Commons Sitting of 30 July 1883

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS — Leave — First Reading—Constabulary and Police (Administration) (Ireland) [274].
First Reading — Factories and Workshops Amendment *[273].
Committee—Report—Supreme Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.)* [270]; Public Health Act, 1875 (Support of Sewers) Amendment* [267].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parochial Charities (London) [215], and passed.
Third Reading—Railway Passenger Duty, &c. [219], and passed.
Withdrawn — Settlement and Removal Law Amendment* [152].

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION ACTS—FINES, &c.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following account in the "Cork Daily Herald" of July 16th:—
  "To-day the police had the disagreeable duty of seizing a bed, the property of Mr. John Savage, sheriff's officer, Kinsale, in satisfaction of the amount of a decree for £1, at the suit of the Guardians of the Kinsale Union. It will be remembered that Mr. Savage appealed to the Recorder's Court, Cork, in the hope of setting aside the decision of the magistrates at Kinsale
  926
  Petty Sessions, who fined him in the sum of £1 for refusing to have his child vaccinated. The Recorder confirmed the ruling of the Petty Sessions Court, and to-day the decree issued was executed by the police in the seizure as above stated. Mr. Savage offered to surrender to the alternative of a week's imprisonment, but was refused, and then offered his watch, but with the same result. This is the sixth seizure of Mr. Savage's goods for his resistance to the Compulsory Vaccination Law. It may be added that he has been 29 times summoned before the magistrates during the past six years;"
  whether it be true that this man has been many times prosecuted and distrained upon; and, whether the Irish Local Government Board will follow the example of the English Board in its circular to the Evesham Guardians, and advise vaccinating authorities in Ireland to abstain from repeated prosecutions of the same individual?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that the report is not altogether correct, as it was by Mr. Savage's own request that a bed was selected for seizure. The tender of his watch was made in joke. It is true that Mr. Savage's goods have been six times seized under similar warrants, and that he has been about 29 times summoned; but this number includes preliminary summonses to show cause why an order should not issue to have his child vaccinated as well as the final ones for disobedience of that order. I will consider the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. and learned Member's Question.

  INDIA—"THE SPOLIATION OF INDIA" (THE "NINETEENTH CENTURY").
  MR. PASSMORE EDWARDSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the current number of the "Nineteeth Century," entitled "The Spoliation of India," stating on the authority of a Parliamentary Return that an amount of £12,776,573 is annually drawn by Europeans from the Indian Treasury in sums of more than £100 each, and that of this amount no less than £4,006,000 are yearly drawn by non-residents in India, and whether the said Return will now be printed, so as to be easily accessible to Members of the House and to the public; whether he has observed in the same article a statement to the effect that the Indian Government has recently entered into ar-

  927
  rangements whereby the Native States of India have been induced or compelled
  "To close up or make over to our officers their own internal sources of supply of salt, and to force their subjects to pay the exorbitant prices exacted by the British monopoly;"
  what is the average increase in the price of salt in the Native States consequent on the said arrangements, and how many millions of persons are affected by it; what is the average proportion of the said increase that will under the said arrangements go to the Native, and what to the British Indian Treasuries respectively; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which passed between our Indian political officers and the Native States on this subject, in particular that with the Gwalior, Jeypore, Jodhpore, and Indore States?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, my attention has been called to the very extraordinary article in The Nineteenth Century, entitled "The Spoliation of India." I think it would be well that parts of the very voluminous Return of Indian salaries and pensions presented in 1881 should be printed for the information of the House. If the nominal lists are omitted, I believe it would not cover more than 16 or 20 pages of print. With respect to the pensions, I may say that in a speech in this House on the 8th of May last I said that they were about £4,000,000 sterling in England, and about 119 lacs of rupees in India; the total cost to India to provide this payment being some 60,000,000 rupees. This includes the pensions of Natives. As regards the last four paragraphs of my hon. Friend's Question, I may say that it is quite impossible, within the limits of an answer to a Question, to state the arrangements which have been made with the Native States, respecting salt and other duties; but I will lay upon the Table of the House the letter of the Government of India of the 26th September, 1878, reporting, for approval, the nature and consequences of these arrangements, by which it is shown the Native States receive an amount equal to the whole of the increased tax on the salt consumption of their populations. The India Office does not possess the Correspondence asked for, which, with few exceptions, is in the vernacular.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the increase in the average price of salt in the Native States consequent on this arrangement, and how many millions of people are affected by it?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I would rather prefer to wait until the Return which I have said I will lay before the House is ready for presentation. At the present time I have not the information.

  NAVY—DOCKYARD WORKMEN.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can now state whether the various claims put before him in his visits to the dockyards have been considered; and, whether some concession will be made, in next year's Estimates, to the shipwrights, joiners, riggers, and others who have submitted their case to the Admiralty?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the cases submitted to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord and myself by workmen in the Dockyards are still under consideration, and it may be some time before a decision in any of the cases is announced, as it is inexpedient that the subject should be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. The statements made by those whom we saw will have all duo weight given to them, and we will endeavour to remove any proved grievance; but I think it right, in order to guard against disappointment, to add that we are not of opinion that any reason exists for a general increase of the wages of any largo bodies of workmen.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— IRISH MODEL FARMS.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has made inquiries into the circumstances connected with the letting of the Mungret Agricultural School and Model Farm, in the county of Limerick, and the shutting up of the National School connected therewith; whether said School has been shut up by order of the Lord Lieutenant and consent of the Lords of the Treasury, or by the Trustees of the Local Act of 42 and 43 Vic. c. 220; whether the shutting up of said School is warranted by the said Act; and, whether the Government will direct the Commissioners of National

  929
  Education to erect another school for the parish of Mungret, or order the said Trustees to pay the one-third of the Grant required by the said Commissioners out of the rents and profits of said Buildings and Model Farm, or to restore the said schoolhouse to the parish?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have made inquiry into the circumstances of this school. So long as the Mungret Farm and buildings were under the control of the Commissioners of National Education, they maintained there a vested male national school, whereby the parish of Mungret gained an exceptional, and, as it may be said, an accidental advantage in the matter of school accommodation. Under the provisions of the local Act to which the hon. Member refers, the premises passed from under the control of the Commissioners to the trustees mentioned therein, and the national school has been recognized as a non-vested school, and as such its continuance depends altogether on the will of its patron or manager. It has not been shut up, as stated in the Question, but has been transferred by the trustees to temporary premises, where it is being carried on pending the erection of a new schoolhouse on a site provided for the purpose under the terms of the Act. As I am advised, this removal of the school was warranted by the Act, which made provision for the grant of a new site, and contained no direction to the trustees to maintain the national school in its original quarters. The Commissioners of National Education have already made a grant of two-thirds of the cost of the erection of a new schoolhouse, and that is the maximum grant they are empowered to make. As I have already stated, I am advised that the trustees are under no obligation to maintain the national school; and, therefore, I do not think that the Government could direct them to pay the remaining one-third of the cost. As, however, the hon. Member and those in whose interests he asks this Question appear to be of a different opinion, I have proposed to take further advice on the subject; and with a view to make the case upon which the opinion is taken quite complete on all sides, I have invited the hon. Member to favour me with a statement of the grounds upon which this claim is put forward.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would repeat the Question on Monday next, by which time he supposed the right hon. Gentleman would have the opinion of the Law Officers. The facts were fully set forth both in the present and in the former Question he asked on this subject. The whole question was, whether the trustees had the power to transfer the school to other premises?

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—IRISH CONVICT LABOUR.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is proposed to employ Irish convict labour in the construction of harbours of refuge in England or Scotland; and, whether it would be practicable to utilise such labour on public works in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware, Sir, of any such proposal as is referred to in the first paragraph of this Question. With regard to the second paragraph, the utilization of convict labour on public works in Ireland has been more than once under consideration; but it has not, at present, been found practicable to come to any definite conclusion on the subject.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—CASE OF SAMUEL HUTIN.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will be good enough to cause an inquiry to be made into the case of Mr. Samuel Hutin, an Examining Officer of Her Majesty's Customs of twenty-six years' service, and with a good character during the whole of that time, who has been dismissed from his situation on very unsatisfactory evidence?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, my right hon. and learned Friend has asked me to answer this Question, as the subject to which it relates does not come within his cognizance. My attention has already been called to this case, and I have satisfied myself that the man fully deserved dismissal, and that the evidence obtained by the Board of Customs was amply sufficient to justify them in acting as they did.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked if the hon. Gentleman knew that the steward of the ship who formulated the

  931
  charge against Mr. Samuel Hutin had since himself been charged with misappropriation of the stores of his ship?
  MR. COURTNEY: That does not affect the evidence that was given.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that three of the special resident magistrates, including amongst the number Mr. Clifford Lloyd, have recently been promoted to first class, over the heads of magistrates by many years their seniors; if it is a fact that some of the latter have had as much as 18 or 19 years' active service, whilst Mr. Clifford Lloyd has had only seven years' experience; and, whether the promotions in these cases have been altogether contrary to the usage in the Resident Magistrates' Department for the past 16 years?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts are substantially as stated in the first and second paragraphs of this Question. Three of the magistrates acting as Special Resident Magistrates were selected for promotion to the first class from members of the second class, some of whom had longer service than the gentlemen selected. Those who were selected for promotion were selected, I presume, on the same grounds that induced their selection as Special Resident Magistrates. It has not been the invariable practice to promote to the first class by seniority, nor does the Lord Lieutenant think it desirable that any such practice should be introduced.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in bringing forward the Bill he proposes to introduce to-night, he will give an explanation of the extraordinary state of facts described in this Question?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will give an explanation of facts; but I am not sure that they will be extraordinary.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—COST OF ERECTION OF POLICE HUTS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state when a police hut is removed from one barony to another to which barony is the cost charged, and if to neither, from what source is the
  932
  expense of transfer defrayed; and, if the police which are about to be stationed at Kilmoon, near Lisdoonvarna, county Clare, are to be charged to the county of Clare at large, or to be paid from usual Parliamentary Vote?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the cost of the transfer of police huts is not charged in cases of remit to either barony, but to the Constabulary Vote. The men stationed at Kilmoon are a part of the County Force. The county establishment is composed of a free quota charged altogether upon the Constabulary Vote, and of an extra Force, a moiety of the expense of which is charged upon the county at large.

  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Chief Commissioner of the Irish Board of Works is an engineer; whether the two other Commissioners of that Board are also engineers; whether the Board have also a staff of engineers and architects to assist them; whether it was on the recommendation of this Board, consisting exclusively of engineers, that Lieutenant Colonel James, a retired officer of Royal Engineers, was recently appointed Assistant Commissioner of the Board; whether, since his appointment, Lieutenant Colonel James has applied to have the services of an additional engineer, in the person of Captain Rawson, to assist him; and, whether, since the Board so composed is entrusted with very varied powers and administrative duties in connection with the development of the material resources of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of securing for the future that the Board shall not be so exclusively recruited from the ranks of a single profession?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Chairman and Assistant Commissioner are retired officers of the Royal Engineers; the other two Commissioners are members of the Institute of Civil Engineers. By far the largest portion of the duties of the Board relate to buildings and engineering works; but I do not think it is necessary that the whole Board should be composed of engineers and architects, although they ought, no doubt, to preponderate upon it. The

  933
  Treasury have received no application on the subject of Captain Rawson.

  NAVY—NAVAL SCHOOLMASTERS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can hold out any hopes that the recommendations of the Inspector of Naval Schools will be carried out—namely, that there should be an amalgamation of Naval and Marine Schoolmasters, and that "Naval Schoolmasters should not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with Army Schoolmasters?"
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the words quoted by the hon. and gallant Member occur in a passage in the Report of the late Inspector of Naval Schools, in which he suggests a scheme for amalgamating the naval and marine schoolmasters. This is, however, a mere suggestion, and it is not the intention of the Board to adopt it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—LORD CLONCURRY'S ESTATE AT MURROE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Lord Cloncurry has been enabled to reduce his staff of emergency bailiffs on the evicted farms at Murroe by one half in consequence of the action of the Government in allotting two policemen to every party of two bailiffs distributed over the estate; whether any outrage has occurred on the estate, except one for which emergency bailiffs were twice tried; whether it is true that the only tenant on the Murroe estate who has gone into the Land Court, Thomas Fitzgerald, has had his rent reduced from £170 to £130, or 23½ per cent; and, out of what fund the policemen so employed are paid?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of men in charge of these farms has not been reduced. It is true that two men of the Property Defence Association have been removed; but their places have been otherwise supplied. The police are necessary for the protection of the bailiffs, and their presence has probably prevented outrages; but there have been several cases of assaults on the bailiffs, a case of forcible possession, and some minor offences against property. The police are a part of the County Force, and not charged upon the locality. I am informed that two other tenants besides Thomas Fitzgerald have
  934
  had fair rents fixed, and obtained reductions of about 19 and 8 per cent respectively.

  NAVY—COURTS MARTIAL—H.M.S. "TRIUMPH"—CASE OF LOUIS PRICE.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Louis Price, the boy on board H.M.S. "Triumph," who was recently sentenced to penal servitude had any friend to advise, assist, or appear for him at his trial?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the seaman, Louis Price, sentenced to five years' penal servitude for insubordination, was entirely without professional advice on his trial; whether he called Commander Acland to give evidence as to his character in the belief that he could not call Captain Markham, who was prosecuting; whether Commander Acland was a member of the Court, and resumed his seat upon it after giving evidence that Price was pugnacious and bad tempered; whether the Judge, to whom the sentence was submitted for approval, in accordance with the Naval Discipline Act (1866), had it in his cognisance that Commander Acland resumed his seat on the Court after giving evidence unfavourable to the prisoner; and, whether the Board of Admiralty have consulted, or will consult, with Captain Markham as to the facts of the case.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the seaman, Louis Price, had no legal adviser at his trial; and it is difficult to see how, on the Pacific Station, he could have obtained the benefit of professional advice. It was open to him to call Captain Markham to bear witness to his character; but the only witness he called was Commander Ac-land, who, I may observe, was, as chief executive officer of the ship, the best qualified to speak to the man's character. The hon. Baronet's Question does not give an exact representation of Commander Acland's evidence, which was distinctly in Price's favour as regards his general conduct, although he added that he was hot-tempered and pugnacious. There is nothing unusual or improper in a member of a court martial giving evidence as to the character of a prisoner and yet discharging his judicial duties, although no one is allowed to sit on a court martial who is a witness

  935
  examined as to the facts of the case. In this instance, however, no such occurrence took place, Commander Acland not having been a member of the court martial. I therefore need not answer the hon. Baronet's fourth Question, beyond saying that I am not aware who the Judge is to whom he thinks sentences of naval courts martial are submitted for approval. There is no such proceeding laid down in the Act as alleged by him. As I stated the other day, the Admiralty have received a document purporting to be an offer of fresh evidence in this case. They are considering the matter, and will, if necessary, avail themselves of the advice of Captain Markham.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: When a seaman is sentenced to penal servitude, is not the sentence submitted to a Judge?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: To what Judge does the hon. Baronet allude? If the hon. Member means one of the Judges of the High Court in this country, there is no provision to that effect.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he would repeat the Question.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (NEW RULES).
  MR. RAIKESasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will not propose such an Amendment of the Standing Orders which regulate the proceedings of Grand Committees as will enable the Committee on Law to consider and report upon the new Rules of Procedure in the Supreme Court? The right hon. Gentleman further asked whether, in the event of the Attorney General being unable to adopt that suggestion, some provision would be made for submitting these Rules to the judgment of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): As to that, the Prime Minister stated the other day that it would be impossible to set apart a time for their discussion; but that if any Member moved an Address to the Crown against the Rules, then it would be necessary to give facilities for their consideration. As to the Question on the Paper, I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that his suggestion would be impossible, because the power to move an Address to the Crown is by Statute conferred upon Parliament, and I pre-
  936
  sume it would be impossible for Parliament to delegate that right to a Committee.
  MR. WARTON: I would ask, Sir, whether, I having already given Notice of an Address to the Crown on the subject, a day will be granted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): This Question must, of course, be referred to the First Lord of the Treasury. I cannot undertake to give any answer.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—POLAND STREET WORKHOUSE.
  MR. SMALLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board has received from two of the guardians complaint as to Mr. Bliss, the Master of the Poland Street Workhouse of the Westminster Union, being out frequently and late; and, whether the Board intends to take any steps with regard to the guardians' letter?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board have received a letter from the Guardians drawing attention to the hours at which, on certain days, the master has returned to the workhouse; and the Board have asked the Guardians to obtain the master's explanatory observations and transmit them to the Board.

  SUEZ CANAL—THE ENGLISH SHARES.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How many of the Suez Canal shares purchased by Her Majesty's Government from the Khedive of Egypt have been drawn for payment at par, say 500 francs; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received the said moneys, and how they have been accounted for?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that 966 shares have been drawn for payment at par, and the proceeds have been invested in £19,935 9s. 6d. Consols, held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)— CASE OF FRANCIS LYNCH.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  937
  of Ireland, Whether it is true that Francis Lynch, a tenant on the land of Lord Granard, county Longford, was evicted on the 25th of November 1881, but, believing that possession had not been properly taken, went to live in a house on the land, which was repaired by the Land League; whether he was summoned, for forcible possession, to Ballinalee Petty Sessions, and the case dismissed; whether he was summoned for being a trespasser, on the 19th instant, to the same court, before a special resident magistrate, when the case was again dismissed; whether Lynch, returning from court to his house, found it tumbled down by emergency men who are protecting some farms in the neighbourhood; and, whether the Irish Executive will take any steps to protect and compensate Lynch, and to punish any persons who have committed a broach of the Law in his case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Lynch was evicted in 1881, owing six years' rent. He subsequently went to live in a house on the farm from which he had been evicted. In September of the following year he was summoned for forcible possession. The proceedings were taken under Section 8 of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act; and the case was dismissed on the ground of the length of time which had elapsed since the execution of the writ, it being more than nine months. He was afterwards summoned for trespass, and the case was dismissed without prejudice, because the complainant had no evidence in Court to prove the eviction. While the second case was going on the house was knocked down as stated; and Lynch has, I am informed, declared his intention of seeking legal redress. I am not aware that any breach of the law has been committed in this case; but if Lynch conceives that he has any legal ground of complaint, the law is open to him. Of course, the Executive has no power to compensate him, even if he is in the right in the dispute.

  SUEZ CANAL—MAPS, &c.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will cause to be placed in the Reading Room of this House a map of the Suez Canal on the largest scale published; and, whether he will cause to be marked in colours
  938
  along its course the lands ceded to the Suez Canal Company, as well as those resumed by the Egyptian Government for public purposes?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEA map such as described by my hon. Friend will be placed in the Library in the course of the day.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE CHOLERA.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that, during the week ending the 30th May, there were 636 cases of cholera and 278 deaths from cholera in the Poona District, and 395 cases and 220 deaths in the Thana District, and whether this proportion of deaths proves the virulence of the epidemic; and, whether, in reference to some districts, as in Ahmednuggar, the official Reports fail to give any statistics, but confine themselves to the statement there was "cholera throughout the district?"
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The figures quoted for the Thana and Poonah districts are correct. In reply to the last part of the Question, I may explain that when the mortality from cholera is small, the numbers are not necessarily given in the weekly season Returns from the separate districts; but when mortality becomes excessive, they are published weekly. The statistics for Ahmednuggar have been published weekly since the 5th of June. Complete cholera statistics are given in the Sanitary Returns made up at the close of the year. Up to the end of last month cholera was very prevalent in the Deccan districts of Bombay, though the rest of the Presidency was unusually free from the disease. The present epidemic, however, does not appear to be of exceptional virulence. In 1881, with 16,700 deaths, the ratio of mortality to attacks was over 47 per cent; while, in the present epidemic, the ratio is 43 per cent. The average deaths from cholera in the Bombay Presidency for the 15 years ending 1880 have been 20,172 per annum, most of which occurred between May and September.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is it not the case that besides the sporadic cases of cholera there was a large number of virulent local outbreaks, the existence of which has not yet been admitted by the Government? I will give Notice of Questions on this point, and I will ask whe-

  939
  ther, in a small town in the neighbourhood of Bombay, there were not 63 cases, of whom 28 died within a few hours of a couple of days; and whether these local cases of virulent outbreak are reported to the Egyptian Board of Health?

  INDIA (MADRAS)—THE MAGISTRACY—MR. WALLACE, DISTRICT JUDGE OF CUDDAPAH.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Mr. Wallace, District Judge of Cuddapah, Madras, has been suspended for charging the Senior Member of Council with taking presents from Natives; whether, Mr. Wallace having declined to withdraw his charges, his case has been referred for orders to the Secretary of State; and, whether he will be allowed an impartial inquiry to be conducted by persons not under the orders of the Madras Government?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, it is not the case that Mr. Wallace has been suspended for charging the senior or any other Member of Council with taking presents from Natives. On Friday I informed the hon. Member that the matter was under the consideration of the Government of India, who have not yet reported it for the Secretary of State's orders. This case will be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other member of the covenanted Civil Service in a similar position.
  MR. O'DONNELL: If this is not the charge, will the hon. Gentleman say what the exact charge is?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: If I could state what the exact charge was, I should decline to do so at the present time, because the matter is before the Government of India, and has not yet been reported to the Secretary of State in Council here.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I will repeat the Question on Thursday with some additional details.

  INDIA-REPORTED OUTRAGES ON ENGLISH LADIES.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government has received any confirmation of the reports of horrible outrages upon English ladies in Calcutta and Howrah? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me also to say that a
  940
  number of letters have reached me on the subject. Three outrages are said to have occurred, one of the ladies being the wife of the Public Prosecutor.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Government of India has not given us any information on the subject; and if the hon. Gentleman will give me any authentic statements on which I can make inquiries or base a question, I will take care that inquiry shall be made.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Since the subject was mentioned by the deputation to Lord Kimberley on Thursday last, has any inquiry been made?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir. We have searched all the records. No inquiry has been made, and we have received nothing authentic to induce us to make inquiry. I shall be very glad to institute inquiries if the hon. Gentleman would put us in the possession of more authentic information.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I will put the hon. Gentleman in the possession of the facts I have.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Whilst he is on the subject, could not the hon. Gentleman obtain a statement of the annual number of outrages on English women by English men?

  BURMAH-BURMESE EMBASSY IN PARIS,
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a mission, said to be sent by the King of Burmah, has arrived in Paris; and, whether, if so, he can state to the House the object of the mission?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No information has been received at the India Office as to the arrival of the Burmese Embassy at Paris. The object of the Mission is stated by the Burmese authorities to be purely scientific and industrial.
  MR. ONSLOW: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has inquired at the Foreign Office whether they have received any intelligence; because, if so, I shall be glad to put a further Question in a day or two?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have inquired. The Foreign Office has no information.

  NAVY-THE "HOPE" HOSPITALSHIP.
  MR. H. G. ALLENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What arrangement has been, or will be, made to

  941
  receive the class of patients formerly treated on board the "Hope," at Pembroke Dock; and, whether their Lordships will kindly consider the claims of the shipkeeper of the "Hope," who has lost that situation by its breaking up, to an appointment of equal value?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the Hope receiving hulk at Pembroke was used for the accommodation of men suffering from infectious diseases. The vessel had become unfit for service, and the medical officer reported that only five cases of infectious disease had been treated on board in 10 years, the last being a case of scarlet fever in April, 1879. It was, therefore, recommended, when she was ordered to be broken up, that in future quarters should be hired temporarily for this purpose on shore as occasion required. The man in charge of the ship, James John, was not a seaman, but a hired man, who had been a warrant officer's servant. As he was reported to be a man of excellent character, every effort was made to find for him a suitable appointment in one of the other Yards; but no vacancy was found.

  MOROCCO—SALE OF SLAVES IN TANGIER.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the accounts lately published in the newspapers of the constant public sales of slaves in Morocco are confirmed by the report of Sir John Hay Drummond Hay; whether he has been instructed to protest against this public scandal; and, whether the attention of the Government has been called to the following particulars of the sale of slaves contained in a Tangier Paper, "El Mograb El Aska," of July 1st, 1883:—
  "Sale of Slaves in Tangier.-1883.—June 23, a young negro aged 12, 25 dollars; June 27, a negress, very young, robust, and well formed, 40 dollars; June 27, a young mulatto girl, 35 dollars; June 27, a negress, young and healthy, 38 dollars; June 27, a negress, older, 40 dollars; June 28, a young negro, aged 8, from the Province of Lûs, 33 dollars; June 28, a very young negress, well formed, and sufficiently sympathetic, 39 dollars?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, I regret to say that the accounts in the newspapers of the public sales of slaves in Morocco are generally confirmed in the Reports sent by Sir John
  942
  Drummond Hay, which, together with an instruction to him on the subject, will shortly be laid before Parliament. The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been called to the particular statement referred to by my hon. Friend; and I cannot, therefore, state whether it is accurate.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS—THE CONSULAR REPORTS.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will cause arrangements to be made to enable the Consular representatives of Foreign countries residing in the United Kingdom to obtain, free of cost, such Parliamentary Papers relating to trade, commerce, and other subjects as they may feel interested in?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, a Circular will be addressed by Lord Granville to the Foreign Representatives in London informing them that if at any time they should require additional Copies of Parliamentary Papers relating to trade and commerce for the use of their Consular Body in this country, they will be supplied to them gratuitously on receipt of an application addressed by the Foreign Minister to the Secretary of State.

  SOUTH AFRICA — THE TRANSVAAL—EXPENSES OF THE VISIT OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER, 1878–9.
  MR. WODEHOUSEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any further Correspondence respecting the expenses of the visit of Sir Bartle Frere as High Commissioner to Natal and the Transvaal, 1878–9, for which a sum of £3,808 is required in the Supplementary Estimate of the Civil Service and Revenue Departments?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, the further Correspondence contained very little more than was contained in the Return laid on the Table in 1880; but if the hon. Member wished to have it produced, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) should confer with the Treasury with the view to its being laid on the Table.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS — COMPULSORY EXAMINATION—RETURNS.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether

  943
  his attention has been called to a memorial recently sent to the First Lord of the Treasury by the Association for Promoting the Extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts, showing the results of the suspension of the compulsory examination of public women; and, whether he has any objection to laying it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that in the districts protected by the Contagious Diseases Acts such diseases among the troops rose in number between the years 1877 and 1880 (the date of the last Army Medical Report) from 35 per thousand to 74 per thousand?
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the increase of patients at the Naval and Military Hospitals at Stoke and Stonehouse (Devon); the number at the first place being 184 against 118, and, at the second, 100 against 45, as compared with ten weeks of the same period last year, when the Contagious Diseases Acts were in force; and, whether any steps will be taken by the Government to check the ravages of disease among our soldiers and sailors?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, if the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) will move for the Memorial and the reply to it, I will lay both upon the Table of the House. The ratio of venereal disease in protected districts did rise, as stated in the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), during the years 1877–1880, from 35 per 1,000 to 74 per 1,000, being an increase of 39 per 1,000. I should state, however, that the increase in the same period in the districts not protected by the Act was from 68 per 1,000 to 119 per 1,000, being an increase of 51 per 1,000. It would seem that a serious wave of venereal disease occurred in 1880, as there was a sudden rise in the ratio of 27 per 1,000 in protected districts, and of 59 per 1,000 in 14 large stations not under the Acts. By the later Returns for 1881, not yet published, I find that the ratio for protected districts remains at 74 per 1,000, while that for unprotected districts underwent a further increase of 7 per 1,000, the ratio being 126. In reply to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr.
  944
  Macliver), I have to state that the amount of sickness from venereal disease at the Naval and Military Hospitals at Stoke and Stonehouse has been substantially such as is now stated by the hon. Member; but, on account of the difficulty of obtaining accurately the numbers for the Naval hospital, it is difficult to ascertain what ratio per 1,000 these figures represent. It is, however, to be observed that, while there has undoubtedly been a serious increase in the amount of venereal disease in the protected districts, there has also been a large, though by comparison a lesser, increase in the unprotected districts, which would seem to point to the presence of other causes as well as the suspension of compulsory examination. In these circumstances, the Government prefer to wait the result of further experience before deciding on any line of action.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I would ask the noble Lord whether, as the Government have dropped the Bill which was promised in substitution for the Contagious Diseases Acts, he will consider the advisability of replacing the Metropolitan Police, which were formerly employed in certain towns under this Act?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI do not think it would be correct to call it a Bill in substitution for the Contagious Diseases Acts. It was a Bill which was brought in to give effect to a Resolution passed by the House. As I have stated, we do not propose, without further experience as to the working of the present system, to introduce any further measures.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE SCARIFF DRAINAGE BOARD.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has received a Copy of certain Resolutions passed about a week since by the Provisional Board constituted under the Scariff Drainage Act of 1880; if he would state the nature of such Resolutions; and, if he has decided to take any action consequent upon them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; I have received no such Resolutions.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES) —CATHOLIC CHILDREN IN WORKHOUSES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the refusal of the Nottingham Board of Guardians to send the Roman Catholic children in the workhouse to the certified school of that denomination, although they admit that the school is within a reasonable distance; whether such refusal meets with his approval; and, whether, since it is in direct contravention of the spirit and intention of the Legislature, if not actually of the letter of the Law, and that the action of the Nottingham Board of Guardians which may be taken as a precedent in other places, he proposes to take any steps to compel them to comply with the admitted intention of the Law and with the demands of justice?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board are aware that the Roman Catholic children in the workhouse of the Nottingham Union are sent to a school of the Nottingham School Board, as the attendance of these children at the Board school has been the subject of a long correspondence between the Board and the Guardians. There is a Roman Catholic public elementary school within a distance of a mile from the workhouse; and the Board have urged the Guardians to arrange for the attendance of the, children at this school. The Guardians, however, have declined to do so, one of their reasons being that the Board school is nearer to the workhouse. It is a matter of regret to the Board that the Guardians have so decided; but it appears to the Board that the Guardians are within their legal powers in sending the children to the Board school. The children only receive secular instruction in the school, being altogether withdrawn from religious instruction. It may, at the same time, be stated, with regard to the religious instruction of the children, that the Guardians, in one of their letters, inform the Board that the Roman Catholic clergy are allowed to visit the children on each Saturday at any time between the hours of 9 A.M. and 5 P.M.; that the children go to the Roman Catholic church every Sunday morning; that the Board Room is set apart for a Catholic Service each
  946
  Sunday afternoon, the children never failing to attend the Service; and that the elder children attend the celebration of Mass.
  MR. HEALYasked the hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to the circumstance that in Ireland, if the action of a Board of Guardians was disapproved by the Local Government Board, the Local Government Board instantly dissolve the Board of Guardians?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No, Sir; that circumstance is not within my knowledge.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any case of cholera has been reported as having occurred on board any ship bound from any Indian Port to Suez within two or three months preceding the outbreak at Damietta?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir. No case of this nature has been reported.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Has it come within the noble Lord's knowledge that any person has ever been attacked by cholera after having undergone the quarantine of a 12 days' voyage before reaching the place?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot answer that Question without further inquiry of gentlemen on the spot.

  COOLIES (INDIAN) AT LA RÉUNION.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government possess any means for rescuing Indian Coolies now in Réunion from the oppression and ill-treatment to which they are subjected; and, whether any British Consul is now in that Island?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the Convention of June 1, 1861, with the French Government, under which emigration from India to Réunion was conducted, is still in force as regards Indian Coolies in that Colony who have not renounced their right to a return passage to India. And the English Government has the same means now which it has always had of interfering for the protection of the Coolies if ill-treated. There is, at the present time, an acting Consul at Réunion.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—ARRESTS OF EMIGRANTS AT QUEENSTOWN.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact, that P. Sweeney, who was arrested for the murder of Lord Mountmorres, at Queenstown, when about to emigrate, has been discharged; how long he was kept in gaol; whether the Government intend to make him any compensation; and, how many arrests have been made amongst emigrants at Queenstown within the past twelve months, where the parties had afterwards to be discharged?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that Sweeney was arrested at Queenstown, and was detained from the 13th of June till the 7th of July, when he was sent to Sligo on a writ of habeas corpus to give evidence on a trial. He was returned on July 12, and liberated on July 14. At present he was believed to be in Sligo. Thirty-seven arrests had been made among the proposed emigrants, and of these persons 18 had been handed over to the police in different parts of the United Kingdom. Fourteen were English cases. There were 10 convictions, in five cases the prisoners were discharged, and in four cases the charge was withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was not the fact that this unfortunate man could not speak a word of English; and whether, considering that his arrest had deprived him of his passage from Queenstown, the Government would give him compensation for his three weeks' imprisonment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I am not aware whether he speaks English or not. There is no fund out of which compensation can be made.
  MR. HEALY: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman got the Secret Service money?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): No, Sir; I have not.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-CONSTABLE CLIFFORD.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Sub-Constable Clifford has
  948
  been removed, on suspension, from Longhill Station to Rathkeale, county Limerick, without any charge stated; whether it is the fact that Sub-Constable Clifford discovered some rounds of buckshot ammunition concealed near the house of a man named Michael Fitzgerald, who, it was alleged, had been supplied with ammunition by Constable Egan of Longhill; whether he delivered up the ammunition to Sub-Inspector Harrison, of Rathkeale, and was immediately afterwards removed from Long-hill on suspension, without any charge being communicated to him; whether the Sub-Inspector was responsible for the statement made in this House that there was no foundation for the allegation that ammunition had been supplied to Fitzgerald by Egan; and, whether an inquiry will be held into the discovery of the buckshot, and the conduct of Sub-Inspector Harrison, Constable Egan, and Sub-Constable Clifford?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sub-Constable Clifford was removed partly because he was suspected of conspiracy against the constable Egan; and, in the interests of discipline, it became necessary to separate the parties at Longhill. The immediate cause of his suspension was that he had detained some articles of value which had been lent to him, persistently declining to give them up, alleging, as a reason, that the person in question owed him money. He is a man of unsteady habits, with five unfavourable records against him. It is the case that Sub-Constable Clifford found some buckshot ammunition near the house of Michael Fitzgerald; but the allegation that it had been supplied to the latter by Constable Egan is, I am assured by the County Inspector, wholly without foundation. I see no grounds for an inquiry into the matter.
  MR. O'BRIENinquired whether it was a fact that this man was punished to some extent for communicating with him? The fact was that he had never had anything to do with him, either directly or indirectly.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will make a note of that inquiry.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—PROPOSED COMMITTEE.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Government will consent

  949
  to the appointment, early next Session, of a Committee on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts; whether the Agricultural Department will meanwhile take any steps to obtain definite information regarding the state of health of cattle in the United States; and, whether cattle might safely be imported, viâ Canada, from the Western States, where no contagious disease is reported to exist?
  MR. DODSON: The Government will carefully consider the expediency of the appointment of a Select Committee on this subject next Session; but I should not like to enter into any engagement on the subject at this distance of time. We receive Reports constantly from our Consuls in the United States and the American Government as to the health of cattle in the United States; and I do not well see that we can obtain more definite information than we do. But, with regard to the third Question, we have not the power, under the 5th Schedule of the Act, to exempt parts of countries; and, therefore, we could not deal differently with the Western than with the Eastern States. It is true that no contagious disease is reported from the Western States; but the hon. Member is probably aware that there is no restriction on removal in the United States, and, therefore, there is, no doubt, the possibility of the introduction of disease from one State to any other State. We have received no case of foot-and-mouth disease in this country from the United States for the space of nearly four months.

  RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, when Parliament abolishes or reduces a Tax, as proposed to be done in the "Passenger Duty, &c. Bill," now before the House, there is any constitutional precedent for giving power to a mere Department of Executive Government to reimpose the Tax, so abolished or reduced, on the mere Motion of such a Department, and without any specific authority from Parliament previously obtained?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question, and, in reply to my hon.
  950
  Friend, I have to say that I see nothing unconstitutional in making the relief of a Company from certain payments to the State, contingent on the observance by the Company of certain conditions laid down in the Statute. In the present case, the Company will have an appeal from the decision of the Board of Trade to a Court of Justice; so that even the foundation of my hon. Friend's Question is not accurately stated. The provisions of the Bill appear to me to be perfectly sound.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL — POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that the period of six months, mentioned by the Secretary of State for War at the commencement of the present Session as that within which our troops would probably be withdrawn from Egypt, has nearly expired, and of the anarchy which still prevails in that country, as exemplified by the telegrams in the newspapers describing the utter incapacity of the Egyptian officials to deal with the cholera epidemic, and also in view of possible difficulties arising from M. de Lesseps' declaration, in his letter of the 20th inst. that he will at once proceed to make a second Suez Canal, he will give an assurance to the House that, before any action is taken in the matter, this House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Gentleman has put to me a Question containing the considerations which, according to him, are to govern my answer. But they cannot govern my answer, because I do not admit the accuracy of the considerations as they have been stated by him. I do not wish to dispute them; and, therefore, with his permission, I will pass them by, and come to his Question, which is, whether I will—
  "Give an assurance to the House that before any action is taken in the matter the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon"
  I am bound to say I do not know how to give a very strict interpretation of the term "the matter;" because the hon. Gentleman can hardly mean to say that, considering the British Government are shareholders in the Canal, they are to

  951
  do nothing whatever that touches the Suez Canal before the House meets again. I did, I think, explain myself pretty clearly on this subject on Thursday last, when I stated that the desire of the Government was that the commercial and shipping interests of the country should have ample time to consider this question, and turn it over and test it for themselves, and arrive at a conclusion after they had considered the different points it raises, and that we did not therefore contemplate, as within the limits of probability in any way, the early renewal of negotiations such as those in which we have been recently engaged. I may add to that answer this one further consideration. We feel that, as far as this is a commercial question, it is almost hopeless to expect that it can possibly be considered with any impartiality, with any prospect of a satisfactory result so far as it is a commercial question, as long as it is entangled in political complications; but, at the present moment, it is entangled in political complications. I trust we may get out of them; but it is quite evident to me that if we were prematurely to re-open negotiations, we should bring the question back again into those political complications. I do not think the hon. Member need entertain any fear about unduly precipitate action on our part without the knowledge of the House.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that "the matter" to which his Question referred was the statement of the Secretary of State for War, at the commencement of the Session, that the troops would probably be withdrawn in six months; and, as part of the Question only had been answered, he would repeat it.

  TENANTS' COMPENSATION—TENANTS ON MINERAL PROPERTIES.
  MR. ROLLSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the measures for securing to tenants compensation for agricultural improvements, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider the question of protecting tenants of mineral and other properties from confiscation of portion of their capital by the enforcement of fines by the landlords on the transfer of the leases, or to recommend the appointment of a Commission or Committee
  952
  for the purpose of considering the question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this is a Question which touches a matter undoubtedly of very great importance, to which it will be the duty of the Government to give its attention. If it were brought forward in such a way as to make them believe they were called upon to consider it with a view to immediate action, there might be reason for expressing an opinion; but I do not think it has yet been raised in such a manner, and to such a degree, that we could be properly called upon at this time to declare any intention on the part of the Government.

  EGYPT—"ADMINISTRATIVE ANARCHY."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps Her Majesty's Ministers, who are in military occupation of Egypt, propose to take in order to put an end to the administrative anarchy which prevails in Egypt? He also wished to ask another Question, of which he had given private Notice—namely, why steps have not been taken by Her Majesty's Government to avert the sufferings which had fallen upon the Egyptian people from this administrative anarchy?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the last Question is one of which I have had no Notice until the present moment. But with regard to the Question on the Paper, I will say it has been, and it will be, the duty of Her Majesty's Government to offer to the Egyptian Government—and, perhaps, they may do so in the future more promptly and with less regard to official forms than it has been their duty in circumstances less urgent —such suggestions as appeared to them likely to improve the condition of Egypt under its present difficult circumstances. I do not wish to be understood as subscribing to the assertion of the hon. Gentleman that "administrative anarchy" prevails in Egypt. I think it rather hard upon the Egyptian Government that it should be tested by the higher organization which prevails in the West. The Egyptian Government is doing its best to cope with a calamity which Western Governments have not always been able to cope with effectually; and it is unfair on that account to disparage it in the terms of the Question.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTgave Notice that he would, on the Vote for the salary of Major Baring prove that administrative anarchy existed in Egypt, and that it was due to the action of Her Majesty's Ministers.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the only official information furnished to candidates for the Indian Medical Service regarding their pay and allowances when in India is contained in a Memorandum supplied by the India Office; whether paragraph 18 of that Memorandum states that the pay of a surgeon in charge of a regiment, who has passed the "lower standard" language test, is, if under five years' service, 450 rupees, and, if over five years' service, 600 rupees, a month; whether it is a fact that, although, with five exceptions, the surgeons in Bengal are qualified, not one of them having less than five years' service is now in receipt of the rate of pay laid down in the above-mentioned paragraph 18; whether, on the first of January last, only four of the eighty-four surgeons appointed to Bengal within the previous six years were in receipt of the rates therein specified; and, whether any mention of "officiating pay," which is substituted for the rates promised under the conditions of paragraph 18, occurs in the Official Memorandum inviting candidates to compete?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I think my hon. Friend assumes that paragraph 18 of the India Office Memorandum guarantees to all surgeons of five years' service who have passed the language test the substantive charge of a regiment, which alone commands the pay of 600 rupees per month. The first and governing qualification for the receipt of 600 rupees a-month is that the "five years' service language test man" shall be in substantive command of a regiment. Till then he is only strictly entitled to unemployed pay. The Bengal Army List shows that on the 1st of January, 1883, of the 84 surgeons appointed during the six previous years, 21 were holding substantive or acting civil appointments at varying rates of Staff pay, and eight had not passed the language test. Of the remaining 55 only four were in substantive charge of regiments, and therefore en-
  954
  titled to the full rate of salary prescribed in paragraph 18; but 24 were officiating for the actual holders of the appointments, and were drawing acting allowances, which, though less than the full rate of salary, is more than the unemployed pay. The 27 remaining officers held no charge, either substantive or acting, and were drawing only unemployed pay as notified in the Memorandum. This Memorandum is the only official information furnished to candidates for the Indian Medical Service. It mentions only the salaries of the substantive appointments tenable by medical officers, and does not refer to the rates of officiating pay, which are not substituted for the rates laid down in the Memorandum, but are supplementary to them, being payments to officers who do not come under the conditions of the Memorandum. I have several times explained the causes of there being a temporary excess of medical officers who do not hold the substantive appointments which command the higher rates of pay.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— DETENTION IN HOSPITALS BILL.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the abandonment of the Detention in Hospitals Bill by the Government, and of the great increase of contagious disease, recently stated to be over fifty per cent. by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, he can now state what steps the Government propose to take in order to protect the health of our soldiers and sailors, gravely menaced by his refusal to allow the Metropolitan Police to assist in carrying out the provisions of the Law in those seaport towns where the Contagious Diseases Acts are in force? He would add the further Question, whether the right hon. Gentleman had addressed any official communication to the local authorities of the town in which the Acts had been enforced, calling attention to the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police Force, and insisting that they should carry out the law; and, if so, what reply he had received?
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he desired to ask, whether it did not occur to the Government that the State had a right to require our soldiers and sailors to take the same means to protect their health as were demanded of all other members of

  955
  the community—namely, temperance and self-restraint?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hardly think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) will expect me to give an answer to that Question. With reference to the more definite Question of the noble Lord, the connection of the Home Office with this question is of a very indirect character. It is not called upon to administer these Acts, nor to address the local authorities regarding them; they are administered by the Admiralty and the War Office. The only connection of the Home Office with the Act is that the Metropolitan Police are recommended as an alternative agency in the working of the Act; but they are not essential to it. Generally speaking, of course, the Metropolitan Police should be employed in preserving law and order in the Metropolis; it is only in exceptional circumstances that they are to be employed elsewhere; and, in my opinion, they are already employed too much elsewhere. It is no part of the duty of the Home Office to instruct the local authorities as to what they should do in the matter.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that, in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answers given that evening, he would ask the Prime Minister whether they were to understand that, whilst the Government was contemplating a change in the law, our soldiers and sailors were to be allowed to perish by disease?
  MR. GLADSTONErequested that Notice might be given of the Question.
  CAPTAIN PRICEwished to know whether it was permissible for the local authorities to employ the local police to carry out the Acts, and whether the Home Office would not lend the local authorities a sufficient number of Metropolitan Police to augment their force if they required them?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could give no opinion on the first part of the Question. He had stated over and over again—though he had never succeeded in conveying that impression to the minds of hon. Members— that the Home Office had no control over the local police; still less had the President of the Local Government Board.
  Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman right in saying that the Acts can be carried out by the local police? The local
  956
  authorities at Portsmouth have doubts whether they can employ the local police in the matter.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have offered no opinion at all on the subject, and must refer the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities of Portsmouth to the Statute.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: That says the Metropolitan Police are to be employed.

  ARMY-ARMY ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS.
  COLONEL MILNE HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, If, having regard to his promise on the 28th of June to consider the subject of Army Entrance Examinations, he can now state what modifications, if any, it is proposed to make in the educational tests required of candidates for first Commissions in the Army?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, this question is one of great importance, and requires the most careful consideration. No unnecessary time will be lost in coming to a decision.

  ARMY HOSPITAL NURSES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the pay of a female Army nurse is stopped when she is in hospital owing to her having caught an infectious disease from a soldier whom she has nursed, while an orderly of the Army Hospital Corps treated in hospital, under precisely the same circumstances, loses his extra pay; and, if so, whether steps cannot be taken to remedy this anomaly?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe pay of a female nurse is not stopped under the circumstances stated in the Question. I have already undertaken to inquire into the case of the Army Hospital Corps.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—CONSTRUCTION OF A THOROUGHFARE THROUGH PEEL GROVE BURIAL GROUND, BETHNAL GREEN.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is the intention of the Board of Works to construct a roadway through the Peel Grove Burial Ground in Bethnal Green; and, if so,

  957
  under what powers the Board propose to take this step?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I am happy to assure the hon. Member that the Board has no intention whatever to construct a road through the burial ground in question. An application under the Building Act was made to the Board a short time ago for approval of a plan of such a road, but the Board was of opinion that the appropriation for building purposes of a burial ground, where human remains have been interred in large numbers, should be opposed by every possible means, and the application was accordingly refused.

  IRELAND—ALLEGED DISTRESS IN ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that great distress exists, and has existed, in the three townlands of Meelick, Kilcruthaun, and Urris Auken, in the disrict of Loughglynn, county Roscommon; and, whether the Government has received any report as to the existence of distress from the Poor Law inspector; and, if so, whether such report is based on a personal examination and inquiry into the condition of the families claiming to be distressed, and what was the date on which such personal inspection and inquiry was made?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, an Inspector of the Local Government Board had quite recently been in the Loughglynn district for the special purpose of inquiring into representations made with regard to alleged distress there. His last visit was on the 9th and 10th of this month. On that occasion he passed through Meelick, where he found one person on outdoor relief. The other two townlands referred to in the Question could not be identified with certainty, and are probably mis-spelled. The Inspector took with him a list, emanating from the local committee of the National League, containing the names of a number of townlands and of persons residing therein. In his Report he stated that he visited nearly all the townlands named in the list, accompanied by the relieving officers. The Report showed that there was a great deal of poverty in the district, but that there did not appear to be any reason to doubt that
  958
  any distress which prevailed could be relieved without any special provision being made for the purpose. There are not more persons receiving either indoor or outdoor relief than there were at the corresponding period of last year.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL — MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
  MR. JACKSONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill will apply to Municipal and School Board elections; and, if not, whether the Government will accept an Amendment making the Bill applicable to such elections?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had already explained that the Bill did not apply to municipal and school board elections, which could only be dealt with in a separate measure.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked when the Report on the Bill would be taken?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)would be glad to take it at the earliest date. He hoped the Amendments would be on the Paper on Thursday.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENinquired whether the Bankruptcy Bill or the Corrupt Practices Bill would have precedence?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could hardly answer this Question at present; but, without giving a definite answer until he had had an opportunity of looking the matter over carefully, he was inclined to think that the Report on the Corrupt Practices Bill would probably better bear postponement than the Bankruptcy Bill.

  EGYPT-THE CHOLERA-MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. LYONSasked, Whether, should, unhappily, further medical aid be required to meet the visitation of cholera in Egypt, an opportunity would be afforded to the Medical Schools and Colleges in Ireland to send a contingent to share in this important and distinguished service; and why some such step was not taken in the first instance?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, the 12 appointments were all made

  959
  on the recommendation of Sir Joseph Fayrer. There was no distinction made as between Irishmen, Englishmen, and Scotchmen; but preference was given to those with Indian experience. Three of the 12 gentlemen appointed were members of Schools of Medicine in Ireland; and to one Doctor of Medicine of the Queen's University au appointment was offered, but declined on private grounds.

  EGYPT-THE CHOLERA-MEDICAL OFFICERS.

    PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC BILLS — PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, If in future, on the introduction of any Provisional Order Bill, he will cause to be circulated with the Votes a short abstract of the powers intended to be conferred by the Bill?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had carefully considered the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but was afraid he could not do precisely what was asked. If the "short abstract" to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was to be a complete abstract, and set forth all the powers which Provisional Orders sought to confer, it would be nearly as bulky as the Bills themselves. If, on the other hand, the Board of Trade were to make a selection of the principal powers sought to be conferred, it would be a very invidious duty, which could hardly be satisfactorily performed. He might, however, point out that this year the Provisional Order Bills were more than usually bulky, owing to the Electric Lighting Bills; but he hoped that another year he might be able to pass a Consolidation Bill, which would take out of these Provisional Orders the greater part of their substance, and then there would only remain the special clauses, to which they could affix a table of contents, which would attain the right hon. Gentleman's object.

    REGISTRARS OF COUNTY COURTS.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER (for Mr. HARDCASTLE)asked the President of the Board of Trade, In what manner he proposes to compensate those Registrars of County Courts who are deprived of their right to practise in Bankruptcy outside their own Courts conceded to them by "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869," section 69?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter of some importance, which en-
    960
    gaged the attention of the Standing Committee on Trade. An Amendment to restore the right of Registrars of the County Courts to practise in Bankruptcy outside their own Courts did not commend itself to the Committee; and it was negatived, after some discussion, without a Division. At the same time, I do think that the matter is one which may deserve a little further consideration. If, however, the House should see fit to support the views of the Standing Committee on Trade, I do not think any case can be established for compensation.

    METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
    MR. FIRTHasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is true that the Board has now under consideration schemes of London improvement involving an outlay of ten millions sterling; and, whether, before proposing such expenditure to Parliament, the Board propose to obtain the sanction or ascertain the opinion of the inhabitants of London who are to find the money?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: The Metropolitan Board of Works has now under consideration schemes of several important and much-needed improvements, which, if carried out, will, no doubt, involve a large expenditure; but nothing, I trust, approaching the amount named by the hon. Member. One of the schemes relates to communications across the Thames below London Bridge, which has been pressed upon the Board by numerous memorials from local authorities and others, and by deputations representing the wants of about 1,500,000 people residing East of London Bridge. Another scheme is that of new and improved approaches to the New Law Courts, which has been supported by numerous memorials and deputations; and I may add that this, together with the third scheme—the improvement of the approaches to the Houses of Parliament by the widening of Parliament Street—meets with the hearty approval of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works. In addition to the evidences of public feeling which have been received, the elected representatives of the inhabitants have expressed their views as to the improvements; and the Board does not, therefore, I apprehend, intend to take further

    961
    steps to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants; but it is open to those who desire to do so to express their opinion by memorial or otherwise, and careful consideration would be given to any such expression.
    MR. FIRTH: Will the hon. Gentleman say whom he means by the elected representatives of the inhabitants?
    [No reply was given to the Question.]

    SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS)—SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE'S MOTION.
    MR. CALLANasked the Leader of the Opposition, If it was true, as reported in the morning papers, that he intended to withdraw his Motion on the Suez Canal in favour of that of the hon. Member for Greenwich?
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No.

    EGYPT-THE CHOLERA.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had received any telegram from the General Officer commanding in Egypt confirming the announcement in the newspapers as to the increase of cholera among the British troops?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONNo, Sir; I have not received any statement to-day; but I have telegraphed to-day to request that during the prevalence in an acute form of cholera among the troops in Egypt I may receive a telegram every day. Everything that has yet been received has been published in the newspapers.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication had been received from the Government of Italy or any other Foreign Power in regard to the alleged want of adequate precautions by England to prevent the spread of cholera?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question, and then he would state what communications had been received on the subject.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to Future Negotiations with the Suez Canal Company.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MOTION.
      SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS).

        MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit to the House a Motion of which I have given Notice; and I wish, in the first place, to say that there is nothing that I should deprecate so much as anything in the nature of an irritating debate upon a delicate question; and I earnestly hope that as I shall myself abstain from anything that I am conscious can bear an irritating character, so others who may follow me will reserve themselves, and use careful language upon the subject. I do not see why there should be any occasion for us to import irritating topics into the present discussion. The question to which I wish to draw attention is one of a business and commercial character; it is one which I think may be, and ought to be, discussed in a manner in which we usually discuss important questions of that character; and my belief is, that those who are anxious and profess themselves to be nervous with regard to the consequences of any discussion on such a subject are entirely in error, and are even conducing to cause the danger which they seem to apprehend. For my part, I admit there is a responsibility, which, of course, lies upon every Member of the House, whatever may be his position in the House, in discussing questions which affect our foreign relations; but if there is a responsibility in speaking, so also, I believe, there is a responsibility sometimes in silence; and I cannot help thinking that there is nothing which conduces more to misunderstandings than what may be called half-understandings. Often and often we have seen that where there is thought to be a necessity for practising reserve, and for not communicating all that might be communicated to the public and to Parliament, it has happened that mischief—the very mischief you wish to avoid—has resulted from that reserve.
        What I wish to do on the present occasion is to obtain, if I can, from the House such a clear expression of opinion as shall release the House from the embarrassment which would result from its taoit acceptance of the language of some

        963
        Members of our own Government. Certain Ministers have given us to understand that they recognize as legal and binding a right which is claimed on the part of the Suez Canal Company to entire command of the waterway, or to any water communication across the Isthmus of Suez. ["No, no!"] On the part of the House of Commons I wish to put in a disclaimer to that contention. I heard words of dissent just now. If I am wrong in my view—if it is not the case that Members of the Government have used such language, or if they did not intend the language which they used to bear the significance I have put upon it, then we should have a disclaimer and correction from the Government, and we should obtain, in the best possible form, the object which I myself seek. My object is not one of a Party character. It is not intended to fasten any reproach upon the Government; it is intended to obtain a practical object, and to release the House from what I think may be a difficult and embarrassing position. Hon. Members who sit on that side of the House may, I think, do us who sit on this side of the House the justice to remember that if we had desired to make Party capital out of this business, and if, regardless of every consideration, our object had been to throw blame on the Government, we might have caused very great embarrassment to the Government, and we might have caused very great danger, I think, to the interests of the country at the same time, by moving in this question at the time that the public mind was not as calm as I am happy to think it is now. We most cautiously abstained from bringing forward the question at a moment of irritation, and all I am anxious for is, that we should not allow, on the other hand, the proper time to slip by, and then find ourselves in such a position that it would be too late to take what we may hereafter think would have been necessary steps.
        There has been some doubt expressed as to the exact meaning of the terms of my Motion. I do not profess to be a master of language, and I am not at all proud of the construction of my sentences; but I confess I do not myself share—I do not exactly understand—the difficulty which seems to have presented itself to the minds of a good many Gentlemen on this subject. The object and
        964
        intention of my Motion will be realized very clearly, if we consider what the actual facts of the case are. At the present time the Suez Canal Company have in existence a Canal, which they have made in pursuance of a concession made to them by the Rulers of Egypt; and I say, once for all, that I use the expression "Rulers of Egypt" in order to avoid the introduction of any difficult questions as to the relative rights of the Porte and the Khedive. I may have to say a word of distinction hereafter; but the principal object I have is to call attention to the relations of the Government of Egypt, whatever that Government may be, and the Directors and Company of the Suez Canal. Now, the Suez Canal Company hold, under a concession from the Rulers of Egypt, a certain Canal which they have cut from Port Said to Suez. There is no question whatever as to their having an exclusive right to the use and management of that Canal; and there is no doubt also that they have certain rights, limited territorial rights, on either side of the Canal—at least, I assume that is so—which would enable them somewhat to enlarge that Canal. Nobody doubts for a moment that they have an exclusive right and control over their own undertaking; but beyond that it is suggested that they have not only a right over their own Canal, but that they have a right to forbid other persons from taking steps to make another Canal within the same district, which they claim to have a monopoly in—that is to say, as they describe it, across the Isthmus of Suez. I maintain—and I think I am supported by a very considerable authority—that they have no such right of exclusion. I maintain that their right is a positive right only—a right to the Canal, and within the limits to which I have referred to, and that they have no right either to forbid other persons to take steps for forming Companies or for making operations, always with proper authority, in any other part of the world, in any other part of Egypt, in any other part between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, or, in fact, as contained within that region—within the Isthmus — across the isthmus of Suez itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) has put down a Notice of Resolution, in which, in substance, he takes exactly the

        965
        same view as I take. But my object in making my Motion in this general form was not to make it unnecessarily blunt and, perhaps it might be thought, offensive; and I was anxious to couple it with an acknowledgment, as a matter of course, of the distinct right of the Company within the limits of their own concession. I desire to challenge the claim which has been made; and I desire to challenge it, because, in the course of the transactions which have recently taken place, it is undoubted that more than one of Her Majesty's Ministers have in public, and in discussions in this House, in replying to deputations and otherwise, stated it to be their opinion that the claim of the Company to this power of exclusion was well-founded. I venture to think that if we do not clear ourselves from acquiescing in that view very serious inconvenience may be produced.
        The circumstances of the case are these. It is acknowledged—indeed, it has recently been pressed upon attention by many shipowners —that the commerce has become too large for the Canal to carry, and some steps are being taken and are urged upon the consideration both of Her Majesty's Government and of the Direction of the Canal itself —steps are being taken or urged upon those authorities for the extension and the increase of the facilities which the Canal is now able to afford. Whatever your view may be of the exclusive power of the Company, this at least is clear—that technically, at all events, the Company cannot get the land and powers which are necessary for the construction of an additional Canal without going to the Rulers of Egypt for that purpose. What I wish to point out is, that if they so go with this claim of theirs still remaining, and with the endorsement which it has received, or appears to have received, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, the Rulers of Egypt, to whom the application will be made, will be placed in a very serious dilemma, because if the Khedive, on being applied to for the purpose of giving additional concessions, should say that he was indisposed to give them and would grant no more, he would be regarded, and would feel that he was regarded, as a sort of dog in the manger, as one interfering with the development of commerce and as guilty of an unfriendly action. But,
        966
        on the other hand, if he were to grant those concessions—with the claim of the Company to this exclusive monopoly still to the fore—without making some conditions for the benefit of commerce, he might be equally reproached for having sacrificed interests which ought to have been protected, and which there was an opportunity of protecting. It is, therefore, important, on all grounds, that he should know whether or not this claim is admitted as a legal and technical claim. I hope the House will bear in mind the great distinction between a legal and technical claim and a moral claim. I should be the last person to dispute, or try to water down, the strong moral claim which the promoters of the Suez Canal Company have upon the consideration of all the world, and not least upon the people of this country. I do not wish, in the slightest degree, to disparage the Company, and certainly not M. de Lesseps; but I am anxious that we should try to test, and should not lightly admit, this claim to a legal and technical right, which seems to me a most embarrassing claim to acknowledge, and one which, if admitted, would render it much less likely that we should come to an amicable conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman has stated to-night, as he has on more than one occasion, that as matters now stand, time should be left to shipowners and members of the commercial community to consider the position in which they are placed, and the best course to be taken to attain the object they have in view. I desire also that time should be given for consideration, and that it should be given fairly. But let us not go into that consideration without knowing how we stand in the matter of our legal position. I do not think it would be possible for shipowners and others fairly to consider this question, and exercise what the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) calls "freedom of judgment" in this matter, if it is left without any further explanation than it has now received. The hon. Member for Hull must allow me to remind him—for I suppose I may assume the correctness of the report of the deputation of shipowners to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that he made a claim very similar to that which he now proposes to make in his Amendment to my Resolution—namely, that the question of the legal and tech-

        967
        nical position of the Company, and its right to exclude other persons from the Isthmus, should be left an open question, and that he was immediately answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said—"Yes; but it cannot be left as an open question. It is a question which we have decided in our own minds; it is a question which must be considered as concluded." There is an assumption that the legal right exists. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have, on more than one occasion, stated that this Provisional Agreement was an Agreement which they should not have thought of recommending, were it not for the legal and technical right they recognized in the Company. And, therefore, I say that it is of great importance that we should endeavour as far as possible to clear our minds, and to be actually free in our judgment upon this matter.
        Now, Sir, I do not mean to detain the House with any lengthened review of the history of the Suez Canal and its transactions. I shall be very brief. The first concession was made in November, 1854. It was made by the then Viceroy of Egypt to M. de Lesseps, and it is in that concession that in the first instance are to be found the two words upon which so much stress has been laid, and upon the meaning of which so much argument turns — I mean the words "pouvoir exclusif." That was the form of words used by Said Pasha in the concession conferring upon M. Ferdinand de Lesseps the exclusive power of constituting and directing a Company for the piercing of the Isthmus of Suez. It was followed by some general provisions intended to form the basis of the whole design. Remember, that at the time when that concession was granted, the question of the great work of cutting a Canal through the Isthmus was one which had been discussed in general by others, and in particular between M. de Lesseps and the Viceroy of Egypt. There had been other proposals which had been more or less advanced—not, perhaps, fully advanced then—but there were other ideas and projects afloat at the time, and which had been brought more or less to the notice of the Viceroy, especially the scheme of M. de Talibot, the distinguished French engineer, for making a communication between the Sweet Water Canal and the Nile. It
        968
        was the intention of the Viceroy to show that he gave his confidence entirely to M. de Lesseps. After hearing M. de Lesseps' views of the possibility and importance of the enterprize which he contemplated—thatis, of cutting through the Isthmus—and having concluded that it was a matter which ought to be undertaken, he entrusted M. de Lesseps with the whole power of proceeding with the undertaking, to the exclusion of all other persons. And that was a most important concession, because it dealt with the real difficulty which M. de Lesseps felt he had to contend with. I imagine that M. de Lesseps, having considered the engineering obstacles of the project, and got the best advice he could, and having himself studied it carefully for a long time, was not greatly alarmed by the physical difficulties he had to encounter. He would feel that if he was once in plain sailing, and if he was once able fairly to grapple with his task, he would be able to accomplish it. But what he did feel to be a difficulty, no doubt, was the difficulty of getting the means that he wished to employ fairly to work. He proposed to proceed by the establishment of a Company. But by what means was he to get that Company into existence? What difficulties had he to contend with? He had to contend, first, with the general incredulity with which his great plan was met. He had to contend with the direct opposition of great and powerful influences, and among them no less an influence than that of the Prime Minister of England himself. He had to contend, of course, with the rival schemes which might be afloat, and with all those difficulties of a financial character which must necessarily attend the launching of so great an enterprize; and that to which M. de Lesseps—we have plenty of evidence of it in his own words—attached by far the greatest importance was this—that he should have such plenary power given to him to construct and work his Canal that he could resist and push aside any interference that might be put in his way after the Company had been formed. Now, I have various proofs that that was his view; but there is one to which I may, perhaps, be allowed especially to draw attention. I take this as an extract from a letter which was written by M. de Lesseps on the 2nd of January, 1855.

        969
        He, speaking then to a confidential friend—a relative of his own in Paris—says—
        "My ambition, I confess, is to be the only person (le seul) to manage the threads of this immense enterprize up to the moment when it can go on freely of itself. In a word, I do not wish to accept conditions from anyone; my object is to impose them all."
        Writing a few months later, in April, he uses some very remarkable expressions. He says—his correspondent was in Paris—
        "You tell me of the agitations and the pretensions of some financiers. What constitutes my chief strength against them is my position as the holder of the exclusive powers (chargé des pouvoirs exclusifs) of the Viceroy. In the face of certain movements (agissements), I have always to support me the Prince, who after all (en definitive), is the master of the house (le maître de la maison), whereas if he had made me grantee (concessionnaire) before the formation of the Company, he would have, so to speak, abandoned his rights, and I should have had less strength to resist the encroachments of Governments and speculators. When I conceived the idea of getting powers given to me instead of a concession, I was not aware that the same idea had occurred to Prince Louis Napoleon," &c., &c.
        Now, Sir, I consider that an extremely important piece of evidence, and I could quote other phrases and passages to the same effect. It is clear and significant evidence as to what he meant by the pouvoir exclusif for which he had applied, and which was granted him. It was a power to set aside all interference. How did he do it? By showing all who attempted to interfere that they were not interfering with him, because he was not the concessionnaire, but with the Ruler of Egypt, "the master of the house," as he expressed it, and in whose name M. de Lesseps claimed to act. I need not go at all into the steps which M. de Lesseps took in order to push forward the constitution of his Company. Suffice it to say that it took four years from the time of the concession in November, 1854, until in November, 1858, he was able to say that the Company was constituted. Anyone acquainted with the movement from M. de Lesseps' account of his own proceedings, or from the records of others, will see that he was constantly under difficulties, and constantly obliged to take sudden decisions upon his own responsibility, and if he had not had the pouvoir exclusif he could not have called the Company into existence. I have dwelt
        970
        upon that point for some time, because it has been said that it is incredible that such great power could have been given or would have been necessary for the mere purposes of constituting a Company, and that, therefore, it must have had reference to something else. Let me tell the House what is the effect and meaning of the claim which is now put forward to a monopoly. It does not merely mean that M. de Lesseps and his Company, of which we are ourselves members, and among whose Directors we have representatives, have a right to say to any body of gentlemen associated for the purpose of forming another Canal—"You must not come here; we have nothing to do with you; we have an exclusive right to this land, and we keep you off." No; it does not only mean that; but it means that the Khedive himself has parted with his right of giving to any body, or of executing himself, any work which he may think necessary, or that may be proved necessary, for the extension of the Canal, without the consent of the Suez Canal Company. That is a very serious contention, for the rights affected are not as between one body of capitalists and another; but you are claiming that a particular body of capitalists shall have the right to control and limit the Ruler of a country himself in a matter deeply affecting the interests of that country. Such a claim ought not to be maintained, and cannot be supported, except on the clearest evidence showing that it was the intention of those who made the concession to grant this vast power. Not only must you have evidence that it was their intention; but you must have some evidence that they had the right — the moral right, at least—to give such a power. But the evidence to which I have called attention, and the relations which existed between M. de Lesseps and the Khedive at the beginning of the negotiations, seem to prove conclusively that the Viceroy never intended to part with his own power of making a new Canal, when he gave M. de Lesseps this power to form a Company for the execution of a particular project. You may say, and say truly—"The possibility of a future extension of the Canal being required was a question not contemplated at the time;" but you have no evidence to show how the difficulty was to be met if such a case should arise. According

        971
        to the doctrine of the Government, it could not be met by the existing Company, because they have not the necessary concession; and it could not be met by anybody else, because the existing Company stops the way. So you come to this—that the Porte, or the Khedive, or whoever you may treat with as the Ruler of the country, is entirely in the hands of the Directors of the Suez Canal Company, and cannot, by any possibility, take any independent action. That is such a state of things that, before you can admit it, you want the clearest possible evidence that it was intended to exist. But do you find anywhere in any of the concessions any negative words whatever? You find powers given in more than one document as to what the Company may do; but nowhere, though grants are made to them of lands, and though powers and every sort of facility are given for carrying on their operations—never anywhere do you find even a suggestion that there was an intention to give a monopoly. Nor do I think that in any of the prospectuses which M. de Lesseps issued at the time, and in which he naturally set forth the advantages of the Company in the best colours he could, nor, I say, in those prospectuses do you find any claim of this sort advanced. We have certainly, in the absence of any negative words of the kind, in the absence of any claim put forward by those who naturally would put it forward, good grounds for hesitating before we admit a claim of which we never heard anything until about a year ago. It was not till last September, as far as I remember—I may be wrong—that M. de Lesseps made any claim of this kind. At all events, no such claim has ever been brought under the notice of Parliament until the present time; and that is what makes me so anxious that now, on the first occasion when we have the matter legitimately before us, we should not let it go by and slide without taking any notice of it, because our silence must necessarily be construed into an assent. We have the opinions of two Ministers, and I presume of the Government generally, in favour of this claim; and there is also, we are told, an opinion that has been given by the Law Officers of the Crown in support of it. I desire, of course, to speak with the greatest respect of the opinion of the Law Offi-
        972
        cers of the Crown; but it is impossible not to feel that, however right the practice may be, and however good the grounds for it may be, it is a very great disadvantage that the Law Officers' opinions cannot be brought forward and quoted in the House, because of the professional rule which prohibits their publication. We are, in consequence, left very much in the dark about their views. We do not know what was the case that was submitted to them, and we do not even know the time when their opinion was given. We therefore do not know whether, when it was given, there was still time enough to act upon it, or whether it was asked for after a decision had already been arrived at. But, as against the opinions of the Law Officers, which we have not seen, there are some opinions—and opinions of considerable weight—which we have seen, and of which we have an opportunity of judging. There is the very strong opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), who holds, I believe, as high a position among the legal authorities of this country as any man who can be named; there is the opinion of Mr. Underdown, who has a very high reputation in matters of this kind; there is the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who was consulted by a body of shipowners quite independently of the other gentlemen to whom I have referred; and there is the opinion of Mr. Mark Napier, who has also considered this matter very deeply. Then I am in a position to state that my noble and learned Friend Earl Cairns takes the same view, and that he cannot consent to believe that this power exists in the Company. He very clearly states that which I have endeavoured to put before the House, that he cannot see in this concession anything beyond the grant of a power to constitute and form the Company, and that he cannot conceive it possible that the Khedive or the Viceroy could have given authority, or did by those words give authority, which would prevent him from proceeding himself with any other work of the kind that might be necessary.
        I hope that those whom I am addressing will not suppose that when I use these arguments I desire to make a case against the Company in a

        973
        hostile manner. I only wish to clear up our rights. It is much better that these rights should be cleared up; and when it is understood how far we are bound and how far we are free, let us act towards the Company in a spirit of wise liberality as our duty demands. My belief is that what has to be done had far better be done through the agency, and with the co-operation, and through the intervention of the Canal Company, which has such a position, such advantages, and such a credit in the country. But that is if you are able to obtain proper and sufficient security that what will be done is the right thing. But if you throw away your greatest weapon, your greatest lever—that is to say, the natural leverage of competition—if you sacrifice that in favour of monopoly, you must either get into some quarrel or difficulty with the Company, or submit to whatever terms they may choose to propose.
        The history of the case is this. The first concession was granted in the year 1855. In 1856 M. de Lesseps made a preliminary Report to the Viceroy, laying down the principles upon which he would proceed. The Viceroy thereupon granted him a concession in detail, and at the same time sanctioned the Statutes which were intended to be Statutes of the Company. In one of the Statutes, among the objects for which a general meeting of the shareholders must be called is mentioned a power of "fusion with other enterprizes." That rather points in a direction contrary to the exclusive claim. In 1858 the Company was constituted. It must be remembered that the grants that were made under its original concession were grants of a very large and important character. These grants were, in fact, for a very different enterprize—for a very much larger and more important enterprize —than that which was ultimately sanctioned. Not only was there to be a Salt Water Canal from Port Said to Suez, but there was also to be a Sweet Water Canal, which was to connect the other Canal with the Nile; and power was to be given, and large concessions of land were to be given, to the Company in connection with that Sweet Water Canal. The result of that great scheme was, that strong remonstrances were made on the part of other countries against the step which was being taken, and it
        974
        was pointed out that such a concession might lead to the most inconvenient political results. Representations were made on the part of the maritime nations interested in the Canal, in view of the proposed action of the Company, which ultimately led to the retrocession of the Sweet Water Canal to the Egyptian Government; and it then became necessary that there should be a revised concession. The revised concession was not made till the beginning of 1866; and when it was made by the Egyptian Government it was remitted to the Porte for approval and ratification, and ultimately it received the sanction of the Porte. That is the concession under which M. de Lesseps formed the Suez Canal Company, and under which the latter hold their lands and made the Canal. Now, that was a complete concession, and it was a concession in virtue of which certain powers were given to the Company by the Egyptian Rulers, which powers were confirmed by the authorities of the Porte. If I may be permitted to do so, I should wish to call attention for a few minutes to a matter which may not, at first sight, appear to be quite germane to the subject I am discussing; but yet, in my view, it has a considerable bearing upon it. The Suez Canal was opened in 1869. Just at first it seemed not to be going on very well; but after a short time the attention of this and of other maritime nations was more particularly directed to the route, and they began to build ships expressly constructed to pass through the Canal. The result was that a very great increase in the traffic through the Canal took place. Notice was then taken that the Suez Canal Company were making exorbitant charges upon the vessels that passed through the Canal; and a dispute arose as to the correct method of measuring the tonnage of the ships upon which the charge for the use of the Canal was based. Upon that the Company claimed to have a right to make the charge they did under the terms of their concession, and they maintained that right. At that time the right hon. Gentleman opposite and Earl Granville were in Office, and they had a great deal of correspondence with the Company and with our Ambassador at Constantinople upon the subject. The dispute, which threatened to become a serious one, led to the calling of a Con-

        975
        ference of the Representatives of the maritime nations at Constantinople; and that Conference arrived at a certain decision with regard to the right mode of measuring the tonnage and of fixing the amount of the charge to be made under the terms of the concession. There are two passages in the despatches sent by Earl Granville at that time to which I should wish to call attention. One is comparatively unimportant; but in it Earl Granville states that the British Government could not admit the claim of the Company to construe the terms of its own concession. To the second and the more important despatch I desire to call particular attention, for this reason. Some little time ago my noble Friend Lord Salisbury, in the course of a discussion upon this subject in "another place," spoke of the Suez Canal as a highway of nations, and questioned the power or right of any nation to stop or impede the traffic through such a highway under any pretence without the consent of other nations. My noble Friend was thereupon immediately taken to task very sharply by the Lord Chancellor, who remarked that the case of an artificial Canal cut through a piece of land by a private Company was very different from the cases suggested by my noble Friend. The passage I am about to read occurs in a despatch sent on the 3rd of March, 1873, by Earl Granville to our Ambassador in Constantinople, in which the question was raised as to the right of the Company to construe their own concession, and to determine the method in which the tonnage should be measured; and reference was made to the suggestion that had been made, and which was rather approved at Constantinople, that it was in the power of the Porte to authorize the Company to make whatever charge they pleased. Earl Granville, in referring to these claims, said—
        "Her Majesty's Government do not in the slightest degree impugn the right of the Porte to increase the dues. … The Company is, as Her Majesty's Government consider, Egyptian, and the rights over it of the Porte are undoubted. Her Majesty's Government, however, feel confident that the Turkish Government cannot but be sensible of the equitable consideration which is due from the Porte to the great maritime interests which are concerned. By the Firman of 1866 the Porte solemnly endorsed the concession of 1856, on the faith of which numbers of vessels have been constructed in France, England, and elsewhere, for traffic
        976
        through the Canal, which has thus become one of the highways of the world"—Lord Salisbury's own expression, borrowed, perhaps, from this — "the obstruction of which, by the imposition of an excessive toll, would be an injury to commerce, which Her Majesty's Government cannot believe that the Porte would willingly inflict, and against which every nation would be driven to protest."
        My object in calling attention to these observations is this—I think that we cannot look upon this matter as one that can be laid at rest, as being entirely between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company, irrespective of the interests of the maritime nations.
        My object in calling attention to this matter to-day is, that I am very earnestly desirous of impressing upon Her Majesty's Government the great importance of so conducting any future negotiations in reference to this subject as to avoid, by being early wise, any possible collision taking place hereafter in connection with a protest from maritime nations. My belief is, that in these matters the first loss is the best, and that the earlier the point is cleared up the bettor for all parties, and that this idea of leaving the question to stand over, in order that time may solve it, is not the best mode of dealing with it. Depend upon it that this is not a matter which we can afford to trifle with. In my opinion, it is possible at this moment to bring about a satisfactory settlement; and I am sure that all classes and interests in this country will combine to assist the Government in bringing about a settlement of a matter which so deeply interests us all. I am quite sure that such a settlement can be brought about without offending the sensitiveness or the susceptibilities of anybody. I do not think, therefore, that we should be taking a wise course if we were to neglect the opportunity, and were to endeavour to put the question aside for the moment. I have placed a Notice upon the Paper, which I think puts the case in a satisfactory manner. I do not, however, say that there may not be other ways of attaining the object I have in view. My first object is to invite Parliament to pass a Resolution denying the right claimed by M. do Lesseps, and the other is to make a declaration which shall fully and effectually reserve our freedom of judgment

        977
        in this matter. What is the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), which the Government tell us they mean to accept? It will not leave us our freedom of judgment in the matter; it will merely maintain the freedom of action of the Government; and, therefore, I can fully understand why they give their assent to an Amendment which might actually have been drawn by one of themselves. I cannot understand the hon. Member for Hull placing such an Amendment on the Paper after the rebuke which he received the other day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told him that there was no freedom of judgment possible in the matter, and that we were tied hand and foot in reference to it. How the hon. Member can be satisfied by simply negativing my Resolution, which declines to recognize the validity of the claim of M. de Lesseps, and, in substitution for it, to say—
        "This House desires to maintain its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; and this House, in consequence, declines to pass any Resolution as to future negotiations or proceedings respecting the same,"
        is a matter that really puzzles me very much. What is the meaning of that Resolution? I do not understand why we should pass a Resolution to say that we will not pass a Resolution. It would have been much simpler to have moved an Amendment of a different character, such as the Previous Question; but I must point out to the hon. Member that his present Amendment is totally inconsistent with his former protests against the action of Her Majesty's Government. I do not wish to detain the House longer, and I hope that I have succeeded in stating what my anxiety is in this matter without saying anything that is offensive or irritating—a thing which it is far from my wish to do. My desire is earnestly to impress upon the Government that they should take this matter into consideration, and that they should do their best, as far as they can, to relieve us from the difficulty in which they themselves have placed us, so that we shall no longer run the risk of the same thing happening again which happened, or rather which so nearly happened, the other day. Do not let them, in any future negotiations in reference to this
        978
        subject into which they may have to enter, enter into them with this clog round their necks, or, if they do, let it be made clear that it is a clog which the nation and the House of Commons are not content to place upon them; because, if we do not do so, we shall find ourselves in exactly the same difficulty as that in which we were a short time ago, and we shall be driven into making a bad arrangement because of a claim which we do not accept, and yet which we admit is binding upon us. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in any negotiations or proceedings with reference to the Suez Canal Company to which Her Majesty may be a party, She will, while respecting the undoubted rights of the Company in regard of their own concession, decline to recognise any claim on their part to such a monopoly as would exclude the possibility of competition on the part of other undertakings, designed for the purpose of opening a water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
        MR. NORWOOD, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
        "That this House desires to maintain its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; and this House, in consequence, declines to pass any Resolution as to future negotiations or proceedings respecting the same,"
        said, that he had listened with much interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had been greatly exercised in his own mind to discover the real scope and meaning of the Resolution. The question he had put to himself was—Why should the House be called upon to rush into the presence of Her Majesty with advice in reference to a state of affairs which did not exist, and which there was no likelihood of existing? Why should Her Majesty be asked to preserve the rights of the country in respect to claims which had never been preferred? When and where had M. de Lesseps asserted his exclusive right to create water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea? He was aware that M. de Lesseps claimed the exclusive right of constructing a Canal through the Isthmus of Suez; but he had not learned that he had claimed the right to make a Canal

        979
        through the Delta or through Palestine. Although he did not agree with every statement of the right hon. Gentleman, much of what he said met with his approval, and it appeared to him that his own Amendment attained similar results to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but by different means. But the great distinction between the two was that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution asked the House to do something, his Amendment called upon them to do nothing. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was in a widely different position from that which he occupied. The right hon. Gentleman was the Leader of the Opposition, while he, a private Member, represented a constituency of merchants and shipowners; and, though not unmindful of higher considerations, he confessed that the object which he sought was, in the main, a commercial object. He said, on behalf of the commercial community of England—"Give breathing time for the relations between this country and France to settle down; allow us to consider our position; permit misunderstandings to be removed; allow time for mercantile men of both countries to arrive, if possible, at a solution." Therefore it was that he asked the House to abstain from committing itself to any opinion whatever on the question of communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the question was one of great delicacy, and ought to be approached with great care. Yet the right hon. Gentleman had gone into a hypercritical, historical, and argumentative examination of the position which M. de Lesseps and the Company held since the first concession was given. Now, that was exactly the course of argument he declined to follow, because it was precluded by the terms of his Amendment. He contended that this was not the time for the discussion of the disputable questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had accused him of inconsistency. But he had been guilty of no inconsistency. He had carefully protected himself, both when he headed a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in his Amendment, from expressing an opinion as to the rights of M. de Lesseps. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House was compromised in the
        980
        matter; but he contended that it was not compromised in any way whatever. When had the House expressed an opinion on the subject, or when had the Government submitted any step taken in the late negotiations to the judgment of the House? The House ought carefully to abstain from pronouncing a decision on the question. He was anxious to take that opportunity to remove certain misconceptions which appeared to have grown up, not alone in England, but in France, and had caused a special feeling of irritation in Paris. He believed that the true feeling of the English mercantile community had been altogether misunderstood. People talked as if the controversy were one which only affected shipping and shipowners. But it ought to be remembered that though shipowners were brought into immediate contact with the Canal, the charges imposed did not fall ultimately on the merchants and manufacturers, but on the consumers. When the first disappointment as to the Agreement came upon us, a very injudicious tone was adopted by certain gentlemen and traders on the subject. There were two meetings in the City to which he would especially refer—namely, at Lloyd's and the Chambers of Commerce. Very tall language was employed; and even the worthy Alderman who sat for the City of London (Mr. Cotton) expressed himself in terms which he was sure his hon. Friend had since regretted. Reference had been made at those meetings to the position this country occupied in Egypt — as though that position would justify them in disregarding the rights or property of the Suez Canal Company. He wished at once to repudiate the slightest desire on the part of any honest British merchant to acquire by any means, except the fairest and most honourable, any control over, or interference with, the property of the Suez Canal Company. What had been the actual course of events? When a deputation of merchants and shipowners waited on Lord Granville, the shipowners went one step further than the merchants, and expressed their desire for a second Canal to be constructed with British money and under British management. Lord Granville replied on that occasion that when a definite plan was submitted to the Government they would consider it. The shipowners immediately called a meeting, appointed a

        981
        Committee, and raised £10,000 for surveys and preliminary expenses. But, before taking a single step, they decided to ascertain the precise position of M. de Lesseps, and a case was submitted to eminent counsel, who advised that M. de Lesseps had no exclusive right to pierce the Isthmus with a Canal. At that time there was a rumour that the Government were negotiating with the Canal Company; and he (Mr. Norwood) addressed Questions to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, asking him whether the rumour was true, and requesting him to give a definite assurance that no binding arrangement should be made without due consultation and the approval of the House. The moment the Prime Minister's reply was made known to the shipowners they suspended further action. When the Agreement by the Government was laid before the House and the country, no doubt a strong feeling of disappointment was generally expressed throughout the commercial community. But that feeling was not of the uncompromising character which had been attributed to it. The resolutions passed at the Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and at public meetings in the great towns were couched in moderate language. At Liverpool, for example, the Chamber of Commerce urged the expediency of re-opening the negotiations with a view to better terms being secured, and similar resolutions were passed by Chambers of Commerce at Edinburgh, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Newcastle. The principle of making the reduction in charges dependent on increase in profits was approved, subject to amendment of detail; and the chief objection to the Agreement was the absence of British representation and control commensurate with our interest in and the assistance to be given to the new Canal. It had been said that the issue of this matter in the withdrawal of the Agreement between the Government and the Suez Canal Company was now bitterly regretted by the shipowners; but he differed altogether from that opinion. Indeed, he thought the Government showed much wisdom in the course they adopted, and also great dignity in the manner in which they announced their decision to the country and the House. The Government took up their position with
        982
        the universal concurrence of mercantile men; but the right hon. Gentleman made much of the point that the Government committed themselves and the country, when they announced their belief that M. de Lesseps had an exclusive right with reference to the Isthmus of Suez. In that House he occupied the position of a private Member. He was not in the confidence of the Government; but it struck him that possibly the Prime Minister might consider that the position of the Government of a country like England was not precisely that of a mere "honest broker." He could imagine the Government reasoning that this great country, interested more than any other in the world in the maintenance of good faith, ought to be extremely careful when they disputed the validity of documents. Their merchants held property in every clime. Many held concessions of the greatest importance embodied in written language. Might there not be something higher and more important than a mere temporary advantage over the Suez Canal Company?—that of holding up a standard of the highest commercial morality, and declaring our unwillingness, except on the clearest reasons, to challenge unnecessarily the validity of the acquisition held by our neighbours. He thought there was considerable force in the view he had expressed. It might, however, be entirely disavowed, and he might say it was a view which he, as a private Member, should not hold or ask the House to adopt. He wished the House to reserve to itself complete freedom in this matter. He thought Government would have been wise had they not negotiated through their own British Directorate. These gentlemen had been long under the influence of M. de Lesseps, and scarcely understood the mercantile feeling of this country on the matter. They might, too, have taken into their confidence such mercantile gentlemen as they could trust. He wished to point out how much was lost by successive Governments in not sufficiently consulting their followers of the rank and file. He had watched proceedings in the House for many years, and he was of opinion that one-half of the time of the House had been wasted, and one-half the blunders committed, because Gentlemen in high Office had not consulted sufficiently with those beneath them. In the serene heights of Office,

        983
        and surrounded by all the talent of their Party, Ministers too often overlooked the scattered grains of experience which might be found on the back Bench of both sides. He did not consider that the commercial position of this country in reference to the matters in question was at all of a hopeless or unsatisfactory character. Indeed, he believed that the negotiations and that very debate would clear away misconceptions, and would really tend to bring about a fair and honourable understanding. Whether they were able to make a bargain with M. de Lesseps and the Canal Company was one thing; but what he did say was that they were not helpless and hopeless in the event of his exclusive right being maintained. In the first place, there were no fewer than three schemes for communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. One was a scheme for starting from Alexandria and passing by Cairo to the Red Sea; another would start from Damietta; and the third, which he was himself inclined to favour, would effect a communication through Palestine from Acre to Akabar. There were other solutions. Was it altogether impossible for the British nation to buy up French interests in the Canal and make it British? Would it be impossible to persuade the maritime nations of Europe, who had an interest in this Canal, to purchase shares in proportion to their interest in such a scheme, and to place the Canal under international management and control? No doubt the Canal was a wonderful convenience to the trade of the East, as a short cut, especially to Bombay and other Indian ports; but so far as the Australian Colonies—the trade of which would develop enormously — were concerned, with sufficient coaling stations, they could be reached almost as speedily by the Cape route. When they had these coaling stations, a proper class of ships, and proper engines, it would be perfectly possible—the difference in the two routes being only a few hundred miles—to carry on the communication without going through the Suez Canal at all. Again, by piercing the Isthmus of Panama M. de Lesseps would provide an alternative route to a portion of our Eastern trade. They were not, therefore, so much at the mercy of the Company as some were inclined to think; but were they still without hope
        984
        that a rational and satisfactory agreement with the Company would be arrived at? He was not without hope. He knew something of M. de Lesseps, and he believed no man was better able to comprehend the advantage which must accrue from the co-operation of England. Suppose the mercantile voice of this country said to M. de Lesseps—"We respect your genius; we admire your determination, and the pertinacity which overcame great difficulties. We admit that to France must belong the honour of the inception of the Canal. We admit we declined to join. Do not force us into an alternative route, because British commerce must and will find that, if there are not proper concessions. Let us second your efforts; let us put another garland upon your brow. Admit us into full partnership. Give us one-half of the administration, and one-half of the responsibility." He had little doubt as to the response. He could see bases for a fair arrangement. Why should not M. de Lesseps continuo President for life, and an Englishman and a Frenchman alternately succeed him? Then, the Committees should be partly French and partly English. England and France had stood shoulder to shoulder on the Alma heights, and it would be a grander sight to see them jointly protecting a maritime highway that would last as long as the fabric of the Globe. He doubted whether the question of M. de Lesseps' exclusive right could be decided by English lawyers solely; and considered that if it was to be decided at all it must be done by an international body of jurists. We were disposed too much to ignore the interest of other maritime countries in the Suez Canal. It was true we owned four-fifths of the ships passing; but by no means four-fifths of the cargoes. Odessa, Trieste, Venice, Genoa, Marseilles, even Havre, were greatly benefited by the opening of the Canal, and a large amount of the cargoes carried in English bottoms were owned by France, Russia, Italy, and Germany. As a merchant anxious to secure the interests of his constituents and his countrymen generally, he recommended the House not to follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, for, to use the irreverent language of a Conservative journal, as well might a claim be asserted to the monopoly of the North

        985
        Pole as to the territories referred to in the Motion of the right hon. Baronet.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Of course, the Motion includes the Isthmus of Suez.
        MR. NORWOODsaid, he was bound to examine the Motion in the terms in which it stood on the Paper. He trusted that he had made out a case to show that in the highest sense of international politics the House should adopt the Amendment he begged to propose, and refuse to bind itself by an expression of opinion on this matter.
        MR. CHARLES PALMER, in seconding the Amendment, said, he thought this question should be left at rest for a period. The Resolution moved by the right hon. Baronet had his support in almost every particular; but he could not approach it from his point of view, in that he had endeavoured to impart into it a Party feeling. The mercantile and shipping interests throughout the country had expressed a strong opinion that whatever might occur this question should not be permitted to fall within the region of politics. Some Gentlemen were, however, trying to rouse the country from a political point of view, and the fact was to be deeply regretted. An endeavour was being made to throw blame on Her Majesty's Government for the proposed Agreement into which they had entered; but he, on the contrary, thought the commercial and shipping interests were deeply indebted to Her Majesty's Government for having taken up this great question. They had been told that the withdrawal of this Provisional Agreement would be regretted throughout the country. He, however, ventured to hold an entirely different opinion. He was quite sure they would be much better without any such Agreement. In the first place, the prolongation of the concession was a question of a most serious character. Then, again, the enormous charges for pilotage and dues on the shipping now were such that if the Canal Company did not take counsel and advice in moderation, they would very soon discover that we should find some means of carrying on our vast trade by other means than the Canal, and in another direction. The Canal Company were exacting rates for pilotage and other charges, and for passengers which the concession granted to M. de Lesseps did not entitle them to
        986
        demand. Then, as to the control on the Board, he might say that the concession itself, if he mistook not, required that the whole of the nations interested in the Canal should be represented on the Board of Direction. That had not been so. The door had been shut, and we in this country had been carefully and zealously excluded from all control. He, however, did not wish to enter upon the question of the monopoly, which he understood, and always had understood, M. de Lesseps had never claimed. He had a pamphlet written by M. de Lesseps himself, in which that distinguished Frenchman repeated, over and over again, that the concession granted to him was the power exclusive to make a universal water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. He (Mr. C. Palmer) believed this country was anxious to remain on the most friendly terms with the French nation; but the question was, how far was the shipping and commerce of this country to be prejudiced by the question of the susceptibilities of the French nation? The French nation, he would like to remind hon. Members, did not consult the susceptibilities of this country when their Government paid a bounty to shipowners with the object of destroying our trade. But what would the French Government say if we paid a bounty to our ships that went round the Cape? Why, if we were to adopt some such course as that, we should soon almost empty the Canal. The susceptibilities of the French Government would, of a certainty, be very severely taxed if we were to follow the policy of which they themselves had set the example. It would, however, be found that the Canal Company had not entirely their own way on every point. But what he would ask was, did this susceptibility extend beyond the Government of France and the shareholders of the Suez Canal? If he was correctly informed, at Marseilles, and in the South of France, and at Bordeaux and in the West of France, there existed a strong feeling against the Canal Company because of the onerous dues they levied. Before sitting down he would venture to bring before the House the question of whether or not a Commission ought really to be appointed to investigate the whole matter, and whether it ought not to be made an international affair. For

        987
        his own part, he would at once say that he did think it was the only solution of the situation—the one way of meeting the susceptibilities of the French nation and of all other nations. At one time the Company offered to sell the Canal for £13,000,000, and a yearly payment of £400,000. He supposed it would go up to £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 at the present time; but that would be a small matter as compared with the enormous advantages to be derived from seeing this Canal placed in the hands of administrators who were desirous of reducing the dues levied on the ships passing through, instead of making as much revenue as they could for their shareholders. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would either examine into the whole question for themselves or authorize others to do so on their behalf. The shipping interests of this country could not stand still. They must go forward, and another Canal had become an absolute necessity. Finally, he would say that he did trust the Suez Canal Company would approach the whole question with greater moderation than they had previously done, and that before long a satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at between all parties.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House desires to maintain its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; and this House, in consequence, declines to pass any Resolution as to future negotiations or proceedings respecting the same," —(Mr. Norwood,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am in complete harmony with both my hon. Friends who have last addressed the House, as to the course which they advise us to take on this occasion; and I think that the manner in which they have stated their case, and the reasons which have led them to their conclusions, must carry much weight with the House. But, of course, it must happen that the Government, from its point of view, while it has less occasion to dwell upon certain aspects of the question, has an anxiety to bring into view other aspects of the question
        988
        which do not so readily, or so forcibly, present themselves to the minds of those who, like my two hon. Friends, stand towards the House rather in the character of independent and unofficial Members not connected with the Executive of the country. I shall only notice one observation of the Mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). He stated that he thought it was an error on the part of the Government to employ in these negotiations the agencies of the British Directors of the Company. I can understand the considerations which dwelt in the minds of my hon. Friends upon that subject, and I am not about to enter upon that argument; but I should be very sorry, indeed, if it were to be supposed for a moment that on the part of my hon. Friend there was any intention in making that remark to depreciate the services, character, or ability of the British Directors. [Mr. NORWOOD: Hear, hear!] The fact is that since they were appointed some seven or eight years ago they have had to discharge duties of very great delicacy and great importance; and they have discharged those duties in such a manner, I think I might say without exception, according to the evidence of all those who from immediate contact with them are best qualified to judge, as to establish a very high claim to the respect and even to the gratitude of the Government. But, Sir, I do not enter on the question whether we judged rightly or wrongly in calling in their aid on the present occasion. I think we should have found a difficulty in employing any other aid, and I am not willing to accept the proposition of my hon. Friend. Well, I leave him in full possession of it, without entering into controversy upon the matter, at this moment. Sir, the House will feel, I think, that the time has now come, after the Motion and the Amendment have been placed before the House, when it ought at once to be informed what is the view that the Government take on this matter. I have great pleasure in acknowledging that the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this Motion has in his speech done everything, that the nature of the case and the purposes of his argument admitted of, to eliminate from the discussion controversial and irritating matter. In giving him that credit I am sorry to say I am not able to

        989
        recede from the opinion I have formerly expressed that there is far greater disadvantage than advantage attaching to a discussion of this nature. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot impose on others the reserve he himself maintains. He has expressed, partly to-night and partly on another occasion, with great freedom, the opinion that there is no danger in a discussion of this kind, that this is no international question, that it is a question simply between the British Government on one side, and what has hitherto been a private Company on the other. But, Sir, is that the fact? Is this simply a case on behalf of commercial interests alone—of the British Government dealing with a private Company? Has nothing been said and has nothing been done to a very different effect? Was this the language taken in 1875 — that the purchase of the Shares then effected was a purely commercial transaction? Was this the language which was held, or apparently held—judging from the reports which, at any rate, passed without contradiction — by Lord Salisbury on a recent occasion, when Lord Salisbury said that Lord Beaconsfield had stated at the period of the purchase of the Shares that the transaction had a political rather than a commercial object. [Mr. BOURKE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman corroborates me in that assertion. But what, then, becomes of the assertion that this is a mere transaction between the British Government and a private Company? Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the British Government, of all Governments in the world, has a pouvoir exclusif in this matter—a power of interfering in the transactions of a private Company for a political object, and yet laying down the doctrine that no other Government can interfere? The right hon. Gentleman himself must see that such a doctrine is totally untenable. It is impossible to maintain that we are entitled, on national and political grounds, to associate ourselves with the transactions of this Company, and to deny that other Governments also may look to the interests, and, perhaps, the susceptibilities, of this Company; and to have a certain position and certain rights is a matter for their direct consideration quite as much as it can be for the consideration of the British Government. And, Sir,
        990
        has any language been held which must tend to quicken the susceptibilities which may exist upon this subject? I refer again to the most recent indication; I refer to the speech of Lord Salisbury. In that speech there was laid down a docrine which, if I understand it, amounts to this—that upon commercial grounds, for the convenience of uniting any point severed by a neck of land, territorial rights may be overridden by nations interested in the commerce of the world, and that those interests justify an invasion which would put down the rights of the Government, and the rights of the people who inhabit the particular place. Not only so, Sir; but the language held by Lord Salisbury appears to have been this—that at present—I beg the House to mark my words—that at present there are diplomatic complications in the matter in Egypt, and that these diplomatic complications may pass away this year, next year, or a short time hence. Is that language relating to our position in Egypt likely to allay any susceptibilities which foreign countries or foreign Governments may entertain? The right hon. Gentleman has cautiously avoided such language. But he cannot prevent, he cannot neutralize its effects when used by others. And then there is a declaration that there may be an opportunity shortly—and here I quote the words as they are reported—"by the aid of British capital to secure a British Canal from sea to sea." There is no such thing as a British Canal except in British territory, and that is the language so indiscreetly, and so unfortunately used, by Lord Salisbury on a very recent occasion. Therefore, there is, no doubt, the greatest reason for caution in this matter; and the most ably conducted and most powerful journal connected with the interests of the Opposition in this country well and wisely observed, no later than this morning, that in this debate Ministers must impose upon themselves, and upon their own language, the severest reserve. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having given us the best assistance in his power; but I am afraid he cannot answer for others that the experience of the past is a lesson in that respect for the future. Well, Sir, I turn from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to his Resolution; and here, undoubtedly, I

        991
        am confronted by a contrast such as has never within my recollection met my view before—the contrast, I mean, between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of some supposed ambiguities in his Motion, and as to his readiness to remove them. There are no ambiguities in his Motion, Sir, whatever. Clearer language could not be held. Let it stand as confessed that the Motion is as clear as words can make it, and it goes simply to the point of asking the House to address the Crown to the effect that the powers of the Executive are to be used in such a way as to decline recognizing any claim on the part of the Suez Canal Company to such a monopoly as would exclude—what? The possibility of a Canal across the Isthmus of Suez? No. The possibility of a Canal from Alexandria to Suez? No. But—
        "Such a monopoly as would exclude the possibility of competition on the part of other undertakings designed for the purpose of opening water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea."
        So that the monopoly which is excluded by the right hon. Gentleman's Motion is the monopoly asserting, on the part of the Suez Canal Company, an exclusive claim to the water communications between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Their Canal is between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
        MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly it is. But what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to exclude is a monopoly which shuts out all communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; and, consequently, any Government that might admit the possibility of a communication through Palestine, but should accord to M. de Lessees and his Company the exclusive right across the Isthmus of Suez and the whole of Lower Egypt, would satisfy the terms of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. All he asks is that some door should be left open for some possible method of communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. If the possibility of a Canal through Palestine were admitted, the terms of the Motion would be satisfied, and M. de Lesseps would be welcome to his exclusive claims so far as
        992
        the Isthmus of Suez and the whole of Lower Egypt were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman says the words of this Motion are not clear. I think they are clear, and I think the House bears me out in the construction I have just put upon them. I am obliged, I am sorry to say, to draw a distinction between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. They are not one thing, but two things. I will suppose, now, that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman has carried conviction to some minds, and that, in consequence of that conviction, the Motion will be carried by this House. Well, Sir, nothing whatever would have been done towards sustaining the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, because the argument of the right hon. Gentleman refers to the claim to an exclusive right over the Isthmus of Suez; but the speech leaves everything open, providing you leave one door open for a communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. However much we may respect the general position of the right hon. Gentleman or his particular argument, there cannot be a doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that if such an event were to happen, as I do not expect, as the adoption of his Motion, foreign countries, becoming cognizant of the transaction of to-night, would have to interpret that transaction by the words of the Motion, and not the argument contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. On the argument, therefore, I shall dwell but very shortly indeed; it is not necessary for me to dwell upon it at length. The right hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself that the documents obtained by M. de Lesseps receive a rational construction by interpreting them to mean that they conferred on M. de Lesseps an exclusive right to form a universal Company. But, Sir, the Khedive had no power to give exclusive right to form a universal Company; and M. de Lesseps could form a universal Company without the authority of the Khedive. I or anybody else could form such a Company, if we had the necessary resources, without the authority of the Khedive or anyone else. Unfortunately, when one exclusive Company is formed, there is nothing to prevent my hon. and learned Friends the

        993
        Attorney General and the Solicitor General, or anyone else, forming any other exclusive Company by my side; these exclusive Companies might be multiplied without limit. In fact, in order, as I understand, to give consistency to the construction of the right hon. Gentleman, you must convert into mere shadow that which the Khedive by these important concessions conferred on M. de Lesseps, and you must suppose that the Canal Company was satisfied with receiving that shadowy concession. But I will not enter upon the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It is rather my duty to turn to the Motion before the House. I will not enter upon it beyond one point, which I think somewhat important. The right hon. Gentleman used this language. He said that the claim of M. de Lesseps in September last was limited to a published letter giving the exclusive right over the Isthmus of Suez, and that the claim made in September last was one of which we never heard anything until about a year ago. I was, I confess, surprised when I heard the right hon. Gentleman make that declaration; for what I have heard is this—that the claim of M. de Lesseps to an exclusive right, and to a larger claim to an exclusive right than that which he advanced in September last, was in the knowledge and possession of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged at the time when they purchased the shares in the Suez Canal. In the year 1872 a plan was formed and brought before the Khedive of Egypt for constructing a Canal from Alexandria to Suez—from Alexandria across Lower Egypt—I do not know whether the exact point was Suez; but, at any rate, it was at that end of the Red Sea, and M. de Lesseps protested against that Canal as an infringement of his monopoly. He has since seen cause, and, I think, wisely, to limit his claim; but what I wish to state, and to state without the possibility of contradiction, is this—that this claim of his to a larger monopoly was made in the year 1872, and was not contested by Her Majesty's late Government at the time they purchased the shares in the Suez Canal. It was not admitted by the Khedive of Egypt; but it was asserted by M. de Lesseps, and was within the cognizance of the late Government at the time I have mentioned.
        MR. BOURKE: The late Government at that time—[Cries of "Order, Order!"] I know I am not strictly in Order; but—
        MR. GLADSTONE: So that, at any rate, there is this to be said—that if the present Government, in their communications with M. de Lesseps, did not make any admission, but had in their own mind the belief that he had a valid claim so far as the Isthmus of Suez was concerned, they had before them the fact that a much larger claim was before the late Government.
        MR. BOURNE: In 1874.
        MR. GLADSTONE: No; in 1872.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: We were not in Office in 1872.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. You were not in Office; but were not the records in the Foreign Office? I assert it was in the records of the Foreign Office that a claim had been made by M. de Lesseps and had never been retracted.
        MR. BOURKE: I never saw it.
        MR. GLADSTONE: You never saw it? Unfortunately, Gentlemen who take Office in this country must be held responsible for knowing the information that is in their Department, and that bears on the great transaction which they advised and induced the country to make. Now, Sir, as I have said, it is the Motion now before us which is the subject of real importance. We may be compelled by the course of the debate to enter upon a vindication of our own conduct; yet we would willingly waive a discussion of that kind if we could. I will not now, at any rate, enter upon any detailed examination of our conduct, for I do not see that any public advantage would arise. But I come to the question whether it is wise that we should do that which the right hon. Gentleman invites us to do, and which my hon. Friend, by his Amendment, would dissuade us from doing? The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to say this. I can conceive no vote by the House of Commons giving an opinion upon any of the points connected with the Suez Canal Company and its rights which would not seriously increase the difficulties of the Government and gravely diminish the hopes they entertain, which are not otherwise than sanguine, of a favourable termination of these transactions. The right hon. Gentleman said it will

        995
        be very desirable to clear up the rights of the case. But, Sir, it is not in the power of this House to clear up the rights of the case. It is, no doubt, in the power of this House to express an opinion upon the rights of the case; but this matter is not one within your jurisdiction. You cannot determine it; it is of a character wholly distinct, and I am bound to say that, if I understand the question aright, it appears to me to be one which it will be most unfortunate that Legislative Chambers should so attempt to deal with as to give a binding judgment upon it. This is a question of legal right. There may be a doubt in what way this legal right should be ascertained; but I think I am right in saying that it is a judicial matter. It is a matter which, probably, I suppose would have to be settled in the Courts of Egypt. I can hardly conceive that it could be settled, if it be a judical matter, in any other way than in the Courts of Egypt, or by some competent tribunal representing internationally the various countries which have been concerned in the Suez Canal, and which claim to be interested in it as a great waterway of the world. Now, Sir, is it desirable, if that be so, that we should attempt to deal with it by a vote in this House? What is to be gained by it? What is the advantage of what the right hon. Gentleman calls clearing up the rights, when you do no not clear them up at all except to your own satisfaction—when you do not establish any binding authority or any moral influence to weigh with anyone else in the world? Is the House bound at this moment? No, Sir; the House is not bound. Is the House bound by the opinion of the Executive Government, which opinion had never been submitted to them? Even had the agreement been adopted—even had the House voted the loan of money, it does not follow that the House would have been bound, because what we said on the Agreement had reference to a sentiment and a conviction in our minds; but there was no expression of that sentiment in the Agreement, and the Agreement itself in no way involved it. In point of fact, those who look at the case impartially should find that there was an Agreement, should find, that that Agreement was made by a Government holding a certain opinion as to the Isthmus of Suez, and should find that, in
        996
        consequence partly of the attitude of the House, that Agreement was withdrawn. Surely, they would say that if any inference is to be drawn on this subject—and I do not think any inference can be drawn—but if it could, it certainly would not be very favourable to M. de Lessep's right. But I think no such inference can be drawn; and most certainly I think it is an extravagant proposition to say, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman in terms of great moderation, that we should prevent the tacit acceptance by the House of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman must feel and know that there is no such acceptance involved, and that the House remains totally and absolutely unpledged, and may, subject to the considerations of right and equity, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman never will lose sight of, adopt whatever course it pleases in the future stages of this important matter. Is it merely on the ground of inutility that I would say, do not adopt the terms of this Motion? No, Sir; I contend that this Motion would be injurious and mischievous in ways not intended by the Mover—mischievous in more ways than one. Let us consider what the proposal is immediately preceded by. It has been fully admitted by Members of Her Majesty's Government that upon the best examination they could make of the facts, and upon obtaining the best authority at their command, both in the Foreign Office, which is very strongly armed on the subject of law, and likewise from their own Law Officers, and from the Lord Chancellor, they had adopted a certain opinion as to an exclusive right of M. de Lesseps over a limited tract of country. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman makes a Motion, in which he asks the House to affirm that it ought, in no respect, to admit a monopoly extending over an unlimited tract of land. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE dissented.] Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will understand the sense in which I use the word "unlimited"—namely, a tract of country not comprised within those limits. You have before you an admission by the Government of an exclusive claim in a limited tract of country, and then a Motion is made by a distinguished opponent of the Government, binding

        997
        the Government not to acknowledge the claim over a tract of country extending to much wider limits. What inference will arise? The inference will arise that the House had no objection at all on the subject of an exclusive right to a limited tract of country; and the House would be led indirectly into doing that very thing which, I hope, it will on no account do—namely, committing itself on a matter that is not a matter for its opinion, and in which no Executive Government could support it by its authority. It appears to me that that objection is very strong; but, even apart from that objection, I will venture on one other topic before I close these remarks. Will the House take upon itself to set an example to other Legislative Chambers of the practice of laying down opinions and doctrines with regard to the rights of the Suez Canal Company over the Isthmus of Suez? Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to take upon himself that responsibility? I have great doubts whether he is. I do not feel at all sure that he intends to ask the opinion of the House upon the Motion he has submitted. Of course, he may do so; but whether he does or does not, I wish the House to consider what will be the force of that example. Can you make sure that other Legislative Chambers will not exercise their right in the same sense as you have done? Suppose you choose to lay down a particular opinion on this subject. Have not other Chambers as good a right to do it as you? Suppose that, in the exercise of that right, they chose to express opinions different from those which this House has expressed, I ask the House whether, in that case, you have not enormously increased the difficulties, at present serious and grave, but by no means desperate or insurmountable, which beset this question? Why, you will have such a mixture of national sentiment, national susceptibility, and national interest as, judged by each Party from distinct points of view, will constitute a state of affairs perfectly hopeless and impossible to contend with. If ever there was a question in which the general dictates of prudence and equity ought to be borne carefully in mind by the House, it is this. This question has not only a future, but it has also a past. We may, perhaps, be thinking of nothing but our present and prospective traffic;
        998
        but in the memory of others there abides a lively image of what happened 15, 20, and 25 years ago, when the bold projectors of this Canal, who have earned for themselves an immortal name among the benefactors of mankind, were struggling with difficulties which we were doing everything in our power, by a combination of political Parties, to accumulate upon their path. These things are not forgotten. It is not for our duty, it is not for our interest, to revive and quicken such recollections. It is for our duty, and it is for our interest, to have some sense of regret and compunction for the errors into which I will not say this nation, I will not say the merchants of this nation, but undoubtedly the political authorities and the Government of this nation were led in that deplorable opposition to that great enterprize. The opposition was, in the first place, undoubtedly, confined to the action of the Executive; but, in 1858, I think a Motion in support of the scheme was made by Mr. Roebuck, who at that time had not ceased to act with the Liberal Party to which he originally belonged; but that Motion was, unhappily, put down by a great majority, formed of both political Parties, its supporters being those waifs and strays not looked upon as good company in any assembly of respectable politicians. When I reflect upon some of the declarations which we have had to read, either as spoken or written within the last few weeks, there is in me the most painful emotion. I am convinced we cannot support or strengthen national interests by such means. The ground upon which you tread is of the utmost delicacy. I have not a doubt or apprehension in my mind as to the future of this question, provided we act with prudence and equity. I am convinced that there is an absolute union of interests, that there is a substantial union of views; and it is impossible, in my opinion, unless by the perverseness of men, that the vast interests with which we are allied with the commerce of the world, and with the consumption of the world, should not find their way and should not receive a just and full satisfaction in the settlement of this important question. There is no cause for fear; but we can only dismiss fear from our minds when we determine to take prudence for our counsel. In a

        999
        question of this kind, where at every turn and every step you have to steer among the nicest national susceptibilities, the gravest national interests. the dictates of prudence, when they are clear, are the dictates we are bound to follow. I own I have never seen a conclusion before me more stamped with truth and justice, than now when I entreat the House not to accept a Resolution which asserts nothing that any one of us desires to deny, which establishes nothing that any of us has occasion to question, and which is simply a vindication of a freedom that is at this moment absolutely unimpared, and which would set a pernicious example, fraught with the gravest inconvenience, were we, unhappily, to be led in a moment of weakness to give an affirmative voice on its behalf.
        BARON HENRY DE WORMS, who had given Notice that he would move, as an Amendment to Mr. Norwood's proposed Amendment to Sir Stafford Northcote's proposed Motion, to leave out all after the words "this House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
        "Having regard to the recent Correspondence between M. de Lesseps and the Prime Minister, thinks it necessary to declare that it maintains its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea,"
        said, that he had some difficulty in convincing himself of the identity of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), on comparing the remarks which that hon. Gentleman made when he headed the deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his extremely ingenious speech to-night. As to the Prime Minister, though often charmed by his eloquence, he had never listened to a speech which, with greater subtlety and dexterity, covered the issue before the House. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that this was an international question, and ought to be approached with a great deal of delicacy. But if it was an international question, as he was willing to admit, there was all the more necessity that the issues should be clearly defined. If the issues were merely of a commercial kind, explanations might be given which would, perhaps, remove them. One objection of Lord Palmerston to the Suez Canal, which objection the right hon. Gentle-
        1000
        man did not quite appreciate, was that he feared the preponderance of foreign influence. That was a great and important consideration; but he held that it was still more dangerous to truckle to foreign nations, which might lead them to believe that we had not the strength or the power to carry out our convictions. He thought it was the duty of Members of the House to defend what they considered the interests of their own country, and he entirely demurred to the idea that it was extremely dangerous to enter upon questions of this sort because it was possible in so doing to wound the susceptibilities of Foreign Powers. He held that that was a dexterous way of getting out of the difficulty, but it was not a line of argument that could be accepted as affecting the real merits of the case. If such a policy had been carried out to its full extent when, some time ago, difficulties arose between France and this country relative to the Treaty of Commerce, it might have been maintained that, in order to avoid wounding the susceptibilities of France, they should have then sacrificed the commercial interests of England. He hold that the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper was preferable to that of the hon. Member for Hull, because it contained a special reference to the letter of M. de Lesseps to the Prime Minister, in which he asserted his exclusive right to cut a second Canal through the Isthmus, and because that letter was the only subject which demanded attention, now that the Agreement had been withdrawn. In that letter M. de Lesseps used those words—
        "Cet accord constant venait do se traduire par une entente écrite, qui donnait à ce double intérêt les justifications que comportaient, d'une part lee obligations d'une compagnie jouissant du monopole exclusif, pour 99 années, de tout creusement de canal maritime dans l'Isthme Egyptien."
        The claim of M. de Lesseps had been acknowledged as valid by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 12th and 13th of the present month, and the voice of M. de Lesseps, who claimed the monopoly, was said by so distinguished a man as M. Léon Say to be the voice of France. Under these circumstances, although he (Baron Henry De Worms) did not wish to introduce any Party spirit into the debate, he held that it was the duty of the House so to

        1001
        express itself that it might not be hampered in any future negotiations by the claim that had been made. It was a remarkable thing how Her Majesty's Government, who had so earnestly warned us against mixing ourselves up with the affairs of Egypt, should at other times rush into engagements with that country into which no sane man would dream of entering. They had entered into a contract in which France was to obtain a monopoly of the right to make waterways between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea for 99 years to come, and for the construction of which they agreed that the English Government should advance £8,000,000 sterling at a nominal rate of interest, while there would be no diminution of rates until the dividends of the Company reached, which they never would do, 21 per cent. Under these circumstances, it would be most impolitic for the House to permit the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the right of France to this monopoly to remain upon record. He therefore thought that he had made out his case for proposing to amend the Amendment, and for asking the House to refuse to recognize the validity of the claim which the Government had so rashly and unwisely admitted.
        MR. MONKsaid, the question of M. de Lesseps' sole right to construct a Canal across the Isthmus of Suez might be left to the Law Officers, and eventually to the international tribunals who would ultimately have to decide the question. Whatever difference of opinion there might be about the somewhat vague and colourless Amendment which had been moved to the still more vague and colourless Resolution of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) was to be congratulated for his able speech in vindication of the Government's action with regard to the construction of a second Canal. He could not but wish, however, that the Amendment had been of a more pronounced character. On behalf of the Chambers of Commerce he desired to express his acknowledgments to the Government for the readiness with which they entered into negotiation with the Company; and although those negotiations had not resulted in the success desired, yet he believed the country had not adequately appreciated the value of the admissions and concessions which
        1002
        had been made by M. de Lesseps. Since 1879 the amount of tonnage which passed through the Canal had risen from 3,236,942 in that year to 7,122,125 in 1882, and 4,305,882 in the first half of the present year. During the same period the tolls had been successively reduced from 12 francs to 10½ francs a-ton, and at the beginning of next year the rate would be 10 francs. The Agreement provided for a reduction of 2½ francs on vessels in ballast next year, while M. de Lesseps offered to make large prospective reductions, contingent on an increase of profits, which contemplated a remittance of 50 centimes a-year, after the pilotage dues have been finally extinguished in 1886. It should not be forgotten that M. de Lesseps was now under no obligation to reduce the tolls below 10 francs at any time, or to take off the pilotage dues. Where he thought the Government scheme was most defective was in not providing definite reductions of tolls to take effect at definite periods; the uncertainty of the proposed reductions operated against the Agreement. Then a stronger British element on the Directorate ought to have been secured; and another essential condition was that there should be an office of the Company in London for the transaction of English business with the Canal. If we could come to terms with M. de Lesseps, no doubt it would be desirable and to the interests of Her Majesty's Government to aid him in obtaining a concession of further land adjoining the present Canal, through which a parallel Canal might be constructed at very much less cost than any other means of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. He had no sympathy with those financiers and speculators who were eager for the construction of Canals by the Valley of the Jordan, or from Alexandria to Cairo. These schemes would not be remunerative, and they would bring no relief to the commercial community. Speaking on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce, he might observe that they, in concert with the Chamber of Shipping, first set this stone rolling, and that since their interview with Lord Granville on the 20th of April last that stone had certainly gathered no moss. He was ready to admit that their Association from the first took an independent line and advocated palliative,

        1003
        not hostile measures. He believed he interpreted the wishes of the vast majority of those Chambers when he said they had not that distrust which had been evinced in some quarters of M. de Lesseps. They looked upon him as a friend and an ally to whom the greatest consideration was due on the part of this country. M. de Lesseps had been most anxious to meet the wishes and requirements of the commercial community in this country as far as his duty to his own shareholders would allow. In conclusion, he would express a hope that the further negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Canal Company would not be indefinitely postponed.
        MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has received very hard treatment from the Prime Minister. Although the forbearance of the Opposition has been asked for by the Ministry, on account of the delicacy of our relations with France, the Premier has been very severe upon the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) on account of his very temperate dealing. No one can say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was other than extremely forbearing, though I confess to a preference for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). I am afraid that considerate and gentle criticism are thrown away upon the Treasury Bench. They always return bitter invective for moderation. A great deal has been said by the Prime Minister, both in this and his former speech, about the international gravity of this question; the danger of provoking irritation; the delicacy of our relations with the French Republic. To quote his own words—
        "A hostile issue formed upon an Agreement of this kind could not possibly take place without very serious international mischief. In this instance, in a very peculiar degree, undoubtedly, the handling of subjects of this kind requires the utmost delicacy in the forms of the proceedings, on account of the international interest, and, possibly, the international irritation which any miscarriage in such proceedings might have tended to bring about."
        But, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) has just put it, there was something for the Government and for Parliament to consider, on a question of this kind, more important than diplomatic deli-
        1004
        cacy, or than the sentimental feeling of a Foreign Power. The political interests and the commerce of Britain have the first, and infinitely the first, claim. The real question is— How would British interests have been affected by this extraordinary Agreement? Now, at the outset, it must be remembered that this is not a sudden suggestion flashed upon the Ministry within a few hours, or even a few days. It is not a hasty proposal from M. de Lesseps which Her Majesty's Ministers have not had time to examine, and on which they are now asking the advice of the Commons. It is a deliberate, long-considered arrangement, which, after full examination, the Cabinet formally approved and then submitted to Parliament. The Prime Minister himself confesses that the scheme has not been well received by the country. And no wonder! For so one-sided, so preposterous, so unprofitable an Agreement could not do otherwise than fall to the ground. The Government have shown wisdom and dexterity in so quickly withdrawing from their hopeless scheme. Never has so astonishing a set of proposals as this Suez Scheme been assented to, I will not say by any Government, but by any men of business. To lend £8,000,000 at 31/4 per cent to a French Company over which we have no practical control, and without stipulating for any further control, even for a fair quid pro quo, would be of doubtful policy; but in view of the fact that the present crushing tonnage dues were not to be lowered until the shareholders had received 25 per cent interest on their capital, the scheme is, indeed, without precedent. When to this ridiculous bargain is added the wanton concession to M. de Lesseps by the Prime Minister and his Colleagues of the sole right of making Canals across the Isthmus of Suez, and the fact that seven-eighths of the revenue of the French Company are derived from ships, we get a combination of astounding inaptitude for which it would not be easy to find a parallel. It is not for the Prime Minister to complain of the inopportuneness of this discussion, because it is he who is responsible for the controversy as to the legal and international questions, for he began by laying down the law in a wholly unnecessary and wanton manner. There would have been no dispute at all if

        1005
        the right hon. Gentleman had not deliberately surrendered the claim of an exclusive monopoly to M. de Lesseps and the French Company. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to deprecate the setting of an example to other Legislatures; but he has himself, by his uncalled for concessions, set an example to other Prime Ministers. Although three months have been spent in the secret and now abortive negotiations with M. de Lesseps, yet the Ministry seem to have taken no steps to consult those whose opinion would have been most valuable upon such a subject, and still less to ascertain the feeling of the country. Ministers might have asked the advice of some of those Liberal shipowners who have so gallantly come to their rescue to-night. But they were too self-confident; and so, after three months of negotiation, they produced an Agreement so grotesque and so detrimental to the interests of the nation, that it died still-born the moment it saw the light. No one appears to have been consulted who ought to have been consulted. The country was kept, to use the striking words of the Government of Victoria, "all in the dark" about this wonderful plan. The choice of negotiators was as unfortunate as the terms of the bargain. For the Ministry to leave such a matter as this in the hands of two Directors of the Canal Company, who are naturally much under the influence of M. de Lesseps' able and masterful spirit, was, at the least, injudicious. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister should describe M. de Lesseps as "sagacious." He has proved himself a great deal too sagacious for Her Majesty's Ministers. The Government could not admit their failure more absolutely than by their abrupt abandonment of this child of many hopes and of much scheming. They dare not submit the product of their labours to the judgment of Parliament. The precipitate and ignonimous retreat ci its authors from a scheme which had been heralded with so much ostentation is the most eloquent condemnation that can be passed upon it. It is pretty evident, however, that the Ministry have been acting under the influence of political motives throughout. They have been led to make these extreme concessions in the hope of conciliating the French Government and French feeling,
        1006
        which, in spite of all the Prime Minister's protestations, has been growing steadily more hostile to England. The right hon. Gentleman has said of even the discussion of this scheme, that—
        "(c.) On the one side claims would be made which would unquestionably be felt of an irritating character, and which might tend to the raising of questions in foreign countries that would not conduce to the maintenance of those cordial relations of good will and amity which it is our main duty to promote."
        This, with my previous quotations from his remarks, will show that the abortive Agreement, whose premature decease we are now considering, was really intended as a bribe to France. It might have been thought that the prior experience of the Ministry as to Tunis, the Commercial Treaty, and the Egyptian War, would have convinced them of the futility of trying to buy over the French Republic. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) wishes the House to affirm that its hands are perfectly unfettered. His Amendment states that—
        "This House desires to maintain its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea."
        He forgets that the Prime Minister has, without provocation and with gratuitous contempt for the interests of British trade, done his utmost to bind the country to an admission of the exclusive monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps. In its general sense, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is a distinct condemnation of the concession of Ministers. To state that the House is not bound, after the declarations of the Prime Minister, is to place little value upon those declarations. Yet, though the Government may escape the direct censure implied in the Resolution of the Leader of the Opposition, their acceptance of the modified censure of the Member for Hull is a confession of the desperate nature of their cause. With the Agreement itself and its absurdities we need have little concern. It is gone. It has perished without hope of revival. But the statements of the Prime Minister and of some of his Colleagues, which have been made in connection with this question, are not to be so lightly treated. For by these statements they have most unnecessarily, and with

        1007
        a wanton disregard of political and commercial prudence, surrendered the whole basis on which British interests rest as regards M. de Lesseps and the French Company. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have, in the most public and emphatic manner, conceded to M. de Lesseps his novel claim to a monopoly of Canal-making across the Isthmus. It is sufficiently incredible that, under any circumstances, they should have allowed such a claim to be well-founded. Even if it appeared just to minds so constituted as always to favour other nations at the expense of their own, ordinary sagacity would have restrained them, as negotiators, from thus recklessly flinging to the other side the very keystone of the resistance to so injurious a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by such thoughtless gifts, while everything may be lost by it—at least everything- in the shape of British interests. What is it that the Ministry have conceded? On July 12, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated in this House, to the universal astonishment—
        "M. de Lesseps is in possession of an exclusive right to make a Canal, as far as the Isthmus of Suez is concerned. That is the position of M. de Lesseps in our view and in that of our legal advisers. Upon that supposition all the money was subscribed for the making of the present Canal."
        This last sentence is a purely gratuitous assumption, in support of which not the smallest evidence can be given. No such monopoly was claimed by M. de Lesseps at that time, nor dreamt of by anybody. But the Prime Minister was not satisfied with this personal concession to M. de Lesseps, for which there may be something, though little, to be said. On July 19, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Villiers Stuart), he declared—
        "The privileges referred to" — i.e., the monopoly of Suez Canal-making — "do not, according to our view, determine with the life of M. de Lesseps, but pass to the Company formed by him."
        These two serious statements of the utmost importance, involving, as they do, the whole case of British commerce, and indeed of the world's commerce, as against the French Company, were made, without any necessity, before the debate, and apparently out of sheer pettishness
        1008
        caused by the general condemnation of the scheme. What lawyer would thus jeopardize the case of his client? What guardian would thus imperil the future of his ward? What man of business would thus sacrifice the interests of those for whom he was negotiating? Yet the Prime Minister has in charge interests more extended and more sacred than any private trustee. He is guardian of the Empire of England. It is his duty, a bounden and paramount duty, to guard with unwearying care the splendid commerce of these Realms. He has to safeguard the vast shipping trade between Great Britain and the East; and especially is he bound to protect the avenue to our vast dominions in Hindostan. But, in face of these duties, he lays the rights of his country and the traffic of the world at the feet of a "sagacious" Frenchman, and enters into a financial arrangement which enables M. de Lesseps and his Company to continue for an indefinite period their extortionate imposts on British merchandize. This generosity on the part of the Ministry would be all very admirable if it was exercised at their own cost. Unhappily, British shipowners and Imperial interests have to pay for this vicarious liberality of the Government. On what, then, is M. de Lesseps' claim to a monopoly based? The wording of the first Concession—that of the Viceroy Said Pasha, dated November, 1854—is as follows:—
        "I give to my friend Ferdinand de Lesseps an exclusive power to constitute and direct a Universal Company for the piercing of the Isthmus of Suez"—throughout all the concessions and documents the words 'a Canal,' not 'Canals,' occur—"and the making of a Canal between the two seas."
        Would any lawyer so phrase a concession which was intended to give the concessionnaire the monopoly of making Suez Canals? Would he not simply say "an exclusive power to pierce the Isthmus of Suez?" or "an exclusive power of making Canals through the Isthmus of Suez?" As a matter of fact, all that was promised to M. de Lesseps, in 1854, was the sole right of constituting a "Universal Company"—that is as opposed to a Société en Commandite —that is, an English, or French, or Italian Company—for the purpose of the Canal. It was intended to protect M. de Lesseps, on the one hand, against the

        1009
        Viceroy, who was himself the great monopolist of all power in Egypt; and on the other hand, against any other "universal" concessionnaires. But this concession was never itself ratified by the Sultan, without which it could have no validity. It was not until 1860 that the Sultan gave his sanction to the convention dated the same year between the Viceroy Ismail Pasha and M. de Lesseps. Neither this Convention, nor the cahier des charges— or conditions of the contract—of January, 1856, nor the compromis of 1864, on which the French Emperor's first award was based, contain any reference to an exclusive right or power of Canal-making. Their language is very uniform and much less comprehensive than the Concession of 1854. They clearly specify what pecuniary benefit M. de Lesseps received from the Viceroy, and what he is, in turn, obliged to do. No exclusive powers can be claimed which are not sot forth in the cahier des charges, or conditions of the contract. Under this document M. de Lesseps' obligations and privileges are distinctly and at length set forth. It also repeals all previous dispositions which are inconsistent with its conditions. He has to make a Canal suitable for general maritime navigation between Suez and Pelusium; also a canal of irrigation, (i.e., the Sweet Water Canal), and two branch canals of irrigation. In return he obtains freedom from imposts, the right to work mines, the power of putting a maximum tariff of 10 francs per ton upon vessels. Furthermore, 10 per cent of the profits are to be divided among the founders. Article 20 of the cahier des charges states that—
        "M. Ferdinand de Lesseps shall preside over and direct the Society as first formed during 10 years from the time of the commencement of the first 99 years of the Concession (i.e., from the completion of the works)."
        So that the "power to construct a canal" would naturally be exhausted when it was finished; and by this Article the power "direct" or manage the Company was limited to 10 years. These quite justify the conclusion of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) and Mr. Underdown, that—
        "The only exclusive privilege was one personal to M. de Lesseps—viz., to constitute and direct the Company. The benefits which were to accrue to him for presenting the matter to
        1010
        the Khedive, and for acting as the agent and friend of the latter in forming the Company, are clearly set forth and have been enjoyed by him."
        This opinion is also held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Launceston (the late Attorney General) and by Mr. Mark Napier. These eminent authorities will carry quite as much weight with the country as the Law Officers of the Crown. There is a very important Convention between the Khedive and M. de Lesseps, bearing date April 23, 1869, in which the Company, in consideration of the payment by the Khedive of a sum of 20,000,000 francs in addition to the 84,000,000 francs awarded them by Napoleon III., "renonce a toute exception faculte on privilege special et reutre dans le devoir commune." So that, even if they claimed a monopoly which was never given to them, the Company renounce any such pretension. Lastly, the Firman of the Sultan, which was not given until March 19, 1869, in confirming the Concession, expressly reserves "the sacred rights of the Porte and of the Egyptian Government." To deny now that the Viceroy and Sovereign of the Egyptian territory have no power to authorize the construction of another Canal, is as absurd as to deny that Parliament could give a concession to a second railway to construct a rival line between two districts because it had already given a similar concession to another Company. Let it be noted, too, how this claim of M. de Lesseps is growing. It was once the monopoly of making "a" Suez Canal. This was scouted by the Khedive and the Porte in 1872. It is now the monopoly of "any" Canal. It was formerly limited to the Isthmus of Suez. Now it has become the Egyptian Isthmus. The House should not overlook the remarkable letter addressed by M. de Lesseps to the Prime Minister on July 20. In it he claims for the Company "the exclusive monopoly of excavating any maritime Canal through the Egyptian Isthmus." This enlarged claim would cover the Canal suggested along the Nile to Cairo and thence to Suez. This letter is a State document. It crystallizes and enlarges the claims which the Prime Minister has granted. M. Leon Say states that M. de Lesseps' letter represents the voice of France. Yet, in his reply to M. de Lesseps, the right hon. Gentleman takes no excep-

        1011
        tion to these exaggerated assertions. If they are not noticed and contradicted now, it may well be said hereafter that England is bound by the declarations of the Prime Minister and by the silence of the House of Commons. On a question of this kind it is perfectly fair to consider what benefits M. de Lesseps and his cofounders have actually reaped from the Canal. The Prime Minister has indulged in his usual vague and majestic language as to the gratitude due by the world in general, and England in particular, to this Company. No one will deny that M. de Lesseps has been a benefactor to the commerce of Europe and Asia. But where the interests of a great Empire are at stake, we are justified in examining thoroughly, in no grudging or narrow spirit, but fairly, what the Company and its founders have obtained in return for the benefits they have conferred. In the first place, the shareholders are now receiving 19 or 20 per cent—and this mainly out of British trade—on their investment; secondly, the founders, of whom M. de Lesseps is the Chief, divide among themselves this year, as their 10 per cent, no less than £125,000. In the third place, the Directors, of whom M. de Lesseps is the President, receive £25,000. These are well-deserved returns; but they are far from inconsiderable. They would never have been received by the Company but for British shipping, which furnishes seven-eighths of its revenue. I contend, therefore, that M. de Lesseps and his coadjutors are sufficiently rewarded for their enterprize without giving them a monopoly of Suez Canals for all time to come. The Prime Minister has stated that "large advantages have been gained by this Agreement" for British trade; and that his—
        "Arrangements would have led to a considerable increase in the practical influence of Englishmen over the Government and over the Direction of the Canal."
        These are bold assumptions, which the facts of the scheme do not justify. What were the "large advantages" gained? When the interest paid on the shares amounted to 25 per cent, then 50 centimes, or 5d., was to be taken off the present tax of 10 francs 50 cents (8s. 5d.) per ton. This reduction of 5d. would, on a ship of 1,000 tons, amount to about £15 out of a total charge of £435.
        1012
        When the interest had risen 27½ per cent, another 5d. was to be taken off, and a third 5d. at 30 per cent. These reductions were to be repeated at every 3 per cent rise of interest, till a minimum tariff of 5 francs was reached. Below this there was to be no further relief. What a magnificent boon! We were to lend £8,000,000, at 3¼ per cent, that this French Company might therewith double the value of their property. In return, when the shareholders were getting their 25 and 30 per cent interest, these miserable fivepences were to be slowly and grudgingly taken off the tonnage tariff. Then, as to the changes in the Direction of the Canal. At present there are 24 Directors, of whom three are English. The defunct scheme proposed no increase of the English Directors. At present the Court de Direction, or Executive Committee, consists of five regular and three honorary members. One only, and he an honorary member, is English. It was proposed to make him a regular member, leaving the Committee seven foreign members to one English member. The Finance Commission has now nine members, of whom one is English. The late scheme would have given one more English member, making two out of nine. There was also to be one English Vice President out of three. There is something supremely farcical about the idea of these infinitesimal changes causing a "considerable increase of practical influence." A very just estimate of the practical value of these so-called advantages was made by the British public, no less than by the commercial community. They laughed the whole scheme out of existence directly it was made known. The contrast between the proposals of the present Ministry and the conduct of the late Administration deserve a brief notice. Lord Beaconsfield saved Egypt from bankruptcy, and the Khedive's shares from falling into the hands of a French Syndicate, by purchasing them at a cost of £4,000,000. British influence in Egypt was greatly increased by that statesmanlike act. At the time the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) scoffed at the transaction, and said the £4,000,000 had better have been divided among the Ministers who concluded the purchase. On those £4,000,000, which only cost England 3¼ per cent, interest at the rate of 5 per

        1013
        cent has been and is regularly paid by the Egyptian Government. Thus, in 36 years from 1875, even at 5 per cent, the whole sum, principal, and interest, will have been reimbursed to the English Treasury. We shall then hold the shares, which will, in 1894, become entitled to the full profits of the Canal, absolutely free of cost and burden. The whole £4,000,000 will have been paid off, probably by the year 1897, and England will be gathering the 20 or 30 per cent interest enjoyed by the other shareholders. Now, I beg the Treasury Bench to mark the difference. You lend £8,000,000, at 3¼ per cent, to a French Company for their gain, and for the development of their property. British influence is positively lessened by your weakness. The advantages to English shipping would have been, under your scheme, as I have shown, but trifling; the gain to the Exchequer would have been absolutely a minus quantity. When, in 50 years, the loan might have been repaid, England would not have owned a single fresh share, and would be receiving no interest for her liberal loans. What is our position as to Egypt and the Suez Canal? Our trade supplies seven-eighths of the shipping and seven-eights of its revenue. Our financial and industrial interests in Egypt itself are enormous. Our political and military interests are even greater. It is the high road to our Indian Empire. England owns over 40 per cent of the share capital of the Canal. At present we are in military occupation of the country, and must remain so for a considerable period, unless we are to abandon Egypt to anarchy, or to another European Power. The Prime Minister speaks of our "tempory and exceptional position" in Egypt, as if to imply that we have no greater interests there than other Powers, and that we are bound to scuttle out as fast as possible. If not in defence of British interests, I would ask why did we undertake the costly and troublesome "military operations" of last year? Why did we crush the efforts of the Egyptian people after self-government, and overwhelm Arabi and the National Party? Was it out of a spirit of pure knighterranty, and for hardly the worthiest of causes? Unless the Ministry wish to convict themselves of the purest folly they must admit that the Campaign of 1882 was
        1014
        undertaken to secure our interests in Egypt and the Canal. This being so, the Government are bound to see that our sacrifice of blood and treasure are not fruitless, and that the results of our labours are not thrown away. £6,000,000 and many precious lives have been given to the war in Egypt. Early in the century, the valour and genius of Nelson and Abercromby wrested Egypt from the grasp of the Great Napoleon. Forty years ago, the resolution of Lord Palmerston again saved Egypt from becoming a French Province. It is essential that British influence shall be predominant in Egypt. Our interests demand it, and the country expects it of the Government. During the past two years a great change has come over the Egyptian Question. Whereas, two years ago, both France and ourselves were satisfied and Egypt tranquil, since that time Egypt has been overwhelmed with troubles, and the greatest dissatisfaction is felt both in France and England. A perfect crop of troubles and ill-feeling has sprung up between the two States. Why is this? Because of the exaggerated delicacy our Government have shown in dealing with France in this and other matters, and because of the subservience they have evinced to French policy and prejudices. I assert, with perfect good feeling towards France, that the more our Government yield, the more they talk with bated breath, as the Prime Minister has talked, the bigger will be the demands of France, the greater will be the irritation, and the greater the certainty of future trouble. We should lose nothing by a courteous, but, at the same time, a firm attitude towards France. The Prime Minister has ridiculed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that this is a commercial and not a political question. The purchase of the Suez Canal Shares had, no doubt, a political as well as a financial object—it was to prevent those shares falling into the hands of a French Syndicate —but the present proposal is simply to lend £8,000,000 sterling to the Suez Canal Company, without any chance of England reaping advantage, political or commercial. The policy of the late Government in purchasing the ex-Khedive's shares in the Canal was so wise, so farsighted, and so beneficial to this country, it conferred upon us so much politi-

        1015
        cal and general advantage, as well as pecuniary gain, that I challenge the Government to show any parallel in the history of the financial transactions of the world. I am afraid that, in their late scheme, the main consideration which has guided the Government has not been the advantage of British commerce, nor the political interests of the British Empire, but a fair desire to conciliate the French Government by giving M. de Lesseps and his Company a good bargain. I will only say, in conclusion, that if anyone is responsible for this debate, it is the Prime Minister, for, without necessity or provocation, he has deliberately abandoned to this French Company an exclusive monopoly. He has thereby surrendered without cause the ground on which all international resistance against French monopoly must in future be based.
        MR. ARTHUR COHENsaid, the legal aspect of the question of monopoly could only be presented in a direct form by raising a suit in the Egyptian Courts. If the Egyptian Government granted a new concession to another Company to construct a Canal, the present Company could at once, under Article 16, apply to the Egyptian Court for an Injunction. In that way only could the question be brought to an issue; and it would be decided, not by English, but by Foreign law. That ought to be remembered when they considered whether the House should express an opinion as to what was the proper mode of interpreting this concession. He did not think the conduct of the Government ought to be determined solely upon the mode in which a Court of Law might decide this technical legal question. Let them put Her Majesty's Government in the position of the Government of Egypt of having granted a similar concession, and then he believed all the difficulty would be solved. He had arrived at the conclusion that the International Suez Canal Company had an exclusive privilege in the sense which he would afterwards explain. No doubt, if the only statement of an exclusive power were to be found in the Concession of 1854, it would be extremely difficult to understand how Her Majesty's Government could have received the advice which was given to them. The Concession of 1854 gave exclusive power to M. de Lesseps to form a Universal Company for
        1016
        the purpose of constructing a Canal; the concession was granted, not to M. de Lesseps himself, but in trust for the benefit of the Company of which he was the promoter. It was argued that the Concession of 1854 was revoked by the Concession of 1856; and, according to Lord Salisbury, it was of no validity, because it did not receive the sanction of the Sultan. But the last Article of the Concession of 1856 revoked only those parts of the Concession of 1854 which were inconsistent with the cahier des charges. And as for the Sultan's Firman of 1866, it just as much confirmed the Concession of 1854 as it did the Concession of 1856. It was asserted that the only object of the Concession of 1854 was to enable M. de Lesseps to announce that he was the sole mandataire of the Viceroy for forming a Company to construct the Canal. But, if that was so, why should the Concession of 1854 be treated as in force after the Company was formed; because, if the formation of the Company was the only object of the Concession of 1854, then when the Company was formed the concession was exhausted, and it had come to an end? If that was so, why was the Concession of 1854 treated as in full force in the Concession of 1866? M. de Lesseps was to have the exclusive power of forming a Company. No one else was to have the right of piercing the Isthmus and making the Canal. Probably no one thought then that another Canal would be constructed. But to what inference did that lead? Was it not to this, that at that time the work of piercing the Isthmus and constructing the Canal was considered an "indivisible unity," which was not to be split into fractions, but was to be the work solely of the Company formed by M. de Lesseps? It was not the granting of a monopoly at all. A monopoly was an exclusive power given to an individual to do that which, otherwise, every person would have a right to do. But this was strictly a franchise, like the right to build a bridge or the right of ferry. Seeing that there was au existing concession containing the words "exclusive power," and alluding to them as being in force as late as 1866, he could not refuse to give effect to those words. Although holding that opinion, he wished to observe that the proposition he had stated, like all general legal propositions, was subject

        1017
        to limitations and conditions, so that he did not consider this question of exclusive privilege was of much importance. And for this reason. It was established by incontestable authority that in every grant made by a Sovereign there was reserved the right of domain—that was, the right of resumption of possession of the thing granted on the ground of public utility or expediency. That being so, the International Suez Canal Company could not impose arbitrary terms upon the world. The true construction, therefore, to be placed on the Convention now occupying the attention of the House was this, that as long as the concession should exist the Ruler of Egypt could not grant to any other Company the power of constructing a Canal. But that concession might be taken away; and if the International Suez Canal Company would not construct a Canal on reasonable terms the Ruler of Egypt would be perfectly justified in resuming the concession, or constructing a Canal himself. M. de Lesseps knew very well that he could not abuse the power granted to him, and after negotiation he would doubtless yield. But we ought not, for the sake of our mercantile interests, to make use of our influence in Egypt for the purpose of inducing the Ruler of Egypt to act towards the Canal Company in a manner which we should consider unfair on the part of our own Government, if that Government had granted a similar concession in similar circumstances. In his endeavour to enforce that view upon the House, he was speaking, not against the interests of this country, but for her true interests, her honour, and her reputation.
        MR. T. C. BRUCEsaid, he wished to point out that the contention of M. de Lesseps was that for the next 100 years the mercantile traffic between the West and the East was to depend upon the good pleasure of the Suez Canal Company. That, in his opinion, was a very monstrous proposition. What, he asked, was this Company? It called itself "Universal," and in the original concession there were provisions calculated to give it a character corresponding to its name. There was one provision to the effect that the Directors of the Company should be chosen from the different nations which had an interest in the affair; and another to the effect that the Chairman, after the lapse of the special
        1018
        powers given to M. de Lesseps, must be chosen by the Viceroy from among the largest shareholders. These provisions, if carried out, would give to this country a considerable control over the Canal; but, as a matter of fact, they had not been acted upon. Those who had an interest in the Canal, and who wore entitled by the concessions to exercise power over it, were met by an obstinate determination on the other side to refuse to grant them their just share in its government. That was seen in the negotiations that took place in connection with the tonnage dues; and again last year, when, being obliged to occupy the Canal under the authority of the Egyptian Government, we were opposed by the agent of M. de Lesseps. In interpreting this concession the real point to be kept in view was that the words "exclusive right" attached themselves entirely to the right of M. de Lesseps to form a Company, while the rights of the Company must be determined by other considerations. It must be recollected that at the time M. de Lesseps obtained this concession it was quite possible that the Khedive, after having given one Company certain privileges at one time, might afterwards have given another Company other privileges which might have rendered those of the first Company valueless. Therefore it was that this concession conferring the very valuable privilege of forming this Company was given to M. de Lesseps. It was a striking fact that although M. de Lesseps had at one period of his career been in want of money, he had never set up this claim to the very valuable right he now asserted he possessed in order to raise the necessary funds. It had frequently been urged, with great force, that in dealing with M. de Lesseps and his Company, which had accomplished so much for us, we could not proceed upon the narrow considerations of strict legal rights, and this no one would be more willing to admit than himself; but, on the other hand, he thought that to hand over the exclusive control of the traffic of the East and of Australia for the next 100 years to a single Company, or even to a single nation, would would be paying too dearly for the services of even M. de Lesseps and his Company. He must remind the House that the conditions contained in the concession which M. de Lesseps ac-

        1019
        tually obtained were very different from those contained in the original concession which was set aside. It was the opposition—unreasonable enough in many respects, as he readily admitted—to the scheme that had brought about a removal of some conditions contained in the original concession, which would have been most injurious to the world. There was another point to which he desired to draw attention. Since the successful attempt to form this Canal, this Company, which had originally been put forward as a Universal Company, had had its praises sounded as being exclusively a French Company; and political capital was sought to be made out of the so-called sacrifices which the French nation had made in order to benefit the commerce of the world. But was the House aware of the exact proportion in which the French nation had contributed towards the expense of making this Canal? In round numbers the French nation had contributed £6,000,000 towards the making of the Canal, while the Egyptian people had paid down in hard cash, or in money's worth, £10,000,000. Therefore, while we were called upon to admire the great work which the French nation had achieved, we were also called upon to ignore the services which the Egyptian people had rendered us. It was hard that, while we heard so much of the great sacrifices which the French nation had made, we should hear so little of the forced labour of the wretched Egyptian fellahs who had been dragged by force to do the work of making the Canal, and who had afterwards been compelled to pay compensation to the State for the loss which their absence from their homes had entailed. The Company, moreover, had obtained, under the award of the late Emperor of the French, the sum of £4,000,000 in respect of the withdrawal of the concession as to the Sweet Water Canal. The benefit derived by the Egyptians from the Suez Canal was absolutely nil. The result of the whole transaction had been that Egypt received 15 per cent upon the net revenue of the Company in consideration of having given the latter the concession, the land, and 65 per cent of the outlay incurred. This was, perhaps, not a reason for doing away with any legal rights which the Company might possess; but it was a good ground for
        1020
        not being over-sympathetic with the Company, nor investing the work it had accomplished with a halo. In addition to the facts to which he had referred, it must be recollected that the shares of the Company had, for a considerable time, been at over 400 per cent premium. On the whole, therefore, the French shareholders had not suffered very greatly in consequence of entering into this very successful speculation. It must not be forgotten that the real master of the Suez Canal was the Khedive, acting under the Porte. The terms of the concession not only limited the amount of land to be acquired by the Company, but rendered a further concession from the Khedive and the Porte necessary before a second Canal could be constructed. The question was too great a one to be determined on so narrow an issue as the interpretation of two words in a concession. It was our right and duty—especially as we occupied so strong a position in Egypt—to regard the question as one affecting the commerce of the world. We ought, no doubt, to use our influence, in the first instance, to effect a reasonable arrangement with M. de Lesseps, if such an arrangement could be made. The questions for the consideration of the Government were—first, whether a second Canal was necessary; secondly, a reduction of the rates; thirdly, how Great Britain, as the Power most concerned in the welfare of the Canal, should be more adequately represented; and, fourthly, it ought to be borne in mind that in the view of the Government the question was so important that, in defiance of all ordinary rules, they were prepared to lend £8,000,000 at a very low rate of interest. He could not help thinking, therefore, that we possessed very valuable means of negotiation. There was one other point to which he would refer. He had heard with regret one or two Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches speak of referring the Canal to an International Commission. He hoped we should have nothing of the sort. They had had enough of a Dual Control in Egypt. Unsatisfactory as the proposed Agreement was, he would rather accept it than hand the Canal over to a Commission composed partly of indifferent and partly of decidedly hostile elements. He hoped that we should have no repetition of such a

        1021
        Commission as the Sanitary Commission, whose performances in Egypt had been so remarkable.
        MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he did not desire to dwell on the purely legal aspects of the question; but he felt bound, out of justice to his learned friend, Mr. Underdown, and to himself, to say that he had very recently carefully gone through all the documents which had been submitted to his learned friend and himself, and, notwithstanding the adverse opinions given by persons of far higher authority than himself, he had seen no reason to alter in the slightest respect the opinion which his learned friend and himself had expressed on the subject. In fact, if he was not aware that there were other lawyers who were more likely to be right than he, and who had given a contrary opinion, he should not have for a moment doubted the accuracy of his own. He was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that if the Provisional Concession of 1854 did not give M. de Lesseps an exclusive right to make a Canal through the Isthmus of Suez it gave him nothing. At all events, that concession, in which M. de Lesseps was spoken of as the mandatory and friend of the Khedive, enabled M. de Lesseps to go with his concession to the capitalists of Europe and to found a Company on the strength of these documents which he possessed. It enabled him compulsorily to expropriate private owners, and gave him powers possessed by no other person. There was no doubt that after the great efforts of M. de Lesseps, in which it must be remembered that he encountered the opposition of this country, that gentleman was entitled to the highest moral consideration at our hands. But he had always considered, and he still considered, that the question which the shipowners, the merchants, and people of this country had to consider was a practical question, which was to be discussed as a matter of business among business people, and not to be determined by nice considerations as to the exact meaning of a curiously worded document. That question was, whether, in the first place, a second Canal was necessary, and then, if it was, whether it should be carried out under the present Company so as to insure uniformity of management for both Canals; or whether a British Com-
        1022
        pany should be formed with British capital and under British management? It should be remembered, however, that if the latter alternative were adopted, a fresh concession from the Khedive would be required, and that concession would have to be ratified by a Firman from the Sultan. Even if these preliminary steps were got over, it was easy to perceive that the existence of a second Canal, side by side with that of the French Company, might bring about a state of collision and friction between the two countries. He desired now to explain the reasons why he proposed to vote against the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. He conceived that the question for that House and for the country was not to be determined by mere conflict between lawyers as to the true interpretation of these documents. It was a question to be determined as a matter of business by men of business. He objected to the right hon. Baronet's Resolution on various grounds. It embodied an abstract proposition, which bore no relation to anything in Nature or in Art. It asked Her Majesty's Government to affirm a proposition which nobody had ever denied. In the next place, he objected to the House being asked to pronounce its opinion upon a legal question. With the greatest possible respect for that House, he ventured to say that there was no Assembly in this country less fitted to pronounce an opinion upon a question of law. If the question as to the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps were to be judicially determined, it must come before a judicial and, he presumed, an Egyptian tribunal, the operation of which, particularly under existing circumstances, might be seriously hampered by an opinion solemnly expressed by the House of Commons. Again, he thought it would be extremely impolitic, with a view to future negotiations, to affirm the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet; and he might here express a hope that the negotiations would be renewed and brought to a successful termination with the present Company. In his judgment, the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) expressed the view which that House ought to favour. If the House would wisely abstain from expressing an opinion on a question in regard to which

        1023
        lawyers differed, the House, the Government, and the country would be committed to nothing, and we should be able to renew the negotiations with M. de Lesseps in a much more favourable attitude.
        MR. GILESsaid, he desired to make a few remarks on the commercial bearing of this question; but could not refrain from first noticing some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Hull. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon as meaning something, whereas he himself proposed to do nothing. The hon. Gentleman expended a good deal of time in endeavouring to persuade them to do nothing; but he observed that towards the close of his speech he asked—"Are we without hopes of a rational Agreement?" To that he answered—"No. Put it to the self-interest of M. de Lesseps, and we shall get a rational Agreement." Then the hon. Gentleman proposed that we should have one-half of the administration. Well, he thought that if we could obtain anything like that, we should be very well satisfied. A good deal had been said about French susceptibilities, but nothing about rousing English susceptibilities; and if friendly relations with our neighbours were to be so easily strained, it would seem almost better to be without friendly relations. The Prime Minister had said that the House could not determine a legal question. If that were so, why had the Government determined it? Of course, the House would not be likely to stultify itself by voting £8,000,000 if it were not satisfied with the Agreement. It would be to the mutual advantage of the shipping interests of this country and M. de Lesseps that they should make some bargain that would be acceptable to both parties. He would show by figures what was the difference in cost to a ship between using the Canal and going round by the Cape, and he said the amount of the tolls was enough in many cases to make shipowners hesitate to use the Canal; and, indeed, he knew cases in which they found it to their advantage to send round by the Cape, when, if the tolls had been lower, they would have used the Canal. For instance, the traffic for the last six months was 4,306,000 tons of shipping, and the charges thereon were
        1024
        35,329,000 francs, or 8.2 francs per gross ton. A ship of 3,000 tons gross would, therefore, pay £1,000 to go through the Canal. Now, the distance round the Cape to Bombay was 4,450 miles longer than through the Canal, which, at 10 knots an hour, would occupy 18½ days. Deduct from this 21/2 days—being the average time in getting through the Canal—and the extra time was reduced to 16 days. The question, therefore, arose — Was it worth while to spend £1,000 to save 16 days? It certainly could not be to the advantage of the Canal Company to drive away traffic; and as traffic was being driven away the sooner there was a reduction of the tolls the better would it be for all parties. The shortest route between the two seas was that between Port Said and Suez. That in itself was an argument in favour of the present Canal; and his recommendation, as an engineer, was that they should widen it, as he considered one wide Canal would be more useful than two narrow ones. The present traffic equalled about 12 vessels per day, so that it was really idle to talk of the necessity for two Canals. The widening, too, of the existing Canal could be effected at less than one-half the cost of constructing a new Canal, and that idea he recommended to the careful consideration of the Government.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Although I rose after the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce), I was glad to give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), considering the important part which he has taken outside the House upon this question; and I am glad to add that the remarks which I had the pleasure of listening to from him were very valuable, and I have further the satisfaction of knowing how he intends to vote on the present occasion. I have also had the advantage of listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles), whose speech, if acted upon, would demolish the whole of the present controversy, because the hon. Member says it is a mistake to make a second Canal, and that all we have to do in the interests of commerce is to widen the present Canal, at an expenditure of £2,000,000. Whatever controversy there may be as to the power of M. de Lesseps to make a second Canal within his pre-

        1025
        sent concession, there is no controversy at all as to his power of widening the present Canal. If, therefore, the proposal was to do that, cadit quæstio altogether, the Canal would be widened at once by M. de Lesseps, and there would be an end of all controversy. There are, however, very excellent reasons why nothing of the kind should be done; and, with every respect for the views of the hon. Member for Southampton, who is eminent in matters of this kind, the opinion of the mercantile world, and especially of the shipping world, is that one great disadvantage of the present Canal is that ships coming in opposite directions have to wait a long time at the sidings in order to pass each other. Therefore, if you were only to widen the Canal that difficulty would practically continue; whereas, if you have two Canals—and I am speaking almost the unanimous opinion of the mercantile world—if you have two Canals, so as to have an up line and a down line, none of the present delay would take place, and the passing of the ships in both directions would be easy.
        MR. GILES: I have estimated for double the width of the present Canal, so that ships could pass each other without difficulty.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Now, let me say a word as to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce). I am always glad to follow my hon. Friend, because he invariably speaks with knowledge, and a great deal of what he says ought to be well weighed, both by hon. Members who sit opposite to him and by hon. Members on the same side of the House. There is a great deal which my hon. Friend has said to-night that is well worthy of consideration by this House, if we are to carry on further negotiations upon this subject. I was particularly glad when my hon. Friend pointed out the extreme difficulty of what is known as the internationalizing plan—a plan which has a good deal of support in the country, but which, if it has to be taken in hand, will be found to be attended by enormous difficulties. My hon. Friend, in a very few words, I think, summed up those difficulties, and I wish to point out to the House how just his observations were. My hon. Friend also made some remarks as to the cha-
        1026
        racter of the concessions and privileges granted in Eastern countries, and pointed out that they are not to be weighed in the same scale with similar concessions and privileges granted in Western countries. Every word of his remarks on the subject appeared to me to be of the greatest value; but when we come to the legal question as to the rights of M. de Lesseps, both in respect of the construction of the Canal at the Isthmus, or a second Canal at the Isthmus, or the construction of Canals in other parts of Egypt, I shall follow the careful warning of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and ask the house to excuse me altogether if I decline to go into those controversial matters. It is perfectly right that Gentlemen learned in the law should, up to a certain point, discuss these matters; but for us who have been, and will be, responsible for conducting the negotiations, nothing could be more unwise, under present circumstances, than to carry on such a discussion. Therefore, I shall follow, most rigidly, the example set by my right hon. Friend and the precepts which fell from him, and in the few words I may have to say to-night I shall endeavour to say nothing that can in any way compromise this House, or rather the Government, for we could not compromise the House, in future discussions beyond what we have already stated in debate—already stated in debate this evening. I am particularly anxious to make reference to what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen during the last few hours as to the conduct of the recent negotiations ending in the Provisional Agreement. It has occurred to me, having read a good deal on the same subject outside the House, that there is much misapprehension as to the nature of the origin of the negotiations which have been carried on; and I think it will be for the public advantage, not only with respect to the past, but still more with reference to the future, that it should be understood how these negotiations arose and what their general character was. The history of these negotiations is simply this. In 1876 an arrangement was made by the late Government with the Suez Canal Company, which is commonly known as the Lesseps-Stokes Agreement, under which the Canal Company were bound to expend 30,000,000

        1027
        francs, or £1,200,000 sterling, in making the Canal on capital account, irrespective altogether of the casual improvements on revenue account, and that expenditure was to be spread over a series of years. Last year it appeared that the Company had expended, roughly, £300,000 out of that sum of £1,200,000, and the Government were warned by their Directors in the Company that it was contemplated by M. de Lesseps and the French Directors to expend at once the remainder of that £1,200,000—the exact sum being, I believe, 23,000,000 francs. In answer to that communication, Lord Granville instructed the Directors to take care that due provision was made for the widening of the Canal, to which they replied on the 17th of November last that, in their opinion, the widening of the Canal as proposed in two different ways by the French Engineering Commission was not the only method which could be used for improving the Canal. They said there were two ways in which that widening might be made; but they added that, in their opinion, it would probably be better to make a second Canal altogether, and they asked leave to discuss that question with the French Directors. The leave for which they asked was given on condition that they were not supposed to advocate any particular system, and on the 5th of December they reported to the Government that the preliminary examination for the expenditure of the 23,000,000 francs had been already carried out; that this examination had reference only to the two alternative methods of widening the Canal; but as the construction of another Canal had been mentioned as an element worthy of consideration, instead of carrying out the smaller work during the next four years, they urged that their brother directors should provide for the much greater work of constructing a new Canal. They reported, as the result of that discussion, that there was much difference of opinion among the Directors, although, on the whole, the majority of the French Directors were in favour of forming a second Canal. M. de Lesseps himself said that he was of that opinion, because it was plain that the commercial world looked urgently for something of the kind to be done, and in December last he said that if the Company were to carry out so enormous a work as that it
        1028
        would require some consideration and compensation; and at the time it was mentioned that they would expect an extension of their concession, and, of course, an extension of the grant which had been given to them in 1854. The result was that the case was well considered by us at the time, and we came to the conclusion that it would be wise that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Directors should stand committed to any such plan, but that the matter should remain over for further consideration. There was some disappointment on the part of the French Board of Directors at this decision. However, the matter did stand over, and the 23,000,000 francs were ordered, in the meanwhile, to be expended on the improvement of the existing Canal. The French Directors pointed out that they were quite prepared to meet the views of the English Directors, provided they got the compensation alluded to, and also received the support of the English Government. That was how matters stood on the 9th of January last, and about that time there was a strong pressure put on Her Majesty's Government by the commercial and ship-owning class of this country to take even more vigorous measures in regard to the Isthmus. The first proposal of much importance was made on the part of a gentleman in August last, and it will be found at page 2 in the preliminary Papers. That proposal was to construct a new Canal through the Isthmus of Suez; and it was stated by the gentleman in question that he was ready with £4,000,000 for that purpose. On the 19th of December the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom asked Her Majesty's Government to promote the construction of a new Canal under British control. Two or three days afterwards the General Shipowners' Society asked the Government to promote an alternative Canal through Egypt to Suez, and they said that it was a favourable opportunity for securing for this country power amounting to control over any second Canal, owing to the position of affairs in Egypt at that moment—alluding, of course, to our occupation of Egypt. A few days afterwards, on the 19th of December, the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association urged us to promote another Canal through Egypt, exclusively under British control; and on the 11th of January

        1029
        the North Shields Shipowners' Society urged us to promote another Canal through Egypt to Suez under the absolute control of the English Government. A few days afterwards Lord Napier and Ettrick presented to Lord Granville a Memorial from 298 representatives of Companies, representing 3,000,000 tons of shipping using the Canal, and more than one-half of the aggregate tonnage using it, asking' for a new Ship Canal across the Isthmus parallel with the present Canal. They proposed to disregard altogether the claim of M. de Lesseps, for they used words which have since been freely employed, that the terms used in the original concession were simply intended to debar the Egyptian Government from dealing with other parties during the negotiation of the work, but that they were never intended to prevent the construction of another Canal. Being disappointed with the reply they received at the time, they returned to the charge, and asked for the active interference of Her Majesty's Government in favour of this rival Canal. Finally, on the 26th of April, the Associated Chambers of Commerce asked for greater facilities and an increased share in the management of the existing Canal; and Lord Granville received two deputations, one from the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who said they took no antagonistic position in regard to the existing Canal, but they only wanted more British Directors and more facilities for passing through the Canal; and another deputation from the Chamber of Shipping, saying they wanted another Canal, made by the British nation, and that advantage should be taken of the British Government being in Egypt at the present moment in order to obtain an alternative right. This is a summary of the views of the deputations, and of the opinions expressed in the letters and Memorials addressed to the Government between January and April pressing upon them to do something, and all of them, with one single exception, in favour of the construction of a second Canal. The result was that M. de Lesseps, who read the reports of what had occurred in the newspapers, said it appeared to him, particularly after the double deputation to Lord Granville, that the whole situation was changed; that any concession would be attended with pressure, but that he was willing
        1030
        that negotiations should be re-opened upon the basis of the discussion between the English and French Directors, and he added, for the first time, that he was prepared to make some reduction of tolls in proportion to the increase of traffic. Her Majesty's Government had then to decide what course to take. They had been blamed for being precipitate; they had been rather severely blamed, slightly in this House, but rather severely outside; but I think they had shown that they had not been precipitate, seeing that they had held their own carefully from January to April in reference to these all-important Memorials, and the pressure brought to bear upon them with the view of finding out the proper course to take. It was quite evident that no further delay could take place, and that we had to make our choice between two things. We had either to repudiate the position of M. de Lesseps or his claims, whether they were real or not. That was not the advice of the late Government, because, in their letter to M. de Lesseps, they said that they recognized the pre-eminent part taken by him in the foundation and construction of this great work, and that they would always be found ready to support him in any measure conducive to its welfare. We had, therefore, either to pass by M. de Lesseps and his claim and his position in regard to the Canal, and to take the advice of the Chamber of Shipping, and With only one exception for the whole of the representatives of the shipping interest who had addressed us, and to endeavour to make a new Canal under British control in rivalry to the existing Canal, or to take the other course of negotiating with the existing Canal Company as requested by one body of Memorialists—namely, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who advised us to go in that direction. Now, there could be no doubt among ourselves as to the course we ought to take. I am not going to enter at all, as I have already said, into disputable matters connected with legal arguments; but we ourselves believed that the pouvoir exclusif prevented us from constructing a new Canal across the Isthmus unless M. de Lesseps should forfeit his right and privilege of making that Canal. We thought that the overtures which had been made to us on the 30th of April afforded an opportunity for opening

        1031
        further negotiations. Accordingly, on the 16th of May—that is to say, more than four months after the original overtures which were made in December and January, and after duly weighing and considering the whole position of matters, we determined to offer to the Company to help them to obtain the necessary land and concessions in reference to the Fresh Water Canal, and a longer extension of their concession, if, on the other hand, they would construct a satisfactory second Canal of a proper depth, suited to the requirements both of the present and prospective commerce; and if they would also reduce the dues and tolls on the existing Canal, and give us an increased share in the management. I think that a majority of those hon. Members who have spoken to-night, whether or not they considered that we claimed sufficient terms, will agree that that was the only course which Her Majesty's Government could take. The negotiations which followed are set out fully in the Papers before the House. On the 20th of May, on the 4th of June, the 5th of June, the 4th of July, and, finally, on the 11th of July, there were negotiations which will be found fully showing the differences between us. And now, if the House will allow me, before I say a few words as to the main points of the negotiations, let me again meet the criticisms which we have heard to-night, and which is embodied in the words—"Why did you not threaten M. de Lesseps with the construction of a rival Canal? Why did you throw away the only weapon you had —namely, the threat of a new Canal?" The reasons we did not use that threat were, firstly, because we thought it would have been dishonest to do so; and, secondly, because we thought it would have been impolitic to do so; because we knew very well that the first hint of such a threat would lead in a moment to the breaking off of the negotiations. Therefore, under those circumstances, we tbeught that it was our duty not to use that dishonest threat. Then we have been asked, why did we say that we went as a buyer eager to buy to a seller indifferent about selling? I made a statement upon that matter on the second day after the Agreements were laid on the Table, and I repeat now that that was the position in which we found ourselves. If hon. Members will refer to the
        1032
        Papers laid on the Table they will find what passed between the English and French Directors in the first part of the negotiations. If hon. Members will refer to page 32 of the Papers they will find these words in the Report of the British Directors—
        "In the discussion of these matters, which extended over four long interviews, the attitude of M. de Lesseps and his representatives were in substance firm. They disclared that if the second Canal was to be made by the Company, it was not out of any fear of competition. They were strong in the right of their monopoly for the construction and working of a Canal across the Isthmus, and were convinced that no rival Canal by any other route could successfully compete with them. In the interests of their shareholders, they would be perfectly satisfied to abide by the decision taken last January, which, in the judgment of M. de Lesseps, would sufficiently provide during a considerable period for the requirements of commerce. If, therefore, they now are willing to undertake this important new work, it would be entirely in deference to the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, and to meet the express demand of English merchants and shipowners."
        That, therefore, was the position in which we met M. de Lesseps. It has either been expressly stated or implied that in the course of the negotiations we went into the question of the exclusive right of M. de Lesseps. There was nothing of the kind. We knew perfectly well what the view of the French Directors was as to their exclusive right; but neither here nor in the negotiations in Paris did we ever drop a word on the subject. All our anxiety was to obtain the best terms we could, and then it became our duty, after having got the best terms we could expect, to say whether or not they were worth the acceptance of the nation; or whether we ought to break off the negotiations. One or two words about the negotiation itself. We have heard a great deal about its inadequacy. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett)—but we are accustomed to very hard words from the hon. Member for Eye—and others have spoken of the inadequacy of the reduction in the tolls which was accepted. Now, let me tell the House what the amount of that reduction is when expressed in figures. I find some reference to it in these Papers; but this is not all. The proposal was pressed upon us at a time when a much less reduction of tolls was offered than that which we succeeded in obtaining subsequently. The reduction we did succeed in obtaining would have

        1033
        amounted, in eight years from the present time, to £1,170,000 a-year, and ultimately, in 11 years from the present time, to £2,550,000 a-year. When we hear mention made of 50 centimes, 55 centimes, and 37 centimes, it may seem a very small matter; but when we have to deal with millions of tons the sums become very large indeed, and I am bound to say that I think an arrangement which promises a reduction of some £1,000,000 a-year after eight years, and more than £2,500,000 a-year after 11 years, was not an arrangement which could be called a trumpery one, but an agreement which would succeed in effecting a very solid and substantial reduction. An hon. Member behind me thinks that £2,500,000 is not a substantial sum. I confess I think it is, although we are accustomed to deal with a great number of millions in this country. Allusion has been made to the low rate at which we offered tho loan. It is quite true that a loan of £8,000,000 was offered at 3¼ per cent; but its immediate effect on our own interests in the Canal would have been to the extent of £45,000 a-year, in reference to the amount which would have to be paid in respect of ships going through the Canal, and in a short time that sum would have been increased to £120,000 a-year. I venture to say that these sums are not small sums. I do not think I should be justified, at this hour of the night, if I were to weary the House with fuller details. I should have wished, had I spoken earlier, to explain to the House the five separate points in regard to which we obtained an additional share in the government of the Canal—all of them substantial points—namely, the appointment of Vice President, the appointment of additional Members upon the Finance Committee, and the appointment of an Inspecteur de la Navigation, whose duties were to be defined. That was a very great concession in respect to British interests. All these are questions of detail, and it would not be reasonable for me, after the Agreement has been withdrawn, and in view, at some future time, of further arrangements being made, to offer to the House to enlarge upon these subjects. All I have to say is that we accepted the position which became necessary when it was made clear that Parliament and the
        1034
        country did not desire to be committed to the Provisional Agreement, and that there was so much opposition raised to it on the part of the shipping and mercantile interests of the country. We have thoroughly accepted the position which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid down at the commencement of the debate; and we feel that further discussion would only do mischief. I have confined myself as much as I could to what has actually taken place. I have said nothing as to the legal question, and the House may rest assured that in any future transaction of this kind we shall adhere steadily to the principles which have now been laid down; and I firmly believe that before many months or years are over we shall succeed in making arrangements which will be satisfactory to the country.
        SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought it right to pronounce a funeral oration over the Agreement, which is now dead, and has been abandoned. But I think it material to observe that, upon the question now before the House, the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing whatever. It is true we have had an extensive view of all the Papers; but we have been told all that before. The question before us now is, How is it that we come to be discussing this question to-night, and what is the question before the House? One would suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was discussing and defending his Agreement; but that is not the question. The question in which the country is deeply interested is this—With what materials will the right hon. Gentleman's Government, or any other Government, enter into negotiations with the standing admission by him and by the Prime Minister that the rights of M. de Lesseps are exclusive, and that no other Canal can be made? That is the question we have to discuss, and I think I am justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has said not one word on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, gave a most powerful argument against expressing an opinion; but I ask again—How is it that we come to be discussing this question to-night? It is because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of

        1035
        the Exchequer have accepted the rights of M. de Lesseps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must do him the justice to say—and in doing so I must retract an observation I made a short time ago—that he had said nothing relevant to the question before the House, did make the admission I have referred to. If he had not done so, one might have supposed that, in the course of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government felt themselves compelled, as a matter of conscience and honour, to admit that M. de Lesseps had this exclusive monopoly; and if they had so said the right hon. Gentleman might have given some reason for repeating that admission to the House. But the right hon. Gentleman takes away that excuse, because he says that they never did make that admission. Nevertheless, the House is solemnly warned not to give utterance to opinions which may, peradventure, seriously hamper this country in negotiations hereafter. That is exactly what we have been complaining of, and is exactly why my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) has brought forward the Motion; and if some hon. Members who have spoken to-night had only been authorized by Her Majesty's Government to discuss with M. de Lesseps the questions which they had discussed, I cannot help thinking the result of the Agreement might have been very different, because I find that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) began by saying that with the language of the Resolution of my right hon. Friend he entirely concurs. He has not a word to say against it, and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. C. M. Palmer) tells us that, as a matter of fact, he cannot agree with any such Motion as that M. de Lesseps has the exclusive rights that he claims. Well, that is all that we say, and that is all we are asking the House to affirm. All that the Leader of the Opposition asks the House to say is that M. de Lesseps has no such exclusive rights. I observe that the Law Officers of the Crown, whose opinions have been vouched, and by whose opinions the Government claim to be supported, have not given us the benefit of those opinions to-night; but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) and I have not had the same privilege of having our opinions concealed in obscurity. Our
        1036
        opinions have been published, together with the case submitted to us and the date; and, although I do not intend to discuss the question whether our opinions are right or not, I must certainly say that I have seen no reason to assume from anything that has occurred since they were wrong. Yet the Law Officers of the Crown are put forward by the Government before the House as justifying their action. Nevertheless, they neither tell us what the Law Officers have said, nor when they said it, nor upon what case they gave their opinion. I give both of my hon. and learned Friends credit for believing that they gave their opinions with perfect independence, and that they did not act simply as Officers of the Government, because I believe that every Member of the Bar, when appealed to for an opinion, is entitled to the credit of giving his real opinion. At the same time, it is impossible to know how much the opinion of my hon. and learned Friends may have been affected by the nature of the case presented to them and the materials afforded to them; and, certainly, if it is part of the regular course that the opinion of no Law Officer should be put forward in this House, then I should have thought that it would not have been regular to have referred to it. Certainly, my experience is that some Law Officers' opinions have not only been asked for, but circulated, and even somewhat freely canvassed in the House. That was my experience during the existence of the late Government, when I was a Law Officer myself. If the Prime Minister is right on a question of this sort in justifying the action of the Government by the opinions they received, it certainly seems that the right hon. Gentleman is treating the House somewhat cavalierly when he calls on hon. Members to swallow whatever the Law Officers have been pleased to say, without affording the House an opportunity of knowing what the opinions themselves were, or the data upon which they were pronounced. Their only supporter in this matter has been my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen). If the Government had said that the pretensions of M. de Lesseps were doubtful matters admitting discussion, the present Motion would not have been made. But that is not what they have said. What they

        1037
        have said is that which will be in the mouth of every negotiator on M. de Lesseps' part against every negotiator on the part of Her Majesty's Government whenever this question comes to be negotiated again—namely—"Your Chancellor of the Exchequer and your Prime Minister have admitted that you are absolutely in our power; and, therefore, you must take whatever we please to give." That being so, I would ask the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) what he means by the suggestion that we are to preserve our independence of opinion? The independence of opinion is gone by the recognition on the part of the Executive Government of the basis of the question in dispute. What the hon. Member for Hull says is that he wants to preserve our future independence of opinion. It is all very well to shelter the Government; but how will that prevent the country, or any Government which follows the present Government, having that matter put before them as no longer a question of negotiation, but as a matter which is entirely settled? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen) was compelled to admit that, even if the concession were as clear and absolute as I believe it to be doubtful, it is a question not between private persons; but of a concession by a Sovereign; and if the Sovereign, having made a concession to a particular trading Company in the interests of the country and of his subjects, finds it necessary to recall that concession, it is quite within his power to do so. That is a very familiar principle of law, which I am sure neither of my hon. and learned Friends on the other side of the House will dispute. It simply becomes a question of compensation, and is not a matter of absolute right in the sense of a monopoly between private persons engaged in trade, where one can restrain the other by an injunction if he considers that the monopoly he has acquired is being invaded. This is a question of international right, and if it is found for the advantage of the people of Egypt, or for the interests of the Government, that the concession should no longer be treated as a monopoly—and I am using the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I say monopoly—the concession could be withdrawn, compensation being granted. I understand that some question has been raised
        1038
        as to what is meant by the use of the word "monopoly." It is language which admits of a doubtful interpretation, and is a very convenient phrase to employ. No statement is made as to the conditions under which a monopoly has been granted; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that M. de Lesseps has a monopoly. Then I say that if it is for the advantage of the Sovereign or of the people that that monopoly should be withdrawn, as a familiar principle of law, it becomes simply a question of compensation, and not a question of absolute right. What I would venture to submit to the House is this—that if the Government would see their way to admit that it is a question in dispute, that it is a question actually to be debated, and that they were not to be precluded in future negotiations by the statement made to the House from entering into the matter because that statement was inadvisedly made—made, perhaps, after they had rashly entered into an engagement; but if, at all events, they can see their way to retract, to that extent, what at present I believe this country regards as a serious peril to future negotiations in a matter that affects all the commercial interests of the country, everybody would be satisfied. But that is what the hon. Member for Hull says we are not to do. We are not to express an opinion; we are not to do anything to interfere with that which, if unchallenged, is a serious and unfit admission by the Executive Government, and may prevent any future negotiations from being entered into at all. What are you going to do with your future negotiations? I understood the Prime Minister to express a sanguine belief that all would come right, and that we should have something in the end that would satisfy everybody. That would be very delightful; but can the Prime Minister give us any assurance that M. de Lesseps has waived the claim which gives him the absolute mastery of the situation? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce), and from my right hon. Friend the Member fur North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), how M. de Lesseps and his Company have treated English commerce, and with what confidence we may rely upon him in the future. We are informed by the Prime Minister that he has confident belief

        1039
        that, some time or other, all will come right; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little enlarged that idea. He said that in the course of a few months—but, thinking he had been rash, he added, "or years"—matters might be satisfactorily settled. But, in the meantime, British commerce will suffer in a way everybody on both sides of the House has admitted. Then, what is the condition of things at which we have arrived? The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given utterance to opinions which are seriously compromising to us in our future negotiations. Everybody desires that the negotiations should take place on a basis which will allow of a fair and reasonable agreement being arrived at; and all that my right hon. Friend says is, at all events, let M. de Lesseps understand that the negotiations which are to go on will require the sanction of the British Parliament. That is the effect of the Resolution of my right hon. Friend; and he wishes it further to be understood that the rash utterances of two Members of Her Majesty's Government do not bind the British Parliament. I believe that if this debate has done nothing else, it has been of infinite value in eliciting from the Prime Minister himself that the utterances of the Government do not bind this House. At the same time, all my right hon. Friend asks of the House is, that it should be so understood and resolved in order that foreign negotiators may understand when they enter into negotiations that that which was rashly said by two Members of the present Government was not binding on the British Parliament, and that any agreement the British Parliament can be asked to sanction is not one that can be based on an assumption which the British Parliament negatives.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am sure the House will give me credit for saying what I feel when I say that I am speaking this evening under very great difficulties, not only because the hour is late, and because I know that hon. Members wish to bring the debate to a conclusion, but because of the interests that are involved. I do not forget that the Amendment which we are about to support asks us not to debate the question, nor do I forget the speech of the Prime Minister calling attention to the
        1040
        evil effect of discussing the question in a hostile spirit. I, therefore, ask the House to bear witness that I have been dragged into the debate by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who has alluded with a sneer to the silence of the Law Officers, and who told us that we have not been prepared to stand by our opinions. My hon. and learned Friend has even gone further, and has told us that we dare not meet the House, but are compelled to keep silence. [Cries of "No!"] My hon. and learned Friend certainly used words to that import. He taunted us with not having spoken, and he asked us why we had not spoken, and he challenged us to speak. Is that not very nearly daring us to take part in the debate? If we had remained silent, would not the inference have been that all my hon. and learned Friend said was correct, and that we were afraid to meet the House and support our opinions? I shall be as brief as I can, and as little technical as I can; but I must answer my hon. and learned Friend when he says why are we discussing this question to-night? We are discussing it because a meaningless and colourless Motion has been submitted to the House —a Motion which no one has disputed in its terms. [Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD: Then why not accept it?] It is a Motion, the terms of which the Government have never disputed; but they are not prepared to accept it, because they do not think it desirable that it should be passed by the House. I say that the Government have never disputed it. More than that, I say that M. de Lesseps has never disputed it. On the 27th of September in last year, M. de Lesseps wrote his views of the question, and he said—
        "With regard to the construction of a second maritime Canal, you can choose any other point but that of the Isthmus of Suez."
        What does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) suggest? He suggests that you should prevent the possibility of any other undertaking being accepted. He suggests that competition shall be prevented between any portion of the Mediterranean and any portion of the Red Sea; and, thereby, we are not denying or accepting the exclusive power of M. de Lesseps in regard to the Isthmus

        1041
        of Suez. It is practically clear, according to the Motion, that exclusive power does exist, because the right hon. Gentleman says—"I will be satisfied with conceding the exclusive power in the Isthmus of Suez, so long as you give communication by another route between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea." That is what the Government have not disputed, and what M. de Lesseps has not disputed either. Therefore, so far as that point is concerned, the Resolution is meaningless. But we have to deal not only with the terms of the Resolution, but with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which is far within his Motion. He has departed from these vague terms, and he has confined his speech, not to the question of making a Canal by way of Alexandria, or by way of Cairo, to any portion of the Red Sea, or by any other route such as Palestine; but he contests the exclusive power of M. de Lesseps to supply canal accommodation, through the Isthmus to Suez, to the Red Sea. That is his speech, and not his Motion. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He says—"Turn to the Concession of 1854." I understand the right hon. Gentleman to treat that as a concession giving M. de Lesseps exclusive power, but nothing to this country. Now, it is not a matter purely for lawyers; but it is a matter upon which the common sense of the commercial world may be exercised. You cannot give a concession to a Company until that Company exists, and yet you cannot call a Company into existence until you have a concession. What is the course that is usually taken? In forming a Company of this nature, it is customary to give a concession to someone on behalf of the Company, and the benefit of the concession goes to the Company when it conies into existence. In every line of the concession it is a grant to the Company which is being carried out and acknowledged up to the very last moment in every transaction between the Egyptian Government and the Company, and the whole of these words form the basis of the contract. Will the House forgive me if I refer to what those words are? In the first place, Article 4 provided that the works are to be executed at the exclusive cost of the Company. The next clause speaks of 75 per cent of the profit of the Com-
        1042
        pany; and, passing on from that, you will find that the land is to be given to the Company—à la compagnie concessionnaire. What Company? Why, the proposed Company when in existence. Then 15 per cent of the profits are to be paid by the Company. What does all this lead to? To the term for which the concession is made to M. de Lesseps. It is to be a term on behalf of the Khedive for 99 years. Was 99 years considered to be the duration of M. de Lesseps' life? Of course it was not. Then how could it be regarded as a personal contract? It is a contract which necessarily is to cover a long period; but it was a concession to the Company, and as soon as the Company was formed the concession would go to them. It will be found, by a further Article, that at the end of the term so granted, the Company are to surrender up the Canal and works in working order to the Egyptian Government. That is to take place at the end of the term for which the concession is made, and yet it is said to be a personal concession to M. de Lesseps, notwithstanding this stipulation, that at the end of 99 years the Company are to surrender up the whole of the works to the Egyptian Government. I will not weary the House with further details upon this matter; but the right hon. Gentleman will see that the words of the concession are throughout "the Company," and the Company are treated in the document itself as being the concessionnaires. What was the object of the second concession? It was to start afresh and give a new concession to a Company then coming into existence. From first to last throughout all these documents, every benefit was given to the Company as the original concessionaires of 1854, although it is now said that there was simply a personal concession to M. de Lesseps. Let me give an instance. It is said that the concession was only made to M. de Lesseps. Now, there is an Agreement which was entered into in 1866, under which the Company gives up certain rights. It gives up its rights to certain lands taken under the 7th and 8th Articles of the Concession of November 30, 1854; it renounces all the benefits which the Company took under that concession, and which it did not take under the Concession of 1866, and in that document, in the 2nd Article, there is this

        1043
        expression, that "the Company" renounces all the benefits that it took under the Agreement of 1854, and all the land which the Company took under it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Company took nothing under the Convention of 1854; but that it was purely a personal grant to M. de Lesseps; but, passing hurriedly over a variety of details, the clause I refer to in the Convention of 1866 distinctly states that the Company renounces the benefits taken under Articles 7 and 8 of the Act of Concession of the 30th of November, 1854. Yet the right hon. Gentleman's argument is, that at that very date the exclusive concession to M. de Lesseps came to an end, because he then formed the Company. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston does not go to that extent. He uses the phrase "when the Company came into working order." But that gives up the whole matter. Let me remind the House that even later still, when a disagreement arose, and certain matters had to be submitted to the determination of the Emperor of the French, the award in the 5th Article dealt with the indemnity which was to be given under that concession, and decided what benefit the Company was to receive for giving up its rights. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that the Company had no rights under the Concession of 1854, but that they were given to M. de Lesseps, and that no power was given to the Company at all. Let me ask any man of business in the House, when once you admit that M. de Lesseps was contracting for the benefit of the Company, and that he undertook that the Company were to incur certain obligations under the original Concession of 1854, ought they not to have the privileges as well as be bound by the obligations of that concession? What was the use of giving M. de Lesseps the exclusive power of forming a Company if that Company was not to obtain any benefit when formed? If hon. Members read these documents carefully, and do not pass them over lightly as the right hon. Gentleman has done — ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; the right hon. Gentleman dealt very lightly with these details—they will come to the conclusion that the Company is entitled to the benefit of the Concession of 1854, and that it is impossible that it could have been made per-
        1044
        sonally to M. de Lesseps. But I am anxious to discuss the question in rather a broader manner than it has yet been approached. I am sorry I do not see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) here to-night. I do not know whether he is responsible for this colourless Motion; at any rate, he is not the man to fight under a colourless Motion. On Wednesday last he took the open field and addressed the Conservative working men of Portsmouth, attacking those concerned in making the arrangement; and I must say it would have been more in accordance with his usual habit if he had attacked those he wished to attack to their face in a place where an answer could have been given to him. My right hon. and learned Friend, however, chose to address the Conservative working men of Portsmouth. He read to them a Judgment of Lord Ellenborough, and his object in doing so was because he conceived that the opinion therein expressed was contrary to that of Her Majesty's Government. I am not going to discuss the question in the same spirit as my right hon. and learned Friend, for I believe no judgment is applicable to the matter we are discussing. Curiously enough, the name of that case was "Gladstone &Co. in error." [Laughter and Opposition cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen who cheer will, perhaps, allow me to say that the judgment of the Court was unanimously in favour of Messrs. Gladstone. But I do not think this question ought to have been argued as my right hon. and learned Friend argued it. He took a narrow view of it, whereas these matters should be looked upon according to the broad principles of English law; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have remembered that in 1879 Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne united to say that a case was misunderstood if it were not read in the light of common sense, and they put the case in question aside as nothing worth. If these matters are to be decided on the broad principles of English law there are some things which ought to have attracted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention, and which he should have conveyed to the Conservative working men of Portsmouth. If I can find an analogy for this in England it is nothing more than that which commonly happens here—namely, a grant

        1045
        from the Crown to a subject to do something which the subject cannot do without that grant. Technically, it is a franchise, and not a monopoly; if we apply English principles to this matter it is a franchise. I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is not here, for he is acquainted with these subjects better than I am. He knows full well that in this country, if the Crown grants to a subject the right to hold a fair, or a market, or a ferry, it cannot possibly grant a similar franchise within the same limits to any other person. A similar grant, if made, would be void. In saying this, I guard myself with the statement that these principles ought not positively to apply in discussing this broad question. But if you lift it from the narrow view that was taken of it at Portsmouth to the broader view of the principles that govern English law, that broad principle will be against the construction my right hon. and learned Friend put upon it. Let us look at it in a broader view; let us lift this grant from the Egyptian Government to M. de Lesseps from mere legal considerations. It seems to me, if the truth must be told, that this is what the Egyptian Government said to the Canal Company—"We ask you to perform certain duties; construct this Canal at your own cost; spend many millions on it—be it a failure, or be it a success, the cost shall fall upon you; you shall undertake other obligations; you shall maintain the Canal in good repair for 99 years, and at the end of 99 years you shall surrender it to us, the Egyptian Government." That was certainly giving good value to the Egyptian Government. The Canal Company paid for what it was to get. What was it to get? It was to receive the tolls, if any, under certain limitations. If the Canal failed, it was to receive nothing; but if it were a success, it was to receive tolls, and tolls only. Let us apply the laws of this country, or the laws of every country which are governed by justice, to this case. Ought these tolls to be taken away, now that the Canal has proved a success? If the contentions of those who argue against the exclusive right are correct, we must translate the concession made by the Egyptian Government into very different language from that I have given. According to the right hon. Gentleman's contention, the
        1046
        Egyptian Government said—"We tell you, who are about to subscribe to this Company, we grant you this right; and we call upon you to find these £16,000,000 for the construction; we call upon you to construct the Canal; we call upon you to run the risk which eminent engineers see as a very great one; we call upon you to maintain the Canal for 99 years; and we call upon you to surrender it to us at the end of that period; but we tell you that, before the end of that period, when you have proved the possibility of making the Canal, if it pleases us, we will grant power to make a second Canal to someone else, and will grant to that Canal power of taking tolls similar to those you enjoy." If that had been said—and that is the contention of the right hon. Baronet—is there a sane man who would have subscribed one single farthing to that Canal? And yet that is the proposition the right hon. Baronet sets before us. If England had been before other nations in this undertaking, and had obtained a concession in similar terms, what should we have said if the French had, under like circumstances to the present, applied for a second concession? What should we have said to the Government of Egypt if they had said to us in effect—"You have obtained the money you required, and have constructed the Canal which has turned out successful; and now that you have proved what other men can do, we will rob you of your profit by granting a similar concession to someone else?" My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen) spoke of the doctrine of inherent domain, as though the Khedive had the power to take away the Canal from its constructors after its completion; but I would remind the House that that doctrine means compensation. No one denies that, if the present and prospective value of the Canal is paid to the Company, the Government of Egypt has the technical power, inherent in every State, of resuming possession of that which it has conceded. Nothing that Her Majesty's Government have said has gone the length of such denial; nothing has been said as to what may be the power of M. de Lesseps to form a second Canal, or the power of the Khedive in certain circumstances to form a second Canal, nor has anything been said as to what may be

        1047
        the new condition of things if the present owners of the Canal should fail in their duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has touched on none of these propositions. The proposition we had to deal with was this—Was the English Government in a position to support the claims of a new Company which would go to the Khedive, and ask for a concession for a Canal to run, within the limits of the Isthmus, side by side with, and as near as possible to, the present Canal, and with a power to charge only three-fifths of the present toll? I say the question was, whether that demand for a new Company to work in competition with the existing vested owners of the Canal was just, and whether we had power to say to M. de Lesseps that an exclusive right against that demand could not be claimed? It was of that exclusive power, and of that exclusive power alone, that the Prime Minister spoke. He said we could not assent to the proposal for a competitive Canal running parallel with the existing Canal. I say this because I wish to leave those other claims to which I referred open for future consideration. We had to deal with things as they are, and not with things as they may arise; and it is because we consider it undesirable to deal with matters which are not before the House for its consideration, and which may arise in the future, that we prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet, which is a declaration of that which, up to the present time, no one that I know of has disputed. As to the position which my hon. and learned Colleague and I have occupied during the past three or four weeks, we have been more than criticized. We have been severely censured. We have been told, by those who do not know how long we took to consider the matter, that we gave a hasty opinion to the Government; and I, certainly, never before heard Law Officers of the Crown complained of on the ground that their opinions were given too quickly. It is said that we were partial; but we had no financial purpose to serve, no speculators to advise, and we had no juniors to come to us with doubtful opinions. We were asked to tell the Government what we thought was right, and we did so to the best of our judgment. I know that we need not care for
        1048
        these things which are now said of us. Whenever great interests are involved, much excitement is caused, and when there is great excitement you generally find extravagant language indulged in. Certainly, of such language there has been no absence in the discussion of the matters connected with the Suez Canal Company. When the excitement cools down the time for reflection will come; and, whatever interested persons may say, the judgment of commercial men will coincide with what has been said by my hon. Friends who proposed and seconded the Amendment. They will know, as they carry their trade amongst foreign nations, that there are things which stand them in better stead than quick communications and low rates and charges. They will know that in their dealings, however small and minute, that the character and honour of the nation to which they belong is a greater benefit to them than immediate pecuniary advantage. I am certain of this —that they would have been the first to blame us if we had set ourselves to work with ingenuity to find out flaws which our common sense could not discern, and if we had endeavoured with casuistry to argue in favour of that which we really believed to be unjust, because it would be of advantage to a large class of people. In giving that advice, which had been followed to the extent I have mentioned by Her Majesty's Government, I still believe, and I hope I am right in believing, that we did our duty not only to those who asked our opinion, but also to those whose material interests were most concerned.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: At this time of night (12.35 A.M.) I will not detain the House with many remarks; but there are one or two things which I think it necessary to say after the discussion which has taken place. It would have been a great satisfaction if I could, from the course of the debate, have gathered such assurances from Her Majesty's Government as would have dispensed me with the necessity of asking the House to pronounce a decision upon my Motion. It is one that is brought forward with a practical purpose—with the view of obtaining some security for the independence and freedom of the judgment of the House; and I must own that when I listened to the speech of the Prime

        1049
        Minister I was not altogether without hopes, from some of the expressions that he used, that I might attain my object without a Division. But I have listened to the debate as it has gone on, and, remembering the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, still more, bearing in mind what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, I find it is quite impossible for me to refrain from asking for the decision of the House, though I am very well aware what the decision is likely to be. In the first place, let me say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). I do not see any distinction between his Motion and that which I submit to justify a second Division; therefore, the one Division that will be taken will be on the question of the substitution of the words of the hon. Member for Hull for those I have laid before the House. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will only make one remark. After all that he has said about the Provisional Agreement which was recently entered into, I cannot understand how it was that the Government refrained from bringing that Agreement before the judgment of the House. It does appear to me that if the Agreement was one which had all the advantages claimed for it, it was one which ought to have been brought forward and pressed upon the decision of the House. As far as I can understand, what has taken place amounted to this—that having made an Agreement which involved a concession of which very considerable use had been, and would in future be made, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had abstained, in consequence of objections which were made, from taking the judgment of the House upon the proposal of the Government. I think the conduct of the Government in the matter has been the main cause of the difficulty which has arisen. If they had had a discussion on the Agreement, and had been able to take the sense of Parliament upon it, we should not have had occasion to ask for any separate discussion of the subject; but the position in which we have been placed by the withdrawal of the Agreement without discussion has been that which has rendered it necessary for me to move
        1050
        my Resolution to-night. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Henry James) on the subject of the wording of the Motion, I cannot help saying that if the hon. and learned Attorney General construes the documents which are submitted to him for his opinion in the same extraordinary manner to that in which he has construed my Resolution, I cannot wonder at any opinion the hon. and learned Gentleman may give. Not only have I distinctly stated in the House what the meaning of my Resolution is, but I contend that the language of the Resolution is perfectly clear, and is not at all open to the misrepresentation it has received at the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Let me put this imaginary case. Suppose a Member of the House came down to Prayers and placed his card in a particular seat, everyone admits he had thus established a right to that seat for the evening. Supposing the same hon. Member were to claim that, in consequence of his having put his card into a particular place on one of the Benches, he had thereby obtained a right not only to that seat, but to exclude everybody else from the Bench except those whom he chose to admit there. Now, that is a good illustration of the meaning of the words of my Motion—
        "While respecting the undoubted rights of the Company in regard to their own concession, decline to recognize any claim on their part to such a monopoly as would exclude the possibility of competition on the part of other undertakings designed for the purpose of opening a water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea."
        Will the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General tell us whether the Canal which is now in existence is not an undertaking designed for the purpose of opening communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea? It is absolutely childish to deny that such is the case. I never denied, for one moment, that a concession was made to the Company; but what I have said is, that the pouvoir exclusif was given to M. de Lesseps for a particular purpose. It was given for the purpose of enabling him to constitute a certain body which he was to form, and there was a provision made that that Company should have certain concessions. Those concessions alluded to M. de

        1051
        Lesseps's exclusive power to enable him to form a Company, which Company should have certain concessions, which are there set forth. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has spent a great deal of time in arguing a point which was never disputed. Those concessions were given in the several documents to which reference has been made; but they are altogether outside, and have nothing to do with, the pouvoir exclusif. I will not detain the House any longer. I know the views which were stated in regard to the celebrated case of "Gladstone and Company in error" will end very much in the same way; and whatever the error may be, I suppose it will be justified by a majority, judging from such indications as that given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Palmer) who seconded the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman surprised me not a little by the speech he made. We all know the hon. Gentleman to be a consistent and an able advocate and supporter of the shipping interest; and when I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he agreed with my Motion, and agreed with the arguments upon which it was founded, I must say I expected that I would have had the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's vote on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman is one of the many who, at the first blush, strongly opposed the agreement entered into. The hon. Gentleman now says, however, that he must, nevertheless, take a leading part in voting against the Resolution because it savours of a Party character. We must take the matter as we find it. All we can say is that we protest, and we will justify our protest by our votes; we protest against the doctrine which has been laid down, and the claim that has been put forward by M. de Lesseps on the part of the Suez Canal Company—a claim which has been too freely admitted by Her Majesty's Government. I shall have no scruple of conscience in the vote I am now about to give; and without any further delay I invite the House to go to a Division.
        Question put.
        The House divided—Ayes 183; Noes 282: Majority 99.

        AYES.

        Alexander, Colonel C.

        Amherst, W. A. T.

        Allsopp, C.

        Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

        1052

        Aylmer, J. E. F.

        Garnier, J. C.

        Bailey, Sir J. R.

        Giffard, Sir H. S.

        Balfour, A. J.

        Giles, A.

        Barttelot, Sir W. B.

        Goldney, Sir G.

        Beach,rt.hon. Sir M.H.

        Gooch, Sir D.

        Beach, W. W. B.

        Gorst, J. E.

        Bective, Earl of

        Grantham, W.

        Bellingham, A. H.

        Greer, T.

        Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

        Halsey, T. F.

        Beresford, G. De la P.

        Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

        Biddell, W.

        Birkbeck, E.

        Hamilton, Lord C. J.

        Blackburne, Col. J. I.

        Hamilton, I. T.

        Boord, T. W.

        Harcourt, E. W.

        Bourke, rt. hon. R.

        Harvey, Sir R. B.

        Brise, Colonel S. R.

        Hay, rt. hon. Admiral

        Broadley, W. H. H.

        Sir J. C. D.

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

        Herbert, hon. S.

        Hicks, E.

        Bruce, Sir H. H.

        Hildyard, T. B. T.

        Bruce, hon. T. C.

        Hill, A. S.

        Brymer, W. E.

        Holland, Sir H. T.

        Bulwer, J. R.

        Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

        Burghley, Lord

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

        Buxton, Sir R. J.

        Jackson, W. L.

        Callan, P.

        Johnstone, Sir F.

        Campbell, J. A.

        Kennard, Col. E. H.

        Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

        Kennard, C. J.

        Chaplin, H.

        King-Harman, Colonel E.R

        Christie, W. L.

        Clarke, E.

        Knight, F. W.

        Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

        Knightley, Sir R.

        Collins, T.

        Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

        Compton, F.

        Lawrance, J. C.

        Corry, J. P.

        Lawrence, Sir T.

        Cotton, W. J. R.

        Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

        Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

        Leigh, R.

        Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

        Leighton, Sir B.

        Curzon, Major hon. M.

        Leighton, S.

        Dalrymple, C.

        Lever, J. O.

        Davenport, H. T.

        Levett, T. J.

        Davenport, W. B.

        Lewisham, Viscount

        Dawnay, Col.hon. L.P.

        Lopes, Sir M.

        Dawnay, hon. G. C.

        Lowther, rt. hon. J.

        De Worms, Baron H.

        Lowther, hon. W.

        Dickson, Major A. G.

        M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

        Digby, Col. hon. E. T.

        Macnaghten, E.

        Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

        Makins, Colonel W. T.

        Donaldson-Hudson, C.

        Manners, rt. hon. Lord J.J.R.

        Douglas, A. Akers-

        Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

        Master, T. W. C.

        Eaton, H. W.

        Maxwell, Sir H. E.

        Ecroyd, W. F.

        Miles, C. W.

        Egerton, hon. A. de T.

        Mills, Sir C. H.

        Egerton, hon. A. F.

        Monckton, F.

        Elcho, Lord

        Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J.R.

        Elliot, Sir G.

        Elliot, G. W.

        Mulholland, J.

        Emlyn, Viscount

        Newdegate, C. N.

        Ewart, W.

        Newport, Viscount

        Ewing, A. O.

        Nicholson, W. N.

        Feilden,Lieut.-General R.J.

        Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S.H

        Fellowes, W. H.

        Northcote, H. S.

        Filmer, Sir E.

        Onslow, D. R.

        Finch, G. H.

        Paget, R. H.

        Fletcher, Sir H.

        Patrick, R. W. Cochran

        Folkestone, Viscount

        Foster, W. H.

        Pell, A.

        Fowler, R. N.

        Pemberton, E. L.

        Fremantle, hon. T. F.

        Percy, rt. hon. Earl

        Galway, Viscount

        Percy, Lord A.

        Gardner,R.Richardson-

        Phipps, C. N. P.

        1053

        Phipps, P.

        Storer, G.

        Price, Captain G. E.

        Sykes, C.

        Puleston, J. H.

        Talbot, J. G.

        Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

        Thomson, H.

        Rankin, J.

        Thornhill, T.

        Ritchie, C. T.

        Tollemache, hon. W. F.

        Rolls, J. A.

        Tollemache, H. J.

        Ross, A. H.

        Tomlinson, W. E. M.

        Ross, C. C.

        Tottenham, A. L.

        Round, J.

        Walrond, Col. W. H.

        St. Aubyn, W. M.

        Warburton, P. E.

        Salt, T.

        Warton, C. N.

        Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.

        Welby-Gregory,SirW.

        Scott, Lord H.

        Whitley, E.

        Scott, M. D.

        Williams, General O.

        Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H.J

        Wilmot, Sir H.

        Wilmot, Sir J. E.

        Severne, J. E.

        Wolff, Sir H. D.

        Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

        Wroughton, P.

        Smith, A.

        Wyndham, hon. P. TELLERS

        Stanhope, hon. E.

        Stanley, rt. hon.Col. F.

        Crichton, Viscount

        Stanley, E. J.

        Winn, R.

        NOES.

        Acland, C. T. D.

        Carbutt, E. H.

        Agnew, W.

        Carington, hon. R.

        Ainsworth, D.

        Causton, R. K.

        Allen, H. G.

        Cavendish, Lord E.

        Amory, Sir J. H.

        Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

        Anderson, G.

        Cheetham, J. F.

        Armitage, B.

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

        Armitstead, G.

        Clarke, J. C.

        Arnold, A.

        Cohen, A.

        Asher, A.

        Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

        Ashley, hon. E. M.

        Collings, J.

        Baldwin, E.

        Collins, E.

        Balfour, Sir G.

        Colman, J. J.

        Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

        Corbett, J.

        Balfour, J. S.

        Cotes, C. C.

        Barclay, J. W.

        Courtney, L. H.

        Baring, Viscount

        Cowen, J.

        Barran, J.

        Cowper, hon. H. F.

        Bass, Sir A.

        Craig, W. Y.

        Beaumont, W. B.

        Cropper, J.

        Blake, J. A.

        Cross, J. K.

        Blennerhassett, Sir R.

        Crum, A.

        Blennerhassett, R. P.

        Davey, H.

        Bolton,.T. C.

        Davies, R.

        Borlase, W. C.

        Dickson, J.

        Brand, H. R.

        Dickson, T. A.

        Brassey, Sir T.

        Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

        Brett, R. B.

        Dillwyn, L. L.

        Briggs, W. E.

        Dodds, J.

        Bright, rt. hon. J.

        Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

        Bright, J. (Manchester)

        Duckham, T.

        Brinton, J.

        Duff, R. W.

        Broadhurst, H.

        Dundas, hon. J. C.

        Brogden, A.

        Earp, T.

        Brooks, M.

        Ebrington, Viscount

        Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

        Edwards, H.

        Bruce, hon. R. P.

        Edwards, P.

        Bryce, J.

        Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

        Buchanan, T. R.

        Errington, G.

        Burt, T.

        Evans, T. W.

        Buxton, F. W.

        Fairbairn, Sir A.

        Buxton, S. C.

        Farquharson, Dr. R.

        Caine, W. S.

        Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

        Campbell, Sir G.

        Fay, C. J.

        Campbell, R. F. F.

        Ferguson, R.

        Campbell-Bannerman, H.

        Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

        Findlater, W.

        1054

        Firth, J. F. B.

        Lymington, Viscount

        Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

        Lyons, R. D.

        Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.

        M'Arthur, Sir W.

        M'Arthur, A.

        Fitzwilliam, hon.H.W.

        M'Coan, J. C.

        Fitzwilliam, hon.W.J.

        M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

        Flower, C.

        Mackie, R. B.

        Foljambe, F. J. S.

        M'Lagan, P.

        Forster, Sir C.

        M'Laren, C. B. B.

        Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

        Macliver, P. S.

        Fry, L.

        M'Minnies, J. G.

        Fry, T.

        Magniac, C.

        Gabbett, D.F.

        Maitland, W. F.

        Gladstone, rt. hn.W.E.

        Mappin, F. T.

        Gladstone, H.J.

        Marjoribanks, hon. E.

        Gladstone, W.H.

        Martin, P.

        Gordon, Sir A.

        Martin, R.B.

        Gosehen, rt. hon. G.J.

        Maskelyne, M. N. H. Story-

        Gourley, E.T.

        Gower, hon. E.F.L.

        Maxwell-Heron, Capt. J. M.

        Grant Sir G. M.

        Grant, A.

        Meldon, C. H.

        Grant, D.

        Mellor, J. W.

        Grey, A.H.G.

        Milbank, Sir F. A.

        Gurdon, R. T.

        Monk, C. J.

        Hamilton, J.G.C.

        Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

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

        Morley, A.

        Morley, J.

        Hardcastle, J. A.

        Mundella, rt. hon. A.J.

        Hartington, Marq. of

        Nicholson, W.

        Hastings, G. W.

        Noel, E.

        Hayter, Sir A. D.

        Nolan, Colonel J.P.

        Henderson, F.

        Norwood, C.M.

        Henry, M.

        O'Beirne, Colonel F.

        Herschell, Sir F.

        O'Brien, Sir P.

        Hibbert, J. T.

        O'Shaughnessy, R.

        Hill, T. R.

        O'Shea, W.H.

        Holden, I.

        Otway, Sir A. J.

        Holland, S.

        Paget, T.T.

        Hollond, J. R.

        Palmer, C.M.

        Holms, J.

        Palmer, G.

        Hopwood, C. H.

        Palmer, J.H.

        Howard, E. S.

        Parker, C.S.

        Howard, G. J.

        Pease, A.

        Illingworth, A.

        Peddie, J.D.

        Ince, H.B.

        Peel, A.W.

        Inderwick, F.A.

        Pender, J.

        James, Sir H.

        Pennington, F.

        James, C.

        Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L.

        James, W.H.

        Porter, rt. hon. A.M.

        Jardine, R.

        Portman, hn. W.H.B.

        Jenkins, Sir J.J.

        Powell, W.R.H.

        Jenkins, D.J.

        Power, J. O'C.

        Jerningham, H.E.H.

        Price, Sir R.G.

        Johnson, E.

        Pugh, L.P.

        Jones-Parry, L.

        Pulley, J.

        Kingscote,Col. R.N.F.

        Ralli, P.

        Kinnear, J.

        Ramsay, J.

        Labouchere, H.

        Ramsden, Sir J.

        Lambton, hon. F.W.

        Rathbone, W.

        Lawrence, Sir J.C.

        Reid, R. T.

        Lawrence, W.

        Rendel, S.

        Lawson, Sir W.

        Richard, H.

        Lea, T.

        Richardson, J.N.

        Leake, R.

        Richardson, T.

        Leatham, E.A.

        Roberts, J.

        Leatham, W.H.

        Roe, T.

        Leeman, J.J.

        Rogers, J.E.T.

        Lefevre, right hon. G.J.S.

        Rothschild, Sir N.M.de

        Roundell, C.S.

        Lloyd, M.

        Russell, Lord A.

        Lubbock, Sir J.

        Russell, C.

        Lusk, Sir A.

        Russell, G.W.E.

        1055

        Rylands, P.

        Tracy, hon. F.S.A. Hanbury-

        St. Aubyn, Sir J.

        Samuelson, B.

        Trevelyan, rt. hn. G.O.

        Samuelson, H.

        Villiers, rt. hon. C.P.

        Sellar, A.C.

        Vivian, Sir H.H.

        Shaw, T.

        Vivian, A.P.

        Sheridan, H.B.

        Walter, J.

        Shield, H.

        Waterlow, Sir S.H.

        Sinclair, Sir J.G.T.

        Waugh, E.

        Slagg, J.

        Webster, J.

        Smith, Lt.-Col. G.

        Whitbread, S.

        Smith, E.

        Whitworth, B.

        Smith, S.

        Wiggin, H

        Smyth, P. J.

        Williams, S.C.E.

        Stanley, hon. E.L.

        Williamson, S.

        Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

        Willis, W.

        Stanton, W.J.

        Willyams, E.W.B.

        Stevenson, J.C.

        Wilson, C.H.

        Stewart, J.

        Wilson, I.

        Storey, S.

        Wodehouse, E.R.

        Stuart, H.V.

        Woodall, W.

        Summers, W.

        Woolf, S. TELLERS.

        Talbot, C. R. M. of

        Tavistock, Marquess of

        Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

        Tennant, C.

        Thomasson, J. P.

        Kensington, right hon. Lord

        Thompson, T. C.

        Words added.
        Main Question, as amended, put.
        Resolved, That this House desires to maintain its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; and this House, in consequence, declines to pass any Resolution as to future negotiations or proceedings respecting the same.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.
      CONSTABULARY AND POLICE ADMINISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

        ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTION FOR LEAVE.
        Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question,
        "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the administration of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes connected with the said forces."—(Mr. Trevelyan)
        Question again proposed.
        Debate resumed.
        MR. TREVELYANsaid, it would, perhaps, be courteous to the House if he made a short explanation as to the effect of this Bill. It was a Bill of considerable importance, but happily not a very large Bill. The scheme of the Bill had been very carefully considered and frequently revised; it expressed the matured decision of the Irish Government, and embodied the experience during many
        1056
        years of a system into which it now proposed to introduce certain changes and innovations. The present machinery for maintaining law and order in Ireland might be said to date from the Act of 1836, which gave birth to the Resident Magistrates and the Royal Irish Constabulary. It was, he thought, no small thing to say that the authors of that Act had done their work so well, that after half a century the Act did not require any very serious amendment. There had been full time to ascertain all the weak points of the system, and, although those weak points were not many, it was high time they were corrected. This Bill related to administration, and he could not conceive any more cogent or urgent argument in favour of the proposed changes, than the argument that the Government had been forced to introduce, by its own inherent power as a Government, and outside any legislative power, certain temporary changes which it was now proposed to make thorough and complete and permanent by law, if Parliament would give its sanction. That was exactly the case with regard to the machinery for the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. Some years ago it was ascertained that that machinery was not adequate to the wants of an exceptional period, and even that it might very well be amended for quiet times. The centralization of the criminal administration of Ireland had become a crying evil. The 90 Resident Magistrates had to report to the Under Secretary at the Castle; and all the 270 officers of the Constabulary, commanding 14,000 men throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, were obliged to report to the Inspector General at Dublin. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) came to the conclusion that the time had arrived when the administration ought to be decentralized; and the time when he came to that conclusion was a time when he had no opportunity of calling upon Parliament for legislation. He did what it was in his power to do. [An IRISH MEMBER: Buckshot! and ironical cheers.] If those cheers were otherwise than ironical, and if they came from other quarters of the House, they would express the gratitude of the nation to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he then took to preserve law and order. He did what it was in his power to do.

        1057
        He appointed six Special Resident Magistrates, to whom he allotted six districts. He made those officers responsible for the administration of those districts, and charged them with the duty of preserving order, reporting to the Central Government, and tracking out crime, and gave them considerable authority over the constabulary in their districts. This arrangement was the best he could then make, and it turned out to be an administrative achievement of a very considerable character. As a permanent arrangement, however, it had certain defects, and this Bill proposed to remove them. In the first place, in the opinion of the Government, the time had come for drawing a deep and clear line between judicial and executive functions. A magistrate who had to sit on the Bench and adjudicate should not have his attention absorbed and his judgment warped, as in certain cases it might be, by the duties of administration, and still more by the duties of a detector and investigator. It was wonderful how impartial the Resident Magistrates had shown themselves; but the Government considered that that impartiality would be more established in the eyes of the public, if those officers were confined entirely to judicial duties. While it was very satisfactory to observe how little friction there had been between the Special Resident Magistrates and the police, still all likelihood of such friction would be removed when the police were entirely under the charge of their own officers. It was of no avail in itself that one part of the country should be under one system, and another part of the country under another. At the time when the Special Resident Magistrates were appointed, the duties to be performed were so great in one district, that, although there were six Special Resident Magistrates, they did not cover the whole of Ireland. The present Bill proposed to make five Divisions in Ireland, which were to cover the whole country, and to place each under a Police Commissioner, who would be responsible for the police in that district, and would naturally relieve the Resident Magistrates of the duty of detecting crime, and relegate them to their functions as Judges. Under the present arrangement, there was a Criminal Investigation Department and a
        1058
        Detective Department, and the duties were exercised at present under two distinct Departments—namely, the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Detective Police. It was considered necessary that there should be rapid and instant communication between the Detective Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary. At one time crime was increasing at such a rate that there were 50 undiscovered murders within a comparatively short period, and it had become necessary to place the Detective Force in Ireland in a position in which it could act promptly, and for that purpose it was found desirable to place the whole of the Police under one Head. As it was impossible, at the time, to apply to Parliament, the office of Assistant Secretary for the Detection of Crime was created. Seeing what had since occurred, in connection with the detection of the Dublin murders, he hoped that all sections of Parliament would allow that this new Department had been an entire success. The arrangement, however, was only a temporary one; but it was now proposed to affirm it by sanctioning the appointment of a permanent Head to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Detective Police combined. He had given several reasons why it was most important the Bill should be pressed forward in the present Session; but he would now give one which he thought, in the eyes of many Members, would add weight to those reasons. The present temporary system was very expensive indeed. The cost of the Police and the Criminal Department was, at the present moment, £38,464 a-year. The present Bill would reduce that cost to £22,858, a very sensible reduction indeed, and one which, in the present state of administration in Ireland, would, he hoped, show that the time was come when the Government really believed that some attention might be turned towards economy. This, however, was not the only economy, because it confined the Resident Magistrates to their judicial functions. They hoped, at a period so short that he did not like to name it, lest he might be somewhat too sanguine, to reduce the number of Resident Magistrates from 89 to 72, which was their legally authorized number. With that additional reduction, it might be said that the economy pro-

        1059
        duced by the Bill would come to £22,000 or £23,000 a-year. He wished it clearly to be understood that the Bill would make no difference at all with the great bulk of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and none at all to the men, except that they would be under the command of police officers instead of the Special Resident Magistrate—a change which, he had every reason to believe, they would regard with satisfaction. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, he thought they would. In fact, he felt so strongly they would that it was one very urgent reason why he asked Parliament to pass the Bill this year. Two, at least, of the first five Provincial Police Commissioners must, by Statute, if the Bill passed, be officers actually serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, after that, the Government proposed a provision, which many Members of the House might think a wrong one, but which they disputed. He thought he should be able to produce arguments in support of—arguments which had often been urged in the House—the provision he referred to, which was one enacting that any vacancies occurring hereafter should, by Statute, be filled up out of the Constabulary. As the Royal Irish Constabulary became trained in administrative and effective duties, he felt certain they would be able to find the right men for the posts, responsible and important as those posts were. In the long run, all the good things of the Service ought to be filled out of the Service itself; and, from the very first, the Royal Irish Constabulary would lose nothing, but would gain something. There would still be the same number of County Inspectors, promotion would not be, in any respect, slower on account of the Bill; and, in the higher Departments of the Service, the immediate effect would be to give at least one more valuable appointment than now existed to the Royal Irish Constabulary, the ultimate effect being to give an addition of four valuable appointments. The general result of the Bill would be to separate the judicial from the administrative duties of these functionaries, and to make the maintenance of order in Ireland more thorough, more equable, and, he sincerely hoped and believed, less costly than it was at present. He begged now to renew the Motion for
        1060
        leave to bring in the Bill, and he earnestly hoped the House would give leave for its introduction that night.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had adopted a very unusual course in asking the House to read for the first time a Bill of this contentious character on the last day of the expiring month before the commencement of the month of August, when the House would be entitled to conclude that the labours of the Government and of the House were about to draw to an end. Certainly he thought, in view of the fact that the Irish measures promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne had not yet approached a second reading, that the Government might have fulfilled, or made some attempt to fulfil, the promises they had held out to the House of Commons and the people of Ireland before introducing, in the expiring days of the Session, a Bill of this contentious nature, and a Bill which, he thought, he should be able to show before he had done with it would be of an extremely mischievous character. The right hon. Gentleman must congratulate his Predecessor in Office upon the magnificent result of his labours, and it was a somewhat singular fact that the first speech which the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary had made on any really Irish question was a speech in which he took up the measures of repression, or, as the right hon. Gentleman called them, the measures of criminal decentralization, which had been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. E. Forster), his unfortunate Predecessor. He should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have made his maiden speech upon constructive Irish legislation, and that he would have been able to find a more congenial topic than was afforded him by the present Bill—a measure which he was sure, if he could examine the innermost recesses of the (right hon. Gentleman's heart, he must regard with extreme disgust and disapproval. The Bill was bound to work mischief among the members of the Constabulary Force in Ireland; but it also perpetuated a vicious principle and a vicious system, respecting the abolition of which they

        1061
        had the promise of the Irish Government from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, who, in the Session of 1880, said that he, for one, hoped to be able to put an end to them before long. That statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman in the debate upon the constitution of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the Session of 1880, and the right hon. Gentleman then informed the House that he trusted before long to be able to dispense with the services of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It was, therefore, not to be anticipated that in so short a time the Successor of the right hon. Gentleman would come down to the House to introduce a measure for the perpetuation of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the retention of certain high places which would involve a permanent expenditure of some £26,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman told them that these high places were to be filled up for the present by two officers chosen from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and by three others not chosen from the ranks of the Constabulary; but upon the death of those gentlemen, or as vacancies were created by retirement, the posts would be permanently filled up by officers selected from the Royal Irish Constabulary. Such a declaration meant that the Government intended to keep up the Royal Irish Constabulary as a perpetual necessity. Now, they all knew what this Force of the Royal Irish Constabulary was; they all knew that it was a palpable and unblushing invasion of the Mutiny Act, a system under which the Crown in Ireland was able to maintain a force of soldiers in that country in excess of the nominal Force in the Mutiny Act—a system which would not be tolerated for a moment in Scotland or in this country, but which they were able to maintain in Ireland simply on account of the misinformation which existed in regard to every Irish question that was brought before the House. He thought it was the duty of the Irish Members to protest most strongly against the conduct of the Government in introducing a Bill of this contentious character practically speaking in the mouth of August, when in another three weeks, or a month at the outside, it might have been hoped that the Session would have been brought to
        1062
        a close. In point of fact, the Bill was a job. It was a job, and an unblushing job, for the purpose of providing places for Mr. Clifford Lloyd, Mr. Blake, Mr. Jenkinson, and one or two other geniuses who had been discovered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), but whose value nobody during the right hon. Gentleman's ill-omened term of Office had ever been able to discover. But the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary said the Bill was justified by the success of Mr. Jenkinson in discovering the existence of the Invincibles in Dublin. Now, it was perfectly well known that neither Mr. Jenkinson nor any other member of the Executive Government had anything in the world to do with the discovery of the Invincibles; but that, in fact, the proceedings of that Organization were brought to light by a detective officer named Mallow, an Irish police officer, whose name was studiously kept in the background in order that that of Mr. Jenkinson might be put in the front. Mr. Jenkinson, Lord Spencer, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself, were pushed to the front, and got all the credit for an, achievement with which they had nothing whatever to do. He denied that Mr. Jenkinson ever knew anything about the matter, or that he was fit for his post of Assistant Secretary, or what the right hon. Gentleman called Secretary for Crimes in Ireland—an extraordinary appellation, but very suitable for an Irish Under Secretary. This Bill was a job for the purpose of providing places for the gentlemen he had named, all of whom, with two exceptions—namely, Mr. Blake and one other person —were not officers of the Police in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill made a provision that in future the Police Force of Ireland should be controlled by officers of that Force; but they would only be made officers of the Police by the Bill which it was now proposed to read a first time. They were not officers of the Police at present, or of the Constabulary in Ireland, and there were many officers of the Constabulary who felt much annoyed that their claims, and the claims of their superior officers, were passed over in favour of persons who had been brought from the four quarters of the

        1063
        globe on account of their supposed capacity, but whose capacity nobody, except the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Government, had been able to discover. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a reduction of expenditure which would be secured; but he did not point out that this expenditure was an expiring expenditure. It was an expenditure which was entailed by the creation of offices for temporary purposes by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford; and if those offices were now allowed to drop, instead of the Exchequer being burdened with an expenditure of £25,000 a-year, there would not be any expenditure at all. He submitted that, under these circumstances, the House might very fairly refuse to read the Bill a first time, and he was satisfied that he should be able to show a very strong case indeed against the Bill when it came on for second reading, if, indeed, it ever did come on for a second reading. He thought it was monstrous to waste the time of hon. Members by keeping them up at this late hour (1.40 A.M.) to do that which, obviously from the nature of the case and from the period of the Session, must be futile work and work of no utility whatever.
        MR HEALYsaid, he could not say he viewed the introduction of this Bill with much regret. He had been absent from the House of Commons for six months; but during the whole of that time there had been no Irish Business done worth calling Irish Business, and it was time that some should be done. It was true there had been one piece of Irish legislation this Session, just as, last Session, there was another Bill passed besides the Crimes Bill. It was a singular thing that both these additional Bills had been Police Bills. They had a right to think now that the Government would not be happy if they had not two or three Police Bills each Session. He rejoiced—with a sardonic rejoicement, no doubt—at this Bill, because it would be opposed by most of the Irish Members. Those hon. Gentlemen were away at present; but they had been enjoying relaxation and gaining fresh energy and strength, and they would be coming back directly like giants refreshed. He had expected to hear some apology for the introduction of the Bill, and had gone over in his mind those measures for the non-passing of which
        1064
        it was possible the right hon. Gentleman would have apologized. The Irish Members had been promised a Registration Bill, but it had not yet been introduced. They had been promised a measure for Local Self-government, but that had not been introduced; they had been promised a Bill for Parliamentary Reform, but they had not got it; they had been promised a measure for Municipal Reform, but they had not got that; they had been promised some kind of support for the Labourers' Bill, but they had not got that; they had been disappointed also in regard to the Poor Law Guardians' Bill; and now, at the end of the Session, they were told that they must content themselves with the last bad egg out of the Pandora's box of the Government. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really thought this treatment of the Irish Party and the Irish Nation reasonable? Did the right hon. Gentleman think the Irish Members would submit tamely to this kind of thing—did he think they would allow him to dandle his police baby on his knee at the end of the Session, and not only that, but that they would be delighted with the performance? The Government had Bills enough to pass; and if he had been in the place of the Chief Secretary he should have thought that hard lines enough, without endeavouring to carry through this extraordinary abertion. There was, he believed, a large measure of Bankruptcy for Ireland awaiting discussion; a few stages yet remained of a Bill they were all interested in—namely, the English Agricultural Holdings Bill—and it was likely that they would become more interested in it—and did the Government imagine that, at this period of the Session, the Irish Members were in a frame of mind to sit down and have this Bill flung in their faces? He could tell the right hon. Gentleman this was a very unfortunate undertaking for him, unless he wished to have a prolonged discussion of the police system of Ireland, and unless he wished to sit here until Christmas—and probably he would not care to do that for Mr. Clifford Lloyd, or even for Mr. Blake, who came over from Ireland yesterday, no doubt, to assist at the incubation of this egg, but who would have to wait a long time before the egg was completely hatched. He (Mr. Healy) had expected a much more

        1065
        definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman than that they had received. The right hon. Gentleman informed them there was to be but one Commissioner. But he did not tell them, as had been the case in the Irish Land Bill, who that Commissioner was to be. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell them that they would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion and voting on the name of this Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman kept the names up his sleeve, as the Chinaman kept his 24 packs of cards, whilst playing the "game he did not understand." Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to giving them the names of these Seven Champions of Christendom? He invited the right hon. Gentleman to let them see his marionettes—let them see the names of the gentlemen which were to be so attractive to this House at this period of the Session, in the sweltering atmosphere of August, that they were to jump at the prospect of considering their merits. The right hon. Gentleman said that not only were the Royal Irish Constabulary to be under the Commissioner or Commissioners, but that—and it would be the first time in the history of Ireland—the purely Municipal Police of Dublin were to come under the control of the central authority, the Municipal Police for which the working men of Dublin paid £60,000 a-year. Had not a Cabinet been turned out of Office on the question of who was to have control of the Metropolitan Police in London? Would the Dublin Corporation get any value for their £60,000 a-year. Would the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) join them in their attempt to pass a clause to relieve Dublin from this burden—if the Bill ever got into Committee? Would the Prime Minister support them? No; he would do nothing of the kind, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who took admirable care to consult the wishes of the Prime Minister, had told them that it would be useless to make such a proposal. He did not charge the Chief Secretary with the suppression of the truth; but there was a certain artistic official way of putting facts, and the right hon. Gentleman was an adept at the art. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this £60,000 which the Dublin Corporation had been paying hitherto was to be remitted or not, and, if not, why not?
        1066
        Why was Dublin to be singled out of all the cities of the Empire to pay for a thing which they had no voice or control over, and which to them would he bad value for their money? He would ask English Gentlemen, who now and then had occasion to go over to Dublin, whether they had not been struck with the style of the policemen? If ever it was necessary to summon a cab-driver or a person of that kind who might happen to leave horse-feed on the pavement, or if ever one was wanted to bring before the magistrates people guilty of breaking the municipal bye-laws by leaving vegetable or other refuse in the streets, the haughty policeman would stride nobly by, disdaining to look upon rotten cabbage. He would not allow it to come between the wind and his nobility. He would go to Dublin Castle to consult with the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary about the state of the country, but could not stoop to such small matters as the condition of the streets. Well, this Chief Commissioner and his assistants would go on sniffing out conspiracy, leaving foul smells to generate and pollute the air, to poison the inhabitants, to breed fevers, cholera, and all manner of diseases, and to fill the hospitals with patients. The Irish Members arraigned this system of looking after the affairs of Ireland. They denied the competence of the right hon. Gentleman to legislate for Ireland in matters of this kind. If he insisted on having his Chief Commissioner, let him pay for that official himself out of the Imperial Funds. If he thought a Chief Commissioner was such a valuable thing to have, let him pay for that Chief Commissioner as he would for any other article he might want. The right hon. Gentleman told them there was no friction between any of the parties concerned in this matter—that this Bill was designed to alleviate the condition of the constables —but that there was no friction between them and the Special Resident Magistrates who were to emerge from their present grub and chrysalis condition into the full-blown Chief Commissioner state. He (Mr. Healy) presumed the right hon. Gentleman was not in Ireland during what was called the famous "Police Strike"—he might have been, but, if so, he appeared to have forgotten it. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine, when he told them to give such undiluted

        1067
        attention to the condition of the Constabulary this autumn, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who, when he was a police magistrate, produced nothing but mutiny, would produce peace and comfort when he became a Commissioner? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that by changing the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's office they would change that Gentleman's qualities—did he think that, like a leopard, Mr. Clifford Lloyd could change his spots? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thought, the thing would be impossible. So long as Mr. Clifford Lloyd had to do with the police the men would feel the thong of his Burmah whip. Nothing could alter the status quo of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; he would just go on as he had done before. Therefore, he (Mr. Healy) would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought the Royal Irish Constabulary would be worse or better under the new system? The contention of the Irish Members was that the grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary were the fault of the Government, because they arraigned and disputed the competency of the Chief Secretary to propose such arrangements as these. He would put this to the House—What was this Body on which so much time was spent, and which was being mollycoddled at the rate of three Bills a Session? So far as he had been able to see, it was a Body for the purpose of creating tumult, riots, and brawls in the lower ranks, and for making nice jobs for landlords' agents and landlords' sons in the upper ranks. He was glad that Irish Members would have an opportunity of speaking about the position of the police and the people on this Bill. What was the character of the Sub-Inspectors and of the proposed Royal Commissioners? Why, they attained their position, as he understood it, either by a system of examination or by a system of competition, subject to approval. As to examination, no one had a chance of obtaining a post by that means unless he were the son of a landlord, some petty agent, some ex-English official, or some broken-down public servant from Bombay, Burmah, Canada, Jerusalem, Madagascar, or anywhere but Ireland. That was the examination system; and then, as to the system of competition, to begin with, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government shut out from competition
        1068
        nearly everybody by preventing them from getting that University education which was enjoyed in England. The great mass of the people of Ireland were shut out by reason of religious disabilities from learning those things which were learnt in Universities, and which were necessary before a man could pass an examination for Sub-Inspector. The great mass of the Catholic people of Ireland, or all those who could not conscientiously attend the godless Colleges, or who could not afford to go to grinders to cram in special subjects, were shut out from competition. Who were those who were able to compete? Why, as a general rule, they were the younger sons of landlords, of the agents, and of the parsons. These were the gentlemen who officered the Force, and upon whom the whole peace of Ireland depended. And what did they get? Why, some underdone shoneen as a Sub-Inspector, and they sent him down to a place in the country to officer 12 or 14 men. What happened? Did he endeavour to sympathize with the people; did he mix amongst them in order to become an agent for the detection of crime? No; but he set himself out for getting as many invitations as he could to stretch his legs under the landlord's mahogany. Should a landlord have a case of trespass, a case about a bog rent, a case under the Crimes Act, or a case where a cow had strayed on to his land from the farm of a man to whom he owed a grudge, the tip would be given to the Sub-Inspector at the dinner-table, and the next day the "intelligent head constable" would be informed of the facts and would state the case before a magistrate. A summons would be issued, and the magistrate would come down, take his seat on the Bench with a grave face, and poor Paddy would be fined so much and costs. These Sub-Inspectors were thorns in the side of the Irish people, festering and annoying them from year's end to year's end; and it was to advance the interests of this class that the right hon. Gentleman asked thorn to sit through the month of August, and probably until Christmas, to pass the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must have a very hopeful mind; and to him (Mr. Healy) it was a reproach to find that, after two or three years' experience of the Irish Party, the right hon.

        1069
        Gentleman should be sanguine enough to bring forward such a Bill as this. It almost brought the virginal blush to his (Mr. Healy's) face to think that the right hon. Gentleman had such confidence in the soft-heartedness and soft-mindedness of the Irish Members that he could ask them, in the month of August, after he had failed in all his pledges to them in every other respect, to pass a Bill of this kind. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Labourers' Bill was of less importance than this Bill? Could he say so? Could he have the well-being of the people of Ireland at heart while he neglected that Bill? Could he venture to ask for time for the promotion of a Bill of this vicious and irritating character? The right hon. Gentleman was very apt to take credit to himself because of his Bills; but he had never aided the Irish Members to get the Guardians' Bill of last year or the Labourers' Bill of this Session to a third reading. And yet he expected them to accept this as an instalment of his good intentions. In his relations with the right hon. Gentleman he had never experienced anything but courtesy—leaving the incident of Richmond out of sight—but he thoroughly believed that the right hon. Gentleman had less idea of the moral and material wants of Ireland than the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forstor) had. There was, perhaps, no one who disliked the right hon. Member for Bradford more than he did; but he was bound to say that he believed that right hon. Gentleman had the prosperity of Ireland, so far as he understood it, at heart. He came into Office at the wrong time, and was not the man for the situation; but had he come into Office in quiet times, it would have given him pleasure to assist such a measure as the Labourers' Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary had come in in halcyon days—he must say hanging days. The Government had nothing to do but to hang people; and yet, in these piping times of peace, the right hon. Gentleman did not venture, while hanging people on the one hand, to do anything for the poor people on the other. There were still some people left in Ireland; they were not all hanged and transported; and although he seemed to think it was only police they wanted, judging by the
        1070
        number of police he had introduced, there were other people and interests besides the Constabulary; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of those considerations which ought to be at the heart of a good administrator. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to drop this Bill, and to forget, for a moment, the existence of Mr. Blake and Mr. Clifford Lloyd; to think of the unfortunate Irish labourers in rags in their miserable cabins, or thrown out upon the roadside, and to forget that his only duty was to hang people or to put them into gaol. Why should the history of Ireland always be connected with the police? Were they never to have any Bills unless they bere the endorsement of some connection with the police? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, once for all, to drop this system of nibbling at Constabulary Bills, and to try to help on other measures to promote the peace of the country. If he did so, he could promise him that, although his name might not be a fragrant memory among the Clifford Lloyds and in Phœnix Park, it would be remembered with gratitude by the masses of the Irish people.
        MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had been so frank as to the purpose of this Bill, for, despite the thin veil and disguise as to economy, it was plain that the object of the Bill was to keep up the present police system in Ireland on its present war footing, and to make a partition of the country between Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Mr. Jenkinson. What was there in the present state of Ireland to justify this police system? If the object of the Bill was repression, the present system was doing that pretty well already. The Bill simply sought to perpetuate, under another name, one of the most disastrous blunders of the right hon. Member for Bradford—the parcelling out of the country under the Clifford Lloyds. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had mentioned that it was very likely that the diminution of crime had deluded the people of England as to the character of these men and their system; but so far from having any pacifying effect on the country, any effect they had had been to excite the people and encourage them to crime. The only power they had was under the Crimes Act, and he did not suppose the Government

        1071
        meant to preserve that Act. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was supposed to be a terrible detector of crime; but the period during which he had County Clare under his control, and was terrorizing the people right, left, and centre, was the very time when the greater number of crimes in that county took place. Neither there nor in County Galway, to which he had been removed, had he tracked the perpetrator of a single agrarian murder. When he was in Limerick what were his achievements? He succeeded in insulting the Mayor and Corporation, and in shooting down and bayonetting the people without cause. Another of his achievements was the organization of the police strike in Limerick; for it was notorious that it was their detestation of Clifford Lloyd and his ridiculous system of patrolling that created that strike. Then there was another gentleman, Mr. Jenkinson, of India, who had been kept in the background, but who was known to be in the forefront. He appeared to be playing the part of an Irish Fouché; but he had had a small share, compared with the man referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, in tracing the Phœnix Park murderers. So far as the public knew, his only part in that matter was the offering of tempting rewards to informers. He discovered three independent witnesses in connection with the Phœnix Park murders—Dr. Cameron, Hand, the chairmaker, and his wife; but when the trial came on he found it judicious not to produce them in Court. This Mr. Jenkinson had such a passion for getting himself spoken and written abeut, that he actually allowed himself to be interviewed in Dublin Castle by the man M'Dermott, whom the police were looking for a few days afterwards, as a probable dynamiter. His only other achievement in Ireland was having assembled the newspaper reporters and delivered to them a speech, in which he libelled one of the most eminent physicians in Dublin, for which he had to apologize. These gentlemen might have been serviceable instruments for the work the Government wanted done; but if the Government wished to govern Ireland, the sooner they dropped these gentlemen the better. The right hon. Gentleman had very carefully kept these gentlemen in the background. He had not stated who the heroes of the Bill were to be; but they were perfectly
        1072
        well known. It was well known that it was for the benefit of these adventurers that the Irish Police was to be organized, or rather disorganized, in this way. This was a temporary crisis; and one of the best proofs of that was that the Government had been getting rid of the small fry—the unfortunate policemen and the marines—who had been dismissed without the slightest ceremony; and he did not see why these gentlemen, who only differed from them in the amount of their salaries, should not be treated with just as little ceremony. At all events, if the Government valued the interests of English government in Ireland, they would soon find that it would be cheaper to pay these gentleman sumptuous salaries to get out of the country altogether, and to drop this Bill, without putting the Irish Members to the trouble of killing it.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the House might well ask the meaning of the recommendation which the Chief Secretary had put in the forefront of the Bill—namely, that for the future the magistrates in Ireland would be dissevered from the detection of crime. He thought it was the experience of England that nothing could be better for the detection of crime than an active, sensible, kindly Magistracy, acting in co-operation with the responsible Police Force, for the detection of crime. Under this Bill the magistrates of the future in Ireland were simply to be reserved for judicial work; but that was a euphemism for condemning persons whose cases would be made up for them by this special 3rd section, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have borrowed from Russo-Poland for permanent application in Ireland. The hon. Member for Cork had correctly stated that the Police Force in Ireland was simply a Military Force. By this Bill this Military Force was to be extended and perpetuated; the local Force of Dublin was to be thrown into the general mass; and there were to be Cossack Police permanently settled in Ireland—responsible to a Central Authority, and having no connection with the magistrates, except in getting up cases upon which they would be expected to adjudicate according to the temper and disposition of the English Government of the day. In fact, this Bill contained the clearest indication to the magistrates of the future

        1073
        as to how they were to behave. At present they were 90 in number; and the Chief Secretary, while holding out a promise of increasing this number of valuable appointments in this absurd Police Force, said he intended to reduce the number to 72; and, of course, he would remove from the Magistracy, on one pretext or another, all those magistrates who had not succeeded in making themselves sufficiently agreeable to the Government of the day. So that the Bill was a measure, in the first place, to destroy the efficiency of the magistrates and to reduce them to the mere rôle of sentencing people who were brought before them by irresponsible police; and, again, it partly terrorized and partly bribed the magistrates, by warning them that their number would be reduced from 89 or 90 to 72—and, of course, all those men would be men who had least deserved the good opinion of the dispensers of patronage in Dublin Castle. He could not conceive any Bill more admirably suited to bring the Administration in Ireland into still greater contempt than the Bill now brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It was very possible the Bill had been inspired by Mr. Jenkinson; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) could most heartily confirm the exposure which had been made with regard to this Act. Everyone knew that Mr. Mallon, an Irish policeman, deserved 99 per cent of any credit earned in the recent conspiracy trials in Dublin. Mr. Jenkinson had distinguished himself in Ireland by nothing but offensive displays; he had got into muddles which would certainly have insured his dismissal had he belonged to an English Force. In India Mr. Jenkinson was nothing but a swashbuckler and a complete failure. In this House he (Mr. O'Donnell) had heard every credit given to Mr. Jenkinson as a beld and courageous man; but there were plenty of such men in the English nation—[An hon. MEMBER: Every nation.]—and, as his hon. Friend said, there were bold and courageous men in every nation. But, in Ireland, they wanted a little more than simple bulldog courage. Mr. Jenkinson in India was nothing more than a leader of a band of Auxiliary troops, which were very efficient in cutting down the mutineers which the Regular troops had dispersed. As to his civil capacity, Mr.
        1074
        Jenkinson was one of the confiscating settlers in the district of Jhansi; and the three or four gentlemen who worked with him had brought about a most unhappy state of affairs in that unfortunate place. Mr. Jenkinson had got no career behind him except that of being a bold, determined rough-rider; and the introduction of such a man into Ireland was certainly not calculated to bring about peace in that country. But he (Mr. O'Donnell) was disposed to look at the Bill as a whole, and not in detail. He should regard the Bill, if it were accepted by the House, as a formal declaration of permanent hostility to national self-government in Ireland. Let the House understand the full responsibility which it must take upon its shoulders if it passed this Bill. All pretence of placing the Police Force of Ireland upon the basis of the Police Force in England would be given up. All pretence of raising the Magistracy in Ireland to the level of the Magistracy in England would be given up. The Magistracy in Ireland would be placed under the foot of the Police Cossacks who would be instituted by this Bill — the magistrates would be absolutely degraded into the mere executive officers of the Police. It was intended to make this Force of 15,000 men a permanent Force in Ireland; and it was proposed to do that in terms and in a manner which showed that they were resolved to keep in the hands of the present authorities all that over-centralization which was the abiding cause of the between Great Britain and Ireland. The Bill was, as he had said, a formal declaration of permanent hostility against national self-government in Ireland, because there was no pretence of meeting an exceptional crisis—there was no pretence of having to take exceptional measures against a state of affairs which it was hoped might pass away in a year or two. If a severe Coercion Bill were brought in, he (Mr. O'Donnell) and his hon. Friends might feel it their duty to oppose it; but, at any rate, there would be some excuse for such a Bill in the fact that it was brought in to meet an exceptional state of affairs. This Bill, however, was to create, as a permanent institution, this Military Police Garrison in Ireland; and all the existing evils were intensified by the fact that the con-

        1075
        trol of the Police was to be more than ever centralized, and that whatever restraining or moderating influence an independent Resident Magistracy might be able to exercise over the zeal of this sort of Military and Detective Police—whatever sort of control and direction a wise Magistracy might be able to exercise upon the Police Force would be entirely done away with under this Bill, for, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had explained, the magistrates were simply to exercise—to use the right hon. Gentleman's euphemism—judicial functions. They were to know nothing of the previous history of cases; they were to know nothing of the points, either weak or strong, in the preparation of cases; but they were actually to be dependent entirely upon the view which the police would place before them, and, in that way, even supposing the magistrates wished to be independent, they would not have the means of being independent. A magistrate would be entirely cut off from all knowledge of the state of the country, entirely cut off from all knowledge of the crimes brought before him; and he was simply to be content with the direction he would receive from tho now Centralized Police. He (Mr. O'Donnell) hoped the Bill would pass. He was glad it was brought in, because it gave the Irish Representatives an admirable opportunity of discussing several very interesting matters. He hoped the Bill would pass after a considerable and exhaustive discussion—after as exhaustive a discussion as its merits demanded. He was sure the Bill would only stimulate the resolution in Ireland for self-government, so that the people might get rid of the English Government and their Cossacks. It would stimulate the resolution of the Irish race all over the world, which was neither dead nor sleeping, to assist their brethren at home to get rid of the Jenkinson stamp of officials, who were the curse of the country.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he regretted that the Government had brought in a Bill of such a formidable character as this at this stage of the Session. It was a serious matter, after so many years of conjoint action between the Constabulary and the Magistracy, that the two should now be separated. The Irish Government ought to have hesitated before seeking to bring
        1076
        in a Bill of this kind so late in the Session. Personally, he should give the Bill every consideration, without the least prejudice, because he knew great things could be done to improve the position of the Magistracy and Constabulary in Ireland, and to improve their relations one with the other, and to the country. He could not help thinking, however, that such radical changes as were now proposed ought not to have been sprung upon the House just on the eve of August.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the manner in which this Bill was treated by the Government was characteristic of their system of governing Ireland. Was it respectful, was it decent, was it precedented in the history of legislation in this House that a number of Members should get up from one portion of the House, offer criticisms to a measure which had been introduced, and that no attempt at reply should be made from the Treasury Bench? Among the slumbering figures upon the Treasury Bench he noticed one distinguished Minister—the Chief Law Officer for Ireland—and the acting Leader of the House; but no attempt was made to reply to the damaging criticism of the Bill. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), however, did not believe that anyone on the Treasury Bench, save the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland, had the least idea of the contents of the Bill. Did the Secretary to the Treasury, for instance, know anything about the Bill? Was there a single Member on the Treasury Bench, with the two exceptions he had named, who had the least conception of the importance of the provisions of the Bill? One of the present misfortunes in the system of government in Ireland was that the Chief Representative of the Irish Government had no place in the House of Commons, and, accordingly, he could not be brought to task for what he did. If they brought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to task, they must remember, at the same time, that he was merely the mouthpiece—if it were not disrespctful he should say, the mere tool—of the Lord Lieutenant. The House was asked to pass this measure, without any attempt being made to justify its provisions, or to defend those provisions against attacks. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the

        1077
        Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was not in his place, because he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had on several occasions been under the unhappy and unfortunate necessity of indulging in criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman which were considered harsh; and now he desired to say that he much preferred the administration, bad as it was, of the right hon. Gentleman, to the administration of the present Chief Secretary. While the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford brought in measures of coercion—measures which were responsible for all the crime and trouble of the last two or three years—while he brought in measures of coercion with the one hand, with the other hand he was always endeavouring, so far as his rights allowed him, to amelioriate the condition of the people. ["No, no!"] That was his opinion. His hon. Friend who interrupted him could express his opinion when he rose to his feet. What was the history of the present Government? What was the history of the present Chief Secretary? Courteousness of manner and geniality of temper might be very nice things in their way; but what was the Legislative and Parliamentary history of the right hon. Gentleman since he took Office? Why, two Police Bills, now followed by a third. Had the right hon. Gentleman done one thing to advance a single measure of reform in Ireland? Had he helped forward any single measure of relief for Ireland, with the exception of the Fisheries Bill and the Reproductive Loan Fund Bill, one of which measures was carried in spite of the Government? What was the history of Lord Spencer and the present Chief Secretary? These two distinguished politicians were now rising to the eminence of statesmen, owing to the detection of crime by a Superintendent of Irish Police. Mr. Mallon deserved all the credit for having detected and brought to justice the persons engaged in the Invincible Conspiracy. What was the history of the present Administration in Ireland? He asked them to show him a single measure they had brought in for the amelioration of the condition of Ireland. There was a Land Law (Ireland) Amendment Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, over
        1078
        and over again, declared the tenants of Ireland had a fair right to claim emendation of the Land Bill; but that Bill received no support from the Government. The Borough Franchise Bill was shelved; the Municipal Franchise Bill was shelved; the Labourers' Bill was floated, but not advanced; the Registration of Voters Bill was dangled before their eyes. The introduction of this Bill might be characterized as a piece of monstrous audacity. It was quite characteristic of the present Rulers of Ireland; for, having watched their course for a considerable time, he was bound to declare Lord Spencer as by far the best Orangeman, and the Chief Secretary as the most efficient member of the Emergency Association, whom Ireland had ever seen. Two hundred and twelve Public Bills had been introduced in Parliament during the present Session, and now on the 1st of August they were to add another Bill to that already swollen list. Let the House reflect what was the state of Business. The present Session was to be a remarkable Session; it was to be a Session in which all the long-neglected wants of the people of this country were to be attended to. Was there ever a more extraordinary muddle, or a more unfathomable morass, than that in which the Government had now got into? Here they were in the month of August, and the only legislation the Government were able to beast of was an Explosives Act; that was practically the only measure that the Government, composed of such able men as it was, had been able to introduce and carry. The Bankruptcy Bill had yet to pass through an important stage; the Corrupt Practices and the two Agricultural Holdings Bills were not yet fully disposed of.
        MR. JONES PARRYrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Gentleman was now speaking to the Question before the House?
        MR. SPEAKERsaid, he saw no cause at present to interfere.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, continuing, said, that the two Agricultural Bills were still in a critical position; and yet, in the face of this almost hopeless muddle, the Government came down on the 1st of August to introduce a new Bill. Already a large number of Bills had been withdrawn. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill had been dropped, and that was a

        1079
        Bill which the Prime Minister himself had said was necessary for the protection of the young girls of this country from the infamous and appalling crimes to which they were exposed. That Bill was not considered fitting to pass the House of Commons while Mr. Jenkinson and a few other pets of the Irish Government were awaiting their acknowledgment. There was a Bill which was under the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—a Bill which two or three of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues had declared to be absolutely necessary for the protection of the health of the troops; yet that Bill had been dropped. Then there was the Medical Acts Amendment Bill, a Bill which was intended to save the country from unlicensed and quack practitioners. That Bill was not to be proceeded with. And yet, in the face of all this absence of legislation, the right hon. Gentleman had the coolness to come down to the House with a Bill to give places to those whose only claim to recognition on the part of the Government was that in serving the Executive they had altogether disregarded the feelings and wishes of the Irish people. He told the right hon. Gentleman that the patience of the people of Ireland was well nigh exhausted, and that they would no longer bear with tranquillity the treatment to which they were subjected, and the total absence of Irish reforms or of legislation for the good of Ireland. The Irish Members made up their minds that they would meet this Bill with the most determined opposition, until they succeeded in forcing the Government to pass those remedial measures which, if the Government had so wished, they could long ago have passed. He strongly objected to the conduct of the Law Officers and of Lord Spencer in forcing such a Bill as this upon the House in the absence of any attempt to grapple with Irish Reform. The conduct of the Executive was nothing more nor less than shameful, and the non possimus attitude of the Government would never be maintained by the present so-called Liberal Rulers of Ireland, if it were not the result of a deliberate purpose. Their desire was to give to the people of Ireland police laws, hanging-gaols, and depopulation, in the hope that by this means they would exhaust the strength of the Irish people. He was afraid that
        1080
        the only result would be, as the Government would by-and-bye find to their cost, that the present Liberal Lord Lieutenant and the present Liberal Chief Secretary would be able to say that they had done more to kill Liberalism in Ireland than any measures which their Conservative opponents could possibly have devised.
        MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had had no intention of taking part in the debate; but he wished to submit that if the Government persisted in thrusting these five new officers upon Ireland, their appointment and selection should be left to the Irish people. He contended that the laws under which Ireland was now governed were opposed to the wishes of the majority of the Irish people; and if the present so-called Liberal-Radical Government desired to act in the interests of the Irish people, then let them accept his proposition, and submit the five Magistrates, to whom they intended to give the administration of the Irish Criminal Laws, to the election of the people of Ireland. Upon that condition, and upon that condition only, he thought the Bill would be an acceptable one. But he understood from the statement of the Chief Secretary that these five gentlemen were to be appointed by the Crown; and, unfortunately, they knew in Ireland what appointment by the Crown meant. It meant placing over the people of Ireland men who were opposed to the well-being of the people, and whose main object would be to suppress the views and wishes of the people. He was satisfied that so long as English government in Ireland rested on appointments of this description there would be constant necessity for applications to Parliament for additional strength to carry out the law, whatever that law might be. No matter what measures might be passed in that House, it would be necessary for the Government to bring in new laws year after year, each more stringent than the other, to enable them to enforce in one year the laws which they had passed the year before. That would he the work of the English Government if they presisted in their endeavours to rule Ireland by the system they were now enforcing. If they wanted to rule Ireland well, they would have to govern her, as all other free nations were governed, in accordance with the wishes of the people.

        1081
        That was the only system by which they would be able to succeed; and any other system they might endeavour to put in force, no matter what their material power might be for the moment, would only end in failure, and it might be that it would ultimately end in disaster. [Cries of "Order!"]
        MR. SPEAKER: I must invite the hon. Member to address himself to the Question before the House.
        MR. O'KELLY: I am addressing myself to the Question before the House. [Cries of" "Order!"]
        MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that there is a Standing Order of the House against tedious repetitions, and that that Standing Order may be applied against the hon. Member.
        MR. O'KELLY: I am endeavouring to address myself to the House in accordance with my own views. Those views may not be in accordance with your views. [Cries of "Order!"]
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already been cautioned that he must not tediously repeat his observations; and now I must call upon him to discontinue his speech, and to resume his seat.
        [Mr. O'KELLY thereupon resumed his seat.]
        MR. KENNYsaid, he regretted that he was compelled to continue the discussion at so late an hour (3 a.m.). He had been of opinion that Police Bills for Ireland had pretty nearly come to an end. He had thought that the Government had completed, as far as possible, the present system of Police Organization in Ireland. He had thought that when they had resolved upon introducing Indians and Clifford Lloyds into the Police Service of the country, there was very little more left for them to do. But he found that Her Majesty's Government were still determined to press their policy of repression and oppression still further in Ireland. The position of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, when he was first appointed in Ireland, was arbitrary enough; but he had not long commenced the discharge of his duties before his services were duly appreciated by the Government, and he was transferred to another district with an increased salary. At the present moment, although he had only been seven years in the employment of the Government, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had
        1082
        been promoted to the position of a first-class Resident Magistrate, with salaries amounting altogether to something like £2,000 a-year — a most monstrous remuneration to give to a man for discharging the functions intrusted to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. But there was another man in Ireland even worse than Mr. Clifford Lloyd. There was one Special Resident Magistrate whose conduct recently in a particular district in the South of Ireland had been so unjust that his own fellow-magistrates would not sit upon the same Bench with him. Not long ago, the magistrate to whom he referred passed such an infamous sentence that gentlemen associated with him in the Commission of the Peace refused to occupy their seats on the same Bench with him, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Special Resident Magistrate sent down from Dublin Castle, and that he would probably be promoted now to the office of Police Commissioner for the purpose of detecting crime and punishing innocent people. The only reason the Chief Secretary had assigned for bringing in the Bill was that it would reduce the expenditure from something like £46,000 or £48,000 a-year to £22,000 a-year. It was quite true that the Bill would reduce the expenditure this year from what it was last year; but if this measure had not been introduced at all, the expenditure would have been cut down all the same. Certainly, the claim of the Government, in regard to the reduction of expenditure, was only on a par with all their other assertions. The Bill was introduced at an unusual time—at a time when, under ordinary circumstances, it would have been impossible to expect that it could become law this Session. His own opinion was, that it was introduced, not so much for the purpose of being passed into law, as for the purpose of preventing other measures of a beneficial character from making any further progress. At the present moment there were other measures which were looked forward to with interest by the people of Ireland, such as the Labourers' Bill, a measure that was calculated to elevate the position of the Irish labourers, to improve their dwellings and surroundings, and to make them a better people. The present Bill, on the contrary, was introduced for the purpose of strengthening, if possible, the system of iron-

        1083
        handed tyranny which existed in Ireland. It was introduced, furthermore, for finding nice and easy places for the sons of broken-down landlords. It would interfere in more ways than one with the welfare of the people of Ireland, and no man knew that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman, although ignorant enough, could not be so ignorant of Irish affairs as not to know that the Bill was calculated to inflict damage and injury to the people of Ireland, and that the measure would be recorded against him and against his Government when the day of reckoning, which was looked forward to by the people of Ireland, came.
        MR. BARRYsaid, that, like several of his hon. Friends, he had had no intention of taking part in the present discussion; but he felt bound to say that when he saw the enormous arrears of legislation in regard to Ireland, it would require some strong and powerful reasons to justify a Bill of this kind, introduced on the last day of July being passed into law. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would venture to say that there was the least urgency for this particular Bill. Nobody in Ireland wanted the Bill, except, perhaps, some half-dozen gentlemen whose names had been most skilfully concealed by the Chief Secretary. Nobody else wanted the Bill, and it was monstrous, at this period of the Session, knowing the vast amount of work still to be got through within the next two or three weeks, to try and force so obnoxious a measure through the House. He had a clear recollection of the number of unhappy conflicts which within the last few years had taken place in Ireland between the people and the police, and he remembered most distinctly that whenever any conflict of evidence arose the Government took no steps to secure independent testimony. Their practice was to communicate with the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was, probably, the very person charged with some great offence against the liberties of the people. They received a telegram from that Sub-Inspector, and they were perfectly satisfied. Quite recently there had been a collision between the people and the police at an Irish election, in which a number of persons were injured. The question arose, who was
        1084
        to blame for the occurrence? And the only satisfaction the Irish Members could get from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was that he would communicate with the Superintendent of Police, who was the very person charged with creating the disturbance, although it was quite possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have communicated with the Mayor of the town, who was present with the aldermen of the town, or with some of the most respectable citizens, and with two or three Members of Parliament who might also have been present. [Cries of "Oh!"] But the right hon. Gentleman never thought for a moment of securing independent testimony. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew very well that hon. Members on the other side of the House were quite ready to sneer within those walls at the idea of independent testimony being given by Members of Parliament; but they would be very careful not to sneer elsewhere. All he could say was, that he should like very much to hear that sneer repeated elsewhere. What he had to complain of was, that if any conflict arose between the police and the people of Ireland, it was the Bashi-Bazouks of the Clifford Lloyd character whose testimony was taken, and that the Government took no means whatever to secure independent testimony. It was something monstrous to find, as they did find, by the introduction of this Bill, that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Government to render this system permanent. There was neither pleasure nor profit at that hour of the morning in bandying words with the right hon. Gentleman; but he took up this position, that if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in forcing the Bill upon the House, the Irish Members would consider it their duty to oppose it at every stage, and they would feel it strictly within their right to exhaust every means the Rules of the House provided to defeat this most perfidious, unnecessary, and obnoxious measure.
        MR. CALLANsaid, he regarded the Bill of the Chief Secretary as a measure of the most objectionable character. He could easily imagine that it was a Bill introduced at the request of a number of Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House to provide places for their nephews and cousins, and, in some

        1085
        instances, for their brothers. It was a Bill, altogether unnecessary, for improving the discipline of the Constabulary Force of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, at the commencement of his speech, that it was laid on wrong lines; and if it was necessary for the efficient conduct and organization of the Irish Constabulary, why not appoint some of the existing highly-trained and experienced County Inspectors to be the Superintendents or Head District Inspectors contemplated by the Bill? Two of the five were to be taken from the Constabulary Force, and the other three were not. The House had a right to know the names of the Commissioners—was Mr. Clifford Lloyd to be one? He (Mr. Callan) thought he could name one himself who had come to London last night in the train with the squad which attended, in obedience to the Government Whip, to swell the majority to-night. This "Terence M'Grath" was a brother-in-law of the Duke of St. Alban's, known as "Mr. Blake," though he (Mr. Callan) did not know that he had more claim to that name than he had to the name of "Terence M'Grath." ["Question!"] This was the Question—the class of men the Chief Secretary proposed to appoint. The office of Criminal Detective had been referred to, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said that, looking at the details of the detection of the Dublin assassins, that office must be looked on as a success. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the operations of Mr. Jenkinson had been a success?
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should address himself to the Chair.
        MR. CALLANsaid, that, through Mr. Speaker, he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that the officer whose action had proved the Criminal Detection Department to have been a success, was Mr. Jenkinson? No doubt he did; and he (Mr. Callan) was not at all surprised, though he very much regretted that the Chief Secretary had not had the candour and manliness to give credit where credit was due. Mr. Jenkinson was not in Ireland on the 6th May.
        MR. TREVELYAN: He arrived there on that day.
        MR. CALLANsaid, it was his first visit, unless he had been over pre-
        1086
        viously to play lawn tennis or some other game. But the names of the Dublin assassins were handed in to the Lord Lieutenant within 48 hours of the murder, and with that detection Mr. Jenkinson had had nothing whatever to do. In spite of this, Mr. Jenkinson was to be elevated—and this reminded him of the statement of the Englishman, a Member of the House, who went over to Ireland and said to the people—"Helevate me and I will helevate you." The right hon. Gentleman wished to give credit for the detection of the Phœnix Park assassins to an Englishman to whom the credit was not due, and suppressed the name of the Irishman who was entitled to the merit. The right hon. Gentleman would not give the names of the five men who were to be the Chief Inspectors. He (Mr. Callan) was not in favour of centralization; but he did not believe, in this matter, it would be advisable to divide the country into five districts. The proper way would be to keep the management in Dublin. There had been no reason alleged for the introduction of this Bill, and he only knew of one, and that was a reason which had not been avowed. To his mind, the only object of the Bill was to provide places for three of the Special Magistrates, and pitch-fork them into the position of Heads of Police, as there was no other employment to give them. Looking at the Order Paper, he would not say he should give this Bill the determined opposition which was suggested by some hon. Members; but he should have his share to contribute to the discussion of the Bill when it was hereafter laid on the Table. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give precedence to the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill, because, by so doing, he would withdraw from the consideration of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) one of his chief inducements for the support of this Bill. When he (Mr. Callan) heard the hearty cheers with which the hon. and gallant Member greeted this Bill, and the threatened opposition to it, it was plain that the hon. and gallant Member's prospective view was that the Parliamentary Registration Bill would be included amongst the innocents at the end of the Session. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurance that he would not destroy

        1087
        this Parliamentary Registration Bill; so that if they were to have a long Session to provide for Mr. Clifford Lloyd and "Terence M'Grath," they would, at all events, have the benefit of one useful measure this Session.
        MR. SMALLsaid, that until within the last few minutes he had had no intention of taking part in the debate; and he was sure when, a few weeks ago, he first became a Member of the House he little thought that his first claim on its attention would be at such an hour as this (3.5 A.M.). But the hour was not of their choosing; it had been chosen by the Government. However, he felt sure that at whatever hour such a Bill was brought on, no man who belonged to the Irish Party would ever be found wanting. He, for one, heartily rejoiced that the Government had brought in this measure. He was proud to stand there and say that he was one of those men in Ireland who had never believed in the good intentions of the Liberal Party towards that country; and he was glad to think now that if there were any of his race, either in England or Ireland, who did believe in the so-called sincerity of the Liberal Party, this Bill would undeceive them. Ireland had passed through a great crisis of late. The Government were fond of telling the people that the crisis was now passed; and if that were so, it was when the country was returning to peace the moment was selected for bringing forward a Police Bill of this character. It struck him that a great many Members who sat in the House knew nothing about the administration of the police in Ireland. A great many of them had not even been in the country. Yet they did not hesitate to sit here, night after night, taking away the liberties of the Irish people. Members were content to sit here night after night, hearing speeches and ex parte statements, and reading Blue Books, and imagining that they knew Ireland as well as the Irish Members, who lived in it. Hon. Members, as a matter of fact, knew very little about Ireland, and knew very little about the way in which the government was carried on. Those who had the good fortune—or ill fortune—to live in Ireland knew something about it. He had never been in England until a few years ago. He had spent his whole life in Ireland, and, therefore, could speak
        1088
        with some authority as to the manner in which the police system was carried on there. The police system was one which would not be tolerated in a free country like England for a moment. When he came to England the first thing which struck him was the difference in the attitude assumed here by the police towards the people to that assumed by the police in Ireland. In England the police were evidently the servants of the people; but in Ireland, on the contrary, they were the masters. In Ireland, especially in the South, the lowest policeman was a tyrant amongst those with whom he came in contact. He did not know very much about the people of the South, but he had been there, and had acquired some knowledge of the condition of affairs by personal observation; and what had struck him most painfully was the down-trodden appearance of the people, and the tyrannical attitude of the police. He could not help particularly remarking one thing in connection with this Bill—namely, the way in which it proposed to deal with the Province of Ulster. He had always heard it said that one part of Ireland was well-affected towards this country—that the South and West might go wrong, but that Ulster was always to be depended on. But what did the right hon. Gentleman now propose? As he (Mr. Small) understood it, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to divide all Ireland into five districts, for five Pashas to rule over. Was this the reward of Ulster's loyalty and peace? Was this a fair return for her adherence to the English Government? He saw some of the Representatives from that Province here to-night, and he would avail himself of the opportunity of urging them to take this lesson to heart. Ulster had acted well towards Her Majesty's Government; and her people had lately supported the Liberals — and now they were getting their reward. Some of the constituencies of Ulster would, no doubt, remember this at the next General Election. When that Election came, he trusted that the introduction of this Bill would not be forgotten in any part of Ireland.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not feel disposed to speak at any length upon the Bill, as he should be prepared to do so with more deliberation at future stages—when the printed document was

        1089
        itself placed upon the Table of the House. So far as he could make out, the object of the Bill was to administer outdoor relief to a few needy hangers-on of the Government. He knew, with regard to one of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, that he made the greater part of his income by horse dealing, and entirely neglected those duties for which the Government paid him. That respectable Resident Magistrate was married to a daughter of a former Member of that House, and the unfortunate father-in-law had had once or twice or three times to pay his debts. Possibly it was right to make a liberal and permanent provision for gentlemen of this kind; but the experience of the Irish Party of the Government of Ireland was that the more disreputable the magistrate was the more in favour was he with the Government. Let them take the case of Mr. Jenkinson, who came from India with an exceedingly bad record, or those who came from British Burmah, or take the case of this horse-dealing magistrate, or of the Police Inspector who was dismissed from Birmingham, and was sent over to interfere with the liberties of the people of the West of Ireland. It was for this class of men that this Bill was to be brought in and proceeded with, at a period of the Session when it was too late to proceed with the important measures promised in the Queen's Speech. The Government had many men on their hands whom it was difficult to know what to do with. They had got rid of one of their difficulties—he meant Carey. [A laugh, and cries of "Oh!"] Well, he thought the person he had referred to had been quite as respectable a man as many of those the Government were taking such care of. James Carey was a disreputable character, no doubt; but he had become so for the purpose of saving his own neck; whilst these people, who supplied the Chief Secretary with false information as to what occurred in their districts, had not the excuse for their evil courses that Carey had. They acted altogether from malicious motives, or to gain some miserable favour or other from the Government. The Bill might be passed this Session; but if the Government succeeded in forcing it through, it would only be at the cost of the loss of other Bills which were introduced for the purpose of giving satisfaction,
        1090
        more or less, to the people of England. The passage of this Police Bill would cost a great deal more, from the point of view of the interest of the Government Party, than it would bring in from the point of view of benefit to the persons whose positions it was intended to improve. He was at a loss to imagine why such a Bill should have been brought in at such a period of the Session. A glance at the Notice Paper would convince anyone who knew anything about the course of Business in that House that a large proportion of the Bills introduced, some of them months ago, the Government would never be able to pass through this Session; and the question would be, within the next two or three weeks, which of the Bills would have to be sacrificed? That was one of the things on which the changes would be rung on many platforms in this country. It appeared to him that the Government always selected the very worst way of doing a thing. For the purpose of passing certain clauses of a Bill into law which were strongly opposed, they would sacrifice what they would be able to get the House to agree to with very little delay. They waited until the end of the Session, and then introduced a Bill which would be bound to lead to endless discussion, with the practical result of sacrificing other and more beneficial measures. He did not care much for the present Government—in point of fact, he would like to see them disgrace themselves as much as possible; and with that view he should be glad to see them persist in forcing this Bill upon the attention of the House.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 12: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
        Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the administration of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes connected with the said forces: —And that Mr. TRETELYAN do prepare and bring it in.

      BANKRUPTCY [SALARIES].

        RESOLUTION.
        Resolution [July 27] reported.
        "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums, by way of remuneration, to Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland, for additional duties which may be imposed upon them under the provisions of any Act of the

        1091
        present Session to amend and consolidate the Law of Bankruptcy."
        Resolution road a second time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        MR. HEALYasked for some explanation with regard to the salaries under the Bill. The Government were making arrangements for certain officers; but no provision was made for the general officers, and he would suggest to the Attorney General for Ireland that when this matter came before the House again he should consider the question of giving superannuation to the existing staff. He thought they were as much entitled to superannuation as some of the higher officers. Then he did not see why the Clerks of the Peace under the Bill should receive an unfair advantage over other Clerks of the Peace. The right hon. Gentleman must be prepared for a certain amount of pressure as to the financial arrangements, and he objected to certain of' the details. The Irish section of the Bill had not had the advantage of going through the Grand Committee. Was it proposed to re-commit the Bill with respect to the Irish clauses, seeing that Irish Members had not had an opportunity of discussing the Bill in Grand Committee or in the House?
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Bill now before the House did not refer to the Irish clauses; but, in any event, the House had not yet determined what course to take. After the Report there would be an opportunity of considering the Irish clauses, and that was the intention of the Government.
        MR. CALLANsaid, that until a more satisfactory answer was given he should move the adjournment of the debate. The Attorney General for Ireland had been incidentally asked a question of great importance; but he had carefully avoided answering it. The Bill had been referred to a Grand Committee, where it could be discussed more freely, and in greater detail, than in Committee of the Whole House; but the Irish clauses were withdrawn from the consideration of the Grand Committee, and there was no discussion upon them. The question now was, whether the Government would venture to attempt to withdraw these clauses, not only from the Grand Com-
        1092
        mittee, but from the Committee of the Whole House? He hoped an answer would be given upon this point; but he wished to ease his hon. Friend's mind by assuring him that there would be no greater charge put upon Ireland. It was rumoured that the Attorney General intended to bring in a new clause, providing that one of the present Judgeships should be abolished, and the salary be allocated to superannuation, and that the other Judge should be promoted to the Irish Judicial Bench on the first vacancy, and so deprive himself and the Irish Solicitor General of the ordinary chance they would have of reaching the safe haven of the Judicial Bench before this Government went out entirely. If that was true, he thought it would satisfy his hon. Friend as to the disinterestedness of the Attorney General for Ireland.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Callan.)
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, by moving the adjournment of the debate, prevents the right hon. and learned Gentleman from discussing the Question before the House.
        MR. CALLANsaid, he did not wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman to discuss that Question; he only wished him to answer the question.
        MR. SPEAKER: By the indulgence of the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might reply.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that all he could reply was that the Irish clauses had been carefully prepared, and they would be brought up on Report.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply seemed to be very unsatisfactory. The Amendments put on the Paper by the right hon. and learned Gentleman occupied 12 pages—
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in discussing this matter until the Bill is called on for consideration. All these points will be dealt with then. The Question now before the House is simply a Resolution.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him to be an important question to what extent the officials of the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland would be provided for, and more especially the Judges. There

        1093
        were two Judges of the Bankruptcy Court at present, but who were, practically, only one. Would any provision be made in this Bill by which the first promotion should not go to the Irish Attorney General?
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing a Bill which is not now before the House.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, Clerks of the Peace were gentlemen who got from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year, and in some cases they also practised their profession. The Bill would increase their salaries. In the old time there was some excuse for their getting salaries for political services; but that was not the case now, because the appointments now generally went by popular vote. He protested against this Resolution being passed in the interest of men who were already paid for the services they performed.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the course which ought to be adopted with regard to the matter before the House had been very clearly indicated by the spokesman of the Government. It was evident that the value of the points now raised could not be thoroughly appreciated, and could not be fully discussed, except in connection with the Bankruptcy Bill which was before the House. The right hon and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) had pleaded, in reply to questions from the Irish Benches, his inability to give a full answer to those questions, because the Bankruptcy Bill, as amended, was not the Bill they were now discussing. It seemed to him (Mr. O'Donnell) that the proper and most business-like course to pursue was to postpone the consideration of those debateable matters until the other debateable matters upon which these depended had been considered. In this way the House would have the full benefit of the legal erudition which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was so anxious to contribute on the subject, but which, unfortunately, he was prevented from contributing in consequence of the Bankruptcy Bill, as amended, not being now before the House.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        Original Question put, and agreed to.

      RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL
      (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Arthur Otway.)
      RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL

        [BILL 219.] THIRD READING.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
        MR. WARTONsaid, he felt it his duty not to allow the third reading of this Bill to be taken without some words of comment, with a view principally of causing a question to be raised in "another place," where Constitutional principles were more faithfully considered than in this Chamber. He conceived that nothing more unconstitutional had been brought in by this most unconstitutional Government than this plan of re-imposing taxation which had been remitted by the House. The point was taken up the other night by the hon. Barenet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin); but it was not answered by the Government. As a matter of fact, the House was allocating too much power to the Board of Trade. The question of electric lighting had been placed in the hands of the Board of Trade; the administration of the Bankruptcy Act was to be confided to the care of the Board of Trade; and the object of this Bill was to give additional power to this Board. The House had resolved to remit the passenger duty; but by this Bill it was proposed that if the Board of Trade was not satisfied with the proceeding of any particular Railway Company it should be within its power to re-impose the taxation. Now, this he considered the most wicked and unconstitutional principle that he had heard of for some time. Taxation could really be imposed by a Department which consisted, as they had been told, of the President of the Board of Trade. Hon. Members would thus see that this amounted to taxation by one man; and he conceived that this was altogether wrong and unconstitutional. He hoped that some limit would be placed upon the powers of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He begged to move that the Bill be read a third time upon that day three months.
        MR. BIGGARseconded the Amendment. He, like the hon. and learned

        1095
        Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), held that it was thoroughly unconstitutional to give any official power to tax any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. They had found the same principle in other Bills, and they had seen the most unsatisfactory results follow. They had known power given to the Heads of Departments to fix rates, and in some cases the result had been that the amount of rates fixed had been higher than those previously charged, although the work was actually the same. He felt very decidedly of the opinion that the Government, and not one particular person, should have power to tax the people of a country. If it was thought desirable to levy a tax, the proposition ought to spring from the proper quarter—namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being. What might be the practical result of this system, if carried to a greater extent than was now proposed? The Heads of the different Departments might levy taxes amounting to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year; and in that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to lay before Parliament a very flattering Budget.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
        Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
        The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 8: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 246.)
        Main Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed

      PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (LONDON) BILL.— [BILL 215.]
      (Mr. Bryce, Mr. Pell, Sir Henry Peek, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Horace Davey.)
      PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (LONDON) BILL.— [BILL 215.]

        CONSIDERATION.
        Bill, as amended, considered.
        MR. SPEAKERasked if there was any Amendment?
        MR. BRYCE: No, Sir.
        MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to make an appeal to the Government whether it was right or proper to ask the House to enter upon a Bill introduced by a private Member and of a contentious character
        1096
        at that hour of the morning (4 A.M.)? No doubt the Government were entitled to make a claim upon their supporters to sit for long hours in order to make progress with important Public Business; but it was hardly right that they should keep the House together in order to enter upon the consideration of a private Member's Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning. He was surprised at the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) showing so little consideration for the House. The Bill had already been before the House on two or three previous occasions; but it had never been brought on for practical discussion except between the hours of 2 and 4 o'clock; and these had been discussions of the most fragmentary character. They knew quite well that any discussion which took place after midnight was unknown out-of-doors. This was a Bill for the Charities in the City of London, and it proposed to give power to the Charity Commissioners under which the Ecclesiastical Surplus Fund would pass into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, if the charities of London were to be reformed, it was worth the while of the House to ask if this was a competent body to entrust with the administration of these funds?
        MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that at this moment there is no Question before the House. Unless the hon. Member has an Amendment to propose on the Consideration of the Bill, I must ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to fix a day for the third reading.
        MR. HEALYwished to ask, as a point of Order, whether the present ruling of Mr. Speaker was under the Now Rules?
        MR. SPEAKER: Yes; it is under the New Rules; and I ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to be good enough to state when he proposes to take the third reading?
        MR. BRYCEsaid, he proposed to take the third reading now.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Bryce.)
        MR. HEALYwished to point out that the Order of the Day was for the Consideration of the Parochial Charities Bill, as amended. How could hon. Members consider the Bill upon a Motion that it be read a third time?
        MR. SPEAKER: When the Order of the Day for considering the Bill as amended was read, the House, under the Standing Order, is authorized to consider the same without Question put.
        MR. HEALYsaid, that when the Reproductive Loan Fund Act (Ireland) Bill, which had now passed the third reading, came on for consideration, the Question that it should be considered was distinctly put by Mr. Speaker, and there was a debate upon it. There was no Amendment to be proposed in that case, and yet Mr. Speaker distinctly put the Question.
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have raised the Question at the time. It is quite obvious that the House cannot consider now any irregularity that it is alleged took place on a former day.
        MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he should be under the necessity, before he sat down, of showing that there was a strong feeling in some parts of the House against the course now taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) in moving the third reading of the Bill at that hour of the morning. Hon. Members did not feel called upon to sacrifice their health by sitting up after 4 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of assisting in passing measures introduced by private individuals; and he thought he might fairly appeal to the Government to say that an important measure of this kind ought not to be passed without due consideration. It was a most important matter, when they were contemplating the reform of the City Charities, that they should be satisfied the Commissioners, to whose hands the work was to be entrusted, were entitled to the confidence of the country. He had no desire to say a single word, individually, against the Charity Commissioners; but, with regard to the composition of that Body, it was certainly not such as to give confidence to the great mass of the people of the country. He believed, for instance, that every Commissioner was a Churchman; and, whether it might be fortunate or unfortunate, the majority of the people of the country were not adherents of the National Church. [Cries of "No!"] He did not suppose, for a moment, that that assertion would be seriously contested. At any rate, notwithstanding the challenge which came
        1098
        from the other side of the House, he ventured to say that the great mass of Her Majesty's loyal subjects were not members of the Church of England. Nevertheless, they had civil rights, and were deeply interested in the proper management of these charities, especially if they were to be transferred from the present management into the hands of the Commissioners appointed by the Bill. It might be said that he ought to have raised this question on the Committee stage. He had so raised it; and if it had not been for the Front Bench on that occasion, he believed the course which he then took would have been confirmed by the majority of the House. He was quite sure that it was in consequence of the support which his hon. Friend received from right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that he was able to carry his proposal. However, the course taken by the Government on that occasion was a mere perfunctory act, and he hoped it would not be repeated. This was not the first time the question had been raised. When the Endowed Schools Commissioners were appointed in 1869, a sanguine hope was entertained on the part of the Nonconformists that the Commissioners appointed under it would not belong to one Church alone. That hope had not been realized. Unfortunately, all of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners belonged to the Established Church, and they were appointed to administer an Act, the very Preamble of which declared that the object of the Act was to open the Endowed Charities to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects without distinction of creed. Nevertheless, every Member appointed on the Commission was a member of the Church of England. It might be asked, was it not narrow-minded on the part of an hon. Member like himself to take this course? He would answer that question by putting another. Was it not unjust on the part of the adherents of the Church of England to refuse some representation to the great mass of Her Majesty's subjects who were not members of the Church of England? Why ought these principles of jealousy and exclusiveness to be constantly exercised in regard to these appointments? He saw no possibility of effecting a change unless some such course as this were taken; and he could assure the House that it was with great

        1099
        reluctance he was induced now to force the question upon the consideration of the Government. In 1873, the work of the Endowed Schools Commission was reviewed by a Committee, of which he had the honour to be a Member; and he had moved the insertion of a paragraph in the Report of that Committee in the following words:—
        "The Committee is also inclined to believe that public confidence would be increased if in future the appointment of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners were not all made from one religious denomination."
        No one would doubt but that was a reasonable proposal in the condition in which the matter stood; and on that occasion seven out of nine Liberal Members upon the Committee voted for the proposal—namely, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. Leatham), the hon. Alderman the Member for the City of London who sat on that side of the House (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), the right hon. Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's (Sir Lyon Playfair), Mr. A. Johnston, and the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. R. N, Phillips). Sir Ughtred KayShuttleworth was also a Member of the Committee, and stated that he agreed with the principle of the proposition; but he had technical objections to it, and, therefore, he voted against it. The only other Liberal Member who voted against it was the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon who sat on that side of the House (Sir Thomas Acland). That took place some years ago, and they had waited ever since for the introduction of some change by the Government. But, instead of things growing better, they had grown worse. What did the late Government do when they came into Office? They destroyed the Endowed Schools Commission on the ground that it was too liberal; and at this moment the country was in the position of having a Commission to which was to be entrusted the re-casting of these charities, and the creation of the new Governing Bodies in which all classes of Her Majesty's subjects were interested, not only in the City of London, but in the whole of the Metropolis; and yet they were asked to press forward a Bill in the hands of a private Member, and to commit this great reform to an unreformed Commission. His hon. Friend
        1100
        the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had displayed great zeal in this cause; but he (Mr. Illingworth) thought that delay would be better even in regard to the wishes of his hon. Friend himself in the matter, and it would certainly give more satisfaction to the people of the Metropolis. The Commission was to be endowed with almost despotic powers, and it was practically to be irresponsible to the House. When did they ever in that House hear of anything that was done by the Charity Commissioners? Whatever the Commissioners might do, well or ill, in connection with the trusts reposed in them was not made public; and he sincerely hoped that the House would not consent to confer these extraordinary powers on this Commission, sinless they were satisfied that the Commission was appointed in such a manner as to justify public confidence in its fairness and impartiality. His hon. Friend said he took powers, in the 3rd clause, for the appointment of new Commissioners. That power might be taken, and there might be a change in the Commissioners, or there might not. Other alterations, in cases of death and vacancies arising, had been made, but without being attended with satisfactory results; and the hon. Member must not take it for granted that there was bound to be some value in his suggestion. There might be no change made. The Commission might remain in its present form, as the word "may" was used in the clause. The majority of the people of England had not confidence in the composition of the Commission, and did not believe that the Commissioners acted as they ought to do in all cases. What would really be the position of things as proposed by his hon. Friend? Why, according to his hon. Friend's proposal, the Charity Commissioners would have power to determine, almost unchallenged, the character of any charity, and to determine whether it should be used for temporal or ecclesiastical purposes. No jury made up in this way would have the confidence of the public, and he confessed he distrusted the Commissioners. The evidence given before the Endowed Schools Committee proved the manifest bias of many of the Members of the Endowed Schools Commission, and he did not think the Members of the Charity Commission were any more entitled to confi-

        1101
        dence than the Members of the other Commission. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members were impatient; but it was not his fault if he was obliged to go on at that untimely hour. His hon. Friend insisted on bringing the Bill on, and he (Mr. Illingworth) did not mean to fail in his duty in the matter. He should be obliged to ask the forbearance of the House whilst he dealt with another part of the subject. The surplus ecclesiastical funds, as his hon. Friend knew, were to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission. Now, what was the Ecclesiastical Commission? He wondered, if he put this question to individual Members of the House, how many of them would be able to tell him what the Commission consisted of. The House would, perhaps, excuse him if he gave some idea of the composition of this Body. There were upon it the two Archbishops, 29 Bishops, five Cabinet Ministers—and he would pause here for one moment to say that it would be unreasonable to suppose that Cabinet Ministers could attend to the work of the Commission. Their duties of Government were overwhelming, and it was impossible that they could be relied upon—even supposing that they did not belong to the Church of England—to look after the interests of the people, and see that they were not sacrificed. In addition to the Commissioners he had mentioned, there were three Judges, three Deans, and 12 eminent laymen on the Commission.
        MR. CALLAN: I beg, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the hon. Member's tedious repetition at 4 o'clock in the morning.
        MR. ILLINGWORTH, continuing, said, that these 12 laymen, or many of them, had arduous duties to perform in other directions; and nothing was more notorious than that the Bishops were always to be relied upon whenever there was a possibility of securing any conceivable advantage for the Established Church. Then, he would point out that of these 12 laymen on the Commission every one belonged to the Church of England. [Mr. WARTON: Quite right.] He (Mr. Illingworth) had no doubt they would see manifested on the other side of the House the same sense of justice which actuated the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton),
        1102
        until the day arrived when Parliament would undertake the task that it had successfully accomplished in Ireland. When that day arrived no further room for complaint would be left to him, and others who thought as he did; but until it came, and as long as the Church remained a National Institution, though he might not be an adherent of it, he should not relinquish his right as an Englishman, representing a large constituency, to review the working of that institution in every department, and to make suggestions for its improvement where he thought them to be necessary. Every one of the laity on this list was a Churchman, and 8 out of the 12 were Conservatives. [Mr. WARTON: Quite right.] No doubt that was quite right, as far as it went; but he should like to see it go further—ho should like to see the Liberals have nothing whatever to do with the Commission, for he did not see how they could get out of the matter without their fingers being soiled. He thought the reasons he had presented to the House were good reasons for hesitating to pass the Bill at this time of the morning, after the very short discussion which had taken place on it, and looking to the consequences which might flow from it. The City of London was to be deprived of its ancient charities. He should be sorry to see that change take place if the money was handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commission, because his belief was that there were huge funds now at the disposal of that Body which were not being utilized as they ought to be for the public advantage. He should like to go into the working of the Commission to prove its unfitness for its work—to show that it did not deserve the confidence of Parliament, and to satisfy his hon. Friend, if that were possible, that in Iris anxiety to reform the charities of London he was probably only handing the money over from one set of men who had been jobbing it to another set who would do the same. He would only say he should view the progress of the measure in that House, and in the other House, with great misgivings, and that he regretted his hon. Friend had not waited patiently for an opportunity to pass his Bill at a time when it could have been discussed and rendered more satisfactory to all concerned. He begged to move the adjournment of the-debate.
        MR. DILLWYNdid not think the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) could be properly considered at this hour of the morning; therefore, he would second the Motion of his hon. Friend.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Illingworth.)
        MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that upon this Motion it was not possible for him, according to the Rules of the House, to enter into the merits of the question raised by the hon. Member. The only question they could discuss was the adjournment of the debate; and he would, therefore, merely point out that this was a measure which should be sent up to the House of Lords without delay, so that there might be an opportunity for parties to be heard upon it on Petition. This was a quasi private matter on which parties could be heard. He would point out, further, that this was no new subject, but had been brought before the House in successive Sessions, and had been thoroughly discussed in all its bearings by two Committees well selected for the work—in fact, he did not think he had ever known two Committees so well formed, or who had more thoroughly and fully discussed the matters left to them. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would allow the discussion to continue. If they did, he should, later on, have something to say in reply to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford.
        MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. Though the hon. Member had failed to carry his Amendment to the effect that two Members of the Commission should be Gentlemen who were not adherents of the Church of England, he had succeeded in depriving the Catholics not only of London, but also, probably, of the place he represented, of advantages they might have possessed. It was to be hoped the hon. Member's constituents would remember this. At any rate, the Irish Representatives could not be expected to support the proposal of the hon. Member after the course he had taken.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Bradford had commenced at the wrong time to take objection to this Bill. If he had pro-
        1104
        fited by experience or the example of other Members of the House he would have put a blocking Notice against the Bill, and they would not have been now discussing the present stage. Whether the Bill was a good one he (Mr. Biggar) did not know, and did not care; but he did think that if the hon. Member was unsuccessful in his opposition and the Bill passed into law he would have no one to blame but himself.
        Question put, and negatived.
        Main Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed

      CONSTABULARY AND POLICE ADMINISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
      (Mr. Trevelyan.)
      CONSTABULARY AND POLICE ADMINISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

        FIRST READING.
        Order for First Reading read.
        MR. HEALYsaid, it would be no use putting this Bill down for Monday, as it was sure to be blocked. What good was there in filling up the Notice Paper day after day in this way with measures which everybody knew could not come on?—it only puzzled Members. He would ask the Government to let them have some other instalment of Irish Business, and to postpone this Bill to Monday week. Let the Government endeavour to make progress with the Irish Registration Bill.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that probably within the next few days some further statement would have to be made as to the arrangement of Public Business. It would, therefore, be more convenient to let the measure remain down for Monday.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 274.]
        House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock in the morning.