Commons Sitting of 16 April 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Rending—Manchester, Middleton, and District Tramways.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49]—R.p. [Fifteenth Night.]
Committee—Report—Egyptian Loan [122].

QUESTIONS.

  ORDER—SELECT COMMITTEES—ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, Sir, to ask your ruling on a point of Order in reference to an entry which appears upon the Votes and Proceedings of the House for Tuesday last. Shall I be in Order in bringing forward the matter now?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can state the point of Order now.
  MR. SEXTON: I find this entry—No. 19—in the Votes of Tuesday—
  "Railway Bills (Group 4)—Mr. Wyndham reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills, That Dr. Cameron and Mr. Kenny, two of the Members of the said Committee, were not present within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting of the Committee this day.
  "Ordered, That Dr. Cameron and Mr. Kenny do attend the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."
  The Chairman of the Committee further reported that, in the absence of a quorum, the Committee had adjourned until the next day at 12 o'clock. My hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), referred to in this Order, has informed me that he only received a notification that he would be required to attend during a certain week, but that he had received no intimation of the day and hour when he would be required. Under these circumstances, I wish to know whether this entry, which may seem to imply censure upon my hon. Friend, should be allowed to remain, seeing that it was through the neglect of the official whose duty it was to send such a notification, and not through any fault of his own, that my hon. Friend did not attend at the hour appointed for the meeting of the Committee?
  MR. SPEAKER: The proper course will be to communicate with the Chairman of Committees, who, no doubt, will put the matter right. It is clear, as it appears to me, that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) should have been informed of the meeting of the Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I presume that, in the absence of any such notification, no censure upon my hon. Friend will be implied?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is so.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—PAUPER MARRIED COUPLES.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he could state how many of the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis have complied with, or are making arrangements for meeting, the requirements of sec. 23, 10 and 11 Vic. c. 109, relating to the accommodation of old married couples in receipt of in-door relief; and, if he would specially direct the attention of those Boards which have hitherto ignored this provision of the Law to the necessity of compliance with it?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: There are 16 Unions in which separate accommodation is at present provided in the workhouse for the purpose of compliance with the Act referred to. There are eight Unions in which additional workhouse buildings are either in course of erection or about to be erected; and when these buildings are completed the Guardians will be in a position to make such provision. In the remaining six Unions no such accommodation is at present provided; but as regards two of these Unions, we are informed that it will be provided at once when found necessary. In one of these cases it is stated that, on more than one occasion, inquiry has shown that the inmates have no desire for such accommodation. In two other Unions accommodation was formerly provided, but is no longer used for the purpose, in consequence of the inmates not desiring to avail themselves of it. In the other two cases we understand that the subject of providing such accommodation is under the consideration of the Guardians. If it should appear to be necessary for the Board to intervene in any particular case they will not fail to do so.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— SLIGO HARBOUR BOARD.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords of the Treasury have considered a Memorial addressed to them, on the 14th of January last, by the Sligo Harbour Board, praying that the period fixed for commencing the repayment of the principal of the Treasury loan of £20,000 to them may be deferred; that the term of years in which repayment is to made may be extended; and that the rate of interest charged may be reduced to the lowest practicable terms, in accordance with the recommendation made in the Report of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation; whether it appears from the Memorial, and from other information in the possession of the Treasury, that the Board have expended the full amount of the loan in deepening the channel, dredging for deep-water berths, improving the berthage at present quays, and other works of urgent necessity; that very considerable progress has been made with these works; that, owing to the failure of the contractors to execute their contract, the Harbour Board have been obliged to undertake the completion of the works with their own staff and plant; and that, as no improvement in revenue can result from the works until they are completed, and as the existing terms of the loan would necessitate the payment of £1,700 a-year, out of a revenue of only about £6,000, which barely allows the requisite margin for prosecuting the works, the Board will be constrained to abandon the effort to complete the works in which they are now engaged, and to give up the hope of improving the portal revenue, unless the Treasury terms are relaxed; and, whether the Treasury will grant the terms prayed for in the Memorial of the Board?
  MR. HIBBERT: I understand that the Sligo Harbour works will be inspected to-day at low water spring tides. The Board of Works hope to be able to make their Report to the Treasury in about 10 days' time, and it will be dealt with here without delay. With reference to the Question of which the hon. Member has given Notice for tomorrow, I may say that the sole object of the engineer's visit is to enable the
  1844
  Treasury to decide on the questions raised in the Memorial, not to interfere with the Harbour Commissioners in the discharge of their duties; and, this being so, it would not be right to incur the expense of engaging a special engineer to report as the Question appears to suggest.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) ACT, 1875—WORKHOUSE TEACHERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, During 1884 how many Boards of Guardians in Ireland, under the 12th Clause of the Teachers' Act of 1875, voted the results fees earned by Workhouse Teachers, and how many withheld such fees; what was the amount of results fees earned by Workhouse Teachers during that period, and how much was paid to them; and, have Workhouse Teachers set forth their grievances on this subject to the Chief Secretary and to the Local Government Board, and is it the intention of the Government to make such provision in the Bill now before the House as shall secure the results fees accruing to them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Thirty-three Boards of Guardians voted the results fees earned by teachers in 1884, and the amount so voted was £704. Where application for them is not made by the Guardians, the Education Department do not calculate the amount. I cannot hold out any prospect of the introduction into the Education Bill of such a provision as is suggested in the Question; but the Government would be glad to see all Boards of Guardians make arrangements by which a part of the incomes of workhouse teachers should be derived from results payments, as in the case of ordinary National school teachers. It must be remembered that workhouse teachers have advantages which teachers of other National schools have not. In addition to their salaries, they are provided by the Guardians with apartments, rations, fuel, and light.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS—ESTIMATED COST.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, To lay upon the Table of the House such

  1845
  an explanatory Memorandum as will show the variations between the estimated and actual cost of various public buildings, such as the India, Foreign, Home, and Colonial Offices, Natural History Museum, and Law Courts; the amount expended in alterations, additions, improvements, and to remedy defects in original cost, to be stated?
  MR. HIBBERT: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the actual and estimated cost of the Natural History Museum stated at page 55 of the Appropriation Accounts for 1883–4; and that of the Royal Courts of Justice at page 44 of the same volume. I can, if it be thought necessary, ascertain and communicate to the House the actual and estimated cost of the Foreign Office and of the Home Office block; and I can ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can supply similar figures for the India Office. I am afraid it would, for many reasons, be impossible to give the further details which the Question seems to suggest.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MONAGHAN UNION— MR. WILLIAM ANCKETILL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will make inquiries into the threats used at the recent Poor Law election, by Mr. William Ancketill, in Monaghan Union, where he was a defeated candidate, against any tenants who voted against him; will the police make inquiries amongst his tenants with a view to a prosecution under the Crimes Act; has Mr. Ancketill, in consequence of the votes given against him, served over eighty processes for rent upon hostile voters; have these been confined to the tenants of the contested division; is this the same Mr. William Ancketill who was deprived of the Commission of the Peace for cruelty; and, what action do the Government intend to take to prevent intimidation at these elections, which for years has been made the subject of questions and debate in this House?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No complaints have been made to Government or to the police by any persons as to threats being made use of towards them by Mr. Ancketill, and it is not proposed to make inquiries as suggested in the Question. Mr. Ancketill, who, I
  1846
  believe, was removed from the Commission of the Peace, is understood to have issued several processes against his tenants; but his doing so is not a breach of the law. It has been frequently stated that the Government will not use the Crimes Act in connection with Poor Law elections. Parties on both sides frequently complain of intimidation; but the true remedy for such proceedings, in the opinion of the Government, is the ballot, a proposal for the use of which in Poor Law elections is at present before Parliament.

  POST OFFICE—THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that for some months past the English day mails for Belfast and the North of Ireland have arrived regularly at the Amiens Street Terminus, Dublin, before 7 a.m. and frequently before 6.45 a.m. and have had to remain there awaiting the departure of the Limited Mail train to Belfast, which is not due to leave Dublin until 7.45 a.m.; whether he can state the number of occasions from the 1st of January until the 31st ultimo on which these mails arrived at the Dublin Terminus between 7 a.m. and 7.15 a.m., and between 7.15 a.m. and 7.30 a.m., and what time are they due (officially) at the Railway Station to be forwarded by the train which leaves at 7.45 a.m.; and, whether, if true that the mails arrive regularly before 7 a.m., additional facilities could be made, through an agreement with the Great Northern Railway Company, for an earlier despatch from Dublin, and thus effect an earlier delivery in Belfast and the North of Ireland generally?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: A margin of 38 minutes is allowed in Dublin between the arrival of the night mail from England and the departure of the day mail to Belfast—that is to say, when time is strictly kept, the mails for the Belfast line are lodged at Amiens Street Station by 7.7 a.m., while the time fixed for the departure of the train is 7.45 a.m. During the three months referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, the mail reached Amiens Street Station 19 times before 7 a.m., 20 times between 7 a.m. and 7.15 a.m., and 21 times between 7.15 a.m. and 7.30 a.m.; but still I am by no means satisfied that an earlier hour than at present could safely

  1847
  be fixed for the departure of the train. I may mention that during the same period there were four failures of the connection altogether, even with the departure fixed at 7.45 a.m.; while if the departure had been at 7.30 a.m. instead of 7.45 a.m., there would have been 10 failures; and if at 7.15 a.m., instead of 7.45 a.m., there would have been 17 failures. The Question is not an easy one to decide; but as some alteration will become necessary in October next in connection with a somewhat earlier arrival of the English mail in Dublin which is arranged for that date, it shall, at the same time, be considered whether any reduction of the margin of 38 minutes can safely be effected.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MR. MATHEWS, POSTMASTER OF BALLYMENA.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been officially directed to the statement of Mr. Hugh Rainey, junior, a member of the Ballymena Town Commissioners, made at a meeting of that body held on the 31st ultimo, a report of which appears in the Belfast Morning News of the 1st instant, to the effect that the clerk to that body, a Mr. Mathews, who is also Postmaster of Ballymena, holds nineteen distinct appointments, viz. High Constable, Postmaster, Town Clerk, Clerk to the Burial Board, Executive Sanitary Authority Officer of Ballymena, Clerk of Union, District Registrar of Marriages, Secretary to the Ballymena and Harryville Gaslight Company, Secretary to the International Schools, Clerk to the Town Court, Receiver for Copy of Valuations, Registrar to Burial Board, Reviser of Voters' List, Reviser of Jurors' List, Presiding Officer at Town Commissioners' Elections, Insurance Agent, Returning Officer at Elections of Poor Law Guardians, Clerk to Lunatic Board, and Executive Officer for Rural Sanitary Authority; whether it is consistent with the duties of a provincial postmaster, and in keeping with the rules of the Post Office Service, that Mr. Mathews should hold other appointments in addition to that of postmaster; how many hours per day are provincial postmasters supposed to spend in their offices, and how many has Mr. Mathews been in the habit of spending in his; whether or not he has utilised the Post Office as a convenience in respect of
  1848
  his other appointments; and, whether these have been conferred upon him in respect of political services?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Postmaster at Ballymena, as in the case of all holders of small post offices, is not an established officer of the Department, and is not, therefore, bound to give his whole time to Post Office work. No complaint has reached me as to the manner in which Mr. Mathews performs his duties; and I do not consider it necessary, therefore, to inquire as to his other appointments.

  CUSTOMS—GALWAY DOCKS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If, in the month of March, ships in Galway dock are only allowed to discharge between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. just six hours shorter than between sunrise and sunset (5.37–6.31); if, on Easter Monday and other days during which every vessel discharges, the Custom House officials, for their own individual profit, are allowed to levy rates, sometimes exceeding a shilling a ton, even on non-excisable articles; and, if it is a fact that for very many years no smuggling of any kind has been carried on in the port of Galway, and shipowners discharging there are not entitled to work free of cost between sunrise and sunset?
  MR. HIBBERT: Ships in Galway Docks are in March allowed to discharge free goods from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. If they discharge before or after these hours, the officers are entitled to payments for overtime on a scale fixed by the Board of Customs. On Easter Monday and other statutory holidays the officers are entitled to receive payment from the merchant for attendance; but on no occasion of any kind are they allowed to levy any charge on goods landed, except the statutory duties. For some years previous to 1884 no smuggling had been detected at Galway; but in that year five seizures were made.

  THE WEST INDIA ISLANDS—COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will inform the House what is the present state of the negotiations

  1849
  for the improvement of commercial intercourse between the West India Islands and the United States and Canada?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Full information respecting the negotiations for improving commercial intercourse between the British West India Colonies and the United States will be found in the Parliamentary Paper Commercial No. 4, 1885. As stated at page 22 of those Papers, Her Majesty's Government does not abandon the hope of coming to an agreement, and they are in communication with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington on the subject. There have been no negotiations with respect to Canada.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION TO REV. FRANCIS DOPPING, COLUMBKILL, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Rev. Francis Dopping, a Protestant clergyman, who has had for some time police protection in Columbkill, county Longford, is always accompanied by two policemen, while one other is stationed at his lodge; whether, in addition to this police protection, to which no one in the county objects, there is also a parade of four policemen armed with revolvers, every Sunday, at the hours of Divine Service, on the roads which this gentleman has to pass; whether he has ever been insulted or molested during all this time; whether this part of the county is not entirely free from crime or outrage of any kind; and, whether, under the circumstances, the parade of the four policemen with revolvers on Sunday is necessary?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The protection which is afforded to the rev. gentleman named, which is more or less accurately described in this Question, is believed by those who are responsible for his safety to be absolutely necessary.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX —HALF-YEARLY PAYMENTS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the financial requirements of the Country necessitating a further addition to the Income Tax, he will
  1850
  consider the great relief which would be afforded to the taxpayer by reverting to the old practice of allowing the tax to be paid in half-yearly instalments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that at present a large amount of Income Tax is paid for the whole of the financial year during its last quarter. Except at a cost to the Revenue of several millions, half that payment could not be postponed until the following financial year; and I have not heard that any payers of Income Tax would wish to pay half their tax six months earlier. I cannot, therefore, give any encouragement to the proposal.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE QUETTA RAILWAY.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What progress has now been made in the Railway from Sibi in the direction of Candahar, the works upon which Railway were suspended in 1880–81, according to the Report upon Railways in India for that year; and, when the works were recommenced?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No particulars in addition to those communicated to the House on March 12 have yet been received from the Government of India concerning the progress on the Quetta Railway; but we know that the works are being vigorously prosecuted, and they may be completed at an earlier period than was then anticipated. They were recommenced in May of last year.

  NAVY—PURCHASE OF MERCHANT STEAMERS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state to the House the names and prices of the vessels of the Navies of other Powers and of the Mercantile Marine of this and of other Countries which it has been deemed necessary to acquire for the Navy since the introduction of the Navy Estimates; and, whether this change of policy is in consequence of the insufficiency of the Navy at present to protect our shores, colonies, and commerce?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I regret that I cannot, consistently with the public interest, reply to the first part of the Question of my right hon. and gal-

  1851
  lant Friend; in reply to the second part of his Question, I have to say that the policy of encouraging the construction of merchant steamers of a type suitable for conversion into cruisers has been consistently pursued by successive Boards of Admiralty, and has been the means of giving us a large reserve of fast and effective cruisers.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I would further ask whether a Supplementary Estimate for the purchase of these ships will be laid on the Table; and also whether the Admiralty have been successful in obtaining the Esmeralda?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: A Supplementary Estimate will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it was intended to put into commission the ships which had been so promptly made ready for sea with provisions and stores on board at the various naval ports?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I can only state that the ships will certainly be commissioned as soon as the Government deem it necessary.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE SENTENCE ON MRS. WELDON.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received a memorial signed by nine of the jury in the recent trial of the Queen v. Georgina Weldon, in which they say—
  "We are perfectly shocked at the sentence of six months' imprisonment passed upon the said Georgina Weldon after we had strongly recommended her to mercy;"
  and, whether he will, under the circumstances, remit the sentence?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received the Memorial referred to, and it will be carefully considered.

  CYPRUS—REPORTED REVENUE FRAUDS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Nos. 355, 356, and 357 of the Rules for Her Majesty's Colonial Service, relating to the duties of the Local Auditor, apply to the Island of Cyprus; whether the observance of these Rules by the Auditor of Cyprus would have rendered impossible the frauds recently committed by the revenue officials; and, whether
  1852
  any inquiry has been, or will be, instituted by Her Majesty's Government as to how the commission of these frauds became possible, without complicity or connivance on the part of the superiors of the guilty officials?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Colonial Regulations referred to apply to Cyprus. The frauds being all connected with the collection of so variable an amount as tithes, and most of them being not in the collection but in the assessment, and largely in collusion with the villagers, I am not prepared, on our present information, to say that the strictest observance of the Rules by the Auditor would have rendered the frauds impossible. There is no doubt that the method of assessment and collection of tithes in Cyprus is imperfect and obsolete, although it has been already much improved since the British occupation. The question, however, of superseding it by an entirely different system has been and still is under consideration by Her Majesty's Government. As to the question of inquiry, I may say that a searching investigation is now being made by the Receiver General, Mr. Swettenham, an officer of great Colonial experience, who has only recently been appointed to Cyprus. Until we receive further [details as to the method and results of his action, the Secretary of State is unable to say whether anything more in the way of investigation is necessary. The Governor's attention, however, will be specially drawn to the points referred to in the hon. Member's Question.

  REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (IRELAND)—COST OF PREPARING LISTS.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will advise that the cost of preparing the Parliamentary Voters List be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, instead of on the poor rates?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In Ireland, as in England, the cost referred to is a charge upon local rates. I am not aware of any intention to make any alteration in the law in this respect.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—EX-POLICE INSPECTOR MINAHAN.
  MR. SHEILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whe-

  1853
  ther his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Minahan, ex-police inspector of the T Division, a witness called for the prosecution of a Mrs. Jeffreys, of Chelsea,
  "That he had reported to his superintendent respecting the defendant's houses, but was laughed at, and told he had better be careful what he was saying. He was laughed at for refusing to accept gold as a bribe;"
  and, whether he has caused any steps to be taken towards ascertaining the truth of this statement?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had made inquiry into this matter. He could not enter into all the details of the case; but, from the information he had received, he had reason to believe the statement was not true. If the hon. Member would care to see the Papers he would be glad to show them to him.
  MR. SHEIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay them on the Table?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No; I cannot do so.
  MR. SHEILsaid, he would put a further Question on the point.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES BILLS.
  MR. ROLLSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is with his approval that the Railway Companies, instead of withdrawing the Rates and Charges Bills, intend to press the same on for Second Reading; and, whether he intends to oppose the Second Reading on behalf of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Railway Companies had not consulted him as to the course to be taken in this matter. He had no information as to the course which they had determined to pursue; but if the Bills should come on for second reading, then, as he had said before, he would consider it to be his duty, on behalf of the Government, to oppose them.

  BRITISH MUSEUM—LIGHTING AND HOURS OF OPENING.
  MR. DANIEL GRANTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has arranged to provide the funds asked for by the Trustees of the British Museum, to enable them so to light the great national collection that it can remain open for the enjoyment of the
  1854
  public until 10 o'clock at night every week day throughout the year?
  MR. MOLLOYhad also the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the junior Member for Leeds, If he has now had an opportunity of consulting with the Treasury, in accordance with his promise to that effect, upon the subject of assisting the Trustees of the British Museum to open that institution to the working classes during the evening; and, if so, can he now state the result?
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have to inform my hon. Friend, in answer to this Question, and also in reference to the Question which the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) proposes to ask my hon. Friend the Junior Lord of the Treasury, that no application, so far as I am aware, has been recently made by the Trustees of the British Museum to light what he calls the "great national collection" until 10 o'clock on week days. In 1883 the Trustees applied for funds to light some of the Natural History Galleries at South Kensington, and they were informed that—
  "Before their wish could be further considered it would be necessary that a complete Estimate should be laid before the Treasury of the cost it involved, not only in the erection of plant, machinery, &c., but in the permanent increase that must be apprehended in the charge for services and salaries."
  They have not furnished us as yet with this information.
  MR. DANIEL GRANT: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) last year stated that an Estimate had been made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I can only say that I have had the Treasury records carefully searched, and I can find no trace of such an Estimate.

  AFGHANISTAN—ARREST OF AYOUB KHAN.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the cause and the circumstances of the arrest of Ayoub Khan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The residence of Ayoub Khan has been fixed at Teheran. Correspondence on the subject is contained in Asia, No. 1, 1884. Sir Ronald Thomson has re-

  1855
  ported that special precautions have recently been thought necessary to prevent Ayoub's escape; but no information has been received of his arrest.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—MR. JAMES ELLIS FRENCH.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Colonel Bruce, the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, held an inquiry in the Castle, Dublin, into certain charges preferred against his colleague, James Ellis French; whether the minutes of the evidence taken at that inquiry, which resulted in the said James Ellis French being officially informed by Colonel Bruce that he should "not return to his office till called upon to do so," in other words, that he was suspended from duty, were laid before the Officers of the Crown for advice and direction; whether it is a fact that District Inspector Bell, Athenry, in the course of his evidence at said inquiry made a statement with reference to charges made by his clerk against James E. French of solicitation to commit a felony; and, if so, whether Colonel Bruce took any and, if so, what steps to secure the evidence of the said police clerk; whether it is a fact that Mr. John Mallon, the Chief Superintendent of the Detective Department of the Metropolitan Police, received no instructions to prosecute any further inquiries into the said charges, and, if so, whether any further inquiries whatever into the said charges were made; and, if so, by whom ordered, and by whom made; and, whether it is a fact that Colonel Bruce, instead of directing the prosecution of further inquiry into the matters disclosed at said inquiry, arising from which J. E. French was suspended from duty, on the contrary warned the District Inspectors so examined to suppress all mention of the matter, and not to divulge the fact that such an inquiry had been held?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The answer to the first two paragraphs of this Question is in the affirmative. District Inspector Bell made a statement with reference to conduct of French towards a clerk which he regarded as suspicious; but there was no allegation whatever of solicitation to commit a felony. Colonel Bruce took immediate steps to procure the statement of the
  1856
  clerk, and it and the statements made by the officer at the inquiry were at once submitted by him in full to the Government. No instructions were immediately given to Mr. Mallon for a further inquiry, because, in the opinion of the Law Officers, the facts which had been then elicited did not constitute ground for an accusation of felonious conduct; but on the termination of the trial of Cornwall v. O'Brien, Mr. Mallon, as well as the other members of the Dublin Police Force, received instructions to make the most exhaustive inquiries, and prosecute all persons against whom evidence could be found. The inquiry held by Colonel Bruce was necessarily confidential, and those examined were so informed, as a matter of course; but, as I have previously stated, Colonel Bruce put the Government in immediate possession of all the information he acquired.

  VISIT OF H.R.H. THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES TO IRELAND —THE DISTURBANCE AT MALLOW.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the day previous to the passage of the Prince of Wales through Mallow, Mr. Purdon Coote, one of the Directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway, had an interview with Lord Spencer; whether, as a consequence of this interview, any, and, if so, what, instructions were issued to the Constabulary at Mallow, and to which officer of the Constabulary, by the Irish Executive; whether the resident magistrate, Mr. Butler, in charge of the peace at Mallow on the day in question, was informed of these instructions, or their nature, by the Executive; whether Mr. Purdon Coote satisfied Lord Spencer that he had been authorised by the Board of Directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to make any application or representation to the Lord Lieutenant on their behalf; whether, before the people were removed by the Constabulary, any request for such action was made to Mr. Butler, resident magistrate, by Mr. Coote, and, if not, to what official was such request made; whether County Inspector Carr ordered the Police to charge the people in the railway station without the orders and without the knowledge of Mr. Butler, resident magistrate; whether

  1857
  any warning was given to the people or request made to them to leave the station by any Government official before the Police drove them away; whether County Inspector Carr was intoxicated and unfit for duty to such an extent as to refuse to obey the orders of his superior officer, Mr. Butler, R.M., when Mr. Butler, on learning of the action of the Police, ordered County Inspector Carr to desist, but was refused obedience by the latter; whether the Police under County Inspector Carr, in addition to driving the people without notice from the railway station, beat them with their batons, pursued them amongst the cattle pens and on to the public roads; whether many of the people had return tickets from. Cork and other places, and were legally entitled to shelter and accommodation from the company while waiting for their trains; and, whether a sworn inquiry, conducted by persons unconnected with the Constabulary, will be instituted by the Irish Executive into the conduct of County Inspector Carr and the Constabulary, and Carr suspended from duty pending this inquiry? I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the name of the official from whom he has received the information he purposes giving to the House in regard to this affair?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the morning of the 13th instant Mr. Coote, a Director of the Railway Company, who had been deputed by the Company to represent them, had an interview with his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. Instructions were sent to the Resident Magistrate and County Inspector of Constabulary to the effect that if the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), who had publicly announced his intention to be present at Mallow Railway Station for the purpose of giving expression to his sentiments, wished to make any representation to the Prince of Wales he should be allowed to come to the platform with a few of his friends and communicate with His Royal Highness through the proper channel. Nothing, however, in the nature of a riotous disturbance was to be permitted. An intimation to this effect was made to the hon. Member, who, however, did not avail himself of the opportunity so given to him. It had been pre-arranged between Mr.
  1858
  Butler, Resident Magistrate, Mr. Coote, and Mr. Carr, the County Inspector, that on the departure of the Kerry train at 4 o'clock the platforms should be cleared of their occupants for the purpose of making preparations for the reception of the Royal Party. A number of persons, led by the hon. Members for Cork and Tipperary (Mr. Deasy and Mr. John O'Connor), had in the meantime arrived from Cork accompanied by bands, and taken up a position in the station. On the application of Mr. Coote to Mr. Carr a party of police were told off to clear the platforms. The party so detailed advanced and directed the people to leave the station. The greater proportion complied. Some, however, refused to do so, and these were removed. Mr. Carr positively denies that there is any ground whatever—and I do not know what authority the hon. Member can have—for the assertion that he was intoxicated, nor did he refuse to obey any orders of Mr. Butler. Some of the people who were on the arrival platform, when requested to leave, dispersed over the adjoining lines. The police had thus to follow them for the purpose of removing them from the Company's premises, and some had to be followed into cattle-pens for this purpose. In the very few individual cases where resistance was offered the police had recourse to their batons, using no more force than was necessary to overcome the resistance. I do not know whether any of these people had return tickets to Cork; but I am advised that the Railway Company, whose Director (Mr. Coote) had charge of the station, had a perfect right to make what arrangements they thought fit for admitting persons to the platform and keeping the station clear; and, in my opinion, they would have incurred great responsibility if they had not made such arrangements as they did. I see no cause whatever for a sworn inquiry. The information I have now received comes from the different Resident Magistrates, from Mr. Butler especially, and from County Inspector Carr.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he has not specifically answered certain portions of my Question. I asked him whether Mr. Coote satisfied Lord Spencer that he was authorized by the Board of Directors of the Great

  1859
  Southern and Western Railway Company to make any application or representation to the Lord Lieutenant on their behalf. The right hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Coote was acting on behalf of the Company; but he has not replied to the part of the Question in which I specifically asked whether Mr. Coote satisfied the authorities that he had the authority of the Board of Directors before his action? I also asked him whether any request for action was made by Mr. Coote to Mr. Butler, the Resident magistrate; and, if not, by what official was that request made; and whether County Inspector Carr ordered the police to charge the people at the railway station without the orders or the knowledge of Mr. Butler? The right hon. Gentleman has asked me what authority I had for the allegations in the Question as to the condition of Inspector Carr. I wish to say that I made that statement with great reluctance, and that I made it on the authority of my two Colleagues.
  MR. HEALY: Better authority than the police, anyhow. ["Order!"]
  MR. PARNELL: I made the statement on the authority of the junior Member for Cork and the hon. Member for Mallow, who informed me that if the inquiry be given which they demand they will be in a position to prove this and other statements that have been made.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will endeavour to answer the hon. Member's Question. Mr. Coote came to the Lord Lieutenant on the part of the Railway Company. I do not presume that the Lord Lieutenant demanded his credentials, or to see any written delegation on the part of the Directors; but I have no doubt that Mr. Coote did act on the part of the Directors of the Railway Company. Then the hon. Member asks me whether Mr. Coote made his request to Mr. Butler, or to whom he made it? I have said in my answer that he made it to County Inspector Carr; but it was in accordance with the pre-arrangement to which I have alluded, and to which the parties were Mr. Butler, Mr. Coote, and Mr. Carr. Then the hon. Member asks me another Question—whether Mr. Butler gave direct orders?
  MR. PARNELL: Had any knowledge of the action of the police.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He had knowledge of what the police
  1860
  were about to do, and he explains in his Report that one part of the proceedings took place on a platform which was separated from where he was by a train, and therefore he was not a positive eyewitness of what occurred in that particular part of the station. Otherwise he expresses no disapproval of anything that took place.
  MR. DEASY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman who it was gave notice to the people on the central platform from which they were about to be ejected that if they did not leave peacefully they would be brutally batoned by the police? I ask the Question because the statement which has been furnished to the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely false.
  MR. M'COAN: I wish to ask whether the Messrs. O'Brien, Harrington, O'Connor, and Deasy, who are reported by the newspapers to be the leaders of these riotous and disloyal demonstrations at Mallow, Cork, and elsewhere, are identical with the persons of the same name who have sworn allegiance to the Queen, Her heirs, and successors, at the Table of this House?
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question in great detail, and I think that any further Question is unnecessary.
  MR. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member state the point of Order?
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is admissible for an hon. Gentleman, under cover of a Question, to make a gross insinuation of perjury against a series of Members of this House? I wish to ask whether you, Sir, as Speaker of this House, will allow an imputation of that kind to be cast upon Members of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Any imputation of that kind cast upon an hon. Member of this House would, in my opinion, be out of Order; and if the hon. Member had desired to put the Question on the Paper I would certainly have revised it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS—MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, CHELTENHAM— APPOINTMENT OF MR. ROCH.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of the Local Government

  1861
  Board, If he can state the result of his inquiries into the circumstances of the recent appointment of a Medical Officer of Health by the Town Council of Cheltenham?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have obtained further particulars as to the appointment of Mr. Roch. It is true that when he was appointed he had a surgical qualification only. The Regulations of the Board require that unless they dispense with the requirement a Medical Officer of Health shall possess both a medical and surgical qualification; and in the case of a borough such as Cheltenham we should not have consented to the office being held by a medical man with one qualification only. But Mr. Roch about three weeks before the date when he was to enter upon his duties obtained the requisite medical qualification. The Town Council, when this further qualification had been obtained, ratified the election by formally applying to the Board to dispense with the requirement referred to so far as was necessary, in consequence of Mr. Roch not actually possessing at the time of the election the double qualification. The Board have complied with their request, and have sanctioned the appointment.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT, 1883—BREAKFASTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. KENNYasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention had been called to paragraphs, prominently printed, and appearing with increased frequency in London daily papers, which announce the intention of persons, mostly Members of Parliament and Parliamentary candidates, and sometimes Members of Her Majesty's Government, to give free breakfasts to unemployed workmen and other deserving persons: and, whether, considering the near approach of a General Election, such acts will betaken into consideration as constituting violations of "The Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have a very limited knowledge of what takes place in relation to these free breakfasts. As far as I have seen, they have been given by gentlemen in localities with which they have no connection either as Representa-
  1862
  tives or in respect to any future candidature, and they are given to persons who are not voters, and from whom no advantage can be obtained. I therefore cannot say that they constitute a corrupt practice.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the Radical candidate for the borough of Fulham gives free breakfasts in the borough of St. George's-in-the-East, and if the Radical candidate for the borough of St. George's-in-the-East gives free breakfasts to the unemployed in the borough of Fulham; and whether such reciprocity of action on the part of two candidates would not constitute an obvious evasion of the Corrupt Practices Act? I wish to ask the Attorney General what guarantee there can be that the Radical friend of the Radical candidate in any borough actually defrays the cost of the free breakfast provided?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): If any other hon. Member but the noble Lord had put this Question, I should have considered it one of an argumentative character. This Question is purely hypothetical. I know of no such facts having occurred as he has referred to; but if, when they actually occur, the noble Lord would put his Question I will endeavour to answer it.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION—SIR PETER LUMSDEN'S MISSION.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information leading to the conclusion that the condition of Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission is less serious than would appear from the letter of the Correspondent of The Standard newspaper, published in their issue of the 15th instant, or that the statements in that letter are, to any extent, overdrawn? The hon. Member said he desired to put the Question in the form in which he originally placed it on the Paper—namely, by substituting for "serious" the words "humiliating and disastrous to British interests."
  MR. SPEAKER: Those words would be out of Order.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUBICE: The Foreign Office have not received any information showing that the condition

  1863
  of the Mission is serious. Some regrettable loss of life among the camp followers occurred when crossing the mountains between Gulran and Tirpul owing to a snowstorm.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— OFFICERS OF THE RESERVE—EQUIPMENT MONEY.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Secretary of State for War, If, under the Regulations, Officers in the Reserve who are called into active service are entitled to £100 for equipment; if the Government will extend this rule to such Officers of the Reserve as have volunteered for service in Suakin and been sent there; and, if, under the special conditions of the very expensive outfit required for that climate, and the high price of all necessaries there, the fact of having volunteered will not be allowed to prejudice the rights they would have if only called upon in the ordinary way, without the preliminary of volunteering; and, if the cost of the necessary outfit will not absorb an amount equal to the greater part of a year's pay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension in regard to this Question. Officers of the Reserve are not entitled, under any circumstances, to an outfit allowance on being recalled to Army service; but if they proceed on active service, they receive an advance of field allowance to provide field equipment.

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL LABOUR STATISTICS.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the letter recently addressed by the Secretary of State at Washington to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, reviewing the Reports from the Consuls of the United States, on the relations of labour and wages, and capital and enterprise, existing in every Country, Colony, and Island in which the United States have consular representatives; and, whether he will cause to have issued to the Consuls of Her Majesty a Labour Circular, similar in character to that issued, on the 15th of February 1884, to the consular officers of the United States, with a view of obtaining the fullest possible information as to the conditions affecting and surrounding Foreign and Colonial
  1864
  labour, viz.: the rates of wages, hours of labour, prices of food, articles of consumption, rent, &c., and thus affording material for a comparison of their conditions with those which prevail in the United Kingdom?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN(who replied) said, his attention had been called to the summary of a very important Return which the United States Government were seeking to obtain as to the rate of wages and other particulars affecting the working classes. He recognized the extreme importance of such a Return, and he very much desired that a similar one should be obtained for this country. He desired, however, to reserve to himself the right of further considering the best way of securing an accurate Return, because he had reason to believe that the Board of Trade could correct and materially add to any Reports of Consular Agents by comparing them with the statistics at present in the possession of the Department.

  CENTRAL ASIA—HERAT—ACTION OF ENGLAND IN CASE OF SUDDEN SEIZURE BY RUSSIA.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are about to take, to prevent the sudden capture of Herat?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the important letter from the Correspondent of The Standard with Sir Peter Lumsden's Commission, and especially to the following passages:—
  "The importance to the Russians of acquiring Ak Tepe and Penjdeh district is obvious; the position gives them the command of the Kushk Rud and Murghab Valleys, of the passes leading across the mountains to the Herat Valley, and practically of Herat. With the control of these two valleys passes away the control of the Herat Valley; the advance by the Heri Rud, a much more difficult and inhospitable line, becomes unnecessary. The importance of the move to Pul-i-Khisti must be distinctly understood: it means the fall of Ak Tepe, the Penjdeh position, of the Kushk Rud and Murghab Valleys, and practically of Herat, to the Russians, and finally the solution of the Central Asian question in favour of Russia;"
  and, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to counteract the injurious effect of General Komarofi's aggression upon the peoples of Central Asia?
  MR. GLADSTONE: To both these Questions I have to make one and the same reply; and my reply is that the matters named in both Questions have received the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the Prime Minister, consistently with the interests of the Public Service, inform the House whether it is true, as reported, that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to cede Penjdeh to the Russians?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the receipt of any further communications from Sir Peter Lumsden, and say whether he is in a position to affirm or deny the statement which has been made that a provisional Government has been established at Penjdeh by the Russian authorities?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inform the House whether there is any truth in the statement which appears in the evening papers to the effect that a large number of those who were with Sir Peter Lumsden's Commission had died from frost and hunger?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may dispose of the last Question by pointing out that an answer has already been given by my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) on the part of the Government. With regard to the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman, we have had no further communication from Sir Peter Lumsden; and I think it may be of use to the House if I venture to warn hon. Gentlemen—not with reference to this or that particular communication—that there is a very great uncertainty indeed as to the time which is now required, either from St. Petersburg or London, to communicate with the officer on the spot. Partly we are uncertain, because we do not know precisely the state of the telegraphic communication from St. Petersburg, it being by no means established to our minds that there is a proper telegraph from St. Petersburg as far as Mery; and it likewise appears that the inclemency of the weather over that country has introduced a great deal of uncertainty, and from recent despatches from Sir Edward Thornton, dated the 11th of this month, I have an apprehension that we must be content to put up with some further delay before
  1866
  we can receive replies either from St. Petersburg with respect to the questions Her Majesty's Government have asked with reference to General Komaroff, or from Sir Peter Lumsden as to the important messages that have been sent to him, and which will in due time, no doubt, be fully answered by him. As to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, all we know is this—there is a somewhat detailed statement in such evening papers as I have seen which purports to be from General Komaroff. With respect to the details and particulars of that statement we are not informed; but we have a telegram from Sir Edward Thornton, received this afternoon, which states in a very few words that an Administration—or a provisional Administration—has been, established in Penjdeh. So far, I think, I have answered all that was asked by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the inquiry whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government has undertaken to cede Penjdeh to the Government of Russia, the state of the case is this—that not only is that statement a statement without authority, but likewise I can assure the House that no assurances have been either given or received on the part of either Government on the subject of particular points upon the Frontier. There has been friendly conversation between Lord Granville and M. de Steal, with one or two present who were competent to assist them; but no assurances have been given which convey the intention of either Government with respect to particular points on the Frontier. I can only say that it was friendly conversation. Lord Granville has had frequent communications with the Russian Ambassador, as might naturally be expected during the critical circumstances of the last few days; but they have been of an unofficial character, except as regards certain matters of fact with respect to which it was his duty to make inquiry. I think that is all that has been asked me with regard to this question.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether Sir Edward Thornton in his despatch mentions by whom the Administration at Penjdeh has been formed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: He does not mention it. His expression is "is estab-

  1867
  lished; "but I cannot doubt that it is established under Russian auspices, and I perceive that the detailed communication in the newspapers appears to be founded upon the necessity of establishing some Administration there after the disappearance of the Afghans from that district.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the course of the communications that have passed between the Russian Government and Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government have made any inquiry of the Russian Government as to the precise point in Central Asia to which their telegraph system extends; and, if so, whether there has been a reply?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; we have not made inquiries of the Russian Government as to the state of its telegraphic communications, nor would it be very easy probably for them to give an exact reply, because the telegraph line to Merv is in course of construction, and they might not know at any particular moment how far it had proceeded. It will be observed that this very telegram in to-day's papers seems to have taken nine or 10 days in its transmission to St. Petersburg; and my impression is that no communication is at present passed between the Russian Government and General Komaroff in much less time than that, and therefore, of course, twice that time would be required for a reply.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the Russian Government have asked or demanded that the zone of the debatable or debated land should be extended from Sari-Yazi, Pul-i-Khisti, and Penjdeh down to the Parapomesus Hills which skirt Herat on the North; and, also, whether he is aware that the Russian telegraph line is now finished as far as Sarakhs, within 100 miles of General Komaroff's headquarters, and that the attack of the 30th by General Komaroff was known at St. Petersburg on the 4th of April, and in Berlin on the 5th, whereas it was not communicated to this country until the 9th?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have nothing to say as to what has been demanded by the Russian Government or by ourselves. With regard to the rest of the Question,
  1868
  I should have to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a great deal of information which I did not possess if I believed that he was accurately informed; but I do not believe that he is accurately informed on the points to which he has referred.
  MR. BOURKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in the conversation between the Russian Ambassador and Lord Granville, any suggestion has been made by the former that Penjdeh should be annexed to the Russian Empire?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not been present at these conversations. ["Oh, oh!"] Do I understand hon. Members to say that it is my duty to know everything that has passed in these conversations?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Certainly, about Penjdeh.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly! If the law of manners had permitted the withholding of that interruption, I was about to say that I have no reason to believe that any such suggestion or demand has at the present time been made; and, as I have said, no assurances have been given or received by either Government.
  MR. HEALY: I wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any truth in the statement which appears in The Daily Telegraph this morning, to the effect that the Czar has sent a letter containing assurances of an extremely pacific character?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I did not see any such statement.
  MR. HEALY: The following is the passage I refer to:—
  "I am charged by the personal commands of His Majesty the Czar to beg you to make known to the Government of the Queen that in the opinion of His Majesty a war would be deplorable for the two countries, and His Majesty hopes firmly that a prompt and simple arrangement will be established."
  LORD EDMOND EITZMAURICE: I can at once state that that has not been received at the Foreign Office.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that as great importance was attached to the exact date on which the information arrived at St. Petersburg from General Komaroff as to the Russian attack on the Afghans, he wished to know whether it was inconsistent with the nego-

  1869
  tiations now going on to instruct Sir Edward Thornton to learn on what date that information was received, either officially or otherwise?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no fear of being in error in saying that Sir Edward Thornton is himself convinced, and states it as his opinion, that the intelligence of the unhappy action at Pul-i-Khisti did not reach St. Petersburg until the evening of the 7th of April.

  ARMY—PAYMENT FOR ADDITIONAL KIT.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that it is the rule of the service that, on the occasion of troops going to India, the privates have to pay out of their own pocket for the additional kit, such as spine protectors, cholera belts, &c.; whether he is aware that the same rule has been carried out with regard to the men now on active service in the Soudan; and, whether our gallant soldiers could not be provided with the articles necessary to enable them to carry out their duties without extra charge to them?
  MR. BRAND: Soldiers proceeding to India are provided with certain necessaries, for which they have to pay. The articles are mainly for the purpose of enabling the men to save the wear during the voyage of their ordinary necessaries; and, as the maintenance of the latter is at their own cost, it would seem to be quite fair that they should pay for the substitutes which add to their comfort and save them expense. The charges against a soldier embarking for the Soudan have been very small—something under 1s., I understand.

  ARMY—THE 5TH LANCERS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the Dublin Correspondence of The Tablet of the 10th April, relating to the embarkation, onboard the Lydian Monarch, of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers:—
  "About six weeks ago two squadrons of this regiment sailed from Kingstown for the Soudan on board the Lydian Monarch. The men marched from the Island Barracks, under the command of Lieut. Colonel Chichester. So far, there was no more irregularity than what also took place when the Guards left London for the
  1870
  seat of war. On arriving at Kingstown it was found that the Lydian Monarch would not be ready to embark them for another two hours. This enforced halt led to many of the men being supplied with drink by their friends. Colonel Vandeleur, in command of the Home contingent of the regiment, was present as a spectator. Shortly afterwards these irregularities were brought under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, and Colonel Chichester was recalled all the way from Egypt. Colonel Vandeleur was called upon by the Duke of Cambridge for an explanation, though he was not officially in charge of the departing corps. Colonel Vandeleur sought an interview with the Duke of Cambridge, which at first was refused, but ultimately, through the intervention of Lord Hartington, was granted. The Duke of Cambridge, however, was inflexible. Not even an inquiry would be allowed, which had been eagerly requested. The sting of the injustice lies in the fact that neither of these officers is responsible for the delay of the Lydian Monarch, which was the primary cause of the mischief, nor for the intrusion of the civilian element, against which it was the duty of the general staff to take the proper precautions, and is aggravated by the further fact of the proper authorities, Lord Clarina and his staff, being present on the spot officially. It is of course admitted that there has been a distinct breach of the 57th and 58th paragraphs of the 17th section of the Queen's Regulations, but for the due effect of these the officer, i.e. Lord Clarina, commanding the district or station is responsible;"
  whether it is a fact that Colonel Chichester was so" recalled all the way from Egypt; "whether it is a fact that Colonel Vandeleur was present on the occasion in question merely as a spectator, and not officially; whether it is true, as stated, that "not even an inquiry would be allowed," and that both Colonel Chichester and Colonel Vandeleur, both of whom have seen over a quarter of a century's service, were "summarily compelled to resign;" and, whether Lord Clarina, the officer commanding the district, was present on the occasion in question; and, if so, whether he was present officially, or as a mere spectator, like Colonel Vandeleur, and, in either case, on what grounds has not the Commander-in-Chief held him responsible, under the like circumstances, as he has held Colonel Chichester and Colonel Vandeleur?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Very grave irregularities occurred at the embarkation for the Soudan of the two squadrons of the 5th Lancers. Although my attention has not been drawn to the particular newspaper article to which the hon. Member refers, the whole subject has been brought officially to notice by the General Officer Commanding in

  1871
  Ireland, and has received, and is still receiving, careful consideration. It was not considered desirable, under the circumstances, that Lieutenant Colonel Chichester should command the squadrons in the field, and he was therefore recalled from Egypt. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeleur was present, and as he commands the regiment could only be held to havo been there in an official capacity. He was called upon to resign the command; but, owing to contradictory statements having reached the Commander-in-Chief, His Royal Highness has postponed removing these officers from the regiment until a Court of Inquiry shall have reported on all the circumstances. Lord Clarina only arrived at Kingstown during the afternoon. He is responsible to the Commander-in-Chief for the manner in which duties are carried out in his district.

  ARMY—MILITIA OFFICERS.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNasked the Secretary of State for Was, Whether it is proposed to grant any Commissions in the Line to Officers of Militia, beyond the number annually granted to such Officers; whether Officers of Militia, and others serving as troopers in Sir Charles Warren's Force in South Africa, will be eligible for such Commissions; and, whether care will be taken that such Officers shall not lose the chance of obtaining a Commission in consequence of their having volunteered for such service?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In addition to the 75 commissions granted each half-year to Militia officers, Line commissions have been offered to all Militia candidates under 22 years of ago on the 1st January, 1884, who had passed the qualifying standard in military competitive examinations. The fact of serving in Sir Charles Warren's Force in South Africa has not prevented offers being made to qualified officers, and steps are now being taken to meet their cases.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—THE SUAKIN AND BERBER RAILWAY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state in whom will be vested the property of the Suakin and Berber Railway when completed; by what title
  1872
  such property will be held, whether by right of conquest or by grant or concession; and, in the latter case, by what competent authority such grant or concession has been or will be given; and, what measures, if any, Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, for the custody, maintenance, and working of the line when British troops have left the country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The railway, as at present in course of construction, is for military purposes. The question of the future, when the military exigencies shall have ceased or have been materially lessened, must be left for consideration under the circumstances that will then have arisen.

  ARMY CONTRACTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he form of tender for clothing issued by the Department contains a clause of the following purport:—
  "All garments shall be made up at contractor's factory at [contractor to state position of factory] only, and no work whatever must be done at the homes of the workpeople. Any infringement of this condition, if proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State for War, shall render the contractor liable to a penalty not exceeding £700;"
  and, whether, with reference to the alleged sub-letting of the Post Office Clothing Contract to a sweater at the East End of London, he will cause the contract to be cancelled and the penalty enforced if such sub-letting has taken place?
  MR. BRAND: The clause quoted in the Question—in which, by the way, the penalty should be £100, not £700—is not inserted in the tender or contract for Post Office clothing, as was stated in my reply to the hon. Member on Monday last. It is, however, included in the contract for Army clothing. It is not intended to take any steps to cancel the contract for Post Office clothing, which has not been sub-let.

  ARMY—WOOLWICH ARSENAL— EXTRA HOURS, &C.
  MR. BOORDasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether he will state the present hours of work in the several Departments of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, and explain why the present urgent requirements of the

  1873
  public service cannot be met by at least a temporary increase in the number of men employed, instead of imposing an excessive amount of extra labour on the existing staff; and, whether it is a fact that artizans, otherwise fully qualified, are not engaged at the Royal Arsenal unless they are members of a Trade Society?
  MR. BRAND: The present hours of work in the several Departments of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich vary according to circumstances. For instance, nearly all branches of the Royal Laboratory are working up to 8.30 P.M., with, of course, the usual interval for meals, while in the Gun Factory work is carried on day and night without intermission on shifts. In the Royal Carriage Department, on the other hand, some Departments are working only the ordinary hours; but in this case others are working up to 8 o'clock at night, and even later. Where possible the present urgent requirements of the Service have been met by a temporary increase in the number of men employed; but, as a rule, the accommodation and plant do not admit of extra hands being employed, and the emergencies are best met by extra exertion on the part of the existing Establishments. It is not a fact that artizans otherwise fully qualified are not engaged at the Royal Arsenal unless they are members of a Trade Society. No inquiry whatever is made on the point.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Prime Minister, If he could give the House any information with regard to the Business of the House? The Seats Bill might probably be through Committee this week; and he should therefore like to know what Business would be taken on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONEasked some indulgence from the right hon. Baronet, because he could not exactly define the period of closing the Committee on the Seats Bill. He had a hope that the Committee on that Bill would close tomorrow night. ["Oh, oh!"] He dared say the hon. Member who interrupted knew more about it than he (Mr. Gladstone) did himself. Evidently it was their duty to close the Committee on the Seats Bill as soon as possible. There-
  1874
  fore, he might say they should not interpose anything which would take time in such a manner as to interfere with the closing of the Committee on the Seats Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: With regard to the Seats Bill, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if he is aware that the separate maps for the divisions of the Irish counties have not yet been provided, and that the special set of maps promised by the President of the Local Government Board, showing the first schemes of the Boundary Commissioners in certain Irish counties, have not been provided, and when they will be provided?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was not aware that the maps had not been provided; and my right hon. Friend, who has had, as is well known, extremely hard work in connection with the Bill, is not at this moment in his place, or he might be able to give some information on the point.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they were all anxious that the interval between the Committee and the Report should be as short as it could conveniently and properly be made. At the same time, the intervention of a certain interval was necessary. They could not say what the interval would be; but his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would endeavour to make such an arrangement as would be recommended by general propriety, and by the desire of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.— [BILL 122.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hibbert.)
  EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.— [BILL 122.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to move, Mr. Speaker, that you do leave the Chair, and in so doing I need not detain the House for an unreasonable time. I wish to say that if I am to understand the present opposition to the Bill mainly to have reference to the question of the Suez Canal, the ground of dispute between us is so narrow that my eyes practically fail either to define

    1875
    or even to discern it. I will say a few words with regard to the merits of this Bill, and I will close by stating' what is the view of the Government with respect to the proceedings now going on at Paris in relation to the Suez Canal. I think with regard to the Bill so much notice has been taken of the transactions which took place in 1855 that it would not be respectful on my part were I not now to make some short reference to that transaction. I did not deem it necessary to do so on the former occasion, because, in my mind, the two subjects are as different as it is possible for any two subjects to be that involve the same particular word. The particular word "Guarantee" is involved in both—"Joint Guarantee," I should say—and that, in my own opinion, is the only resemblance that I know between the two subjects. It is only right that I should express what I take to be the nature of these matters. I am one of those who think that even in private life it is dangerous to make a gift under the name of a loan; and most certainly, in my opinion, it is dangerous and objectionable for a State to make a gift under the name either of a loan or of a Guarantee. I myself was a party, at the time of the Crimean War, to advancing a sum of £2,000,000 to the Sardinian Government. That was even a step beyond a Guarantee. We raised the money and handed it over, and made an arrangement for its repayment. To my mind the essential condition of justification of that measure was our full and absolute conviction that the Sardinian Government would fulfil as punctually and accurately as we ourselves could have fulfilled the engagement to pay the money. Thirty years have elapsed, and I do not think all the money is repaid yet under the arrangement then made; but my recollection is that the great bulk of it has been repaid, and the remainder will be repaid. The foundation of the objection taken in 1855 to the proposal to guarantee the loan to the Turkish Government was a belief that the Turkish Government would probably be unable to fulfil the conditions of the Guarantee. That was the belief that I and many others entertained; and I am bound to say the belief was not altogether unjustified by facts. I do not mean to say that the money is not now secure, because I think
    1876
    that by the arrangement which it has been found practicable to make upon what I may call the collateral funds, not coming under the description of ordinary Turkish resources, sufficient provision has been made. But if we had been dependent upon the ordinary Exchequer payments of the Turkish Government there would have been great difficulty. But that is not all. What were we doing? We were at that time engaged in a great war, which had been brought about by an attempt of one or two Great Powers to interfere with the internal arrangements of Turkey. We knew quite well, if we guaranteed the loan, that if the condition of the loan were not fulfilled, that title to interference would again arise. That is the point of distinction to which I wish to direct attention. Unless hon. Gentlemen are conscientiously and intelligently of opinion that Egypt is likely to fulfil the pecuniary conditions of the Guarantee and exempt the Powers from liability in respect of it, I am not prepared to defend the Guarantee. I have the firmest conviction to the opposite effect; I believe that 19 out of 20 hon. Members of this House entertain the opinion with me that Egypt is able to fulfil its obligations. As long as there is any Revenue at all in Egypt—and there must always be some Revenue—the first charge upon it will be that of this Guarantee. That is the broad and fundamental distinction which I draw between it and other Guarantees where a doubt arises as to the fulfilment of the engagement. That is not a mere pecuniary question; but it is also a political question of the utmost importance, because it cannot be denied for a moment that when a State which has taken the benefit of a Guarantee is unable to fulfil its pecuniary covenants, then claims of the most indefinite character to interference may be urged with a view to procure, by whatever means, the fulfilment of those engagements. But, of course, a demand of that kind may be made a cover for almost any amount of interference that may be conceived. I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think I speak disrespectfully when I say that I am under the impression that they are not really aware with what edged tools they are playing in opposing this Bill. Have they considered the consequences which

    1877
    would follow if they could succeed in persuading the House—but I have no apprehension that they will—to reject or refuse to pass this Bill? I will just point out two of the consequences which would certainly follow. Had this Convention not been made. Egypt would have become bankrupt on the 6th of April by its failure to pay the dividend of tribute money, which on that day became due to Turkey. Now, the object of opposing this Bill, as I understand it, is to prevent foreign interference in the affairs of Egypt. Have right hon. Gentlemen considered that, independently of the other consequences of bankruptcy, the very first effect of the inability of Egypt to pay the tribute money would have been to establish an absolute right on the part of the Ottoman Porte to interference in Egypt? So that, in addition to the internal consequences of bankruptey—a discredit and disgrace involving discredit to this country, we being in military occupation of Egypt—there would be created that very right of interference which right hon. Gentlemen wish to avoid. Moreover, the Sultan might be backed by the other Powers, to what extent I do not know, but that he would have an absolute title to interfere in Egypt for the fulfilment of the primary engagements of that country to the Turkish Empire is beyond all question and doubt. Well, Sir, I should have thought that was rather a serious consideration of the consequences that would have followed the failure of the British Government to conclude the Convention which we have been enabled to form. I will refer to another question which I can find no sign from their speeches that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken into view. I want to know what, but for this Convention, would have become of the suit that was raised by the Caisse in the last autumn against the Egyptian Government? Have they considered what would have become of that suit? I will give, Sir, the particulars as far as they are essentially necessary. The sum which was diverted by the Egyptian Government from its legal application under the Law of Liquidation was £524,000. I say from its legal application under the Law of Liquidation. I have had the satisfaction of reading today an article in The Quarterly Review, in which the reviewer appears coolly to
    1878
    contend that from change of circumstances the Law of Liquidation is now I entirely placed at the arbitrament of the British Government, and that it is for the British Government to say how far that International engagement is in force. If that ancient periodical expresses the views of Her Majesty's Opposition on this subject, it is well that we should understand it, because I perfectly grant that if that be so—if we are to assert that International Law has no longer any existence in Egypt, that we have become masters of it, and, consequently, can deal with Egyptian Revenue as we please—then I admit that that is a ground broad enough to carry with it all the consequences which you may desire. But I have great doubt whether any Gentleman in his senses will say that he is prepared to adopt that ground, or to deny that the provisions of the International Law of Liquidation form a covenant absolutely binding upon us, and upon everyone a party to it; and I must say that they formed that covenant with the Powers of Europe! at its back to enforce the doctrine that the law is in force, and to enforce the provisions in respect to it. That appears, at all events, to be the opinion of most of the Powers of Europe; because although the Conference last summer had agreed that if an arrangement had been made the Sinking Fund should be suspended, yet, as is well known, no arrangement was made; and it was in a desperate necessity, and for the purpose of avoiding the confusion that would have followed upon bankruptcy—it was upon that ground that the Egyptian Government diverted these moneys, and was supported by the British Government in so diverting them. Notwithstanding that anything but satisfaction was given to the Powers, the diversion took place between the 18th of September and the 23rd of October in last year. It was followed by the immediate protest of the Commissioners of the Caisse, and subsequently by protests from, I believe, the whole of the foreign Consuls General. Therefore, by that protest, those gentlemen, acting, without doubt, under the instructions of their Governments, laid the ground for ulterior measures. Now, what, was to take place in Egypt? On the 5th of October, 1884, while the diversion of the Funds was going on, but long before

    1879
    it was completed, action was initiated by the Caisse against Nubar Pasha, the head of the Executive Government of Egypt; Mustapha Pasha Fehmy, the Minister of Finance; the Mudirs of the assigned Provinces, and the heads of the assigned administrations—namely, the Customs and the Railways. That action was initiated on the 5th of October. On the 9th of December judgment was given by the Court of First Instance, and they condemned the whole of these functionaries, except Nubar Pasha, and held them personally responsible under sentences for replacing the money—for a sum of £500,000 taken from necessity by the Egyptian Government out of the Caisse to meet necessary charges of administration. The Court of First Instance gave judgment, declaring that the agents of that Government who had been directly or indirectly concerned, with the exception of Nubar Pasha, were personally responsible for that money. Had it been at once communicated to the Egyptian Authorities the execution would have followed immediately, unless delayed by appeal; and had it been confirmed on an appeal made at that date, execution might have been enforced as early as the 23rd of January, 1885. But, Sir, of course, every fair measure was taken to procure postponements, and postponements were procured, so that the judgment, although published, was not notified officially to the Egyptian Government until the 29th of December, 1884. So much time was gathered by the intervention of Diplomatic Representatives. When it was notified, the Egyptian Government immediately appealed; and on the 7th of January, 1885, negotiations were opened by France for delaying the hearing of the appeal. In consequence of the friendly progress of these negotiations, we were enabled to exercise influence with the Commissioners of the Caisse to interfere to prevent the execution. Postponements took place on the 14th of January to the 18th of February, on the 18th of February to the 4th of March for a fortnight, and before the expiration of the fortnight the Convention of the 19th of March was signed. Now, Sir, what would have been the effect if that Convention had not been signed and the negotiations had been broken off? The appeal would have been judged, beyond all doubt, in the
    1880
    sense of sustaining the sentence of the Court of First Instance. It would have been confirmed without any question whatever; and in the regular course of these proceedings the judgment would, by the regular machinery of Egyptian law, have immediately followed. Well, have Gentlemen realized to themselves what that means? What would have been the position of this country with regard to this sum of money—£500,000—diverted from its legal application under necessity, but declared by the International Tribunals to be exigible personally from the agents of the Egyptian Government? I ask you in what position would Parliament have been placed if such a result had been allowed to come about? Would you have asked this House to give this money? Egypt had no power to borrow it, and we had no power to lend it. Were we to come down and ask this House for it? How much more was to be given, and were you prepared to incur all these liabilities? If the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who is going to move, I suppose, an Amendment to-night—should succeed in stopping the progress of this Convention, and if he himself, in consequence of his so succeeding, were to be one of those who had to deal with the Caisse, he would be compelled, whether he liked it or not, to sign and agree to this Convention, or perhaps one much worse. I have not heard a word from the opponents of the Convention which shows to me that they have ever thought it worthy to be taken into consideration; but they have played with the subject in discussing the advantages of this International Guarantee. Now, Sir, it may be said, and I hope it is true, that this is not an opposition to the principle of the Bill that is now before the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire said the other evening that the Bill of 1855 was carried by a small majority of 40. Whether that was a small majority or not, the Convention of 1855 was carried by a majority of three or four; and yet, notwithstanding that it was so carried, our sense of the delicate nature of the matters involved operated with that very large minority to prevent any challenge of the measure upon a division, and it was allowed to pass. It appears there is to be a further division taken upon the

    1881
    present occasion; but it is to be taken upon an Amendment rather than upon the principle of the Bill. Well, Sir, what are we going to fight about with respect to the Amendment? When there is a battle it is surely requisite that there should be a cause. Well, what is the cause. The right hon. Gentleman asks the House to affirm that it will not proceed with this Bill until the Convention relating to the Suez Canal is concluded. But what connection is there between these two subjects? I contend that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is in the nature of attack. In the old days of Constitutional dispute it was occasionally attempted by this House to enforce its just claims by associating them with measures that in themselves were unobjectionable, but which they were disposed to stop for the purpose of insuring the recognition of those just claims. So it is that the right hon. Gentleman now wants to stop this Bill until he has got before him the Convention on the Suez Canal. Now, Sir, there is no connection between the two subjects. The necessity of this Bill is extreme. To shake the confidence of the other Governments with respect to it would entail those consequences to which I have briefly referred. There are a great many consequences. I may say that we have before us an assurance that the French Chamber—of course the change of Government in Prance has somewhat interfered with the progress of affairs—will apply itself to it at once on its assembling, and it is not expected that there will be any opposition. But anything like hesitation on the part of this House would, of course, at once alter the position of other countries in regard to this Convention. The right hon. Gentleman thinks we are going to behave very badly about the Suez Canal—that we have got some secret plot or plan, and that we are going behind the back of this House to agree to some dreadful provision about the Suez Canal which we do not wish to disclose. Assume that to be true. Is that any reason why Egypt should be allowed to become bankrupt—that we should give the Powers a title to intervene at once by force in Egypt, and expose the Ministers of Egypt to the indignity of personal liability and to personal confinement for having laid their hands on moneys which we encouraged them to apply? Why
    1882
    should our misconduct about the Suez Canal be visited on Egypt? There is no connection between these two things. If I can give satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he ought not to resort to this ancient practice of tacking, which was deemed to be extremely objectionable unless under the pressure of absolute necessity. He says he wants to see the Convention. Why, Sir, his Motion is perfectly inefficient. By his Motion he would punish Egypt, but he would not insure any satisfaction to this House respecting the Convention. Supposing he carried his Motion and stopped the Financial Agreement, I have shown what would happen in the regular course of law in Egypt. And what would happen here? Presuming we were engaged in a foreign plot, which the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to prove, we should make a Convention at the back of the House. We should come down to the House and say—"Now you have got the Convention; that is all you asked; you did not ask what is in it beforehand, and did not make any conditions as to its terms; now you have got it, go on with your Financial Agreement. "It appears to me that that would not be sufficient for the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman. But I want to know what is demanded? I think what the right hon. Gentleman really means, though I cannot say, as his Amendment is not happy in the mode of expressing it, is that he desires that the Government should not in this matter act behind the back of the House. Well, Sir, there is no concession that a reasonable man can ask in the way of Ministerial declaration on that subject that we are not perfectly willing to make. We have done what we could thus far, because the House is cognizant of the principles upon which Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the Powers to act. What I have heard from the other side of the House gives me reason to believe that our objects are recognized as good. The freedom and the security of the Canal are generally acknowledged to be the ends at which we should aim. The Commission have met at Paris; of course they have arrived at no conclusive results, but they have commenced the discussion of the subject; and I am bound to say, without entering into details, that as yet we have no reason to complain, but, on the contrary, we have

    1883
    reason to be satisfied with the progress that they have made and the course that apparently things have taken. But you will say that when you come to compare notes and go into details, you will very likely find that you will have to allow this or that deviation, willingly or unwillingly, from the basis you have made, and you may either purposely or unawares be led into some conclusion which the House will disapprove. Well, Sir, the House cannot conduct this business itself. If it could, I do not know that there is any great reason why we should grudge it the pleasure. But it appears to me to be an instrument of Executive Government or of diplomatic negotiation. That being so, all we can say is that our desire is to throw our mind into common stock with the mind of the House, and to be assured upon very material and substantial points involving British views and British interests. It is not a concession I am reluctantly making to the right hon. Gentleman under threat of intimidation—it is an expression of our own spontaneous and real desire that we shall on every point be in the fullest possession of the opinion of the House; that we shall take the very best means in our power to satisfy ourselves that in anything that is proposed we should not deviate from what the interests and convictions of this country require; and, finally, that we anticipate no practical difficulty in acting upon that principle and conducting negotiations in that sense. I do not know, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman can ask anything more. He cannot now have the Convention before him. He cannot wish to tie us up in regard to every matter of form or procedure. There will be a multitude of matters connected with the Convention with respect to it which the final form of them must evidently be reserved to those who are to be the instruments of the respective Governments. But, distinguishing between these things and the substantial matters which relate to the views and interests of this country, I believe there is no reason why I should impose any practical limitation whatever upon the desire and intention of the British Government that we should only proceed after giving the fullest confidence to Parliament, and making Parliament aware of what we are doing, and being assured that we shall have Parliament
    1884
    with us. Now, Sir, if there is any addition to be made to that declaration I am not aware what it is. If there be any addition, we are quite ready to listen to it, and to see what we can do. I do not know that I could carry it any further. I do not think that any of my Colleagues are disposed to restrict it within the wide and liberal limits that I have been enabled to lay down. I must say, Sir, I hope that the spirit in which I have spoken will be recognized as not being a spirit of contention, but, on the contrary, as exhibiting a desire to avoid contention. If there be a question of principle at issue between the two Parties, if the conduct of the Government is to be censured, if some broad sentence of condemnation is to be passed, I am very far indeed from saying that the position in which the Empire is at this moment is a reason for waiving or avoiding that condemnation. I do not hold that opinion at all; but I must say this—that if there is a point at issue between us which is narrow, unreal, almost invisible, it is not a moment when it is desirable to come to an issue on such a matter. We had better recollect that England requires to present herself in the view of the world as united. Apart, as I have said, from discussions on matters of broad principle, upon matters that are not of broad principle—and here, as far as I know, we are perfectly agreed in principle—surely it would not be well if a great semblance of difference, a great stir and tumult of Party contention, should be raised. I feel that the House has shown for the last fortnight—I think we owe much of it to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—a great deal of self-restraint, a great deal of temperance in relation to the critical matters of Imperial policy and interests that are now at issue. I only hope that the House will continue to exhibit that feeling, and we shall endeavour to do all in our power to promote it, especially when we think that some issue is being presented which possibly conciliatory language and declaration may avoid. We shall go as far as we can for the purpose of meeting any demand that may be made upon us, being anxious that the Parliament of this country should exhibit, along with its determination to maintain freedom of opinion and difference of opinion so far as conscience and

    1885
    principle may require, a cordial and hearty union in what relates to the fundamental conditions of the honour and existence of the Empire; and, therefore, that we should avoid the needless semblance of differences which have no substantial basis.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
    "That this House, taking into consideration the terms of the Declarations of the Great Powers of the 17th March, declines to proceed to the discussion of the details of this Bill until it shall have before it the Convention which is to be concluded with regard to the Suez Canal,"
    said: I must throw myself upon the indulgence of the House, as I am suffering from a very severe cold. I am quite willing to accept the friendly spirit in which the Prime Minister has just spoken, and to assure him that nothing is further from my mind at the present moment, considering the state of foreign affairs, than to ask the House to do any act, or myself to utter any word, which would give the impression that, so far as foreign relations are concerned, we are not a united people. It is only as a matter of duty that I bring this question forward. The Prime Minister has gathered quite rightly from the Amendment that it is not my intention at the present moment to object to, or divide again upon, the principle of the Convention itself. My object is of an entirely different character; but I am bound to say, in the interests of this great commercial community, that I do not believe a more important document was ever laid upon the Table than that one which contains the Declarations of the Great Powers of Europe of the 17th of March. The Prime Minister has asked that this question of the Suez Canal should be treated as perfectly distinct from the first and second parts of the Declaration. I am bound to say that I think that these Declarations were practically one. They were so considered by the Great Powers, and were put in the same Declarations because the Great Powers thought they were united. If anything is wanted to prove the assertion I have just made, I will quote the language of one of the Powers which was used before the Declaration was finally con-
    1886
    cluded. M. Waddington, in the Papers which have been laid on the Table, says—
    "The Government of the Republic, trusting to the sentiments of justice and of friendly feeling which have always animated the Queen's Government, count upon their consent to enter upon the examination of these questions at the earliest possible moment. Amongst them, and of primary importance, is the establishment of a definitive arrangement to guarantee the free passage of the Suez Canal at all times to all the Powers. The examination of this great European problem might be undertaken at once, by means of a Conference or otherwise, without awaiting the issue of the proposed inquiry into the financial situation."—[Egypt. No. 4 (1885), p. 101.]
    The French Ambassador goes on to say—
    "An agreement upon this subject would be a fair compensation for the financial sacrifices which the Powers are ready to impose upon their subjects."—[Ibid.]
    It was quite clear that, in the opinion of the French Ambassador, the two subjects could not be separated, and we are perfectly entitled to consider them at one and the same time. If that was his opinion, the other Powers had practically come to the same conclusion. It was perfectly understood at the time the Convention was signed that the several Parliaments of the Powers that have Parliaments were to be consulted, and that the freedom of every Parliament was absolutely unfettered; and if this Parliament had chosen to resist that Convention, and to reject it, that would not affect our friendly relations with the other Powers. But although theoretically this Parliament was free, practically, when we came to consider the question, we were not so unfettered. I should like to ask, of those who formed the majority of 48, how many really approved the Convention that was made? It is quite true that when they came to balance one advantage with another, they thought it better, on the whole, to support the Convention; but it must have been evident, from the speeches they made, that there were many serious matters in the Convention which they disapproved as much as we did. Of course, the question naturally arises, supposing the Convention had been upset or rejected, could the respective Powers have come to any other conclusion, after what had been said by Her Majesty's Government? That may be a difficult question to answer. The finan-

    1887
    cial difficulties which were pressed upon the House at the time by the Prime Minister had, no doubt, very great weight and effect on the votes of many Members on that occasion. Now, however, all this is passed. The particular liability on which Egypt was to become bankrupt has been got over, whether through the action of the House or of the Convention is immaterial; Egypt has overcome her immediate difficulty, and we are in a state of calm peace. I am bound to say that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce) was probably right when he said that even if the Convention had not been passed by this House Egypt would have found many ways of getting the money she required, and bankers would have been quite willing to lend to her on terms she would have been able to offer. But this question of the Suez Canal is one which we can deal with irrespective of all the financial difficulties of which the Prime Minister has spoken. It is one which most seriously affects this country. I know no question in which the commercial community is more interested, and any mistake made now may be fatal to our commercial interests for a long time to come. The Prime Minister says—"Why do you oppose our going into Committee on this Bill because you want to force upon us some views you entertain about the Suez Canal?" The answer is, it is our only chance of holding Parliamentary control over your proceedings with regard to the Suez Canal. The junior Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked the Prime Minister whether the Convention would be submitted to Parliament before it was signed, and whether the ratification of Parliament would be required? The answer of the Prime Minister was that at that time he could not say what course would be pursued. Mr. Gladstone stated what the terms of his answer were. Then I do not misconstrue the answer of the Prime Minister, who, at the present moment, is not able to tell us whether the Convention will require the ratification of Parliament or not.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No; not the ratification of Parliament. I used the word "ratification" in its diplomatic sense. There is no question of its being strictly within the jurisdiction of the Government.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Then that makes my case all the stronger. It is quite clear that in no circumstances can we have any Parliamentary control over this question of the Suez Canal if we do not use this opportunity. I was in hopes the Prime Minister would have held out some promise that we should be consulted upon the actual terms of this Convention about the Suez Canal before we bound ourselves to the other Powers, or that, at all events, Parliament would have an opportunity of seeing the text of it before this country was bound. That, however, I understand is not to be. All that the right hon. Gentleman says is that we shall be kept acquainted with the principles laid down. It is quite impossible that he can keep us au fait as to the principles the other Powers may choose to press upon the Commissioners. Hence, if we are dissatisfied with the Convention, we shall have no means of putting any pressure on the Government if we allow this opportunity to slip. Therefore, until we have seen the Convention and are satisfied it is one which the country will approve, we must hold our hands and say that we will stop this Bill. We may ask ourselves—Are we so well pleased with the action of the Government and with their negotiations as to be satisfied that they will carry on further negotiations in a way to meet with our approval? Are we satisfied there can be no International interference? Are we satisfied they have taken all proper precautions against future complications with Foreign Powers? Or are we satisfied with the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this matter of the Suez Canal in a former year? Is there anything in the Agreement with M. de Lesseps which shows that the Government was aware of the importance of the subject and appreciated all the intricate questions connected with it? Have they satisfied us before that we may safely leave these important matters in their hands, and allow them to make a Convention behind our backs without the smallest Parliamentary control to keep them in check? My answer to that question is in the negative. It is for that reason—and for that reason only—that I bring this Motion forward. I do not propose to take a division as against the Agreement itself; the object of the

    1889
    division I propose to take is simply to delay these proceedings until we can be satisfied, in some way, either that the proposals in the Convention as to the Suez Canal are satisfactory to us, or that we shall have an ample opportunity of considering them in this House before the nation is bound to them. The Prime Minister urges two objections to delay—the bankruptcy of Egypt, and the action against those who took the money out of the Caisse. As far as the bankruptcy of Egypt is concerned, practically the danger is over; and as regards the £500,000, the taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another was the action, not of the Egyptian Government, but of the British Government itself. The noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) was responsible for it. It is all very well to say that the action, although it was necessary, has left us in a strait, and we must get out of it. They are responsible for all the mischief, and it is for them to see how they can get out of it. If we are to take the bankruptcy of Egypt and this liability for £500,000 as reasons why this particular stage of this particular Bill should be passed at once, it is obvious that the same reasons would apply with equal force if the Convention had been much worse than it is, for the difficulties would have been just as great. This is a question of International interference, one about which we are jealous, although we do not propose to stop the Bill on that ground alone. When the London Conference was held there was great alarm about International interference and International complications, and there was a feeling of relief when the Blue Book came out and it was found that, when the proposal was made by the French Representative that there should be a Joint Guarantee of all the Powers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they could neither expect nor ask Parliament to give its assent to that. No doubt, with the publication of that Blue Book, the Government got credit with the country for having been firm on that particular point; and, therefore, we were much surprised when the proceedings of 1885 were made known, and when it was found that on the French Commissioner making the same proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of holding the language he held before, immediately stated that, while we had
    1890
    no desire to ask Foreign Governments to join us, if they desired to do so we should make no objection. We naturally thought there was a great discrepancy between those two modes of dealing with the matter in 1884 and 1885, and I think that anyone who would put the two proceedings in parallel columns would come to the conclusion that there was a great discrepancy in the action of both years. The proposal of 1884 was that—"In order to facilitate the task of the English Government the Powers are to be asked to join in a guarantee of the proposed loan." But in the next year it was this—"It is far preferable and more simple to increase at once the loan to £9,000,000 attaching thereto the collective guarantee of the Powers." What were the answers to these proposals? In 1884 the answer was—"We could not accept or ask Parliament to agree to a Joint Guarantee, nor have we reason to believe that all the Powers would agree to it. "In the next year the answer was—"We have no desire to ask the Powers to share with us the liability which such a guarantee would involve; still if it is the desire of the Powers to join us in the guarantee we are willing that they should." If anyone would look at the Protocols and the action of the Italian Government and the statement of the French Minister, he would find that the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not practically borne out by those documents, but if the present contention of the Government is that there is no discrepancy between their action in 1884 and their action in 1885, then it is quite clear that the Government enjoyed in 1884 a popularity which they did not deserve, and gained a credit to which they were not entitled. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on that Wednesday afternoon the conclusion of the Agreement with the Foreign Powers we still had some ray of hope that, although they had not resisted the Joint Guarantee, they had taken some precautions to prevent interference on the part of other Powers—because the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were apparently explicit on the subject. But the speech of the Prime Minister to-night showed that it was the Turkish Convention of 1855 which, in his opinion, gave to England and France the right of interference with Turkey.
    MR. GLADSTONE: If the covenants were not fulfilled.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I will come to that presently. The Prime Minister has given us a full explanation of this subject, and it really comes to this—that Turkey was financially in a very bad way, and that Egypt is in about as sound a financial condition. But that does not account for the words used in 1855, because there are two evils the Prime Minister mentions. He says—"It is not the worst of this Guarantee that if Turkey does not pay we shall have to pay for her; but the worst is that all the Guaranteeing Powers acquire a political hold upon Turkey." The Prime Minister says that is only because Turkey is financially unsound. But there is another danger which is equally great, and which he pointed out in the following words—namely—
    "Here is a Convention which creates and husbands the opportunity of quarrelling with foreign nations, but if there is one thing we want more than another it is an immunity from complications with foreign nations with regard to Egypt."
    It is quite clear from the Prime Minister's speech to-night that he has persuaded himself that there is this vast difference between the two cases, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought they were practically the same. The question is not about the Prime Minister's persuasions, but what the Foreign Powers think, and how far he will be able to persuade them that there is a difference between the Turkish Guarantee of 1855 and the Guarantee of 1885. There is another matter which is, I think, of the greatest possible consequence to consider, and that is the question of the Suez Canal. Anyone who considers that question will readily admit that we are the country most interested in it; nor can we well judge what evils would happen to us if our interests were not properly protected in it. There is no doubt that the interests of other nations are growing in other parts of the earth, but still we cannot forget what a paramount interest we have got. The difficulty, however, is to describe the Canal and ascertain in what category to place it, and I want to know what is meant by the Suez Canal in Lord Granville's despatch of 1883? My right hon. Friend behind me spoke of that despatch as being full of pitfalls,
    1892
    and so it is to a great extent. I want, first of all, to know what is meant by the Canal? Do you mean simply the actual Canal, or do you mean to include the Sweet-Water Canal also? And where is the provision in case of a belligerent Power sinking a man-of-war in the Canal simply for the purpose of stopping the traffic? Supposing there are two belligerent Powers contending as to what use is to be made of this Canal, is it for Egypt alone to preserve the Canal in its proper state, or is she to be allowed to call in any neutral Power, or what position is Egypt left in? These questions which I have mentioned give rise to considerable complications, and I only mention them in order to show that we cannot rely sufficiently on that basis, as laid down in Lord Granville's despatch, because that basis is capable of extension. A superstructure built upon this basis may be one of which we entirely disapprove, and which may be much against our interests. It is clear that the despatch of Lord Granville has gained further importance by being accepted by the Powers; but still the Powers may put their own construction upon it, and the question to consider is, are we certain that, when the Conference is at end, we shall be safe in the Convention they may make? Whatever danger may have been supposed to exist when the Conference first met, anyone who has followed the proceedings of that Conference must have become alarmed lest dangers which at that time were shadowy have become very sensible and very real. This Commission has met in Paris—I presume because it is a French Company. One would have thought that, as this was the basis accepted by the Conference, the}' would have asked the English Representative what superstructure it was proposed to build upon it. Nothing of the kind. The French came forward at once with a series of propositions of their own, quite irrespective of any communications from other nations or even from ourselves. We are told that the scheme drawn up by France contained complex rules interfering with the management of the Canal and full of puzzles and ambiguities of all kinds. When we present our counter-proposals are they to be printed in parallel columns by the side of the French proposals? And when the Conference meets again are

    1893
    they to discuss these several proposals? I should have thought that that would give rise to serious apprehensions as to the result of the Conference. From the general tone of the French Representatives, and from M. Ferry's speeches, it appears that the French were inclined to give a different construction to the basis laid down in this despatch. This French scheme, conjointly with the English proposal, is an instrument the value of which will depend upon the skill of those who use it. We find it said that the proposed Convention agrees with the views previously expressed informally by the Great Powers. Well, we should like to know something about those informal expressions of opinion on the part of the Great Powers, and how far the French consulted them, and whether the English Member of the Commission was consulted. All these things show us the great dangers that are going on. We find language used which in its spirit, if not in its terms, refers to the necessity of the principle of the neutralization of the Canal. With this staring us in the face we ought to be very cautious that no Convention is made behind our backs which we might bitterly regret afterwards, and which Parliament would have no opportunity of discussing. Then we come to the next meeting of this Conference. I do not know that we shall be more satisfied with the second meeting than we are with the first. Although it is quite true, if the reports we hear are correct, that they accepted the English proposals in regard to the Canal in time of war, we find that all the more difficult questions on which there was likely to be disagreement and argument and differences of opinion are put off till the end of the Conference. First, as to the Guarantee and the superintendence of the Canal. See how different the proposals are to the propositions which the Government accepted as a basis. There are three schemes. The first is that there should be an International Permanent Commission like that on the Danube in 1856. What single, solitary point is there in which the Danube can be compared with this Canal? I would ask the learned Professor of International Law at Cambridge what he thinks of this proposition. I chink he would tell you that there is not one point of similarity. We have this Canal going through the coun-
    1894
    try of Egypt, and practically in one country; whereas we all know that the Danube passes through different countries and is totally differently situated. The second proposition is that Turkey, as Suzerain, under the control of the Powers, is to manage the Canal. How is that to be rendered compatible with the sixth and eighth proposals of Lord Granville that Egypt should take all the measures to enforce the conditions as to the passage of vessels in time of war? The third proposition is that the Conference should merely be formally called upon to vote the neutrality of the Canal, and trust to the honesty of all the Powers to carry it out. If such propositions are to be brought forward and discussed, we ought to be still more on our guard as to the final result. I have endeavoured to show that there is great danger in this question of the Suez Canal. I think I have conclusively shown by the opinion of the French Ambassador that this third declaration is practically inseparable from the other two. We are equally entitled to watch against the one as we are to watch against the others. I do not desire the House to consider that I wish to raise any question to disturb our relations with Foreign Powers. I do not wish the House to consider that I have any desire or wish to challenge the Convention in its terms. The sole object I have in the Motion I am about to make is to insure to this House that which in my opinion this House is entitled to, and which the country will require this House to exercise—namely, the right of supervising the Convention that is to be the outcome of this Conference before we are tied hand and foot by Her Majesty's Government making an engagement behind the back of this House. The Prime Minister to-night said he was willing to meet us as far as he could, and I expected he was going to make some proposition to the House. I hope still that, in the course of this debate, Her Majesty's Government will go a step further than they hare yet gone, and that they will meet us in this matter, so that there may be no division of opinion upon the question. All we want is that Parliament should have a controlling voice in this matter. I do not want to treat this as a Party question. As a Member representing one of the largest commercial constituencies in

    1895
    the Kingdom, I know that this is a matter which is watched with intense eagerness and desire in every quarter of of England; and I feel confident that if the Government were to consult the wishes and feelings of this country, they would give to this House practically all that I desire—namely, an assurance that before any Convention is entered into which binds us with other Powers, as far as the Suez Canal is concerned, this House will be consulted as to its provisions and will be able to give a vote—aye or no—as to whether they consent to it or not. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by formally moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, taking into consideration the terms of the Declarations of the Great Powers of the 17th March, declines to proceed to the discussion of the details of this Bill until it shall have before it the Convention which is to be concluded with regard to the Suez Canal,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I must refer to the closing sentences of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said he was in hopes that I should go a great deal further than I have done already in regard to consulting the House in this matter; but the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate with any clearness what steps he wishes us to take. There is only one word which I could gather, and I think it is this—that he wished the House to be consulted before the Convention is concluded. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we cannot consult the House in regard to the formal proceedings; but we have promised to let the House know exactly what we are about; and if that is so, the House will have an opportunity, on a Motion for Adjournment or in other ways, of letting its voice be heard. As far as I know, these are the only consultations which there can be. The Government cannot propose Motions in the House. We can perfectly ascertain the views of the House; but as there is no money concerned, they cannot submit the question
    1896
    to a formal judgment. I believe I have shown that, in the only modes known to Parliament, the House will be practically consulted, so far as I am able to judge; and there will be on the part of the Government every disposition to accede to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The remarks which I feel compelled to ask the House to allow me to make are most reluctantly extracted from me by the very vivid memory I have of some advice given to the Conservative Party only two or three days ago by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking, as it were, ex cathedrâ. He told us we ought to be very careful not to make feeble and ineffective attacks upon the Government, because the result always was to give them a larger majority than the real feeling of the House would entitle them to, and induced the public to believe that they are being granted a greater amount of Parliamentary confidence than is really the case. Well, Sir, I do not mean to insinuate for a moment that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was either feeble or in effective. Such an insinuation would be extremely unbecoming and quite untrue. It appeared to me that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was very interesting, very exhaustive, and very weighty. But what I would suggest, with all possible respect to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Leader of the Opposition, is that they are running the risk of making an attack on the Government which may be argumentatively effective, but which will be numerically weak and ineffective. Viewing the state of the House and the apparently apathetic condition of public opinion, and remembering the result of the last division on this question, I cannot imagine that the decision which the House will come to will show anything but a very large numerical majority on the side of Her Majesty's Government, or will have any effect but that of doing precisely what the Leader of the Opposition told us ought not to be done, by giving the country to understand that the Government possesses on this question a larger, much larger, amount of confidence than we know they do possess. That is a suggestion I will throw out,

    1897
    with very great respect, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. I think the Prime Minister has placed the House generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, in rather a disagreeable position in regard to this Egyptian Agreement. I am not alluding to the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made concerning other matters. The Prime Minister said in effect—"The result of our interference in Egypt has brought this country into such an extremely reduced condition that we are obliged to break the law of Europe to save it from bankruptcy. The European Powers were extremely angry at this breach of the law of Europe, and so Her Majesty's Government concluded an Agreement which, if you do not sanction it, will entitle the European Powers to intervene by force in Egypt, and if you resist then you will be at war with united Europe." Of course, if the Prime Minister comes down and says that if we do not sanction this Agreement there will be a war with Europe, it is very difficult for the Opposition, as it would be for any body of reasonable people, to refuse him the sanction he asks for; but I think it is a strong appeal, and an appeal the strength of which ought not to be frequently resorted to. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The Prime Minister stated that he had been reading an article in The Quarterly Review. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman not only on turning to such excellent quarters for political information, but also on being able to find leisure for the study of that rather voluminous and weighty work. But I do feel inclined to protest against the right hon. Gentleman attributing to the Tory Party a statement of policy with regard to Egypt which he found in the pages of The Quarterly Review. I did not know that The Quarterly Review was ever supposed to represent officially or authoritatively the policy of the Tory Party. It makes guesses at that policy at times, but I did not know that it ever went further than that. With regard to the statement that The Quarterly Review makes, that the Tory Party claim for this country an exclusive predominance in Egypt, I do not know that I have myself ever heard that claim put forward by any Gentleman who is entitled to speak on behalf of the Tory Party. I imagine
    1898
    that the position many on this side took up with regard to the Agreement and to the policy of the Government is something to this effect, that all the sacrifices we have made since July, 1882—all the money we have spent, all the lives we have lost—have been made not only in our own interests, but in the general interests of Europe; and that this fact entitled the Government to claim and threw upon them the absolute duty of obtaining greater consideration for British views and larger concessions to British claims than have actually been conceded in the negotiations which have taken place. I do not know that any Member who is entitled to speak authoritatively on behalf of the Tory Party—at any rate, any Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench—has pushed the position further than that. No claim, to my knowledge, has been set up which would exclude the fair and equal rights of Europe. Turning to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish with every possible respect to ask him to kindly give his attention to one or two considerations which may possibly, before he goes to a division, modify his present intention. The right hon. Gentleman has in his Motion mixed up two questions, which, as far as I can see, are entirely separate, and not only so, but which there was every reason should be kept separate. I think that this combination of the great question of the navigation of the Suez Canal with this Financial Agreement which the House of Commons has already decided upon is an impolitic combination, and may be an extremely dangerous one to the very object which he has so rightly and so properly in view. The House of Commons is now pledged to the acceptance of a Financial Agreement—and the right hon. Gentleman himself disclaims any desire to reverse that position—but it is absolutely unpledged as to questions relating to the navigation of the Suez Canal. On that point we at the present moment occupy a position of the greatest possible advantage, because I do not know that any opinion has ever been expressed by any responsible Member of Parliament outside the Government as to that question. That is a great advantage, and I should view with the greatest possible alarm any act by which that position was in any degree compromised. The right hon.

    1899
    Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire appears to be under the greatest alarm lest Her Majesty's Government should conclude an arrangement which would commit the country to certain principles with regard to the navigation of the Suez Canal without the knowledge and sanction of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman has no confidence that Her Majesty's Government will be likely to conclude any arrangement which will be satisfactory to the British Parliament. In that sentiment, judging from the past, I entirely concur. But I deny entirely the Constitutional right of the Executive Government to conclude any arrangement about the Suez Canal which will have one spark of validity without the consent of Parliament. This House votes money every year in connection with the charges for the Suez Canal, and therefore, not so much technically but Constitutionally, I believe the Executive Government of the country have no power to commit the House and the country to Treaties respecting the navigation of the Canal without the consent of Parliament. But is it not absolutely ridiculous and preposterous as well as dangerous to assume that a Government, which may be turned out at any moment, can, of their own pleasure and without the consent of Parliament, conclude arrangements with respect to the navigation of the Suez Canal by which the whole of our shipping interests, the whole of our commerce, the whole of our manufacturing interests, and millions and millions of people would be affected, without coming to Parliament for its consent? If such a proposition had been put forward in the Reign of Charles I., I could have understood it; but I am surprised that anyone acquainted with the customs of Parliament and the Constitution of the country, like the right hon. Gentleman, should have made any suggestion of the kind. I do not altogether follow the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt, technically, the power of the Crown to conclude Treaties is unlimited. But what would be the procedure? Questions would be asked, of the Government about what was going on at the Conference. A Motion for Adjournment would be made if those Questions were not answered, and some information would be elicited, on which a Vote of
    1900
    Censure would be proposed. If the Government had agreed to proposals of which Parliament did not approve the Vote of Censure would be carried and the Government would go out. I really do not know any recent instance of any great Treaty about which public opinion was very strongly excited and in which British interests were very much involved, having been concluded without a full discussion in Parliament in the first instance. I think the right hon. Gentleman is really endeavouring by means of these unjustifiable alarms to get the House of Commons to reverse its previous decision. Of course, it is a very proper object to endeavour to defeat an Agreement which is considered obnoxious, and to use any instruments which may be convenient for that purpose. Any stick is good enough to beat a dog; and in the Suez Canal Agreement the Opposition would, under any other circumstances, have had a very good stick. But I think in this instance the Opposition are using a stick which is more likely to beat themselves and the object they have in view than the Government. If the Agreement is opposed by a large majority, you will not only re-affirm the excellence and merit of an instrument about which the public are not exactly enthusiastic, but you will have compromised the country about this question of the Suez Canal, and have committed it in a way it is certainly not desirable to commit it. Suppose the Government, under such circumstances, do conclude a Convention respecting the Suez Canal and a large number of Members of this House disapprove of it. In that case the Government will come down and say—"All these things have been discussed; you raised them and you sanctioned them; we had no power to do this." On the other hand, if no question is raised, the Government will go on bearing the whole responsibility of the negotiation, and having before them the fact that they have pledged themselves not to commit the country to any principle respecting the Suez Canal without the consent of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he is not injuring the object he has at heart by mixing up this Agreement with the financial proposals of the Government respecting Egypt upon which the House has already decided.

    1901
    There is another argument which I wish to submit to the House. The Tory Party very rightly assert that the relations of the Government with all Foreign Powers are extremely strained and unfriendly owing to the foreign policy that has been pursued by the Government, and they endeavour to convince the country that were they in Office those relations would assume a far more harmonious and friendly character. That I am perfectly certain would be the case. But, after all, this is an Agreement which, be it good or bad, the Powers of Europe have agreed to, and in which some of the Powers are very deeply interested. I doubt whether, if you are in a position before long to direct the Government of the country, and if you have indulged in an obstinate and protracted and rather quarrelsome resistance to this European instrument, you will have predisposed the Powers to welcome your advent to Office, or whether you would be likely to improve to any considerable extent the strained and unfriendly relations between this country and the rest of Europe. At all events, I feel certain there will be a considerable amount of imprudence and even rashness in any large section of Parliament at this moment taking a line which would be viewed as unfriendly by any great European Power. Of the advantages or disadvantages of the Agreement the country must judge. The whole thing will be before the country in a short time. It is an Agreement which satisfies nobody in particular, and which everybody recognizes as giving no quid pro quo for all we have laid out; but I hold very strongly that it would be unwise, seeing that we have possibly before long some great enterprise to undertake, to refuse an opportunity of settling a difference with the Powers which is becoming rather acute. Under all the circumstances of the case—in view of the pledges given by the Prime Minister with regard to the Suez Canal, in view of the undoubted power of Parliament to examine any Treaty which the Government may wish to conclude, and in view of the present position of our foreign relations generally, especially in regard to the great difficulty which is hanging over us on our Indian Frontier—I do hope I may be allowed, without exciting any displeasure in the right hon. Gentleman, to appeal to him to
    1902
    reconsider his intention of taking the sense of the House on his Amendment.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, the noble Lord had made a powerful Party speech, and his advice from a Party point of view was very wise; but the noble Lord's argument did not affect his (Mr. Norwood's) position as the Representative of a large commercial port. Without committing himself to the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would remind the House that they never had the opportunity of expressing a single opinion with respect to the Suez Canal Convention. He had listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the Leader of the House. He could assure the House that, if the right hon. Gentleman had felt himself in a position to have given them a more definite assurance that the House would have an opportunity of considering the matter before the Treaty was concluded, he would not now be found raising his voice on the question. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about the Constitutional manner in which a debate might be raised, but he had not gone so far as to say that the Convention would be a question which would require the confirmation of Parliament. Governments made astonishing blunders in commercial affairs, and he could not help fearing that if this important question was referred to the Great Powers, our diplomacy would not be able to protect us from some unfortunate concession which would be detrimental to the interests of this country. He was one of those who very much doubted the wisdom of the Declaration of Paris as affecting the maritime power of this country. The Russian newspapers were now openly advocating the breaking of the arrangements in regard to privateering, and we were threatened with Russian privateering in the event of war. He believed that these paper arrangements only fettered the Power which desired to carry them out honourably. The Suez Canal was a great and important undertaking, and, no doubt, shortened the distance to India and China; but he was convinced that the Suez Canal was strong enough to take care of itself in case of a great European war. The principal holders in the Canal were French people. Their prestige and pride and interest was in the Canal, and he could imagine no Government

    1903
    in France which could afford to set at nought the material interests of a large body of the people of that country. Almost all the other mercantile countries had a large and increasing interest in the Canal, and he could not see why we should apprehend that there could be any serious obstruction or injury to the Canal even if we left it to protect its own interests. He agreed, however, that it might be desirable to neutralize the Canal, and to make its approaches free from hostilities. But he would point out that by the 3rd clause of Lord Granville's proposals it was stipulated that no hostilities should take place in the Canal, in its approaches, or in the territorial waters of Egypt; but supposing hostilities were declared, and even if Turkey herself were a belligerent or Egypt our Ally, the entire Littoral of Egypt would be neutral ground, and we could not pursue an enemy anywhere within the three-mile radius on the Mediterranean or the Red Sea Coast of Egypt, the former extending some 500 and the latter 700 or 800 miles, while our enemy would be freely permitted to take refuge in the Ports of Alexandria or other anchorages. He could not imagine a position more damaging to the country than the embarrassment caused by such an arrangment. Then Clause 1, which required that the Canal should always be open to the vessels of all countries, demanded attention. It must also be borne in mind that the chief maritime countries of Europe were only about half the distance of this country from the Suez Canal, and therefore we should, in the event of war, be at an enormous disadvantage as compared with them as respects access to the Canal in time of war. He should not venture to criticize at any great length the heads of this Convention, for he did not consider that that would be the proper time to do so; but he did think it was the proper time for him, as representing a shipping constituency, to say that this subject was one of extreme nicety and difficulty and of grave importance, and one which the House ought to have an opportunity of debating, and debating effectually. It was no use to tell him, as the Prime Minister had done, that it would be in the power of any hon. Member to move a Vote of Censure on the Government if the terms of the Agreement were objec-
    1904
    tionable, or that the Convention would be laid on the Table when signed.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had stated that the communications previous to its signature would be laid on the Table. It was the intention of the Government to make the House fully acquainted with everything that might affect the interests of the country.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, he had not understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that. But he wished to have a distinct understanding. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that the House should have before it sufficient documentary evidence as to the form the Convention was likely to assume—if they only knew that they would have an opportunity of protesting against what they might think contrary to their interests—he should not have another word to say; but he never understood that there was a distinct and definite assurance that they would be able to raise the question before the signature of the Convention. Certainly it was utterly useless, as he had said, to be told that if the Convention proved objectionable, he could get up and move a Vote of Censure on his own Party. No man could be content with a position like that. This was a subject of the deepest importance and interest; and with every belief in the good faith and good intentions of the Government, he could not but remember, after recent experiences, that when Her Majesty's Government entered into discussions with the Ministers of Foreign Powers the result was too often a concession to those Powers, and he feared lest this should be the case again. He hoped to obtain a distinct assurance that this important matter would not be concluded without the House having another opportunity of considering it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: With the permission of the House I should like to say a word of explanation. My hon. Friend seems to be under an impression that I recommended the House to be satisfied with the assurance that this Convention would be laid on the Table, and that if the House disapproved of it they could censure the Government. I must say there was not one word in my speech which either recommended or contemplated any such method of proceeding. On the contrary, I found fault with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because I said that was

    1905
    all it offered to the House. What I offered to the House was—I am not aware that we should have had the power to submit the Convention in form before it was concluded—but what I offered to the House was, that as to every substantial question and every important question, involving the interests of the commerce of this country, we should use our best endeavour to make the House fully aware of our views and intentions before we came to any conclusion or any binding engagement, and that we were convinced we should have no difficulty in giving effect to that end.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to express the pleasure with which he had heard the closing sentences just uttered by the Prime Minister. If that were really the intention of the Government, then the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had done a good work in causing it to be announced to the country. He could not agree with the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), for how many times had the House been promised a full opportunity of knowing what were the details of measures about to be agreed upon, and how many times had they found that the Convention, Treaty, or whatever it might be, was very different indeed from that which they had been led to expect? In his opinion they would have been trusting to a broken reed if they had abandoned the present opportunity and relied, as they were now told to do, on obtaining a future opportunity of moving a Vote of Censure if the Convention turned out to be unsatisfactory. Those who had studied International Law could see there were grave dangers and pitfalls even in the draft Convention as it now stood, and he was afraid that those who had the conduct of the negotiations on behalf of England might consent to terms which the acuter eye of the House of Commons would detect as objectionable and most detrimental to the country, but which official blindness would prevent Her Majesty's Government from perceiving. If he understood the Prime Minister's phraseology, it was to the effect that the House of Commons should have a full opportunity of examining and criticizing the details of this Convention so far as they might affect an exercise of the national strength and the national resources. If that was the case
    1906
    they would be satisfied; but he submitted that the House ought not to be satisfied with anything short of a declaration to that effect. The question of the merits or demerits of the Convention rested, of course, to no inconsiderable extent on the consideration of the duties and the responsibilities which connected Egypt with this country. The Government said that they owed certain duties and responsibilities to Egypt. The Prime Minister had over and over again put pressure on the House by stating that the bankruptcy of Egypt was imminent and that we must save Egypt from bankruptcy. But, he asked, why should this be so? Was it because we had conduced to the bankruptcy of Egypt ourselves? If this was the case, there could be no doubt we had laid up for ourselves a considerable store of difficulties. Who was it that bombarded Alexandria, destroyed the Egyptian Army, and ordered the evacuation of the Soudan? Who was it that made it necessary to provide the greater part of this sum we were now proposing to guarantee to Egypt? It was, of course, the English Government themselves. They had brought about this Egyptian bankruptcy, and having brought it about, did it not seem to them that the best thing they could do was to take this opportunity of imminent bankruptcy and make the best terms with the creditors of Egypt? The Report which Lord Northbrook had made with reference to this Convention showed that the total amount of indebtedness of Egypt was £100,000,000, including the £9,000,000 now to be provided. He had stated that the total revenue of Egypt from the land and other sources amounted to £8,900,000. It would be much better if England, recognizing, as she must do, that it was she who had caused this bankruptcy, and that she possessed the greatest interest in the Suez Canal, not only on account of its importance to us as a mercantile country, but on account of the large interest we received from the Suez Canal shares, instead of offering this £9,000,000 to Egypt, were to guarantee the whole Debt of Egypt. The total indebtedness of Egypt was £100,000,000, and if England guaranteed 3½ per cent, she would be enabled to benefit the Egyptian taxpayer by reducing his taxes; there would be a surplus sufficient for a Sinking Fund to

    1907
    pay off the total Debt within that reasonable term during which she might control the country, and the bondholders would be benefited by the rise in the value of their securities which would follow on such action. Criticizing the 7th Article of the Convention, the hon. Member wished to have an explanation of the meaning of a Joint and Several Guarantee on the part of one of the Powers, while a postcript which was added abrogated this liability? He wished to know how under one clause of the Agreement they found this Power agreeing to a Joint and Several Guarantee, and in another portion of the Convention discarding that Agreement and saying that she would only be liable for her own share? They also found in this Article of the Convention that all the Governments guaranteeing the loan were going to their Parliaments for consent. Would the Prime Minister undertake in any way that there should be some similar clause in the Convention delaying its completion untill there should be an acquiescence on the part of the Parliaments of the different countries engaging themselves in the Convention which they were about to sign? If a provision of this character was laid before the House of Commons, then he thought the right hon. Gentleman had done a good work in bringing this matter forward. If this were not done, he hoped the House would divide on the question, in order to see who were in favour of protecting the interests of England.
    MR R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that his objection to this arrangement was that he thought it very unwise on the part of this county to enter into a Guarantee in regard to which it might possibly bear all the loss, and which must lead to a great deal of political difficulty. Assuming that Egypt was not able to pay, it seemed to him obvious that the whole of the amount must fall upon this country; and if that was the case, he thought it would have been much better for this country to have taken the whole burden on its own shoulders. If we were bound to enter into this Guarantee, he believed it would have been much better to have undertaken the whole duty ourselves; but instead of doing this we were taking other countries into a partnership of a commercial character. He asked the House whether it was likely that the
    1908
    other Powers, having entered into this Guarantee, would allow the matter to stop there? Would they not make their participation in this Guarantee a reason for interfering with the government of Egypt? They would say—"We are equally responsible with you, and being equally responsible with you, we have a right and a duty to see that Egypt is well governed." After all the expense this country had been put to in regard to the administration of Egypt, he certainly was of opinion that the Government were entitled to see that this country maintained a dominant influence in Egypt. He would support his right hon Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross) on the important question he had raised in regard to the Suez Canal. Our interest in the Canal being paramount, it was the duty of the country to guard that interest. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had appealed to the Mover of the Amendment, as the Government would have a majority, not to divide the House on that occasion. Such an argument might be carried much further than the noble Lord himself would be prepared to see it pushed. Such an argument might be used against taking a division on any question, because the majority of the Government varied from 60 to 140 according to the course taken by the Gentlemen below the Gangway. It was all very well for the noble Lord, who was a great orator, to recommend them not to divide the House because they were in a minority; but in his view it was the duty of every Member of the House, however humble, to express his opinion, if not by speech at least by his vote, on important questions, even though he might be one of a minority. He remembered the late Sir W. Stirling Maxwell telling a story of his having once been in a minority of four along with the present Prime Minister, Lord Cardwell, and Lord Aberdare, who ultimately turned out to have been in the right, while the majority were in the wrong. He could not therefore endorse the doctrine of the noble Lord; but held that it was the duty of the Party, after the able speech of his right hon. Friend, to enforce their view on the House, even although they might now be in a minority.
    MR. D. DAVIES, notwithstanding what had just fallen from the last speaker, joined in the appeal that had

    1909
    been made to the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire not to divide the House. An Agreement had been practically entered into with five or six other Powers; and if the House were now to make an alteration in that Agreement, which he understood had been partly acted upon, a portion of the money having been paid, they would have to apply to the other Powers to assent to such alteration. For the credit of the House of Commons itself, after the decision at which it had previously arrived, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not press that Amendment to a division. Whether a better Agreement could or could not have been made a year ago was not now the question. The Agreement had been solemnly entered into, it had been acted upon, and by it they must abide; and if the Opposition went to a division, the country would come to the conclusion that they wanted to draw the Government into more serious trouble before the General Election.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he should feel more inclined to be guided by the right hon. Member for North-West Lancashire, who was a better judge of how the Tory Party ought to act on that occasion, than by the hon. Member opposite who had kindly proffered them his advice on that point. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had argued that, whatever Convention the Government might enter into, the House had powerful weapons which it could always employ, among them being the right of putting Questions. But what was the use of putting Questions to any Member of the present Government, particularly regarding foreign affairs? What information did they obtain in that way from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or from the Prime Minister himself? The right hon. Gentleman always tried to put the Opposition in a corner, because while important matters were immature they were told that nothing could be said about them, and when they had become mature it was too late to say anything. It was most important that the House should know what the Government were going to do in regard to the Suez Canal, because the extraordinary propositions which they brought forward in July two years ago, and which they were compelled to withdraw in order to escape a defeat, were not
    1910
    calculated to inspire confidence in the action of the Ministry on that subject. There was no proposition, however wild, eccentric, or unjust to England, that this Government would not make if they possibly could, only withdrawing it if there seemed to be a danger of serious opposition from their own followers; and that was a common occurrence. What were the Opposition to do? Questions were of no use, and a Vote of Censure could not be carried on a Motion for the adjournment of the House. Money had gone and blood had been spilt, and yet for all that the Government were giving up everything. The real policy to pursue was an English policy, and not one of preference of every other nation to ourselves. It was all very well for hon. Members opposite to hug themselves with the idea that they had only to vote for the Government to be safe, and that they had only to escape through this Session. He thought that every opportunity the Opposition gave them of recording such a vote as that would tell against them in the country. They made a great mistake in supposing that the real feeling of the country was in favour of this cold, cruel, and un-English policy. It would have been better for their Party if hon. Members opposite had honestly and straightforwardly spoken out and told their Leaders what they thought of their policy.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEsaid, the Prime Minister had contended that there was no connection between the questions of the Suez Canal and the Financial Convention. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire had very effectually disposed of the contention; but if it were necessary to prove it a second time, the proof would be found in the very title of the Parliamentary Paper, which described the document as relating to the financial arrangements with Egypt and the free navigation of the Suez Canal. He, therefore, considered that Ministers were stopped by their own act from separating the two questions. He did not propose to go into the merits of the Joint International Guarantee into which the Government had entered. He entertained a very strong opinion that the Multiple International Control was very dangerous, and was likely in the near future to lead to very unpleasant results; but as the

    1911
    House had by a considerable majority sanctioned the arrangement, he did not think that was a fitting occasion for stating the grounds of his objection to it. The Prime Minister had, however, invited the House to express an opinion upon the merits of the Convention. He was quite aware that it was not in accordance with diplomatic usage, nor did he think it desirable or possible for the House of Commons to become in its corporate capacity a negotiator. Diplomatic proceedings of that nature had to be conducted by a small number of responsible statesmen. But when they had to consider how the commerce of a great highway like the Suez Canal was to be conducted, he thought it desirable that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of laying down in broad lines the grounds on which and the spirit in which the Government should enter upon such negotiations. Her Majesty's Government appeared to take it for granted that the House of Commons and the country at large sanctioned and approved of the doctrine laid down in Earl Granville's despatch of January, 1883; but he could not say that he shared in that view, and, at all events, he thought the country would require a great deal more explanation and amplification of the statement before they would be prepared to sanction it. There were several points on which the country would expect to be more fully informed of the views of the Government. The proposal of the French Government accepted by Her Majesty's Ministers was for the appointment of a Commission of seven or eight Powers to produce a formal Act for the free use of the Suez Canal; but there ought to be some explanation of what was meant by that phrase. The country wanted to know whether the Government would consent under any circumstances to free use being allowed to lead to the neutralization of the country of Egypt, or whether it was intended to lead to the neutralization of the Suez Canal? That the Canal should be free for all ships under all circumstances was a very proper provision; but he took exception to the limit of time for ships to be in the Canal being confined to ships of war, because if there was any question of the rapid transport of troops by us to India, it would be possible for a Power with which we might be on hostile terms to have the
    1912
    Canal blocked by a number of its merchant vessels, or a merchant vessel might be sunk. Then as to the prohibition of the landing of troops or munitions of war in the Canal, he wanted to know whether, in case a ship were sunk in the waterway, that prohibition would operate to prevent the landing of troops for re-embarking them beyond the obstruction? That was a very important and practical point to be considered, for it must make the greatest possible difference as to whether the second point could substantially be accepted by this country or not. The third point in the despatch was that no hostilities should take place in the Canal or its approaches, or elsewhere within the territorial waters of Egypt, even in the event of Turkey being one of the belligerents. Now, that seemed a most extraordinary and wide provision. The Canal or its approaches! Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he presumed, was about to reply for the Government, would inform the House what was meant by the "Canal and its approaches, or elsewhere within the territorial waters of Egypt." How far did the territorial waters of Egypt extend? How much of the Mediterranean on the one hand, or the Red Sea on the other, would be neutralized? If no hostilities were to take place within the ordinary International three-mile limit, did that apply to the whole Coast of Egypt, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea? If it did, what was the meaning of the fourth point in Lord Granville's despatch—namely, "That neither of the two foregoing conditions shall apply to measures necessary for the defence of Egypt?" Did it mean the defence of Egypt against an attack from Abyssinia, from the Mahdi, or from any European Power? These were some points in the proposals of Lord Granville on which an answer should be forthcoming. He should like to give an instance. Would it be in violation of the letter or spirit of these conditions, supposing, as was stated in the papers a short time ago, it was considered desirable by Her Majesty's Government that General Graham's troops should be recalled from the Soudan and sent to Gallipoli? If a state of things should unfortunately arise to necessitate the recall of this Force and its transport elsewhere, would they be allowed to

    1913
    pass through the Canal or embark elsewhere within the three-mile territorial limit, or would they have to be conveyed across the Indian Ocean and sent round through India? These were considerations in support of a demand for further information. But he would also say that, although he had stated one or two objections upon detail that had occurred to him, he did think that at the present moment there were considerable objections upon general grounds against entering into the proposals for the neutralization of Egypt, and certainly of the Suez Canal. He could not help thinking that at the present moment the affairs of the country were in a sufficiently critical state to render it very doubtful if the present were a moment for doing anything to shackle the free hand of the Government of England in the affairs of Egypt. He earnestly and devoutly trusted that the negotiations might continue with Foreign Powers in a way to secure the maintenance of a satisfactory peace. He had not the slightest scrap of Jingo spirit, and he earnestly desired that everything possible should be done to secure an honourable peace; but he could not help thinking that while grave events were ponding in Central Asia, even if this Motion of his right hon. Friend were accepted—if this arrangement as to an Egyptian loan should be temporarily postponed until a satisfactory arrangement with regard to the Suez Canal were arrived at—he thought it would be a benefit alike to the cause of peace and the interest of this Empire. It would leave us much freer than if we entered into an arrangement with other Powers who would do little to befriend us, and might cripple us if this country were called upon to make serious sacrifices. For these reasons, and quite recognizing the courteous spirit with which the Prime Minister had appealed to his right hon. Friend, he thought the latter had done well to press his Motion, and for these reasons he should support it.
    DR. FARQUHARSONcontended that this was not the time to discuss the question of the Suez Canal. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that this Amendment was nothing more nor less than a veiled attack upon the Convention. It was quite clear, if the Bill were delayed, the position of Egypt would be most serious. It was
    1914
    said the position of Egypt was due to the operations of Her Majesty's Government. That seemed a most extraordinary proposition. It was well known the Debt of Egypt was largely contracted by Ismail Pasha. To say that it was due to the operations of Her Majesty's Government was a fallacy of the most transparent kind. This country had deliberately undertaken certain responsibilities towards Egypt, and they were bound to help her in this crisis. He rejoiced at the proposals Her Ma-Majesty's Government had brought forward, because they gave some prospect of retoring financial peace, order, and prosperity to the country. It was frequently said—After the amount of money this country had spent in Egypt, why not get the whole credit and profit of it? The great argument against it was, that if we were to take upon our shoulders the entire control of Egypt, we should be unable to resist the call to annex the country permanently, and everyone knew the responsibility which would fall upon us if we took any move of that kind. He would not have ventured to intervene in the debate had it not been that he had recently visited Egypt and spent some time at Cairo. Before that visit he confessed he somewhat inclined to the scuttle-out policy; but he was now opposed to it. He had not taken counsel with the Jingoes at Shepherd's Hotel in Cairo, but had conferred with men like Sir Evelyn Baring, Scott-Moncrieff, and Edgar Vincent, and with the people themselves; and, as the result of his inquiries he was convinced that England was doing a good and great work in Egypt. That country was making rapid progress, socially and morally, and to leave it before the completion of its reform could never have been satisfactory. The chief obstacle to our popularity in Egypt had been the non-payment of the indemnity. It was, therefore, a cause for congratulation that that obstacle was now to be removed. Among the benefits which we either had already conferred or were about to confer in Egypt were the abolition of the kourbash and of the corvée, the improvement of the administration of justice, and the admirable progress in the matter of irrigation.
    MR. ELTONsaid, that the question to be decided was whether the Convention should or should not hold good. If the

    1915
    Suez Canal was to be looked upon as an arm of the sea it must be open to all for purposes of innocent navigation. But, by the common consent of the Powers, an arm of the sea which was in the dominions of a particular Power ought not, unless of very large dimensions, to be used for purposes of belligerent navigation without leave, the reason being that such an arm of the sea as the Suez Canal might be damaged by the belligerents, and that its use by them might involve in hostilities the neutral country in which it was contained. He approved this old rule. In 1883, however, Lord Granville suggested the expediency of allowing the Canal to be used for belligerent purposes. It was easy to understand why such a proposal was then made. The Government at that time kept announcing that the British were going to leave Egypt, and they felt that it would be ridiculous if, as the result of our Expedition to Egypt, England's highway to India should be closed against her in the event of war. That was the reason why the Government made this proposal, which most dangerously gave to all other Powers the same privilege which we derived for ourselves of passing ships of war through the Canal. But the situation was now changed. We were not likely to leave Egypt unless we were thrust out of it, and while we remained in possession of the country we could have no difficulty about obtaining leave to use the Canal for purposes of belligerent navigation should we desire to do so. Why, then, not leave matters as they were? When they gave a right to any man they also gave the full means of enjoying that right, and it would remain for the parties concerned to find out the best means of enjoying it. Was there anything to prevent a clever diplomatist from using his ability to find out, as this was a new question, new developments? If the control of the Canal was given to the Powers, the control of the whole of Egypt would fall into their hands. He hoped that even at this hour we should not advance another step without being made much more certain than we were now of the nature, he was going to say of the trap, into which we were about to fall. He did not see why we should be bound so strictly when other Powers thought themselves entitled to alter the conditions. He thought we should
    1916
    rather retire at once than do anything which might interfere with the security of our road to India.
    MR. MACIVERsaid, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) told the House what he had learnt at Cairo, and his authorities were the eminent public servants who were acting there for Her Majesty's Government. He also knew Cairo, and he had many friends in Egypt; but not one of these thought that Her Majesty's Government was right, or that the people of Egypt were in any way the better for what they had done. He was one of those who, like a burnt child, dreaded the fire. He had some recollection of the most un-businesslike arrangement with which Her Majesty's Government not long ago were satisfied with respect to the Canal. Their mismanagement of the business was so bad that even among their own political friends they had not, amongst shipowners, a single defender. Her Majesty's Government were not at this moment taking the House properly into their confidence. The Prime Minister had, indeed, said that he proposed to give the House an opportunity of raising its voice. Such a phrase might mean anything or nothing. What the House wanted, and ought to insist upon, was that it should have an opportunity of having its voice heard to some purpose, and that the terms of the Convention should be considered fully, not only in that House but throughout the country. There was, therefore, nothing in the language of the right hon. Gentleman which would justify the House in rejecting the proposition of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire. There was one point in the extremely valuable speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. H. S. Northcote) the importance of which the House seemed to have missed, and that was in regard to the ease with which the Suez Canal might be temporarily closed. He was not one of those who were disposed to minimize the importance of the Suez Canal. He agreed with Lord Palmerston, that if the Canal were dried up it would be an advantage to this country. But the Suez Canal being, unfortunately, there, and likely to continue to exist, it was undoubtedly of great importance to the country. They ought to know what was meant by the Canal. Because, while the actual water of the Suez Canal

    1917
    might be free to our ships of war as long as it was open, we might, under Lord Granville's despatch, perhaps be debarred from landing troops on the banks of the Canal from those ships. He was not one of those who believed that the Canal could be permanently blocked up. But it would be a very easy matter to block the Canal absolutely for several weeks; and what he asked was, that the Convention should be so arranged that in the event of a temporary block it should be possible for this country to land troops on one side of the obstacle and to re-ship them on the other side. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire was perfectly justified in asking that the Government should tell them what they meant to do.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was impossible to deny the great importance of the question respecting the Suez Canal; but the House was in this difficulty—that the question, though akin to the other part of the declaration, was not the real question before the House. Undoubtedly the question of the Suez Canal was one most vital to the interests of this country, and it was of importance that they should know what the arrangement was in regard to it before the country was finally committed to the Convention. The remarks just made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had some force in them, for unless care was taken in utilizing the Canal there might be, in the way he indicated, very great inconvenience to our ships in getting through it. But although this was the only way in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite could have mooted this question, it was not a convenient way of debating it, because the Guarantee Bill was not a Bill immediately affecting the Canal. He ventured to appeal to his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Chamberlain) whether an assurance could not be given by the Government that before they finally committed the country to any arrangement about the Canal the Agreement with France should be brought before the House, so that an opinion could be given upon it. If that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should very strongly appeal to his right hon. Friend to give the assurance. He thought that such an assurance would fully meet the difficul-
    1918
    ties of the case, and would be almost as much as the right hon. Gentleman opposite could expect to get out of this discussion.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTobserved, that the time might soon arrive when it would be of the utmost importance to this country that our troops should be landed in India at the earliest possible moment. He did not, however, believe any Government with whom we happened to be at war would find any difficulty in securing the blocking or a practical destruction of the Suez Canal for a period of several weeks. A Russian man-of-war could be very easily blown up in the Canal, and he believed that Russian sailors possessed sufficient patriotism for their country to take that step, which might have the effect of delaying the landing of British troops in India for several weeks. He should like to say one or two words about the Convention itself. They had now reached a completely new stage in the relations between this country and Egypt. During the whole of the last century British statesmen, and he might say the country as a whole, had been lavish in their efforts to maintain the predominance of England in Egypt. The sacrifices of the present Government in that direction had been greater than any ever before made. Since June, 1882, we had spent no less than £15,000,000 and lost thousands of valuable lives, and yet the results of this great expenditure and this great sacrifice of life had been absolutely flung away by the Agreement which had just been entered into with the Powers. This was the result of the £9,000,000 of Egyptian money and of the £15,000,000 of English money, and of the thousands and thousands of lives that had been sacrificed, that the people would be handed over to an International Control, which would be exercised in the interests of the bondholders, and would place our interests in Egypt at the mercy of all the other Powers in Europe. It was open to the Government by the exercise of the most obvious policy in the world to secure our permanent ascendancy in Egypt. The present Government, however, adopted a different policy. If Her Majesty's Government had taken the advice which was freely offered them by the great German Chancellor during the past three years, and had gone into Egypt as the lease-

    1919
    holders of the Sovereign of that country, the Sultan of Turkey, no one could have said them nay, because they would not only have had the material resources of England and Turkey at their back, but a legitimate position which no intriguing could have destroyed. The Government, however, had chosen to adopt a contrary course, with the result all the world would now see. They now found themselves in a condition as miserable and as pitiable as the unfortunate Government of Turkey had been on various occasions with regard to the Great Powers. The President of the Board of Trade in an ingenious speech had totally misrepresented the advice of the German Chancellor. He was not surprised at the line the right hon. Gentleman took, for he occupied a peculiar position in this country, and had always been in the forefront with a policy of surrender of the interests of the country. No Member of the Government was so responsible as he for the prevalence of outrage and anarchy in Ireland, or for the surrender of the Transvaal, and now he was again in the forefront in advocating this miserable and pitiable sursender in Egypt. He did not think sufficient attention had been paid to the manner in which this Agreement had been forced on Her Majesty's Government, or to the fashion in which it had been pressed down the throat of Parliament. The House would remember the long series of notes with which the Ottoman Government was assailed by the present Administration, demanding that they should cede this, that, and the other portions of their territory; in fact, they were never so happy as when shooting Identic Notes at the Porte. On the 19th of January last it fell to the lot of Her Majesty's Government to receive an Identic Note from the Foreign Powers. The Ambassadors came one after the other to force upon Her Majesty's Government this ignominious Agreement, and the result was that Her Majesty's Government accepted it, although it involved the sacrifice of all this country had struggled for in the past. The Government forced the Agreement down the throats of Parliament before the Easter Recess, because they feared the action of public opinion. There never was a more unfortunate thing than that premature debate. If the discussion had been put off the
    1920
    Agreement would never have been submitted to the House, for within two or three days after the Agreement was ratified the French Ministry, which had been the main instrument in coercing Her Majesty's Government, fell. What were the ignominious words used by the Prime Minister as to this Agreement? He said the ratification was absolutely necessary; that we were at the end of our tether, and that if the Agreement were not endorsed by Parliament the management of Egyptian affairs would pass into other hands. Such words were more humiliating than anything which could be found in the pages of Hansard, and this at the very moment that we had 25,000 troops on Egyptian soil. It could only be concluded from those words that the Government were acting under the strong coercion of united Europe, disgusted at their blunders, and alienated by their pitiable conduct in Egypt. It should be remembered, too, that to prevent this International control and interference over Egyptian finance which was conceded by the Agreement was the very reason why Lord Granville broke up the London Conference last August. Now the Government had consented to an International Commission within two years, and to an International Control, which would either lead us into the greatest possible European complications or would drive us out of Egypt altogether. He sincerely wished it were possible for the House to undo the effects of the vote of a few days before Easter—a vote which he regarded as the most disastrous that had been given during the present Parliament. This Agreement would result in the destruction of British influence in Egypt, and would simply hand over Egypt to a Multiple Board of Control; it was a very serious misfortune to the people of England, and a disgrace to the country. But there was something worse than all behind it, and that was the neutralization of the Canal. There was absolutely no necessity for the neutralization of the Canal. If the Canal was worth anything to us as a means of communicating with India, then, by the Agreement, we were absolutely putting it in the power of any enemy of this country at a critical moment to block or destroy that means of communication; and for this reason, if for no other, he hoped the

    1921
    House would agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that the debate had ranged over a very wide field. It was not his intention to go over the various points which had been discussed in the debate the week before last. The Prime Minister recently referred to the speeches which he made in 1855. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between the Guarantee of 1855 and the present Guarantee. He said that in 1855 it was supposed that Turkey would not be able to pay either the principle or the interest of the Guaranteed Debt. That statement of the Prime Minister was utterly fallacious. In 1855 Turkey was practically without any external Debt whatever. She did not owe £5,000,000 to bondholders. Even in 1862, when Turkey had borrowed more than £20,000,000 in excess of what she borrowed in 1855, Lord Clarendon and Lord Russell both recommended that Turkish bonds were perfectly good security to lend money on. No doubt that was a very imprudent recommendation. But he had proved that the contention of the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly untenable. Egypt was more heavily burdened than any country in Europe; while Turkey even now, in respect of her external Debt, was less burdened than any country in Europe. When the right hon. Gentleman said there was no danger in this case of International interference he seemed to have altogether forgotten the International Tribunals, which gave those who guaranteed the loan the most complete and easy machinery for interfering whenever they chose. That was the great danger which he apprehended from the Guarantee, and he ventured to enter his most earnest protest against it. With regard to the Suez Canal, the whole matter depended upon the details of this arrangement, which the House was most anxious to hoar. The right hon. Gentleman some two years ago, alluding to the Internationalization of the Canal, had admitted the importance of that question, using the following words:—
    A still bolder suggestion is made by some, involving a great variety of points for consideration—that is, that the proper and ultimate arrangement of this great sea passage between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea can only
    1922
    be found when the Canal, instead of becoming the property of any private company whatever, or belonging to any nation whatever, shall be placed under the management of an International Commission. I shall not enter into that. I do not presume to give any opinion. There is a great deal that has to be said upon it both in regard to its difficulties and importance.
    For his own part, he (Mr. Bourke) had always thought that the plan of Lord Granville seemed to be harmless in itself. He believed, however, that it would not stand the test of war, and that it would be impossible to get Egypt to carry out one-third of the engagements thrown upon her. They wanted to know what were the details, and from what they saw in the newspapers he thought they had just cause to be suspicious. They heard that the proceedings now going on were very antagonistic, to English interests, and he thought they had good reason to ask the Government to lay this International Act or Instrument, whatever it might be called, on the Table of the House before its ratification. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had used the word "neutralization." If that word was used in its ordinary sense, as meaning the freedom of the Canal, it was exactly the thing which the country could not accept. The freedom of the Canal was the exact opposite of its neutralization. It was said that extraordinary demands were being made by the French Government with regard to the Sweet Water Canals. We were told that the French Government had said that as the Suez Canal was to be neutralized, and as the Sweet Water Canals wore necessary to the Suez Canal, it followed that they also must be neutralized. That was a thing which we could not consent to, and it was subversive of the authority of the Suzerain Powers, which Her Majesty's Government had over and over again said they were determined to maintain. The territorial rights of the Sovereign of Egypt were, to a great extent, thereby compromised. Then, what were to be the relations between the Canal Company and the International Body which would be constituted? Suppose that the Company were to say to the Powers that great injuries had been inflicted upon them, and consequently upon the commerce of Europe at large for the benefit of which the Canal existed, would

    1923
    the Powers of Europe be liable in damages? How was the Company to sue the Powers? That was no hypothetical case, because something like it had already happened in the Egyptian War. All those questions deserved the minute attention of the House. They had been told that this was not a time to weaken the Government. It was far from his desire to do so, and it would be admitted that the Opposition had abstained from all action which would tend to such a result. At the same time, he would like to ask the Government whether this was a time when we should tie the hands, not only of the country, but of the Government, for we should tie their hands for all time if we did not take care that the interests of this country in the Suez Canal were not compromised by what was now going on in Paris. Her Majesty's Government might, indeed, have some difficulty in giving the exact pledge that was asked for, as it appeared it was not a Treaty that was being prepared in Paris. It had been described as an International Act, though he did not see how it could be an International Act until Her Majesty's Government had given their assent to what was done. At all events, they had a right to ask the Government this question. Whatever it might be that was agreed to in Paris by the persons who were there now, they ought to know whether that Instrument would be submitted to the House of Commons before it became an International Act. He thought that if that question were clearly answered the House might be saved the trouble of going to a division on this Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: When the right hon. Gentleman rose to address the House I hoped he was going to refer at once to the question which has occupied the House, I think, about five hours in a somewhat desultory debate; but the right hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation of endeavouring to prove the inconsistency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with himself. Accordingly the right hon. Gentleman referred over and over again to the explanations of the Prime Minister, which, I think, are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person. My right hon. Friend in 1855 opposed an International Guarantee; and he did so, as the reports show, distinctly upon the ground that
    1924
    there was, in his opinion, a probability that the funds would not be forthcoming to meet the interest upon the loan, and that thereupon there would arise an International right of control. Now, on the contrary, my right hon. Friend defends and supports an International Guarantee in the case of Egypt, on the ground that even in the opinion of Gentlemen opposite there is not the slightest probability that there will be any failure to pay the necessary interest, and that consequently no additional International right will ever arise. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to ask a number of questions of detail as to what might arise under a hypothetical Convention with reference to the Suez Canal. All these questions are entirely premature. The only question before the House is this—whether or not the House will have an opportunity of considering the Convention before it is finally agreed upon. I do not know that I am able to add anything to what the Prime Minister said at the very outset of this debate. My right hon. Friend was understood by all of us on this side of the House to give an unqualified affirmative to that question. In anticipation my right hon. Friend did give the assurance which now, after five hours' debate, he is still asked to give, and which I now repeat in the plainest terms I can employ—namely, that before this International Act is adopted by the British Government the draft project and the Protocol shall be communicated to the House of Commons, so that they will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it before it is ratified.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The last words of the right hon. Gentleman are of very great importance, and I venture to think they carry the assurances of the Government very decidedly in advance of those which we received from the Prime Minister early in the evening. I think if we are to understand that the pledge of the Government is that which has now been notified by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend may be very well satisfied with the result of the discussion. His object has been, and our object has been, a practical one. We cannot exaggerate the enormous importance to this country of obtaining a satisfactory solution and settlement of

    1925
    the question relating to the Suez Canal. If that was recognized as an important question last year, how much more important is it at the present time? If it was important a few weeks ago, how much more important is it now, when we know the very extreme importance which it will be to us within a short time to know that we have command of the highway to the East? The question is one which the Prime Minister has admitted to be in itself important, but which he and others have said ought not to have been brought forward at the present moment, as this was not the occasion on which it ought to be discussed. Indeed, the Prime Minister went so far as to say that this was a proceeding somewhat in the nature of tacking. Tacking has no particular connection with another measure which the House is bound to pass; but in this case there is the strictest possible connection between the Financial Arrangement and the Arrangement for the navigation of the Suez Canal. These two things are presented to us, and were presented to the Powers responsible for the Convention, as part of one Arrangement; and when we are told—"If you will only pass one part, you will afterwards be able to deal with the other," I wish to ask the Government, the House, and the country to bear in mind what a lever you are losing in this matter by deciding on the Financial Arrangement before you begin to deal with the Suez Canal itself. The right hon. Gentleman told us early in the evening we might be assured that the House will have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the Arrangement with regard to the Canal. He said it will be laid on the Table, and that there will be, at least, opportunities of moving the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the matter if we liked to do so. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock admitted the great importance of the subject, and said it was a matter which would be discussed, because it so closely affected the great interests of the Empire that it was impossible to suppose the Arrangement would be allowed to come into operation without being properly criticized and decided upon by Parliament. What I would point out to the noble Lord is, that he probably was quite right in saying that sooner or later there must
    1926
    be a disscussion on any arrangement that may be arrived at; that if a matter of such great importance were allowed to pass, and then you were to challenge it, you might be told that you would run the risk of giving offence to the other Powers concerned. But the noble Lord says you will be able to pass a Vote of Censure, and that the Government would suffer from the consequences of such a Vote, which, of course, they would; and, further, the noble Lord added that the Treaty itself would thereby be sot aside. But it would not. There is just the point. The Government might be censured. Parliament might say it was a bad Arrangement, and might turn out the Government; but there the Treaty would be, and all the Governments of this country would be bound by it—just as they are bound, whether they like it or not, by the Declaration of Paris. The important questions of privateering and so forth and other matters were decided without reference to Parliament; and though Parliament might have pronounced a different opinion on those subjects afterwards, and might have turned out the Government of the day, still the obligations incurred by the Government of the day would have been binding upon us. When you consider the enormous importance of a proper settlement of this question of the Suez Canal, I say we ought to act, and to act in time, and that it was the duty of my right hon. Friend, or of someone else in this House, to challenge the attention of this House while there is still time for us to consider the matter. What has just been said on the part of the Government has, I admit, placed us in a much better position. I understand that we have a distinct undertaking on the part of the Government that before this Arrangement is permitted to become binding upon this country and to become an International Act, it shall be submitted to Parliament, and that an opportunity will be given to us to make observations upon it, and to pronounce an opinion upon it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I said "laid before Parliament;" the right hon. Gentleman said "submitted."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I ought to have said "laid before Parliament." The word "submitted" might imply some infringement of Prerogative.

    1927
    It will, I understand, be laid before Parliament, and there will be an opportunity for Parliament freely to express its opinion on the important points raised by it. That being the understanding which we have, I admit that we may, under the circumstances, be satisfied, with that, and that it is not necessary for us to call on the House for any special vote on the subject. I hope that, under the circumstances, the Motion will be withdrawn, and that the matter will be left in the position in which the Government seem to place it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.
    Clause 1 (Short Title).
    Clause 2 (Power to Her Majesty to guarantee annuity of £315,000 for loan to be raised by the Egyptian Government).
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment which would, in his opinion, enable the Government to join in the Guarantee, notwithstanding the limited liability of Russia under it. Under the clause, as it stood, the only Guarantee that the Government could enter into was a Guarantee jointly with the Foreign Governments named in Article VII. set forth in the Schedule to the Bill, and severally upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Articles in the said Schedule, for the purposes of a loan to be raised by the Government of Egypt. Therefore, if one of the Powers did not join in that Guarantee according to the terms of the Articles set forth in the Schedule, the Government would not be authorized to bind this country with regard to it. It appeared, on the face of the Guarantee itself, that one of the Powers was not to be bound by the Articles of the Guarantee, because there was a Declaration by the Russian Government appended to the Articles, but not forming part of them, in which the Russian Plenipotentiary stated that if in course of time the Guarantee stipulated in Article VII. of the present Convention should come in force, it was to be understood that in the accounts between the guaranteeing Powers the
    1928
    share falling to Russia should in no case exceed the sixth part of the annual interest guaranteed. What he proposed was to amend the clause by adding after the word "guarantee" in the first line, the words "either solely or," and at the beginning of line 15, after the words "jointly with" the words "any one or more of." The clause would then read—
    "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty to guarantee either solely or jointly with any one or more of the Foreign Governments named in Article Seven, set forth in the schedule to this Act, and severally, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Articles in the said schedule, the regular payment of the annuity of three hundred and fifteen thousand pounds sterling, mentioned in the said Article Seven, for the purpose of a loan to be raised by the Government of Egypt."
    Amendment proposed, in line 14, after the word "guarantee," to insert the words "either solely or."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, because this country is bound by the terms of the Convention to accept the Guarantee as it stands. The exception which the hon. Member regards as an exception in favour of Russia is really no exception at all, and it has been allowed by this country and the other Powers to be made.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that under those circumstances he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that, by Article VII. of the Convention, the Governments of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Prance, Germany, Italy, and Russia, undertook either to guarantee jointly and severally, or to ask authority from their Parliaments to guarantee jointly and severally, the regular payment of the stipulated Annuity of £315,000; but by the Declaration of the Russian Government, at the end of the Schedule, Russia excepted herself from a joint and several Guarantee by

    1929
    providing that in the accounts between the guaranteeing Governments the share falling to Russia should in no case exceed the sixth part of the interest guaranteed. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the position of Russia under those circumstances? Of course, Turkey was excepted from the Guarantee; and, so far as Russia was concerned, it did not appear to be any joint and several Guarantee at all.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The state of the matter is this—Under the terms of the Guarantee, Russia cannot be called upon to do more than pay one-sixth of the amount of the annual interest on the loan.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLasked how, under the circumstances, Russia could remain in Article VII. as one of the guaranteeing Powers?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEES): It is, after all, a question of words.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th April.]
  [FIFTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
    COUNTIES AT LARGE.
    NUMBER OF MEMBEES AND NAMES AND CONTENTS OF DIVISIONS.
  PART I.

    ENGLAND.
    Amendment proposed, in page 84, line 29, to leave out the word "Morley," in order to insert the word "Batley,"—(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Morley' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that yesterday he was in possession of the Committee
    1930
    when, in accordance with the Rules of the House, Progress was reported. He wished to assure the Committee that he had not been animated by any desire to talk the Bill out; and what occurred was the result of the accident of his only being able to rise two minutes before the proper time for closing the discussion. He preferred to leave the Schedule as it stood, and maintained that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had made out no case whatever for his proposal.
    VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, that he knew something of the facts of the case, and it appeared to him that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was a most extraordinary one, because he proposed to give to the new division, instead of the name of "Morley," the name of a district which at present formed a very important part of the borough of Dewsbury. It was well known that Batley chiefly lay in the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury, and its population was something like 30,000. That fact might be a strong reason for adding the name of Batley to the borough of Dewsbury; but there was no reason whatever why it should give the name to a new division of the county, seeing that only 1,916 of the population of Batley would reside in the new division. All the rest would continue to reside in the borough of Dewsbury. So far as Morley itself was concerned, it possessed 15,000 inhabitants, and of its commercial importance there could be no doubt. There were 38 important cloth factories in Morley itself, live large colleries, seven stone quarries, and several important buildings. If they turned to the historical associations of Morley, they would find that it possessed much more interesting records than Batley. Therefore, from every point of consideration, its importance in the district, its commercial importance, and its historical associations, if the Committee had paid any attention to the subject, he was satisfied they would unanimously decide that the name of Morley, and not Batley, ought to be attached to the new division. He, therefore, felt bound to oppose most strongly the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that in the designation of the

    1931
    constituencies the chief fact which the Committee ought, as far as possible, to consider was the wish of the inhabitants. No fact could be of such great importance as that fact. Hon. Members knew very little about the position of either one place or the other, or of the wish of the large majority of the future electors of the division; but the population of the locality knew a good deal about it, and were much interested in the matter. It was quite true that a large majority of the inhabitants of Batley were already within the borough of Dewsbury; but the reason why he intended to vote for the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was that he had taken the trouble to ascertain what the wishes of the people generally were, and he was forced to come to the conclusion that the great majority would prefer the name of Batley to that of Morley. Indeed, that was the opinion of almost the whole of them, except the 15,000 who lived in Morley. Their desire was that the new division should be called by the name of Batley; and that was a conclusive argument, in his mind, to induce him to vote for the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided;—Ayes 100; Noes 87: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
    MR. W. H. LEATHAMmoved an Amendment in line 10, the object of which was to change the "Peniston" to the "Holmfirth" Division. He stated that the population of Holmfirth was 17,000, while that of Peniston was only 10,000, and the size and importance of Holmfirth were very much greater than those of Peniston. Peniston had no importance at all except as the point of junction between the railways for the North and West.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 85, line 10, to leave out the word "Peniston," in order to insert the word "Holmfirth,"—(Mr. W. H. Leatham,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Peniston' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that upon the whole he felt rather disposed to accept this Amendment. Peniston was a large parish, and a Poor Law Union; but it was a very small
    1932
    Poor Law Union. Indeed, the town of Peniston itself was a very small place, with not more than some 2,000 inhabitants; whereas Holmfirth was a Local Government Board district, with a population of about 9,000 in the town itself. Under these circumstances, he thought it had a very strong claim to give its name to the division. A Petty Sessions Court was held at Holmfirth, and also a County Court; and, seeing that it was a much larger and more important place than Peniston, he had no objection to accept the Amendment.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was sorry to find that in consequence of persistent and repeated demands from the other side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill appeared to be disposed to throw over the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners on every conceivable opportunity. Holmfirth might have the advantage in population over Peniston; but it was deficient in the essential element of position. He would ask any hon. Member who was acquainted with the locality whether Peniston or Holmfirth occupied the best known position, and he had no hesitation in saying that everybody would know exactly where Peniston was; whereas there would be a difficulty in finding out the position of Holmfirth without searching the map. As a matter of fact, it would require great industry, and the assistance of someone locally acquainted with the district, to discover Holmfirth, even with the aid of the map which had been presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Commissioners. But there were other considerations which induced him to come to the conclusion that the question of the name to be given to the new division should be decided by position rather than by population. In the first place, Peniston was an important place, and was growing into greater importance every year. It contained an important railway station, where the trains proceeding to Manchester and the West and those going to the North separated, and it stood at a particular point where the river turned at a sharp angle from the hills. Then, again, Holmfirth stood a great deal further off from the centre of the proposed division than the town of Peniston; and, therefore, on the ground of convenience and position, he hoped the Committee would not accept

    1933
    the Amendment of the hon. Member for the South-West Biding (Mr. W. H. Leatham).
    MR. FIRTHsupported the Amendment, and hoped that the Committee would accept it. Respecting the geographical position of the two places, he did not at all agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). The River Don, in the neighbourhood of Peniston, which had been alluded to by the hon. Member, was a stream which it would not be difficult to jump across without coming into contact with the water. The railway station was merely a junction for Huddersfield on the main line between Sheffield and Manchester, and lines running to Huddersfield, Halifax, Leeds, and other centres.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYremarked, that it was also the junction for Barnsley.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that, so far as a choice between the two places was concerned, Holmfirth might not be more central than Peniston; but it was a good deal larger, and much more important. He knew very well that if any traveller was asked which place he would prefer to stay at he would go at once to Holmfirth rather than stop at Peniston, because he would find in the former all the accommodation which modern civilization provided, but would not be able to do so at Peniston.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 125: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 85, line 37, leave out "hundred" and insert "Wapentake."
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, his reason for moving the next Amendment on the Paper in his name was to give the right hon. Baronet an opportunity of explaining certain curious points in the scheme of the Commissioners relating to the Otley Division of the county. In the first place, in the matter of the parish which was the subject of his Amendment, they had departed from their own original scheme, which had been supported by a large section of the inhabitants; secondly, they had departed from the principle of population; thirdly, they had departed from
    1934
    their Instructions with regard to the pursuits of the people in forming their schemes, Yeadon, which was a manufacturing district, having been placed by the Commissioners in an agricultural district. He understood that the whole proceeding on the part of the Commissioners had been followed by an enthusiastic telegram sent from the Liberal Party in Yeadon to the hon. Baronet who now represented that division of the county. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) an explanation of what had taken place; and in the event of that explanation not being satisfactory he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee on his Amendment, which he begged to move.
    Amendment proposed, in page 86, line 9, after the word "Otley," to insert the words "less the parish of Yeadon."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would disabuse his mind of the idea that the Commissioners had acted with any want of impartiality in this matter. The hon. Member would recollect that the Commissioners were unanimous in their decision; and he thought, from that fact alone, it would be seen that their proposal was entitled to consideration. After the local inquiry the Commissioners considered that Yeadon was more associated with Otley than any other division, and after careful deliberation they had placed it in the Otley Division—that was to say, after first placing it in the other division.
    SIR ANDREW FAIRBAIRNpointed out that as Yeadon was connected with the Otley Division in respect of Union, Petty Sessions, County Court, and other arrangements, it was a great hardship that it should be separated from that division. He might remark that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) was quite wrong as to Yeadon being an urban constituency, and therefore not rightly placed in the Otley Division, inasmuch as there were several other urban localities in the same division. Recently a poll had been taken, at which 904 householders voted in favour of Yeadon being in the Otley Division, and only 16 against it, from

    1935
    which he thought the Committee would perceive that Yeadon ought to remain in the position assigned to it by the Commissioners.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, having lived at Yeadon for some years he could confirm the opinion which his hon. Friend had just expressed, that there was an overpowering feeling in the district In favour of Yeadon being placed in the Otley Division. There was the strongest objection on the part of the inhabitants to their having to cross a railway and river to get to a place with which they had no connection whatever.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he thought there must be some misconception as to the state of local feeling in this matter. His hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had, in his opinion, correctly described Yeadon as an urban constituency. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Andrew Fairbairn) had stated that about 900 householders out of 1,000 had voted in favour of joining Yeadon with Otley; but he would point out to the Committee that he had had the honour of presenting a Petition from Yeadon signed by about 300 persons in favour of its being attached to the other division. He thought, therefore, there must be some mistake in the figures which had been given; and if his hon. Friend went to a division he should feel it his duty to support him.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had in various clauses of the Bill introduced an Amendment substituting for the word "exclusively" the word "except," which had been used generally throughout the Bill. A similar point arose in relation to the Amendment before the Committee, which he proposed to amend by substituting the word "except" for the word "less," in order to bring the wording into conformity with the rest of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word, "less," in order to insert the word "except."—(Mr. Warton.)
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, there was a perfectly good answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Andrew Fairbairn). He was not surprised at the great desire of the inhabitants of Yeadon
    1936
    to belong to the district of Otley, which was due to the fact that if they were taken out of that division they would be transferred to a district with a singularly ineuphonious name. He believed that everyone would object to be included in the "Pudsey" Division. He had risen, however, to obtain an explanation of the reasons which had induced the Commissioners to depart from the instructions laid down for them, and from the provisional scheme which had met with general approval. He thought that some explanation ought to be given; but, under the circumstances, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who probably did not expect that this part of the Bill would have been reached so soon, he would take the responsibility of moving the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment proposed, in page 86, line 13, to leave out the words "Barkston Ash," and insert the word "Tadcaster."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Barkston Ash' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that "Barkston Ash" was certainly not a pretty name; but it was the name of a district, and Tadcaster was on the very border of the division. He would suggest that "Selby," or some other suitable name, might be given to the division; but he was not prepared to accept the name of "Tadcaster."
    COLONEL GUNTERsaid, as a resident in the neighbourhood in question, he considered that the name of "Barkston Ash" was far more fitted to represent the division than any other of the small towns in the district, such as Tadcaster and Selby. He had not heard anything of weight urged against the name Barkston Ash, and he was bound to say there was nothing in favour of the other names.
    SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the name "Barkston Ash" had been adopted by the Boundary Commissioner on the joint recommendation of the representa-

    1937
    tives of both political Parties; and he hoped the Committee would not agree to the proposed alteration.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYthought that perhaps the best designation for the division would be that of Lower Wharfdale; but he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, before the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) moved his Amendment in line 34 he wished to raise the question as to whether it would not be well to substitute the designation of "Calverley" for that of "Pudsey" in respect of the 25th division of the county.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that "Pudsey" was not a euphonious name for the division, and he was willing to follow the general wish with regard to it.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHpointed out that, although "Pudsey" might not be a very nice name, the place itself was a very important centre of trade.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought it was not desirable to agree to the proposed alteration without Notice being given, and therefore the question must be raised on the Report.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 86, leave out line 34, and insert "the parishes of Drighlington, Hunsworth, and Tong, and so much of the parishes of Calverley with Farsley and Pudsey, as is not included in the municipal borough of Bradford."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that Birstall was a town having only one-eighth of the population of the division, whereas Spen Valley represented a series of important townships. His proposal was to substitute the name of Spen Valley for that of Birstall as the designation of the 26th division of the county. His proposal, he believed, commanded by far the largest amount of approval in the district.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 86, line 37, to leave out the word "Birstall, "in order to insert the words "Spen Valley,"—(Mr. Illingworth,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Birstall' stand part of the Schedule.',
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was true that Birstall was not the
    1938
    largest town of the division, but it was the name of an ancient parish which covered the greater part of the division. There had been considerable difficulty with regard to naming the division, as no one town would on this question yield to another. Spen Valley was the name given to a district formed for drainage purposes by the Local Government Board, and it was well known in the neighbourhood. Under the circumstances, he was willing to consider the question between then and Report.
    COLONEL GUNTERsaid, he should strongly object to the name of Spen Valley being substituted for that of Old Birstall; and although he had little to do with the district now, he had no doubt that his view was shared by a large number of the inhabitants.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 102: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
    Question put, "That the words 'Spen Valley' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 78: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 109.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcomplained of the waste of time occasioned by challenging a second division, and moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Government had obtained priority for this Bill; and it had been understood, therefore, that on the nights on which it was taken it would be pushed on to a reasonable hour with the view of making substantial progress. There were several contested Bills down on the Paper, either of which might be taken if this Motion were adopted; and if either of them were taken it would be unfair to hon. Members who were absent. The first subject on the Paper had somewhat abruptly terminated. Many hon. Members had thereupon gone away, believing that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would occupy the remainder of the Sitting. He thought that before reporting Progress they should make some further advance with the Committee stage.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought they would have finished the part of the Schedules dealing with Scotland that night; but the second division which had just been taken had shown a disposition on the part of some hon. Members to waste time. It was absolutely essential that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill should be accompanied by Registration Bills. It would be impossible to take steps for hurrying on the General Election until those Bills had made some progress. As they had read the English Registration Bill a second time it was now proposed to proceed with the Irish Registration Bill, which was the ninth Order on the Paper.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Bill in question was one of the greatest importance to the Irish Conservative Members'; and, though he would not say it would be opposed by them, it would certainly be considerably criticized from their side of the House. It was futile to suggest that the result of putting the Bill off that night would be to delay the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. Delay would be caused by putting off the consideration of the Scotch Amendments. He had no doubt that if the Committee applied itself to the task it would be able to get through the Scotch Amendments that night.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that to move to report Progress at that hour, and upon such a plea as that they had heard from the right hon. Baronet, was conduct unworthy of the Government. The right hon. Baronet had not given the Opposition credit for their kind intentions in finishing the important debate they had had on the Suez Canal so soon. There was important Business before the Committee, and the Committee—or a large part of it—wished to go on with it. The reason pleaded by the right hon. Baronet for postponing the further consideration of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill was a very small and unsatisfactory one. He had accused hon. Members of wasting time by challenging a second division; but, surely, when the numbers were so close in the first division—the Government only securing a narrow majority of four—it was not unreasonable for Members to try the point again, especially as in so doing they were giving the Government a last opportunity of considering whe-
    1940
    ther they could not find a better name than "Spen Valley." The motive of revenge which seemed to guide the right hon. Baronet in his Motion to report Progress was a most unworthy one.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENKY JAMES)said, he was sure the Committee would acquit the Government of any desire to waste time, and would readily believe that their anxiety, on the contrary, was to economize time as much as possible. The Government, on their part, gratefully acknowledged the consideration shown by the Opposition for those who had charge of the measure. At the present moment the position of affairs was this—the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill and the Registration Bills must, to some extent, proceed pari passu. It would be useless to proceed with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, if, at the same time, they did not make progress with the Registration Bills. They had made progress with the English Registration Bill. They had read it a second time and had referred it to a Select Committee, and now they desired to make progress with the Irish Bill. That was the whole position they found themselves in; and the Government, he thought, had taken the wisest course open to them for the purpose of making the best of their time. However hon. Members might differ from the opinion of the Government, he hoped they would not think the Government had neglected to do what they could to economize time.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the Government could not certainly accuse the Opposition with a desire to delay the Registration Bill. He and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to do all they could to insure the rapid progress of that measure. They had considered with the Government the best means of facilitating its passing, and of so amending it as to meet any reasonable suggestions that might be made. But on the present occasion, as he understood it, hon. Members had come down to discuss the Egyptian Financial Arrangement, and it was arranged that when that was over they were to go on with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. He personally was aware of the fact that many hon. Members who had been in the House earlier in the evening had gone away under the impression that after

    1941
    the discussion on the Anglo-Egyptian Arrangement the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would be proceeded with; and it certainly seemed to him that, as the Government bad monopolized almost the whole time of the House in order to enable them to make progress with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, it was extremely odd that they should not avail themselves of the opportunity of proceeding with it when they could.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill had so far been conducted with a certain amount of mutual agreement between the two sides of the House; and he considered it a great pity that anything should happen that night to lead to a controversy upon a question of procedure. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board seemed to suggest that he had adopted the course of proposing to report Progress in consequence of a second division having taken place upon a subject upon which the Committee was supposed a few minutes before to have pronounced a decided opinion. The right hon. Baronet seemed to resent the loss of time. That loss of time, however, seemed to him (Lord John Manners) a very strong argument against the course the right hon. Baronet now proposed to take, for it amounted to this—they had lost a few minutes on a second division, therefore! they should lose the rest of the night. I Having lost a few minutes the best; course would seem to be to endeavour I to make more rapid progress in the time remaining. The Government must admit that the first division had been a very close one, the majority having been only some three or four, and that, therefore, there was some ground for again challenging the opinion of the Committee. But admitting that it was an unnecessary division, and that some minutes had been wasted in it, that was certainly no reason why they should not proceed to a reasonable limit of time to deal with the Scotch case. When the Scotch part of the Schedule was finished everyone, he thought, would admit that the right hon. Baronet could fairly close the Committee for the evening, and that the House should meet again to-morrow to proceed with it. If that was not the view of the right hon. Baronet he would point out that to travel over six or eight
    1942
    Bills on the Paper and then to say—"We will deal with this ninth Order" was not a satisfactory way of conducting Business. No one in the House had expected Order No. 9 to be taken after midnight; and he thought that under the circumstances it would be much better to go on with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. At any rate, it was not the proper time to proceed with the Registration Bill.
    MR. MONKsaid, he was sure the right hon. Baronet would see that there was a good deal of force in what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down. To take the ninth Order of the Day for discussion after 12 o'clock at night, when it had been announced earlier in the day that if the Egyptian Loan Bill was disposed of in sufficient time the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would be taken, was, to say the least of it, springing a mine upon hon. Members. ["Question!"] He saw the House was impatient, and he did not wish to waste any further time. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet.
    MR. HEALY: Name, name! [Cries of" Order!"]
    MR. MONKsaid, it was very evident ill-feeling was likely to arise if this debate were further continued; be, therefore, appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, there seemed to be great danger in the course the Government were taking. It was obvious they were setting a precedent which might be used to the great disadvantage of Public Business, and which might expose the Government to charges, he would not say of breaches of faith, but unquestionably of unfair surprise. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was interrogated that afternoon as to the course of Business he had given an answer which, coming as it did from a person in his position, was bound to be received. In that answer the right hon. Gentleman had not given the slightest intimation that after the Egyptian Loan discussion, and the further consideration of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, if there was time to bring it on, the Registration Bill would be taken up. Taking the right hon. Baronet's own language, it was understood that the

    1943
    Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would be dealt with, and that it would be considered until that part affecting Ireland was reached, and that part affecting Scotland was disposed of. Now, however, a different course was suggested, or rather two different courses. When the right hon. Baronet had commenced his observations, he had partly implied, and by his manner had seemed to hint, that the reason operating upon his mind, and inducing him so suddenly to break off the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, was the challenge of a second division by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) on grounds which the right hon. Baronet had probably thought insufficient. That had been unquestionably the first ground the right hon. Baronet had put forward, and he had desired the House to adopt that as the reason. The right hon. Baronet appeared, however, to have abandoned that ground. It could not have been submitted altogether for the purpose of argument, because, having put it forward, the right hon. Baronet had now abandoned it. Later on he had given an altogether different ground—namely, that it was so desirable, so important, and so necessary to make progress with the Registration Bill, that the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill must be interrupted. Surely if the Prime Minister had seen the importance of this arrangement, and had had it in his mind when he was addressing the House, he would have ventured to make a statement similar to that of the right hon. Baronet. Surely he would, have seen the fairness and reasonableness of taking the House into his confidence. The precedent, if persisted in by Her Majesty's Government, would, no doubt, lead to surprise, and possibly to retaliation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was not a party to the arrangement that the Registration Bill should be taken that evening; but he was informed that it would be taken. He thought, however, it would be useless, in the face of the opposition which had been raised, to attempt to proceed with it. There were a considerable number of Bills which it was essential to pass—the English Registration Bill, the Scotch Registration Bill, the Bill in connection with the expenses of the Returning
    1944
    Officers, and possibly a separate Bill in regard to the expenses of the elections. There were, he thought, five Bills which depended upon the passing of this Bill, which would have to be pushed on; but he might point out to hon. Members that nothing would be gained by hurrying this Bill unless the other Bills which would have to be taken were pushed on also. He felt, however, that there was considerable force in the argument of hon. Members opposite that there might be hon. Gentlemen interested in the Registration Bill who were not aware that the Bill was coming on that night, and he thought he ought to yield to it.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was hard, as it only wanted a quarter of an hour to half-past 12, that the other right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had not had an opportunity of distinguishing himself. It was a pity that all the talent of the Opposition had not been employed in wasting the other quarter of an hour; and it was much to be regretted that the President of the Local Government Board had interposed, seeing that the matter would then have been settled by the efflux of time. There was no intention of discussing the merits of the question, but simply of getting over the next 15 minutes; and he was sorry that the Government had felt it necessary to waste any argument whatever upon the Front Opposition Bench. The Irish Members sitting below the Gangway had sometimes been charged with Obstruction. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) said "No." Certainly, no one ever dreamt of accusing the hon. and learned Member of Obstruction—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—but the Irish Members were often charged with entering into that last department of Parliamentary resource; but whenever they did, they acted fairly, openly, and avowedly, and did not conceal their real object by wasting an additional quarter of an hour after midnight. He would tell the Tory Party that if they thought for a moment that the Irish Members would allow themselves, on occasions of this kind, to be treated with contempt, they were very much mistaken.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. and learned Member that the Question

    1945
    before the Committee was the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. HEALYadmitted that he had been travelling slightly outside the Motion for reporting Progress; but he hoped, with the general assent of the Committee, to be permitted to make one further remark. If the Tory Party imagined for one moment that the Irish Members could be humbugged by the Front Opposition Bench, they would fall into a grievous error; and when, upon other occasions, negotiations were entered into to secure their votes, and the Irish Members were consulted with the object of bringing the Tory Party into Office, if it were imagined that they were any longer to be fooled, right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would find themselves very much out of their reckoning. For his part, he thought the Irish Members had seen enough of the tactics of the Tory Party; and, as far as he could see, their policy was this—["Question!"] Well, perhaps he was a little out of Order, and, therefore, to quote words that were once used on a memorable occasion, he would withdraw what he was going to say. He regretted that the Government were not allowed to bring on the Irish Registration Bill that night. They had allowed the Committee on the English Registration Bill to be appointed. That Committee was now sitting, and, as the House had expressed an intense desire to see 700,000 Irish labourers in the enjoyment of the franchise, he failed to see what the object of this Obstruction was. He would tell the Tory Party that when the General Election came, the Nationalists would give them a great deal more trouble than they would be able to give the Nationalists.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PART II.

    SCOTLAND.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEmoved an Amendment in page 87, line 5, to describe the first division of the county of Fife as the "Eastern" instead of the East Division. He thought it was desirable to make the Scotch county names correspond with those which had been applied to the English counties; and he therefore proposed, in the case of the county of Fife, to call the divisions
    1946
    "Eastern" and "Western," instead of "East and West."
    Question, "That the word 'East,' in page 87, line 5, stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEmoved, on the same ground, to substitute "Western" in the second division for "West."
    Question, "That the word 'West,' in page 87, line 14, stand part of the Schedule, "put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Western' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 88, line 3, in the Partick Division of Lanarkshire, to describe the contents of the division as so much of the parish of Govan as lies north of the Clyde and beyond the present boundary of the municipal burgh of Glasgow, and "so much of the parish of Barony as lies" to the west of the present main line of the North British Railway between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. An Amendment preceding the present one stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—namely, to insert "s" at the beginning of the Govan Division.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Amendment had reference simply to a printer's error, which had already been corrected.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 88, line 3, after the word "and," to insert the words "so much of the parish of Barony as lies."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—Page 88, line 6, after "Railway," insert "and beyond the present boundary of the Municipal Burgh of Glasgow."
    On the Motion of Mr. JOHN HAMILTON, the following Amendment made:—Page 88, line 7, leave out "West."
    MR. JOHN HAMILTONmoved an Amendment to describe the fourth division of Lanarkshire as the "Eastern" instead of the "North-East" Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 88, line 12, to leave out the word "North."—(Mr. John Hamilton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'North' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he knew that his hon. Friend had a strong opinion in favour of calling this division "Eastern" instead of "North-Eastern;" but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could not agree to the Amendment, because the greater portion of the division lay to the east of the county of Lanark, and one of the points they had already settled was that even local opinion should not be allowed to prevail if it were not in accord with geographical facts. Therefore he would move, as an Amendment to the proposal of his hon. Friend, to substitute the words "North-Eastern."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 88, line 12, to leave out the word "East," and insert "Eastern."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—Part 2, page 88, line 13, leave out "Dalzell," and insert "Dalziel."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved Amendments describing the fifth division as "The Mid Division," and the sixth as "The Southern Division."
    Amendments agreed to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—Page 88, line 17, leave out "the parishes of;" line 19, leave out "and the parishes of;" line 35, leave out "and Dunblane," and insert "Dunning."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved an Amendment in page 88, line 31, to describe the first division of the county of Perth as "Eastern" insead of "East,"
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 89, lines 1, 3, and 4, to leave out "the parishes of;" in line 7, to leave out "Rynd," and insert "Rhynd;" in line 11, to leave out "Crief," and insert "Crieff."
    MR. HEALYasked why these changes were being made?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexplained that nothing was being done in regard to the county of Perth which had not already been done in the English counties.
    SIR DONALD CURRIEremarked that, if hon. Members would look at the map of Perthshire, they would see that the county was cut up in an extraordinary way. It was now proposed to take the parish of Dunning from the Western Division and insert it in the Eastern, and to remove Dunblane from the Eastern Division for the purpose of placing it in the Western. He objected to the way in which the county had been divided.
    Amendments agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Boundary Commissioners had consented to alter their original scheme in the case of the county of Perth on the ground that the changes would be more suitable as regarded the number of population. Considerable alterations had been made, and he believed the result had been to irritate to a considerable extent the Liberal Party in the county, who thought they were deprived of advantages they would otherwise have enjoyed. He thought, however, that the Committee were bound to carry out the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, who had acted only in accordance with the Instructions given to them. He moved, in line 9, to omit "West," and substitute "Western."
    Amendment proposed, in page 89, line 9, to leave out the word "West."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'West' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he did not understand why they should change "West" into "Western." At present they all knew the Member for North Lincoln; but who would know the right hon. Gentleman as the Member for Northern Lincoln? In this case, were hon. Members to address the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Donald Currie) as the Member for the Western Division of the county of Perth? The change appeared to him (Mr. Callan) to be ridiculous and nonsensical. It would be much more simple and sensible to speak of him as the Member for West Perth, although in the Writ he might

    1949
    be returned as the Member for the Western Division of that county. If it were hereafter necessary to give such long names to hon. Members, the only effect would be obstruct the transaction of Business and prolong the debates unnecessarily. When the Committee came to discuss the Irish counties, which he presumed would be reached in a few moments, he should certainly prefer North, South, East, and West to Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western. Why should it not be North Antrim and North Fermanagh, instead of Northern Antrim and Northern Fermanagh? He wished to know, therefore, why, in the case of the county of Perth, "Western" should be substituted for "West?"
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the view of the Government was that which had been expressed by the hon. Member; but the Committee, generally, had taken a different view, and had accused the Government of being guilty of using bad grammar. The whole of the English names had therefore been altered, and "Northern" adopted instead of "North." The hon. Member said the names would be very long; but, in this instance, the name was one of the shortest in the Bill. In some instances, the Committee had inserted names which covered two lines of print, very much against the protest of the Government. For himself, he should still continue to call the Member for the Western Division of the county of Perth the Member for Perthshire.
    MR. HEALYthought the Committee had adopted a very odd way of naming the county divisions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had put the matter clearly before the Committee, and he would not now waste time by fighting the question. When they came to the Irish counties, he did not know why they should adopt a different grammatical construction from that which had been adopted in England and Scotland. In former Acts of Parliament, as a matter of fact, both forms had been adopted—for instance, East and West Sussex and the Northern and Southern Divisions of the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in Ireland the Commissioners had adopted the compass points in naming the counties. Personally, he entertained a strong opinion that the name inserted in the
    1950
    Schedule should be as brief as possible, and that it ought to correspond with the name given by the Commissioners. Upon the map the county of Armagh was divided into North Armagh, Mid Armagh, and South Armagh, and he thought the same names should appear in the Schedule. The question would have to be discussed when they proceeded with the Irish counties to-morrow; but he should not be prepared to fight it at any length. "North Armagh" would certainly be shorter than "The Northern Armagh Division."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 89, line 2, to leave out the word "Dunning," and insert the word "Dunblane."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Dunning' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to ask what was the explanation for this proposed change?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that these places had been transposed in the Bill, and the Amendment was therefore of a merely clerical character.
    MR. HEALY: Yes; but why were they transposed? Probably the people in the locality desired that the thing should be reversed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; that is not the case. Objection has been raised to what has been called the jerrymandering of Perth; but no objection is raised upon this particular point, which relates to a mere accidental error in printing the contents of the Schedule. It is a geographical necessity that Dunning and Dunblane should change places in the Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid that in page 89, line 14, he saw, after "Kippen," this sentence in parenthesis—namely, "except the detached part locally situate in Stirlingshire." He would propose to omit "the detached part locally" in order to insert "so much as is." They might as well be consistent so far as they could in this Bill; and as those words had been adopted in previous cases, he thought that they should be inserted here. They had never yet had in any part of the Bill "the detached part locally situate," and all through

    1951
    the Bill they had had the expression "so much as is."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 89, line 14, after the word "except," to leave out the words "the detached part locally," in order to insert "so much as is."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the difference of phraseology in this case was attributable to the different conditions of the district the words described. The district was not physically joined to any other, but was an Island, so to speak, or an oasis situated in another place.
    MR. WARTON: Then I withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  PART III.

    IRELAND.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he believed they now came to the Irish part of the Schedule, and he wished to call attention to the innumerable inaccuracies in the Bill as printed. In looking down the Paper of Amendments, he saw there was not a single Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill; and he would therefore ask what steps were to be taken by the Government to insure accuracy in the measure?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was afraid that in the case of Ireland there had been greater liability to make mistakes than in the case of England or Scotland. People in Ireland were not so much alive to the Bill, owing to causes which must be patent to everybody, as were the people of England and Scotland. He had received a great many communications from various parts of England with regard to the proper names of places; and there could be no doubt that the best way of checking errors was for people locally interested to call attention to such mistakes as occurred. The best way of correcting such inaccuracies as remained would be for hon. Members to look at that part of the Bill which affected the district they represented. If there was anything wrong, it would then be easy to rectify it. Very often small errors, particularly in spelling, were very difficult to detect.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the matter was one for the consideration of the Government themselves. He wished to ask whether there was any fear that geographical errors of a substantial kind made in this Bill would interfere with the right of a person to vote? For instance, supposing a Sheriff had a Writ issued excluding by mistake a certain place which ought to have been in a constituency, would he be entitled to allow voters in the place so excluded to vote?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there would be very little danger of anything of that kind arising if they set out the whole list of parishes. If the whole of the parishes were given, no doubt electors would have a right to vote; but they might not in all cases exercise the right in the proper divisions.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed now to move to report Progress. Earlier on in the evening an expression had fallen from the right hon. Baronet's lips to the effect that it would be as well to finish Scotland before terminating the Committee for that night. Well, that part of the Schedule affecting Scotland had been disposed of in a very short space of time, and a great many hon. Members who had heard the right hon. Baronet's expression had felt themselves at liberty to go home. Personally, he was not particular to what hour he stayed there. He would gladly remain until 3 or 4 o'clock for any useful purpose; but he did not think it would conduce to any very useful purpose to make further progress with the Bill under existing circumstances. To his mind it would be much better to have a clean start for Ireland to-morrow. He knew the Irish Members always liked to have a clean start if they could get one, and tomorrow they would be able to have it with a much fuller attendance than they had now. There were very few Members present at that moment, and as everybody had understood that nothing would be taken after the Scotch part of the Schedule, hon. Members, not only on the Conservative but also on the Ministerial side, had left in large numbers. It so happened that the very first counties to be dealt with in the Irish part of the Schedule were those in which Conservative and Liberal Members were much more interested than Home Rule

    1953
    Members. The counties of Antrim and Armagh, should not be discussed in the absence of Conservative and Liberal Members, because those hon. Members were more largely interested than anybody else. He did not say that with any feeling of hostility to any part of the House; but he certainly thought that it would be too bad to go on with the Irish part of the Bill now, instead of having a clean start to-morrow, when they could enjoy themselves thoroughly.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had communicated privately with the Whips of the Conservative Party, as well as with those of the Irish Party, about 8 o'clock that evening, and had informed them that he proposed only to take the Irish part of the Schedule until some seriously contested case was reached. They would reach that contested case, he thought, in the county of Armagh; and it was therefore proposed to go on now with the county of Antrim.
    MR. WARTON: I withdraw at once.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had now left the House, had been thoroughly aware of the course he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) proposed to adopt.
    MR. WARTON: Very good. I withdraw.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to propose in page 90, to leave out "Bally-money," and insert "North Antrim." He might explain in a few words that the Boundary Commissioners had received Instructions to frame divisions with the names either of merged boroughs or of points of the compass. Localities were first proposed as the names of divisions; but these were opposed, and the Commissioners had then seen the desirability of making another arrangement. In only five or six cases, one of which being the case of the county now under consideration, it had been proposed to have the divisions named after towns. The reason why in Antrim the Boundary Commissioners had departed from their ordinary prac-
    1954
    tice, and proposed to name divisions after places, was explained by there being two merged boroughs in the county, and their names being adopted in the divisions in which they were situated, and the adoption of other local names for the sake of uniformity. He had ascertained that there was no strong opinion in favour of retaining for the divisions the names of towns, even in the case of the merged boroughs. The four towns which he was now dealing with were Ballymoney, Lisburn, Ballymena, and Carrickfergus, and those places had between them a population of somewhere about 25,000. It was proposed, therefore, to create divisions with territorial names in a district containing somewhere about 250,000, notwithstanding that the population of the four towns was only about 25,000 people. The first town giving its name to a division—namely, Ballymoney, was a very small place, situated very inconveniently at the extremity of the division; and to his mind there was no reason in the world why it should give its name to so extensive a territory. Probably it would be as well for him to move his Amendment in a slightly altered form—that was to say, to leave out the words "the Ballymoney Division," in order to insert the words "North Antrim." The Irish Members had not taken part in the discussion on the names of English and Scotch divisions, and they thought that their opinions as to the names of Irish districts should therefore have more force. He thought it would be enough in this case to call the Gentleman who would be returned by the constituency the Member for North Antrim.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 90, line 5, to leave out the words "the Ballymoney Division," in order to insert the words "North Antrim."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'the Ballymoney Division' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he only wished the hon. Gentleman could have given him this statement privately some time ago, for it might have saved him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) an hour or so of consideration and investigation. The matter was one not worth fighting over, and he should content himself by merely protesting in favour of the scheme of the Commissioners, and then yield.

    1955
    He trusted the hon. Gentleman would remember that, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) attacked him for the course he had adopted that he (Mr. Sexton) would defend him. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he trusted that, looking at the circumstances of these alterations, he (Mr. Warton) would not, in his love for consistency, urge upon him the desirability of altering the whole of the titles in the English and Scotch parts of the Bill. If they were to attempt to do such a thing as that, they might be occupied until Doomsday—certainly until Christmas. He trusted the hon. and learned Member would allow them here, at all events, to indulge in a little breach of uniformity. Probably there was no case to be made for Ballymoney as against the proposed alteration of title; but he certainly thought there was in the cases of Lisburn and Carrickfergus.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he desired to save the time of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill; and he, therefore, wished to say that it would be as well in one or two cases where there were towns possessing ancient names that those names should be attached to divisions coupled with titles derived from points of the compass. In his own county—Galway—there were one or two names which he should desire to see used in that way.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he might inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in England there had been no consistency with regard to taking local names and points-of-the-compass names. In some cases they had taken both the one and the other. No regard to consistency, he thought, need be had in this matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    "In page 90, line 9, to leave out the word "Ballymena," in order to insert the words "Mid Antrim."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Ballymena' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not know whether, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) conveyed the intimation to which he had referred to the Conservative Whips, he had also
    1956
    conveyed to them any intimation that, so far as the Divisions of Carrickfergus and Lisburn were concerned, he was going to agree to an alteration in the names. He (Mr. Warton) thought that in the absence of the hon. Members for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer) and Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace), who were very highly respected Members of the House, they ought to stop after the present Amendment was adopted and report Progress. This course should be adopted, in order that hon. Members from Ireland representing the eight or nine boroughs which were to be disfranchised might be present to say what they thought about this part of the Bill. He was strongly of opinion that the shorter names of "North Antrim" and "Mid Antrim" were superior to the names "Ballymoney Division," and "Ballymena Division." He should also be in favour of "East Antrim" and "South Antrim," if such points of the compass could be applied to those districts; but he thought that those hon. Members who were interested in the places should have an opportunity of saying what they thought about the change. He was not opposing the present Amendment.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not be more Catholic than the Pope. The Members for Antrim were well able to defend themselves, yet they had not expressed any opinion against the alterations it was proposed to effect. The hon. Member interested in the North of Antrim, who enjoyed the respect of his Party, entirely approved the Amendments. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desired, under the circumstances, to report Progress, he would, perhaps, find it difficult to carry his object, as the hon. and learned Member would not be able to find 20 supporters. He would not be able to take the Committee into the Lobbies; but would be asked to stand up, so that his vote might be taken in the House. He (Mr. Healy) hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Motion, as he was anxious not to put the hon. and learned Member to the trouble of standing up.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that an hour ago, when the Government proposed to report Progress on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and go on with the Registration Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) and

    1957
    his Friends were as loud in opposition to that proposal as they were now in favour of reporting Progress. The Tory Members for Ireland knew what had taken place; and the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin would have been quite competent to state the case before their Party left the House, if they had had any case to state.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he now begged to move to report Progress. He had not 20 Members to support him he knew, and without them he could not take a division in the ordinary way, since the ancient rights and privileges of hon. Members had been very largely done away with. He knew that in some cases the Chairman could call on Members to stand up in their places. Considering, as he had said, that there were some seven or eight boroughs in Ireland—two of which happened to be in the county they were discussing—which had been disfranchised, he thought the Members for those places had a right to be heard before those arrangements wore effected. The Members for distinguished ancient boroughs might like to argue that it would be well that they should not die altogether, but that the name of their constituency should, at least, survive.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it had been perfectly known to the Party opposite, an intimation to that effect having been conveyed to them, that this county was to be dealt with that night—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had been thoroughly aware of the fact. As to names, the Amendment had been on the Paper, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not altogether in favour of the proposed changes—in fact, that he had voted in minorities on those questions several times. Under those circumstances, he thought there was every reason why they should now go on and make further progress with the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that before the next Amendment was proceeded with, he should like to point out that there was a great portion of the Carrickfergus Division in which he could raise the point as to the inclusion of the entire district. They would find, beginning in line 22, the words "Antrim, Lower (except so much as is comprised in Division No. 2, as herein described)." He had observed, on a former occasion, that any person who bought a copy of the Bill ought to be in possession of full information as to the entire areas covered by it. If they turned to the map of the Boundary Commissioners they would find exactly what had been done. The right hon. Baronet had declared that to set out the entire description of areas in these cases would take up too much space, and lengthen the Bill; but he (Mr. Healy) had pointed out that the alteration he desired, and which he considered essential, would not occupy more than a very few additional pages of the measure. In this particular instance, on page 16 of the Report of the Commissioners, they found the full description which he desired to see inserted under the heads "Divisions;" and he would, therefore, repeat his question—why should not those descriptions be in the Bill? If the Bill in its present form was scientific drafting, then all he could say was, that it was scientific drafting gone mad. The Bill should be a whole Bill, and not a part of a Bill. It was a monstrous thing that when a person had paid his Is. 2½d. for the Bill, in order to find where he was, he should have to pay a further 17 s. 6d. for the Report of the Boundary Commissioners. They must bear in mind that before long this Report of the Commissioners would become obsolete, whereas the Bill might always stand on the Statute Book. In Ireland they were situated in this matter differently to England, and perhaps Scotland, because it was pretended there to go by definite divisions like baronies. If that were so, why should they leave out certain parishes, and after describing the districts in one division go on to say that so much should be included in No. 1 Division, and so much comprised in No. 2 Division? It was most absurd to put the thing in that way. He quite admitted that by the method pursued the drafters of the Bill were in less danger of being inaccurate

    1959
    in the matter of spelling or the matter of names; but those small difficulties could be got over with care. If they were careful about one thing they could be careful about another; and he maintained that those who bought the Bill when it became an Act of Parliament were entitled to find in it a full and complete description of the districts dealt with, instead of being compelled to find it out by some rule of subtraction. People who bought this Bill did not want to find out what it meant by a rule of three sum. It was not a rule of three Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had promised the hon. and learned Member that he would consider this matter in consultation with the gentlemen responsible. Now, they had pointed out to him that the Schedule, was framed on the principle that where a Petty Sessional division or barony was divided in Ireland between two Parliamentary divisions the names of the parishes in one of those divisions were set out. That had been adopted for two reasons—one for the purpose of shortening the Schedule, and the other in order to make it certain that all the barony or parish was included in one division or the other. If all the names were put into the Schedules the length of the Bill would be very considerable indeed. On a former occasion the hon. and learned Member said that only a few additional pages would be needed; but that was not the case, and the description of Armagh, for instance, would be more than doubled. The Bill would be increased in size from 100 pages to more than 200. Any change of the kind indicated which might be carried out at that time would involve an enormous amount of alteration in the Bill, and the risk of error would be further increased.
    MR. HEALYadmitted there was force in what the right hon. Baronet had stated. But he must look at the question from this point of view—the people in Ireland who took an interest in politics were of a class different from that to which the people who took an interest in politics in England belonged. In England they belonged to the intelligent classes—in Ireland everyone took an interest in politics. And he said they were entitled to see by the Bill the exact position they were in, and that
    1960
    nothing in the shape of a tax ought to be placed upon them. He had raised this question on the very first opportunity that presented itself in the discussion on the Bill—namely, when Kensington was under consideration—and he did so again that evening when they reached the description of the first Irish county. It was not correct to say that it was too late to make any alteration; it was very early; and he would ask the right hon. Baronet if he would distribute this information gratis, and whether he would reduce the price of the Report of the Commissioners from 17 s. 6d. to 7s. 6d.? Why not publish with each Bill a little map, so that the whole thing should be en bloc, and people saved the trouble of looking from one page to another? It was very difficult for Irish Members familiar with the places and districts in Ireland to construe this Bill, and it would be absolutely impossible for the humble people who took an interest in the matter in Ireland to decipher it. As to the cost of producing the Bill in the form he wished, it was a mere bagatelle. The National Debt amounted to £800,000,000, and here was the right hon. Baronet, in a matter of this great importance to the bulk of the people, haggling over a few shillings.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreminded the hon. and learned Member that the number of maps published by the Government was enormous, and the cost of Acts of Parliament was an immense item in the accounts. He would point out that the lists of the overseers must be placed on the church doors, and persons interested could see the names of the places included in any one division, even if the names of their own localities were not mentioned.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked if the maps could not be published separately at a small price?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the maps had not yet been published in the case of Ireland; but he had given orders that they should be.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked if the maps would be purchaseable at a low price?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the cost of the maps would be, as in the case of English counties, 1s. each.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must refer again to a point on which he had been insisting from the very first. This was

    1961
    a question of the proper and decent drafting of an important Bill, and he said that no expense should have been spared by the Government in having it presented, in a complete and proper form. A great deal of the obscurity and difficulty complained of had arisen from the determination of the Government to chop up divisions which might better have been left as they were. In his opinion, it was disgraceful that the views of a paid official should be taken as against the opinion of Members of that House. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had put before the right hon. Baronet the exact information which he wished inserted in the Bill; and, therefore, he (Mr. Warton) objected altogether to the opinion of the draftsman being forced upon the Committee. The materials were ready at hand, and he should do his best to see that they were inserted, and that the will of Sir H. Craven was not forced upon the Members of that House.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was not the slightest difficulty in the Government ascertaining the names in the various districts. That was not the point. He had said it would require the addition of over 100 pages to the Bill; that it would involve an enormous risk of error; and he was'not prepared to undertake that responsibility.
    MR. WARTONasked what was the risk of error? Why should the Government describe a division as consisting of so much of a particular district as was not included in another division? The only risk that he could see was that some places might escape the attention of the clerks.
    MR. HEALYstrongly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that the book which cost 17s. 6d. should be translated for the information of the public. It would be 20, perhaps 40, years before another Bill of this kind was passed through Parliament; and it would not be too much to have a Bill of this length presented in an intelligible form, even if it did cost the country a little more money. Here was a very trifling matter, and yet, because his proposal would have the effect of adding another 100 pages to the Bill, it was not to be granted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  POST OFFICE SITES [PURCHASE OF LAND AND EXPENSES].

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood that the operations to be undertaken under this Bill were very extensive, and would cost a great deal of money, both with regard to London and Newcastle. He would like to know what sum the Government intended to spend in those works? He desired to see how far the general policy of the Department with regard to England compared with the niggardly policy which the right hon. Gentleman pursued with regard to Ireland. He should feel it his duty to oppose this Bill, unless he received some more generous intimation as to the operations of the Department in Ireland. He had been endeavouring for some time to get the Mail Service between Dublin and the West of Ireland put upon a footing more in accordance with the necessities of the Public Service of a civilized country; and a Memorial with that object had been presented to the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, signed by Members of that House of all shades of opinion. It appeared that for the sake of £3,000 the Postmaster General intended to allow the Mail Service between Dublin and the West of Ireland to remain in a state obstructive both of trade and of the interests of the country. At the very moment when, for the sake of £3,000, the right hon. Gentleman refused to agree to the wishes of Members of that House, and to submit the matter to arbitration, he was proposing to spend millions of money on palatial buildings in England. But the right hon. Gentleman would find that that was a policy to which Irish Members could not assent, and which they would feel justified in using all the Forms of the House to oppose.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he doubted whether it was in Order to raise the question of conveyance of mails upon that Motion; but he thought there was no reason to complain of the action of the Government in respect of the Mail Service in Ireland, which, at the proper time, he should be prepared

    1963
    to defend. He might say, however, that the sum asked for by the Railway Company, for accelerating the mails between Dublin and the West of Ireland, was so large that he did not think he should be justified in acceding to the demand.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman began his remarks by observing that he did not know whether his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo was in Order in referring to the general policy of the Post Office on the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the healthful discipline which Mr. Speaker extended to Irish Members on points of Order; but whatever his opinion might be upon a point of Order which he himself raised, the right hon. Gentleman had not hesitated to follow the hon. Member for Sligo in the course he had taken. He thought that hon. Members on those Benches might fairly challenge the right hon. Gentleman as to the generosity of the Department in respect to Ireland. The line running through the county which he had the honour to represent—
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question of the carriage of mails is not relevant to the Question before the House. The remarks made upon that subject up to this point of the discussion I understood to be made by way of illustration.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, in that case he envied the dexterity of the Postmaster General in making use of his illustration with regard to the carriage of mails in Ireland. He also, by way of illustration, would like to show the manner in which the Post Office dealt with money voted for the Irish Postal Service. Year after year that
    1964
    House voted sums of money for Post Office purposes in England and Ireland, and year after year the money so voted with respect to Ireland returned into the Exchequer unexpended, while the sums voted for England were not only expended, but exceeded, and the excess was often effected out of savings at the expense of the Irish Service. This Bill proposed certain powers of expenditure for the Post Office Department in connection with sites. He objected to the way in which the Post Office could expend this money on sites in England—
    MR. HEALY: Order, Order!
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member should not be so demonstrative in his remarks.
    MR. HEALY: Am I to understand that it is out of Order to cry "Order" in this House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The tone and the way in which the hon. and learned Member expressed himself is out of Order.
    MR. HEALY: In that case—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member in not in Order in addressing the Chair in this way. If the hon. and learned Member continues I shall have to take notice of his interruption.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was in Order in referring to the expenditure of public money; and he would like to know what portion of the money to be expended under this Bill would be applied in Ireland?
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.