Commons Sitting of 12 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Weights and Measures Act (1878) Amendment*[231].
Referred to Select Committee—Agricultural Tenants' Compensation*[26].
Committee—Arrears of Rent (Ireland) (re-comm.) [213]—R.P. [Third Night].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Beer Dealers' Retail Licences Act (1880) Amendment*[229], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT (MILITARY AFFAIRS)—PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA —POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any remonstrance has been received from the Porte respecting the bombardment of the Alexandria forts, and if the terms of the remonstrance will be contained in the next papers issued respecting Egypt; also, whether any remonstrance has been received from any other Power?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no remonstrance has been received from the Porte since the bombardment; but a remonstrance in advance was received. It stated that our fire would not be returned by the forts. In point of fact, however, it was returned. No remonstrance has been received from any other Power.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the Consuls General of the Powers in Egypt protested against the bombardment?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Not so far as I know, Sir. The hon. Gentleman had better give Notice of the Question.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask if there is no truth in the note mentioned in a telegram in the newspapers as having been received by Musurus Pasha, which, I presume, has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, in which the Porte refers to the extreme gravity of the fact of the bombardment, and requests its immediate cessation in order to avert more serious consequences?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I said that a remonstrance had been received in advance which was sent out before the bombardment began; but that no remonstrance had been received since the bombardment began. I dare say we shall receive one in the course of the day.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: May I ask if the hon. Baronet can inform us, whether the bombardment has been renewed this morning, and whether it is known what is going on at the present time?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Of course, that is a Question for my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty; but I believe he has no official information on the subject. I have, however, seen a private telegram in the House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand that the hon. Baronet has some information; but he refers me to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, he says, has no information.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have received no official information; but I have seen a private telegram in the House. I cannot say, however, whether it is from an authentic source. It is dated Alexandria, 10.40 this morning, and states that the Admiral fired three shots at that time at a Moncrieff gun which had been remounted in the course of the night, and at the third shot the firing of the gun ceased.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Have any instructions been sent out for ceasing fire?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The instructions were read by me to the House word for word the other day.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty will read all the telegrams he has received.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have no information on the subject of the Question asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford North-cote); but we have this telegram, dated Alexandria, July 12, 12.40 A.M.—
  "Attacked batteries this morning, silenced forts, landed party from Invincible, burst three guns, and spiked six in Meks Fort.
  "Casualties in the Fleet.
  "Inflexible.—Killed, Wm. Shannon, carpenter; wounded severely, Lieut. Jackson; wounded slightly, Wm. Houghton, private R,M.
  "Alexandra.—Killed, Walter Fisher, A.B.; wounded severely, John Myers, A.B.; wounded slightly, Thos. Palmer, captain of forecastle, George Talbot, private R.M.
  "Sultan—Killed, Chas. Collins, A.B., Robt. Marshall, A.B.; wounded severely, James Dexter, boy; wounded slightly, Albert Jutson, A.B., Jas. M'Carthy, A.B., Robert Pacey, A.B., Jas. Tussell, A.B., Thos. Poigndestre, A.B., Joseph Gomes, boatswain's mate; Samuel Fuller, leading seaman.
  "Superb.—Killed, George M'Claine, gunner, R.M.A.; wounded slightly, George Webb, ship's corporal.
  "Invincible.—Wounded severely, Redmond M'Guire, boy; wounded slightly, Mr. Wm. Lumsden, midshipman, —Chaseira, stoker, John Yolland, A.B., John Gill, ordinary seaman, J. W. Moore, private R.M.
  "Penelope.—Wounded severely, John Wheadon, leading seaman, Wm. Woon, captain of the mast; wounded dangerously, Henry Dawson, leading seaman, Levi Holley, boy, Alfred Jackson, boy; wounded slightly, Lieutenant Davies, Wm. Lee, A.B., Wm. M'Analley, A.B."
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I will renew my Question, and will ask, whether since the bombardment any remonstrance has been received from the Porte or from any other Power?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as reported, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has prohibited merchant vessels from passing through the Suez Canal; and, whether such prohibition is general, or limited to British vessels, and, in any case, by what right such prohibition can be given? He would venture to ask, in addition, whether there is any truth in a report that torpedoes have been laid, or attempted to be laid, in the Suez Canal?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, so far as the Foreign Office knows, it is not true that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has prevented merchant vessels from passing through the Canal. What we believe him to have done is, to have cautioned British vessels that they would pass through at their own risk. The Question of the hon. Member only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it had not reached the Foreign Office when I left at midday. It is extremely difficult to answer Questions on foreign affairs on such short Notice. With regard to the torpedoes, we have not heard of any being laid in the Suez Canal.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I must apologize for having put the Question in such a hurry; but during bombardments things go rather fast.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask whether the Egyptian or Turkish Government have any vessels of war in the Bed Sea?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I cannot answer that Question without Notice. All information on the subject of the movements of ships of war is sent to the Admiralty. There is always at least one Turkish vessel of war in the Red Sea.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it be correct that Admiral Seymour has requested masters of British merchant ships not to enter the Suez Canal during the continuance of hostilities at Alexandria; what measures Her Majesty's Government have adopted for the purpose of convoying British shipping now on the way to and from the East, via the Canal; and, if he will be good enough to inform the House what arrangements have been made with other European Powers for ensuring the free navigation of the Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, a portion of this Question has already been answered by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who stated that the masters of British vessels had been cautioned that they would go through the Suez Canal at their own risk, and were informed as to what was going on. With respect to the arrangements with other European Powers for insuring the safety of the Suez Canal, all I can say is, that we have made to other European Powers such preliminary communications as it appeared to be our duty to make.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there is any understanding or agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of other Governments assembled at the Conference at Constantinople which limits or prevents the landing of British troops in Egypt; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the text of the understanding agreed upon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the matters before the Conference, I must refer to what has been already stated by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on several occasions, and say it is not in my power to make known officially what has been done.
  MR. BOURKE: Are the proceedings of the Conference still going on?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to know what arrangements had been made with other Powers as to vessels passing through the Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to make any additions to the answer I have already given respecting that Question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Sir, there is a little discrepancy between the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and that given by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Baronet said that there was no official information in regard to Sir Beauchamp Seymour's action, but that he presumed that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had cautioned British vessels.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I did not say what the hon. Member says. I said that, so far as the Foreign Office knew, it was not true that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had prohibited merchant vessels passing through the Canal; but what we believed him to have done was to caution them that if they passed through they would do so at their own risk. We do not know the actual text of the intimation that has been made.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty has received information that a caution has been given; and, moreover, it has also been stated that there has been a further communication to the effect that if the Canal is clear—and we have not the least reason to believe that it is otherwise—there is no objection to vessels proceeding through it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not know whether it is of any use asking the Question; but I presume that the Government have no information as to the present position of affairs in Alexandria, and particularly as to the position of the Khedive? I will also take this opportunity of saying that before the House rises at a quarter to 6, I will ask, whether the Government have received any further information?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that, as we have no detailed account from the Admiral or the British authorities even of our own proceedings, we have no information whatever at present as to the state of things in Alexandria, or as to the position of the Khedive.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask, whether the Government has, not any accurate information, but any estimate as to the number of persons killed in the Egyptian forts?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No information on that subject has reached us. All the information we have received has been placed before the House.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to mate some remarks, and to conclude with a Motion. In consequence of the answer which he received from the Prime Minister, he felt it his duty again to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he could not now, in the public interest, inform the House and the country what the policy of Her Majesty's Government really was with regard to the present condition of affairs in Egypt? At a great crisis like this, when Questions had been repeatedly asked about it, he thought it was the duty of the House to demand, at the hands of the Government, some information with regard to their policy. He had listened to all the answers to the various Questions that had been given from time to time; but the Government had always guarded themselves by saying that it would be against the public interest to give the information asked for. What he wanted to know was, whether the policy of the Government in the action which they were now taking was for the purpose of protecting British subjects and British interests in Egypt; or, in other words, whether their policy in bombarding the forts of Alexandria was for the purpose of protecting only British and French bondholders? If the latter were the policy of Her Majesty's Government, he wished to know how did it happen that the French and English Governments had presented a joint Note in regard to joint interests, and that at a critical moment the French withdrew from the policy indicated in the Note presented by the two Governments? If it were right that the French should withdraw and avoid bombarding the forts of Alexandria, he thought our Government ought also to have taken Parliament into their counsels before proceeding to extreme measures. If the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of proceeding with such grave measures, the end of which they were unable to see, unless they had in their minds some definite policy to guide
  168
  their future action, the time, he thought, had come when the Government should tell the House and the country what they really meant by their present action. He moved the adjournment of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to second the Motion, and said, it appeared to him that the time had come when those who felt deeply the position in which the country was placed—the position of degradation and dishonour, he would say—should speak out, and, if they did not speak then, that they should be held responsible for what he considered the national crimes that were being committed. The House knew how the matter had been conducted for weeks past. They had been—to use the old well-known expression—drifting into war, and they had been drifting with their eyes open. He felt that some of them were to blame for not having spoken out more distinctly before this great evil was committed. But they certainly had had no encouragement to do so. The system had been to ask some Question of a Minister, who declined to give an answer; and then, next day, to ask another Question of some other Minister, who again referred to the Minister who had before refused to answer. This had gone on until they found themselves absolutely at war with Egypt, and yet there was no information as to what they were fighting for, and no declaration of war, so far as he knew. [An hon. MEMBER: We are not at war.] It must not be supposed he was wrong in stating that they were at war with Egypt, because the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated yesterday, in "another place," that they were at war with the de facto Government of Egypt. That was a very serious position in which to find themselves. It was a position which entitled them to demand a straightforward and distinct declaration from the Government as to what they were shedding the blood and spending the treasure of the country for, without Parliament having been con-suited, and without any explanation of reasons having been given why they had gone into that enterprize. As far as the House of Commons was concerned, the responsibility rested upon the Government, and the Government alone. He remembered many years ago, in the Crimean War, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-

  169
  caster, when he was denouncing the Government, said—"These hands are clean. No blood of our countrymen is on these hands." Some of them would take care that it should be the same with them, and they protested against what took place yesterday, and he said deliberately it was an act of international atrocity. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might call "Oh!" as much as they liked; but he would repeat the words—it was a cowardly, a cruel, and a criminal act. How did they lead up to it? Look back at the past few weeks. They sent their Fleet into those Egyptian waters. What for? To overrule the people of that country and to establish a Government which they were in favour of, but which there was no evidence at all to show that the people of Egypt themselves were in favour of. What should they have thought if the Germans had sent their Fleet into the Thames and demanded the dismissal of his right hon. Friend the Minister for War? They would have had riots in England. All the disreputable people would have risen, as well as a good many that were not disreputable, against such an insult, and they would have had a similar massacre to that which they now alleged was the cause of their proceeding to the extent they had. And what had been the result? An abandonment of all the principles of non-intervention, of which we heard so much when the Ministry were in Opposition. They had managed to ruin Egypt for years to come. Europeans were flying for their lives from the country, and the news had come now that the Suez Canal was stopped up. ["No, no!"] He understood so; he might be wrong, but he understood that merchant ships had been warned not to go through the Canal. [An hon. MEMBER: Except at their own risk.] Well, then, amongst all the evils they had done, they had managed to impede the navigation of vessels through the Suez Canal to a certain extent; and—he was not over-stating his case—having done all those things, having got rid of all the Europeans and ruined them, they were now setting to work upon the natives to shoot those that were left. He could not conceal his indignation at England being dragged into these proceedings. Where was the Concert of Europe they used to hear so much about? What had become of that? What was the news of yesterday? That
  170
  the French Fleet were steaming majestically out of the harbour of Alexandria, a more rational and Christian course than that taken by our ships. He had, moreover, another charge to bring forward. At what time had all these Things been done? They had been done absolutely when they had a Conference sitting upon the affairs of Egypt, and had referred the whole matter to their deliberation. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that only a few short years ago hon. Gentlemen on the other side went into a Conference, and they came down to this House and asked for a Vote of £6,000,000, when up rose the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and asked—"What! are you going into a Conference with shotted guns'?" That was exactly what they were doing now. He did not want to put it too strong; but what was it all for? So far as they could make out, they got a statement from the Prime Minister not so long since to the effect that the policy of the Government was the maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, whether those of the Sultan, those of the Khedive, or those of the people of Egypt. Then there was a postscript like that to the lady's letter—"or those of the foreign bondholders." The single statement, however, that they sought "the maintenance of all established rights and the provision of due guarantees for those rights," was a description of the policy of the Government; and if that was their policy, never had there been such a total and miserable collapse in the history of politics. The Sultan, the new ally of the right hon. Gentleman, was satisfied with Arabi Pasha, and had remonstrated against the atrocity we committed yesterday, and the Khedive had taken Arabi Pasha into his Government. As to the rights of the people of Egypt, it was a nice story indeed that they were protecting those rights when they were sending guns to massacre the people wholesale. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman take the same course in this case as he had taken in others? He could say to Austria, "Hands off!" He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished that some Power would say to us, "Hands off!" Why should we, who lived in a free country, interfere with these poor Egyptians and prevent them having the Government they wished? A "military despotism!" for-

  171
  sooth, as Earl Granville said. Were they to go about and attack all military despotisms? What about Ireland? Were they to fight the Egyptians because they liked a military despotism? Then, the foreign bondholders, the latest clients of the right hon. Gentleman—and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not think the right hon. Gentleman had done much for them—did not imagine that the ruining of Egypt was likely to add to their prosperity. But he objected to the blood of a single British soldier being shed on their behalf. He asked the Government really to consider the position in which it was placed. Was it too late to take some steps to get out of this miserable position in which they were placed, no doubt, as they would say, by the proceedings of their Predecessors? That was the excuse for everything; but could not the Government get out of this policy? He did not expect the Leaders of the Opposition wished them to get out of it; he dare say they would support the Government; for this was very much their policy, which they had no right to condemn. The Government might also get the support of certain Members on the Ministerial side of the House whom he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would call the "Cotton Jingoes." ["Names!"] He had not got a list of their names. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who called out for them might be one; but he could tell the Government that if they pursued this policy, he felt perfectly confident that they would lose the confidence of the working men of England, who did so much for them. ["No, no!"] "No, no!" cried their thick-and-thin Supporters; but let them test it. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a campaign of the large towns of England, and call upon the working men to fight for the status quo ante, and he would find that the working men were not in favour of this policy of gunpowder. Remember, they were true in the Cotton Famine; they were not "Cotton Jingoes;" when their living depended upon getting cotton, they were true to freedom in the States of the North, and against any interference in a military way. They were true to the Prime Minister; they put him into power; let him recognize the fact. He knew they were true to him in the Mid Lothian campaign, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would say, that just in propor-
  172
  tion as the Government had been true to the policy and principles then enunciated, so had they been successful in earning the confidence of the country, and just as they had departed from them had they landed themselves in disaster and discredit. It was once said by Mr. Cobden that most Englishmen had as much religion as would carry them to the Cape, and then they gave it up. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) hoped it was not so, and he hoped it was not to be said that our statesmen had just as many principles as would carry them to the Treasury Bench, and then they gave thorn up. He said deliberately, and in doing so he challenged either Tory or Liberal to contradict him, that no Tory Government could have done what the Liberal Government did yesterday in bombarding those forts. If such a thing had been proposed, what would have happened? They would have had his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department stumping the country, and denouncing Government by ultimatum. They would have had the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India coming down and moving a Resolution, condemning these proceedings being taken behind the back of Parliament. They would have had the President of the Board of Trade summoning the caucuses. [Laughter and cheers.] They knew it was true what he was saying. They would have had the other right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster) declaiming in the Town Hall of Birmingham against the wicked Tory Government; and as for the Prime Minister, they all knew there would not have been a railway train, passing a roadside station, that he would not have pulled up to proclaim non-intervention as the duty of the Government. [Renewed laughter and cheers.] Well, now, he said again it was perfectly abominable to see men whom they had respected, whom they believed in, whom they had placed in power, thus turning round on every principle they had professed, carrying out a policy that was abhorrent to every lover of justice and of right; and he asked and implored them, if it were not too late, to reconsider their position, and to carry out a policy more in accordance with common sense, and common justice, and common humanity.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gourley.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has, in the capacity of Seconder of the Motion, undoubtedly eclipsed the Mover (Mr. Gourley), who was content with a very humble manifestation in comparison with that which has just been made. In reply to the Mover, I have only to say in one sentence that undoubtedly it is not for the exclusive or special interest of the bondholders of Egypt—and, indeed, it is almost wholly without reference to them—that the proceeding of yesterday was taken; and that with respect to the Government of France, it would be impertinent on my part were I to discuss the reasons which have led them to decline taking part in the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government. It is enough for me to say that that which the French Government did they were perfectly competent and entitled to do, acting within their own right, as we, on the other hand, were in acting within our right. We were responsible to our respective Parliaments and countries; and it would be a great mistake—and this is the only farther remark I need make on the subject—if the hon. Member were to suppose that the difference of action at a particular juncture implied any change, and especially any unfriendly change, in the relations of the two Governments of England and France. I now come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Seconder, and I am afraid it will not be easy for me to dispose of that so briefly. He has traversed a very wide field; but I was glad to see that, although he was deeply impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, yet he did not disdain to avail himself of the assistance of those facetious faculties with which we are so familiar. He, doubtless, thought that the intermixture would afford an agreeable relief to the gravity of his general charges; and my hon. Friend must also have perceived, with satisfaction, that he succeeded in eliciting the most lively cheers from those to whom he is most opposed upon every question of this kind, not on account of their concurrence with him, but on account of the breadth and severity of his charges against Her Majesty's Government. I leave him with
  174
  perfect contentment in the enjoyment of that satisfaction; and although I object to almost every sentence of his speech, I have so much respect for his motives that in replying to him I shall endeavour to avoid every word that would seem to partake of severity, rebuke, or ill-will. I must, in the first place, protest against a complete historical misconception which has taken possession of the public mind. My hon. Friend says we have drifted into war in Egypt, as we drifted into war in the Crimea. There is not a more singular instance on record of the manner in which a particular phrase obtains currency in defiance of facts than the constant and everywhere established use of the word "drifting." What is the history of that word in reference to the Crimean War? It is simply this, that at the moment when the war was on the point of breaking out, when all diplomatic correspondence had ceased and the whole policy of the Government in its endeavour to prevent the war had failed, Lord Clarendon was asked, I think by Lord Lyndhurst, in the House of Lords, what was our actual condition at that moment. Lord Clarendon said—"All correspondence and all practical attempts for the maintenance of peace have ceased, and we are at this moment, if I might so say, drifting into war." That drifting into war was strictly confined to the two or three days which intervened between the policy aiming at peace and the policy which led to war. My hon. Friend says we are drifting into war in Egypt, and that explanation may be just as truly applied here. Nothing has happened in this matter except on the fullest deliberation and on the full and exclusive responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the original intervention in Egypt, that is not a matter on which I can enter at the present moment. It is not for mo now to explain how far the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government are links in the chain which runs back to the period of the former Administration; but if that be so, and if my hon. Friend considers me—and he is quite justified in doing so—as most specially responsible, in the Office I have the honour to hold, for what has now taken place, it is not because I am friendly on general principles to intervention such as has taken place in Egypt. He seems to think that I am a general apostle of non-inter-

  175
  vention. I do not, however, see why he should say so; he hag quoted nothing that bears out that view. On the contrary, if he will take the trouble to recollect, all my objections to the conduct of the late Government for a certain time—in the year 1876 and the year 1877—were, he will find, expressly founded on the charge that we had not had intervention enough. A change in events then took place; and as to my opinions with regard to intervention in Egypt, happily, they are on record, and if my hon. Friend will have the goodness to turn to a speech made by me in 1876, of which I may hereafter have again occasion to remind the House more particularly, he will see how I planted my foot down at the very first point with respect to intervention in Egypt, and indicated the consequences to which it might probably lead. However, that is a bye-matter which touches only myself. My hon. Friend says "we are at war with Egypt." I do not admit that we are at war with Egypt. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: With whom, then, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, are we at war?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not admit that we are at war with anyone. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that statement ridiculous. [Laughter and jeers.] That is the position I hold, and the position which I am prepared to defend when the time for argument comes; but not by laughter and jeering, which I think unsatisfactory methods of defending a grave proposition. The events which have happened are very grave. I am not speaking in flagrant contradiction to the facts of history when I say-that analogous cases have occurred within my own life and within my political memory. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will, perhaps, recollect a remarkable event which cost some bloodshed, but which was, perhaps, a cheaper exit from a desperate struggle than could have been found in any other way, and which sealed the freedom of Greece. But after the Battle of Navarine, in which the Turkish Fleet was destroyed by the joint action of France, England, and Russia, it was not stated, nor was it the fact, that we were at war with Turkey. Therefore, it is no such paradox as the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and his Friends, who think proper to jeer at me, may suppose it to be; and I would
  176
  recommend to him a little study of the analogous cases which have occurred in the history of International Law before he gives vent to what I may call his untutored ridicule. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) reminds me that the analogy went even further than I had supposed at the moment, for that—as I now recollect—a Conference was sitting at Constantinople at the very time the Battle of Navarino was taking place. My hon. Friend asks me what has become of the Concert of Europe? 'What has become of the Concert of Europe is exactly what has become of the navigation of the Suez Canal. It is in force. We are not aware that we have done anything to weaken it. We have not departed from it; we do not know that anyone else moans to depart from it; and we have not the least reason to suspect that anyone else supposes that we have departed from it, or done anything to impair it. The navigation of the Suez Canal is, so far as we are aware, where it was, and the Concert of Europe is where it was, so far as our information goes at the present time. My hon. Friend says we have given no distinct information as to what we are fighting for. There would be no great difficulty, if this were the time to state it, in saying what we are fighting for. I think, however, that he is inaccurate in saying that we have given absolutely no information of what we are lighting for, because we have stated in the most distinct and categorical language that we are fighting for the security of Her Majesty's Fleet, which was menaced in the harbour of: Alexandria by a continuous and deliberate course, denied, but still steadily pursued and persevered in, of erecting fortifications which might have arrived at a point which we could not limit or define, and which would have been one of serious danger. That was the immediate object of the attack. If my hon. Friend asks me whether the action will have any other consequences, I will tell him there is one other consequence, larger, wider, more difficult to grasp, or to state than he thinks—a most important consequence that I anticipate, though do not say whether it would have justified the act. I have, however, given the justification of the act; but there is an important consequence of which I think my hon. Friend will not

  177
  deny the gravity. Does my hon. Friend bear in mind the massacre which occurred at Alexandria a few weeks ago? Does he bear in mind that that massacre remains down to the present moment wholly unexamined and unavenged? Does he estimate the effect which a massacre of that kind—unavenged, unexamined, subjected to a pretended examination only, which was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare—would have had upon the security, not only of all Englishmen and all British subjects, but of all European people throughout the whole East? Can he reflect with satisfaction upon that; and can he come to the belief after he has examined these great and difficult questions, and computed their consequences, can he feel great confidence and certainty that his is the only just and only true mode of looking at these matters? My hon. Friend asks, what we should have done if the German Fleet had arrived in the Thames and had made certain demands in regard to the Government of this country, calling in particular for the dismissal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who, I am very glad to see, is not in his place, because he has been spared the shock to his feelings of resisting the attack in full force of my hon. Friend. He asks, what would have been the consequences if the German Fleet had arrived in the Thames and made the demand for the dismissal of the Secretary of State for War? I will not undertake to say what would have been the consequence; but I will undertake to say what would not have been the consequence. It would not have been the consequence that my right hon. Friend would have become the dictator of the country, and would have taken into his virtual custody and possession the person of Her Majesty the Queen. I have very little more to say. I have desired to confine myself within the limits of necessity in noticing these great matters, because I think all must feel that this is not the moment, whatever the proper time may be, when it would be right to attempt to enter on a discussion upon the very important event of yesterday. I may say, without quoting any authority, for I have none to quote, that a private telegram has arrived—as is probably within the knowledge of some whom I address—sent at half-past 1 o'clock to-day by Alexandrian time,
  178
  or two hours earlier than our time, representing that a flag of truce had been sent from the land and was on its way to the Commander of the Fleet. Upon that, however, I do not dwell, because I cannot guarantee its accuracy; but there is one point more of my hon. Friend's remarks which I must venture to notice. First, he said that we were seeking to rule the people of Egypt, and then that we were executing a wholesale massacre of them. Now, the bombardment of the fortifications of a great town is, I admit, a serious thing on account of the absolute impossibility of being certain that no damage will be done by it to the town itself. But I am sure that the skill and humanity of a British commander would reduce that risk to a minimum. Yet I would venture to point out that such a risk, though essentially arising out of an operation justifiable in itself, does not indicate an intention to rule the people of Egypt, still less to massacre them. Sir, we look upon the present condition of things in Egypt as the prevalence of something which is not adequately described even by the unfavourable phrase of a "military despotism;" but it is not entitled to be called that, because a military despotism means, at any rate, a regular and regularly organized Government, acting by some kind of law. That which prevails in Egypt at the present moment, however, is simply a state of military violence, without any law whatever; and the question whether that state of military violence is agreeable to the people of Egypt is one which has not yet been answered, and which cannot well be solved while that state of military violence is maintained. We know that it is in defiance of the orders of the Sultan; we know that it is in defiance of the wishes of the Khedive; we know that it has unnecessarily and wantonly mixed up with problems not difficult of solution as to the internal state and institutions of Egypt—mixed up with them the dreadful question of a military tyranny over all ranks and all orders of the people. We know that we have abjured every selfish object and purpose in this matter; and my hon. Friend may rest assured that it is not the people of Egypt, nor anyone among them; but it is those who are oppressing the people of Egypt who are the sufferers by the operations conducted so effectively, and, I believe, so consi-

  179
  derately, and with so much real honour to this country yesterday by the British Meet. I will not now, Sir, enter into the question whether we were justified in taking measures against this military Government, because it is a military Government. That is quite a separate and distinct question, wholly out of view at the present moment. I am now only meeting the charge of my hon. Friend, that what we have in view is the massacring of the Egyptian people; and I limit myself to saying that the measure of yesterday was not a measure of hostility to the people of Egypt, or, strictly speaking, to anyone else; but was strictly and only a measure of self-defence, and one the sufferers from which were not the people of Egypt, but those who, as we believe, against the will not less than against the interests of the people of Egypt, have established a system of military violence in that country. I have carefully abstained on this occasion from what might stir up debate by challenging any opinion likely to raise matters of difference in this House; but respect for my hon. Friend, and the gravity of the case before us, has obliged me to make these observations.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, an expression which had been used by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) appeared to him to call for some notice. The hon. Member was in the habit of enjoying his pleasant country abode in Cumberland, free from the difficulties, and the dangers, and the hazards of life in foreign countries, and yet the hon. Member had made use of an expression which practically comprised and applied to the commercial classes of this country. He had said that this action of the Government was fostered or fathered by the "Cotton Jingoes." He (Mr. Mag-niac) did not happen to know what a "Cotton Jingo" meant, nor did he know what the hon. Member meant by it; but he knew the hon. Member meant to apply that as a sort of epithet of opprobrium to the commercial classes.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose, apparently to disclaim the intention imputed to him, but
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, his hon. Friend was quite able, and would have the opportunity subsequently, of explaining what he meant; but, whatever explanation he might give, he (Mr. Magniac) thought the way he had pointed out
  180
  would be that in which the epithet would doubtless be construed by the country. He took the liberty of telling him that this was a commercial country, and that its great commercial pursuits were conducted with an integrity, a zeal, and an energy which many hon. Members who lived in the country had very little opportunity of witnessing. He protested in the strongest possible manner against the hon. Member making use of such epithets to further the attack he had made against Her Majesty's Government. He did not intend to enter upon the discussion of the general questions of Egyptian policy, because he thought it was wholly premature to do so; but he could not allow the language to which he referred to pass without a protest at least from some Member of the House.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he quite agreed that that was not a proper or convenient opportunity of going into general matters connected with the Egyptian Question. The Prime Minister had certainly opened up various points which might, and would, no doubt, hereafter call for detailed discussions as to the conduct of the Government during the recent negotiations; but he thought that those who entertained the opinions of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) were bound to take the first opportunity of protesting in the strongest and most solemn language they could use against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, which, in their opinion, was in direct violation of all those principles of policy that brought the Liberal Party into power. Whatever might be the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman as regarded his arguments, he (Mr. Bylands) felt the course that the Government were now taking was one of political immorality, and even of unjustifiable violence. He believed it was a course opposed to those high principles that the Prime Minister enunciated in Mid Lothian—principles that were not to be frittered away by mere microscopical distinctions, and which had taken root in the public mind. He believed they would find that much of the enthusiasm evoked by the illustrious champion of the rights of all nations in favour of those high principles had been a good deal chilled. They would find in every constituency thoughtful men, who might ask in what

  181
  respect did the present policy of the right hon. Gentleman differ from the policy of Lord Beaconsfield? He appealed to the Prime Minister whether, if the late Government had adopted his present policy, he would not have raised up the whole country against it? He (Mr. Rylands) had often thought what was the difference between the late and the present Government. Of the late Government, he thought it might fairly be said, "They did evil; and that continually;" but of the present Government, with equal truth, it might be said, "When they would do good evil is present with them." He thought they had nothing to do with the course the Government of France might take; they had to do with their own Government. The Prime Minister had taken, very rightly and truly, the entire responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The House of Commons had at present no responsibility for the blood which had been shed; that as yet belonged entirely to the Government. The Prime Minister, with the wonderful power which he possessed, drew a vivid picture of the Alexandrian massacre unavenged, and indicated that if it had not been avenged, we should lose prestige throughout the East, and the Europeans would be in danger. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department cheered the remark. But if that was their ground of action, why did they not announce it at Alexandria? They had never whispered a word about the bombardment being a consequence of the massacre until that moment. Why did not the Government allow their policy to be distinctly understood? The statement about the massacre was entirely an after-thought. ["Oh!"] Up to the present, the Government had always told them that this bombardment was in consequence of our Fleet being in danger—that innocent Fleet which had gone to Egyptian waters and had planted broadsides of enormous guns right opposite to Alexandria. It was the old story of the wolf and the lamb. We had our enormous guns pointed at Alexandria, and they ought to have been received in favour as objects of interest at Alexandria. But as soon as earthworks were put up by the Government of Egypt, not knowing whether, at any moment, the ships might not
  182
  begin to fire, it was said that these earthworks threatened our innocent vessels. He believed it would be found, when a full examination was made of the Papers, that this country, by its intervention, had stirred up recent events. When we sent the Fleet to Alexandria in the first instance, it tended to create a feeling in Egypt which had its outcome in the massacre which occurred. He did not wish to go into general questions, but only to say that so far as he could judge from the Papers he thought Her Majesty's Government were seriously responsible for the present state of things, believing that they had taken a course which was most unjustifiable—he thought he should be justified in saying a wicked course—in opening fire upon Alexandria. They had done not only immediate injury to the Egyptian people, but he ventured to think that when they fired the first shot it was like the letting out of water. Nobody could tell what would follow. They might well ask the question, "What next, and next?" The right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues seemed to think that they had been bombarding a weak country; but he (Mr. Rylands) was afraid the range of the question might be extended and bring in other nations; but whether it brought in other nations or not, it was sure to give rise to grave political evils, and unsettle the condition of feeling in Europe, and it might possibly endanger the peace of the world.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that the Prime Minister based the action of this country upon the supposed danger to the Fleet. But it was notorious that the Fleet was in no danger from the guns of Alexandria, for our officers knew perfectly well beforehand the capacity of the guns in the forts, and that no one of them could possibly have done any serious damage to the Fleet. It was well known that the Egyptians had no fuses for their shells before the forts were attacked. Under these circumstances, it was a mere pretence to say that the bombardment was undertaken from fear of danger from the fortifications of Alexandria. The bombardment was not an act of war; it was simply an act of assassination upon a large scale. Again, if the massacre at Alexandria required punishment, the Government should have tried to induce the Egyptian Government honestly to punish the men responsible

  183
  for the massacre; but it was a strange thing that the Fleet should have been ordered to fire on the very soldiers who had protected the Europeans at Alexandria. For his part, he did not think that this country had much reason to punish the men who committed the massacre at Alexandria when massacres much more indefensible had occurred at home.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, in his opinion, the House of Commons would be wanting in its duty if it did not at that moment express some anxiety for the events which had taken place within the last 24 hours. It might be said that all the responsibility was upon the shoulders of the Government, which was bound by diplomatic usage to a degree of reticence which did not belong to independent Members. It was, therefore, because he stood there as an independent Member that he was obliged to express his sympathy with the protest which had been uttered by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He did not hesitate to say that, if the course which had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government had been adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—knowing the antecedents of these hon. Gentlemen—although he would not have been surprised, his indignation would scarcely have known bounds at the transaction. It was, however, because the antecedents of right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench were so contrary to the proceedings which had taken place, that he confessed, while he wished to speak with great moderation, he could not conceal the great anxiety which he felt in consequence of the transaction. He did not like the new variation of the phrase, "killing no murder," which they had heard mentioned. It was said that, although they had bombarded the forts of Egypt, a tributary of Turkey, yet they were not at war with Turkey. But suppose a variation from the case. Suppose that if any Fleet in the world had bombarded the British Fleet or British forts, he wished to know whether the British people would not as one man have regarded that as an act of war, and treated it accordingly? As to the origin of the present complications, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had rather led the House and the country to understand the pre-sent embarrassment had arisen from the
  184
  massacre at Alexandria. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] He understood that to be the case; but he thought the two cases related as close as cause and effect. He wanted to know from that point of view, whether the British Fleet was or was not in Egyptian waters before the massacre took place? With regard to the military tyranny which the Prime Minister had spoken of, he should like to know what Party in Egypt had invited the Government to send the British Fleet into Egyptian waters to interfere with the internal affairs of Egypt? Further, he wanted information on this point—had they not from the outset regarded the Sultan of Turkey as the Sovereign of Egypt; and, before they sent the British Fleet into Egyptian waters, had they called on the Sultan to control matters in Egypt in such a way as to prevent the dangers to which Europeans were exposed in Egypt? He would assert, without fear of contradiction, that it would be impossible to show that they had been invited by any Party in Egypt to take the course they had taken. When they were told that it was necessary to bombard these forts and silence these guns in order to secure the safety of the British Fleet, it reminded him of the suggestion once made to a great philosopher, who complained that the fire was too hot and wished it raked out, that he might put the matter right by drawing his chair back. If the British Fleet was in danger, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he thought it might have been withdrawn. The action winch had been taken he regarded as most inconsiderate. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had made use of an expression which he (Mr. Ming-worth) thought had been misunderstood. ["No, no!"] His hon Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), at all events, appeared to suppose that the commercial interests of the country were charged by the hon. Member for Carlisle with selfishness. No man in that House was prouder of the commercial interests of this country than his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, and more desirous of serving its true interests. As regarded himself, he was bound to say that there was not the very smallest of foundation for the belief that the commercial classes were in favour of the Government policy. The most serious part of the question was

  185
  the assertion of the Government, in which they had taken exception to the statement that they had drifted into this war. He admitted that the precedent of the Crimean War was not altogether applicable; but, at the same time, he would improve upon the saying by declaring that it seemed to him that they had been steaming express into this war, and had hastily and rashly appealed to force. It might be said that the Egyptians were an imperfectly civilized people, and could not be treated in the same way as a great European Power—for instance, as we should deal with either Germany or France. He admitted the difference; but, in his opinion, it threw an additional obligation upon this country, that they should be more circumspect and show more forbearance with the Egyptians than if they were dealing with a civilized country. With regard to the Prime Minister's reference to Navarino, they knew that the great Powers then acted in a very high-handed manner, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would be able from that to maintain his contention that what had taken place was not an act of war. The effort of the Liberal Party for many years past had been to act in regard to international difficulties in a less high-handed manner than had formerly been the practice, and with a greater regard to justice and the rights of the different weaker parties. He did not say that the Government might not be able to make out a case that this intervention was absolutely necessary. He must confess, however, that he believed that their action would be condemned by the great majority of the country who sent them (the Liberal Party) to that House; and, personally, he felt very great concern lost the labours and the teaching of the Liberal Party for many years should have been utterly destroyed and neutralized by this hostile act of the last 24 hours. He need not say that, in that House, right hon. Members on the Front Benches had not a warmer Friend than himself—that it was out of regard for them and their character for consistency as regarded their public conduct that he ventured at this moment to interfere.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I have no intention of entering into the discussion which has been raised by the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who
  186
  moved the adjournment (Mr. Gourley). The conduct of Her Majesty's Government throughout these proceedings will, no doubt, come to be the subject of serious examination on a future occasion. I do not think that we are, at this moment, in a position conveniently to enter into that discussion, and I intend to say absolutely nothing about it. I rise for a strictly practical purpose. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, that a fresh telegram had been received, stating that a flag of truce had been sent from Alexandria to the Fleet. I do not know whether this is true or not; but it is probable that the statement is a correct one. But, if so, I wish to impress upon the Government the desirableness of taking advantage of that opportunity, or any other opportunity that may be offered, by taking some step for the protection of the life and the safety of the person of one for whose safety, I think, England must be anxious. Whatever we may-say with regard to the whole course of the policy and the position of the Parties concerned in this matter, the position of the Khedive is one that demands, and has the strongest claim upon the honour of this country; and I do trust, therefore, that advantage will be taken of this, or of any other opportunity, to take such steps as shall secure in every possible way the security of the Khedive. I entirely abstain at the present moment from saying anything with regard to the grave questions that have been raised. No doubt, at the present time, responsibility lies upon and is accepted by the Government, and I presume that an opportunity will be given to the House of Commons and to Parliament to express its opinion on the subject. There is also the pecuuiary question, as, no doubt, a Vote will be asked for. These are points which will arise hereafter, and I do not think it would be desirable that we, as a Party, should express any opinion on the subject at the present moment.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he should not have interfered in the debate had it not been that he found it necessary to make a reference to some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson). The hon. Baronet had said this war had been promoted by, and that it would probably have the support of, certain parties whom he described

  187
  as "Cotton Jingoes." He (Mr. Slagg) really must protest most emphatically against such a term being applied to any class of the commercial community of this country. If the hon. Baronet's expression meant anything, it meant this—that a certain section of the commercial community of this country, and especially those interested in the Cotton Trade, were, for the purposes of gain or for considerations in relation to their own personal advantage, prepared to aid and endorse a policy of which they did not approve in the shape of the present hostilities in Egypt. He resented most strongly the shadow of an implication of the sort upon any class of the commercial community in the North of England. He was perfectly certain that no such interest or desire existed in their minds in any degree whatever. He would point out to the House that the whole tradition of the working classes and the employers connected with this cotton industry in Lancashire wholly forbade any suspicion of that nature—he referred to the course of conduct which had been followed by that community during the American War, when a large section of the politicians of this country wholly lost their heads, and wished to commence hostilities against the Northern States of America. He presumed to say from their conduct at that time that the term "Cotton Jingoes" was not applicable to them. They remained perfectly calm, and most certainly abetted no excitement whatever upon the subject, and he considered the hon. Baronet's remarks very unjustifiable. No doubt, the industry of Lancashire and all industries of this country generally were deeply concerned in what was taking place in Egypt at this moment; but he repudiated the idea that for their own interests they would advocate an unjust policy. He would refrain from discussing matters in detail; but he trusted that even those who had ventured upon such terms as "Cotton Jingoes" would be able to see that there was a distinction between a policy of needless and meddlesome interference with the affairs of a foreign country for purposes of aggression, and intervention which was directed solely, as he believed was the case at present, to the maintenance of the honour as well as of the interests of this country, and the protection of an oppressed population, and not for attack or invasion.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that as one of the Liberal candidates who spoke so strongly—and who hoped always to continue doing so—at the last General Election against an aggressive foreign policy, he felt bound to say a word or two on this occasion. The very same arguments had been used with regard to this as had been used with regard to former acts of war, and it was always easy to find an excuse. He must say, however, that unless the Government were able to establish that this attack upon the Alexandrian forts was necessary for self-defence, it was not consistent with Liberal principles. He would ask the House to consider whether the conduct which had been adopted by this country towards Egypt would have been adopted towards a Power as strong as ourselves; whether that conduct was not a violation of that principle of non-intervention in foreign matters, and a hindrance to the peace policy which had for some time been advocated by the great Liberal Loaders. How could they preach to others about the necessity of abstaining from high-handed acts of violence if they themselves resorted to it, and took such steps as that of attacking Powers in the circumstances reported of yesterday? Of course, there was always some provocation in the case, and there was always some defence to be offered; but he was not quite sure that in this case the defence would satisfy the conscience of the country. It was an open question whether there was not in Egypt a genuine national movement, and if there was, and this was the expression of it, surely no one would regret more than Her Majesty's Ministers if any act of theirs should have interfered to prevent such a movement from making headway. He earnestly hoped that, as a flag of truce had been sent to the Fleet, there was a chance of putting an end to this war, for practically it was a war which we had commenced; and he trusted, therefore, that steps would be taken to stop further aggressive proceedings as soon as possible, for he could not help believing that the Government were still as strongly in favour of a peace policy as when they so justly denounced the policy that was adopted by their Predecessors in Office.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, with regard to the Question which has been addressed to the Government by

  189
  the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), I need hardly say wo entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the position in which this country stands towards His Highness the Khedive. If His Highness were not already the true friend of this country, we should specially admire, at all events, the courage he has displayed on this occasion; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every possible step will be taken under the circumstances, which can be taken, to secure the safety of the person of the Khedive. The right hon. Gentleman also asked, whether it was the case that the Government had received any confirmation of the telegram stating that a flag of truce was flying over Alexandria? A further telegram has come. It is not from the Consular Representative of Her Majesty's Government, nor is it from the Admiral; but it is from the agents of the Eastern Telegraph Company, who are on board the telegraph ship, and, therefore, I have no doubt it is an accurate statement. The telegram informs us that—
  "A large white flag is flying over the town, and a gunboat, with a white flag at the fore-royal truck, is steaming up the harbour towards the arsenal;"
  and—
  "That all is quiet, awaiting the result of the flag of truce."
  That is dated Alexandria, 1.30 p.m. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Is it an English gunboat?] The telegram does not say, and I cannot say. It is quite possible it may be an English gunboat; but from the telegram's saying "a gunboat," instead of giving the name, it is very possibly an Egyptian vessel. With regard to the speeches which have been made since the remarks of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has spoken about what he considers, in the total absence of any real knowledge of the case, a violation of the principles of the policy which brought the Liberal Party into power. All that I can say is, that I hope, if there were any such violation, I should not be in this place, nor on this Bench at the present time. I feel quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not be there at the present time either. The hon. Member has asked
  190
  why these steps have been taken at Alexandria? I stated why, with the utmost fullness to the House, giving the House possession of every piece of information that was in our hands, and giving the reason why the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria took place yesterday I did so, by anticipation, before the bombardment commenced. The hon. Member has fastened to that statement the statement of the Prime Minister, in which he referred to the endangering of European life and property throughout the East. But the Prime Minister did not state that as the reason for the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria. He mentioned that incidentally, and I think he was right in mentioning it for reasons which I will venture to give; but the reason which he gave for the bombardment was the reason I gave on a previous occasion—namely, the safety of the Fleet, and the absolute necessity of preventing the erection of further fortifications, and further guns being brought to bear upon the Fleet in the manner I have described. To show how long-suffering we were, I read the whole of the despatches which had passed, and pointed out that, although on Friday last, after the order had been given, further guns were put up on the outer portion of the fortifications, not bearing directly on the Fleet, we informed the Admiral, in regard to these guns, that he was not to take action, but to allow them to be put up, showing that we pushed our forbearance and long-suffering to the very utmost limits. It was only when fresh guns were mounted bearing directly on the harbour and the Fleet that the action was taken which I have described. My right hon. Friend did allude to the recent massacre at Alexandria, although he did not give it as the reason for the action of the Fleet, and he spoke of the danger to European. life throughout the East. Now, I cannot but think that we are not liable to the reproaches which have been addressed to the Government to-day for the use of the language of that kind. I have already declared in this House, on behalf of the Government, that reparation will have to be made for the massacre at Alexandria, and that is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government, because it must be perfectly clear that, by massacres of this kind, European life

  191
  throughout the whole of the East is endangered, and the effect of any such massacre being passed over without redress, would be to put the lives of Europeans throughout the East absolutely at the mercy of a fanatical mob of Mahomedans. We ought to remember not only the enormous number of British subjects who live in Egypt and abroad, but the immense interests which our country possesses, and which were protected during late years by the sanctity of European life observed throughout the East. My hon. Friend spoke of injuring the feelings of the working men of this country; but I cannot think it is the desire of British working men to see the whole of the British traders completely debarred from operations in the East and driven out. I cannot think that, having regard to peace principles, working men would desire to see a state of things existing under which the whole of those interests would be sacrificed, and all trade in this country which depends upon them would be at end. Although that is a subject which is mentioned incidentally, it is one to which I cannot help referring, because I am the Under Secretary superintending the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and I know the enormous importance of this matter to this country. Still that is not the reason put forth, and I wish to state distinctly that it is not the reason for what took place at Alexandria yesterday. What took place was not in consequence of the massacre, but in consequence of the mounting of fresh guns bearing upon the Fleet. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) went out of his way to speak of Arabi Pasha as an innocent lamb, and he spoke a great deal about the national movement. Sir, the whole question of the national movement and of military ascendancy in Egypt, which are two different things, will have to be debated in this House on some future occasion. All I can say at this moment is, that it is utterly untrue to tell the House that Arabi Pasha represents the national life of Egypt. He holds, as it appears to me, the whole Egyptian nationality by the throat, and his use of the word "national" is a mere prostitution of that term. Passing by that matter, I heard with much regret the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) speak of the action of yesterday as an
  192
  act of assassination. That is language which I regret to hear, and ought not to have been used within the walls of the House of Commons; but when he asked in regard to this act, whether it was or was not an act of war, and spoke of acts of this kind as acts of war, I am bound to point out that, besides examples given by the Prime Minister, there have been a vast number of examples in all times of isolated cases, either of reparation, or of protection, or of self-defence, being taken by this country, without any declaration of war, or state of war, following these acts. I may remind the House of the bombardment of Algiers and of Jeddah, in 1858, and of the action taken in regard to the Spanish Fleet during the first Administration of my right hon. Friend; and, an immense number of cases will occur to the mind at once. Take the case of Algiers. The Sultan was Sovereign of Algiers at the time of the bombardment, and although an application was made to the Sultan with regard to the state of things in Algiers, the action taken had no reference to any permission obtained of the Sultan for bombardment, and it was not treated as an act of war. There was the case of Jeddah. In Jeddah, in 1858, there was a massacre of Christians by a native mob, and the English and French Governments asked for reparation. That reparation was promised, but not made. Jeddah being under the Sovereignty of the Porte, the Turkish Government announced its intention of sending clown troops for redress; but that redress was so slow, the troops were so long on their way, that action was taken by the bombardment of Jeddah, and that took place before the troops arrived. In the case of the Spanish Fleet, when it was sent to sea under circumstances which caused danger to all the Powers represented in the Mediterranean, during the first Administration of my right hon. Friend—I think it was at that time—the English Fleet went after the Spanish Fleet and brought it back to port. On many occasions of this kind action has been taken which it might be possible for a Power to resent as an act of war, but which, in point of fact, have never been resented and treated as acts of war at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) asks why we did not call upon the Sultan? That only shows the impossibility of de-

  193
  bating a subject of this kind before the House is in possession of all the facts; because, when the House is in possession of all the facts, hon. Members will see what has passed at the Conference and elsewhere with regard to the call which, as my hon. Friend says, ought to have been made on the Sultan. He says we ought to have acted with circumspection and forbearance. My contention is, that we did act with the greatest circumspection and the greatest forbearance all through. During the five weeks which elapsed, from the first erection of the new fortifications to the first erection of new guns bearing directly upon the ships, upon which action was taken, we certainly were reproached day by day, and night by night, in this House and the other House of Parliament, and throughout the country, for not taking action—reproached for what I consider was the proper circumspection and forbearance which we displayed. We have been asked what has become of the Concert of Europe? The Concert of Europe is as active at the present moment—[Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: As it ever has been.] The Concert of Europe successfully settled the Dulcigno difficulty, in spite of the prophecies of the hon. Member, and the Greek difficulty was also settled by the Concert of Europe in spite of the prophecies of the hon. Member. ["No, no!"] I maintain it successfully settled it.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: It had nothing to do with the settling of the Greek Question.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is not the view of the Government, or the vast majority in this country; and it is my firm conviction that the Concert of Europe will be efficacious in this case as it has been proved efficacious in the past. At the time we were asked what had become of this Concert of Europe it was contended that it was violated by our action of yesterday. But reservations were made in regard to the necessity of action of this kind which covered the case of yesterday; and when we are asked whether any Powers have protested against our action, all I can say is, that the only two Powers which have mentioned it to us—namely, Austria and Germany—have both declared that our action of yesterday was perfectly legitimate and justifiable.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that the present is not the time to enter into any debate with regard to the conduct of the Government, and I should not trouble the House now were it not for the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and other hon. Members, with whose views in regard to peace and war and non-intervention I generally agree. Both my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), certainly did strongly attack the conduct of the Government. My hon. Colleague (Mr. Illingworth) spoke with great moderation, and not unnaturally insisted that this is a matter upon which we must be all desirous, and all await most anxiously, to hear the explanation of the Government at the proper time. But I shall feel satisfied now to say that, so far as I have been able to form any opinion at all, up to the present time I confess it has been in a different direction from my hon. Friends, and I wish to state that the impression left on my mind certainly now is that the Government could not have acted otherwise than they have done without disregarding not only its duty in connection with the legitimate protection of British interests, but also its duty in connection with the higher duty of protecting English, European, and Christian lives.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Sir, it is not my intention to criticize the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to grave events now taking place in Egypt. I feel the justice of the remark of the right hon. Baronet who leads the Conservative Party in this House (Sir Stafford Northcote), that this is not the moment to discuss recent events at Alexandria. It is too soon and too late for such debate—Inter arma silent leges. While the Forces of the Queen are actually engaged in hostilities, and a great crisis is unsettled, it would be unpatriotic and impolitic to examine too closely the details of the policy which has led to the present complications; but I cannot pass without contradiction certain general statements made by the Prime Minister and the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The latter has

  195
  just avowed his old and courageous belief in the mythical Concert of Europe, with, considering the existing crisis, even more than his usual audacity. He has pointed with singular pride to the glorious achievement of Dulcigno. Sir, three times within the past four years has the British Fleet been engaged in what may be called demonstrations. The first was in February, 1878, when, alone and unhampered, either by "concerted" or by "joint" assistance, it confronted the might of Russia before Constantinople. Lord Beaconsfield then, following the traditional policy of England with firmness and consistency, checked Russia in the full tide of her victorious advance, wrung from her half the spoils of her triumph, and protected the interests of this country without the sacrifice of a single life. The second was in the autumn of 1880, when the combined Fleets of Europe lay for 10 weeks in glorious paralysis off the coast of Albania. That splendid feat resulted in the ridiculous, though, as compared with the present trouble, the comparatively harmless fiasco of Dulcigno. The third demonstration is that which has just eventuated so painfully. It began with a "joint" action, which proved its inability to accomplish anything. It irritated Native feeling by its insufficiency, and looked on idly during the sanguinary massacre of the 11th, and has now culminated in the still more sanguinary bombardment of Alexandria. Its end remains to be seen. So much for the hon. Baronet and his "Concert of Europe." The Prime Minister gave a very remarkable and rather ingenious explanation with regard to the phrase "drifting into the Crimean War." He attempted to limit it to some words of Lord Clarendon. But, Sir, when we say the country "drifted" into that war, we use the expression with no such limitation. We mean, and we are prepared, with a full knowledge of the facts, to prove, that the irresolution and weakness of Her Majesty's then Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself a prominent Member, caused that unnecessary war. Mr. Cobden, whose opinion hon. Members opposite almost deify, said that if the Conservative Ministry had remained in Office that war would never have taken place. The Emperor Nicholas, who knew more about these events than any
  196
  other man, said, on his deathbed, that he would never have begun his attack upon Turkey had the British Cabinet spoken out plainly and warned him against that fatal aggression. The Prime Minister has also denied that he is a believer in non-intervention. The right hon. Gentleman's views may be stated better in this way—he is in favour of intervention against the weak, and of non-intervention against the strong. He was opposed to any action against Russia in 1871 and 1878; but he was in favour of intervention against Turkey when environed with enemies. He was in favour of intervention between the North and South, when the United States were distracted with civil war; but he was mortally opposed to it when confronted by the might of a united country, and he paid the Alabama claims. He is proud of intervention against the Albanians and Egyptians, but he left the unhappy Danes to their fate in 1863. I will say nothing about recent events except this, that when the time comes we shall be prepared to prove that this crisis and bloodshed has entirely been brought about, as the Crimean War was brought about, by the weakness and the wrong policy of Her Majesty's Government. I do not speak of the occasion of this bombardment, for that may be justified, if it can be proved that otherwise the British Fleet would have been in danger. But I refer to the cause of the whole difficulty—the neglect, irritation, and provocation which have produced anarchy and war in Egypt. In conclusion, I will venture to urge upon the Government the importance of paying all possible respect, not only to the just rights, but even to the susceptibilities of the Ottoman Government and people in the present crisis. In that way alone can this struggle commenced in Egypt be prevented from spreading over the whole East. The odium which France acquired by her unjust aggression in Tunis, has now been taken upon our shoulders and unless a course of conciliation and justice be followed, grave evils, and possibly disasters, may ensue.
  MR. RICHARDsaid, he united with his hon. Friends the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), in entering a most solemn protest against what was done yesterday at Alexandria. He could not see that the justification, given

  197
  by the Prime Minister or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was at all satisfactory. They had both said that this was not an act of war. If it was not an act of war, then what was it? He (Mr. Richard) had always understood that there was no justification for the wholesale slaughter of human beings, unless it was done in pursuance of the rights of war. But here it was denied that there were any rights of war. Well, then, he could not see, if it was not an act of war, that it was anything else but murder. The right hon. Gentleman assigned three reasons in vindication of the proceeding at Alexandria—that it was necessary, first, to defend Her Majesty's Fleet, next to put down military violence in Egypt, and, thirdly, to avenge the massacre committed about a month ago. But what business had Her Majesty's Fleet in the port of Alexandria at all? Further, was the mere fact of an independent nation fortifying its coasts against a threatened invasion by a foreign Power to be regarded as a justification for making an attack upon it? He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman referring to the massacre that had taken place about a month ago as another justification of the act of bombardment of Alexandria.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not referred to the massacre by way of justifying the bombardment of the forts. He had merely referred to a possible consequence of it.
  MR. RICHARD,continuing, said, he was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's repudiation, because he (Mr. Richard) should look upon such conduct as mere vengeance. They were told, also, that the bombardment was necessary for the protection of the interests and lives and property of British subjects. His contention, on the other hand, was that all the mischiefs that had arisen in Egypt, the massacre of last month, the danger to the Fleet, the destruction of Egyptian commerce for the time, the driving out of Europeans, and the jeopardy of the Suez Canal were owing to the wanton act of intervention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in sending the Fleet to Alexandria. If that had not taken place, none of these results would have followed. As a Member of the Liberal Party, he personally regretted that such things should
  198
  have been done by a Liberal Government. He felt not only grieved, but humiliated, at the course taken by a Government in whose wisdom, moderation, and justice he had been accustomed to repose the most absolute confidence.
  MR. GOURLEYasked leave to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwished to ask, whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give any information as to the reported change of Ministry at Constantinople yesterday? It was said in the telegrams that Said Pasha had been appointed Prime Minister. Was it the Said Pasha who a few days ago was Foreign Minister, or was it the Said Pasha who had been Prime Minister not long ago, and resigned?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The latter, Sir; I take it that there is one Said Pasha who is Prime Minister, and another who is still Foreign Secretary.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had lately spoken of a flag of truce. He wished to ask, how was the flag of truce to be dealt with if they were not at war?
  [No reply.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 213.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Childers, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th July.]
  [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART I.

    SETTLEMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT.
    Clause 1 (Settlement by Land Commission of arrears of rent).
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 1, line 25, to insert, after the word "limitation," the following words:—
    "That where a tenant has a saleable interest in his holding, such interest shall he duly con-

    199
    sidered and taken into account by the Court as an asset in estimating the amount to be paid in discharge of any antecedent arrears of rent under this Act."
    He thought, however, that the Government had made a proposal dealing with tenant right as an asset, which would obviate the necessity of his going on with his Amendment, and therefore he would withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, that an Amendment in his name was next on the Paper; but he should defer moving it until after the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen).
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may do that; but I would point out to him that I have carefully considered the Amendments on the Paper, and I do not think it would be out of Order if he moved his first.
    MR. ECROYD: May I venture to ask if, on the other hand, the Amendment would be out of Order after the Committee has dealt with the Amendment I have alluded to?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; I do not think it would, for reasons which I will explain presently.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that the onus of proving his inability to pay should rest with the tenant; and his object in putting down that Amendment was to obtain, on the inquiry into the question of the ability or inability of the tenant to pay rent, some sort of security that the investigation should be a real one. In framing his Amendment he had had in view the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), wherein that right hon. Gentleman had distinctly referred to an inquiry by the Land Commission, or other persons delegated by the Land Commission, with regard to the property possessed by the tenant. He also desired to propose that all bankers, managers of Post Office or other Government banks, collectors of agricultural returns, and other persons should be bound, on receiving notice from the Land Commission, to produce books, papers, and documents within their custody, which were required in the course of the inquiry. Of course, he felt it possible that the terms
    200
    of his Amendment might be objected to, on the score that such an inquiry as the one he contemplated would be of an inquisitorial character; but what he would submit to the Committee was this—that if the inquiry into the means of the tenant was to be a real one, it must necessarily be of an inquisitorial character. If a person applied under the provisions of the Poor Law for poor relief, the Guardians did what it was their duty to do—made inquiry into the means and circumstances of the applicant to the fullest extent. If, again, a person applied to the Commissioners of Income Tax, either for a reduction of his assessment or a return of the income tax paid by him on profits that he had not made, the inquiry was or ought to be searching and inquisitorial. Such inquiries could not be pleasant to those who were the subjects of them; but if the inquiry which was proposed to be instituted by the Land Commissioners under this Bill into the ability or inability of the tenant to pay was to be a real inquiry, it must, he was afraid, be made both searching and unpleasant. He had put his Amendment down at that point, because it seemed to him that the question might be fairly raised here; but he did not wish to delay the Committee if the discussion could be more conveniently taken later on. Therefore, if the Government, without entering upon the merits or demerits of his proposal, were to say that it would be more appropriate to move it on a later clause, he should refrain from pressing it now. It might, perhaps, be moved as a separate sub-section in the clause, or as an addition to what might be called the Powers Clause of the Bill—the clause under which certain powers were given to the Land Commission.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had stated his views. The question was a novel one; but he (Mr. Gladstone) was of opinion that the best place to discuss it would be on the Powers Clause. He could not see his way to deal with it at present.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Then I beg to give Notice that I will bring it forward at a later stage.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had put an Amendment on the Paper which was in accord with the observations he had made in the debate on going into Com-

    201
    mittee on the Bill. He was anxious, if possible, to meet the argument that, as the Bill was drawn, the tenant right might be realized for a considerable sum after an advance had been made by the State—that was to say, that the tenant might receive a gift at the hands of the Exchequer, and next day, or next year, he might sell his tenancy, pocket the money, and leave the country. That, he thought, was an eventuality which the Government would not wish to occur; and he considered, therefore, that it was a perfectly fair Amendment that he had put on the Paper. It in no way interfered with the object of the Bill, and it came to this—that the amount advanced by the State should remain a charge on the tenant right, though not a charge at interest; and that it should only be raisable in case the tenant right came to be sold. It seemed to him that the Amendment he proposed would give some of the advantages of a loan, without the disadvantages attaching to it. There was no interest to be paid which would make it more difficult for the tenant to pay his rent; but, on the other hand, it would be brought home to those who received the gift from the Exchequer that there was some distinction to be drawn between them and those who had paid their rent. He should be glad to know what was the general view of the Government with regard to the Amendment, or, at any rate, with regard to some Amendment of this kind. With regard to the proposal that stood on the Paper before his in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), that involved a repayment of arrears antecedent to those satisfied under the Act, the repayment to be made out of the amount realized by the sale of the tenant right. That was not his (Mr. Goschen's) proposal. His proposition was that the State should be recouped for the sum which it had advanced in the case of the tenant right being sold. He did not know whether the Amendment would be more acceptable to the Government if a limit of time were introduced into it—that was to say, if it stated that the clause should apply if the tenant right were sold within a certain number of years. If the Government saw their way to the acceptance of the Amendment, a limit of time might be inserted; but, whether or no, he thought the proposal was one well
    202
    worthy of careful consideration. He would not detain the Committee by dwelling upon the matter at any great length, as he was anxious to ascertain, in the first instance, what was the general view of the Government and of the Committee upon a question of the kind.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 2, after "aforesaid," add "such sum as may be ordered to be paid by the Irish Land Commission shall he a charge, without interest, on the amount (if any) realized on the first sale of the holding made after the passing of this Act, and such charge shall not he raised or raisable unless and until such sale as aforesaid shall take place, and it shall then be paid after the landlord's claim for rent accrued due after the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, hut prior to all other-charges on the said holding."—(Mr. Goschen.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) how he was going to calculate the sum when the sale of the holding took place? If this Amendment were adopted it would be necessary for them to have the most complex machinery in order to enable the State to get back the money it had advanced to the tenant; and it should be borne in mind that, in all probability, the machinery by which these gifts would be made to the tenants in the course of a year or a year and a-half would be done away with. If the Amendment were accepted, the machinery, in view of the eventuality contemplated by the proposal, might have to be kept up for 20 or 30 years. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as a financier, that the game he proposed was really not worth the candle. The staff which it would be necessary for the Government to keep up would cost a great deal more than they would be likely to get from the tenants who sold their tenant right.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought there was great force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); but he would make this admission to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen)—namely, that his proposal was a perfectly fair one as a method of meeting a difficulty which they all acknowledged. They all admitted that there was great difficulty in the case, supposing that a man, on the ground of

    203
    disability to pay, received public money in discharge of his arrears, and shortly thereafter received a large amount for his tenant right and left the country. Many of them had recognized the fact that this was a case requiring some attention, and his right hon. Friend had proposed one method of dealing with it. But the Government proposed another, and, if he might say so, a better mode of meeting the difficulty. The Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and that which he (Mr. Gladstone) himself intended to bring forward subsequently, could not well stand together. If they did, they might constitute too much. Therefore, having carefully considered the matter, and having to choose between the two methods, he and his Colleagues had come to the conclusion that their mode was the safer—and this he said without in the slightest degree censuring the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman would himself, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought, admit that it would be a very great disadvantage, independently of the cost, to render the continuance of an expensive machinery necessary for a lengthened period. As the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had pointed out, it would be a great disadvantage to keep this demand hanging over the head of the tenant for a long period. The right hon. Gentleman offered to limit the period; but he would see that by doing so he would greatly impair the principle to which he sought to give effect. To keep this charge hanging over a man's head for a long time, and to come down on him in the event of his quitting his holding, must be a matter very burdensome to the State, and the question was whether the method of meeting the difficulty proposed by the Government was not a much better one. The method of the Government was this. They proposed to put words in the Bill which would have the effect, not of altering the measure, but of calling the attention of the Commissioners definitely and distinctly to a point upon which common sense and sound judgment ought to be brought to bear. They proposed to draw the attention of the Commissioners to the question, and to leave them to determine whether the value of the tenant right, and the position in which it placed the tenant, were such as to make it unfair to say whether
    204
    he was a fit and proper person to receive public money. Her Majesty's Government did not deny the advantages attending the proposal of his right hon. Friend. It would relieve a man at the moment from investigation as to the value of his tenant right; but, on the whole, the Government considered that it would be better that the matter should be investigated, and he was afraid that the Amendment would not relieve the Commissioners very much.
    MR. SYNANthought the Amendment was not only inconsistent with the Proviso Her Majesty's Government proposed to bring before the Committee—on which he would not offer an opinion—but he considered it inconsistent with the course the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) and his Friends had taken on this Bill. What had been their contention as to the tenant right being an asset? Their contention had been that it was an asset in favour of the landlord. Now, after that contention, and after the landlord had given up part of his rent, he would be deprived of any interest in the tenant right, and the gift was to be turned into a loan in favour of the State. A more inconsistent proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends he (Mr. Synan) had never witnessed in the proceedings of that House, or in Committee. Which contention did the right hon. Gentleman stand by? That the tenant right was to be an asset in favour of the landlord, or that, when a tenant left his holding, it was to be realized solely in favour of the State? Let the right hon. Gentleman take his choice; but clearly he could not stand upon both stools—he must give up one or the other. He (Mr. Synan) looked upon it as most ridiculous, and as an insult to the understanding of the Committee, that these two classes of Amendments had been put forward in the same Bill, and from the same quarter.
    MR. GIVANsaid, he must confess he was very much surprised to see this Amendment come from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), because he (Mr. Givan) knew the view the right hon. Gentleman generally took with regard to questions of this kind. However, it was not necessary to detain the Committee more than a moment to point out how totally impracticable this Amendment would be in its working. In addition to the ob-

    205
    jection pointed out by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) there would be this difficulty. Supposing, at the time the money was given by the State, the land was in a bad condition and the tenant right was not worth a farthing, and supposing, in consequence of the relief given under this Bill, the tenant began a better course of cultivation, and in a few years' time converted that which had been a desert into a garden, thereby creating a valuable tenant right, why should that operation of the tenant and of the tenant's family, and, perhaps, of his successors, be for the benefit of the State? An Amendment more calculated to hamper the whole operation of the Bill he could not conceive. On the one hand, the assistance a tenant would receive from the State would be called a gift; but, on the other hand, this possible demand for repayment would be hanging over the farm, lessening the value of it, and threatening, in a certain eventuality, to be a great inconvenience to the tenant or his family. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not think the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Givan) was of great weight. The hon. Member asked them to take a farm which was of little value at present—upon which the tenant right was almost valueless. If the tenant put his labour into the holding and improved it, making the tenant right worth a premium, should he, asked the hon. Member, after having received assistance from the State at the time the farm was worth nothing, be liable to be called upon at some future time to repay the advance which had been made to him out of the enhanced value of the farm? How unjust, said the hon. Member, to charge the tenant right so created with the debt the tenant owed to his landlord! But did the hon. Member not see that if the tenant, by neglecting to cultivate his farm, had failed to pay the debt that was no reason for relieving him of his debts, but an additional reason to insure his paying them? Under the hypothesis of the hon. Member, the tenant, if he had cultivated his farm in a proper manner, would have been able to pay his rent, and the fact that he had not done so was no reason for not compelling him to pay them.
    MR. SYNAN: My contention is, that the tenant may have been prevented from cultivating his farm in a proper manner by rack-renting. He may have been prevented from paying his rent not through his own default.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would not enter into the question as to whether rack-renting injured cultivation. Payment of a full rent in no country in the world with which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was acquainted prevented a farm from being properly cultivated; in fact, in the part of England with which he was most familiar, high renting had an entirely opposite effect. High-rented farms were the best cultivated. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to think that his Amendment was a rival Amendment to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). He had asked the Committee to choose between the two; but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) apprehended that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had the same object as that of the Prime Minister. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had mainly in view the moral effect which his Amendment would produce—the right hon. Gentleman seemingly wished to draw a broad distinction between the tenant who had paid his rent and the tenant who had come under the provisions of this Bill; and he therefore placed great reliance, and attached great weight, not so much to the financial operation of the Amendment, as to its moral effect on the tenant. It would be observed that the Amendment which the Prime Minister intended to introduce—which he had not yet, but which he proposed to place on the Paper—would have no moral effect whatever. It did not seek to draw a distinction between a tenant who had paid his debts and a tenant who came under the operation of this Bill. The Committee, therefore, in considering this matter, had to take into view that which the Prime Minister had left out of account in dealing with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said—"If you carry this Amendment you will do very little good to the finances of the State; the amount of money that will be required to work the clause will be so great that, practically, the State will gain nothing by it"

    207
    That might possibly be true; but the moral effect on the tenant, which was the chief argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), was outside that matter; and in giving his support to the Amendment, if it were taken to a division, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should do so, not in order to save the money of the British taxpayer, but because he thought it would do something substantial in the way of preventing that demoralization that everyone on both sides of the House admitted was one of the greatest dangers that would attend the operation of the Bill. The Prime Minister said it would have an evil effect to keep this debt hanging over the head of the tenant. But allow him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to point out that the debt would not hang over the tenant in the sense that an ordinary liability hung over him. It would not hamper him in the cultivation and management of his farm—it would not be a debt that he could be called on to pay at any moment. It would not injure him as a tenant; in fact, whilst he was a tenant, he never could be called on to pay it—it was not in any sense like, for instance, a debt to a money-lender; it was not in any sense a liability which could darken a tenant's future. The debt would not be increasing in any way, there was no interest on it; and of this the tenant would be aware—that so long as he stuck to his holding the debt could not be called on. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not think that there was any other consideration which the debate so far obliged him to put before the Committee; but he certainly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) would not too easily abandon his Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that, having listened with attention to what had been said, it appeared to him that the main point for the consideration of the Committee was, how far the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in conflict with the present Amendment or not. He (Mr. Goschen) had put his Amendment on the Paper before he was aware that Her Majesty's Government intended to make a proposal on the subject, and he would point out to hon. Members from Ireland on the Opposition side of the House that of all the Amendments which proposed to charge the tenant right with any future payment, the one he had proposed was
    208
    the least onerous. He had searched for a mode whereby this charge could be made so as to the least affect the operations of tenant right, and the mode set forth in the Amendment was the one which he had selected as the most satisfactory. He could not admit the correctness of the statement of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as to the cost of the machinery. He (Mr. Goschen) had no doubt that the call upon the taxpayer would be considerable, and that, therefore, the repayment of the advances in these cases would be a substantial benefit. He was most anxious to save the time of the Committee, and he felt that they could not discuss this matter in regard to the tenant right until they knew how it would be dealt with under the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government. He thought he should be best consulting the interests of the Committee if he were to withdraw his Amendment, at the present stage at all events, subject, possibly, to revival, if they found that the Prime Minister's Amendment did not deal with the matter satisfactorily.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to point out to the Committee one reason which led him to think that some plan of the kind should, in any event, be adopted. As a matter of fact, the tenant right was an existing, but not a realized asset, and it was not the idea of the Government or of the Bill that that asset should be realized in order to enable the tenant to obtain the benefit of the Bill, but merely that the tenant right should be charged to a certain extent, that extent being not so great as to prevent the tenant remaining in his holding. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) must say that the Amendment of the Prime Minister did not entirely meet the case, and that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon dealt with another class of cases besides those the Amendment of the Prime Minister would deal with. The Amendment of the Prime Minister was to the effect that for the purposes of the Act the saleable value of the tenant's interest might, if the Commissioners thought it reasonable, be taken into account as an asset. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) understood that if the tenant's interest was so considerable as to enable him to raise sufficient money on it to pay his arrears, without unduly

    209
    burdening himself, he would be excluded from the advantages of the Bill. But what was to happen to the tenant who possessed a tenant right of such a value that it might suffice to enable him to pay a certain portion of the arrears due, but not the whole of them? That was a case which it seemed to him might fairly be met by such a proposal as that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen). According to the Prime Minister's proposal, the tenant in such a case as that would be admitted to the advantages of the Bill; but yet his tenant right might be worth something—perhaps some considerable sum beyond the amount absolutely necessary to enable him to carry on his farm, Well, surely it was only fair to the State that when such a tenant sold his tenant right he should have to pay, as a first charge on the amount it realized, the money he had received from the State in payment of his arrears. Therefore, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) hoped the Committee would not deem the matter settled by the words the Prime Minister would put on the Paper, but that they would consider it when those words came before them from the point of view he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had put before the Committee.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to observe that the difficulty they had in making progress was really owing to their not having settled the principle on which the Bill ought to be passed. He did not, therefore, think a discussion of this kind could be regarded as a waste of time, provided it settled in their minds the principle on which the Bill ought to be carried out. The only objection he saw to this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was the difficulty of carrying it out. He believed it to be based upon a just and right principle, and he wished it could be carried out; but the multiplicity of accounts that would be required, and the irritation that would be caused by the misrepresentations that would be made in Ireland as to the intentions of the Government in giving this boon to the Irish tenants, would undo, in his opinion, the advantages of even an excellent machinery for collecting this sum when the tenant right was sold. He wished it were possible for Parliament to mark its sense of
    210
    the conduct of those tenants who had wilfully refused to pay their debts from dishonest motives. Many tenants in Ireland had made the greatest exertions, not only in a pecuniary sense, but they had incurred the greatest dangers to life, limb, and home in the fulfilment of their duty by endeavouring to pay their rents. He knew, from communications which had been sent to him, that these tenants felt very bitterly the suffering they would have to endure through an indiscriminate distribution of this boon amongst honest and dishonest men alike. He begged to observe to the Committee that the difficulty in which they were arose, in his opinion, from the mode in which this proposal had to be worked. If the Government had proposed to proceed by way of universal loan the difficulty would not have arisen. For his own part, he was in favour not of universal loan, but of taking a small rating, say, a £5 rating, and making the assistance given to tenants who came within that category, who were in difficulties and destitute, and in such circumstances as to be almost paupers—who, in fact, were fit objects for the receipt of bounty—in the nature of a gift; and of giving tenants who were in possession of tenant right—which was an asset of great value, amounting often to several hundreds of pounds— the relief they needed by way of loan just as it had been given to the landlords.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member for Galway that the next Amendment raises the question of loan.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should not have addressed the Committee another moment if the Chairman had allowed him to finish what he had to say. If the right hon. Gentleman ruled him out of Order, of course he should not continue. He would point out, however, that this was the 1st clause of the Bill, and that, as it contained the great principle of the whole measure, it was almost impossible to confine one's self to the terms of the Amendment, when discussing an Amendment upon it. He should like to ask the Chairman whether it was in Order for the Prime Minister to discuss Amendments which would come on at a later stage in connection with this proposal? The Prime Minister had done so, whether it was in Order or not. The Prime Minister had

    211
    contrasted two Amendments, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had done so also; therefore, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not think—seeing that those hon. Members had been allowed to take that course—that he could be considered as wilfully transgressing the Rules of Debate. ["Oh, oh!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would not be convenient for the hon. Member to go on with the discussion of Amendments other than that before the Committee.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he must complain of the ungentlemanly and ungainly interruptions of the hon. Member for Wexford. [dries of "Order!"and "Withdraw!"] What he said was, that to interrupt an hon. Member by an inarticulate sound of that kind was not an act of courtesy which was usual in that House, or usual amongst any Assembly of Gentlemen. Let the Committee take warning from the words which had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The hon. Member had spoken of the Bill as a "Twopenny halfpenny gift;" and be (Mr. Mitchell Henry) knew how the measure would be represented in Ireland by the hon. Member and his Friends. It would be spoken of as a thing not worth having. The Committee, therefore, should be careful to act in the matter on the right principle. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would withdraw his Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: He has asked leave to do so.] The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, alarmed by what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite, which certainly would have unsteadied his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) nerves if he had made the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman intended to withdraw his Amendment; but it was to be hoped that, in doing so, he would not abandon the principle in it, which established that a clear distinction ought to be drawn between those tenants who had endeavoured to meet their obligations and those who wilfully refused to do so.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he only wished to say one word before the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) withdrew his Amendment. The Prime Minister had made a statement that he (Mr. Gibson) could not follow at the time it was made, and bad been unable to follow since, notwithstanding that he himself
    212
    had an Amendment on the Paper on this subject. It was to the effect that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was involved in the Government Amendment. He (Mr. Gibson) desired to point out, before the Amendment was withdrawn, that the Government Amendment had nothing to say in bur to an Amendment like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, or any other mode of dealing with the grant made to the tenant. The Amendment proposed to make a charge that should not come into force, unless and until the tenancy was sold, which, of course, would only occur in the case of a limited number of tenants in Ireland. The majority of the Irish tenants were not going to sell their holdings—they remained on their farms from generation to generation; therefore the Amendment would not meet with violent objection from any part of Ireland. It was obvious that the Prime Minister's Amendment could not be inconsistent with, or have anything to say to, any Amendment to be proposed to deal with this question by way of loan.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would more properly come on when the Amendment of the Prime Minister was discussed. Therefore, he (Mr. Magniac), who wished to make a few observations upon the matter, would defer his remarks until the Prime Minister's Amendment was before them.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he proposed to withdraw the Amendment; and, in doing so, he wished to say that be did not entirely agree with the view of this matter taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), which was that the Prime Minister's Amendment did not touch the Amendment before the Committee. His (Mr. Goschen's) Amendment would deal with all cases of tenant right, if it had not been treated as an asset, and was moved in view of the fear that the tenant right would not be treated as an asset; but when the Government distinctly said that tenant right was an asset, and that the Amendment they would propose would only have the effect of limiting the number of cases that his (Mr. Goschen's) Amend-

    213
    ment would deal with, it certainly appeared to him accurate to say that the Prime Minister's Amendment had an important bearing upon this matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he wished to move, as an Amendment, the insertion of words to the effect that the amount advanced to a tenant to assist him in the payment of his arrears should be deemed to be a debt due from the tenant to the Land Commission, and should be repaid with interest at the rate of 1 per cent per annum, in the prescribed manner, by 15 annual instalments. In the first place, he wished to disclaim all hostility to the helpful purpose of this Bill. He desired to put on record his deep and sincere sympathy with the small and suffering tenants in Ireland, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House—those who claimed to be the special Representatives of the poor tenantry of Ireland—that he should be the last man in the House to move an Amendment of this kind if he did not believe it would give increased efficiency to the measure, and that, in the long run, it would be as much to the advantage of the tenants themselves as to that of the State. He did not lay stress upon his Amendment on the mere ground of abstract principle. The proposal he now laid before them involved, to a very considerable extent, the principle of gift—the gift of a large amount of interest during the term of years over which the loan extended. He thought the discussion which had taken place last evening had been attended with this advantage—that it had opened out to the view of the Committee the series of extraordinary difficulties and inherent objections which existed to the working of this measure; and he believed that, upon consideration, it would be evident that if the Committee should be pleased to adopt his proposal, it would, in a great measure, remove those difficulties and objections. Now, it would be manifestly just as necessary that a close and searching inquiry should take place into the question of the tenant's inability to pay, in case of the adoption of this provision, as under the proposal of absolute gift. But there would be this difference—in that doubtful class of cases as to which it
    214
    might be very difficult to ascertain whether they ought or ought not to be admitted, the adoption of this provision would allow them to be dealt with on the most favourable conditions, because the advance of the money would then no longer involve the loss of a large amount of capital by the State. Again, he would point out that the adoption of the Amendment would remove a serious evil which resulted from absolute gifts of capital on the part of the State. About 20 years ago he (Mr. Ecroyd) was Chairman of one of the local Committees for the distribution of the charitable fund so nobly raised by the people of this country in aid of the people in Lancashire reduced to distress by the Cotton Famine. Some remarkable points forced themselves at that time on the attention of the Committee. In the first place, there was great difficulty in getting proof of the absolute necessity of those who made application for relief; and it was found almost impossible to defeat the continual attempts that were made to obtain the benefit of the fund by persons for whom it was never intended. They had then to deal with one of the most proudly independent populations in the Kingdom; and, notwithstanding that the Committee discharged with the greatest care the duties cast upon them in connection with the fund at their disposal, they were, unfortunately, unable to avoid breaking down the independence of many of the people, and so leaving in the minds of a considerable section of the labouring population the evil habit of dependence on public or private charity, rather than their own savings, to meet any future emergency. Further, the Committee received the testimony of the most respectable portion of the working class themselves that the breaking down of the distinction which ought always to be maintained between those who were provident and honest and those who were the reverse had implanted in the minds of the people that reliance on external aid to which he had referred, and had lamentably discouraged the habit of saving. But what impressed him most was the strongly expressed opinion of many such persons that this result would not have followed if the Committee had proceeded from the beginning on the principle of loan. Now, the proposal he made would place an

    215
    obstacle) in the way of a man selling his tenant right and carrying the proceeds away to America or elsewhere without discharging his just debts; whilst the incoming tenant, who might probably have purchased the tenant right with borrowed money, would almost certainly stand in a worse position than the former tenant occupied 12 months or two years ago. The effect of his Amendment, however, would be to compel such a man to repay the money advanced by the State before he could betake himself to a foreign country. It would also, to some extent, remove the temptation to improvident dealing with the tenant's security, for there would be an existing charge upon it which must be considered by the usurer, and which would doubtless discourage that improvident contraction of loans on onerous terms, which, they were told, was one of the great obstacles to the well-doing of this class of society in Ireland. With regard to the pressure of other creditors on the tenant immediately after the settlement of arrears with the landlord, he thought a great advantage would be realized by giving the State, as creditor for this loan, a voice in the settlement of the tenant's affairs. Let them examine for a moment the reduction of the charge to be imposed on the State which would follow the adoption of this proposal. They would see that if it were adopted a man who sought the benefit of the Land Act of last year would obtain a reduction of rent, with fixity of tenure, and, in addition, the extinction of his arrears on extremely easy terms—that was to say, in the case of a £20 new holding, by the payment of £21 8s. 10 d. a-year for the term of 15 years. Now, surely, that was not a great acknowledgment to ask from a class of men who, contrary to all the principles of political economy, and contrary to what had ever been done for the trading classes in England and Scotland, had been relieved by the State from a pressure from which they could not deliver themselves. Then, let the Committee look for one moment at the difference which would result to the State, and therefore to the taxpayers, from the adoption of the principle of loan at 1 per cent, to be repaid in 15 annual instalments, as compared with the adoption of the principle of absolute gift. He thought that during the discussions
    216
    upon this Bill the case of the British taxpayer had received but scanty consideration. They could not for a moment put out of sight the fact that large classes of society in this country—farmers, artificers, and small tradesmen were themselves labouring under a burden of debt incurred during the last five or six unfortunate years which gave them an equal right to claim public assistance if they saw an opportunity to urge that claim with anything like a chance of success. There were numbers of people of slender means who asked how this much-needed relief to the Irish tenant, and that settlement of affairs with the landlords which was so necessary for the peace and order of Ireland, could be given, not only with the least breach of sound principles and public morality, but at the smallest cost to the British taxpayer. He (Mr. Ecroyd) found that, taking the cost of money to the State at 3½ per cent, the loss upon the advance of £2,000,000, to be repaid with interest at 1 per cent as proposed in his Amendment, would be something a little short of £900,000; it would, in fact, be the difference, at compound interest for 15 years, between 1 per cent and 3½ per cent. But if they proceeded on the principle of absolute gift, at the end of 15 years the loss would be, in the first place, undoubtedly, the £2,000,000; and, in the second place, the whole amount of the interest and charges, amounting to, say, £1,350,000, which would bring up the total to £3,350,000. The difference of cost, then, between these two modes of procedure, at the end of 15 years, would be nearly £2,500,000 in favour of the British taxpayer. But did any Member of the Committee believe that this advance would be limited to £2,000,000? If, as he believed would be the case, the advance amounted to £4,000,000, the difference of loss would amount to nearly £5,000,000. There were many interests which demanded consideration in that House. Not only had they to consider the importance of obtaining a settlement in Ireland, but they had to avoid, if possible, the creation of a strong feeling of injustice on the part of the people of this country, who could never be brought to believe they were personally responsible for the state of things which existed in Ireland. Was it not possible to place these advances in the

    217
    position he had indicated, and, in so doing, really to afford a little wholesome stimulus to the Irish tenantry? No one could believe there would be the least hardship in the small repayment required. If the condition of the tenant were so desperate that they could not reckon on his paying back £1 8s. 10 d. per annum for 15 years, he thought the Committee were setting themselves a hopeless task in attempting to rehabilitate him. There was still one consideration remaining to which he attached great weight, and that was the danger of creating a feeling of irritation and a sense of injustice in the minds of the population of our large towns, who were themselves placed in straitened circumstances from the reduction of wages and the increased difficulty of making profits by retail trade—the great danger of implanting in their minds a feeling of indignation at being called upon to make a sacrifice for people not worse off, and certainly not more deserving, than themselves. Much as everyone would lament the creation of such a feeling between the English and Irish populations of the manufacturing and mining districts in this country, he had reason to know that the fear of it was no chimera, and that there was already great danger of its spread in many towns. He was so profoundly impressed with the importance, both in Ireland and this country, of the adoption of a sound economical principle in making these advances, that he was disposed to hope that the Government would look favourably on the Amendment which he now begged leave to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "And such sum shall be deemed to be a debt due from the tenant to the Land Commission, and shall be repaid, with interest at the rate of one per centum per annum, in the prescribed manner by fifteen annual instalments."—(Mr. Ecroyd.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, no one could object to the spirit in which the hon. Member (Mr. Ecroyd) had moved his Amendment; but he (Mr. Childers) must point out that the speech to which they had just listened was more appropriate to the debate on the second reading of the Bill than the present stage. The Bill was intended to provide for cases
    218
    which the Act of last year failed to meet, by offering loans to assist tenants in discharging arrears. The failure of the clause referred to was the reason for introducing this Bill; because it was absolutely necessary that the question of arrears should be taken up, and its principle had been adopted by a large majority on the second reading, and confirmed in the discussion upon the question of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, which was, in reality, a second reading debate also. Still it seemed only proper, having regard to the fair manner in which the hon. Member for Preston had put forward his views, that he (Mr. Childers) should make some remarks upon the proposal to proceed in furtherance of the principle of loan. He was bound to point out that this very proposal of the hon. Member contained in itself the fatal element of gift to which he (Mr. Ecroyd) was so much opposed, inasmuch as the hon. Member did not recommend that the money advanced to the tenants should be repaid strictly in accordance with the principles which regulate loans. He proposed that the advance should be made with interest at 1 per cent per annum, to be repaid by 15 annual instalments, and he said that the burden which would be thereby imposed on the taxpayer would be something like £900,000, as against £3,500,000, which would be imposed by the plan of the Government. His argument, therefore, simply amounted to this —that a small gift would be less demoralizing than a large one.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he had not objected to the principle of gift, but to the principle of gift exercised in a demoralizing manner.
    MR. CHILDERSpointed out that the hon. Member, in dealing with the Irish tenants, proposed to make them a gift of only one-seventh of the total amount. But, in 1880, certain advances were made to the Irish landlords, with interest at 1 per cent, extending over a period of 35 years, but without interest for the first two years. That was equivalent to a gift of one-third the total amount. The Committee, would therefore, see that, by adopting the principle of part gift and part loan, as proposed by the hon. Member, the Irish tenants would receive one-seventh of the whole amount of the loan, as against one-third received by the landlords at the time referred

    219
    to. But the main question before them was this—having adopted, on the second reading, the distinct principle that these advances should be made by way of gift, were they now going to retrace their steps, and adopt the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Preston of part gift and part loan? There was another difficulty which would follow the adoption of the Amendment. Could the Committee conceive that if this principle were adopted it would be possible to limit the amount of advances to £2,000,000? Would it be possible to avoid going the length proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), of making these advances in respect of the whole of the Irish tenants who were in arrear, and not in respect to those alone who were unable to pay? In the former case, it would be necessary to make advances not of £2,000,000 only, but probably of £6,000,000, for it must not be supposed that the Irish people would be satisfied with the extent of the relief proposed to be given. The Government would be pressed to extend the advances from cases of inability to pay to all cases of arrears, and from tenants below £30 value to all tenants, the effect of yielding to which pressure would be to double the amount of advances which it was believed would result from the present proposal. Again, while the Land Act of last Session provided, in the 52nd clause, that the advances therein referred to should be a debt to the State from the landlords—a comparatively small body—the proposal of the hon. Member was to make the tenants debtors to the State for the purposes of this Bill. But, surely, the hon. Member could not have contemplated the effect of making 300,000 or 400,000 tenants direct debtors to the Exchequer? It was practically an impossibility for the State to have on its books from year to year the accounts of some 300,000 or 400,000 tenants. There were so many objections to the proposal of the hon. Member that he (Mr. Childers) could not think it would be adopted by the Committee, especially as the matter had already been threshed out on two previous occasions.
    MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, the only principle affirmed on the second reading of the Bill was that certain advances should be made by the State for the relief of Irish tenants. The House was
    220
    then precluded from considering the important point now raised, which he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) trusted, on the present occasion, would receive the attention due to it, particularly as it was distinctly stated by the Government on the second reading that the subject was one that would properly be discussed in Committee. He thought there was much in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) which deserved the full and favourable consideration of the Committee, and which, he was bound to say, would commend itself to the common sense of the country. The Amendment raised, in distinct and unmistakable terms, the issue which the Prime Minister told them, on the occasion of the second reading, was really the main question with regard to the Bill—namely, whether these advances should be made by way of gift from the National Exchequer, or whether they should be made, following ordinary precedent, in the form of loan. He (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) was not surprised that the hon. Member for Preston, who had been so long connected with the mercantile world, and who represented in that House a most important commercial community, should view with suspicion and distrust a proposal which contemplated a free grant from the public funds for the purpose of enabling a limited section of a particular class to get rid of their personal and legal obligations, and which contemplated, besides, the compulsory and general interference of the State between debtor and creditor, irrespective altogether of the special circumstances of individual cases and of the ordinary principles of law. Now, he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) was far from saying that there was no pressing juncture of affairs in Ireland demanding Parliamentary consideration; nor would he say that, in certain circumstances, it might not only be necessary, but desirable, to make a free grant from the Public Exchequer; but he might be permitted to doubt whether the arguments which had been advanced by Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion were such as to warrant, not only the Committee, but the country, in agreeing to a course so exceptional in its character, and, as he believed, so doubtful in its results. Now, the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of the Bill, very properly characterized all interference of the

    221
    nature contemplated by the Bill as exceptional and extraordinary; and he grounded his argument in favour of it on the fact that the circumstances which had arisen were in themselves exceptional and extraordinary. But he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) would point out to the Committee that the mere occurrence of circumstances in themselves exceptional and extraordinary did not necessarily imply an extraordinary and exceptional course of treatment; and, if that argument was a valid one, it would not only cover the particular remedy now proposed by the Government, but any other proposal, provided only it was, in its character, exceptional and extraordinary. He should like to narrow that issue to a final point by ascertaining what were the circumstances exceptional and extraordinary which would warrant them in proposing State aid by way of a gift. For his own part, he thought they were only justified in doing this when the distress was so widespread as to amount to a national calamity. If that were so, Parliament had already had to deal with circumstances of the kind, and had dealt with them in a particular way; and he was desirous of hearing from Her Majesty's Government the reason which induced them to treat this particular case in a manner different from other cases of widespread distress amounting to a national calamity. Now, the second argument used with regard to this point was that the House had already taken this step. That was the statement of the Prime Minister in May last. Now, in a case of difficulty, it was, no doubt, most important to be able to bring forward precedents, and he was perfectly prepared to admit the force of arguments founded upon them. But he must also point out that it was very difficult to distinguish what were the conditions which went to make up a true and valid Parliamentary precedent? The whole force of an argument founded on precedent depended upon similarity of principle and similarity of circumstances. If the circumstances were the same and the principle different, that could not be quoted as a Parliamentary precedent. On the other hand, if the principles were the same, and the circumstances differed, in that case, also, the force of the argument failed. Now, he was prepared to admit that the circumstances in 1881 and those in
    222
    1882 did not differ on any material point; if they differed at all, they differed in degree. But they were asked to take this course because the same principle applied to both years. Now, he thought no better answer could be given to this argument than that used by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, who said the principle now desired to be applied to the circumstances of 1882 was not the principle of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), on the same occasion, said that the Arrears Clause of 1881 was—
    "Merely to facilitate the payment of these arrears by means of loans to two parties, who were both agreed, and who made themselves liable for repayment."—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 1284.]
    Therefore, the argument on Parliamentary precedent entirely failed. With regard to a third argument, which might be classed under the head of theoretical arguments, in favour of the principle of gift, he would point out that there was the important difference in favour of a loan, that, in the latter case, you got something back; while, in the former, nothing was repaid, and the effect was necessarily demoralizing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had argued in favour of this principle of gift, and what he said appeared to him to be a strong argument now. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were that unless assistance wore given to the tenant farmer in the shape of gift—
    "One very great object, if not the chief object, of the Land Act of last year, which sought to meet the case of the poor cottier tenants of the west, could not be attained."—[Ibid. 1285.]
    He said an argument of that practical nature had much more weight with him than many arguments derived from so-called precedent. The Act of last year was in itself a practical failure, and that fact did not give confidence in the measure now proposed by the Government. It failed, because a large number of persons whom it was intended to help had not been able to take advantage of one of its clauses; those people consequently remained dissatisfied, and Parliament was again asked to deal with the matter. He thought they were bound to give great consideration to the statement of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) in reference to this matter.

    223
    He said that this principle of gift instead of grant would not be taken advantage of in nine cases out of ten by the very class it was proposed to assist. Now, after the failuro of the clause of last year, which did not give satisfaction to the great body of smaller tenants, and after the statement of the hon. Member for the County of Cork, whose knowledge of Ireland was not exceeded by anyone in that House, that nine-tenths of the smaller tenants could not avail themselves of this proposal, he thought they had strong ground for pausing before they passed this measure in its present form. He (Mr. Cochran- Patrick) was bound to say that of all the arguments used in favour of the Government proposal that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) was the least worthy of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the principle of loan were adopted, they would have difficulty in collecting money from 300,000 or 400,000 persons as debtors to the State books. But if the mere difficulty of collecting money was to be urged against this proposal, the State might as well give up collecting taxes, or rates, or debts of any sort. The only other point he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee was the consideration of the effect which this gift would have. It had been truly said it would have a demoralizing effect on the tenant; it was against all Parliamentary precedent; it was against the principles adopted by Parliament in dealing with national distress in England; it would cast upon the taxpayers of the country burdens which were unnecessary; and he should not be doing his duty if he did not take that opportunity of protesting against the imposition of such burdens in order to obtain an advantage that he believed to be more than doubtful.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the system of loan, as compared with that of gift, had a manifest advantage. He believed the adoption of that principle would have saved them from the difficulty they were in, and which would every day increase, with respect to the question of tenant right. Nevertheless, he was bound to ask whether it was possible for a Government who had deliberately adopted the system of gift in this Bill, with any sense of self-respect,
    224
    to take back their measure, and remodel it entirely on the system of loan? He did not think it would be. He did not, however, believe the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), as against loans, were valid; at any rate, they did not carry conviction to his mind. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that an amount of from £4,000,000 to £6,000,000 would be taken up; but he (Colonel Colthurst) had pointed out, on a former occasion, that oven on the easy terms he proposed no one would ask for a loan who did not really require it, for the disinclination of the occupiers of land in Ireland to pay any additional annual charge, however small, was notorious; and he believed it would be a perfect guard against abuse. He might observe that the suggestion he made did not lay him open to the charge cast upon him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), of throwing away public money. But now, however, it was too late to retrace their steps; and he would, therefore, implore the Government not to try to impair that which they had done by Amendments tending to narrow these gifts. If they gave way to these different suggestions as to going into the question of the ability or the inability of the people to pay, and, above all, into the value or part value of tenant right, then the Bill would become not worth the value of the paper it was written on.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he would venture to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), when the latter said this was a second reading Amendment, that it was pointed out by the Prime Minister on the second reading that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) did not go against the whole principle of the Bill; he distinctly said, as regards this Motion, that it only affected the charge on the Consolidated Fund, and it was open to consideration in Committee. He had had some little experience of these things, and he entirely agreed in what had been said as to the bad effect of making the advance a gift; and he would venture to say anyone who had dealt with the subject—and he could call on the right hon. Gentleman the

    225
    Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) as a witness—must be perfectly aware of the bad economic effect of eleemosynary gifts; but when those gifts were the result, as many hon. Members felt they were, of crime, outrage, and dishonesty, the demoralization would be intensified. But what would be the effect of treating it as a loan? In the first place, the amounts of individual grants would be very small, the average being between £5 and £10. An advance of £10 at 5 per cent would be only 10s. a-year for 15 years, and the rent in most cases would be reduced to £7 10s., and then the charge would be only 7s. on that. How small would be the loss to the tenant, but how great would be the effect! After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, in a former debate, the latter could not consistently vote against the principle of this Amendment. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) remembered, on a former occasion, how, in an eloquent speech upon the Motion for extending the county franchise, the right hon. Gentleman showed what an economic mistake it was; and the demoralization that would follow if people were taught the lesson that they could rely on other resources than their own industry. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett)—he was not now present—it was difficult to see how he could refuse to support the Amendment, based as it was on a principle he had contended for in one of his books. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) should be claimed as a supporter, after the speeches made this year and last year—speeches on behalf of the Government, but in which he admitted the demoralizing effect of gifts such as were now proposed. With the necessity of the Bill he (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) agreed, and he did not oppose it as a whole, though the effect expected from it was, he thought, overrated; but he could not see why small tenants should not be put in a position to take advantage of the Land Act by means of loans. This, it was said, was a supplementation of the Arrears Clauses of the Act of 1881, which it was found did not work; but, granting that, and putting the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill, nothing in those arguments would tell against the proposition which he ventured to make—
    226
    that the advances should be made half by way of loan and half as a gift. If desirable, the loan might be made collectively to the Union, and not to the individual, and this would do away with any difficulty of collection. Thus the element of gift would be maintained, and the element of gift was all that was settled on the second reading. The argument commonly used, that the Bill dealt with an exceptional case, and that something of this sort was necessary, did not affect the question of loan, and the argument itself was a dangerous one to use. While speaking of limiting the Act, of course he meant as to this clause only; but, while limiting the grants, the Bill might be extended beyond the £30 valuation, and in such cases making a full charge of interest on the loan and no gifts whatever. The effect of the Act might be extended by making the rates of the Union or the barony security; in fact, collecting from the Union where they could not collect from the tenant, and thus they would enlist all the ratepayers on their side. These were suggestions he made with the greatest deference to the Government to consider in the further carrying through of the measure. The number of tenants, they were told, who might be affected would be about 200,000; but how many of these would come under the operation of the Bill? He believed that by no means the larger proportion would. Those must be excluded who could pay, but would not pay; and those would be excluded who, though worthy of help, were unable to pay one year's rent; therefore, a large number would be deducted from the 200,000. It would not be an easy process, and arrears would by no means be wiped off; a large number would remain unsettled. And then he wanted to put another argument before right hon. Gentlemen which, no doubt, they had considered, but not, he thought, sufficiently. They were asking the taxpayers of the United Kingdom to provide a fund to pay off the arrears of certain Irish tenants who, many of them believed, had withheld their rents when they could pay. Now, in England, farmers had had serious losses, and there were considerable arrears, and he thought the Prime Minister stated on one occasion that there was almost as much distress among the English as among the Irish farmers.

    227
    However, there was no doubt there was considerable distress in some parts of England, and what would the taxpayers say when they found an addition must be made to their burdens? These English farmers, many of them in distress and in arrears with their rent, had never asked for help from the State; but they had asked that part of the burden of unjust local taxation should be taken off their shoulders. Her Majesty's Government had acknowledged the justice of their demands, and, going further, had promised that in one item—the cost of roads—they would assist them this year; but then, they added, they had not "a shot in the locker" to help them with, and they must put on a tax in some way to enable them to take local taxation off. Were hon. Members to go to their constituents and say—"Her Majesty's Government have not a shot in the locker for you, though they admit you are unjustly taxed; but they have many shots in their locker for Irish farmers who could, but will not pay their rents?" Think of the effect of such a statement on the English taxpayers. He had expressed his opinion that the demoralization that might arise from this measure it was impossible to fathom or describe; but what it was possible to foresee and foretell was, that, as one result, the whole of next Session would be given up to Irish Business, and the Session after; and unless, meantime, there came that change of Government which some expected, further demands would be made—the Labourers' Question, Purchase, Emigration, Leases, and Home Rule would, in consequence, occupy Parliament—["Question!"
    MR. BRYCErose to ask if these observations were in Order?
    THE CHIAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going beyond the Question.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, his argument was that they could not measure the demoralization that might ensue in Ireland from the terms of this proposal, but that it was possible to foresee the results that would arise in that House. That was his argument, which he thought was in Order. The effect of the measure would be to encourage demands which year by year would grow larger. For the reasons he had given, he ventured with great deference to ask the Prime Minister, not to say absolutely he would accept the Amendment of his
    228
    hon. Friend (Mr. Ecroyd) or that of his own, which more exactly met the question, but to take them into consideration, and, at the same time, the suggestion to extend the operation of the Bill beyond the £30 limit, making the advances on the security of the Union or barony—that was to say, on the rates of the district.
    MR. ARTHUR PEASEsaid, they would all be glad if the charges could be met without a call upon the public funds; but as to the Amendment, a few figures would show the position that would be arrived at if it were adopted. About £2,000,000 would be paid to relieve the 200,000 tenants, say, on an average of £10 each. The interest on the loan at 1 per cent, say, would be Is.; that would inflict on the State the duty of collecting 6d. every half-year from 200,000 individuals. Then, for the instalment, a further sum of 13s. 4d., making 14s. 4d. a-year; that meant that every half year the State would have to collect 7s. 2d. from each of about 200,000 tenants; but a great many of these would have much smaller accounts than that. On an estate with which he was acquainted the average payment of the tenants was £3 10s., and the amount of interest which would have to be collected from these 400 tenants on the estate would be A¼d. every half-year; whereas the redemption money would be about 5s.; that would be an increase of the rents on that Irish estate for 15 years of 8 per cent. It had been stated that these insolvent or bankrupt tenants were a class of men who had not paid, and could not pay, their rents; and, under these circumstances, here was a proposal that the State should become the creditor of 200,000 of them, for an increase of their rents by 8 per cent. It seemed perfectly absurd when looked at in connection with these figures, and he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ecroyd) would not push his Amendment to a division.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not share the confidence of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), or indulge the hope that by any Amendment they could make this a good Bill; but, at the same time, they might make it a less bad one. The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) supported the Amendment by

    229
    his speech; and, while cordially concurring in his premisses, he must altogether dissent from his conclusions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman urged an argument of great power and force in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston; but he concluded by declaring against the Amendment, although he entirely agreed with it. (Colonel COLTHURST: No.] Many hon. Members would confirm him (Mr. J. Lowther) when he said the conclusion of the speech was a surprise and a disappointment to the Committee. But his (Mr. J. Lowther's) principal object in rising was to notice a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) with regard to the precedent set by the late Government in making advances to landlords in the autumn of 1879 and the early part of the following year. This was, at the time, generally accepted by both sides of the then House of Commons as a fair financial proposal; and, though it was criticized in some quarters, it was adopted by the Successors of the late Government, and, in fact, continued and extended by them. The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament advanced money to the landlords on repayments over 35 years, and that, thereby, the landlords were given by way of gift one-third of these advances; and, he said, what would be thought of the even-handed dealing of Parliament, if it turned round and made the advance to the tenants a loan payable in 15 years, thereby making in the form of a gift only one seventh of the advance? Now, the right hon. Gentleman had not, for the first time, fallen into an error in regard to the scheme of the late Government which was adopted by the present Government. It was not an advance for the benefit of the landlords; it was clearly and distinctly brought before Parliament both by his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford North-cote), and by himself, not as a boon for the landlord class, but as a means of relief to the people of Ireland, and mainly of the small tenants. It was an alternative suggested to the minds of the late Government as preferable to the establishment of public works, and it was felt that public money would best circulate through the population if it passed, in the first instance, to the em-
    230
    ployers of labour and the owners of large and small estates, and it was in no shape or form submitted to Parliament as a boon for the landlords, and that was stated distinctly. He had heard the contrary stated before, in good faith, no doubt, and it had passed uncontradicted as an established fact; but it must be clearly understood that the Government proposed the scheme for the relief of the humbler classes in Ireland. That disposed of the supposed precedent of the Act of 1879–80. But the right hon. Gentleman denounced, or rather took exception to, the introduction of this Amendment, the alternative of a loan, because, he said, the matter should be considered as disposed of at the second reading.
    MR. CHILDERS: I said it was not worthy of two long debates, and that we had had one on the second reading.
    MR. J. LOWTHER,continuing, said, he hoped it would not be unduly long, but that the discussion would be kept within reasonable dimensions. But with regard to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), he confessed that, knowing the great ability and skill with which the right hon. Gentleman handled all facts of a financial character, he was grievously disappointed at the argument brought forward. He appeared to consider that affording facilities to persons, reduced to a position of temporary indigence, by offering them loans on reasonable terms, to be repaid over an extended period, when it was hoped prosperity would have returned, was not conferring a substantial benefit upon them. Now, the Committee must have been struck by the arguments of the hon. Member for Preston, and the disinclination of the right hon. Gentleman to face those arguments on their merits; but there was a reason which the right hon. Gentleman might have dwelt on against the Government entertaining any such Amendment as this now brought forward; and, as he (Mr J. Lowther) always was anxious to be considered fair in debate, he would supply the missing link in the right hon. Gentleman's chain of reasons. He would remind the Committee of criticisms on a system of relieving by way of loan from a quarter which he knew had for some time had great weight with Her Ma-

    231
    jesty's Government. The question of loans was referred to in these terms in a letter which had now become historical—
    "The proposals you have described to me, as suggested in some quarters, as to making' loans repayable over a term of years, however many years payment might be spread over, should be absolutely rejected for reasons I have already explained."
    Well these were not fully explained to the House; but this was quoted from the unmutilated copy of a now historical document, which had formed the subject of considerable discussion in and out of the House; and this, he thought, was the only argument that the Government could seriously urge against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, this was a debate in which they ought to have short speeches, and speeches that contained arguments on the proposition as to whether this relief to tenants should be given by way of gift or loan. He would do his best to reply in both particulars. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), speaking with some force and feeling, drew a comparison between the early Irish famines and what he called the famine and the distress of recent years. In what he described as a national calamity, the hon. Member said it had not been proposed to relieve the poor Irish by means of gift. He (Mr. Trevelyan) allowed that it was not proposed to do that; but it must be remembered that "man proposes, and God disposes." It was proposed to relieve the sufferers of Irish famines by means of loan. No less than £4,797,000 was lent for the payment of the labouring poor. What was the result? Why this. In the following year an Act was passed, which recited that the failure of the potato crop had been more serious than was at first thought, and enacted that the Board of Works should take account of the funds expended, and that half the amount advanced should be put down to the Consolidated Fund, and thus be remitted. That was what the Treasury hoped, while the famine was still in progress; but the hopes of the Treasury fell very much below the results. Out of the £4,800,000, only £590,000 ever found its way back to the National Exchequer; while nearly £1,300,000 had in
    232
    the end to be remitted. So much for the precedent, in a great national calamity, of relieving the poor by means of loan and not by gift. In addition to what he had stated, £1,250,000 was lent under the head of Temporary Relief, and £500,000 only was repaid, £750,000 being remitted. After that, he thought the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) would allow that there was, if not in form, yet in fact, a very important precedent for relieving distress by means of gift, drawn from that very period from which the hon. Gentleman challenged the Government to find a precedent. Exactly the same experience as was the experience of the English Government in the famine in 1846 was the experience of the Indian Government in the recent famine. In the case of those districts whore there was a land system which, in some respects, resembled that of Ire-laud, the Indian Government went boldly at once to work. They remitted the Land Tax to the Zemindars, and by them to the Ryots. In the first place, the Government made the remission a loan; but in a year's time they found they could not recover the money, and they remitted the whole sum, exactly on the same principle as the Irish Government attempted to deal with the great remission of tithes in Ireland. £l,000,000 was raised to lend to the owners of tithes in Ireland, and that was to be repaid in five instalments. Parliament thought it would demoralize the Irish tenantry if the money were given in the shape of a gift; but what was the result? The advances under the Act of 1833 amounted to £900,000; and it might be said that none was ever recovered; £12,000 was recovered by the same process by which they were now asked to believe they would recover the enormous number of small sums proposed to be given in the present case. At that time, Parliament, with great wisdom, consented to do that which this Bill asked Parliament to do; they remitted the rest of the sum and made it a gift, and not a loan. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had referred to the recent loans to landlords in language which brought down upon him severe comments from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther). The loan to landlords was extended over seven years, because no interest was

    233
    paid at all for the first two years. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) bad said that those loans were not an advance to the landlord, but to the tenant. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not for a moment dispute that the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in describing the motives which actuated the late Administration; but he defied the right hon. Gentleman to dispute the fact that, whatever was the primary reason which impelled the late Government to give the money, the result was, the landlords had got the money to spend on purposes which, in the eyes of a good landlord, were, perhaps, the best purposes to which money could be applied. The right hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of English Land Law, would not deny that an English landlord would be as much gratified by a present of £5,000 to spend on drainage or other improvements of his property, as by any present given to him for almost any object under the sun. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) said a small loss would be imposed on the tenants by this clause—a loss which looked small in the eyes of any hon. Gentleman, but a loss which looked large in the eyes of the Irish tenantry.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he put that small charge against the reduction of rent which had taken place; but if, as he suggested, the interest of the loan were extended to the Union, even that charge would be imperceptible.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was glad the hon. Baronet had reminded him of that, because it would fit in with the argument he was now about to advance. It was exactly by comparing the amount of the burden which this clause imposed with the amount of relief given by the Land Act that he was anxious to show how very large that burden would be. Now, the Land Act of last year was represented on one side of the House as a very great boon to tenants, and on the other side of the House it was sometimes represented as a great injury to the landlord. At any rate, it was agreed that the result was very considerable. Let them see what this result was in the case of some of the smaller holdings. He would take some of the holdings on the West Coast of Galway, and the first one that came under his notice was a holding rented at £6, the judicial rent of which had been fixed at £4 10s.
    234
    Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), the £6 which would, he (Mr. Trevelyan, supposed, represent the outside sum which would be paid to the landlord under the Bill, would be spread over 15 years without interest, at the rate of 8s. a-year— that was to say, the tenant would have to pay 25 per cent upon the advantage which was given him by the Land Act. The rent of the next holding on the list was £5 4.s., the judicial rent £4; the tenant gained by the Land Act £1 4s. a-year; but he would, under the clause of the hon. Member for Preston, pay 7s. a-year, or 35 per cent, for the benefit which he got by the Land Act. The former rent of the next holding was £8, and the judicial rent £7. The tenant in that case would have to pay, under the hon. Member's Amendment, 11s. a-year, or more than 50 per cent of the advantage he got by the Land Act. And in the next case the former rent was £10, and the judicial rent £9. This was a case in which the tenant would have to pay 13s. a-year under the Amendment of the hon. Member, which was equal, so far as he (Mr. Trevelyan) could calculate rapidly, to something like 65 per cent upon the benefits given by the Land Act. That was an enormous percentage on the benefits of the Land Act, which had been referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire. If, instead of sending a man into the world, for the first time in his life, a free man with a chance before him, they took away from him 50 per cent of the beneficent operation of the Land Act, he (Mr. Trevelyan) believed that the result would be found to be very disappointing. The right hon. Member (Mr. J. Lowther) ended his speech with a quotation which was very interesting, and which came from a very high authority. He (Mr. Trevelyan) ventured to end his speech with a quotation from an authority which, in his eyes, was quite as high an authority—namely, a gentleman he (Mr. Trevelyan) had known all his life (Mr. E. Bagwell, of Clonmel), who had always lived amongst his own people, and who watched with the greatest care all legislation in that House, both remedial and coercive, for the purpose of noting whether or not it would enable Irish landlords to live with comfort and advantage amongst his own people, which that gentleman regarded as an end greatly

    235
    to be desired by every landlord. These were the last words which Mr. Bagwell sent to The Times yesterday—
    "A poor man may honourably take a present from a rich man; but borrowing on sham security savours of swindling. If you wish to demoralize the poor tenant, lend him money, which he never can repay, and make him promise to repay it with interest. I believe the vast majority of small tenants can no more pay arrears incurred before November, 1880, than they can pay the National Debt. A loan would only increase their misery and despair, while a judicious gift might save many and show all that the State means fairly by them."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a very convincing and able speech on this question. An appeal had been made from the other side to hon. Members on this side, whether anything could be more demoralizing than an eleemosynary gift to the tenants of Ireland? He (Mr. Goschen) agreed with his right hon. Friend who had just sat down that if there was anything more demoralizing than an eleemosynary gift it was a sham loan. They had got to look at the matter from two points of view—namely, how far this Bill was demoralizing to the people, and how far it was demoralizing as a precedent in our general legislation. While he (Mr. Goschen) thought it wholly improper that they should, as a Parliament, make gifts, he should view with great alarm the making of loans at an interest of 1 per cent. They had already seen the consequence of a loan at 1 per cent made to the landlords by the late Government. It was quoted as a precedent, and they might depend upon it that if they continued to lend money at 1 per cent they would set up a financial example which would give the greatest possible trouble in the future. It appeared to him that they ought either to make a gift and charge no interest at all, or they ought to charge a fair interest which would be remunerative to the State. It was between these two alternatives they ought to choose. It had been argued by a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and certainly by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sat upon the opposite Benches, that the system of loan might have great advantages over the system of gift, inasmuch as it would bring home to the tenant that there was a slight liability incurred in consequence of his not having paid his arrears. But
    236
    he (Mr. Goschen) should look upon it as a most dangerous financial precedent to set for the future, if, under any circumstances, they were to have recourse to a sham loan made at a sham rate of interest. On those grounds, he should, whatever view he might take of the system of loan, oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd).
    MR. SHAWsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) had characterized the speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) as one well fitted for a second reading, and then the right hon. Gentleman himself went on to make a very excellent second reading speech. He (Mr. Shaw) considered that when the Government had adopted the principle of gift, and when that House had also adopted it, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ecroyd) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would go to entirely alter the character of the Bill; and he did not think that they could expect the Government, at that stage, to give up the entire machinery they had provided and adopt the principle of loan. He still continued to think, notwithstanding the excellent arguments which had been used to the contrary, that the system of loan would be better for the tenantry and better for the State. The only reason why he had interposed at this stage of the proceedings was, that he had understood the Prime Minister to intimate that he was prepared to consider the question of loan in certain cases. The Amendment which would come on for consideration by-and-bye, in which the tenant's interest in his holding was to be considered as an asset, changed the whole aspect of the case; and he (Mr. Shaw) thought the view which was put before the Committee some hours ago by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) a very right and proper one. It was, that in cases where this asset was brought up and considered to exclude the tenant from the gift, and where the case was considered a real one, the Commissioners should have power to lend. There was a very great objection on the part of many of the Irish tenantry to do anything which would in any respect pauperize themselves. It was generally supposed that an Irish tenant would grasp at any

    237
    money that was put before him; but he (Mr. Shaw) would give the Committee an instance of the independence of one tenant, at any rate. When he (Mr. Shaw) was at home the other day, he heard from a land agent that a tenant came up to pay his rent. The landlord said to the man when he presented the rent—"You had better keep this. You will be able to get relief under the Arrears Bill." The tenant asked—"Will it be necessary for me to swear I was not able to pay it?" The land agent said, "Yes." "Then," replied the tenant, "I would not do it." There were many respectable tenants who would shrink from doing anything which would reduce them to the position of paupers; and he did hope that, at a future stage of the Bill, the Government would see their way to be able to bring in a clause which would enable such men to obtain relief by way of loan.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the difficulty in which they were placed was not indicated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Shaw), or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). They said the plan of the Government was, in their opinion, the best that could have been chosen. They thought it would have been better that the system of loan should have been originally adopted, rather than the system of gift; but the Government having proposed the system of gift, and the Bill having been read a second time in that shape, it would be difficult for the Committee to change the whole system, and introduce what the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) called an entirely different Bill. Of course, the Committee felt there was some force in an argument of that kind, though it did not apply to those who objected as much as they possibly could, on the second reading, against the principle upon which the Bill was framed. He believed that many hon. Gentlemen, who were disposed to agree in the view-he took, were precluded from voting with him on the second reading, because they said—"If we do so, we shall, in fact, prevent the Bill proceeding further." Hon. Gentlemen were also swayed by the argument which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought was used in the course of the second reading debate, that, after all, the question of gift versus loan was not one to be decided upon the
    238
    second reading. It was not one forming the essence of the Bill; but it was a question which might and ought to be discussed in Committee. Now, when they got into Committee, the Government said—"Oh, no! you've missed your opportunity, because the House has decided upon the machinery to be employed in the Bill." He would not charge his memory with all the expressions used; but it was the tone of the debate on the second reading which tended very much in the direction he had described. He did not consider that anything had been said in support of the principle of gift which did not apply to the principle of loan. They were told that the loans would be of such small amounts individually, that the interest upon the advances would be so small, that it would be hardly worth while to go to the expense of collecting it for the period of 15 years, or for any other period. An argument which had always been used by Gentlemen who took an interest in the condition of the small occupiers of Ireland—an argument which had always been used by those who desired the small holders to become proprietors—had been, that they would be pleased to gain this position on the terms of a loan being made to them, which loan they would be proud to repay. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who knew a great deal about the true condition and spirit of a large portion of the people of Ireland, had said that many of them would be honourable, and anxious to discharge every obligation they might incur in the shape of a loan, and that they did not wish to be pauperized. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not see why they should not in this Bill adopt a plan which would have the effect of putting the people, so to speak, on their mettle, and inducing them to make those repayments in an honest manner, and deliver them from feelings which were said would be painful to a large number of them. If the principle of loan were adopted, they would got applications from the better class, rather than from the worst class, whom they now heard were the persons most likely to get the gift. The Committee were told again that if they gave a loan at a lower rate of interest than the market rate they were really making a gift, and that if they made a gift at

    239
    all they had better mate it out and out. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) himself saw the greatest difference in the world between a loan and a gift, even if the loan were made without any interest at all. They must remember that they were dealing primarily, at all events, with a fund which was supposed to exist for the benefit of the Irish people. Suppose they gave all that fund to those who happened to be in need at the present moment; suppose they gave it away for the purpose of stopping present claims; what were they to do in the future? If the money was understood to be repaid, though the interest might be sacrificed, the money, at all events, would be returned, and the fund would be available for any future purpose to which it might be thought necessary to apply it. It seemed to him that two courses were open to them—namely, the making of those advances by way of loan, or by way of gift. There were quite as many arguments to be urged against the system of gift as there were against the system of loan and the advantages which would accrue by the adoption of the principle of loan were quite as great as the advantages which would accrue by the adoption of the system of gift. Therefore, he was anxious to support the proposal to make those advances by way of loan, although he cared little whether the proposal was adopted in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) or by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). The two proposals were very like, though they differed in respect to the rate of interest. In dividing upon the question they would express their conviction that the principle of loan was that upon which they ought to proceed. They would give effect to the convictions which had been expressed by hon. Members who sat in other parts of the House, though, for some reason or other, they had not thought fit to support the present proposal.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was mistaken in supposing that the question of gift versus loan was one which was reserved for the decision of the Committee. His (Mr. Gladstone's) own declarations, which principally expressed the sense of the Government, were in flat contradiction to what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    240
    There was not a single word, as far as he was cognizant, which gave the slightest colour to the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the contrary, the basis of the measure on the principle of gift was fully brought out on the second reading, and he remembered insisting, in answer to the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), from whom he regretted to differ on any Irish question whatever, upon the fundamental distinction which the Government felt bound to make between the plan of loan and the plan of gift. He (Mr. Gladstone) was therefore much astonished that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the whole title under which the Government had pressed this Bill on the House. The right hon. Gentleman had himself moved an Amendment which would fundamentally destroy the Bill in Committee, and that he hardly thought was within the liberty of an hon. Member. He (Mr. Gladstone) rarely heard from a financial authority in that House any statement with greater satisfaction than the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen)—namely, that whatever might be said as to the question of loan and gift, there was one thing that Parliament ought, above all others, to avoid, and that was a sham loan or a gift with the name of loan. That was quite true; and let them see how it applied in the present case. They had passed by a very large majority the preliminary stages of the Bill, it being avowed throughout by the authors of the Bill that it was framed upon the principle of gift; and it having been from the first promulgated that it was a question of gift with compulsion on the one hand, and loan with voluntary acceptance on the other, and after that principle had been so promulgated and so accepted, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ecroyd), in Committee on the Bill, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, made a Motion, the effect of which would be to destroy six-sevenths of the gift, and therefore to destroy six-sevenths of what the House assented to on the second reading of the Bill. He would not say that the introduction of such a Motion was a breach of liberty on the part of an hon. Member; but he thought that if they were to make any progress

    241
    with Business at all the introduction of the Amendment was a very licentious use of that liberty, especially when the House adopted, after full debate and after the fullest and clearest Notice, and with large majorities, the principle of gift. As between a gift and a loan, and especially a loan which was of an unreal nature, which had been called a sham loan, there was a great difference. To make a gift under the present circumstances was a most serious matter. Nothing but the strongest reasons could recommend it; but it came, if he might say so, honestly before Parliament and the country, and was open to all the objections to it. There was nothing insidious about it. It did not introduce itself under false pretences. It did make away with the ratepayers' money, and it told them so; so that, having fair-notice, they knew at once the whole nature of the proposal. But with regard to those sham loans the case was exactly the reverse. They came before the people with the pretence that it was perfectly certain that the money would be recovered. Precedent after precedent was cited to show how the money had not been recovered when loans had been made by the State. But still hon. Gentlemen opposite said—"Oh! that is a different case, and we shall be able to recover it all." In point of financial security, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) was perfectly right in urging that this was a description of proceeding against which, on principle, they ought to be on their guard, and that the question of gift was one they ought to canvas thoroughly and scrutinize to the bottom, and accept or reject upon its merits. They knew, in regard to it, where they were going and what they were doing; but in the case of a sham loan they had no security whatever. The question raised by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) was a very serious one, and well deserving the consideration of the Committee. It was with regard to those tenants who were not paupers, but who, notwithstanding, required assistance in the payment of their arrears; and it was a serious matter whether something of the kind suggested by the hon. Member ought not to be provided. He wished to give no adverse opinion on the subject; but, if the proposal was brought up in a proper form, it should have the Government's full and candid
    242
    consideration. The matter was not, however, at all within the scope of the present Amendment. Regarding the present Amendment, though he did not question the right to put it, he would put it to the Committee whether, having determined, after long debate, to pass this measure upon the principle of gift, they ought to adopt an incidental Amendment that might withdraw six-sevenths of that, which they had already decided on granting?
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Amendment under notice was, without exaggeration, one of the most important that could be urged, and it was supported by the gravest arguments. It was impossible to keep back the fact that the Bill mainly depended on the element of gift; and it was impossible for any Ministry putting forward such a proposal not to put it in the most prominent position. Neither was it possible, for those who opposed such a measure, to avoid giving prominence to considerations which they thought made it mischievous and demoralizing. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister used the word "licentious," and by its use had almost exposed himself to a similar epithet; but he (Mr. Gibson) would not use it, with or without reserve. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, put forward the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) as a bright example to be followed as to the argument that gift was better than loan, if the latter was not to be accompanied by substantial interest; in other words, it should be all or nothing. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, upon another Amendment, had contested the policy of making this pure and simple gift, and had suggested an intermediate course by which the tenants and the State would be free from the embarrassment and the demoralizing effect of such a proceeding. What was the effect of the Amendments of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon? The argument was that if the money was not a gift, it was of very little advantage to say it should be a loan with small interest. He never could see the force of that argument. He had always thought that a loan, even without interest, was a very different thing from a gift; and, certainly, if he were offered his choice of a gift, or a loan without in-

    243
    terest, he should not hesitate a moment, and he ventured to say there were very-few people who would hesitate. He could see the most extraordinary difference of principle, particularly when the giver was the State, between saying to the people who were unable to pay their debts, "We will give you a free gift," and, "We will give you a loan without interest and on easy terms;" and could see still greater difference when not only was the principle of loan given as an alternative to the principle of gift, but when some interest was to be paid, instead of none. Of course, if anybody went into the market to borrow money, he could not borrow it at 1 per cent, and it was reasonable that some interest should be charged, or, at all events, that if the element of loan was preserved, there should be some consideration given to the question of interest. He ventured to think that tenants would feel a sounder and more wholesome responsibility by accepting a loan as suggested by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) than by receiving a gift which entailed no obligation of any kind; that would certainly have a less demoralizing effect than the present proposal. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), whose opinion upon these matters was entitled to great respect, not only from his vast knowledge of banking affairs, but his special knowledge of everything connected with Ireland and Irish tenants, was strongly in favour of loan as against gift, and he had suggested that possibly there might be some discretion used; that the Government might keep up a gift for the lower classes of tenants and retain the element of loan for the higher class. That was a proposal upon which he (Mr. Gibson) thought the Prime Minister might have spoken with some clearness, and it was a matter which might be understood without the slightest difficulty. He could understand the argument that for a tenant with a valuation of £5 or £10 there might be a gift; and that tenants above that limit should be dealt with by loan, on whatever terms of interest or advance the State might think wise or just; that was a clear and intelligible proposition. The Government, however, indicated that that was a proposal upon which they had not been prepared to express any adverse opinion—that it was a serious question,
    244
    and they would reserve their decision for any proposal that might be made with reference to it. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Then, it was not easy to understand what the attitude of the Government was. Any proposal on the subject must come from the Government, for it was not competent for any private Member to suggest any increased taxation. The Government had had ample time to consider and reconsider every topic in connection with this question of arrears, and it was obvious that the right hon. Gentleman had thought upon this question a few days ago, and it would appear from the words he used that he was disposed to take a more favourable view of that point; and, therefore, he (Mr. Gibson) would suggest that it was only reasonable that some effect, one way or the other, should be given to his statement, and that he should take the earliest opportunity of indicating "Aye" or "No" with reference to this question. It was the cruellest and the most unsettling thing, in the present state of Ireland, to use vague and uncertain words which might feed hopes which were never intended to be realized. As a matter of simple mercy, it was better to speak definitely, at the earliest possible time when the Government had considered this question. The strong difficulty he felt with reference to this proposal of the Government was this—it gave the highest sanction that was conceivable to the "no rent" manifesto, and that was a very serious thing for the Committee to undertake. Everybody in that House was familiar with the "no rent" manifesto, and they knew its teachings and results, and upon what it rested; and if there was any single measure that could be submitted to Parliament that would recognize and give effect to, and strengthen, and encourage the "no rent" manifesto, and possibly suggest one in the future, it was a Bill such as this, proposing a gift and not a loan to enable tenants to clear off arrears, many of which were added under the operation of that manifesto. That was a question upon which opinion in Ireland was entitled to some respect; and he ventured to say that the real opinion of the vast majority of Irish Members, other than those who represented the Land League, was absolutely opposed to gift and in favour of loan. A Memorial was presented to the Prime Mi-

    245
    nister some mouths ago by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), signed by 112 Members, suggesting that the question of arrears should be dealt with; but that Memorial never suggested that arrears should be dealt with by way of gift. It suggested the principle of loan, and since then a Memorial signed by several English as well as Irish Members—the Ulster Liberal Members, in conjunction with the hon. Member for the County of Cork, and others on the Government side of the House, whose opinions were entitled to respect—had advised the adoption, not of gift, but of loan. That was a matter which was certainly entitled to much consideration, and he was not disposed to lessen the suspicion with which he regarded this proposal, when he found that the sole Representatives from Ireland who supported gift were the Representatives of the Land League; and he could not regard, without the gravest apprehension, legislation which he believed was demoralizing in its teachings and tendencies, and which would not attain the permanent happiness and prosperity of the country.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, as he intended to vote against the proposal, and yet had always been in favour of the principle of loan and not of gift, he wished to explain why he adopted that course. When once the responsible Government had come forward with a proposal to give money in Ireland, it was impossible to propose that the money should not be a gift, but a loan. By the proposals which had been sanctioned by the Committee, people had been told that money would be given to them, and it was now impossible to hark back and make the advances as loans. He wished the Committee to consider in what a singular way matters were dealt with in the House of Commons. They did those things which they ought not to have done, and they did not do those things which they ought to have done. The legitimate occasion for gift was the time when the crops failed and the people were starving; and he felt convinced that there was no example in the history of this country, or of any other country, of a State endeavouring to obtain the repayment of advances of that kind during a time of famine. The money advanced for the purchase of seed to enable the people to cultivate
    246
    their ground was an instance of a sham loan, for what had happened? Some of the Irish Members had warned the House, but the House and the Government never listened to them. They told the Government then in power that the money advanced for seed ought to have been made a gift, and not a loan; but the House and the Government refused to take that course, and made the advance a loan. The result was that that money had become a sham loan, and the Government had not been able to collect it. On the other hand, they had given a loan to the landlords at 1 per cent interest; the Irish Members objected to that; but the present Government, when they came into Office, did exactly the same thing, and, in spite of the remonstrances of the Irish Members, they advanced another £750,000 of Irish money in that way.
    MR. GLADSTONE: We did that, as we considered, in fulfilment of an engagement, and not as a voluntary act.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not think that the Government had, on any other occasion, pretended such a fulfilment of an engagement. The money advanced was absolutely contrary to Act of Parliament. There was never any engagement, and the Government had to pass another Act of Parliament to deal with the loan. There was no engagement whatever, and the simple explanation was, that such a large number of applications came in, that the Government said it would be very inconvenient to stop the advances, and they were in honour bound to continue them, as their Predecessors would probably have made the advances. To do what? To make what he maintained was a profligate use of money which belonged to the Irish people. The Irish Members had asked the Government to extend these loans to tenants, but the Government and the House refused; although, if they had acceded and advanced money to the tenants, the tenants would not have been in their present position. They would have been able to pay their rents, and to cultivate their holdings, and there would have been none of these disputes as to loan or gift. The difficulty of collecting was no valid objection to loans being advanced to Irish tenants; because there had been abundant examples of small loans, and it was found that no money was more

    247
    easily collected, or more honourably repaid. Had the Committee forgotten the Fishery Loans, which were very small sums, advanced to the very poorest class, and which were collected with the greatest ease, and repaid with the most unswerving fidelity? Who did not know that the banks in Ireland advanced loans of extremely small amounts? Very often the bills were for about £5, and there was no security better than they were for money advanced to poor people. When the House refused to recognize that the Irish tenants had repaid these small sums, how were the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act to be carried out? Under those circumstances, although he should vote against this Amendment, on the other hand, he hoped the Government would extend the principle of loans to holdings above £30 valuation.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, although in favour of loan instead of gift, he felt that it was now too late to ask the Government to alter what they considered the vital part of the Bill; and his anxiety, at the present time, was to see the Bill passed in the most comprehensive shape, in order that it might attain the objects the Government had in view. On the subject of sham loans, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had brought forward the case of £4,000,000 advanced at the time of the Irish Famine. That money was advanced on the security of public works. Those works were obsolete now, and were no security whatever; but he would ask the Committee to compare that security with the security of the tenant right in Ulster, and to remember that the tenant's interest, upon which the money would be advanced, was equal to the fee-simple of the landlord as security. If the tenant's interest was to be taken into account as an asset so far as the North of Ireland was concerned, this Bill would be of no practical value. There were, in the North of Ireland, struggling tenants deep in arrear, who yet would not apply for a loan; and he agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Lublin (Mr. Gibson) that it was the business of the Government to bring in an Amendment themselves, dealing with this question of allowing tenants who would not ask for a gift to get a loan. In Ulster there were more
    248
    evictions than in any other Province in Ireland; and the struggling tenants of Ulster, who had endeavoured to pay their way, were entitled to consideration, and to receive loans when gifts were barred, by an Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, providing that the tenant right should stand in the way of loans.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not believe that there were many tenants in Ulster, or anywhere else, who, being unable to pay their rents, would refuse a gift and prefer a loan. Human nature was the same all the world over, and he had not found, either in Munster or Ulster, any tenants who were not willing to take a gift in preference to a loan, if they could get it. He denied that there was the slightest foundation for the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), that the tenants who obeyed the "no rent" manifesto were the tenants who would benefit by the Bill. On the contrary, the tenants who would benefit by the Bill would be those who were unable to pay, and who, consequently, whether there had been a "no rent" manifesto or not, would have paid nothing, and would be still unable to pay. In many cases in the West of Ireland, particularly in Mayo, he found that the small tenants bad made payments on account of their rents, and had not obeyed the manifesto, but who were being evicted, because they could not pay the balance of their arrears. So far from the "no rent" manifesto tenants benefiting by the Bill, he believed it would be quite the reverse. The principle upon which the Bill was based was bonâ fide and honest. It was not brought forward by, or in connection with, the Land League, and it was well known that many of the extreme loaders of the Land League in Ireland were very much opposed to the Bill, because they believed it would place in the pockets of the landlords a large amount of arrears which they otherwise would never have recovered. They believed that, in a great many cases, the landlords, if they could not recover the arrears, would eject the tenants; and it was to avoid the misery and suffering that would result in such cases, that he, and his hon. Friends, had thought it right to support the Bill. He did so from no Land League point of view, and if the right hon. and

    249
    learned Gentleman attempted to mislead the Party behind him by trying to persuade them that he knew the truth himself, it would be a case of the blind leading the blind, which would probably result in both falling into the ditch. He thought it would be prudent, and would conduce very much to the restoration of order in Ireland, if tenants above £30 valuation, who proved their inability to pay, were permitted to borrow from the State at a low rate of interest; but he would not interfere with the tenants below that amount. He believed that the vast majority below £30, who were unable to pay their rents, were so harassed and so depressed that, if they accepted loans, they would accept them with the intention of not repaying them. They looked upon these arrears of rent as an unjust exaction; and he thought that if the Committee changed its mind now, at the last moment, and forced upon this pauperized class a loan instead of a gift, the taxpayers of this country would deserve not to have any of the money repaid. The case of the tenants above that class was entirely different; but he should not be disposed to go so far as the hon. Member for the County' of Cork (Mr. Shaw) and to ask the State to convert itself into a vast bank, and advance money to every tenant who, perhaps, found it temporarily inconvenient to pay. The Government might retain the condition that there should be proof of inability to pay in the case of loans as in the case of gifts, and if they gave to the tenants above £30 the privilege of borrowing from the State, they should maintain that condition with those tenants who proved their inability to pay.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 268: Majority 101.

    AYES.

    Alexander, Colonel C.

    Bellingham, A. H.

    Allsopp, C.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Beresford, G. De la P.

    Archdale, W. H.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Aylmer, J. E. F.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Boord, T. W.

    Balfour, A. J.

    Bourke, rt. hon. R.

    Barne, F. St. J. N.

    Brise, Colonel R.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Broadley, W. H. H.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Brooke, Lord

    Bective, Earl of

    Brooks, W. C.

    250

    Bruce, Sir H. H.

    Lennox, Lord H. G.

    Bruce, hon. T.

    Levett, T. J.

    Brymer, W. E.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bulwer, J. R.

    Lopes, Sir M.

    Buxton, Sir R. J.

    Lowther, rt. hon. J.

    Cameron, D.

    Macartney, J. W. E.

    Campbell, J. A.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Mac Iver, D.

    Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

    Macnaghten, E.

    Chaine, J.

    Making, Colonel W. T.

    Christie, W. L.

    Master, T. W. C.

    Cole, Viscount

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Compton, F.

    Miles, C. W.

    Coope, O. E.

    Miles, Sir P. J. W.

    Corry, J. P.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

    Monckton, F.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Moss, R.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

    Dawnay, hon. G. C.

    Mulholland, J.

    Digby, Col. hon. E. T.

    Murray, C. J.

    Donaldson-Hudson, C.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

    Ecroyd, W. F.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Elliot, G. W.

    Emlyn, Viscount

    Northcote, H. S.

    Ewart, W.

    Paget, R. H.

    Ewing, A. O.

    Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

    Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R.J.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Peek, Sir H.

    Fenwick-Bisset, M.

    Pemberton, E. L.

    Filmer, Sir E.

    Percy, Earl

    Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

    Phipps, C. N. P.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Phipps, P.

    Floyer, J.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Forester, C. T. W.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Foster, W. H.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Fowler, R. N.

    Rankin, J.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Repton, G. W.

    Freshfield, C. K.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Galway, Viscount

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Garnier, J. C.

    Ross, A. H.

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Ross, C. C.

    Giffard, Sir H. S.

    Round, J.

    Goldney, Sir G.

    St. Aubyn, W. M.

    Gore-Langton, W. S.

    Salt, T.

    Gorst, J. E.

    Schreiber, C.

    Greene, E.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hon. G.

    Greer, T.

    Hamilton, I. T.

    Seott, Lord H.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

    Scott, M. D.

    Selwin -Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

    Harcourt, E. W.

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Severne, J. E.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Hinchingbrook, Vise.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

    Sykes, C.

    Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Taylor, rt. hon. Col. T. E.

    Johnstone, Sir F.

    Kennard, Col. E. H.

    Thomson, H.

    Knight, F. W.

    Thornhill, T.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Thynne, Lord H. F.

    Knowles, T.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Tollemache, hn. W. F.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Legh, W. J.

    Warburton, P. E.

    Leigh, R.

    Warton, C. N.

    Leighton, Sir B.

    Welby-Gregory, Sir W. E.

    Leighton, S.

    251

    Whitley, E.

    TELLERS.

    Wilmot, Sir H.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Wilmot, Sir J. E.

    Winn, R.

    Wynn, Sir W. W.

    Yorke, J. R.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, D.

    Courtauld, G.

    Allen, H. G.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Amory, Sir J. H.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Anderson, G.

    Craig, W. Y.

    Armitage, B.

    Creyke, R.

    Armitstead, G.

    Cropper, J.

    Arnold, A.

    Cross, J. K.

    Asher, A.

    Crum, A.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

    Baldwin, E.

    Davey, H.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Davies, D.

    Balfour, J. B.

    Davies, R.

    Baring, T. C.

    Davies, W.

    Baring, Viscount

    Dickson, J.

    Barnes, A.

    Dickson, T. A.

    Barran, J.

    Dilke, Sir C. W.

    Bass, Sir A.

    Dillon, J.

    Baxter, rt. hon, W. E.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Dodds, J.

    Biddulph, M.

    Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Duckham, T.

    Blake, J. A.

    Duff, R. W.

    Blennerhassett, R. P.

    Dundas, hon. J. C.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Brassey, H. A.

    Edwards, B.

    Brassey, Sir T.

    Egerton. Adm. hon. F.

    Brett, R. B.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Bright, rt. hon. J.

    Errington, G.

    Bright, J. (Manchester)

    Evans, T. W.

    Brinton, J.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Brooks, M.

    Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

    Brown, A. H.

    Ferguson, R.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Findlater, W.

    Bryce, J.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

    Burt, T.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Butt, C. P.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Buxton, F. W.

    Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Caine, W. S.

    Fowler, W.

    Callan, P.

    Fry, L.

    Cameron, C.

    Fry, T.

    Campbell, Lord C.

    Givan, J.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Campbell, R. F. F.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Campbell- Bannerman, H.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Glyn, hon. S. C.

    Carbutt, E. H.

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Cartwright, W. C.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Causton, R. K.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Grant, A.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Clarke, J. C.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Clifford, C. C.

    Hamilton, J. G. C.

    Cohen, A.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Collings, J.

    Collins, E.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Colman, J. J.

    Hastings, G. W.

    Colthurst, Col. D. La T.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Healy, T. M.

    Corbett, T.

    Henderson, F.

    Cotes, C. C.

    Heneage, E.

    252

    Henry, M.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Pease, A.

    Hibbert, J. T.

    Pease, Sir J. W.

    Hill, T. R.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Holden, I.

    Peel, A. W.

    Holland, S.

    Pender, J.

    Hollond, J. R.

    Pennington, F.

    Holms, J.

    Porter, A. M.

    Holms, W.

    Potter, T. B.

    Howard, E. S.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Howard, G. J.

    Power, R.

    Illingworth, A.

    Price, Sir R. G.

    Inderwick, F. A.

    Pulley, J.

    James, C.

    Ralli, P.

    James, Sir H.

    Ramsay, J.

    Jardine, R.

    Ramsden, Sir J.

    Jerningham, H. E. H.

    Rathbone, W.

    Johnson, rt. hon. W. M.

    Reid, R. T.

    Johnson, E.

    Rendel, S.

    Kinnear, J.

    Richard, H.

    Laing, S.

    Richardson, T.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Roberts, J.

    Lea, T.

    Robertson, H.

    Leahy, J.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Leake, R.

    Roundell, C. S.

    Leamy, E.

    Russell, C.

    Leatham, E. A.

    Russell, G. W. E.

    Leatham, W. H.

    Russell, Lord A.

    Lee, H.

    Rylands, P.

    Leeman, J. J.

    St. Aubyn, Sir J.

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Samuelson, B.

    Long, W. H.

    Samuelson, H.

    Lusk, Sir A.

    Seely, C. (Lincoln)

    Lyons, R. D.

    Sexton, T.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Sheil, E.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Shield, H.

    M'Coan J. C.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    Macfarlane, D. H.

    Slagg, J.

    M'Intyre, Æneas J.

    Smith, E.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Stanton, W. J.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    M'Minnies, J. G.

    Stuart, H. V.

    Magniac, C.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Summers, W.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Synan, E. J.

    Martin, P.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

    Taylor, P. A.

    Mason, H.

    Tennant, C.

    Matheson, Sir A.

    Thomasson, J. P.

    Maxwell-Heron, J.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Milbank, Sir F. A.

    Tillett, J. H.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Monk, C. J.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    Moore, A.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Watkin, Sir E. W.

    Morley, A.

    Waugh, E.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Webster, J.

    Muntz, P. H.

    Wedderburn, Sir D.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Whitworth, B.

    O'Beirne, Major F.

    Wiggin, H.

    O'Brien, Sir P.

    Williams, S. C. E.

    O'Connor, A.

    Willyams, E. W. B.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Wilson, C. H.

    O'Donoghue, The

    Wilson, I.

    O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

    Wilson, Sir M.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    O'Shaughnessy, R.

    Woodall, W.

    O'Sullivan, W. H.

    Otway, Sir A.

    TELLERS.

    Paget, T. T.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Palmer, J. H.

    Kensington, Lord

    Parker, C. S.

    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

QUESTION.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked, Whether any further information as to Alexandria had been received?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the only telegram we have received is one dated 2.20 P.M.—
  "This morning, at 10.30, the Inflexible and-Téméraire fired three shells into Port Moncrieff, Ras-el-Tin. No other ships engaged. Further operations suspended on flag of truce being hoisted at the arsenal. Gunboat, under flag of truce, proceeded, and remains. Achilles arrived."
  House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.