Commons Sitting of 22 July 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Privilege (Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Committee).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 21] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) [Salaries, &c] *.
Second Reading—Banking and Joint Stock Companies [126], debate adjourned; National School Teachers (Ireland) [246].
Committee—Report—Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) [196].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement) [248], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Petroleum Act (1871) Amendment* [214], and passed.
Third Reading—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities) * [244], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.
  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS ACT, 1875.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in

    963
    reference to his statement that a Committee of the Board has been appointed to consider what amendments should be introduced into the "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875," with the view of diminishing the cost of carrying out that Act in the Metropolis, If he can inform the House when the Report of that Committee will be presented to the Home Secretary; and, whether, as the cost to the Metropolitan Ratepayers of clearing six sites will be £562,061, he can undertake that the other sites which have been cleared shall not be disposed of until the Report of the Committee has been laid before the Home Secretary, and it has been ascertained whether it is his intention to propose to amend the Act of 1875?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I trust that the Metropolitan Board of Works will be in a position to make a representation to the Secretary of State on the subject of amendments of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act in the course of a week or two. With regard to the further disposal of sites, I may remind the hon. Member that of the six sites referred to by him only part of one has up to this time been actually cleared, and the Board are only now acquiring the interest in the remainder of the 14 which I alluded to in my reply on the 14th instant. The Home Secretary, therefore, will have full opportunity of considering the representations of the Board.
    MR. FAWCETTasked, Whether the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that none of the other sites which had been cleared should be disposed of until the Report of the Committee had been laid before the Home Secretary, and it had been ascertained whether it was his intention to amend the Act of 1875?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he would rather consult his Board before pledging them on the matter.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would on that day week put the Question to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, after he had had an opportunity of consulting his Colleagues.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, perhaps he might be allowed to state that it had been under his consideration for some time whether anything could be done to lessen the expense of carrying out the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwell-
    964
    ings Act. With respect to the machinery of that Act, he hoped even in this Session to produce a short Bill to lessen the expense.

  FISHERIES—SALMON DISEASE—COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Commission to inquire into the causes of disease among the salmon of certain English and Scotch rivers will be appointed; and if he will state the names of the Commissioners selected by the Government?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, we are still in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and, therefore, I cannot make any definite statement at present as to the constitution of the Commission, though I hope that Mr. Walpole, Mr. Buckland, and one of the Scotch Fishery Commissioners will be members of it. No inquiry can take place until the spring. During the autumn the Commissioners can go on taking evidence; but if the disease should unfortunately occur again, they will not be able to make a personal inquiry into its causes until the spring.

  TURKEY—THE JEWS IN EASTERN ROUMELIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any and what accounts of the outrages committed in Eastern Roumelia upon Jewish refugees returning to their homes at Carlovo; and, if so, what steps have been taken for their protection and for their security in the future?
  MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir, Her Majesty's Government have heard from the Consul General at Philippopolis that 80 Jewish families who had been invited to return to their homes at Carlovo were met near that town by a mob of 200 persons and stoned. When our Consul General heard of the outrage, he immediately made a strong representation to the Governor General, Aleko Pasha, who, upon the remonstrances of the Consul General, appointed a Commission to inquire into the circumstance. That Commission consisted of five persons, and they made a Report to the Governor General. When my noble Friend the

  965
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs heard of the matter, he desired Mr. Mitchell to address another strong remonstrance to Aleko Pasha, and tell him that it was his duty to prevent any outrage of this kind occurring. We have since heard that the result of the Commission has been that the officer—the the head of the police—whose duty it was to prevent these outrages at Carlovo, has been removed by Aleko Pasha, and has been declared by the Governor General to be unfit to hold in future any appointment in Eastern Roumelia.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—THE FIRTH OF FORTH.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN MILNE-HOME (for Lord ELCHO)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the losses the fishermen in Firth of Forth are suffering through injury to their lines and the destruction of the chlam and mussel beds by the action of steam trawling vessels, he will take steps for their protection?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, Sir, great injury has certainly been done in the nay pointed out in the Question, and I will see that whatever is possible will be done to prevent airy thing of the kind in future. The injury referred to was of a purely wanton character, and could do no good. The Fishery Commissioners have made inquiries into the matter, and have agreed to make certain recommendations, which will be embodied in their Report. They have also met persons interested in the matter, as well as the persons who were responsible for the injury, and have urged on them to do all they can to prevent such occurrences in future. No efforts on my part shall be wanting towards that end. Whatever power I have will be put in force; but I think it exceedingly likely that I shall have to come to Parliament to ask for further powers.

  SOUTH AFRICA—WAR WITH SIKUKUNI.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has noticed, at page 150 in the South African Blue Book just issued, that the High Commissioner (Sir Bartle Frere), addressing the special meeting of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, held at
  966
  Pretoria on April 23rd last, and, speaking for the British Government, said: "Our first business will be to attack Sikukuni;" adding—
  "I have written to Lord Chelmsford that the favourable season is at hand, and is short, and that we should, therefore, as soon as possible, whenever he can spare them, send up troops in that direction;"
  and, whether the Government, in compliance with that assurance of the High Commissioner, has authorised the departure of troops for the attack on Sikukuni?
  SIR MICHAELHICKS-BEACH: No, Sir, I have not authorized such an expedition. In writing to Sir Bartle Frere on the 10th of April, I expressed the hope that the troubles then existing or anticipated by him in various parts of South Africa, including Sikukuni's country, might disappear, either independently or in consequence of that complete settlement of the Zulu difficulty which I trusted to see speedily effected; and I requested him carefully to bear in mind that any wider or larger action of the kind apparently suggested by him, beyond that which might be necessary for the termination of the Zulu question, should be submitted to Her Majesty's Government for their consideration and approval before any steps were taken to carry it into effect. I believe that Lord Chelmsford declined to comply with the request that troops should be sent to the Transvaal for an attack on Sikukuni; but I subsequently called Sir Garnet Wolseley's attention to the views on this subject which I had expressed in my despatch of April 10; and the hon. Member may, perhaps, have noticed, in the telegram from Sir Garnet Wolseley which I read on Friday, that he states that there was no news of importance from the Transvaal, that he had ordered Colonel Lanyon to undertake no offensive operations, to restrict his operations to protection of life and property, and to curtail expenses in every possible way.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, before the Supplementary Vote for the Zulu War, &c., is asked for, any Correspondence will be laid upon the Table of the House showing the history and

  967
  present state of discussion between the Home Government and that of the Cape Colony, or with the Transvaal, as to their money claims on the English Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, some Papers are being prepared, and will be laid on the Table very shortly, with regard to communications between the Home Government and the Government of the Cape as to financial questions between them.

  SOUTH AFRICA—GRIQUALAND WEST—ALLEGED MASSACRE NEAR KOEGAS.—QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has observed in the South African Papers just issued (C. 2367), page 78, a Report from Field Commandant Van Niekerk admitting that in an attack upon a party of Natives at Luisdraai, near Koegas, he had killed forty-six, including ten women and children, and captured the rest, being five men and twenty-seven women and children; whether it is a fact that in the same Papers, pages 157 and 158, Mr. Jackson, the Special Commissioner appointed by the Government of Cape Colony to inquire into atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated on the occasion, reports—
  "That a terrible and unjustifiable massacre of a party of bushmen, with their wives and children, had taken place at the hands of burghers under command of Commandant Van Niekerk;"
  adding—
  "Nothing could justify the shooting at Luisdraai, and subsequently on the march to Koegas, of the wounded, among whom were women and little children;"
  and recommending that a preparatory examination should be instituted against Commandant Van Niekerk with the view of bringing the guilty parties to justice; and how he reconciles with these statements a despatch from Colonel Lanyon, published at page 120 of the same Papers, which is apparently fairly enough summarized in the index of the Papers, as
  "Showing that the alleged massacre of Natives at Koegas, as referred to by Dr. Cameron in the House of Commons, never occurred?"
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, Colonel Lanyon's despatch is perfectly consistent with the statements quoted by
  968
  the hon. Member, because in that despatch he merely denies that the occurrence took place in Griqualand West, or that the massacre was perpetrated by Volunteers from his Province. Of course, Colonel Lanyon could not say what had or what had not taken place beyond the limits of his own government; and the mistake is in the index to the Papers, in which Colonel Lanyon's despatch certainly is not fairly summarized as showing that this event "never occurred." I regret that the index was not more carefully compiled.
  DR. CAMERON: Is Koegas not in Griqualand West?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The massacre certainly took place within the jurisdiction of the Cape Colony, because the Government instituted an inquiry into the facts of the case, and intend to prosecute those who took part in the massacre.

  NAVY—SENTENCE ON A SEAMAN AT SHEERNESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been drawn to a paragraph headed "Naval Discipline," in "Capital and Labour," dated the 16th instant, on page 431 of that journal, which reads as follows:—
  NAVAL DISCIPLINE.—A court martial was held at Sheerness on Monday, on board the Admiral's ship, to try a seaman for disobeying orders and for striking a petty officer. As the plea was 'guilty' no evidence was needed, and after an hour's deliberation the Court adjudged the prisoner to the astounding punishment of two years' imprisonment, the first week in each month to be passed in solitary confinement, and the remainder of the time in hard labour;"
  whether the persons who composed the court martial were naval officers; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances of the case; and, in the meantime, if he will take steps to stay the carrying out of any part of a sentence apparently so severe?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, my attention has been drawn to the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. The court martial was composed, as the Rules of the Service require, of Naval officers. The circumstances have already been reported to the Admiralty, and they show that the offences for which the prisoner was tried were of the most

  969
  grave character—being deliberate and I repeated disobedience of lawful and reasonable commands of his superior officer, followed up by an assault. I admit that the sentence is a severe one; but I am not prepared to say that it was excessive, if regard is had to the absolute necessity of maintaining discipline in the Service. As I only received Notice of the Question yesterday, I have had no opportunity of getting a Report from the officers who composed the court martial, and, therefore, it is impossible for me to say whether any portion of the sentence can be remitted.

  THE BANKRUPTCY BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in case the reduced Bankruptcy Bill passed this Session, the Government would bring in a Consolidation Bill next Session, and refer the same to a Select Committee as had been suggested?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I regret that the hour at which the Bankruptcy Bill came on this morning was so late that the proceedings could not be reported in the newspapers. But the Attorney General stated, in moving the second reading of the Bill, that his object was to reduce it to an amending Bill of a much shorter description; and he, at the same time, gave an undertaking that a Consolidation Bill should be introduced next Session at an early period. There would be no objection to refer the Consolidation Bill to a Select Committee.

  SOUTH AFRICA—GRIQUALAND EAST—THE IMPRISONED GRIQUAS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the fact that in April 1878 William Kok, son of the Chief Adam Kok, was arrested, and together with the 137 other Griquas imprisoned at Cape Town; whether during that interval they have never been brought before any judicial tribunal, and the nature of their offence kept both from them and their friends; whether these persons are British subjects; whether they have given repeated assurances of their loyalty; and whether, when they are brought to trial, any compensation will be afforded to
    970
    them for their imprisonment during this lengthy period, and for the property confiscated from them at the time of their arrest?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I believe that about the number of Griquas stated by the hon. Member have been for some time imprisoned at Cape Town, and I have not heard that they have been brought before any judicial tribunal. But their offence is perfectly well known to themselves and to others, as it consisted in a movement to drive the White inhabitants and the Government authorities out of Griqualand East, culminating in the open levying of war against the Queen. I cannot say what their precise legal position may be; but they appear to have been detained and treated as prisoners of war. From the nature of their offence, expressions of loyalty must be accepted with great reserve. Nor would any compensation for their detention appear to be due to them. The length of their detention is, I presume, due to the disturbed state, at first of Pondoland and Griqualand East, and subsequently of Basutoland, which may naturally have disposed the authorities to consider that the time had not arrived when they could safely be allowed to return to their country.
    MR. W. H. JAMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say why these persons have not been brought to trial?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have already stated that they have been detained and treated as prisoners of war.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—BELFAST POST OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If it is true that during the past seven years thitreen telegraph instrument clerks in Belfast Post Office have died from consumption; and, whether the high rate of mortality is not to be attributed to improper ventilation and impure supply of water; and, if so, whether he will make arrangements to have the defects remedied?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I have ascertained that the number of telegraph clerks at Belfast who died from consumption during the last seven years is 10. But there is no reason to suppose that their deaths are in any way attri-

  971
  butable to want of ventilation in the instrument room or to impurity in the water supply. The Belfast Post Office was recently largely improved at a considerable expense, and the medical officer reports to me that there are no defects to call for remedy.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day appointed fir this Evening be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to Unfulfilled Arrangements of the Congress of Berlin. (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE).
  REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE considered.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not propose to detain the House at any great length on the subject of this Report, because the Motion, with which I intend to conclude, will not be of a final character; but I shall propose to fix to-morrow for the decision of the House as to what steps it may think ought to be taken. I, therefore, would only remind the House that the Report which we have had placed before us is the Report of the Select Committee that was appointed last week for the purpose of inquiring into certain circumstances which had been reported by a Committee on a Private Bill—the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill. The nature of those circumstances is, I think, pretty well known to all the Members of the House. Hon. Members are aware that in the course of the proceedings of that Private Bill Committee some communication was made to the Committee to the effect that a Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell had been making overtures to the solicitors who were engaged in the conduct of the case of one of the parties to that Bill, and had asserted, in the course of his communications, that he had the power to control the proceedings of the Committee. He further stated that he was willing to exercise his power of control on a consideration—namely, the sum of £2,000, which he expected to receive for that purpose. That communication had
  972
  been made in concert with his solicitor, Mr. John Sandilands Ward. A Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances, and as their Report is now in the possession of the House, together with the evidence they have taken, it will be sufficient for my purpose to call the attention of the House to the concluding paragraphs of that Report, which, perhaps, the House will permit me to read. The Committee say—
  "Your Committee, having fully considered the statements presented to them, and having regard to the character of the evidence given by, and the demeanour of, the several witnesses, and the documents produced, have come to the unanimous conclusion that the statements made by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell are true, and that the counter-statements made by Mr. Ward and Mr. Grissell are false; but your Committee do not think it necessary to point out in detail the discrepancies and contradictions with which the evidence of the two last-mentioned witnesses abounds.
  Your Committee are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and in the offer he made to do so, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House.
  And they are also unanimously of opinion that,Mr. Ward was cognizant of, and assisted Mr. Grissell in, the matter of this offer, and was likewise guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House."
  Now, the unanimous finding of that Select Committee is obviously one of very great importance. The charge they make is one of so very grave a nature that it demands the earnest attention of this House. At the same time, I think that the feeling of the House will probably be that in a matter of this kind we ought to proceed with proper deliberation, and I shall, therefore, move—
  "That Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell and Mr. John Sandilands Ward do attend this House Tomorrow, at Twelve o'clock,"
  when the House will decide what further course it will take.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASER: I should like to say a word as to a Question which was put by me when this matter was first brought forward, but which received no answer. A Motion had been made to the effect that Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell attend at the Bar of this House; but that Motion was withdrawn, and I ventured to ask this Question—If Mr. Grissell were not then ordered to attend, what means would there subsequently

  973
  be of forcing his attendance? I have no means of knowing whether Mr. Grissell will appear to-morrow, or not; but, looking at human nature as it usually is, I should say that his appearance here is exceedingly improbable. The matter having been investigated, and circumstances having been alleged that are apparently strongly condemnatory of him, I should think it is most improbable that he will appear, and I venture, therefore, to ask this Question—What means have been taken to ensure his attendance at the Bar of this House to-morrow at 12 o'clock?
  MR. WHITBREAD: Sir, before any answer is made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Question just put to him by the hon. Baronet (Sir William Fraser), I should like to say a few words on this matter. I, for one, am sorry to find that the case is to be treated in the manner proposed, and I should be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the case is not one that ought to be dealt with in the ordinary course of law? It seems to me, on reading the evidence that has been published, that the offence charged against the persons concerned is that of a mere vulgar attempt to obtain money, and I should have thought it raising that offence to too dignified a position to call these two persons to the Bar of this House. I should much have preferred, if it could have been so determined, that the matter should have been dealt with in the ordinary process of the law. If these persons had set themselves up as seriously questioning the Privileges of this House, I could understand that the method now proposed would be the proper way in which the House should deal with the matter; but it seems to me that they do not pretend that there was any justification for the act they committed, and, this being so, and the offence being a vulgar and common attempt to obtain money in a corrupt way, I should have been much better pleased if the case could have been dealt with by the ordinary law.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend (Sir William Fraser) as to what means are to be taken for requiring the attendance of Mr. Grissell at the Bar of this House, I can only say that
  974
  we must wait till we see whether the Order he will receive from Mr. Speaker, and which will be of a peremptory character, is obeyed or not, and then it will be for the House to consider what we shall otherwise do, and it would be unwise to anticipate it. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), I may say that there is, no doubt, something in the point he has raised; but I have consulted my learned Friends the Law Advisers of the Crown in the matter, and they are distinctly of opinion that the case is one which it would be rather difficult to deal with in the ordinary Courts of Law. It having first been brought under the notice of a Committee of this House, then, having been brought by that Committee before this House, and afterwards discussed by a Select Committee appointed for the purpose, and that Committee having reported that there has been a Breach of Privilege, I think it would be difficult now to take the course which the hon. Member for Bedford has suggested. On referring to precedents in relation to such cases, I have found that in former times there have been several in which attempts to influence corruptly the proceedings of this House have been dealt with summarily as Breaches of Privilege.
  MR. CALLAN: May I ask the Attorney General, whether, taking the Report of the Select Committee to be substantially that the statements of Mr. Grissell and Mr. Ward were false—that they have pledged their oaths to false statements—cannot an indictment be formed against them before an ordinary legal tribunal for the offence so committed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): There is no doubt that Mr. Grissell and Mr. Ward have given false evidence before the Committee, and if the fact that they have given false evidence can be substantiated by evidence, they might be convicted and punished for that offence. At the same time, I do not think that that would be a desirable course to take.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell and Mr. John Sandilands Ward do attend this House To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (COMMENCEMENT) BILL— [BILL 248.]
  (Colonel Stanley, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (COMMENCEMENT) BILL— [BILL 248.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee).
    COLONEL STANLEY, in moving the insertion of certain Amendments, said, he could assure the Committee they were only verbal in their nature.
    MR. RYLANDScomplained that these Amendments were not on the Notice Paper, and hon. Members were quite unable to follow what was being done. In the peculiar circumstances in which the Government were now placed in regard to this matter, he would not offer any opposition; but he thought it should he remembered, when these Amendments were not on the Paper, that they had recently heard a good deal from the Government about the inconvenience of moving Amendments without Notice.
    COLONEL STANLEYexpressed his regret that the Amendments were not on the Paper, and repeated his assurance that they were only of a verbal character to remedy defects in the drafting of the Bill.
    Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Repeal of Enactments).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked to what extent this clause repealed the provisions of existing Statutes? None were named, and it seemed to him that if the matter were allowed to pass as it now stood, considerable confusion would arise. They had been told that the Act was passed to simplify the military law; but this clause would, it appeared to him, tend in the reverse direction, and that officers and soldiers would have need to refer to a good many other Acts of Parliament. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could explain some of these matters in his reply.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was afraid it would take up too much time at that moment to explain all the Acts kept alive by the Bill. There were several instances in which Acts of past years had been affected or modified by the Mutiny Acts, and which were finally dealt with by this Bill. The provisions of this Bill were applied by a continuance Bill; but he thought he had stated
    976
    all along that it bore a somewhat different form from what the annual continuance Bill had done, because it had been necessary to take up and weave into the existing Discipline Bill the provisions of all the Acts by which the Forces had been previously governed. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that commanding officers would have to make themselves acquainted with some existing Acts, and he was now directing his attention to the matter. He proposed drawing up, with the Regulations, some memoranda as to what would be the effect of the Act. Of course, when these were completed, there would be no objection to lay a Copy on the Table of the House.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked, what would be the effect of this Bill on the question of the trial of Volunteers by court martial? It was now provided that Volunteers should be triable by courts martial, composed of Volunteer officers and officers of the Regular Service; but by a Bill which had already passed its third reading in this House, and which was now awaiting decision in "another place," this rule did not prevail, and Volunteer officers were only triable by courts martial consisting of Volunteer officers alone. When the Bill was before the House, he drew attention to the subject, and the Attorney General distinctly informed him that the Army Discipline Act would govern all Volunteer Acts, including the Irish Volunteer Act then under discussion, so that Irish Volunteers would be tried by mixed courts martial. He should like to hear from his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War whether he still adhered to that decision?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied in the affirmative. He said, by Clause 7 of this Bill all other Acts which were inconsistent with it were superseded, and they would be still further governed by the regulations which they proposed to introduce.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had not received an answer to his question. What he wished to know was whether existing Acts of Parliament referring to the Army were repealed, or were they still in existence. He would mention one instance. By the Militia Act, Militiamen were not liable to the punishment of death; but, under certain, circumstances, and under the new Act

    977
    which they had now passed, they would be. Was the clause in the Militia Act exempting them from the punishment of death repealed by the Bill now under consideration? He should have thought the reply to such a question might have been distinct.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he must also press for an answer to this question.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he could only once more explain that all these Acts were not repealed, except in so far as they were inconsistent with the express conditions of Acts passed at a later date.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought every allowance ought to be made for the Government, and, therefore, he would not press them upon the point; but he thought another year they might be enabled to set forth the Acts which were repealed in a Schedule to the enacting Bill.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the whole question would be practically dealt with by the Statute Law Revision Commission.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Prices in respect of billeting).
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved to increase the amount of the marching allowance of officers from 2s. to 5s. per day. The present allowance was, he said, utterly inadequate to meet the necessary expenses on the march—in fact, it was an utterly ridiculous sum. He hoped to hear from the Government that they would take the matter into consideration.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported.
    COLONEL STANLEY, on the ground of the great urgency of the matter, appealed to the House to allow the Standing Orders to be dispensed with in order that the Bill might pass through its remaining stages. This was absolutely necessary in order that the measure might receive the Royal Assent by Friday, when the old Act expired.
    Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 126.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 126.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for the Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: It is now some time since the Bill was introduced, and since it has been before the House I have received a great number of communications both from Members of the House and from other persons. I think there seems to be a very general agreement among those who are interested, so far, at all events, as the banks are concerned, that it is desirable to pass, without any further loss of time, a measure for the purpose of enabling those banks which are now unlimited to re-register themselves as limited banks. The House is aware of the nature of the inconvenience which has been found to arise in many cases from unlimited liability. One of the effects of it has been to alarm a good many persons who had hitherto been willing to take shares in banks, and who, being persons of substantial character, have, of course, been very desirable partners in those concerns, but who are alarmed at the possibility of their being mulcted of the whole or the greater part of their fortunes by failure, and are very anxious that the banks to which they belong should have the advantage of limited liability. It being perfectly well understood that those banks might originally have been registered as limited, but have been in point of fact registered, as unlimited, it is now found that they cannot alter their position so as to obtain the advantages of limited liability. Therefore, the main point of this Bill was to enable banks in that position to convert their liability from unlimited to limited liability. Then it was a second point, that we thought it desirable, not merely to give such banks as might desire to avail themselves of it the power of limiting themselves on the principle of the Joint Stock Companies Act, which exactly limits the liability to the amount of the shares, but also to enable them to form themselves on the principle which would give them a certain fixed liability over and above the nominal

    979
    amount of the shares. For that purpose we introduced into this Bill the system of what are called Reserve Liability Companies. Upon that question, upon the use of the word "Reserve," and upon the question as to what limitation there should be to the power of fixing the amount of reserve, and as to the means by which different kinds of banks should avail themselves of that power, there has been a certain amount of difference of opinion. I think, however, that the difference is not very serious in reality, and that by a little discussion in this House we should find that we could come to a satisfactory agreement upon the matter. Still, undoubtedly, it is a question of some interest, and not altogether free from disputable points. With regard to some of the other provisions of the Bill—as to the mode of publishing the accounts, and the auditing of the accounts, I think there has been in substance a tolerably general agreement that it was desirable to have provisions of that nature, although there have been a good many criticisms on the particular form of account in the Schedule of this Bill, and, no doubt, it is open to considerable improvement. There is one point in the Bill which has caused a considerable amount of anxiety, and even agitation, in certain parts of the United Kingdom; and I see by the Notices which are on the Paper that all the opposition which is offered to this Bill on the second reading comes, in fact, from those who are interested in the Scotch and Irish banks. The proposal in the 8th clause of the Bill, that the banks availing themselves of this Bill should be registered in that part of the United Kingdom in which they have their places of business, is one upon which there has been a good deal of feeling, and I must admit that very strong objections have been urged against it. I could not undertake, at the present time of the Session, to go into this large question of the Scotch and Irish banks. We know that, in 1844, Sir Robert Peel dealt first with the question of the English banks of issue, and in the following year brought in a measure dealing with the Scotch and Irish banks. I think, therefore, under the circumstances of the Session, and the character of the obstacles that stand in the way of the passing of a Bill of this nature, it will be better that it
    980
    should be confined to England. I propose, therefore, to confine this Bill to England, leaving out everything we have proposed in the 8th clause with reference to the Scotch and Irish banks, and looking forward to next Session to be able to deal with the subject in a more comprehensive way, if it should be possible, with regard to the question of the Scotch and Irish banks. Under these circumstances, I hope that the House will agree to what I am about to propose—namely, that after the second reading, the Bill should be committed pro formâ, so that it may be re-printed with certain Amendments. The principal point which has been under consideration has been with regard to this reserve liability. I said, when we introduced the Bill, that we were not wedded to that particular title, and that I was ready to consider any other proposals that might be made to me on the subject. I am bound to say that my invitation has been very freely accepted, and a very large number of suggestions have been made, some of them wholly inconsistent with the proposal of the Bill, while others seem to me to vary very little from it. I am, therefore, prepared, subject to any decision in Committee as to the actual terms to be used, still to adhere to that title. The effect of it would be that we should have three classes of banks—namely, (1), limited banks; (2), unlimited banks; and (3), the reserve liability banks. I do not myself think that it would be very convenient to dispense with that third class. If you are to have a class of banks in which the liability should be not limited to the amount of the shares, and not unlimited, but something between the two, I think it is desirable that it should be distinguished by a separate name. But if it is to be so distinguished, then we have this point urged upon us. The unlimited banks say—"We may be ready to convert ourselves into reserve liability banks;" but the limited banks say—"We are not authorized by this Bill to turn ourselves into reserve liability banks, and, therefore, we may be in a position of some disadvantage." This objection of the limited banks has a great deal of force in it; and I, therefore, propose that power should be given to all classes of banks equally to avail themselves, if they choose, of this new provision. Then, comments have been made upon the de-

    981
    finition, or rather regulation, in Subsection 3 of the 8th clause which defines the amount of liability. At present, it states that the amount of reserve liability attaching to each share should be regulated by the amount of such share, and should be a sum equal to, or some multiple of, the nominal amount of the share in respect of which it is payable. What I should propose would be to provide simply that the reserve liability should not be less than half the nominal capital. Then, there are certain unlimited banks which are in this position, that they have a very large nominal capital and only a small proportion of it paid-up, and they say—"If we were to turn ourselves into Reserve Liability Companies, there might be some difficulty as to what the amount should be;" and a wish has been expressed, on the part of some of them, that they should have the power of reducing their nominal capital. I therefore, propose, that some such clause as this should be drawn—that, at the time at which any bank now registered, either as limited or unlimited, desires to re-register as a reserve liability bank, it should have power to reduce its nominal capital to an amount not less than twice the amount of the paid-up capital at that moment. I think that will be found to meet the case of several of these banks. I will not, however, ask the House to discusss this suggestion merely upon a statement made vivavoce. In accordance with what I have said, I think it would be convenient that I should be allowed to take the second reading of the Bill now, and put it into the shape in which I propose that it should stand, and then we will give time for its consideration when it is in print, and be able to have it discussed in Committee of the Whole House. If that course were adopted, I do not believe that it would take any excessive time to pass the Bill, and I think it would be for the advantage of the banking and mercantile community that such a Bill should pass.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad, indeed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has enabled me to dispense with, moving the particular
    982
    Amendment which I have on the Paper by his withdrawing the 8th clause of the Bill; but I am not quite sure that the mode in which he spoke of withdrawing it will enable me to withdraw all opposition to the Bill. If I understood him aright, he stated that he meant to drop Scotland out of the Bill altogether, and, in that case, I shall certainly oppose the Bill to the best of my power. I do not see why Scotland should be precluded from adopting the principle of reserve liability altogether. The proposal now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is altogether and completely changed from what it was in the first instance. Formerly, the proposal was that any bank in England, Ireland, or Scotland, might adopt the principle of reserved liability; and now it is to be left only to the English banks to adopt it, while neither the Scotch nor the Irish banks are to be allowed to adopt it at all. Under these circumstances, if I have understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal aright, I think it becomes the duty of the Scotch and Irish Members entirely to oppose the passing of this Bill. There is another method in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well have altered his Bill, and so have given us what we wanted—namely, he might have simply dropped out the 8th clause and nothing more. That would have been a very simple thing to do, and would not have prejudiced anybody. That is a clause which was objected to as being unjust and inexpedient, as putting upon Scotch and Irish banks a most unfair disability, as attempting to rob certain banks of a certain amount of business which they have created, and which is of great value to them, without any kind of compensation being given. The 8th clause was in every sense an unjust proposal, and all that we ask is that the 8th clause should be dropped out of the Bill. If that is done, we would not ask for any other changes. At the same time, we would not object to others, and I am bound to admit that the change which allows a limited bank to become less limited is a very good change, and one of which I quite approve; and I think it is also very likely that the change in the amount of the reserve liability, not being a multiple, is also an improvement; but, as far as it is to be a privilege which is

    983
    to be given to the English unlimited banks to take advantage of, and which is to be denied both to Scotland and Ireland, I feel bound to continue my opposition to the Bill just as much as before. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should adopt this means of dealing with the question, and if he does so, I believe he would find the Bill would be passed with great facility; while, if it is not adopted, I believe we should be able to baffle him and prevent its passing, and I certainly shall do my best to carry this out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says we oppose him in the interest of banks. Well, that is all very well; but I take my action in the interest of justice, and nothing else. I have no interest in any bank at all; on the contrary, I disapprove of the action of many of them.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not intend to imply that the hon. Member was personally interested in any bank.
    MR. ANDERSON: I simply want to say that I do not act at all in the interest or on the request of any Scotch banks; I act simply in the interests of justice, because the proposal to be made in the Bill was a thoroughly unjust one. I do not approve of the Scotch banks coming to London, nor of the Scotch banks having their monopoly almost intensified by their coming to London; but I disapprove of the principle of robbing them of the business which, under the law, they have established and created there. By coming to London, no doubt, they bring Scotch capital away from Scotland and employ it in London, and I cannot approve of their coming here to London and discounting at somewhere about ¾ per cent, while in Scotland they are discounting at some 4 or 5 per cent. I do not approve of Scotch capital coming here to be employed in favouring English merchants by discounting at ¾ per cent while Scotch merchants are made to pay 4 and 5 per cent. That is a wrong principle altogether, and one which I should be glad to see put a stop to. If their coming to London was the cause of that, I might have thought they should be prevented from doing so; but, unfortunately, they did it equally before there was any at tempt to prevent them from coming, and before they did come. As an instance of that, I may mention that one of the
    984
    Scotch banks lost a large sum of money by discounting some of the Messrs. Collie and Co's. paper, and at that time the Scotch bank that did so had no branch in London. I disapprove of them discounting here, because it enables them to keep up their charges in Scotland. Another change which I should like to see in this Bill would be to introduce a clause which should get rid of the bank monopoly in Scotland and enable us to have free banking there. The Scotch banks always talk very largely about free banking, and boasted of it in their Memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but they do not give us free banking, and we have not got it in Scotland. Therefore, I am in this position, that I want to prevent an injustice being done to the Scotch banks, while I do not approve of the Scotch monopoly which is established, and which I should be glad to see abolished. This, I am aware, cannot be done by this Bill; and, as the best that can be done, I, therefore, hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the present case, will agree to put all the banks in the United Kingdom on one footing by simply dropping out this obnoxious 8th clause, without dropping out either Scotland or Ireland.
    MR. HERMONthought this Bill would be much more acceptable to the public if directors, who were paid officials, and those who signed the prospectuses, were obliged to incur a greater amount of liability than the shareholders. When they recollected that it was generally through the bad and careless management or the misconduct of the directors that misfortune ensued, he thought there was a good case for making the directors liable to the shareholders for the losses they might incur. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would introduce some clause in the Bill to provide for the liability on the part of the directors, it would give greater security to the public, and the public would have greater confidence in the undertakings; while the directors, by the stake they had in the success of a company, would pay greater attention to its affairs, and, on the whole, would conduce to the success of the undertaking. He wanted the public to have the additional security and assurance that their interests would be regarded, and to feel that by the knowledge of the fact that the directors would be mulcted

    985
    in accordance with the loss sustained by a company or a bank.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he was greatly disappointed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill. If there was one part of United Kingdom which more than another required a reform in the principles of liability it was Scotland. At the present moment, many of the holders of bank stocks, particularly trustees and executors, in consequence of recent decisions by the Law Courts, felt themselves in a very awkward position. One of the objects of the Bill was, apparently, to force the Scottish banks to give up their business in London. But, whatever might be the faults of these institutions in coming to London, if there were a fault, it was not fair that they should be compelled to withdraw, as it were, by a side-wind, especially as such a proceeding was not necessary to cure the evils complained of. A deputation of a very influential character had waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the case of some of the Scottish banks. He wished it to be borne in mind that it was not the case of the Scottish banks alone that had to be dealt with by the House, but the case of the Scottish people also; and the Scottish banks were, in many respects, at issue with the Scottish people. The latter had suffered by the closeness of the monopoly enjoyed by the banks, as well as from the unlimited nature of their liability. They had, therefore, rejoiced to think that, in connection with this Bill, they had an opportunity of bringing their grievances fairly and distinctly before the House. The main question, however, was the giving power to change from unlimited to limited liability, and he (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) would confine himself to it; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after learning the expression of feeling which was pretty general among the Scottish Members, did not withdraw his proposal for excluding Scotland from the benefits of the Bill, he (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) would be under the necessity of pressing to a Division the Amendment which he now formally moved—namely, "That this Bill be read a second time that day three months."
    DR. CAMERON, in rising to second the Motion, said, that so far as Scotland
    986
    was concerned, the matter was not so easily dealt with as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to imagine. It was an easy thing to drop out the 8th clause, intended to drive the Scotch Banks out of London; but the real difficulty of dealing with Scotland under these circumstances was that there were in Scotland another class of banks to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not referred, which had already their liability limited, but did not use the word limited as an appendage to their titles. There were the Chartered banks, which were already limited; but they did not require to change their name, and as long as they could dispense with the necessity of changing their name, the other banks could not afford to make a change which would lead the public to consider that they occupied an inferior position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the matter from a far too exclusive London point of view. When he came to deal with Ireland, he would find the same difficulty staring him in the face as that presented in Scotland. In Ireland there were also banks limited by Royal Charter, and unless the Irish banks were very different from the Scotch banks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find some other means of dealing with them. In the present Bill, three subjects had been dealt with in a very fragmentary and unsatisfactory manner, and the one subject which called most urgently for the Government to grapple with it had been left untouched. With regard to the proposed method of limitation, as he had explained to the House, it was a method which might be popular, and which might be adopted by banks here, but which could not be adopted in Scotland, and could not be adopted to any great extent in Ireland. That was one unsatisfactory feature in the Bill. He did not know whether under the Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the reserve liability banks should be obliged on all occasions to parade the title of reserve liability after their name. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman if that were so? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] It seemed to him (Dr. Cameron) that a very simple way out of the difficulty was open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not see why it was necessary to maintain the word limited at the end of the title of a limited

    987
    liability company. It was simply misleading. The great majority of the limited liability companies at present in existence had not that word appended to their names. There were railway companies which were limited; water companies, gas companies; and there were also a large number of banking companies which were limited without the necessity of having the word limited attached to their title. That was the case of three or four Scotch banks; with the Bank of Ireland; in fact, it was so with all the Chartered banks. As to the new proposal of limitation by reserve, it was really nothing more than that proposal contained in the Act of 1862, which provided for limitation by guarantee. But he was told that an interpretation of the law had been given to the effect that limitation by guarantee was personal only, and did not extend to future shareholders. That, however, was a difficulty which could easily have been got over by a short Declaratory Clause. He did not wish to attach any great weight to this point. What he did object to in this proposal was, that it introduced another form of liability to the already too complicated form of limited companies. There were already a great number of limitations, and now it was proposed to establish a limitation by reserve. It was quite impossible for the public to thoroughly understand how the liability of any given concern stood, and this was especially the case with the Chartered banks. He had, some time ago, desired to get a Return bearing on the subject, and he was told that the Charters were public documents. He had the curiosity to go to the Record Office for the purpose of investigating them. He found that the Charters were wound up in long rolls, and were of such a great length, that they could not possibly be completely examined in any office of ordinary size. When they had found out what they wanted in a particular Charter, they might probably find themselves referred to some provision in an earlier one of, perhaps, equallength. The system was so complicated and cumbrous, that they might spend a week in finding out the precise measure of limitation of a given bank; and yet it was now proposed to add another complication to this already far too complicated system. As to the liability of the shareholders, he was at one with the right
    988
    hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed with him that unlimited liability occasioned a danger of frightening good shareholders out of the proprietary of banks. But the difficulty of both Scotch and Irish banks would be met by doing away with the necessity of using the word "limited" after the title; and this proposal would equally meet the requirements of England. There was one point painfully brought out in connection with the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank, and which ought to be dealt with in any Bill attempting legislation on this subject. Over and above the note issue authorized to the banks in Scotland and Ireland, the banks were allowed to issue any amount of notes on condition that they held a reserve of gold against that issue. Under the Bank Act of 1844, the Treasury were empowered to inspect the gold reserve. He did not know whether they ever had done so—["No"!]—but, at all events, when the City of Glasgow Bank came down, it was discovered that the gold was not there. Mark the effect of the system! You put a positive premium on false returns, and took no means to check it. If a bank kept half-a-million of gold against half-a-million of notes issued, they gained nothing by it; but if they did not keep it, they netted £25,000 a-year by the transaction. Any Bill in this direction should take steps to make this supposed security a real one, and not, as at present, a mere temptation to make false returns. Another important point was this. If the bank had gold in hand when it came down, it now appeared that that gold was part of the general assets, and was no more applicable to the redemption of notes than the bank building. This was a subject that ought to be handled in a banking bill, for it was of the utmost importance to the public interest. With regard to the proposed system of audit, that had been the feature in the Bill which had recommended it to the benevolent consideration of the public out-of-doors, yet, if the public out-of-doors only looked at the thing, they would see that there was not a greater fallacy, delusion—a sham, if he might say so—than the audit proposed by the Bill. Nine-tenths of the banks at present had all the audit they would have under the Bill, but no one was the wiser for it. The radical

    989
    defect in the present system was that the auditors were the nominees of the directors. He did not mean to say that they would willingly pass false returns, but they did not examine fully into the accounts. Things were made pleasant, and they found their salaries paid the more willingly the less work they did, and an audit took place which was popularly known as the "sherry-and-sand-wich" audit. This Bill provided for a little extension of that sherry-and-sand-wich audit, and nine-tenths of the banks had that audit already. He did not mean to say that auditors were not nominally in Limited Liability Banks appointed by the shareholders; but, in almost every case, the directors held proxies and controlled the appointment of auditors. The next provision in connection with this point was the publication of accounts. There was nothing more important for the security of the public than the publication of detailed accounts. Nothing that could be devised allowed the public so good an opportunity of knowing whether a concern was rotten or sound as a detailed, a minutely-detailed, system of published accounts. But statements of the kind proposed by the Bill might have been published by every one of the banks that had come to grief within the last 12 months without anybody being much the wiser. How was the City of Glasgow Bank brought to grief? Millions of money were given to some half-a-dozen different persons. The bank held its own shares to an enormous extent, thereby increasing the liability of its outside shareholders, and bolstering up the shares to a fictitious price, which utterly misled the public. Would a form of the kind proposed by the Bill have disclosed this? Not in the least; the bank would have come out of the ordeal equal to the best in the country. What was there to prevent banks being required to show how many of their own shares they held, and why not compel them to state how many debtors they had over a certain sum—say, £100,000 or £150,000? If that had been done, there would have been few cases in which the banks which had come to grief would not have been pulled up long before they really collapsed. Another and still more important point in connection with the City of Glasgow Bank was, how did it invest its money? Why, in Govern-
    990
    ment and other securities. But the "other securities" embraced wholesale investments in Australian Land Companies and American Railway mortgages, which were utterly unmarketable. Why not make it a necessity that there should be a detailed statement of these? Half-a-dozen banks already did this without any pressure. There was the Birmingham Joint Stock Bank, a perfect model in that respect, which issued details of every security held by them. The next example he would give as illustrating his position was the unfortunate Caledonian Bank, which came to grief through no fault of its own, but owing to a piece of carelessness which, but for the calamitous consequences, would have been thought venial. It held four shares of the Glasgow Bank. Now, if they had been compelled to publish a detailed list of securities, did they not think that almost to a moral certainty this would have been prevented? It held shares in most of the Scottish Banks, as well as the City of Glasgow. Its balance sheet would have been examined; anyone would have seen the risk; there would have been no inducement to leave money in such investments. The directors' attention being called to the fact that if any single Scottish bank failed, the Caledonian must be brought down, the bank would have been saved. Again, take the case of the West of England Bank. If it had been necessary to publish, a statement of the number and amount of accounts of over £100,000 or £150,000, it would have speedily been known to what an extent the money in the bank was locked up. If it had been necessary to publish a detailed list of securities, shareholders and the public would have known how deeply they were bound up in the Aberdare and Plymouth Ironworks scheme. Take two other banks, both, he was happy to say, still going on, and likely to, but which had had significant warnings as to the necessity of looking into their accounts. The Oriental Bank not long ago stood in a ticklish position. Their shares suffered a severe fall, and it came out that the bank held, classed among their "other securities," a large quantity of Chilian bonds, and it further came out that not sufficient allowance had been made for the rates of exchange. Why not require banks to state the rate of exchange

    991
    at which they took foreign money in their published accounts? Again, the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India suffered a severe drop in its shares shortly after the events in connection with the Ottoman Bank to which he had referred, and it then transpired that the bank had speculated extensively in silver, and held silver to an enormous value. The silver had fallen heavily; but nothing to indicate this appeared in the accounts, which were rendered still more misleading by the valuation of the rupee at much above its real price. And yet, with the Bill before them in operation, the Government balance sheet might have been filled in without the public receiving one additional ray of information as to the real state of things. For all the reasons he had given, the Bill seemed to him a very weak Bill altogether. The addition of the audit clause, and the publication of accounts, which made the Bill go down with the public, were really hardly worth the paper they were written on. Certainly, in the case of nine banks out of ten, as at present existing, they would not improve matters in the slightest; and to show the perfect absurdity of the proposition, it was only necessary to point out that this audit and publication of accounts did not extend to all banks—not to Chartered banks, not to ordinary limited banks, but only to those that might register themselves as limited by reserve, and to such banks as might be established after the passing of the Act. Other proposals in the Bill were harmless—they might have the effect of postponing effective legislation for some years to come—but probably that would be the effect under any circumstances. But, altogether, the Bill was brought in in a shape so as not to apply to that portion of the Kingdom where there was the most necessity for it. In England they had numerous limited liability banks and Chartered banks, and though they had a large number of unlimited ones—even the Bank of England was limited—in Scotland the number of unlimited banks was excessively great. But if the Chartered banks did change their title, the other banks would not. Why not adopt his suggestion that the law should stand so that every bank throughout the Kingdom should act as seemed best without consulting its neighbour? Why not do away with
    992
    the necessity that existed for a fraction merely of limited banks to append limited to their name? It seemed to him that, as a matter of fact, the larger number of limited companies at the present moment did not require to use the word limited after their name. What, then, was the necessity of keeping up a false presumption that every company not ear-marked as limited was unlimited? It was only this that prevented the whole thing being settled in a single clause in a way that would satisfy all English banks, while it would allow Scotch and Irish banks to come under it. Under the circumstances, he was inclined to second the proposal to reject the Bill with more warmth than it was proposed by his hon. Friend.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAadmitted that much of what he was about to say would be applicable to a Motion to reject the Bill. He hesitated, however, to condemn it altogether, so long as the House had the power and disposition to make it suitable to the circumstances of the country. He would be wasting time, if he were to enter on details to prove that the Bill was simply one outcome of the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. He apprehended that there would be no serious contention on that point, and he would rather trust to the common sense of the House to concur in that proposition—namely, that the movement of the public mind which led to this attempt at legislation was occasioned by the panic or uneasiness consequent amongst shareholders of the unlimited banks on the failure of the City of Glasgow Company. The next consideration was to inquire what would have been the effect in the case of the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank if such a measure as that before the House had been passed by Parliament four or five years ago, and had been availed of by the City of Glasgow Bank two or three years before its failure? He would repeat that question in another form, for his main argument largely

    993
    turned upon it. What, he would ask, would have been the effect, what would be now the state of things, if the Glasgow Bank had, two or three years ago, availed itself of such a law as that which they were asked to pass? The answer was simple, that it would have varied and extended the area of desolation. It would have left almost scathless many wealthy men who had reaped large profits by the bank, and it would have impoverished an immensely greater number of persons who would now, as creditors, be paid in full. Who was to assess which result would be the less calamitous? No one could show that this measure could make banks more prudent than hitherto; and, as it could not do so, it could only vary the incidence of loss whenever a calamity occurred; it could only do this by shifting the burden of loss from those who were entitled to the profits, and by casting it on creditors who, as matters now stood, were tolerably safe from any such overwhelming calamity. As it happened in the present case, all this was capable of exact demonstration. What had occurred in the case of the City of Glasgow Bank might occur in the future in some other equally extensive bank after this Bill had become law. The capital of the City of Glasgow Bank was £1,000,000 sterling paid up. It failed in October last. Its constitution was one of unlimited liability. Let them now inquire what amount of reserved liability it should have provided for, in order to meet the claims and pay its creditors in full. The amount of reserved liability which should have been provided for in order to enable the liquidators of the City of Glasgow Bank to pay 20 s. in the pound to their creditors should have been £27,500,000, and this notwithstanding that the total deficiency of assets to meet liabilities was £7,000,000 only. Let hon. Members reflect on what actually occurred in the Glasgow Bank case. The first call made by the liquidators was £500 for each £100 share. That call would have exhausted a reserve liability of a multiple of five times the actual capital—that was to say, a reserve liability of £5,000,000; but that call, though quite sufficient to impoverish a great number of the shareholders, fell lamentably short of what the circumstances demanded; so a second call had to be made of £2,250 in respect of each £100 share; and even when this was
    994
    done an appeal to the creditors had to be made to accept something short of 20 s. in the pound. The next question was, what would have been the consequences to the creditors of the City of Glasgow Bank if it had been a reserve liability bank, with a reserve capital equal by computation to a multiple of five times its actual capital? Would they not have been disastrous? Had the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind that it would have been better, on the occasion of the failure which occurred, that the calamity should have fallen broadcast over Scotland, rather than that it should have fallen in the pitiable manner they knew of on the unfortunate shareholders? For his own part, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) believed that the greater evil had been averted; for if the thousands of creditors—a body immensely more numerous than the shareholders—had to suffer, distrust would have spread to all other credit institutions, and the evil effects would have been felt in this country, and in Ireland, perhaps, as much as in Scotland. There was another consideration which weighed on his mind, to which he would ask attention. No attempt was made in this Bill, either to limit the amount of indebtedness a bank might incur or the amount of dividend it might declare. But the solvency of a bank, and of banks generally, could only be maintained by continuous attention to the amount of actual indebtedness, and its ratio to the paid-up capital, and by taking care that the dividends did not exceed actual profits, which could only bed one by accumulating a fund out of apparent profits sufficient to cover the risk on current business in the worst of seasons. The Bill before the House touched none of these points, and yet he ventured to say they were as pressing and as important to the community at large as were those interests which the framers of the Bill desired to safeguard. Why should a trader, whether an individual or a Company, be allowed the privilege of contracting an unlimited amount of debt, and of dividing an unlimited amount of profit on the basis that he or it was unlimitedly liable; and then suddenly, when the business was in full swing, be allowed to restrict his liability for the future, without having placed upon him or on the Company any restriction whatever as to the extent of his or their future indebtedness, or as to the degree

    995
    to which they might year by year deplete their estates by inordinate distribution of apparent rather than of real profits? He was prepared for a certain species of answer to this question. He would be told that the present Bill proposed to leave all present creditors in the position which they now occupied of having their recourse as against shareholders of an unlimited Company; and that if they, the creditors, were to be placed in a different position with respect to future deposits, they must be presumed to know the law, and to take knowingly, with the inferior security—to take the consequences. But was this really so? Well, all of them knew what had been done. Was it not of the very essence of this legislation that it was intended to enable banks to limit the liability of their shareholders, and yet avoid being classed as limited liability banks? The existing creditors of the bank undergoing transformation were to have no formal notice of what was being done. It was to be inserted in The Gazette and in a newspaper; and the creditors would be told, probably at the same time, by the same newspapers, that they were all quite safe, for the Act did not limit the liability of the bank to existing creditors. He would now explain how all that would work. The period of vigilance being once passed, the depositor would come in at the end of the half-year to get the interest on his deposit. The old deposit and interest would be paid him in the usual pro formâ way, and he would get a new receipt for his principal money, possibly of the same amount, possibly for more or less than the old receipt. Whereupon the protection of the 5th section—sub-section 5—of the Bill was wholly gone, and the depositor would stand henceforth as a creditor, with inferior security, but without any consciousness of the change. He did not object to the limitation of the liability of the shareholders, if those concerned as creditors were made to understand exactly what was being done, and expressly consented that the nature of the obligation of the shareholders should be radically altered. There was nothing in the Bill to provide that such notice should be given. He had explained how the thing would actually work. There were numerous deposits in all the large unlimited liability banks, which were, in an equitable
    996
    sense, unchanged for years. Nevertheless, there were scarcely any which were, in a strictly legal sense, more than a year old; and for this reason they were, for technical convenience, continually being paid off and re-lodged, sometimes re-lodged with additions, sometimes only partly re-deposited. He wanted to know what provision was made that the creditor, who would pursue in the future the system he had been accustomed to do in the past, should know that a radical, and possibly a fatal, change had been effected in the character of the security on which he had relied? There was no such provision in the Bill. Quite the contrary. The 7th section of the Bill was that which prescribed the process whereby an unlimited bank might be transformed into a reserve liability company. It dispensed altogether with that species of intelligible notice which a Court of Equity would prescribe before it permitted any individual debtor to divest himself of liability to his creditor in whole or in part. All that was required in the way of notice was an advertisement in The Gazette, which few ever read, and the publishing an advertisement for four weeks in a local newspaper, in which it might so happen that there would appear contemporaneously an article to inform its readers that the change in question was a formal matter, which did not affect existing depositors, no matter how long they might keep their money on deposit. He wished the House to bear in mind that the local paper which published such an assurance would be only stating what was literally true, and yet essentially misleading; for, as he had already explained, the 5th sub-section of Clause 5 provided that the limitation of liability should not apply to any debts or liability of the Company contracted prior to its registration. This was the dangerous sedative which would be made use of to lull all apprehensions until the transition had been accomplished. Custom and routine of business would do the rest, and no one—perhaps he should rather say very few—would appreciate what had been done, or forecast the results, until a bad season produced a crash entailing a far more numerous set of victims than even the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank produced amongst its shareholders. He could not see any sufficient reason for

    997
    all this. Either the banks were safe, or they were not. If they were safe—that was to say, if the paid-up capital and the general assets of a bank were sufficient to enable it to pay its way—no harm could be done by allowing the shareholder to remain in the position he elected to occupy until he removed himself in the ordinary way. But if the banks were not safe, that was the very opposite to a valid reason for allowing the shareholders to divest themselves of their liability in a new and abnormal fashion. There were, however, some who said that the shareholders generally of a bank could not know for certain whether the banks were safe or not, and they—or so many of them as were good for anything—would sell out their shares if they could not limit their liability, and thus a less solvent class of shareholders would replace the present, and they would have a class of shareholders in future from whom, in case of emergency, less could be recovered than might be obtainable on the plan now proposed. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) doubted this altogether, and was quite convinced that it was wholly erroneous. There was no evidence—literally none whatever—to lead to any such conclusion. But, under the present system, let this be borne in mind—they had the security, such as it was, that the directors, who must be shareholders, were un-limitedly liable. Every director of an unlimited bank now knew that he was liable to his last farthing in the world, not merely for his own default, but for the misdeeds of his colleagues, if he trusted too much to them, and if they, from ignorance or otherwise, brought about a catastrophe. Were they about, also, to diminish the responsibility of directors? The present Bill, unless his (Sir Joseph M'Kenna's) Amendment to continue the unlimited liability of directors were accepted, would utterly sweep away the main source of such security as they had at present. If the present Bill were passed into law as it stood, they would have in the future directors of banks which had millions and scores of millions of money divesting themselves of all but the merest fraction of liability for the obligations which they had contracted. The directors of a bank ought to remain unlimitedly liable. They had the best means of knowing whether the Company was in a sound or
    998
    a dangerous condition. If they did not really know, they were unfit for their position—they were blind guides, and worse than blind guides, if they assumed to discharge the duties of an office in which vigilance was as indispensable as honesty. If some such condition as this did not apply to directors, he would regard the Bill as creating a new danger.
    MR. HEYGATEsaid, he had heard with considerable regret the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down; because he was sure that the Bill, in the modified form proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would meet a grievance which had been very generally felt, and that it would be very gratefully received by a large portion of the commercial community of the country. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done a very wise thing, after the last discussion, in eliminating that portion of the Bill which related to Scotland and Ireland. Let him remind hon. Members from Scotland and Ireland that no injustice whatever was done to them by the Bill being passed in reference to England alone. It would leave them in just the same position as they were before, and they would not be damaged in the slightest degree. Next year, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to attack the issuing power of Scotch and Irish banks as had been suggested, it would be found that English Members would be quite ready to come down and lend their assistance in opposing such a proposal; and he thought that Scotch Members would do very unwisely in attempting, at the present moment, to prevent England from obtaining what she wanted, merely because their own desires could not be quite satisfied. Such conduct would be a "dog in the manger" policy, and would do no good to either party. In the form the Bill would assume when it came to be amended in Committee, it would confer upon the shareholders of English banks a simple act of justice. Those shareholders did not ask for any special privilege or favour. What they did ask for was that an unintended disability should be removed. A law was now in existence which enabled all banks to adopt limited liability; but by one provision of that law those banks, which had been registered under it for some minor purposes, were unable to be re-registered so as to

    999
    obtain the benefit of limited liability. It was not a matter of favour or of generosity that was sought. What was asked for was, that that which was the result of accident and which occasioned what he had called an unintended liability should be removed. He would not follow hon. Members who had spoken through the details of the Bill; but was willing to admit that what had been said as to the auditing of accounts and the liability of directors was well worthy of consideration when they reached the Committee stage. He was no great believer in the safeguards which had been suggested, or in the possibility of the Bill providing against all danger of loss. He quite agreed that it was necessary, as had been argued, that "the public should be kept safe;" but what was required for true security was a solvent set of shareholders and a solvent and honest set of directors. The public would be much safer in having to deal with a substantial proprietary and directorate of a bank of limited liability than they would in the case of a bank of unlimited liability, the shareholders of which would, perhaps, be nowhere when calls were wanted. After the fearful disclosures that had lately been made and the panic which resulted from them, he did not think they would be able to retain or secure the substantial and solvent class of shareholders and directors which was desired if unlimited liability banks were not allowed to be registered, so as to limit the liability of their shareholders under the Joint Stock Companies Act, pursuant to the provisions of the Bill. He hoped that hon. Members from Scotland would not interpose in the way of a measure which was very much desired in this country, which would be simply an act of justice, and which certainly would not be in favour of any particular class, but for the general advantage of the community.
    MR. RATHBONEconsidered it very desirable that the Bill should apply to the three countries alike; but those who had listened to the able speech of the junior Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) must have perceived the difficulties there were in the way of carrying out legislation on the subject in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had promised to bring in a Bill to deal with the banks of Scotland, and he hoped the Scotch Members would
    1000
    not prevent the Bill being passed, but would give the measure under consideration the best support they could. He must say that any Committees he had sat upon for England had impressed him with the opinion that if they could bring the practical mind of Scotland to bear upon any one question a practical solution of it would be worked out of much benefit to England. When they heard from the junior Member for Glasgow how many difficulties there were as affecting the Scotch banks, one could not but think that the Scotch banking classes, if they would devote some time to the consideration of the whole subject, and give the Government the benefit of their deliberations, would work out an example which would be of the greatest advantage to the whole country; but, supposing this were not practicable, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw a chance of dealing with the Scotch system at present, then he had a suggestion to make which would facilitate dealing with the question in Scotland, and make their banking system much sounder. By Clause 9, those banks which were banks of issue as well as of deposit, were allowed to adopt a limited liability on reserving an unlimited liability for notes of issue. That did not appear to be the right way of dealing with the question. He was quite sure that anyone who had been watching banks must have felt that there was a great danger in the present system of issue by private banks. When the power of issue was given to those banks a great many of them were very different from what they were now. A bank might go on, wealthy partners might retire from it, and the talent which previously carried it on might disappear; but still the bank might go on with its peculiar privilege of issuing notes not possessed by other banks. Now, supposing some of these banks, becoming weaker, and less well managed, and hanging by a thread, were to stop in such a time of crisis as last autumn? What would be the effect? There would be a crisis of the general banking system. Now, it seemed to him, when any of these banks desired to possess a new privilege, they had a right to ask that they be put upon a safer footing; and he contended that no bank should be allowed to possess this especial privilege (except the Bank of England, which

    1001
    gave security) without depositing with the Government, as in some other countries, Consols for the amount of the entire issue. Look what a great danger that would remove. If everybody who held notes—and those who held notes were the least informed part of the community, and most liable to make a rush on the bank—if they knew that there was Government security for every note they held, the danger of a run upon issue banks for payment of notes would be absolutely done away with. That great danger would be avoided. He believed a measure of this kind would be popular, being a security both to the banks and the people, and the 3 per cent that the banks would get on their Consols would pay them. This he ventured to throw out as a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a sounder and safer mode of dealing with the banks of issue which desired to become limited. There was only another point to which he wished to advert—the question of the balance-sheets. Now, he confessed he did not place unlimited confidence in the issue of a balance-sheet; but, surely, the system ought to be one under which sound information should be afforded. If they were to issue a balance-sheet, they ought to make it thoroughly good; and he ventured to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a model, though it might not be perfect, the balance-sheet recently issued by the Union Bank. It gave an amount of detail not at unreasonable length. Such balance-sheets ought to issue at least every time the dividends were paid, and if the accounts were obliged, to be verified by a certain number of directors—if they were verified by the signatures of a certain number of directors that they themselves had examined the securities, and that they were as stated, there would be some security as to the genuineness of the information, especially if such a statement were in the form of a statutory declaration, so that in. case of intentional concealment, or culpable negligence, an indictable offence would be committed. He had no desire to detain the House on this important subject; but he thought the suggestions he had made were such as might be taken into consideration by the Government.
    MR. GARFITsaid, that he apprehended the main object of the Bill was to enable unlimited Joint Stock
    1002
    Companies to carry on their business with a degree of limited liability, and it appeared to him to be a matter for regret that so many other questions which had nothing to do with the subject had been imported into the debate. It seemed to him that the House would have done better to confine itself to the object of seeing whether unlimited banks ought to be enabled to carry on their business as limited banks. He confessed that to him the Bill would not be a simple or a complete Bill unless Ireland and Scotland were included in it. With regard to that particular point as to Scotch banks coming to London, he thought they might be left in the same legal position as they were at present. If they had a legal right to be in London, let them remain there, always taking care that they did not issue in England, and that other banks were not allowed to come.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that in the expectation that the Bill would come on as originally proposed, he had given Notice of the following Motion:—
    "That the compulsory exclusion of Scotch Banking Corporations from the right to carry on certain departments of their business in London by means of branches established there, would be a violation of the fundamental articles of union between the two kingdoms."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, proposed very important alterations, especially with regard to the position of Scotland. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Boston who had just sat down, and he believed that he would be able to approve of every word that that hon. Member had uttered. He had pointed out what was the right way to legislate in regard to joint-stock banks—namely, that the principle to be pursued was that what was good for England was good for Scotland and Ireland, and that what was bad for England was also bad for Scotland and Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) seemed to think that Scotch Members were asking for special privileges for Scotland. Nothing could be more erroneous. No Member for Scotland had asked for any special privilege. They only asked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in leaving out many clauses, should also leave out the 8th clause. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would leave out the 8th clause, and let the Bill apply to Scotland, then they

    1003
    would be perfectly contented. They would then offer no opposition to the Bill, but would endeavour to arrange all the clauses, and to come to terms in an amicable spirit, dealing equally with every portion of the United Kingdom. He held that the plan which had been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was altogether opposed to the spirit of the Act of Union between England and Scotland. When they were brought together to negotiate the Treaty of Union as a United Kingdom, Scotland demanded and was given the right of trading equally with England abroad, in London, or in the Colonies. They insisted upon that as a fundamental principle, and that fundamental principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan now proposed to do away with. When Commissioners were appointed to negotiate the Union of the two Kingdoms, it was first of all agreed that all proposals were to be put in writing, and the Minutes were to be found in the Library of the House. The Scotch Commissioners commenced by laying down three propositions—one with respect to the Crown, the second preserving the Church, and the third requiring equal rights of trading to all parts of the United Kingdom and the Colonies of England. The English Commissioners wished to keep these principles apart, and would have left out the third for future consideration; but the Scotch Commissioners objected to this, and would have the three principles conceded together, first of all, and they were thus agreed to. Now, here was a Bill which did not acknowledge that great principle of entire freedom, of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, as regarded England, that he would, during this Session, allow all the banks to do certain things; but that, as to all the banks of Scotland and Ireland, they were not to be allowed to do the same things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would, next Session, bring in a Bill for Scotland and Ireland, and he had not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman; but it was one thing to bring in a Bill, and another thing to pass it, as they knew by sad experience. Well, this Bill for England would be passed; but the Bill next year for Scotland and Ireland might not be passed. The question would come up, why should this be? They asked for
    1004
    no special privileges whatever for Scotland; they asked for Scotch joint-stock banks to be allowed to do whatever English joint-stock banks were allowed to do, and with that they would be quite satisfied. That was so reasonable that if it were the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in another Bill, he must put the Scotch banks on the same lines as the English banks would be put by this Bill. But, in doing so, he would be incurring an enormous amount of labour, and wasting a deal of time, by discussing another Bill on the subject, when he could accomplish all by simply leaving out the 8th clause, and making this Bill to apply to all parts of the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said that he would bring in a Bill on exactly the same lines—for anything they knew, he might bring in a Bill saying that the Scotch and Irish banks might have all the advantages which the English banks had, provided they would agree not to carry on their business in London. Where would they be then? England would have advantages which Scotland would not have. He held that that would be most unfair. Many Bills, it was true, were passed specially for Scotland, relating to feudal rights, questions of Scotch law, sheriffs, and all sorts of things; and in some matters the phraseology of an English Bill would not necessarily apply to Scotland. But in this Bill they were dealing with modern legislation, and the clauses would apply as well in Edinburgh as in London, and there was no apology whatever for not having the Three Kingdoms dealt with in one Bill if the Government really intended to introduce a similar Bill next Session applying to Scotland and Ireland. Some home hon. Members seemed to think that the speeches against the Bill were necessarily intended to bring about the insertion of clauses to remedy the effects of the recent failure; but no hon. Member had asked this. All they asked for was uniformity of legislation, and with whatever that might be they would be content. But still it was quite proper that the evils of the present system should be pointed out, and he would just mention one or two of them. He did not speak for the Scotch banks, but for the Scotch people. He spoke against monopoly, for the Scotch banks were the greatest trades unions in

    1005
    existence. A committee of three managers of banks in Edinburgh met, and decided what the rates of interest and for discounts should be, and all the banks, though not represented at the meeting, were bound by that small junta. The 11 banks of Scotland were practically one bank—not for the people of Scotland, but against them. He said that to show that he had no sympathy with anything done merely in the interests of the banks; but he had great sympathy with the people of Scotland. The state of matters was this. No new bank could possibly establish itself, and hence the monopoly. One reason of this was that the Bank of England had established no branches in Scotland. It had gone to Newcastle; but it had not gone to Edinburgh. It should have gone to Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other large towns, and then new banks would have been established issuing Bank of England notes. New banks were not allowed to issue bank notes of their own, and they had no means of carrying on their business, because they had not the Bank of England to fall back upon. They could only depend on other banks, and issue their notes, and this was to place themselves in a secondary and a humiliating position. He hoped that some day the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to bring in a Bill, and carry it through, to abolish the monopoly which now existed to the great injury of the people of Scotland. He would now say a word about reserved liability. He spoke with diffidence; but his impression was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake in agreeing that a reserved liability would be obtained by increasing the liability by one-half of the paid-up capital. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if a bank of unlimited liability had a capital of £1,000,000, it might secure a reserved liability by increasing its capital to £1,500,000. If he were right in that understanding, he thought the £500,000 was far too small a sum. In the case of the unfortunate City of Glasgow Bank, its capital was £1,000,000; the shareholders numbered 1,200; but it had 50,000 depositors. Sympathy was felt for the 1,200 shareholders; but no sympathy was shown in the Bill for the 50,000 depositors. If that had been a Limited Liability Bank, the result would have been that the other property of the
    1006
    shareholders would have been saved; but the 50,000 depositors would not have got a penny. No doubt, it was a very great hardship that the liquidators had called up 27½ times the amount of the shares of the bank, so that every man who had £1,000 worth of shares was called upon to pay £27,500 to meet the liability. The failure of the Glasgow Bank was a very great calamity—the greatest of the kind that had ever occurred in the United Kingdom. But what might have been the case? Suppose the gentlemen who, it was believed, were able to pay, had not been liable to calls, what would have become of the 50,000 depositors and other creditors? Would not the hardship have been still greater for them? With the directors and shareholders it was practically a system of gambling, and if the gambling succeeded they got the profits; but if it failed they would, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion, lose nothing but the capital. He pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when a bank had a paid-up capital of, say, £1,000,000, and an enormous number of depositors, the bank should not be entitled to a reserved liability freeing them from all consequences if they merely became bound for an additional capital of £500,000. It was an unjust proposal—unjust to the people—and it ought not to pass. A good deal had been said about the chartered banks, and that their liability was restricted. He knew that the opinion of Scotch lawyers was that the liability of chartered banks was a restricted one, and that they were free from all liability beyond their capital; but that question had never yet been decided in a Court of Law, either in England or Scotland. The Courts of Law in Scotland had held, by eight Judges against four, that trustees were not liable as shareholders, and one of the eight was one of the most distinguished men who ever sat on the Scotch Bench—Lord Colonsay; but the Lord Chancellor, on an appeal to the House of Lords, threw the opinion of eight Scotch Judges to the winds, and so it might be with respect to the assumed non-liability of the chartered banks, if the question ever came to the House of Lords. He cordially approved of the Motion that the Bill be read a second time that day 'three months, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would modify his pro-

    1007
    posal, and agree, in addition, to leave out all the clauses he had mentioned; also to leave out the 8th clause, and mate the Bill apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the discussion had mainly turned on the point to which it was likely to be drawn, according to the Amendments placed on the Paper; but it had taken a somewhat different range from that which it would have taken had it not been for the announcement which he made at the beginning of the debate. The point which had been urged both by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) and others who had spoken on the subject seemed to be this—that it would be desirable, and in some degree necessary, that they should deal with the United Kingdom as a whole in the matter of banking. He was quite prepared to say that, in the abstract, that was a very sound proposition, and there was nothing he should like better than to be able to deal with the United Kingdom as a whole; but hon. Members from Scotland and Ireland should consider what that implied. It implied a great deal more than the mere passing of a Bill of the character of that before the House. There were great differences between the banking systems of England and Scotland. Scotland and Ireland were very nearly on the same footing. England and Scotland were more prominently brought into comparison; and there were some points on which they must legislate if there was to be one united system. First of all, were they to have the same system of note issues? Were they to allow notes below £5 to be issued in England, or were they to curtail the issues of small notes in Scotland? That question, on both sides of which a good deal might be said, would have to be dealt with if both countries were to be placed on the same footing; but that was a small point in comparison with the question on what basis were they to allow banks to conduct their issues at all? In England banks were entitled to issue notes to a fixed amount, ascertained by a calculation made of their circulation in the year 1844, and they could issue no more than the sum thus set down to their credit; in Scotland they had not only a fixed amount they could issue, but an indefinite amount over that, against which they were supposed to hold a certain amount of gold;
    1008
    but that holding of gold as against notes, as the hon. Member for Glasgow had pointed out, was a very imperfect security, and one which required very careful consideration. If they meant to extend that power to England, it might lead to considerable difficulty. Were they to extend that system to England, or do away with it in Scotland? That was a difficulty they must deal with, if both systems were to be placed on the same footing. Then, as to the privileges of the banks. In England banks of issue were not allowed to have establishments in London, whereas Scotch banks claimed that right, and had it. This would be another difficulty in putting the United Kingdom on a common footing. But if there was not the same footing altogether, it was by no means an easy thing to pass any single Act which was to apply to them all. He did endeavour in this Bill to deal with the whole of the United Kingdom, guarding himself by the introduction of the 8th clause in the Bill; but he quite admitted that that mode of proceeding was one open to comment, and he was not at all surprised at some of the objections urged against it. He had, therefore, thought that it would be wiser and more prudent that they should deal with the English banks alone, and leave the Scotch and Irish banks to be considered by themselves. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), in his very able speech, pointed out one thing which showed how very difficult it would be to apply this Bill to Scotland, because he had said that if the Bill were law the Scotch banks would not come under it. He thought that had reference not to the 8th clause only, but to the general effect of the Bill, and the difference that would exist between the chartered banks, which already claimed to have limited liability, without the use of the name, and the other banks which were distinctly unlimited, and which had, according to the Bill, to take the title of limited. He understood one of the objections urged by the Scotch banks was that they would be obliged to take a title that would create uneasiness, and seem to place them in a position of inferiority to other banks that did not require to make a change of name, though claiming the privilege of limited liability. That was a difficulty which did not occur in the same way in England. If, then, the Bill was, as he hoped, fairly suited to the wants of the

    1009
    English, banks, and was not suited to the 'wants of the Scotch banks, was it not wiser to proceed in the way which had been followed hitherto, and to legislate for England according to English wants, and for Scotland according to Scotch wants? He agreed that there was a much more perfect ideal to be aimed at, and he should be exceedingly glad if they could see their way to attain it. Very important remarks had been made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Inverness, and Edinburgh, who were opposed to the present monopoly of the Scotch banks. Those observations should guide the House in its policy of legislation on that subject; but this was too large and important a question to be entered upon at the present time. It was a matter which required to be dealt with, and he hoped to be able to deal with it in another Session. But he did not see why the leaving of that question over for the present was a reason for stopping a measure which was likely to be of advantage to English banks. He was sure that nothing could be further from the wishes of hon. Members from Scotland than to adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy, and to stop English banks from obtaining an advantage to their business, because it was not possible to deal with the Scotch banks. He would ask the House seriously to consider if it was possible to deal with the Scotch system of banking fully and properly unless in a Bill limited to Scotland, and if it was possible, at the present period of the Session, to inaugurate such a piece of legislation as that. He hoped the House would be willing to read the Bill a second time, and to commit it pro forma, and allow it to proceed as an English Bill, and not stop it because it was not possible at present to deal with the whole system of banking.
    MR. SHAWsaid, the object of the Bill was a very simple one—namely, to enable bank companies to transform themselves from unlimited to limited liability companies. The question whether the latter should be termed limited, or reserved liability, was quite another matter. The question of issue in Scotland or Ireland never entered into their contemplation at all as being part and parcel of the Bill; and he could not see why it should have been referred to now, except it were to show that hon. Members from Scotland felt there was a rod in pickle for them
    1010
    next year, when this question would again come up. There was no reason why the few clauses of the Bill should not be applied to the three parts of the Kingdom. He did not know whether banks would benefit by the measure in the long run, for its operation might be, in some respects, detrimental to business. But the most important matter now to be considered was whether they should make the change now asked for on so important a subject at a moment like the present. It was very doubtful whether, at this period of the Session, the Bill could possibly pass. He had himself proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee, and, in doing so, he had anticipated that it would have been read a second time some months ago, so that he would have had time to have considered it. He feared, with all the difficulties that were cropping up, it could not now pass; and he doubted the wisdom of tinkering with the question in the present sensitiveness of the public mind about all matters of business, and particularly about banking. They were told they were to have a larger measure referring to the Three Kingdoms. Would it not be well to defer dealing with this question which, though a small one, would be large in its results? The Recess would not be lost, if the bankers devoted it to a full consideration of the subject. Reference had been made to the difficulties that were always met with when legislation was attempted on the question of bank issues. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had it in his power to give a quid pro quo, and to say—"You want to restrict your liability; do so by all means; but you must do something to meet my wishes. You cannot come into the privileged position I am about to make for you, except you can give up something yourselves." Why should there be three descriptions of banks? Why make more disturbance than was necessary? Why not invent a system that all banks could glide into, if they yielded to the proposals of the Government? For his part, he would not attempt to obstruct the Bill. He granted that the measure was one of importance for the interests of the country. He was told that the directors and shareholders in unlimited banks were very anxious for it, because they desired to free themselves from their liabilities. Still, the law of the land was such that they could

    1011
    not get away from its present operation for two years; and he again asked, would it not be wise, when business was in its present nervous state, and the country was in a condition bordering on collapse, to leave the question alone until next Session, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could bring in a Bill to deal with the question in all its aspects? He, therefore, urged the advisability of postponing the Bill.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMregretted that the Government had abandoned the 8th clause, to which he attached great importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be sanguine of facilitating legislation next Session by the experience gained this Session; but next Session he would have to face the opposition of Scotch and Irish Members, accompanied with the avowed indifference of those who represented the banks in the Midland districts of England. It was said the Scotch banks demanded no privilege at all; but they had no need to make such demand, because they were already in possession of privileges. All that was required by bankers in the North of England was that they should be placed on equal terms. The Act of Sir Robert Peel was passed years ago, when the present condition of things, resulting from the increase of commerce, was not anticipated; and what the bankers of the North of England said was that the Scotch bankers should abandon their privileges and meet the English banks on equal terms. Did the House realize the anomalous state of things now existing? The Clydesdale Bank was a large and powerful Scotch bank, with branches in England, and it had a branch in the main street of Carlisle, close to the Cumberland and Union Bank; and there was this absurdity—that while the Clydesdale Bank could transact its London business through its own London office the Carlisle Bank could not, but was obliged to transact it where it could, or else give up its right of issue. Let the Scotch bank give up its right of issue and meet the Carlisle bank on equal terms; or, if it retained its right of issue in London, let it give up its branches in the country. The English bank could not cross the Border, but the Scotch bank could, because it was required to have less capital locked up. They ought to be placed on equal terms; and, on that account, he regretted that the Government
    1012
    had given way. He did not believe there was any great probability of next Session affording more favourable opportunity for legislation than the present. By giving way on this occasion, they would have created a feeling of great disappointment in the Northern counties, where all that was asked for was fair play and nothing more.
    MR. CHILDERSdesired to remind the House of the circumstances in which the Bill came before them. If a Bill of this character had been introduced last year, he did not think half-a-dozen Members would have been found to say that such legislation was necessary. Limited and unlimited banks had gone through the panic of 1866, if with considerable danger in more than one case, without coming to Parliament to ask for such legislation as the present Bill provided. Again, several of the greatest banks had been much shaken at the time of the Collie frauds, when more than one had large amounts of their reserves taken away, and yet they never came to Parliament with such a proposal as this. If, again, at the commencement of the year money had been worth 1 per cent, as now, it would not have been thought necessary to entertain such a Bill. But the frauds that came to light last autumn in connection with the City of Glasgow Bank, and the consequent pressure experienced by banks in London and the country, had produced such a state of feeling with reference to the security of unlimited banks that the Government, at the commencement of the present Session, when the state of trade and the value of money were different from what they were now, were pressed on all hands to do something in connection with such banks, and that was the origin of the present Bill. If it had been proposed last year to deal with the banking question, the great majority of those who thought the subject called for legislation would have said that the question of issue was the paramount question to be considered by Parliament, and anything approaching to a proposal to pick out unlimited banks for special legislation would have been set aside, because hardly any unlimited bank would have desired to be put on the footing of limited liability, and no considerable part of the commercial world desired that unlimited banks should be so dealt with. This Bill was, therefore, especially the outcome of the panic of

    1013
    last year; and now that the panic was over, no one was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to modify it. However, the main provision which remained in the revised proposal was for enabling banks with unlimited liability in some manner to reduce it—and this was a matter of principle which could well be treated by itself—with the subsidiary provisions for the protection of the public in respect of note issue where unlimited banks issued notes. The other parts of the Bill approached more nearly to what had been called grandmotherly legislation, that most mischievous tendency to protect by law one member of the community against another in matters of purely voluntary business. Happily the Bill avoided many of the reckless and absurd proposals that were made in the Press during the Recess as to inspection and audit, and interference with banking at almost every stage. Still, the Bill dealt largely with those arrangements between directors and shareholders which, as a rule, were much better left to themselves; and in this respect he hoped some improvement would be made in Committee. But, as he had said, the main object of the Bill was to enable unlimited banks to become limited, and the Bill appeared to carry out that change in what seemed to him to be, perhaps, the most satisfactory way in which it could be effected. They could not conceal from themselves that it was by an oversight that the change could not be made under the existing law. Of course, the change ought not to be made to the detriment of the existing creditor by diminishing his security; and because the Bill was fair in this respect he thought it ought to receive a second reading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not expect that all the changes that he had shadowed forth would facilitate the passing of the Bill through Committee. For instance, he had proposed that limited as well as unlimited banks should have power to become banks of reserved liability; but every shareholder in a limited bank had definitely fixed his liability, and it ought not to be increased without his consent. This was a very different matter from saying that a majority of shareholders should be enabled to reduce their liability. As to the Scotch and Irish banks, he confessed to feeling some difficulty. He was not prepared to admit that the evasion of the Act of 1845 was unim-
    1014
    portant; still, it was a separate matter, and did not really touch the question of limited liability. On the whole, he was prepared to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if leaving the Scotch and Irish provisions till next Session would enable the important part of the Bill to pass now. But he would, at the same time, remind the House that the Bill merely dealt with the fringe of the banking question, so far as the public interest in the security of the note issues was concerned, and that this as a whole was now ripe for discussion. With these reservations, he trusted the House would pass the Bill.
    MR. BIRLEYsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) was prepared to give his support to the second reading. It had been very truly said that the Bill was much desired by the banking community of England; and he thought that hon. Members ought to give credit to the bankers of England for knowing enough of their own business to understand the merits of this Bill. A good deal had been said about the panic out of which the Bill was supposed to have originated; but he thought the Bill might claim a more deliberative character. There were many points on which great differences of opinion existed, and he did not pretend to deal with all the clauses; yet, in the main, he was of opinion it would cure a very serious grievance. What was the real difficulty in regard to unlimited banks? It had arisen, no doubt, in great measure from the City of Glasgow Bank panic—that was to say, attention had been more pointedly called to the matter. It was now found that many persons who formerly believed they were not liable beyond the amount they had invested were aware that they were liable to forfeit their whole property, and it was also found that trustees incurred the same liability. Until the law was altered that must continue, not only to the injury of trustees and others, but to the prejudice of the proprietary of the banks. They could not expect to maintain a proprietary of a substantial character unless they could get persons of substantial means on the proprietary. See how this would affect a man of large fortune. The moment he died, if he himself had been a prudent man, or if his executors were prudent men, his shares must go into the market, and the consequence would be

    1015
    that shares in unlimited banks would be rapidly withdrawn. This in itself would be a misfortune, as it would diminish public confidence in the banks. He would not refer to other points, however interesting; but he could not sit down without expressing the hope that the opposition which had been raised against the second reading of the Bill would be withdrawn.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider his determination to except Irish and Scotch banks. Failing that, they would have the whole discussion over again next Session. They might, he was sure, carry a Bill of this kind if they chose to do so. Of course, those who were opposed to private issues would, if the 8th clause was abandoned, become strong opponents of the Bill. He agreed that the English banks were placed at a great disadvantage in competing with the Scotch banks. If the Cumberland Union, or any other English bank, sent a cheque into Scotland a commission had to be paid; while, on the contrary, Scotch banks could collect cheques throughout England free of charge. The hon. Member for Glasgow had pointed out very clearly some of the disadvantages accruing to Scotland from the monopoly of the Scotch banks; but he objected that it would be unjust to turn them out of England. The Bill, however, now before the House did not do so; but coupled the new privileges to be given with a certain condition, and it would be optional with the banks whether they adopted the Bill or not. But it must be remembered that in coming to England the Scotch banks certainly broke not only the spirit of the law, but, in the opinion of high legal authorities, the letter also. There could be no doubt that Sir Robert Peel's intention was to apply the same principle to Scotland, and, in fact, the general opinion long was that he had done so. Nay, more, evidence was given before the Committee which sat upstairs on the question some four years ago that the Scotch banks in opening branches in England were o actually breaking the law. That was the opinion of Sir James Stephen, of Sir Henry Thring, and of Lord Selborne, who was consulted on the subject by one of the Scotch banks. The English banks felt that it was very hard that the Scotch banks should enjoy privileges which were denied to them. They only
    1016
    asked for justice. The English Country Bankers' Association had issued a Memorial on this subject, in which it was stated that they unanimously, and very naturally, asked that if Scotch banks desired to compete with English banks they should do so on equal terms. For his part, he thought it very important that this question should be settled now; and he believed it would be desirable that it should be settled according to the original form of the Bill and for the United Kingdom.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANconfessed he had heard with regret that the Government proposed to confine this Bill to England, and he was glad to agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down, though for very different reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that he had disposed of the question before the House and vindicated the proposal of the Government, when he pointed out the great difference between the banking arrangements and laws in the three parts of the United Kingdom. It was true that the laws relating to issue, and, indeed, the whole circumstances of banks, were different in the three countries. It was true that there was a monopoly in Scotland; but that fact had really nothing to do with the question they had to consider. The Bill before them was one affecting the liability of proprietors and shareholders in banks, and applied to the conditions under which they should hold their shares. But it had nothing to do with the Scotch issue under the authority of the Government, or to any of those complicated questions to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh said that what was good for England was good for Scotland. He might have gone further, and said that if there was one part of the world in which this Bill was required it was Scotland. A great bank with unlimited liability, as they all knew, failed last autumn, and caused a stupendous calamity in Scotland. There was a desire, almost a universal desire, in the interest not only of the shareholders in banks, but of the general public, to see some limitation imposed upon the responsibility of shareholders in banks. The Government had to consider also their own interests, and as responsible for the issue they had preserved the full liability of banks in regard to issue in this Bill. They pro-

    1017
    posed that unlimited banks should have the power of converting themselves into limited liability companies; but the first thing the right hon. Gentleman did was, so far as Scotch banks were concerned, to attach to this privilege conditions which made it perfectly futile. He was not going to follow the hon. Member for Maidstone in discussing the 8th clause, as to the Scotch banks coming to London. This subject was considered before a Committee a few years ago, and if it had then been thought that Scotch banks should be excluded, why did the Committee never make such a recommendation? It merely reported its evidence. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) said he had high legal authority for saying that the Scotch banks had no right to come to London; but there was high legal authority adduced before that Committee on the other side. The question was so difficult to settle in the direction of the hon. Member for Maidstone that the Committee made no Report; but merely reported their evidence, and no action had been taken on the subject since. But now the right hon. Gentleman, in not only a singular, but he might almost say a shabby way, wished to attach to this measure a condition which would exclude the Scotch banks from London. And yet—would the House believe it?—that condition would not have been applicable to the particular bank that had been mentioned. The bank never was in London at all. What happened was this—a certain bank failed, and caused a widespread calamity. Then it was said—"Let us prevent this for the future; let us have a limit to the liability of shareholders; and let us prevent Scotch banks from coming to London." But that bank never came to London. In fact, one strong argument in favour of excluding the Scotch banks from London was that it was said that they would enter into speculative business if they came to London, which they would avoid if they remained in Scotland. But the case of the City of Glasgow Bank showed that nowhere could such speculative business be conducted more completely and more ruinously than in Scotland itself. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) complained, and very properly, of the position of the Cumberland Bank. The hon. Member said
    1018
    that the Clydesdale Bank was in Cumberland, and the Cumberland banks had restrictions, while the Scotch bank I had not. He agreed with him; but as to the remedy he would say, remove the restrictions from the English banks rather than impose them on the Scotch. He doubted whether Scotch banks had done wisely in coming to London; but having come, it would be unfair to remove them and deprive them of a lucrative business. The Government having thought it impossible to go on with the 8th clause, they then proposed to confine the Bill to England, and there was at least some consistency in their conduct. Their original proposal was to turn the Scotch banks out of London because a bank had failed which never came to London at all; and their present proposal was, because a Scotch bank had failed and. spread ruin around it, to confine their remedial measure to England alone. They were consistent in this—that both proposals missed the point of the case. Now, the House was asked to wait till next year for similar legislation for Scotland and Ireland; but they did not know what might happen next year, or what sort of Bill would be introduced. For his part, he did not regard the Scotch system of banking with perfect admiration; and so far as the position of the Scotch banks at present was concerned, he believed that if the Government would deal with that great, important, and delicate question, they would receive considerable assistance from all parts of the House. But, in the meantime, they wished to secure for these banks the advantage of this Bill, which had nothing to do with the question of issue; and he was afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in confining it to England, would find the Scotch Members little disposed to assist him in passing it.
    MR. MUNDELLAthought it would be very much to be regretted, in the interests of commerce, if a Bill were not passed this Session dealing with the liability of banks. It was a pity, he thought, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have mixed up the two questions of issue and liability; he seemed to connect the two questions in his mind when addressing them on the subject, as well as in the Bill. He thought it would have been better if the Bill had been confined to the one question of liability, and extended to the

    1019
    Three Kingdoms alike. If it were admitted, for the sake of argument, that the Scotch had a considerable advantage over the English with respect to issue, it would not increase that advantage that they should be placed on an equality with their neighbours regarding liability. What was more, there was no use contending that they would accomplish anything by attempting to thrust the Scotch banks out of London. The fact was, that the banks doing the largest business were Scotch banks of limited liability, and in no respect affected by this measure; so that, while Parliament were endeavouring to drive a bargain on this matter, they were creating a feeling of soreness on the part of the shareholders of the unlimited banks of Scotland, and doing nothing to satisfy the greed, or at least the grievance, which the London banks had against the Scotch banks. It had been said that the public mind was in a peculiar condition on this subject. Well, he thought that if a Bill was passed dealing with one branch of the question it would go far to allay any feelings of that kind. They did not want grandmotherly legislation; but it was fair to expect that the Government would facilitate any change from a condition of unlimited liability, which was found, after all, to limit the business of the country, to one of reserved or limited legislation. He did not see the difficulty of effecting a change from unlimited liability to reserved liability. In the majority of cases, he thought the change would not be so difficult as had been supposed. In any case, he hoped that they would all, English, Irish, and Scotch Members, facilitate the passing of the Bill this Session, in order to restore the confidence of the country.
    MR. LAINGthought the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maid-stone (Sir John Lubbock) must be a sufficient proof that Scotch Members were not actuated by mere vague apprehensions, nor pursuing what was called a dog-in-the-manger policy, if they objected to partial legislation, which would leave the fate of Scotland to be decided in another Session. There was no doubt that in the Bill, as originally introduced, Clause 8 was really an instrument for deciding by a side-wind a great banking controversy brought up in that House and the country a few years ago, as to the admission of Scotch bankers to London. That was a very large ques-
    1020
    tion, upon which a great deal was to be said; but the practical result was to lead to a combination of London banks for the purpose of excluding Scotch bankers from London. Whatever legal opinion they might have obtained as to the existing law of the case, they had never ventured to test that opinion by bringing it before a Court of Law. A Committee was appointed to consider the subject, and, practically, the result was nil—they reported evidence, but offered no opinion. He was not going to argue now whether it was a right thing that Scotch banks, under these circumstances, should be allowed to come to London or not. There was something to be said on both sides of the question; but, looking at it from a public point of view, he thought it was impossible to deny that it was for the benefit of the trade and commerce of London and the Empire generally that a portion of the vast deposits which were attracted into Scotch banks by the system pursued there should be able to find some employment in a discount business in London, because they could not find legitimate employment at home to the full extent, without being driven into wild speculations, such as those which proved ruinous in the case of the Glasgow Bank. At any rate, it was not found possible to persuade a competent Committee of that House to report in favour of the exclusion of the Scotch banks, or to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a Bill directly attacking the system, and putting an end to it; and, therefore, the members of Scotch banks had great reason to feel alarmed when they found an attempt by a side-wind to do that which the Government were afraid to do directly. There could not be any reasonable doubt that if the Bill were passed in its present shape, and confined to England, the Scotch banks next Session would find themselves in great jeopardy of having the question of coming to London not decided upon its own merits, but made one of the conditions of availing themselves of a certain privilege. The jealousy which Scotland felt in this respect was not confined to bank managers and shareholders; but the people of Scotland generally felt attached to their existing system of banking. The very basis of that system had been that, owing to the power of issuing notes, especially £1 notes, the banks had been able to multiply and extend their branches in

    1021
    that country to an extent which was quite unknown in England. Well, no one who was at all practically acquainted with Scotland could doubt that that had been one of the main causes of the great prosperity of Scotland. It had been the main cause of those habits of thrift in the Scotch character which had been the foundation of the great progress which that country had made. Why, in the most out-of-the-way districts in the Highlands, they found in some small town of 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants two or three banks doing a large business, attracting a large amount of deposits, and doing exceedingly useful work in that part of the country. That system had always been viewed with a certain amount of disfavour in England, and had been exposed to repeated attacks. To go as far back as 1828, they all knew that the Scotch £1 notes were only saved from extinction owing to the panic which then ensued by a series of able letters published by Sir Walter Scott, which excited a strong national feeling on the subject. Again, in 1844, they all knew that if Sir Robert Peel had had his way, and some of the political economists who supported him in the Act of that year, they would have restricted or prohibited the issue of paper altogether in Scotland. There had been not merely a quarrel between the London bankers and the Scotch bankers as to establishing agents in London, but there had been a long and persistent jealousy of the Scotch system of banking prevailing among influential classes in England; and, therefore, it was a matter of considerable anxiety in Scotland that any Bill touching the banking interests of the country which was brought forward should be not partial but comprehensive in its character, and introduced at a period of the Session when it could be fully considered and discussed by the country and that House before any measures were finally adopted. As regarded the necessity of proceeding with any measure at all at this period of the Session, he must say he disagreed so entirely with the arguments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that he would hardly have thought of repeating them to the House if it had not been that he disagreed with them. His right hon. Friend argued that the Bill was one which no one would have thought of introducing or
    1022
    supporting, if it had not been for an isolated catastrophe to a Scotch bank which created a panic; and then he went on to state, with great truth, that the panic had in a great measure passed away. On that point, he (Mr. Laing) should wish to bear his humble testimony as far as it went, because he had heard it asserted very broadly in that House that this was a measure imperatively called for by the present interests of commerce. He did not agree with that conclusion. He thought this Bill was called for by a certain number of nervous shareholders; but as regarded the general commercial world, there never was a time when there was less banking panic or less distrust in the great banks than at the present moment. They had just completed a period when a number of these banks had submitted their balance-sheets, and made reports for the half-year; and he ventured to say there was not one of the balance-sheets issued by those great institutions which had not given very great satisfaction to the commercial community. As regarded the suggestion which had been made of Government interfering and laying down a stereotyped form of audit, he would say, read the City articles in the newspapers for the last fortnight, and what did they find? They found articles commenting on different systems of audit introduced by the different joint-stock banks, condemning one and commending another, and showing how a very great emulation had been going on amongst those institutions in order to improve the form of balance-sheet and inspire confidence in the public. The Union Bank had brought its balance-sheet as near to perfection as the complicated system of banking accounts would admit. And how much better was this state of things than to have one stereotyped system under an Act of Parliament, admitting of no improvement, and inspiring a false confidence on the part of the public, from the idea that there was no possibility of loss under it. He must say that if ever there was a subject to be approached deliberately it was the great question of banking, and any Bill which touched that question should be referred to a carefully-chosen Select Committee to be discussed in all its provisions. He positively denied that there was anything like a necessity for proceeding with

    1023
    the Bill at the present time, and did not think the slightest harm would be done in any circle of legitimate business if the consideration of it were to stand over till next Session. He did not see why, subject to existing liabilities, any bank in future might not go upon the principle of limited or reserve liability, provided only these two conditions were observed—first, that if it was a bank of issue it must make proper provision for its notes; and, secondly, it must so register the condition of its capital and the liability on its shares as to give perfect information to anyone who might to disposed to deal with it. If he might venture to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would suggest that he should not encounter the opposition which he would have to meet from important interests connected with Scotland and Ireland for the sake of passing an imperfect Bill for which there was no hurry, but withdraw this measure and introduce another next Session, the details of which might be carefully elaborated in a well-constituted Select Committee of the House.
    MR. GOLDNEYexpressed his belief that if they allowed the Bill to be read a second time, as had been suggested by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), they would give very great satisfaction to the whole commercial community, and especially to the banking portion of it; and they might take the discussion as to whether the measure should extend to the Three Kingdoms or not on going into Committee.
    MR. W. HOLMSconfessed he had listened with very great surprise to the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he proposed to withdraw Scotland and Ireland from the Bill, more especially as an opinion had been expressed in that House, over and over again, in favour of having uniform legislation for the Three Kingdoms. It appeared to him that the Bill, which contained only two provisions,—namely, that for limiting the liability of Companies on the one hand, and for providing a Government audit on the other, was so simple that it might equally apply to the Three Kingdoms. Moreover, it appeared to him that the true reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had withdrawn Scotland and Ireland from the Bill was to be found in
    1024
    the fact that the Government believed they could not carry this Bill with the 8th clause in it. For his part, he distinctly objected to that clause. Practically, the Bill, if passed with that clause, would put the three countries in this position—it would provide that unlimited Companies in England might unconditionally accept all the provisions of the Bill; but as regarded Irish and Scotch banks they should only obtain them on certain onerous conditions, because conditions were surely onerous which would compel great Companies to give up lucrative businesses which were now being carried on in England. He ventured to characterize the 8th clause as a London banker's clause; and it was unfair to Scotland and Ireland that the Government should have, as it were, smuggled into this Bill a provision which had practically nothing to do with the real object of the Bill. They were told that if they would only agree to this Bill now they would have two Bills introduced next Session—one for Scotland, and the other for Ireland—but what sort of Bills would they be? They would, in all probability, be very much upon the same lines as the 8th clause, which had nothing whatever to do with the principle of the measure. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw the 8th clause, and allow the Bill to apply to Scotland and Ireland as well as to England, he (Mr. Holms), as a Scotch Member, would give him his hearty support in carrying the Bill. As to the amount to which the liability of shareholders should be reduced, he expressed his conviction, from the experience afforded by the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank, that the shareholders in unlimited banks would be only too glad to be called upon to pay five or even ten times the amount of their original capital. He would, therefore, suggest that in any Bill which might be proposed, whether for England or for the Three Kingdoms, reserved liability should not be one-half more than the paid-up capital, but three or four or even five times that amount. He thoroughly agreed with the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that this was not a question to be dealt with in a hurry. The present Bill was in the nature of a panic Bill; it was brought in in consequence of a panic; and it would not command the confidence

    1025
    of the public, unless it was based upon thoroughly sound principles. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carefully re-consider the question, and take the course originally proposed of having only one Bill for the Three Kingdoms. The people of Scotland and Ireland would otherwise not consider themselves fairly treated. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to point out that the result of the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank was greatly to the credit of the shareholders from the manner in which they had surrendered their property, and to the people of Glasgow who had voluntarily raised no less than a third of a million to alleviate the suffering, which had been occasioned when—
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.

  LORD CLERK REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 196.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  LORD CLERK REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 196.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
    Clause 8 (Treasury to appoint to offices in Register of Sasines, &c).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)moved, in page 2, at the end of the clause, to insert as a new paragraph—
    "The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall have power to fix the salaries and emoluments attached to any of the offices aforesaid, and, with the consent of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to regulate any of the said offices, and to change the designations thereof and the duties of officers employed therein, and the terms on which appointments shall be made thereto."'
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)moved, in page 2, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause:—
    (Superannuation of officers.)
    "All appointments hereafter made to any of the offices aforesaid shall entitle the holders thereof to superannuation upon such conditions as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, having regard to 'The Superannuation Act, 1859, shall prescribe: Provided, That it shall be lawful to the said Commissioners, if, and so
    1026
    far as they see fit, to grant superannuations to the holders of such offices before the passing of this Act, although they may not have obtained certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked, what was the intention of the clause?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)stated, that it was one of the leading purposes of the Bill that these officers should receive their appointments from and be removable by the Treasury; and the object of the last clause, which had been very carefully adjusted, was to make them Civil servants. There were men in the Office who had served for a long period, but who were not originally appointed as Civil servants, and one main object of the proposed clause was to enable the Treasury to retire them on Civil Service allowances.
    MR. M'LARENcould assure the hon. Member for Forfarshire that this clause had been very carefully considered in Edinburgh, and that it had received the sanction of everybody concerned in it.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was only surprised that so important a clause should have been originally left out of the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON), said the clause had been inserted in substitution for another one which secured the same object, but less efficiently.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that in the absence of the noble Earl the Member for the County of Edinburgh (the Earl of Dalkeith), he wished to move the insertion of a new clause, of which the noble Earl had given Notice, with respect to the regulating the office of sheriffs' clerks, and placing it under the control of the deputy clerk-register.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the moving of this clause would necessitate the adjournment of the Committee.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, in that case he would not press it.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTION.
  CONGRESS OF BERLIN (UNFULFILLED ARRANGEMENTS).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in rising to call attention to the non-execution of portions of the arrangements made at the Congress of Berlin; and to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to use Her influence to procure the prompt execution of those Articles of the Treaty of Berlin which relate to reforms in Turkey; and further praying that, in undertaking mediation under the 24th Article of the Treaty, she will endeavour to procure for Greece the rectification of frontier agreed upon by the Powers;"
    said, that, in a few days, the Russian Armies would have evacuated the whole of the Turkish Dominions, both the tributary Principalities and those under the immediate rule of the Sultan. The occupation had been prolonged beyond the date named in the Treaty, and not by a fresh Agreement, as ought to have been the case, but by a straining of the provisions of the Treaty. Still, he attached no importance to the fact itself, and he only mentioned it, because the cessation of foreign occupation made the present the right moment to ask what had been done to carry out the reform clauses of the Treaty of Berlin. There was too much reason to fear that, when the Russian troops had left, reforms would be forgotten, until we were once more startled out of our propriety in a few years time by a Russian, or perhaps by an Austrian Ultimatum. At page 2 of the Papers "Turkey No. 7," which had been issued on the previous day, his hon. Friend the Member for Christ-church (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) appeared to have recommended, as long ago as April, that the organic Statute prepared by his Commission for East Roumelia should, with some changes, be applied to all the other European Provinces of Turkey. The answer of the Turks had been that they intended to apply it, not only in Europe, but in Asia too. Towards the end of May, however, his hon. Friend, finding that nothing had been done, declared—
    "The necessity of not leaving the neighbouring populations with a grievance far more serious than many which had served the purpose of
    1028
    Panslavic agitators, and led to the gravest complications."
    He had then gone on to say—
    "I cannot express in terms sufficiently strong my sense of the danger of further delay, which can be defended neither on the ground of want of money, nor of insufficient information."
    Now, Lord Salisbury, in his speech of the 27th of June, had said that want of money was the difficulty in the way; but, in this passage, his hon. Friend showed that the East Roumelian system was calculated rather to bring in money than to withdraw money from Constantinople. Nothing whatever had been done by Turkey towards carrying out Article 23. Was it likely that the English constituencies would put up with the rejection of all demands made by us upon the Turkish Government for reform, and, at the same time, remain resolved to defend its territory against all comers? Anarchy prevailed not only in Armenia, but even within 100 miles of Constantinople, upon the coast of the Sea of Marmora. If they were to compare the promises made a year ago with these facts to which he had called attention, he must point out that it seemed but little known that the Treaty of Berlin had promised Home Rule to all the European Provinces of the Turkish Empire. All were to have Parliaments of their own, similar to the elective Parliament of Crete. No step appeared to have been yet taken towards carrying out those promises which were guaranteed by Europe. The Eastern Roumelian Commission was to have sat for three months, and all the new Constitutions for the various Provinces of the Turkish Empire were to have been brought before it. It had now sat for 12 months, and not one of them had been heard of by its Members. Lord Salisbury had lately said that the Porte could not carry out reforms, because it had no money; but it was well known, at the time of the signature of the Treaty of Berlin, that the Porte had no money. As regarded Eastern Roumelia, the reforms appeared to be complete. They were not Turkish reforms, but reforms undertaken by the European Commission. They had, over and over again, been assured by the Plenipotentiaries of England that Eastern Roumelia was to "be under the direct political and military rule of the Sultan;" but, thanks to the hard work and admirable skill of his

    1029
    hon. Friend the Member for Christ-church, it was nothing of the kind. Eastern Roumelia could not in any natural sense of the words be said to be any longer "under the direct political and military rule of the Sultan." His hon. Friend had returned a repentant and converted "Jingo," leaving Eastern Roumelia as independent as were Servia or Moldavia and Wallachia a few years ago. No Turkish soldier or Pasha seemed likely ever again to be seen within its boundaries. Prince Alexander Vogorides, who refused to hoist the Turkish flag, or to wear a fez, could no more be described as a Turkish Pasha, though nominally appointed by the Sultan, than could Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, who also nominally received investiture from the Porte. His hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had not formerly been regarded as a follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich; but none the less had he by his labours carried the "bag and baggage" policy completely into effect. Now, the Prime Minister, in a speech delivered rather more than a year ago, had said that in regard to all the subject-races of Turkey in Europe inquiry by local Commissions was contemplated. The Commissioners were to report to the Chief Commission—that was to say, to the Commission for Eastern Roumelia, and—
    "After the firman of the Sultan had been issued, the changes would he made; it was supposed that in the course of three months from the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Berlin the principal arrangements might be made."
    Although a year had passed, the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, which had been thus alluded to by the Prime Minister, had not been carried into effect. The 23rd Article of the Treaty contemplated reforms in the portion of Roumelia which lay between East Roumelia and the sea, in Macedonia, in those parts of Thessaly and Epirus which were not to be given up to Greece, and in the Island of Crete. As regarded all these Provinces, Lord Salisbury, in his despatch, inclosing a copy of the Treaty of Berlin, had declared that their "institutions" were to be "determined by the European Commission." More than a year had passed since that despatch was written, and they had now to ask what steps had been taken towards carrying the pro-
    1030
    mises into effect? Scarcely anything had been done, except in Crete, and not enough in Crete itself. To show that they needed to go beyond the information supplied by the Turkish Government, and by English Consuls to the Government at home, he must point out that it had been admitted by our Government in the present year that the Turkish Regular troops, whose conduct had been declared at the Congress of Berlin to be uniformly satisfactory, had been emulating in Crete, during the sitting of the Congress itself, the worst deeds committed in Bulgaria before the war by the Bashi-Bazouks. While the reforms to be introduced into the Turkish Provinces of Europe were to be supervised by the European Commission for Eastern Roumelia, the reforms to be introduced into Turkey in Asia were not to be brought before its Members. Lord Salisbury, indeed, seemed to have been misled by a blunder in the English translation of the Treaty of Berlin, and to have thought that reforms for Asia, as well as for Europe, were to involve Constitutional Government, and, after being included in Clause 23, to be brought before the European Commission. But they now knew that reforms in Asia would be supervised only by the Ambassadors. By the 61st Article of the Treaty, the Great Powers were to superintend and to be informed of the steps to be taken with a view to the introduction of reforms into Armenia. Our own responsibility for the carrying out of those reforms, and of similar reforms generally throughout Asia Minor, had become immense under the terms of the Anglo-Turkish clandestine conditional Convention, commonly known as the Cyprus Convention. It was true that in the Convention Turkey bound herself to us with regard to those reforms, and not we to her subject-populations; but the responsibility which rested upon us was moral, and not legal, and had been fully admitted in the speeches of Ministers made at the time when the Convention was signed. Yet no language could be too strong to describe the horrible misgovernment now prevailing in Asiatic Turkey—a country to which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) had last year declared that it had, under the terms of the Convention, become the mission of England to introduce

    1031
    civilization in the shape of missionaries and steam ploughs. The Armenian Papers had lately been moved for by Lord Carnarvon in "another place," and the Motion had been agreed to, so that it was unnecessary that he should ask for them. A sad change, however, had been shown by the debate. Lord Salisbury's splendid list of reforms, included in his despatch of the 8th of August of last year, had become "impossible" in his speech of the 27th of June. Not only had the 61st Article of the Treaty not been carried into effect, but the 62nd Article, also, was shamefully violated in Armenia. The troops which were needed to restore order in the Provinces were sent to Thessaly, and placed under the command of that abominable miscreant, Chefket Pasha, in order to crush the Greeks and prevent the will of Europe being carried into effect. Lord Salisbury, as would be found at page 210 of the Protocols, had said the object of the proposal with regard to Armenia, which was ultimately agreed to by the Congress, was "immediate amelioration" as well as "future progress." There had been no "immediate amelioration"—there had been no amelioration whatever. The Government of England, which, on account of the Anglo-Turkish clandestine conditional Convention, ought to have been the first among the Powers to insist on the execution of the Treaty of Berlin, had, on the contrary, been the most inclined among them to hold back and to throw obstacles in the way. In December and in February last, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had asked for Papers on the subject, which were still withheld. The Government had never published the suggestions of Germany, made last year immediately after the end of the Session, for obtaining the execution of the Treaty of Berlin. As the Government assured them that the only difficulty was that with regard to money, and as the admission by Europe of the Russian Indemnity made it certain that Turkey never would have money, he thought that they ought, at the same time, to press for the Correspondence which had taken place with regard to the Indemnity Clause. England had undoubtedly assumed, in the eyes of foreign countries—all now by far less pro-Turkish than ourselves—by the Cyprus Convention, at least a responsibility for the de-
    1032
    struction of those institutions which cut off the Turkish Empire from Europe and from civilization. Throughout the Turkish Empire slavery existed in every household belonging to the ruling caste. It had been proved, last year that even in the capital itself—even in the homes of those Pashas whose names were well known to us as the so-called reformers of the present and of recent Turkish administrations—Christian children, some bought, but the great majority of them stolen from their parents, were detained in slavery. Whatever else had been accomplished in Eastern Roumelia slavery had disappeared. There was no reason to suppose that in imitating the Constitution of Eastern Roumelia in other portions of the Empire, the Turks, in the absence of serious European pressure, would abolish slavery. The probable return to power of Mahmoud, the enemy both of England and of reform, made this, if possible, more certain even than before. He had now justified the first portion of his Resolution. He passed to the second portion of the Resolution, which dealt with the unexecuted arrangement with regard to the Greek Frontier. The Blue Book (Greece, No. 1) was like a modern novel in its construction. The beginning and the end of it were both good; but the middle would not bear investigation. Lord Salisbury, with the intelligence of a popular writer, had trusted to the well-known fact that people habitually read the beginning and the end, but not the middle, of a thick volume. The excellent despatch with which its contents concluded was contradicted by the principal portion of those contents themselves. The Turks all along had said—"This is an awkward question for us; force our hand, and we will submit." The whole of Europe, as represented at Berlin, was willing—nay, was anxious—that the course which the Turks themselves proposed should be adopted, and it was our Government which, by changing the French-Italian proposal, endorsed as it was by the three other Powers, had prevented rectification of the Frontier from becoming a distinct Article of the Treaty. After the Congress had concluded its deliberations, the other Powers again began to press that something should at once be done, and our Government again held back. At page 35, our Minister at Athens sent home the rumour that Great

    1033
    Britain, had refused to act with Germany, in August or September, to procure the immediate settlement of the question. He added, to please the Minister, that this was
    "Probably one of the daily reports circulated by the telegraph throughout Europe, which has little or perhaps no foundation in fact;"
    but it was true, as would be seen by the despatch of Germany, for which, in December, in February, and again tonight, he most pertinaciously had asked. At page 39, they had a fresh example of Lord Salisbury's powers of delay, which were quite Turkish in their strength of resistance. He described how, in October, he had told the Representative of Greece that he "expected no advantageous result" from mediation at that time. Why? Because the
    "Consent of the Porte was not sufficient to procure the cession of territory in which the Mussulman population was predominant."
    But to say this was to beg the question; because in the particular portion of Thessaly and Epirus not only was the "Mussulman population" not "predominant," but it formed only a most miserable minority. At page 52, they would find a further application of Germany for action, and the manner in which it had been received. This was in November, for each time Lord Salisbury had contrived to hang the matter up for a month. The German Ambassador had called upon him to ask him to answer the French Circular of the 21st of October, saying that—
    "Germany, as well as Austria, Italy, and Russia, had resolved to adhere to the French proposal."
    In face of language of this kind, Lord Salisbury was obliged to promise "that England would not refuse her general concurrence;" but "the proposal" which the whole of Europe except England had accepted "must be modified, and must not be a menace addressed to Turkey." "The time," also, "was inopportune." Lord Salisbury "regretted that the Powers had not thought fit to delay the step." This was throwing a good deal of cold water upon the action recommended by the five Great Powers. Although Lord Salisbury had promised not to refuse his "general concurrence," they saw, by page 53, that, six days after, M. Waddington told Lord Lyons—
    1034
    "That he had received from all the Governments, except from that of Her Majesty, an unconditional assent to the proposal he had made, that a simultaneous and identic representation should be addressed to the Porte on the Greek question."
    It would be seen from page 57 that, owing to the delay of England, more than another month elapsed—for there was a complete gap between the 12th of November and the 17th of December; but, at last, owing to the pressure exercised within those walls in the December Session, the Porte appointed Commissioners at Christmas. The Papers showed that those Commissioners were appointed only for the purpose of gaining time; and the French Government had informed Lord Salisbury that the time so gained had been utilized by the Commissioners themselves in importing Mahomedan Albanians from the North into these particular portions of Epirus, so as to alter the balance of the population. The House would find how our Ambassador at Constantinople had tried, in the despatch—No. 100—to help the Turks, by finding apologies for their conduct; but, at page 68, there was a despatch from him as to which it was necessary to make even more severe remark. Sir Henry Layard, writing in January, did not hesitate to urge that the line named by the Congress did not give Janina to Greece. He said—
    "I am not acquainted with the intention of the Congress as regards the exact nature of the frontier line proposed. Judging from your Lordship's despatch to me of the 28th of last May, it would not, in your Lordship's opinion, include Janina."
    A more monstrous statement could not be imagined than that the line suggested by Lord Salisbury before the meeting of the Congress was to override the deliberate will of Europe, afterwards agreed to by Lord Salisbury himself. It had been proved by France, and it was believed by Germany and by the rest of Europe, that Janina was a Greek town, the capital of a district purely Greek. He himself had received an address, which had been signed by the whole of the aldermen and town councillors of Janina, who, without exception, were favourable to the concession of the boundary line which had been named in the Protocols of Berlin. He had spoken of Europe as agreeing in this view; but Italy had for a time been

    1035
    an exception to that concert. Happily, the Italian Prime Minister of last year, who was a member of the Greek Committee, had now returned to power, and a Government had sprung up at Rome in the plane of that which, intriguing in Albania on its own account, had pretended to support Lord Salisbury's views. A document, which had come to light two months ago, had shown that the late Italian Administration had been in secret correspondence with the Turkish Commissioners in Epirus for purposes of its own. Lord Salisbury, in one of his despatches—No. 141—most clearly showed his desire to prevent Janina becoming Greek; and Sir Henry Layard went even far beyond his Chief, for he said that he himself was convinced that unless the Porte kept Janina it would be impossible to retain Albania. Another circumstance worthy of notice was the falsity of the statements made by the Albanian delegates, in which they claimed Prevesa, Arta, and Janina, as Albanian towns; for the truth was, as was indisputably proved in another part of the Blue Book, that eight out of nine of all the inhabitants of Prevesa were Greeks, and that all of them spoke Greek; while at Arta the whole of the inhabitants were Greek, and in the town of Janina the Greeks were three to one, the district outside the town being wholly Greek. These facts were completely confirmed by the information supplied by the French Government, by Mr. Macdonald of Janina, and by another gentleman. Lord Salisbury was indeed slow to learn; for after he had received this information from our Minister at Athens, and also from the Government of France, it would be seen that, although the Austrian Government, of which he had had some hopes, had deserted him, and although Germany had declared to him that "the matter was one in which the German Government took great interest," and that "it would be necessary to bring the controversy to an issue," Lord Salisbury still pleaded for delay. It was evident that if our Government had spoken throughout, as had the Governments of Germany and France, the present deadlock would never have occurred. Even when Lord Salisbury was stirred up to act, the language which he used should be contrasted with the plain language of Germany—
    1036
    "The German Government will give the French proposal their cordial support, so that the stipulations of the Berlin Treaty may be carried out with as little unnecessary delay as possible."
    At another part of the Blue Book there was a Note upon an intrigue which was closely connected with the Italian intrigue of which he had already spoken, but which, being a Turkish intrigue, was of an even more corrupt and an even more stupid nature. It was there stated that the Porte had paid the travelling expenses of three gentlemen whom they had sent on a tour round Europe, and who had been described as delegates of the Albanian nation. Now, he could prove that those gentlemen were Turkish functionaries, that they were paid by Turkey, and that they did not come from, or know anything of, that portion of Epirus which it had been proposed that Turkey should cede to Greece. At page 190, a simple-minded British Consul, Mr. Greene, had written that—
    "Two Albanian nobles, Abdul Bey, of Pharsala, and Mehemet Ali Bey, of Berat, had recently visited Rome,"
    and were in Paris, and—
    "That the mission of those Beys to Italy and France does not appear to have caused the Turkish authorities any uneasiness."
    Now, considering that the Turkish Government had paid the salaries and expenses of those gentlemen, it was hardly conceivable that their mission should have caused uneasiness to that Government—unless, indeed, it was uneasiness of the breeches' pocket. At page 203, there would be found a statement of those persons' views, which was an imposture from the first line to the last. One of those two gentlemen had asked pay from the Greek Government in order to come upon the Greek side and support their views, and, being very properly refused, he sold himself to the Turks. Lord Salisbury was aware of this fact; but he received that gentleman, and, probably, shook him by the hand. The other, Abdul Bey, was brother-in-law to the Turkish Ambassador at Rome, who had been concerned in the Italian intrigue, and had no connection with Janina, in the name of which town he, however, spoke. Lord Salisbury, who had just refused to receive the Bulgarian delegates, never-

    1037
    theless saw these gentlemen at the Foreign Office and reported their views to Constantinople, although these consisted of the most outrageous misrepresentation of the facts, without remark. After seeing Lord Salisbury, the two Albanians went to Berlin to see Prince Bismarck. Prince Bismarck, who also knew their character, at once informed them that he would not see them. They then sent to him to say that they had seen Lord Salisbury, upon which the Prince replied that that made not the slightest difference. As they still persisted, Prince Bismarck presented his compliments to them, and said that he did not believe that an Albanian nationality existed; that if it did exist, its existence had no bearing on this subject, inasmuch as Janina was not an Albanian town; but although he protested against the Albanian question being raised, as they asked his opinion, he must add that if there were such a thing as an Albanian nationality in North. Albania, "the sooner, in the interests of civilization, it was stamped out the better." In Lord Salisbury's last despatch, he tried to disguise the fact that he had been throughout hostile to the full satisfaction to the Greek claims, as they had been admitted by the Powers at Berlin. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) hoped that the words of that despatch might be taken as a promise of amendment for the future; and he would only add that in the six weeks which had passed since it was written no progress had been made, and that they saw as little prospect of the termination of the controversy as they had 14 months ago, at the time of the meeting of the Congress at Berlin. In conclusion, the hon. Baronet moved the Address of which he had given Notice.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I rise, Sir, to second the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with reference to the first part of it, relating to the reforms in European Turkey and Armenia which were so solemnly promised by Turkey and the Treaty of Berlin. I think everyone will be of opinion that the time is come when it is right and reasonable to ask what has been done by Turkey to carry out her obligations? More than a year has elapsed since the conclusion of the Treaty; all those parts of it which are
    1038
    in favour of Turkey have been carried out, or are rapidly being carried out. The Russian troops have all but completely evacuated both Roumelia and Bulgaria; what, then, has Turkey done? I will not recapitulate the obligations, they are partly under the Treaty of Berlin and partly under the Anglo-Turkish Convention. In view of them, I think hon. Members opposite must have been greatly surprised to learn from a recent debate in "another plane" that our Foreign Minister not only repudiates, but actually ridicules, the idea that this country is under any responsibility towards the people of these Provinces to see that these obligations towards them are carried out by their Government. I am the last man in the House to wish to extend the responsibilities of this country; we have enough and to spare already in every part of the world; and, however sad it may be that Governments in remote parts of the world should oppress and misgovern their people, it is no part of the duty of this country to enter upon a crusade on behalf of the oppressed; but where we have interfered in the interests of this country, or the supposed interests, to prevent a decaying, corrupt, and brutal rule from being overthrown, and have interfered to save it from destruction, I think there is a heavy responsibility upon us to see that obligations entered into should be carried out. It is due to us mainly, if not wholly, that nearly the whole of what remains of Turkey in Europe has been restored to the direct authority of the Porte, and that a large slice of Armenia was also restored. Surely, then, upon us more than upon others lies the responsibility of calling Turkey to account for the non-performance of those parts of the Treaty which must be considered as the condition on which they were restored. Now, what has been done by Turkey since the Treaty? Absolutely nothing. I challenge the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to produce a vestige or scintilla of evidence to show that the Porte has made any effort to improve the condition of her European subjects, or of the Armenians. It is not merely a question whether any attempt has been made to frame new institutions; but there is not a sign that any single step has been taken to redress those evils, which do not depend so much

    1039
    upon a constitution as upon the very first principles of honest administration. So long ago as August 8th of last year, Lord Salisbury wrote—
    "The immediate necessity of Asiatic Turkey is for the simplest form of order and good government, and for such security from rapine, lawless or legal, that industry may nourish and population may cease to decline."
    The same necessity exists, and, indeed, is far more pressing at this moment, not only in Armenia, but in European Turkey. In all these districts, things have been going from bad to worse ever since the war was over. Of Armenia we have a recent statement of the Armenian Patriarch, which is confirmed by independent witnesses, that anarchy prevails there; that the Christian population is harassed and plundered by Kurds and Circassians; that an organized brigandage is being carried on by the officials in a more shameless and open manner than ever. Thousands of the wretched inhabitants are seeking refuge in Russia, where, if they find a severe and despotic Government, they find, at least, security for life and property. When we look at the condition of Macedonia, we find a counterpart of these evils. I have only this day seen a well-known gentleman, a Mr. Rose, who is recently returned from Macedonia, where, I believe, he has been one of the very few who have been able to penetrate at all beyond the coast. His accounts of the condition of the country are most appalling. Anarchy and murder prevail. The Turkish Government has planted over it small bands of Circassians, who terrorize the people, and plunder and murder freely. The officials are in league with these people, and are more shamefully corrupt than ever. What makes his account more interesting is that he has so recently been in Eastern Roumelia. He reports of this Province that, notwithstanding all the sufferings it has gone through during the two years of war, it is rapidly recovering. The Province is in the hands of a native Administration; and the result is that it is perfectly safe for travellers. Property and life are already as secure as in any other part of Europe. How great a contrast is this state of things with that in Macedonia. In the latter it is unsafe to go a mile beyond the large towns without an escort. It seems that the army of petty officials and zaptiehs who
    1040
    have lost their occupation in Bulgaria have drifted into this Province, and are feeding like locusts on the country. The Pashas who have been sent there are the worst of their kind; most of them should be expiating their crimes on the galleys. There is Salik Pasha, who was recalled from Crete at the instance of Consul Sandwith on account of his cruelties and misconduct; ho is now holding an important command. There is Amous Pasha, who was responsible for the murder of Mr. Ogle, who is also holding an important post. There is Chefket Pasha, whose crimes are so notorious; he is now holding an important post in Thessaly. Now, let me ask the House what must be the result of such a contrast, how long can the present state of things last? There is already extreme danger of another outbreak. I observe that in May last the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christ-church (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) wrote that—
    "He could not express in terms sufficiently strong the sense of the dangers of further delay, which can neither be defended upon the ground of want of money, nor of insufficient information."
    The hon. Member has elsewhere stated that he has the highest authority for saying that the Porte is animated by the best intentions; but he must know that the approaches to the Porte have been always paved with good intentions. Meanwhile nothing has been done; the influence of England appears to effect nothing. Sir Henry Layard has not even succeeded in preventing the employment of Chefket Pasha. His policy of coaxing and flattery, and of praising the poor vacillating and weak man who fills the throne of Turkey, seems to be a total failure; surely, then, it would be wise to try some other tone; at all events, it would be well that this House should speak out, so that the Porte should see that its conduct will not escape the attention of this country. I now come to the case of Greece; in adverting to it I shall endeavour to avoid any controversial matter. I know there are hon. Members opposite who are as anxious as any one of us on this side that a settlement should be effected in the most liberal spirit to Greece. There are, however, some points which arise on these Papers which I hope the Government will explain. In the first place,

    1041
    the Papers give us, for the first time, the negotiations which preceded the Congress on the subject of a proposed accession of territory to Greece. We now know that, in June last, Sir Henry Layard made a proposal to the Turkish Government to give up territory to Greece, to an extent bounded by, what I shall call, the Salisbury line. Sir Henry Layard reports that when he made this proposal to Safvet Pasha, who was then Grand Vizier—
    "The latter seemed at first but little inclined to entertain the idea of making any territorial concession to Greece. He said that no Turkish Minister could do so, and that if Turkey were to be deprived of territory it were better that it should be in pursuance of a decision of Europe pronounced by the Congress, to which she would have to submit."
    This letter must have reached Lord Salisbury at Berlin a few days before the Greek question was decided. It is most important as showing that the Turks preferred that Congress should deal with and decide the question. Now, I would ask the House to compare this letter with the statements made by Lord Beaconsfield on his return from Berlin. The most full account he gave us of the reasons for the mode adopted in the Greek case was at the dinner given to him at the Duke of Wellington's Riding School. He there boasted of what had been done for Greece; he treated it as an accomplished fact; he claimed that Greece, by trusting to England, had got a larger accession of territory than any of the rebellious Provinces of Turkey which had aided Russia; and he then went on to give this explanation—
    "Before the Congress the Sultan had shown a disposition to meet with favour the proposals of England for an accession of territory to Greece; but he had said that what he was prepared to do he wished should be looked on as an act of grace on his part, and of his sense of friendliness to Greece in not attacking him during his troubles; but as Congress was now to meet, ho should like to hear the result of the wisdom of Congress on the subject."
    I wish to point out that this statement is not in conformity with the information now before us. If it be accurate, then the Turkish Government has deluded and taken in our Government, and has induced it to agree to the decision of the Congress, taking the form of a recommendation under the belief that he was really prepared to accept its con-
    1042
    clusions. If, however, it be inaccurate, we are entitled to an explanation why it was that, knowing that the Turkish Government preferred a decision of Congress, our Representatives did not state this in the Congress, and obtain from them an authoritative decision. The next point I have to notice is that Sir Henry Layard, in the same letter, states that he pressed upon the Porte Lord Salisbury's line of Frontier, on the ground that a comparatively small concession might settle the question; while if it were left to Congress to decide it might come to a decision more disadvantageous to Turkey. This leads to the fact that the Congress did, undoubtedly, recommend a wider concession of territory than that previously proposed by Lord Salisbury. I think no one can doubt this. If Lord Salisbury's line had been agreed to, it would have been adopted in his language; but the line recommended by the Congress was to follow the valleys of the Kalamas and Salameria, and I think no independent person can come to any other conclusion than that it was intended to include Janina. Yet no sooner was this done than we find the Turkish Government repudiating absolutely and obstinately not only the line of Frontier recommended by Congress, but also Lord Salisbury's line; and we find Sir Henry Layard throwing himself into the cause of Turkey, so far as Janina is concerned; and from that day to this he has been the strongest opponent of the line proposed by the Congress. In page 68 there is a letter from Sir Henry Layard, expressing the strongest opinion that Turkey ought not to be called upon to give up Janina, and again another at page 100; audit is well known that the whole of his influence has been used to support the Turks in their opposition to this concession. There is also a despatch to which I must call attention. It is that from Lord Salisbury to Mr. Corbett, our Minister in Greece, dated October 22nd, in which he expresses the opinion that none of the Great Powers will be prepared to coerce the Turkish Government in order to carry out the conclusions of the Congress; and he adds that, inasmuch as moral persuasion is the only weapon at hand, it could obviously be used with better chances of success if an interval were allowed to elapse during which the

    1043
    excitement among the Mussulmans were allowed to calm down. Now, I would ask what effect upon a negotiation such as we are now engaged in must such a statement have? We may presume that the Turks also have been informed that moral persuasion is the only weapon we have at hand, or intended to use. I ask, where in the history of the Turkish Empire has moral persuasion been of any use, or effected anything? It may, or may not, be wise to use coercion; there are many degrees and methods of coercion. It does not necessarily mean the actual use of force, and history shows that where Europe is agreed and determined on a particular course a mere demonstration is sufficient; and I may remind the House that the settlement of the Greek question was only effected by France sending a Force to Greece; and later, in our own day, the settlement of Syria was only effected by France sending a Force there. In neither case was there resistance; but in both the demonstration was necessary, and without them nothing would have been done, and so it may be again in the future. If Europe agrees, and shows that it is in earnest, the Porte will not, and cannot, resist; its hope consists in dividing the Great Powers; and if one of them says, we will use nothing but moral persuasion, the Porte knows well enough what that means, and that she may safely refuse. It seems to me that to publish such a statement at this moment, at a time when mediation is pending, is to court failure, and to repeat the mistake made after the Conference of Constantinople, when the Turks were politely informed that whatever their decision England would never join in compelling them to do anything. Now, Sir, the letter I have quoted, and many other despatches in the Book, frankly admit that the Government has not objected to the delay which has taken place; they have thought it better that time should elapse, during which the Mussulman feeling should calm down. With all deference to the motives of the Government, I cannot but think that great evil has already arisen from the delay. The Turks have occupied the interval in preparing for local resistance. They have filled Thessaly and Epirus with troops; they have incessantly agitated among the Albanians; they have imported Albanians, Mussulmans, and Circassians
    1044
    into Epirus, and they have armed the small Mussulman minority; and, meanwhile, the Provinces are a prey to disorder; all this might have been avoided by more prompt action on our part. Now, I will willingly admit that the last despatch of Lord Salisbury, in reply to the invitation from France for mediation, is far more satisfactory than any previous document; but it must betaken in connection with the previous Correspondence. It does not disclaim Sir Henry Layard's objections to the surrender of Janina. It is quite consistent with it that Sir Henry Layard will continue his opposition on that point, and that we may find, on conclusion of the negotiations, that all the influence of England has been used to limit and curtail the recommendation of Congress. What we desire is, a full and frank statement from the Government that the influence of England will be used to obtain for Greece the widest extension of territory which the recommendations of the Congress are capable of, in lieu of the smallest, and that they will abide by the spirit of the conclusions of the Congress, and will endeavour to carry it out. If it be said that it is an unusual course to interfere with a debate in this House while negotiations are actually pending, I would venture to point out that we are only repeating the precedent set us by much greater men in 1830. The present position is almost identical with what it then was. The question what should be the limits of the new Kingdom of Greece was then referred to a Conference of the Ambassadors of the Great Powers at London; and it having leaked out that British influence was being used to curtail the limits, Motions were made in both Houses of Parliament, at the beginning of 1S30, by Lord Russell in one House, and by Lord Holland in the other, calling upon the Government to use its influence to secure a sufficient accession of territory to the new Kingdom. Lord Russell, Lord Palmerston, and Sir James Mackintosh argued most strongly that the two Provinces of Thessaly and Epirus, and the Island of Crete, were essential to the new Kingdom. I wish I could quote their speeches at length; they would serve word for word for the present occasion. They argued that without these Provinces Greece would not have territory enough for her proper

    1045
    development; they said that to leave outside the new Kingdom. Provinces whose inhabitants were so largely Greek would lead to constant agitation and prevent a settlement of a lasting character. Time, however, has proved the truth of the arguments of Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston. Unfortunately, those arguments did not prevail, and we now know, from the memoirs of those who carried out the negotiations, that under a false idea as to the interests of England all our influence was used to curtail the limits of Greece. We have the additional arguments drawn from a comparison of a free independent Greece with the condition of those Provinces left to wither and decay under the rule of Turkey. I ask those who doubt to visit these districts, and to compare Athens with Janina or Larissa, or go from Syra to Crete, or from Patras to Prevesa. He will find it is as going from light to darkness, from civilization to decay, or from the land of freedom and progress to the region of decay and desolation. It is admitted, on all hands, that a grave mistake was made in 1830; it was admitted by Lord Beaconsfield in the Congress, and by Lord Salisbury in his last despatch; the grounds alleged by both were—first, that the Frontier lines were badly traced, and encouraged brigandage; and, secondly and mainly, that it left outside Greece districts in which the Greeks largely predominated, and that it was not to be supposed that, with such a Government as Turkey, there could be contentment among the population thus left out, or that the people of Greece could not do otherwise than sympathize with their kinsmen left under cruel bondage, and that hence, from the very nature of things, there must be continued agitation and perpetual danger to the peace of Europe. We have now an opportunity of rectifying the mistake of 1830; for God's sake, do not let us repeat it again. The line drawn by Congress is already too narrow; by excluding the district of Janina we shall be repeating the mistake, for no one can doubt that it is essentially a Greek district. Just in proportion, then, as we extend the Frontier, so as to include all that is really Greek, we shall make that settlement a lasting one, one in the interests both of Turkey and Greece, and the best security for the peace of Europe.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to use Her influence to procure the prompt execution of those Articles of the Treaty of Berlin which relate to reforms in Turkey; and further praying that, in undertaking mediation under the 24th Article of the Treaty, She will endeavour to procure for Greece the rectification of frontier agreed upon by the Powers."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. HANBURY, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
    "That this House desires to express its gratification that the main portion of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin has been successfully carried into effect, and approves the steps which Her Majesty's Government have already taken to secure the full accomplishment of those portions of the Treaty which are still in course of execution;"
    said, that if the Motion which had been brought forward had been simply an abstract expression of opinion there would have been no occasion for his Amendment. If the Motion of the hon. Baronet merely conveyed to him the fact that the Powers of Europe, and especially this country, were interested in seeing the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin carried out speedily and completely, all parties would be equally ready to accept it. Turkey had given to her one more chance of life; and it would, of course, be the extremity of folly and little short of suicide if she were to refuse to carry out, with all possible speed, the proposed reforms, and to make use of this last opportunity. But when he came to treat the proposition of the hon. Baronet as a practical proposal, he found that it meant a great deal more and a great deal less than the truism he had enunciated. What had been the course taken by the Government down to the present moment? By advice, by remonstrance, and by rebuke the Government had pressed and forced upon the Porte the absolute necessity of setting its house in order. He appealed to hon. Members with confidence, and asked whether it was possible for the Government to have done more by diplomacy than they had done—at least, short of bluster and menace? Would the hon. Baronet have the Government persuade the Porte that reform was even more to our interest than to its own? Such a suggestion would surely prove to be very mischievous. When he listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading,

    1047
    who had just sat down, and heard him hint rather vaguely at coercion, he seemed to hear him advocate, not diplomacy, but the old, discarded method of physical force, which was not the way of the Government, and which, if adopted, would require, as an indispensable condition, the assistance of a confederate. But now the nation that might have been the confederate had good reason for keeping its charity at home, even if it were inclined to have a reformed country on its Frontier. It was neither the wish of England nor of the Ambassadors at Berlin that Turkey should be coerced. They said to her—"You must reform or perish; we put before you the choice; and the responsibility, if you refuse, must rest with the Porte, and with the Porte alone." There was, however, another principle in the Treaty, which was conspicuously absent from the terms of the Motion, and that was the elementary principle of fair play. By that principle, Christians and Mussulmans ought no longer to be judged by two different standards. It was a principle applicable, in the first place, to the Empire of the Sultan, but not more so to the Pashas of the Porte than to the Benches of the House of Commons; and when he found the hon. Baronet taking out of the Treaty just those portions that suited him, and setting aside, as mere verbiage, other portions that were equally important, he felt that he was not giving fair play to the country he attacked. The hon. Baronet singled out Turkey, a country demoralized by intrigue, still staggering from its death-struggle, and oppressed by a more gigantic task than had ever fallen to any other Government, and, under such conditions, expected it to reform in the course of the 365 days that might be called by courtesy a year of peace. Were there no other nations equally bound by the Treaty, and bound to give to their peoples the liberty for which they cried so loudly in the case of Turkey? Were the inhabitants of Bulgaria—where, by-the-bye, the fortresses had not been utterly dismantled—yet in the enjoyment of their farms and villages? Were not the Jews of Servia and Roumania as far as ever from freedom? The hon. Baronet left them on one side, and heaped all the vials of his wrath upon unfortunate Turkey. It seemed to him that it was most inconsistent of hon. Members, in
    1048
    so short a space of time, to bring such charges against the Porte. They usually described Turkey as a festering mass of corruption. How, then, could they expect that its rotten body could take up its bed and walk, immediately after being relieved from the terrorizing and galvanizing influence of the bullets of the Czar? The hon. Baronet had brought forward many Motions in the course of the Session, and in one of them he had complained that Cyprus had not yet been made a paradise. They might quarrel about the occupation of the Island, but not as to the fact that an English Governor would try to procure for it the best government he could. Cyprus, in all its conditions, could compare favourably with the gigantic Empire of Turkey, and, moreover, had not been ravaged by war; yet the hon. Baronet had come forward to complain of its government. Possibly, the hon. Baronet might say that, with the present Government in Office, English Governors were as bad as the Turkish; but, in that case, he could not very well ask the Government to give a lesson and example to Turkey. Reform was always a very slow process in the East; and, at the present moment, the word "prompt" was a remarkable word to put upon the records of the English Parliament. It had taken them four months to discuss the discipline of the Army, and yet it was urged that a year was enough to recover and re-model a great Empire in the East. Did the hon. Baronet suppose that there was no such thing as obstruction in Turkey? He ought to have remembered that the East was the natural home of obstruction? The Bishops and the Pashas alike misrepresented the people. He knew from personal experience that they were about the most sober, industrious, and patient people in this world. He had travelled several times over that country, and, therefore, he had an opportunity of seeing what the people were. It was not only the Christians who complained of bad government at Constantinople. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would fall into the mistake of supposing the Conservative Party to be friends of the Pashas instead of the people of Turkey. Their object really was to bring about good government for all, and he had no hesitation in saying that the Mahommedan Government of Turkey was as much de-

    1049
    tested by the Arabic and Syriac populations as by the Christians. If there was to be a speedy and effectual reform of that country, the change must come from below rather than from above; from the country districts, instead of from the pandemonium of Constantinople. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to hear those cheers from the opposite Benches, because what he was leading to was this—that a short time before war broke out a remedy was prescribed, which he believed to be the best and most speedy way of effecting a reform. A Turkish Parliament was suggested; but by Members on those Benches the suggestion was treated with the greatest scorn, and it was to a great extent owing to the bad reception that Parliament had met with in this country that, in dealing with the question of reforms in Turkey, it was with the Sultan and the Pashas they had to take account. It could not be expected that the Government of Turkey would show any great activity in carrying out reforms, if the engagements entered into with it by this country were not fulfilled. At Berlin a promise was given to Turkey that if she would give her people freedom and good government we would give her Empire rest. The signatures of our Ambassadors were hardly dry on the Treaty of Berlin before the engagements we had entered into, not only in that Treaty, but in the Anglo-Turkish Convention, were criticized and condemned by the rank-and-file, as well as by the Leaders and ex-Leaders of the Liberal Party in that House. Was it not, therefore, possible that the Sultan and the Pashas were at this moment waiting to see whether they were dealing with a country that respected its pledges, or with one that repudiated, in one year, the pledges and obligations it had entered into the year before? With regard to that part of the hon. Baronet's Motion which referred to Greece, he would observe that it was vague, like many previous Motions expressing want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. The language was such as to convey to people outside a totally different idea from that conveyed to persons who were intimately acquainted with the subject. The hon. Baronet asked Her Majesty to endeavour to procure for Greece the rectification of Frontier agreed upon by the Powers, What did the hon. Baronet
    1050
    mean by a rectification of Frontier? It was quite possible he meant two things. If he meant a general rectification of Frontier, he (Mr. Hanbury) agreed with him. It was agreed there should be a rectification of Frontier. But if he meant any particular rectification of Frontier, then he entirely disagreed with him, because they had only to read the Protocols to find that the line recommended was a most vague and general line indeed. Lord Salisbury said Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries understood a line to be indicated in a general way, and M. Waddington made a statement explicitly to that effect. In quoting from the despatches of Sir Henry Layard, the hon. Baronet gave the House to understand that our Ambassador was not acquainted with the intentions of the Congress as regarded the exact nature of the Frontier line; but, only two lines below the extract quoted by the hon. Baronet, Sir Henry Layard gave the recommendations of the Congress, and said that the line did not give Janina to Greece. He maintained the line was very vague; and, as a matter of fact, looking at the map, he did not believe that Janina was actually included in the line. Then it was urged that if the proposals of Berlin were carried out Greece would have all she claimed. That was by no means the case. Mediation did not mean that one side was to have all it claimed and all the advantages of the bargain. It would be necessary to consider the attitude of Greece, and Greece had declared that not one inch less would she take than the line laid down at the Congress in Berlin. That was all very well, but the line was a vague one. No Frontier was agreed upon; there was simply a recommendation that Turkey should accept a vague, general boundary, as proposed at the Congress. When the hon. Baronet brought the charge against Her Majesty's Government of not having taken sufficient interest in the cause of Greece, he seemed to ignore what England had done for her. At the Congress England had been the best friend of Greece. He had heard it said on the front Opposition Bench by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the Treaty of San Stefano was, in many respects, a Treaty much preferable to that of Berlin; but if the Treaty of San Stefano had been carried out, then good-

    1051
    bye to Greece and her extensions. Therefore, it could not be said that the English Government had taken insufficient interest in the cause of Greece. The Greeks were perfectly satisfied with the efforts of Her Majesty's Government. Both the King and the President of the Council thanked the British Minister at Athens for what this country was doing for her; and even the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), writing in The Nineteenth Century, said—
    "Her Majesty's Government assumed, to the great and general satisfaction of the country, the charge of the Hellenic cause."
    It was, therefore, somewhat curious that, after so short a time had passed, a Motion should be brought forward which virtually impugned the conduct of the Administration with reference to the Greeks. A good many reasons were assigned why something should be done for Greece. There was a sentimental idea abroad upon the subject, and he had no doubt that in that idea many hon. Members shared. But what sentiment was there in the matter? The Greeks were simply the inhabitants of a country in which there lived some 2,000 years ago the famous men who might or might not have been their ancestors. Then they were referred to the plea of good behaviour; but Frontiers were not given to nations for good behaviour; but even if that was the case he did not think Greece could put forward such a claim. He was told that England was under obligations to Greece. Why, it was exactly the other way. When, during the Turkish War, Greece was likely to do mischief, England interposed and saved her from what would have been well-merited punishment at the hands of Turkey. Again, an appeal was made on the ground of nationality; but here they were on dangerous ground, for there were Mahommedans in these districts, and even in Janina. Did the people of this district wish to be annexed to Greece? In addition to interfering with the affairs of Thessaly and Epirus, Greece had followed a similar course in Crete, and had created so strong a feeling of disgust that a riot occurred among the Cretans, and several of the Greek agents were massacred. He could not think that, on the question of nationality, speaking on the nature of all the evidence before Parliament, there was anything to be said
    1052
    in favour of the proposed annexation on the ground of nationality. Then, again, it was said—"You are going to set the Greeks up as antagonists to the Slav; and, to prevent the Slav going further South, you ought to encourage the claims of Greece." It was a little too late in the day to make that objection, after the Treaty of Berlin had been agreed to, which gave such great powers to the Slav in Roumania and Bulgaria; but, even if it were not too late, had the Greeks ever shown any likelihood whatever of being able to cope with the Slav? A noble poet, who took the utmost possible interest in the condition of Greece, once wrote—
    "We have the Pyrrhic dance as yet, Where has the Pyrrhic phalanx gone?"
    and this seemed to him to explain, as nearly as possible, the condition of the country at this moment. What was the one reason for which the recommendation of the Congress of Berlin was made? Simply and solely in order that Turkey might have rest on this subject, and on condition that Greece herself should give no further trouble to Europe. What did that imply? It implied that the Frontier which was to be drawn between Greece and Turkey should be a strong one; but it was impossible to read the statements of the Turkish Generals without feeling that, if the line roughly proposed by the Congress were adopted, they would have no kind of natural Frontier between Greece and Turkey. That was a formidable difficulty; but the real difficulty lay in the fact that Greece herself proclaimed most distinctly that, even if what was now proposed were given to her, she would not take it as a final settlement; and in this refusal he was sorry to say she was encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich in one of his numerous contributions to periodical literature. Greece was now meddling in Crete and in Cyprus; she was maintaining as loudly as even the possibility of a Byzantine Empire; and in all these instances it was much better for Her Majesty's Government to say to turkey and Greece, "Settle this matter between yourselves," that to follow the course of those friends of Greece who proposed that a line should be imposed by an outside Power. If Greece entertained these indefinite ideas of extension, it

    1053
    upset the whole principles upon which the recommendations made in the Treaty of Berlin were founded. It was the want of finality in these arrangements which made Turkey hesitate before she took up these reforms. Indeed, the hon. Members who took up this line were playing into the hands of the unpatriotic Pashas, who would lose a great deal if real reforms were granted to all these Provinces, and into the hands of Russia, which Power did not want to see a reformed country on her Frontier. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea declared that recent intelligence from Turkey showed that she was going from bad to worse. He maintained that that assertion was the very contrary of the fact, for the news received from Constantinople that very day showed that Khaireddin Pasha had gained a triumph over the Sultan; that was of the greatest importance, and was full of promise for the future prosperity of Turkey. In spite of all her difficulties, a great deal had been done by Turkey during the past year. In the first place, she had gone through the difficult operation of handing over vast Provinces to her conquerors. She had assisted in giving good government to Eastern Roumelia; she had given good government to Crete, the latter having been made a model Province. She had appointed able Governors to several Provinces, and given to some of these Governors a long term of office. She had also got the bad Pashas out of the way. [Cries of "Chefket Pasha!"] Of course, it was possible to point to the case of Chefket Pasha, and his retention in office was undoubtedly a great slur upon Turkey; but, certainly, some dangerous Pashas had been got rid of. Again, the organization of justice had been re-modelled, and, on the recommendation of Lord Salisbury, the tithe had been confined to a single Province. In many important respects Turkey had acted upon the recommendations of Lord Salisbury. She had appointed Europeans to control the gendarmerie and the Judges, and in this respect she had exercised a very wise discretion. Turkey had two great difficulties—one with reference to money, and the other with reference to men. The first of these difficulties ought not to be too much insisted upon, because Turkey must reform herself whether she had money or not, Turkey was, how-
    1054
    ever, an agricultural country, and probably she could recover from her distress more easily than many other nations. He hoped, therefore, that in future they would hear less of this difficulty of money. As to foreigners, he was bound to say they were not a panacea for the evils of Turkey, for some of the foreigners formerly employed in that country had turned out to be as great scamps in their way as the Turks themselves. He considered that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea was premature. After all, they had to deal with the Sultan and the Pashas, as being for the present the only possible Governors of Turkey. They must endeavour to do them justice, bad as they might be or good as they might be. If the Turks failed, who were to come in their place? They could not divide Turkey in Asia as they had divided Turkey in Europe. If the Turk fell, the Russian must come. Turkey in Asia was largely a Mahommedan country, and what would be the fate of the Mahommedans under Russian rule? Many of the Christian population were not of the Greek, but of the Latin Church, and they might judge of what would be their fate from their experience of the treatment of the Latin Christians in Russia itself. He advocated also, in the interests of his own country, that they should give this the only possible Government in Turkey a fair chance, because, if the Turkish Government were to fall, there would be an upheaving of the great deep and a beginning of trouble, which would involve us and Europe in a long and costly struggle, of which no man could foresee the end. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Mr. GLADSTONErose, but gave way to—
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, who said, he regretted to stand between the House and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone); but he was about to second the Amendment. He desired to express his gratitude to his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for the kind manner in which they had spoken of his recent labours in Eastern Roumelia. Although he and his noble

    1055
    Friend (Lord Donoughmore) might have been chosen as Party men to serve on a Bulgarian Commission, they were determined to execute their task irrespective of Party politics; and the instructions they received from Her Majesty's Government were that they should carry it out on the principles of local self-government and free institutions, which had been so successful in this country. He also expressed his acknowledgments to the right hon. Member for Greenwich for having said, in a letter he had written to some Bulgarians who had sought to enlist the right hon. Gentleman in favour of setting aside the arrangements of the Treaty of Berlin, that he would offer no opinion on the matter until he had seen the results of the Commissioners' labours. Before he went into the question of the non-fulfilment of this Treaty he would point out that there were other Treaties, the stipulations of which had not been fulfilled. The Treaty of Vienna was still unfulfilled in many points, and in 1848 or 1849 Lord Palmerston used some forcible language about its non-fulfilment in regard to the City of Cracow. In 1856, shortly after the Treaty of Paris was signed by the Representatives of the Powers, the English Government was obliged to adopt the strong measure of sending the Fleet to the Black Sea before it could compel Russia to comply with the stipulations of that instrument. The hon. Member for Chelsea had not treated the matter fairly in merely singling out the non-fulfilment of certain stipulations by Turkey; for, as his hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) had already pointed out, there were many other unfulfilled stipulations of the Treaty, though they had heard little of them. For instance, the fortresses of Bulgaria had not yet been destroyed, and the Jews had not yet been emancipated in Roumania, and were not entirely so in Servia; but he could bear testimony to the fact that the Turkish Commissioners on the Commission in which he acted were the strongest in supporting the principles of civil and religious freedom on which the Constitution drawn up for Eastern Roumelia was based. The hon. Member for Chelsea said they had not re-established the direct rule of the Sultan in the Province, and that the "bag-and-
    1056
    baggage policy" had been carried out. Well, it was not for the hon. Baronet to blame the English Commissioners even if that were so. But he thought that the direct rule of the Sultan existed quite as much in Eastern Roumelia as that of Her Majesty did in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Queen had the right of garrison in the Channel Islands, and of giving her assent or dissent to the Acts passed by their local Legislatures. The Commissioners were instructed to establish the direct political and military rule of the Sultan as far as concerned the external defence and protection of the country; but they were also instructed to give the Province an autonomy based on the law of the vilayets and on the decision of the Conference of Constantinople, in which Lord Salisbury took so prominent a part, and which conceded the widest local liberty. The hon. Member for Chelsea said that Aleko, the Governor of Eastern Roumelia, was not a Turkish Pasha. If he was not that he did not know what he was. He had been all his life in the Turkish Service. At one time he was a Secretary of Legation, and afterwards he became Ambassador at Vienna. He was a Turkish subject, a Greek by education, and a Bulgarian by birth. He had arrived at the Frontier in a fez. The Russians had then sent to him what is usually called a "billycock" hat as a compromise. His Excellency had, however, assumed the kalpak. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) thought the importance of the question had been much exaggerated. To put on the kalpak, which was the national head-dress, could hardly be said to involve a formidable attack on the authority of the Government. If they could suppose such a thing possible as an insurrection in Scotland, it could hardly be thought, when it was appeased, that if a Governor went to that country in a kilt he thereby made a great attack on the integrity of the British Empire. The hon. Member for Chelsea said that the Turks were prepared to extend the Eastern Roumelian statute to the other Provinces of European Turkey only as far as claiming tribute was concerned. But this statute placed the whole question of taxation and its collection entirely under the control of the local Legislatures, so that it would be impossible for the Turks to lay hands upon any portion

    1057
    of the revenue not assigned to them without the consent and assistance of the local authorities, who would have the matter completely in their own hands. His hon. Friend had also spoken of a statement of Lord Salisbury's to the effect that the Commission was only to last for three months, within which time the other reforms ought to have been completed. They met for the first time on the 30th of September, and the three months would have terminated at the end of December. But the Commissioners felt it would be utterly impossible to finish their labours by that time, and in answer to communications from them the different Governments agreed to extend the time. But even if, for certain purposes, their Commission had expired after three months' time, it was provided by the 19th Article that the European Commission should continue to administer the finances of the Provinces till the new organization was complete. As it happened, they only handed over the administration of the finances to the local authorities about the 1st or 2nd of June; and, therefore, he thought that complaint fell entirely to the ground. The hon. Member for Chelsea had quoted a statement of his to the effect that the want of money was no excuse for the Turkish Government, and contrasted it with something Lord Salisbury had said in "another place." But the hon. Member seemed to him to be in some error, inasmuch as Lord Salisbury's language referred to reforms not in European but in Asiatic Turkey. For his own part, he still maintained that the want of money was no excuse for delaying such reforms as the drawing up of reforms for the European Provinces. He thought Turkey was very much to blame in this; and, though he could not support the Resolution of his hon. Friend opposite, he believed that a strong expression of opinion on the part of that House was most desirable in order to force upon the Turkish Government the necessity of carrying out such reforms. The hon. Member had also alluded to certain atrocities now occurring in Macedonia. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had gone with no preconceived opinions, and had been most particular in inquiring into the question of atrocities. He had sent his Private Secretary, Mr. Walpole,
    1058
    Times' Correspondent, who was by no means a Turcophile, into a neighbouring village, and later alone into Macedonia, and he must say that there were very great atrocities being committed on Turks by the Bulgarians. One case was reported in the Blue Books. In another case he had been informed by some Turks that they had been driven out of their village by the Bulgarians with the cognizance of the Bulgarian head-man, and their wives had been violated. These Turks refused some money which he offered them, saying it was no good taking it because they would be at once deprived of it. These facts would all appear in the Blue Books. The two gentlemen whom he had mentioned went at his request to examine into the matter, and they certified to the truth of all these statements. There was another very recent case in which some Bulgarian zaptiehs went into the house of a Turk and asked a woman where the money was. On her refusing to tell, they stabbed her in one or two places and put burning coals on her breast until she gave the information they demanded. He had sent his private secretary and his official secretary, who took a deposition as to the fact. He did not dwell upon these cases very much, because in times of war and disturbance great horrors would happen. But it was not quite fair to charge these horrors entirely on the Turks. The object of the Commissioners was to establish such a system of police in Eastern Roumelia as to prevent this kind of hostility between the races in the future. He was convinced it might be done away with. In some parts of Eastern Roumelia the Turks and Bulgarians were, at the present time, on very good terms; and he had great hopes that when the Russian Forces were withdrawn, and the country had become absorbed in agriculture and commerce, the two peoples might live very well and happily together. He did not deny the existence of Turkish atrocities; but they ought to acknowledge that there were atrocities on the other side as well. He would not go into the question of Greece, as he had not been able to follow it closely; but he was of opinion that the wisest thing Turkey could do would be to come to terms with Greece as speedily as possible. The House would recollect that the question did

    1059
    along with Mr. Mackenzie Wallace, The not affect Greece only, but also a very large population in Turkey who sympathized with their Greek brethren outside. This Greek element was at present well-affected towards Turkish rule; but they sympathized with their brethren in Greece proper, so that it would be best for Turkey not to refuse their demands much longer. He need hardly say that one of the standing difficulties of Turkey was the chance of a war with Greece. There were still other questions to be grappled with in Turkey; and as Khaireddin Pasha, the present Grand Vizier, whose opinions were liberal and enlightened, had always shown himself disposed towards carrying out the necessary reforms, he believed that his tenure of office would conduce much to a satisfactory settlement of the difficulties. For his own part—speaking with a strong sense of responsibility, and being desirous of maintaining the Turkish Empire—he felt convinced that that Empire could only be maintained by a complete system of decentralization. The state of Constantinople was something perfectly appalling, and he scarcely liked to tell of all the instances of corruption that had come under his notice. The House would be able to judge from one or two instances. It was generally known that the import duties were to the amount of 8 per cent ad valorem. A friend of his had imported goods to the extent of £800, and wished to have the boxes opened at his own house and not at the Custom House. At the Custom House he declared their value, and offered £64, the duty of 8 per cent, together with a fee to cover the expenses of the Custom House officer. Nothing would induce the Custom House officer to accept the offer, and a broker at last tried his hand and obtained the boxes for £8, the £64 being taken as the basis of the duty. Of this £8, 8 per cent on £64 was paid to the Government, the rest being appropriated by the officers as back-sheesh. He was informed by a gentleman who had had access to the Papers relating to the Revenues of Turkey that, at the present time, only about £12,000,000 went into the Treasury Chest; while he was convinced that no less than £25,000,000 were paid by the taxpayers, and the country was thus reduced to poverty. Notwithstanding that, the informant
    1060
    said that the country did not require the services of any heaven-born financier in order to overcome the difficulties and to set things straight. If only the present arrangements were honestly worked, the revenue would rise to its proper amount. Every attempt had been made to patch up the finances of Turkey. An offer had been made by M. de Tocqueville, and had fallen to the ground; and, again, a plan had been suggested by which the Ottoman Bank should relieve the wants of the country. These offers comprised a loan of the sum of £6,000,000, which was wanted for the disbandment of troops, the redemption of the caime, and establishing a gendarmerie; but if that proposal had been accepted, it would have been all but fatal, as it would have given Turkey the means of going on for another six months. Then there would be another crisis, with the old story over again. If Turkey wanted to live she must look into the question as a whole, and institute reforms to last, not for six months, but for many years. That could only be done by decentralizing. If the finances were mismanaged in the capital, how much more were they likely to be mismanaged in the Provinces, where there was no check upon them, and whence an appeal could only be made to the mismanagement of the Metropolis. So, why not allow the Provinces to govern themselves and pay for their own police? Why should they depend upon the police, which were said to be sent down from Constantinople; but which he knew, in many instances, were really not sent down at all? Turkey ought to adopt the plan which had been suggested by England—namely, to lay by so much of the annual revenue of the Provinces for State purposes—for the Army, Navy, Diplomacy, and Public Debt, and spend the rest of the money in the Provinces under supervision. There were some who were now prophesying smooth things for the Turkish Government, and endeavouring to maintain them in their old traditions, saying—"Hold out, for England must in time come to help you;" but, for his own part, he submitted the Turkish Government must help themselves. Although he could not, for the reasons he had stated, support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, he felt that it would be well if there

    1061
    was a strong expression of opinion from the House of Commons to the effect that we had done all we could for Turkey, that we were friendly, that we felt the necessity of her existence as a barrier to Russia; but that, at the same time, she must execute the stipulations she had entered into, and show herself capable of carrying out the reforms which had been marked out for her. For this purpose he thought the Amendment quite preferable to the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House desires to express its gratification that the main portion of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin has teen successfully carried into effect, and approves the steps which Her Majesty's Government have already taken to secure the full accomplishment of those portions of the Treaty which are still in course of execution,"—(Mr. Hanbury,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I need not say I bear in my mind the fact that no hon. Member in the House, excepting those who have moved and seconded the Motion, and the Amendment, have yet been led to address it, for want of time. I confess it appears to me little less than a mockery to commence a general discussion, upon a question of this vast extent, after midnight. That is the condition, however, in which we are placed; and if this were the time to discuss obstruction, there are many things with regard to the Business of the House that I could say that only the extreme pressure of time prevents me from saying. The effect will be that I shall, myself, avoid a great many topics of great interest and importance, and a great many observations that have been heard in the speeches delivered, of which I should wish to take notice, but which are not absolutely essential to the main purpose that we have in view. Allow me to say, Sir, however, that I have listened to the hon. Gentleman the Seconder of the Amendment (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), in the main, with lively satisfaction. I am obliged to make that qualification, "in the main," which he will thoroughly understand; because no one could listen otherwise than with pain to the statements which he made in regard to the
    1062
    outrages, which, as I have always said, if committed by Christians upon Mahommedans and Turks, are even worse than outrages if committed by Turks and Mahommedans upon Christians. These are matters of investigation, on which I give no opinion, beyond the general principle; but, as regards the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I will not say it has surprised me, after what I have seen and. heard of his labours elsewhere; but it demands from me an expression of lively satisfaction. What the Mover of the Amendment thought on the subject it would be difficult for me to conjecture; but there are indications frequently in the course of speeches and at the close of speeches by which one can judge, in a certain measure, of the impression that they make on the two sides of the House. The speech of the hon. Member was greeted, during its delivery, and at its close, with the liveliest expressions of sympathy and satisfaction from this side of the House; but I am sorry to say that I did not catch, though I listened anxiously and intently, any corresponding amount of similar expressions from the hon. Gentlemen among whom the hon. Member sits; but having endeavoured, as well as I can, to compliment the hon. Seconder upon the character of his speech, will he permit me to offer a single criticism? My criticism is this—I am at a loss to connect the speech with the vote he proposes to give. He stated that he should vote against my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on account of reasons which he had given; but it appears to me that those reasons were a part of the hon. Member's purpose, which he had been obliged to drop in consequence of the pressure of time. I do not detect these reasons in any portion of his speech, and that he may be assured that I am not indulging in captious criticism I will just call the attention of the House to the two branches of the Motion of my hon. Friend, and I will consider the bearing of the speech of the hon. Seconder upon the two branches of that Motion. In the first branch, my hon. Friend invites the House to pray Her Majesty to use her influence to procure the prompt execution of those Articles of the Treaty of Berlin which relate to reform in Turkey. Upon that portion of the Motion the hon. Seconder recorded a very strong opinion

    1063
    that a decided expression of sentiment from this House, urging Turkey forward in the path of reform, and conveying to Turkey the conviction it entertains as to the policy of her excuses, would be an expression of the utmost value. Then, with regard to the rest of the Motion, it appears that Turkey will endeavour to procure for Greece the rectification of the Frontier agreed upon by the Powers. Well, Sir; but the hon. Gentleman, in the same spirit of ingenuousness as well as intelligence which characterized his speech at large, stated, in his judgment, as totally distinct and different from, and at variance with, and in contradiction to, the Mover of the Amendment, that it was essential to the interests of Turkey that she should proceed to a prompt settlement on the lines of the Treaty. Well, Sir, I entertained very lively hopes, under these circumstances, that we might have had the benefit of the vote of the hon. Member. Not having the benefit of his vote, I am still more grateful for the strength and encouragement we derive from the whole tenour of his speech. Let us hope it will be reported, as having come before the hour of midnight; it will be reported with greater accuracy and precision than those who, like myself, fall upon still more advanced hours. I trust it will be circulated far and wide; for I am sure, coming as it does from a Gentleman of intelligence, who has had the confidence of the Government, and has lately been engaged in important duties in Turkey and has come back from there, and from his knowledge and experience of the country, that it will have a most beneficial effect. When I turn to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Hanbury), I am very sorry to say that I am unable to hold a similar strain of language. The Mover of the Amendment, Sir, is desirous of appearing as a supporter of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government; but it is evident that he altogether disapproves of the important despatch written by Lord Salisbury on the 12th of June, which is, in point of fact, a manifesto of the prospective policy of the Government. If it is not a manifesto of the prospective policy of the Government, it would be a gross delusion on the House, coming, as it does, at the close of the volume; but, on that point, I do not entertain the smallest doubt. I accept it as a clear
    1064
    and luminous description of the bases on which they mean to proceed, and it is totally at variance with the views and sentiments of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He is not only at variance with the Government, but he is at variance with the Treaty of Berlin. He objects altogether to that Treaty. He says the Frontier, in the first place, is a very vague and unintelligible one; and, secondly, that it is a very bad one. He says what is necessary is not that the Powers should intervene, that the Treaty should be fulfilled, and that the operations should take effect; but he thought Turkey and Greece should be left to settle it between themselves. That is to say, that they should go to war with one another—[Mr. HANBURY: No, no.]—Is not that the meaning of "settling it between themselves?" Does the hon. Member suppose that a settlement between them can be attained in any other way excepting by the authority of the Powers? If he does think so, I believe he is the only man in this House who thinks so; and he certainly is the only man who is governed by a credulity which I should be sorry to impute to a Gentleman of his intelligence. A settlement between Turkey and Greece either means nothing at all, or it means a settlement by the strong hand—by force of constant rebellion, fed and fomented in the Turkish territory by the direct sympathy of Greece, by the invasion by Greek Forces to support that rebellion, and by the occurrence of a state of things so dreadful that the interference of Europe would be an absolute necessity for the purpose of bringing about a settlement. The hon. Gentleman appears simply as an enemy of the Treaty of Berlin—in that point of view in which he touches the Treaty in a definite manner. I do not suppose he regards the earlier portion of the Motion. No objection can be taken to the desire of urging the Turkish Power forward. "In the immediate execution of reforms" is an expression in itself so general that it conveys no inconveniently rigid demand upon Her Majesty's Government so as to fetter their discretion. The definite part of the Motion of my hon. Friend is that to which I will now address myself—namely, that which proposes that the Government shall endeavour to procure for Greece the recti-

    1065
    fication of Frontier agreed upon by the Powers, because, he says, this rectification is bad, and a rectification which ought not to be made. What are the reasons the hon. Gentleman advances in support of his extraordinary attack on the Treaty of Berlin? With regard to the character of the recommendation, he says it is extremely hard to attack Turkey, for that in Turkey the people are very good, and the Pashas and the Government are very bad. He speaks as if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea was anxious to apply force to the people; but it is to the Pashas and the Government that he wants to apply force; and, therefore, the Mover of the Amendment ought to be extremely glad that this corrupt Government, whose faults he has described, and takes credit to himself for describing, are to be placed under pressure on the authority of the Powers of Europe. He makes all manner of charges against the Greek Government and peoples; and against me he makes charges the most groundless that I have ever been subjected to, though they are not very serious. He made them out by quoting, as my own sentiments, the account I gave of the Greek Memorandum.
    MR. HANBURY: I beg pardon. I distinctly quoted the right hon. Gentleman's words. I quoted four instances—half the first were his, and the whole of the next.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I know the hon. Gentleman did. He began his main quotation, and the only quotation which, in the slightest degree, went to the point, with words in which I have described the purport of the Greek Memorandum; next he read words which are historical, which are perfectly true, which are perfectly just, and to which I adhere; and they do not bear one shred of the meaning the hon. Gentleman ascribes to them. It is perfectly true that the principle on which the Congress proceeded at Berlin was a principle that would have justified the wider recommendation that France had asked for, and that Lord Palmerston, and Lord Russell, and the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston in 1862 had made a wider recommendation. But he did not quote these for the purpose of insinuating and saying that the Greek ought not to be satisfied with what the Congress had recommended. Not one word can he find to justify that. He
    1066
    may choose to suggest the insinuation; but, with the recollection of what I wrote, I challenge him to produce it, showing one word to that purpose. What I did was this. I showed that the wider recommendations that had been made by France, that had been made by Lord Palmerston, and that might have been involved in the proposal, were so many reasons why Turkey should promptly acquiesce in that settlement now made, and why Her Majesty's Government should vigorously set about promoting that settlement, in order that Turkey might get—what I always desired she should have—the best settlement of which the circumstances permitted for the disposal of this part of the question. The hon. Gentleman says the Greek Government has been meddling in Crete and Cyprus. What do we know of that? The hon. Gentleman has given us no details, no particulars, has quoted no authorities; but seeks, by raising a vague prejudice against the Greek Government, to draw the House off from the purpose we have now in view. The hon. Gentleman charged the Greek Government with one act which, he said, was an act of misconduct—the sending of the Army across the Frontier. But that was done before the Congress at Berlin, and before the time when, for a very short period, the British Government made themselves champions of the Hellenic nation. It has acted in good faith since the judgment given by the Congress—since the mediation recommended by the Congress. The hon. Gentleman says that the people of Epirus and Thessaly do not want to be annexed to Greece. Where is his authority for that? That is his opinion, and in that opinion he is perfectly in conflict not only with—I will not say the opinions on this side of the House—but he has here also come into conflict, and in direct conflict, with the opinion of Lord Salisbury. He thinks that Epirus and Thessaly may very well remain under the rule of the Sultan. [Mr. HANBURY: I quoted the opinion of Sir Henry Layard.] Does the hon. Gentleman think that Epirus and Thessaly will remain under the rule of the Sultan? But, if he quoted Sir Henry Layard, I can only say he is in complete conflict with Lord Salisbury; because his Lordship, with great good sense, in the despatch of the 12th June, after urging

    1067
    upon the Sultan the consideration that the territory in question is rather a source of weakness than of strength, adds, that if he retains this district under his dominion it will
    "Bear him a reluctant allegiance. Being Christians, they do not add to the number of his Army; that in time of trouble their discontent is a standing source of danger and a steady drain upon his defensive power. The desire, which has been chronic among them for so long, prevents them from yielding any revenue compatible with the cost which it imposes."
    The hon. Member comes here as a friend of Turkey. I have no doubt that he is the friend of Turkey, but he is one of those friends who have lured on Turkey to her destruction; and now he is advising Turkey not to give way, not to accede to the demands of the Powers, and not to listen to the authority of Europe. That was the whole tenour of his speech, and it wound up with a recommendation that the Powers should abandon their solemn conclusion, and leave the matter to be settled between Turkey and Greece. Well, Sir, I do not recollect whether there is any other important allegation made by the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary for me to mention; but he spoke, I remember, of the impossibility of regenerating the Turkish Empire in 12 months, and then of certain things which had been done in the way of reform. When he spoke of making a good appointment, he was naturally reminded of the case of Chefket Pasha, perhaps one of the greatest miscreants on earth, who was so described solemnly by the British Government, and who was indicated by the British Government as a man whose crimes called for condign punishment. That man has been favoured, petted, kept in good offices, placed in disturbed districts, invested with the power of determining the happiness and misery of hundreds of thousands of people by the Sultan and by Pashas upon whom the hon. Gentleman said—"For God's sake do not exercise pressure." Then the hon. Gentleman spoke of Midhat Pasha. I know that Midhat Pasha is, among all their enemies, the most formidable, and more than formidable, the most repugnant to the subject-races. The hon. Gentleman says the Sultan has appointed him for five years. I do not know whether he is so appointed, and I confess I care very little if he is so appointed. A man of that class is certainly likely to be
    1068
    appointed somewhere; but I decline entirely to accept that appointment as a proof, such as he wishes me to take, of the commencement of reform in Turkey. Then the hon. Member has spoken of the appointment of Photiades Bey in Crete for five years. I believe he has not received an appointment of an irrevocable character. I believe if Photiades Bey were appointed under a valid instrument not revocable that he would probably be a very good Governor of Crete; but I am obliged to confess myself in conflict with the hon. Gentleman on the point of fact, and judging from my information, derived at least from a man of great experience in Crete who ought to be well informed, Photiades Bey holds his appointment from day to day, depending altogether on the breath of the Sultan and the officers by whom he is surrounded. Well, now, Sir, if I may leave the question—Oh, yes! there was the other point. We have recently heard of the re-organization of the Judges, of the reform of the Judicial system. We have been so profitably busy about it in this country for the last 50 years that the hon. Gentleman was quite justified in supposing that that would sound to us as if it were a great title for commendation. The statement he made was that 183 Judges had been appointed—which was more than the whole Judicial Staff in this country—and that out of these 166 were Mahommedans. [An hon. MEMBER: 83.] The hon. Gentleman may be better informed than I am; but I must speak from the information I have received. But out of these Judges nearly all are Mahommedans. The appointment of a number of new Judges is no sign at all of the reality of improvement in Turkey. Let us hear from the lips of responsible Ministers that progress is being made, and then we will begin to believe it. The hon. Gentleman is old enough to reflect and to remember what took place in former times in Turkey—after the Hatti-Cheriff in 1839. After the Hatti-Humayoun in 1866, there arose a great promise of reform—nay, more—there were real beginnings of reform. It is only just to Turkish statesmen to say that after the Hatti-Humayoun of 1866 there were some real beginnings of reform. But we have now given Turkey 12 months, and we have not heard from the lips

    1069
    of responsible Ministers of the Government, who would not speak without knowing that they are well informed, any real assurance of any real progress made—of any district better governed, and in the single instance which amidst the pressure of Parliamentary Business a particular case has been cited—namely, the case of Armenia, the language held has been totally different. Not a project has been advanced, not a hope even has been ventured that any improvement has been made. Well, now, Sir, it was necessary for me to notice these points of the speech which referred to the case of the Greeks, and which were intended to prejudice the Greek Government in the eyes of the House, as the hon. Member also thought to prejudice the case in the eyes of the House by talking about the dangers that were to follow the downfall of Turkey. Perhaps dangers would follow the sudden downfall of Turkey; and, if so, that was the more reason for not following the advice of the hon. Member, because it was to him and other so-called friends that a very large part of the dangers of Turkey are now due. They have had their way. What has happened during the last three years? Who is responsible? Are not you in the majority? Have not you had countless triumphs in this House? Have you not had the whole power of the Empire at your back? Do you think, then, you can come here and say that the minority has marred your valuable efforts, or has baffled you? If you are a majority, you are the Parliament of England. You are the Queen's Government. You are the House of Lords and the House of Commons. You say you also have had the people at your back. I should think, then, the hon. Gentleman himself would be ashamed that the handful of persons sitting on these Benches have been enabled to baffle the operation of that enormous powerful machinery, or to say that by its combinations the whole forces of your policy have been so enfeebled and made useless that its efforts have resulted in the prostration of Turkey, in the humiliation and mutilation of Turkey, in the increased weakness and corruption of Turkey, and in the aggravation of every danger which it was your duty to avert. I hold, on the contrary, that the best friends of Turkey are those who, at an early stage of the
    1070
    controversy, in plain and decisive language, without any of those innuendoes which sometimes destroy the force of language, laid before Turkey the necessities of the case, and cast upon her the responsibilities of the evils that her misconduct or folly might entail, and did not exclude from their view that ultimate possibility, which was then first brought into action, that Europe, for the sake of peace, even for the sake of Turkey itself, might be obliged with strong hand to interpose. Moderation in the demands that you may make of her, firmness and earnestness of purpose, and no equivocation in the manner in which you press them—that, I believe, is the proper policy to pursue. But the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is totally different from the Motion in more than one particular. The point of difference, however, to which I would draw the attention of the House, is this. The Amendment of the hon. Member is entirely a retrospective Amendment. It expresses satisfaction with what has been done, and approves the steps that the Government have taken. My hon. Friend entirely avoids that ground in his Motion. Having the Papers in his hand, he felt it necessary, in his most able statement, and my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) also felt it necessary, to go over that ground. But it is his Motion with which we have to do. That is entirely and wholly prospective. But it does not imply any censure whatever on Her Majesty's Government. Now, Sir, if I am to go back upon the past, I am bound to say I must agree with him in all his criticisms on the course Her Majesty's Government took; but I do not wish to go back upon the past, for there is something better we can do. I say there is something better; and that is, to do what my hon. Friend invites us to do—to look straight to the future, and to endeavour to do so without prejudice and without animadversion upon Her Majesty's Government, and to assist Her Majesty's Government with the weight and authority of this House in procuring the general fulfilment of those portions of the Treaty of Berlin essential to the happiness of the people of Turkey, for whom my hon. Friend is so solicitous, and particularly and specifically to procure the carrying out of the clauses of the Treaty, and

    1071
    the consummation of those relating to the Frontier of Greece. No doubt, it is our duty to call Her Majesty's Government to account—to criticize their conduct, and to find fault with them in whatever way our understanding and conscience may dictate. That, no doubt, is a part of the duty of a Member of Parliament; but it is a duty which he certainly need not be so enamoured of as to flaunt it about, and resort to it on every occasion, particularly when it may come into conflict with the attainment of useful objects. If it be a duty to animadvert on the policy of the Government where we think they have gone wrong, it is certainly a much higher duty to waive retrospective criticism, and to use the influence of the House to mitigate the serious evils which afflict the East, and to promote the happiness of the populations of the Turkish Empire. This is what my hon. Friend asks the House to do. He asks the House to do no more than that. He begs you generally to press for the prompt execution of the Article relating to reforms, and that an undertaking may be given that the Articles of the Treaty may be carried out, thereby endeavouring to procure for Greece the rectification of the Frontier agreed upon by the Powers. Is there anything improper in that? I am sure Her Majesty's Government will not tell us that we must not interfere because negotiations are going on. There is a perfectly distinct Article in the Treaty that is the completion and consummation of a great negotiation, and what we want is the application of that, and that is not a matter which ought to be or which could be affected by complicated negotiations when the views of the Powers are unknown. The Mover of the Amendment seems to think that the Treaty is very difficult to understand upon this subject. He says, and says quite truly, and quotes Lord Salisbury as his authority, that the Frontier line was generally indicated, and not indicated with precision, by the Treaty of Berlin. That is perfectly true; but is that any reason why we should not ask the parties who are competent to interpret their own words to proceed to do so, because the hon. Gentleman may happen to think, or I may happen to think, or anybody else, that these words are difficult to construe? That is no reason why the
    1072
    words should not be construed by the proper authorities. We are not the proper authorities. The proper authorities are the Powers who conducted the negotiations. I presume they know their own meaning. I believe they do know their own meaning. I believe that these difficulties are perfectly airy and theoretical. The French Government, at the foundation of the Greek Kingdom, made most intelligent studies of the whole question of the Frontier, and contributed very greatly at that important period, if not to secure to the Greek nation a good Frontier, at least to prevent her having a much worse one than she actually got. If you will procure them, you will find they knew perfectly well what this Frontier is, and ought to be. That is not a question, at any rate, to be regulated by talk about vagueness, encumbered with words that are nothing to the purpose. There is no fear of the result. What is our fear? It is that we are interrupting the peace of the land. We should raise our voice in defence of those arrangements which are for the interests of justice, peace, and reform in these countries; and, for that reason, what we ask is that Her Majesty's Government will work in co-operation with other Powers in order to bring this matter to a speedy consummation. Let the hon. Gentleman say, if he likes, that this question can end in but one way. I have never incited, and I will not incite, or endeavour to incite, the Government of Greece not to regard this as a final measure. The only communication I have had with any person connected with the Greek Government on this subject is this—namely, to make known my belief that Lord Salisbury was perfectly justified in saying that if Turkey acquiesced in the arrangement contemplated at Berlin it might be fairly asked of Greece that she should give satisfactory assurances for her future good conduct. I charge the hon. Gentleman with misrepresenting me, and he enabled me to refute what he has said, by referring to actions of mine in a totally opposite sense. I entirely disclaim the intention, and I am perfectly willing to sympathize with the hon. Gentleman and the Pashas in their desire for finality, if that were really a difficulty. As I have said, this can only end in one way. Greece, weak as she may be, is yet strong in the principles on

    1073
    which she rests. She has the assertions made by the Turkish Government; she has the strong sympathy of these populations; she has the assertion of the uselessness of these populations to the Sultan; she has, on record, the engagements by this country, now some 13 months ago, promising our careful consideration, which is well known to mean the favourable consideration of some of her territorial claims. She has got certain words inserted in the Treaty; she has got a description of a certain line of Frontier. That line of Frontier is a line which, like every other line, is different from a line drawn along the surface of the earth; but the subsidiary arrangements are such that they must be made by the same authority which declared the line in principle. What we ask is, that the declarations of Her Majesty's Government ever since Lord Salisbury and Lord Beaconsfield came back from Berlin shall be fulfilled. One of the earliest declarations, constantly repeated over and over again, was that "the Treaty of Berlin shall be fulfilled in the spirit and in the letter. We have never receded, and we do not believe and cannot believe that anybody will recede, from the Treaty of Berlin; but, whoever does recede from it, the Government of England will not be the people to do so." This was accompanied by the announcement that the Greeks had now the opportunity of obtaining a larger share of territory from Turkey than any of those rebellious subjects, as they were called, who had taken part in the war had previously obtained. These assurances held out by this Government cannot be forgotten. They weaken your hands, if you are to attempt to interrupt the fulfilment of that arrangement. Greece may be weak, but, rely upon it, she will not recede; and I will go further, and say, she will not recede from that which Europe has promised her. She cannot have higher sanction than that of Europe. In my opinion, it was very mistaken policy to sever Eastern Roumelia from Bulgaria; but so strong is my respect for that settlement that during the whole period of that arrangement I have never opened my mouth for one word of criticism. We must, Sir, respect these conclusions at which the Powers of Europe arrived. In combinations and circumstances so difficult and complicated as these, if you are to
    1074
    unsettle them on small cavils and private opinions, there never can be peace, there never can be progress towards the settlement of national questions. We have now reached a point at which our duty is to form the best judgment we can upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government so described. As I understand, the despatch of Lord Salisbury refers to previous proceedings of the Government in which a more limited settlement of territory was proposed. It likewise refers to a preference which the Government had entertained, as I should say very mistakenly, in favour of a postponement of further proceedings; but it is purposely stated at the bottom of page 234 that they have not thought it right to insist on their views in this matter in opposition to the Powers' expressed opinion, and, therefore, that line had been abandoned. Lord Salisbury goes on, in the course of a rather lengthy statement contained in page 235, to express the views upon which Her Majesty's Government intend to act. Of course, Sir, I do not pretend, and have no right to pretend, that I have any information as to their meaning beyond what I can draw from their official language. I read that official language with great care, and with as much candour as I can apply to it. I understand it to mean that Her Majesty's Government, reserving, of course, to themselves, and properly so, the same right of interpretation that belongs to every other Power, yet, notwithstanding that, they intend to require from Turkey that she shall accept the general line of recommendation at Berlin. Sir, if the general line is kept, upon that very little difficulty will remain. It is impossible to admit the claim as to Janina. I am reluctant, independently of the lateness of the hour, to enter into the argument about it, because I feel that the authority of the Treaty is something very much higher and stronger than any argument I can use. But this I will say—and the hon. Gentleman himself did not for a moment contest the fact—that the people who inhabit the district of Sandjak and Janina, and who form about one-half of the whole population of Epirus, are, in an overwhelming majority, Greeks by language. Of that there is no doubt whatever. A handful of Turks dwell in the town of Janina, and they are, unfortunately, men of station and posi-

    1075
    tion; but the population are a Greek-speaking population, and they are very strongly Greek in their sympathies. That is declared in Lord Salisbury's despatch. More than that, I doubt whether this House is aware how intensely Greek the City of Janina is. It is more Greek than an ordinary Greek city. Five hundred Epirot students are in the University of Athens. I need not say that they have got no Turkish University. But, Sir, I will go a little further, and I will quote the unprejudiced and unsuspected testimony of Lord Byron in the year 1810, before these troubles began. In that year, commenting on the statement that Athens is still the most polished city of Greece, he says, in these few interesting words—
    "Perhaps it may be of Greece, but not of the Greeks, for Janina in Epirus is universally allowed amongst themselves to be superior in the wealth, refinement, learning, and dialect of its inhabitants."
    Three thousand years ago, this was the cradle of the Greek nationality. I do not mean that the precise site of the city was the centre; but, at any rate, there, or within six miles of it, was the cradle of the Greek nationality, and of the Greek religion. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment says there have been mixtures of races there. Have there been no mixture of races in England? Are we Danes, are we Saxons, are we Romans, are we Normans, are we Celts? [Laughter.] If laughter is to be excited in that way, very good laughter indeed could be made at the mixture of races which prevails among ourselves. I cannot but believe it is one of the greatest conditions of the excellences of human nature. Such is the case with Janina. It is Greek, which is not to be disputed; but it is Greek with a singular and marked character. The Turks do not claim Janina. Nowhere, that I can find, have the Turks said—"Give us Janina, and then we will be satisfied." Their old argument is—"No, we must have the whole country down to the Gulf." They are vitally at variance with the whole of the Powers, and the best mercy that the Powers can show will be to do to-day what Safvet Pasha recommended some 12 or 14 months ago—that the will of Europe should be announced to them, and that they should
    1076
    be made to attend to it peremptorily. I cannot conceive myself anything more unfortunate than that we should continue to keep Turkey in the midst of her difficulty by the sort of encouragement given to her, and that has been given to her to-night by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, by these vague apologies and vague professions of friendship to her, of which she has had enough. If we say, "We have had enough of her promises of reform"—and I think we have—I think she is entitled to retort upon us that she has had enough of our promises of friendship. Bleeding as she is at every pore under our encouragement, groaning under the burdens which we have encouraged her to undertake, I think that Turkey has great reason to complain, and I think she has a very great disposition so to complain. I do think it is most important to her to have a friend. We cannot expect, at any rate, we do not in this House believe, that Russia is likely to be that friend. The Empire of Austria is assuming, almost from month to month, a position more and more formidable, and of more and more undisguised hostility to Turkey. It is laying its plans for distributing the Provinces, for acquiring and appropriating these dominions, and for opening to itself the territorial frontier to the Ægean Sea. To endeavour to create some friendship between Turkey and the Hellenic race would be a wise and judicious policy, and it is that policy which we ask you to-night to adopt. I believe it is fairly founded on the basis that is described in this despatch—that is to say, the suggestion indicated is a reasonable suggestion by the Congress at Berlin—and, on the other hand, the giving of assurances and guarantees from Greece for the observance, and the faithful observance, of good neighbourhood to Turkey. That is what we ask the House of Commons to pronounce. I believe it is a demand not only agreeable to all the interests in view, but a demand which is most agreeable to the vast mass of the people of this country—a people who have been much divided in regard to the questions between Russia and Turkey, who have suspected everything connected with the Sclavonic progress, because of its supposed association with Russia, but a people whose sympathies with the Hel-

    1077
    lenic interests are unquestionably large now, as they have been in former times. We ask you, therefore, to adopt this step, to allow this House to express its views for the fulfilment of the Treaty of Berlin. The Prime Minister said, on the 9th of November last, that, if necessary, he would appeal to the people to obtain the full accomplishment of the Treaty of Berlin, in the letter and in the spirit. Sir, it is not necessary for him to go so far as that. If he appeals to the House, we know that upon that side of the House his application will be favourably entertained, and he certainly will have on this side a warm and enthusiastic answer to his appeal. We trust that Her Majesty's Government will not take upon themselves the responsibility of forbidding these attempts of the House of Commons to concur with them in giving effect to the concert of Europe for a purpose declared by European authority highly favourable to the interests of freedom, but that they will be disposed to give their assent to the Motion—I think the most reasonable Motion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea.
    MR. BOURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that every hon. Member now present will admit that there is nothing more irksome, or more disagreeable, than addressing a weary House of Commons. I regret, Sir, that it should have fallen to my lot on this occasion to do so. At the same time, I do not think it would be respectful to the House, occupying the position I have the honour to hold, if I were to abstain from stating, as I will do very shortly, my views on the Motion now before us. And first let me say that I think it is very satisfactory that we have so many prominent Members of the Liberal Party in this House who are anxious to advocate the more perfect fulfilment of the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin. After the many vigorous denunciations, uttered both in this House and in the country against the Treaty, and considering that it has been declared by eminent Members of the Party opposite that it would be absolutely impossible to carry out its main stipulations—considering also that the provisions, the execution of which has been characterized as impracticable, have now been either executed, or are in process of execution, it is consoling to my mind that we have now a proposal made
    1078
    to us by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for an Address to the Crown, praying that the Crown will use all its endeavours to secure the carrying out of the other Articles of this Treaty which remain unexecuted. The Motion of the hon. Baronet points to two distinct things—the first is, the reforms in Turkey; and the second, the claims of Greece. Now, I say most sincerely, and without the fear of contradiction, that both of those subjects have, from first to last—from the beginning of the protracted struggle which has gone on in Turkey for a period of four years—been prominently before the mind of Her Majesty's Government, who have, in fact, never ceased for one moment to be fully awake to their importance. Sir, amongst the many subjects which the hon. Baronet opposite has treated, there was one that he touched upon rather lightly, and which was afterwards adverted to by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), to which I wish to allude at the outset, because I fear that, in my short address, I shall have to say some very disagreeable things; and, therefore, I wish to begin by saying something that is more agreeable than those topics to which I have alluded. I was, I must say, considerably relieved by finding that those hon. Gentlemen, although they made an attack on the Government in respect to nearly every point to which they referred, did not attack the Government on the question of Crete. It has, on many occasions in this House, certainly been insinuated that the Government have not been alive to their duty in many particulars; and they have even been charged with being dead to their duty. But now that the Papers have been produced, and the policy of the Government has been fairly placed before the House, it is satisfactory to find that no fault is imputed to them in regard to Crete. And I must here pay a tribute to our Consul in that Island which I think is well deserved, because it will be seen from these Papers that that gentleman has, from the first, endeavoured to obtain for the Christians in Crete all the liberties which they are entitled to enjoy. Sir, on many occasions, the good offices of England were solicited by the Cretans; and we have the satisfaction of knowing that although, quite lately, the Cretan Assem-

    1079
    bly did make the most formidable demands upon Turkey—demands which a short time ago we could not have supposed that Turkey would concede—yet, mainly owing to the exertions of the English Government and to English influence, all the demands made by the Assembly have been agreed to by Turkey with one exception. As it is now, we have some chance of getting a good Government in Crete, provided only that Photiades Bey, and other good Governors who have the welfare of the people at heart, shall be really secured in the government which they at present hold in that Island. Sir, now with regard to the 23rd Article of the Treaty, and the reforms in Turkey in Europe; that subject has already been so exhausted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that I do not think it is necessary that I should weary the House by entering upon it. But I think I should not be doing my duty, as this is the first time I have had an opportunity of speaking of the labours of my hon. Friend, if I were not to take this opportunity of saying that I believe no portion of the labour which has been bestowed upon Turkey of late will be of so much good in the end, or will produce so many valuable results, as that great work in which my hon. Friend has been engaged in concert with my noble Friend, Lord Donoughmore. But, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke), I must say, in treating this subject was, as I am sorry to say he has been before, rather hard upon Sir Henry Layard; and I must certainly take this opportunity of pointing out in the strongest terms that Sir Henry Layard, in addressing the Porte on this occasion, used no less energetic language than my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch employed. Sir Henry Layard is not here to defend himself, and the hon. Member for Christchurch is. And I must say that when absent persons are performing their duty as well as they can to this land, it is, above all things, the first duty of those who represent them in this House to take care that their actions are not misrepresented in this House, and that they do not receive a less favourable construction than they deserve. Now, Sir, the hon. Baronet mentioned the remonstrance of Sir Henry Layard as being a very mild remon-
    1080
    strance indeed to the Porte upon the subject of their defaults.
    SIR CHARLES W.DILKEexplained, that what he had said was this—that the remonstrance was very strong in its terms; but that it was made in the form of a note verbale, which was the mildest form of diplomatic interference.
    MR. BOURKE: I really cannot follow the hon. Baronet in the distinction which he draws, because whether a note verbale is the mildest form of diplomatic interference or not is of very little consequence. If the words used are strong, it does not matter much whether they come in the shape of a note verbale or of the most solemn and binding Treaty. The words used by Sir Henry Layard were these—
    "Her Majesty's Ambassador has on many occasions brought this very important matter to the notice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and has received from his Excellency verbal assurances that the Règlements to be introduced into the European provinces of Turkey were being considered, with a view to being submitted in each province to the special Commissions, in which the native element is to be largely represented. But no steps in that direction appear yet to have been taken, although more than ten months have elapsed since the Treaty of Berlin was ratified.
    "Her Majesty's Ambassador trusts that the Sublime Porte will enable him to inform his Government that the new Règlements have now been referred to the above-mentioned Commissions, and that they will soon be ready to be submitted to the European Commission instituted for Eastern Roumelia for its advice, as provided by the XXIIIrd Article of the Treaty."
    I cannot imagine anything more direct, or which would more plainly give the meaning of Her Majesty's Government and of our Ambassador, than these words. Therefore, I think it was rather hard that the remonstrance of Sir Henry Layard should be contrasted in that manner with that of the hon. Member for Christchurch. It seems to me that it is quite as strong. Now, Sir, the hon. Baronet then went on to speak of Asia, and he said we had peculiar responsibilities with regard to Asia. He spoke of the responsibilities that attached to Her Majesty's Government, not only in consequence of the 67th Article of the Treaty of Berlin, but also of those accruing in consequence of the Anglo-Turkish Convention. Sir, it is not my duty, on this occasion, to retreat in any way from the responsibilities [of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Asia; for they have, from the first,

    1081
    been perfectly mindful of their duties. And, in August last, Lord Salisbury drew attention to this subject in one of the strongest despatches that has ever appeared in the Blue Books. He pointed out the necessity for reforms in the Police, in the Judicial system, and in the collection of the Revenue. Since that despatch was written, two Commissions have been sent to Asia Minor. We have received Reports from the Consuls who accompanied, those Commissions, and I am sorry to say that those Reports reveal the existence of a very unsatisfactory state of things in that part of the Turkish Empire. In fact, I do not think that anything can be much worse than the condition of some parts of Armenia. I feel that the Armenians are entitled to the sympathy of this country, and I hope that they will obtain it, and enlist on their side the exertions of all to gain the reforms that we consider necessary; but, at the same time, much as we sympathize with the oppressed races, I beg to protest against the inference that Her Majesty's Government is responsible for the existing state of things, and that we are to blame for the non-fulfilment of Turkish promises. We have done our best, and have brought all these matters under the notice of the Porte. I, for one, have no wish, to make excuses for the Turkish Government. More might have been done by them than has been done, for the state of things revealed by the visits of our Consuls in Asia Minor is, in some places, shocking and revolting. The misconduct of the Pashas, the corruption and extortion of the officials, the tyranny and cruelty of those in authority, is as bad as anything we have ever heard of. It is useless, however, to denounce the Turkish Government in one breath, and in the next to taunt Her Majesty's Government that reforms have not as yet been carried out. We ought rather to try to remedy and improve the condition of Asia Minor. The difficulties, I admit, are great, and have been much increased by the emigration of a large portion of the Mussulman population; but, bad as the condition of the country certainly is, it does not become us to be discouraged. Political questions of the highest importance have occupied the attention of the Porte, to which it has been necessary to give great attention. Such questions as the settle-
    1082
    ment of Bulgaria, of Eastern Roumelia, of Montenegro, of Albania, and the Frontier of Greece. It has been absolutely necessary to deal with these questions, which are of vital political importance, particularly from an International point of view. The Sultan has been opposed, from first to last, by a most fanatical Party at Constantinople, who have opposed all concessions. I believe the Sultan is perfectly convinced that the steps which Her Majesty's Government have recommended to him are the only means of giving prosperity to his country. With regard to the immediate future of Asia Minor, Lord Salisbury has lately written a despatch, from which I will make one or two extracts, to show what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, are their duties with respect to Asia Minor—
    "By Article LXI. of the Treaty of Berlin the Porte engages 'to carry out, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds.'
    "It further undertakes 'to make known the stops taken for this purpose to the Powers, who will superintend their application.'
    "Further, in Article I. of the Convention between Great Britain and Turkey of the 4th June, 1878, the Sultan 'promises to England to introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two Powers, into the government, and for the protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte' in his Asiatic territories.
    "Under these two Treaty stipulations the Sultan stands bound not only to promulgate new and improved laws, but actually to carry out reforms in the administration of the provinces situated within the sphere of Major Trotter's observation. Any proceedings inconsistent with the spirit of that promise furnish an ample ground for remonstrance—by the Consul in the first instance, and afterwards, should occasion arise, by the Ambassador.
    "Judgment must, of course, be used, both as to the expediency and the manner of such representations, and great care should be taken not to act upon information the accuracy of which is open to doubt. But, subject to these precautions, Great Britain is bound to spare no diplomatic exertion to obtain good government for the populations of Asiatic Turkey."
    Under these Treaty stipulations, Lord Salisbury has pointed out that the Sultan stands bound, not only to promulgate new and improved laws, but to carry out reforms in the Provinces of Europe and Asia. But, subject to these precautions, Great Britain is bonnd to spare no diplomatic exertion to obtain good government for the populations of

    1083
    Asiatic Turkey. These are the views of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment. They do not desire to withdraw from the course they have marked out for themselves; and, certainly, the suspicions of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea are not well-founded. Six Consuls of experience and ability have been appointed in Anatolia. Her Majesty's Government have perfect confidence that wherever there is bad administration, or tyranny of any kind, these Consuls will perform the duty imposed upon them by Her Majesty's Government—namely, to report the matter to Her Majesty's Government; and I myself have known many instances of Reports of that kind doing much good, and bringing to light abuses which have subsequently been remedied. Well, Sir, if nothing else had arisen, the recollection of what took place after the Crimean War would have induced Her Majesty's Government to take the course they adopted; because, beyond a doubt, much of the evil which has fallen on the populations of Eastern Europe in recent years is to be attributed, in my opinion, to the neglect of opportunities which have arisen subsequently to the Crimean War. Sir, when these accusations are made against a Conservative Government—accusations which are now made, and have been made for some years past, in every shape and form that it is possible to make them—when these accusations are made, it is as well to recollect that between 1856 and 1874, a period of 18 years, Liberal Governments were in power for 14 years. I should like to know what evidence there is to show that, during those 14 years, the Liberal Governments were alive to those duties and responsibilities incurred after the Peace of 1856? Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) has mentioned the Hatti-Houmayoun. I have studied all the documents which arose out of it, and, I must say, I cannot find that the Liberal Government, or any Government in Europe, was really alive to the responsibilities which they undertook; and this is the more surprising, because not only did they undertake those responsibilities as to the improved condition of the various races in Turkey, but they also entered into the famous Tripartite Convention binding them to protect Turkey, so that they had the
    1084
    strongest possible inducement to bring about an improvement of Turkey. They knew that they had guaranteed the integrity of Turkey—of the Turkish Empire—and they must know that the only way to preserve that integrity was to get Turkey to reform herself and her institutions. Now, Sir, I come to that portion of the hon. Baronet's speech which alluded to Greece. It appears to be the wish of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to represent Her Majesty's Government as being totally indifferent to the cause of Greece, and as a sort of drag on the other Powers of Europe, before and after the Berlin Treaty. I do not think anyone can peruse these Papers without seeing that Her Majesty's Government have been, from the first, animated by the most sincere desire to better the relations which exist between Turkey and Greece. Sir, there have been other occasions on which I have been called upon to address the House upon this subject, and I have been obliged to treat it with considerable reserve, because, as the House is aware, ever since the Treaty of Berlin, negotiations have been going on, with reference to Greece, with all the Powers of Europe; and, under these circumstances, it would be impossible for me to state anything in relation to what was going on then without being guilty of bad faith towards some or all of the Governments of Europe. Several hon. Gentlemen have to-night treated this rather as a Party question than otherwise, and have endeavoured to show that, while other Governments were inclined to show sympathy with Greece, the Government of Her Majesty displayed no such feeling. I remember that, on a former occasion in this House, and on other occasions outside its walls, the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea has endeavoured to show that Her Majesty's Government were opposed to the terms of the Treaty of Berlin as far as Greece was concerned. But what is the real truth concerning the matter? So far from Her Majesty's Government lagging behind, it is, I think, clear, from the Papers before the House, that they have approved the course suggested by, and made part of, the Treaty of Berlin in reference to Greece. And, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government suggested the line of the Greek Frontier some months before the Congress met, and

    1085
    that at the instance of Sir Henry Layard, who had conferred with Sadyk Pasha upon the question. That rectification of Frontier would have been agreed to before the meeting of the Congress, but for the unfortunate fact that Sadyk Pasha fell, and that Rashdi Pasha, who succeeded him, did not take the same view. Later on, when Sefket Pasha spoke to Sir Henry Layard on the same subject, he said that if this alteration or rectification of Frontier was to be effected, it must be done by means of pressure brought to bear by the European Powers; but, in using this language, he did not express the opinions expressed either by his predecessors or his successors. It was just before the Congress that Sefket Pasha expressed the opinion which I have quoted to Sir Henry Layard; and the only question remaining was whether it should or should not be taken into consideration by the Congress. What, then, are the facts? It must be well known that during the late war Greece distinctly refused to discourage the attacks which were made on the Turkish Frontier, and, after the important successes of the Russian Army, determined themselves to invade Turkey with irregular Forces. This proceeding was lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government, who sent two officers to Greece to endeavour to induce the Greek Government to desist from the course upon which they had entered. Furthermore, when Her Majesty's Government found that there was an intention on the part of the Porte to take strong retaliatory measures, they took steps to dissuade the Constantinople Government from sending their iron-clad Fleet to bombard certain towns on the seaboard of Greece. Greece was assured that she would lose nothing by abstaining from attacking Turkey, and we endeavoured to persuade the Porte that the most prudent and politic thing it could do was to observe a policy of conciliation towards Greece. We were successful in obtaining a truce between the two Powers. At that time we had reason to the believe that Greece would be satisfied with the line of delimitation mentioned by Sir Henry Layard. Under these circumstances, I do not think that Greece has any right to complain of the advice given by England. Greece ought to recollect this now, and did recollect it at the time, because she acknowledged
    1086
    that Turkey had a large Army and a large Navy, and it was only by the earnest desire of England that that Army and Navy were not used against Greece. It would have been a great evil and a great misfortune for Greece, if that country had been made the theatre of a contest between the two nations. At that time there was a great alarm in Greece, and the Greek Government not only besought Her Majesty's Government to interpose, but thanked Her Majesty's Government in the warmest terms for having prevented Turkey from attacking her. Well, Sir, it has been always the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that Turkey would do wisely to make such arrangements with regard to her Frontier as would restore peace between the two countries. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich that the question is not as to one particular town or one particular line. The great object is to restore peace, and to do it in such a way that it will be a permanent peace, and that populations which for centuries, or, at least, within the memory of men, have not been able to live peaceably, might for the future be able to do so. We have impressed on Turkey that if she makes a territorial sacrifice she will be amply compensated for that sacrifice by being relieved from the necessity of keeping up a large Army on her Frontier, exhausting her resources by continual expeditions, keeping up large garrisons, receiving no tribute, and having a population on her border in a state of insurrection. It may be said that one of the difficulties of the situation is to find a defensible Frontier. I believe that the present Frontier may be said to be the most defensible Frontier that can be obtained, and I wish to say that, because I think it one of the strongest points that Turkey has. But when one comes to think of it, I do not think it, in reality, a strong point at all; because a Frontier may be one of the strongest Frontiers in the world, but it may be a very bad Frontier for the maintenance of peace. One of the greatest enemies of peace is brigandage. Sir, the very fact of the Frontier being a mountain in which brigands abound is a reason why it should remain a strong Frontier; but that does not render it a good Frontier. Sir, when the Congress took place, Her Majesty's Government

    1087
    did what could best be done by mediation. There is no evidence whatever to show, in all these Papers, that any Power of Europe was prepared to force the opinion of Congress upon Turkey. In fact, I am prepared to state that there was no Government in Europe prepared to do so. There was no Government in Europe prepared to force the opinion of Congress upon Turkey; and, therefore, that being so, Her Majesty's Government thought that the best, and really the only, way to bring about the agreement between the two Powers, and to effect the object they all had in view, was to endeavour to get the two Powers to agree among themselves. This is really the whole key to their position. They have never held back for one instant. What they said was this—"We believe the best way to arrange this matter is to endeavour to get these two Powers to agree. At the same time, when the proper time arrives, if they do not agree, we are ready to go forward with mediation." The hon. Baronet says in October we broke off the concert of Europe. We did the exact reverse. We got the Powers to adopt our views. We received the support of every Government. We received the support of France, of Italy, of Germany—notwithstanding all that was said by the hon. Baronet. We received the support of Austria, and we received both the support and gratitude of Greece. I will just read one or two quotations from the despatch of Mr. Corbett to the Marquess of Salisbury, dated Athens, December 26, 1878, in which he says—
    "M. Delyanni showed me yesterday the note mentioned in my despatch of the 25th instant, which he has just received from the Turkish Chargé d'Affaires, and expressed the satisfaction felt by the Greek Government that at last the Sublime Porte had recognized the principle of a cession of territory by Turkey to Greece."
    All this time we had been endeavouring to press on Turkey the advisability of making that concession.
    "His Excellency and M. Coumoundouros, the Prime Minister, both requested me to convey to Sir Henry Layard the thanks of the Greek Government for the interest he had shown in the matter of the rectification of the frontier, as reported by the Greek Minister at Constantinople. They attributed to his friendly cooperation the present favourable aspect of the question."
    Sir Henry Layard was publicly thanked by the Greek Government for the in-
    1088
    terest he had shown in the matter of the rectification of the Frontier; and now the hon. Baronet comes forward and charges him with being cold and lukewarm on the subject. I think the House will agree with me that, considering the mediatorial attitude which, at this moment, both Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments of Europe are occupying with regard to Turkey and the Greek question, I may be excused from going into matters of detail respecting the boundary. If I were to do so, I should really break faith with the other Governments of Europe. I observe that only a few days ago the Italian Prime Minister made a remark of that kind in another Assembly; and, therefore, I hope the House will excuse me from going into minute detail with regard to the boundary line between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), both mentioned the case of Janina. I do not believe there can be any doubt that the general description given of Janina is correct. I do not think anybody can read descriptions of Janina without coming to the conclusion that it is practically Greek. But I do not wish to be supposed to be in favour of the cession of Janina or against it. That is the question now to be decided at Constantinople. Therefore, it would be extremely improper to give an opinion one way or the other. Although. I admit that it is, no doubt, a Greek town, at the same time, I cannot help thinking that there is a strong Albanian nationality, and that there is a strong feeling in Albania against the cession of Janina; and it really is not wise in those who will have great influence in acting as mediators in this case to ignore the strong points on one side, whilst giving effect to the strong points on the other side. I am not disposed to think lightly of Albanian nationality. They are an ancient and historic race. We find the Albanians in olden times described by Herodotus and Pliny as being a wild and uncouth race, brave, and primitive in their modes of living. All the characteristics attributed to them are those of the Albanians of the present day. I do not believe there is any evidence to show that Albanians will peacefully submit to absorption of any kind. That is a question that is to be decided hereafter, and it is unwise to

    1089
    shut our eyes to that question. It may be taken for granted that any cession of territory which may be made must be such as to meet with the approval of the Albanians themselves; otherwise, more harm than good will result. I have no doubt whatever that it is most expedient for Turkey to make a cession of territory, and a liberal cession of territory, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Everybody must also agree that it is most expedient for Greece to be reasonable in her demands, and to live on friendly terms with Turkey. She must recollect that there are other Powers which may be more dangerous to her than Turkey; for, after all, whatever may be said against the Turkish Government, it cannot be denied that Hellenic institutions have been allowed to nourish under Turkish rule. I believe it, therefore, to be of the greatest importance to Greece that she should entertain friendly relations with Turkey. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) says it is exceptionally hard for Greece that Her Majesty's present Government should take a less favourable view of her aspirations than any Government who have preceded them. Well, there is no person in this country who knows the political history of England better than the right hon. Gentleman, and I would just carry his recollection back a few years. I would ask him whether, in 1854, Her Majesty's Government did not make the strongest representations to Greece with regard to her tendency to insurrection? I would also ask him whether, later, in 1862, when the cession of the Ionian Islands was first spoken of, Her Majesty's Government did not tell Greece that whoever was on the Throne of Greece must renounce all ambitious ideas with regard to Turkey? More than that, I would ask him whether, in 1870, Her Majesty's Government did not use the strongest threats towards Greece, to induce her to desist from her projects for an extension of territory? Under these circumstances, it seems to me somewhat unfair to accuse Her Majesty's present Advisers of taking a less favourable view of the affairs of Greece than their Predecessors. With regard to the Resolution before the House, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has not a retrospective effect. The whole of the speech of the hon. Baronet who moved
    1090
    it (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was an indictment against Her Majesty's Government for what has taken place. Therefore, I need not say that the Government cannot accept the Resolution of the hon. Baronet. They concur, certainly, in the Amendment that has been proposed by my hon. Friend behind me. I am afraid I have wearied the House by going into details which, certainly, are of a somewhat difficult character; but I hope the House will be satisfied with the statements I have made. The House may rest assured that reforms in Turkey, both in Europe and Asia, will continue to have the best attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that Her Majesty's Government will use their best endeavours to secure a settlement of the boundary question in such a manner as to conduce to the establishment of a permanent peace.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 246.]
  (Mr. James Lowther, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 246.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked the House to read the Bill a second time, with the view that at a later stage a fuller discussion should take place. The Bill was introduced in order to redeem the pledge made repeatedly in the House to deal with the question of pensions to National School Teachers, and it proposed to allocate a sum for that purpose, which it was hoped would meet their requirements. It also made provision for enabling the difficulties respecting residences to be overcome. It was also the intention of the Government to place an Estimate on the subject of salaries before the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    MR. COURTNEYthought they could hardly be expected to read, a Bill of this importance at that hour of the night on the very slender information which had been given to them. He listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but unless he had had an opportunity of looking at the Bill beforehand he would not have gathered anything from it. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell them that this Bill proposed to take £1,300,000 from the Irish Church surplus. That, of course, might be a very proper thing to do; but it ought not to be proposed at 2 o'clock in the morning without any explanation, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to ask the House to read the Bill a second time proposing to deal with such a sum as that. He thought it was impossible to work at this Bill at once without further discussion. Therefore, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. MELDONhoped the Motion would not be pressed. This Bill was the redemption of a pledge which was given some time ago. More than 12 months since, he brought forward a Motion on the subject of the National Teachers' pensions, which had been before the House since 1875, and upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gave a pledge that the Government would deal with the matter and indicate how it would be done. There was then considerable discussion on the matter. He had since this twitted the Government with not having carried out their pledges; but they had now introduced this Bill, and at the very late period of the Session at which they had now arrived, he hoped they might be allowed to read the Bill a second time that night, on the distinct understanding that there should be a discussion on going into Committee. This course was often followed when they had arrived at a late part of the Session.
    MR. MONKsaid, that this Bill had not yet reached his hands, and he had heard with the utmost amazement that it proposed to take over £1,250,000 out of the surplus of the Irish Church. The right hon. Gentleman did not inform
    1092
    the House that it proposed to take this sum for a purpose which was not intended when the Irish Church was disestablished. It might be very true that he gave a pledge to certain Members in regard to this matter; but he was quite certain the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich would not have gone away if they had been aware that a Bill of this importance was to be brought forward. He must ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to take the second reading without further notice. It would be necessary to discuss the matter, and to learn from the Government on what grounds they thought it right to ask Parliament, at this period of the Session, to grant a sum of this magnitude for the school teachers in Ireland. As far as he was aware, the surplus of the Church funds had already been disposed of; but it was useless to attempt the discussion of the matter without having the Bill in their hands. It had not been delivered to him, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not press this measure at 2 o'clock in the morning on a reluctant House.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped that the Motion for adjournment would be withdrawn. The Bill had been a good deal discussed. They had paid much attention to it. They had unanimously decided to reserve any discussion till a further stage. As far as he knew, the Bill was not in the slightest degree denominational, and they had now every opportunity of discussing its merits at a later stage. It was the only measure proposed by the Government affecting Ireland which hon. Members had had for the last 15 months in which they could take any interest; and, therefore, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to go through this formal stage.
    MR. PLUNKETappealed to the hon. Member opposite to withdraw his Motion for adjournment, on the ground that full opportunity would be given for discussing it later on.
    MR. GRAYmade the same appeal. This subject excited the deepest interest in Ireland. It had been discussed for a series of years, and a distinct understanding was come to that the Bill should be introduced exactly on the lines of that now under consideration. It was true the second stage had been reached some-

    1093
    what quickly; but the lines of the Bill were well known. It was, of course, quite in the power of a single Member to stop a Bill of this kind at that period of the Session; but he would have the same power at a later stage. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member to allow the present stage to pass.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONthought it was very delightful to see a reconciliation between the Ministers and hon. Members from Ireland, remembering the difference which existed between them on the previous night. This, however, appeared to him a very extraordinary Bill to be pushed forward at that hour of the morning. The hon. Gentleman had said it was not denominational. Nobody said it was; that made him suspicious. There was something in it. He should certainly, therefore, join in opposing it. Hon. Members talked about the lateness of the Session; but they heard nothing of that on the previous night.
    MR. DILLWYNentirely demurred to calling the second reading a formal stage. That was a stage at which they ought to discuss the principle of the measure; and he thought they ought not to take that stage on a Bill presented at that hour in the morning when the House could not have an opportunity of considering, and especially when they none of them knew what the Bill was, because they had not had an opportunity of seeing it. They were getting very lax in their Rules, and hon. Members did not guarantee that the Rules and customs of the House would be adhered to in these matters. It was an ordinary understanding, when Bills had not been presented in time to be in the hands of hon. Members, that they should not be taken that night.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, as he understood the Bill, it proposed to pension the Irish National School teachers out of the surplus funds of the Disestablished Irish Church, and that seemed to him a very proper method of disposing of those surplus funds. Besides, he was sure they would never have any peace in that House till those surplus funds had been disposed of.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERquite agreed that it was not their practice to read a Bill a second time so soon after it was introduced; but, on the other hand, towards the close of the
    1094
    Session, when Business was in a very congested state, they did sometimes adopt a more rapid mode of proceeding. If there were anything in this Bill which could be considered a surprise to the House, of course, he should not ask the House to go on; but, as had been stated by an hon. Member opposite, this was a matter on which the House had been informed for a very considerable time. Two or three years ago, the Government announced that they recognized the force of the application made for the Irish teachers, and some important suggestions were made as to the mode in which funds should be provided for them. A pledge was given that the matter should be seriously considered in order to see how it would work out. It had been mentioned more than once. He did not think, therefore, that the proposal could be considered as a surprise. He thought the suggestion that they should take a discussion on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair was a very reasonable one. He quite agreed that if they were earlier in the Session it would be better to take a discussion on the second reading; but, under the circumstances, he thought they would not be wrong in accepting the suggestion made that the Government would not fix the day for some little time, so as to give ample opportunity to hon. Members to consider the Bill.
    An Hon. MEMBERthought the very liberal mode in which the Government were going to aid Irish teachers should be a great encouragement to make the same gifts to English teachers. After 10 years' work, he managed to get £2,000 a-year for them; and this large grant would, of course, be a great encouragement to him to ask the Government for more money.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHlooked at this matter from the English point of view. He thought a most dangerous precedent was about to be established. The Superannuation Vote was already very heavy. Schoolmasters were very well paid already. A feeling was spreading in the country that the Education Vote had been increasing too rapidly; yet, if this precedent were established, he had no doubt strong pressure would be made to get something for English teachers on the Superannuation Fund. Under these circumstances,

    1095
    he thought it was most desirable the Bill should be thoroughly discussed.
    MR. C. S. PARKERventured to join in the appeal to hon. Members to accept the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was unfortunate that an endeavour had been made to pass this Bill without a thorough explanation of it; but, under all the circumstances, at that period of the Session, it did seem to him that the second reading might be agreed to with a distinct understanding that there should be an interval and an opportunity for debate before proceeding with the clauses in Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member had suggested that an attempt was being made to pass the Bill without thoroughly explaining it. He had not the least idea of leading the House astray. He told the House, a year ago, almost as broadly as he could, what the source was from which the money was to be drawn. He repeated that later on in the Session; and as the Bill was in the hands of Members he was desirous to economize time. He thought there was no need for him to go fully through it in minute detail at that stage of the measure, though he would be prepared to satisfy any desire for information in Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 4; Noes 43: Majority 39.—(Div.List. No. 191.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) [SALARIES, &c.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of the Salaries of the first Masters of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries and Pensions of Officers of the Supreme Court, as well as of Compensation for prejudice to any right or privilege which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.