Sitting of 2 March 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION (Grant in Aid), 1882–3; ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE), 1882–3.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges of Redemption) Act (1873) Amendment* [107].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BARRY DOCK AND RAILWAYS BILL (by Order.)
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEstated, that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) had informed him, on behalf of the promoters of this Bill, that they were prepared to eliminate the objectionable clauses with regard to artificial manures and guano, and to relegate them to the same category as ordinary manure, imposing a uniform charge of 1½d. a-ton. He begged, therefore, to give Notice that he should withdraw his opposition to the second reading.
NOTICE.

  THE EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION—PAYMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that on Monday he should ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he would agree to the production of the Papers relating to the payment of the Indian troops lately employed by the Government in Egypt, considering that the Secretary of State for War had, on more than one occasion, promised to produce them?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps I may be allowed, with reference to the Notice of the hon. Member, to say that since last night I have had an opportunity of further consultation with my Colleagues, and also of referring more in detail to the answer which I gave last year; and I have come to the conclusion that, although I think there would be some inconvenience in the publication of those Papers in India, yet, having regard to the nature of the replies which I gave last Session, I cannot refuse to give the Papers. The only objection which I feel to announcing this course is caused by the somewhat un-Parliamentary threat which the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) made yesterday evening; but I think, if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) was in his place, he would confirm me in saying that at an early period of the evening I had consulted with him as to the opinion which is entertained by him and his Friends, and that opinion has had some influence in determining the course which I have decided to take.
  MR. ONSLOW: After the remarks of the noble Marquess, I may say that I had no idea he had been in communication with my hon. Friend. As to the threat I held out, I did not think it was un-Parliamentary. It was to this effect—that the noble Marquess would hear more of it. If that is an un-Parliamentary expression, of course, I beg most numbly to withdraw it. The noble Marquess has heard a little more of it, and I am glad he has arrived at this conclusion. Under the circumstances, I shall not ask the Question of which I have given Notice.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BOARD SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a case recently before the Guildford County Magistrates, in which a labourer named Bulchin was prosecuted for neglecting to send to school his daughter (described as an exceptionally neat and cleanly girl of six years of age), and in which it appeared that he had sent her, but that she was not allowed to attend because she had a small ornamental flounce or fringe to her frock to which the manager of the school objected; whether the accused was ordered by the Court to either remove the flounce or send his child to another school; and, whether it is true, as stated, that the Education Department had been appealed to, but replied that it had no power to interfere; and, if so, whether, while amending, as he proposes, the Scotch Education Act, he will endeavour to obtain powers to prevent the waste of State grants on schools regulated in such a way as to offer unnecessary impediments to public education?
    MR. MUNDELLA: My attention had not been called to the case in question until the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow placed his Notice on the Paper. The rule of the Department is not to interfere with regulations which the managers deem necessary to secure the discipline of the school. If these regulations were harsh and unreasonable, and imposed obstacles to school attendance, we should require their abandonment on pain of forfeiture of annual grant. In this instance, judging from the reports in the papers and the decision of the magistrates, the managers have pushed their requirements beyond reasonable limits. I think it is much wiser to trust to the influence of the teacher to secure neatness and plainness in dress than to set up arbitrary regulations on the subject. The exclusion of the child from the school, and the subsequent prosecution, were, in my opinion, a mistake; and I have caused the managers to be so informed.

    EXCISE DEPARTMENT—RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that 108 officers of the Excise are men of over forty years' service, and that, before the close of the year, the number will have reached close upon 200; whether any representations have been made to him respecting the inefficiency from old age of many of these officers, who are supervisors and collectors, whereby the public service suffers; and, whether he proposes to take any steps for the retirement of these officers?
    MR. COURTNEY (for the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER): Out of a total of 4,400, there are at present 115 Excise officers who have served for 40 years and upwards; but it is most improbable that this number will be increased to anything like the extent anticipated in the Question. No representations have reached my right hon. Friend or the Treasury as to the inefficiency of any of these officers. Under these circumstances, there appears to be no reason for interfering with the discretion of the Board of Inland Revenue in the matter of retirements.

    THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— STONEYFORD PETTY SESSIONS—CASE OF JAMES WALSH.
    MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a certain order made at the petty sessions held at Stoneyford, in the county of Kilkenny, upon the 8th day of February 1883, in a case, at the suit of the Board of Guardians of the Union of Thomastown, against James Walsh, of Ballinamona, requiring him to repair the roofs of certain houses in the occupation of one Catherine Mylett and Patrick Sheelan, and wherein the presiding magistrates framed the order so as to be conditional upon the payment of certain arrears of rent due by these occupying tenants, and the lodgment of the same with the clerk of the petty sessions; and, whether there is any objec-jection to the production of such order?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a communication from the clerk of petty sessions at Stoneyford, which shows that no such order as the hon. Gentle-
    1256
    man mentions has been made in this case. As a matter of fact, no order whatever has been made, as the case stands adjourned for further hearing.

    NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— SALARIES OF NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Commissioners of National Education of Ireland in disallowing portions of salaries of National teachers, owing to any temporary decline in the average attendances of schools caused by a prevalence of epidemics, whereby the teacher of the Smithstown National School at Castlecomer was mulcted recently in a loss of three pounds, in consequence of an outbreak of scarlatina in the locality?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that the Commissioners of National Education are not in the habit of making deductions from the salaries of National teachers owing to any temporary decline of attendance of scholars caused by the prevalence of epidemics. In the case of the Smithstown School, the Commissioners inform me that the full salary would have been paid if the manager had made any representation that an epidemic prevailed.

    SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether at any period since 1868 application has been made by the Government of Cuba to the Government of the Bahamas for the surrender of political refugees from Cuba who had sought asylum in the Bahamas; and, whether at any time during that period any Cuban refugees residing in the Bahamas were forcibly taken away from those islands by a vessel belonging to or chartered by the Cuban Government; and, if so, whether any representation was made on the subject to the Government of Spain?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In August, 1869, application was made by the Spanish Consul at Nassau to the Governor of the Bahamas for the arrest and detention of five Cubans who had

    1257
    landed there. This application was refused by the Governor. In April, 1870, the Governor refused to surrender two deserters from a Spanish ship of war. These are the two sole cases at all resembling applications such as those mentioned in the Question. There is no record in the Colonial Office of any such occurrence as that mentioned in the latter part of the Question.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask whether the Governor was not reprimanded either by Earl Granville or the Earl of Kimberley for having refused to surrender?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I do not think so. There is no record of it; but if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the Question I will answer it.

    THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— APPEALS AT ENNISKILLEN.
    COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the Assizes for the county Leitrim commence on the 5th instant; whether the Chief Land Commissioners have fixed the same and following days for hearing appeals in county Letrim land cases at Enniskillen; and, whether, in view of the impossibility of persons interested in appeal cases, and who are obliged to attend the Assizes in various capacities, being also able to attend at Enniskillen, he will represent to the Land Commissioners the propriety of postponing to a later date cases from the county Leitrim?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I believe the Assizes for the county of Leitrim are appointed to commence on the date mentioned. I communicated with the Land Commissioners on this subject, and have received, in reply, the following telegram:—The Land Commissioners arranged long since to sit at Enniskillen on the 5th instant, to hear appeals from Fermanagh and Monaghan, and from portions of Leitrim, Cavan, and Donegal. They intend to sit at Enniskillen from the 5th to the 8th, and then adjourn on account of the Assizes till the 12th. The Fermanagh cases will be taken first when the sitting commences on the 5th instant, and it is possible the Leitrim cases may not be reached before the adjournment on the 8th—by which time it is presumed the Assizes for that county will have concluded.

    NAVY—H.M.S. "NEPTUNE."
    SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he has read a Report, in the ordinary sources of information, of the serious injuries which are said to have occurred to H.M.S. "Neptune," and requested him to state accurately what is the real amount of damage which that ship has sustained?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; I have seen the Report to which the right hon. and gallant Admiral refers, and it contains a great exaggeration of the facts regarding the Neptune. The practical officers, who have examined the ship in dock, report that some defective arrangements and workmanship exist in the fastening of the wooden sheathing with which the hull is cased. These defects will, at no very distant period, require remedy; but any evil that exists does not extend to, or in any way affect, the iron hull itself, and the ship is quite in a condition to proceed to 8ea, and join the Channel Squadron as intended.

    THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—HYDE PARK.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Why the brick arching of the new reservoir in Hyde Park has not been kept below the ground level?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The reservoir which supplies some of the Public Offices with water is there, and every foot gained in height is of very great importance for the safety of those buildings. The ground, however, will be made to slope gradually towards it, and I think the reservoir will then be quite invisible.

    SUEZ CANAL REPORT, No. 41.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to contradictory Tables in the Suez Canal Report, No. 41; if he has observed that the French Table (D. VII.) shows the trade of France with China to have been in some years from two to ten times greater than the Chinese Table (D. V.) states China to have had with all the continental Countries of Europe put together; and, if he can say which Table is correct?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, his attention had been called to these

    1259
    Tables. He did not think that they were necessarily contradictory; but they, no doubt, required some explanation to make them intelligible. The Tables (D. VII.) were from French Official Returns, and the Tables (D. V.) were from the Returns of the Chinese Imperial Manager of Customs; and he thought that these were Tables referring only to the exports from Treaty ports, and that, probably, they excluded from consideration all the exports from Hong Kong and Macao, and some other ports, and that in that way the discrepancy might be accounted for.

    BOARD OF TRADE—THE TRINITY HOUSE—COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LIGHTHOUSES AND THE SHORE.
    MR. VIVIANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any immediate prospect of the Trinity Board taking into their favourable consideration the question of establishing communication between out-lying lighthouses and the shore by means of electric cables, which was first brought under their notice in 1875?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries, and I find that this subject has received for a long while the careful attention both of the authorities of the Trinity Board and the Board of Trade. For myself, I am not quite certain that the result to be attained by such a communication as proposed would justify the very large expenditure which would be incurred; but, at the same time, we have been anxious that the experiment should be made; and, accordingly, as I learned some time ago that the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company were willing to try the experiment for 12 months, at their own risk and cost, I sanctioned the experiment, with the proviso that, if it were successful, the Trinity House were to purchase the cables and apparatus for the sum of £3,730; but I thought it necessary that the determination of the question, whether the experiments were successful or not, should be left to Sir James Douglas, the engineer of the Trinity House Corporation, and I find that the Telegraph Company have objected to that condition, so that for the moment the negotiations have been suspended. I hope, however, it will still
    1260
    be practicable to make some arrangement by which the experiment will be tried.

    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES—MR. PLAYFAIR.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the indulgence of the House for one moment, while I take this opportunity of expressing my very great regret that I had, through inadvertence, left the House this morning before the announcement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews of his intention to resign the Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means. I extremely regret to have missed the proper opportunity of expressing, on behalf of myself and many Friends, the feelings of regret with which they heard the cause which has led the right hon. Gentleman to retire, and, at the same time, to express our sense of the great labour which he has undergone during the time he was in the Chair. It is an office which we all know taxes very severely the powers of everyone who undertakes it; and certainly the time during which the right hon. Gentleman—whom I have known in various capacities for many years—has held that office, has been one of no insignificant severity. I hope we shall for many years have the advantage of the assistance of his services in the conduct of other Business in this House, of which he has been a most valuable Member.

    PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should be glad now if Government would tell us what the arrangement of Public Business will be to-night, and what will be the course of Business on Monday, especially with regard to the Egyptian Estimates? I see the Parliamentary Oaths Bill stands for second reading then. I presume it will not be taken; but I am anxious to know authoritatively?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope the House will be willing to go into Committee of Supply, or, at all events, to commence the consideration of the Estimates at any hour up to 12 o'clock to-night. The Business on Monday will be Supply. The first Business

    1261
    will be the completion of any Supplementary Estimates not disposed of tonight.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will any other Estimates be taken then?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): On Monday we could not take any but Supplementary Estimates.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Then it will be distinctly understood that the Parliamentary Oaths Bill will not be taken on Monday?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether, it was intended to take the Army Estimates during the next week?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope, if sufficient progress is made, to take them on Thursday next.

    PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it would be regular under the New Rules of Procedure, when the Supplementary Estimates were taken on Monday, for an hon. Member to make a Motion on first taking each of the three classes of Estimates—Army, Navy, and Civil Service?
    MR. SPEAKER: The New Rule provides that the Speaker should leave the Chair on Mondays and Thursdays without Question put, except on first going into Committee of Supply upon the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the Rule in regard to first going into Supply would apply to the Supplementary Estimates, and justify an hon. Member in making a Motion on each class of Estimates?
    MR. SPEAKER: If Supplementary Estimates are proposed on Monday as the first Order of the Day, it will be my duty, as soon as the Order for going into Supply is read, to leave the Chair.

    THIS HOUSE—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE EXCHANGE.
    MR. RITCHIEasked the First Commissioner of Works, When, according to his promise, he would place the House in telephonic communication with the Exchange?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope before long it will be done.
    MR. RITCHIE: How long? Any mercantile house in the City can have it in 24 hours.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope it will be done in a few days.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  COMPULSORY EDUCATION (IRELAND).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,in rising to move—
    "That it is expedient to introduce into Ireland the principle of Compulsory Education, with such modifications as the social and religious conditions of the Country require,"
    said, he did not think that primary education would ever enable the Irish people to deal with great political questions. It was quite true that a little learning was a dangerous thing; but he thought that a mass of ignorance was a far greater evil. There was very little crime of the ordinary character in Ireland, and the little crime that did take place there was the result of drink. He thought that primary education was a powerful instrument for good; and if, as he believed, education would make the Irish people more sober, then there were good reasons for considering it. It was not necessary to say anything in proof of the assertion that education was necessary to the body of the people. There was at present a movement in favour of technical education; but such teaching would be of little use unless founded upon general education—and this was particularly the case in regard to agriculture, the principal occupation of the Irish people. He did not mean to say that teaching a man to read and write would teach him agriculture; but the general education would assist him in the technical education in agriculture. The great majority of the people were Celts, with all the impulsiveness and impetuosity which belonged to the race. In a primitive community, men of this temperament might be allowed to guide themselves; but in a more complex society, and especially in a country where

    1263
    every man was a politician, they required reason and education to enable the people to act with moderation and prudence. The statement of a few facts was necessary to the discussion of the question of education in Ireland. According to English experience, the school age was between the ages of 5 and 13, and the number of children in Ireland between those ages was 1,100,000; but the children in Ireland went to school at an earlier ago, about three or four years of age, and he thought it might be said that the 16th year might be regarded as coming within the school age in Ireland. That would add another 300,000 to the 1,100,000 he had already mentioned, thus bringing up the total to 1,400,000. Deducting from that the children of the middle and upper classes, he estimated that about 1,300,000 children in Ireland were within the range of primary education, to accommodate whom there were 9,100 schools, national and denominational in character. In 1881 there were about 7,615 national schools, and about 1,500 schools unconnected with the State. The national schools at that period had no less than 2,066,000 children on the rolls, and there were at least 100,000 children on the rolls of other schools, making, roughly, a total of 1,150,000. Thus, about 90 per cent of the children who ought to go to school were on the rolls of one school or another; but what they wanted was to make the children who did go to school put in a sufficient number of attendances. The National Board gave some statistics it was worth considering. In the first place, they gave the number who attended on any one day during the last 14 days of the year, and that number was 674,200. That number would contain every child who had any chance of gaining results, and it was also pretty certain it would contain a large number who came there casually. The average daily attendance was given at 453,000. He found a few figures in the Census Papers of 1881, which threw a very clear light on that important question. It might be taken for granted that the attendance at the national schools, which were more largely and regularly attended than the rural schools, was not much higher than the figures he was about to give. Out of the children who attended school 12½ per cent made less than 20 attendances
    1264
    in the year; over 23 per cent made less than 40; 41 per cent under 80; 51 per cent under 100 attendances; and only 49 per cent, just half the number on the roll of the schools, made 100 attendances and upwards. There were many reasons why good attendance at the schools in Ireland was desirable. A good many of the children were taken early from school to discharge domestic duties and to work on farms, and unless they attended school with regularity they never learned anything. A large number of children went late to school, and if children were absent for an interval of a week or a month, they naturally forgot all they had previously learned; and it was therefore for the purpose of increasing and regularizing the attendance that they wanted compulsion in Ireland; and he submitted that if compulsion was introduced and employed generally and rationally, it would involve no revolutionary change in Ireland. Nearly all the children were upon the roll, and had the idea of school in their minds, and what they wanted to do was to make them attend more frequently. What should be the average attendance? Any proportion of 80 would certainly be inadequate. Experience in this and other countries had pointed to 100 at the lowest, and men of education and experience had fixed on not less than that number as being adequate in Ireland, especially as in the educational status of the country 100 was the minimum which entitled a child to go in for results. He would not, however, ask the House then to fix on any number. He would simply say that the present rate of attendance was insufficient, and should be raised. The degree of illiteracy existing in Ireland was a cardinal test of the necessity of compulsion, and he must explain that what he meant in this instance by illiteracy was being unable either to read or write. In 1841, 53 per cent of the population could not read or write; in 1851, 47 per cent; in 1861, 39 per cent; in 1871, 33 per cent; and in 1881, 25 per cent. The reduction from 53 to 25 per cent looked very large; but the House must recollect that that was over a period of 40 years, a great space of time in the history of a nation in the present day; and, again, in 1841, the population was greatly in excess of what it was now, and there was a greater amount of distress prevailing. Again, that percentage

    1265
    of illiteracy was not universal in Ireland, being much lower in some portions than in others. For instance, in Ulster the percentage was only 20, while in Con-naught it was 38, and in this respect Connaught to-day was in the same condition as Ulster 40 years ago, although Connaught had lost a large number of that class of the population among whom ignorance was chiefly found. In 1881, 28½ per cent of children between the ages of 5 and 10 could read and write; 73 per cent between the ages of 10 and 15, and 77 per cent between the ages of 15 and 20. Surely every child between the ages of 5 and 10 should be able to read and write, yet at present only 28 per cent could do so in Ireland; and as to the other figures, it was a serious prospect that 25 per cent of the population should be growing up in almost absolute ignorance. Other countries had determined there should be no residuum of ignorance in their land; they had taken steps to that end, had sacrificed parental authority, and had undergone great expense, and he did not think it would be wise on the part of Ireland to remain behind them on the march. The compulsion he proposed would only involve an expense of £70,000 a-year, which would represent the increased expense of teaching staff consequent upon a moderate system of compulsion. If there was an increased demand for accommodation in denominational schools, he had no doubt that the religious zeal of the community would meet that want to a large extent. He must, however, remind the House that nothing could be done in Ireland to enforce compulsion unless it was consonant to the feelings of the Irish people. He was not deputed to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, nor was he in any way competent to do so. But he could speak from what he knew of the course which the Catholic Church had taken on the subject of education, and from sympathy with Catholic feeling which, as a member of that Church, he entertained. The national system of education was largely used by the Roman Catholic Church; but it had never been thoroughly accepted as satisfactory in principle. There were some branches of it to which special exception was taken—namely, the model schools and the system of training; and the friends of education in Ireland had
    1266
    heard with pleasure that the question of training would soon be dealt with by the Government. He might, however, state that it was quite possible that the rules of the national schools of Ireland might be so altered under new management as to be highly objectionable to the Roman Catholics, who might, consequently, have great hesitation in sending their children to those schools. Were the compulsory system adopted in Ireland, it would be necessary to provide special exemptions in many cases where parents, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, might object to send their children to the only school in the neighbourhood on the ground of religion, because it was well known that in many instances secular schools became denominational schools. If these special exemptions were not provided for, compulsion would do more harm than good in Ireland. Other exemptions ought to be provided in reference to the condition of the country, because it might so happen that want of food or clothing might prevent parents sending their children to school. He would leave it to persons in the locality to set the law of compulsion in force in gross cases of neglect on the part of the parents, and he thought no proceedings should be allowed to be taken without the permission of the tribunal before whom the case was ultimately to come. With respect to the tribunal, he acknowledged that the magistrates of Ireland were not as popular as the magistrates of England; but in a purely social matter of this kind he believed the magistrates would have regard to the feelings of the people, and would not do anything that would impose hardship upon them. There were many delicate topics connected with the subject, all of which he had endeavoured to avoid. It was always well, in dealing with educational matters, to steer clear of questions which might give rise to conflict. Public opinion had of late years greatly ripened with respect to this question. He believed the course he advocated would succeed, because it was now recognized that the general spirit of education among the people of Ireland was necessary to enable them to enjoy free institutions, to promote their industrial progress, and to enable them to rise and hold that position among civilized peoples worthy of their hopes, their

    1267
    capacities, and the old traditions of their country. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTONrose to second the Resolution. He said, that the first real difficulty that would confront the State in any attempt to enforce education unreservedly was the poverty of the Irish people. This consideration doubtless weighed with the Commission of Inquiry of 1870, which reported that it would be inexpedient to pass any law compelling attendance at school in rural districts, and that in towns the application of any such law should be limited to children who were not actually at work. His hon. and learned Friend now recommended the adoption of the principle of compulsory education for rural as well as urban districts, recognizing, however, that there was need for discrimination in certain cases, as where a child was too destitute to appear at school, or where occupation afforded grounds for exemption, or where exemption might be claimed on the ground of the distance of a child's dwelling from a school. With regard to the demand for exemption based on the ground of destitution, he held that the poverty of the West of Ireland must itself prove the primâ facie impossibility of any absolute system of compulsion. The average day attendances at the schools in Ireland in 1881 was 465,567, which was a decrease of 14,000 in comparison with 1880. There had been, however, an abnormal increase in 1880, as compared with 1879, of 33,000—an increase which was due to the desire of the children to receive the rations distributed during the period of distress. As to exemption on the ground of distance from school, he believed there were few places in Ireland where there was not a school of some kind or other within two miles. He, therefore, did not anticipate much difficulty in connection with this ground for exemption; but he would, taking into consideration the roughness of the roads, and the fact that the poorer children in Ireland had not shoes, be inclined to as great leniency as the utmost limits of prudence would sanction. The third social exemption which he would make would be that of occupation. It should be remembered that the capital of a cottier was his own industry and that of his family; but he did not be-
    1268
    lieve that children would be debarred on this ground, except on particular occasions such as the hay-making time. There was another element in regard to the question of poverty which should not be lost sight of, and that was the importable character of the food of the poorer classes, such as the pototo or its substitute in some cases of Indian corn. The validity of a claim to exemption ought to be determined by the Resident Magistrates. He was aware that the magistrates were subject at present to considerable popular dislike; but they were a resident body, and in the performance of these duties of a now political character, he could not conceive that they would be likely to act with other than intelligence and impartiality. He now came to the question of exemption on the ground of religion. In 1832 the policy of a denominational system of education was distinctly sanctioned. In that year, a conference was held between Mr. Stanley (then Chief Secretary for Ireland) and the members of the National Board for Education upon the subject of the admissibility of schools into the national system which were conducted by men described as monks. The result was that no objection to assist those schools was made by any members of the Board or the Chief Secretary. Nuns and monks who were teachers received salaries, and schools under such teachers obtained the same assistance on the same terms as other schools. The National Board said—
    "We have assisted in building and repairing their school-houses, and we have given salaries."
    Mr. O'Connell, in accepting Mr. Stanley's proposal, observed—
    "Let the Protestants and Presbyterians be educated in Scripture or any other course of study they please. All the Catholics asked was the benefit of education accompanied with their own mode of religious instruction."
    It was not from the Catholics as a body that the opposition to the national system came so much as from the Protestants. The Presbyterian Synod would not accept the proposal of the Board to separate the reading of the Bible from ordinary instruction. The Rev. Mr. Rogers, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Synod in 1837, told the House of Lords Committee that they could not act with the National Board, which maintained the right of separate religious instruction being given to Roman Catholics

    1269
    by ministers of their own persuasion. The same opposition on the part of the Protestant laity was expressed by Mr. Royton, Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, in reply to a question addressed to him by the Prime Minister as a Member of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1837. The attitude of the Established Church was no less hostile. Dr. Trench, Archbishop of Tuam, denounced "this effigy of a system of national education as an unclean thing." The Protestant landlords in some cases refused sites for school-houses, held meetings to denounce the system, and exercised such moral pressure as they could to prevent their tenantry from sending their children to the schools. This opposition of the Protestant Party led to two results. In the first place, the Presbyterians and the members of the Church of England set up their own schools, a circumstance which explained to some extent the fact that in 1860 nearly 84 per cent of the children attending national schools were Roman Catholics; and even, in 1881, though there was an improvement, the proportion of Roman Catholics in mixed schools, after making allowance for the far larger proportion of mixed schools under Roman Catholic teachers exclusively, was as 71 to 50. But the second result of the Protestant opposition was a direct concession on the part of the National Board to denominational education, in accepting the principle that religious instruction might be given during any of the school hours, and not requiring managers of non-vested schools to give the use of their school-rooms to clergymen or laymen of other denominations for religious instruction. It seemed to him clear that from the first the peculiar religious condition of Ireland—the political as well as the doctrinal character of the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism—was taken into consideration, and the State was forced into accepting in reality a system of denominational education. There were national convent schools, there were nearly 3,000 national mixed schools under Roman Catholic teachers exclusively, and there were 1,304 under Protestant teachers exclusively, as compared with 85 only under Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers conjointly. In Ireland the attitude of the Roman Catholics towards the national system was one of increas-
    1270
    ing confidence. In the mixed schools, under Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers, in 1881, the proportion of Roman Catholics to the total mixed attendance was a fraction over one-half. Of the 138 schools added to the list of national schools in 1881, 75 were due to the operation chiefly of the Roman Catholics, and in the year 1881 over 814,000 Roman Catholic children attended national schools out of a total of 1,100,000 of school age—namely, from 5 to 16. He held that it would be most unwise to check this advance among the Roman Catholics—the vast majority of the Irish people—by any Act which would not fully appreciate their religious susceptibilities. He believed there was a desire on the part of some to substitute for the National Board of Commissioners a general Minister of Education for the three countries. That desire shaped itself into a definite proposal when the Duke of Marlborough brought forward a Bill in 1867 to provide for this change. The Commission of 1870 went into the point, and examined Mr. Macdonell, who stated in his evidence that it would be extremely difficult to get any person who would be able to understand so clearly everything connected with Irish education as a Board of Commissioners, representing North and South, town and country, and the different religious denominations. The Commission reported that an unpaid Board representing the different sections of the community ought to be maintained. There were objections to any Government official taking the place of the National Board, or assuming to control them, stronger now than in 1870. In the first place, the system of Irish education if it was to succeed must be plastic, and not controlled by fixed official rules. If controlled by a Government official, there would always be a temptation—which would certainly engender distrust in the Irish mind—to bring the Irish into uniformity with the English system. Another objection was a political one—namely, the odium which any direct interference of Government officialism would create in dealing with so delicate a problem. He was glad that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend did not involve the imposition of an education rate. The failure of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael

    1271
    Hicks-Beach), when he was in Office, by which the State was to give to successful schoolmasters a grant of two-thirds, the first absolute, the second conditional upon the Unions contributing the remaining third, was due to the practical difficulty of raising local rates, and the money which it was then intended to bestow on education had to be raised in another way. It was very noticeable that the local aid to schools in 1881 had fallen to £9,840, as compared with £27,918 in 1875. Again, the local taxation of Ireland, which was already very oppressive, had increased out of all proportion to the very slight increase in the valuation of property. In 1872 the total local taxation of the country was £2,905,000, and the valuation £13,329,000; in 1876 the taxation was £3,242,000, and the valuation £13,512,000; and in 1880 the taxation was £3,292,000, and the valuation £13,769,000, illustrating that while the local taxation had nearly doubled, the valuation of property had remained nearly stationary. These figures showed that it would be most imprudent to endeavour to raise the additional sum required by means of the local rates. The Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was perhaps open to criticism, on the ground that it had not specified the mode of compulsion more clearly. It appeared to him that his hon. and learned Friend had gone into the mode of compulsion as far as prudence would justify, for the House must bear in mind that, in regard to so delicate a question as that of compulsory education in Ireland, it was necessary to build up public opinion in its favour. Without such an alliance, it could never be carried out, and to obtain its assistance, great circumspection, patience, and avoidance of offence was requisite; but, whatever might be urged in criticism of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, it had, at any rate, done good work in showing the necessity of improving the educational condition of the Irish people, and that, he believed, was a task that could be accomplished only by acting in sympathy with the great social and religious peculiarities of the country. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient to introduce into Ireland the
    1272
    principle of Compulsory Education, with such modifications as the social and religious conditions of the Country require,"—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that when the noble Viscount who had just sat down concluded by saying he should second the Motion, he removed a doubt in his mind whether he was not going to oppose it. During a very considerable part of his speech the noble Viscount was like another Balaam; and although it appeared he really came to bless the Resolution, he seemed all the time to be cursing it. The noble Viscount addressed himself rather to the question of denominational education than compulsory education, and spent considerable time in denunciations of Protestant landlords and Roman Catholic clergy. From what had happened in the controversial times long by, he was glad that those controversies had gone by, and glad, too, that the first opportunity of addressing the House of Commons since his last election was from a platform on which he thought all friends of Ireland could meet, and that was, that the education of the children was deserving, at any rate, of consideration and improvement. It was a sad fact that 25 per cent of the rising generation were growing up in ignorance. For his part, he was entirely in favour of some limited degree of compulsion which would oblige children to attend regularly to receive their instruction. He believed that the habit of regularity which would thus be enforced would be almost as valuable to the children as the actual knowledge they would acquire. There was no greater weakness in the character of the Irish peasant than his fatal habit of irregularity. Now, if the children were forced into a school at fixed and stated hours, a habit of regularity would be given to them which would not leave them in after life. Though they might forget their ABO, or their pot-hooks and hangers, the habit of discipline and obedience to orders would remain. For that reason, among many others, he advocated compulsory education to a certain extent. But compulsory education in Ireland must be guarded. In the poorer parts of Ireland the children could not

    1273
    be taken away from their parents at certain times of the year. At the time of setting the potato crop, at the hay harvest, and at corn harvest, the children were necessarily wanted in the fields. But he believed the number of attendances specified by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy)—namely, 100 per annum, were not too many, and would enable the children to assist their parents in all necessary field pursuits. Again, great care was necessary in dealing with the question of religion; but in the present case there need be no real difficulty. Here and there there were districts containing a scattered Protestant population, living at a great distance from schools of their own denomination. But he knew, from his own experience as manager and patron of four national schools, that in such cases the Protestants did not object to their children going to a properly managed Roman Catholic school, in which the rules of the National Board were strictly observed. The same thing could be said of Roman Catholic children attending Protestant schools, and there was nothing which the Inspectors more looked after than that the instructions relating to religious teaching were observed. He had risen merely to give his hearty support to the principle which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down; and he could only express his regret and astonishment that there was not a larger attendance of Irish Members at a discussion which so much affected the welfare of the rising generation.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) has been opportune in bringing before the attention of the House the imperative need of carrying to the homes of the Irish population the blessings which arise when education becomes universal among a people. In one respect Ireland has been far ahead of both England and Scotland in the possession of a system of national education. Both these sections of the United Kingdom long struggled with imperfect systems of voluntary education, supplemented by small and fluctuating aids from the National Exchequer, for it is only within about 10 or 12 years that the nation has extended to and imposed upon them really national systems of education. But Ireland has had a national system for half-a-century. It
    1274
    is true that England and Scotland, by their voluntary efforts, had lessened the ignorance of their populations, so that even before 1870, when education became national in England, the Irish system was still behindhand. The National Board of Education for Ireland has been unremitting in its efforts to lessen the mass of ignorance among the population, and every decade of the Census shows a marked amelioration. If this is still slow and unsatisfactory, the system of education is more responsible than the Commissioners who superintend it. And the result of all these efforts must surely be deemed insufficient when we compare the work of half-a-century in Ireland with the 10 years of the English system, even though its compulsory powers have been extended slowly and with considerable timidity. The Census Returns for Ireland show that on the work of the Census only 47 per cent of children from 5 to 15 years of age were actually at school; or, if we take the numbers from 5 to 13, there were found 54 per cent actually present. We have no similar Census Returns for Great Britain; but, according to the Education Reports, England has 83 per cent, Scotland 87 per cent, of their children at school. England has now a powerful means, through compulsory laws, of lessening these school absences; but Ireland has not this advantage. She has had other and greater aids—I will not call them advantages—to promote education than either England and Scotland, for though local aid has been insignificant, the Imperial funds have been lavished on Irish education. This is scarcely an educational advantage, for it lessens local co-operation, which is so necessary to the spread of education. Hence the National Board has been working at a disadvantage; and, notwithstanding its persistent efforts, the educational results, measured by its half-century of existence are melancholy small. As I have said, they improve in every decade, but still at a slow rate of progress. In 1871 rather less than half the population above infancy (exactly 49 per cent) could read and write; and in 1881, 59 per cent could do so. So that still 41 per cent of the population in Ireland cannot read and write. Does the House realize this terrible fact—that after half-a-century of national education, 41 out of every 100 of the people

    1275
    of Ireland above the age of five years cannot yet read and write? You cannot take a lower test of education than the ability to read and write, though there is a lower depth still, that of absolute ignorance, or of inability to do either. Of course, there are parts of Ireland in which the education is better and the ignorance is less appalling, but there are others in which it is worse. In the county of Dublin, which stands highest in the Educational Census, there are still 23 in the 100 who cannot read and write; while in the County Mayo, which is the worst, there are actually 60 out of every 100 of the population above five years who are still unable to read and write. Gratifying, therefore, though it be that every Census decade shows an amelioration of the illiteracy, can you be surprised that a true lover of his country like the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) should come forward and ask you to strengthen the hands of the National Board, by compelling parents not only to send, but to keep their children at school, in order to obtain the benefits of education which the State has so liberally provided? It would be out of place, in a limited Motion of this kind, to discuss the merits and defects of national education in Ireland. I am no admirer of that system as a whole, though I admire the efforts of the National Board, and in 1875 I expressed my views very plainly in regard to it. Perhaps I may have another opportunity this year to discuss this subject in a broader way than I can do on this limited Motion. But at present I understand the question to be whether compulsory education is required, and should be introduced into Ireland? It is well known that, if scholars leave school after merely acquiring a knowledge little above that of infants, such as that embraced in the three first Classes of the Code, this extremely thin veneer of education rubs off very rapidly in the wear and tear of life. That this is the case in Ireland, as it is elsewhere, is obvious from the fact that while among the population at ages between 5 and 20, shortly after they have left school, 78 per cent can read and write, although of the whole population above infancy only 59 per cent can do so. Unless, therefore, the school children are kept at school sufficiently long to get a lasting amount of
    1276
    education, it is useless to expect any large educational result. This is the reason that we extend the school age by compulsion to 13; but in Ireland many parents think that a mere smattering of letters is sufficient, and promote neither regularity nor continuity of school attendance. But, much as compulsion is required, can you secure the efficient working of a compulsory law? Unquestionably experience shows that it is difficult to carry out compulsion to a successful issue in Roman Catholic countries. That is a fact, whatever is the cause. It is among the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who chiefly include the humbler classes, that great deficiency of education prevails, for little more than one-half (or exactly 54 per cent) of them can yet read and write. Among the Protestant Episcopalians and Presbyterians there seems much room for improvement; but still 75 per cent of them can do so, and among the Methodists 84J per cent can read and write. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick sees this religious difficulty, and wishes to have compulsion with a safety-valve. He would allow parents whose consciences did not approve of schools within easy reach to escape the obligation. I do not know what such a law would be worth, or who is to administer it. But I would give great concessions to religious opinions, if I believed that they would lead to any good result. In no country that I know of are the schools so intensely denominational as they are in Ireland at present. To all intents and purposes, with few exceptions, they are all denominational schools, with a Time Table Conscience Clause. To a large extent even they are managed, not by committees, but by the priests and other ministers of religion. To make them secular schools is impossible, even if it were desirable. I have no desire to see religious teaching lessened in Irish schools. But I think the time has come when the Government should take firm control of the secular results of education in these schools, and insist that the large contributions of the State should only be paid for efficient and sufficient secular education, secured by regular attendance, and enforced by compulsory provisions. The State has the right to do this, because of the whole cost of education the State pays 81 per cent, the pupils pay in pence 18 per cent, and the

    1277
    localities themselves and religious bodies, which assume entire management and control of the schools, pay little above 1 per cent of the cost. Yet, insignificant as this local contribution is, the denominational managers assume all the power to appoint the master, to dismiss him, and to regulate the schooling. If we could hope to create school boards in Ireland, with contributory powers of rating, we gladly would lessen the State management and increase the local government of schools. But when the experiment was tried by Statute in 1875 to interest Boards of Guardians in school work, how disappointing was the result. They did contribute about £28,000 in 1875; but already that sum had dwindled to less than £10,000. How stands local aid in Ireland, say, even as compared with Scotland—the former having a population of 5,170,000, and the latter of 3,730,000? In rates, subscriptions, and endowments, Ireland contributed to national schools £40,573, and the children in school pence £91,830, or together £132,403. Scotland, with a much smaller population, contributes £30,300 in subscriptions, £196,500 in rates, and £260,500 in school pence, making in all £487,300, or nearly four times the local aid to education given by more populous, but certainly poorer, Ireland. It would, therefore, be hopeless to expect the formation of school boards at present, with the responsibilities and duties attached to them in Great Britain. But for the limited purpose of carrying out a compulsory law, it ought not to be difficult to form School Attendance Committees out of the Town Councils, Board of Guardians, or sanitary authorities of the country districts. These Committees, though a very inefficient substitute for school boards, would be one step at least in interesting the localities to promote education. I would go a very long way in any efforts not only to promote the co-operation of localities, but also of religious bodies, in the promotion of education in Ireland. But under the present state of Irish education, the State cannot be relieved of its responsibility. It provides the funds with great liberality under a system which Parliament has laid down, although it has forgotten to retain efficient Parliamentary responsibility for the results. A nominal responsibility there is in the Chief Secretary; but
    1278
    what time has he at his disposal to be an efficient Minister of Education for Ireland? Clumsy as is our educational administrative machinery in Great Britain, we have some definite Ministerial responsibility for its success; for under one Department we have grouped the cattle on a thousand hills and the juvenile population of cities and country districts, and under this composite administration of cattle and human children, we have a sort of Ministry of Education. But in regard to Ireland, we shovel about £700,000 a-year into the coffers of a National Board, and hear no more about it till the Census startles us one day by telling us that, after half-a-century of this kind of education, 41 per cent of the population above infancy cannot yet read and write. If the State choose to pay for education in Ireland without local aid, at all events it has a right to obtain good secular results for its money, both in the attendance of the population and in the sufficiency of the secular education. No maxim is better known in Ireland than the one "That he who pays the piper should name the tunes." But the state has not followed this maxim, for though it pays the piper, it has taken no interest whatever in the tunes; for these practically are named by the denominational managers of the schools. Let the ministers of religion in Ireland be freely allowed to take care of the religious education; but let us have full Parliamentary responsibility that the secular results of the education give us an adequate return in the universality, as well as in the efficiency, of education among the Irish population. I shall allude further on to the causes which, in my opinion, prevent me having that confidence which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick has, that if we trust to the issue of religious indulgences to break the compulsory law, we may nevertheless obtain a practical universality of education. But before we consider this point, we must examine the proofs as to whether the present system has produced, even among those educated, as well as among those whose education has been neglected, those consequences which the State has a right to expect when it pours out its treasures for the education of the people. What induces the State to spend so much money in education? It can only have one purpose in view

    1279
    when it goes between the duty of the parent to the child, and that is to develop good and orderly citizens. To test whether this result is achieved, we must look to the social wrecks as seen in the judicial statistics. Now, I admit that for a long time Ireland had the glory of having, apart from agrarian and political crimes, a less black calendar of crimes than either England or Scotland. If I took the statistics of crime since the ferment of political agitation, beginning in 1879, the demoralization of the nation over the whole field of crime would show very black results. In all classes of crime, from 1879 to 1882, the Returns are very bad. Formerly Irish crime was much lower than Scottish crime in proportion to the population, and about one-third less than English crime. But in 1880, in proportion to population, Irish crime stood, in regard to the more serious crimes, as 7,745 for Ireland, 4,477 for England, and 5,615 for Scotland; and as regards minor crimes, 156,958 for Ireland, 95,387 for England, and 75,522 for Scotland. In all classes of crimes in these recent years of melancholy agitation, Ireland has terribly blackened her calendar. The normal number of criminals in Ireland was 11 to 10,000 of the population; now it is above 21. But we may well hope that this deterioration and demoralization are only temporary; and I mention the fact, because I do not wish my remarks in regard to crime in relation to education to be based upon these exceptional years. As the normal criminal population of Ireland is less than that of Great Britain, we have a right to hope that the same consequences which we have seen in the marked lessening of crime in Great Britain since compulsory education was introduced, should become proportionately apparent in Ireland as education spread under the action of the National system. Of course, as education in Ireland is much less universal than that of England, we must expect more absolutely ignorant persons among their criminals; and accordingly we find that among men, 46 per cent of Irish prisoners are wholly ignorant, and among English male prisoners 31 per cent. Among women, 49 per cent of Irish, and 40 per cent of English, prisoners are wholly ignorant—that is, they can neither read nor write. In every Report, the Irish Commissioners
    1280
    of Prisons ascribe this to want of compulsion. The remark repeated in every Report is as follows:—
    "The Irish National School system seems to be successful for the class that falls within its reach; but the want of compulsory education leaves a considerable substratum not reached by the Irish National system, allowing a wholly ignorant class to grow up to form such a large proportion of those committed to prison."
    This opinion is, undoubtedly, true; but it, of course, announces a truism that ignorance and crime are frequently but cause and effect. It is less to this than to a remarkable anomaly in the crime of Ireland that I desire to draw the attention of the House. In Great Britain, crime decreases in proportion to education. Of course, when a country becomes generally educated there will be far fewer prisoners; but there will will be more educated prisoners within our gaols. At present in Great Britain, where compulsion has only reached the younger classes, we still find that only from 3 to 4 per cent of the prisoners are able to read and write, while at least 96 per cent are imperfectly educated, or are wholly ignorant. In Ireland, where education is still far less universal than in Great Britain, we should expect to find this difference still more accentuated. We are entitled to expect that in the ordinary crime of Ireland, separating it from agrarian or political crime, the number of educated prisoners should become a vanishing quantity. Going back to 1878, so as to avoid the recent years of terrible criminal demoralization of all kinds, we find the astounding fact that the percentage of prisoners in Irish gaols, who are able to read and write well, is no less than 41 out of every 100. In the year 1881, it was 33 per cent among men, and 29½ among women; while in England it was only 3½ per cent among men, and 2½ among women. Speaking generally, how are we to explain the astonishing fact that in Ireland, with a less diffused education than in Great Britain, there are 10 times as many educated prisoners in its gaols in proportion to the committed criminals? If this were confined to years of political excitement, the explanation would be sufficiently easy. I could then reply that the smattering of education implied in the ability to read and write enabled the criminal classes to read the seditious papers which are circulated in such

    1281
    numbers, and that the unhappy prisoners who committed outrages might turn upon the State which gave them this inefficient education, and could say, like Caliban in The Tempest—
    "You taught me language, and my profit on't
    Is, I know how to curse; the red plague rid you,
    For learning me your language."
    I wish that this explanation were sufficient. Much may be forgiven to political excitement. An ordinary educated criminal is a monstrosity like Caliban; and I wish we could turn to the rest of the scholars educated in Irish schools, and say to all of them—
    "To the most of men this is a Caliban, And they to him are angels."
    But this we cannot do. There is but one conclusion—that though in normal times crime is absolutely less in Ireland than in Great Britain, the education given in the national schools does not prevent the glaring anomaly that there are ten times as many educated prisoners proportionately in Irish gaols as there are in the gaols of Great Britain. The explanation of this startling fact is extremely difficult, and I am not at all sure that I can give it. Certainly it is not ascribable to any want of zeal in the Churches in neglecting religious education in schools, for that is the chief thing they look to, and they do their duty in that respect religiously and conscientiously. When the priests in Ireland can point with proud satisfaction to the fact that in ordinary times they have done so much to keep their flocks, even though without education, moral and religious, it cannot be from any want of zeal in their religious superintendence of the schools that educated persons are found to be so common in the gaols of Ireland. I rather ascribe the fact to the circumstance that they have not fully realized the truth that the low education implied by ability to read and write only produces low results, and is comparatively worthless to make good and productive citizens. The "three R's" are the mere tools of education, not education itself. If education be not carried further than this, as is the case among nearly three-quarters of school children in Ireland, three-quarters of the £700,000 which Parliament votes yearly may as well, as far as the purposes of the State are concerned, be thrown into the "melancholy
    1282
    ocean" which washes the coasts of Ireland as into its schools. But ecclesiastics do not encourage anything beyond the mere elements of education in Roman Catholic schools. Cardinal Cullen has said—
    "Too high an education will make the poor oftentimes discontented, and will unsuit them from following the plough, or for using the spade, or for hammering iron or building walls;"
    and when asked to what, then, he would limit education, he replied—
    "The 'three R's,' and to the history of Scriptures and of the Church."
    The Roman Catholic Church claims the control, as Bishop Cloyne told the Commissioners, of every part of the education of the school except the multiplication table. Well, the Churches—not only the Roman Catholic, but the Protestant Churches—have had the practical control of Irish education, and have produced the result which an eminent Roman Catholic layman, Sir Robert Kane, told the Commissioners, when he said—
    "I consider it to be the fact that in every country where such a course has been adopted it has resulted in the social decay and political debasement of the people."
    At all events, it is a palpable fact that the "three R's" are insufficient to keep boys who have passed through Irish schools from adding to the criminal classes. It is time that the State should assume its sovereign functions, and administer, through a Minister of Education, responsible to Parliament, the education of the people, which has so woefully failed, under the present system, to produce those results for which alone the State contributes nearly the whole of the cost. It is not a question of race, and perhaps not of religion. In the United States the children of Irish parents, educated at excellent public schools, become, in the second generation, prosperous and productive citizens. How rarely in this country do we find Irish workmen in our large centres of industry becoming anything else than "hewers of wood and drawers of water?" If you ask as to the nationality of foremen and overseers, it is very rare to find that they are Irish. But that is not the case with the Irish of the United States, where you constantly find them in positions of responsibility and importance.

    1283
    The difference is that in Ireland the idea of elementary education is a low one, and in the United States it is broader and higher. Thus, in America, as in Scotland, the fuller and wider conception of education gives to the recipient of it a greater productive value. A poor ignorant peasant has within him no spring or resource for improvement. One cannot be surprised at the melancholy condition of the Irish emigrant who complained to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) that he was unfitted to work in Minnesota, because in Ireland he used to spend one-half his time in standing outside the door of his cabin, and the other half in fighting his landlord. It is precisely among these ignorant or half-educated peasantry that it is difficult to introduce the idea of emigration. They understand their own miserable surroundings, but have not capacity to cast their vision beyond them. It is the same in regard to industry. The Irishman is content to be a mere unskilled labourer, and does not aspire to take skilled work. When an Irish hodman wrote to his friend in Ireland—
    "Dear Pat,—Come over here and earn your money. All you have to do is to carry bricks up a ladder, for there is a fool at the top who takes them from you and does all the work."
    you have an idea of the content of ignorance. If you introduce compulsory education into any country up to the age of 13, you must bear in mind that the State is bound to give the fullest and most effective education which a child can receive up to that age. Because, if you do not do this, compulsion is tyranny and unjustifiable. I thoroughly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that compulsion in some form must be applied in Ireland. But it will be useless until you bring the educational systems of the three parts of the United Kingdom under one common responsibility, and make it the special duty of a Minister of Education responsible to Parliament. I do not speak with any bigotry on this subject. In regard to higher education, I have always advocated the extension of education in Ireland through agencies acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church, because I believe that the conception of higher education does not differ much between the educated ecclesiastics of any religion. But in regard to the education of the people a national system has been
    1284
    tried for 50 years, with only nominal responsibility to the State through the Chief Secretary, who is overburdened with the cares of administration. I do not wish to lessen, but to increase, the interests of the Churches in education in Ireland, and in the amelioration of the Irish people. But I desire to see one Minister for Education over the whole of the United Kingdom, so that the educational development of Great Britain and Ireland may go on pari passu. The conception of what education should be is rapidly growing in Great Britain, and I wish to stimulate it in Ireland. If I had time I could point out how the low education in England still fills the prisons with 65 per cent of prisoners who can only spell out the words of a sentence, showing that they have been at school, though they have left it too soon. But I must draw my remarks to a close. I would venture to make only one other appeal to the House to show the importance, even in the interests of England and Scotland, of getting a wider and better education in Ireland. The Irish labourers in both parts of Great Britain are becoming a factor with which we have to deal. The slow way in which our English and Scotch Census is brought out does not enable us to refer to the figures of 1881; but in 1871 there were 750,000 of Irish in Great Britain. In our chief towns in England one out of 14 adults was Irish, and in the Scotch burghs one out of six. Therefore, in my own country of Scotland we are immensely interested that one-sixth, representing the adult Irish population of the towns, should be educated and orderly citizens. If we take the proportion of Irish throughout England and Scotland, and suppose that they contribute equally with the native population to our prisons, we ought to find 3,500 Irish prisoners in English prisons, and about 500 Irish prisoners in Scotch prisons. But, as a fact, we find 22,000 Irish prisoners in English prisons, and about 9,000 in Scotch prisons. Why is this? Irishmen in normal times are much less criminal than either English or Scotch. But Ireland throws upon our shores an uneducated and turbulent population less under the control of their priests. It is, therefore, vastly important in the interests of Great Britain that we should ensure a universal and sufficient education for the

    1285
    Irish people, so that when they come to us as permanent residents to aid us in our industries, they should be law-abiding and productive citizens. All modern experience tells us that the position and prosperity of a nation largely depend upon the efficient education of its people. I am, therefore, entirely in accord with the major part of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, that compulsory education must be applied to Ireland. I do not so heartily go with the latter part of his Motion in regard to the modifications of a compulsory law, because I think the solution of the religious difficulties is of less importance than the establishment of direct responsibility to Parliament for the administration of the law. I think the solution of the difficulty is that the State, as represented by a responsible Minister of Education, should be bound to see that the large funds voted by this House for the promotion of the education of the people are applied equally in Great Britain and Ireland, so as to secure the educational training of a peaceful, law-abiding, and industrious population.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought the House might be well congratulated at having once more restored to its debates one who was able to speak with such authority and power on the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself also might be congratulated on having escaped from the disagreeable servitude of the Chair, and being enabled to take part in the discussions of the House. All debates on Irish education wore necessarily conducted with a certain amount of reserve by those who were connected with Ireland, and who were acquainted with the special difficulties which surrounded it. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling his recently acquired liberty, had spoken with a freedom and amplitude of instruction to which the House had listened with great pleasure. There was, at least, one fact gratifying to Irishmen, and that was that comparing one period with another there had been steady educational progress. There had been a real, if not a conspicuous increase in the percentage of children who were acquiring education; but that progress had not been so great as could be desired, or as great as had taken place in England and Scotland. What were the remedies proposed? When those were discussed we
    1286
    found ourselves face to face with the real difficulties of the situation. Clear and forcible as was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he did not think it indicated a remedy for those difficulties more efficacious than did the speeches of those who had preceded him. He regretted to say that the local aid to education in Ireland, as compared with the State subvention, was by no means what it ought to be. That was a fact of which Irishmen ought not to lose sight, and the reproach of which they ought to seek to remove. Another deplorable circumstance was that the action of parents as to sending children to school was absolutely unfettered. Thus there was nothing like continuity in the system of education. That was a state of things for which they were bound to discover a practical remedy. There was now the suggestion of compulsion. He remembered that that was a question which was introduced some eight years ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). It was one in which it was necessary carefully to examine and watch the progress of public opinion in Ireland. He was not sure that public opinion had been keenly directed to the matter. The hon. Member did not profess to be acquainted with the views entertained by the Roman Catholic dignitaries of the country. He was not aware that during the last six or seven years any clear expressions of opinion had come from that quarter. But Sir Patrick Keenan, a distinguished Roman Catholic, and a man of great experience and acquirements, who was Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, had read a most important paper at the Social Science Congress at Dublin, a year or two ago, which, he regretted, had not been communicated to Parliament. Sir Patrick Keenan favoured what might be described as a safeguarded compulsion. It was most desirable to devise some means of increasing the attendance of children. What remedies had been suggested? They had had three speeches. First, there was that of the hon. Member for Limerick, in which he looked almost in vain for any practical suggestion. The hon. Member for Limerick suggested that compulsion should be safeguarded by permitting an exemption to be granted to every child who pro-

    1287
    duced the certificate of its parent that there was no school within a reasonable distance to which it could be sent without danger to its religious convictions. But the compulsion must apply to the parent; and if they allowed the parent who was to be compelled to exempt himself from its operation, the compulsion would be of a very vague kind indeed. The hon. Member said he would allow of some kind of proceedings by the permission of some tribunal, after certain warnings to the parent; but that, again, was rather indefinite. The noble Lord who seconded the Motion (Viscount Lymington), and who left them for a considerable time in doubt as to the course he meant to take, did not attempt to grapple with the crucial point—namely, what kind of compulsion was to be applied, how it was to be exercised, and at whose instance. The noble Lord told them that Irish education should be elastic, and not bound by rule. That was practically what it was now; it was elastic, and the parent was as free as air.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, that he had only spoken of its not being bound by official rules.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the conscience of the parent was to be got at in some tangible way; and yet he was not to be constrained by any rule to obey his conscience. Therefore, although the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution had raised an important discussion, they had not very exactly communicated to the Minister of Education any principle on which compulsion was to be applied. Neither had the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). While the right hon. Gentleman recognized the social and religious difficulties which surrounded the question, and said he was not opposed to a safety-valve, he did not express himself very definitely as to how he would apply compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested the formation of School Boards, which were not looked upon with favour in Ireland, but, failing them, the appointment of a School Attendance Committee; but he (Mr. Gibson) was at a loss to know how they were to be composed, what were to be their duties, and how were their duties to be enforced. Those were matters on which they could not give an opinion off-hand without any definite information. The right hon. Gentleman had adduced some in-
    1288
    teresting and curious facts about the education of Irish criminals, but they hardly supported his argument. Education of a low type was, he had told them, easily rubbed off; but the education which those criminals carried with them to gaol did not appear to have been rubbed off. No doubt, when the State contributed such large sums for education, it had a right to see that it got proper value for its money, and as to payment by results, that was a proposition which was accepted in Ireland; but he asked the right hon. Gentleman how would that principle operate on those who did not and who would not attend school? They might secure that those attending school should come up to a particular standard; but that would not of itself ensure them a larger attendence at the school. At the same time, he thought it well that that question had been brought under the consideration of the House. The debate would, he believed, tend, in the first place, to bring into prominent relief the fact that local bodies in Ireland did not take sufficient parting that burden; and, in the next place, it would serve to show that parents did not exert themselves as they might do to send all the children to school who ought to go there; and he thought that such a pressure would have good results, because there was a great love of education in Ireland, and the parents, and even the elder children, were anxious that the younger children should be taught. He believed that that discussion would be useful in giving a healthy stimulus to opinion in Ireland on that subject; and it would be the duty of those who were responsible for the government of the country closely to watch the progress of that opinion, and be ready in every reasonable way to assist its advance.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that after the last two speeches he felt rather painfully the comparatively hampered position in which he stood. He must say that there were several points which he should like to start for discussion in connection with that question, including that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had mentioned—namely, contribution from local funds towards national education in Ireland. He confessed that he was a little disappointed at the general course of the debate; indeed, he was

    1289
    much disappointed in one respect, and much pleased in another, and perhaps his pleasure exceeded his disappointment. From the position in which that subject stood at present, two contributions he had hoped might be made towards it by Parliament; the first was the elucidation of the practical question of how compulsion could be applied; and the second was the affirmation or the negation of the principle of compulsion. He was disappointed by the way in which one of those points had been treated by the different speakers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down having been more emphatic than those who preceded him only in refusing to give them advice in regard to it, although he did not say that he was called upon to do so. The Government were deeply interested and concerned in the state of education in Ireland; indeed, they would not be fit to be the Government if they were not interested in it. He thought his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh had exaggerated the state of education in Ireland in several important particulars. In the first place, he entirely objected to the state of education being tested by the very interesting figures given in the Census Report. It was quite true that 25 per cent of the people were illiterate; but they must not forget that in 1841 there were 53 per cent, and that the number had rapidly diminished since that date. Before 1833 they had no national schools. In that year there were only 700 or 800 schools; in 1840 there were still under 2,000; in 1860 there were 5,000 or 6,000; whereas in 1880 there were 7,590. He thought it was evident, by the great rapidity of the increase in the schools and the diminution in the illiterate persons, that what had happened was that the unlettered generation, by no fault of their own, was passing away, and that the rising generation was very much better read than his right hon. Friend said. Last year his right hon. Friend gave figures which were perfectly appalling. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a smaller number of the children on the rolls in the Irish schools were able to read than those on the rolls in England and Wales. The answer to that was very creditable to Ireland, and that was that the number of children on the rolls
    1290
    in the Irish schools was so very large. At this moment, while the number of children of school age in Ireland was about 1,300,000, the number in attendance at one time or another was some 50,000 or 60,000 in excess of that number. The reason was that, in his opinion, a number of young men and young women, who felt their earlier education was neglected, went into the rural schools and joined in the classes with the children for the sake of improving themselves. Whenever he had gone into an Irish rural school he had seen people of that sort up to the age of 20 actually standing in the class. He did not mean by this to say that Ireland was sufficiently well educated. There was another test that his right hon. Friend took. He said that, while the average attendance was 87 per cent in Scotland and 83 per cent in England, it was only 45 per cent in Ireland. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had taken a different basis for his calculation—namely, the entire population; but he could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at that result. In England and Scotland the average attendance of the children was one in nine of the entire population; whereas in Ireland it was one in eleven. That was bad enough, but it was not the difference between 87 and 45 per cent. But when they came to the question of proficiency, Ireland did not stand in the position that he would wish to see her. As far as he could make out, about 350,000 passed in the three highest classes in England, 82,000 in Ireland, and, oddly enough, exactly the same number in Scotland. If it were the case that the higher standards were the same in Ireland as in England and Scotland, though he was afraid they were not, then Ireland would stand very well by the side of England, though very badly by the side of Scotland; and, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, though he was a Scotch Member, he should not be satisfied until Ireland had got much nearer, and, if possible, quite up to the standard of Scotland. The fault was not in the Irish children, whose natural cleverness and brightness was beyond all question. If they took proficiency in essential subjects—reading, writing, and arithmetic—the Irish children were decidedly better than those of England. The defect in Irish education was really that which was pointed out in the Reso-

    1291
    lution of his hon. Friend. The inferiority of average attendances was not so great as was implied by his right hon. Friend, but it was quite enough to make the friends of Ireland uneasy. The causes of this appeared to the Government to be two. Last night he heard language, which he should be sorry to characterize, directed against him for saying that the taxpayer ought not to pay money to Ireland when it was not for the advantage of Ireland. But when it was for the undoubted advantage of Ireland the Government were quite willing that it should be paid. Ireland had been kept too long waiting to share in the advantages accorded to England and Scotland in the matter of the training of teachers. One great cause that the children were badly trained was that the teachers were not themselves trained. But they did their work wonderfully well considering that fact. In England £110,000 a-year was spent for 42 Colleges, which educated 3,150 teachers. In Scotland £27,000 was spent for educating 851 teachers in seven Colleges; while in Ireland only £7,755 was spent on 220 teachers in one College. That was the provision made to meet the requirements of 7,648 schools, manned by 10,600 teachers. He would not enter into the reasons for that; but it was a very great misfortune for Ireland, which all that had the interests of education at heart must recognize. It was a matter which was only, to a certain extent, the business of the Government; but the question was—Was the Government willing to give the necessary funds? The Irish Government had made a recommendation to the Cabinet, which had been accepted at the Treasury, and they were willing to provide those funds. It now passed to the Education Commission in Ireland, and they would approach the subject with the knowledge that if they thought it right to alter the system of grants towards the training of teachers in any direction they thought desirable, the Government and the Treasury would find the money, unless the direction was one with which they strongly and entirely disapproved. That was a subject which had been well thrashed out in that House; and he was very much pleased to think that his hon. Friend the Member for County Longford (Mr. Erring-ton), who had pressed Parliament so
    1292
    often on the question, would be able to road the line which the Government proposed to take. He now passed to the second method of improving education in Ireland—namely, compulsion. No doubt, if masters were well trained, that alone would attract children to the schools; but whether compulsion should be applied was a matter which was all but novel. It was true that those who regarded compulsion as a remedy had against them the Report of the Royal Commission—Lord Powis's, of 1870. But he must own that the Government did not attach very great weight to the Report of that Commission, because in that year this country was in quite the Dark Ages of education. The Royal Commission, by the light of early and inchoate ideas on the subject, discussed it little, and decided against it on, perhaps, not sufficient experience of its operation, for it was only in 1871 that it began to be applied in England, and a year later in Scotland. But they now had the experience, not of Germany only and of Switzerland, but of the whole of that Island, and that experience was of a more than encouraging nature. In England, in 1870, before the introduction of the compulsory system, the average attendance was 1,152,000. In 188!, after 11 years of compulsion, it had risen to 2,863,535. The scholars who passed in reading were 691,763, as against 1,776,059, an increase in culture of 3 to 1 where the population had increased in the proportion of 9 to 8. In Scotland there was less room for improvement. In 1872, the year before compulsion was made general, there wore 213,000 in attendance. There were now 410,000, and the children who had passed in reading had risen from 137,000 to 286,000; so that culture had doubled, while the population had only increased by 400,000. But it had been good for England and Scotland, because it had been carried out with regard for the feelings of the population, and for the feelings of those interested in conducting education. Compulsory education could not possibly be set on foot, certainly could not be worked to any good purpose, unless the arrangements under which it was conducted commended themselves to the people themselves, and to those to whom the people looked up for guidance. If in this matter hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had been

    1293
    indefinite, the Government could not set the example of being definite; and all he could say was that if they were to have compulsion in Ireland they intended that it should be of a practicable character, and be of great service to the country. The Government did not intend to take any step in the delicate subject of national education which would shock the religious sentiments they so deeply respected. At the same time, they would not be untrue to the principles on which education could be effectively and practically conducted. They were not going to act in a hurry in this matter, or without consultation in Ireland with representatives of those of all religions and classes who must be consulted. The measures which already had left the anvil, having been beaten out as far as they could beat them, would require all the aid and co-operation of Irish Members to pass that Session. On the question of compulsory education the debate had thrown much light; but there were points in it and difficulties in it which, if rashly and hastily handled, might make it an apple of discord and discomfort indeed; and he must say plainly that the Government would be glad to have till next Session to consider the question. Even if they had had a debate more fruitful in suggestions of detail it would still have been necessary to have more time, so that those who understood the people, and whom the people understood, might be consulted. On one point he thought his hon. Friend made a rather modest proposal—namely, with regard to the number of attendances. In Ireland, if they deducted Saturdays' holidays and vacations, there were 220 days of school. If they took out seven weeks at spring time and autumn for rural work that left 150 days, and he should be glad if they could contrive to get the children into school during those 150 days. The Government were determined they would not force people's consciences, or hurt their religious opinions; but they did not see any reason why compulsory education should not be carried out in the great towns of Ireland, and over Con-naught, Munster, and Leinster. He had now said not all he could say, but all he really dared say; and assuring the House once more that in this matter they were really practical, he must say, at the same time, they were determined
    1294
    to work in accord with the best Irish ideas. The Government would be very glad if, by approving this guarded but sufficiently emphatic Resolution, Parliament gave it a commission to apply itself to consider how compulsion could be applied to Ireland with due regard to the social and religious conditions of the country; and if it received that commission it would pledge itself to discharge it in the spirit and according to the very letter in which it was worded.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had waited with some anxiety for the concluding portion of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for it was not till then that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated the intention of the Government to accept the Resolution. Those who were not satisfied that a case for compulsory education for Ireland had been made out might, nevertheless, say that it was a distinct advantage to have the Government committed to a Resolution which, while in one part it assented to the necessity of compulsory education, also took great care in another part to assert that that compulsion should be carried on with strict regard to the social and religious condition of the Irish people. He must say, on the part of those who were not satisfied that a case had been made out for compulsory education, that he could have wished that the Government had distinctly explained the manner in which compulsory education should be carried out. Whatever advantage they had derived from this discussion, they were not a bit nearer than they were at the opening of the debate to a conception of the means and methods by which compulsion could be carried out in Ireland. If there was a Division, he could not vote for the Resolution, as it was so vague and uncertain. Anything coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) on education deserved attention; but he did not think he ever heard a generalization more misleading in its character than the one with which he opened his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said in Ireland they had had half-a-century of primary national education, whereas in England they had only 12, and in Scotland 10 years; and was it not melancholy to contemplate the great disparity observed in Ireland

    1295
    in the results as compared with England and Scotland? He objected to that generalization, as it was not founded upon real facts of general application. Before the right hon. Gentleman could argue in that way, he ought first to inquire whether the three countries started upon an equal footing, and whether, during the half-century, Ireland had possessed those educational endowments and advantages generally belonging to the people of England and Scotland. Before they could pronounce a reliable opinion upon the illiteracy or the state of education amongst the people of Ireland, they must look at the question from the historical standpoint. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt at considerable length upon the paucity of attendance at Irish schools; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was surprised that in the anxiety of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken to account for this paucity of attendance nobody had ever referred to what seemed to him to be the great essential cause of the backwardness of education in Ireland. He referred to the chronic poverty and serious distress of the mass of the people. If he were told that 25 per cent of the population were illiterate, he would answer that 50 per cent were under-fed. It was once said by the founder of a great religious order that no man could pray on an empty stomach. He did not know if that was true or not, but he thought that if they were to get the boys and girls of Ireland to walk miles across country to school they ought to secure that they should have their breakfast first. He certainly agreed that if it were attempted to apply compulsory education vigorously in the country districts in Ireland the poverty of the people would be one of the greatest obstacles which the School Board, or the Attendance Committees, would have to encounter. He objected to the comparison of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh between Scotland and Ireland upon the test of population. The right hon. Gentleman had contrasted the large local contributions in Scotland with the small local contributions in Ireland, notwithstanding that Ireland had the larger population. In his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) opinion, it was no question of relative population at all, but of relative wealth and means. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    1296
    the University of Edinburgh had invited the Irish Representatives to account, if they could, for the extraordinary circumstance that a larger proportion of Irish criminals knew how to read and write than those in England and Scotland. He did not know if he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was under the delusion of one idea, and that he was prepared to account for everything by the poverty of the people; but he would account for this extraordinary circumstance from the want of remunerative employment. Boys who went to school for a short time might generally be counted upon to lead virtuous lives up to a certain period, but if there was no field for their abilities or powers to gain an honest livelihood, they were naturally attracted to criminal courses; and it might, therefore, follow that a large proportion of Irish boys and girls might be drawn into crime because of the want of substantial occupation. Reference had been made to the large proportion of Irish criminals to be found in the English and Scottish gaols, and it seemed to him that the very same fatal misfortune accounted for this difficulty also, because if they looked at the class of the people who formed the bulk of the Irish immigrants to England and Scotland, they would find that they landed in this country with no means whatever, and because of their poverty they were obliged to take lodgings, and to reside in the very lowest quarters of the English and Scottish towns. He had called attention to these few general considerations, in order that hon. Gentlemen might realize the causes which, to some extent, had operated to diminish the success of educational efforts in Ireland hitherto, and in order to prevent them from abandoning themselves to a fatal despair with regard to every Irish question. He did not despair of his country in any sense. He did not despair of its ultimate peace and tranquillity, of its ultimate prosperity, and of its progress in education. On the contrary, he had faith in the power and the capacity of his countrymen and countrywomen to work out a better and brighter destiny for themselves; and though he was somewhat dissatisfied with the position in which the Government stood towards the question of compulsory education, because they were not yet able to define any regular method of carrying it out,

    1297
    he would hail any efforts that were made legitimately, and with a due regard for the social and religious convictions of the Irish people, which might enable them to acquire a higher standard of education in their native land.
    MR. MOOREsaid, that, having in view the example of compulsion in England, the enormous expense it had involved, and the inconvenience to which it had put those who had to support voluntary schools, he was not strongly in favour of the Resolution when he first saw it. The whole matter had been so carefully guarded by the Chief Secretary and other Gentlemen, especially as regarded the religious aspects of the question, that there remained but the merest shadow of compulsion to apply, affecting very few persons; and, consequently, there seemed to be little to object to in the application of those powers. There could be no doubt that due deference had been paid to the religious aspect of the question and to the Roman Catholics. The present Government must remember, however, that any movement on their part in this direction would be viewed with suspicion by the Irish people. Their sympathies in that matter, however much they differed in other respects, were rather with hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House. Education in Ireland had improved in recent years; the number of those who could read and write had increased 50 percent, and the numbers of the illiterate had decreased more than 50 per cent. With the increase of schools the generation of the illiterate was vanishing from the land. The impression conveyed by the figures of the National Board in Ireland was very erroneous, and as a proof of it he stated that they had entered on their rolls 1,000,000 children, not including various denominational and private schools, whereas the population of children in Ireland was only 1,003,000. They took credit for children duplicated and re-duplicated, owing to their removal from one school to another. But he believed that the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Ediuburgh, comparing the attendance in the three countries, were grossly in error, for it was well known—putting aside all other considerations—that the age of attendance differed. In Ireland it was three,
    1298
    in Scotland and England it was five. But it would be found that the percentage of attendances in the three countries did not differ as widely as had been supposed. In England it was 75 ·2, in Scotland 70·8, while in Ireland it was 67·3. Now, the question was whether, if these figures were correct, the game was worth the candle; and whether such a radical measure would produce a result commensurate with the difficulties at every turn. While in Great Britain 63 per cent of the people lived in towns, in Ireland only 21 per cent lived in towns. The great bulk of the population were employed in agriculture, and, the assistance of the children being necessary at harvest time, it would not be easy to enforce attendance upon them. In these circumstances, he submitted whether it was worth while pushing the matter further, and suggested that it would be a cheaper and more easy remedy for the irregularities if a small expenditure in the shape of rewards were given to the masters to secure attendance, and a very small award to the children who gave regular attendance. It would also become necessary, if compulsory attendance was insisted upon, to greatly improve and enlarge the existing schools; for, at the present time, having regard to the general character of the children, and the tender age at which they were admitted to school, the accommodation was wholly inadequate for the needs of the country.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the announcement he had made with regard to the better training of teachers in Irish schools. He thought, at the same time, that there would be a general feeling among those interested in education that the principle of compulsion should not be applied until the training system had had a little time to work. The want of trained teachers had been one of the most fertile causes of irregular attendance at the National Schools in Ireland; and another main cause was the very inadequate and often wretched accommodation. In his opinion, if all the children in Ireland were to go to school the accommodation would be quite inadequate. He admitted that the results of half a century of education were unsatisfactory, but thought that was due, first, to religious diffi-

    1299
    culties; and, secondly, to the insufficient school accommodation. In conclusion, he would express a hope that there would be no unnecessary hurry in dealing with this question of compulsion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he rose to express gratification at the tone of the debate, showing, as it did, a satisfactory progress of opinion since the time, not many years ago, when a Ministry was threatened to be destroyed, because of the difference among its supporters as to what should be the character of education in Ireland. He was glad to find, from all sections, the opinion expressed that if the people were to be educated, the great point was to educate them, and that they should not dispute as to the manner in which they should force the education down their throats. Large districts of the country had been left absolutely uneducated, because the Government and the representatives of the religious denominations could not agree between them as to the education of the people. In connection with the evidence in the Maamtrasna murders, nothing more painfully impressed him than the fact that a witness, 12 years of age, was totally unable to be sworn, because totally devoid of education. He was also glad to hear the reply made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), whose speech was a most able and interesting one; and though he had the misfortune often to differ seriously with the Chief Secretary, he rejoiced to find him in a position in which there was great play and scope for the great abilities he possessed. He thought they might congratulate themselves that, on all sides of the House, there would be no opposition to a well-considered scheme of compulsory education.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce into Ireland the principle of Compulsory Education, with such modifications as the social and religious conditions of the Country require.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  MILITARY OPERATIONS (EGYPT).

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had placed on the Paper the following Amendment:—
    "That this House regrets that it should be called on to place increased burdens upon the people, in consequence of the late Military operations in Egypt."
    He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the function of voting money was about the most important duty they had to fulfil. It was the original object and design of Parliament, he believed, to vote money, and although they had other duties now it still remained their central duty. The question he desired to discuss was, whether the large sum of money which his noble Friend would move for directly they got into Committee in regard to the Egyptian War was money which was really spent for the national interest and the benefit of this country. The theory of those who defended the war was that the money expended had done good to England and to India also; and further it was contended that we had done a great deal of good to Egypt. In order to accomplish that good, we had to spend at least £4,500,000, and we had been the means of taking away the lives of a large number of Egyptians. It had been calculated that we slew about 5,000 of them, and we likewise lost a great many of our own valuable soldiers in the war. Comparing the origin of the war and the defence that was made of it with the present state of things, he found that Gentlemen on the other side of the House, especially those who sat on the front Opposition Bench, had stated more than once that they were misled as to the causes why we went into the war. They asserted that the Government made statements which were not now borne out by the evidence, and that that was why the large Party opposite gave their sanction to the war. Perhaps they were misled. In his opinion, the country was also misled very much as to the real object and cause and origin of the war. He remembered going to a meeting at Glasgow to denounce the Egyptian War a little before the decisive battle. He

    1301
    made his speech, and thought he had conclusively proved that the war was wrong. When he had finished, a working man got up and moved an amendment, saying—"This gentleman has read the Blue Books, and thinks they know all about it. What do we want with Blue Books. We have read the newspapers." The amendment was agreed to, and a copy of it forwarded to the Prime Minister, who, in acknowledging the receipt of it, said he was very glad it had been carried. He did not mean to charge the Government with having misled the Opposition or the country, but he felt sure that they were misled themselves, and that they did not know the exact bearing of the Egyptian Question. This, however, was no reason why they should not take the Government to task and call them to account for what they did in the matter. When a railway accident occurred, and a number of lives were lost, there was always a very close inquiry to see whether the slightest blame was to be attached to anyone; and in the same way, to take a still more appropriate illustration, when one of Her Majesty's ships was lost a court martial was always held. It seemed to him that the House was only doing its duty—certainly it was not doing more than its duty—in calling the Government to account for what had occurred in Egypt, and seeing whether they or any other persons were to blame. Now, his case was this, that the Government were misled by the officials whom they employed. Their diplomatic agents were continually giving wrong information and leading the country into trouble. It was so in the Afghan War and also in the Zulu War. The Transvaal was even a stronger case. They knew how everyone was persuaded for a long time that the Boers were longing to be taken under British protection. The facts came out afterwards, and showed how grossly they had been misinformed. His complaint against the Government was that they did not make more inquiry before taking the fatal steps that led the country into all these wars. He thought also it was a pity that the Government did not consult the House before going into these wars, which were almost all to be attributed to secret diplomacy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite shrank from condemning the war, although they said they had been misled; and the Leader
    1302
    of the Opposition said it would never do for them to condemn it, because if they did move a Resolution he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would probably vote for it, and that, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, would be a dreadful thing. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not so afraid. He would move a Resolution, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could go into the Lobby with him if they pleased. He objected altogether to this system of calculating who would support a Resolution and how many votes would be given for it. It would be much better if they went into these questions with the desire simply of discovering what was right and what was wrong, and voting accordingly. He condemned this expedition to Egypt, and would give the House his reasons for so doing. Let them see how the £4,500,000 had been spent. The first event of importance was the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria; and what were they told about them? Why, that it was absolutely necessary to bombard these forts in self-defence; but that argument was hardly a proper one to use in a meeting of rational men. Just before the bombardment two smooth-bore guns were being parbuckled—that was, rolled along the sand to the forts—and to say that this parbuckling was justification for what took place was one of the most extraordinary reasons that could be adduced. He knew it was very wrong to talk about the "bombardment of Alexandria "—it was called firing on the forts—but, although the phrase was so much assailed, he had heard the Prime Minister make use of it. Certainly, the result was pretty much as if we had bombarded the town. The correspondent of an English newspaper stated that he went over Alexandria several weeks after the bombardment, and saw in the centre of the town four shells of the Inflexible that had not exploded. He thought it might fairly be concluded that other shells were discharged into the town which had exploded. After the bombardment of the forts, from some cause or another, the town was burned, and thousands of persons were driven into the Desert, many of whom, no doubt, perished miserably. The horrors of this bombardment were pressed upon the Government even by the unspeakable Turk. The Egyptian Army then took refuge in the open country, and we carried on a

    1303
    military operation against thorn, which resulted in a wholesale massacre of the Egyptian soldiers, who fled before us as a flock of sheep would before a dog. These operations concluded, the troops were brought homo, and there was the greatest rejoicing in this country. People seemed as much pleased with that slaughter as though our troops had conquered the combined forces of Russia, Prussia, Austria, France, and the United States. The next step was to catch Arabi. We went to Egypt as the detective of the Khedive, and having caught Arabi, banded him, a political prisoner, over to his bitterest enemies. When that act was fully and fairly understood, he believed that every right-minded Englishman would regard it as one of the greatest crimes that ever disgraced the history of this country. They had been told that our action was due to international engagements; but he challenged any hon. Gentleman present to produce a scrap of evidence to show the existence of any such engagement. When the bombardment took place, and the French Fleet steamed majestically out of the harbour, there was an end to the international engagements. Then, they were told that we must interfere in order to procure the freedom and safety of the Suez Canal. He again challenged any hon. Member to show one iota of evidence that before these warlike operations there was any attempt, or suspicion of an attempt, or even a desire, to do anything to interfere with the safety of the Canal. The next thing was that they had to put down anarchy. He denied that there was anarchy. One of the first things that anarchists did was to commit robbery; but it was an extraordinary fact that there was no robbery here, and that the Treasury Chest remained untouched throughout. Perhaps it might be said that the action of the Government was owing to the riots at Alexandria. But there was nothing whatever to show that Arabi had anything whatever to do with them. Lord Granville had admitted that the charges against Arabi in reference to the burning of Alexandria had broken down. That being so, he wished to make a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), whom he did not see then in his place. He said, when it was necessary to get up a feel-
    1304
    ing in favour of the war, that there was no doubt that Arabi was guilty of complicity in the attack on Alexandria. Now, his right hon. Friend made that remark in cold blood, and not when he was in a scatterbrained condition. He knew his right hon. Friend to be an honourable and upright man, and he quite expected that before very long he would come down to the House and either withdraw the charge he had made, or produce some further evidence. Then there was the official statement of the Prime Minister of the cause of the war—he begged pardon for calling it war in that House, he should have said "military operations." The Prime Minister said that we went to war to keep up the rights of the Sultan, the rights of the Khedive, the rights of the people of Egypt, and the rights of the bondholders. Were those proper objects for which to spend the treasure and the blood of a free nation? To keep up the rights of the Sultan. What rights had he in Egypt? None, except the right to draw from the ground-down and oppressed people of Egypt a tribute of £700,000 a-year. And we went, cap in hand, to the Sultan for weeks and weeks begging him to help us to keep up his rights. Then came the rights of the Khedive. What had we to do with them? What earthly reason was there for spending the lives and money of the people of this country in keeping up the rights of the Khedive? Did anyone know of any good the Khedive had done? Then there were the rights of the Egyptian people. Why, that was almost as ridiculous as all that we were told about the Suez Canal. The first right of any nation was the right to govern itself. Even in Ireland we gave some semblance of self-government. ["No!"] Well, we let people out of prison occasionally. The first right of a nation was self-government, and the day would come when most of the people of this country would look back with horror to what they had done when they saw that we, a free nation, that England, the mother of Parliaments, spent her blood and treasure in putting down the first rising hope of freedom in a long down-trodden and oppressed people. Then came the rights of the bondholders. That was what the right hon. Gentleman put in last; but that they were the first consideration he

    1305
    had very little doubt. Was there a sane man in this country or out of it who believed that, were it not for the bondholders, this country would have ever gone to war? It was in the interest of the bondholders, and in order to collect their debts, that we kept up those miserable Controllers, who led us into war because they feared that their influence and power would be taken away if the popular movement was to go on. But we were told in the beginning of the proceedings that we went to war on account of the status quo ante. What had become of the status quo ante? It was gone—as dead as Henry VIII. Arabi fought to get rid of certain things, and now, having got rid of Arabi, Her Majesty's Government had gone and done what he wished so much to do; but they had done it after spending £4,600,000, sacrificing 5,000 lives of the Egyptians, and many lives of our own soldiers. That was the result of their status quo ante. Arabi was in prison a long time, and they were obliged to let him out. They dared not execute him or let the Khedive execute him. And now Arabi was in exile, and the President of the Local Government Board, who had conducted all these things to such a successful conclusion, had risen to a high position. One had gone to Ceylon and the other to the Cabinet, but the man who had succeeded was Arabi. He in his dungeon was more powerful than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, backed up by an enormous majority of the House and the country. What Arabi demanded was being now carried out in Egypt, and for no other reason than that he had right on his side, while we fought on the side of wrong and injustice. For his own part, he could only say, now that they were called upon to vote this money, that never since he had been a Member of the House had he been called upon to vote money for so unsatisfactory a purpose. They might say that the money was spent. He knew it. He knew that the evil was done. But why he wished to refuse the money now was, because he did not desire to see these things repeated. When the London mob rejoiced, he never heard any expression of regret or abhorrence on the part of the Government for the crimes committed last summer, and there was no guarantee that if they found a people weak or
    1306
    oppressed they would not attack them to get money for the bondholders, Jews, and usurers. Therefore, he would take a division in order to obtain an expression of opinion against such intervention in the affairs of other countries. That was not a policy which became a Liberal Government, and all true Liberals should oppose it. In doing so they would be supporting the principles by which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench got into power three years ago. Gentlemen on the opposite side sometimes condemned the principles of the Mid Lothian campaign. He believed these were the right principles on which the policy of this country ought to be conducted, and just as the Government had been true to them had their course been honourable and satisfactory, and just as they had departed from them had they been landed in discredit and disgrace. The Prime Minister said that in our foreign policy we ought to proceed on the principle of recognizing the equality of nations and the absolute equality of public rights. That was the right policy, and if we departed from it we should not only have troubles abroad, but should never do justice at home, because if we did not act justly abroad there was very little chance of getting justice at home by domestic reforms. Some in that House were bound to show their condemnation of this policy—a policy more disheartening than any adopted by a Liberal Government for years past; and holding these views he should venture to propose the Amendment which he had read at the beginning of his speech, and take a Division upon it.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. It might be said that they were crying over spilt milk, that the money was spent, and we should have to pay it. That might be very true; but what cut him to his heart was this—that the position and interests of the bondholders were, after all, the main cause of the war. If the Egyptian people were left to act freely, the bondholders would have run the risk of losing their money. Instead of these bonds being very low, as they were before the war, they had now risen to a very high point; and it seemed to him unjust and unreasonable that if we were to be at all the expenditure of blood and treasure,

    1307
    we should not take some return from the bondholders by way of salvage. He denied that there was anything like a direct international pledge for the security of these bondholders. The only pledge was the establishment of the International Courts, by which the claims could be enforced, and the agreement for those Courts came to an end on the 1st of February, 1883. Her Majesty's Government, for reasons best known to themselves, had resolved to continue the International Courts for another year. He was very glad that the Government had limited their continuance to another year. He hoped when the year had expired that they would not continue these Courts on the same footing, by which they gave international guarantees for the debts of foreign money-lenders and usurers. The House was told the other day that Her Majesty's Government hoped to remove the British troops within six months from the present date. He wished it had been stated, at the same time, that they would also remove the British officers and the British control. He sincerely hoped that they would be able to clear out of Egypt, "bag and baggage;" but he believed that there was a very great difficulty in this matter, and it was this—that we had by our isolated operation, and in practically for the time taking possession of Egypt, placed ourselves in so delicate and difficult a position with regard to foreign nations, and especially France, that we could not hope that the French would abstain from action unless we satisfied the bondholding interest in France by insuring that they should have their money in full. It was that necessity which seemed to make the hope of an effective and secure Administration in Egypt exceptionally difficult and, he was almost afraid, exceedingly remote. Let them look at the financial situation of Egypt at this moment. They knew that one-half of the gross revenues of Egypt wore pledged to those bondholders. But he found that there was, in addition, a very large claim by the bondholders who had mortgages on what were called the Daira and Domain lands; and then there was the claim on account of Moukabalah, than which there was never a more shameful transaction, the enormous indemnities, and a claim of £240,000 for the maintenance of the English Army since the 31st
    1308
    October. It therefore appeared to him that probably there would not be one-fourth, or more than one-fourth, of the gross revenues left for the administration of the country. That being so, it appeared to him that the administration must be starved, the people must be discontented, and there would be the most extreme difficulty in establishing a stable Government. His hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) told them that having spent £4,500,000, we were about to do that which Arabi wanted to do—namely, to grant a Constitution. He wished he could quite agree that that was so. Why was not Arabi allowed to grant a Constitution? Because we were afraid that these Constitutional Egyptians would not pay the Debt. He was afraid we were in the same difficulty. It seemed to him that if we were to arrive at the point within six, or nine, or twelve months, or within any measurable distance which would admit of our leaving Egypt a settled and self governed country, we must not only establish a Constitution, but a Constitution on a very broad basis. He had been a good deal alarmed by what had been communicated to them—the narrowness of the Constitution which had been suggested by Lord Dufferin in his preliminary Reports. He had not the least doubt that Lord Dufferin was a very good and liberal man; but he feared that he was hampered by events, and that he dared not give a sufficiently liberal Constitution, lie was very much at a loss to understand what the noble Lord referred to when he observed that he wanted to give the Khedive a Council of the same character as existed in British India. The Councils in India were not of that representative and powerful character Lord Dufferin seemed to suppose. They were merely this—With the great officers of the Government were associated certain persons nominated by the Government, and whose advice and assistance they were over ready to have. They were nothing but nominee Councils. He could not understand why Lord Dufferin should not have called together the Notables, who were, perhaps, as fairly representative a body as could be convened at first. In Egypt, the Chamber of Notables having been got together, they began to ask questions about the debts and the foreigners, and made themselves disagreeable to the autho-

    1309
    rities, the result being not only that they were sent to the rightabout, but that the war resulted.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is going far beyond the scope of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would not pursue that subject further. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government, if they were to maintain peace and quiet in Egypt, and avoid a greater question in the future, must give a much more liberal system of administration to Egypt than we had yet been able to give to India. It might be asked, why did not we give in India a more liberal administration? The answer was that we did not expect to leave India within six months. If we hoped to leave Egypt within six months, and to leave a stable Government behind, we must leave a Constitution, and put it on a very broad basis.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets that it should he called on to place increased burdens upon the people, in consequence of the late Military operations in Egypt,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he intended to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, for he believed that the war was a mistake all through. If we went to Egypt at all, we ought, in his judgment, to have installed Arabi instead of the Khedive. He had never been able to understand from any Member of Her Majesty's Government precisely the position in which our troops in Egypt were now placed. They had been sent to support the Government of the Khedive; but when Questions were asked of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he put all the responsibility on the Khedive for what was happening in Egypt. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that so long as the British troops supported the Khedive, and supported him, moreover, against his own subjects, England was absolutely responsible for what was going on in Egypt. As meetings of the Egyptians would not be allowed, we
    1310
    were obliged to receive all news from official sources. No doubt, Lord Dufferin did his best to procure trustworthy information; but he was necessarily very much in the hands of the Europeans, and of the Ministers and friends of the Khedive. He did not gather from the despatches that his Lordship had in any way consulted the people of Egypt. The hon Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said he had "read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested," Lord Dufferin's scheme of government. For his own part, although he had read, marked, and learned it to a certain extent, he could not digest it, because it was objectionable to a Radical stomach. His Lordship's scheme was a perfect sham of Constitutional government. If any species of representative government were established in Egypt it must be based on a control of the purse; but when anything was said to the noble Lord the Under Secretary on this subject, he vaguely alluded to representative government and international obligations. What were those international obligations? Was Lord Dufferin prevented from doing what he thought desirable for the country by any obligations which the Egyptians were supposed to be under to pay the interest on their Debt? If there were an international obligation on their part, it was not our business to go there to carry it out. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that the people of Egypt were bound by any such thing; but, supposing they were, it was not England's business to deprive them of the most elementary and necessary basis of representative government—the power of the purse. He had risen to try to elicit a clear statement on this subject, either from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, or from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, if the House were a mere debating society with nothing else to do, he could understand this discussion being raised tonight. There had already been two debates on the subject since the opening of the present Session. The Government were most anxious to go into Committee of Supply, and the country desired that some practical legislation should be proceeded with, and yet they were now wasting their time in an idle and a fruitless discussion, which could end in no-

    1311
    thing. He was not going into the general question. The proper time to have raised this question was when the Vote of Credit was proposed last year. Nothing had transpired since then as to the general policy of the Egyptian War that could not have been raised at that time. The House accepted that policy, and they were now discussing whether they should pay for that which they had themselves ordered the best that could be said for this debate was that it was premature, because the Leader of the Opposition intended to bring Egyptian affairs under the notice of the House when Lord Dufferin's despatch was presented. He appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. ["No, no!"] Well, if he took the judgment of the House upon it, that judgment would be formed on an imperfect kuowledge of what the Government was going to do in the future. If the Opposition had raised this debate they would have been severely criticized; and he held that those who had done so ought to be ashamed of their proceedings. He had risen in the interests of Public Business to make these few remarks.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the manly and practical speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He only rose to express his concurrence in the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, and to ask the House to take note that an Amendment of this sort, which was likely to produce delay in the conduct of Public Business, had not originated from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was, no doubt, entitled to claim the credit of consistency, because on this occasion he was expressing the precise opinion which he expressed last year. He (Mr. Raikes) thought one word ought to be said, at least by those who were anxious to see Egypt take her proper place in the future, against such a speech as had been delivered by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). If there was one thing more necessary than another to Egypt it was something of public credit; and if speeches were made with the view to obtain from the House and the country an admission that Egypt was free to repudiate the engagements into which she had entered, it could not fail to be most injurious to the future of that country. He had no doubt that the
    1312
    hon. Member for Northampton had a perfect right to express his views; but if he had any concern for the future of Egypt he should be a little more chary in making speeches which, when read in all the bazaars of the East, had the effect of undermining the credit of a country which was struggling into a better position. There was this difference between the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Carlisle—that the former was anxious to bring forward a particular financial view, and the latter a particular political view. But while the House received the opinion of both, he could not see what useful purpose it served to be continually stating that those two hon. Gentlemen were more consistent in their views than other hon. Members who were more highly placed.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he felt that, whatever difference of opinion there might be amongst hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House, upon the policy—past, present, or future—of the Government in Egypt, they would all be agreed that, so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was concerned, there was not only no Member in the House, but no man in England, who was so perfectly free from inconsistency on this question, having from the first taken one particular line, which he had stood to. Feeling great respect for that consistency, and for the character of his hon. Friend, he regretted that he could not adopt the same view. His hon. Friend had gone over ground which was already familiar to the House in repudiating what he had termed a bondholders' war. He had said that the Government were misled by their own diplomatists, and that they ought to have the frankness to acknowledge the error into which they had fallen. But that was not his own view or that of the Government. The Government still held the opinions which the Prime Minister had expressed last year, and which had also been expressed by the President of the Local Government Board—that the cause of the war was that there was growing up by steady degrees a condition of affairs in Egypt which could only be described by the name of anarchy, which threatened British interests, and which ultimately, with great regret, compelled Her Majesty's Government to depart

    1313
    from the principle of the Liberal Party—namely, the doctrine of non-intervention. His hon. Friend did not think that a sufficient justification, and said that if they had done certain things in a different way they would not have been compelled to depart from the attitude of non intervention. But in the several speeches of his hon. Friend lie had heard no detailed statement of facts which warranted his opinion. The hon. Baronet had chiefly relied on the order of events at Alexandria, and had said that the massacre and the bombardment, following pretty closely upon the arrival of the ships, were related to that arrival as effect to cause. But his hon. Friend forgot that a little further back there was a condition of growing confusion even before the arrival of the ships. The arrival of the ships was caused by the existing confusion, and did not itself cause that confusion. He recollected a remarkable speech made by one who had the singular advantage of being at Alexandria at the time of the events in question. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart) had made a very interesting speech on July 27 last year, in which he expressed a totally different opinion from that which was entertained by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford gave a general description of the condition of things at Alexandria previously to the arrival of the ships, and stated, with his usual accuracy of description, that a condition of anarchy existed which was dangerous to British interests, because dangerous to the Suez Canal. There was, he said, a state of circumstances which threatened the existence of civilization in Egypt. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had expressed disbelief that any such state of things existed previously to the arrival of the ships. But he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could show that there were movements threatening the Suez Canal, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Canal; and though he was willing to grant that the dates of these were two days after the bombardment, nevertheless, it was perfectly clear that the organization and intention of these movements had originated before the bombardment—at any rate, there was quite sufficient evidence of the facts to justify the Government in taking the
    1314
    steps they did. But what he mainly based the case of the Government upon was that the whole condition of Egypt was one of rising anarchy, which they felt Arabi, whatever his intentions might be, was quite unable to control. It was said that the Prime Minister and the President of the Local Government Board had made charges against Arabi in that House, the details of which were contained in one of the Blue Books, and which were summarized in Lord Granville's despatch. But the Government had never rested their policy on those charges alone. Even if Arabi had been an angel of light, he was entirely unable to direct a movement the elements of which had got entirely beyond his control. The history of the movement did not exhibit Arabi in the light of a great General or statesman. Whether his intentions were good or not, he came forward as one capable of governing Egypt; but his incapacity was such that in a very short time he would have left no Government at all in the country. In other words, he very soon produced that state of things which, as Lord Granville had said, was the only circumstance that could make us depart from our neutrality. The hon. Member went on to ask what the position was in regard to the other reasons of the war, besides the condition of Arabi; and he said it was stated by the Prime Minister that, this condition of Arabi having arisen, it was the intention and desire of the Government to go back on the status quo. The Prime Minister did not state that the maintenance of the status quo was the object of the Government in going to war, or that they declared that after the war they were going to restore everything to the condition in which it had existed before. If the House would reflect on the great knowledge and experience of affairs of the Prime Minister, they would feel that he was not so rash as to be likely to make such a statement. When war had taken place, it was almost impossible to go back to the condition of things which existed before the war.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The Prime Minister says it was not a war.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: My hon. Friend says it was not a war.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The Prime Minister said it was not a war.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: What the Prime said was this—that it was not a war between two civilized and recognized Governments. ["No, no!"] He said it was not——
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The words were—"We are not at war with anyone."
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that was precisely the distinction he intended to draw. The Prime Minister declared that there was not a war in the sense of there being that international condition of affairs which was known and described as a war. [An hon. MEMBER: The operations of war.] There were military operations going on, although there was not a war. Supposing the English Channel suddenly became full of pirates, and English ships went out to destroy them, there might be a condition of warfare, although not war; and that was a perfectly legitimate description of the operations in Egypt. The Prime Minister said our business was to indicate the ends we had in view, and not the means by which those ends should be attained. These ends were the general maintenance of established rights, whether of the Sultan, of the Khedive, or of the people. But the specific measures ought not to be indicated. The Prime Minister specifically guarded himself against saying that, consistently with the maintenance of those general ends, he was going to keep himself down to the maintenance of the status quo. The moment it became clear to the Government that they were obliged to enter on military operations, they held, after these operations were over, it would become absolutely necessary to reconsider the whole position; and no Member of the Government, he was sure, suggested the maintenance of the status quo. The Resolution related to the past policy of the Government; and he was afraid that he could not, without transgressing the Rules of the House, reply to the various questions raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the future finances of Egypt. All these points were receiving the close attention of the Government and Lord Dufferin. There was a legitimate expectation that if, on the one hand, there were certain reasons to apprehend, in regard to the indemnity claims, and the cost of the arms, an in-
    1316
    crease of expenditure, there were equal reasons to apprehend in regard to other matters a considerable diminution of expenditure, and also increased efficiency in the services. There could be no doubt that the Egyptian Army Budget would, before long, show a very great reduction; and there was hope that there would be a brighter side to the picture in regard to the taxation of foreigners, and Egyptian Customs dues, and other questions. As to the question of the Courts, if they had not continued the tribunals for a year, a condition of legal anarchy would have ensued. In assenting to a temporary renewal, they had shown that the question was fully before them, and that it would receive their best attention. As to the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), there was no intention on the part of the Government, through their troops, to be a party to any illegitimate interference with the right of public meeting and public discussion. On the contrary, the object of the Government was, as much as possible, to develop free discussion in Egypt. As for the larger issues that had been raised in the course of the debate, involving delicate and complicated questions of International Law, he had rather defer his reply till they could be more fully and fairly discussed on the Motion which was to be brought forward from the Front Opposition Bench. He hoped, in conclusion, that they had now arrived at a stage when they might be permitted to look more to the future than to the past. Differences might have divided various sections of the House in regard to the past; but they were all agreed, he thought, in the sincere desire that the delicate and difficult task of Lord Dufferin might be brought to a successful termination, and that the principles of liberty and stability, which had their champions equally on both sides of that House, might find at length, after many centuries, a home in Egypt. He had to assure the House that those views which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Carlisle—namely, those of consulting the views and wishes of the people of Egypt—now formed the animating principle of Her Majesty's Government; and he believed that in the future there would be little or no difference between them. As far as was in his power, nothing would be

    1317
    wanting to contribute to the happy consummation to which he had alluded.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would not attempt, especially at that hour and in the present circumstances of the House, to follow the noble Lord through the remarks he had made on various points involving matter of controversy. The debate had arisen very suddenly and unexpectedly, and it was not looked upon as a Motion of a serious character, as was shown by the fact that hon. Members left the House at the time the hon. Baronet announced his intention of carrying his Motion to a division. As a division would be required, he desired to put on record the feeling which he himself, and, he believed, some others who sat around him, entertained on the subject. The feeling was that they should be compelled to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle. The terms of the Motion expressed regret that they should be called upon to place increased burdens on the people in consequence of the recent military operations in Egypt. Anyone who reverted to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet which was dealt with on the 16th of last month would see that his present Motion, though slightly different in form, was practically identical with the one which the hon. Baronet proposed on the former occasion.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONexplained that through an inadvertence he was unable to go to a division on that Motion.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that on his own part, and on the part of those who sat around him, he thought their position was best described by the Amendment which was lately moved from that (the Opposition) side of the House to a paragraph of the Address. They felt now, as they had felt then, that although there was a period when, in their opinion, the war in Egypt might have been prevented and military operations avoided, yet, at the same time, when the Government, acting on their responsibility, had decided that the operations were necessary in the interest of the country, they could not deem it their duty to record any opinion in opposition to the course which the Government then considered it requisite to pursue. The sentiments which hon. Gentlemen on his side expressed in the debate the other evening were those which they
    1318
    entertained on the present occasion; but the House had thought fit to negative them by a substantial, though not an overwhelming, majority. That being the case, and the House having negatived the views which it was then their duty to take, he and his Friends now found themselves in this position—that they were called upon, on the occasion of the Estimates being brought forward, to do that which would practically refuse to the House at a later date the means of carrying forward the operations which it had itself approved. Considering, then, that the general sentiments of hon. Gentlemen on his side upon the question were expressed on a former occasion, he wished now only to say that, while on the one hand they entertained the opinion which they had placed on record the other day, on the other hand, if the hon. Baronet went to a division, they would think it necessary to support the Government.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHdoubted not that the House would, by a large majority, decide to vote the expenditure incurred in the military operations in Egypt; but they had had evidence, both in the House and from the state of the Revenue, that both locally and Imperially the taxes were now at a height very difficult for the impoverished people of this country to bear; and he was most willing to express his sympathy for the overburdened taxpayers of this country, and his deep regret that it should have been necessary to have increased the expenditure and taxation of the country on account of the expenses of the military operations in Egypt. At the last General Election the Conservative Party suffered more from its rash and reckless foreign policy than from any other of its mistakes; while the Liberal Party were carried into power through the declarations as to foreign policy contained in the Prime Minister's Mid Lothian speeches, even more than by any of the domestic reforms indicated in their manifestoes. He was much concerned for the consistency and honour of the Government; and whilst he would not say that the Egyptian War was as reckless and wanton as those in which the late Administration engaged, he would say this—that he held that no Government was free from blame which did not keep the country entirely out of foreign entanglements. Every such dis-

    1319
    cussion had an effect in preventing a Government from entering so lightly upon war. There was a great change in the judgment of many people, in the House and outside of it, as to the merits of the campaign. The Government did not hold the position it did in regard to the character of the rebel Arabi and the present Khedive. Would the Government deny that if the British troops were withdrawn the Khedive would not be obliged to flee? If so, were they not maintaining a Government distasteful to the Egyptian people? In that case he wanted to know if they were pursuing a policy of true Liberalism, or one consistent with the principles and professions they put forward? In voting with his hon. Friend, he would express a hope that the Liberals who would support the Government on this occasion were not going to throw their principles overboard; and, at the same time, he trusted a check would be put upon the readiness of the Government to engage in warlike operations.
    MR. GORSTannounced that if the hon. Baronet went to a division he should support him. It was natural to feel pride and satisfaction in the prowess which our soldiers and sailors had displayed in Egypt; but the fundamental question as to whether the war was necessary must not be lost sight of. He held that the war was unnecessary, and was due to the mistakes of Her Majesty's Government. Owing to the policy which was forced upon them by M. Gambetta, and to their dislike to operate in conjunction with the Sultan of Turkey, who was the Suzerain of Egypt, they found themselves face to face with what everybody now admitted to have been a national movement. It was no use to abuse Arabi. He was for a time the representative of the national movement, and he was forced into that position by the determination of Her Majesty's Government to quarrel with the Chamber of Notables and all the popular leaders. There was no doubt that that national feeling still existed in Egypt, and that the Khedive was only kept up in his position by the bayonets of the British troops. If that were so, Her Majesty's Government had been fighting against the Egyptian nation; and he was quite certain the House must regret extremely that this great, free nation should have been engaged in putting down by mili-
    1320
    tary force the budding aspirations of a free people. Therefore, he thought it was not unreasonable, before voting Supplies for that Expedition, that the House should express its regret, and thus place on record a lesson to this and future Governments.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he was content to leave the matter where his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) had left it but for one consideration. From the first he had taken a strong view with regard to the policy that led to the war. He regretted at the time of the Vote of Credit that the policy of the Government could not be separated from that Vote. He believed that that policy was distinctly the cause of the war. That being so, the Amendment simply declared a truism, and, therefore, he felt the greatest difficulty in voting against it. At the same time, as one must be allowed one's own opportunity to express an opinion on a matter of so grave importance, he did not intend then to vote for it, as he had recently voted for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). There was one point which the noble Lord had cleared up in his speech regarding an unfortunate expression which occurred in several of the despatches of Her Majesty's Government. It had been stated in despatches and speeches that the only object of Her Majesty's Government was to return to the status quo. He always thought that a most imprudent observation; and it was a considerable relief to him when he heard the noble Lord say that that was not their only object, but that they intended to review the whole question. It was a comfort to those of them who felt an interest in Egypt that the Government were no longer to be trammelled by their previous imprudent pledges with respect to the status quo. But he wished it to be observed that they had heard this for the first time to-night, and it was a matter of interest to them to know what the future policy of Her Majesty's Government was to be. The noble Lord had also referred to the difficult task now in the hands of the Earl of Dufferin. He was perfectly well aware of that, and he did not know of any statesman whom they could more cordially trust than that noble Earl; but he should like to know how long the

    1321
    noble Earl was to remain in Egypt. He (Mr. Bourke) hoped that he would be left there for a considerable time, and that he would not be recalled to his post at Constantinople until Egyptian affairs were thoroughly organized. It was no use throwing dust in the eyes of the English people by saying the troops would be withdrawn from Egypt at present. He was perfectly certain that if they wished for liberty and for anything like good government in Egypt—if they wished foreign intrigue to be kept out of that country—an object which he believed to be of the greatest importance—it would be absolutely necessary for a considerable time indeed to leave the British Forces to keep order there, and to bring about a state of things which they all wished to see.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 24: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 15.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    (In the Committee.)

  PARLIAMENT—ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I Pursuant to the Notice which I gave last evening, I move—"That Sir Arthur Otway do take the Chair of the Committee."
  MR. RAIKESasked if he would be in Order in addressing the House, the Speaker having left the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKER,having resumed the Chair, said: The Question before the House is, "That Sir Arthur Otway do take the Chair of the Committee."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Arthur Otway do take the Chair of the Committee."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he need scarcely say that he did not rise for the purpose of disputing the Motion made by the noble Marquess. He thought there were few Gentlemen who had sat in that House for any extent of time and had become familiar with his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and the active and distinguished part which he had taken in the Business of the House,
  1322
  who would not be glad to see him at the Table. But as he believed this was the only occasion they would have of eliciting the opinion of the Government with regard to one or two matters connected with the Chairmanship of Committees in that House, he ventured for one moment to interpose, in order to obtain some statement from the noble Marquess, or from any other Member of the Government who might rise to speak on the subject, as to what where the intentions of Her Majesty's Advisers in regard to the conduct of Business in Committees of the Whole House. He was glad to have this opportunity of inviting Mr. Speaker to resume the Chair, and of calling public attention to the fact, which was too frequently ignored, that the Election of the Chairman of Ways and Means was an act not of the Government, but of the Whole House, and he ventured with all humility to throw out this suggestion with regard to future occurrences of the kind—whether it might not always be well to have the appointment made by Question put from the Chair. He was glad that one result of his intervention would be that his hon. Friend, when he took the Chair, would do so in consequence of a proceeding that would be placed on the Records of the House. It was not possible for any Member of the House to serve I on any Committee without the Question of his appointment being put from the Chair, and without his nomination being confirmed in the most complete and solemn manner; and he thought the House would do well to confirm in the most solemn and conspicuous way the appointment of an hon. Member who would have to take so important a part in controlling its proceedings. He had spoken on this subject because he believed there was no question of equal magnitude so little understood out-of-doors. Statements referring to it had appeared in newspapers generally well informed which entirely perverted the truth and deceived the public. He had seen it announced in newspapers enjoying a large Provincial circulation that the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had been displaced from the Chair at the Table of the House in order to make room for him, and that he himself had been displaced in order to make room for his

  1323
  right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Edinburgh who had just resigned the Office of Chairman. He desired to take that opportunity of giving publicly the most positive and distinct denial of the truth of those statements. It was, of course, unnecessary to remind the House that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had ceased to occupy the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means a long time before he (Mr. Raikes) had the honour of being elected to it. His right hon. Friend was succeeded by Mr. Bonham-Carter, who was not a Member of the House in 1874, the year in which that great honour was conferred upon him, nor was he (Mr. Raikes) a Member of the House when it became the duty of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh to succeed him in Office. The election to the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means had always been the special privilege of that House. It dated from the days of the later Stuarts, when the House had not: confidence in every Speaker of the time. It was owing to the suspicion that the Speakers were, by the influence of the Crown, appointed to preside over the deliberations of the House, that the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means was established, and an Officer was appointed to control the proceedings of the House upon questions so important as those of Trade, Finance, and Religion. In his opinion, it was most desirable that the misapprehension which existed out-of-doors with regard to this subject should be removed. He ventured to ask if any Member of the Government was in a position to inform the House what steps would be taken in order to give effect to the intention expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with regard to the position of those hon. Members who would be what were called casual Chairmen. He understood that the Committee of Selection, who were entrusted with the duty of nominating the Chairman's Panel, would presently submit to the House the names of certain experienced Members of the House as having been appointed by them to be the Chairman's Panel of the Standing Committees; and he believed they were also asked to infer that it would be incident to the Office of Chairman of the Standing Committees that he would be the
  1324
  possible locum tenens of the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committees of the whole House. He did not know whether it would be necessary to obtain a Resolution from the House on that point; the whole question had been, he would not say designedly, but obviously, left in such a state of haze and confusion that the House had little knowledge as to the precise form in which these new Officers were to be called upon to assume their part. But he ventured to inform the House that, in the case of his supposition being true, they would be rather abnormally and anomalously placed. The Chairman of Ways and Means had been hitherto recognized as the natural Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, and, in his unavoidable absence, it had been the custom for some other Member of the House to take the Chair. Were they to understand that those Gentlemen, of whose capacity he wished to speak in the highest degree, were to be appointed to the important Office of Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means without the House having an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to their fitness for the Office? They had a Chairman's Panel with regard to Election, Railway, and Canal Business, and the Committee of Selection had been furnished with powers to select Gentlemen for the arduous and delicate task of presiding over private or semi-private Committees upstairs; and although the practice had on the whole worked well in the cases alluded to, it would be for the first time in the history of the House that Gentlemen would be able to take the Chair at the Table, while the House was to be formally precluded from having any say or any right of choice as to the Officers who were to take the place of the Chairman. This was a matter on which the House was entitled to ask for information. He did not doubt that the Committee of Selection would exercise their powers with that discrimination and prudence which had always distinguished them, nor did he doubt that the Gentlemen whom they would select for this Office would be greatly respected and esteemed by the House; nevertheless, the House should bear in mind that, for the first time in its history, it would in such case be presided over and controlled by Officers in whose selection it would be expressly denied any direct voice, Without touch-

  1325
  ing upon other matters which would be more correctly considered when they came to discuss the question of referring the first Bill to a Standing Committee, he begged to thank the House for having allowed him, as far as he had ventured to do, to assert the historical independence of the ancient and honourable Office which his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester was now called upon to fill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished on a question of Order to point out that the Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," had been put and agreed to, and that Mr. Speaker had accordingly left the Chair in sight of the whole House. The House was supposed to have gone into Committee of Supply; but the noble Marquess rose in his place when the Speaker was not in the Chair, and made a Motion that Sir Arthur Otway be Chairman of Committees. The Motion for Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair having been carried, he asked, first, whether the Order for going into Committee of Supply was not thereby discharged; and, secondly, if that was so, whether they were not sitting as a House?
  MR. SPEAKER: In the course taken I have followed precedents established on similar occasions. On the last occasion of the nomination of the Chairman of Ways and Means being questioned by the House, the Speaker put the Question of the nomination from the Chair. I may also say that whenever a question arises which the Committee cannot determine, the Speaker, as a matter of course, takes the Chair; and, the Committee not having been completely constituted, it was my duty to take the Chair and put the Question as I have done.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) believes there is any misconception, either in the House or in the mind of the public as to the character of the appointment to the important Office of Chairman of Ways and Means, and also to that of Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, I think it is not to be regretted that he has taken this opportunity of endeavouring to put an end to that misconception by the observations he has just made. The nomination of the Chairman of Ways and I Means is purely the act of the House, and is not dependent on the will of the
  1326
  Government. That has always been recognized, and although the nomination has usually been made, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Autumn Session, in a merely formal manner, and attracts, as a rule, little attention, yet it was for the purpose of obviating that summary mode of proceeding and giving it a more formal character, that I gave Notice that on Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair to-day is I should formally move that Sir Arthur Otway take the Chair. I do not think any other course could conveniently have been taken without departing from the precedents of the House. No doubt it would have been possible to give Notice of a formal Motion that my hon. Friend should be appointed to the Chairmanship of Ways and Means; but that would have been a course altogether without precedent, and I thought it desirable to follow as closely as possible the usual course, at the same time giving Notice of my intention to make this Motion in order that there might be no reason for any Member of the House saying that he had been taken by surprise. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of asking some questions as to the appointment of those Gentlemen who are occasionally called upon to take the Chair in the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Sir, this is a subject on which we have not yet arrived at a final conclusion. And I think the House will see it is one which it is not desirable finally to settle until my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has taken so large a part in the discussions that have taken place on these matters is able further to take part in them. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that the subject will not be lost sight of. There are two methods open; either, as my right hon. Friend has himself mentioned, it might be resolved by the House that the Gentlemen who are appointed by the Committee of Selection to act as Chairmen should form a panel of Gentlemen on Committees qualified to take the Chair at the Table of the House, or else the practice might be adopted of naming specially to the House a panel of Members selected from all parts of the House, who might be qualified. One of these courses I think will probably be adopted; but in either case it appears to me desirable that the

  1327
  sanction of the House should be obtained to the proceeding. I trust there will be no immediate necessity of deciding the point, and I think I need only assure my right hon. Friend opposite that the matter will not be put aside, but will be definitely settled after the return of the Prime Minister to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION (GRANT IN AID), 1882–3.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir Arthur Otway, it is my duty on this occasion to address to the Committee a few words with reference to the Supplementary Estimates of expenditure in connection with the Egyptian campaign. The Committee will, perhaps, allow me to remind them of what took place in reference to that matter during the last Session of Parliament. On the 24th of July last, a Vote of Credit was proposed by the Government, and was agreed to by the House on the 27th of July, for strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean; and this Vote amounted to £2,300,000, of which £900,000 was for the Army, and £1,400,000 for the Navy. The Vote was in the words I have quoted—"For strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean." At the same time, the Government of France proposed a Vote of Credit in connection with their Naval operations in Egypt; but that Vote of Credit was rejected by the French Chamber on the 28th of July, and in consequence the French Government resigned, and on the 31st of July the French Fleet was ordered to withdraw from Egyptian waters. We thus became alone charged with the task of sending, under a Vote of Credit, a special Expedition to the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. Our Fleet and our transports conveying the Expeditionary Force were instructed to call at Malta for orders, and on their arrival at Malta they were ordered to Alexandria, and at that place to undertake certain operations, partly there and partly on the Suez Canal. Those operations, as I need not remind
  1328
  the Committee, terminated on the 15th of September in the complete success of the Expedition and the ending of the war. The charges in connection with the Expedition continued however, beyond the 15th of September to the 1st of October, and those relating to the transport of troops which were not left in Egypt continued also until the greater part of the troops were brought back to this country. After the 1st of October the troops remaining in Egypt were no longer at the expense of this country, but remained at the expense of the Egyptian Government; and if hon. Members will refer to the present Estimates they will see that the sum of £279,000 is credited in respect of the troops remaining in Egypt after the 1st of October last—namely, £209,000 for the Army, and £70,000 for the Navy. These figures are calculated on the average of £4 per head—that is to say, £3 per head for the Military, and £1 per head for the Naval expenditure. And now I will explain what has been the estimated additional cost beyond the £2,300,000 voted for strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean. With regard to the estimated expense of the troops sent from this country, from the garrisons in the Mediterranean, and from India, if reference is made to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in November last, hon. Members will see that besides the Estimate of £2,360,000 voted in July for troops sent from England, the Estimate for the Indian troops was £1,880,000, making altogether a total cost of £4,180,000. My right hon. Friend informed the House that the revised Estimate for the troops sent from this country, including their transport, was £3,360,000, and that the estimated cost of the troops sent from India would be £1,140,000. So that it was estimated in November, as against the original Estimate of £4,180,000 for the charge against this country and India made in July, that the total expenditure would amount to £4,500,000. Now, since November last we have had experience of rather more than three months, and we are able to correct, although in a very small degree, the Estimate which my right hon. Friend then gave to the House. As against that Estimate of £4,500,000, we now estimate that the total expenditure of every kind

  1329
  on account of England and on account of India, including a small Civil Estimate for the transport of refugees from Egypt to Malta, is £4,575,000, showing an increase of £75,000. Of the charge against this country, there is a small sum of £ 12,000 in respect of the Army, and of £26,000 in respect of the Navy, which will not become payable in the course of the present financial year; and there remains to be voted in discharge of the balance due in respect of the charge for the Egyptian War, deducting the sums voted in July last, on account of the Army, £728,000, on account of the Navy, £350,000, and on account of the Civil Service, £17,500. And now, Sir, I come to the Vote in connection with the expenditure incurred by India. The total expenditure incurred by India is, as I have said, £1,140,000, and out of that sum Her Majesty's Government propose that £500,000 should be paid by this country to India, leaving £640,000 at the cost of the Indian Government. Adding that sum to the figures I have already stated to the Committee, the whole amount which the Committee will be asked to vote to-night will be £1,595,500, including the sum of £17,500 in connection with the Civil charges. Now, let me say a few words with regard to the proposed contribution from this country towards the charge on the Indian Revenue. I may remind the Committee that this subject was discussed at some length on the 31st of July last, when, under the terms of the Statute, a Vote had to be taken approving the employment of Indian troops in the campaign, and that the expense, in the first instance, should be defrayed out of the Indian Revenue. As was then explained in the course of the debate, the formal Vote did not bind the House to the Resolution that the Indian Exchequer should bear the whole burden of the charge, but left it open to the House, by a subsequent Vote, to relieve, if it was thought necessary, the Indian Exchequer from a portion of the amount. It was in order to make this proposal perfectly clear that I moved to insert certain words in the Resolution put from the Chair, and perhaps I may be allowed to refer very shortly to the words I then used, which were—
  "The Government propose that, assuming the duration of this campaign to be such as they have declared to Parliament, India shall
  1330
  bear that proportion of the expenditure which is represented by her troops."—(3 Hansard, [273] 305.)
  We then inserted the words, "subject to any future decision of Parliament," after that part of the Resolution, by which the House consented that the Revenues of India should be applied for the purpose. The Resolution fully expressed the opinion of the great majority of the House. There was a minority who voted against the Motion, altogether disapproving of any arrangement under which India would bear any part of the charge; but I have carefully looked through, the debate, and I find that, although there were several hon. Gentlemen who voted in that minority, the weight of authority was with those who thought that India should bear a portion of the charge. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who had been Under Secretary of State for India, stated that—
  "He had come to the conclusion that India might be fairly asked to contribute something towards the cost of the operations to be carried on in Egypt."—(Ibid. 289.)
  And, in another part of the House, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), who spoke at some length, with knowledge of the subject, voted for the Resolution on the ground that—
  "India had a very solid and substantial interest in the maintenance of the Suez Canal."—(Ibid. 300.)
  And that some portion of the expenditure should fall upon India in consequence. Well, Sir, the Resolution, as it was amended on my Motion, was carried by a majority of 140 to 23; and the question now to be decided by the Committee is whether the sum of £500,000 which we propose should be credited during the present financial year to India leaves a fair proportion to the charge of India of the total cost of the Expedition. It is only right to say that while we propose this arrangement it is, of course, in the power of the House, not by increasing the Vote, because that could not be done under the Rules of the House, but by Address to the Crown, or some other Constitutional method, to bring about an increase of the contribution. We, however, should resist any such proposal. I may add that practically it will be impossible, under any circumstances, to add to the payment to

  1331
  India during the present financial year. To-day and Monday are the last days upon which a Vote of this kind, to fall within the current financial year, can pass the House. Therefore, if the House should overrule the Government and express an opinion in some Constitutional way that a larger contribution should be made to India—a proposal to which we should be opposed—the payment would not come in the present financial year, but would have to enter into the financial arrangements of 1883–4. I would say one word as to the amount we propose should be contributed by India. The language of the debate from which I just now quoted was something to this effect—I moan of those who voted—that India should bear some part of the expense analogous to the assistance she rendered. Roughly speaking, the force from home which was actually engaged—whether in the advance on Cairo or the defence of Alexandria—amounted to some 27,000 men, of which India contributed 6,200 men. That proportion would justify us in asking India to bear a larger proportion out of the sum total expense we propose to ask India to bear; but I think we may fairly take into account that part of the Naval Force which contributed to the results of the war, and add them to the 27,000 men. That would make the Indian Force something like one-seventh of the whole Expedition, and £640,000 is just one-seventh of £4,500,000. I do not propose now to go over again the arguments put forward in July last for and against India bearing any charge whatever. The real argument for making a demand on her was her interest in the Suez Canal, the protection of which was the ultimate aim of the Expedition; and a Parliamentary Paper has appeared within the last few days on the subject of the trade through the Suez Canal to which I will refer. That Paper was evidently not written with the view of magnifying the importance of the trade or the amount of the traffic; but the figures show that, even according to the depreciatory calculations made by the writer, half the Indian trade passes through the Suez Canal. If, then, at the lowest estimate, India has such a pre-eminent interest in the Canal, the very moderate proposal we now make is reasonably justified. Before I sit down, allow me to show to the Committee what
  1332
  will be the financial result of our proposal. The Estimates of last year, with the Supplementary Estimates, passed in the last Session, authorized an expenditure slightly in excess of the then anticipated Revenue. The anticipated deficit was very small, so that you may practically say that the Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure about balance the Estimates of Revenue. The present Estimates for additional expenditure in Egypt, including the grant to India, will add between £1,500,000 and £1,600,000 to the expenditure of the year. There is also a Paper of Supplementary Estimates for the Civil Service relating to a great number of items, and amounting as usual, I am sorry to say, to a considerable sum; but we do not expect that these Supplementary Estimates will do much more than balance the savings which will be made upon other Votes. On the whole, then, the estimated expenditure for the current year, including the Votes which we now ask the Committee to take, is not likely to exceed the original Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates of last Session by more than £1,600,000. On the other hand, I must say there is not a large, but a sensible improvement in the Revenue as compared with the Estimates of Revenue made last year. I do not think it would be extravagant to say—speaking, of course, with caution and in general figures, for we are still a month from the end of the financial year—that that improvement in the Revenue will amount to something between £500,000 and £750,000. If these figures are compared—and hon. Gentlemen will have been able to compare them as I have given them—it will be seen that the result of the financial arrangements of the current year may probably be a deficit of something between £750,000 and 1,250,000. Of course, the Committee is aware that against that deficiency it would be out of the question that in the month of March we should propose any further taxation. For the moment we must leave that deficiency to be paid out of the balance at the end of the year; but it will be my duty, when making the Financial Statement rather more than a month from now, to deal with that deficit, as well as with the Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1883–4. I think that the Committee will agree with me that more than that I ought

  1333
  not to say on the present occasion. I hope I have made my statement perfectly plain to the Committee. I beg to move—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, as a Grant in Aid of the Expenditure incurred by the Government of India upon the Expedition to Egypt."
  After this is adopted, it will be the duty of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), and of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, to move the Votes in connection with this Estimate for the Army and the Navy, and to give any explanation that may be needed as to the details of those Votes.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, as a Grant in Aid of the Expenditure incurred by the Government of India upon the Expedition to Egypt."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, of course, it was not his intention to oppose the Vote on the present occasion; for, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, no doubt there would be an opportunity later on for those who held strong views on the subject to discuss the whole policy of the Government. Hon. Members were aware that the Indian Budget was generally taken during the first or second week in March, and the Viceroy in Council must be anxious that the Vote should pass. The right hon. Gentleman wished them to pass the Vote and leave the question of its policy for the future decision of Parliament. At the close of the debate in last July, he (Mr. Onslow) had voted with the Government on the question of the employment of Indian troops, and he had understood that the financial part of the question was left for the future consideration of the House. It was merely on the question that the Native troops should be employed that he, for one—and he thought many others had done the same—had given his vote. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he thought this a comparatively small sum for India to pay for the benefits she had received. That was rather a controversial matter, and
  1334
  it was not his (Mr. Onslow's) intention on that occasion to go into that part of the question; but, at the same time, he would make this remark—that he could not see why India had gained more advantage from the action of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt than had Australia or New Zealand, and some other of Her Majesty's Colonies. His contention, of course, was that if India had to pay any part of the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition, that Australia, New Zealand, and other Colonies should also be called on to pay a part. His idea was that the interests of the Suez Canal was an Imperial matter. It was not only for India, but for the whole of our Colonies, or those which required guarding by way of the Mediterranean. But he did not wish to go into these matters at this time. Half a loaf was better than no bread; therefore, he could not object to the proposal. They had agreed to give £500,000 towards the Indian expenses, and he should support the Vote; but his contention was—and he hoped in the future that he would be able to stick to his guns—that this war in Egypt had nothing to do with India, which had never been consulted about it from start to finish. It was not so much on financial grounds—though, of course, that was a matter of grave consideration—that he took exception to India paying any of these extraordinary charges, but as a matter more of principle—namely, that she had never been consulted throughout all these transactions. As he had said, it was not possible, at the present time, to discuss the matter thoroughly. When they had seen the Papers promised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to-day they would be better able to argue the question. They would then know what the Indian Government had from the first intended to do, and from the Viceroy's despatches what objection, if any, he and his Council had taken to paying anything at all. It was said that the Viceroy in Council agreed with the proposition of Her Majesty's Government; but he (Mr. Onslow) hoped he was not using un-Parliamentary language when he said it appeared to him that, if that was the case, by some means or other the Viceroy in Council had been "squared." The noble Marquess had told them in August that a telegram had come from the Viceroy

  1335
  objecting to the proposition of the Government, which at that time was that India should pay the whole of the cost—but, as he had said already, this was not the occasion to go into these matters of principle. They had not the Papers before them; but he felt that this Vote, as regarded India, was, at all events, a matter of emergency. It depended on the Vote given to-night what the Indian Budget should be. The result would be telegraphed to India at once, and he should be sorry to throw any obstacle in the way of Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. He would cordially support the Vote.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was one of those who held the same view as the hon. Member who had just sat down, as to the undesirability of asking India to pay any part of the cost of the Egyptian War. He had never yet been able to understand that perversity of mind and intellect which had insisted that the Afghan was an European War, and the Egyptian was an Indian War. In the discussion which took place last year, it was understood that no decision would be arrived at until the House had had a fresh opportunity of expressing some opinion on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now came forward and said the Government were prepared to give India £500,000, and that any proposal to make a further grant must meet with their opposition and that any Address for the purpose of increasing the payment in aid of India, would have to be moved in a subsequent financial year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I said that any further payment would have to be made out of the funds of the next financial year.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that was tantamount to saying that no payment at all would be made to India, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he would have a deficit of between £750,000 and £1,250,000 for the present year; and, as the prospects for next year were not very encouraging, he did not think the Government would consent to put increased taxation on the people of these Islands for the purpose of increasing the payment to India. They were in this position now—that if they did not raise the question of the policy of paying this £500,000 now, they
  1336
  would never have another opportunity of raising it. He must say he thought this contribution towards the finances of India a very paltry one. No one could pretend that this war in Egypt was in any way initiated or promoted on account of Indian interests, but solely on account of European interests; and it was his firm belief that if Her Majesty's Government had not wished to negotiate a Commercial Treaty with France they would never have found themselves in the position they were in now. So much as regarded that particular Vote, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to other Estimates. Perhaps, before he entered into these, the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to congratulate him upon having attained the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he had just addressed them for the first time on the subject of the Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had attained his high position under very disadvantageous circumstances, because what was the position in which they found themselves? And he would recommend this to hon. Gentlemen who were economists, and who sat on the Ministerial side of the House below the Gangway. They had already voted this year £87,700,000, and they were now asked to vote a sum of £2,300,000, which would bring up the total to the enormous amount of £90,000,000, which, he believed, was by far—by many millions—the highest amount ever voted by this country in time of peace. [Cries of "This was a time of war."] The Prime Minister had informed them that it was not war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them that making all allowance for saving on Votes already passed, and for increase of the estimated Revenue, there would still be a large deficit. There were certain facts which he felt himself bound to mention on this occasion, late as was the hour, as he was afraid if he did not do so now he might never have another opportunity. One of the main claims to Office of individuals who composed the Government was that they would economically administer the finances; and what was the result of three years of economical administration? He did not suppose there was a man in the country who did not wish, so far as finance was concerned, the old Tory Administration back which the Prime Minister so strongly denounced

  1337
  in Mid Lothian. He (Lord George Hamilton) had in his pocket a copy of the great financial speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made in Mid Lothian, and he would recommend it to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he would find in it a number of admirable principles laid down, every one of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had infringed from the time he came into power to the time he had given up the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first principle laid down was that there should be as few Supplementary Estimates as possible. Well, how many Supplementary Estimates had they had this year? He (Lord George Hamilton) had gone into the Library to get them, and had been presented with a huge volume, from which he found that there had been a great number of Supplementary Estimates. There was one for Cyprus. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, hon. Members seemed to imply that the Government were not responsible for that. He did not blame them in that particular matter, and he believed that if they had been wise and had spent a little more they would have found a good return. He believed that ultimately they would be compelled to spend more money. There were now no less than six Supplementary Estimates before them—namely, for Civil Service, Army, Indian Civil Service, Aid to India, the Navy, and the Transvaal. How was it that all this increased expenditure had become incurred by a Government pledged to economy? How was it that ever since they had been in Office they had been compelled to increase taxation? There were some hon. Gentlemen who laboured under the delusion that the increased expenditure in question was caused by the unpaid debts of the late Government, and that if they could only get rid of the debts of the late Government they would have no Supplementary Estimates, and would be able to reduce the expenditure by many millions. That, he believed, was an entire delusion. Not only had the Government increased their expenditure, but the Prime Minister, when embarking on a policy of military adventure, had adopted the Napoleonic theory, which was that always when they made war against a country they had a right, if they could, to tax the country. We, now, having made war against Egypt, were about to make
  1338
  Egypt pay a considerable sum for the pleasure of having been subjugated by us. The Secretary to the Treasury would not deny this, because he was trying to reduce his Estimate for this year by making Egypt pay a considerable sum. Before they passed these Estimates, they ought to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of the Treasury to tell them a little more about how they intended to provide for Ways and Means. There was already a deficiency of £200,000 between the estimated Expenditure and estimated Revenue. Well, was it not a bold thing for the Government to ask the Committee to grant these Supplementary Estimates when there was already a deficiency of £200,000? No doubt it was; therefore he hoped that, before the Estimates were assented to, some Member of the Government would give them an indication of the Ways and Means by which it was proposed to meet the expenditure. Of course, it was impossible, in the absence of the Prime Minister, for any Member of the Government to go against any part of the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, the main principle of which was that it was improper to meet any deficiency by raising Exchequer Bills. He hoped, however, that the Committee would not assent to the Vote without a clear understanding as to what were the Ways and Means by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to meet the deficit.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down blamed the Government because there was a nominal deficit of about £1,000,000, and they must all agree that that was an unfortunate result. But the noble Lord forgot that when his own Friends were in Office, they had deficits for the last three years, amounting in 1880 to no less than £2,800,000, which was a much larger sum. Moreover, the reduction of debt in 1882 would be far larger than in 18S0. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that it was impossible to impose fresh taxes just at the close of the year. There were various other sums paid this year which did not belong to it, but to the years under which the administration was in the hands of the late Government. If these sums were deducted from the whole, the expenditure would be reduced to £81,500,000; and that,

  1339
  upon the noble Lord's (Lord George Hamilton's) own showing, was considerably less than the amount spent by the late Conservative Administration. While he very much regretted that the Expenditure was so large, and that there was a deficiency of £1,000,000, he must give credit to the Government for one thing—namely, that when they spent money, they raised money to pay the bill. It was proper that the public should feel that if they had wars, they had to meet the expenses out of the finance of the year. He commended the Government in this respect, and thought it would have been well if the late Government had adopted a similar plan. He considered the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had put a colour upon the figures which they did not bear out.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had listened with some interest to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock); and he agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was of great importance they should know from the Government that it was their intention that the expenses of the year should fall upon the year. He did not gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that that was his intention. The right hon. Gentleman simply informed the Committee that there would be a deficit on the year of something between £750,000 and £1,250,000; but he made no indication as to the way in which he proposed to deal with that deficit—he did not say whether the deficit was to be a charge on the balances—that was to say, the amount allocated for the payment of Debt—or whether it was to be dealt with in the ensuing financial year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that what he had said was that in the beginning of March it was impossible to propose any taxation to meet a deficit, whatever the amount might be; and that they would, therefore, for the moment, pay it out of balances, which were in a satisfactory state. He also said that in the Financial Statement, to be made a month or more hence, he would explain exactly how the deficit would be dealt with.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that was precisely what he had said—namely, that the Government gave the Com-
  1340
  mittee no information whatever as to the way in which they proposed to deal with the deficit. He found no fault with the right hon. Gentleman on that account. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), however, assumed that the whole cost of the year would be borne out of the Revenue of the year, and he referred to the operation of the Terminable Annuities. The hon. Baronet must know very well that the Terminable Annuities were set up by Parliament, that they were automatic in their operation, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who preceded the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had no more to do with them than the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being had to observe the law, and make provision in the Estimates of the year for the Terminable Annuities set up by his Predecessors. The hon. Baronet must also know very well that the operation of Terminable Annuities was that towards the end of the period for which they were set up a larger amount of Debt was paid off than at the commencement of the period. A certain provision, year by year, was established and required, and, no doubt, the effect in this year was that a larger portion of Debt was paid off than last year. No Chancellor of the Exchequer could hesitate to make the provision which the Act of Parliament required. There was one remark he wished to make with regard to the observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that the provision which was made by Egypt towards the Army of Occupation was at the rate of £4 per head per month; but he failed to give the Committee any information as to the period in respect of which the payment of £4 was made—the right hon. Gentleman simply said that £3 per head was to be paid in aid of the Army Estimates and £1 per head in aid of the Navy Estimates. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not realize or understand whether the payment had been received, or whether it had been undertaken to be paid, or whether it was simply intended it should be demanded from the Government of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not explain whether the sum was received, or

  1341
  whether it was only a sum acknowledged as due, or when it was to be paid. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information on the point. There was one other point to which he wished to refer, and that had reference to the contribution towards the expenses of the Indian troops recently engaged in Egypt. It was, he believed, understood that the excess of the cost of the Indian Expedition over the ordinary pay of the troops should be met by this country. He wanted to know whether the sum of £1,142,000 was the sum in excess of the ordinary cost to the Indian Revenue of the troops serving in India—that was to say, their ordinary pay—or whether it included the ordinary pay of the troops serving in India? There was, as he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would realize, a great distinction. It would appear to be perfectly reasonable that they should not relieve India of the pay of the Indian troops who were employed in Egypt; but it was a great question whether they had a right to call on India to pay £642,000 in excess of the expenses of the Army she employed for her own protection. Were the Committee to understand that the £1,142,000 was a sum in excess of the ordinary cost to India of the Indian Contingent of 6,200 men employed in Egypt, and which India would not have been required to pay if the troops had remained at home, or did it include the ordinary pay and allowances of the troops sent by India to Egypt?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) as clearly as he could. The Estimates of the cost of the troops proceeding from this country and of the troops proceeding from India were based on exactly the same principle—that was to say, they showed the excess upon the ordinary expenditure provided for in the Budgets of the two countries, so that the expenditure, in addition to the Votes taken last Session, was about—he was speaking now in round figures—£3,400,000 in the case of the English troops, and about £1,140,000 in the case of the Indian troops. Of the £1,140,000 the Government proposed to pay out of the Exchequer £500,000, so that India would have to pay £640,000 more than was provided for in her ordinary Army Budget. He
  1342
  hoped he had made that quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman then asked him about the contributions from Egypt. He could only repeat what he had previously said in regard to this question. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Army Supplementary Estimate, page 2, he would see that the contributions from the Egyptian Government, from the 1st of October, 1882, to the 31st of March, 1883, in respect of the Army, was, roughly, £209,000. In the Navy Supplementary Estimates it would seem that the Egyptian Government contributed £70,000. The meaning of that was that the Egyptian Government had to contribute in respect of the Forces which were doing their work, from the 1st of October, at the rate of £4 per head per month, or, in all, £279,000. His right hon. Friend asked him if that was only a claim, or would it be paid? He was happy to inform the right hon. Gentleman that, on the 28th of this month, the money would be paid into the Exchequer.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had not the slightest intention of assisting in defending the extravagant Estimates of the Government; but he would express his sympathy with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) regarding the propriety and expediency of paying or meeting the expenses of the year out of the taxation of the year. He must express some regret that even the present Government did not altogether practice what they preached; for he need not hardly remind the Committee that it was not only this £1,000,000 which had to stand over in the present year, but there was a sum of several millions in respect to the Afghan War which was not paid out of the taxation of the year. He was afraid the present Government had, to some degree, followed the bad example of their Predecessors. Reverting to the Vote now before the Committee, he must accept the settlement which had been made, and which, he understood, had been accepted by the Government of India. He could admit that that settlement was consistent with what passed in July last. He thought it was a fair and liberal settlement, if it was the fact that India had any interest in the affairs of Egypt, either financial, commercial, or administrative. But he denied that. He wished

  1343
  to put in a word of protest. India had really nothing to do with the affairs of Egypt. If she had not, he (Sir George Campbell) did not think it would be fair that India should contribute more than a small sum towards the expenses of guarding the navigation of the Suez Canal. He admitted that India had a commercial interest in the free navigation of the Suez Canal; and if he thought the war was undertaken in the interest of the Canal, he should consider that India ought to pay her share of the cost. He believed there were other interests involved, and in which India had no part whatever; and he believed that under Arabi the navigation of the Suez Canal would be quite as safe as under the Khedive. If it should be the case, some day or other, that Egypt should be reduced to such a state of anarchy as to endanger the Suez Canal, it seemed to him that a small force of gunboats, which might be contributed by England and other countries, and, to a certain extent, by India, would amply suffice to protect the Canal. It was with a certain amount of protest that he accepted the arrangement that had been made by the two Governments of England and India.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), made so clear the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were treating the finance of India, that he could not help regretting very much that the Postmaster General was not present, because, if he were, no one would more eloquently protest than he against the injustice the Government were doing to the finance of India in this matter. He (Mr. Gorst) was never able to reconcile the duty of the Government in Office with the course taken by individual Members of the Government in Opposition; and he should think that a large majority of the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench found it perfectly impossible to reconcile to their intellects and consciences the particular course taken by the Government on the present occasion, with the principles which they, in common with the Postmaster General, laid down in the last Parliament and supported by their Votes, because it was quite clear that the Government not only took away from the service of the Indian Empire its troops, which were charged upon the
  1344
  Indian Budget for the purpose of the Indian Empire, but they had saddled the finances with a further sum of £640,000. Firstly, they deprived India of her troops; and, secondly, made her pay an additional sum for those troops; and, at the same time, did not condescend to inform the Committee of the precise benefits which that expenditure conferred on the people of India. In the debate last year, and in the present discussion, the Government confined themselves to generalities—they simply said India was interested in Egypt, and in sending Indian troops to Egypt they did not show how they had benefited the commercial interests of the people of India. Unless they could point out clearly and specifically, and not in general terms, how the people of India were benefited by these military operations, they had no right to saddle them with this immense charge, and he was quite certain that if the Postmaster General wore in the House he would toll them so. Another thing which he wished to observe was that the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) must have been extremely unpleasant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because nothing was so unpleasant as undeserved praise. The hon. Baronet praised the Government for their steady adhesion to the financial principle which was laid down in Mid Lothian—namely, that all expenditure must be provided for in the Revenue of the year. That was exactly what they were not going to do; but in the coming year they were going to make some unknown arrangement by which to meet the expenses of the year. They were asking the Committee to vote a Supplementary Estimate of upwards of £1,000,000, when, by their own showing, there was a deficit to that amount upon the year. It was, therefore, evident they were not going to meet the expenses out of the taxation by at least £1,000,000. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in saying it was now too late to cure the evil. He (Mr. Gorst) supposed the Government were going to raise the money by Exchequer Bills or by something of that kind; therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House of Commons at the very end of the financial year, and asked

  1345
  for a Supplementary Estimate of upwards of £1,000,000, he ought not to put off the House of Commons by saying that in a month's time they would hear how he was going to meet the deficiency. It would be only respectful to the Committee of Supply, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out to the Committee the particular mode by which he meant to raise the Revenue necessary to meet the Supply which he asked them to vote. He supposed, of course, no one could dispute the present Estimate. In the first place, they must regret that the Government had laid this charge upon India without any explanation of the reason why the people of that country should bear it; and, in the second place, they could only lament the financial degradation of the present Government, in raising by the taxation of the year a sum less by £2,000,000 than that which was necessary to defray the expenses of the year.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was perfectly at a loss to understand the perversity of intellect which could justify the taxing of the people of India to the extent of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 to defray the expenses of a purely aggressive war—a war devised and planned in London, entered into in defiance of the wishes of those best calculated to speak on behalf of the Indian people—but could resist the proposal that the Indian Exchequer should pay a very small sum towards the expenses of a war which he ventured to say was, in the main, if not entirely so, for the benefit of our Indian Empire. ["No!"] He was quite aware the opposite opinion was the popular opinion in the House at the present moment; but that would not deter him expressing his opinion that, unless they had had an Indian Empire to protect, no Government would have ventured to propose, and he was quite sure the country would never have sanctioned, a war in Egypt at all. Every argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, indeed, every argument advanced in the House in favour of the Egyptian operations, or war, or whatever the recent events could be called, culminated in allusions to the Suez Canal and the danger to our Indian Empire, and he thought it only fair, just, and right that India should bear the small sum which Her Majesty's Government proposed to impose upon her
  1346
  in respect of the war. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had raised the question of the general Expenditure, with special allusion to hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and others, did object to the large Expenditure of Her Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, in discussing questions of this sort they should be fair in stating the figures. The noble Lord had said it was a delusion to suppose that any material part of the Expenditure of the present year was necessitated in order to defray the debts of the Predecessors of the present Government.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONdenied having said that.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he understood the noble Lord to refer to the Expenditure of £90,000,000, and to say that that was the most enormous Expenditure ever incurred either in time of peace or war. He would only just ask the noble Lord to remember two sets of figures whenever he contrasted the Expenditure of the present Government with that of the late Government, He would ask him to remember that just before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) left Office in 1880, he stated that the net aggregate deficit of his tenure of Office was something between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. In order to meet that deficit he created Terminable Annuities, which were to run five years, and were to bear a payment of £1,300,000 a-year. To that the present Government had added £500,000 towards the contribution of India for the Afghan War; to that also had to be added the Terminable Annuities to defray the £2,000,000 which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer lent to India without interest; and these sums altogether represented an increase since the present Government had been in power of £2,000,000 to their Expenditure specifically to defray the obligations incurred by the late Government. That was the first set of figures he would ask the noble Lord to remember; and the second set of figures he desired the noble Lord to bear in mind related to the administrative Departments of State. In the Expenditure of the country provision was made for the Post Office and Telegraph Service, and the expenditure under these heads was nearly £1,000,000

  1347
  more than it was during the administration of the late Government. Therefore, when they were contrasting the Expenditure of the two Governments—although he did not justify the Expenditure of the present Government, and he hoped that when they challenged the Government in regard to it they would have the support of the noble Lord and his Friends—they were bound to deal with the present Government fairly, and see what portion of the Expenditure really belonged to them and what belonged to their Predecessors.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, there were two questions he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, connected with the troops sent from India. It would be satisfactory to the House and the country to know whether it was not the fact that Indian troops immediately they left their own country received double pay; and also whether the European troops sent from India to Egypt received the Indian pay, or whether, on their arrival in Egypt, they were placed on European pay? He believed there were only two European Infantry regiments which were sent from India—namely, the 72nd, who were now called the Seeforth Highlanders, and the 63rd, who were now called the Manchester Regiment.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he did not wish to draw the House into an Indian debate, and, therefore, should only refer very briefly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Even granting the truth of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, which he could not—assuming that the hon. Member was right in saying that the late Government left a deficit to the present Government of upwards of £2,000,000—they were justified in complaining that the present Government had, irrespective of the legacy of debt, very largely increased the Estimates. The country had now to provide for a much greater Expenditure than had ever had to be provided for before. He might also complain, as a taxpayer, that he had to pay a considerably higher scale of taxation than he had ever been required to pay before. These, however, were points which ought rather to be discussed on the Budget than on Supplementary Estimates. He rose
  1348
  principally, as a new Member, to remark upon the re-casting of the Estimates since he had anything to do with finance; and he ventured to offer, though rather late in the day, his protest against the present system of taking the extra receipts in aid of the Votes. He confessed he had some belief in the soundness of the old system; in his opinion, under the old system a better control was exercised over the great spending Departments than could be exercised under the present system. Not having been in the House for two or three years, he could not say whether the question had been threshed out and settled after considerable discussion; but he could not acquiesce in the change of system, although his opinion might perhaps differ from that of some of his hon. Friends around him. He was disposed to think the sum of £500,000 which had been ageed upon between the two Governments of England and India was an approximately fair sum for the Indian Government to pay; and, under the circumstances, he should not offer any opposition to this Estimate.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I only rise to answer a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher). He asks whether the Indian troops received double pay when serving beyond their own Frontiers? I do not recollect at this moment what the exact regulations are, but, no doubt, they received increased pay when they served out of their own country, though I do not think it was precisely double pay. As to the British troops taken from India to serve in Egypt, they, of course, received the same pay as the troops sent from this country to Egypt. It would obviously be impossible to have British troops serving together under the same circumstances, but under different rates of pay.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERregretted the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) respecting the £500,000, for it seemed to him that this country ought not to impose on the people of India, who were not represented in that House, and had no opportunity of making their grievances known in Parliament, any taxation they could possibly avoid. In former years no one had more earnestly advocated the cause of the people of India than the Post-

  1349
  master General, whom he was sorry not to see in the House at present, for he apprehended that that right hon. Gentleman would hardly agree with his Colleagues in the Government when they proposed a Vote diametrically opposed to the principles he advocated before he sat on the Treasury Bench. In former days he had always supported the right hon. Gentleman in his earnest advocacy of the interests of the people of India. He knew that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) intended to raise this question at the proper time, and he thought it was incumbent on every hon. Member who felt that that House owed a duty to India in looking after the interests of that country, to raise a protest against the proposal of the Government. He thought the Government would admit his right to say this much, because he, differing with some of his hon. Friends, had supported their proposal for a contribution from this country for the Afghan War. Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE), 1882–3.
  (2.) £728,000, for Additional Expenditure for Army Services, consequent on the despatch of an Expeditionary Force to Egypt.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should like to know where this money was to come from? When the Committee was asked to vote money in this manner—£728,000—there ought to be some explanation of the source from which it was to come. He would wish particularly to ask the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who was one of the Gentlemen owing to whose presence on the Treasury Bench he felt some small amount of confidence in the Government. In a valuable speech that hon. Gentleman had said it was an exceedingly dangerous state of things when the gunpowder business was decided by the many, and the few paid for it. It was very well in this loose way to vote £700,000 odd; but there ought to be a clear understanding as to where it was to come from. He had seen it stated in the newspapers and other organs, that it was to be raised by an increase in the Income Tax. He could not suppose that the hon. Member for Liskeard would be a party, after what
  1350
  he had said in his valuable speech, to any such policy. For his part, he should like to see this money raised in one of two ways—one, by raising it from the landed interest, because, of course, as everybody knew, the landed interest owned their land upon a sort of feudal tenure, under which they were bound to provide for the defence of their country. But as he greatly feared that the Government would not adopt that plan, he would, in default, much like to see this money raised by a general tax on every individual in the country, poor as well as rich. Let every one of those shrieking Jingoes who went about calling upon the Government to go to war, now here and now there, understand that they would have to pay for the cost of these wars. Then, he thought, as his hon. Friend had said, they would be rather less inclined than they now were to advance the Jingo policy which he was sorry to see had been adopted by the Government, and which they had inherited from Gentlemen on the other side of the House. With regard to the special point before the Committee, he wanted to know something about one item. He found a "Special Gratuity" to the British Contingent of £90,000. He did not remember seeing among the numerous papers which he had received any statement as to how this money was to be distributed; but he had seen in the newspapers that it was to be distributed to the officers and soldiers. Of course, the soldiers' share would be very little, and the officers would get a great deal; but gathering that a Special Vote for Lord Wolseley was to be asked for, he wished to know whether any portion of this £90,000 was to be given to Lord Wolseley?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought the more reasonable way of raising this money would be for the Government themselves to contribute largely to these extra charges. Observations having been made with respect to the action of the Conservative Party in promoting this war, he wished to free himself, as an inconsiderable Member of that Party, from such an imputation. Speaking on the Queen's Speech exactly a year ago, he had ventured to lay before the House the precise course that events were likely to take. Five months before the war began he had warned the Government that if they pursued the

  1351
  course they were then adopting they were bound to bring about a war; but they were unable to refrain from the error of their ways, and the war was brought about. The question now was, What was this sum to meet? What result was to be obtained from the payment of these charges? There were two results which the country desired at this moment to see—first, the predominance of British influence in Egypt; and, secondly, the good government of the Egyptian people. For the securing of both or either of these results it was absolutely necessary that the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt must be changed. Neither of these results could be obtained if the evacuation of Egypt was carried out within six months, as was suggested by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) a few days ago; and if the Government followed the advice of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and left that unfortunate country, which they had reduced to anarchy, "to simmer, boil, and stew," they would refuse again to intervene to put down that anarchy, for the extraordinary reason that, having themselves deliberately nullified the results of their own previous expenditure of £6,000,000, they would deem it unadvisable to spend any further sum. He objected to granting this sum to the Government, because they had given no satisfactory statement with regard to their future policy in Egypt. No one knew whether the whole of this money would be dropped into the sea. Twelve months ago there was absolutely no necessity for this war at all. The whole of these charges might easily have been avoided if the Government had displayed a moderate amount of statesmenship and foresight. If they had refrained from the alliance with France, and treated the Turks fairly, or acted in time, the war might have been avoided and better results than had followed would have been attained by peaceful methods. The country had to thank the President of the Board of Trade and those who followed in his steps, for this unfortunate war. It had been stated that the Conservative Party were responsible for this war. In June and July the Conservatives urged firm action in defence of British life and property in Egypt, but only after the Ministry had allowed matters to drift into an
  1352
  impasse from which there was no other outlet. These two lines of policy were perfectly in harmony. When there was time to avoid the war, the Conservatives warned and implored the Government to take steps for that purpose; but when things had reached a climax, and when after the massacres it was impossible for us to withdraw without dishonour, then they did urge on the Government firmness and courage. They did not urge the bombardment of Alexandria, they only urged firm action; and those with whom he acted at that time advocated firm action in conjunction with the Sovereign of Egypt. In his opinion the bombardment of Alexandria was premature, and might perhaps have been avoided if a little time had been given to the Sultan and others to arrange the matter; but it was perfectly consistent with their previous conduct for the Conservatives to have advocated in June and July firmness of action—["Divide, divide!"] He had no wish to move to report Progress; but he should do so if he was interrupted by the barbaric shouts of hon. Members. It was perfectly consistent for the Conservatives to have advocated a firm policy in June and July, and yet now to condemn the war from the first as absolutely unnecessary. In view of the policy of the Government in the past and the many errors they have made, the apparent fruitlessness of the war, and the absence of any assurance that we should gain any good results, he thought the Government might fairly be asked to refrain from pressing this Vote to-night, and to hold it over till Monday, when there would be a better opportunity of considering it as it deserved. He should not move to report Progress; but he hoped Progress would be reported.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope the Committee will be disposed to vote the whole of these Supplementary Estimates relating to Egypt tonight. My right hon. Friend has made a statement on the subject, and I think, although the hour is very late, we are quite prepared to answer any questions as to details. The hon. Member objects to anything at all on account of this war, which he considers unnecessary.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Until we have some assurance as to results.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the hon. Member was not present this evening when we had an oppor-

  1353
  tunity of voting with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who moved a Resolution expressing the regret of the House that it should be called upon to place any burden on the people. That appears to be the most convenient form in which the hon. Member could have expressed his opinion. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member in this question; but in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I think it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of last Session, that when the Estimates were presented the Government would propose a Vote for a gratuity to the troops and sailors engaged in Egypt. A Circular has been presented which states the principle upon which this gratuity will be applied. It will be issued according to the rank of the officers and men. The hon. Member asked what amount will be the share of Lord Wolseley? He will have £1,000, and the Chief of the Staff £500; other officers who were in command will receive amounts according to their respective ranks. The hon. Member asked a question respecting the annuity to be proposed by the Prime Minister for Lord Wolseley. That has nothing whatever to do with this; it is altogether a separate arrangement. I believe it is the intention of the Prime Minister at the proper time to make a proposal to the House, both on account of Lord Wolseley and of Lord Alcester, according to the invariable practice when Peerages have been conferred for Naval or Military services. That, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the share of this gratuity to Lord Wolseley according to usage.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he understood the noble Marquess to say that, if possible, the Government intended to get through the whole of these Supplementary Estimates relating to Egypt this evening. Of course, the House was very willing on special occasions to make personal sacrifices when the Public Service rendered that necessary, and in regard to the first Vote—that with respect to India—it was one that might be agreed to; but he hoped that if the Government met with the indulgence of the Committee, and were allowed to take that Vote, they would then consent to postpone the other Votes. He thought that would be a fair compromise at that time
  1354
  of night. On the other hand, he should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he would give some undertaking that either on the Report of Supply, or, still more probably, when the Army Estimates were brought forward, the fullest opportunity would be given for discussing points which would) naturally have arisen now, but which hon. Members had postponed in consideration of the time of night, and the circumstances under which this Vote was proposed? For his own part, there were several questions which he should like to raise, but which it was impossible to raise at the present time. There was also a question on the new form of the Vote as it necessarily stood in the Estimates. He thought it very inconvenient to have various questions mixed up upon one Vote, and that they would be better distributed over several Votes. If the noble Marquess would give this assurance, there would be every effort made on this side of the House to assist the Government.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXwished to make an appeal to the noble Marquess. He had no intention to discuss the question whether the Egyptian Campaign was right or wrong; he only wished to ask the noble Marquess to state now what was the condition of health of the troops still in Egypt, and whether there was any truth or not in the accounts published in the newspapers showing that the mortality among these men was on the increase? He should take an opportunity later on, in fuller detail, of presenting to the House his view of the action of the troops in Egypt; and his firm conviction was that had the necessary steps been taken when the war ended the frightful mortality which had occurred might easily have been averted. He did not, howevor, wish to detain the Committee now, but merely to ask whether the noble Marquess could give the country any reassuring account of the health of the British troops now forming the Army of Occupation in Egypt? On a later occasion he would state the reasons for his belief that a great deal of the mortality might have been avoided.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): An appeal having been made from the opposite Bench, I may say that it is practically necessary, unless the House intends to sit on Saturday, that the Supplementary

  1355
  Estimates should be finished on Monday. These Supplementary Estimates consist of these three or four Votes in connection with Egypt, and of some small Supplementary Estimates relating to Civil Service and Revenue Expenditure. It is absolutely necessary that we should close these on Monday, and therefore I hope the Committee will consent to finish the Egyptian Votes now and take the other Estimates on Monday. With respect to what the right lion, and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) said as to general questions arising out of these Votes, I think that is reasonable; but any questions upon small details we shall be prepared, to answer at once, and any general questions might be asked afterwards. With reference to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox), I am not able to say more as to the present rate of mortality among the soldiers, than that it has been steadily on the decrease for some months past. As to his suggestion that we did not take proper steps to provide against insanitary conditions, I may say that as soon as the war was over we sent out a most experienced Engineer officer, General Sir Andrew Clarke, with carte blanche to do whatever was necessary in regard to sanitary arrangements. The health of the troops has steadily improved since then, and the sickness is now as low as 7 per cent.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the suggestion of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) was that this Vote should be taken, and Progress should then be reported. He thought that a reasonable proposal, especially as it was distinctly understood that the Committee should not proceed after a quarter past 1. It would be unreasonable to take the Egyptian Votes with so small a House as there now was; and he should feel it his duty to protest against that, and to divide the Committee upon it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Do you object to taking the Egyptian Votes?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, beyond this.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Does that mean that the Vote for the Navy should not be taken to-night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Unless we get
  1356
  through these Votes now, the House will have to sit a very long time on Monday, as there are a great number of ordinary Supplementary Estimates to be taken.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had been informed by the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) that, as he understood, the Government did not intend to propose any Vote that evening after a quarter to 1 o'clock. It was now a quarter past 1, and, therefore, considering the understanding he had referred to, he thought they were justified in objecting to go further than the Vote then before the Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had certainly not given any such promise such as that indicated by the hon. Member opposite. The only promise given was that the Government would not begin the Estimates after half-past 12 o'clock.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to the cost of transport during the war, and upon that subject the Committee had received no information. They were desirous of knowing what the total cost amounted to. There appeared on the present Estimate. £20,000 for transport at home, and also a sum of £60,000 for transport abroad, and he would be glad to know what was the nature and extent of the transport which these items represented? This was a question which certainly deserved serious consideration on the part of the Committee. If hon. Members would turn to the end of the Vote they would see that a deduction was made of the sum of £40,000 for the sale of transport animals; and with respect to that credit, he ventured to say that if the original cost of the animals was £80,000, they were not likely to get for them so large a sum as £40,000 when they were sold. Therefore, he concluded that the cost of animals for the whole war was not that which appeared on the Estimates under the items he had specified. There had been great complaints as to the cost of transport in connection with the Expedition to Egypt, and he thought the Committee had a right to information as to what had been the cost of the animals employed, and, indeed, as to the whole cost of transport during the war. The two items of £80,000 and £20,000 were quite insufficient for this purpose, and he would therefore appeal to the

  1357
  noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, if possible, to furnish the Committee with some explanation with regard to the enormous cost of the Transport Service in connection with the recent operations in Egypt.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the item of £20,000 was for the conveyance of troops from various parts of England to the port of embarkation. The item of £80,000 was for the cost of animals. As the hon. and gallant Baronet would be aware, the Turkish Government had offered great resistance to our endeavour to bring mules from Smyrna and Beyrout, and that refusal on the part of the Turkish authorities had very much increased the cost of transport animals. The amount in the Estimate was the price of the animals, a great number of which were still engaged with the Army in Egypt. Some were at Malta, and a portion had been brought home.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, it was well known that some of the Cavalry regiments, and a great portion of the Artillery left at home after the despatch of the troops to Egypt, were denuded of their horses for the purpose of equipping the troops sent abroad. He saw an item of £60,000 in Vote 1, Sub-head M, for the purchase of horses, and he wished to know whether that sum was for the purpose of defraying the expense's of regiments and batteries left at home, or whether it had been expended on the purchase of an extra number of animals for the troops sent abroad?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the sum just referred to included not only the cost of horses abroad, but also the cost of horses required to fill up the ranks of those regiments which remained at home. There had been great losses amongst the horses of the 4th Dragoon Guards—not less than 169—which had to be made up, and the cost of these was included in the charge.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he strongly objected to voting money in the small hours of the morning. However, as they had gone so far with this Supply Estimate, he supposed they must go through with it; but he hoped it would be on the distinct understanding that ample time would be allowed for future discussion of the Estimate on the Report. It seemed to him there had hardly been sufficient calculation when the last Esti-
  1358
  mates were framed, because the amount asked for under this Vote had been since almost doubled. He inferred from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government took credit to themselves for the correctness of their Estimates, when he said that the Estimates for this country were under-Estimates, and that the Estimates for India were over-Estimates, and that the two differences balanced each other. But he (Sir George Campbell) was not one of those who believed that two blacks made a white, and it seemed to him of very great importance that the responsible Officers should not be allowed to mislead the country into supposing that they could carry on war at a cheaper rate than was possible. He was ready to admit that the war had been carried on with a moderation of expense that was creditable to the Government; but he thought it would have been much better to have over-estimated than under-estimated its cost. He would like to know why, in view of all the circumstances, the original Estimate had been so much exceeded? There had been no continuation of the war beyond the period which Her Majesty's Government had contemplated. On the contrary, it had been brought to an end earlier than might have been expected. They were told, in fact, that the only error in the Campaign was that the battle of Tel-el-Kebir was fought one day earlier than was intended. The resistance of the Egyptians collapsed immediately after this event; and it seemed to him that, the war having been brought to a conclusion guilder most favourable circumstances, there was no justification of the under-estimate of its cost.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid he wished to know why civil medical practitioners, for whose services there was a charge in the Estimate of £4,000, had been sent out to Egypt? His reason for making this inquiry was that he thought under the new system ample provision ought to have been made for medical officers connected with the Army. And in making allusion to this subject, perhaps, as an old soldier, he might be permitted to suggest to the military authorities the consideration of the question as to whether they could not see their way to revert to the old system under which surgeons were attached to the

  1359
  regiments. He considered himself entitled to call the attention of the Committee to this subject while the present Vote was under discussion. He believed that the Indian Contingent and the regiments which came to Egypt from India were supplied with their medical officers on the old system under which he had the honour of serving many years ago. The present system of medical officers being attached to regiments for a few months only, he regarded as most detrimental to the Military Service. On the other hand, the old system, under which medical officers were permanently attached, was most favourable to the medical officers themselves as well as to the men and the commanding officers. Without wishing to speak too strongly on the subject, he was bound to say that the present system had not turned out altogether as well as could have been wished; and therefore he again urged the military authorities to consider whether it would not be well to return to the old system under which medical officers were permanently, instead of as now temporarily, attached. There was another item, respecting which he wished to ask for some explanation from his hon. and gallant Friend and old brother officer, whom he congratulated on his new appointment as Surveyor General of Ordnance. He observed a charge of £15,000 for timber, and would be glad to know where the timber came from and what had become of it? There was also a charge of £3,000, under Sub-head F, for fuel, which he presumed was for the engines sent out to Egypt. Again, under Sub-head C, there was a charge of £20,000 for metals, and he asked whether these were for the railway from Cairo in the direction of Tel-el-Kebir? He did not wish to offer any objection to these items, but simply asked for an explanation of them. There was also the item of £30,000 for accoutrements, to which the same remark applied. This was a large sum indeed, because it was always supposed that when troops were sent out of the country they were fully equipped and accoutred. He believed there had been extra clothing furnished to some regiments—some Kharkee had been supplied to them—but he hardly imagined that the cost of this amounted to £30,000.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONremarked, that all the items for gratuities
  1360
  appeared in the aggregate. With reference to the charge of £90,000 for Special Gratuity to British Contingent, he asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, if that included payments to the officers of the British regiments which came from India to Egypt? As the noble Marquess was aware, the mere fact of the Native regiments coming from India entitled them to double pay; whereas the European troops who came from India lost their Indian pay, although both these classes of troops fought side by side. There was another point upon which he thought explanation should be given, and he referred to a feeling which generally prevailed that the sick and wounded were not properly looked after. Could the noble Marquess state whether there had been any change in the Committee recently appointed?
  MR. BRANDsaid, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham, that the item for timber was in connection with the increased work at the Woolwich manufactories. With regard to the accoutrements, his hon. and gallant Friend must recollect that 10,000Eeserve men had been called out whose accoutrements, which were taken out of store, had to be replaced.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he hoped some larger suits of clothing would be kept in store. There was a man in his district so enormously stout that none of the suits in store would fit him, and he was in consequence unable to go out to Egypt.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was desirable that the Committee should have some clear explanation as to whether the English troops on the Indian Establishment received a gratuity, and, if so, whether they were paid out of this Vote or out of the Indian Exchequer? He presumed they were treated on the same terms as the troops sent from England; but he thought it desirable that the point should be made clear.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the British troops that came from India received precisely the same amount of gratuity as the Indian troops, but so long as they remained on the Indian Establishment the gratuity was charged against the Indian Government. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had asked why the Vote of Credit had been exceeded. But he

  1361
  thought the hon. Gentleman must be aware that it was impossible to form a very accurate estimate of the sum required for warlike purposes. There had been some very obvious reasons why the amount estimated in July last should be exceeded. In the first place, the number of troops despatched considerably exceeded the number then contemplated. In the next place, there was a large increase in the quantity of Ordnance stores that were sent to Alexandria. Again, the estimate for horses was exceeded on account of the great mortality which prevailed amongst them during the campaign, and his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had explained that there had been a considerable increase in the cost of horses in consequence of the Turkish Government refusing to allow mules to be despatched from Smyrna and Beyrout. Seeing, therefore, that there were so many items which it was impossible to estimate accurately beforehand, he did not think that the amount by which the July Estimate had been exceeded was a very large one. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) in reference to the medical arrangements and the treatment of the sick and wounded, he wished to say that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he left the War Office, and almost immediately after the return of the troops, appointed a Committee to inquire into complaints which had been made of the failure of the transport and medical arrangements. That Committee, as was stated in reply to a Question put yesterday, had, he believed, entered very exhaustively into these questions, but had not yet made its Report, which, however, might be expected in a week or two.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the Financial Secretary had replied only to a portion of the question of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with regard to the amount credited at the end of the Vote for the sale of animals—namely, £40,000. It was well known that for weeks after the conclusion of military operations mules continued to come in by thousands—in fact, "it rained mules." The reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Government Bench did not state whether the sum
  1362
  of £40,000 represented the amount realized by the sale of all the animals employed in the war, or only applied to the animals for which there was the charge of £80,000. The distinction was a very important one, and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex had pointed out that £40,000 was an unusual recoupment upon an outlay of £80,000. He therefore again asked whether the £40,000 applied to the whole of the animals purchased, or only to a portion of them?
  MR. TOMLINSONasked for an explanation of the item of £5,000 for losses under Sub-head M.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, this sum included the compensation to officers for the loss of their horses, as well as compensation to men for clothing and accoutrements lost; and, considering the dimensions of the Expedition, he did not think the charge excessive.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the question had been asked in connection with Vote 4, why there was a charge of £4,000 for civilian medical practitioners? He had not understood that a reply had been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite; but he presumed the charge was incurred to replace the medical officers sent abroad with the troops.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the sum of £40,000 was the whole sum realized by the sale of animals. The item for medical practitioners was, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman supposed, to replace the medical officers whose services were required with the regiments sent out to Egypt.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there was great curiosity to know what conclusion the War Department had arrived at with regard to the fuses for the shells used by the Navy in the bombardment of Alexandria. It might, perhaps, not be convenient for the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to make a statement on the question at that moment; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the matter would have to be dealt with either on the present or the forthcoming Estimates. A very satisfactory explanation would have to be given to the House and the country upon the point, as also with regard to such mysterious items under Vote 12, as £115,500 for Miscellaneous Stores. There had been a distinct failure of the stores

  1363
  supplied to the Navy by the War Department, and the Committee and the country ought to know whether they were to have efficient munitions of war in future, or whether they were to be liable to the very great misadventure which had recently occurred.
  MR. BRAND: I think it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman would defer his question.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there must be an understanding that the question would be taken up at a time when more consideration could be given to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that during the last two or three Sessions, Estimates had been passed at hours when it was impossible properly to enter into them. He had no desire to embarrass the Government; but his question referred to a matter of very great importance which had arisen in connection with the late war. If, therefore, the question were postponed, there must be a distinct understanding that an opportunity would be given for full discussion hereafter.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, there was the strongest desire on the part of the Government to give the most ample opportunities for discussing the Estimates. But he must remind the Committee that although the Government might be able to do much, they could not make time; and if the House insisted upon discussing the Address to Her Majesty for 11 days, a very appreciable inroad was thereby made upon the time at the disposal of the Government. It was impossible that they could then give so full an opportunity for discussion as it might be very desirable to afford later on in the Session; and all he could say at the present moment was, that the Government would make the very beet arrangement they could for the discussion of the Estimates.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Minster (the Marquess of Conyngham), after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 21 st day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Thursday the 12th day of April next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Thursday the 12th day of April next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorising any inclosure of lands

1251
under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall he read a second time after Tuesday the 26 th day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall he read a second time after Tuesday the 26 th day of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any now Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and, affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 11.)

PARLIAMENT—THE ADJOURNMENT FOR THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements the Government proposed to make with regard to the Easter Recess?
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that it was rather early to make the usual announcement, and perhaps the noble Marquess would give Notice of his Question a little later in the Session. He had no doubt, however, the noble Marquess would reciprocate his wish that the Easter holidays should be as long as possible.

EGYPTIAN AFFAIRS—THE EARL OF DUFFERIN'S DESPATCH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LAWRENCEwished for information as to when Lord Dufferin's despatch on Egyptian affairs would be presented?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to state that some days ago a Report was received by me from Lord Dufferin. It is a very able despatch, and necessarily very long, on account of the important questions with which it deals. It contains numerous references to documents, and, I think, amounts altogether to 280 pages of manuscript. It is not, however, a description of accomplished facts, but is a despatch in answer to instructions by the Government, desiring Lord Dufferin to report upon many important points in connection with Egyptian administra-
  1252
  tion. It would have been contrary to usage to present such a despatch to Parliament before it had been considered by Her Majesty's Government. At the same time that I received the despatch, I received a private note from Lord Dufferin, in which he says that he had been very pressed for time at the last moment, and was sure that the despatch would require revision, not as regarded the proposals, but with respect to the language. I therefore had the document printed and then returned to Lord Dufferin, but without making any suggestions as to any corrections to be made in it. I have telegraphed to Lord Dufferin to return it without unnecessary delay, and I shall then be in a position to lay it on the Table of the House.
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.