Lords Sitting of 13 May 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Public Libraries Acts Amendment * (95).
Second Reading — Public Notaries (53), negatived; Colonial Attornies Relief Act Amendment (78).
Committee—Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment * (60–94).
Committee—Report—Electric Lighting Provisional Order* (75); Settled Land* (52).
Report—Marriages Legalization (76–93).
Withdrawn—Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, Amendment (16).

PUBLIC NOTARIES BILL.—(No. 63.)
(The Lord Aberdare.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERDARE, after presenting four Petitions from, solicitors in favour of and against the measure, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it seemed to him to be the natural and logical outcome of the legislation in the direction of important reforms for the better administration of the law which for the last 30 years had been carried out. These reforms had never been made Party questions, but had been supported by both sides of the House; and notably by the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Earl who preceded him (Earl Cairns). Not the least important of those reforms was that which abolished the distinctions which formerly prevailed between doctors and proctors on the one side and barristers and solicitors on the other. Now, they had established one High Court of Justice and one general body of practitioners. In the same way, the object of the present Bill was to get rid of the separation at present existing between the professional duties of solicitors and notaries. The duties of a notary were such as could be duly and properly discharged by duly admitted solicitors, although, as regarded their Profession, they were officers of great antiquity. In old times they were appointed by the Pope, and since the Reformation by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In Scotland, where the Reformation was of a more extreme character, the appointments were transferred to the Lords of Session and the Writers to the Signet. There certainly was no reason in these days, whatever there might have been in the past, for the exercise of such a jurisdiction by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The present duties of notaries he found to be divisible into six parts—the first was protesting bills of exchange and promissory notes; secondly, drawing shipping protests; thirdly, entering statements and preparing certi-
140
ficates in shipping matters; fourthly, the control of foreign bonds and similar instruments; fifthly, translating documents; and, sixthly, giving advice on questions of foreign law. There were three classes of notaries—those who resided within three miles of the Royal Exchange; those who resided between three miles and ten from that locality; and those who resided outside the last-mentioned limit. Of the first class, he found there were 33 practising members; of the second, only three; of the third, there were 12 notaries proper; but in addition several hundred solicitors. The functions of these gentlemen were defined in three Acts of Parliament—the Public Notaries Act, 1801, and the Public Notaries Acts, 1833 and 1843. The present system caused great inconvenience to solicitors who did not practise within a mile of the Exchange, and to solicitors and merchants in the Provinces—for instance, at Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Swansea, and other important seaports. He had a Petition from solicitors at Liverpool in favour of the Bill which put the case very clearly, and recited the inconveniences caused by the present system. They stated that the reason which formerly existed for the separation of solicitors and notaries had long ceased to exist, and the duties were wholly such as could be well discharged by solicitors. Admitting that the City of London was well served by the notaries, he doubted whether notaries in the large Provincial towns, who were appointed without much examination, were quite so satisfactory. The Bill proposed that the power of appointing persons to perform the duties of notaries should be transferred from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that any person who had obtained from, the Incorporated Law Society a certificate that he had passed a notarial examination, and any person who had been admitted a solicitor and produced a certificate that he had served with a notary, could apply to the Master of the Rolls for admission to the roll of notaries, who should thereupon make the appointment. He might be allowed to state that the late Master of the Rolls expressed himself in favour of the Bill. In 1877, he submitted to their Lordships a Bill for transferring from Her Majesty's Judges to the Incorporated Law Society the duty of conducting the

141
examinations of solicitors. He might say, without any imputation on Her Majesty's Judges, that up to that time the examinations had been, performed in a very perfunctory manner; but in the course of the last seven years an immense improvement had been effected, and the Incorporated Law Society had shown an ardent desire to purify the Legal Profession. They knew exactly what was required in the profession of a notary, and would impose on candidates an examination. This, he believed, had never been done by the notaries themselves, except, perhaps, very recently since the present Bill had been floating in the air. Perhaps the noble Earl who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill would be able to inform their Lordships what kind of an examination had been lately instituted. At all events, it was only within the last year or two that there had been any examination at all. The next provision in the Bill was that the rights of existing notaries should be saved, and compensation was given to the officials of the Court of Faculties. The Bill did not apply to the Colonies. The examinations of candidates for the office of notary would be vested in the Incorporated Law Society, and there would be a Registrar of Public Notaries, and the roll or book would be open for inspection at all reasonable hours without the payment of fees. No persons would be allowed to act as notaries unless they were duly admitted and enrolled. He would now move the second reading of the Bill, and, in doing so, would ask their Lordships to pass it, as giving effect to principles which had been accepted over and over again.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Aberdare.)
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that it proposed that every solicitor should be admitted as a notary without any examination, and every notary a solicitor. He opposed the second reading on the grounds—first, because it was unnecessary; second, because it was uncalled for; and third, because it would be mischievous. There was no public demand for the measure, and no compensation was proposed to be given to the notaries
142
whose office was intended to be abolished. When the proctors had their rights taken away they were given ample compensation; and, why should the notaries have their rights taken away, with no compensation whatever? At present, the London notaries had to pass an exhaustive examination in the general and elementary principles of the law of real property, of mercantile law, and of International Law, and the principal work of the public notaries' office. Notaries were of great use to the commercial public, and they held that the Bill was utterly unnecessary. If the office were thrown open to all solicitors the greatest possible confusion and inconvenience would be thereby created in the machinery of the mercantile world. Inasmuch as notaries were required to be familiar with the commercial technicalities of all the European languages, it was absurd to suppose that any ordinary solicitor was capable of performing this function. It would be a great misfortune if, in this City, which was the commercial capital of the world, this most valuable professional class were practically abolished. Even without adducing any other arguments, he thought it was almost sufficient to say that the Bill had been petitioned against by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the City of London, who would be the chief sufferers in the event of the existing law not acting in a satisfactory manner. He also protested against the outrageous proposal, which was simply a coarse bribe to the notaries to accept the Bill, that all notaries were to be made solicitors without passing any examination or paying any fees. It took five years' apprenticeship and the passing of two severe examinations to qualify a candidate to practise as a solicitor; and yet it was now proposed, by a clause in a Bill, to qualify a number of gentlemen who might be utterly ignorant of even the rudiments of their Profession. With regard to the nominal jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if they were beginning de novo, they would probably not now create it; but it had existed ever since the Reformation, without any complaint being brought against it; and in the absence of abuse there was no reason for abolishing an old and time-honoured institution. The noble Earl concluded by moving the rejection, of the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think sufficient reason had been shown by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) for rejecting the Bill. Of course, if the noble Earl had shown that it would, in action, prove mischievous, that would have been an answer to the Bill, and would have justified its rejection; but that had not been shown; and, putting it aside, the other grounds of objection to the measure—namely, that the Bill was unnecessary and uncalled for, were purely matters for argument, and rested mainly on the views which people interested in and having knowledge of the subject took of it. He would admit, as a matter of fact, that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, there did not seem to be any large public demand for the measure; but it came before Parliament on the recommendation of the Incorporated Law Society—a Body whose services to the public were certainly entitled to grateful recognition. He could not, however, but think that their Lordships must regard it as a singular anomaly that a Body, exercising important legal functions, in connection more especially with Commercial Law, should be in London under the control of the Scriveners' Company, and elsewhere under the control of an officer. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all other civil matters, both in testamentary and in matrimonial causes, having been already abolished by law, it seemed to him (the Lord Chancellor) to be a little out of date that such an officer should have the superintendence of public notaries, rather than, as was proposed by the Bill, the Master of the Rolls, who would, with regard to them, be put in the same position as he already occupied with respect to solicitors. He thought it would be advisable to change an obsolete system by placing the notaries under the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls, and that the business of the necessary examination might be left with perfect safety in the hands of the Incorporated Law Society, who were really the Body now fulfilling those functions with respect to legal practitioners which, in the Reign of James I., may have been con-
144
sidered to belong to the Scriveners' Company. On the whole, though granting that there were provisions in the Bill that required consideration in Committee, he did not think any sufficient reason had been advanced for its rejection.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he had examined the Bill very carefully, and he had listened carefully to the reasons given in support of it; but lie was bound to say that he could not persuade himself that any case whatever had been made out for the passing of this measure. It was said that its object was to remove certain anomalies existing in a branch of the Legal Profession, and that it was a very anomalous thing that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be the official person to admit notaries to practise. He (Earl Cairns) did not suppose, if they had to begin again, they should have selected him; but there it was, and the question was, had it done any harm? It was said that this Bill was promoted by the Incorporated Law Society. He wished to speak of that Society with respect; but it was unfortunate that the Society had certain professional prejudices; and although a measure, introduced with the sanction of the Government, for intrusting the appointment of notaries to the Master of the Rolls, and providing for an admission examination, would be entitled to fair consideration, yet the main object of the Bill was to transfer what, for the reasons which had been given, was an exclusive Profession—that of the practice of notaries—to the body of solicitors at large. That Profession and that practice wore, at present, open; there was no power of excluding anyone from them; but it was not found worth while for more than 36 people in the City of London to enter them. But it was worth their while. They made it pay. The leading members among bankers and men of business came forward to say that at present they were very well satisfied with the arrangement that existed, and they preferred it to the one suggested by the Bill. Was it possible that they were going to be asked to fly in the face of the merchants and bankers of the City of London by throwing open the business of a notary to every solicitor in the country? The suggestion was monstrous. That of the merchants and bankers was not the only testimony he had received against the pro-

145
posed innovation; even the solicitors of the City themselves, largely concerned in mercantile matters, to the number of 115, had expressed an opinion unfavourable to the transfer, and had signed a document to that effect; and among those names were many of the most considerable and eminent firms in the City. They came forward, not in, but against, their own interests—for the work at present performed by the notaries would come to them if the Bill were passed—to say the scheme was inexpedient and impracticable; and he ventured to agree in that proposition. It was quite impossible that the ordinary solicitor could, with any safety, undertake the duties in question, requiring, as they did, the most accurate and intimate knowledge of foreign languages, foreign law, and of commercial matters, with reference particularly to bills of sale and bills of lading; and to transfer that work to other hands which were not thoroughly well experienced would be a most dangerous thing to do. It had been suggested that there was no force in the argument of the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), who, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that it would be to the interest of the notary, being also the solicitor, to foster litigation, because many notaries at present were solicitors. That was true, but they were not the solicitors to the cause; and, without desiring to impute motives, he thought it better that the two offices should be kept apart. Then, too, some claim for compensation might be urged on the part of the notaries, if the Government were going to hand over their businees to the whole of the practising solicitors. The Bill was not asked for—it was deprecated; no one wanted it except the Incorporated Law Society, who were the persons who would benefit by it; and, under these circumstances, he would oppose a second reading of it.
On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 30; Not-Contents 92: Majority 62.
Resolved in the negative.
Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

COLONIAL ATTORNIES BELIEF ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 78.)
(The Earl of Aberdeen.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was to remove certain disabilities under which solicitors in the Colonies suffered. The Bill had been approved by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Colonial Office, and the Incorporated Law Society, and he believed that there was no objection to it. He would move the second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.")
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole house on Thursday next.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
(The Lord President.)

CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Bill read.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the Bill came back to their Lordships in much the same shape as it left them, and he hoped they would accept it in its present form, with the Amendments made by the Commons. In his opinion, they seemed to have amended the Bill in the sense in which it was sent down from their Lordships' House, and had carried out the alterations he had suggested. He trusted that his noble Friend opposite ("Lord Carlingford) would carry out the provisions of the measure with stringency and vigour, and that the Bill would be successful in the object at which it was directed; indeed, so much so, that in no long period cattle disease would be unknown in the country.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had hoped that the Bill would have come back to their Lordships' House in the form in which it was originally introduced; but that had not been the case,

147
He was glad, however, to hear the way in which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had received the Commons' Amendments, and to find that the conciliatory spirit of the other House had enabled a satisfactory arrangement to be arrived at. He could not, however, agree with the noble Duke that the Bill was the same as it was when it left their Lordships. In his view, the words of the 1st clause, as they now stood amended by the Commons, undoubtedly left the Privy Council considerably greater discretion as to the working of the measure. He hoped it would have the desired effect. There was, happily, little foot-and-mouth disease in the country, and for the last six months there had not been a single case imported. What they now wanted, and what he hoped the Council would have, was the hearty co-operation of local authorities in stamping out the disease.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he fully concurred in the closing phrase of the speech of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President); but he hoped that it meant that the noble Lord would impress upon the local authorities the necessity of stamping out the disease as soon as it appeared in any district. He was glad to see the Amendments made in the Bill; but he could not agree with the noble Lord that the 1st clause, as amended, enlarged the discretion of the Privy Council. On the contrary, he took the same view of it as that taken by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), that the clause as it now stood was even more stringent than it was when it left their Lordships' House.
Commons' Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 76.) REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that marriages sometimes took place in the English Border counties which were thoroughly bonâ fide, but yet were liable to great doubt, and more than doubt, owing to certain irregularities. Suppose a man in Scotland, who was a Presbyterian, came over the Border to
148
marry a young lady who was a Church-woman in Carlisle. Her banns were duly published. The man brought with him a certificate that a certain process had been gone through, and this would be tendered to the clergyman in England as a certificate of the publication of the banns. But this was held not to be a publication within the meaning of the Act of George IV. regulating marriages in England, and the consequence was that marriages so celebrated gave rise to grave doubts on the part of the parties so married. He had no doubt that the Bill of the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack was intended to cover cases of this kind; but it hardly seemed to him that it did so. He would therefore suggest a verbal alteration in the Bill which would cover such cases; and he trusted that the noble and learned Earl would, before the third reading, see his way to amend the Bill so as to cover those cases which did not at present seem to be covered, and so place the law in a more satisfactory position.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was obliged to the right rev. Prelate for calling attention to the subject. It was, as the right rev. Prelate had said, the object of the Bill to cover all cases which properly came within its principle, and so prevent the necessity for Marriage Legalization Acts for particular places. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not understand precisely the cases to which the right rev. Prelate had referred; but if he would be good enough to send him a statement of them in writing, he would do his best to meet the views of the right rev. Prelate.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 16.)
(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

REPORT. BILL WITHDRAWN.
Moved, "That the Bill (by leave of the House) be withdrawn,"—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that he was bound to say that the Government were distinctly of opinion that the alterations made by the Commons in the Government Bill had enlarged the discretion of the Privy Council, and that was the

149
view upon which they were prepared to act.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he took an entirely different view of the Amendments made to that of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President), and he quite agreed with the Amendments, and that they made the Bill more stringent than when it went down to the Commons. He did not agree with the assertion of the noble Lord that no disease had come into the country within the last six months; because he thought it had been satisfactorily proved that the disease of the animals found in Cambridgeshire was traced to Liverpool, and that they had come from Canada.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had not the smallest reason for thinking that the disease came from Canada. There was really no evidence, and, so far as they knew, Canada was absolutely free from disease. As to the form in which the Bill had come back, he might say that the Government would not have supported the Amendments, if they had taken the same view of them as the noble Duke appeared to do.
LORD HARLECHasked the noble Lord if he was able to state where the disease came from?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)was understood to say that there was no doubt those animals caught the disease in this country.
LORD DENMANsaid, he was of opinion that the Amendment to which their Lordships had just previously agreed was a very useful improvement of the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF BUTLANDasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington is to be removed before Thursday next?
  LORD SUDELEY: In reply to the noble Duke, I have to state that the order was given for the removal of the Wellington Statue to Aldershot imme-
  150
  diately after the Division which took place in the other House on the 1st of May. As your Lordships are aware, there was the very decisive majority of 111 in favour of the Vote which was taken in Committee of Supply. That Division confirmed the Division taken by this House on the 24th of March, and the Government considered that the question was finally settled by Parliament. Although the necessary steps are being taken for the removal of the statue, it must, of course, take some weeks, and the noble Duke need have no fear that it will have disappeared on the road to Aldershot by next Thursday.

EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to call attention, to the answer reported to have been given by the Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone on Friday, 9th May, with regard to the basis of the proposed Conference; and to ask Her Majesty's Government for some explanation of its meaning, said: I am very sorry to have to revert to a question which on previous occasions I have brought before your Lordships' House; but, considering the very great importance of the question, I trust I shall be pardoned if I, for the third time, renew the consideration of it, and endeavour to obtain some explanation, if not as to what Her Majesty's Government propose to do, at least, as to a very singular utterance which was made by the Prime Minister in "another place." On the 1st of May I asked the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the subject-matter of the Conference was to be; and that noble Earl gave me, so far as that point was concerned, what I thought was a very satisfactory reply. He stated that the proposed Conference was to consider whether there should not be some change made in the Law of Liquidation; and, if so, what that change should be. For the reasons I shall presently give, I thought it necessary to renew that Question a few days afterwards. The noble Earl opposite gave me, perhaps, a rather less definite and distinct answer; but, at the same time, he said nothing whatever to vary the statement of the 1st of

  151
  May. Although I desired more I acquiesced in the answer of the noble Earl, because I always accept everything said by him with perfect faith in its natural sense. But the noble Earl is united in the Cabinet to a Gentleman whose abilities we all recognize, but who is emphatically a doctor of casuistry, and a dialectic disputant who will succeed, not only in persuading other persons, but himself also, on every conceivable subject which is presented to him, and who has a power which is almost matchless of analyzing, dividing, differentiating, and extracting senses and meanings, subtle, recondite, and abstruse from almost every single question placed before him. If I ask the Question for the third time the fault is not mine, and perhaps the fault is not that of the noble Earl opposite, but that of Mr. Gladstone, who has placed his gloss upon the pretty plain statement of the noble Earl. Let me, in a very few words, point out to your Lordships how this case stands. We have had the despatch, containing the invitation to the different Powers, laid upon the Table. That despatch is dated the 19th of April. How does it run? The noble Earl says—
  "I transmit to your Excellency herewith a brief statement of the present condition and prospects of the finances of Egypt. Her Majesty's Government wish to invite the careful attention of the Great Powers of Europe to this question."
  The noble Earl goes on to say—
  "It appears to Her Majesty's Government that to meet the charges necessary for the peace and good government of the country … some change in the Law of Liquidation is required;"
  and the despatch concludes thus—
  "Her Majesty's Government would, therefore, propose that a Conference should meet.… to determine whether such a change is necessary, and what shall be its exact nature."—[Egypt, No. 17 (1884), p. 1.]
  I do not think that we need quarrel as to the clearness of that language, or that anyone can doubt what the scope and object of the Conference was to be. This was on the 19th of April. My Question to the noble Earl was on the 1st of May, and his answer was in these terms—
  "We propose a Conference to consider whether there should not he some change made in the Law of Liquidation, and, if so, what that change should be."
  That seems to me to be very plain. I had a reason for repeating my Question
  152
  three or four days afterwards; and, as I have already remarked, the noble Earl's answer, although not quite so explicit as before, varied in nothing from what he had originally said. But this did follow. My noble Friend the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury) complained of the noble Earl's answer as being very reticent; and he said that if the noble Earl was so unwilling to state what the object and scope of the Conference were to be there must needs be some mystery behind. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley), rising immediately after that, said the noble Marquess had made a speech imputing motives to Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I could not hear in silence the assertion that there was a dark design.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Yes; my noble Friend said something of that nature. Although between the 19th of April and the 6th of May Her Majesty's Government became less and less explicit on this point, still I do put it to the House, whether the common-sense inference from the words used was not that the object and nature of the Conference was to be a financial one, and that the question of the administration and government of Egypt was not to come before it? About that time, however, or immediately afterwards, reports appeared in various papers stating, with more or less distinctness, that Turkey would decline to enter the Conference except on certain conditions, one of those conditions being the discussion of points which would not be embraced under the head of finance. It was also stated that France took up the same position. Therefore, on the 8th May, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was interrogated on the subject in "another place," and this is what he is reported to have said—
  "That the introduction of any other matter would be the introduction of a new subject, and would be equivalent, in fact, to calling together a new Conference."
  A Member of the House having further asked whether, if other important political matters in which British interests were paramount were introduced, Her Majesty's Government would distinctly decline to discuss them? Mr. Gladstone's answer, and it is a reasonable one, was—

  153
  "It would be highly inexpedient and exceedingly disparaging to the other Powers, as well as ourselves, to enter into a discussion of them."
  The right hon. Gentleman did not reply in the negative to the Question, but he delivered, one of those remark able fencing replies in which he excels so greatly. This reply, however, did not satisfy the Members of the House of Commons, and the following day, May 9, the Question was renewed, and this was the answer which Mr. Gladstone then gave to it—
  "I have to say that the basis of the Conference is really settled by the indication sent out by Lord Granville, which has been laid on the Table of the House. What I have already said amounts to this—that a discretionary power remains to raise any other question than that proposed by the Government; but no other question is within the actual range of the Conference; and if any other question should be raised it would be a new question, and it would be like calling a new Conference. We cannot undertake that the Conference shall forego the opportunity of raising a new question at a given time."
  If we look at this last answer given by the Prime Minister, it is one of the most Sphinx-like and oracular answers I have ever heard given by a Minister. What does it mean? Does it mean either that the Members of the Conference will be able to raise questions other than those relating to Egyptian finance, or that they will not be able to do so? If they are not at liberty to do so, may I ask, in all humility, what the meaning of this most casuistical answer is—whether it is intended to modify, in any way, the statement which has been made in this House in answer to Questions by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, whether the substance of that answer has been conveyed to the different Powers in a public despatch; or, whether we have to deal with the cunning fence of some casuistic gladiator? We are told that the Conference is to be called together only for one purpose; but what I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government in the meantime is, whether they are to stand by, and, if they do not initiate, will, at all events, allow other questions of vital and paramount importance to be raised by others? If that is the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, then I say that the request to the other Powers to attend the Conference is a tacit invitation to those Powers to raise other questions, and I shall be greatly
  154
  surprised if they do not take advantage of it. We wish to know distinctly whether the inquiry of the Conference is to be limited to financial questions; or, whether its Members are to be at liberty to enter into more general questions? If the Conference is to be a general Conference, then the financial question, which has served as a pretext for calling it together in the first instance, will be set aside, and all that our Army and money have won in Egypt will be abandoned, and we shall make our position, in that country dependent upon the will of the other Powers. The noble Earl opposite can, if he pleases, this evening, by a single word, remove the evasive ambiguity of language used in "another place," and relieve the public anxiety on this subject; but if, on the other hand, the noble Earl—I do not think that, he will descend to take refuge in the ambiguities I have referred to—wraps himself up in silence, there is but one interpretation that can be placed upon his language, and the country will believe that Her Majesty's Government, under cover of this financial Conference, really intends to permit other questions of great importance to be raised. Against such a course as that I, for one, must place upon record my most earnest and emphatic protest.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) has asked me a Question of which he has given me Notice. I wish to avoid, in the most particular way, making the slightest criticism on anything that passes "elsewhere;" but I imagine it is a fact, which everyone will admit, that latterly a habit has sprung up, not only of questioning Ministers on most important matters, but sometimes on matters of no importance whatever, and not only of questioning, but of examining and cross-examining them in a way that I have not the slightest recollection of in past years. The noble Earl opposite has read the words of Mr. Gladstone's answers; but I am not sure whether he has quoted them correctly or not. I should prefer hearing the words from Mr. Gladstone himself. But it appears to me that, taken as a whole, the matter requires no explanation; and I do not see any difference between the statements of Mr. Gladstone in the other House and the statements I have made here. I decline to become an accomplice

  155
  to creating a new precedent; and if these cross-examinations and re-examinations are to be continued from House to House, and the Ministers in one Assembly are to be called upon to answer any incidental Questions of that kind, I decline to assist in them. I perfectly admit that the noble Earl has a right to put Questions to me, and I answer them in the best way I can; but I will not answer them when prefaced in a manner which I think the noble Earl ought not to have adopted, and when they are couched in personal language directed against Mr. Gladstone behind his back, and contain references to casuistry and other most offensive expressions. I think that it would be better for the noble Earl to request some of his Colleagues, with whom he is again reconciled, to ask the Question in the presence of Mr. Gladstone, who, I imagine, is a person perfectly capable of answering for himself. I repeat that the noble Earl has a right to put these Questions to me, and I should be glad to answer them again; but, as the noble Earl has himself stated, I have already twice answered them. Although he says there is, I did not intend that there should be the slightest difference between the answers I gave to the two Questions which were put to me, and those answers I am perfectly ready to repeat and abide by. What the noble Earl has said has been singularly illustrated by what has fallen from him—namely, that when Ministers on their own responsibility decline to go into details as to present negotiations, every sort of charge should be made against them, and every sort of question should be put to them, in order to force them from their reserve, which they do not hold for their own comfort, but which they think is for the advantage of the public service.
  EARL CAIRNS: I think that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will see that this is a matter of very grave importance, and that it is one which, more than any other, is at this moment engaging the attention of the country; and we have an absolute and a perfect right to have full and frank information with regard to it from Her Majesty's Government, or otherwise the country, which is anxious and disquieted, will not be satisfied. I must at once take exception to the observation of the noble Earl that we, in this House, are not at
  156
  liberty to ask for an explanation of the answers which have been given in the other House by the Prime Minister to Questions which have been put to him on this subject. Whatever the Prime Minister says in his official capacity, whether in one House or in the other, whether at a meeting, or at Charing Cross, is public property; and, if what he says is at all ambiguous or doubtful, the public have a right to an explanation. If Mr. Gladstone had a seat in this House, we should demand an explanation of his answers from him; but he is not here, and we cannot, therefore, put any Questions to him with reference to them. Happily, however, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is hero; and he, above all Members of Her Majesty's Government, is in a position to give us the information we ask for. I will tell the noble Earl what it is that disquiets me. I take it for granted that the answers attributed to the Prime Minister are substantially correct; because, on each occasion, he appears to have gone over the same ground, and there is no serious difference between them. But what I wish to ask is this—the Prime Minister states, in the first place, that the basis of the Conference upon which we are entering is that indicated in the despatch of the noble Earl. His second proposition is, that it will be open to any Member of the Conference to raise any other questions besides those relating solely to finance as proposed by the Government. Then, in the third place, the Prime Minister says, that the raising of any other question will be tantamount to calling a new Conference. How shall we test this matter? How are the two answers to stand together; the one saying that there will be a discretionary power to raise any other questions; and the other saying that the exercise of such a discretionary power will be tantamount to calling a new Conference? It is on this point that the public require further information. If you say that it will be mechanically or physically open to raise such other questions, but that to do so would be wrong, and that the moment it was done there would be an end of the Conference, because our Envoy or Representative would withdraw, that would be a sufficient answer to our inquiries. But that is exactly what we and the country

  157
  want the Government to tell us. Will you tell us that the moment any new questions are raised at the Conference, you will at once protest, and will withdraw your Representative? If you will tell us that, you shall not hear another word from us on the subject, and you shall have no further cross-questioning from me in reference to it. But we have a right to clear and distinct information upon the point. If that is not the noble Earl's view then our worst fears are realized. But if that is the view of the Government, then it would be much better to state the basis of the Conference, not only affirmatively, but negatively also. If so, you would prevent a great deal of misapprehension and annoyance when the Conference meets. If the Conference meets and you take that attitude you cannot depart from this question, because that would be tantamount to calling a new Conference. How is it possible to tell what; questions would be raised by the other Powers? No objection could be raised to their bringing forward any question in view of what the Prime Minister had said—namely, that it would be discretionary to produce a new Treaty, and even to speak about Gibraltar. The noble Earl has said that the Government relies on despatches; but I would ask what despatches? The one which was sent to the Powers was essentially different from that which was sent to Turkey, or rather to Lord Dufferin.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Is the noble and learned Earl not aware that the Porte is not a party to the Law of Liquidation?
  EARL CAIRNS: The Conference is the same whether the Porte was a party to the Law of Liquidation or not. The Powers have been invited to discuss the Law of Liquidation; but there is no word on that question in the despatch sent to Turkey; indeed, the only construction to be placed on the despatch to that Power is that the Conference was to discuss the whole question of the government of the country. And yet, in all this state of confusion, the noble Earl seems to think that we are to sit here with our hands folded, and not to press for answers to our Questions. That is a course which I will not entertain, and one which I do not think the country will in any way approve. I regard the noble Earl's answer as unsatisfactory; and he will make
  158
  a mistake if he thinks the Opposition and the country will desist from asking an explanation of the difference between the two despatches.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is, of course, impossible to doubt that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought some useful public end would be served by bringing forward this matter; but I must confess that I am at a loss to understand how such a view can be held by men who have had the responsibility of government on their shoulders, and who expect to bear those responsibilities again. As far as the despatches which have been referred to are concerned, I maintain that they both point to the same thing, and that there is perfect consistency between them; because, while that to the Powers mentioned the Law of Liquidation, that to the Porte spoke of the financial difficulties of Egypt and the pressing necessity for concerting some measures, if possible, for relieving those difficulties. The proper place to ask for an explanation of an answer given in Parliament and the person of whom to ask it is the place in which the answer is given and the person by whom the answer is made; and I am happy that the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) has not given his direct countenance to the idea that explanations should be asked in one House of answers and statements given and made in another; and the fact that no explanation was asked by the Friends and Colleagues of the noble Earl in the other House is to me a complete proof that those who asked the Question understood the meaning of the words used by the Prime Minister, and did not seek to put upon them the extraordinary construction now sought to be put upon them by the noble Earl. If they had not done so, I must presume they would have given the Prime Minister an opportunity of making an explanation there. As to the matter in question, the plain, commonsense view of it is that we are in communication with the Great Powers of Europe. The preliminaries of the Conference are not yet settled; and if we intended to do any good by our Conference, Ministers must, in answer to Questions, speak with that respect and reserve towards Foreign Powers which they have a right to expect from us. It is plain, therefore, that if Questions are put, con-

  159
  cerning matters beyond the basis of the invitation, there is no other answers which, with due respect to the Powers, and in ordinary common sense, could be given, than to refer to the only basis on which the Conference has been called, and to say that matters which are outside the invitation, if they are to be dealt with at all, must be dealt with as being outside it. I cannot perceive why there should be any misunderstanding by those who have the will to understand.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is precisely because we have held Office, and know something of the meaning of these things, that the language of Her Majesty's Government fills us with disquietude. I know that the Foreign Office, whoever may be at its head, is an admirable machine, and I am quite sure that it was not by any carelessness or inadvertence that the double version of this invitation was recorded in the Circular to the Powers and that addressed to Turkey. The difference must have been made by some special order, and there must have been some reason for it. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack seems to think that it may be sufficient to say that Turkey was not a party to the Law of Liquidation, and that, therefore, that law could not be mentioned in the invitation addressed to her; but that does not alter the character of the words in which the invitation was conveyed. The references to the arrangement of the bases of a good Government for Egypt, which are contained in the invitation to Turkey, must be held to have the same meaning, and to be equally useful to other Powers, whether the Law of Liquidation is or is not mentioned, as a proof that Her Majesty's Government really mean, under cover of these words, to introduce considerations which far transcend the scope of any financial matters or international arrangements. Well, we shall see. The noble and learned Earl also complained of our asking for an explanation in this House of words used in the "other." It was not so much an explanation of words used in "another place" that we wanted, as to know how those words were to be reconciled with the assurances which we have received in this House. Therefore, it is here that we ought to ask for the explanation. As for trying to extract
  160
  from the Prime Minister a clear, explicit, and satisfactory explanation of his own words, the noble Earl opposite knows it is a sheer mockery to recommend that to us. He knows that neither we, nor anyone else, has ever yet been able to accomplish that Herculean task. In the course of the debate this evening, obscure utterances on grave questions, in connection as they are with issues plain and simple, such as have been made tend rather to increase than to dissipate the apprehensions which the country has conceived upon this subject; because, whether we go to the cautious acuteness of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, or the dramatic indignation of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), got up for the moment, both are parts of the same circuitous mode of proceeding adopted by them, and which enables them, entirely to avoid giving a plain answer to the question before us. There is, however, one assurance which they could give, which would dissipate all apprehension on this subject. If they will say that—"If any other Power seeks to introduce any matter not within the bases of the conditions we lay down, we shall decline to discuss it." If they will give us that assurance, then all difficulties and apprehensions will be at an end. But in the midst of the cloud of words to which we have listened, there is no assurance of that kind, and nothing would induce Her Majesty's Government to give it. Now, the object we have in view is to know whether we can look upon the conditions that have been laid down for this Conference as a security to us that nothing else than the finances of Egypt shall be dealt with in the Council Chamber. If there is such a security, we may approach these negotiations without disquiet; but we now know that no such security is contained in these words; and, if they are not a security, they are a screen. If nothing but the finances of Egypt are to be discussed, we might have a fair issue; but, if they do not give us that pledge, we may have a very shrewd idea that, under very slight pressure from other Powers, other and far wider questions may be introduced, conclusions may be come to with respect to the future condition of Egypt which will not be honourable to us, not profitable to the British Empire, and which will be arrived at behind the back of

  161
  Parliament, and against which Parliament, after it is done, can only enter an empty protest.
  THE EARL OF KIMBEELEY: My Lords, there is one point in the remarks of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to which I may refer before I proceed further. He imputed to the Government that they disingenuously, and by way of a screen for what they are about to do, devised certain words in the despatch addressed to the Porte different from the words addressed to the five Powers. This we are charged with doing, in order that other matters may be brought forward for discussion in the Conference which are not in the invitations sent to the Powers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I said was, that there was a difference in the terms of the invitations, that it was intentional and meant something, and that it might have a disastrous effect. I never said that by this means other Powers would be allowed to introduce other matters; that was an observation I should not have ventured to make.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I understood the noble Marquess to say there was an intention on our part, undercover of these words, to introduce other subjects. On that I give a complete assurance, and I am glad to hear the denial of the noble Marquess. It would be entirely erroneous to ascribe any such motive to Her Majesty's Government, and I can assure him no such difference was intended. The difference between the two despatches has been already fully explained. The Turkish Government and the Governments of the five Powers stand upon somewhat different footings. The latter are concerned directly with the Law of Liquidation. The Porte has a connection with it very close, but not the same. There is no other reason for it. The noble Marquess tells us it is a mockery to ask Mr. Gladstone for any explanation of his words. I would, in reply to that, tell the noble Marquess, as regards the declaration which he made that if the Government gave a certain assurance, all their doubts and fears would be dissipated, if the noble Marquess thinks it a mockery to ask Mr. Gladstone for any explanation, I think it is a perfect mockery to ask the Government to make any declaration with the view of dissipating
  162
  the fears and apprehensions of the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite, because we are perfectly well aware that, whatever the Government say, those fears and apprehensions will still remain exactly the same.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Public Libraries Acts—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 95.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.