit. Therefore, they were not so wholly left without security as some other creditors might possibly be, and he was quite prepared to admit, in the interests of these creditors, that there was a special obligation to consider and have regard to. His right hon. Friend, he would admit, might fairly say it was a matter in which we were not alone; it was a matter in which the position of the French Government as well as of our own had to be considered, and he thought it would be unfortunate if by any vote or hasty action of the House we were apparently to take any step without placing ourselves in communication with the French Government on the matter. Negotiations had been going on with a view to effecting arrangements, and at one time he was in hope they might lead to a more satisfactory result than they had. He did not know how far they were to accept the consoling assurances of the hon. Member for Newcastle, which he had heard with great pleasure, though for the first time, to-night; but he was prepared to say, on behalf of the Government, that they were not insensible to the case that had been brought forward, that it was one which had engaged
1756
their attention for a considerable time, and they were prepared to place themselves in communication afresh with the Government of France on the subject. He did not feel justified in saying more than that at present; but he wished to remind the House of the extreme delicacy of their position, and to express an earnest hope that his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder would be satisfied with having called attention to the subject and eliciting the expression of opinions he had done, and would trust to the effect the expression of those opinions might have, rather than to a formal vote of the House upon the subject.
MR. J. HOLMSadmitted that that was a delicate subject to discuss, and said that its importance arose from the expressions of opinion in favour of the Loan of 1854 that were given by Lord Clarendon and M. Drouyn de L'huys, although other loans seemed to have derived some support from the letter of Lord Russell that had been referred to. The Loan of 1854 was a large and important one, and that of 1862 partook much of the same quality. The letter of Lord Russell, alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated March 15, 1862, stated that if the Sultan's Commissioners succeeded in obtaining the loan, Her Majesty's Government, anxious for the well-being and prosperity of Turkey, would be prepared to send one or two gentlemen in whom they had confidence to assist the Turkish Minister in the due application of the proceeds of the loan to the extinction of the paper money, and the funding of the floating Debt. He stated that Her Majesty's Government would take an interest in the operation from feelings of friendship towards Turkey, and the contractors for the loan might see in such a mission further security against the misapplication of the loan and the loss of credit that would ensue. The effect of the letter was that the loan, which up till that time was in disfavour, was not only accepted by the public at large, but it was subscribed for five times over in consequence.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the guarantee by Lord Russell, in 1862, was entirely different from the recommendations of the Government as to the 1854 loan. That was a promise to send delegates to Turkey to see to the extinc-

1757
tion of paper money. That measure was carried out, and thereby the obligation of the English Government was entirely discharged. It was far otherwise in the case of the 1854 Loan. In 1854 it was impossible for Turkey to raise money unless she was backed up by England and France. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that it would have been much better if the English Government in 1854 had actually guaranteed the loan. He wished, however, to remind him that when in 1855 they did guarantee a Turkish loan, the proposal was only carried in that House by a majority of 2. This Loan of 1854 stood upon an entirely different footing from any of those to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred, and in which the credulity of the English public might be said to have been manifested. It was not a loan brought forward by some semi-bankrupt State, with a prospectus to induce the public to lend money in the hopes of receiving an extravagant interest, but it was raised in a time of war, in which England and France were the allies of the borrowing Power; and the English public paid for the bonds a far higher price than they would have brought if the loan had been brought out without the recommendation of the English and French Ministers. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be fully alive to the necessity of the Government intervening in the matter, and it was his firm belief and hope that he would persuade his Colleagues to listen to what he conceived to be the unanswerable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich; so that they might recognize the duty of the Government in not leaving in the lurch those who had subscribed to this Loan upon the faith of the promises, explanations, and assurances given by Lord Clarendon.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that the position of this Loan of 1854 was complicated by what afterwards occurred in 1855.Turkey obtained a new loan with an English and French Government guarantee in 1855, the security for which was the margin of the Egyptian tribute which had been already pledged to cover the Loan of 1854; but the proceeds of the tribute were not now applied to pay the first charge upon it, whilst nevertheless Turkey was at pre-
1758
esent making good her obligations to England and France by the payment of the interest and instalments of the latter loan; and he would therefore appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the matter was not further complicated by the neglect of Turkey to fulfil her obligations in regard to the prior loan of 1854?
LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather overlaid his speech with reservations and qualifications. The matter was, indeed, so clear, and the honour of this country was so unmistakably involved, that he should have liked to hear a little plainer language from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman had led the House away from the real question by an elaborate argument of what would have happened if there had been an absolute guarantee of the Loan of 1854. But we did not guarantee that loan, and it was, therefore, of no use to calculate what would have happened if we had done so. We did guarantee the Loan of 1855, and it was the duty of the Government to take care that the Egyptian tribute money, which was partly a security for the Loan of 1855, and partly a security for the Loan of 1854, was punctually paid. The two questions were very much mixed up together, and the English taxpayer had a deep interest in knowing that Government were preparing to insist upon Turkey's fulfilling her obligations. They had nothing to do with other loans. He regretted that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond) should have gone into other loans that had no connection with that under discussion. The hon. Gentleman had, in fact, tried to start a new hare.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that he would not detain the House further than to say that he hoped that the attention of the Government would be directed to the matter, especially when it was seen what were the words which had been used by the Minister of the day when the loan was raised. They all knew the Egyptian tribute was specially appropriated for the payment of the interest of that particular loan, and if that was

1759
not secured, all promises of the kind would be as worthless as the paper on which they were written.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, it was a curious feature of the question, that whereas those who were interested in the particular result of the Motion only held the position of creditors to the extent of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000, there were other creditors to the extent of £196,000,000 who were wholly uninterested in it. What was the position of the creditors of the Loan of 1854, which entitled them so largely to the sympathy of the House? He believed from the first that those gentlemen had made a very good bargain, and that so far from their being in a position to lose anything they had in the 22 years during which the loan had been running, received both their capital and interest, if that interest had been calculated at the reasonable rate of 3½ or 4 per cent. He did not believe that they entered into the loan in consequence of the words used by Lord Clarendon, but from sympathy with Turkey when she became our ally. Lord Clarendon did no more than express his entire confidence in the good faith of the Turks; though it must be admitted that subsequently their conduct was inconsistent with honesty. The Turks therefore were not entitled to the confidence that had been expressed. Lord Clarendon's words could not in any sense be construed as a guarantee; and the rate at which the loan was raised plainly showed that they had not been so understood.
SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, his mind had been exercised as to how he should vote; but after listening to the debate he had come to the conclusion that the weight of argument seemed to be rather in favour of accepting the Motion of the the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney). With regard to the question of interference on the part of the Government, if it were simply to be determined on general principles, he should say that it was not their duty to interfere for the protection of those subjects who had chosen to enter into incautious contracts with foreign creditors. The present, however, was an exceptional case, and if he might give advice to those who lent money to impecunious States, he should tell them to use their own discretion and to observe some plain rules for their guidance. One
1760
of these was never, under any circumstances, to lend their money to a borrowing State unless the subjects of that Power were willing to lend their money to their own Government also. It should be remembered that in the case of this loan to the Turkish Government the hypothecation of territory for the payment of the interest was not an ordinary one. The Khedive became a party to the arrangement and the British Government approved of it. The sum of £280,000 a-year produced by the hypothecation did not form a part of the general resources of Turkey; it was to be applied to the payment of the interest on the Loan of 1854, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not look to that tribute to pay the Loan of 1855—that was to relieve the Government of their guarantee—and ignore the rights of the bondholders of 1854, who were in the position of first mortgagees. Assuming that Lord Clarendon pledged his word in this matter, we must keep that pledge, and it was not now a question of policy, but a question of honour; and all that the Government could be asked to do, was to use its moral influence in urging on the Turkish Government to keep the promise which they made, and which Her Majesty's Government ratified.
MR. SANDFORDapproved the caution with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken on the subject, and expressed a hope that the right hon. and learned Recorder would rest satisfied with the discussion which he had elicited, and would not think it necessary to bring his Motion to a division.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he had been in considerable doubt during the right hon. Gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) speech what course he should take; but just at the close of his observations, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government recognized their responsibility, that they were willing to communicate with the French Government, in order to consider what course should be taken, and to make use of their moral influence with the Turkish Government to make it fulfil its engagements. On that understanding he should withdraw the Motion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not given utterance to all his right hon. and learned Friend

1761
had represented, and in order to prevent any misunderstanding on the subject, he would repeat the observation he had made, which was that Her Majesty's Government were not insensible to the gravity of the responsibility that rested upon them in the matter, and that they would place themselves in communication with the French Government in reference to the course which should be pursued.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL— [Bill 185.]
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL— [Bill 185.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. DILLWYNresumed his speech in opposition to the second reading of the Bill. Last year they created one new Bishopric, and now they proposed to create another, and if 500,000 population was to be the condition on which new Bishoprics were to be created, he did not see where they were to stop. For his own part, he would much rather increase the number of working clergy. He felt bound to enter his protest against the proposal, his opinion being that it was not desirable to create an additional number of Bishops throughout the country. The Bishops were at present numerous, and it was not desirable to multiply them. The hon. Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the opposition of the hon. Member would not be persisted in. His hon. Friend was, he knew, averse to any increase of the Episcopate. The question was whether there was any necessity for an increase of the Episcopate. He would not
  1762
  enter into that question now, because it had been fully discussed before that Session, and the general feeling was that an increase was desired. It was fully shown that the diocese of Exeter had grown too large to be worked by one Bishop, and that was why the Bill had been introduced. Further than that, the necessary funds were to be secured by voluntary subscription, one person guaranteeing no less than £1,200 a-year and the Bishop of Exeter giving £800 a-year during his life.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 23: Majority 52.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

ARDGLASS HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT
(re-committed) BILL.—[Bill 200.]
(Mr. William Henry Smith, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

ARDGLASS HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  GENERAL SIRGEORGE BALFOURopposed going into Committee on the Bill, on the ground that past experience had shown that the harbour was not required as a harbour of refuge, or for any other purpose worth the money it was proposed to expend upon it. No one was more anxious than he was to have harbours formed along our exposed coasts, especially harbours of the description of Ardglass, intended for boats employed in the fisheries, but no course was more likely to delay the construction of such harbours than the attempts now made to re-construct the harbour of Ardglass. It was upwards of a third of a century since the works of Ardglass Harbour were swept away in one of the storms that prevailed on that coast, and the present date we were still wanting in that useful knowledge what was so much needed in order to guide our engineers in the formation of harbour works. His opposition to the proposed expenditure on this harbour merely

  1763
  rested on the conviction that it would be wise for the Government, before risking the large sums which were needed to form the many harbours required for our coasting fisheries' trade, to acquire that information what might give a far greater prospect of successful results than the country had yet had for the millions which had been uselessly spent on the many harbours that had proved disastrous failures.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that very great care had been taken to ascertain the sufficiency of grounds upon which the proposal was made. Ardglass Harbour had no doubt suffered from storms; but he believed it had suffered still more from the neglect of those who ought to have repaired it. The harbour was necessary for a refuge to the fishing vessels and the general trade of the country. The appropriation now asked for was a wise and good one, and would be beneficial to the fishing trade of the country.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he did not concur in the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour). He thought that the House was well entitled to take the proposal of the engineers, which was made after minute investigation, and advance the small sum of money asked for.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought the harbour was necessary for the trade, and hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; without Amendment, to be read the third time upon Monday next.

ERNE LOUGH AND RIVER (re-committed) BILL— [Bill 187.]
(Mr. William Henry Smith, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
ERNE LOUGH AND RIVER (re-committed) BILL— [Bill 187.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  GENERAL SIRGEORGE BALFOURprotested against the Bill on the same
  1764
  grounds as he had already urged in regard to the Ardglass Harbour.
  MR. DILLWYNmoved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  SIRMICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped the Motion would not be persisted in. The Bill was for the purpose of making a great arterial drainage in the North of Ireland, which could not be done without the aid proposed to be given.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought the Bill ought to be allowed to pass.
  MR. ANDERSONasked what proportion of the money was paid by the locality?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that £15,000, which was half the cost of the navigation works, would be the subject of a Vote. The other half of the cost of the navigation works, and the whole of the drainage works, were to be a charge on the county and barony.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 53: Majority 45.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS BILL. [BILL 43.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. William Gordon.)
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS BILL. [BILL 43.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Charley.)
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.