Commons Sitting of 11 August 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans (No. 2) [260]; Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices (re-comm.) [288].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) [283], and passed.
Third Reading—East India Loan (Annuities) * [275]; East India Loan (£5,000,000) [197]; Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2)* [289], and passed.
Withdrawn—Game Laws Amendment (Scotland) [290]; Tipperary Boroughs* [271]; Trustees Relief* [145],

QUESTIONS.
  NAVY—DOCKS AT SIMON'S BAY.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any steps are being taken to provide dock accommodation for Her Majesty's Ships at Simon's Bay, Cape Colony; and, if there is any Correspondence on the subject, either at the Admiralty or Colonial Office, which can, without prejudice to the public service, be laid upon the Table of the House?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, no steps have been taken to provide farther dock accommodation at Simon's Bay, and there is no Correspondence on the subject to produce. There is a patent slip

    661
    capable of taking small vessels at Simon's Bay, and there are basins at Table Bay and a dock in progress.

VICTORIA—NAVAL RESERVE FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If lie will be so good as to supplement his information as to the results of the Colonial Naval Defence Act by stating how many Royal Colonial Naval Reserve men and Volunteers are enrolled under that Act in the Colony of Victoria?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, on the 31st of December, 1877, the Naval Reserve Force of Victoria appeared to have numbered 348; but he was unable to state what its present numbers might be.

  NAVAL STATIONS AT YEZO AND SEVASTOPOL.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state if it be true that the Government of Russia are about to establish a large Naval and Military station opposite to the Yezo coast of Japan: and, whether the Government have any information respecting the rumoured establishment of a Naval station at Sevastopol by the United States Government under a concession from the Government of Russia?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he had looked carefully through the Papers in the Foreign Office, but had not been able to find any document containing information on the subject referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question.

NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINE CORPS— THE ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1878.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be the fact that the Royal Marine Corps Order in Council of the 15th January, 1878, was founded mainly on the Report of a Departmental Committee; if it be the fact that none of the officers of the corps were examined by that Committee except the Assistant Adjutant General; if he is aware that the result has given dissatisfaction to the other officers of the corps, particularly in the extent to which selection has been substituted for seniority,
  662
  in a seniority service; if he is aware that there are cases of peculiar hardship, if not illegality, in the way in which senior officers have been passed over for commands; and, if he will appoint an impartial Committee to ascertain from the officers themselves the grievances of which they complain?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it is the fact that the Royal Marine Corps Order in Council of January 15, 1878, was founded on the Report of a Committee. The Committee did not take evidence, but numerous Memorials from Marine officers were referred to and considered by them. The Deputy Adjutant General of the Marine Corps was a Member of the Committee, and he received assistance also from the Assistant Adjutant General. So far from the result having given dissatisfaction, the reverse is the case, the majority of Marino officers preferring selection for commands of divisions as a substitute for seniority. No doubt, the officers who have not been selected for command view their own individual eases as of peculiar hardship; but there can be no question of legality, the Admiralty having had, previously to the re-organization, full powers to exercise their discretion. I need hardly say that it is not an agreeable duty to have to select officers, and that it is done with the most careful and anxious consideration. There is no intention to appoint another Committee.

LAW AND JUSTICE—BREWERS AS JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WETHEREDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether instances have not lately occurred of Lords Lieutenants of counties refusing to place in the commission of the peace gentlemen who have been recommended by chairman and petty sessions, and are in every way duly qualified for the office, on the ground that they are connected with the brewing business; and, if this be the case, whether the Government is prepared to issue instructions to Lords Lieutenants of counties to the effect that the fact of gentlemen being engaged in the brewing business shall not be regarded as a disqualification for appointment as a justice of the peace?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the initiative in

  663
  recommending gentlemen for the position of county magistrate lay with the Lords Lieutenant of counties, and that the Government had no knowledge of the grounds upon which they recommended or declined to recommend such gentlemen as were referred to in the Question of the hon. Member—namely, gentlemen connected with the brewing business. The Lord Chancellor who, as a rule, appointed any gentleman whom the Lord Lieutenant recommended, unless there was some specific objection to his so doing as regarded the person so submitted, had no means of knowing the grounds on which a Lord Lieutenant declined to make such recommendation. As a matter of fact, many brewers were on the commission of the peace; and, in the opinion of the Government, the fact that a gentleman was engaged in the brewing business was no disqualification for his appointment as a justice.

THE RAILWAY COMMISSION—CONTINUANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR PEELasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, considering that a Bill for simply continuing the Railway Commissioners has now passed this House, it is to be understood that no change is contemplated in the functions of the Commissioners; or whether, seeing the urgent necessity for conferring upon them fresh duties and powers, he can state that it is intended to introduce a Bill to that effect before the expiration of the term of extension?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, as I mentioned when the Bill continuing the Railway Commission and their functions was passed, the Government by introducing that Bill in no way pledged itself not to propose changes to Parliament during the three years for which the Commission is prolonged by that Bill. I am fully aware that fresh legislation is called for on this subject, and, as I stated at the beginning of the Session, I had considered the matter very carefully during the last winter, and had prepared a Bill of considerable length respecting it, which the pressure of other Business made it impossible for me to introduce. As to when the Government may be able to deal with this matter, while fully acknowledging its importance I think it wiser to decline to give any pledge.

CUSTOMS OFFICERS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the out-door Customs officers employed in Ireland, particularly in Belfast, recently memorialized the Treasury to be placed on an equal footing with those of London and Liverpool, alleging that their duties were equally onerous and responsible, and the cost of living equally high; whether these statements are correct; whether a similar equality exists with reference to the pay and emoluments of all, or nearly all, the out-door out-post officers located in Ireland, as compared with those located in England; and, whether, seeing that the pay of these and other civil servants comes from the Imperial Exchequer, and not from local sources, he will consider the propriety of making their remuneration depend upon the amount and nature of their duties and responsibilities, instead of upon the country where these duties are discharged, or otherwise remedying the inequality complained of?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, 0n the 12th of February this year, the out-door officers in Belfast memorialized the Treasury in the sense described by the hon. Member in his Question, and about the same time similar Memorials were received from Londonderry, Cork, and Sligo, in Ireland, and from about 20 of the outports in England. All these Memorials are word for word identical—which shows them to be the result of preconcerted arrangement. Speaking generally, I should say that it is certainly not a correct allegation that the duties of out-port officers are as onerous and responsible as those of London and Liverpool officers, or that the cost of living is as high at the out-ports as it is in those two places. There is no difference between the pay of out-door officers at the out-ports in Ireland and in the United Kingdom, therefore there is no reason for altering salaries on that account; nor do I see any other sufficient reason for altering the remuneration of the class of officers referred to, especially as their case was considered at the I time the re-organization of that class of officers took place, so recently as 1871.

SPAIN—CUBA—IMPORTATION OF COOLIES FROM THE BRITISH WEST INDIES.—QUESTION.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBUENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence relating to the attempt made to introduce Coolies from the British West India Colonies into Cuba?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he had not yet looked through the Correspondence referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet; but, of course, there would be no objection to produce it.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—COMPENSATION.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the statements of the Right honourable the Recorder of Dublin, on Saturday last, in reserving judgment in the case of Lyons against the Guardians of the North Dublin Union for the recovery of the price of milch cows, which have been slaughtered by order of the cattle Inspectors of the defendants, under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act, who said—
"It was a monstrous thing that this Act of Parliament, which deals with the rights of owners of cattle in this Country, where the cattle trade is the staple production of the rural portion of the Country, and which gives hoards of guardians the power of summarily destroying the property of these people, for very good reasons, and which provides that under these circumstances the owners are to receive statutory compensation, is wholly silent as to the tribunal which is to decide these matters in case of a dispute. A greater omission from an Act of Parliament could scarcely be conceived, and the sooner the attention of the authorities are drawn to this the better;"
and, whether, in view of this statement, he proposes to introduce a Bill to rectify this important omission, by naming "the tribunal which is to decide the amount of compensation in case of a dispute?"
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, my attention has been called by the Question to the case referred to by the hon. Member. As I do not know the circumstances under
666
which the case was brought before the Recorder, and is now actually pending before him, I can, of course, offer no opinion upon it. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have no intention of bringing in any amending Bill, as the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act was carefully framed, and has been found to work well, and provides ample powers—which have been acted on—for making Orders in Council, from time to time, for the purposes of the Act, including the mode of ascertainment of the value of animals slaughtered by order of the local authority.
MR. CALLAN: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether the Act names the tribunal which is to decide the amount of compensation?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the 32nd section, he will see that it applies to the machinery by which Orders in Council may be made on all the subjects likely to arise.

LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN— PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether after the 1st of January, 1880, when the Prosecution of Offences Act comes into operation, Her Majesty's Attorney General and Solicitor General will be entitled to undertake the defence of persons prosecuted under this Act, the eighth section of which provides that regulations for carrying the Act into effect may from time to time be made, rescinded, varied, and added to by the Attorney General?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General occasionally defend accused persons; but before they are entitled to do so a licence from the Crown has to be obtained, and if their services are needed for the prosecution such licence is not granted. I do not think the Act referred to will affect the privileges of the Law Officers. There is nothing, in my opinion, in the 8th clause of the Prosecution of Offences Act which entitles them to defend persons prosecuted under it.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.—QUESTIONS.
THE O'DONOGHUEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will inform the House of the names of those constituting the Royal Commission to inquire into the Causes of Agricultural Distress prevailing throughout the United Kingdom; whether the Commission will proceed from place to place in prosecution of its inquiries, or whether it will be stationary; and, whether the Government intend the Commission should examine the nature of the rents at present paid by the occupiers, as well as the mode of fixing the rent of farms, with the view of ascertaining the means possessed by the occupiers of securing for themselves reasonable terms?
MR. CALLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place on the Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of agricultural distress prevailing throughout the United Kingdom at least one representative of the tenant farmers of Ireland, so as to avoid confining the representation of Irish interests to that of one section of the community, viz. the landlord class?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, with reference to the second and third parts of the Question of the hon. Member for Tralee, I would say that these are matters which will be left for the Commission to settle amongst themselves. With regard to the names of the Commissioners, I am sorry to say that the list is not yet entirely complete; but I will give the names as far as I am able to do so. The reason that the Commission is not entirely complete is that we have had very great difficulty in finding proper representatives of the different interests which should be represented, and in getting gentlemen to serve upon the Commission whom we should have wished to see on it. I wish especially to express my deep regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) has not felt himself able to give us his services. The Commission must be rather a large one, and it is not complete in the respect to which the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) refers. We are at present in communication with gentlemen in Ireland, with a view to obtain a proper re-
668
presentation of tenant farmers in Ireland. Therefore, it should be understood that I only give the Commission subject to communications which are still going on, and to the necessity of making an addition for that purpose. Subject to that qualification, the Commission will be as follows:—The Duke of Richmond and Gordon will be the President; the Duke of Buccleuch, Earl Spencer, and Lord Vernon; then several hon. Members of this House, whom, I believe, it will not be out of Order to mention by name—the right hon. G. J. Goschen, Mr. H. Chaplin, Colonel Kingscote, Mr. Hunter Rodwell, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Captain Ritchie, and Mr. Mitchell Henry; and then Mr. Jacob Wilson, of Woodhorn Manor, near Morpeth; Mr. Robert Patterson, of Birthwood, Biggar, Scotland; Mr. Chas. Howard, of Biddenham, Bedford; Sir William Stephenson, the Chesnuts, Uxbridge, lately Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; Professor Bonamy Price, Oxford; and Mr. William Stratton, of Kingston Deverill, near Warminster; and Mr. John Clay, of Purchas, near Chepstow.

CONVOCATION—THE RITUAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have received any report of proceedings recently taken in the Convocation of either Province, under the letters of business issued by the Crown, on the subject of the Fourth Report of the Ritual Commission; whether it is true that the two Convocations are not agreed in the recommendations made in their several reports with reference to the ornaments rubric; whether these reports will be laid before Parliament before the close of the Session; whether any draft Bill has been submitted to the Government for consideration by the Convocation of either Province; and, if so, whether it meets with their approval and will be laid before Parliament before the Recess; and, generally, whether the Government intend to take any, and what further action in respect of these reports of Con vocation.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, no Reports had been received by Her Majesty's Government of the proceedings recently taken in the Convoca-

669
tion of either Province. A committee had been appointed by the Southern Province; but he was not quite certain whether the Northern Province had appointed a similar committee. He believed it was true that the two Convocations had not agreed in the recommendations made in their several Reports with reference to the ornaments rubric. In regard to the Question generally, the hon. Member would not expect him to give an opinion upon it until after the Government had had time to consider the questions involved.

CYPRUS—LOANS—REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How it is that the Cyprus Government, a nominated body, has power to issue an ordinance authorizing the High Commissioner to take up a loan of money for £34,000, and to what amount such powers to borrow extend; whether, to borrow this £34,000, at the estimated rate of 3¾ per cent, it will be necessary to make the loan a first charge on the revenues of Cyprus next after the rent to the Porto, and in what manner the liquidation of the loan will be effected; and, if the revenues of Cyprus fall short from bad seasons, sickness, or any other cause, British Votes will be liable to meet the expenses for maintaining the government and police, &c. &c. of the island?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I understand that an Ordinance will be passed by the Cyprus Government; but, in point of fact, the authority in the matter is really with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and with the Treasury at home. I think I may just answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman by mentioning the substance of a communication that was made by the Treasury to the Foreign Office on this subject some months ago, when the proposal was sent home, with reference to some provision of this sort being made. The Treasury then expressed their opinion that the sound rule to be followed in borrowing for public works in Cyprus would be to borrow no more than the annual Revenue of the Island, prudently estimated, and with due allowance for uncertain allowance, can bear the interest of without a
670
deficit, in addition to such annual instalments as will discharge the principal in a period not exceeding, at the outside, 20 years, or, still better, 10 years. They proceeded to say that, subject to that rule, they considered the amount of borrowing and the objects of expenditure might, in the main, be left to the prudence of the High Commissioner, his particular recommendations continuing to require the approval of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury. The sum of £34,000 has been mentioned as the sum that might be required for the works in contemplation; but it is not, as I understand, the intention of the Cyprus Government to ask for power to borrow so large a sum as that. The sum that I have heard mentioned as the sum likely to be borrowed is about £22,000. That amount would be borrowed of the Ottoman or some other bank, and it would, of course, be on the security of the Revenues of Cyprus. There would be no necessity for us to consider what arrangements were made as between the Government of Cyprus and those who might lend. I believe my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State stated this several months ago.

NEW NORTHERN (VICTORIA) UNIVERSITY—THE CHARTER—POWER TO CONFER DEGREES ON FEMALES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any foundation for the statement contained in the "Times" of Saturday the 9th, that the draft Charter of the proposed Victoria University contains powers for deferring degrees upon females; and, whether, if the statement be accurate, any opportunity will be afforded for Parliament to pronounce an opinion upon this innovation upon the ancient system of academic degrees, as well as upon other provisions which may be contained in the draft Charter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the draft Charter which has been submitted by the promoters of the Victoria University contains a proposal to give power to grant degrees to women as well as to men. That draft Charter has been submitted to the Committee of the Privy Council, and is now under consideration. As my hon. Friend

  671
  is, no doubt, aware, it is provided by a recent Act that it will be necessary for the Charter to lie on the Table of the House for a month before it can be granted.

NAVY—TRAINING SHIPS—CASE OF MICHAEL REARDON.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that an Irish boy, named Michael Reardon, a few days ago, deserted from a training ship at Falmouth; that he was captured, brought back to the ship, and placed under arrest, but managed to elude the sentry yesterday morning and, leaping overboard, drowned himself; if it be true that he said a day or two ago to a shipmate that, rather than suffer the punishment of flogging, he would drown himself, and has now done so; if he can state the number of desertions from training ships during the last three years, and also the number of boys who have been flogged during the same period with the birch, cane, or otherwise; and, if it be true that the boys are tied up while undergoing such punishment?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it is the fact that Michael Reardon, having been granted leave on Sunday, the 3rd instant, did not return to the ship, and that on Monday, the 4th, he was apprehended by the local police and taken on board with another boy who had also deserted. He was to have been birched on the Wednesday, as it was the second time he had deserted; and it appears ho did tell the other boy under arrest that he would drown himself rather than suffer punishment; but the boy did not report it, as he did not believe he was in earnest. Reardon was seen in his bed at 3.30 on the Wednesday morning and was missed at 4, and although a reward has been issued for his apprehension and the harbour has been dragged, he has not been found alive or dead up to the present time. He was, however, a very good swimmer, and the officers of the ship are inclined to the belief that he got safely on shore and has again deserted. I am unable to state the number of desertions or of the boys who have been birched or caned. It is true that boys are tied up while undergoing this punishment.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE— CASE OF MR. TAYLOR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the reports in the Dublin papers of the 6th of August to the case of a gentleman, named Taylor, who, for remonstrating with the police against their excessive violence towards a prisoner, was instantly seized by them, and carried off to the station on a charge of drunkenness; whether it is the fact that the magistrate dismissed the charge against Mr. Taylor, it being proved that he was perfectly sober at the time and had been a total abstainer from intoxicating drink for several years; and, whether any and what steps have been taken as to the three policemen who swore to this false charge against Mr. Taylor because of his remonstrances against their violence?
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, it appeared from the report to which the hon. and learned Member alluded that a charge was brought against Mr. Taylor for having been drunk and disorderly. The charge was heard before one of the Divisional Justices in Dublin and dismissed. Evidence was adduced by the prosecution in order to show that Mr. Taylor was in a state of intoxication, and counter evidence was brought forward which certainly went to show that Mr. Taylor was not in a state of intoxication at the time. Among other statements that were made was this—that this gentleman was a total abstainer, and also that he was in the habit of lecturing occasionally in support of total abstinence principles. The only way in which he (Mr. J. Lowther) could account charitably for the mistake made by the police was that persons who were accustomed to lecturing sometimes acquired habits of vociferation and gesticulation which might give rise to a perfectly legitimate mistake on the part of the police. Under all the circumstances, as it was a case of personal violence, the Chief Commissioner of Police had come to the conclusion that it was a matter for further inquiry, and such an inquiry would at once be made.

ARMY—APPOINTMENTS IN THE 60TH RIFLES.—QUESTION.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any custom prevails in the 60th Royal Rifles conferring upon the colonel in chief of that corps the right to make first appointments in it; and, if so, will he say how long that custom has existed?
COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, there is no custom in the 60th Rifles conferring such a right on the colonel, and, on the other hand, it is inconsistent with the rules of the Service. The Commander-in-Chief makes the first appointment, and this may have led to the belief of the hon. Baronet that they were made by the colonel in chief.

ARMY—THE HORSE GUARDS—THE STAFF.—QUESTION.
MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If the rule limiting the tenure of a staff appointment to five years applies to the officers on the staff at the Horse Guards; and, if so, why are officers kept on that staff since 1st January 1874?
COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he could only find one such case in which the circumstances were exceptional; as a rule, it was intended to adhere to the five years' rule.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to act upon that portion of the Report of the Volunteer Committee which recommends the offering of an increased rate of pension to Adjutants of Volunteers appointed under the old system; and, if so, when his intention will be carried out?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he was sorry a delay had occurred in the War Office in executing a Warrant referring to the subject mentioned in the Question.

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS—SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the First Commissioner of Works,
674
Whether the Saturday half-holiday is confined to the administrative officers, or is general in all Government Departments, so far as the requirements of the service will permit?
MR. GERARD NOEL, in reply, said, that there was no half-holiday in the Ordnance Survey Department at Southampton, and that the Directors had not as yet recommended it.

ARMY—ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT—RE-ORGANIZATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Royal Warrant for re-organizing the Ordnance Store Department will be issued; and, will the officers of that department be upon a par in every respect with those of the Commissariat Department?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, that as soon as certain small matters of difference between the Treasury and the War Office had been arranged the Warrant referred to would be issued. It would be in the sense mentioned in the Question.

MRRCHANT SHIPPING—RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA—COLLISION BETWEEN THE "CITY OF MECCA" AND THE "INSULANO."—QUESTIONS.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have had under consideration the circumstances of a collision between the British steamer "City of Mecca," and the Portuguese steamer "Insulano," and the decision of the Portuguese Courts in the case which appears to be in violation of the International rules of the road, adopted by Portugal in 1863, notwithstanding that the Portuguese Government have, by a declaration of the King, dated 3rd July 1877, affirmed that there is no room for doubt that the meaning of the rule in Portugal is identical with the British meaning; and, what steps the Government propose to take to obtain redress for the owners of the "City of Mecca?"
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the question had been before Her Majesty's Government for a long time, and it had

675
now entered on a new phase. Papers had been sent to the Law Officers of the Crown, and when the Government had read their Report they would consider what steps it was their duty to take.
MR. ANDERSON: Will that Report be in the hands of Her Majesty's Government before the Prorogation of Parliament?
MR. BOURKE: NO.

THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL—COURT MARTIAL ON CAPTAIN CAREY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the sentence of the court martial on Captain Carey was one of death; whether that sentence was confirmed by the Horse Guards and set aside by the Cabinet; and, irrespective of the nature of the sentence, whether Her Majesty's Government have remitted or advised the remission of the sentence on Captain Carey, in opposition to the opinion, and against the protest, of the Commander in Chief, or in accordance with his views or recommendation?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I am afraid, Sir, that this is a Question which I am not able to answer, consistently with my sense of duty.

ARMY—THE ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House, and printed, the Report of the War Office Committee, of which General Lord Airey is president, now engaged in investigating the working of the system of short service and reserves in the Army, in order that the House may be fully informed, before the Army Estimates of next year, on a subject of so much national importance?
COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have not yet seen any of the evidence, nor am I aware whether the Committee have or have not closed the inquiry; but when I have had an opportunity of seeing what the evidence is, if it is not inconsistent with the Public Service to lay it upon the Table of the House, there will be no objection to do so at the proper time. I
676
cannot, however, give a pledge as to the time or the form in which the Report will be presented.

HOMES AND HOUSES OF REFUGE FOR CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
MR. WHEELHOTTSEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of recent occurrences, it be not possible, either by the exercise of powers now in existence, or, failing them, by statutory enactment, to ensure the due provision of so-called Homes and Houses of Refuge for Children; and, if such powers can not now be enforced, whether he will, early next Session, introduce a Bill having for its object such supervision?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that in May last he sent a Circular to Mayors and other local authorities with regard to the due supervision of so-called Homes and Houses of Refuge for Children, and the answers he had received led him to hope no further legislation would be necessary.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE DERBY MURDER—CONDUCT OF THE JURY.

  STATEMENT.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to supplement an answer he gave a few days ago to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), with regard to the jury in Gerald Main waring's case. He had, on the occasion he referred to, said he had no authority for his remark, that he could not conceive the jury would have acted in the manner alleged; but he had since made inquiry, and that day he had received the following letter from the foreman of the jury:—
  "Sir,—In reply to your inquiry respecting the mode in which the jury in the Gerald Mainwaring case came to their decision, after the jury had retired and discussed the case, they ascertained that they were equally divided as to the verdict, six being for manslaughter, and six for wilful murder, with a strong recommendation to mercy. We had not then elected a Chairman, and I, as Foreman, declined to act as such, so we agreed to ballot for one, and that the vote of the majority should rule the verdict, and, in case of an equal vote, the Chairman should have the casting vote. There was no tossing or casting of lots, and the only balloting was for the election of a Chairman. I, and others of the jury, wish this to be made

  677
  public to the fullest extent, so as to contradict many untrue reports which have been circulated."
  He (Mr. Assheton Cross) was bound to say that he could not come to such a conclusion which the foreman appeared to have done with such complacency. When there were six on one side and six on the other, and they drew lots for a Chairman, who should have a casting vote, that seemed to him very like tossing for a verdict.
  MR. CALLANgave Notice that tomorrow he should inquire 'Whether the capital sentence would, under the circumstances, be carried out?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should have thought it was absolutely unnecessary to put such a Question.

POST OFFICE—THE IRISH MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. CALLAN,
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should inquire into, and ascertain whether there was any undue delay in the delivery of newspapers from Ireland in the South-Western postal district. Letters which were not in time for the first delivery were sent out by a special delivery. The Irish packets had been detained by fogs.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE "ALBERT EDWARD."—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Report of an inquiry into the accident on board the "Albert Edward" Channel steamer, on the 22nd of July, will be presented to the House and printed?
MR. J. G. TALBOT, in reply, said, that the inquiry into the accident would be held on Thursday next, and that the Report of the inquiry would be published in the usual manner.

METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. FAWCETT,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappointed Wednesday next for discussion on this subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—AFGHANISTAN—PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
In answer to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the second reading of the Appropriation Bill would be taken today, and the Committee to-morrow. The third reading must be taken on Wednesday. That, he hoped, would allow Parliament to be prorogued on Friday. With regard to the Question as to Afghanistan, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was entitled, on the Motion for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, to bring forward a Motion on another subject, he supposed it would not be possible for the hon. Gentleman to take advantage of that stage of the Bill to bring forward the Afghan Question. He would therefore suggest that if the hon. Gentleman desired to raise that question an opportunity would be afforded to him on Thursday. [An hon. MEMBER: At what hour?] At 4 o'clock.

IRELAND—DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE—CASE OF MR. TAYLOR.

  OBSERVATIONS. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he felt it necessary to trouble the House with a Motion, owing to an answer which had been given to a Question put by himself, with regard to the arrest of Mr. Taylor, in Dublin, on the charge of drunkenness. He must ask the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Question which he had put, and to the answer which he had received from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. Taylor, on his way home, observed the police ill-using a young man, and, on remonstrance, he was arrested and taken to the station on a charge of being intoxicated. It was a fact that he was not arrested until he was seen to take out a note-book and pencil to take down the policeman's number. In the opinion of the Leader of the House, was not this a matter to be seriously answered by the Chief Secretary, and not to be answered with jeers and offensively? The charge in due time came before the magistrates, and two policemen came up and supported

  679
  the evidence of the arresting officer that Mr. Taylor was drunk. But, happily for him, he was able to account for himself during the entire of the afternoon up to the time when he was arrested, and the main part of the time was spent as a guest at the house of one of the superintendents of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, at whose table he had dined, and where he partook of nothing stronger than water to drink. He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the magistrates had dismissed the case, whether this did not touch very closely one of the first protections which a citizen should have against the Dublin police; but because the gentleman was a total abstainer the Chief Secretary rose to say that the police naturally fell into a mistake. He resented that conduct from any one on the Treasury Bench as a gross affront. Did the Chief Secretary mean to say that because a man was a tee to taller he was to be subject more than anyone else to violence from the police, or to arrest? What chance had they in Dublin of justice, unless there were some Office higher than the Chief Secretary of State for Ireland? Being sober, what right had the police to arrest Mr. Taylor at all? He was sorry to say the answer of the Chief Secretary was a very strong encouragement to the police of Dublin to persevere in such conduct as that to which he had called attention. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. FINIGANseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Sullivan) was very unreasonable in making his (Mr. J. Lowther's) reply a subject of complaint. He was asked whether the report was correct that the magistrate dismissed the charge against this gentleman, who had been a total abstainer for several years, and who it was deposed to upon oath had been drunk in the public streets. Several police witnesses deposed on oath at the trial that he was in a state of intoxication. On the other hand, for the defence evidence was called to the effect that the person charged was not only sober, but that he had been drinking, not water, as the hon. Member had just stated, but tea with
  680
  the gentleman who made that statement. Well, he (Mr. J. Lowther) had to reconcile that with the evidence of the witnesses who deposed that he was intoxicated, and he had made the charitable suggestion that persons who acted in the capacity of lecturers in public upon this question of total abstinence frequently acquired habits of vociferation and gesticulation which might not unnaturally be mistaken for signs of inebriety. In confirmation of that impression, he (Mr. J. Lowther) might mention that it appeared from the published reports in the newspapers that Mr. Taylor conducted himself in court in such an excited manner that the presiding magistrate was obliged to call him to order in very decided terms. He (Mr. J. Lowther), in his original reply to the hon. and learned Member, had gone on to say that a full inquiry would be made into the whole case, and he must protest against the adjournment of the House being moved on an occasion like this, for he thought the House would be of opinion that the answer he gave was, in the circumstances, a very reasonable one, and afforded no cause of complaint.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
MR.CHILDERSasked, When, and to what extent, it was intended to proceed with the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill?
MR. ANDERSONsuggested that a little more general information as to the Business of the week should be given; and he particularly wished to know, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to proceed with his Resolutions on the Business of the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill were not reached that night, it would be taken as the First Order to-morrow (Tuesday). The Government proposed to go on in Committee with the 1st clause, which gave power to unlimited banks to change themselves into limited ones. The next provision related to reserve liability, and he should submit that to the judgment of the Committee, in the hope that they would take a favourable view of it; but he believed the substantial point would be to pass the 1st clause.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  EGYPT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID, in rising to call attention to the extraordinary interference of the Government in Egyptian internal affairs, and to the serious international complications which had been and were likely to be caused by it, said, that there had been an entire change of policy in the government of that country, and the power of England with regard to Egyptian affairs had diminished instead of increased. Her Majesty's Government, he thought, ought to give some explanation with regard to this subject. The Papers which were published on Saturday last were of considerable importance, relating, as they did, to the Firmans establishing the position of Egypt and its relation to Turkey, and giving a clear account of many points connected with the question. The history of the Firmans was shortly this:—In 1841, a Firman was issued providing that the succession to the Egyptian Throne should follow in the eldest of the male line, and, of course, increasing the tribute. That position lasted some considerable time—namely, until in 1863, Is mail Pasha, an active and energetic Sovereign, succeeded to the Throne. He endeavoured to get greater power from the Porte than had hitherto been known in Egypt. The result was that, in 1866, two Firmans were issued, in which it was arranged that the succession was to be hereditary, the one great advantage being that the Khedive would have to consider not so much the interests of his family as the interests of the country over which he was called upon to rule. The English view of the matter was clearly expressed by Lord Lyons, when writing to Lord Clarendon, on June 6, 1866, he said—
  "I observed to His Highness—Is mail Pasha—that the prosperity of Egypt and the main-
  682
  tenance of its independence were matters of the highest interest to Great Britain … The tie which connected Egypt with the Porte was, I said, most valuable as a security against foreign aggression, while it did not in any way interfere with His Highness's power in the internal administration of the country. His Highness and his family might, I added, rely on the full support of Her Majesty's Government if … they resisted all encroachments and all attempts on the part of any foreign Powers to establish a paramount influence."
  The Viceroy, after that, proceeded largely to develop the resources of the country, and also to follow the example of European States, by getting into debt. In 1867, he again applied to Constantinople, and obtained another Firman, which gave him further power over the internal government, enabling him to raise more troops, and which also conferred on him the title of Khedive. A feeling of jealousy, which was subsequently aroused, was caused principally by differences of opinion between the Ministers of the Khedive and the Porte, and the consequence was that, in 1869, there was issued a Firman which somewhat restricted the power of the Khedive to make foreign loans. But the dispute caused Lord Clarendon to send to Lord Bloomfield a most important despatch, containing the following words:—
  "On the other hand, it is to be remembered that the Egypt of to-day is not the Egypt of 1841 … but Her Majesty's Government would deeply regret if the Porte should overstrain its legitimate prerogatives and its rights as regards the Khedive. As regards this last point, Her Majesty's Government have felt it their duty to express their opinion that any attempt in the direction of deposing the Khedive would produce a most unfavourable and mischievous effect."
  These words show that even at that time, when the Viceroy had less power than after he had obtained the Firmans of 1872 and 1873, we should not have tolerated any such attempt. This is strongly confirmed by a despatch addressed by Mr. Barron, on 15th December, 1869, to Lord Clarendon. Mr. Barron proposed that the Porte should maintain at Cairo an unofficial agent, and then went on to say—
  "The only apparent objection to this course is that it would seem to recognize the independence of the Khedive. This objection will prove, however, to be not substantial. The Firmans of 1841, 1866, and 1867 have created the independence of Egypt."
  Moreover, Colonel Stanton, at the same period, wrote to Lord Clarendon—

  683
  December 16—that he had assured the Viceroy he need not apprehend any direct interference on the part of the Porte in the internal administration of the country; and went on—
  "I remarked to His Highness that I was convinced the Great Powers would not consent to any undue interference on the part of the Porte with the internal administration of Egypt."
  In 1872, the Khedive obtained another Firman, of which he largely availed himself, as it allowed him to contract foreign loans without the consent of the Porte. Every one of these Firmans was obtained on large payments to Constantinople. On one occasion it was £1,000,000; on another it was considerably more. The Porte took care to see that the Egyptian Army did not increase too much; but did nothing to prevent an enormous increase of the National Debt. The Firman of 1873, however, removed in most respects the old badges of servitude, except the payment of tribute, which was on nearly every occasion considerably increased. It gave power to the Khedive to settle the number of his Army without any restriction whatever, and to make contracts with foreign Powers without consulting the Porte. Sir Henry Elliot very clearly defined, in words of which Lord Granville, as Foreign Secretary, entirely approved, the English position at that time. He said—June 27, 1873—
  "All that was desired is that Egypt should remain in the position which she actually holds—practically, independent in all matters of internal administration—while still forming an integral part of the Ottoman Empire."
  He further pointed out that we should not allow Egypt to fall into the hands of any other Great Power. It was from this position that the present Government had entirely departed. Such was the story of the Firmans; and down to 1873, and for a couple of years after, the influence of England was paramount in Egypt. Nothing could be done in Egypt without the Viceroy having recourse to Her Majesty's Government. Whenever he was in distress he applied to the British Government. That Government purchased the Suez Canal Shares, partly, we were told, from high reasons of State, and partly to assist the Viceroy in his difficulties. The Viceroy greatly developed the resources of Egypt. A large portion of Egyp-
  684
  tian territory, not previously fertile, was irrigated by him, and produced immense crops. He established sugar factories, and many other industries hitherto unknown in Egypt. He undertook, at the prompting of the great capitalists, through whom he got into difficulties, great public works, which might have been of much utility. His fault was one common to Eastern Sovereigns, that he never calculated where he was going, and whether the resources at his command were equal to the undertaking he had in hand. His Debt was increased so enormously that the result was to hamper his Government exceedingly, and to put him in a most awkward position. He applied to Her Majesty's Government for assistance. The Canal Shares were purchased, and Mr. Cave was sent out to investigate the condition of Egyptian finance. Mr. Cave's Report was, of course, perfectly honest; but much of the information that he gained was derived from persons who were interested in concealing the real state of things and, consequently, it was less trustworthy than Mr. Cave himself would have desired it to be. When Mr. Cave went out the Government had large views with regard to their future course of action in Egypt; but on his return they found that those views would not be acceptable to the country, and nothing was done except that Mr. Rivers Wilson was sent out to Egypt to institute proceedings which proved to be of a temporary character. After that, the bondholders tried their hand in a perfectly legitimate manner, and asked Mr. Goschen and M. Joubert to go to Egypt to establish the basis on which the financial condition of the country should be settled. They prepared an elaborate Report and a scheme, which was adopted by the Viceroy himself. It involved the employment of English officers in connection with the Revenue Department and other important branches of the Egyptian Budget. It was proposed to establish a Finance Board, on which there should be an English member, and an application was made to Lord Derby to nominate a gentleman who should be that member; but Lord Derby declined this responsibility. That was in 1877, and he (Sir Julian Gold-smid) deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not continued the wise policy then laid down by

  685
  Lord Derby. Complaints arose on all sides. The Viceroy told Mr. Vivian that matters could not remain as they then were, that the people were overburdened, and that one great cause of grievance was that no European resident in Egypt paid taxes. Well, things went from bad to worse. The taxes were collected in advance, and the people were thus additionally pressed. On the 30th of November, 1877, the Viceroy declared that the state of affairs had grown worse, and that the financial administration of the country was at a dead lock. Notwithstanding the collection of the taxes in advance the Revenue fell off. Mr. Vivian, in one of his excellent despatches, dated November 30, 1877, said:—
  "I find the financial position greatly changed for the worse.… The troops and Government employés are many months in arrears of pay, and among the latter class the greatest distress and misery prevails. … This miserable state of affairs is not only bringing the Khedive and his Government into disrepute abroad, but it is also greatly discrediting him among his own people, who murmur at the payment in full of the bondholders, while his employés are left unpaid … It is quite impossible that such a state of things … can be allowed to continue."
  Nevertheless, it not only continued, but grew worse. Then, in February, 1878, M. Waddington urged upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of joining with Prance in the demand that an independent Commission should be appointed; and this demand was to be made "in the interest of the French and English bondholders." This will be found in a letter of Lord Lyons to Lord Derby, of the 5th of February, 1878. Lord Derby replied on the 8th of March, 1878, and, as the result, directed our Representative to urge on the Viceroy the necessity of the appointment of the Commission as suggested by M. Wadding ton, and to state that Her Majesty's Government thought it very desirable that Captain Baring should be placed on the Commission, and that if the appointment of a second Englishman was deemed necessary, they would name Mr. Rivers Wilson for that purpose. This interference on the part of England and France was not made on behalf of the over-burdened people of Egypt, but solely in the interest of the bond-holders of France and England. The policy of the two Governments was the
  686
  same, to endeavour to wring the utmost penny from the prostrate and impoverished people on behalf of their creditors. After a good deal of negotiation the Commission was appointed, with M. de Lesseps as President, and Mr. Rivers Wilson as Vice President. Then came an extraordinary act. On the 16th of April, 1878, the Marquess of Salisbury wrote to Mr. Vivian that, in the opinion of the French Government, the institution of the Finance Commission ought not to stand in the way of payment of the coupon then accruing, and that he was to urge that view upon the Khedive—Her Majesty's Government thus adopting and acting on the policy of the French Government, still solely in the interest of the bondholders. The reply of the Khedive was that he would do all in his power to comply with the demand of France and England, at whatever cost to the country; but that the responsibility would not rest with him, as the steps necessary to secure payment of the coupon would entail "ruinous sacrifices." [See Mr. Vivian's despatch of the 18th April, 1878, published in the Blue Book.] Being so pressed, the Viceroy did pay; but who could say at what cost to the people? Well, he had shown an extraordinary interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the financial affairs of Egypt, entirely on behalf of the bondholders. The Viceroy, finding himself thus pressed, thought naturally that if he could obtain the services of some Englishman in whom Her Majesty's Government had confidence, he might be able to put his affairs in Order; and in May, 1878, he offered Mr. Rivers Wilson the post of Financial Minister. The Commission sat; the Revenue continued to fall; the Report of the Commission appeared; page after page of their Report described the lamentable state of the country; and he could not help admiring the admirable manner in which this was depicted in the communications of Mr. Vivian to the Government at home. The Commission found great difficulties in their way, because the moment they began to investigate carefully the great sources of Egyptian prosperity they found that taxation was excessive, that there was great corruption, that the tax collectors made large sums, and that many of them had recourse to means of compulsion to which he did not desire

  687
  further to refer. In spite of that, the money did not come in as it had come in in previous years. The Commission and Mr. Vivian alike described the sapping of resources which had been going on in order to meet the pressing obligations of the Egyptian Government. Even in 1877, it had been practically impossible to continue the extravagant rate of interest which the Government had hitherto paid its creditors. The Commission of Inquiry showed the Revenue to be diminishing, notwithstanding all the devices to maintain it. The people were overburdened, and the only way to cure the evil was to reduce very largely the interest paid to the creditors of Egypt. The Swedish Representative in Egypt also pointed out with remarkable clearness the total incapacity of the country to pay the large amount of interest claimed from it. Then came a fresh complication. Our acquisition of Cyprus excited the jealousy of the people of France, and the result of communications with the French Government was an arrangement, not stated in our Blue Book, that we should not take action in Egyptian affairs without consulting the French Government, so that the two Governments might act in entire unison. He did not object to a fair understanding between the two Governments. That, when possible, had always been our policy; but that was far from saying we should do nothing in a country in which our interests were largely concerned without the concurrence of the French Government, actuated, as it was, mainly on behalf of the bondholders. But the promise was given, and had since been the cause of many difficulties. But to return to Egypt. The Commission reported that the Khedive accepted, without reserve, all the conclusions of the Commission, including the limitation of his power and the restitution to the State of the family property. The Khedive thereupon renewed his offer to Mr. Rivers Wilson; Nubar Pasha taking care, at the same time, to state that it was the Viceroy's own wish, and that he did not admit that, a foreign Government could demand to appoint an Egyptian Minister as a matter of right. And yet we had demanded such an appointment for one of our own Civil servants—a proceeding which did not appear to be justified under any circumstances. Mr. Rivers Wilson accepted; but as that was
  688
  done without reference to France there was another manifestation of jealousy, which was allayed by Lord Salisbury in a despatch of September 10, 1878, characterized by considerable judgment and common sense. The final result was that, in consequence of the awkward understanding at the time of the occupation of Cyprus, M. de Blignières was appointed Minister of Public Works, with authority equal to that of Mr. Rivers Wilson. Mr. Rivers Wilson found things as bad as they had been described, and growing from bad to worse. Still, he acted on the old lines of Egyptian finance, and contracted a new loan at high interest to pay the coupons coming due. In connection with that, an arrangement of an unprecedented character was made by the Government with Messrs. Rothschild, who required that the Daira lands should be managed by three persons—one Egyptian, one appointed by France, and one by England—who were to remit the rents, or so much of them as might be required, to meet the new obligation. Messrs. Rothschild, in the interest of those who proposed to subscribe to the new loan, were quite right to endeavour to carry this proposal; but the Government ought never to have agreed to so novel and so serious a responsibility. Nevertheless, they accepted that arrangement, requiring that the English Representative should not be deprived of his function without their consent; and, although they did not pledge themselves to pay the interest, they still undertook a serious responsibility. Mr. Rivers Wilson used at least £1,200,000 of the loan so obtained for the payment of a coupon on November 1, 1878. The House would see how great was the responsibility of the Government in all this. But they went even further, and on the 21st of November Lord Salisbury instructed Mr. Lascelles to draw up, in concert with the French Consul General at Cairo, an Identic Note to the Egyptian Government, advising them to issue a decree suspending the functions of Mr. Goschen's contrôle, subject to the understanding that it should be ipso facto revived, should either the French or the English Member of the Egyptian Cabinet be dismissed without previous agreement with his Government. [See No. 273 in the Blue Book.] Here was another piece of startling interference; but,

  689
  of course, Nubar Pasha obeyed. But this act of the Government was entirely at variance with the official answers given by the Government in the House of Commons. Now, perhaps, it would be well to say a word about Nubar Pasha, who had been Prime Minister during nearly all the period of lavish Egyptian expenditure. His friends said he was not responsible for it, but had endeavoured to check it. It might, or might not be so; but he could not help bearing in mind that Nubar, a poor Armenian arrived in Egypt 25 years ago perfectly penniless; and that he was now in possession of an enormous fortune. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) would not say that he had made his fortune out of the expenditure that was going on; but he was not irresponsible for that expenditure, and the fortune was made while it was going on. Nubar Pasha was a man of remarkable ability—he had that versatility of character, that power of adapting himself to circumstances, which was characteristic of the Armenian people; and the result was he was enabled to work in a satisfactory manner with Mr. Rivers Wilson. He and Mr. Rivers Wilson were the two active Ministers. Nevertheless, the position of matters became more serious from day to day; the financial situation was critical. Mr. Rivers Wilson endeavoured to maintain the inordinate rate of interest to the bondholders. More than a year's arrears of pay were due to the Egyptian employés, who were in a state of semi-starvation. Nubar Pasha was, consequently, not popular with the Egyptian people, and the Viceroy was encouraged to dismiss him. The Government at this time were constantly pressed for information as to what was going on; but their reply was that they could not give information because they were acting with the French Government and negotiations were still going on. In this the Government had acted not quite fairly with the House of Commons, for, at a later date, M. Waddington had made a statement in the French Assembly without asking the permission of this Government; and the English Government might, therefore, have made a statement to the House of Commons without asking the permission of the French Government. That was a position which he did not like to see the Government take up; he
  690
  deeply regretted it. In March, he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr. Rivers Wilson was the servant of the Khedive, and whether he could be dismissed without the consent of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on that one occasion, departed from his usual reserve, and expressly stated that Mr. Rivers Wilson was the servant of the Khedive; that he was under his control; that the Government had no direct communication with him because he was not their employé; and, therefore, the Khedive had the right of dismissal. That statement was utterly inconsistent with what appeared in a despatch which had been laid on the Table. The Government would have done well not to publish that despatch, as they had not published many others, if they desired to maintain their character for consistency in this matter. Shortly after, however, encouraged by their unpopularity with the people, the Khedive took the further step of dismissing his European Ministers. There were many reasons why Mr. Rivers Wilson had not been successful. It was thought that he was only working in the interests of the bondholders, by endeavouring to keep up the rate of interest, and by paying all the Europeans their salaries, when many Natives did not receive theirs. It was held, too, that he was of no use in alleviating the oppression of the people, having no more control over the collectors of taxes than he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had over the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he had committed many errors of judgment in his relations with the Khedive. Being in the position of a receiver to an estate, he took no care to refrain from wounding the susceptibilities of its owner. These errors hastened his dismissal, which was precipitated by the fact that the arrears of pay due to the Army were very considerable; the officers were, practically, starving; and they came together, as was not uncommon in Eastern countries, to make an appeal to the authorities and the European officials. The consequence was that a disturbance took place, which might have been prevented if Mr. Rivers Wilson had had foresight and anticipated events; but he did not. He was dismissed. There was much excitement on the subject. Never-

  691
  the less, the Government left Mr. Rivers Wilson, and the Trench Government left M. de Blignières in Egypt for some time to form the nucleus of a Party against the new Egyptian Government. Mr. Rivers Wilson was left in Egypt until he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) asked a Question in that House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then said that he had sent out a telegram telling Mr. Rivers Wilson to return. He asked for the date of the telegram; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fortunately, forgot the date. However, Mr. Rivers Wilson was at last re-called, and that was the wisest step the Government had taken. The Government then had an excellent opportunity to retire from the indefensible position they had taken up. That was admirably pointed out in an article in The Times, on the 25th of April. Hoping it might prove that the Government would so retire, the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) and other hon. Members of the House asked for information from the Government; but very little was vouchsafed. They were told, as usual, that Her Majesty's Government were acting in concert with the French Government, and that in the meantime they could not answer the Questions. But that was not the answer given "elsewhere;" nor was it consistent with the statements previously made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that Mr. Rivers Wilson was the servant of the Viceroy. To show the contradiction, he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) would call the attention of hon. Members to passages from a despatch from Lord Salisbury to Mr. Vivian, dated the 25th of April, 1879, in which Lord Salisbury said that the dismissal of Ministers whose services the Khedive had solicited was "a grave and apparently intentional discourtesy to friendly Powers." There was another passage, to the effect that if the Khedive declined the services of the European Ministers whom the Powers had placed at his disposal they must conclude it was the result of a settled plan, and the two Governments reserved to themselves entire freedom of action with a view to secure the good government of Egypt. Obviously, that was entirely at variance with the explanations the Government had given and with the policy which had been previously pursued. The Govern-
  692
  ment had stated in that House that they did not consider they had any right to prevent the Khedive from dismissing Mr. Rivers Wilson; whereas, in the despatch from which he had quoted, the Khedive was informed that if he persisted in dismissing the European Ministers the Government would have to take other steps. What happened next? It did not appear from the Papers laid on the Table; but it was well known that the bondholders, who were persons of great influence, especially with the French Government, brought great pressure to bear on the two Governments, which at last culminated in the demand made by the French Government that the Khedive should abdicate. That demand was supported by the British Ministry. Her Majesty's Government had not given the House any reasons for that extraordinary act; and although the House had been promised Papers on the subject, over and over again, no Papers had been given. The Government, in the first place, did a thing entirely beyond their rights—they invited the Euler of a friendly State to resign. They went beyond even that, for they stated that it might be the duty of the Western Powers to submit certain representations to the Sultan, from whom the Khedive held his power. They appeared, therefore, to have asked the Sultan to abolish his own Firmans, and to interfere in the internal affairs of Egypt itself. In that respect, also, the Government had taken upon themselves a most serious responsibility. Having invited the Khedive to resign and threatened that, if he would not do so, they would call upon the Sultan to interfere, and the Khedive having refused, the next information we had was that the Porte had ordered the Khedive to resign—a thing which, under the Firmans, it had no power whatever to do. It was an obvious violation of the privileges Is mail had so dearly purchased. Nevertheless, he obeyed; and Tewfik Pasha was appointed in his place. It was not known exactly what communications had passed between our Government and the Porte. Attempts were made to elicit information. The noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs asked in that House what were the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to adopt so extraordinary a course as to demand

  693
  the Khedive's abdication? and other Members asked other Questions. As usual, no explanations were given; or, if any, misleading ones. The French Government, on the other hand, had honestly avowed that they had acted solely in the interests of the bondholders, and he believed the English Government followed in their footsteps, because they did not like to be left behind. The Government had thus supported the revival of the most pernicious form of Turkish authority over the internal government of Egypt. Great complications would surely follow, for it should be borne in mind that at Constantinople everything was controlled by the harem, as had been shown recently by the fall of Khaireddin. We had countenanced a very extraordinary proceeding. We had gone to the Government of Turkey because, as the House would doubtless be told, the people of Egypt were oppressed and misgoverned. Surely, it must appear ludicrous to go to the Sultan and ask him to interfere, when he himself had been a far greater offender in the matter of misgovernment than the Khedive. Consequently, he was of opinion that Her Majesty's Government had taken a very fatal step. If the Government of the Sultan could abolish the authority and the power which they granted by one Firman, there was no security against their issuing another Firman to place the new Ruler of Egypt under other influences, in opposition to the wishes of the Governments of England and France. In fact, the difficulty which had occurred with regard to the new Firman which was to be granted to Tewfik Pasha, and the fact that it gave him less authority than his father had enjoyed, proved this. But it was said the Porte really acted under English and French authority. If that were so, then, as far as England and France were concerned, they had assumed a joint responsibility for the government of Egypt which, up to the present time, had led us, and which might lead us hereafter, into serious complications. The interests of the two countries, especially considering that France was guided by the wishes of the bondholders, might possibly diverge, and then a very grave responsibility would have been incurred by the Government. It was now intended to establish a Commission of Liquidation, of
  694
  which, despite the errors of judgment and the mistakes he had committed, it was reported that Mr. Rivers Wilson was to be a member. A reliable communication from the correspondent of The Times stated that the new Ruler of Egypt did not desire to see that gentleman re-appointed; and, therefore, for that and many other reasons, in his opinion, Her Majesty's Government ought to hold their hands. He hoped that the Government would rather allow someone else two years' leave of absence from the duties of his Office in this country to look after the finances of Egypt. The following had been the general results of the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government during the last three years:—They had brought about the dethronement of the Khedive, who, whatever his faults, and they were many, had appealed to them in times of difficulty and distress. They had endeavoured, indeed, to assist him at the time of the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares; but since then, he feared, the confidence of the Khedive had been misplaced. They had restored the baneful Turkish influence of the harem over Egypt, which it was the interest of this country to abolish, and they had reduced our influence, which was formerly paramount in Egypt, to a position of minor authority dependent on France; and, if the Commission of Liquidation were really appointed, subject to the will, also, of the other great Powers. Her Majesty's Government had been driven by the bondholders into a course of action which was against international courtesy, and also, he believed, against the rights which the Viceroys of Egypt had acquired under the Firmans of the Sultan. The effect upon the population of Egypt had been to reduce them to a state of the greatest misery. The two Governments had taken a position of joint responsibility involving the most awkward questions, which must of necessity hereafter lead to many international complications. Such, then, were the general results of what the Under Secretary of State was always calling "high policy." That phrase of "high policy" appeared to him (Sir Julian Goldsmid) to be only another expression for constant interference, and the lamentable results he had referred to were caused by constant interference in the affairs of Egypt. It was a

  695
  course of action which, was deeply to be deplored, and which he thought required, nay demanded, adequate explanation from Her Majesty's Government.
  SIB CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as at that period of the year the time of the House was very precious, he should not detain them many minutes. It was all the less necessary to speak at any length on the subject, because his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had gone fully into the history of the question. At the same time, he did not agree with those hon. Members opposite who seemed to show impatience at his hon. Friend's speech, for he could not think they really desired that Session to pass over without something like a full discussion of these Egyptian affairs, and, indeed, in the interest of the Government itself, it was most desirable that that discussion should occur. He contended that the Members of that House had been misled by the action of the Government and by their words, and the few minutes he would occupy would be employed in pointing out the way in which it had been done. His hon. Friend had rather based his speech on what might be called the other side of the question—namely, the deception practised towards the Khedive. For his own part, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must at once say that he had not the smallest sympathy with the Khedive, nor did he deplore in the least what had occurred to him. He wished, also, to take that opportnnity of saying he was not one of those who thought we had no concern in the affairs of Egypt. On the contrary, he had, perhaps, a higher belief in the necessity of our interesting ourselves with the affairs of that country than had even many of those who sat upon the Treasury Bench. He maintained, however, that that House had been misled by the policy of the Government and by their words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House several times that the Khedive had a perfect right to dismiss Mr. Rivers Wilson and his French Colleague. Those answers were made not only to the House of Commons, but also to the Khedive, because, of course, they were telegraphed to Egypt, and many persons thought they had a great deal to do with the dismissal of those Ministers. That was the view put forth by
  696
  his hon. Friend; but what he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) particularly rose to complain of was, that the House had been misled throughout by the Government, because it was unaware, and it was even now not officially aware, that the Government had declared in Egypt for a far stronger policy, and had really taken the affairs of the country into their hands, when, in that House, two months later, they were telling it that they had not. In the despatch of the 8th of March, which had never been officially presented to the House by the Government, and which was the foundation of their later policy, but regarding which he could see no reason why the criticizers of the policy of the Government should not quote it, they expressed themselves in these terms—
  "The Governments of France and England accept the expression of the determination of the Khedive to conform to their decisions and they take note thereof. The two European members of the Council are to have the right of generally imposing an absolute veto upon all measures of which they disapprove. In consideration of these concessions, the Powers abstain from insisting on the return to office of Nubar Pasha. The Khedive will understand the serious responsibility which he has assumed by giving rise to these new arrangements, and the gravity of the consequences to which he would expose himself, if he should not prove able to insure their complete execution, and if difficulties should arise subsequently to interfere with the progress of the Government, or if public order should be disturbed."
  It would thus be seen that Her Majesty's Government had contemplated all those acts which afterwards happened. They had contemplated the impatience of the Khedive, and had foreseen the possibility of an èmeute being got up in Cairo. In this despatch, they distinctly told the Khedive that he would be driven from his Throne if he did not act as they wished him to act. But what he complained of was, not the conduct of the Government towards the Khedive, but their conduct to Parliament and the country, in not informing them of the very grave responsibility they were undertaking on behalf of this country. Although it might be contended that there were reasons of high policy, as they were acting in concert with France, for concealment, he maintained that even in that case Her Majesty's Government ought to have said they would not answer; and they had no excuse for giving the House totally misleading

  697
  accounts of their policy. In April, however, the Government, on two occasions, gave answers to Questions put in that House which led hon. Members to believe that there was no intention to drive the Khedive from his Throne, and that he would be allowed to dismiss his European Ministers and return to his old courses if he pleased, with nothing from us but remonstrances. But at that very time the Government had decided that, in the event of the Khedive acting as they knew he was likely to act, he should be driven from his Throne. [Mr. BOURKE: Nothing of the sort.] True, the Government never said he should be driven from his Throne. When he was driven from his Throne they did not say so; but they instructed the Turks to say so, and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had pointed out, in making the Turks take that action the Government had reversed the whole past policy of this country with regard to Egypt. This country had always maintained with other Powers that they were not to act through the Porte, but to foster a virtual independence of the Egyptian Government. Her Majesty's Government, however, as he had stated, said they accepted the determination of the Khedive to conform to the decision of England and France, and took note thereof; they pointed out the serious responsibility which he incurred through the new arrangements, and the gravity of the consequences to which he exposed himself if he failed in their complete execution, or if there was an émeute in Cairo. And yet the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State now said that they did not tell him that he was to be driven from the Throne. If they did not tell him that, it was difficult to understand what else the veto of the European Powers could mean.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that he was sorry that the discussion of that important subject had been left till the end of the Session, owing to the neglect of the Government to furnish at an earlier period the information which would have enabled his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) to bring the subject forward in a fuller House. For himself, at the same time, he was bound to say, having listened with the very closest attention to the speech of his hon. Friend, which began, one might say, with the Egyptian Deluge, and
  698
  brought them down through a long series of years to the last historical fact—that he did not quite share the opinions which that hon. Gentleman had expressed. No doubt, as his hon. Friend had said, great inconvenience had been caused by the undue reticence of the Government with regard to the policy they were pursuing in Egypt. While he sympathized to a great extent with the Government in the action they had taken, he felt all the more sorry that they had not been more candid with the House. Had they been so they would have met with more sympathy and greater support. Egypt was a kind of lottery bag or tee-totum for all sorts of swindlers, gamblers, and money-lenders on the Stock Exchange; and, considering that every single act of Her Majesty's Government in regard to that country was, in some way or other, immediately discounted in the Money Market and the Stock Exchange, therefore there was a serious responsibility resting on the Government, and it ought to be very frank and candid as to its policy. We could not at present get any unbiassed opinion with regard to affairs in Egypt, or a true history of events which were taking place there, because, in every single instance, and in the case of every newspaper of influence in this country, the correspondents were biassed, because they represented different interests. He wanted to point, in some way, in direct contradiction of the statement made by his hon. Friend, to two facts with regard to the policy of this country in respect of Egypt. One was that from 1866 there had been, off and on, a joint action between the Governments of France and England with regard to Egypt. That was a very important matter, because it showed that Her Majesty's Government, in the policy they had been pursuing, had only been carrying out, to a certain extent, the policy initiated by their Predecessors. [Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID: No, no!] His hon. Friend said "No, no;" and that compelled him (Mr. E. Jenkins) to prove the truth of what he said. He would take the Papers delivered to them on Saturday, and he found on the 3rd page a reference was made to these words in a letter from Lord Cowley to Lord Clarendon—
  "I observe that although. England and France might, as far as they were interested in the matter, or it depended upon them, have con-

  699
  sented to any arrangement made between the Porte and the Powers, yet it might be as well to abstain from giving any opinion with regard to that arrangement."
  That showed that, at that time, conversation was taking place between the French and English Governments as to the policy they ought generally to pursue in Egypt. His hon. Friend was historically incorrect in regard to another statement he had made—namely, that the policy of Great Britain had been, as far as practicable, to make Egypt as independent as possible of the Porte. His hon. Friend could surely have never taken the trouble to read these Papers, because, if there was anything clearly shown, it was that the policy of both Liberal and Conservative Administrations had been rather to preserve the authority of the Porte; to what end it was not necessary to say. The despatches from Sir Henry Elliot to Lord Granville, and Lord Granville's replies to them, conclusively showed that to be the case. A despatch from Sir Henry Elliot to Lord Granville, dated June 27, 1873, stated that any attempt on the part of the Viceroy to weaken the ties which bound Egypt to the Ottoman Empire would always be regarded with unqualified disapprobation; and Lord Granville had not only discouraged the Khedive from seeking to break away from the control of the Sultan, but had warned him that if he attempted to do so the British Government would be prepared to take very strong measures indeed. He (Mr. E. Jenkins) was aware that they could have no very useful debate that night, one cause of which was that the necessary Papers had not been produced. They were, therefore, thrown on old Papers and facts which had leaked out. He hoped, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his statement with regard to the history and adventures of Mr. Rivers Wilson in Egypt, would give them information which would enable them to arrive at some idea as to the nature of the policy the Government was pursuing. As yet they did not know what the ultimate aim of the Government was, or its motive, for the Government had given them no clue to guide them in the matter. They virtually nominated Mr. Wilson to the post, and, in doing so, accepted a vast responsibility. He (Mr. E. Jenkins)
  700
  was never more astonished in his life than when the Chancellor of the Exchequerrose and said that Mr. Rivers Wilson went out as a Minister to the Khedive, who had the right to dismiss him from his post. In the same speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said something which did not quite agree with this statement—namely, that the exceptional interference was due to the fact that this country had not only a large financial interest in Egypt, but was interested in a political sense, and that it was of great importance, in the interests of this country and European peace, that Egypt should not fall into a state of anarchy and bankruptcy. It was impossible to reconcile one part of the speech with the other, any more than it was possible to reconcile one portion of the policy of the Government with another portion. The House, in his opinion, ought to face the question as to the right of the Government to interfere on behalf of the creditors of Egypt. He could not say that it would not be right on any occasion for one Government to interfere with another Government on behalf of the creditors who were subjects of the interfering Government. Occasions might arise when that would be justifiable, and he was not prepared to say that the occasion had not arisen in regard to Egypt. But the question was, had our Government interfered? They would probably hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this country had adopted the principle laid down by the French Government; but it seemed perfectly clear that the French Government—moved by a strong body, the Credit Foncier—acted under the influence which was brought about by financial pressure. He knew from the highest authority that no French Minister could have faced the people if he allowed England to act alone with regard to Egypt. There could be no doubt that the Khedive had obtained from a large number of persons in England vast sums of money; but they did not propose to go so far as to say that we should be justified in supporting those creditors against the Khedive, or taking strong action against him with regard to those creditors. The Khedive had been distinctly told that he must keep Mr. Rivers Wilson in his position, and that serious things would arise if he did not do so. The Khedive, however, did not

  701
  keep Mr. Wilson in his position, and serious things did arise, and then the Government did not do what it had threatened. He did not blame them, as his hon. Friend had done, for interfering too much; but he did blame them for not interfering in the case of Mr. Wilson. The Government was bound to carry out its policy with a strong hand. He did not wonder that the public were mystified. It was a toss up whether it was a Stock Exchange intrigue or Imperial policy, and he trusted some information would be afforded by the Government on the subject. He ventured to say that the country was prepared for a strong policy with regard to Egypt. The Government was suffering her to drift into error. Egypt was as badly off now as over she was. The ex-Khedive had plundered her, and no attempt at recovery had been made, and the present Khedive was as corrupt and intriguing as his father. That was all that had come of the Government policy up to the present moment. The Government had threatened to interfere, but had not interfered with sufficient strength. What they wanted was an earnest, vigorous, and intelligent policy in Egypt. The Government could not ignore the policy it had assumed. Our interests in Egypt were, and our stake in her prosperity had been, vastly increased by our own action, and by the change in the circumstances of Eastern affairs. We were bound boldly and vigorously to assert and vindicate our interests; and he could not help saying that he did not think we should allow Russia or Germany to interfere for political purposes in the affairs of Egypt. The Government ought to declare their policy candidly and clearly; but he saw no signs of definiteness, clearness, or boldness in their existing policy. So far as could be seen, they were only tinkering at a great question, and subordinating public interests to the narrow interests of Party, and, perhaps, to the private advantage of individuals. He would be glad if the Government could clear themselves, at all events, from that charge, and be able to show that in the policy they were carrying out they had a definite and consistent purpose in view, and were moved by motives of Imperial policy, rather than by whims, caprices, and the exigencies of the moment.
  MR. GOURLEYregretted that Her Majesty's Government had not pursued an independent policy with regard to Egypt. In the year 1867 the British Government complained that Egyptian affairs were being subjected to the undue influence of France, and in consequence of their remonstrance the Khedive placed his military schools under English direction. At that time there was a jealous co-partnership between England and France in respect of the affairs of Egypt, each country endeavouring to prevent its rival from gaining any undue advantage. A similar state of things existed now, notwithstanding the excellent opportunity the Franco-German War had afforded us of making English influence paramount, for since that war France had ceased to have that interest which she formerly had in Syria. At the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was very emphatic in his announcements of the interests of England. Egypt was named by him as one English interest. It was also understood that Batoum was a point with which we should allow no interference; and, as to the Suez Canal, that we should not allow any other country to interfere with that. But on the conclusion of the war the Government abandoned the position they had taken up. Instead of giving us a rubbishy island like Cyprus, they ought to have purchased the suzerainty of the Sultan over the Suez Canal. Such a step would have secured it to this country as a permanent high road to India. As it was, the state of things was this—that in the event of a European complication, if we should happen to be at war with Italy, we could not send our troops to India through the Canal, for Italy could blockade the entrance, and we should have to employ half our Navy to maintain a passage for our troopships through the Canal. In the event of our being at war with any naval Power, we ought to abandon the route to India by the Canal, and send our troops by way of the old one round the Cape, seeing that our Government had failed to secure the passage of the Canal at all times. With fast steamers this would not take much more time than was now required for the passage of slow troopships to India viâ the Canal, while, from a sanitary point of view, the Cape route possessed

  703
  great advantages. At present, it took from 30 to 40 days for our troopships to carry troops through the Canal to Bombay, and there were abundance of vessels in which the troops could be conveyed round the Cape in the same time. This latter course would also be beneficial to our soldiers, because they could, both out and home, be landed and acclimatized, so that they should not suffer from any sudden change of climate. The Government ought, therefore, to consider what would be the best route to India, if complications were to arise between us and a maritime Power. The objection to the Cape of Good Hope route on the score of expense was, he believed, not well founded, as the saving in the Canal dues would neutralize the cost of transport for the longer distance. The cost by the Suez Canal route was as much as from £20 to £26 a-head; but probably there were many ship-owning firms that would undertake the conveyance of troops by way of the Cape of Good Hope for about three-fourths of that sum, or from £15 to £16. He would not enlarge on that subject, but had merely thought it right to call the attention of the Government to the possibility of transport round the Cape of Good. Hope.
  MR. J. MAITLANDsaid, that having been last winter in Egypt he could bear testimony to the deplorable condition of the people. Nothing he had seen written, or had in that House heard spoken, had given an adequate idea of the state of starvation and destitution to which a very large proportion of the poor inhabitants of Egypt were reduced. It might be said this was not the business of the people or the Government of England. It had been said, particularly on the Liberal side of the House, that we ought to attend to our own business, and not go round the world, looking after the affairs of every people that might be oppressed by a bad Government. But that was an absolute blunder in the case of Egypt. During the time he was in Egypt, and since he had come back, he found our Government had been doing nothing but dunning the Khedive and the people of Egypt, while the Khedive, for whom, by-the-bye, he had nothing to say, had protested their inability to pay the interest on the bonds. It was, in point of fact, impossible for them to do so. The greatest possible sum that
  704
  could be got out of the population was extracted from them. Their whole savings had been devoured. Even their clothes and house utensils were seized, and many of them had been bastinadoed, almost to death, for refusing to give up that which was out of their power. Yet our Government was insisting that they should pay to the last farthing. He hoped that before this debate closed they should hear from the Government something that would show they were going to give up that policy. He trusted that they would, in this matter, part company with France, and would begin to have some consideration for the people of Egypt. Instead of seeking to extract more from them than they were able to pay, something should be done for this cruelly-wronged people. As long as Egypt continued to be the prey of foreigners its people would continue in this state; he, therefore, hoped they would hear that the Government of England did not intend any longer to continue those Jewish practices, but would really endeavour to make some arrangement by which these people should pay less.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the Papers before the House had so many blanks in them, and gave so little information on several important points, that it was all but impossible to form a fair judgment of the conduct of Mr. Rivers Wilson. He ventured, therefore, to ask the House to suspend its judgment on that point till it was in possession of fuller information. Not very long before he had made a few observations on the treatment of Mr. Rivers Wilson by the Government, and had complained that he had not had the support of Mr. Vivian, the British Consul at Cairo. As was well known, the French Consul had been dismissed by his Government in consequence of his having adopted the same attitude towards M. de Bligniéres; but Mr. Rivers Wilson had cause to complain both of the British Consul, and that it did not appear that any notice had been taken of the action of Mr. Vivian. He wished also again to point out that, on March 13, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Khedive had a perfect right to dismiss Mr. Rivers Wilson. If, on that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had read to the House the joint Note of March 8, he would have allowed

  705
  them greater insight into the position of affairs. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) need not quote that Note to the House; but it was clear from it that most serious consequences would follow if the Khedive took upon himself to dismiss Mr. Rivers Wilson—indeed, that was the phrase used in the Note. After that, could it be properly said that the Khedive had a perfect right to dismiss Mr. Wilson? The strength of Mr. Wilson's position in Egypt was due to the ignorance of the Khedive as to the nature of the serious consequences of shaping his policy in disobedience to the joint Note; but, of course, when the Khedive was informed by telegraph of the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on March 13, he must have deduced from them that no serious consequences would follow from his dismissing Mr. Wilson; the words must have seemed to him as a hint on which he was to act. What wonder, then, that he took the hint and dismissed the Minister. That was not a bad example of the want of frankness of which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) complained the other night with regard to Cyprus. In respect to many matters of foreign policy, he thought they had reason to complain of the want of openness on the part of the Government, for which he held the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs responsible.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it struck him, as a City man, that the Money Market was at the bottom of a good deal of this discussion, and he could see no good in it, except it led to a diminution of the extortionate interest which the people of Egypt had to pay for the loans contracted by their Rulers. The Khedive might be a good man or bad man; but he (Sir Andrew Lusk) remembered the time when, 15 years ago, the great houses in the City were offering the Khedive money at 12 per cent, and now, when what they all foresaw had come, it was not for us to interfere. There ought, he maintained, to be no consideration shown to the Egyptian bondholders, who ought to have known they subscribed to a loan on such unreasonable terms that a time must come when Egypt would be unable to bear the burden. They could not complain of not getting their money, for they had got it back nearly twice over already in the shape of exorbitant interest. He
  706
  hoped that they had heard the last of this matter, and that it would settle down into a more quiet state of things.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the difficulty of those who were discussing this question was, that they had not got any official information. He had, therefore, been anxious to postpone his remarks until the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had enlightened the House and the country; but as it was said that the hon. Gentleman did not propose to do anything of the kind, he (Sir George Campbell) was forced to do the best he could. He brought this subject before the House about two months ago, and in consequence of what was then said he put his trust in the Government; but his confidence had received a very rude shock in consequence of what had since taken place, or had been revealed through other than official channels. Appearances, it must be confessed, were very much against the Governments both of England and France, for it seemed as if the action of those two countries had not been taken so much in the interests of the Egyptian people as of the European creditors of the Egyptian Government. If the deposition of the late Khedive were considered entirely by itself, it perhaps might be justified on the ground that he was too clever by half, extravagant, and not to be depended on. He (Sir George Campbell) was rather inclined to believe that the new Khedive would, if he had fair play, do better than his father. It was said that he had one excellent qualification, which was, that he spoke English in its very best form, that of broad Scotch. He was afraid, however, that the question was not the simple one of the propriety of deposing the late Khedive, who, he might point out, by-the-bye, was not an Egyptian, but an Armenian, by birth. It was believed throughout Europe, and with some show of justice, that the interests of Egyptian creditors were solely those which moved the English and French Governments, though he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able in some degree to modify this impression. If it was true, the result would be to establish in Egypt what might be called a "Shylock Government." In the interest of creditors, who were determined to have their pound of flesh from the poor Egyptian

  707
  people, and greatly as the interests of England had been neglected in favour of those of the creditors of Egypt, he was afraid that they would be more neglected in future under this Shylock Government. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) had disowned any sympathy with the usurers who had made Egypt the field of their operations, and he (Sir George Campbell) was inclined to agree with him. As regarded the future, he was afraid that many efforts were being made to coerce the new Khedive into the belief that if he did not entirely submit himself to the creditors' interest—thus sacrificing the people over whom he ruled—the fate which had befallen his father would befall him. For instance, most persistent efforts had been made to set up Prince Halim as Ruler of Egypt; and the creditors, if displeased with Prince Tewfik, might use Prince Halim as their tool. There was another danger which lurked behind the cry of justice to Nubar Pasha. Up to the present time, the new Khedive had very wisely discouraged Nubar Pasha's return to Egypt; for, no doubt, his return would be accompanied by an attempt to resume his policy. Another form of coercion of the present Khedive, and of triumph for the interest of the Egyptian creditors over that of the Egyptian people, was the return of Mr. Rivers Wilson to that country, and this was a danger which appeared nearer than any other. The very best authority—namely, the present Khedive himself—had stated to the correspondent of The Times that efforts were being made to force Mr. Rivers Wilson on him again. Men of all political views condemned the Egyptian career of Mr. Rivers Wilson. The Consuls General of England and France were themselves of opinion that serious faults were committed by Mr. Wilson while he was in Egypt; and he (Sir George Campbell) certainly agreed on this occasion with the diplomatists, and not the financiers, for he thought that the former had the interests of Egypt at heart, while the latter had not. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not send Mr. Wilson back to Egypt, even as the head of a temporary Commission of Inquiry. If the Government did so, the Egyptians, and everybody else, would believe that the interests of the unfor-
  708
  tunate people were more than ever to be subordinated to those of the financiers. He (Sir George Campbell) was quite ready to accept a Commission of Liquidation fairly and honestly conducted; and he was quite willing that any competent man, who had not committed himself to the side of the creditors, should be placed on it. He was willing that Mr. Romaine, or Mr. Baring, or even M. de Bligniéres, should be put on the Commission. He hoped that the frank appeal of the new Khedive would be listened to by the Government, and that he would be allowed a fair chance. He now wished to say a word upon the complications which had recently arisen from Her Majesty's Government calling in the intervention of the Sultan in this matter. That seemed to him to be a very grave error. Having heard so recently the testimony of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) regarding the corruptness of the Court of Constantinople, it would be a terrible misfortune for Egypt and the world if the result of our intervention was that the Sultan and the corrupt Pashas of Turkey should have an opportunity of squeezing Egypt. It was bad enough for it to be squeezed by European creditors. If the Pashas at Constantinople were to give it another squeeze, God help the unfortunate people! He was very much inclined to believe that if Egypt were well-governed, and under a well-regulated system of economy, and if it were connected with Turkey by a fair bargain, it would add much to the strength of Turkey—would supply many things which were wanting to Turkey. Seeing that parts of European Turkey had been granted complete autonomy, and the Dominions of Turkey in Europe had been greatly diminished, he would look with great hope to any arrangement which would extend the Mahomedan Empire in Western Asia and Africa, which had not hitherto been completely conjoined with that Empire. We, at any rate, had no reason to be jealous of a Mahomedan State there. We had always made it a cardinal point in our policy to maintain such an Empire, and by an Empire he meant a great State. He believed a great Mahomedan State would be the best barrier against Russia, and an independent Mahomedan Government would be the best means of

  709
  extricating us from those schemes of joint occupation on the part of France and other European Governments with which we were seriously threatened. How could that object be effected? The Turkish Empire was, he believed, as an Empire, effete, and it was impossible of revival in the old form. Still, he thought, by means of this new system of autonomy which Her Majesty's Government had favoured, they had really the means of accomplishing a great Mahomedan revival. Egypt might be made self-governing and independent of the will of the Sultan and Pashas at Constantinople, and constituted a member of this revived Mahomedan State. The right way in establishing her as a self-governing, promising, respectable member of a great Mahomedan Confederation was to give a fair chance to this new Khedive. He ought to get a fair measure of independence, and not be subordinated to England and half-a-dozen other Powers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, of course I cannot complain that the hon. Member opposite (Sir Julian Goldsmid) should have invited us to discuss this question. That was perfectly right and natural, and the Government are perfectly willing and quite prepared to enter into such a discussion; but I must protest against one or two features which I have observed in the course of the debate this evening. In the first place, it seems to me that there is far too great a tendency on the part of hon. Members to take up all the stories which they hear, to draw inferences from those stories, and to attack the character of one and another of the persons who have played an important part in recent proceedings in regard to Egypt, and who are conspicuous in the eyes of the world. The effect of some of the observations of this nature which have been made has not been, and is not, I think, likely to be, of great advantage either to Egyptian or to English interests. It is a great pity, I think, that we should have had those attacks upon the character and position of Nubar Pasha, Mr. Rivers Wilson, Mr. Vivian, and other persons who might be named, because some of the things which have been stated have been said upon imperfect information. Those statements, be it remembered, go far beyond the walls of the House. They are, to a great ex-
  710
  tent, inaccurate; and they are calculated to produce a prejudice which may be seriously mischievous. With regard to Nubar Pasha, I am not prepared to say that, in all ways and in every respect, he has been right and wise in all his policy; but I can say that there is no Eastern statesman, with whom Her Majesty's Government, or, at all events, I am acquainted, who has shown more acuteness, or a more perfectly honest desire to improve the condition of that country to which, whether he was a native of it or not, he has devoted so large a portion of his time and attention than Nubar Pasha. And I say, also, that any reflections which may be cast upon him come exceedingly ill from any Englishman, because there is no doubt that, over and above the anxious wish which I am sure has animated him to do the best he could for his adopted country, Egypt, there has always been in his mind and conduct a strong evidence that he has desired to secure the friendship of, and to work well with the Government of, England. He has played a great part in very difficult circumstances on more than one occasion. It was to his great exertions we owe the foundation of those international tribunals which were established in Egypt, and which, I think, have very beneficially superseded the old system of Consular jurisdiction. He was one of those who always stood up for English interests in all the questions which arose in which we were concerned; and I regret exceedingly that anything should be said, as I think unnecessarily, in this House, which should cast reflections upon his conduct. It certainly is my duty, on behalf of the Government, emphatically to repudiate any such reflections, and to express the great acknowledgments which England, Egypt, and, to a great extent, Europe, also owes to that distinguished man. I am also sorry to have heard the observations which were made with regard to Mr. Rivers Wilson, as to whose abilities and whose position in this country there is no question about. Mr. Wilson devoted himself to a most difficult task in Egypt in a position of the greatest embarrassment; and he has certainly shown great ability in the way in which he has discharged his duties. It is almost impossible for anyone going into a particular position under such circumstances as Mr.

  711
  Wilson did to fail to give offence more or less to all parties. Had he made himself a partizan on the one side or the other, he might, although he might have made bitter enemies, have also made strong supporters and friends; but he went straight to his point, looking neither to the right nor to the left, not favouring this class or that class, but doing his best for Egypt, and, by doing so, he has exposed himself to much of the criticism that has been uttered against him. With regard to Mr. Vivian, I think, also, that some of the remarks which have been made in this discussion have been both unfair and ungenerous. He has done his duty well as the Consul General of this country in Egypt, and has endeavoured to do it in the way which seemed to him to be the best; he has given his candid opinion to Her Majesty's Government upon all questions which arose from time to time; and I cannot see that there is any justice whatever in the reflections which have been cast upon him. Hon. Gentlemen who are in the habit of making these criticisms seem to get hold of every rumour on the Stock Exchange, or in the Money Markets of Alexandria or Cairo. These rumours are taken up, paraded as facts, and, ultimately, they culminate in what we are told is the highest authority—the Constantinople Correspondent of The Times newspaper—and the result is naturally inconvenient to the parties concerned. Then, what happens? We are pressed for information; questions are put to us as to so-called facts founded upon imperfect evidence, and we are obliged, in that manner, to make certain statements on the subject. If the Government decline to do so, and withhold any information which they possess, they are told that they are keeping the House in the dark, and that it is very wicked of them to do so. The result is that, when we do make a frank and explicit statement, the statements so made are used for personal or Party purposes, and telegraphed out to Egypt, and, it may be, produce consequences of the gravest import. I do trust that in discussing this question—if it is to be discussed much longer—hon. Gentlemen will endeavour to bear this in mind. I hope they will remember that what we say in this House goes far beyond our own walls, and may cause results which it is difficult for us to
  712
  foresee. Before going further, I desire to notice the attacks which have been made upon me by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and others, of having been wanting in candour and fairness in the statement which I made to the House in the month of March last upon this subject. I entirely dispute that there is any justification for the attacks which have been so made. What was the position of affairs at the time I made the observations which I offered on the 13th of March? It was a very peculiar one, for there had been a tumult in Cairo, in the course of which insults had been offered to Mr. Rivers Wilson and M. de Bligniéres. The Khedive had interfered, and, through his authority, had restored order, apparently with great ease. I do not, however, wish to make any remarks upon the point. The Khedive followed this up by dismissing Mr. Rivers Wilson, and the position of affairs then became a matter of natural anxiety. I was questioned upon the subject, and I made a speech which occupies, I see, several pages of Hansard. In the course of that speech I said—
  "It was not possible now to define the exact position of Mr. 'Wilson, because, unfortunately, the position of the Egyptian Ministry itself was in a very unsettled state, owing to the crisis through which it had recently passed. When Mr. Wilson went out, he went as the Minister of the Khedive, who had the right to dismiss him from his post whenever he thought fit. … It then became a question as to the course which should be taken by Mr. Wilson and M. de Bligniéres. They consulted their respective Governments, and Her Majesty's Ministers expressed to Mr. Wilson their opinion that it would be undesirable for him to resign, but that he was to be guided very much by the arrangements which might be come to with the Khedive. They had no control over Mr. Wilson, who was then and still remained perfectly free to take his own course; but they gave the advice, and instructed the British Consul in Egypt to give Mr. Wilson his moral support."—[3 Hansard, ccxliv. 851.]
  That was the precise state of the case; it was through the Khedive's own act that Mr. Wilson was appointed, and not from any promptings on the part of the British Government, and all that the Government had done was to advise Mr. Rivers Wilson not to resign, when their advice on the point was asked; but there was no doubt but that the Khedive

  713
  had a perfect right to dismiss him. They came to that conclusion in concert with the Government of France, a conclusion, however, in the first instance suggested, I believe, by Consul Vivian, that it was not desirable to interfere so as to try and compel the Khedive to retrace the step he had taken in calling for the resignation of Nubar Pasha, but that, as far as the European Ministers were concerned, they thought it right for them to remain in the Cabinet with a certain right of veto. Her Majesty's Government accompanied that suggestion by what has been quoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea in the despatch of the 8th of March. In that despatch, we stated that if the concession which, we proposed was made, we would abstain from further pressing Nubar Pasha on the Khedive; but we added to Mr. Vivian—
  "It will be your duty to warn him that any further difficulties or disturbances of the public peace will be regarded as the result of his action, and he must expect that the consequences will recoil upon himself."
  When the Khedive, in this summary way, had dismissed Nubar Pasha, there were, of course, suggestions of all kinds afloat. It was urged that he should be compelled to retrace his steps and replace Nubar Pasha; but the two Governments came to the conclusion that violent action of that sort was not desirable or necessary, and that the right thing to do was to spare the Khedive's feelings; and we thought the best course would be that a better position should be found for the European Ministers in the Cabinet, at the same time warning him that in the event of any disturbances of the public peace the consequences would prove serious for him. We all know what happened. That arrangement, though accepted in words, was, in a short time, broken in spirit, and the Khedive took the steps which led to what has since occurred. The general principle on which we have acted in these Egyptian matters has been not, as has been suggested, to interfere in the interests of the English or any other creditors of the Khedive. It has been a mere accident, and an incident of the position, that we have been obliged to interfere with the measures taken by the Khedive which were likely to be prejudicial to his creditors. It was not that we were interfering for the
  714
  sake of the creditors, but for the sake of preventing anarchy and misrule in Egypt. The cardinal principle of the English policy in Egypt upon which we acted was that Egypt ought to be maintained in a flourishing and, as far as possible, independent position, and that English interests should be, I will not say predominant, but that they should not be overshadowed by the interests of any other Power. I do not wish to weary the House by going into the reasons for that policy, as I think they are sufficiently obvious. Well, when we saw the Khedive getting into great difficulties; when we saw him parting with such politically valuable securities as the Suez Canal Shares, we thought it was time to stir ourselves, in order to see whether any mischief was brewing. There was no knowing to what straits the Khedive might be driven, or what expedients he might not have resort to. We knew very well that Egypt could not be independent of European opinion, and we thought it necessary to guard against the evils which were impending; and, therefore, we helped the Khedive by the purchase of these Shares. At the same time, we wished to know whether this help would be sufficient to relieve the Khedive from his embarrassments, and that was the reason for the mission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave). The Khedive rejected our counsels. Then came upon the scene the bondholders, who referred their interests to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) and M. Joubert. They went to Egypt to see what they could do with regard to bringing about the desired financial arrangements. The Government so far assisted them that they placed at their disposal men who were capable of giving them assistance. That led to the establishment of the system of control. That went on for a short time, and then there was a further inquiry, and Mr. Wilson was allowed to go out to assist the Khedive; and that, in its turn, led to the change which afterwards took place, and to his becoming Finance Minister in the Cabinet of Nubar Pasha. That was not promoted by England; it was the suggestion of the Commission of Inquiry; and when the Khedive, thinking he had better act on this suggestion,

  715
  sent for Nubar Pasha and authorized him to form a Ministry, he invited the assistance of Mr. Rivers Wilson, which the Government was willing he should give. He went as the Minister of the Khedive; and at the time the system of control was suspended, because under the new Administration there seemed no reason for it going on; but it was suspended with the understanding that if the new arrangement with a European Minister should fail control was to be renewed at once. That arrangement did fail, and the consequence is that the control is about to revive. I am authorized to state that Major Baring is to represent England on that Body, and that his going out will be acceptable to the Khedive, who has expressed his confidence in Major Baring. He will go as the English Member of the Body of Control. With regard to the suggested temporary Commission to which reference has been made, nothing has at present been decided; but I cannot admit that if Mr. Rivers Wilson was employed on that Commission for definite and well-ascertained purposes there would be any reason to object or to complain of the arrangement. The whole of this difficulty arises very much in this way—European affairs had been conducted in Egypt for a great many years under what are called capitulations. Under that system great power was given to the Consuls, who administered justice in a very exceptional fashion. As matters went on, that was found to give such an advantage to foreigners of all nations resident in Egypt that it greatly interfered with the conduct of the Egyptian Government. With the aid of Nubar Pasha, the Khedive succeeded in bringing about a system of international tribunals, which were established under international agreements, and which, therefore, acquired an international character. These tribunals have laid down certain principles, and have adjudged that certain financial decrees of the Khedive are of importance and matters of contract of which they were bound to take cognizance. It therefore became a matter of international arrangement that these decrees should be maintained, and that they should be considered as having an international force. But these decrees were of such a character as to bring Egypt under obligations which it was
  716
  impossible for her to fulfil without some modification, and the great object was to get rid of these difficulties in a way which would get rid of this embarrassment and difficulty. On all sides persons were making claims which were justifiable and were not to be set aside, and it was necessary that a door should be left open for the Government, and that the people should be relieved from cruel exactions, for we were told, with perfect truth, that the unfortunate fellaheen were suffering very much, and were miserably oppressed. I am perfectly aware of that, and it is one of the reasons why we are anxious to see a better system introduced. But you cannot change these things in a day. The exertions which wore made by Nubar Pasha during the few months while he was in power wore producing a very much better state of affairs; but the whole thing has been broken up, and the re-action has brought about a much worse state of things than that which existed before. We regret it exceedingly, and we cannot help saying that it is absolutely our duty to continue the exertions we have made, and to prevent the ruin which must come upon Egypt if matters are allowed to slide into anarchy. Prince Tewfik may be exceedingly well-intentioned; but we must remember that his position is one of difficulty, and that he really needs the support of powerful friends. We have been told that in all these things we have been acting for the bondholders; but I deny it. The bondholders are a powerful force in various countries, and the action of this force is perfectly certain to bring about more and more complicatons, and possibly political complications, if we are to stand aside. We know several other Powers who will not take that view. A good deal of observation has been made on the action of Germany; but other Powers will follow the same course as Germany. They cannot stand by and see the Khedive repudiating his international obligations, and we must not stand aside and see it either.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he desired to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his point about the revival of Turkish authority.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In regard to the revival of Turkish authority, I really do not know precisely what it is we are accused of.

  717
  The action which was taken was taken by the Porte. We recognized the Khedive's right to dismiss Mr. Rivers Wilson; but, at the same time, we warned him that if he took that line he would be guilty of great discourtesy to us, and that serious consequences might ensue. When he took that step, and it became necessary for us to take some measures, we suggested through the Consuls that he should abdicate as the best means of preventing any more serious consequences which might ensue. He did not take the advice at once; he referred the matter to the Porte; and, subsequently, the Porte sent an order for him to abdicate. It was a matter the two Powers never brought before the Porte, but in which each acted as he thought best; and I am bound to say the Sultan, as the supreme Suzerain of Egypt, was entirely in his right in saying—"This is a dependency of the Porte; the administration of my vassal is bringing Egypt to ruin, and the effect will be prejudicial indeed." [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think there is something wrong in any action of the Sultan done for the purpose of preventing serious evils which everybody recognizes as likely to happen; but what has been the result? The result has been that a new Firman has been formulated; and, perhaps, as it has not been published, I may state what it does. The order of succession will be left untouched; the Khedive is to be prohibited from contracting any foreign loans; before making any convention with foreign Powers he must communicate with his Suzerain; and the Sultan is to have full control over the finances of Eygpt. I think, under that new arrangement, there will be a better chance of avoiding the great danger to Egypt which might be threatened in working over a difficult period. I do admit that the difficulties of the situation are not entirely at an end; but I cannot admit that there has been anything in the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government which renders them open to censure.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURsaid, that when he was recently in Egypt he was told that Mr. Vivian was informed three weeks beforehand of the intended tumult. What made Mr. Rivers Wilson unpopular, in his opinion, was that he made great efforts to effect economy,
  718
  particularly in endeavouring to diminish the number of the Khedive's palaces, of which there were no fewer than 44. Mr. Rivers Wilson was placed in very difficult circumstances, and discharged his duties with great ability. If it were necessary to send someone out again, no one was calculated to render more useful service than Mr. Wilson, considering the experience he had already gained. This was, at least, the impression he had derived from what he had seen and heard on the spot. He quite agreed with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with regard to Mr. Rivers Wilson and Nubar Pasha, both of whom had rendered great service to Egypt.
  MR. COURTNEYcould not help thinking, from what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read of the new Firman, that matters had become even more complicated than had been feared—if, indeed, the independence of Egypt was not altogether gone. The new Firman had not been published; but it appeared that the Sultan claimed, and had exercised a right of deposition, which might be arbitrarily extended, and a new condition had been introduced, by which the Khedive could not contract a loan without communication with the Sultan. Egypt was thus brought back into subjection to the Sultan, from which she had been for many years striving painfully to emancipate herself. It was now obvious that the Government throughout had no policy. They did not understand the conditions under which they were bound to act, and the consequence was, their action had not been consistent with itself. Two conditions were paramount. First, the peasants should not be recklessly plundered and reduced to misery by extortion; and, secondly, the administration should be efficient and economical. After that, the creditors had a fair claim to consideration; but it was intolerable that the claims of creditors should be put foremost. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) told them the other evening that Turkey must be decentralized; he (Mr. Courtney) would say the true policy was rather disintegration, especially so far as Egypt was concerned; but now they had created a new power on the part of the Sultan, which did not

  719
  exist before. The situation was one of considerable embarrassment. The deposition of the late Khedive was altogether a mistake. He was a more able man than the present. Why not have left the Egyptians alone? He would have allowed them to stew in their own juice, and they would have worked out a solution for themselves. He should not have taken any part in this discussion; but after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he must most strongly protest against the new right of intervention on the part of the Sultan recognized by the new Firman.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—PAUPER CHILDREN IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. A. MOORE, referring to the question he had brought before the House on the 27th of June, and the promises which had been given that a Select Committee should be appointed on the Irish Poor Law, wished to have a distinct assurance from the Government that next Session they would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of the treatment of pauper children in the Irish workhouses. This was a most important subject, and one which was attracting a great deal of attention. There must be a reform of the Poor Law in Ireland, and it was not merely Members of Parliament who were arguing that such reform should take place, but Boards of Guardians in Ireland were themselves discussing the subject. It was, in fact, a question which would not brook delay; therefore, he hoped to receive a distinct assurance that the Government would give him their co-operation next Sesssion to obtain the fullest inquiry into the subject.
WRITERS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAcalled attention to the case of the writers in the Civil Service, and urged their claims for higher remuneration. He hoped, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving assurances all round, that he would not forget the claims of a very worthy class of men, who were not the less deserving of consideration because they had very few to speak for them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no right to address the House again, but would simply answer the two questions which had been proposed to him. With regard to the second, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was quite correct in saying that the class for whom he spoke had few to take an interest in them. He believed that many took an interest in them, and they also commanded the interest and attention of Her Majesty's Government. He would not, however, make any statement on the subject at present. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Clonmel, he forgot what was the precise language he used; but he was quite sure as to what was in his mind. The Report on the subject had not yet been fully considered, and he remembered making up his mind that he would look into it as soon as he had leisure. He would not have an opportunity of considering it in all its bearings till he was able to have a talk with his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. J. Lowther), and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The subject he felt to be one of very great interest, and he would endeavour to find time to consider it. He thought he might say that if nothing was done in regard to it during the Recess, it would be very reasonable that next Session the hon. Member should move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and if the hon. Gentleman did so he would be disposed to agree to it. He thought he ought to discourage such a Motion that Session, because it could hardly have any effect. No doubt, the matter was one that ought to be attended to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 283.]
(Mr. James Lowther.)
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 283.]

  CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended; read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. COURTNEY, who had an Amendment on the Paper, that the Bill be considered that day three months, said, he did not rise for the purpose of moving it, but simply to make a few remarks. In previous discussions they had been engaged in the question of University Education in Ireland, and they were asked to abandon the present system for a more or less denominational plan. This measure of Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly destroy the undenominational system of education which had existed for many years in Ireland; but he did not intend to go over that ground again. He would merely say that the Amendments on the Paper were directed to the practical improvement of the Bill, without challenging its principle; and he hoped they might receive from Her Majesty's Government an attentive consideration, as they were calculated to improve the details of the measure, and to make it more efficient.
  SIR JOHN LESLIEsaid, he was unwilling to intrude upon the House; but he found himself in a peculiar position, owing to the course the Bill had taken, because he had hitherto had no opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote; consequently, if he did not make his position clear now, he might be told hereafter that "silence gave consent." Representing, as he did, a very large opinion in the North of Ireland that the principle of national education, as a whole, would be disturbed, and, possibly, overthrown by this scheme, especially by the dissolution of the Queen's University, he was bound to say that, sharing that opinion, he was opposed to the principle of the Bill. It was said that the Intermediate Education Act was based on a similar principle, and that those who supported that Bill should, therefore, support this; but he held a different opinion. He regarded the Intermediate Education Bill as a missing link between the elementary and the higher education as belonging to a national system. It was, therefore, equally advantageous to all creeds, and, consequently, was supported by every Irish Member, as rendering that system complete. He and others held that elementary education was of still greater importance even than higher education; and they asked whether, at that moment, that elementary education was in
  722
  an efficient and satisfactory condition? He naturally turned to the Bill now before the House, which was to ameliorate the condition of the National School teachers, and where was it? He found it was the Tenth Order of the Day, without the remotest chance of receiving the consideration of the House. They knew the causes which had led to the difficulty of passing measures in that House; and, consequently, it was pretty clear why that measure, which had the support of the Government, was reduced at that period of the Session to such an extremity. He believed that the policy of the barricade had recoiled, to a certain extent, upon its authors; and, therefore, remedial measures like this, which would have received unanimous assent, were in the greatest possible danger of not being passed at all. He believed that unfortunate result had been, in a great measure, owing to what he called the "policy of the barricade." They would be told, he supposed, that they must look to next Session, and to next Session he supposed they must look; but if that policy was to continue, he saw no hope for any better state of things in any future Session of Parliament; and the remedy of a grievance acknowledged by every thinking man in Ireland, and which had been acquiesced in by every Member from Ireland, was placed at this moment in jeopardy, to their great disadvantage.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDrose to Order. The hon. Member was discussing a Bill which stood No. 10 on the Orders of the Day. It might be a very interesting question; but he had not yet reached it.
  SIR JOHN LESLIEsaid, it was connected with the subject of elementary education. However, he had completed his statement.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, under ordinary circumstances, and if this were an ordinary Bill, he should certainly feel very strongly inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that the hon. Member for Liskeard had not moved his Amendment.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYproceeded to say that it was nothing but the extreme difficulty of any legislation on the subject which prevented him (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) from moving an Amendment to

  723
  that effect. They had now got out of Committee, and they had all the Amendments before them, and he must say that the Bill still remained a very inadequate and dangerous Bill. It contained very grave defects. It left the instruction of Roman Catholics who desired University Education in Ireland entirely unprovided for. Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges still existed for their Protestant brethren; but no provision was made for the instruction of Roman Catholics. That was a very great inequality, which could not be defended on any ground whatever. There was a still greater danger under the Bill, a danger which would have to be looked to very carefully by the Senate—namely, that with the Scholarships and prizes to be given to successful students under the Bill, either a system of teaching by cramming, or a system of University teaching in intermediate schools would spring up, and he did not know which of the two would be the worse—that the University Education of the country should fall into the hands of crammers, or that the Intermediate Education of the country should be spoiled and destroyed by its being mixed up with University studies. He trusted the Senate which was to be constituted would endeavour to provide against both these dangers, which were equally destructive to any prospect of success. It was only because the Bill left a good deal to be done by the Senate, and because the work of the Senate would be constantly under the supervision of the House, that he thought the Bill should be allowed to pass.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in moving the following new clause:—
  (Senate to make annual report.)
  "And be it enacted, That the Senate of the University shall, once at least in every year, and whenever the Lord Lieutenant shall direct, report their proceedings to the Lord Lieutenant. Each annual report shall include a statement of accounts, and shall be made up to the end of the academical year, and shall include all prizes offered, and all prizes conferred, together with the names of the candidates for and of the recipients of the prizes offered by the University, stating the places of the previous education of such candidate, and a like account with respect to all candidates for and recipients of the degrees and honours to be conferred or
  724
  conferred by the University. The name of each member of the Senate, if resident within the United Kingdom, shall be appended to such report, whether assenting thereto or dissenting therefrom, and copy of every report shall be laid before Parliament within six weeks of the same being made, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within three weeks of the next meeting of Parliament,"
  said, he desired to propose the clause which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, and which he humbly submitted to the House. He had endeavoured to ascertain whether the House had ever passed an Education Act, such as the Bill contemplated, without requiring an annual Report to be laid before it, and he had been unable to find any instance, in which the House had passed an Education Act of this kind, which contemplated the suppression of a University, appropriated the property of that University, as created under Charter, and applied that property to other purposes; but the Bill went further, for it also contemplated providing for such of the Professors of the suppressed University as might decline to serve in the new University, a different University, which the Bill would create, out of public money to be voted by Parliament. He (Mr. Newdegate) could find no parallel case in which the House had not required an annual Report of the proceedings of the intended establishment. This Bill was drawn in a very unusual manner. In the first part of the measure it contemplated the use of the Royal Prerogative; but, instead of leaving Her Majesty's Prerogative of granting a Charter untouched, by successive clauses the Bill directed and limited the use of the Royal Prerogative, and then, by the 9th clause, totally superseded the Prerogative. With the permission of the House, he would read the terms of this, the 9th clause, which appropriated to the purposes of the Bill the establishment now existing, the Queen's University, and superseded the appointments which had been made by Prerogative, and then undertook to provide funds for paying the appointees. Altogether it was a most anomalous Bill, and especially this 9th clause, the first part of which the House would forgive him for reading. It ran in these words—
  "And whereas it is desirable to promote the advancement of learning in Ireland by means of the creation, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of exhibitions, scholarships, fellow-

  725
  ships, and other prizes, and also by the erection of suitable buildings in connection with the University to be established under the said charter"
  Under these words the House was invited to appropriate by Act of Parliament all that had been done by Prerogative, and to apply it to such uses as Parliament might think fit; and not only that, but the Bill undertook to provide public funds. He had taken the trouble of looking through the more recent precedents, and found that, in the year 1845, when the College of Maynooth was re-established, and the Queen's Colleges were created, for the first time each House of Parliament required that annual Reports should be presented to it. He then came to the Queen's University. Now, the Queen's University was established by Charter; but by that Charter the Colleges, established by Act of Parliament, were incorporated. Her Majesty, in an ordinary case, would have directed by Charter that new Colleges should be formed, and no Reports would have been presented to Parliament; but in consequence of the use of the Prerogative for incorporating the Colleges, already established by Parliament, an annual Report from that University had been presented to both Houses of Parliament. In this No 2 University Education Bill, however, up to the present time, although it contained this 9th clause, of which he had ventured to read the first part, there was no provision whatever for a Report to both Houses of Parliament. It appeared to him that the Prerogative had, in this case, been used only to invest Her Majesty's Advisers, Her present Ministers, with an option as to the time, at which this new University should be created. He could not otherwise understand the purpose of the Bill, because, under this very Bill, after the scheme had been matured, that scheme was to be submitted to Parliament. There were very grave reasons why this University should be regarded as a Parliamentary University. It was practically to be created by Parliament. It was to be supplied with funds by Parliament, and there were very grave Constitutional reasons why Parliament should relieve Her Majesty, who held the Throne as a Protestant Sovereign of these Realms, and on the condition of her and her successors being Protestants, from the responsibility, which
  726
  might thus rest upon her, if it were afterwards discovered that Her Majesty had by Charter erected a Roman Catholic University. It was for these reasons that he ventured to propose the clause, which stood upon the Notice Paper in his name. That clause he had drawn, to the best of his ability, after reference to Clauses 15 and 19 of the Maynooth Act, 8 & 9 Vict., c. 25, after reference to the Queen's Colleges Act of the same Session, 1845, 8 & 9 Vict., c. 66; and also after reference to the Intermediate Education Act of last Session, c. 66, s. 10. All of those Acts required an audit and a Report with respect to the funds, that were appropriated to the purposes of those several measures. Under the 12th section of the Bill, the whole of the property derived under the Act of 1845, the Queen's Colleges Act, and under the Charter of 1850, was to be transferred to this new Body, and that was accompanied by a promise on the part of Parliament, that Parliament would, out of public money, make good any deficiency, or meet any requirements, that might arise from the changes which Parliament was, under this Bill, asked to effect. With regard to the terms of his proposed clause, he had been told that the Report ought not to include the names of the candidates for, and of the recipients of, the honours and prizes to be conferred. But he held in his hand Reports made under the Charter of the Queen's University, and there he found that all the students' names, as well as those of the successful candidates, were given. He had adopted this form, therefore, from the Report for 1878. He wished now to leave his clause in the hands of the House; and he trusted that, in the few observations he had made, he had stated his argument and explained his object with sufficient clearness. If Parliament or this House had come to the conclusion that it was committed to the Bill—if the House of Commons concurred in creating this new University—then he would ask the Members of the House as loyal subjects, as gentlemen, and as men, to require that Reports should be made to themselves, so as to relieve Her Majesty from the responsibility, which the Bill seemed to impose upon her, while Parliament arrogated to themselves the power, which ought to entail responsibility. Thanking the House for allow-

  727
  ing him to explain the object of his clause, he would now move it according to Notice.
  New Clause (Senate to make annual report,)—(Mr. Newdegate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he sympathized with the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), in proposing the clause, that a Report should be annually made to Parliament on the subject of this University. It was the intention of the Government that such a Report should be made; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought it would be more in accordance with the precedent that the provision for it should be in the Charter. The Charter of the Queen's University provided that the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor should annually furnish a Report to the Lord Lieutenant on the condition and progress of the University. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire desired that such a Report should be laid before Parliament with regard to the new University; and, no doubt, under the exceptional circumstances of the Bill, on which the House was engaged, that was not unreasonable. He would suggest, however, as a better and more convenient means of attaining the object in view, that words should be introduced, at the end of the 10th clause, carrying out the principle contained in the Charter for the Queen's University. At the end of Clause 10, then, he should move, in due time, to insert words providing as follows:—
  "The Chancellor, or, in his absence, the Vice Chancellor of the University to annually furnish a Report to the Lord Lieutenant on the condition or progress of the University, such Report to be laid before Parliament within six weeks, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, within three weeks in the next Session of Parliament."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to contain great part of the substance of that which he (Mr. Newdegate) desired by his Amendment, or, rather, proposed clause. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would follow the precedent of the Reports furnished to both
  728
  Houses of Parliament under the Charter of the Queen's University, the Charter of 1850. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw his clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 (Constitution of the University).
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 25, to leave out "six" and insert "twelve." He explained that the Amendment referred to the composition of the Senate of the new University. By the Bill the Senate was constituted of 36 members to be appointed by the Crown. Therefore, they started with 36 nominees, the appointment being for life. When vacancies occurred by death or resignation every alternate vacancy was to be filled up by election by Convocation until there were six elected members, which would be the total number elected under the scheme of the Bill, or one-sixth of the entire number comprising the Senate. In the constitution of the Senate of the Queen's University one-fourth were elected members. He now proposed, by his Amendment, to increase the proportion of elected members from 6 to 12, or one-third of the whole body. These alterations would not come into effect for some considerable time, as it would be observed the whole of the 36 members of the Senate were named for life. He, therefore, did not propose to alter the working of the scheme of the Bill until at least 12 vacancies occurred. The alteration involved no present element of danger; but, on the other hand, it would tend to make the University self-constituted, and would give it a more independent life. In that respect it deserved the support of everyone interested in University Education. It would be impossible to conduct University Education if it was again and again to be interfered with by the introduction of Party politics. He had on the Paper a further Amendment, providing that there should be an election once every year to fill up vacancies among the elected members, and that at such elections each member of Convocation should have as many votes as there were persons to be elected, and be entitled to accumulate or distribute them as he pleased. This would have a valuable effect, because it would give to the

  729
  minority sure and absolute representation on the Governing Body. The hon. Member concluded by moving the first of his Amendments.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not agree to this Amendment. It would be a new departure from the policy of the Bill, and throw the power into the hands of the present graduates of the Queen's Colleges for a considerable time, rather than into the hands of the graduates of the new University. This was a circumstance which they wished to avoid, and in taking that new departure the Irish Members came forward to say that they preferred being left to the mercy of Her Majesty's Government, rather than to the mercy of a coterie in Dublin. He thought this was one of those subjects on which it was better not to say too much. The Bill itself recognized a new departure, and he ventured to think that it was a departure in the right direction. He believed that in Ireland they were all disposed to give this Bill, if it became law, a fair trial; and although he confessed he sympathized somewhat with the considerations which his hem. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) gave expression to, he could not help thinking that the fears of his hon. Friend were groundless. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) believed it was the intention of the Nobleman now at the head of affairs in that country to work the scheme out in a thoroughly national and comprehensive spirit. He could only say that he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would abide by the number of elected members fixed in the Bill.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsupported the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), which would have been still more in the interest of the University if it had gone further. At least one-half of the members of the Senate ought to be elected by the graduates. In the case of the University
  730
  of London, which comprised a somewhat larger number than the body to which the present Bill applied, they had felt that they were too much under Government tutelage—that they were not left with sufficient authority to control their own proceedings, and that it would be for the benefit of the University if a greater number of graduates were elected by the Convocation to the Senate. The objection of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was one which would equally apply to the existing state of affairs. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) held that one of the worst things that could possibly occur in University life was to have the Government of the day constantly interfering; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment, and thought that Irish Members, if they studied their own interests, would also support it.
  MR. SHAWsaid, it struck him, as this Amendment, if carried, could not possibly come into operation for the next 12 years, that they might just as well wait for a time and see how the clause operated first. The difference between this case and the London University was, that here they were beginning with a very large constituency already made, and it might be a dangerous thing to enlarge the powers of the constituency. He believed there could be nothing more unfortunate than to introduce any element which might make it seem that the present students of the Queen's University had any interests against this Bill, and he feared very much that by enlarging the scope of the elected members they might introduce that element. He hoped that in the course of a few years there would be an amended Bill brought in; and if that was clone there would be then no difficulty in considering this question. Before he sat down there was one point he would like to allude to. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said something about loyal Members, and that they objected to the name of "Queen's University." That had nothing at all to do with the matter. He did not believe that there was a single sane man in Ireland who would object to the name of Queen's University. What they did object to was the thing, and not the name, and they thought—and he believed the Government thought with them—

  731
  that it would be better to change the name, so as to prevent misapprehension.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the matter was discussed in Committee and a Division taken upon it, when the Amendment was defeated by a majority of about 100. He was, therefore, rather surprised at, he would not say the pertinacity of, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) bringing the matter forward again. If this were a new foundation, no Irish Member would stand up for the nominee of the Lord Lieutenant against the graduates of that foundation; but it was not. There were already 1,200 graduates, and it was into their hands that the hon. Member for Liskeard wanted to throw the whole power. So far as election was concerned, if the system which had been proposed to the House upon the second reading of the Bill had been adopted, and affiliated Catholic Colleges had been connected with the University, the hon. Member might have had some reason for moving his Amendment; but, under the present circumstances, he (Mr. Synan) called upon the Government to stand firm and not accept the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Courtney) would see that the matter had resolved itself into a contest between hon. Members who represented the interests of the London University, and hon. Members from Ireland looking after the interests of the scheme as represented in the Bill—a sort of trial race, in fact, between the two Universities. The former wished to use the new University as a corpus vile, on which to try an experiment for the benefit of the London University. It was evident, he thought, that there was no wish on the part of Irish Representatives to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and he, therefore, hoped the House would not accept it.
  MR. FAWCETThad hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have found some argument more deserving of the consideration of the House than the statement that it was a contest between the London University and the Irish Universities. The London University had nothing whatever to do with the question. It had only been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Roches-
  732
  ter (Sir Julian Goldsmid) as an argument in favour of the Amendment, and, seeing that the Government had referred so much to the London University, the hon. Member for Rochester was quite justified in doing so. The Irish Members supplied the most unanswerable arguments in favour of the Amendment, because they seemed to anticipate the predominance of one class of graduates, which it was the very object of the Amendment to prevent. The only argument advanced against the Amendment was that the question had been discussed in Committee; but he would point out that the Committee had been galloped through on the Bill, and several important questions were reserved for consideration upon Report. He should support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 32: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 221.)
  Further Amendments (Mr. Courtney), by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 6, that after "Majesty," these words be inserted—
  "Provided always, That one-half of such persons so nominated by Her Majesty shall he graduates of the said University;"
  the intention being to secure a due representation of the graduates on the Senate.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 6, after the first word "Majesty," to insert the words "Provided always, That one-half of such persons so nominated by Her Majesty shall be graduates of such "University."—(Sir Julian Goldsmid.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the Amendment. It was unnecessary, and unduly trenching on the Royal Prerogative. It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that the Government intended to retain the services, as far as possible, of the existing members of the University.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Convocation).
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in moving the following Amendments:—In page 2, line 17, before "graduates," insert "male;" page 2, line 18, at end of clause, add—
  "Provided that any other persons who shall be at the date of the said Charter members of the Convocation of the Queen's University shall, on complying with such conditions, become and continue members of the Convocation of the University to be established under the said Charter;"
  said, the object which the Government had in view was to place women in the same position as in England, with regard to University Education, as men.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Examinations).
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 1, after "for," to insert the words "degrees and for such."
  MR. J. LOWTHER, on behalf of the Government, said, he would accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Senate to prepare scheme).
  MR. COURTNEY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "that they shall be awarded in respect of either relative or absolute proficiency and," said, the system proposed was that of paying result fees to students who passed any examination in a decent manner—a system which would degrade education and develop the worst forms of cramming. He apprehended that it would also affect the standard of University Education, by instituting a competition between the new University and that of London. The new University would correspond with the London University in so far as it would not require residence, and it would attract students under the conditions proposed. He apprehended a considerable influx to the number of students in striving to obtain the result fees, and by the passing of moderate examinations they would certainly obtain those fees. Education would thus be very materially injured. He would take the sense of the House upon the principle of this proposition.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "that they shall be awarded in respect of either relative or absolute proficiency and."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, there was nothing analogous to the proposal in any University which he knew of.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was in hopes that a discussion would have taken place the other day on this point. In that case, it would not again have been adverted to; but he would remind the House that it would be the duty of the new Senate to establish a standard which would by no means come under the category described.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 26: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 222.)
  MR. ERRINGTON MR. ERRINGTON moved the insertion in page 3, line 33, after sub-section 2, of the following words:—
  "Provided always, That such exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes as may be awarded in respect of absolute proficiency shall be paid only to students who shall have pursued their studies in a college for at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. A college for the purposes of this rule shall mean, in the case of prizes for matriculation, any educational institution which affords classical or scientific education to students, of whom not less than thirty shall have made at least one hundred attendances during six of the nine months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. In the case of prizes for any degree examination, a college shall mean any educational institution in which not less than ten matriculated students of the University shall have pursued a course of University studios during at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations."
  By the Amendment he proposed to remedy an evil in the Bill so serious that, though it received some discussion in Committee, he felt justified in raising the point now. The Bill had, as it stood, this one great drawback—that, though it preferred to have for its object the spread of University Education in Ireland, it would really do more to encourage a system of private tuition. He regarded the Collegiate Education as an essential part of a University system;

  735
  but here the Bill was a direct encouragement by these prizes of a system of cram and superficial knowledge. The evils of cramming had been brought out distinctly the other day by an investigation to which he need not further refer, and, not to take up the time of the House further, he would move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 33, after the word "expedient" to insert the words "Provided always; That such exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes as may he awarded in respect of absolute proficiency, shall be paid only to students who shall have pursued their studies in a college for at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. A college for the purposes of this rule shall mean, in the case of prizes for matriculation, any educational institution which affords classical or scientific education to students, of whom not less than thirty shall have made at least one hundred attendances during six of the nine months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. In the case of prizes for any degree examination, a college shall mean any educational institution in which not less than ten matriculated students of the University shall have pursued a course of University studies during at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations."—(Mr. Errington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that undoubtedly the subject was of great importance, and one which the hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in raising. But the House would see at once that if they adopted the Amendment it would completely alter the whole aspect of the Bill, and it would be necessary to set on foot a system of affiliated Colleges, and, at the same time, lay down the principle that no person having been educated privately should avail himself of the offer of these prizes. That was altogether contrary to what had been contemplated in the Bill, and he hoped it would not be accepted.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the object of the Amendment was to secure that for some period, at all events, the student should have Collegiate Education. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) the advocate of Collegiate Education and a high University scheme, had not spoken in favour of it. As it appeared that the Irish Party would be left to go into the Lobby alone, both sides of the House being
  736
  against them, he recommended his hon. Friend (Mr. Errington) not to divide.
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKin moving, as an Amendment, the omission of subsection 4, which provided that holders of prizes in other Universities should not compete without the value of such prizes being taken into account, said, that there should be a reciprocal provision by which students in the new University should equally be debarred from taking prizes in this and other Universities. As it stood, the Bill was one-sided and unjust, placing English and Scotch Universities at a disadvantage, for their prizes would be open to all Irish students, while, on their side, their students would be prevented from competing in Dublin. Failing such a provision as would put all Universities on the same footing, he would move the omission of the sub-section. If, however, the Government would give some promise that such a provision should be inserted, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, to leave out sub-section 4 of Clause 9.—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  Question proposed, "That the said sub-section stand, part of the Bill."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not give any such promise. If the arrangements in other Universities were not so perfect as he hoped to make this, the responsibility rested with those who conducted those Universities.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 30: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 223.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (General powers of Senate and Convocation).
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved, as an Amendment, to add to the clause words providing that the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor of the University shall draw up annually a Report to be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, and afterwards placed before Parliament.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Queen's University.
  Clause 11 (Dissolution of Queen's University).
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Amendment which ho had to propose was one of so simple a character, that he thought it ought to recommend itself to the Government without any argument; indeed, he believed it to embody the plan which they themselves had formed. Hon. Members would be aware that this part of the Bill provided for the dissolution of the Queen's University within a period of two years from the granting of the Charter to the new University. It was a necessary condition that this dissolution should not take place before the Charter was given; but it was a fact that, as the clause stood, wihin a period of two years, the Queen's University would be sacrificed. Now, the object of his proposal was to provide that no Charter should be given to the new University until the scheme to be prepared by the Senate had been laid before Parliament. It was, in his opinion, essential that that should be done. They were going to sacrifice the Queen's University; but he urged upon the Government not to do so until they had something substantial to put in its place. Merely chartering the new University supplied nothing, inasmuch as the constitution of the new University depended upon what was going to be put into it, in furtherance of the scheme to be drawn up by the Senate. The extinction of the Queen's University, therefore, should be suspended until that scheme was placed before Parliament. He would be reluctant to take another Division; but, with the object he had described, he begged to move the addition to the clause of the words—
  "But not until the expiration of a month after the aforesaid scheme shall have been laid before both Houses of Parliament."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 23, after the word "charter," to insert the words ""But not until the expiration of a month after the aforesaid scheme shall have been laid before both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the House should not embrace the proposal
  738
  of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), unless they wished to continue the foundation of the Queen's University up to the very day on which the new University was constituted. If accepted, the Amendment would lead to a chronic war between the two bodies. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be entertained.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The object of the Bill was to make provision for the institution of a new University, and it would be impossible to do that until the old one was dissolved. It would perpetuate the old University, and leave the two, more or less, side by side.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he was astonished at the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), which meant no other than that the Senate, which was to prepare the scheme for the new University, should not come into existence until after their scheme had been put forward.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it appeared to him that some hon. Members from Ireland, and amongst them the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), had entirely misunderstood the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), which raised an important practical question. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought that the Government should give some kind of answer to two questions which ho had to put. One of these arose out of an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that afternoon. The question was—would it be necessary to place the Charter on the Table of the House for ratification, in accordance with the provisions of the Act to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, in the same way as it would be necessary to place the Charter of the proposed University in the North of England upon the Table of the House? The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard proposed that two Universities should exist together. But he (Mr. Fawcett) wished to point out to the House that the object of the hon. Member was that there should be no injustice done to the students now studying in the Queen's Colleges. It seemed quite possible to him (Mr. Fawcett) that the Queen's University might be abolished at such a time as would leave those new students

  739
  who were preparing to take degrees in the position of having no University in which to take them; because, on the supposition that the Queen's University was abolished immediately, the Charter for this new University was granted, and before the scheme to be presented by the Senate of the new University came into operation, where would be the University under which those students could obtain their degrees? That was his second question. It appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, taking into consideration the case of those undergraduates, afforded the best security that this proposed new University should not place in their way such an obstacle to the obtaining of their degrees. Unless the clause was made clearer than at present, it was quite possible that, the Queen's University being abolished before the completion of the scheme of examination to be presented by the Senate, the preparation of which would necessarily occupy some time, there might be no University in existence where the undergraduates who belonged to the Queen's University at the time of its dissolution could take their degrees. That would inflict upon them an injustice which he was quite sure the Government had no intention of inflicting. The object of his hon. Friend was to make the matter more clear, and he trusted the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), pointed out that the 2nd clause of the Bill provided for the creation of a new University by Charter, and that the 11th clause, then under discussion, merely provided that—
  "On a day within a period of two years from the granting of any such Charter, to he fixed by the Lord Lieutenant by Order made by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council in Ireland, the Queen's University in Ireland shall be dissolved."
  The only thing left open was the day on which the dissolution would take place, and that would be met by the words of the clause now being passed by Parliament, after due consideration, which provided that the day should be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant by Order made by, and with the advice and consent of, the Privy Council in Ireland. It would then be submitted to Parliament.
  MR. HOPWOODthought there was still some misconception. The question was not one of fixing the date by the Houses of Parliament. Whereas the Bill provided that within two years after the Charter was granted the Lord Lieutenant should fix the date of dissolution, his hon. Friend said that this might happen within a week or two of the granting of such Charter, and that he wanted to insure that provision should be made for scholars and persons who might be students at that time of the old existing University. Therefore, his hon. Friend asked, by a simple expedient, that the Lord Lieutenant should not exercise that power of dissolution, until the scheme of the Senate had been laid for a month upon the Table of the House. There was every precedent in favour of such a course, and he (Mr. Hopwood) could not conceive how any misunderstanding could exist upon so simple a matter. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had clearly made a mistake as to the effect of the Amendment proposed. But sometimes the indisputable and self-evident nature of a proposition excited something like mirth. The Houses of Parliament had nothing to do with fixing the date of dissolution.
  MR. FAWCETTrequested to know, whether he would be in Order in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That the Queen's University should not be dissolved until the New University was in a position to confer degrees?"
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that there was already an Amendment before the House.
  MR. SHAWsaid, that the hon. Members who put forward these Amendments seemed to think that those who were to carry out the scheme of the new University in Ireland were very foolish people. The idea of their shutting up one University, before the other was opened, and leaving the students without the means of getting their degrees, would not be likely to be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council. Besides, it might happen that when the University was dissolved no Parliament might be sitting for months, so that if the Amendment was carried the very thing which the hon. Member for Liskeard wished to avoid would be brought

  741
  about. He could not at all understand the necessity for this Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was intended that the scheme should be laid before Parliament, so that it might express an opinion upon it before the scheme took effect. If the existing University were dissolved before Parliament could express an opinion, a hardship would be inflicted upon the students of the Queen's University. It seemed to him that the effect of not having some such words introduced as were proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), an impediment would be placed in the way of Parliament exercising its discretion by expressing an opinion upon the scheme. He did not see what practical inconvenience could ensue from the adoption of these words. On the other hand, not to adopt them would interfere with the discretion of the House, inasmuch as hon. Members would feel that by interposing they would inflict a certain degree of hardship upon the pupils, who were waiting to take their degrees, especially if Parliament were to interrupt the proceedings of the University by the expression of any adverse opinion. Ho hoped that Her Majesty's Government would admit these, or similar words.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney, which would secure the object he had in view.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would not trouble the House by repeating the arguments which he had already stated. No possible harm could come from the adoption of the Amendment he was about to move. It had been well pointed out by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that some time might elapse, and, as it wore, a hiatus caused by the possible rejection of the scheme by Parliament, during which the students of the existing Queen's University might suffer considerable inconvenience. He would, therefore, move, in page 4, line 25, after "dissolved," to add the words—
  "Provided, That the Queen's University be not dissolved until the now University is in a position to confer degrees."
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought the words unnecessary, because the Bill already
  742
  carried out their intention. But as there could be no harm in doing so he was ready to admit the words.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Saving for Queen's Colleges).
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved the addition to the clause of the words—
  "And the Professors of the Queen's Colleges who are in office at the date of the said Charter shall, so long as they hold office as such Professors, continue to be styled University Professors."
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Saving of rights of officers of Queen's University).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had a very simple Amendment to propose to the clause, which he hoped the Government would accept. The clause provided that if the existing officers should not be appointed to the new University, they should be entitled to receive during life, by way of retiring pensions, the full amount of their salaries. That, it appeared to him, was carrying vested rights to an extreme. It must be remembered that although a man's office might be abolished his labour was still worth something, and this he could carry to another market. He trusted it would not be necessary to dispense with the services of any of the existing officers; but it might be necessary to do so, and in that case they would receive their full pay for life, plus the pay they might receive for other labours. He did not agree that the application of this principle was desirable, and, therefore, moved that the words "full amount," in page 5, line 23, be struck out, in order to insert the words—
  "Such portion as the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall deem to he equitable."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, to leave out the words "full amount," in order to insert the words "such portion of."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'full amount,' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought if the hon. Gentleman had read to the end of the clause he would have seen that his Amendment was perfectly unnecessary. The words he referred to were—
  "Any such person who shall decline to accept any such office as aforesaid if tendered to him, shall be deemed to have resigned his office in the Queen's University, and shall not be entitled to any pension or compensation."
  As these words were sufficient, he could not agree to the Amendment, which he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhad a strong opinion on the point contained in his Amendment, and would prefer a negative to its withdrawal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would now make an appeal to the House, that they would consent to the third reading of the Bill. It had to go back to "another place," in order that the Amendments should be considered; and there was, for that reason, no time to be lost.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. James Lowther),—put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 260.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. RYLANDS, in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the whole subject of local loans, before any alteration is made in the terms under which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are authorized to advance loans to local bodies,"
  said, this was a measure which gave the Public Works Loans Commissioners authority to issue a definite sum on loans for public works. It was also a Bill which proposed to make extensive alterations in the terms upon which these
  744
  loans should be advanced by the Commissioners. The former part of the Bill was unobjectionable; but the latter part was of an extraordinary character and open to serious question. That was the justification of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) in not dividing the House upon the second reading, because it was impossible to vote against the necessary provisions of the Bill. The Amendment, however, which he (Mr. Rylands) himself was about to make was one that would not be fatal to the Bill. It was simply to the effect that before any great change was made in the conditions upon which public works loans were to be advanced the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to securing from Parliament a decision which was likely to be satisfactory, and to meet the requirements of the case. He thought the House had reason to complain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have, by bringing forward the Bill at so late a period of the Session, placed them in some difficulty in dealing with it. Another reason was, that the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing these new provisions, had advanced arguments in their support which were scarcely justified by the circumstances of the case. The right hon. Gentleman gave a very important justification of this Bill by stating the amount of the losses that had been experienced by the Commissioners in advancing money for local purposes, and said that he proposed by this Bill to save the country from such losses in the future. But he (Mr. Rylands) ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman's case had entirely failed, because the losses he quoted were on a class of loans advanced at a rate to cover the risk of any such losses. From a Return issued by the Secretary to the Treasury, he found that many of the losses were on loans advanced at the full rate of 5 per cent interest; and ho wished to point out that the losses wore, in the main, upon advances upon what were called "undertakings." They were undertakings got up by localities with a view to making a certain profit on the outlay, and the security had been practically dependent upon the profit so anticipated, and in places where the profit had not been made the undertaking had not furnished a sufficient security, and the Commissioners had

  745
  met with a loss. But he had also to observe that the very largest loss in that Return was on loans for workhouses in Ireland; and that loss, he believed, was entirely occasioned by the course which the House itself took, and was not a matter within the discretion or responsibility of the Loan Commissioners. It was imposed upon them by the action of the Executive Government, supported by Parliament, and there could be no doubt whatever that the loan was almost in the nature of a gift, and when it was found impossible to obtain repayment of the money it was written off as a bad debt. However, what he wished to call the attention of the House to was the effect of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill struck mainly at two great operations under the Public Works Loans system—one was the loans under the Education Acts, and the other was the loans under the Public Health Acts. These two classes of loans mounted up to by far the largest portion of the money advanced by the Commissioners. In the case of education loans, under the Act they were to be granted at 3½ per cent, and to be repayable within 50 years. In the case of sanitary loans, the rate of interest was to be 3½ per cent, or such other rate as might, in the judgment of the Commissioners of the Treasury, be necessary in order to enable the loan to be made without loss to the Treasury. With regard to the Education Act, it was quite clear that the terms upon which loans should be advanced were part of a deliberate arrangement, by which Parliament sought to facilitate the working of the Act, and the building of schools at the heavy expense which must be incurred within the first few years. The same argument applied to loans for sanitary purposes; the terms were part of the conditions under which the Public Health Acts were passed. Now, with regard to these two great branches of public loans, against which only this Bill would be effectually aimed, he ventured to say that they were for objects of a national character, about which it was not for them to inquire whether the Treasury made a profit or not. When they had an object in which the people all over the Kingdom had an equal interest it was a matter of very little concern whether the 3½ per cent which was
  746
  charged by the Treasury did, or did not, exactly cover the amount the Treasury had to pay. Practically, the rate charged by the Treasury had been sufficient to recoup its outlay. The Commissioners' Report for 1877–8 showed that, although the loans for educational and sanitary purposes totalled £13,000,000, there were really no losses, because the local authorities paid up their instalments with great regularity. Therefore, the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no justification for the provisions in this Bill, which would interfere with the action of the Commissioners in the matter. He (Mr. Rylands) wished to draw a great distinction between loans for national objects and loans for purely local objects; but the Bill did not make that distinction, and that was his chief objection to the measure. He did not object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking means to protect the public from a class of loans on which there had been losses. He did not object to stringency being applied with regard to loans for local purposes, which might be in themselves good objects, but still were not objects of a national character. The Commissioners at present were authorized to lend money for all sorts of purposes—for baths and washhouses, bridges, ferries, burial boards, canals, rivers, cattle diseases prevention, churches and parochial chapels, Colleges, emigration, fisheries, harbours, railroads, Law Courts, lunatic asylums, and a number of other objects. He thought there could be no doubt of the propriety of a Committee investigating the desirability of lending money for many of these purposes, which might be properly dealt with by the locality themselves, who might have power to issue debenture stock, and to contract loans on their own responsibility. To show the necessity of some revision of the list of these objects he had quoted, he would mention that on the loans for churches and parochial chapels, amounting to £448,918, a loss had been made of £8,289. He thought that was a class of loans which the Commissioners ought never to have touched, and which ought now to be struck off. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: They are struck off.] He was very glad to hear that statement from the right hon. Gentleman; but, at all events, the striking off of these loans was a recent

  747
  event. His reason for referring to these miscellaneous objects was simply to urge that a Committee might, with great advantage, go through the list, with the design of removing such as they thought unfit to be continued under the Public Works Loans Act. But he wished to point out, with regard to these proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they did not at all meet the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. Of course, if his object was to strike at the operation of the Education and Sanitary Acts, he had succeeded; for there was no doubt that, in carrying out the provisions of those Acts, local bodies would be placed at great disadvantage under this Bill. But his Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said, was to protect the country from loss. But it did not do anything of the kind. He proposed to obtain the protection by charging a high rate of interest, which experience had shown to be entirely inoperative in preventing previous losses; and he also proposed that no single body should receive more than £100,000 in advance within a single year. That limitation would probably lead to some inconvenience, and render more difficult the carrying out of certain objects which local authorities had in view; but he (Mr. Rylands) could not see how it would in any way prevent loss and protect the Exchequer. Ho proposed to refer the subject to a Select Committee, simply because he thought they ought not, without the greatest consideration, to do anything likely to interfere with the operation of the Sanitary Act, or of the Education Act. It would be altogether improper for them, by a Bill of that character, to practically repeal important provisions in those two important Acts. He thought, also, a Select Committee would be of the greatest use to determine, after inquiry, how far local loans should be advanced for public objects, and how far facilities should be offered to local bodies for obtaining the means to carry out public objects. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the whole subject
  748
  of local loans before any alteration is made in the terms under which the Public Works Loan Commissioners are authorized to advance loans to local bodies,"—(Mr. Rylands,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, if there was any hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House whom he should have thought would never have made that proposal it was his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). His hon. Friend was the very last man he should have thought would have made it, because, as he (Mr. Hankey) understood, the sole object of the Bill was to save public money, and to prevent its being lent to an undue extent. There was no reasonable risk involved to any measures proposed by Parliament, such as public education and harbours of refuge. All those matters would go on as nearly as possible as heretofore. But there were other questions which were pressed before Parliament, and among them were sanitary and other works relating to the improvement of towns; and what frightened him was the assertion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who tried to prove to them the other day that as long as they lent money on the security of the rates of large towns no possible risk would be incurred. He would not say that the hon. Gentleman actually used the words "to whatever extent we lend;" but he put it that there was no fear of any application being made which could not fairly be granted, as long as they took those securities. Well, now, he (Mr. Hankey) contended those grants were not for the kind of objects that the Government of this country should borrow money for to lend to private Corporations. There was plenty of capital always ready in this country seeking investment, for all good and useful purposes—that was, all purposes from which the capitalist believed that his money would be returned with interest. But when application was made to the Public Works Loans Commissioners nine times out of ten it was because the money could be got cheaper from the State than from the public. That showed that the public did not think

  749
  the security so good as Parliament thought it, and he thought the public were very much better judges of what was good security. It had been stated that it was all the same whether money was lent for 20, 30, 40, or 50 years; but he (Mr. Hankey) said there was a very great difference. There was a great risk of what might happen in 30 or 40 years time, which they were not now competent to judge. Flourishing towns had risen up of late years—take Middlesborough, for instance—but who was to say that their prosperity would continue, and that no changes in that respect would take place? Changes were taking place at the present moment. They heard of great difficulties in the manufacturing districts, and those were the very towns which were anxious to borrow money. Ho did not allude to such towns as Birmingham, which had been established for centuries; but it did not follow, because money might be safely lent to Birmingham, that it might be safely lent to other parts of the country. The object of this Bill was to give the Government the power of imposing some restrictions, which would make people hesitate a little before they borrowed money. Tie said that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House ought to hail such a measure, because they were the parties who were anxious to impose restrictions on the Government of the country becoming great lenders of money, and encouraging speculations of various kinds which he did not think required any assistance. There was no difficulty whatever in all the money that was required for public purposes being found by individuals, except in those cases which were alluded to the other day—cases of a peculiar nature, in which the whole country was interested, such as harbours of refuge, and education. There might be other cases that might spring up from time to time, and in such cases the Commissioners were not likely to act indiscreetly. He should be sorry to see any difficulty thrown in the way of this Bill. He thought it was an extremely right measure, and he was extremely sorry to see it opposed, especially by Members on that side of the House.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the objection of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Thomson Hankey) practically amounted to this—that it would be wise
  750
  for the Government to make no loans at all. If they followed his advice, they would shut up the system, and practically get rid of all loans. For his own part, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) earnestly hoped the Government would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and postpone the contentious clauses of the Bill to next Session, and then appoint a Committee to consider the measure. He believed that the more the subject was considered the more it would appear that the groundwork on which the Bill originally rested did not sustain the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also that the details of the Bill were not well considered. The main ground on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded the Bill was that there had been losses on loans; but those losses were only arrived at by including in the calculation a number of old loans which were made to all kinds of institutions, and which ought not fairly to be included in any such account. The only fair way was to see whether there had been a loss on loans of the same nature as were now being made for education and sanitary purposes. Taking seven classes of loans of old date, made to local authorities on the security of the rates, he found the losses had been very trivial indeed. The loans he referred to were loans to burial boards, loans under the Cattle Diseases Act, loans in respect of Law Courts, loans to local boards, loans for lunatic asylums, loans for public works in municipal districts, and loans for workhouses. They amounted to £9,000,000, of which £2,000,000 remained due, and the only loss had been £1,100. The more modern loans might be reckoned under five classes—Artizans' Dwellings Act, Sanitary Acts, Education, Irish Land Act, and the Land Improvement Acts of Ireland. Altogether they amounted to £17,000,000, of which £16,600,000 was still outstanding; and if they were to draw any analogy from the past he said there was no insecurity whatever in these loans. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had already quoted the last Report of the Commissioners, stating that the instalments were being paid with punctuality. Therefore, there was no groundwork for the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it appeared to him

  751
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the Government itself was in very considerable doubt as to the policy of this measure, because it had consented to withdraw three very important classes of loans from the operation of the Act. So far as he could understand, there were only about seven important classes of loans to which the Bill would apply—namely, Artizans' Dwellings Act, Sanitary Acts, Education, Harbours, Labourers' Dwellings Act, Irish Land Act, and Irish Land Improvement Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now agreed to withdraw from the operation of the Bill loans under the Labourers' Dwellings Act and the Irish Land Acts. Practically, therefore, the Act would only apply to four classes of loans. There was one other point he would venture to bring under the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred the other day to the final effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could lay upon the Table a statement showing the effect of the four alternative proposals made under the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman had not, apparently, been able to do that; but he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been able privately to ascertain what the effect of those four alternative proposals was, and he would quote them to the House. Under the 2nd clause of the Bill there were four alternative proposals, under which borrowers could obtain money. The first was that they might obtain it at 3½ per cent for 20 years; the second was that they might obtain it at 3¾ per cent for 30 years; the third, at 4 per cent for 40 years; and the fourth, at 4¼ per cent for 50 years. The first proposal would involve the payment of an annuity of £7 a-year. He did not think many local authorities would wish at present to burden the ratepayers with an annuity of £7 for every £100; and, therefore, he did not think they were likely to avail themselves very largely of that proposition. The second proposal involved an annuity of £5 12 s.; the third, an annuity of £5 1s.; and the fourth, an annuity of £4 17 s. 2d. Looking carefully at the list, he had very little doubt that local authorities would most largely, if not wholly, avail themselves of the third proposal—namely, repayment by an annuity of £5 1s. If he was right in
  752
  that supposition, the effect of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be, in almost every case, to shorten the term of the loan by 10 years, and to increase the rate of interest from 3½ to 4 per cent. Practically, therefore, it would throw an additional burden on the future in respect of education and sanitary loans of ½ per cent. That was a very serious addition to local burdens, and it was the more serious, inasmuch as it would be the more felt by the present generation, and a less portion of it would fall upon future ratepayers. He must say he thought the proposal was an extremely inexpedient and unwise one. The policy of those Acts of Parliament was wisely to lessen the present burden for improvements, and to throw a somewhat greater burden upon the future. Fifty years might be a long term in some cases; but it certainly was not in the case of education loans, under which land was bought and buildings erected. He presumed those buildings would last more than 50 years; if not, they had been very unwisely built; and if they shortened the term they encouraged people to erect buildings slightly, so that they might not last. Take, again, the case of loans under the Artizans' Dwellings Act. Those were for permanent improvements in the clearing away of "rookeries;" and he could not see why the burden of those improvements should fall wholly upon the people of the present day. The more the subject was looked into, it seemed to him, the more it required investigation, and the more careless were the proposals of this Bill. Certainly, the financial part of it would require careful consideration by a Committee. He was quite certain that the alternative scale proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not work, and that the scale must be altered, after careful consideration, by the House; but at that hour, and at that period of the Session, it was perfectly impossible to give the necessary attention to the details. Therefore, he again pressed upon the Government the desirability of postponing the contentious clauses, and proceeding only with the non-contentious portion of the Bill.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINrose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), having withdrawn his own Motion against the second

  753
  reading with that intention. He was perfectly aware that they were in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should not trouble himself to repeat the arguments in favour of the Motion, because many hon. Members came down only to vote with the Government, and not to listen to arguments. At the same time, he ventured to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he legislated in haste in this matter he would repent at leisure. There was sufficient proof that throughout this business the complicated details which it involved had not been sufficiently considered by the Government. An additional illustration of that fact was given in this circumstance—that since the second reading on Saturday another important alteration in the Bill had been made by the Government, by the exclusion from the operation of the Bill of an important series of Acts. He waited to hear the reasons for their exclusion. He was very much interested in labourers' dwellings, and was glad to hear of any assistance being given to so good a work; but why was the Labourers' Dwellings Act excluded from the operation of the Bill, while the Artizans' Dwellings Act remained subject to it? They were told, the other day, that inasmuch as, under the Labourers' Dwellings Act, private Companies borrowed money at 4 per cent, it was very undesirable that Corporations should ask for money at a less rate. The argument really told the other way, because it might be said, if private Companies could make a profit of 5 or 6 per cent upon their capital, they, at least, had no claim upon the Public Exchequer; but in the case of Corporations, they not only never made a profit, but they always contemplated a loss. In the case of Birmingham, which was the largest scheme at present undertaken under the Act, the Corporation contemplated a loss of something like £400,000. That had been submitted to the ratepayers, and definitely approved by them, in consideration of the advantages which they hoped to obtain; but supposing this Bill had been in operation when that scheme was discussed the additional charge to the rates, owing to the increased interest of ¾ per cent, would have been something like £7,500 per annum; and that, capitalized for 25 years, would amount to nearly £200,000
  754
  extra loss. The result would have been simply this. The Corporation of Birmingham had now strained their resources to the utmost that they thought, as prudent men, and as trustees for the future, they could go. In order to improve the condition of the labouring population, and to make a great improvement in the town, they were willing to sacrifice £400,000. But if they had been told they must sacrifice £600,000 they would not have looked at the scheme. He ventured to make a prediction, and to tell the Government that by this Bill they were killing the Artizans' Dwellings Act. They had paraded that Bill throughout the country as a proof of their interest in domestic legislation, and especially in sanitary legislation. They passed it with great pomp and professions, and within two or three years they would now pass another Bill, which, to all intents and purposes, repealed it, and under which, he ventured to say, there never would be again any considerable scheme in connection with the Artizans' Dwellings Act. And then the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey) told the House that Corporations came to the Exchequer because they could borrow money cheaper with the credit of the nation. Of course they did. Nobody doubted for a moment that the credit of the nation was better than that of any Corporation. He was not certain whether the security was better; but in the market it was bettor, for this reason. Its demands were so much larger; there was a more continuous stream of buyers and sellers. They could sell Consols even on a Black Friday; and he doubted whether they could sell Birmingham Corporation stock under those circumstances. Inasmuch, then, as the credit of the nation was better than that of any Corporation, the nation could, without loss, provided the security was indefeasible, lend money to Corporations at lower rates than Corporations could borrow it for themselves. He did not say it should be done for all the purposes of a Corporation; but he said that under the Public Works Loans Act this had been a matter of distinct bargain in all cases. In the case of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, Parliament went to Corporations, and said—"If you will carry out these schemes we will assist you with money at 3£ per cent;" and then the hon. Member for Peterborough

  755
  blamed the Corporations because they accepted the offer. If Parliament had said to the Corporations—"You must carry out these schemes with your own money," they knew very well they would not have engaged in the work. But in order to tempt them Parliament said—"You can have money at 3½ per cent;" and then, when they did borrow it, right hon. Gentlemen held up their hands in astonishment, and talked about municipal extravagance. He could not conceive anything worse than a Government stultifying itself in a few years in a matter of this kind. The history of the Education Act was the history of a bargain made by Parliament, with its eyes open, with the local authorities. Previously to 1870, grants were made from the Public Exchequer in aid of the building of schools. Those grants were put a stop to by the Act of 1870; but in consideration of that stoppage it was agreed to lend the credit of the State to a certain extent, and that advantage was to be taken as, more or less, a compensation for the advantage which was surrendered. Now, the Government was going to withdraw that advantage, and to put an extra burden upon the local authorities, who were, practically, consenting parties to the legislation of 1870, because it contained that concession. He must say it seemed to him this was not calculated to induce the local authorities to place any faith in the action of Parliament in reference to similar matters. He complained—he complained bitterly—that this legislation was being hastily carried through upon altogether insufficient grounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the Government had lent vast sums of money, and had only obtained 12 s. per cent interest. That was a most unfair and misleading statement of the facts. The Government had obtained on all loans of a similar character to those which it was now proposed to make 3¾ per cent, and, inasmuch as it had borrowed at considerably less than 3 per cent—because it had borrowed on Exchequer Bills which were cheaper than Consols—it had made a considerable profit on these transactions. The fact was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to show his average interest at 12 s. per cent, had included the whole of the losses made in the Office of the Commissioners. The total of those losses was
  756
  £2,095,000. Of that sum, £1,078,000 was lost in Ireland, in loans which were really of the nature of a gift, which were made to the poor country by the rich country, and the repayment of which was never seriously anticipated. The amount also included office expenses, and the loss by a fraudulent clerk in the office, together amounting to £55,000; and then there were the losses on advances made upon the security of undertakings, £442,000. The hon. Member for Peterborough was kind enough to say that there was one class of loans which he and his Colleagues still thought should be continued, and those were loans for harbours of refuge. That was precisely a case in which he (Mr. Chamberlain) would not lend another penny. Much of the money advanced for that purpose had been lost, and more was sure to be lost. It was the very worst possible security, because, in the first place, people were not at all certain whether they would succeed in making a harbour at all, and then, when they had made a good harbour, it was not at all certain that it would not be surpassed next year by a better one next door to it. During the time that these loans had been made, as he had said, there had been a total loss of £2,095,000; of that sum, £2,075,000 had been lost in Irish loans and on loans made on the security of particular undertakings such as harbours, railways, and roads. Only £20,000 had been lost during the whole period that the loan transactions had been going on from losses in connection with loans on the security of the rates. He thought that the sum of £20,000 might be further reduced to £2,000, as the total net loss for advances upon rates in connection with matters under the Sanitary Acts, the Elementary Education Acts, and Artizans' Dwellings Acts. It was most unfair to urge that the Exchequer was suffering very great loss from a continuance of the present system of granting loans to local bodies under those Acts. All these matters showed the necessity of appointing a Committee to consider the subject, and to go into details. They would have to consider what Acts of Parliament would be affected by the Bill, and in what cases it was desirable that loans should cease to be made, and in what cases it was desirable that they should continue. It would be a most important question

  757
  for them to consider what proportion the loans should bear to the security which was offered. For his part, he would be willing to consent that no loan at all—he did not say loans at a particular rate—but no loan should be granted to bodies whose rates had been pledged to a certain amount. In the case of Middlesborough, for instance, it would be perfectly safe to lend money to that town to the extent of one-tenth of its rateable value, although the value of the property in the town, from exceptional circumstances, had recently become reduced. So long as they found that the rateable value of the property was some reasonable multiple of the amount lent, then they would have an indefeasible security. He had never contended that loans should be made to any amount without any reference to the security offered. It would be for the Committee to consider what would form a sound security, and also what objects were really national, and to carry out which it was desirable to assist the local authorities. They were now, however, proposing to legislate in a hurry, without any reference to the circumstances of the different cases, and without any regard to the considerations that were involved. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that no sum exceeding £100,000 should be lent to any single local body. The School Board for London, for instance, had an income larger than many a small Continental State; and it was proposed to apply the same rule to the School Board for London as to the local authorities of Little Peddlington. They had lent £100,000 to the Thames Tunnel and Battersea Park, and they deserved to lose that money. But now it was said, without any reference to the circumstances of the case, that £100,000 was to be the largest sum to be lent to the Corporation of Manchester, or the London School Board; and that seemed to him to be such financial pedantry, that he could scarcely believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would sanction it. If a Committee were appointed, it might arrange a scale to limit the amount of loans made in any one year in the proportion of the rateable value of the places to which they were advanced. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  758
  had stated that he would be willing, in the next Session, to refer the subject of local loans to a Select Committee. But why not refer the whole subject to a Select Committee at the same time? He (Mr. Chamberlain) was inclined to think that if Parliament made an arrangement in respect to these loans the Committee might consider that it should not interfere with the arrangements made. What harm could be done by allowing the whole subject to stand over? There were no great schemes in progress; and the greater amount of school accommodation required throughout the country had been provided. He thought that next year very few loans would be taken at the rate which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed. He must protest against the insinuation in the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough, and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that those interested in the subject, like the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and himself, were personally interested in the question of loans and were speaking on behalf of local bodies that desired subsidies from the Exchequer. He repudiated the idea of a subsidy with contempt—they did not want eleemosynary assistance from the Government, or from anyone else. What they had done was done, and they were not then appealing for any further consideration. They would not be injured in the slightest degree by the Bill at Birmingham, for the sums which they were likely to require in the future would be very slight. There were two sides to the bargain. If, on the one side, the nation lent its credit to enable local bodies to obtain considerable sums of money on much better terms than they could obtain it elsewhere; yet, on the other hand, those local bodies were carrying out national objects, and they were expending money on schools and sanitary reforms which Parliament had expressed its earnest desire to see carried out. It was not fair to imply that the Representatives of large constituencies were personally interested in these matters. He did hope that, considering the great complexity of details that was involved in the question, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, at the eleventh hour, see his way to refer the contentious clauses to a Select Committee.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDagreed with the general proposition that it was necessary to save the State from loss in respect of loans to local bodies; but in order to show that there had been a loss, and to bring up the expenditure upon public works to the sum of £85,000,000, it had been necessary to go back to the year 1. A great many matters had been dragged into the controversy which had no reference to the matter in hand. He wished to call attention to the fact that the Public Works Loans Commissioners, by their Report, showed that they had a perfect discretion at present in the matter of the loans. The Commissioners stated that when application was made to them for loans they considered the nature of the work and the expenses connected with it, before granting the loan demanded. Ho held in his hand evidence that the Public Works Loans Commissioners did take considerable latitude upon all questions connected with the loans. The object of the Government was not, he assumed, to make a large profit by these operations, but only to save the Exchequer from loss. He did not, however, feel the slightest doubt that in the case of many of those loans the money might be provided out of the deposits in the Government Savings Banks with very considerable profit to the Exchequer. He wished to mention another incident connected with this very large question. Borrowing by local bodies was not confined to loans made from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. He held in his hand a most interesting Report of the Local Government Board, which contained valuable information upon the subject. The Local Government Board stated that £20,480,000 had been borrowed by the local authorities, irrespective of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, by virtue of the authority of Parliament, and under powers contained in Private Bills. The House should look to the periods during which those loans were taken. He found that, in many cases, repayment was contemplated in 40 years, sometimes in 55 years, sometimes in 70 years, and sometimes in 95 years; and the borough of Bradford had recently borrowed considerable sums, repayable in the course of 100 years. In his opinion, an inquiry into the system of loans, if confined to the operation of the Public Works Loans
  760
  Commissioners, would only be half an inquiry. There was a very much larger question connected with the loans now obtained by local authorities to an almost unlimited extent under private legislation. He was as anxious as anyone for economy in all matters connected with local expenditure; but he did not think that object would be sufficiently attained by the measure before the House.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that it seemed to him it would be especially futile for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement at that time upon the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) seemed to entertain the idea that the question before the House was as to the extent to which local bodies had contracted debts in former years. In point of fact, it was only a question as to how far the local authorities should be allowed to contract debts in the future with the Public Works Loans Commissioners. On the average of the last few years, the amount of money applied for by the local authorities to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, under 200 or 300 Acts of Parliament, might be roughly set down at £4,000,000 a-year; And the amount of money which had been lent was scarcely the amount which had been applied for by the local authorities. The amount of money authorized by the Bill to be lent, which was £6,000,000, was scarcely half the sum applied for by the local authorities. Between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000 was the sum that various local authorities had estimated that they would have to apply for before the 31st December next. It was necessary to put some check upon the enormous amount which the local bodies applied to borrow from the Exchequer; but he would caution the House that in dealing with the borrowing powers of local authorities they were entering into a very large question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwould appeal very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not to the Government, whether it was wise or prudent to push that Bill through the House so late in the Session, when it was obliged to be taken in the middle of the night, or early in the morning? It was not usual for a Bill to be pushed forward so late in the

  761
  Session—he did not think it at all usual to take contentious Business after Supply was closed. Some Bills must be passed, no doubt, and this Bill could be well taken if the contentious clauses were withdrawn. Questions were raised by the disputed part of the Bill, which, at an earlier period of the Session, would have excited very great differences of opinion. The Government had put the question as if it were one between the rates and Imperial taxation. They knew what important questions were raised by the Bill, and how deeply they affected the interests of the country. The Bill would very largely affect the operation of the Education Act, and the Artizans' Dwellings Act, and involved much larger considerations than the mere question of rates and taxes. Surely, it was not right that such important matters should be decided at half-past 1 in the morning. It had become evident, from what had been said in the course of the debate, that two or three very important Bills would be affected by the present measure, if their operation was not entirely hampered, and he did not think that it was right that legislation of that sort should be hurried on. With regard to the Education Act, he spoke from his own knowledge, and could confirm his hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) in the statement that the Bill, as it stood, would affect, in a very largo degree, the proper application of the Education Act. When the Education Act was first brought in it was not contemplated that loans should be for a longer period than 30 years; but it had been necessary to change that system, and the House had accepted the change. Grants had been made to the school boards since that time for longer periods of years. The effect of the Bill would be to make it more onerous upon school boards to build schools than before, and although a great number of schools wore already built there was still a largo amount of work to be done. In many large towns, especially, considerably more expenditure would be required, and the school boards had a right to complain that the original bargain had been departed from. He did not wish to say anything which should be taken as a final opinion upon this question; but he thought that the subject could not be properly discussed at that period of the Session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), that the questions raised by the Bill between rates and taxes were not important. He did not think that too great a latitude to obtain money at less than cost price would be altogether an advantage to the ratepayers. It must be borne in mind, with reference to the Bill, that it did not make much material alteration in the powers for borrowing money which had already been sanctioned by Parliament. In most of the English Acts under which money could be borrowed, there was an express provision that the money should be advanced from the Exchequer at 3½ per cent, or such other rate as, in the judgment of the Treasury, might protect the Treasury from loss. The Treasury was placed in a most embarrassing position with regard to the matter. They were of opinion that to protect the Treasury from loss a higher rate of interest ought to be charged, for the present rate did not leave sufficient margin for insurance against loss. By that he meant that in charging for these loans it was desirable to have some margin that would cover the losses that might be incurred. Losses had been made in respect of some advances upon the security of rates, and it was necessary to make some provision to protect the Exchequer from such losses in future. What was proposed was, that instead of leaving it to the unfettered judgment of the Treasury, which could only be exercised in particular cases, they should lay down, for the future, a general rule. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had asked whether they did not stultify themselves by proposing to omit two classes of loans from the operation of the Bill. With regard to the Irish loans, they stood on a different footing; they were for a different object, and were dealt with under other Acts. That being the case, they had thought it undesirable to introduce loans under the Irish Land Act into the Bill. Then, with regard to dwellings for the labouring classes, they also stood in a different position. He proposed to adopt a clause which would give power to the Public Works Loans Commissioners to do what they had not the power to do at present—namely, to lend money for the purpose of erecting dwellings for the labouring

  763
  classes, for periods not exceeding 15 years, at 3½ per cent. If they were to omit the Labourers' Dwellings Act from the operation of the Bill, then those dwellings would not be built at all. The Act passed in 1866 proposed to lend money for this purpose for a period of 40 years. They proposed now to allow money to be spent for the erection of labourers' dwellings for a period not exceeding 15 years only. They also thought it would be right to extend to the bodies represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) the same power as was given to the trustees. With regard to the interest, it was thought that 5 per cent ought to be charged; for it was only in the case of a very few Acts, such as the Education and Sanitary Acts that had been referred to, 3½ per cent had been named as the interest. When the Education Act was passed it was supposed that about £4,000,000 would be required by the whole country; but now that sum was required by the London School Board alone. With regard to the larger question that had been raised—namely, as to the erection of dwellings under the Artizans' Dwellings Act, and sanitary improvements in towns, it was necessary to prevent borrowing from the Treasury to the enormous extent which was now going on—one single town having had already £1,500,000—and the provision would not operate injuriously to any particular object or interest. As he had said before, the Government would be ready next Session to appoint a Committee to consider what should be done with respect to loans to local bodies generally. He hoped the House would consent to go into Committee.
  MR. GOURLEYwished to make some observations with reference to what had been said respecting the loans to harbour authorities. He considered the loans to the harbour authorities to be made upon as good a security as could be given by the Corporation of Birmingham, or by any other town. The construction of harbours of refuge was a very important work, and in 1857 and in 1858 it was recommended by Parliament that money should be advanced from the National Exchequer for that purpose. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see the wisdom of excepting from the operation of the Bill the loans
  764
  which required to be made to harbour authorities. If the money was not lent to the local authorities, harbours of refuge would have to be constructed by the country on different parts of the coast.
  MR. GARFITsaid, that the principal object of the opponents of the Bill seemed to be delay and the appointment of a Select Committee. But the question had been for a long time before the country, and they had a great many Acts of Parliament upon it. For his part, he could not see that any good would be done by postponement and the appointment of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had endeavoured to discriminate between large and small loans, the first of which he called "national," and the second "local." But if small places borrowed small sums, and large places greater amounts, yet the objects for which the money was applied was not entirely national, but local. The hon. Member for Birmingham seemed to think that because the town with which he was connected had been the largest customer of the Exchequer, that, therefore, it was the best. It was a rule in commercial transactions that the best customers were those that paid the best, and he did not think that in that light Birmingham could be looked upon as the best customer of the Treasury. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, at the present time, it did not pay to make the loans; and he did not see that there was any other course to pursue, under those circumstances, than to raise the rate of interest. Ho had heard no argument which, in his opinion, in any way met the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. BARRANwas sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to adopt the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). They had been told that considerable loss had been made by the Treasury; but they had not been told the items upon which that loss had arisen. But they had ascertained from the Report that the money which had been lost had not been in respect of loans made on the security of the rates. He did not think any instance

  765
  had been given in which those responsible bodies had failed to fulfil their engagements. That being so, he thought they were justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why loss should have been sustained by the Treasury, or why money had been lent at too low a rate of interest? It should be remembered that the municipal bodies and Corporations had obtained the money for the purpose of carrying out improvements which were for the general benefit of the nation. The Education Act was passed with the view of providing for the educational wants of the people, and the people had been much benefited by the improved education that had been given. These towns had laid down systems of sewerage, and had taken measures to supply their own, and perhaps a neighbouring town, with pure water; and he thought they were entitled to some consideration from the Government. Those improvements were of national importance, and, in many instances, pressed very heavily upon the ratepayers. With respect to sanitary matters, he might say that the borough which he had the honour to represent—Leeds—had borrowed in the open market, and had not been to the Local Government Board at all. Speaking of the matter in a broad and practical way, he thought that Corporations and districts which had placed themselves in a good sanitary condition were entitled to consideration, and that the burden for what they had done should not be made to press too heavily upon the present and next generation. He thought that it would be very much better to have all these questions referred to a Select Committee, for he thought that the works which the local bodies had been called upon to perform were of such a nature as to call upon Parliament to do something in their favour. In his opinion, it would be better to decentralize, rather than to centralize, upon the Government for advances of money. It would be very much wiser to let the whole question go before a Select Committee next Session, in order that the borrowing powers of Corporations might be inquired into. It was desirable that Parliament should know what liabilities were being incurred by the small, as well as by the large municipalities, and to place them under some control. Personally, he felt there would
  766
  be some considerable danger in giving power to Corporations, small and large, to issue debentures; he did not think it would be proper to give them power, except under very stringent regulations. Still, that question might be considered with profit to the nation; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way to acquiesce in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. If that were done, they might go on with the Bill and hope next Session to do something to accomplish the object they had in view—namely, to give the best security for the money advanced for sanitary, educational, and other purposes, and, at the same time, to afford facilities by which responsible bodies might obtain money on favourable terms.
  MR. HUTCHINSONsaid, that they had been discussing a subject which had been very variously described. One hon. Gentleman called it a matter of international importance, inasmuch as the Bill involved loans to the authorities of harbours of refuge in which the vessels of all nations were interested. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had called it a matter of national importance, and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had said that the Bill would be an injustice to Ireland, because Ireland would have to borrow money upon higher terms than many places in England had borrowed for the same purposes. He thought that the subject could not be properly considered at that time, and he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that he should second the Motion, inasmuch as a considerable number of hon. Members from Ireland who were interested in the subject were not present. It was a most remarkable circumstance that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Garfit) had been the only hon. Member to support the Bill, although a considerable number of hon. Members had spoken. He did not think it was any use discussing a Bill at that hour of the morning.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hutchinson.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was absolutely necessary to pass the Bill, and he could not con-

  767
  sent to omit the clauses to which objection had been taken. He must oppose the Motion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to feel himself obliged to vote for the Motion for adjournment, for he considered that if ever a Motion for adjournment was reasonable it was so in that case. They had great reason to complain that the Government had introduced so important a Bill so late in the Session. He had ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it was wise to push through the contentious clauses of the Bill at that time. The right hon. Gentleman had not thought fit to make any reply to his suggestion, and he could only suppose that he was determined to press the Bill forward. It was impossible for thorn to forget that they were dealing with a matter in which the municipal bodies throughout the country took very great interest. The Bill gave rise to questions which, at any other time of the Session, would promote a long and perfectly legitimate discussion; at any other period of the Session the Bill would not be expected to be got through in less than two nights. But what was their position then? It was acknowledged that these debates were read in the country, and there was no doubt that what took place in respect of that Bill would be read throughout the country with very great interest; but at that hour of the morning nothing could appear in the newspapers, and the country would know nothing of the debate.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked what possible object the Government could have in pushing the Bill on at that time. The passing of the Bill would not prevent a great part of the loans which had been applied for being granted in the course of the year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice of an Amendment excepting from the provisions of the Bill those loans which had been applied for in the present year. The Bill would not, therefore, apply, even if it passed, to the great bulk of the loans to be carried through during the present year. If the contentious clauses were now withdrawn, and the present Bill was brought forward at the beginning of next year, there would be ample opportunity for that protection being given to the Ex-
  768
  chequer which the Government considered necessary.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that if the contentious clauses of the Bill were withdrawn, it would, nevertheless, be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let it be thoroughly understood that loans could only be granted out of the £6,000,000 which he was now taking. The Committee could be appointed at the beginning of next Session, and it could then inquire into the whole subject. He thought that that would be a much more reasonable course than pressing forward a discussion of that nature at 2 o'clock in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman must see that there was no time to give it adequate consideration.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 71: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 26: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINbegged leave to move to report Progress, as he thought it unreasonable to go into Committee at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware that the Bill raised a number of very important questions which required full and careful consideration. The Bill would have a very great effect upon the Artizans' Dwellings Act and the Education and Sanitary Acts, and it was impossible that a discussion of that character could be properly had at that time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the Committee would not consent to the Motion. He did not

  769
  suppose that the House would wish to prolong the Session, and that would be the only effect of adopting the Amendment. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) said that there were many questions to be discussed, and considered that they ought to be taken in a fuller House; but as the House had already decided upon the expediency of going on he did not think the Amendment should be adopted. He would remind the Committee that unless the Bill were passed it would be impossible to grant any loans to local bodies.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was hardly fair of the right hon. Gentleman to say that, unless the Bill were passed loans could not be made. They did not object to the Bill passing, if the contentious clauses were withdrawn. The loans could then be made, and the consideration of the contentious matters could be postponed till next year. The Bill was one which excited great interest in the country, yet it was not introduced until the end of the Session, and they were then asked, at half-past 2 in the morning, to hurry through the clauses.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, no doubt, the Bill was very urgent; but they had never opposed that portion of the measure for which there was a necessity. They did not take a Division upon the second reading, simply because they did not wish to object to that part of the Bill which had been embodied in Acts of Parliament passed in previous Sessions. At that time of the Session, and in a very thin House, which was, practically, in the hands of the Government, they were asked to pass a Bill which would, really, repeal Acts of Parliament passed in previous Sessions by majorities of the House. He firmly believed that if the discussion which they were then having was known to the country it would excite considerable interest. All they contended for was that it was not right, at that time, to deal with the important questions they had before thorn in the manner which was proposed by the Government. The proper course for the Government to adopt was to pass the necessary part of the Bill only, and to postpone the disputed clauses to another Session.
  MR. GRAYobserved, that if the Bill were passed in its present shape it would stop the whole machinery of local improvement throughout the country. He
  770
  did not think that the Government was treating them fairly, and he considered that they were justified in resisting the proposal which was made. He should be sorry to interfere with the progress of Public Business; but he did feel strongly that the Bill would work great injustice, and especially in Ireland. He thought they were right in asking that the clauses of the Bill should be discussed when their constituencies could understand what was going on. He should support the Motion to report Progress, because he thought that the proper course was to postpone the contentious clauses.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved, that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) complained that the Government were pushing the Bill at the end of the Session. On that side of the House they had not forgotten, even if the hon. Member for Birmingham had, how a mine was sprung upon the Government a short time ago. The hon. Member kept to himself the knowledge that there was a defect in the Bill until he could spoil its progress. If he and his Friends had wanted the Bill to pass, they would have told the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it while there was time to make the necessary alterations. The hon. Member for Birmingham would not forget that on the 8th of December a certain Bill was presented and printed, and then a corrected copy re-printed and substituted for the original imprint, and that the first name upon it was that of the hon. Member himself.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had made a personal reference to him with regard to a Bill of which he had charge at an earlier period of the Session. A change was made in that Bill; but it was not made by him, but by the officials of the House. It was a mere verbal alteration of the title, and was not of such a nature as to render it necessary to re-introduce the amended Bill as a new one. His attention was, however, thus called to the Orders of the House, and the knowledge gained he was enabled to use to some advantage on a subsequent occasion. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge seemed to think that he had taken some unfair advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the

  771
  matter. But it was not his business to give information to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the ordinary Rules of the House. It would almost be an insult from one in his position to give information upon the Orders of the House to its Leader. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to withdraw the contentious clauses from the Bill, and if he had done that for personal reasons, he (Mr. Chamberlain) had no hope of his making any concession. There was, really, no reason why he should not comply with the suggestions which had been made. He had it in his power to charge such a rate of interest as might be necessary, if he thought it was for the benefit of the public that it should be done. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the £6,000,000 which he was then asking for was too much he should limit it to £4,000,000. He could easily announce that, under no circumstances, would more than £4,000,000 be advanced.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry to say that the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) would not meet the difficulties of the case. Limiting the amount which was to be lent would not affect the rate of interest which was to be charged to the various bodies that wished to borrow and presented their claims before the Commissioners. He would rather depend upon the power which the Public Works Loan Commissioners had to charge such sums as were necessary to preserve the Exchequer from loss. That being so, the Government was now asking the House to do, in a more regular form, what the Commissioners already had power to do. He really thought that the disadvantages which would be occasioned to the various constituencies had been very much exaggerated. On the other band, he was satisfied of the danger that would occur to the Treasury if a stop was not put to the largo demands which were now made upon it. That could not, in any way, be exaggerated. He raised the question in Parliament in 1878, and it had been under the consideration of the Government and of the House, not only last year, but during the course of the present year. The original Bill had been before the House for some time, and he must earnestly
  772
  press on the Committee the necessity of proceeding with the Business.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked, that the first question they would have to discuss in Committee would be the financial question, which was one that had not yet been touched upon. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fairly considered the financial effects of his proposal. The details of so important a measure as the present could not be properly discussed in their financial aspect at that time.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDobserved, that they had been charged with springing a mine upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was unfair, for surely the right hon. Gentleman knew that if there were substantial alterations in any Bill before the second reading it was irregular, and had to be withdrawn and re-introduced as proposed by the promoters. It had been charged against the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that he had not informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Public Works Loans Bill was therefore opposed to the Orders of the House; but he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) did not think it was the duty of independent Members to acquaint the Leader of the House with the Rules and Orders of the House. He would appeal to the Government not to press on the discussion at that time of the night. A greater part of the hon. Members on the other side of the House were either Members of the Government, or connected with it, and it was unreasonable for them to be asked to discuss a Bill in such a House as that.
  MR. MONKobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Bill had been for a considerable time before the House, and the House must be aware of its nature. But there was no opportunity of fair discussion at that time, and independent Members would have no chance of carrying any Amendments against the Government majority. It would only be a reasonable course to -pursue to pass that part of the Bill which was of a continuance nature, and to postpone the contentious matter to another Session. Many hon. Members, representing very large and important constituencies, were strongly opposed to the Bill in its present shape, and he

  773
  trusted that the Government would see the wisdom of adopting the course suggested.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 67: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  MR. GRAY MR. GRAY moved, that the Chairman do leave the Chair. He did so, because the Amendment which stood in his name was one of considerable importance, and he confessed himself physically incapable, at that hour of the morning, of doing it justice. There wore a largo number of Irish Members, who had not yet left London, but who were not then present, who desired to speak on the subject of this Bill, as it applied to Ireland. They desired that Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Hill; but it was not fair, at that hour—3 o'clock in the morning—to proceed with it. He urged that the right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take those portions of the Bill which involved no contention, and leave the debateable clauses till the following day. He considered that that was a reasonable course to adopt, as it was admitted not to be a matter of supreme importance that Clause 2 should be passed this Session. Only one hon. Member had spoken against the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in regard to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the whole subject of local loans, before any alteration was made in the terms under which the Public Works Loan Commissioners were authorized to advance loans to local bodies. Therefore, he maintained that the opinion of the House was against proceeding with that clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gray.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had travelled a good deal that day, and wanted to go home to bed. He could not help wondering why it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so determined in this matter. He could not help thinking
  774
  that what fell from the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) explained the matter—namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt aggrieved by what had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and that this had something to do with the efforts to pass the Bill. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) would put it to the Committee generally whether the course pursued was fair? The principal objectors to the Bill knew nothing whatever of the mistake that was made as regarded the hon. Member for Birmingham, and they ought not to be punished because of the misdeeds of others. They felt it a punishment to be called upon to discuss the Bill at that hour, especially as it was almost unprecedented in its character; and from the fact that it was only submitted for second reading on Saturday last. He really could not help thinking that there was a degree of personal feeling in the matter. He felt obliged to think so. Before he left the House he would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should agree to have the whole matter thoroughly looked into next Session; and that in the meantime, if any loans were required, he should use his own discretion in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should be ashamed of himself if he allowed any such feelings as those referred to to influence him in regard to the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) lost the opportunity of discussing this Bill, but through no fault of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's). He could assure the Committee that he was entirely guided in the course he pursued by his sense of what was right, and by the feeling that it was absolutely essential, if they wished to put the whole system of public loans upon a proper footing, to pass a Bill of this character. It had been stated to be a mutilated Bill; but he had purposely had it cut down to the lowest point. In regard to applications for loans that had been already sanctioned, or which were in such a condition that the Government considered that they ought, in equity, to be treated upon the old footing, he proposed that the old footing should be continued. With regard to the future, he was perfectly willing to agree to a proposal that at

  775
  the beginning of next Session the whole question of local loans should be considered. All that he was now asking for was that they should put the system upon a regular footing, according to the principles which had been perfectly calculated by those who were responsible for the financial affairs of the country. He must apologize to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for a neglect on his own part in regard to the Returns that were asked for; he was sorry that he had not received them in time to admit of their being printed, and laid upon the Table of the House. The question now before them was whether the Committee would agree to the granting of the annual sums, and that the rate of interest be regulated upon the principles which had been described. He earnestly hoped that the Committee would agree to those proposals of the Bill.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, it seemed to him the Government were making a stand upon what they would call a point of honour, and they seemed determined to make no concession that Session; while they were prepared to submit the debateable points next Session to the Committee of Inquiry. Surely it was reasonable that they should not proceed with the contentious clauses in the Bill, but should go on with the non-contentious ones.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that if that were done it would draw upon them, during the next six months, an influx of applications.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had made a practical suggestion, which it was hoped would be carried out. They objected, at that hour of the morning, to decide upon a scale of charges, and so forth, and to limit the loans in a particular way. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for offering to supply him with the Returns ho asked for. There wore four different and alternate proposals relating to the Returns, and they ought to be in the hands of other hon. Members before this question was decided. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that it was impossible to go on with the discussion upon the present occasion, under all the circumstances.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDimagined that those authorities who were entitled to ask for loans for public works had already sent in notices for loans during the next financial year upon conditions which could not be altered; and if that were the case, no new regulations as to loans for future applicants could be required before next Session.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDurged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed only with the non-contentious clauses of the Bill, and re-introduce the contentious clauses next Session. He could, under existing powers, take care that in the future there should be no loss to the Treasury. Some of the proposals were reasonable, but they required full discussion.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that after the courteous explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the part he (Mr. Chamberlain) had taken he would be excessively sorry if he were the cause of any annoyance to the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcordially accepted what the hon. Member for Birmingham had stated. There was no feeling left in his mind in regard to the matter.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDtrusted that after this affecting reconciliation the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to accept the compromise offered, which, he must say, was a reasonable one.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 66: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  MR. G. PALMER MR. G. PALMER moved to report Progress. The question, he said, was not thoroughly understood by local bodies. He spoke on behalf of a borough which was perfectly independent, and that never wished to borrow money without paying adequate interest; but he maintained that the subject should be more widely discussed.
  MR. STEVENSONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. G. Palmer.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 66: Majority 47.—(Div. List., No. 228.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKproposed that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He said that the borough he represented had as great an interest in this question as any other. He thought that the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was due to a personal feeling, and would be the means of preventing the Bill being properly dealt with. The Committee was certainly not in a position to properly discuss the Bill then, considering the lateness of the hour. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not further trespass upon that sacred day, the 12th of August.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Henry Havelock.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not wish to trespass upon that "sacred day" any more than was necessary; but he desired to get the Business over, in order that it might be disposed of at a reasonable time, so that hon. Members might not be any longer kept in town.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREurged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the concession that was asked for. It was an unreasonable request, he maintained, to urge the adoption of the 2nd clause at that late hour.
  MR. WHITWELLthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having adopted a new system in regard to public loans; but he felt that a question had arisen of very considerable difficulty. They had now proposed certain rates upon which loans were alone to be advanced. A great deal of money had been borrowed at 4 per cent, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the rate at 4 per cent a difficulty would occur. He was sure that many hon. Members must feel that what was proposed would add considerably to the expenditure of boroughs. If the security were bad, he did not care how high was the rate charged; but that should not be the case when the security was good. He opposed the Bill, as ho considered
  778
  the subject ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. GRAYwished to know why the Government were keeping them up at that late hour, ruining their health, and spoiling their tempers, without doing any Business? There was really a great pressure put upon hon. Members to oppose the Bill, and deputations had waited upon them on this matter. The Government had shown great determination and strength of will in regard to it; but if it were passed it would be a very serious matter for boroughs. Really, the difficulty involved was very much greater than some hon. Members would imagine. The object of the Bill was bad—the Government wanted to commence things at the wrong end. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would be delighted if some such scheme could be matured and carried out as would enable authorities to borrow upon security; but what was proposed was for temporary convenience, and the Government did not care what inconvenience was thrown upon local bodies. He did not think the scheme a comprehensive one; and even if the inconvenience he complained of were removed, he did not think they were justified in passing such an important measure at the end of the Session, when it could not be thoroughly discussed. It would create a serious difficulty so far as local authorities were concerned, and it would be no relief to the Imperial Exchequer. He did not think there was anything unreasonable in the proposal he had made, and ho hoped that hon. Members on that side of the House would persevere in what they considered to be a fair proposal. They had taken up a reasonable position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked to supply certain Returns; but, instead, he brought down some statement in manuscript. It was a reasonable request that the clause should be postponed until the Returns were printed; and if that were agreed to there would not be a loss of temper. He (Mr. Gray) did not intend to lose his temper, because he was accustomed to this sort of thing. He would not urge this did he not think it a reasonable request. He maintained that the Government were using their majority in a tyrannical manner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had disclaimed the idea of being actuated by

  779
  pique; but, no doubt, from a feeling of annoyance, he had pledged himself to pass the Bill. If it were not passed, there would be no loss to the Exchequer involved in that which they asked for, and he suggested that the matter should be dealt with in a business-like way.
  MR. HUTCHINSONthought it would be an unpleasant reflection that the last few days of the Session had been distinguished by an exhibition of feeling on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that the objections of those who were now offering the strongest opposition to the Bill ought to be considered. Hon. Gentlemen who were now obstructing the progress of legislation were those who had hitherto not taken part in any movement of that character, and the fact that they had made it their duty to do so on that occasion showed clearly what importance they attached to the measure.
  MR. BLAKEdid not think it right for a minority to attempt to coerce a majority. If any principle were involved he should certainly vote with the minority. He could not, however, see that that was the case, and he trusted that the Government would not give way in the matter. There was a great point of principle involved in the question as to whether it was right that a minority should attempt to force its will upon a majority.
  MR. BARRANregretted very much to have to take the course he had done in respect to the Bill; but no other course had been open to him. In order to show the importance the House attached to the measure, he might say that he had had a long resolution sent to him from the Leeds School Board, which body had borrowed money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The Board was composed of persons of different political opinions—extreme Radicals, moderate Whigs, moderate Conservatives, and old-fashioned Tories; but they had come to an almost unanimous decision that if the present Bill was passed, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would really be a breach of faith between the school boards and the country. Believing that to be the case, he had been under the painful necessity of resisting the Government on that occasion. It gave him no pleasure
  780
  to do so; but he had-felt it to be nothing-less than his duty. On previous occasions he had entertained strong feelings against the obstruction which had been brought to bear to prevent the passage of Bills calculated to promote the best interests of the nation. But he considered that the present measure would do a great injury to the nation, and, feeling that, he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to act upon the suggestion made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard). It had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman that all application for loans had been made that year to the Commissioners. There would not be the least difficulty, therefore, in sending out a Circular informing all those who should apply for loans that until the House had decided upon the terms upon which the loans should be in the future granted the loans would be refused. There could be no reasonable complaint if that course were adopted, and it seemed to him that that would be a simple solution of the difficulty. He trusted that course would be adopted, for they could not accept the Bill in its present shape.
  MR. GRAYremarked that, so far as he was concerned, he had no desire to obstruct Public Business, and he had really acted conscientiously in opposing the Bill. He was merely taking a course in regard to a particular measure which he deemed it to be his duty to do. He had taken part in nothing which could be considered as obstruction of Public Business; but it was within the right of every Member to oppose, even to the extent they were prepared to go, a measure which was likely to be mischievous. It was fully within the right of every hon. Member composing a minority, representing one-half of the independent opinion of the House, to resist the progress of Business at 1 o'clock in the morning. It was a most reasonable and proper thing. It was right that the public should know upon what grounds objection to the Bill was taken; but they all knew very well that the public would know nothing whatever of the proceedings in which they were then engaged, as no report would be published in the newspapers, and the only means of knowledge of what took place would be from Hansard, which would not be published till long after the

  781
  House had risen for the Recess. Upon that ground hon. Members, he maintained, were abundantly justified in the course of action they were pursuing to resist the measure, though they were in a minority of 3 to 1, especially when the Government were not able to show that any mischief or inconvenience would result from the postponement of the contentious clauses—and no reason whatever had been shown why the proposal made a short time ago should not be accepted. It had also been explained to them that all loans for the present year would not be affected by the Bill, and that the terms upon which they would be granted had been settled. Nothing, then, would be easier than to issue a Circular to all local authorities stating that future loans must be considered to be subjected to whatever terms Parliament might arrange. In the meantime, the Government wanted to have a triumph in passing the Bill; but be considered it would be a very poor triumph.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. GRAYprotested against the decision.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, be distinctly heard the voices of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), when the Motion was put, against it.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was difficult to catch the sound of any voice for the Motion.
  Question again put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 66: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 229.)
  MR. STEVENSONthought that the contention on the Bill had reached a point which showed the great difficulty of the subjects which the Bill was supposed to touch. The Bill seemed to him to be a reversal of legislation which had been deliberately entered upon by Parliament 20 years ago, in discharge of the great national duty of saving life and property from shipwrecks.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that he was anticipating an Amendment of which he had given Notice upon Clause 5.
  MR. STEVENSONhoped he was in Order in pointing out the vast importance of the present measure, and the necessity of not hastily deciding upon it. It was intended by the Bill to check borrowing powers by local authorities, and with this view the Government took power largely to increase the percentage to be charged for loans. They proposed, in fact, to check expenditure by taxing the local authorities to the extent of £50,000 a-year. But most inconsistently they were aiding local authorities by grants from the Imperial Exchequer to vastly larger amounts. He (Mr. Stevenson) felt that the proposals of the Bill were such that they were thoroughly justified in the course which they had taken. They had a very high authority, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), on their side, who had told them before he left the House that they were amply justified in what they were doing. The Government had deliberately refused the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), who had shown that there would be no necessity for passing the Bill. It seemed to him to be beginning at the wrong end to pass a formal Act of Parliament, making a change, and then to subject the wisdom of that change to the decision of the Committee of the House in the ensuing Session. However unwilling to join in the opposition to the measure, he felt himself justified in doing so. The measure would be a most unpopular one, and would have the effect of increasing the cost of necessary public improvements. He begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
  MR. CHAMBERLAINremarked, that if it were undesirable for them to continue the discussion of the clauses some time ago, it was still more undesirable to continue it now. One clause would produce a discussion upon the Education Act, and he did not think they should be asked to do that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), to whom the House had always been accustomed to look upon in matters connected with

  783
  education. That was an additional reason why the consideration of the clauses should be postponed to a more convenient time. He had been endeavouring to think what it was that really separated them from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a very small matter in their point of view. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he had promised them that a Committee should consider the subject next Session; and they were, therefore, only dealing with a state of affairs between that time and the appointment of the Committee. Their great objection to the Bill passing in its present form was that it would prejudice and influence the work of that Committee. If Parliament were to pass a measure dealing with and regulating the loans to local authorities, the Committee would not be disposed to interfere with the arrangements already made. If that difficulty could be got over, he saw no reason why they should continue their opposition. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, his difficulty was that unless a measure were passed very large claims would be established in the interval, and would have to be got at a future time. He would point out that works of the kind for which loans were made could not be created on the spur of the moment. No school board would build more schools, because it would lose its chance of getting a loan at a later period; and it was not likely that any sanitary work would be undertaken by a Corporation merely from fear of losing a loan. He had been trying to consider how the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be met to his satisfaction. He had an Amendment on the Paper—he proposed to leave out all Clause 2, after the word "Act," and to add, after line 18—
  "Or such other rate as may be necessary, in order to enable the loans to be made without loss to the Exchequer."
  In the case of the Education Act, the rate fixed for the loans was at the discretion of the Treasury. By the adoption of his Amendment, instead of the clause as proposed by the Bill, it would be in the power of the Government to raise the rate of interest on loans for
  784
  the ensuing year to such a point as they deemed necessary. At the same time, the objection would be met—namely, that the Act would not prejudice the consideration of the question subsequently. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to adopt the suggestion he had made, and enable them to retire from their opposition to the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was very much to be regretted that hon. Gentlemen, instead of beginning to discuss the principles of the Bill, which they might have done three hours ago, should have expended so much of their strength and the time of the Committee by declining to enter into the consideration of the Bill. Such a question as that raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) upon the 2nd clause of the Bill was one very open to discussion, and he should be prepared to discuss it, so soon as the Committee was allowed to do so. But so long as they were discussing the question of reporting Progress it was impossible to go into Committee.
  MR. GRAYthought the argument was unanswerable, that future loans could be granted subject to any now conditions that Parliament might impose next year.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was not at liberty to discuss the Amendment on Clause 2, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham. That would form a proper subject for discussion when the Committee reached it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsuggested that the Motion to report Progress should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) should then be allowed to propose the Amendment to the 2nd clause, as, from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was evident that he was prepared to make concessions which would remove the objections to proceeding with the Bill.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINwould make a similar appeal to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), because he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to intimate that he would give favourable consideration to his Amendment.
  MR. GRAYalso expressed his opinion that that course would, be satisfactory.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Preamble be postponed," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

  [BILL 260.] COMMITTEE.

    PART I.
    Amendment of Acts.
    Clause 2 (Minimum rate of interest for loans after 1st of April, 1879).
    MR. GRAY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "or" to "Ireland" inclusive, observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that, in consequence of some communications with reference to the mode in which loans were made, he proposed to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Act. His Amendment was proposed for the purpose of carrying out that object. He proposed to omit "Ireland" from the clause, with respect to public works, in order to make it perfectly clear. Probably the examination of the Return which had been presented to the House that year, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, had induced the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to that conclusion; for he (Mr. Gray) found that the amount of loans granted to Ireland did not bear that relative proportion to the population of Ireland, as compared with the other two Kingdoms, that they ought to do. The total population of England and Wales, taken roughly, was 20,000,000, and the total population of Ireland 5,500,000. The total amount already advanced in England and Wales was £33,700,000; whereas, in Ireland, only £5,100,000 had been advanced. If the amount had been given to Ireland in the same proportion that its population bore to England and Wales, then £8,780,000 ought to have been advanced to Ireland. He proposed that the amount which was clue to Ireland should be advanced on the less onerous terms upon which money had been advanced in England. The reason that Ireland was behindhand in getting advances was that particular Acts were passed for England alone, and were not extended to Ireland for some time sub-
    786
    sequently. The Public Health Act was one of the Acts which was first passed for England, and, some time after, for Ireland. Under that Act large sums, amounting to £4,300,000, had been granted to the large towns in England for sanitary purposes; but in Ireland there was no corresponding sum, for they had not obtained any money to speak of under the Sanitary Acts. He thought, therefore, that Ireland ought to be granted some few years' exemption, in order to enable it to make up for the time which had been lost. With respect to the Artizans' Dwellings Act, £1,163,000 had been advanced to England; whereas Ireland had received nothing for purposes connected with that Act, except £12,000 in Dublin. They had granted large sums to Birmingham, and to various local boards in England; but in Ireland comparatively small amounts had been advanced. The present system was very unjust to Ireland, and the moment the Act was passed Ireland would have to pay a higher rate of interest than Birmingham and other places in England were now paying. For these reasons, he thought this Amendment, that Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Act, was reasonable. About £960,000 had been advanced to local bodies, and laid out in respect of parks and other improvements in England; but not a single shilling had been advanced to Ireland for the same purpose. The result was that Ireland, in advances, was £1,500,000 below the proportion that it ought to bear to England. He wished to allude to one matter which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had mentioned. It had been said that a very large sum which had been lent to local bodies in Ireland had been irretrievably lost. He might say that that amount was lent during the Famine years, and that it was not looked upon as likely to be repaid, but was erased from the account altogether. He did not think that that was a kind of thing that was likely to occur again; and, at all events, that was not the class of grant which ought to be taken into consideration in judging whether Ireland had received its proper proportion of advances. He did not think that those grants ought to weigh against them. It was the feeling of Irish Members that until they

    787
    obtained an opportunity of utilizing those Acts, which had only been extended to Ireland during the last few years, after having been passed for England some years previously, it would not be fair to impose a higher rate of interest on Ireland than that paid by the richer country.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "or by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Gray.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the process which had been going on were allowed to continue it would be difficult to foresee how it would end. It was absolutely necessary to put a stop upon that process as soon as possible. He could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), because it would introduce an inequality between England and Ireland with respect to the same kind of loans, which he did not think there was any reason for doing. The Artizans' Dwellings Act and the Sanitary Acts differed very considerably in their nature from the Loan Act, which they proposed to treat separately; and he was not, therefore, prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member and exempt Ireland from the operation of the Act. He thought that it would be unnecessary to make any distinction with regard to Ireland in the class of the cases in respect of which the Bill applied to England. It should be remembered, also, that there was a discretion in the Treasury to decide what rates would be necessary to enable the loans to be made. After the discussion that had taken place, and upon the understanding that the Treasury was to act upon the power to increase the rates, if necessary, very much in the sense of the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill, he thought that the matter ought to be further investigated, and he was ready to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). Hitherto, the power in various Acts enabling the Treasury to increase the rates had not been acted upon; but by inserting an Amendment in the Bill good notice would be given of the intention of the Treasury.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had heard with very great satisfaction the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he hoped that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) would withdraw his Amendment. As that concession was made, he would not probably desire that Ireland should be placed in any different position from the rest of the country. He wished to ask one question of the Government. In Birmingham, they had adopted a great scheme under the Artizans' Dwellings Act, which had involved a loan of £1,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was necessary to stop these loans. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he introduced the Artizans' Dwellings Act, anticipated that its operation would be stopped in the manner in which it was now said to be necessary? Because one large municipality had adopted a large scheme under that Act it was imputed to it as a crime, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that he was bringing in a Bill to prevent further expenditure of that description.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREthanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession which he had made. The proposal was a satisfactory one. The Bill, as now agreed to, would not commit Parliament to the policy of raising the terms of loans to local authorities. That question would be referred to a Committee next Session, as promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the meantime, it was perfectly understood that the Government, in carrying out these loans, would be enabled to charge such a rate of interest as they might think fit. But it was not probable that between now and next Session any loans would be effected subject to the new terms proposed by the Government, for the right hon. Member for the City of London had already pointed out that the loans for the present financial year were already agreed to, and, as such, were exempted under a clause of this Bill. When the Government came to consider the matter, and to take the opinion of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, he thought that it would be

    789
    found, to a great extent, impracticable to carry out the scale which they had submitted to the House. There was one point to which he should like to draw attention. He should like to know whether loans for the purpose of the Artizans' Dwellings Act were to be stopped? He ventured to say that it would be very undesirable to put a stop to the loans for schemes under that Act.
    THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that he did not mean to put a stop to the system of loans. All he intended to do was to prevent money being lent at unremunerative rates of interest.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVEEunderstood that another object of the Bill was to limit the application of loans. He understood that that was to be put a stop to. He did not think that it was desirable to carry that plan out with respect to the Artizans' Dwellings and other Acts.
    MR. GRAYthought that it would save the Committee the trouble of a Division if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a little more specific. He (Mr. Gray) did not clearly understand the meaning of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted to know the meaning of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the evening—that in consequence of a communication he received from the Board of Works in Ireland he proposed to exempt that country from the operation of the Act? He was anxious to ascertain to what extent Ireland was to be exempted, if it was to be exempted at all. If the right hon. Gentleman's statement was correctly understood, he ought to assent to the Amendment. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not consent to the proposal that was suggested in regard to the discrepancy between Ireland and this country with respect to future loans from the Treasury. That question, however, ought to be taken into consideration by the Treasury in dealing with future loans to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance to the effect that substantial justice would be done he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were certain
    790
    special Acts under which loans were made from the Public Works Loan Fund in Ireland. The Land Act, and the Acts for the improvement of land for drainage purposes, were those to which he alluded. Perhaps he might have conveyed an impression that it was not intended to affect Irish loans; but what ho meant was, that it was not intended to interfere with loans in respect of those Acts; but with regard to loans for sanitary purposes, harbours of refuge, and artizans' dwellings, he saw no reason for putting them in a different position in Ireland to what they were placed in England and Scotland. The Treasury would fix such a rate of interest as, in its judgment, would be sufficient to secure the Treasury from loss in respect of those loans, not only for England but for Ireland and Scotland. They considered that there ought to be a graduated scale. They no longer proposed to ask Parliament to frame those rates, but they now simply asked Parliament to give them power, according to their judgment, to secure the Treasury from loss by charging higher rates of interest; at the same time, they gave notice of the principle upon which they intended to proceed. Next year they would have a Committee to consider the subject of loans generally, and it would go into other matters bearing upon the subject, such as the granting greater facilities to local authorities for obtaining loans.
    MR. GRAYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had dashed all the hopes which his first speech had raised in his mind. He would call attention to the Public Health Act, which, for Ireland, was not passed for some time after the English Act; it had never yet been taken advantage of in Ireland. Ho thought that, in all fairness, Ireland was entitled to loans at the old scale—they were entitled to the proportion that would bring them on a level with England. They were in a small minority; but as substantial injustice would be done he must press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVEEsuggested that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) should divide upon Report the next day.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he should divide upon the matter then, and also upon Report the next day.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 2: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, to leave out all after "Act," and to insert—
    "Or such other rate as may be deemed necessary, in order to enable the loans to be made without loss to the Exchequer."
    Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Restriction on amount of loan to one borrower).
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE MR. SHAW LEFEVRE moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to insert the words "under any special Act," after the word "Ireland."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thought it necessary to retain this clause, as it had a serious effect in relation to the Artizans' Dwellings Act?
    MAJOR NOLANasked if the "Bright Clauses" were exempt?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that they were. It was necessary to retain the clause, in order to check large demands in respect to public loans; and, so far as the Exchequer was concerned, he was bound to say he thought there ought to be some limit.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GRAY MR. GRAY moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "one," and insert "two." The Amendment, he said, was directed against the proposal to limit the amount to £100,000. If this Bill passed it would lead to serious inconvenience to some towns, and interfere with proposed improvements. The hands of local authorities would be greatly tied; a drainage scheme, for instance, should be executed as a whole, and not piecemeal, and it might cost much more than £100,000. In some cases this limitation would render it impossible to carry out sanitary improvements. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take the matter into consideration, and come to the conclusion that it would be
    792
    more reasonable to fix a certain proportion of valuation than any arbitrary sum.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that there was a great deal of difference between small and large bodies. In case of large towns, there ought to be greater facilities for raising money, and there were but few towns or bodies that were likely to come for such large sums as those mentioned in the clause. He could not consent to the alteration; but he would be quite ready, to consider in the Select Committee what could be done to facilitate the proper raising of these sums.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that under the Public Health Act (Ireland) the money could not be borrowed except from the Board of Works, and if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the Amendment he could introduce the question next year. However, he would not divide the Committee, and would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, as the question raised was a very important he must take a Division upon it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould not see, as it was quite true that the large towns only would want to borrow large sums of money, why the Government should not accept the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 12: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
    Clause 4 (Repayment not to be by annuity, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 89), by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 5 (Saving for old loans, and for loans especially saved by 39 & 40 Vict. c. 31, ss. 4 & 5).
    MR. STEVENSON MR. STEVENSON moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, at end of clause, to add—
    "Nor to any loan to any harbour authority under 'The Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, & c., 1861,' and the Acts amending the same."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the question of advances for the purposes of harbours

    793
    was one that caused most trouble, and required to be cheeked. The works done at the harbours were, no doubt, of great value; but it would be hardly possible to except advances in respect of them from the operation of the Bill.
    MR. STEVENSONquite admitted that the terms of the Acts defining the kind of harbours that were to be aided wore too wide, and required limitation, and he thought that it would be a subject for inquiry before the Committee to be appointed. It was undesirable, however, to make a change in the meantime.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped that grants would continue to be made to harbours of refuge. The Harbours and Passing Tolls Act was passed for the purpose of promoting the formation of harbours of refuge.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GRAY MR. GRAY moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, after "Ireland," to insert the words—"Nor for any advances required for the improvement of harbours." He did that because he considered it was a very strong point, and it was not right to refuse them any change under the Irish Act.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GRAY MR. GRAY moved, as an Amendment to page 2, line 19, to insert at the end of the clause "nor to any loans under the Act forty-one and forty-two Victoria, chapter fifty-two."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that with respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. James Stewart) he was prepared to adopt it. He therefore moved, in page 2, line 19, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "Nor any advance to the local authority of the burgh of Greenock under 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1875.'"
    Amendment agreed to; words added.
    MR. GRAYtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would also take into his consideration the Amendment which he had to propose with regard to advances under
    794
    the Dublin Main Drainage Act, 1871. It was hard that a local authority desiring to obtain money for improvements sanctioned by Parliament should not have an opportunity of doing so. He hoped, therefore, in the special case in question, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to his Amendment. He begged to move, in page 2, at the end of clause, to add—"Nor to any advance under 'The Dublin Main Drainage Act, 1871,' or any Act amending the same."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) made a very good fight for his country; but he did not think it possible to accede to his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, at the end of the clause, to insert, as a separate paragraph—
    "Provided, That where though a loan has not been actually granted before the passing of this Act, negotiations for the same have proceeded so far as to make it in the opinion of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury inequitable for such loan to be subject to the provisions of this Act or any of them, such loan shall, for the purpose of these provisions, be deemed to be a loan granted before the passing of this Act."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREobserved, that the Proviso gave such a large discretion to the Treasury that it did not appear to him necessary to put in any special exceptions.
    Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Power of Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend, and of Peabody trustees to borrow).
    MR. WHITWELLinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to preserve that clause in the Bill? There would be an exceptional scale provided in that particular case, and it was quite contrary to the principle of the calculations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed by the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the clause was a necessary one. The peculiarity of the case was, that sites had already been cleared

    795
    for dwellings for the labouring classes in London. The Peabody Trustees, who wished to erect buildings on those sites, had property, on which they would be willing to borrow money, provided it could be advanced by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. At present, the Acts of Parliament only empowered the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance money to municipal bodies, and not to trustees, for the purpose of erection of dwellings for the labouring classes. In the case in question, the security was peculiarly good. The Trustees possessed a large amount of property, and the term for which the money was proposed to be advanced was not to exceed 15 years. Therefore, he thought they were doing an excellent thing in giving power to lend money to the Peabody Trustees. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had put down an Amendment enabling other bodies of Trustees to borrow in the same way. Thinking that that was only right, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to insert a clause which would enable the same thing to be done in respect to other associations.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that, by the sale of land to the Peabody Trustees, the Metropolitan Board of Works had lost a largo sum of money. He could not see that there was any reason for treating the Peabody Trustees in the exceptionally favourable manner that it was proposed to do.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Peabody Trustees were in a peculiar position, inasmuch as all the money which they received from rents they were obliged to expend upon additional buildings. They made no profit, and their sole object and raison ďetre was to increase the dwelling accommodation of the working classes by the erection of more buildings. The exemption proposed in the present case was to enable them to build in two years what they would otherwise take 10 years to do, and the exemption would accordingly be very much to the advantage of the working classes in London. The Peabody Trustees would undertake to repay to the Exchequer the amount advanced in 15 years, and they would give as security for the loan not only the ground upon which the proposed buildings were to be erected, but all their other houses
    796
    in London; and unless the Trustees could get the money at the rate proposed they could not by any possibility carry out their intentions. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) seemed to think that they had obtained the land on which they were going to build cheaply; but there was no ground for saying that they had not paid the full value for that land.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he had agreed to a provision permitting the Government to make loans to charitable Societies. It seemed to him that to lend money to charitable Societies was a very doubtful policy. The Peabody Trustees were, no doubt, a very responsible body, and the money would be well secured; but, by lending the money to them, they were admitting the principle of lending to charitable Societies, and that seemed to him to open the question as to whether it should be confined to London alone.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Peabody Trustees were put before the Committee as if they were under some disability, and as if the Public Works j Loans Commissioners had not the same powers of dealing with them as they had in dealing with Companies formed; for similar objects. If that were so, there might be a strong case for the clause in question. He must point out, however, that the Companies formed for building dwelling houses were private speculations, realizing a certain, if moderate, interest on their capital, and lending their money at low rates was giving them security for their interest. He doubted very much whether the new sphere into which they had entered of charitable aid in lending money to build dwelling houses for the labouring classes was at all desirable.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsuggested that the subject of aid to charitable institutions should be untouched by the Bill, and should be left to the consideration of the Committee to be appointed in the next Session. It was a very wide question whether the Government ought to advance money to Societies of that character. It was proposed to allow the Peabody Trustees to obtain £300,000 of public money—three times as much as was advanced to any municipal body.

    797
    He should like to know whether they were to have that sum in two different years?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the amount required to be borrowed was £300,000, extending over a period of three years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that it was a mistake to suppose that anything was being done which was contrary to the spirit of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act. By that Act power was given to advance money on loan, not only to local authorities, but to any legally constituted Company, Society, or Association, which would be under the Act as a trading or manufacturing Company. The Act applied to the Company over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) presided; but it did not apply to the Peabody Trustees, because they did not happen to be a Company, or an Association, for making-profit, but only Trustees for a particular purpose. Yet they wore doing the same work as the other Companies, and it was now proposed to put them in the same position as the other Companies under the Act, and to reduce the rate of interest from 4 to 3½ per cent.
    MR. COURTNEYinquired why the interest was reduced?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, because the term for which the money was to be borrowed was only 15 years.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINinquired, whether, at the end of the 15 years, they were to be permitted to re-borrow? [THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.] Unless re-borrowing were prohibited, he did not see the justice of the exemption, as the borrowing might really be for 30 years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that that would not be permitted. At the same time, lie would point out that there was a great deal of difference. At the end of the 15 years they could re-examine the security.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had wisely decided to prohibit the lending of public money to municipalities and other public bodies. But while closing the door on one side he had thought fit to open it on the other, and had opened it very widely
    798
    too. He (Mr. Whitwell) was not going into the original Acts; but would only say that they enabled institutions requiring money under the Artizans' Dwellings Act to borrow it at 4 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was now proposing to reduce that rate of interest.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that he had suggested, a few minutes ago, to increase the amount that might be advanced to any one public body from £100,000 to £200,000; but it was met in such a discouraging way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he (Mr. Gray) did not venture to press it to a Division; but now he found that even £300,000 might be borrowed by Trustees. Why, he asked, should the difference be made? It was, as the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Whitwell) had said, at the very time that they restricted, they opened a very wide door in another direction, for that really was what it was doing when they reduced the percentage. They might be certain the money would be re-borrowed at the end of the first term of 15 years; and he could not see why £300,000 should be given at an exceptionally low rate for two short terms. The only reason why that advantage was to be given was that the buildings existed in London. Even the Artizans' Dwellings Act was a Metropolitan Act, which was extended to the outer portions of the Kingdom as an afterthought. He could not quite see why that should be the case, and he thought the clause should be struck out. Besides, now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an Amendment in his name on the Notice Paper relating to the matter, there was no necessity at all for the clause. The only reason he could see for it was that the Bill commenced in the Metropolis.
    MR. COURTNEYwas proceeding to discuss the rate of interest which the new clause, with reference to loans to Labourers' Dwellings Companies, proposed to charge, and the rate of interest which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone, when—
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was raising a question which would be more properly discussed upon Report.
    MR. COURTNEYcontended it was lending money to capitalists for the purposes of speculation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that he had been about to vote with the Government upon the question of the Peabody Trustees; but he had been converted to the other view.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Regulations as to advances by National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loans Commissioners) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Application of Public Works Loan Act, 1875, to sum advanced by National Debt Commissioners) agreed to.
    Composition of Debt.
    Clause 9 (Composition of debt on Port Erin, Isle of Man).
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 11, after "1863," to insert "and the Isle of Man Harbours Amendment Act, 1864."
    Amendment agreed to; words added.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 20, to leave out from "whereas" to "by" in line 25.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Commissioners may compound debt due by Isle of Man Harbour Commissioners) agreed to.

    PART II.
    Provision of Money for Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    Clause 11 (Grant of £6,000,000 for Public Works Loans during the period ending the 30th June, 1880) agreed to.

    PART III.
    Grant of Money for Public Works Commissioners, Ireland.
    Clause 12 (Grant of £850,000 for loan by Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland during the period ending the 30th June, 1880) agreed to.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved to add the following clause to the Bill:—
    800
    (Power of Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend to Labourers' Dwellings Company.)
    "The Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend to any company, society, or association established for the purpose of constructing or improving dwellings for the labouring classes, any sum or sums to be applied towards the construction of dwellings suitable for the labouring-classes, and towards the purchase of land for that purpose.
    "Every sum so lent shall be repaid within a period not exceeding fifteen years from the time of the advance, with interest thereon at such rate not less than three-and-a-half per centum per annum, as may be agreed upon between the Commissioners and the borrower.
    "Every sum so advanced shall be advanced in accordance with 'The Public Works Loan Commissioners Act, 1875.'"
    New Clause (Power of Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend to Labourers' Dwellings Company,).—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the chief argument in favour of lending money to the Peabody Trustees was that they were an Association making no profit. The Companies which that clause contemplated did make profit; and he should, therefore, vote against the new clause upon that ground.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 8: Majority 49.—(Div. List. No. 232.)
    Schedule agreed to.
    Postponed Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES [EXPENSES].

  REPORT OF RESOLUTION.
  Resolution [August 9] reported;
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Travelling and other Expenses of any additional Judge sitting for the trial of Election Petitions, and of the Cost of receiving such Judge, and of all other incidental Expenses, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session re-

  801
  lating to Election Petitions, and to the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections," read the first and second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House does agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. MONKhoped that the House would not be asked to assent to the Resolution at 6 o'clock in the morning. It was a Resolution of a very important character, and involved questions which ought to be discussed in a full House. The Government had brought in a Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill—that Bill was, for some time, on the Table of the House—it was at length cut down by the Government into a Continuance Bill; for, in fact, it was too late to be anything else. But, instead of amending the Bill so as to contain two clauses, and confining its operation to one year only, the Government had inserted a clause enacting that two Judges should try every Election Petition. It might be a very proper thing that two Judges should try an Election Petition; but that was a question that ought to be fully discussed in that House, and it could not be properly discussed at that hour. It was not his desire to enter into the question, and lie hoped that the Government would not press the Resolution. If the Government did not intend to press the clause, then the present Resolution would fall to the ground. But if the Government intended to go on with the Resolution, he certainly must continue his remarks.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONintimated that it was intended to go on with the clause.
  MR. MONKsaid, that in 1875 a Committee sat, which recommended that two Judges should try Election Petitions; but if the proceedings of the Committee were looked at, it would be found that some of the most experienced Members of the House who sat on that Committee were amongst the minority who voted against that proposal. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole), the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers),and the hon. and learned Attorney General himself, were amongst that minority. He thought that the opinion of such a mino-
  802
  rity was deserving of the serious attention of the House. At that period of the Session, it certainly would not be right to impose upon the country the very serious expense which would be incurred by sending two Judges to try every Election Petition. He was not aware that any strong feeling existed on the subject in England; but, in Ireland, he knew there was such a feeling. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had raised the question by giving Notice of an Amendment, to the effect that the Act should apply to Ireland only. For his part, he (Mr. Monk) should be willing to accept that Amendment; but with regard to England, he did not think it desirable that so serious a change as that proposed should be made at that period of the Session. So important a matter ought not to be taken at 6 o'clock in the morning, and particularly when it was against the opinion of so influential a minority of the Committee of 1875. Election Petitions had been very well tried by one Judge, and it was quite unnecessary that two Judges should try them. That provision would make it necessary to have more Judges, or else to delay the Business of the country; if the Judges were not available, there would be great delay in the Law Courts, and suitors generally would have great reason to complain. They would soon have a cry raised, that it was necessary to appoint additional Judges. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a very serious matter, which required the attention of the House. He would not presume to take up the time of the House at any great length upon the matter; but he did hope that the change would not be made at that time. The better course for the Government to pursue would be not to press the 2nd clause of the Bill, and then the Resolution now before the House became wholly unnecessary. In order to raise the question, he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. COURTNEYrose for the purpose of seconding the Motion. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), that it was perfectly unnecessary to provide that the Election Petitions should be tried by two Judges in England. He quite admitted, at the same time, that there was a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of having two

  803
  Judges to try Election Petitions, and he had put down an Amendment restricting the operation of the provision for two Judges to Ireland. He thought that they would only damage the investigation of Election Petitions by sending two Judges to try them. He did not think that there was any precedent for sending two persons to try a mere question of fact. It was very seldom indeed that two Judges sat together, for the only example with which he was acquainted was that of the two former Lords Justices of Appeal in Chancery who were in the habit of sitting together. But to send two persons to try a mere question of fact, where no law was involved, was absurd. As there was a strong feeling in Ireland that Election Petitions should be tried by two Judges, he was willing to accede to the proposition; but he did not see why it should be adopted in this country where there was no demand for it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Monk.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the consideration of that Report would not have been pressed at that early period of the day, but that the Government were as anxious, as he believed most hon. Members were, to close the Session as soon as possible. The Bill, if it was to go to "another place" that Session, must pass that day, after they had assented to the Resolution. The Bill, as it stood, had been materially reduced from the state in which it first reached the House. When notice was taken of the proposed changes, he mentioned that there was an assent on the part of the House to the change contemplated. [Mr. MONK observed that he objected to the change.] The majority of the House were of opinion that the change recommended by the majority of the Select Committee was advisable. Without going further into the matter, he would only say that the Government would hesitate long before they made any such distinctions between England and Ireland in respect of Election Petitions as was proposed by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He would ask the House to adopt the Resolution.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that a pledge had been given by the Government that
  804
  some change should be made with respect to the trial of Election Petitions, and he was glad to see that that pledge would be redeemed. He, therefore, hoped hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would not object to the consideration of the Resolution. He thought, in face of a General Election before they met again, it was desirable that the Bill, founded upon it, should pass, because the fate of the Government would be redeemed by the passing of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaw no necessity for two Judges, and should suppose his right hon. Friend had given a further pledge with respect to this matter, which he should like to see redeemed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that all sorts of pledges had been imagined for them. The only pledge which he had given was, that at the beginning of next Session the Government would introduce a Bill relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Solicitor General.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 288.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short Title), agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Trial of election petitions before two judges).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 9, after the word "judges," to insert "instead of one."
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after "shall," to insert "if necessary."
  MR. MONKsaid, that that was the time to take exception to the Bill. When they were told that it was desirable to make a change for England, as well as for Ireland, he thought that some ex-

  805
  planation was required. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had stated that a majority of the Select Committee had recommended that Election Petitions should be tried before two Judges, instead of one; but he went on to say that the Government differed from that opinion, and considered the present arrangement to work satisfactorily. A very sudden change now seemed to have taken place in the opinion of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General when on Committee, strongly opposed the alteration being made, and he (Mr. Monk) really thought that when the Front Bench of the Opposition was nearly empty, at 6 o'clock in the morning, the House ought not to be called upon to make so serious a change as was proposed. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon the Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would propose.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that the general feeling of hon. Members seemed to be very much in favour of the change proposed when it was mentioned.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it met with general approval from the Irish Members; but it was not so with regard to the English Members.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 23, after "void," to add—
  "And if the judges differ as to the subject of a report to the Speaker, they shall certify that difference, and make no report on the subject on which they so differ, and if they differ on any other matters, the opinion of the senior judge shall prevail."
  MR. COURTNEYwished to call attention to the very extraordinary proposals of the Government. He was quite willing that Election Petitions should be tried by two Judges in Ireland. In Ireland, Judges were not overwhelmed with work, and as the Irish Members desired it, there was no invincible objection to having Election Petitions tried by two Judges. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman enacted, that if the Judges differed as to the subject of a Report, they should certify that difference, and make no Report; if they differed in other matters, the opinion of the senior
  806
  Judge should prevail. He would like to know what would be done where the House received separate Reports from the two Judges; was it intended in that case that the opinion of the senior Judge should prevail? Then, again, as to the difference of opinion on other matters, such as the admission of evidence, was the opinion of the senior Judge again to prevail? He must protest against the introduction of any such proposal as that into the English practice. No one asked for such a change to be made in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it upon the ground of the general wish of hon. Members, but he really could not see that any such wish had been expressed. On the contrary, some of the greatest authorities who sat upon the Committee were opposed to the change.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 24, before "save," to insert—"The provisions of this Clause shall apply to Ireland only, and." He had already explained the reasons which had induced him to urge the adoption of this provision in the Bill. He trusted that they should, at all events, hear some reason why it should not be inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, before "save," to insert the words, "The provisions of this Clause shall apply to Ireland only, and."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that he had already stated that the Government saw no reason for making invidious distinctions between England and Ireland.
  MR. MONKsaid, that the Government were departing entirely from opinions which had been expressed on a former occasion by the hon. and learned Attorney General. Last year, the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, in discussion on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, that although the majority of the Committee had recommended that two Judges, instead of one, should be appointed to try these Petitions, the Government differed from their opinion. Was it possible that the Government

  807
  could have changed its opinions since that time, and wished to retract what the hon. and learned Attorney General had said? Only a week ago, the Government were opposed to the appointment of two Judges to try Election Petitions in England. English Members were always willing to give way to Irish Members, when they could do so without injury to their own constituencies, and when the unanimous opinion of Ireland demanded a change. But the change in question was not desired for England, and he did not believe that the majority of the House would support the Government in its proposal to make so serious and uncalled-for an alteration in the law in what ought to be a mere Continuance Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, in the first place, the adoption of the Amendment would draw a most invidious distinction between England and Ireland; it would be a slur upon the Irish Judges, if the House were to declare that two Judges ought to try Election Petitions in Ireland, and one in England. The hon. Member (Mr. Monk), had charged the Government with changing its opinion on the subject; but he would point out that the Government had always said that the question was one much more for the House, than for it to decide. A very general wish had been expressed on both sides of the House, both by English and Irish Members, in favour of the change. It was said that there was a feeling on the part of persons who were subject to the jurisdiction of one Judge, in the matter of Election Petitions, that they should not have to be subject to the sole discretion of a single Judge. The impression was very strongly left upon his mind, from what was said, that it was the general feeling that questions of personal character and questions of very great moment to the parties concerned, should not be left entirely at the mercy of a single Judge. As there had been a general expression of opinion to that effect, the Government had introduced the provision in question.
  MR. GOURLEYobserved, that the opinion of one Judge would continue to prevail in certain cases, where there was a difference of opinion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that that was a matter at issue, and involved the question of a Court of Appeal.
  Mr. MONKremarked, that if the seat of the candidate was vacated, there ought to be an appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had expressed his opinion that there ought to be an appeal, if cases were tried by two Judges.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he should most strongly object to the power of appeal being given. The expenses of his Election Petition were £11,000, and that amount was paid by the country for him. But if there had been an appeal, it would have cost another £11,000. He looked upon an appeal, whether from the decision of one or two Judges, simply as a means of doubling the expenses. Two Judges were necessary to try Election Petitions in Ireland, in order to prevent one Judge being carried away by bias or prejudice, and he thought that the change proposed would be most beneficial. He thought a mistake had been made in a popular Assembly like the House of Commons, by placing the power of deciding as to who should occupy seats outside the House. He did not, however, believe that any Act passed by the late House of Commons could, as a matter of law, prevent the House of Commons from resuming its power to decide upon Election Petitions without the consent of the Upper House. He should support the Government all through the Bill; and, in doing so, he did not think he was binding himself to the opinion that a popular Assembly like the House of Commons could divest itself of the power of deciding its own Elections.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the real point was, whether the opinion of the senior Judge was to be taken. With respect to the question of two Judges deciding the matter, he must say the opinion of the Judges themselves in Ireland was in favour of an opinion of that kind, and they considered that the change made of giving one Judge the assistance of another, was a great improvement.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Amendment had been met with the argument that it would be introducing an invidious distinction between England and Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare had now told them that the Irish Judges desired the change. But the English Judges did not desire a change, nor did the English people desire it. They were, in fact, going to make a

  809
  change against the opinions of the English Judges and people, for no reason whatever, except that not making it would create an invidious distinction between England and Ireland. Moreover, the change would cause a considerable amount of additional and unnecessary expense. As the Government had stated that the question was one rather for the House, than for it, to decide, he should take a division upon his Amendment.
  MR. GRAY, speaking as an individual Irishman, could not see why a proposal like that of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) could be regarded as a slur upon Ireland. The Irish Judges were different from the English Judges, for they were appointed from purely political reasons; while the English Judges were not. When they found a difficulty arising in Ireland, which did not exist in England, he could not see why different regulations should not be made for the two countries. He did not at all think that it would be casting a slur upon Ireland to confine the change to that country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought that the change would diminish the strength of the judicial power much more in England than in Ireland. He could not see how the work of trying Election Petitions in England would be carried out at all, in the event of the General Election, with the present number of Judges. The work of trying the Petitions would withdraw six Judges from their ordinary judicial duties. In Ireland it was well known that the Judicial Bench was not so fully occupied as in England, and the withdrawal of the necessary Judges to try the Election cases would not so greatly affect legal Business. He was not entirely in favour of Election Petitions being tried by two Judges, and he believed that if the question were put to the House a considerable majority would prefer the old tribunal of the Committee to the new one which had been formed. Under the old system, the power of seating and unseating a Member was vested in the House, and not in any person outside it. But now it was in the power of the Judges not only to unseat a Member elected by a majority, but to give a seat in that House to a man representing only a minority of the constitu-
  810
  ency. The position of Members who might be seated in that way was not enviable.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 52: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Continuance of Acts) agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

EAST INDIA LOAN (£5,000,000) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
EAST INDIA LOAN (£5,000,000) BILL.

  [BILL 197.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, that he had withdrawn his opposition on two previous occasions, and had allowed the Vote of Credit to pass without protest. But he could not, on this occasion, permit the Bill to pass without stating his opinion that a very much larger sum was asked for than he believed to be necessary. They had been informed that the highest authorities on financial questions at the India Office were of opinion that £5,000,000 was the lowest sum which could be asked for. But it should be remembered that those same authorities, upon whose judgment they were now asked to rely as to the amount of the loan, in the first instance, were those who recommended that £10,000,000 should be asked for. He did not think, therefore, that their opinion was of such very great value. As it had not been shown that £2,000,000 would not amply suffice, he should divide against the third reading of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 13: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Bill 290.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Bill 290.]

  THIRD READING. WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for Third Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Third Reading be now discharged."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdid not think that the Government ought to withdraw this Bill. The only reason for discharging it, in preference to some other Bills, was that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and some others among the supporters of the Government, did not like the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.— [Bill 93.]
(Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Benjamin Williams.)
BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.— [Bill 93.]

  THIRD READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third, time this day."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that this Bill had been set down for Saturday afternoon, in defiance of the recognized practice that the Bills of private Members should not be set down for Saturdays. The Bill was strongly opposed by a large number of hon. Members, and it was going to be passed simply because the Government gave it facilities, which were contrary to the usual practice he would not go into the merits of the Bill at that time; but as the last stage had been taken on Saturday, he should oppose the third reading being fixed for that day.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the House would like to know the contents of the Bill. A clause had been struck out in Committee by which blind and deaf-mute children were enabled to be sent to schools of their own denomination. He should be glad to know whether that clause was put back again upon Report. He had no objection to the Bill as originally introduced; but he was not willing that it should pass since that clause had been struck out.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEremarked, that the clause was struck out against his wish.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 11: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock in the morning.