Sitting of 21 February 1879

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Earl of Yarmouth, for Warwick County (Southern Division); Colonel Daniel La Zouche Colthurst, for Cork County.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—District Auditors* [79].
Committee—Ancient Monuments [52], [House counted out].

QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAYS — CONTINUOUS FOOTBOARDS.—QUESTION.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received any further communications from the South Western Railway Company, since the end of last Session, respecting the wish generally expressed by the public in favour of continuous footboards to all the carriages, and likewise as to the adaptation of the height of the platforms at all stations, so as to prevent the risk of accidents to passengers alighting from carriages without the power of placing their feet directly on the station platform?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: We issued a Circular to all the Railway Companies at the end of last Session, requesting them to give us the fullest information as to their views and intentions respecting continuous footboards, and the height of their platforms, which is, of course, a part of the same subject. We have now printed and laid upon the Table all the replies which we have received, together with the Circular itself, and they will be in the hands of Members very shortly. Replies will be found from most of the leading Companies; but I regret to say that the South Western Railway Company has sent no answer whatever to our Circular.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE GREEK FRONTIER.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received information to the effect that the Turkish Government have declined to accept the frontier proposed for Greece by the 13th protocol of the Congress of Berlin even as a basis for negotiation, and have refused to surrender any territory in Epirus?
  MR. BOURKE: The House will recollect that a day or two ago I stated that negotiations upon this subject were still going on. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Baronet will see that it is impossible for me to state at present the details of those negotiations. I may also remind the hon. Baronet that Her Majesty's Government must necessarily be imperfectly acquainted at the present moment with the details of the negotiations.

  ARMY—THE ZULU WAR—THE ARMY RESERVE.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that many men of the Army Reserve, trained soldiers, were willing to have volunteered to serve at the Cape, to fill up the regiments now embarking for foreign service, if permitted to do so; and, what objection there is to men of that reserve being allowed so to serve if willing to do so?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, as a matter of fact, I am not aware that any men of
  1604
  the Army Reserve have volunteered for service at the Cape, although I have no doubt, from all that I have heard, they would be very ready to do so if an opportunity were given. With regard to the second Question, I must speak with some reservation; but, as I am advised at present, the men who have joined the Army Reserve are covered by the Statute Law of 1867, under which they are allowed to serve upon two conditions—first, a Proclamation under section 10 in case of a national emergency; and, secondly, by volunteering for duty. Under the first condition they can serve for six months after the emergency is over; but under the second—which would be the one applicable to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend —they can only serve for six months from the date of volunteering for service; and I do not think, under the circumstances, that it would be worth while to accept them for short a time.

  INDIA (FINANCE)—INDIAN TAXATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, any steps towards providing that the official and professional classes in India shall contribute their share of the taxation imposed upon the people as a security against future famines in that country?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This matter has been for some time engaging the serious consideration of the Indian Government; but I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to wait for further information as to their decision until the Budget is published at the end of the present month.

  INDIA—EAST INDIAN RAILWAY.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If, before the East Indian Railway Bill for the purchase of the Railway is brought on, he will supply the House with a tabulated statement which will give the House information about the entire working of this Railway, so as to exhibit the annual gross traffic re-

    1605
    ceipts and gross working expenses, net receipts, the capital created, guaranteed interest thereon, excess of that interest over net receipts and debt created, or excess of receipts over the guaranteed interest, portion of that excess paid to the Railway Company, portion appropriated to pay off debt, and the diminished interest debt, with a total of capital and debt on which the purchase-money is based?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid that to give the Returns in the form asked for by the hon. and gallant Member would be very troublesome and would cause some delay; but I will endeavour to have a summary prepared which will give, in a short and convenient form, the information which the hon. and gallant Member desires upon the subject. Further details will be found in the annual Reports of Mr. Danvers.

  SOUTH AFRICA — TRANSMISSION OF INTELLIGENCE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, having regard to the interest and importance of early and reliable intelligence from South Africa, Her Majesty's Government see any objection to following the course by which a portion of the Press obtain priority of intelligence; and, whether they will instruct Consular Officers or detach gentlemen from the Colonial Office to St. Vincent and Madeira, for the transmission of telegraphic information from South Africa?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The Government have already priority for official despatches, and they have no reason to complain of any undue delay in their transmission. I do not think it advisable to instruct Consular officers or to detach gentlemen from the Colonial Office to St. Vincent and Madeira, for the transmission of telegraphic information from South Africa of an unofficial nature which might possibly not be accurate.
  MR. OTWAY: Have the Consular Agents at St. Vincent and Maderia any cypher by which they can insure secrecy of their messages?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do not know. It is not in my Department.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE DEFINITIVE TREATY.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    MR. BOURKE: I wish, Sir, with the permission of the House, to give a short explanation of the answer I gave three days ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway). My hon. Friend asked me—
    "Whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the statements of Lord Salisbury in his despatch enclosing copy of the Treaty of Berlin—viz., 'That it results from these declarations, that Turkey is not internationally hound, and cannot be compelled to pay any portion of the indemnity until the claims of all the creditors of loans anterior to the war have been paid in full.'"
    I thought the most satisfactory answer I could give my hon. Friend was to refer him to the 11th Protocol of the Congress of Berlin, which contained a declaration of Prince Gortchakoff, which was one of those upon which Lord Salisbury's statement was founded. My hon. Friend has, however, communicated with me privately on the subject, and he thinks it would be more satisfactory if I gave a definite answer to the exact words of his Question; therefore, I have no difficulty whatever in stating that Her Majesty's Government adhere to the statements of Lord Salisbury in his despatch inclosing a copy of the Treaty of Berlin, and then follows the copy of the quotation, referred to by my hon. Friend.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him private Notice, with reference to the Business of the House on Monday. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to ask the House to proceed to the consideration of all the Resolutions on that day, or only of the first Resolution? If he only intended to proceed with the first, what Business did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to go on with afterwards? He asked this Question, because if it was intended to proceed with all the Resolutions it would be likely to occupy the whole or a considerable part of the Sitting; but if only the first Re-

  1607
  solution were to be taken up he hoped that, after the very prolonged discussion they had last night, the House might possibly come to a decision upon it in time to enable them to proceed with other Business.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had great difficulty in forecasting what the wishes of the House might be with regard to the Business on Monday. Undoubtedly the Government wished to proceed as early as possible with the Army Estimates; and if it should be the pleasure of the House to come to a speedy conclusion with regard to the first Resolution, so as to enable them to take up the Army Estimates afterwards, he should not ask them to proceed with the other Resolutions, but to let them stand over. He should move to amend the Resolution in accordance with the compromise he had offered last night; and if any agreement was come to within a short time after the meeting of the House he should propose the Army Estimates be proceeded with.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL INSPECTORS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. RATHBONE,in rising to call attention to the appointment of School Inspectors without sufficient preliminary special training for the work they have to perform; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, arrangements ought to be at once made to provide that in future, before being appointed to an independent post, newly appointed Inspectors should have one year's training under an experienced Inspector, unless they have been previously engaged in the education of children for a sufficient time to make this unnecessary,"
  said: I trust I need only detain the House a very short time, for I have really never met anyone who would deny the importance of the change which I propose, or who would dispute the grounds on which I advocate it; and yet the change is not made. I be-
  1608
  lieve it has been delayed solely on grounds of expense. I hope, therefore, before sitting down, to show how very small an expenditure would be necessary for the purpose, and that this small expenditure would be a real economy, as it would make the very large expenditure now going on in our elementary schools much more efficient than it is. I am sure it will be admitted by all who have given even the most superficial attention to the subject that inspecting a school is a skilled, and highly technical, and complicated process, which it cannot be expected a man would be able to perform properly, except after some training and practice in the work; nor will it be denied by anyone that this work is as important as it is difficult. Upon the Inspector's Report depends the amount of grant to be received by an elementary school; while it is to the Inspectors that we must mainly look to raise steadily the character of our elementary education, by pointing out to managers of schools and schoolmasters in what respect they are inferior to other schools, and how, as shown by the experience of those other schools, these defects can be best remedied. If anyone doubts the amount of skill required to conduct efficiently, and yet fairly, that process of inspection and examination, and to draw up the resulting Report upon which the grant to an elementary school depends, or so to distribute encouragement and blame as to improve the education given in our elementary schools, I would refer him to a small book on School Inspection, written by Mr. Fearon, and published by Macmillan. Mr. Fearon, now in the Charity Commission, was selected by the Education Department as one of the ablest and most experienced Inspectors to make these inquiries, upon the results of which the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and 1876 were, to a great extent, founded. Anyone reading that book will at once see how wise are the suggestions which Mr. Fearon's experience enables him to make. He will see, also, how technical many of the most important of them are, and that it would take a young Inspector fresh from College some years to find out for himself, at the expense of the corpus vile of our elementary schools, what a little preliminary training would show him in a year. But mere written instructions

  1609
  of that sort will not give the training which a young man would very rapidly derive from seeing in practice the work of an experienced Inspector, and from inspecting a school under his eye for a certain period. The House is not fond of extracts, and therefore I will only read one—and that a very short one—from Mr. Fearon's book, to show what an experienced Inspector says "inspection" and "examination" mean.
  "By 'inspection' is meant the process of seeing a school at work in the course of its ordinary routine; noting how it is constructed, warmed, drained, ventilated, furnished, and supplied with apparatus and other materials; how its journals, registers, and other records are kept; what is the course of education, physical and intellectual, which it supplies to its scholars; whether it is conducted on the most approved methods for economising time and lahour; what is the order and discipline; what the relations of the scholars to their teachers, and to one another; how the teachers give their lessons; and how in other respects they are qualified to perform their duties. By 'examination' is meant the process of testing, by written and oral questioning of the scholars, whether the results of the instruction given in the school are satisfactory."
  It must be evident to the House how much skill is necessary to do such work as this, and how valuable—nay, how necessary—a certain amount of training and technical knowledge is to enable a man to do it; and the question I ask the House to consider is whether that training and that technical knowledge are to be gained at the cost of efficiency in our system of elementary education? It is evident that a young man, however able, fresh from College, who may, perhaps, have had very little to do with children, and nothing to do with elementary education since he was himself a child, will, if he comes to the work of inspection without sufficient previous training, be almost sure to fail in justly dealing with the masters of elementary schools. If he comes to his work with a very high standard, and is very conscientious, he may exact more than is possible; or, in his anxiety not to be unjust, he may be too lax. In either ease he will injure the schools under his charge by creating a sense of injustice or a disposition to carelessness. This is no theoretical danger. Elementary schoolmasters do feel that they are subject to great injustice by their labour being judged of by those who have had no sufficient training or experience to
  1610
  enable them to judge justly; and the irritation and discouragement produced by this feeling have a most serious effect upon education. The want of such training has a further bad effect on the system in the great want of uniformity in the decisions of different Inspectors. A just and strict Inspector is exposed to much abuse and difficulty in his work from his decisions being compared with the laxity of neighbouring Inspectors; whereas, if young Inspectors were trained by eight or ten of the best Inspectors in the most important districts of the country, and these Inspectors were to meet periodically and compare notes, there would be a much more even standard of inspection than now exists, and much less discontent. But the work of an Inspector is not merely to ascertain whether those conditions have been fulfilled which are required by the Department for the payment of grants. Our main hope of a steady improvement in our system of elementary education is through the Inspectors. They can compare the teaching and system of one school with that of another, and, by a judicious apportionment of blame and encouragement, can gradually raise the general standard of education to the level of the better schools. They can show the schoolmasters where their teaching is defective; they can convince them by what has been done elsewhere that the defects can be removed, and they can point out how to remove them. This Department of their work is not only very important, but requires highly-skilled and technical knowledge, and training can alone enable them to do it really well. I have said in the Resolution that this training is necessary, unless the new Inspectors have been previously engaged in the education of children for a sufficient time to make it unnecessary, because it seems to me that the Department may find it wise to apportion a certain number of these higher appointments to elementary schoolmasters who have distinguished themselves by their success in improving the system of elementary education. The number of such appointments might be limited, so as still to secure for this work the best materials which our Universities offer. But a certain number of such appointments, if given to first-class schoolmasters, would give great encouragement, and the

  1611
  country would get some very good Inspectors. Even for these men some special training would be very desirable, but less necessary than it would be for a young man frosh from College, with no experience in the art of elementary education. My practical proposal, then, is simply this:—The number of Inspectors appointed annually is, I learn from the Department, about eight. I propose that the Lord President of the Council should select from the numerous candidates on his list for this work eight of those whom he thinks most suitable, and that, without waiting for vacancies to arise, he should place them under eight of the most experienced and able Inspectors in the service of the Department. For one year such commencing Inspectors—if I may so call them—should work with the experienced Inspectors, see how they inspect schools, and inspect them under the experienced Inspectors' eyes. While thus waiting to be appointed to an independent sphere of action, they should receive a salary of say, £250 a-year. A staff of such commencing Inspectors, constantly kept up, would only cost £2,000 a-year additional, and this would give increased efficiency to an expenditure on the part of the Central Government alone of the sum of £114,000 for inspection, and £2,100,000 for the total expenditure chargeable upon the Treasury for elementary education, besides the still further large expenditure derived from voluntary sources. I would ask the House and the Government, is it not a monstrous absurdity that, whereas in England we consider a much longer apprenticeship than the term I have named necessary to make a man a good cobbler, a good joiner, a good merchant, or lawyer, we should expect men to do satisfactorily, without any previous technical training, such highly-skilled and technical work as the inspection of our elementary schools? I, therefore, do urge upon the House to accept the Motion that I have now made, and thus strengthen the hands of the Government to do what I cannot doubt for a moment they are anxious to do.
  MR. BRISTOWE,in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the House was indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool for bringing forward that question, which was one of considerable importance to the country at large.
  1612
  Masters and mistresses and managers of schools looked anxiously to the visits of the Inspectors, for upon their report it depended whether the grant would be earned by the school; and, moreover, they naturally looked to the Inspectors for guidance and suggestions in order to make their schools more efficient. Those advantages could only be gained through having Inspectors who had experience in tuition or in examination. If they wished to make their schools efficient, the Education Department must take care that their Inspectors were thoroughly up to their work. It did not at all follow that because an Examiner was well-informed and highly-cultivated himself that he should have the power of testing others in subjects with which he himself was familiar; that was generally to be learnt by experience. By placing young Inspectors for a year under training in the way recommended by his hon. Friend (Mr. Rathbone), they would be better prepared to enter upon their duties. The propositions of his hon. Friend would tend to produce uniformity of examination, which was a matter of great importance, and he believed that it would meet with the approval of the Inspectors themselves.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, arrangements ought to be at once made to provide that in future, before being appointed to an independent post, newly appointed School Inspectors should have one year's training under an experienced Inspector, unless they have been previously engaged in the education of children for a sufficient time to make this unnecessary,"—(Mr. Rathbone,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MAC IVERagreed in spirit, at all events, with the hon. Member for Liverpool, but thought that the particular scheme proposed involved needless expenditure. He felt compelled to rise on the present occasion on account of having received a communication bearing on the question from a source entirely independent of his hon. Friend —a communication which pointed out the evils which his hon.

  1613
  Friend wished to remedy. The letter showed that however good an Inspector might be as an examiner, and however fit for the post he might be in other respects, he might be deficient in the common sense which could only be learned by experience—such experience as the lion. Member for Liverpool suggested. His informant, Colonel King, writing about the Oxton Schools, said—
  "The manner of the Inspector was such as to frighten the children, and not give them a fair chance."
  Then Colonel King went on to say—
  "I do not wish to injure the Inspector; but I think it would he well if he understood that when examining a school he has something else to do than cut down the grant."
  He (Mr. Mac Iver) had no desire to trespass longer on the attention of the House; but he could not conclude without saying that it seemed to him that the proposition of the hon. Member was well worthy of the consideration of the House and the Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had made out a strong case. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) hoped the Education Department had become convinced that the time had arrived when they should make use of the older Inspectors in giving some training to those who were about to be appointed in future. Many of the old Inspectors had professional arid special training for the work which it was impossible to expect in the eight gentlemen it was proposed annually to appoint. Inspection was no easy matter. It could not be learnt at College, because it required some kind of experimental teaching, as well as storing the brain with the subjects taught in the schools. This apprenticeship, if he might so term it, was required for several reasons. First, the art of inspecting ought to be taught by those who had themselves practised it. It would be a great advantage if a newly-appointed Inspector could work for a few months with a man who had been accustomed to inspect, and have the opportunity of learning the art of inspection without frightening the children; and practise, at the same time, perfect justice and fairness to the masters and the mistresses. Again, teaching, as well as inspecting, was becoming of Government importance. There was now an
  1614
  army of teachers all over the country who exercised good influence in their respective localities. The country expected a great deal from them, and Parliament must not ignore their feelings, or expect that they had none in the matter. All must, he thought, sympathize to some extent with a schoolmaster or schoolmistress who for many years had taught children with great success, and who found them inspected by a young man just from College. He did not think an Inspector ought to be thus brought into contact with experienced masters and mistresses without some previous training in inspection. In too many instances hard-working and struggling masters and mistresses looked forward with alarm and anxiety to the visit of the Inspector. These people felt deeply any kind of injustice from young Inspectors, though the latter might not mean to do any. The manner of inspecting required to be taught as well as the art of teaching. The necessity of a uniform system of inspection was universally recognized. At present money was given for results. Those results depended on examination. One Inspector might make the examination very different from what it would be under another, and thus a different standard for payment by results would be established in different schools. That would be no economy; but might lead to an enormous waste of money. It was, therefore, most desirable that there should be uniformity in their system of inspection. The plan put forward by the hon. Gentleman appeared to be very simple, and had a great deal to recommend it. If eight Inspectors were appointed every year, he saw no reason why they should not submit to a year's training, with small remuneration.
  MR. WHEELHOHSEsaid, there could not be two opinions on the necessity of improving their mode of inspection, which he would endorse by an incident which had come under his knowledge in a district in Yorkshire with which he was acquainted. A newly appointed Inspector went to the school, and all who were interested in the school went to see him conduct the examination. Taking up a little child about six years old, he said — "Well, my little woman, what do you call a baby cow?" The child innocently answered —"A mutty calf, sir." The Inspector said—

  1615
  "Mutton, my child! who taught you that? Go down." He (Mr. Wheelhouse) ventured to say, there was not a child of six years old or less in the whole of Yorkshire who would not call a female calf by the local name by which it was known. It would have been infinitely better if that Inspector, who was a Southerner, had had some training before he was sent into the North of England, about which he knew nothing.
  MR. MUNDELLAcomplained that under the system of close inspection which at present prevailed the most competent persons were not allowed to become Inspectors of schools. The fact was that there was no promotion from the ranks. Why should they spend £2,000 a-year in giving gentlemen a year's training, when at the present moment there were above 100 assistant Inspectors, who were duly qualified for the office of Inspectors, not alone by education and standing, but by long experience as teachers in elementary schools themselves? Several of the Scotch Inspectors had been raised from the rank of schoolmaster. The London School Board had appointed five Inspectors who were formerly schoolmasters, and Sir Charles Reed had informed him that nothing could be better or more satisfactory than the way in which these men did their work. Such foolish questions as the one he had heard of— "What is the nature of the despotism by which India is governed?"—showed that some of the young Inspectors were untrained for their work. The noble Lord had now under him more than 100 Inspectors' assistants, some of whom had been among the ablest schoolmasters in the country, had taken high honours at the Universities, and practically did all the work of the Inspectors, except writing the reports. He intended during the present Session to bring the subject of school inspection before the House.
  MR. A. MILLSagreed that it would be desirable there should be some mode of training the Inspectors; but it ought not to be assumed that the present Inspectors did not do their work in a satisfactory manner. Much had been said about frightening the children; but all of them, when examined at the Universities and elsewhere, thought examination a very alarming thing and the Examiners very alarming persons. As a member
  1616
  of the Board, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as to the satisfactory manner in which the Inspectors of the London School Board who had been raised from the ranks did their work, and he would wish to see more of that class promoted. The object of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was to improve the machinery of inspection, and in that sense his proposal was very well worthy of attention.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that everyone acquainted with the working of a school must agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool that experience in the education of children would be an advantage to an Inspector. It would be desirable, before adopting any change in the present system, that the noble Lord should consider whether some months of training, not under an Inspector, but under an eminently qualified teacher, would not be necessary for the proper performance of the duties of Inspectors. Unless something of that kind were done, they would continue to have going forth from the Department Inspectors who, however high their attainments might be in classical and scientific knowledge, were ill-fitted for the work of inspecting common schools, and thereby determining the amount of the grants that ought to be made to them. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) would consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the profession of Inspector should be open to teachers generally. In that way a stimulus would be given to them to work hard and qualify themselves highly.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, as to promotion to the rank of Inspector there was no bar but one—the early age at which Inspectors were chosen. It was very clear that if an Inspector was to be selected at an early age, it practically prevented elementary teachers of experience from obtaining the post. He would therefore suggest to the Department that, where a teacher of great ability and experience stood for the position of Inspector, he might be allowed to enter upon his work at a later period of his life than 30 years.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that any proposal emanating from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) with a view to improving the pre-

  1617
  sent system of elementary education would be well worthy of the attention of the House and the consideration of the Government, for there was no man in the House who had shown greater zeal in the cause of education, both in his capacity of Member of Parliament and in the town which he represented. Wherever there was a system of education such as that now in force in England, for which Parliament annually voted large sums of money to be paid as results of examination and inspection, it was necessary that that examination and inspection should be conducted with method and uniformity. In the case of examination vivâ voce instead of by printed papers, it was all the more necessary that uniformity should be secured. He thought the Motion on the Paper would be likely to mislead the House as to one particular of the existing system, because it stated that "newly-appointed Inspectors should have one year's training under an experienced Inspector" before they were appointed to independent posts. It might be inferred from that language that a young man was taken straight from the University and at once, without any preliminary training or term of probation, set to the task of examining and inspecting schools. That was not the case. At present all newly-appointed Inspectors had to serve a certain term of probation with the senior Inspector of the district to which they were appointed. The minimum period of their probation was a fortnight, and in many cases more. At the end of that period they were not at once appointed to independent posts, but were sent to some district where there was a chief Inspector, of whose advice and experience they would have the benefit. The principle for which the hon. Gentleman contended had, therefore, been acted upon already to a certain extent by the Department. But it was proposed that all the Inspectors should have one year's training, and that the Department should at once appoint eight new Inspectors, each with a salary of £250 a-year. If that proposal were agreed to, the result would be that a sum of £2,000 a-year would have to be added to the present education expenditure, and the House was aware how rapidly that expenditure had increased during the last 10 years, till it now amounted to considerably over
  1618
  £2,000,000. The Estimates for the coming year would, he feared, show a still further considerable increase, which was partly due, no doubt, to the increase in the attendance and in the efficiency of the children. The increase in the attendance had rendered an augmentation of the staff necessary, and the Education Department had been obliged to apply to the Treasury for a number of fresh Inspectors. It was, however, probable that the Treasury, seeing all the claims which it had upon it, would object to any further increase which was not absolutely necessary; nor had the hon. Member for Liverpool, in his opinion, brought forward such a case as would justify the House in accepting the Resolution which he had placed upon the Notice Paper. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the work of the Inspectors was imperfectly done at the present time; but a fairer way of putting the matter, he thought, would be that, although the work was very well done, it had not been as well done as it might be, and he was sure that, taking into account the character and ability, generally speaking, of the Inspectors, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to convey to the House the impression that they did not perform their duty. As to an Inspector being unacquainted with the dialect of a particular locality, he believed that the more experienced Inspectors, when they had occasion to go into a district where it was doubtful whether they would be understood by the children, allowed the masters to put the necessary questions, so that they might be intelligible to them. That being so, he did not think the mere fact of an Inspector betraying ignorance of the peculiar phraseology of a district furnished sufficient ground for asking the Treasury to increase the grant for the inspection of schools. It was quite an open question, however, and one which he would undertake to bring under the notice of the Department, whether the period of probation might not be extended. He had no doubt it might be possible to make some regulation for the future which would secure that in those cases in which a newly-appointed Inspector happened to have had no previous experience of elementary education or the examination of children, he should serve a longer period of probation than that which was now required. He was, how-

  1619
  ever, afraid that he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, because its adoption would have the effect of adding to Estimates which were already excessively high, without any absolute necessity for the increased expenditure. He might also remark that there were a certain number of Inspectors who had been teachers. It should not, however, be forgotten that Inspectors were sometimes called upon to investigate very difficult and delicate matters, and it was essential that they should be able to meet on equal terms with managers of schools. They also required tact, self-possession, and patience to enable them to discharge their duties satisfactorily, but he did not think the Lord President would be indisposed to appoint teachers of whose qualifications he was satisfied; but it ought not to be established as a rule that teachers should have a priority of claim. He might, in conclusion, observe that to have a teaching and inspecting department composed of the same individuals would be to form a close corporation which might hereafter be found to work by no means satisfactorily.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, that after the explanation of the noble Lord he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  EGYPT—FINANCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. SAMUELSON,in rising to call attention to the paragraphs in the Letter of the Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Lyons of August 7th, 1878 (Turkish Papers, No. 48), stating that Her Majesty's Government required the Government of Egypt to pay in full the May Coupon of the Unified Debt; and also to the conditions under which the Egyptian State Domain Loan of November, 1878, was contracted; and to move—
  "That no sufficient justification has been shown for the enforcement by Her Majesty's Government of the payment of the May Coupon of 1878 of the Unified Debt of Egypt, nor for their interference in regard to the State Domain Loan of 1878;"
  said, his object in calling attention to these two questions was to learn what was the justification of the Government for interfering with the financial concerns of Egypt. In reference to the
  1620
  May Coupon of 1878, the Government had, in conjunction with the French Government, brought strong pressure to bear on the Egyptian Government to secure the payment of that Coupon in full. In doing so they were running a considerable risk, and the lamentable event which had recently occurred might be to some extent traced to the interference of Her Majesty's Government. The next transaction to which he referred was revealed by the publication of the prospectus of the loan issued by the Messrs. Rothschild in October last. The security for this loan was the transfer of certain lands from the family of the Khedive to the State, and the hypothecation of these lands for the interest of the bonds; and Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to nominate a manager of those lands, who should not be divested of his functions without their previous consent. The object of this was, no doubt, to give a certain security to the subscribers to the loan; but up to the present moment they did not know what was the nature of the agreement between this country and Egypt. In pressing for the payment of the May Coupon, the Government were guilty of great injustice at once to the people and to the creditors of Egypt. Moreover, Her Majesty's Government either were aware, or ought to have been aware, that at the time they insisted on the payment of this interest, the Revenues of Egypt were insufficient to meet the public charges. As early as the end of March last year, there were in the possession of Her Majesty's Government Estimates of the Revenues of Egypt, and, of course, also Estimates of the Expenditure; and at the time they required the payment of this Coupon, they had no reason to believe that the income for 1878 would be larger than the income for 1877 had proved to be. In point of fact, it now turned out that the Revenue for 1878 was only £8,372,000 in the gross, out of which the Government of Egypt had to pay items of interest, including £4,028,000, interest on the sinking fund of the Unified Debt, and making, in the whole, no less than £6,886,000. Deducting this from the year's income—and next year's income would probably fall below that of 1878—there remained a balance of £1,536,000, and that was all there was to pay the interest on an unknown floating

  1621
  Debt, provide all the expenses of the I administration of Egypt, provide for the Army and the Navy, the public works— excepting railways—education, the Civil List, and every other charge incidental to the government of the country. Now, the sum which was necessary to provide for the expenses of the administration of Egypt was estimated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham (Mr. S. Cave) at £3,000,000, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) at £3,500,000. Taking it at the lower sum, it would be seen that, if the full interest was to be paid on the Egyptian Debt, the other Services, including the Army and Navy, must suffer to the extent of 50 per cent. Though it was true that Her Majesty's Government, in the letter to Messrs. Rothschild, guarded themselves against any liability to pay interest on the new loan, yet by the course they had adopted, they took upon themselves, to a certain extent, the custody of the property which had been pledged for its security. Scarcely had they heard of this property being pledged for the payment of this particular loan, than news came that certain creditors had got a Decree from the International Court which enabled them to put an execution on this property. But suppose the Khedive or the Government of Egypt should fail to perform the convention into which they had entered as regarded the custody of these lands, or suppose the whole thing came to a deadlock through a disagreement between the three gentlemen who represented the various interests, were they to go to war on behalf of the private creditors of the Khedive? They had given a quasi- security to the creditors, which they might be called upon in a very inconvenient manner to fulfil. The question was, whether both of these transactions were not contrary to the precedent which they had hitherto followed? He did not speak of loans which had been guaranteed in cases of emergency, but the undertaking of a liability, however slight, in regard to loans by private parties with a foreign Government. It was not to the interest of the English people—clergymen, widows, and others —to enter into these foreign loans, and he contended the promoters of the loans should receive no encouragement. It would be much better to invest the
  1622
  money in Three per Cents or good railway debentures. He supposed he should be told that it was desirable England should co-operate with the Government of France. It was at least desirable that the two Governments should be on friendly terms; but whether England should enter into any entangling engagement with regard to Egyptian affairs was quite another thing. That raised a very wide question, but he should not enter into it on the present occasion. However, he would say this —If, instead of remaining on good terms with our neighbours across the Channel, the Government wished to get into trouble, and to create differences, jealousies, and disputes, they could pursue no course more likely to produce that effect than that of tinkering loans on joint account.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that, as an Amendment had already been moved, it was not competent for the hon. Member to move his Resolution.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTreminded the House of the declarations made on behalf of the Government when the Suez Canal shares were purchased. That step was taken on the undivided responsibility of the Ministry, and there was no previous consultation with other countries. It was laid down that the purchase was made on behalf of what were thought British interests. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in referring to the question of the purchase of the shares, laid stress on the political consequences of the step. The House was told by the right hon. Gentleman that the action of the Government was taken not because it desired the Canal for purposes of war, but the Government was desirous of seeing that the Canal should not be used as a political engine against England. The Premier said he had recommended the purchase of the shares as a political transaction, and thereby obtain a great hold on that part of Africa. There had been a great change in the attitude of this country; and he believed it could be shown that within the last few months undertakings had been entered into which altogether altered the liberty of action of this country. England was no longer free to form her own engagements. The proof of this was to be found in a Parliamentary Paper containing a Correspondence in which Lord

  1623
  Salisbury, M. Waddington, and the French Ambassador at Berlin were concerned. From this Paper it was clear that M. Waddington insisted that, in the event of any joint action between his Government and that of Her Majesty in reference to this question, such action should be based upon a perfect equality both of attributes and powers. This was not the casein 1876, when the Suez Canal shares were purchased, nor in 1877, when Lord Derby stated the conclusions which he had arrived at on his own independent judgment. In forming that judgment Lord Derby was not hampered by any engagements such as were subsequently entered into between Lord Salisbury and M. Waddington; and the noble Lord consistently refused to enter upon any course like that which now unfortunately existed, and which had an inevitable tendency to limit the freedom of action of this country with regard to Egypt, by establishing a partnership fixed upon an artificial basis. The practical consequence of this understanding as interpreted by M. Waddington became apparent when Nubar Pasha, in his capacity as President of the Council, selected Mr. Rivers Wilson as his Finance Minister. The moment this was done M. Waddington refused his assent, unless Mr. Wilson had appointed to act with him a French Colleague, possessing equal attributes and armed with equal powers. This point was at length conceded, and the net result of the whole business was that they had drifted into a position replete with complications and opportunities for entanglement, and had, moreover, introduced into Egypt an element of international jealousy and rivalry. They all knew the astuteness with which the Oriental mind could make use of international jealousies to serve their own ends. He did not wish to hurt the feelings of the French politicians; but no one could be sanguine that two years hence France would be administered by the same Government—the wise and temperate administration of M. Waddington—which she now enjoyed. By their recent action in Egypt they had introduced the materials with which a cunning hand might play with dexterity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had yesterday admitted that the intelligence of the fall of Nubar Pasha was authentic; but up to the present they had no news of the intentions
  1624
  of Mr. Rivers Wilson. No one who had any notion of what was going on hi Egypt could have been surprised by the news of the last few days. He was sure Her Majesty's Government must have been prepared for it. He himself, with his limited sources of information, had heard three weeks ago of intrigues which were attributable to a hand in the Palace, and this day there was a telegram from a well-informed source that these intrigues were also traceable to foreign influence. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the House whether Mr. Rivers Wilson had tendered his resignation, and whether, also, M. de Blignières was not waiting for instructions from his Government as to what he should do; whether, in fact, he was acting only as the political delegate of France, or whether he was acting in concert with Mr. Wilson? He knew that these were delicate questions, but he should like to have as much information as was consistent with the circumstances. He feared that their change of policy had given them the maximum of disadvantage with the minimum of advantage, and had put upon them a great amount of responsibility without giving them in return anything like a material benefit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, I ought to rise at once, in order to give the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken the information they have requested of me. I must, in the first place, say that at the present moment it is not possible for me to speak with entire freedom, because events are passing which are of a character which imposes a certain amount of reticence upon me. But I am anxious to speak generally as to the position we hold financially as regards Egypt, and also to express my entire dissent from the theory which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. W. Cartwright), that we have, in consequence of the arrangements made within the last 12 months, altered our position towards France with regard to Egyptian affairs. That is altogether an error. We have, from first to last, been desirous of acting in a cordial spirit and with full friendliness with our neighbours. We know that throughout the relations which the two countries have had with Egypt there have been many occasions of difficulty—occasions on

  1625
  which persons who had any interest to serve in stirring up international jealousies have been able to avail themselves of opportunities for so doing, and we have felt it necessary to be on our guard that we might disappoint and defeat intrigues for that purpose from whatever quarter they might come. That has been equally our policy from the time we took Office, as indeed it was the policy of our Predecessors, and it is our policy up to the present day. With respect to the interest which England has in the matter, and with respect to the finances of Egypt, I took notice of an observation made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), when he referred to what he had heard some time ago about persons who had come over to England desiring to induce the Government of England to interfere on account of the creditors of the Peruvian Government. The hon. Member seemed to think that there was some analogy between the desired intervention on the part of England to save the English creditors of Peru and any action which England would think proper to take with respect to Egyptian affairs. That is not so. That illustration marks the entire difference between our policy in Egypt and our policy with regard to other countries. We do not think it would be right; it would be contrary to the spirit of British policy that, for the sake of merely protecting the interests of British subjects who might have lent money to other States, we should interfere to enforce the claims of bondholders throughout the world. But in the case of Egypt very peculiar considerations arise. Hon. Members have adverted to what has passed in this House on former occasions and to observations made by Members of the Government, myself among the number, as to the reason why we have felt it necessary to watch with particular care the position of Egypt. It is not only that Egypt is on the high road between England and India, but it is also because of the relations which Egypt bears to the Ottoman Empire and to France and other countries which have interests there. They are such as to render it a matter of extreme political importance that we should, if possible, avert anything like a catastrophe which would overthrow the Egyptian dynasty and the Egyptian system of government. We have special interests, too, even of
  1626
  a financial character, because, as the House is aware, certain Revenues of Egypt form one of the securities pledged to this country with respect to a debt which we have guaranteed, and Egypt is also herself a debtor to us with respect to the purchase of the Suez Canal shares. There are thus a number of financial considerations that have to be taken into account, and over and above that there are an infinity of complicated political interests which we have to bear in mind. That being the case, the short history of what has occurred has been this:—Since the day when my right hon. Friend the Pay master General—to whom, I think, we hardly pay sufficient acknowledgments for the very excellent services he rendered in pioneering the way— ascertained the truth with regard to the maze of Egyptian finance, since the return of my right hon. Friend we have had our eyes necessarily and not from choice fixed upon what is going on in Egypt. After that inquiry had been made, the Khedive expressed a wish to appoint an Englishman of ability and position to re-arrange his finances, and Mr. Rivers Wilson was allowed to go out and ascertain for himself by actual inquiry whether that was a position which he could undertake. Mr. Rivers Wilson accordingly made inquiries, which ended in his declining to undertake that office. But in the meantime he became still further acquainted with Egyptian finances, and acquired a position which gave him a considerable reputation in Egypt. Subsequently to that, another step was taken, with which Her Majesty's Government had no official connection. After Mr. Rivers Wilson had returned, the Government had neither directly nor indirectly anything to say to the financial affairs of Egypt. But the bondholders — English and French — who had, of course, a very large interest in the country, deputed two gentlemen of very high position— one being the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen)—to represent their interests and to endeavour to make some arrangement with regard to the property hold by them. Those gentlemen received from the English Government, and I have no doubt the French Government also, a certain amount of support, such as is accorded to any Englishman who may be going abroad, in the way of

  1627
  civility; but they conducted their business entirely on their own account. They ultimately came to an arrangement which appeared to be, as they thought, promising and satisfactory to the bondholders, and which was accepted by Egypt. That arrangement was confirmed by a Decree of the Khedive's; but in a short time difficulties arose, which attracted the notice of the Government. They were these. For a considerable time it had been the practice of the subjects of different nations having claims against the Government of Egypt to go to their respective Consuls and induce them to press their claims against the Government. Subsequently, in consequence of the inconvenience that had resulted from the want of proper administration in Egypt, a system of tribunals was established by agreement between the European Powers in concert with the Government of Egypt, and no doubt the European Governments were to a great extent pledged in honour and otherwise to see that these tribunals were upheld. Certain persons then obtained judgment for debts against the Khedive before these tribunals, and when those judgment debts came to be presented, it was, of course, necessary that the Khedive should pay them, or set aside the authority of the tribunals. Well, it appeared that when these judgment debts came to be presented, after the settlement had been made between the Khedive and the bondholders, the funds at the Khedive's disposal either were, or were alleged by him to be, insufficient to meet them. The consequence was that there was great danger of the judgments which had been obtained before the tribunals being set aside, and that the nations of Europe who were more or less responsible for the tribunals would find themselves in a difficulty on seeing the authority of these tribunals thus set at nought. On the other hand, it was alleged that if the Decree which had been made was worth anything, the bondholders were entitled to certain rights under it. Under these circumstances, the representatives of the bondholders, I believe, thought that there ought to be another and more complete inquiry into the financial condition of the country. "Let us be quite sure," said they, "that the difficulty is a real one, and not a mere pretext to evade payment
  1628
  based on the concealment of real sources of wealth." A new inquiry accordingly was set on foot, and the services of Mr. Rivers "Wilson were requested, on the part of the bondholders, to assist in it. Meanwhile, it was thought only fair that the scheme which had been devised by the bondholders should be allowed fair play, and that a whole year should be allowed to run in order that they might see what, as regarded Revenue and Expenditure, was the real financial condition of Egypt. There were better means of learning that than had ever existed before, because, under the scheme, independent persons—Englishmen and Frenchmen and others—had been nominated to positions of high authority in the administration of the finances of Egypt, so that it was felt from what they experienced in the working of the system, results could be arrived at which could be depended upon. Of course, however, the claims for postponement and for putting off payments arose from before the full working out of that experiment. Well, it was during that year that the question arose about the payment of the Coupons to which the hon. Gentleman refers—the Coupons of May, 1878—and it appeared that when the time was approaching for the payment of these Coupons the bondholders apprehended default. Accordingly, representations were made to the French Government and other Governments on the subject. In the first instance, a communication was made by the French to the English Government on the subject, and a desire was expressed that the Representatives of the two nations should urge upon the Khedive that he should make an arrangement for paying the Coupons of the Debt, in consequence of which the English Government worked with the French Government on that occasion. But the hon. Gentleman says the Coupons could only have been paid either by setting aside the claims of other creditors, or by exercising an unfair pressure on the people of the country. These representations, no doubt, were urged by various persons, and it is due to those representations that Lord Salisbury made the references in his despatch which have been referred to. But at the same time that Lord Salisbury instructed our Consul to make these representations, he also directed him to impress upon the Khedive that this pressure was put upon

  1629
  him in consequence of the firm belief that he had resources at his command which he would be able so to apply if he chose, instead of expending them in palace building and other matters to his own private advantage; that it was a question of drawing upon his own private funds, and that there was nothing to justify him in putting undue pressure upon his people. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire, commenting on the despatch, said he gathered that from this period a new position was taken up; but the fact that Lord Salisbury refers in that despatch to events which had taken place at an earlier date shows that that is a mistake.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHT: I said that a new political departure had taken place.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not quite understand in what the new political departure consists. There has always been a desire to act cordially with France, and I am not prepared to admit that there was any new political departure in the matter. The desire of the English Government has always been in every possible way to avoid creating any jealousy between the two countries in relation to the affairs of Egypt. We claim, on our own part, that we have a large interest in the maintenance and stability of the country; that we have large interests in her prosperity and good government, and in the avoidance of those complications which may so easily lead a country first into bankruptcy and then into political embarrassment. It is hardly necessary to point out that the financial embarrassments of Turkey aided in bringing about political events of a very serious character; and it is really on political grounds well worth our while to prevent a country like Egypt—a country naturally wealthy, with great resources, and with ample means to bear all the necessary expenditure and to pay the debts she owes without any oppression upon the people—provided only that the system of tax collecting is a good one, and that all which is collected finds its way into the Treasury, and provided that the expenditure of the country is on a reasonable and moderate basis—from falling into the same embarrassments. Well, that brings the history of the case up to the time of the Commission of Inquiry to which I have referred. Now, that Commission of Inquiry undoubtedly
  1630
  was appointed with the goodwill both of the English and of the French Governments. We were anxious, and we directed our Representatives to inform the Khedive that we were anxious, that fair play and a full opportunity for conducting their inquiry should be afforded to the Commissioners, and we represented to the Khedive how essential it was in his own interest that the inquiry should be full and complete; that the position depended greatly on his taking advantage of the services of those who were employed to prosecute the inquiry, and that we felt no doubt that he would act honestly and wisely in the matter. Well, that Commission completed its labours, and the results were of the character which has been alluded to. I cannot state the figures precisely; but, at all events, it carried its inquiry so far as to arrive at certain resolutions of an important character, to the effect that the Revenues of Egypt, properly administered, would be sufficient for its expenses, but that a new system of administration was required. The result was that the Khedive determined, on his own motion and the advice of those on whom he relied, to make the sacrifices which the Commission had pointed out. One of these sacrifices was a very important one to him. His revenues consisted, of course, of all the ordinary taxes of the country. They consisted, also, of the produce of certain lands which were known by the name of Daira, and those had been dealt with under the arrangements made by previous settlements. But over and above what was known as the public Daira, there was an amount of land which was the private property of the Khedive himself and the members of his family; and it was strongly urged on him that his only way to get out of his difficulties was to give up these lands and all his possessions, to alter his whole position, and take a certain revenue that would be allotted to him in the form of a Civil List. The Khedive decided on adopting that course, and he agreed to this arrangement. He also agreed to what was more important—that he should become a Constitutional Sovereign, with a responsible Ministry; and he placed Nubar Pasha, who had filled a very high position before, at the head of the Ministry. From that moment Nubar Pasha was in the position of what may be called the Prime Minister

  1631
  of a Constitutional country. I do not say that the parallel in practice was complete; but the theory was that there should be a responsible Government with a chief Minister at the head of it. Nubar Pasha was appointed to that position, and he formed an Administration by introducing into it certain persons who were to fill different offices. Among these Mr. Rivers Wilson was appointed Minister of Finance. On being offered that office, Mr. Rivers Wilson accepted it with the reservation that he should obtain from Her Majesty's Government leave of absence for a certain time, which would enable him to undertake the duty with greater freedom than he could otherwise command. The Government gave him the two years' leave of absence he desired, and he undertook the position of Finance Minister in the Khedive's Cabinet. Undoubtedly it is true that the French Government, finding out what was going on, were anxious that a French Minister also should be attached to this Administration. That was a matter with the decision of which we had nothing whatever to do; but it was the occasion of some correspondence between the two Governments. Ultimately a French Minister was appointed. That Administration has been holding the position for some months of the responsible Government of the Khedive until the events of the last few days, which have led to Nubar Pasha ceasing to hold his office. I may say, in the meantime, that Mr. Rivers Wilson has not resigned, neither has M. de Blignières, the French Minister, thought it necessary to resign. The hon. Member asks what is the meaning of the arrangement which has been made with regard to a loan charged on the Daira lands? That step, it is said, has led to the nomination of one of the trustees for the Daira lands. The history of it is this—When Mr. Rivers Wilson accepted the office of Minister of Finance, he naturally considered what arrangement he could make with regard to the finances of Egypt. Among other arrangements, he desired to raise a loan of £8,500,000. He considered what security he had to offer; he had the security of the Daira lands on which, as part of the resources of Egypt, he was entitled to raise a loan. He applied to Messrs. Rothschild to advance the sum
  1632
  required, and they agreed to advance the money on the security of those lands; but they made this stipulation—that they should have some security that the revenue of those lands would be applied properly to the purpose of defraying the charge. They stipulated that there should be, at least, one Englishman and one Frenchman, designated by their respective Governments, who should be responsible for the proper application of the revenues of the Daira. Accordingly, that request was agreed to by the English and French Governments. A French gentleman was designated by the French Government, and Mr. Rowsell was designated on the part of England, the understanding being—and that understanding was subsequently put into a note from Nubar Pasha—that the persons so designated should not be removed without the consent of their respective Governments. That, I think, is the whole history of our transactions in this matter. I feel that it is one the details of which may well excite the attention of hon. Gentlemen and of this House; but there is nothing in it that we are in the least disposed to conceal, or, as we think, that in the least requires apology, but rather the contrary. We quite admit that transactions of this character are so exceptional that they require full explanation, and our desire has been, and is, to give that explanation. I hope what I have said will meet the wishes and objects of hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House. I can only say the principles on which we have acted thus far are principles by which we intend still to be guided, and it has been one main object of our proceedings to maintain good and thoroughly confidential relations with the Government of France in this matter. I am persuaded that nothing could be more advantageous for the interests of Egypt herself, and of Europe generally, than that there should be a good and thorough understanding between England and France on this question. It is quite certain that our Representatives must have considerable influence in Egypt. It is all very well to say that they should have nothing to do with the affairs of the country, such as have been the subject of debate; but we know very well that intrigues are always going on, and attempts are made to play off the Representative of one

  1633
  Power against another. I am glad, however, to say that at the present moment and the present crisis we are in close and confidential communication with the French Government, and our understanding is of an entirely satisfactory character.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLentirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the desirability of maintaining the most cordial relations with France in this matter; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had fully met the objections that had been urged. The common belief was that the Government had been forced to join France in this financial enterprize, against their own judgment, in order to smooth over and humour the French susceptibilities which they had excited by their Eastern policy, He thought Her Majesty's Government would have done better to have kept their hands from interfering in such a nasty kettle of fish as the foreign debts of the Khedive. The right hon. Gentleman had shown no good reason why they should have forced the Khedive to pay the coupons of his debt in full, and leave the servants of the State unpaid. The decent administration of a country entirely depended upon the zealous and honest work of its officials, and this could not be procured by leaving them unpaid. If their salaries were not paid, they would be left to prey on the country. In fact, the recent crisis in Egypt had been caused by the outbreak of those officials, who had this reasonable pretext for their conduct, though, no doubt, they would hear a different account of the causes of the outbreak in the versions that came through sources connected with foreign creditors. He did not think facilities should have been given for raising a new loan, which would be an additional burden upon the overtaxed people of Egypt. It seemed to him that up to the present time everything had been done for the bond holders, and nothing for the people of Egypt. Things in that country were going from bad to worse. New loans might be used to pay interest and raise the value of the bonds in the market; but they pressed heavily on the taxpayer. It was said that wherever the carcase was, there the vultures would be gathered together, and Egypt was a prey to all the vultures of
  1634
  Europe. Considering that the Native officials had been deprived of their proper salaries, while the bondholders had received their dividends, it was not altogether surprising that the recent crisis had occurred. He hoped Mr. Rivers Wilson would see that the officials were paid as well as the bondholders, and that the result would be a better state of things for the future. The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. S. Cave)made a very good report, but went out on his Mission to Egypt as the Representative of a creditor of that country—namely, the British Government, which had purchased several millions' worth of the Suez Canal shares—not to set matters right in the interest of the people. Next came the Mission of the right hon. Member for London (Mr. Goschen), who went out avowedly as the agent of the bondholders, although his high character and position were a guarantee that in pressing the claims of the bondholders, nothing that was unfair would be done by him. At the same time, events had shown that the right hon. Gentleman had taken too sanguine a view of the finances of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman had always said that the system he initiated was only an experiment, and that if it should turn out that the Revenues of Egypt could not suffice to pay the creditors in full, and also carry on the government of the country, a new arrangement must be made. Now, it seemed to him that that was exactly what had happened, and that a now arrangement was necessary. Next came a third Mission—that of Mr. Rivers Wilson. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Khedive made up his mind to introduce Constitutional government and a responsible Ministry in Egypt; but it was difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by those phrases. What was the Constitution of Egypt? He (Sir George Campbell) was not aware that it was founded on anything except the will of the Khedive, nor did he know that the Ministry was responsible to anybody but the Khedive—as, indeed, the events of the last few days had shown. He saw no essential difference between all that and any other Oriental despotism. A great deal had been said about the reforms that were to be effected by the new Ministry. Now, they had often heard of such

  1635
  Schemes in connection with Turkey and Egypt; but there was invariably this little addendum to all of them—namely, that the Oriental Potentate who was to effect all these great reforms was going to have a new loan. Mr. Rivers Wilson might be a very able man; but as far as he (Sir George Campbell) could see, he had only shown his ability by obtaining a new loan for the Khedive of Egypt, which had been devoted to paying the interest of the bondholders, which he did not think was right. On that account he very much regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have touched the matter, as it were, with the tip of their little finger, and would have much preferred that they should have left it alone altogether. They should have refused to have anything to do with the loan, at least until the administration of Egypt was put upon a proper footing, and the arrears to which he had referred were paid. They might go on paying the interest of one debt by creating another; but it was a proceeding very much of the character of the doings of the Directors of the City of Glasgow Bank, who paid 11 and 12 per cent dividend to their shareholders when they owed a great deal more money than they were ever able to pay. It seemed to him also that, in all the proposals that had been made in respect to Egypt, too much importance was attached to the sending out there of swarms of European officials. He admitted that men were sent out there who were not vultures, but many others had come from all parts of Europe in search of places. Not only were there three or four times as many officials in Egypt as were really required, but every time a new Mission went out to that country a fresh layer of officials was, so to speak, super-imposed upon the old set of officials. Mr. Romaine, a man of great experience, was appointed to occupy a very important position in the Egyptian Administration. He had only one fault—he was a great deal too honest for Egypt. He exposed the true state of the finances in a way that was not agreeable to the foreign bondholders, who wished to raise the value of their stock. He was engaged for a term of years, at a high salary, together with other foreign officials; but he and they were all suddenly told that the Administration had been changed.
  1636
  Officials were multiplied in the most reckless manner, and a new set were appointed. Our Government were responsible for some of these matters. For instance, as to the Daira estates, they were in the charge of a most competent officer, Mr. Money, an ex-official of the Indian Government, who had had the management of the Revenues of Bengal. Now, Bengal was 10 times larger and more populous than Egypt, and Mr. Money consequently went from a charge 10 times greater than that of the whole Revenues of Egypt. But, nevertheless, he had only charge of the Khedive's estate, which represented about one-tenth of Egypt. Under the circumstances alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some further Daira estates were surrendered to the creditors; and it might have been supposed that Mr. Money, who had had so great a charge in India, would have had that additional charge imposed on him. But it was thought necessary—he knew not why—to send out another English official. Mr. Rowsell, he understood, was a very able man, and one who would be much missed at the Admiralty here; but he was not aware that that gentleman was particularly qualified to deal with agricultural affairs in Egypt. It was unfair to the unhappy and heavily taxed people of Egypt that Mr. Money and Mr. Rowsell should both be paid for doing work which one of them could do 10 times over. He had been in Egypt last year after the bad Nile, and he did not think the bad Nile sufficiently accounted for the financial shortcomings. They scarcely realized how heavily the taxation pressed on the people. Head for head it was as heavy as the taxation of the people of England, and that for so poor a country as Egypt was enormous. It should be reduced instead of being increased. Any reform of the administration in Egypt meant a reduction of the Revenue, because the present Revenue was only obtained by harsh measures which it would be impossible for a good European administration to enforce. It would, therefore, be the most prudent thing not to force the people of Egypt to pay this great debt in full, but to make a reasonable compromise.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not know whether, in consequence of Her Majesty's Government having intervened to

  1637
  a certain extent in Egyptian finance, it would in future be necessary that an Egyptian Budget should always be discussed in that House. He did not think that the House of Commons was the proper arena for the discussion of questions of Egyptian finance. His hon. Friend who had just sat down (Sir George Campbell) had addressed himself partly to the action of the Government; but the main portion of his address had been directed to the bondholders' question, and the course which they ought to pursue. He (Mr. Goschen) would not follow his hon. Friend's example. Deeply interested as he had been in the matter, he should not take the opportunity of either defending the original arrangements which were made, or of entering into any future arrangement which ought to be made, as he did not consider questions of that character ought to be discussed there, as the discussion would naturally be interminable. He could not complain of the manner in which his hon. Friend had spoken of his (Mr. Goschen's) Mission to Egypt. His only reason for rising was that it might not be asserted that silence as to any of the observations of his hon. Friend was to be construed into acquiescence in the statements which he had made. He wished to remind his hon. Friend that he had distinctly stipulated, when he undertook his Mission to Egypt, that he should never be expected, in the interests of the bondholders, to propose or to accede to anything which, on political grounds, could not be fully justified. And, further, he had made this stipulation in writing, that he would not urge any steps on the English Government which, although useful to the bondholders, he might deem to be politically inexpedient. He was aware of the fearful suffering that would be produced by the bankruptcy of Egypt, and he was certain that it would not be for the benefit of this country that Egypt should become bankrupt. As he believed at the time that she was on the high road to bankruptcy, he had consented to act on behalf of the bondholders; but thinking, at the same time, that it would be of political service to this country that a country of such large resources as Egypt should be saved from bankruptcy. When his hon. Friend spoke of the Egyptian creditors as if they were paid in full, while others had been sacrificed,
  1638
  he (Mr. Goschen) would like to tell him that he forgot that what they were now receiving was really a compromise, and was less than what they were entitled to under their original agreement. He had been anxious, while protecting the bondholders from beginning to end, that he should not in any way appear to be bolstering up Egyptian credit. He had always said it was impossible to forecast what the Revenue would be until it had been for some time under European administration; and he was not concerned to answer at any greater length the remarks of his hon. Friend.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL.— [Bill 52.]
(Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Sir Richard Wallace.)
ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL.— [Bill 52.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present,—Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:— House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Friday the 14th day of March next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Friday the 2nd day of May next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 2nd day of May next.

CRIMINAL LAW—BAIL IN CHARGES OF FRAUD.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose any measure for the amendment of the law in respect of the admission to bail of persons who may be committed for trial on charges of fraud? He thought there was some occasion to

  1597
  consider this subject, as within the last few years frauds on a great scale had been brought under the notice of a Committee of the other House of Parliament, which was appointed to inquire into the subject of foreign loans. The Question which stood in his name did not refer to steps that should be taken to prevent frauds, but only to the mode of dealing with persons accused of fraudulent practices. In the great majority of cases the law with regard to bail worked satisfactorily; but in cases of persons charged with great commercial frauds there was this anomaly—that if the person who was charged with the offence was really guilty, the greater the scale on which operations were conducted, the easier it was for him to escape trial. If a poison had succeeded in fraudulently transferring hundreds of thousands of pounds from other people's pockets into his own, it was a matter of very little moment to him that he should forfeit a few thousands by way of bail. A case occurred some two years since which excited a great deal of attention—that of Alexander Collie, who failed for some millions of money. He was arrested on a charge of fraud, and was admitted to bail. He, however, disappeared, and has never been heard of since. It would not be right to say that Alexander Collie was a fraudulent bankrupt, for, as he was never tried, he was never convicted; but his escape from trial involved a very serious miscarriage of justice. But if the law in England was unsatisfactory, in Scotland it was a great deal worse. There, everyone who was committed for trial, except for a capital offence, might demand to be admitted to bail on giving security to the amount of £300. As an illustration, he would allude to the trial of the City of Glasgow Bank directors. The bank failed about the beginning of October. The Crown acted with great promptitude. The directors were arrested immediately, and they were tried and convicted during the last month. He desired to guard himself against being supposed to criticize the conduct of anyone engaged in conducting that trial. He wished only to point out what appeared to him to be an unsatisfactory state of the law. The indictment against the directors was a very long one; but the only charge which made it possible to refuse bail to the directors was the
  1598
  charge of theft. They claimed, except Mr. Inglis, to be liberated on bail; but the Crown refused. The case was brought before the Court of Session, which held that the offence with which the directors were charged was an offence within the meaning of the statute for which bail might be refused. The Court was not unanimous. Lord Young, a very eminent authority, dissented on the ground that the offence with which the directors were charged could not be looked upon as theft, the offence charged being that bills intrusted to them for collection were discounted by them before they arrived at maturity. The directors were kept in prison for about throe months till the trial came on. The Lord Advocate opened the case; witnesses were examined for the prosecution, and, on the second or third day, no witness having been called to speak to the charge of theft, the Lord Advocate said he withdrew the charge, as it was one he should have great difficulty in establishing. Great use—and he thought very legitimately—was made of that by the counsel for the defence. Suppose the directors had been innocent, and had been acquitted of the other charges, they would have had great reason to complain that they had been imprisoned on a charge of which they were not only innocent, but which had never been pressed against them. Although they were convicted of a most grave offence, still it was not a satisfactory state of things that in order to make sure of having men put on trial for a crime, however serious it might be, it should be necessary to commit them on a charge which no attempt was made to sustain. On the other hand, it could not be right that men charged with such frauds as those of which the Glasgow Bank directors had been convicted should be entitled to bail in finding security for the extremely small sum of £300 each.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Question of the noble Earl as it now appeared upon the Paper had assumed a different shape to that which it presented when he gave Notice of it. The Question brought to his notice a few days ago was, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose any measure for the amendment of the Criminal Law in respect of persons who may be charged with or convicted of fraudulent

  1599
  offences? —and in answer to that Question he was prepared to say that a general measure had been introduced proposing the codification of the Criminal Law, making considerable changes in the distinctions which had hitherto prevailed between felonies and misdemeanours. That measure would, he hoped, in process of time, come before their Lordships, and any question which the noble Earl might wish to raise on it could be raised then. But since he came into the House, he found that the Question had been changed. The noble Earl called attention to the subject of the recent criminal trials in the Courts of Scotland, and now asked the Question in its present form. It would appear from the noble Earl's speech that his Question had reference to that recent criminal trial in the Courts of Scotland, and he (the Lord Chancellor) was not prepared to answer that Question as it was then put. He was not acquainted with the particulars of the case to which the noble Earl referred, except from general information; but he would make inquiry as to whether the law of Scotland with regard to bail was unsatisfactory in its working. He must, however, take leave to say one thing. He could not admit the suggestion of the noble Earl that the Lord Advocate of Scotland introduced into the indictment a charge of theft against the persons arrested, in order that they might be unable to obtain bail. He felt perfectly convinced that when that charge was introduced the Law Officers considered that they had evidence, or would have evidence, to substantiate that charge. It was introduced for that purpose, and in no wise with the view of debarring from the right of having bail. He did not know whether the noble Earl considered that any undue measure of justice had been meted out to them—he could only say that the general impression seemed to be that it was not so.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, the noble and learned Earl had misunderstood what he said. He said that he did not wish to criticize the conduct of anyone who was engaged in the conduct of that trial, and that, no doubt, when the Lord Advocate put that charge in the indictment, he believed that there was a reasonable probability of his being able to prove it; but he said, notwithstanding that, but for the circumstance of the in-
  1600
  clusion of the charge of theft in the indictment, the accused men would not have been committed to prison.

ARMY—VOLUNTEER FORCE—COURTS OF INQUIRY.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  LORD TRURO,in moving for a Return showing the number of courts of inquiry held in each year in the Volunteer Force since its establishment, said, he moved for this information, because he thought it would be interesting to the public, to the Volunteers themselves, and to the authorities, to know the nature of the offences charged against Volunteers, and what had been the conduct of those who had been employed as instructors of the Force. He believed such a Return would be highly creditable to the character of the Force since its commencement.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return showing the number of courts of inquiry held in each year in the volunteer force since its establishment; the number of volunteers of all ranks, the number of adjutants, and the number of instructors in each year on which such were held, and the several offences charged.—(The Lord Truro.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that if the noble Lord wished for information on any specific point, he would be glad to give it to him if it was within the reach of the War Office; but these courts of inquiry were held on the authority of the officers commanding Volunteer corps —there were no records of them at the War Office. The Force had now been in existence 20 years, and to procure the information asked them the Department would have to apply to some 293 different corps, and ask them to go back on their records for that period. The Returns asked for would be inconvenient and expensive, if not impossible, and he hoped the House would not grant them.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he only wanted the Returns of courts of inquiry ordered by the War Office.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— THE REINFORCEMENTS — THE CAVALRY EQUIPMENTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for War,

  1601
  What alteration of equipment, if any, is contemplated in the appointments or uniform of the heavy dragoon regiment known as the King's Dragoon Guards, about to proceed on active service at the Cape of Good Hope, or those of the 17th Lancers, under orders for the same station? He thought it a very unwise step to send out the horses of the cavalry regiments from this country. Horses that had not been acclimatised in South Africa would be useless. He regretted that that most excellent force, the Cape Mounted Rifles, had not been maintained. The men were well drilled and accustomed to the country, and their native horses were thoroughly acclimatised—and altogether they were a most useful body of men.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in reply, said, there had been some minor alterations in the equipment of the two regiments which the noble Lord had named. Cork helmets had been substituted for brass helmets; a second ammunition pouch, making a total of 40 rounds for each man, had been supplied; some extra leather had been put on their overalls; a clasp knife had been given to each man; also, waterproof saddle covers, waterproof sheets, and a certain number of sets of harness for lasso purposes. The changes of equipment had been of a very minor character.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEwished to add that the two regiments in question would remain exactly as they were before, and although they had been sent out with these additional equipments there was the fullest permission to the commanding officers to put into store anything that was not required. Probably lances might not be found useful for service in the bush; but all lancers now carried the carbine as well as the lance. The noble Lord was in error when he described the King's Dragoon Guards as a heavy dragoon regiment. It was a medium regiment; and the men of both regiments were active, efficient, and not over heavy for their horses. With regard to equipments, the fullest permission was given to the commanding officers to make necessary alterations. For instance, the Lancers were furnished with a carbine, as well as a lance; and if the latter were found unserviceable or not fitted for the bush, the commanding officer could have it placed in store. As regarded the horses,
  1602
  the question was settled by the requisition from the Cape. It had been asked that the men should bring their horses with them. Even if the horses died, it would be undesirable that the authorities at home should refuse to send them when asked for in that way by those who must have the best knowledge on the subject. The reason was obvious. To collect a large number of horses on the spot would take time, and it was necessary that the men should go ready to proceed to the field at once on landing. Accordingly horses had been sent out with the cavalry, and also with the artillery. Everything had been done to assist the authorities on the spot, and he hoped and believed that the arrangements made here would give them entire satisfaction.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.