Sitting of 23 June 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Wellington John Fitz-Wygram, baronet, for Southampton County (Southern Division); Sir John Whittaker Ellis, baronet, for Surrey (Mid Division).
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 (Districts) [253]; Trustees of Settlements [255], debate adjourned; Licensing Act (1872) Amendment [248]; Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment* [231].
Committee — Royal Courts of Justice [139]— R.P.; Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) [124], deferred; County Courts (Ireland) [258].
Committee—Report—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) (re-comm.) [254].
Considered as amended—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11) * [213]; Representation of the People [249], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * [229]; Tramways Provisional Orders * [180]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [194]; Customs and Inland Revenue* [206], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—EMPLOYMENT OF CRIMINALS AS WITNESSES FOR THE CROWN IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General, If there is any precedent in modern practice in England for the Crown employing as witness a person who had been first convicted of highway robbery, and, after undergoing punishment for this crime, being convicted secondly of conspiracy to murder, and subsequently sentenced to death for murder; and, whether, in view of the great temptation such persons have to escape punishment by false swearing, it is intended to make persons whose death sentence has been commuted incapable by Law of giving evidence, as is now the case before commutation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, was unable to say whether such a combination of convictions had occurred in the case of any witness in England. They must judge on each occasion as it arose whether such evidence should be accepted or not, but no change in the existing law was contemplated
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government had availed of such a witness in Ireland—[Cries of "Order!"] —in order to convict another man.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to be putting a Question.
  MR. HEALY: No, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order.

  LIGHTHOUSES — COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—BULL ROCK LIGHT HOUSE.
  MR. GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, some two years and a-half ago, the lighthouse on the Calf Rock was washed away, and has not since been replaced; whether he can say when the new lighthouse on the Bull Rock, in the same neighbourhood, will be complete, and what is the cause of the slow progress of the work; and,

  1083
  whether it is a fact that there is not a single audible fog-signal on the coast from the mouth of the Shannon to Queenstown?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The lighthouse on the Calf Rock was destroyed by storm in November, 1881. The Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that, owing to the very exposed position of the Bull Rock, where a first-class light is to be erected in place of that formerly on the Calf Rock, the works can only be proceeded with with safety during the summer mouths. They do not expect that the light will be exhibited before the autumn of 1886. The necessary preparations for a work of this magnitude takes time; but no opportunity has been or will be lost in pushing on the work. Meantime there is a temporary light on Dursey Head. It is not a fact that there is not a single audible fog signal on the coast between the mouth of the Shannon and Queens-town. There are two—one at the Fast-net lighthouse, and another on board the Daunt Rock light vessel.
  MR. GRAY: What class fog signals are they?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe they are the ordinary syren pattern.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—COUNTIES OF MEATH AND DUBLIN (MESSRS. N. AND J. MARKLY).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that among the appointments of Catholics to the magistracy made recently in the county of Meath, there is a rated occupier holding eighty acres of laud in the petty sessions district of Julianstown, Duleek; is lie aware of the brother of this gentleman who lives in the petty sessions district of Balbriggan having been appointed a magistrate for the county of Dublin, and is he in possession of the facts that he is a registered dairyman holding less than twelve acres of land; do these gentlemen possess ability and other necessary qualifications suited for the magistracy, so as to out-weigh all considerations of want of property; and, is he aware that such appointments have given rise to extreme dissatisfaction?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A Question in this form is liable to mislead. The rated occupier of 80 acres of land, or the registered proprietor of a dairy, may be
  1084
  a man of large fortune and possessing the very best qualifications for the magistracy. The gentlemen apparently referred to in the Question are Mr. Nicholas Markly and Mr. John Markly. The former has been put in the Commission of the Peace for the county of Meath, and the latter for the county of Dublin. Both appointments were made on the recommendation of the respective Lord Lieutenants of the counties without any communication being made to them by the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Nicholas Markly's landed property in the county of Meath is close on £200 a-year. Mr. John Markly's landed property in the county of Dublin is £300 a-year. They are both Roman Catholics, and well calculated to make efficient magistrates. I am not aware that their appointments have given rise to extreme dissatisfaction. On the contrary, I believe them to be popular.

  BOARD OF TRADE (MARINE DEPARTMENT)—THE MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the constitution and administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and the manner in which inquiries into wrecks and casualties are conducted; also into the causes of the yearly increase of Foreign seamen in our Mercantile Marine; and also into the allegations of over insurance and unseaworthiness, and into the application of the Employers' Liability Act and the Limited Liability Act to shipping.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I must refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by me in the debate on the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill, when I said that, in my opinion, it was desirable that a Royal Commission should inquire into the various subjects which are still matter of controversy in respect to merchant shipping. Any such inquiry should certainly include investigations into the present merchant shipping law, the practice of the trade with regard to insurance and other matters, and the administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, as well as the manner in which wreck inquiries are now conducted.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS).
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state how many of the lay Sub-Commissioners under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," were land agents at or immediately prior to the date of their appointment; and, also, if he can state how many such Sub-Commissioners have transferred their agencies to members of their own families; and, if, in the proposed reduction of the number of Sub-Commissioners, account will be taken of those who have filled such offices, in order that they may no longer be retained in their present capacity?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Some, I cannot say how many, of the Sub-Commissioners were land agents; but they ceased to act in such capacity on being appointed. "What arrangements they may have made for the conduct of their business is not within the knowledge of the Government, nor do they think that any public purpose would be served by making an inquiry. As regards re-appointments, the discretion must absolutely remain with the Lord Lieutenant.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—CIVIL SERVANTS IN PRIVATE UNDERTAKINGS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Her Majesty's Government has now settled rules regarding the acceptance of paid employments in connection with private undertakings by the salaried servants of the State?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government, after full and careful consideration, have arrived at the conclusion not to issue any rules on this subject beyond those laid down in the Treasury Minute of the 27th of March, 1849, and in the letter from the Treasury to the Home Office of the 6th of April, 1875. These Papers have been laid before Parliament.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can state the result of the Circular, issued by the Secretary of State last year, to inquire whether there are any cases in which stipendiary magistrates and other salaried officers in the Colonies
  1086
  have engaged in private occupations at the same time; whether any further general rules have been or will be issued on the subject; whether the rule against engaging in trade or commercial undertakings applies or will be applied to the holding and working estates or plantations; and, whether the magistrate in Grenada, who was so situated, has given up either his magistracy or his plantation?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I regret that, owing to an oversight, the Circular referred to did not issue last year as was intended. The two Questions, whether it will be necessary to make any further general rules, and whether the ownership of estates will be considered as coming within Rule 76 of the Colonial Regulations, must wait the answer to the Circular. But my hon. Friend must be fully aware of the difficulty of laying down any absolute hard-and-fast rule in the West Indies, and that provision must be made for exceptional instances, if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the officer's efficiency and impartiality in the discharge of his duties will not be impaired. The magistrate in Grenada referred to has been required to give up his distillery, but not his plantation.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—HOSPITALS AT BILBOA.
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received a memorial from masters of British ships trading to Bilboa pointing-out the wretched nature of the hospital accommodation there available for sick and injured British seamen, and urging the establishment of a cottage hospital under British management; and, whether he will cause the British Consul at Bilboa to be consulted as to the feasibility of organizing such an institution?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Some representations have been received in favour of the establishment of a cottage hospital at Bilboa under British management. The British Consul, who has been Consul at Bilboa for 25 years, has been consulted, and states that no complaints from patients have reached him, and that he has frequently visited the hospital which already exists with medical officers of Her Majesty's Navy, who have expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the management of the

  1087
  hospital and the treatment of the patients. I am happy to say that the number of British sailors requiring hospital accommodation at Bilboa is very small.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— SUB-CONSTABLE CARROLL.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to an unusual claim for malicious injury and loss, brought by Sub-Constable Carroll at the Baronial Sessions, Ballyvaughan, county Clare, on the 16th May last; if this Sub-Constable claimed £395 compensation for money in gold and notes, his private property, which he alleged to have been maliciously destroyed by fire in the house of a man named Fitzpatrick, whom he was protecting; if Carroll's wife admitted on oath that she never saw the money in her husband's possession; if the various entries in Carroll's cash book were all made at the same time, although the dates extended over many years, and if these entries conflicted with the evidence of an ex-sub-inspector, who was produced to prove the amount of money in Carroll's possession at a certain date; if it is a fact that the cesspayers who voted for the presentment are persons who are not affected by the taxation it may involve; and, if it is usual for sub-constables of police on protection duty in Ireland to have in their possession so large a sum of money as £395; and, if so, and in view of the foregoing, it is proposed by the Irish Government to provide a suitable means of investment for the superfluous earnings of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in order to guard against the possibility of loss such as that alleged to have taken place by Carroll?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sub-constable Carroll made the claim stated, and the Presentment Sessions having heard the evidence, passed it—the circumstance of the entries in the constable's book having been re-copied at one time, and the apparent discrepancy with an ex-sub-inspector's evidence having been explained to their satisfaction. The case is, however, still sub judice, as the Grand Jury have yet to pass the presentment, and it will be for thorn to fix the district upon which it should be levied. I am informed that it is not an unusual thing
  1088
  for a constable to be possessed of so much money; but certainly this man acted in a peculiar manner in keeping so large a sum at a protection post.
  MR. HEALYasked if it were not unusual for sub-constables in Ireland to have as much as £400 in loose cash; why the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill last year to raise their pay; and, further, if it were not a fact that when Walsh, who was a witness in a certain case at Cork Winter Assizes, was found with a deposit receipt for £50, it led to his dismissal, because the Government said he must have got it from the Land League?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was informed that £100 of the money came to Carroll from his wife, and £100 from his father.
  MR. HEALY: There was £200 more.
  MR. TREVELYAN: No doubt. Happily he was a man of saving habits. I wish there were more like him.
  MR. KENNYasked if it were the fact that Carroll's wife admitted that she never saw the money in her husband's possession?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I decline to answer any Questions until after the Grand Jury have settled the matter.

  ROUMANIA—DISABILITIES OF JEWS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that an edict has recently been issued in Roumania prohibiting hawking, and that most of the hawkers are Jews, who are in consequence deprived of the means of supporting themselves and their families, and reduced to utter destitution; whether the Roumanian Government refused to receive a petition from the Jews protesting against this edict on the ground that they were considered as aliens, and for the same reason debarred them from seeking redress in the Courts of Law, afforded to all other Roumanian subjects; whether the independence of Roumania was not, by Article 43 of the Treaty of Berlin, recognized, subject to the conditions set forth in Article 14 of the said Treaty, viz.: —
  "In Roumania the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political rights, admission to public

  1089
  employments, functions, and honours, or the' exercise of the various professions and industries in any locality whatsoever…… The subjects and citizens of all the Powers, traders or others, shall be treated in Roumania without distinction of creed on a footing of perfect equality;"
  and, whether this action of the Roumanian Government is not a distinct violation of the condition precedent under which the independence of Roumania was recognised by the Great Powers, and by which the Jews in Roumania were to be placed on a footing of absolute equality with Christians and persons of other denominations; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of Great Britain, as one of the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, will either alone, or in concert with the other signatory Powers, make representations to the Government of Roumania on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Attention has already been called to this matter by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), and Her Majesty's Minister at Bucharest has been instructed to forward a Report upon the subject. Until the facts of the case are fully known, it would not be advisable to express any opinion with regard to the action of the Roumanian Government.

  PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY—THE INTERNATIONAL PATENT CONVENTION.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that the Ratifications of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property have been exchanged; and, if so, when it is intended to issue the Order in Council required by the Patents Act of 1883, in order that the Convention may take effect as between this Country and the other States which are parties to the Convention?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The ratifications of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property were exchanged on the 6th instant. A draft Order in Council has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Patents Act, 1883, and the Order will be issued at as early a date as possible, so that the Convention may come into operation on July 7.

  HACKNEY CARRIAGE LAWS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  MR. HICKSasked the honourable Member for Evesham, Whether he could inform the House why the Hackney Carriage Laws (Metropolis) Bill, which was introduced on February 7th, has not yet been printed?
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND, in reply, said, that at the request of the Amalgamated Cab Drivers' Association of London he had agreed to introduce a Bill to obviate four of the grievances of which the men had just reason to complain. When that Bill was brought to him, he, however, found that it was of such a nature that it would alter the whole Cab Law of London. He therefore intimated that it was impossible for him to carry through such a measure, and had remitted it to the Association for alteration on the lines pointed out. He had not yet received it back, and, consequently, it had not been printed.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—ZULULAND— THE BOERS.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any official confirmation of the intelligence published in the daily papers as to the part taken by the Boers in the late successful attack by the Usutus on the Chief Usibepu; whether, in that case, any action will be taken to prevent a repetition in Zululand on the part of marauding Boers of those tactics which led to the atrocities in Bechunaland last year; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to promote the re-establishment of peace and order in that part of Zululand outside the Reserved Territory, which, since the restoration of the late Chief Cetywayo has been devastated by Civil War?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The latest telegram on the subject from Sir Henry Bulwer, dated June 14, says—
  "In the attack upon Usibepu the Usutu party fled away; but a flanking party of Boers, about 500 strong, inflicted heavy loss, and completely defeated Usibepu."
  Her Majesty's Government do not hold themselves responsible for the internal affairs of Zululand; but Sir Henry Bulwer telegraphs, on the 20th of this

  1091
  month, that he has sent someone officially to the Boers' camp, in the hope of averting serious trouble which threatens as the result of their action. In a later telegram he expresses hope of success. The Government are also considering whether, concurrently with the Government of the South African Republic or otherwise, they can with advantage take any steps to promote peace and order beyond the Reserve Territory.

  EGYPT (INTERNAL AFFAIRS)—OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
  MR. FINCH-HATTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Sanitary Inspector of Lower Egypt, who is an Englishman, has within the last few weeks been ordered to send in all his reports in French, instead of, as heretofore, in English; and, if so, for what reason; and, why the present time has been selected by Her Majesty's Government for making the change?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are not aware that any order of the kind has been issued, and it is not a matter in which they are interested.

  VENEZUELA—THE COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the proposed new arrrangement with Venezuela involves a new Treaty; and, if so, whether that Treaty will be submitted for consideration by Parliament before being finally concluded?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A proposal has been made to the Venezuelan Government with a view to settling certain points in dispute which have arisen out of the terms of the existing Commercial Treaty. The questions involved are matters of detail, and it is not intended to submit the arrangement for previous consideration to Parliament.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—WICKLOW COUNTY — APPOINTMENT OF MR. MARTIN LANGTON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to the assurance given by the Government that
  1092
  "the Lord Chancellor would not be slow to exercise his inherent powers" in appointing Catholics to the Commission of the Peace, under certain conditions, when the Lord Lieutenant of a county unreasonably declined to recommend; whether, in the case of Mr. Martin Langton, of Bray, county Wicklow, all the conditions were fully complied with, and a requisition, numerously signed by the most influential Catholics in the district, submitted to the Lord Chancellor more than two months ago; and, whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in making the appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor has declined to place Mr. Martin Langton in the Commission of the Peace, and he is of opinion that the Lord Lieutenant of the county, the Earl of Meath, has not unreasonably declined to recommend him. The Earl of Meath has recently recommended to the Commission of the Peace two Roman Catholic gentlemen and one Protestant, all of whom reside in Bray or its immediate vicinity, and the Lord Chancellor has appointed these three gentlemen.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether, as a matter of fact, these three gentlemen had not been appointed since his Question appeared on the Paper, and whether the recommendations of Mr. Langton were not supported as strongly as was possible by Deputy Lieutenants, several Catholic magistrates, and professional gentlemen, and a number of the most respectable tradespeople of Bray? He also asked the reason why Mr. Langton would not be appointed, and whether of the three gentlemen referred to by the Chief Secretary, one was not the ex-butler of Sir John Kingston James, another was only qualified by his mother having property at a distance from Bray; and whether the third was not a Director of an institution in Merrion Square, of which the Earl of Meath was Governor?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could answer some of the hon. Member's Questions, but he had better give Notice of them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman state now the reason why Mr. Langton will not be appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; that I will not state at all.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—OPERATIONS IN THE HOME MARKET.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the comments in the Indian press lately as to the injustice to India of conducting its chief finance operations in London; whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Bullionist of 9th February last; whether it is a fact that, as stated in this letter, the Indian business has got into the hands of certain "sets" and "rings" in London; and, whether Government will furnish a list of those from whom it has purchased Indian stores, and to whom it has sold "Indian paper," during the past five years?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have not noticed in the Indian Press any accounts of the alleged injustice of the Indian Government conducting its chief financial operations in London, but my attention has been drawn to a letter in The Bullionist of the 9th February, in which it is stated that the Indian business has got into the hands of certain "rings" or "sets" in London. If I may be allowed to state to the House how Council drafts are sold, I think the hon. Member will see that the statement is totally void of foundation. Since 1876 it has been the practice of the India Office to advertise for sale, weekly, by public tender to the highest bidder, a certain amount of bills upon India. In April, 1883, it was found that the convenience of remitters would be better suited, and a higher average rate of exchange obtained, by selling bills or telegraphic transfers whenever there was a demand for them; and since then any person or firm wishing to make a remittance to India of Rs. 10,000, or more, may tender at the weekly sale, or may apply any day at the Bank of England and obtain bills— that is, orders on the Indian Treasuries for rupees, at the rate fixed by the India Office. The number of applications at the weekly sale varies from eight or 10 to 18 or 20, and comprises eight banks and about 40 private firms, but no advantage would arise from publishing their names. The hon. Member also asks for a list of those from whom stores have been purchased during the last five years. The list would give no information to the House, and would be very
  1094
  voluminous—no less than 1,020 persons or firms having received contracts during the past year.

  HOUSE AND LAND VALUATIONS (IRELAND) — THE COUNTY VALUATOR FOR WESTMEATH.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, at the recent visit of the revising valuator to the county of Westmeath, he made several changes in the valuation of houses and lands without conferring with the occupier or announcing his presence, and in some cases without visiting at all; what remedy is open to persons who consider themselves aggrieved by the action of the revisor; and, what means is taken to let the public know the rules upon which he proceeds in his re-valuation, and the class of improvements he will take into consideration?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that this matter had already been the subject of inquiry. The officer stated positively that he altered no valuation without previous notice to the occupying tenant. With regard to the latter part of the Question, he referred the hon. Gentleman to the 8th and 9th sections of the Act of 1860.
  MR. DEASYasked if the hon. Gentleman was aware that the usual practice in Ireland was for the rate collectors to make these alterations of valuation altogether on their own responsibility; and, if so, would he take steps to prevent that being done in future?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he was not aware of it.

  METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT—WEATHER PREDICTIONS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Postmaster General, If he would take steps to publish at the country post offices, during the coming hay and corn harvests, such selections from the weather predictions of the Meteorological Department as may be of use to the farmers of the districts?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to a similar Question two years ago I expressed my regret that, after very carefully looking into the matter, I did not see my way to accede to the proposal, because it appeared that if the Government supplied telegrams gratuitously to those inte-

  1095
  rested in agriculture, it would be impossible to refuse similar applications from those engaged in other trades. I further stated that I believed that there would be little difficulty in securing the object desired, because the Meteorological Office supplies weather forecasts gratuitously to anyone who is willing to pay the expense of telegraphing, which very rarely exceeds 1s. I pointed out that if the farmers in any district jointly subscribed, the expense to each would be very inconsiderable. The forecasts might be exhibited at the post-office, and in the case of those farmers who resided within the area of free delivery the message could be delivered at the small extra cost of 3d. for each additional copy.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MR. MARTIN HUBAN, A NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Martin Huban occupied for sixteen years the position of schoolmaster; if any complaint was made against him by the patron or manager of his school during that time; if a series of complaints was made against him by the inspector of his district during the land agitation, and if Mr. Huban was imprisoned without trial about the same period; and, as Mr. Huban was not brought to trial, and as his demand for an investigation by the Commissioners of Education was refused, if the time had not now arrived at which Mr. Huban might be reinstated in his former position, and the gratuity usually awarded after sixteen years' service given to him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A complaint was made in 1880 by the manager that Martin Huban had compromised him by his suspicious associations and conduct, in consequence of which he (the manager) had threatened him with dismissal. Huban's career as a National School teacher was a very unsatisfactory one. Long before the Land League agitation, and his imprisonment as a "suspect," complaints of neglect and irregularity had been made against him. On 10 different occasions, and on the Reports of three successive Inspectors, between the years 1868 and 1881, such complaints were under the consideration of the
  1096
  Commissioners of National Education; and on two occasions Huban was fined for so serious an offence as falsifying his school records. He was more than once threatened with dismissal, and finally he was dismissed in October, 1881, for gross inefficiency, and the school was struck off the rolls as worthless. This was several months before his arrest as a "suspect," which, therefore, had nothing to do with the matter. The Commissioners could not consent to reinstate this man in their service.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the Chief Secretary was aware of the date of Huban's arrest as a "suspect?"
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he had not got the date with him; but he had no doubt that the Education Commissioners were right in informing him that the delinquencies were previous to his taking an active part in agitation, at all events to his being punished for taking an active part in agitation.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I know something about this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether the closing of the school was not due to non-attendance of pupils rather than to any inefficiency of Huban? I saw this man in gaol while a "suspect," and, therefore, take an interest in him. ["Order!"]
  [No reply.]

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE FOUNTAINE SALE—THE RELIQUARY OF ST. LACHTEEN.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Reliquary of St. Lachteen has been bought for the Nation at the Fountaine sale; and, if so, considering the deep interest taken in this Irish work of the twelfth century by all classes in Ireland, it is to be deposited in the Royal Irish Academy, where works of a similar character purchased by the Nation are at present preserved?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend I have to say that as soon as I saw that the reliquary of St. Lachteen was to be included in the sale of the Fountaine collection, I conferred with my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council with the view of securing it, if possible, for the nation, and depositing it in one of the Irish collec-

  1097
  tions. I am happy to say that we succeeded in purchasing it at a reasonable price, and we are now considering in which of the Irish collections it had better be placed.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. KEOGH, SESSIONAL CROWN SOLICITOR FOR MEATH.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. SHIEL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that at last Quarter Sessions held at Trim, county Meath, the cases for hearing (or some of them) were postponed owing to non-attendance of Sessional Crown Prosecutor, Mr. George Keogh, and if, when he subsequently attended, the Chairman severely rebuked him, Mr. Keogh explained, by stating he was unavoidably delayed by unusual train arrangements; whether, when questioned by the Chairman as to his reason for not being at Trim over night, he pleaded pressure of business and a wish to save expense; is it a fact that a case in which Mr. Keogh was interested was also postponed; will the Government sanction such a miscarriage of justice, and permit such hardship to all interested; what is the amount of Mr. Keogh's salary, and what the amount meant to cover expenses; do the Government consider Mr. Keogh can properly and efficiently discharge public duty as Sessional Crown Prosecutor, holding, as he does, at the same time, a multitude of official positions, amongst which may be enumerated Solicitor to Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company, Solicitor to Bray Commissioners (Town), Solicitor to Cemeteries Committee (Glasnevin), with very constant attendance in London, and also private practice; what is the nature and quality of his staff to transact this crowd of work; and, if the Government will appoint a Solicitor as Meath Sessional Crown Prosecutor who will be better I able to discharge the duties belonging to such office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that some inconvenience was caused at the recent Trim Sessions by the late arrival of Mr. Keogh the Sessional Crown Solicitor, who, as had been his practice for some years, travelled from Dublin by the morning train. The Judge informed him that, not withstanding
  1098
  any previous practice, he would expect him to make arrangements which would secure his earlier attendance in future; and this Mr. Keogh undertook to do. He did not plead pressure of business or personal expense as a reason for not being in Trim overnight; but he did refer to the additional public expense which would be involved in having the witnesses there overnight. No cases were postponed in consequence of Mr. Keogh's non-attendance, but in one case the Grand Jury ignored the bill in consequence of the non-attendance of witnesses. With regard to the suggestion that a case was postponed in which Mr. Keogh was interested, the facts are that the case was one in which he was neither plaintiff nor defendant, but in consequence of his being the landlord of a farm to which it related the Judge at a previous Session had ordered that he should be made a party to it. The plaintiff had neglected to do so, and in consequence the case was adjourned. No blame attaches to Mr. Keogh as regards it. Mr. Keogh's salary as Sessional Solicitor is £175 per annum, and he has no allowance for expenses. He is a solicitor in extensive general practice, and it is no part of the duty of the Government to inquire as to his private business, or the staff he employs to carry it on. The present complaint against him resolves itself into this, that he should have gone to Trim on the evening before the Sessions, and the Attorney General does not think that this calls for his removal from office.

  NAVY—THE CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that, during the present stay of the Channel Fleet in Bantry Bay, no leave has been given to the men; and, if so, what was the cause of the leave being refused?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: In consequence of reported cases of scarlatina in the neighbourhood of Castletown Bere, the Vice Admiral commanding the Channel Squadron was informed that it would be desirable to restrict the leave of the ships' companies at that place. The cases are now said to be very few, and it will probably soon be possible to give the usual privilege of leave without incurring risk.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—INSPECTORS OF POOR.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is competent for an Inspector of Poor in Scotland to hold a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I cannot say that it is in law incompetent for an Inspector of Poor to hold a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors; but it is plainly in the highest degree inexpedient that he should do so. Although the Board of Supervision cannot dismiss an Inspector on the ground of his holding a licence, they discourage the practice as far as they have power to do so. The cases in which licences are held by Inspectors are very few—I believe only four in Scotland—in two cases by innkeepers and in two cases by licensed grocers.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MAJOR PERCY, A RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Irish Executive would reconsider the case of Major Percy, late Resident Magistrate in Ireland, who was retired in July 1882, and who is advised that he is entitled to a larger pension under the 7th section of the 22nd Victoria, c. 26, than that awarded to him by the Treasury, as it seems that under the Act quoted above two-thirds of salary can be granted as a retiring allowance on abolition of office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This appears to be a Question rather for the Treasury, who award pensions, than for the Irish Government. I doubt, however, if there would be any use in approaching their Lordships on the subject. Major Percy received the pension he was entitled to under the Act of Parliament and the Treasury Rules made there under. Having served 18 years, he was allowed in the computation of his pension 10 additional years for professional qualification and seven for abolition of office—making 35 years in all.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—CONTRACTS.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to statements that large contracts for ironwork for Indian Railways have been entered
  1100
  into by the India Office with Foreign firms; and, whether he can inform the House as to the amount of these contracts, the reasons why they have been entered into, and the proportion they bear to contracts for Railway ironwork placed in this Country with home manufacturers?
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If, with reference to the statement that no work except two contracts for axle-boxes, value about £5,600, had been given to Foreign makers, he had been made aware that in 1888 there had been at least one contract for 249,000 wrought-steel transverse sleepers, value about £70,000; if he is aware that last May another contract was given for 100,000 more of these steel sleepers, value about £22,000; whether, in estimating comparative costs of Home and Foreign manufacture, allowance is made for difference in quality, extra cost of inspectors and engineers visiting works, &c.; and, if, on the completion of either of these contracts, he will lay upon the Table a Paper showing the accurate cost as compared with what it would have been if the lowest offer of a British manufacturer had been accepted?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: My attention has been drawn to this subject, and I am glad of an opportunity of stating the facts. Since I stated to the House that orders for axle-boxes had been placed abroad, 100,000 steel sleepers have been contracted for at £7 12 s. per ton, the lowest British tender being £8 12 s. 6d. This contract was made on the 26th of May last. The India Office made no foreign contract for steel sleepers in 1883, and the contract for 249,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) is imaginary. The only foreign purchase in that year was 37 tons of Swedish iron. I learn, however, that the Directors of the Southern Mahratta Company bought 99,600 steel sleepers from a foreign firm. The contracts for railway work entered into by the India Office since June, 1877, amount to £6,591,385, of which £53,833 has been placed with foreign firms; and in these contracts duo consideration has been given to the extra cost incurred by our Inspectors in visiting foreign works. The quality of the work is equal to English work, and the specifications are the same. I shall be quite willing, on the

  1101
  completion of the contract for sleepers, to lay upon the Table a Paper showing the saving to the Government of India on this contract as compared with the lowest English tender. I may say that the traditions of the India Office are strongly against placing contracts abroad; still, on some occasions, even the India Office must depart from tradition. I may also inform the House that steel sleepers are somewhat novel in England, and that several of our greatest English manufacturers have declined to make them or tender for them. At present German prices are considerably below English. As, however, these sleepers may, in the future, be very generally used by the Indian Government and by the Indian Railway Companies, I hope that our great English firms will not allow foreigners to distance them in fair and open competition.
  MR. ANDERSONasked whether it was not the fact that the contract in 1883, which the hon. Gentleman said was purely imaginary, was advertised for by the India Office, and, if not given out by them, that a considerable portion of it was given out by their engineer, Mr. Rendel, on behalf of the South Mahratta Railway?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, the contract of 249,000 steel sleepers was certainly advertised for; but they were changed from steel to cast iron, and the contract was executed by an English firm.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELY DISPENSARY, CO. FERMANAGH—USE OF BUILDING FOR PARTY PURPOSES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is with the concurrence of the Local Government Board for Ireland that the Ely Dispensary, in the town of Derrygonnilly, county Fermanagh, is used as the head-quarters of the Orange Flute Band, where its uniform and musical instruments are deposited; do the members of Derrygonnilly Orange Lodge use this Dispensary as a place of meeting; are the Orange flags stored there; and, are these flags, and party emblems, hung out from its windows on Orange anniversaries?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the Orange Lodge have for the last 30 years used as head-quarters a room in the building occupied as a dispensary, and that this has been done by special
  1102
  permission or agreement with the landlord of the premises. The dispensary part frequented by the public has never been put to any of the purposes mentioned. The Orange Lodge has not, I am informed, met there during the last two years, nor does the band practice there; but the instruments are stored in the room referred to, and flags have been hung out on the occasion of anniversaries. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board could interfere authoritatively; but I have asked them to submit it to the Guardians at their next meeting with a view of ascertaining fully their views on the subject. The Guardians have not met since this Question was on the Paper.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, having regard to the great importance of the Medical Act Amendment Bill, as it may affect medical education in this country, he will name an early day for proceeding with the Second Reading?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Representation of the People Bill stood as first Order of the Day to-night to be considered as amended. If that was not concluded in the present Sitting, it would be resumed at 2 o'clock to-morrow; and, in the event of its being disposed of, the House would be asked to take the residue of the debate of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and the Medical Act Amendment Bill would be put as the next Order of the Day.
  DR. LYONSasked whether the Prime Minister was aware that the Irish Medical Body entertained very serious objection to the Medical Act Amendment Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am in hopes that the greater part of that objection has been disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the parties concerned. [Dr. LYONS: No, no.] I am not an authority on the subject, and, unfortunately, the Vice President of the Council is not at present in the House.

  EGYPT — MISSION OF ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT—THE PAPERS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Papers relative to Admiral Hewett's

  1103
  mission to Abyssinia will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether it is a fact that, as a consequence of this mission, the Gallas, a savage tribe known to be thirsting for vengeance on the neighbouring tribes in the Soudan, are to be sent into that country ostensibly to relieve the Egyptian garrisons?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had referred to the Admiralty upon this subject, and he must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to wait a little for authentic information, as the Admiralty was not yet in possession of the despatch or despatches upon which alone they could entirely rely.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—THE INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING COMMITTEE.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the names of a number of gentlemen have been published as members of the International Consulting Committee of the Suez Canal, comprising those of Major General Sir Andrew Clarke, K.C.M.G. Inspector General of Fortifications and Director of Works, and Captain Chitty of the Royal Navy; whether these officers have been officially placed upon that Commission by the Government, or whether they have obtained permission to place themselves upon it; and, whether, if not acting officially, it is desirable, in the interests of the Country, that an officer occupying the distinguished and confidential position of Sir Andrew Clarke, should be so situated?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe the case stands thus. Seven members of the Committee of the Suez Canal have been appointed. Three of these are official gentlemen, and four are gentlemen connected with the shipping interest. The four connected with the shipping interest are Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Laing, and Mr. M'Killan. The official gentlemen are the two named by my hon. Friend—namely, Sir Andrew Clarke and Captain Chitty, and a third, Sir John Coode. These have been appointed, or, at least, presented for appointment, by the Government after every pains had been taken by my right hon. Friend near me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to refer to what were considered the best authorities, so as to secure the very best choice of persons, those
  1104
  authorities being partly official and partly non-official. Captain Chitty was appointed after consultation with the India Office, Sir John Coode after consultation with the Board of Trade, and Sir Andrew Clarke after consultation with the Colonial Office and the Representatives of the Australian Colonies. As my hon. Friend points to the case of Sir Andrew Clarke in a manner really to raise a question as to the propriety of these appointments, I ought to say that they have been very carefully considered. Sir Andrew Clarke has not only been Governor of the Straits Settlements, and a member of the Viceroy's Council in India, but he was nominated by the Admiralty in 1869 as one of the persons commissioned to report on the Suez Canal, and that Report has been before Parliament. He has since carefully studied the question of the enlargement of the Canal, and his presence on the Committee as an English member will be of special value.
  MR. MAGNIAC: Have these gentlemen any commission from the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no power to give a commission; the appointment is by the Company.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is this a standing Consulting Committee, or merely a Committee to advise as to the enlargement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe it is not a standing Consulting Committee; but it has been chosen as most likely to give the best advice concerning the enlargement or duplication of the Canal.

  EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to present to Parliament Papers which, on the one hand, are of great importance, but which, on the other hand, are not only incomplete, but contingent for their operation entirely upon what has already happened and may yet happen. My duty is to lay them on the Table in the usual course, and I have no doubt it would be convenient that I should make a very short statement which should be explanatory and not controversial, and which, I hope, having been made, will afford an opportunity to any Gentleman, in the House who may think it necessary to put any Questions which may arise upon it, or, if he think fit, to make

    1105
    any observations on the subject of that statement. At the same time, I would respectfully say that, although I shall endeavour to give the best summary view that I can of the essential contents of these Papers to the House, what I have to say on the subject is of secondary importance with regard to the authentic text of the documents which are now to be laid on the Table, and which well deserve the close attention, whether in a friendly or merely critical sense, of the House. The presentation of these Papers is altogether, as you will observe, an exceptional act. As the House is very well aware, the usual and necessary practice of an Executive Government is to make known transactions of this kind with foreign countries when they are completed, and then to refer to Parliament any matter requiring the authority of Parliament, and, of course, to leave to Parliament the power and the opportunity of passing judgment on the conduct of the Executive Government. In this instance, as I have stated, this proceeding, important as it is, is only a partial proceeding; but, undoubtedly, it is most important, because it embodies the views of the Governments of two great States in regard to the manner in which the complicated questions connected with Egypt ought to be disposed of, and it touches principles far more important than any interests directly involved in the question. Therefore, I do not for a moment disguise or attenuate the importance of the Paper. But the Paper is subject to this condition—that it can take no effect except in connection with financial arrangements yet to be made; and after those financial arrangements shall have received the sanction of the Powers of Europe, or, I perhaps ought rather to say, shall have been deliberated upon and adjusted by the authority of the Powers of Europe, it will then remain for Parliament to pass its judgment upon the entire transaction. Sir, we have proceeded in this very exceptional manner, and have done what has very rarely been done—I am not sure that I can quote a single instance analogous to it—in deference at what I may call, without offence, the impatience of Parliament. I use the term impatience in no disrespectful sense; it was an impatience at which we could not wonder, and of which we could not complain. We had felt for some time that the
    1106
    position could not be satisfactory in which we were compelled to meet not only inquiries, but charges and assaults, by negative replies. It has not been owing to any indecision on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we have been unable, down to the present time during this Session, which has now advanced so far, to give any further developed explanation of our policy in Egypt, but have been able to do little more than to refer to the statements— which were made in abundance at a much earlier stage of these transactions —which laid down that our policy was to withdraw from Egypt at the earliest possible moment, but to use our best endeavours, before withdrawing, to attain certain objects which we deemed to be essential for the welfare of that country. It was a state of facts, and not, as I have said, any want of decision on our part, which made it impossible on our part to add to those general explanations. There was a feeling that the time had arrived when either we ought to move forward, or that we ought to take measures in the direction of withdrawal from Egypt. Moving forward was precluded by the principle on which we had acted all along; and by moving forward I mean the adoption of intentions and measures which would contemplate either the permanent extension of our position in Egypt, or some great and strong measure in the direction of permanent retention. Move backward we could not, because if we had spoken in a definite manner, or had attempted to make a definite arrangement, with a view to our own withdrawal from Egypt, the question would necessarily have arisen in the mind of every Member of the House, and in the country generally, what was to follow our withdrawal? It would have been said—" However wise you may be, or whether you are wise or not, in seeking to put an end to your own sole action in Egypt, what security can you give us that your sole action is not to be followed by the sole action of some other Power?" We did not think that we could expect of Parliament or of the country that they would rest satisfied with the state of things which our ceasing to occupy the territory of Egypt with a military force should leave behind, a state of absolute uncertainty of what was to follow, and the possibility that sole action might be revived in an-

    1107
    other form. It is for that reason, as I have shown, that it remained until a comparatively recent period impracticable for us to give any development of previous declarations in the direction in which our convictions and policy had lain; whereas, of course, it was impossible for us to give any such development in a direction opposed to those convictions and to that policy. Sir, under those circumstances, a great change has been brought about, and we have been relieved from what we felt to be a great difficulty by the arrival of the moment when it became necessary and possible to deal with the subject of Egyptian finance. I need not say that in a country like Egypt it is not so easy nor so rapid a process to attain a clear and adequate knowledge of its financial position in a given time as is the case in a country like this, or like France, or any other country with a highly organized system of finance and account. And, moreover, the special and main causes which have brought about a crisis in Egyptian finance, are causes of which we have only at a comparatively recent time come to anything like the possession of full knowledge. The main causes, as the House is aware, are the claims for the payment of indemnities in connection with the incendiarism in Alexandria, and the development of large deficiencies —to some considerable extent unknown until quite recently—brought on Egypt by its attempt to hold and govern the Soudan. However, the time has arrived when— and, as the House is aware, several weeks have now elapsed since— Her Majesty's-Government found it to be their duty to invite the Powers of Europe to meet for Conference on the subject of Egyptian finance. The interval since that they have employed in making a thorough investigation of the case, and in preparing the plans which it will be their duty to place before the Conference. But in sending out these invitations to the Powers of Europe we received from the neighbouring and friendly Government of France expressions of a desire that previous to their entering the Conference — although it was not made an absolute condition in terms—there should be preliminary explanations between the two countries with respect to our general position in Egypt. It is probable that our resort to the Powers of Europe for a settlement
    1108
    of Egyptian finance must, in any case, have brought up the subject of our own position generally in that country. But if that position were to be brought up by one Power in particular, undoubtedly France was the Power most entitled in every sense to take the lead and to act, if I may so say, on the part of the rest. In giving that as an opinion I do not intend to enter into any argument; but I may, perhaps, say as much as this—that no person can form an adequate or a safe opinion with respect to the relations between France and Egypt who commences his study of the subject with the troubles that began to arise in the latter country two or three years ago. You must go back to the time about the beginning of the century, to the time of the Great Napoleon. You must go back to the time especially, and most of all, perhaps, of the year 1840, and to the efforts and sacrifices which were made by France at that time on account of Egypt; and you must also take into view the history of the formation of the Suez Canal, in order to understand, not what you are to allow to France in Egypt, but in order to understand the view which France may naturally and may fairly be entitled to take, and be led to take, of her own position in reference to that country. Well, Sir, this being so, the French Government invited from us explanations which we were not less ready and less desirous to render than she was to ask. We hailed the application which we received from the Government of France. That application has removed out of our way the barriers which formerly stood between us, and has enabled us to frame, and is now placing us in a condition to lay before the House, that of which you have the first and very important instalment to-day—that is, a plan of policy for Egypt—I am speaking of Egypt Proper and not of the Soudan —which I hope as to the Egyptian Question and our position in Egypt may, in some tolerable sense, be called a complete plan—a plan which is complete considered as a matter of action, and which will have this additional advantage, that it will not depend upon the mere judgment of the Executive Government, but absolutely must have, if it is to go forward, the distinct ratification and assent of Parliament. The French Government, as you will find in these Papers, made it their object, in the first

    1109
    instance, to remove, or to extinguish, two prejudices, as I think they are called, two erroneous suppositions, which lay in the way of a thorough conformity of opinion and views between the two countries with regard to Egypt. One of these suppositions related to the Condominium or the Dual Control. It had been understood that after that Dual Control ceased to be de facto the French Government was inclined to contend that it still existed de jure. That matter, important as it was, never, I think, became the subject of detailed correspondence between the two countries, and it is not at all necessary to examine now—and I am not sure that if we did attempt to examine we should have the power to bring our examination to a sure conclusion—how far that was or was not the case. At any rate, the impression prevailed in this country that France had made a claim for the revival of the Dual Control. That was one of the difficulties that obstructed us. The indication of France, which encouraged us to open our views, as the French Government opened its own views, included the unqualified assurance of the entire and final abandonment of the Dual Control. As far as that point is concerned I do not think the most jealous eye will find in these Papers anything to which objection can be taken. The other prejudicial opinion which the French Government sought to dispel was that which related to the-possible occupation of Egypt by French troops in the event of our retiring from that country, and upon this point, which is, perhaps, of even greater importance in the view of Parliament and of the nation, the assurances of the French Government are not less unequivocal. In fact, the phrase used by M. Waddington, in addressing Lord Granville, is "that France is ready to come under the most formal engagement upon that subject." Therefore, Sir, we were, by this voluntary tender on the part of the French Government, entirely set at liberty to determine our own plan of action, because I need not say that the assurances of the French Government, that in the event of our leaving Egypt she will not enter that country except by our consent, we considered as putting it in our power absolutely to extinguish and bring to an end all idea of the solitary action of any particular Power
    1110
    in Egypt. Well, Sir, that being so, to the French Government, on our part, we offered that we should be able to bring within the scope of a definite term and without any reserve, except those which prudence required, the now indefinite matter of the prolongation of our stay in Egypt, and what we offered was, that until that definite term arrived, we should, of course, retain the sole discretion to remain, or, if we think fit, to come away. [A laugh.] I am not so alive as the hon. Member to the comic side of the question, and I hope he will restrain himself, as the matter is one of extreme gravity, and because my desire is to convey clear impressions to the House. What we have offered is that we should retain sole discretion in our power until a certain term arrives—that is to say, that we shall be under no engagement to anybody to remain in Egypt should it be the desire of the Government and of the Parliament of this country to quit Egypt, that that term should be the 1st of January, 1888, and that, at that time, we should come under this engagement and no other— that we should agree not to remain in military occupation of Egypt beyond that term in case the Powers of Europe should declare that the state of the country was then such as to allow of our departure without peril to its peace and order. Well, Sir, these are the considerations which are expressed in the word "synallagmatique," as used by M. Waddington. These are the different considerations which may be said to have been exchanged between the two Governments, the offer of France and the offer of the Government of this country being such as I have described.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the words again?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that in general I am using my own words; but here I quote. So far, I think, I am correct in saying this—that the condition which would make it obligatory on us to withdraw will be the declaration of the Powers that the state of Egypt will allow of our departure "without risk to peace and order in the country." But, Sir, although what I have thus far stated disposes of a very important part of the question, clearly it does not dispose of the whole. There remains the

    1111
    question as to what modifications require to be introduced into those international arrangements to which Egypt is subjected; and I will describe as clearly as I can that which relates to the machinery now established of the Commission for the management of the Egyptian Debt that is generally called by the name of the Caisse. As I have stated, the Condominium which involved a general control over Egyptian finance is at an end. It is agreed between the two Powers that there shall, hereafter, be no general control over Egyptian finance, and the Budgets of Egypt will hereafter not be framed by the Commissioners of the Caisse. We have sought, and I believe France has sought not less than ourselves, in these arrangements to give every fair and reasonable scope that can safely be given for the development of that degree of independence which Egypt, notwithstanding her peculiar circumstances, may fairly claim, and which, as we hope, may prove to be for her future strength and happiness. But although there is to be no general control over Egyptian finance, and although the Budgets will not be framed by the Commissioners of the Caisse, yet there are to be, if this arrangement goes forward, defined and limited extensions of powers to the Caisse which we believe to be necessary alike for the welfare of Egypt, for the important financial interests of England that are now involved in the question, and likewise for the interests of the creditors of Egypt, whose fair claims we cannot put out of view. Sir, for these purposes, as I have said, the Caisse will receive a limited extension of its powers in order to prevent the recurrence of financial disasters and embarrassments so serious as those which have now arrived, and which, I need not say, unless an effectual remedy be applied to them, would not be financial only, but extremely menacing to the whole condition of the country. Those powers are described with accuracy and care in the despatches which I now lay upon the Table; and I will only say of them that they aim at two objects, and two objects alone—first of all, to make sure that the Commissioners of the Caisse shall be provided with sufficient information as to the financial proceedings of the Government of Egypt, and shall have the power of offering any useful suggestion in regard
    1112
    to it; secondly, that they shall have what we hope will be an effective power of preventing excesses beyond the limits of the Budget with a reserve in cases of actual peril to peace and order, and that, of course, must be allowed to stand, as we think, upon a special footing. Beyond this I have only now further to to say that the House is aware that the Commission of the Caisse is composed of four members, and that the President of that Commission is to be an Englishman. Now, Sir, even what I have now said, although it indicates generally a sketch of what will be found much more fully given in the despatches as to the future financial powers to be possessed and exercised in Egypt, yet it does not embrace the entire future condition of the country. We have endeavoured to look into the future as far as we can, and to consider how critical a point Egypt offers with respect to its political position, from geographical circumstances, from its connection with the great route of the world, from its military and political weakness, and from a combination of causes well known generally to the House. The two Governments, therefore, of England and France, desirous to avert those dangers for the future which have been found so formidable in the past, have agreed that we shall prepare and present a plan for the neutralization of Egyptian territory. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) put to me the other day a Question in regard to the neutralization of the Suez Canal. That, also, according to the views, not of this Government only, but of the two Governments, will be embraced in the proposals to be made; and in respect to the character of the neutralization of Egypt, Gentlemen will find in the Papers that reference is made to the general principles which were applied to the territory of Belgium; and for the Suez Canal reference is made to the despatch of the 3rd of January, 1883, in which the British Government declared its views upon this subject. I ought, however, to say, Sir, that this is a matter not for immediate settlement. Our opinion is that, first of all, it is obvious that there is quite enough to do in the present condition of Egypt and the Egyptian Question, and in the other matters which are to be opened; and, further, that the natural period for the

    1113
    operation of the plan of the neutralization of Egypt would arrive when the term of the British military occupation of Egypt is drawing near to a close. Our engagement, therefore, is to prepare and propose this plan during the term of our military occupation, and before it expires. I will not attempt to read these despatches to the House, because, although they are only in the form of a Blue Book of a few pages, they are certainly of great importance. Almost every word requires to be carefully weighed, and I am by no means sure that the listening to a single perusal, while it would be a tedious process, would be so effectual as a perusal of them by Members, when they can turn from one point to another, and return to any matter which appears to throw light on the other parts I have only to say further this, that, as I have already signified— and I wish that should it remain distinctly impressed on the minds of Members—this agreement, which is of the greatest importance, I think, on account of the parties who desire to make it, and on account of the principles on which it rests, is entirely contingent, in the first instance, upon what is to be done in Conference; and if, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of argument only, I suppose that the Conference arrives at no result, this agreement will entirely fall to the ground. Next, what is to be done in Conference will again be contingent on the approval of Parliament. The whole will depend upon that approval. A day is appointed for the first meeting of the Conference. It is to be Saturday next, and in order to save as much time as we can the figures of the plan which Her Majesty's Government will submit will be forwarded a few days before to the Powers severally, so that they may arrive in Conference with some degree of preparation for examining them. I need not say that that is but a short notice; but the truth is, that the framing of a plan of this kind, with all the assistance we could obtain from the great ability of Sir Evelyn Baring and the excellent indigenous assistance from Egypt, has been a work of great labour and difficulty, and it is only but recently that my right hon. Friend, to whose official labours this has made an enormous addition, has been in a position to bring it before the Cabinet in order to receive
    1114
    that sanction without which it could not go on. Now Sir, the only other engagement I have to mention to the House is this. As we can lay before the House nothing that is complete until the Conference has decided, our duty will be a double one in this respect. First of all, subject to the deference which the Powers of Europe are entitled to expect at our hands, it will be our duty to put forward and expedite to the best of our ability the proceedings of the Conference and lend it every aid in our power. Secondly, to give the House a pledge that when the Conference has arrived at its decision, not a day that we can help shall be lost in submitting it to Parliament, because we feel that this, at any rate, is no question of matters where it might be thought that discussion was at this or that moment unnecessarily raised. It is a question of arrangement which involves principles of the deepest moment, in my opinion, to the welfare and honour of this country, and, of course, to the welfare of Egypt. But these principles reach further yet. We do not shrink, we shall not shrink, from discussion with regard to them. We feel that the issues which will be raised are issues of the broadest character— that it will be the positive duty of Parliament to give a distinct and definite judgment upon them. That judgment we invite—that judgment, if I may say so, we challenge; that judgment we will do everything in our power to accelerate; for we believe that if our plans are accepted they will be favourable to the peace of Europe, to International Law, and to the civilization of mankind. We are the first to say that if they do not meet the judgment of Parliament, those who have framed these plans, and those who mean to adhere to them ought not for one moment longer to continue to be the Government of this country.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I am very sensible of the difficulties which lie in the way of any discussion of the proposals which have been made by the Government at the present stage of our information. At the same time, I feel that it is necessary, in order to guard the position of Members of this House, that a few words should be said as to the view we take of what has been said. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, that the course

    1115
    which he has taken in laying this statement before us is one of an unusual character; and we have, no doubt, to acknowledge the readiness and the desire of the Government to take the House into its confidence so far as it was able to do so; but, on the other hand, I must point out to the House that the fact of the Government thus calling us into council, as it were, and giving the House the opportunity of expressing its opinion on these proceedings, is to lay upon us a certain amount of responsibility if we allow the proceedings of the Government to go on without expressing an opinion of our own with regard to their nature. Sir, I may at once say that, even upon the sketch which the Prime Minister has given us, there appears to me to be very grave objections. I will not enter into discussion of the details of these proposals; but with regard to what we have been informed as to the limitation of the period of our occupation of Egypt, I am bound to say that that raises questions of a serious character deserving and requiring the judgment of the House as early as possible, even though we have not the complete plans of the Government before us. With regard to the financial proposals, we have not, of course, the means, without having the Papers in our hands, of discussing them, nor is it desirable that we should do so.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The proposals are not complete, and the Papers do not refer to that.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Well, then, we are even less prepared to discuss them. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks of a statement which has been prepared, and is to be forwarded to the Conference this very week, whether that statement is the same as one which was laid before the House some mouth or two ago, in which there was a summary of the financial position of Egypt, showing the large deficiency, and what was necessary to bring about an equilibrium?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That statement, Sir, was a statement of the financial condition of Egypt. In fact, it was like the account part of a Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, which shows the figures, and does not enter into the mode of providing an equilibrium. I am not aware that it has undergone any
    1116
    variation, certainly not any material variation.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Then we are to understand that the statement to be laid before the Conference goes beyond the mere account part—[Mr. GLADSTONE assented]—and contains proposals, at all events, for the consideration of the Conference with regard to the equilibrium? That proposal is not to be placed before us. Yet we are told that, whatever may come out of that arrangement, it will be submitted to Parliament before it obtains the final approval and sanction of the country; that is true, but it is not, as I understand, intended to give any power to Parliament of expressing any opinion upon these financial proposals until they have been submitted to the Conference. If that is so, I am bound to say it would be desirable and right that the House should insist upon having some further information on proposals which may seriously affect this country. I will not, at the present time, enter into any discussion of the general questions raised. I have indicated two points which I think are of a character very grave and deserving the consideration of the House as early as possible—namely, the question of fixing the terms for closing the occupation of the country, and the question of the financial proposals. I shall take an early opportunity, as soon as we have these Papers before us, and are able to do so, of calling for an expression of the opinion of Parliament. I conclude that when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Conference is to meet on Saturday, we can hardly suppose that it will be more than a formal meeting, or that they will proceed to discuss matters of this importance while Parliament is still considering the proposals laid before it. A time will, no doubt, be allowed us as early as possible for the discussion of the questions such as will enable Parliament to express its opinion before the Conference comes to a decision.
    MR. GLADSTONE: For fear of being misunderstood, I may be allowed to say, with regard to the closing sentence of the right hon. Gentleman, that what we think will be by far the best course for Parliament and for Egypt is that the proceedings of the Conference, which are connected with the most urgent state of things in Egypt at this

    1117
    moment, should be pressed forward with the utmost possible expedition, and that is the course we shall take.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I should like, Sir, to claim the indulgence of the House while I take some part in this preliminary canter over the course before the great gallop takes place, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition has given Notice. There are some points in the Prime Minister's statement which ought not to be left without immediate comment. The right hon. Gentleman stated in one part of his speech, in answer to a slight laugh which came from this side of the House, that he was not alive to the comic side of these proceedings. Well, Sir, perhaps if I may be permitted to find fault with so great a man as the Prime Minister, that, I should say, is his great defect. He is rarely sufficiently alive to the comic side of any question. For my own part, Sir, I must confess that while I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I did not not know whether to laugh or to cry; because anything more shamefully ludicrous, or anything more ludicrously shameful, I do not think any Prime Minister ever proposed to any House of Commons. I did not know whether to laugh at the folly of the Government, or to cry over the dishonour of my country. Well, Sir, the Prime Minister stated that it was not owing to any indecision of the Government that he had been unable to give these explanations to the House earlier. Before I came down to the House this afternoon I had the curiosity to turn to a former speech of the Prime Minister, from which I will make a small quotation, in order to dispose of the Prime Minister's defence against the charge of indecision. On the 9th of November, the Prime Minister, addressing the Lord Mayor and his guests, used these words—
    "We have reached another stage in the progress of our work in Egypt. It is the progress of our work, and that alone, that determined the continuance of our armed force in Egypt. We are about to withdraw. The order has been given to withdraw the British force, and that withdrawal will include the evacuation of Cairo. I think that the country will feel that this is a subject for congratulation; it will lighten the burden imposed upon the Egyptian people; it will offer a new testimony to the world that we have been in earnest in the declaration we have repeatedly made; and, finally, I may say that that withdrawal from a large portion of the
    1118
    country of the display of British force will leave, as we trust, a free and open field and the power of a fair experiment to the Government of Egypt in the new career which we trust is opening to them."
    That was the announcement of the Prime Minister on the 9th of November; but on the 23rd of June the Prime Minister conies down to this House and expresses his readiness to occupy Egypt for three years, and to enter into pecuniary liabilities with regard to the Egyptian Debt which must inevitably prolong still further the occupation of that country. In the face of a change of policy so unusual as that, in so short a space of time, the right hon. Gentleman gravely informs the House that the Government has manifested no indecision. The Prime Minister stated that he was in this position at the present moment, that he must either move forward or move backward, and he said that he could not move forward, and that he could not move backward. Why, that is just the position the Government have been in since they fought the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. They have declined to move forward or backward for any length of time consecutively. It has been a continual see-saw of backward and forward which has brought that unfortunate country into its present condition. "But now," says the Prime Minister, "fortunately for Egypt, we have arrived at the moment when it is necessary and possible to deal with the question of Egyptian finance." They have been two years in the country—two years undisputed masters of the country—and they say—" We have fortunately arrived at a moment when we are in a position to deal with Egyptian finance." Why, Sir, fortunate for the country? Why, Her Majesty's Government themselves have created that moment. And what are their peculiar reasons for dealing with Egyptian finance at this time, or for bringing it before Europe? In the first place, there was the bombardment of Alexandria; and then there was the campaign in the Soudan. But the bombardment of Alexandria, and the burden it would cast upon the Egyptian finances, were in the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government at the time the battle of Tel-el-Kebir was fought. The first thing that must have been present to their mind was the burden which would be thrown on the finances of Egypt. The very same thing

    1119
    must have been the case in regard to the campaign in. the Soudan. That commenced the moment you occupied Cairo; and the finances of Egypt, which are to be brought before Europe in consequence of those two events, have not yet been dealt with during the two years you have been in the country, nor have any steps been taken by you with reference to dealing with her liabilities; yet the Prime Minister calls Heaven to witness that this is a fortunate moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the Conference has been summoned, and that all the Powers gladly assented to attend it, including France; but he also stated—and this is a most remakable thing—that France intimated to Her Majesty's Government that she would like to have a preliminary interchange of views, without, however, making that a condition. So that the concession made to France seems to have been one of an extremely gratuitous character. The right hon. Gentleman told us that France, of all the countries in the world, was the one most entitled to take the load in expressing an opinion on Egyptian affairs. And why? Because of what she did in the time of the First Napoleon. The right hon. Gentleman went back for a reason to that piratical enterprise—an enterprise, too, that was baffled by this country—and he asserted that that was the great and peculiar reason which gives France an absolute title to dictate the conditions for the Conference. [Mr. GLADSTONE signified dissent.] Sir, the right hon. Gentleman denies it; but, undoubtedly, one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman said France was entitled to take the lead was on account of the piratical enterprise of Napoleon I. ["No!"] He certainly said that we must go back, if we wished to understand the question, to the time of the Great Napoleon, and he also stated that we must recollect the efforts which France made in the year 1840. I always thought that the check Mehemet Ali received, and the arrangement of affairs at that time, were as much the work of Lord Palmerston as of France.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The French were on the other side.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHLLL: I am not inclined to admit, nor do I think any reader of history will admit for a moment, that what took place in
    1120
    1840 gives France the smallest title to interfere, beyond any other Power, in the affairs of Egypt. But what is our position in that country? We have a title because the Prime Minister and his Colleagues have interfered in Egypt; they have been interfering there for two years, and their action has been the source of immense anxiety to Parliament and the country. They have made great military efforts to maintain their position there. Many English lives have been sacrificed, and £5,000,000 of English money spent in a great military expedition. Then they remained in Egypt during the time of the cholera, and more lives were sacrificed. They sent a great military expedition to Suakin, sacrificed more lives, and spent £250,000 more money. Surely all that made England the Power most entitled to take the lead in settling the future of Egypt; and are we who have made these efforts—which, no doubt, the follies of Her Majesty's Government made necessary—to assent to the Prime Minister's assertion that France is entitled to take the lead in settling the future of that country? [Mr. GLADSTONE again intimated dissent.] I maintain that that was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. ["No."] And if France is not entitled to the position which the Prime Minister, for the purpose of argument, assigned to her, why were all these concessions made to her? France was ready, the Government say, to come to the Conference without these concessions; but they went out of their way to make these concessions to her. "France desired a preliminary explanation," the Prime Minister said; but that was not an absolute condition. Ministerial cries of "No!"] Well, I can only put a plain English meaning upon the words. The Prime Minister has engaged to clear out of Egypt in three years' time; and, again, he has placed by far the more important part of its finances—namely, the revenues derived from the railways, from the Port of Alexandria, from the Customs, the Post Office, and the Telegraphs — in the hands of this new Board of Audit. These are the concessions made to France; and what has the Prime Minister got in return? He tells us that France has at last agreed to recognize the disappearance, the death, or the defunct character of the Dual Control. Curiously enough,

    1121
    to show the House the value of that splendid concession, I have, by the favour of a friend, received during the last few minutes a telegram from Paris of what the French Prime Minister said in the French Chamber on this very subject of the Dual Control. M. Ferry said it was absolutely impossible to resuscitate the condominium. Yet this beautiful arrangement, which M. Ferry declares with great candour cannot be restored, the right hon. Gentleman holds up before us as a most important concession. I laughed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and certainly it was enough to make anyone laugh. France, said the Prime Minister, considered that the Dual Control was in existence de jure; but that statement is directly traversed by the statement of M. Ferry, that it is impossible to resuscitate the Control. But I want to know, if that is such a great concession, who killed the Dual Control? France herself, and no other Power—France herself, who led you on in your Egyptian expedition; and the moment it became a question of employing ships and firing guns, scuttled away and left you in the lurch. It was France. No wonder M. Ferry had not got what I may call the brazenness to look upon the Dual Control as other than defunct. Then the Prime Minister says France has now made a promise of enormous value, and he told us that to get that promise was one of the difficulties that obstructed our progress. It was a promise, with the greatest amiability, not to send French troops to Egypt. How long the promise is to last the right hon. Gentleman did not say; but I suppose it is to last as long as the British occupation. Or is it to last after the British occupation has ceased? The right hon. Gentleman says—" I rely for the value of this pledge on a phrase of M. Waddington's." How many different Governments have held Office in France in a short space of time, and how many of them have considered themselves bound by the phrases of their Predecessors? Yet the Prime Minister thinks it enough to assure the House of Commons that he has a declaration not to send French troops to Egypt contained in a phrase of M. Waddington, a man who is here to-day, and who may be gone to-morrow. That, the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, is
    1122
    enough to hold up to this House as a sufficient counterpoise for the concessions which Her Majesty's Government have made to France. I do not value that assurance of the French Government one pin. I recollect how the Kroumirs were invented, and I know what the assurances of the French Government were about Tunis and about Madagascar and Tonquin. The assurance of the French Government not to send troops to Egypt is, to my mind, absolutely valueless—not worth a penny. This occupation by Great Britain is to last three years; therefore, we may take three years into our purview. Will any hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman opposite state to the House that it is a certainty, or even a probability, that the Republic will be in existence in three years? The Prime Minister says that he has engaged with France that our occupation shall terminate on the 1st of January, 1888. ["No!"] Yes; unless by the unanimous wish of Europe—[Cries of "Order!"]—and their opinion that the departure of British troops would endanger peace and order in that country. But, Sir, it appears to me that if you were to consult the Powers now, it is perfectly certain that it would be the wish of the Powers—and, more than that, the unanimous wish of Europe— that you should depart; and, more than that, it would be the unanimous feeling of Europe that your departure would not endanger the cause of peace and order, because during the three years for which Egypt has been in our possession there has been neither peace nor order. The Prime Minister did not give us any idea of how he was going to occupy those three years in Egypt. It is quite true that he has told us that the neutralization of Egypt is proposed; but on that point he did not give us sufficient information. He might as well have told us whether the neutralization of Egypt was a step which would be acceded to by the Government of Turkey.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think I said we had undertaken to propose it to the Powers and the Porte. ["No!"] Then it was my omission.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: A very nice work to undertake in three years—to propose to the Porte the neutralization of Egypt! But I doubt very much whether Russia or Austria are at all sensible of the benefit that would

    1123
    accrue to them from the neutralization of Egypt; and I imagine that during the three years during which the attention of the Prime Minister will be given to the carrying out of this extraordinary project the condition of Egypt will be allowed to remain very much as it is now. Then what guarantee have we, if the House agrees to the limit of occupation by British troops, that at the end of the time a strong and stable Government will be established in Egypt, and when are they going to begin that work? I observe from the report of M. Ferry's speech in the French Chamber, that the Prime Minister was the first to speak of the neutralization of Egypt; therefore, this brilliant idea to be accomplished in three years emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, is a work which may occupy a lifetime to be undertaken by a Government which will, probably, only have a short period of time to live? Then M. Ferry also went on to say that, with respect to the Egyptian Question, it was with this Government that France had the best chance of settling the question. I quite agree with M. Ferry; I think he appears to be a man of remarkable intelligence. We have seen statements in the French Press that it is of the highest importance that France should conceal as much as possible of the terms she asked. Now, I consider that the Prime Minister occupies the same position to the French Government as Charles II. occupied to Louis XIV. He is the political pensioner of France, and he is kept in Office by the French Government. ["Oh!"] I am only stating what M. Ferry says. He says that it is with the Prime Minister that France has the best chance of settling this question. How? In accordance with French interests. And now the Prime Minister states that this is a matter which deeply affects the welfare and honour of this country. Everyone will agree with me that if this arrangement or convention which the Prime Minister has sketched to the House to-night is accepted by the House, the welfare, the interests, and the honour of this country need very little longer occupy our attention. The Prime Minister states that it was the positive duty of Parliament to give a distinct decision and judgment upon this communication; but I would invite Parliament, before it gives a distinct judgment, to ask for a little more informa-
    1124
    tion. If the Prime Minister, with the limited information he has given us, asks to be allowed to meet the Powers of Europe in Conference without having given us any further information as to the nature of their financial proposals, then I am certain that if the House of Commons is not absolutely lost to every spark of independence, that is a position which the Prime Minister cannot be allowed to occupy. I shall be curious to see what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who has a fear of these things, has to say on this subject, for we cannot, to use an expression now well known, give a blank cheque to the Government. We know a little bit too much of Her Majesty's Government. We know what they have done as to the Soudan and as to Gordon, and we now know what enormous concessions they have made to get France to come to the Conference; and I wish to know what concessions they are going to make in conference to France to got her to agree to their proposals? We have heard rumours of a loan of £8,000,000, and I imagine that the Prime Minister will be obliged to give a little more detailed information to the House on this point. The Prime Minister now refuses to communicate anything. Is it fair to make a partial confidence? Is it fair to place the House in such a position, and at the same time to keep back an essential part of the information that is required? How do we know what the Prime Minister is going to propose, or what sum it is he proposes should be advanced — whether £8,000,000, or £20,000,000, or £30,000,000? On that point we have no information. What will be our position if the Prime Minister is allowed to remain in the position he occupies now —having made incomplete and partial confidence to the House, and having obtained the practical concurrence of the House? What will be our position when he comes down and brandishes an Agreement in the face of the House of Commons? I do not suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister will be allowed to remain in that position. The most foolish, and credulous, and silly person, can hardly be taken in by such transparent tactics. He says—"We now challenge the decision of the House." I suppose some arrangement will be made by which—to use a classic

    1125
    phrase which, after its use by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, has become Parliamentary—some "bonnet" of the Government will get up and propose a Vote of Confidence in them. The Prime Minister appeals to his followers, and says that Government have no right to retain Office without this being distinctly expressed. I appeal to some one of those who cheer so loudly to give Notice of a Vote of Confidence. The Prime Minister has appealed to those 300 or more who sit behind him, and says that, without their confidence, he cannot retain Office. I shall be anxious to see, after the events of this afternoon, the result of this appeal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I desire to make a personal explanation. The noble Lord has stated that I said that France was entitled to take the lead in negotiations as to the affairs of Egypt. I never said so. What I said was that France was entitled to take the lead among the other Powers. The noble Lord has stated that I have asked for a Vote of Confidence without giving the smallest idea what the Government are going to do. I have done nothing of the kind; but I distinctly said that at the proper time the whole of our proceedings will come under the judgment of Parliament. It would be quite vain to go through all the other representations of the noble Lord.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: This is not a personal explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is making another speech.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will endeavour to shorten my explanation by saying that I disclaim every word of them. I did not say any one of the things which the noble Lord attributes to me.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The expression which has just fallen from my right hon. Friend, with regard to the Vote of Confidence, relieves me from the question I was going to put to him, because I did not understand the Prime Minister to say that he intended to challenge a Vote of Confidence before the Conference, and for this reason —we have not got the materials before us now to be able to come to a conclusion; we have not yet seen the Papers and the declaration made in the French Chambers; and, therefore, discussion at the present moment would be entirely premature. I rise mainly in consequence of an ob-
    1126
    servation which, I understood, fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, which seemed to me to contemplate action on the part of the House before the Conference meets. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that probably it will be his duty to give Notice of some such Motion on an early day, and to express a hope that the meeting of the Conference might only be of a formal character, so that Parliament might take some action before that date. Well, in that case I should like to know what would be the position of Parliament? We understand—the Prime Minister has assured us—that we are to retain the fullest possible liberty of action when the Conference has met; that no argument to the contrary will be used; but that the House of Commons will retain its entire freedom of action. That being so, I put it to the House whether it would not be placing itself in the most disadvantageous position by debating these questions before the Conference meets, and by binding itself without knowing what action is to be taken by the other Powers. I will put a case. Supposing the Leader of the Opposition were to introduce a Motion censuring that part of the Agreement which relates to the evacuation of Egypt by the troops of this country, and supposing he was beaten on that, what would be the position of this country? We should have committed ourselves by a majority to that principle without knowing whether the Conference would be satisfied with the arrangement. All the other Powers of Europe might remain unpledged through their Representatives, while this House would have committed itself to a principle. I feel the same with regard to the Multiple Control. Here, too, we can retain our liberty; and since the Government do not ask for a Vote of Confidence, why should we deliberately attempt to fetter our own liberty by coming to any premature conclusion on the subject? It is not for me to suggest any consideration to hon. Members opposite; but, from their own point of view, they may have an infinitely stronger case after the Conference has met than they can have now, when they must be acting in ignorance of the views of the Powers of Europe with reference to these matters. As we can have the Conference, and, nevertheless, maintain our freedom of

    1127
    action, it appears to me that it is not while the Representatives of foreign countries are meeting in Conference that it would be desirable to have heated speeches in this House in regard to the action, of Her Majesty's Government, which may be perfectly in place in the debate which is really to decide the question after the Conference has taken place, but which surely would be deplorable before we go into Conference. I venture, with all submission, to make these observations, feeling that my suggestion does not in any way lessen any fair opportunity hon. Members opposite may have of censuring Her Majesty's Government, or prevent any action they may wish the House to take.
    MR. BOURKE: I quite concur in the remark of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) that the House is not in a position at present to discuss the question brought before House by the Prime Minister. I shall, therefore, abstain from criticizing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the alterations he is about to propose in the Caisse, and I will refrain from inquiring whether they will not be the best means of keeping open in Egypt those jealousies and rivalries which the various Powers find it to their interest to keep open. I cannot agree as to the value of the concessions made by France. The concession with respect to the Dual Control amounts to nothing, because all Europe knows that the Dual Control has been dead for many years; and it was killed not only by the French Government, but by Her Majesty's Government, and we all know that the despatches written on the subject in name of the Khedive were, in fact, prompted by Her Majesty's Government. With respect to the financial arrangements we are to submit to the Conference, we are entirely in the dark; the proposals will be submitted, and we shall have no means of criticizing them. I will not inquire whether this is not a breach of the agreement entered into with Parliament, that the question for discussion at the Conference should be limited to finance. Nothing could be more distinct than the declaration to Parliament with respect to that, though now we find the whole of that plain engagement thrown to the winds, for the Conference is to have a far wider scope than that of financial considerations, and
    1128
    the whole question of Egyptian affairs is to be decided. But the fact of the matter is, I wish to record my protest against the course the Government have taken in invoking this Conference at all. After their miserable failure with respect to the Conference on the affairs of Egypt which took place in Constantinople a year and a half ago, I should have thought they would have allowed a long time to elapse before calling a second. In order that England should be at all powerful with respect to Egypt it is absolutely necessary that she should restore order in Egypt, and it is absurd to suppose that any alteration in the Law of Liquidation will put you out of your difficulties in that country. The Law of Liquidation, after all, must be said to be one of the only prosperous institutions in Egypt, and now Her Majesty's Government intend to tamper with that. The weakness of our position arises from the fact that we went to Egypt in defiance of the public law of Europe; we have shown the impossibility of our governing the country; and, therefore, it is not to be supposed that the Powers of Europe will give us their confidence. Under these circumstances, I protest in the strongest way against going into this Conference at all, and I believe we shall come out of it with less power than we take in.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to correct one of the statements made by the right hon. Member. He alluded to what I had described as the concessions made by France. I never spoke of concessions made by France.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Before this question closes there is one point which it would be well to clear up. We were all told some time ago, when these negotiations were going on, that Parliament would have ample opportunities of pronouncing its judgment upon them before the Conference. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] It is no use for the Prime Minister to shake his head; there is not a shadow of a doubt about it; the Prime Minister stated that over and over again. The Prime Minister, in fact, if we are to believe that the Conference meets on Saturday, has been making a fool of the House of Commons. He made this statement with the greatest gravity—"Say what you think of it; on Saturday we are going into the Conference before you can fairly and fully discuss the subject."

    1129
    But there is another question on which we are entitled to have some information from the Government, even before this preliminary Conference; and that is if we are to be told anything, we must be told something about the whole plan. We are told that certain statements in the public Press have no foundation in fact. There is one matter which is stirring the minds of the people all over the country very materially; and that is, whether we are to be called upon for a loan, or gift, or guarantee for £6,000,000, £8,000,000, or £10,000,000 in order to carry out this arrangement? Now, the Prime Minister has said not one word on that matter; but he may depend upon this—that if it turns out, in the long run, that this £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 has been under the consideration of the Government, and had their consent, that they knew all about it when this statement of to-day was made, then all I can say is, it will be so much the worse for the Government. They may depend upon it the country will not submit to that treatment. I do not want to enter into the details of this question; but I think the country will, at all events, come to the conclusion that there have been negotiations with France, and that Prance has had the best of it. ["Hear, hear!" and " No!"] I think that is the feeling of the country. I do not desire to debate the point. We will see who is right, and who is wrong. All we know now is that France has been induced to come to the Conference, about which, at the present moment, we know nothing. France has made what I may call sham concessions, though that is hardly the word; at all events, concessions was the word used by the Prime Minister. ["No!"] Perhaps it fell from him inadvertently; but I took it down at the time myself. However, I will not quarrel about the particular expression used. As for England, we have given away a vast deal of that position which we obtained for ourselves and for the benefit of Egypt. The question I wish to ask the Premier is, whether any arrangement has been proposed, or is about to be proposed, which would involve this country in the payment of a loan of money, or in giving security for the payment of money, in any form or shape?
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he did not wish to continue the discussion. They
    1130
    had not sufficient material before them to justify such a course. But, in compliance with the Prime Minister's intimation that he would be willing to answer any questions addressed to him, he would like to have an understanding on two points. First, would he explain the position of the new Caisse? At present, he believed that body consisted of four members—an Austrian, an Italian, a Frenchman, and an Englishman. It was to consist in future of the same number'; but an Englishman was to be President. What he wanted to know was, whether the President would have a casting vote? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] The other question was this. The Prime Minister had said that the English troops were to leave Egypt at the beginning of 1888, provided Europe was unanimous in desiring that that should be done. ["No, no!"] Well, that was what he understood the Prime Minister to say, and it was better to have the point cleared up. He thought the statement was to this effect—that if, at the end of 1887, order had been established, a stable Government had been formed, and the country was in a condition to permit of the English troops being removed, then they had to be removed if Europe unanimously desired that they should be. Now, what he wished to know was—If one Power or two Powers objected to their being removed, would that be a justification for their remaining?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that nothing had been said with reference to the interests of Egypt; and he should like to know whether the proposals that had been made between England and France were to be submitted in any shape or form to any of those representative or Constitutional Assemblies which had been devised by Lord Dufferin for the government of Egypt?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Prime Minister has urged the extreme inconvenience of the House discussing the proposals until they have received the sanction of the Conference; but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty which will arise from that course. The Government have laid on the Table the concessions made to France; but we have no power to discuss them now if we wished to do so and give our verdict. If we allow them them to lie on the Table until after the Conference has considered them,

    1131
    and come to a conclusion, of course the Powers of Europe will assume that we assented to the proposition. That is the only possible conclusion they can draw—that we had these proposals before us for weeks, and had not criticized them or voted upon them. I think it will, therefore, be seen that if our observations are to be of any value they ought to be made as soon as possible. I do not mean that we ought to discuss them to-night. Anyone who has listened to the Prime Minister's statements must have been struck by two omissions. We have heard a great deal about what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the just susceptibilities of France, and also about international law, international justice, and the rights of Europe; but I heard nothing of the rights of the people of this country who have made all the sacrifices of blood and treasure. Nor have we heard anything of the rights of the Egyptian people who are going to be sacrificed in the name of international law and justice. The truth seems to be that the Government have put it in the power of Europe to turn us out of Egypt in three years. But does anyone suppose that in three years the task of the Government will be more than begun? It is our duty not to hand over our liberty of action, either to France or to international control, before we have accomplished the task which we have taken upon ourselves. The Government have from the first moment absolutely ignored the difficulties of the question they had undertaken to solve. In three years you can make no material progress in establishing a suitable and a permanent Government in Egypt; and I say we should be deliberately ignoring duties we have undertaken if we left it in the power of France or of Europe to say—"It is now time for you to leave the country."
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I am surprised at the admonition the Prime Minister gave hon. Members that it would not be wise to discuss the question now. If that is so, why was any statement made by the Prime Minister at all? I remember just before the House rose for the Whitsuntide Recess I excited the ire of the right hon. Gentleman by asking for some assurance that the Government would not commit the country to any particular line of policy without the House being duly in-
    1132
    formed of it. My impression was that he did give that pledge; but how has that pledge been carried out? The Prime Minister now comes down with only half a statement—a statement with the important question of finance left out altogether—and we are told we are not to discuss it, because by so doing we should prejudice the Conference. That is precisely what we want to do—to prejudice the Conference—[Radical cheers.] — hon. Members should wait for the conclusion of the sentence—if the course to be pursued is one which is to be dictated to us by France. It is now evident that the country has to submit to the will of France. That is the fact, however it may be attempted to disguise it. We are now asked to submit to the demands of France, and then we may discuss the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman took an objection to the statement of the noble Lord that France was to have the lead over the other Powers in reference to this matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In speaking on that question I said nothing about the Conference. I referred simply to the preliminary demands for explanations.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman strengthens my case, because it shows that the statement had really nothing to do with the Conference, and the whole statement of to-day shows how completely France has taken the lead. I have hoard many surprising statements made from the Ministerial Bench; but I have never heard any statement which has more surprised the House and will more surprise the country than that of the Prime Minister to-day, the effect of that statement being that in three years England is to leave Egypt unless the Powers should think fit to let her remain, having expended an enormous amount of blood and treasure in that country for reasons best known to the Government. I want to know on what grounds the Prime Minister is prepared to give up the advantages we have gained, and to abandon the road to India which we have by means of the Suez Canal, which forms part of our occupation of Egypt, and to allow that road to India to be occupied by any other of the European Powers. The neutralization of the Suez Canal would be fraught with immense danger, for it would mean that, instead of this

    1133
    country having command of Egypt as a means of getting to India, we should, whenever it became necessary for us to use the Canal, be at the beck and call of the Great Powers. I, for one, strongly object to this plan. I am anxious to maintain good relations with France; but I desire England to preserve a dignified and proper attitude, and I have no wish to see France playing Sir Lucius O'Trigger to the Bob Acres of the Prime Minister. The country is placing itself in a position of humiliation. [Radical cries of "No!"] Hon. Members say "No!" because it suits them to make patriotic considerations subservient to Party ones. That has been shown by recent Divisions. But there is, after all, a stronger tribunal than this House. We are certainly nominally the Representatives of the people; but the honour of this country is dearer to the people themselves than it seems to be to many of those who are returned to represent them.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought it was exceedingly unlikely, after what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that they should hear of any Vote of Censure. He was surprised at the some what scanty statement of the Prime Minister. He did not understand from it what the Conference was going to do in matters of finance. They had heard nothing about that £8,000,000 which he had always understood to form part of the scheme. They must, however, accept things as they were. They had had an ample statement of the political intentions of the Prime Minister, and he was not surprised that those intentions had been received with dissatisfaction by hon. Gentlemen opposite; for the Government had always said that they did not intend to remain in Egypt, and they were now doing their best to give effect to their intentions. The House had practically to choose between the Government and Gentlemen opposite; and they might judge what the policy of Gentlemen opposite would be by the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He presumed the noble Lord spoke with authority, for he was rapturously cheered by the Opposition. That policy would practically be a war with France. The noble Lord said he would decline absolutely to believe any statement made by
    1134
    the French Ambassador or by the French Government.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said that particular statement.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course, if any other statement were put forward it would be "that particular statement;" if they said to a man—" I decline to believe you "
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said—" I set no value on their promises."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, when a man declined to set any value on a statement, he did not believe it. Then the noble Lord went on to say that the French Government could not bind the people of France to anything for more than three years, than which nothing more insulting could be said by a prominent Member of that House. There was nothing more stable in a Monarchy than in a Republic; and therefore it would be equally insulting for anyone in France to apply a similar observation to the Government of this country. The House had distinctly to decide between the policy which had been stated by the Government and the policy enunciated by the noble Lord, which would place this country in antagonism with France, if did not lead to war. His (Mr. Labouchere's) own view was that totally irrespective of Party they ought to stand by the Government in the present state of circumstances.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I should like to ask the Government whether we are to understand that the consent of England alone is necessary for the evacuation of Egypt in 1888, or whether the consent of the other five Powers will be necessary; and I would also like to know whether the Sultan of Turkey or the Porte have been consulted in regard to this remarkable proposal? Furthermore, I should like to know whether there is any arrangement, formal or informal, by which Her Majesty's Government have engaged to lend a sum of money necessary to meet the financial difficulties which have arisen? I wish also to put on record my protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the policy of the Conservative Party would tend to a war with France. I would remind him that the late Government, while maintaining the influence and honour of the country, was on

    1135
    far better terms with France throughout its tenure of power than the present Government has been.
    MR. LAINGasked if it would not be possible to put Parliament in a better position for dealing with this question by giving earlier information as to the financial part of it. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) that they could not form a judgment on the case while half of it, and perhaps the most important half, was kept from their knowledge. He thought the matter would present itself to the country, not as a Party question, but as making the best of a bad job. While he felt as strongly as ever against the policy which had led them into this predicament, he also felt that they might have no alternative. They were in the position of a garrison whose commander had allowed the enemy to occupy a height overlooking them, and who then had to call the garrison together to consider terms of capitulation. If he could gauge the opinion of the country, he should say that what it would most strongly object to would be that England should be for three years or longer in the position of a bailiff to collect taxes for the bondholders. That, no doubt, would be the tendency of the Ministerial control, disguise it as they liked, to make this instrument the instrument of squeezing taxes out of the unfortunate Egyptian tenantry. If this country was to advance £8,000,000, and incur the burden of maintaining tranquillity in Egypt for three years to come, the House ought to know the financial conditions under which we assumed this responsibility. Were they such as to hold out a hope for the regeneration of Egypt, or were they such as to make us a mere catspaw to draw the chestnuts out of the fire in the interests of the bondholders? He did not see why the financial proposals that had been matured in the minds of the Government, and which were to be submitted to the Conference, should not be communicated to the House at once. Otherwise the House was placed in a most unfair position. Either they should be obliged to discuss any Vote of Censure that might be brought forward, not knowing whether, if they knew the whole case, they might not be disposed to accept it as the best of a bad job; or, on the other hand, if they did not pass any Vote of Censure,
    1136
    they should be assumed to have accepted the responsibility, and would be precluded from passing a decision upon the proposals of the Government until they had become a fait, accompli. He did not suppose that the Prime Minister had any wish to indulge in any sharp practice with the House; but he must say the course adopted would have very much that appearance. The Conference was to meet on Saturday next, and these proposals were to be hurried through and decided upon before the Members of that House had an opportunity of knowing anything about the financial part of them. The point he wished to put to the Prime Minister was this —were there any insuperable objections to his explaining the nature of these financial proposals? If those proposals were laid before us we might pronounce an opinion upon them; we might say that we ought not to accept them at all, or else that we might accept them to a certain extent, in order to escape from this unfortunate scrape which we have got into. Why cannot the Government lay their financial proposals before us? They must know what those proposals are. It could not be construed as an insult to the other Powers if Parliament were to be taken into the confidence of the Government on this point. They could then either pass a Vote of Censure on the whole proposal, which would be much more complimentary to the other Powers than to deal with only half the question; or, on the other hand, they could, by expressing their approval, show to the Powers that if they chose to accept those proposals, the British Parliament was prepared to ratify them.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to support the Question which the hon. Member opposite has put to Her Majesty's Government. I fail to understand why it is that the Government always choose to divide every important question into two parts, in the same way that they have divided the Franchise Bill from the Redistribution Bill. Now they tell us that one-half of this question belongs to the House of Commons, and that the other half of it is altogether outside their jurisdiction. In the course of his Mid Lothian speeches the Prime Minister asserted very strongly the right of the Crown to make Treaties without consulting Parliament;

    1137
    and perhaps the Crown would have a perfect right to go into this Conference without having first obtained the sanction of this House. No financial proposals, however, that could bind this country could be entered into without the consent of this House; and yet the Government pretend that they can bind this country by the other shameful and foolish proposals which they have made to the French Government without the consent of this House. I should wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any answer from the other Powers in reference to the questions to be submitted to the Conference; and whether it is true that Russia, Austria, and Germany have declined to give any opinion upon them until the Parliament of this country has discussed them? I am assured, upon the highest authority, that such is the case. [Ironical cheers.] I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is smiling; but why does he not answer the question instead of smiling? Perhaps, however, he may be in ignorance on the subject, because the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not to let their left hand know what their right hand does. There is, moreover, the further question with regard to the limit of the period of our occupation of Egypt. It was understood that we were to have an identical statement made in this House to-night with that which was made in the French Chamber to-day; but with regard to the validity of the objection of one single Power to our remaining in Egypt after the expiration of the three years, M. Ferry's statement, as it has reached us, is in direct contradiction to that of the Prime Minister. I saw a Gentleman on the Treasury Bench a short time ago who was very much aghast at the observation which was made by an hon. Member near me to the effect that implicit confidence could not always be placed upon the statement of French Ministers. If, however, we look into the past, and compare the protestations of French Ministers with the actions of the French Government in Algeria, we shall see that it is not unwise to accept such assurances with caution. The right hon. Gentleman now relies upon a mere phrase of an Ambassador, which has not even been reduced to writing, and of the bearing of which it is, therefore, impossible to
    1138
    judge. I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question—Who is to decide, at the end of the three years, whether the occupation by England of Egypt shall be prolonged? Is that question to be determined by the unanimous opinion of Europe, or merely by a majority of the Powers?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not understand the Prime Minister to state that he does not ask for the opinion of the House with regard to the agreement between France and England. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will wait until he can put before the House and the country the whole of the proposals to be submitted to the Conference, and that he will then ask the House to give a decided opinion upon the matter as a whole. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Ripon that we should be at present under a great disadvantage in discussing that agreement. We have been told, in the strongest possible terms, that if the Conference does not arrive at any result, the agreement will be so much waste paper. I should, however, like it to be thoroughly understood by the House and by the Government that, in postponing any expression of opinion, we are not to be supposed to be in favour of the agreement. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL dissented.] The noble Lord shakes his head; but if I am to understand that the Government who made those proposals said that no such opinion will be taken for granted, I shall pay much more attention to that than I do to the noble Lord's gestures, because the Government will be unable afterwards to say—they will be precluded from the possibility of saying—that by the fact that the discussion has been postponed the House of Commons has really practically sanctioned the agreement. There is another reason why I think that my right hon. Friend's suggestion deserves much consideration from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Undoubtedly, it would not be a very dignified position for the Representatives of the Great Powers and the House of Commons to be debating at the same time a matter which might not come to any result. I suppose we should be perfectly in the right in assuming that the Government will be perfectly candid with the Great Powers, and will say to them—"This is our proposal; but we have thought it right to tell the

    1139
    House of Commons what has been our negotiation with France; you are aware of it; you have seen it in the public papers; and the final consent of England to any proposal must depend upon the action of the House of Commons or of Parliament when the matter is brought before them." And I also understood this, which I think is of some importance, that the course which the Government are taking to-day, and the expression which my right hon. Friend has made, will preclude the Government from being able to state any argument to the effect—" Practically you must assent, because this is the declaration of the Powers of Europe." [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] With this clear understanding, I hope that all parties will be content that the discussion of these proposals shall be postponed. I also think that it would be desirable for the Government to state whether it is intended, if the Conference does not arrive at a result, that there shall be any international or general Treaty between this country and France entered into with or without the assent of the other Powers.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: It has been suggested that it will be inconvenient to discuss the subject now, and that the House ought to postpone the consideration of the Papers and of the Prime Minister's declarations until the House is in a position to express its opinion on the result of the Conference. I admit that there is a certain amount of inconvenience in the discussion to which we are invited by the course taken by Her Majesty's Government; but whose fault is that? It is because the Government have been pleased to intercept and interrupt the Business of the country for the purpose of making a statement to which they attach so much importance. Unless the Government propose to ascertain the opinion of the House upon these Papers and declarations, I am at a loss to conceive what object they have in view. The right hon. Gentleman has said that some deference should be shown to the Great Powers of Europe which are about to enter into Conference on Saturday next; and the right hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that the Great Powers might deem themselves slighted if the House of Commons were to be discussing the questions raised by these Papers which have been presented
    1140
    to-night by Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me, however, that if we are to consider the feelings of the Great Powers who have been invited to Conference, they are equally likely to take offence by the course suggested by Her Majesty's Government and by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They might say—"We are called into Conference in London, and when all the Powers of Europe have arrived at a conclusion, then, and not till then, are we to know whether the opinion of the House of Commons will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the decision. "While admitting, therefore, that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government is an extremely inconvenient one, I do not see how the House of Commons can avoid facing that inconvenience. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the speech of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), declined to admit that he had made use of the word "concession" as applied to the agreement which England has entered into with France. If my memory is right the word was distinctly used; but as the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it, I do not press the matter further. It is significant, however, that the French Prime Minister undoubtedly made use of that word in the Chamber about the same time that the right hon. Gentleman was supposed to have made use of it. In the report which has come to us we read that—"M. Ferry then proceeded to explain the concessions of England." Undoubtedly England has made great and very serious concessions to France. I admit that until we have the Papers before us it would be indecorous to express any definite opinion upon those concessions; but that they are great and serious, I have no more doubt than M. Ferry had when he was addressing the French Chamber. That the demand made by the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) and also on this side of the House is a perfectly reasonable one I am prepared strenuously to contend. The Prime Minister himself, answering a Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) on the 28th of May, stated that the whole of the conclusions which resulted from the communications with France should be presented to Parliament before the Conference met. What

    1141
    did the right ton. Gentleman mean when he spoke of the whole conclusions that should result from the communications with France? I do not ask what the ingenious mind of the right hon. Gentleman might mean. But I ask what the right hon. Gentleman thought the House understood when they heard those words? Is it possible to understand anything short of this, that the whole scheme, including the financial proposals, would be submitted to the House of Commons before the Conference met? I regret the mode in which this communication has been made to the House; but as it has been so made, I do not see how we can avoid expressing an opinion upon it. If I am compelled in one sentence to express my view of the declarations which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, especially with reference to the proposed evacuation at the end of three and a-half years, I should say that the Government were addressing to the people of England that line of Virgil—
    "Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oves."
    For the people of England would stand very much in the position of people who had been fleeced for five years and a-half, fleeced in their blood, fleeced in their treasure; and at the end of that period they will be at the beck and call of the Powers of Europe, whether they are to remain in that country on which they have sacrificed that blood and that treasure, or whether they shall be still permitted to seek the consummation of that great work which was undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, as now appears without any due consideration of its magnitude and importance, but to which the people of England have shown that they attach the greatest value, and for the accomplishment of which they have shown that they are prepared to shrink from no sacrifices whatever. There are one or two other questions which I desire, in conclusion, to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain more clearly under what terms the Powers are, after 3½ years' occupation of Egypt by England, to say to her either "stay in," or "go out." I wish also to know whether that is to be done by one, two, or three Powers, or, if the Powers are equally divided, who is to decide whether England is to remain in Egypt, or to evacuate the country? I ask the Prime Minis-
    1142
    ter whether he will state distinctly to the House what is the conclusion at which he wishes the House to arrive on that subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have no right to address the House and enter into argument upon this question, to which I only refer for the purpose of saying that I hope it will be understood that it is on account of the want of a right to speak that I refrain from noticing any of the arguments which have been made by the noble Lord, or others, in imputation against Her Majesty's Government. But it is commonly the practice of the House to allow answers to be made to Questions addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and I will give the best answers I can to the great number of Questions which have been put, curiously mixed up with reason and with invective. First of all, I will give an answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, and who has asked for the terms which are to govern the proceedings of England at the close of the period of three and a-half years. The best thing I can do is to draw the noble Lord's attention to a paragraph in a despatch of Lord Granville. It says—
    "There is some difficulty in stating a fixed date for such withdrawal, inasmuch as any period so stated may prove in the event too long or too short. But Her Majesty's Government, in order to remove any doubt of their policy in this matter, and in view of the declaration made by France, are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order."—(Egypt, No. 23 [1884], p. 14.)
    Those are the exact terms which have been used. Then the noble Lord asked whether it means one Power, or two Powers, or three Powers. Well, Sir, my answer to that is, that the phrase, "reference to the Powers of Europe," is one perfectly known to diplomatic practice and history. The European questions have been decided under shelter of that phrase for half a century and more; and nothing could be more invidious than to presume a division of the Powers into separate lobbies or separate parties in such matters. We think it our duty to take the phrase which is known to diplomacy, and we are perfectly confident in its operation. That, I think, is as much of a reply as it is

    1143
    possible for me to give, except that I may go one point further. I heard some persons say—"Would the dissent of England be of itself sufficient to neutralize the voice of the Powers'?" I must say that I think that if we thought of entering into negotiations so solemn and so important with Prance, and of undertaking to submit ourselves on certain conditions at certain times to the voice of Europe, having in our own minds the intention all the while to neutralize the action of the Powers of Europe by our own resistance when that time arrives, then I do think there would have been occasion to talk about the honour of this country. I cannot answer for the Government of that day when it arrives; but if the present Government are in Office, I have no hesitation in saying that they certainly would not plead the adverse opinion of England in the circumstances of the arrangement into which they have entered with France. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) asked whether any Treaty was intended. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that my right hon. Friend stated with precise and absolute accuracy the case between the Government and the House of Commons. I do not think there was one word which I would wish to alter or modify. With regard to a formal Treaty, I can only say this—that I am not aware that it will be necessary. My right hon. Friend knows that international compacts have been made in substance without a Treaty. I can conceive the Correspondence between France and England being perfect as an international compact, provided the conditions of its operation are retained. I mean that its not being in the form of a Treaty will not in the least influence the action of either Government. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) asked whether the President was to have a casting vote. My answer is this. It was not competent for England and France to determine that question, as he knows that the Law of Liquidation places the care of the Egyptian Debt under the control of a body in which four Powers are represented. Those four Powers, at any rate, according to the larger and juster view, are entitled to have a vote on the question. But, in point of fact, we intend to propose that the English President of the Commis-
    1144
    sion of the Caisse should have a casting vote; and I may say, so far as we are able to form a judgment, we think the reasons for the arrangements are so practicable and clear that no serious difficulty would arise on the part of the Powers. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) asked whether the consent of England will be necessary in 1888. That Question I have answered. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Sultan has been consulted. The Sultan has been consulted by communications of our intentions and views, and the proceedings of the Turkish Government have been marked by as much despatch as, perhaps, could be expected. It is to be remembered that the distance from Constantinople is greater for the transmission of despatches as compared with most other countries in Europe. If that be the measure of the Question, I have no doubt whatever that on the part of the Powers of Europe there is every disposition to pay regard to those rights which the Sultan enjoys. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) asked whether we can give the financial information at once. He says that Parliament cannot form an opinion without it. I do not think Parliament can form an opinion without it. That is my opinion. I have pointed to the time when the information can be given to Parliament, and I have in the most explicit terms said that until that time arrives Parliament would legally, morally, and in every other sense remain in absolute possession of its freedom. I cannot use any stronger words, and then my hon. Friend himself will see how impossible it is for us to do what he has suggested, to lay before the House at this moment the proposals which we intend to lay before the Powers. It is strictly in the nature of an answer to this reference of the financial proposals to the Powers, if I venture to think he is a little mistaken as to the nature of this reference of the financial proposals to the Powers. He appeared to think it was only a communication to them. If it was only a communication to them, and that was the sum and substance of our proposals, then I see no reason why we should decline to make known the financial proposals to Parliament. It is nothing of the kind; but an invitation to them to enter into counsel with us in a matter in which we take the

    1145
    initiative, and in which every one of them has just as good a right to be heard, to express an opinion, to procure, if they can, a modification of the proposals, as we have ourselves. Was it possible, in these circumstances, to bring out the proposals as of cast iron or steel and submit them to Parliament before going to the Powers? If we did so, supposing the Powers suggested something we believed to be an improvement and a change which ought to be made, what is to happen? The Conference may be absolutely deprived of all liberty, because we knew that the House of Commons had approved something different from it. It is quite plain that you cannot work the financial proposals in the Conference and in the House, and the whole meaning of this demand for the communication of the financial proposals is to put one of the greatest and one of the most responsible functions of the Executive Government into the hands of Parliament. Certainly the House is within its rights when it declines to be committed by what the Executive Government may do without its previous cognizance. But we have fully admitted that, and we have given the most solemn assurances that the liberty of the House will be preserved. I may add, among other reasons, that of the financial crisis in Egypt which we have lost no time in dealing with, and in which we have used our best powers. The financial crisis is of such a character that the casting of the subject abroad by bringing it into this House with prolonged debates, involving complicated points, which would extend from Monday to Thursday and from Thursday to Monday, would be accompanied by the most serious results in Egypt itself. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked whether Russia, Austria, and Germany have declined to give any opinion on this subject. No; they have not. They have not had time to deal with this subject. I am not prepared to say—I am not at all sure that it is necessary that they should give an opinion; but they have not declined to give any opinion on the subject.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the loan was to be £6,000,000 or £8,000,000?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to enter upon the
    1146
    subject of the financial proposals. I have just given reasons against that.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Is there any truth in the statement that there will be a loan from this country?
    MR. GLADSTONE: If that were so, would not that be a financial proposal? Is it possible to answer such a question after what I have just said, that the Conference has a right to a perfectly free discussion of the whole of these proposals? We have a right to the use of our discretion, and we have a right to endeavour to make the best arrangements we can, even though they should involve modifications of our own proposals. It is just like a statement of a Budget. What would be our position if we could obtain a cast-iron agreement and say to the Powers—"Your function is reduced to 'Aye' or 'No.' You have no discretion except to take it in the lump or refuse it in a lump." We are not going to insult the Powers of Europe by being parties to any such agreement. Some Gentleman asked me whether these proposals were to be submitted to the Representative Assemblies in Egypt. I am not aware that anything has been devised or will be proposed by Her Majesty's Government which, according to the written institutions of Egypt, would require to be so submitted. I think I have replied to the different points which have been put to me, and I will not press myself further upon the time of the House by any attempt to argue the matters which nave been suggested in debate. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Papers do lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 249.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 249.]

    CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. ANDERSON, in rising to move, in page 2, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
    (Constituency to have claim on services of Member elected, and if absent for three months without leave may be summoned to attend, and on failure for one month more, new writ may be issued.)

    1147
    "After any election shall have taken place under this Act, the electing constituency shall have a recognized right to claim the services in Parliament of the representative so elected; and in case of his non-attendance for three consecutive months of any Session, may petition the House setting forth the facts, and praying for redress on the ground that such absence is prejudicial to the interests of the constituency. On such petition being read from the Table, the House will appoint a committee not exceeding ten Members to inquire into the facts; and if they report to the House that such Member has been absent from the service of the House for three consecutive calendar months, without the leave of the House, and without any apparent sanction from the constituency, and that the petition has been signed by at least fifty duly qualified electors of the constituency, Mr. Speaker will thereupon send notice to the absent Member, by registered letter to his last known address, requiring him to appear in his place forthwith; and should such notice not be complied with before the expiry of one calendar month, should the House then be sitting, or on its re-assembling should the Member still be absent, Mr. Speaker will report to the House; whereupon on Motion duly made and carried, a new writ may be issued,"
    said, the Amendment was one which the Chairman ruled could not be put in Committee as irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. Although he did not think the decision a right one, he had not questioned it, but had thought it right to put it on the Paper again. Sometimes, under the present condition of the law, a constituency was robbed of the services of its Representative by his failure to attend Parliament. In his own constituency they suffered from a misfortune of that sort which everyone deplored, and for which nobody could in the faintest degree be to blame. The constituency of Glasgow had been reduced for the last three years to exactly the same position as it held previous to the Reform Bill of 1868—that of having only two Members to represent it. A constituency of 68,000 electors had now only two Representatives in Parliament, the same as in an Irish county or in many quite small English boroughs; and as there appeared to be no remedy for the existing condition of things, he had attempted to suggest one by giving every constituency certain claims on the men it elected. He might mention the case of an Irish Member, who was connected with the Australian Legislature, who refused to give up his connection with the Colonial Legislature, but, at the same time, would not take any steps to vacate his seat as a Member of the British House of Commons; and so the
    1148
    matter went on until a General Election. Then, at the present time, one of the Members for Mayo had been absent for some years. By the present state of the law there was nothing to prevent any Member of that House going to the utmost ends of the earth, and remaining there as long as he pleased for his own pleasure, and thus entirely neglecting his constituency. The constituency had no redress except by calling upon the Member to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, and he could refuse to do that. In old times the call of the House would have remedied this evil; but that practically was now obsolete, and there now was practically no remedy, and, believing there ought to be one, he moved this new clause.
    New Clause (Constituency to have claim on services of Member elected, and if absent for three months without leave, may be summoned to attend, and on failure for one month more, new writ maybe issued,)—(Mr. Anderson,)— brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they all deplored the circumstances which deprived Glasgow of one of its Members; but he could give no encouragement to the clause of the hon. Gentleman. This Bill was one of enfranchisement, and they could not under it remedy all the evils which might exist. Under the clause, if a Member were ill for three months he would lose his seat. He asked his hon. Friend not to press his Motion, which in itself was not one the House could accept, while it was not relevant to the subject of the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. TOMLINSONrose to move the following clause:—
    (Qualification by payment of Income Tax.)
    "Every man who has resided within a county or a borough for a period of twelve months, but has not by reason of such residence a qualification to be registered as a voter in such county or borough may be registered as a voter, and may vote upon proving that he has, in the year for which he claims to be so registered, paid or had deducted from the income of any real or personal property accruing to him during such year income or property tax to the amount of not less than ten shillings."

    1149
    That clause, he maintained, would enfranchise a class of capable citizens who had a fixed residence, but not of a kind that now gave them a vote; and he held that, having regard to the due representation of property, and to the principle that taxation and representation should go together, that class was well entitled to be included in a measure which proposed widely to extend the suffrage. He begged, therefore, to move the clause.
    New Clause (Qualification by payment of Income Tax,) — (Mr. Tomlinson,)— brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. WARTON, in supporting the clause, maintained that by far the greater part of those who paid 1d. of Income Tax were more respectable than those who inhabited mud cabins in the wilds of Connemara at £1 a-year. He could not see why a young man who had means should be prevented from having a vote because he lived in his father's house. If the Government were sincere, which he very much doubted, in their search for capable citizens, they must in all conscience and honesty accept the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that this question had already been discussed somewhat fully in Committee. The chief objection to this clause was that it would lead to the creation of fagot votes. Assuming the Income Tax to be at the same rate as now, anyone receiving a dividend warrant for £40 a-year would pay 10 s. Income Tax. All that would then have to be done would be for anyone who wished to make votes to put a sufficient amount of stock in the hands of someone else for a year only, and, whether they were householders or not, they would have the right to vote. Government had already made concessions in the way of the property vote; but this was something different, as the vote was not to depend upon the possession of any real property.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 108: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
    MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD, in moving the insertion of a clause to provide—
    1150
    "That no disqualification or penalty with respect to voting shall hereafter attach, to any member of the Constabulary Force of the United Kingdom,"
    paid a high tribute to the services which the police constables, a most deserving body of capable citizens, rendered to the public, and asked Parliament to remove the disability under which they now suffered.
    New Clause (Removal of disqualification of constables,)—(Mr. Coleridge Kennard,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought there were grave objections to the proposal, among the strongest of which were that the proposal of the hon. Member would make guardians of the peace at political meetings and at election times in the polling booths political partizans; and that policemen would probably be appointed on account of the political views they were known to possess, both of them very objectionable circumstances in regard to men who ought to be above suspicion.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was a pleasure to him to be able to agree with the Attorney General.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he rose to move the following new clause:—
    (Disqualification of Criminals.)
    "Any person who shall have been convicted and sentenced for felony or for indictable misdemeanour in any court of justice in the United Kingdom shall be incapacitated from voting in the election of a Member or Members to serve in any future Parliament, or from being elected to serve in any future Parliament, for a period not exceeding five years, at the discretion of the Judge adjudicating on the case."
    He hoped the House would be more disposed than it was when the Bill was in Committee to accept the principle of the clause, which was less drastic than that he proposed in Committee. He offered not to move the clause on receiving an assurance that the next which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would be proposed and pressed to a Division.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYD, in moving the following clause:—
    (Disqualification of persons convicted of felony or other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour.)
    "No person convicted of felony or any other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or to be imprisoned with hard labour, shall he entitled to be registered as a voter, or to vote at any election for twelve calendar months next after the expiration of his sentence,"
    urged that the House had manifested a strong feeling against imposing a disqualification for pauperism which did not attach to crime; and he therefore hoped the Government would meet the views which had been generally expressed by accepting this Amendment. So long as the principle of the clause was adopted he was not particular as to the form; and if the Attorney General wished to alter the wording of it he would have no objection. He contended that the criminal class should be excluded from the Register of voters as the pauper class was now excluded; and as a test whether a man belonged to that class or not deprivation for one year would not be unreasonable. If he remained for one year after the expiration of his sentence without being again convicted it might be not unreasonably presumed to have ceased to belong to the criminal class.
    New Clause (Disqualification of persons convicted of felony or other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour,)—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was glad that the noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) had not moved his clause, because it gave a discretion to the Judge, and the House did not like the idea of a Judge having the discretion to pass a political sentence. That objection did not apply to this clause, which proposed a definite exclusion for a certain time. The question was discussed in Committee, and he stated some objections of both principle and detail. Under this clause a person convicted of assault would lose his vote, and the House would not wish such a consequence to follow. If the
    1152
    House accepted this clause, the conviction must be by a jury on indictment, and the sentence must be penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour. Many Members of the House expressed opinions different from those he advanced on behalf the Government; but, although they had a majority, he thought this was a matter in which they ought not to hold out with extreme pertinacity. Practically, he would point out that a man who was in prison for three months lost his vote because he lost that continuous occupation which was the qualification; he did not occupy his house continuously for the preceding 12 months. However, with the Amendment he had suggested, the Government were not disposed to object to the clause.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he must protest against this additional punishment being imposed upon a person who had undergone his legal sentence. Such a proposal was altogether foreign to the spirit of the Constitution, and he saw no justification for it, except the petty desire of some specialist to have his name associated in some way with the Bill, and who had no other road open to his ambition but to propose a fad of this description. It seemed to him a miserable and an unworthy proposal, contrary to the spirit of the Bill as well as to the spirit of the Constitution. It could not be argued that this exception provided any safeguard in sections, or had any important bearing upon the exercise of the franchise, except, indeed, the hon. Member who proposed it was prepared to say that the criminal classes largely abounded among his countrymen. It was true, indeed, that the convicted criminals represented only a small percentage of actual criminals. Those who were found out were punished sufficiently without a disability of this character, and it was unfair to give the exercise of the vote to criminals who had not been found out, and deprive those who had expiated their offences of the vote.
    MR. HOPWOODexpressed his regret that the Government encouraged the imposition of this new disability. He was surprised the Government had given way.
    MR. MACFARLANEthought that it would be shameful to say that the man who had accepted casual relief should be disfranchised, and yet that the

    1153
    ruffian who had beaten Ms wife to a jelly should be allowed to go to the poll directly he got out of gaol.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether such men men as hon. Members on the Irish Benches who had been imprisoned were to be considered disqualified? He objected to the proposal, because it was so easy in Ireland to procure convictions.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he did not wish to see the restriction on the exercise of the franchise relaxed in the case of paupers; but persons convicted of crime might belong to a class which specially required representation in that House. Prisoners sometimes suffered injustice, and, therefore, might often stand very much in need of representation. He hoped some hon. Member would divide against the clause, and he would give him his support. The Attorney General's position was inconsistent with his position a few days ago. Of course, the main objection to the clause was that it proposed an addition to the sentence of the law.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he warmly supported the clause. Hon. Members, he said, spoke as though imprisonment with hard labour was an accident which might at any time overtake a well-meaning person. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who had suffered imprisonment, were there to speak for themselves as well-meaning persons, and he did not dispute their claim to the title. Their cases, however, were not such cases at all as were being discussed, for they were not sentenced under an indictment or convicted by a jury. How many of the 15,000 criminals who were convicted on indictment in this country in the course of a year were innocent persons, who had done things which the crooked law construed into offences? Such a representation was a gross caricature. He could not understand how his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could justify the disfranchisement of a pauper, and oppose the exclusion of a criminal. Sympathy for a pauper he could understand; but to include in the Register of voters men just released from imprisonment for disgraceful offences was an insult to every honest person on the Register. It was said a man would be taunted for the absence of his name from the Register; but a man who had
    1154
    been convicted of a gross offence might be, and probably deserved to be, reproached throughout his life for the offence for which he had undergone hard labour. If this clause were rejected, it would be something like a public scandal.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought the pauper would be punished by the proposal, inasmuch as he would be put on an equality with the criminal. This disqualification for the enjoyment of civil rights was in the nature of an additional punishment for the crime committed; but it should be left with the Judge to administer such punishment as he deemed right.
    MR. WARTONsaid, there was no use in an Attorney General if he could not change his convictions on every question which might be brought before the House. This excused the Attorney General for having changed his front in respect to the proposal before the House. He, however, regretted the change, and could not help blushing for his profession. Last Friday the Prime Minister made a speech in which he recognized the principle of English law that when a man had undergone his punishment he was a free man. The Division that occurred last week on this subject was the most genuine that had taken place during the whole progress of the Bill, for the Prime Minister had graciously given his poor, blind, deluded followers gracious permission to vote as they liked. When a man had undergone his sentence he had expiated his offence, and should not be under any disqualification.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, he heartily thanked the Attorney General for assenting to the clause. It was only fair that if they punished a man for pauperism, they should punish him for crime. He did not think that any man who had spent some time in prison would feel being struck off the Register very much.
    MR. GORSTregretted the Attorney General had given encouragement to the clause. This was nothing more nor less that a proposed Amendment of the Criminal Law. When a sentence had been expiated, the criminal became a free man again, and this was a proposal to impose one uniform and unvarying additional punishment upon every case in which a man was convicted. He

    1155
    thought it extraordinary that a provision of that sort should find its way into a Franchise Bill. If a new provision of this kind was to be introduced into the Criminal Law, it would require great consideration and very careful definition, and he entreated the Government not to encourage the clause or endeavour to force it on the House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Attorney General had given a most extraordinary reason for changing his opinion on this subject. He had, in fact, said that he had changed his own opinion because there was a difference of opinion upon this clause. He would like to know whether there had not been a difference of opinion upon every other Amendment proposed? No doubt in foreign countries a man was sometimes deprived of his civil rights; but that was not the law in England, and as soon as he came out of prison he was purged of his offence. Then, again, how was it to be discovered whether a man had been in prison or not? The present Bill was an enfranchising Bill, and not a disfranchising Bill, whereas the proposed clause was disfranchising, and he trusted the House would reject it by a Division.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was very glad Her Majesty's Government had seen their way to accept the principle of the clause. It did seem to him very unfair that a person should be disqualified because he had received a minimum amount of poor relief, while another person who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a serious offence against the law of his country might be put upon the Register. He thought this clause tended to remedy a great defect in the existing law.
    COLONEL NOLANthought the clause should be opposed not only upon Irish and Liberal, but also upon Conservative, principles. He had always voted with the Government throughout the Bill, whether they were right or wrong, on the particular question before the House; but the Government had changed front, and they could not expect their supporters to change front with them. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Colonel Nolan.)
    MR. GLADSTONEwished to make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Motion, which was hardly consistent with his usual attitude of supporting the Bill. No doubt the clause constituted a departure, as far as it went, from the general rule upon which the Bill had been worked through Committee; but they had taken this course in deference to what they conceived to be the general wish on both sides of the House. The fact was, as had been already stated, that this was not a Party matter, and the Government did not desire any Member to vote against his convictions, as he was sorry to hear the hon. and gallant Member for County Galway had been good enough to do; but the Government simply desired that everyone should vote according to his convictions. After so full a discussion of the clause, he hoped the House would now be allowed to go to a Division.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he desired to have some explanation before a Division was taken.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes 114; Noes 81: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
    Amendment proposed to the said Clause, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "on indictment."— (Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that Her Majesty's Judges tried cases by juries more than half of which were trivial and trumpery. There was no magic in the words "by indictment," and he must protest against such legislation.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it was extremely difficult for the House, without Notice of the Amendment on the Paper, to deal with questions of this sort which the Government had thought fit to put before them. He did not know whether the Attorney General intended to confine the clause to persons sentenced to penal servitude, and, therefore, to move the omission of the words "or to be imprisoned with hard labour."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that he wished to mitigate the severity of the clause as it stood; but it would be necessary to re-

    1157
    tain the words "with hard labour." It would be difficult to exclude a man sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should oppose the Amendment.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had proposed a clause which would lead to an inconceivable number of Amendments, and had given grave ground of objection to Irish Members. The Attorney General proposed to insert the words "by indictment." If that Amendment were carried the man Magrath, who had been convicted by a jury and sentenced by Judge Lawson on Saturday last to 12 months' imprisonment, without hard labour, for conspiracy to murder, would be entitled to be registered as a voter. Magrath was convicted of the same offence as the other men; but because the Judge, in his mercy—because he must attribute mercy even to Judge Lawson—did not sentence Magrath to hard labour because he was 70 years of age, Magrath would be allowed to be a voter. What greater absurdity could they have? A man of 69 years of age, who was a little more robust, would be prevented from voting because he had served a term of penal servitude. The proposal was, therefore, to refuse a vote to the man in good health, and to allow the person who was in a state of debility to exercise the franchise. Such was the absurd position to which they had been brought by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Beaumaris.
    MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate whether the words proposed to be inserted would apply to Scotland? If so, they would require another series of Amendments to make this clause applicable to the Scottish law.
    MR. HARRINGTONridiculed the notion that a person who had been sentenced to penal servitude for a seditious libel should be deprived of a vote. He would urge upon the Government the fact that this Amendment raised a very serious question in regard to the difference between persons sentenced to hard labour and those who were not. A Judge might sentence a man for a grave offence to imprisonment, without adding hard labour to it; whereas for a much less grave offence a sentence of four months' imprisonment was occasionally given which did not carry hard
    1158
    labour along with it; and, because hard labour was imposed in the one case, the man would not be entitled to exercise a vote; whereas, when released from imprisonment under the graver offence, he would be fully qualified to exercise the suffrage.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harrington) that the Question before the House is the insertion of the words "on indictment." The hon. Member, at the present moment, is not dealing with that Question.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the expression "on indictment" necessarily involved a sentence of hard labour, or no hard labour; and he was solely looking at the question from that point of view; not whether a prisoner was tried on indictment or not, but whether, being tried on indictment, he was sentenced to hard labour or not. He had no wish to detain the House; but he would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to whether the question of hard labour or no hard labour was one which caused so serious a distinction between crimes as would justify them in depriving one man of the vote and retaining it for the other; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would withdraw the clause altogether.
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, he should vote for the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend; but when it was softened down to an extreme point, and the Question put that the clause be added to the Bill, he should feel it his duty to vote against it. He was of opinion that when a man had served the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced, and had been discharged, he should be considered a free citizen and should have a vote.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he would call attention to the fact that the clause only affected those who had been in prison for a short time, and did not touch cases where a man had committed a heinous offence, and had been sentenced to penal servitude. He quite agreed that a man who had only committed a trifling offence should not be subjected to the additional penalty of losing his vote. An hon. Member, who spoke just now, alluded to the fact that there were 15,000 criminals; and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham

    1159
    (Mr. Gorst) commented upon the case of those who had suffered penal servitude. But, as he (Mr. Grantham) had pointed out, the case did not touch those who had suffered penal servitude, and was absolutely useless in that case; because no one who had suffered penal servitude could place himself in a position to be registered until, at any rate, he had been released for 12 months. The clause only affected the case of those who had been sentenced to slight terms of imprisonment, and who might otherwise have brought themselves within the terms of the Act. Therefore they were adding a far greater sentence upon those who had undergone a short term of imprisonment; whereas those greater criminals, who had been imprisoned for a series of years, were not affected in the slightest degree.
    MR. GIBSONexpressed a hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would answer the question which had been put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), and would say whether the Amendment would sufficiently harmonize with the existing requirements of the Scotch law?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought the Amendment which had been proposed would adapt the clause to Scotland; because the word "indictment" was the word now used in Scotland for the graver crimes.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 35: Majority 163.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
    COLONEL NOLAN, in moving at the end of the last Amendment, after the word "indictment," to insert the words "before a jury," said, it was quite possible for a man to be tried by court martial, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; and if the clause were passed in its present shape, unless some such words as those he proposed were introduced, the Clerks of Unions in Ireland would have to write to every garrison town contributory to the Union, and probably even to England, in order to ascertain whether any particular voter had ever been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour by court martial. He pointed that out as one of the effects which the clause would have. He believed that a man tried by court martial was indicted. He did not profess to have any considerable
    1160
    knowledge of legal terms; but, if he were correct in his view of the matter, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) and the hon. and learned Attorney General to take into consideration the expense which would be thrown upon Poor Law Unions, in carrying out the law, if it became necessary to obtain certificates from all the garrison towns. He wanted to prevent that by limiting the operation of the clause to the case of persons who had been indicted before a jury. That would confine the clause to the cases which occurred in the ordinary course of procedure, and would not affect cases which were brought before a court martial. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General might be induced to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, after the word "indictment," to insert the words "by a jury."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) was labouring under a misapprehension, because, as a matter of fact, no person was indicted before a court martial; and, therefore, the case was not likely to occur of the Clerk of a Union writing to the military authorities in a garrison town, in order to find out whether a man claiming the right to vote had been convicted and sentenced by a court martial. He had not, however, the slightest objection to the insertion of the words proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend; but he would suggest that his hon. and. gallant Friend should substitute the words "by a jury," instead of the words "before a jury."
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
    Amendment amended, and again proposed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it would be far better to put an Amendment to this effect as a Proviso at the end of the clause, which would obviate some of the objections he entertained to it in its present shape. He would suggest that a Proviso should be added at the end

    1161
    stating—"Whereas this clause does not apply, &c., to certain specific cases." There was, however, one point upon which he desired information. He had not yet heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General how he proposed to find out whether a man had been convicted or not, and under what head would the expense be borne? If it became necessary for the Clerk of a Union to write to the Judges, or to the Clerk of the Crown in every county or borough in Ireland, in order to find whether a man had been convicted or not, how was it proposed that the expense which would be incurred should be borne? He thought he was entitled to have some explanation from the Government upon that point; and there ought also to be some explanation as to how the Register was to be prepared. Was it to be prepared by inquiry, directed to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, or by information received from some authority in England, in answer to an application to know whether a particular individual had been convicted or not? He certainly thought that the clause should not apply to convictions under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there would be no duty cast by the clause upon the Clerk of the Union, or upon any Overseer, to make any such inquiry. The objection must come in the ordinary way. No one was called upon to make any inquiry; but the objection was made by a person serving the voter with a notice of objection. He believed the course pursued was, that a notice was served upon the voter, and it then became the duty of the Overseer to obtain any information he could.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would be aware that, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, it was a very common practice to ask an accused person whether he preferred to be tried summarily by the magistrates or by a jury. It would, therefore, be possible, if this Amendment were accepted, for the man himself to select whether he would resign his vote or not.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that, as the clause stood, the application to strike off the name of the voter must be made to the officer presiding at the polling booth. He considered that that
    1162
    was giving a power to the officer presiding at an election which would work very great mischief; because it provided that persons convicted of felony, or any other crime, and sentenced for the same to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour. Such persons were not entitled to be registered as voters, or to vote at any election, for 12 months after the expiration of a sentence.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not for him, to describe the duty of the officer in charge of the polling booth; but he believed that all the Returning Officer did was to ask the man claiming to vote—"Are you the person whose name appears upon the Register?"—and he was not able to exercise any other power.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment, because there was a disposition in some quarters to do away with juries altogether.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in trying to make the clause acceptable to the House, had put words into it—"convicted by jury"— which would have a very curious effect. In many cases which occurred at Sessions and Assizes, a prisoner, against whom a case was clear, and who was most probably an habitual criminal, pleaded guilty; and, if those words were inserted, persons pleading guilty would still be entitled to enjoy the vote, notwithstanding the fact that they were persons in regard to whose guilt there could be no doubt at all. They would be entitled the moment they came out of prison to vote; whereas a person who had been convicted by a jury for a less serious offence, and who might have been convicted by mistake, would be deprived of the vote.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHtrusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would give some answer to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was perfectly absurd, as his hon. and learned Friend had put it, that they should punish a person who had been convicted by mistake, and allow undoubted criminals to escape scot free. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would be content with the words, "on indictment."
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes 149; Noes 111: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 130.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the clause now ran—"No person convicted on indictment by a jury of felony or any other crime." He would now move a further Amendment to provide that it should be—" No person convicted on indictment, by a jury, or pleading guilty."
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "or pleading guilty."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the words proposed to be inserted might affect a person who pleaded guilty to having committed a crime before the magistrates. It would be better to discuss the effect of such an Amendment later on.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had accepted the words "on an indictment by a jury" on the spur of the moment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the present Amendment would have a very different effect; because it might affect the case of a man who pleaded guilty before the magistrates.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had very little weight, because the clause went on to say—"And sentenced for the same to penal servitude."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): "Or to be imprisoned with hard labour."
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought it would be convenient for the House to have before them the exact form of the Amendment which the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to substitute for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that before another Amendment can be proposed, it will be necessary to withdraw the Amendment now before the House.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would now propose an Amendment after the word "crime."
    COLONEL NOLANrose to Order, and remarked that he had an Amendment which came before that.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words, "or any other crime."
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that was so; and he would be precluded from making that proposal if the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) were assented to.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he also proposed to move an Amendment which would come before that of the right hon. Baronet—namely, to insert the words, "not being a political offence."
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That the words "or any other crimes" stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL NOLAN, in moving a further Amendment to leave out the words "or any other crime," said, he thought the Amendment would require a little explanation. He was of opinion that, if these words were retained, they might entail considerable expense in order to ascertain whether a voter had been convicted of a crime or not. A great amount of trouble would be involved, and they would be, in point of fact, introducing another very great complication into Parliamentary Elections. He quite agreed with the object of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd); but it was opening out quite a new field, which had never yet been touched by the English law, and it would considerably increase the field of investigation, and add to the difficulty by imposing upon the election authorities the duty of finding out whether a man had been convicted of felony or any other crime. In some cases a man might have been convicted of some petty offence and sentenced to eight days' imprisonment, and it would be necessary to make inquiry even into convictions of that nature. The omission of the words "or any other crime" would diminish

    1165
    the difficulty, and render the clause less objectionable to a large section of the House. He would, therefore, propose that those words be struck out of the Clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "or any other crime."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had intended to move the same Amendment, and his reason was this. He was astonished to find a lawyer of such eminence as the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) making use of such a loose expression as "any other crime." The law divided crimes into felonies and misdemeanours, and if the object of the clause was to punish misdemeanants in this way he should strongly object to it. For his own part, he would limit this obnoxious clause in every possible way. Although he did not disguise the fact that some misdemeanours were worse than certain felonies, yet, as a whole, felonies were graver crimes than misdemeanours. Therefore, he heartily supported the Amendment to omit the words "or any other crime." He protested against the introduction by a lawyer of objectionable phrases into an Act of Parliament.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought he was correct in asserting that the word "crime" was unknown to the law. In the Criminal Law, as it now stood, the word used was either "felony" or "misdemeanour;" and he would suggest the substitution of the words, "punishable as felony or punishable as misdemeanours." He thought it would be objectionable to strike out the words altogether, because perjury was not a felony, but a misdemeanour, and a man ought to be punished for perjury just as much as for larceny, and crimes of that class.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the difficulty he had in striking out the words "any other crime," was that the word "felony" was not known in the Scotch law; but the word "crime" was known in the Scotch law, and was sufficiently known in the English law to include misdemeanour; and the fact that penal servitude and hard labour were involved
    1166
    would be a sufficient indication that the crime in contemplation was a grave one.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he must confess that he was somewhat surprised at the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, because his observations went directly to show that he proposed to introduce a word which was to mean one thing in England, and another in Scotland. There was no wonder that Courts of Law experienced such difficulty in construing Acts of Parliament, when the head of his Profession in the House of Commons suggested that they should keep in words which he could not deny had no legal interpretation, and which would be construed differently in England and in the Sister Kingdom of Scotland. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)regretted that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) gave the Judges so little credit for being able to interpret an Act of Parliament. As the clause stood, it must be either a felony or not a felony; but, at any rate, it must be a crime punishable by penal servitude or hard labour. He did not conceive there would be the slightest difficulty in making use of an English word that was commonly used and well known to both countries.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: Yes; but in a different sense.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)denied that the word was used in a different sense in each country. It meant a criminal offence, and that was the construction the Government put upon the word here, and that was how it would be construed by the Judges. He had not the slightest notion that any real difficulty or ambiguity would arise in regard to the interpretation of the clause with these words in it. On the contrary, he thought they were perfectly intelligible words.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, it was quite evident that as they went on with the clause they got deeper and deeper into difficulty. He would therefore, in a friendly spirit, suggest to the Government that they should be content with the discussion which had taken place upon the clause, and not press it further.

    1167
    He had voted against the Amendment proposed on a former occasion; but he should now vote in favour of the present one, with the intention of by-and-bye voting against the entire clause in the hope that the House might be get out of the difficulty in which they were involved. He trusted the Government would say frankly that they had made a mistake, and that they meant ultimately to divide against the clause. He hoped that course would meet with the acquiescence of the House. They might pass with little or no discussion all the Amendments which were upon the Paper in reference to the clause, and then, when the Question was proposed that the clause be added to the Bill, he thought they would be able, by a considerable majority, to get rid of it altogether.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was very reluctant to interpose between the eminent lawyers who had been engaged in discussing the question, and in endeavouring to explain how the word "crime" had a different meaning in Scotland and in England. In England, they were told, "crime" meant either a felony or a misdemeanour; but in Scotland the word "crime" meant an offence which was graver than a misdemeanour. In other words, the word "crime" in England included misdemeanour, whereas in Scotland it excluded it. He submitted that, if a different meaning were attached to the same words in the two countries, it was not desirable to insert them in an Act of Parliament. He did not, however, propose to discuss that point, but simply to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). It had given him several qualms of conscience to discuss the clause at all, and he doubted the propriety of persevering in a course which could only retard the progress of the Bill, and imperil its future fate. He therefore thought the Prime Minister would afford considerable relief to the ardent supporters of the measure, who desired to see it brought to a successful end, if he would get up and say that the Government were of opinion that, putting on the one side the advantages of arriving at a speedy termination of the Bill, and on the other the small advantage to be gained by passing the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), they
    1168
    would prefer giving up the clause, and making progress with the Bill.
    MR. HENEAGEsupported the appeal which had been made to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He was of opinion that the further they went on with the discussion of the clause the greater their difficulties became. He was quite determined to vote against this Amendment. Not only had they lost two hours in discussing the clause, but if they continued moving Amendment after Amendment, the result would inevitably be that the clause would be left in such a shape that it would have to be struck out in the end.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he had gone into the Lobby in support of the proposal when it was first moved, and he had voted conscientiously; but he rose now to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He did so, because he cared a great deal more for the Bill than he did for this clause.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know from the Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy) to discuss the whole Bill upon an Amendment for the omission of one or two words?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question immediately before the House is the omission of the words "or any other crime."
    MR. WADDYsaid, he was going to speak to the Amendment. What he was going to propose was that those words, and even something beyond, should be omitted.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member could not do that.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he was not in the habit of troubling the House at any great length, or very frequently; and the only observation he would make on the subject of this clause was, that if it were a question of opinion involving any point of principle, and was supported by the Government, nothing would induce him to agree to the adoption of the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop-wood); but he thought that this was the only compromise that could be arrived at, if they were sincere in their desire to make progress in the Bill.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped that the Government would not succumb to the attack made upon them

    1169
    from so many quarters in this matter. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would stand by the words of the clause. They were words that were perfectly intelligible, and they described, with substantial and sufficient accuracy, the matter to which the clause was intended to apply in this country; and it was impossible to supply any substitute for them that would be equally well understood. The adoption of this Amendment, and the striking out of these words, would reduce the clause to such a condition that it would be perfectly inoperative, and would have to be got rid of altogether. He thought it would be unfair to the House to take the course which was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). There was a strong feeling on the part of the House in favour of the clause, and in consequence of certain communications which had passed, the the hon. and learned Attorney General had signified his acceptance of the proposal to the House last night. The clause, as it was accepted, contained the very words which it was now proposed to leave out, and upon a Division the clause, as such, was accepted. To omit those words now, without substituting anything for them, would have the result of destroying the effect of the whole clause. If they left out these words, he did not think it was possible to invent words that would equally answer the purpose. Although it was perfectly true that the word "crime" did not appear in the Statute Book of this country, it was, nevertheless, a perfectly legal term; and crimes in this country were divided into felonies and misdemeanours, and included both. Therefore, when they described an offence as a "crime," punishable either by penal servitude or hard labour, they were describing a matter that was thoroughly intelligible to everybody. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, and insert it in the Bill.
    MR. GRANTHAMthought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was right in saying that the House ought not to omit these words from the clause. It would be in the recollection of the House that many hon. Members, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), desired to know what the
    1170
    clause was to be which the hon. and learned Attorney General was prepared to accept? The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated that the Government were willing to accept certain Amendments; but what they were the House had not been able to understand; and the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) thought the Government intended to leave out these words. Yet now it was found that the clause had been accepted only upon one condition —namely, that the words "on indictment" should be inserted after the word "convicted." Under these circumstances, he wished to ask this question—If in Scotland felony had no meaning such as it had in England, why insert the word "felony" at all? It was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had stated, that they were introducing into the English law the word "crime," which was not known to it, because in the English law the words were "felony and misdemeanour;" yet in the Scotch law they had the word "crime," and not "felony." Then why not leave out the word "felony" altogether, and do away with the difficulty that was now created by simply saying — "No person convicted of any crime." Those words would cover the whole thing. He meant to vote against the retention of the words "or any other crime," with a view of placing the clause in a satisfactory position subsequently. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy) said the words of the clause which specified penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour showed that the offence contemplated meant a heinous offence; but the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely in error in supposing that hard labour was only applied to heinous offences. There were many instances in which a man was committed to prison for three months with hard labour, and there were, as everyone knew, who was acquainted with the administration of the Criminal Law, many instances in which hard labour followed as a necessary consequence upon a sentence, if it were only for imprisonment for a week, a fortnight, three months, or six months. Consequently, hard labour was not restricted to what might be termed heinous offences.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was sorry that the Prime Minister had not

    1171
    long ago signified the intention of the Government to accede to the very reasonable request which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). If the House were now to pass the clause in the shape in which it stood, it would be unworkable, and no number of Amendments introduced into it that night would make it workable. They were now on the point of providing that a man who had been convicted of crime should not, upon being released from prison, have his name placed upon the Register, in order to be in a position to record his vote. The hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out, a short time ago, that no power was vested in the Returning Officer or in the Overseer to prevent a man from voting whose name was upon the Register. That being so, the Amendment did not meet the cases for which it was proposed. It did not disqualify from voting in the case of a man serving three, six, or 12 months' imprisonment; because, after he was released, there would be no power to prevent him from voting if his name were on the Register. They might strike the name off when the Revising Barrister went round; but if it was on the Register the man could exercise the vote for 12 months after his release from prison; and this clause, which was brought in in order to curtail his privileges, could not take effect until after he had been released for a period of 12 months. It therefore contained the ridiculous proposal that a released convict or released hard labour prisoner might exercise the franchise for 12 or 18 months after his release from gaol, but that then a motion would be made to deprive him of the exercise of it. This was the logical bearing of the clause; but it was not what was in the minds of the Proposer or supporters of it. He certainly thought the clause would prove to be altogether unworkable, and the time of the House was being seriously wasted by this discussion, even to the extent of endangering the fate of the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) to withdraw the Amendment now before the House; and I think the reason I shall give him he will deem to be a sufficient one. I know that I shall expose myself to criticism and to laughter, to
    1172
    which I admit I may be very fairly made the object on this occasion; but I have to confess, and I do so ingenuously and outright, that we have made a mistake. I do not know whether that will disarm the anger of those who may take a severe view of our conduct; but we believed that, by the course we propose to take to-night, we were meeting a wish— at all events, a prevailing wish on the part of the House. But we have now wasted three hours. My hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Hopwood) has understated the case; because it is more than three hours since we undertook the discussion of what I may call this ill-starred proposal, and that circumstances appear to show that it would be the work of several days to adjust the measure before it could receive the final judgment of the House. That is the best estimate I can form. Well, Sir, unquestionably I should have risen immediately after the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), but for the fact that I had a scruple on the point of Order, which, however, I hope I may now dismiss, because I find myself frankly compelled to beg the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment. The Government think the object in view is not worth the time of the House which would necessarily have to be expended upon it. Without further explanation, and fully admitting that we lay ourselves open to all the jeers that may be directed against us on the other side of the House upon this particular occasion, I would make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the Amendment; and then I would make a further appeal to my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) to withdraw the clause. We have have done all we could for the purpose of promoting his views; but I almost think that he, as a supporter of the Bill, would be disposed to agree with us that the game is not worth the candle, and would desist in his endeavour to attain an object on which the House cannot afford to expend so immoderate an amount of time.
    COLONEL NOLANexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn."
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, the proposal for inserting this clause was not originally his; but he understood that it was considered desirable to insert some Amendment analogous to it in character; and he had, therefore, submitted the clause. He would remind the House that the matter was discussed at some length in Committee, and that a very large number of Members expressed their opinion by voting in favour of the clause. In consequence of what occurred in Committee, he had placed the present clause upon the Paper which had now been read a second time by the House. He retained the opinion that the clause would be advantageous to the Bill; but he certainly was ready to admit that he would not have made a point of bringing the clause forward, had he thought that the introduction of it would have consumed so much time, because he thought it was of much greater importance that the Bill should pass as it stood, than that its fate should be endangered by discussing the improvement which this clause would undoubtedly effect if it were added to the Bill. Hon. Members from Ireland had, in the course of the debate, chosen to make some remarks as to his motive in proposing the clause. Ever since he had been a Member of the House, he had been prepared to stand up for what he considered to be right, whether it was in favour of hon. Gentlemen connected with the Island on the other side of the water or not, and he would continue to do so in spite of their sneers and insinuations. He was quite ready to withdraw the clause; but he did not know how far he was in a position to do so, seeing that the clause had been read a second time, and was in the possession of the House. Whatever suggestion might be made, for that object he would be prepared to adopt.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he understood that the question now before the House was that the Amendment be withdrawn. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to say, at that moment, that the Government frankly confessed they did not think the question was worthy of the consideration of the House; but he (Mr. E. H. Paget) would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question was one of principle. It was not the first time of asking, but the second, and the Government had had ample oppor-
    1174
    tunity for making up their minds on the matter. Personally, he considered himself to be an injured person. He had had great satisfaction in supporting Her Majesty's Government in several Divisions; because he thought that, in the matter of principle, they were right; and, having adopted this as a question of principle, he protested against its being abandoned in the way it was now being abandoned by the Government, who all along had been priding themselves upon their consistency. He did not think they could have supplied a more curious instance of their inconsistency. The Government had opposed the question when it was brought before them in Committee; now, upon the Report, they had agreed to support it as a matter of principle which ought to be supported. The clause had been read a second time, and they had put up the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to advocate it; and, because an opposition had sprung up in one or two quarters, they now suddenly made up their minds that the question was not one that was worthy to occupy the time of the House. Surely, if it was worthy of the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General—if it was worthy of taking up three hours of the time of the House in supporting it in Division after Division, it was worthy of being gone on with to the end, and it ought not to be withdrawn. He should certainly raise his voice against the withdrawal of the clause.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the nature of their proceedings that evening. In the course of the debate it had been admitted by the Government that unless that clause were introduced, or something equivalent to it, they would be deliberately enfranchising crime in Ireland. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Irish Members.] Hon. Members below him seemed to have a different understanding of that term from that which he had. There was some dignity in treason; but the phases which rebellion adopted were sometimes of a lower type, especially when it assumed this phase of outrage and individual murder. Personally, he could not draw any distinction between these offences and offences which were usually

    1175
    designated crime. He must say that he thought the House would arrive at a very grave decision if, after having prepared the ground, and approved the clause, it deliberately voted for the enfranchisement of crime in Ireland.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved a further Amendment, to insert after the word "crime," "or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime."
    Amendment proposed, after the word "crime," to insert the words "or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he wished to have some information as to the position in which the House was now placed. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister propose to accept the Amendment, on the understanding that the clause would subsequently be withdrawn?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government could not withdraw the clause, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was quite within his right in moving the Amendment. He thought, after what had been done, that the House should accept the Amendment; but it was the intention of the Government to vote against the clause when it was put.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the Prime Minister had said that he know he was exposing himself to some criticism, and possibly to some jeers; but, up to the present moment, he (Mr. Gibson) did not think the observation of the right hon. Gentleman had any foundation in fact. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was listened to with patience; but there were points now raised which rendered it necessary to make a few short observations in the way of legitimate criticism. The hon. and learned Attorney General had certainly placed himself and the operations of the Bill under the notice of the House in a very peculiar manner. This clause had been under discussion for over three hours, and had been supported by the hon. and learned Attorney General, not rashly or unexpectedly. They had had a discus-
    1176
    sion upon a cognate subject some four or five days ago, and a Division had been taken—a Division which was of by no means a Party character. The clause seemed to find support on both sides of the House—
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he rose to Order. He was sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he appealed to the Speaker whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not now discussing the general merits of the clause? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) might say, in explanation, that he should not have wished to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he did not know that on the Question that the clause be added to the Bill there would be ample opportunity for discussing the general merits of the clause.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the general Question on this Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON: Then I will defer my observations.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question I have to put is—"That the words 'or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime' be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was quite sure the House would excuse him for offering a short criticism of the Amendment. He quite agreed as to the importance of the Amendment, which, no doubt, had been moved in consequence of a suggestion made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), to the effect that, under the clause, a prisoner who pleaded guilty would not be punished by having the franchise withheld from him, as would a man who had been convicted of a similar crime. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would allow him to point out that these words "or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime" would bring about an odd jumble of English and Scotch law. He would recommend that the words of the Amendment should be "or who has pleaded guilty to felony or any other crime." That Amendment would follow the phraseology which had been adopted hitherto, and would be an improvement on the course suggested, wretched as the phraseology of the Bill might be. He did not like the phrase; but he thought if the words "to any such crime"

    1177
    were used, it would make the clause refer only to the last-mentioned crime. Now that they had got it, they might just as well retain the hon. and learned Attorney General's singular mixture of English and Scotch law as an instruction to posterity.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought it was not worth while continuing the discussion. They were all pretty well agreed that the clause should not now stand part of the Bill. ["No, no!"] Well, there was a preponderance of opinion on the other side of the House in favour of dropping the clause. He felt sure, if the Question was put to the House, "That the Clause should stand part of the Bill," the provision would stand little chance of being adopted. Looking at the important Business on the Paper for to-night, and the discussions they would have to take, he trusted that hon. Members would allow the question before them at this moment to be decided, and would at once proceed to a Division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, that several hon. Gentlemen opposite were very anxious to speak, and he also should like to give one or two reasons why he should be prepared to vote for the rejection of the clause. He declined to punish a man who, having served out his sentence, was entitled to have all the rights of citizenship restored to him. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated just now that the objection to a voter being placed on the Register should, in all cases, be taken in the ordinary way; but it would be extremely objectionable for a person dwelling in a house in a town, where he had possibly gone to lead a reformed and respectable life, to be cross-examined, on making application for a vote, as to whether he had or had not been convicted of crime. Under the circumstances, he would move the rejection of the clause; although, as he did not wish to take up the time of the House for any lengthened period, he would say nothing more in opposition to it.
    An hon. MEMBER: You cannot move the rejection of the clause. You can vote with the Noes.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he remembered that some time ago Mr. Lever, the
    1178
    novelist, when he was seeking for a reductio ad absurdum to some of the Liberal cries of the day, suggested, as a cry for a new Reform Bill, "Emancipate the unconvicted." It appeared that now they had got a step beyond that, and the cry of the Radical Party was— "Enfranchise the convicted." He was glad to recognize the frankness with which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Causton) had adopted that as the platform of the Radical Party. But what he thought was really worthy the attention of the House and the country was the deliberate manner in which Her Majesty's Government had delayed the progress of this measure throughout the whole of this evening. They had had this clause proposed by an hon. and learned Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, adopted by the hon. and learned Attorney General, then carefully considered by the House at large, repudiated by the Prime Minister, and now about to be doomed to the limbo to which everything apparently had to go which did not, at the moment, happen to meet with the view of that right hon. Gentleman. He really did think that, having regard to the energy which the hon. and learned Attorney General had devoted to carry this Bill through the House, he deserved better treatment from his Leader than that which he appeared to have received. He (Mr. Raikes) sincerely trusted that it would go forth to the country that this proposition had originated on the Ministerial side of the House, had been accepted by a Member of the Government responsible for the Bill, had occupied the attention of the House for some hours, and was now put aside, because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had listened to some suggestions made from the Benches below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had reasons for listening to the suggestions of those who brought forward objections from that quarter of the House—reasons which were not known to the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was desirable, perhaps, that the House should take notice of the circumstances under which this clause had occupied their attention for such a substantial part of the evening; and he trusted that if the

    1179
    provision went to "another place," all the circumstances attending it would be taken into consideration.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must say one word with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Raikes). When the right hon. Gentleman had said that he (the Attorney General) had been treated by the Prime Minister in a manner which he did not deserve, he must say that if there had been any misjudgment of the opinion of the House, the responsibility of that misjudgment rested entirely with himself. In the course that had been taken, there had been perfect unanimity of action in regard to this last clause. He would tell the House what had actuated them in the course they had taken. They had been under the impression that there was a large majority in the House willing to accept the clause; but. as they proceeded, they found, not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it was the Radical Party who wished to enfranchise the convicted classes, but, to their astonishment, they found that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who was supposed to direct the legal counsels of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was an opponent of the clause, declaring himself as willing to vote against it. It was said the Liberal Party wished to enfranchise the convicted classes. Well, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) a Member of the Liberal Party? No; yet he had been working against this clause. Was the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) a Member of the Liberal Party? Certainly not. Then was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) one of the Radical Party, willing to enfranchise the convicted classes? And what would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) say of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—and although he came last, he was by no means least? Was he a Member of the Radical Party? The fact was, the Government had yielded through a want of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Who had been the Tellers in the Divisions against this clause? Why, two of them were hon.
    1180
    Gentlemen who sat together—two of the most respected legal Members of the Party opposite, the hon. Members for East Surrey and East Sussex. And those two Conservative county Members, having so substantially supported the clause, the Government were now told that they had yielded to the cries of hon. Members from Ireland. They were told that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Surrey were not to be listened to. The Government had thought hon. Members opposite were in favour of the clause. ["No, no!"] He did not mean to say that they had supposed that all hon. Members opposite were in favour of the clause; but, at any rate, the majority, and the most influential amongst them. They, however, found these Gentlemen telling against them. The opposition was such that it did not enable the Government to divide against it; therefore, unsupported by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire, and the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey, they had taken the course which, under the circumstances, they deemed right. At the same time, for their own part, they were of opinion that the question did not deserve the consumption of any further time. Let the judgment of hon. Members opposite be what it might—and he did not think it would be a very severe one—if they were displeased with the course the Government was now taking, they would be able to settle the matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston and his Colleagues.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not intend to take up the heroic tone adopted by the hon. and learned Attorney General. He must say he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman's excuse was somewhat of an afterthought. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have had the slightest conception, a short time ago, of the reasons he was now giving for opposing the clause. Although there had been five or six Divisions on the clause, they had all been in one way, the majority having been in favour of the Government on each occasion, and against the provision — majorities increasing and enlarging every time. The smallest Division which had been taken

    1181
    against the clause had been the earliest Division, and that had indicated that this was not a clause on which Party lines were observed. Three or four days ago the House knew that supporters of the clause were to be found on the Ministerial as well as on the Opposition side of the House; therefore, with the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Attorney General, he must say that if anyone had said some time ago that the Government would have used the argument that they were altering their view, and taking a particular line in deference to the opinion of the Opposition, he should have said it was rank nonsense. The clause had been moved from the Ministerial side of the House, and many of its most prominent supporters had been hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side. Many of those prominent supporters were now amongst its opponents; therefore, it was asking too much of the House to believe that the Opposition was really the cause of the Government now giving up the provision. It was really remarkable to watch the course this discussion had taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, knowing perfectly well what had taken place and what was taking place, knowing that two Friends of his (Mr. Gibson's) had been Tellers for the rejection of the second reading of the clause, and knowing that the second reading was carried by a large majority, allowed the matter to proceed, and many Amendments to be proposed and carried with increasing majorities, until the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) got up, and, declaring that he had steadily voted black was white for the Government in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill, appealed to the Government to drop the clause. It was only then that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, summarizing the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway, declared himself to be greatly exercised at hearing that the hon. and gallant Member had voted against his conscience; but, under the circumstances, the Government had made up their minds that they could not make an exception in reference to this particular matter, and must leave it an open question—that they must leave hon. Members on this particular question to vote according to their consciences. That
    1182
    might be all very satisfactory; but, still, there ought to be a majority distinctly in favour of the clause. The clause had not been abandoned; but Amendments had been proposed and supported by both sides of the House — by Members sitting opposite as well as Members sitting on the Opposition side. It was really very remarkable that they should then find that, in deference to further statements made, the Prime Minister — certainly with the greatest possible frankness—took the House into his confidence, and declared that "the game was not worth the candle." The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Government had made a mistake. ["No, no!"] Well, it was not for him (Mr. Gibson) to question that contradiction. He did not particularly complain of the Prime Minister's statement, or of anything beyond the narrow lines to which the right hon. Gentleman at that moment seemed to be confining himself. Considering that, in the most important Bill of the Session, they were discussing Amendments to a clause which had been adopted, after some days' consideration, it was most remarkable that after three hours had been expended upon the provision, they should find the Government prepared to oppose what had already been agreed to, and for which they themselves had voted some hours ago. The Government could not be surprised if, in consequence of the episode of that night, a lengthy discussion took place on the Report of the Bill. They had assented to the clause after deliberate consideration. They now admitted they had taken a mistaken view of the matter, and, as a result of further consideration, they were prepared to vote against the clause.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that before the House parted with the clause he would like to call attention to the position in which they stood in regard to it. It was not as if this were a small or light matter, or one involving no political principle. In the early part of the evening, the Prime Minister recognized that there was a difference of opinion on his own side of the House; that there had been a difference of opinion on the Opposition side of the House; and that the large minority which voted in favour of the proposal when it came from the Liberal Benches, on a previous occasion, was made up of

    1183
    Members on both sides of the House. The Prime Minister having said that, the House went on with the discussion of the clause, and it soon became perfectly clear that there was a majority in favour of having such a clause in the Bill. Let the House just examine what position it was in at the present moment. A considerable amount of time had been spent upon the clause; the consumption of that time was not to be charged on Members of the Opposition. The proposal came from the Liberal Benches— from those who, throughout the progress of the Bill, had acted with the Government. The four valuable hours they had spent in discussing the clause were now beyond recall; but the clause was now in what he ventured to say was a satisfactory condition and shape. Its acceptance would involve no further loss of time. Why should it not be accepted? All the Members of the Government had voted in its favour; it was not accepted by the hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) without consideration, and it involved the principle that those who had exposed themselves to the penalty of the Criminal Law were not, in the eyes of the House, capable citizens in the sense that they ought to be entrusted with the duty of voting for Members of Parliament. He could not understand how those on the other side of the House, who were prepared to extend the franchise to women, and to deprive of the suffrage persons who had been obliged to apply for parochial relief, could refuse to put on the Statute Book a clause which now stood in a complete form, which was accepted by the Government, and which would disqualify criminals from becoming voters. His hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had said more than once that the Government believed, from all they heard and saw, that a large majority of the House were in favour of the clause. If the clause were put to the House deliberately for its acceptance, he (Mr. Clarke) believed it would still be found that a majority were in favour of it. In the circumstances, which he agreed were strange and perplexing circumstances, but circumstances which could not be charged on the Opposition, the right course would be to take a final decision on the matter at another Sitting of the House—when, for instance, the House
    1184
    had had an opportunity of considering fully the condition in which the clause now stood, and of coming to a decision, aye or no, whether it was proper to put such a clause on the Statute Book. It would be conceded that this was a right course, when it was remembered that many Members of the House must have gone away, after having heard the hon. and learned Attorney General's firm and deliberate vindication of the clause, convinced that the Government would not treat with such levity and vacillation a matter which had been before the House some time. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    MR. BRODRICKseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must decline to attempt to refute the charges which had been made against the Government with regard to the time lost over the discussion of this clause. There was no charge to be made against that, or any other side of the House. The loss of time was due to an unfortunate error of judgment of theirs to amend the Bill. The proposal to adjourn the debate and resume the discussion would only lead to further loss of time; and, therefore, he could not agree to it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the Government were uncertain as to the course they should take, probably the best plan for them to adopt would be to withdraw altogether, and leave the House to decide the matter.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 174: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," again proposed.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to reiterate the observations which had been made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); but he ventured to make a further appeal to Her Majesty's Government in respect to this clause. He

    1185
    endeavoured, when the clause was being discussed, to give it such support as he could, and if he criticized one or two verbal points, he was sure the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would admit his criticism was friendly to the clause. He attached considerable importance to the clause; it appeared to him to be sound and just in principle; and it was a clause which, to his mind, would be a very material and useful addition to the Bill. That was the opinion entertained by many other hon. Members quite irrespective of the part of the House in which they sat. The clause was negatived, when it was proposed in Committee; because Her Majesty's Government had resisted it. This evening it was discussed at no very great length and the Prime Minister stated that he would, on the part of the Government, consider it an open question, and in no way interfere with the wishes of any of his supporters in regard to the clause. The result of that expression of opinion was, that the clause, which had been negatived in Committee, was carried by a large majority in its second reading on Report. He appealed to Her Majesty Government not to exercise that influence, which, of course, they could exercise over their followers against the addition of the clause to the Bill. He would ask the Prime Minister to inform the House that the votes of hon. Members were entirely within their own discretion; that the Government loft the matter entirely to the judgment of the House, in the same manner as when the clause was read a second time. If the result was, that the clause was negatived, through the opposition of the Government, then, he thought, there would be more reason than ever to speak of the mechanical majority on the other side.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had taken that course, and Members would vote according to their judgment; the Government had made no attempt to make this a Party question, and what he said a few days ago still held good.
    VISOOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he felt he was somewhat hardly used by Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. He hoped the House would allow him to make a few observations which should not occupy more than two minutes. He had the opinion first, and
    1186
    held the opinion still, that the new clause, as he originally meant to propose it, was much the better clause of the two; but he was deluded into the idea that the Government meant to accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). But it appeared to him, that the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris, after hearing the announcement made by Her Majesty's Government had "bolted." That meant, he supposed, that the hon. and learned Member left it to the discretion of hon. Members how they should vote. His hon. and learned Friend, he observed, had just come back; but though he had returned, there was not the slightest doubt that he did not mean to challenge a Division; but he (Viscount Folkestone) should do so, and he hoped a majority of the House would support the clause. He had supported the Amendment, and should still support the clause on this occasion. The Government had changed their minds twice. They had voted against the proposal in Committee; then they changed their minds, and agreed to support it; and now they had changed their minds again, and were going to vote against it. Unless they could bring themselves to a third change, he should certainly challenge a Division, and he hoped the majority in favour of the clause would be larger than on the last occasion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 156: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment he now had to propose was merely of a clerical character, simply pro formâ to carry out what had been already decided—
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had an earlier Amendment he wished to move—
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was in possession of the House, unless the hon. and learned Member had an Amendment coming before line 27 of page 1.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member wish to move an earlier Amendment?
    MR. WARTONsaid, in Clause 3, page 1, line 19, he wished to propose an Amendment, to omit the word "himself," in order to insert the words "by himself, or by himself and his family."

    1187
    The object of the Amendment was, first of all, to remove what might be an objectionable practice. "Himself" might seem to exclude his family, but, of course, it meant living in the house by himself, or with his family; therefore it was he wished to introduce the words he proposed. There was another meaning to the Amendment, that the man himself, or with his family, should wholly occupy the house; it prevented a number of persons being collected in the same house under the service franchise, and it would prevent the question of the lodger franchise being raised.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the word "himself," in order to insert the words "by himself, or by himself and his family."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'himself' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think they would make any practical progress by discussing the Motion then, and he would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.— [BILL 139.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.— [BILL 139.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 3 (Rent of £17,500 to be paid out of fees in respect of Royal Courts of Justice).
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he hoped the Committee would consider that it was a matter of sufficient importance to wade through the long Preamble to see the effect of the 3rd clause; but it had exercised the ingenuity of the draftsman to conceal, with as much verbiage as possible, the real and extended operation of the measure. The history of it was this. When the building of the Royal Courts of Justice was decided upon, a communication was made by the Government that it would cost£l, 500,000;
    1188
    deduct from that, the site of the then existing Courts of Justice, which was taken, for the purpose of the Act then in operation, to be worth £200,000—that reduced the cost of the building to £1,300,000; and, in order to payback to the Exchequer that amount which was to be advanced in the first instance, the first thing the Government were to do, was to lay hands on £1,000,000 of the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Member propose to move any Amendment?
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: No, Sir.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDcontinued: It was absolutely essential, he thought, that the Members of the Committee should have the history of these transactions before them, to understand the clause under discussion. The first thing, as he was saying, was to lay hands on £1,000,000 belonging to the Suitors' Fee Fund in the Court of Chancery; and, in consideration of that, suitors in Chancery were to be released, for all time, from the necessity of contributing to the fees for the rent of the Court. This was the first thing the Bill sought to violate; because, notwithstanding in consideration of having got that £1,000,000, suitors were to be relieved in future from all contributions to the Court, this Bill proposed to get rid of that, and, in future, all suitors in the Courts of Justice were to pay, whether they were on one side of the Court, or on the other; because, as an incident in the changes which put all the Courts together, suitors were to be deprived of the benefit of that provision. Then, the next provision was a very remarkable one indeed. The rent was assumed to be a proper charge—that was to say, suitors ought, when they came to have justice done, to pay rent for the building in which justice was administered. That seemed a strange notion; but that lay at the root of the Bill. People were actually to be called on to pay, as suitors, for the rent of the Court in which justice was administered. The legal authorities had, it might be said unknown to Parliament, gradually acquired the right to fix fees in the Courts for certain things

    1189
    done therein; what they were he would describe in a moment. They were, by the 3rd section, to have the power to raise £17,500 as rent, which was assumed to be the rent of the Courts; and then, by the 4th section which followed, and which must be read with the 3rd, to be able to understand fully the operation of the latter, as the average of the fees taken increased or decreased to the amount of £10,000, then the fees were to be raised or decreased, in proportion as they fell short of, or exceeded, that amount; so that it was to be treated as a sort of commercial concern. If the rent of the Courts of Justice could not be raised by fees then existing; then, providing they fell short to the amount of £10,000, it was obligatory on the authorities to raise the fees accordingly. It was upon this clause the judgment of the Committee was asked, and he submitted, both in principle and as a matter of practical justice, it was one of the most extraordinary proposals ever made. The effect he would describe by a few instances; but one of the difficulties of discussing a question of this sort was, that it was very much a question of detail. People who spoke generally of the increase of fees, or the increased expenses of litigation, hardly made any way, unless they brought instances before a competent tribunal, and discussed particular increases, and the effect upon suitors; and that could only be done by an enormous amount of detail, that would fritter away the attention of the Committee. He could only give a few examples to show what the effect had been, and what the effect would be, should the Committee permit this clause to pass. The Committee would remember that he tried to alter certain rules of the Judges, which would remain unalterable, except by Parliament, if for 40 days those rules had lain on the Table of the House. The effect of what had been done was, that certain fees were now fixed; and, by statute, it would be irrevocably fixed, that unless the rent was raised out of the unfortunate suitors, fees might be raised to such an extent as to amount to a complete denial of justice. For example, one of the rules, which it was his misfortune unsuccessfully to contest, had relation to the administration of interrogatories. It was provided that the person demanding an interrogatory
    1190
    should pay into Court £5, as a deposit and guarantee that the power should not be wantonly and vexatiously used. Now, to raise this rent, and as one of the expedients for extorting money from suitors, would the Committee believe that, under the operation of this clause, when a man had paid his £5 deposit, to show his bona fides, he would have to pay £2 10 s. to get it out again, and he would never get back the £2 10 s at all? This was one example. But there were one or two things more startling still in their operation on the poorer class of suitors. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not deny that one of the most useful Acts of Parliament with which they were familiar was the power of challenging the legality of a decision by an appeal to a Superior Court; it had operated usefully in more ways than one. It had always been a protection to poorer suitors, that they had this power of appealing to a Superior Court; and, under the system of fees—the Committee would remember he was dealing only with the question of Court fees—this could be done for 9s.; but, under this clause, unless enough was raised to meet the charge of £ 17,500, the fees might be raised from 9s. to £4. It was impossible to go into all the examples; but these two startling examples would show the effect on suitors least able to afford fees of this description. What possible defence was there for suitors, if those extortionate fees were demanded as a condition of their getting into Chancery at all? They had to pay their own costs— their legal advisers; but this was a tax for the administration of justice on every suitor who went into Chancery. There was one protest which he desired to make, and it was against the hour at which the Committee stage of this Bill was taken. He was very much disappointed that such a discussion as this should have been taken at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. The question, was one which was not alone for lawyers to consider; it was a matter for the public. It was not the least in the world a matter of technicality. They who were lawyers knew all about it, and were able to deal with the facts and put them before the general public; but instead of taking the question at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, when it was almost impossible for them to have

    1191
    their observations disseminated all over the country, they should have brought it on at a reasonable hour. The only conclusion he could come to, from the hour at which the Government had allowed this question to come on, was that they did not want all the facts to be known and publicly debated. He knew it was said that the error which had occurred was owing to previous Acts of Parliament; and he was aware it was argued that the Courts of Justice had been provided partly on the credit of the future suitor. Probably, that error had been committed, and the Bill embodying it had passed without discussion—in fact, he knew it had. But the theory was that the Suitors' Fee Fund should pay a portion of the expense. The estimate had fallen far short of the actual expenditure, so that the sum now due, in round numbers, was £1,000,000. He believed the fees of 1875 were, in themselves, a very serious and a very improper increase on those which had existed before; and if they compared the present fees, with those which existed before 1875, they would find that the increase was simply enormous. So far as the question of Party government was considered, therefore, neither Party was to blame. He thought, however, the Committee should refuse to adopt so monstrous a system of taxation as was proposed in the Bill, and decline altogether to have a measure passed into law for the purpose of hanging round suitors for the next half-century fees of so extravagant an amount.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he need not assure the Committee that he very much regretted the necessity which had compelled the Government to allow this Bill to come on at so late an hour. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just sat down (Sir Hardinge Giffard) know that if it had been arrived at sooner, the Government would have been glad to bring it on, and that nothing but pressure of Business had delayed it to so late an hour. That being the case, he would proceed at once to the single issue raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, fairly enough, that there was no particular blame as between the two Governments. The matter had originated in 1865, when the New Courts of Justice were decided upon, and when it was thought that an
    1192
    expenditure of £1,500,000 would suffice. £1,000,000 had accumulated in the Court of Chancery, and that had been very fairly described by the hon. and Gentleman as public money, though it had come from the suitors. A question as to whether or not that was public money was discussed at the time; but there could be no doubt that it was rightly regarded as public money. That £1,000,000 was devoted to the New Courts; and the residue of £500,000 was to be defrayed, partly by the sale of the materials of the Old Courts of Justice, and partly by a Suitors' Fee, which was to last 50 years. He did not wish to discuss the propriety of that arrangement. The Courts of Justice had cost a great deal more than was originally contemplated, and the matter had come before the late Government in 1879, or probably at an earlier period. In. 1879 the Government presented to the House of Commons a Bill in its essential particulars identical with the present Bill. The Bill recited what the present measure recited—namely, the fact that the cost of the Courts of Justice very much exceeded the estimate; and it then proposed to defray the excess by levying a special rent of court fee which was to be calculated at 6 per cent per annum, for 25 years on the unliquidated balance, which would make the rent of court fee very much higher than was now proposed. He was not charging the late Government with anything, but was merely putting before the Committee the fact that the principle contained in the present Bill was a principle sanctioned by Parliament in 1865, and taken up by the late Government, although their Bill, when it had passed a second reading, had to be abandoned through stress of circumstances. The issue now raised was, whether the principle of the settlement of 1865 should be maintained—that settlement having been to raise the necessary fund by rent of court fee. This Bill merely proposed that the balance required should be raised by rent of court fee. The proposal of the Bill was a composition, and a very considerable composition, because the Treasury were by no means insisting on all they would be entitled to insist on if they adhered strictly to the terms of the agreement of 1865. The unsettled balance was something like £900,000, and the amount the

    1193
    Treasury were going to accept in liquidation of that was an annuity of £17,500, which did not represent two-thirds of the amount. [Mr. INCE: An annuity for how long?] For ever; unless redeemed by surplus fees. It represented, at the outside, £600,000, instead of the £900,000—the unsettled balance. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism of the particular fees imposed, he (Mr. Courtney) confessed himself not prepared to meet the special charges which had been made. The fees were drawn up originally by a committee consisting of experts of great character and ability, well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the Courts, and a committee, he should have thought, hardly liable to err in the direction of charging high or unduly excessive fees. These fees had been approved by the Judges, and were now legally in force, which was a fact hardly appreciated by the Members of the Committee. Fundamentally, the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was whether it was proper to make the suitors in our Courts contribute anything; and, if so, how much, to the expense of the Courts? The principle which had been acted upon hitherto by the Legislature and the Executive Government was this—that the expense of the Courts, other than the salaries of the Judges, should be met by charges levied on the suitors. Those salaries were met by payments out of the general Exchequer; but the expenses of the offices and accommodation of the suitors and Court officials was defrayed by the suitor, which appeared to him to be a very fair and reasonable compromise. He should like, at all events, those who opposed the principle to say what share, if any share, of the cost of the Courts and the expenses of their maintenance should be defrayed by the suitor; or whether they thought that the suitor should be wholly exonerated from all share of the burden thrown on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom? Both in principle and equity, it appeared to him to be desirable that the moderate allocation of the costs of the Court mentioned in this Bill should be defrayed by the suitors. He did not put this forward as a matter originated by Her Majesty's Government, but simply as the carrying out of an arrangement originated in 1865. He was not aware of any circumstances that
    1194
    should induce the House of Commons to depart from the principle the House and Parliament had acted upon 19 years ago, and which had recommended itself to the late Government.
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, that with regard to these fees, he only wished to point out that the sum to be charged was settled by the officials of the Courts, who might be supposed to be interested, or, at any rate, to be anxious to do everything they possibly could to provide the Government with the necessary funds; and it did not seem to him that the suitors were at all adequately represented in the transaction. However, it was not on the question of fees that he wished to speak, but on the principle involved in the clause. The principle was one which most of them would adhere to. In fact, he should not be surprised if the Secretary to the Treasury himself gave his adherence to it—possibly in a modified form. It was that, so far as might be, the administration of justice in this country should be untaxed. The hon. Gentleman referred to the arrangement made in 1865. The principal reason the clause was opposed — the clause being really an embodiment of the Bill—was that the proposition made was in contravention of the understanding come to in 1865. When this matter was before the House there was considerable discussion, not only in this but the other House of Parliament, as to the propriety of charging suitors with the cost of the administration of justice. The estimated cost of the Courts at that time was £1,500,000, which was raised by the application of certain funds. The charges of 1s. 6d. for each writ issued, and 6s. or 7s. for each probate or letter of administration, were made, and the Attorney General of the day said that charges such as these were infinitesimal, and would operate for only a short period of time. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that they would not be felt by the suitors. On another occasion the charges were referred to as almost imperceptible, and the result was that they were agreed to, both by this and the other House of Parliament. A limited assent was given to the principle, simply because Members believed they were only making a small charge which was really imperceptible, and that might, to some extent, be justifiable. When the Bill was before

    1195
    the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, in introducing it, referred to this matter himself, and said the charge he proposed to put on suitors was of a very trifling character; in fact, he used the phrase "that it was so small that it would be hardly felt by the suitors." Lord Cranworth had objected to anything at all being charged to the suitors for the purpose of building the Courts of Justice, and had said that the tax on litigation was now as high as it could reasonably and properly be made. It was only on the Lord Chancellor reiterating the statement, that the tax was so small as to be hardly perceptible, that it met with an unwilling assent, and was passed by both Houses of Parliament. What was proposed to be done now? Why, it was proposed to increase the fees on the suitors. The measure would put on a diminishing number of suitors, who came to the Royal Courts of Justice, an increased burden of £17,500 a-year. He said a diminishing number of suitors; and in this he was perfectly accurate, for the number of suitors was larger the year before last than last year, and larger last year than this year. The number was decreasing, and would continue to decrease, and the amount that was taken in fees would also decrease. The fees were less last year than the year before, and there was very good reason for this diminution, because a large amount of work was now done in the Country Registries and in the County Courts that, at one time, used to be brought before the Superior Courts. They must reflect, therefore, upon the desirability of placing increased burdens upon the people, who were bound to resort to Her Majesty's Courts in London for the purpose of obtaining justice. It seemed to him it was their duty to endeavour to diminish, as much as possible, the charges levied upon the suitors, rather than the reverse. It was on that ground, therefore, that he thought the principle of the Bill was bad, and in contravention of the understanding come to in 1865. He objected to the Bill as strongly as he could. The Secretary to the Treasury and the Government would say that they had incurred an expenditure of £2,000,000; and the excess of expenditure over the original estimates must be made up some way or other. They contended this was the best mode of raising it; and they probably did so be-
    1196
    cause individual suitors could not personally complain. It was not for hon. Members to say to the Government how they should obtain the money they required; but he would suggest that, when the matter was discussed in 1865, the re was a sum of £3,000,000, which was described as "Suitors' Money," which it was agreed, in the course of the discussion, could not be in any way touched. It was said that, for some reason which was not very obvious, the capital sum could not be touched, though the Government could deal as they chose with the interest that accrued upon it, because the State held the money as bankers. At that time there was a large amount of profit upon that sum; and what he wanted to say was, that if this £3,000,000 was in existence at that time, it should be in existence still. Some of the interest, no doubt, had been used for the purposes of the Government; but there must still remain a large amount, and he would suggest that it should be applied to the purpose of discharging the debt under discussion. That money existed somewhere in the Public Treasury, and the Courts of Justice were perfectly entitled to it, as it was primarily applicable to the reduction of litigation. If the Government had not applied it to that purpose, hon. Members had a perfect right to say that, until they had accounted for it, it was impossible to come upon the unhappy suitors, as they did in 1865, and put upon them a heavy taxation in the shape of fees. But, as he had said before, he did not wish to indicate the source from which the money which was required should necessarily be drawn; he simply mentioned the existence of a certain sum which was available, and asked for a reply from the Government.
    MR. INCEsaid, he had listened to the explanation of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) with great regret, seeing that it had contained no reason whatever for the introduction of the measure other than that something had been done in 1865, the principle of which the hon. Member had not attempted to justify. But the matter did not end there, because what it was now proposed to do was to intensify what was done in 1865—to increase, to a very considerable extent, the charge on the suitor. He should like to remind the Committee of what the Act of 1865 did.

    1197
    It sought to make up the sum of £300,000; but this Bill dealt and proposed to burden the suitor with a sum of over £900,000. The Act of 1865, in the next place, proposed a repayment by means of what were called "Redeemable Annuities," which were not to last more than 50 years, whereas this Bill would make the charge of £17,500 perpetual. [Mr. COURTNEY: No; it will be redeemable.] Yes; but redeemable how? The Lord Chancellor and the authorities who dealt with the fees would have power to increase them or decrease them as they saw fit. They, by increasing the fees, could form a fund to redeem the charge. But the Bill contained no such clause as was contained in the Act of 1865, under which a demand for fees could not last for a longer term than 50 years. In the next place, the former Act kept the Court fees imposed in respect of rent distinguished, so that everyone knew what was being done. Again, under a succeeding Act, which he saw it was proposed by the Schedule of this Bill to repeal, Returns were to be placed before Parliament yearly, showing precisely how these fees had been applied, and what amounts they produced. So that while, in the first place, the Committee was asked to continue the objectionable system of enabling Judges to tax the suitors as they saw fit, they were, in the next place, asked to deprive themselves of any means of knowing what the amount of that taxation was. In addition, to what his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inderwick) had said, there was one other matter which he should like the Committee to bear in mind. The throwing of the charge of £17,500 upon the fees of Court prevented those fees being turned to the very object which his hon. and learned Friend said was the principal object of the fees— namely, the maintenance of Court expenses; and the result was, that the Court, instead of having the money applied to its services, was being crippled in every sort of way. He was told that within the last few weeks the Judges had been deprived of one of their clerks. He knew there were various improvements necessary in the internal arrangements of the wretched rooms forming the New Courts; but, he was bound to say, there appeared to be no money with which to make improvements. Under such circumstances, there was an
    1198
    additional reason why there should be no fresh charge thrown on the Fee Fund. If there was any fresh imposition on the suitors, it should be kept down to the lowest level, and should not be made by judicial officers. He considered that the Fee Fund was already insufficient for the purposes to which it might be turned, and, therefore, it was inexpedient to throw upon it this larger charge.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)did not mean to say anything upon the general question, which was one of old standing; but he wished to say one word in reference to the question of fees. The omission of the clause would not affect the fees, because they would still go on. Attention had been called to one or two matters which, quite apart from the view which might be taken as to the desirability or otherwise of omitting the clause, deserved consideration. For instance, he thought that £2, though it might be a reasonable hearing fee for the Court of Appeal, or for the trial of an action, was an excessive fee in a case stated by magistrates. He thought, too, the filing fee of £1 in such a case was a very serious matter, and that if an alteration were made it would not result in any great loss to the Revenue. He assured the Committee that this and other matters which had been raised should receive attention.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 47; Noes 71: Majority 24. — (Div. List, No. 133.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that after the result of the Division, perhaps the Committee would allow Progess to be reported, and would not be surprised if he made the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Courtney,) —put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL, &c.) (re-committed) BILL.— [BLL 254.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL, &c.) (re-committed) BILL.— [BLL 254.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite in charge of the Bill (Mr. Hibbert) would consent to report Progress immediately, because he (Mr. Warton) had an important Amendment to propose.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton); but he could not assent to report Progress at once.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 9.
    MR. WARTONmoved the omission of the clause.
    Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  REVISION OF JURORS' AND VOTERS' LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  REVISION OF JURORS' AND VOTERS' LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.

    [BILL 124.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Thursday, resolve itself into the said Committee."
    MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) and others, interested in opposing the Bill, had left the House, he supposed, in obedience to a signal that the Bill was not coming on; but himself (Mr. Healy) and others, anxious to assist in passing the Bill, had not been told. Why were certain hon. Members singled out, and given information, while others were left to sit out other Business, waiting to assist the Government with this Bill? It was now to be put off till Thursday; but, of course, not with the slightest notion of going on with it then. Did the Government really mean to pass the Bill or not? It looked singularly like an intention to send the Bill up to the other House in
    1200
    the month of August, giving their Lordships that reason for rejecting it. He shrewdly suspected that the Treasury were responsible for these delays. He did not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, who, he believed, was anxious to see the Bill pass—and it was one of the small number for Ireland that could be passed—but the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), thinking it would involve a few hundred pounds additional expenditure in Ireland, adopted this mode of killing it. Let there be a frank statement when the Bill would be taken, so that hon. Members interested might not be brought down and kept waiting for the Bill night after night.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was present on Friday, when the Bill was postponed, and there were but a few Members in the House; and when an appeal was made to the only Member of the Government present, the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor), he, in a good-natured way, said—"We will set up the Bill directly;" and so it was put down for Monday.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he must add his protest to that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy). They were slipping very near the day of revision, a most important event in relation to Irish politics, and all parties looked forward to the result with great interest. If the Government allowed that day to arrive, without a better revision being made, they would find themselves stranded in great difficulties. Last year, there was great dissatisfaction at the wretched manner in which the Recorder attempted to get through the business, in order to meet the various engagements attached to his position. It was shameful the way in which voters had to fight to get their names on the list. They had to watch day after day; and, if they chanced to be absent when their names were called, they were passed over. Hundreds of men in the county of Dublin had been omitted, owing to the duties that devolved on the Recorder, which he was wholly unable to meet; 1,000 voters, who should have been on the Register, had been deprived of their votes, simply because of the incapacity of this man to meet the engagements of his position. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Soli-

    1201
    citor General for Ireland, who knew the necessity for the Bill, would he press upon the Government the urgency of the measure? Why bring it in at all, if not with the intention of proceeding with it? Were they going to accommodate the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin, who hoped, by blocking the Bill, to retain his position for a while? Only a short time since, the Chief Secretary for Ireland said he did not wish to bring the Bill forward in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member, and it would now appear they were only going to have the Bill when the hon. and gallant Member wished it; and how much the Bill would prejudice his position as Member, Irish Members knew. He would propose, as an Amendment, "That the Bill be taken To-morrow at Two of the clock."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "Thursday," and insert "To-morrow at Two of the clock,"—(Mr. Harrington,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'upon Thursday' stand part of the Question."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had attributed to him (Mr. Courtney) an influence in opposition to the Bill which he did not possess. It was obvious that the simple explanation was that the Franchise Bill was not reached until a late hour, and occupied considerable time; other Business followed in turn, and he felt, at past 2 o'clock, it was too late to go on with the Bill. It was quite open to any hon. Member to ask during the evening if the Bill would be taken. It was now proposed to put it down for to-day; but the only result would be that it would be reached at 10 minutes to 7. If the hon. Member would leave it for Thursday, in all probability the Bill would be taken after the principal Business of that evening was disposed of.
    MR. HEALYthought, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend (Mr. Harrington) would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the Bill would be taken on Thursday. Would the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland say the Bill should be taken then?
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, of course, he would withdraw his Amendment if
    1202
    he saw any probability of the Bill being taken on Thursday; but he should divide on every occasion the Bill was postponed, in order that the public might see how the Bill was treated by the Government.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would consult with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to taking the Bill. Of course, it could not be taken as the first Business on Thursday; but he saw no reason why it should not be taken later.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had no influence in arranging the Business of the House; but he was anxious and ready to go on with the Bill at any time when his Colleagues, who had the management of the order of Business, thought it should be brought on. He would also consult with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Findlater, Mr. T. A. Dickson.)
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 258.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he understood the Bill would be committed, and Amendments inserted pro formâ, and that the Bill would be reprinted and recommitted. On that understanding-, he offered no opposition.
    Bill considered in Committee [Bill 258]; Bill, as amended, to be printed; recommitted for Thursday.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878 (DISTRICTS) BILL.
  (Mr. Hastings, Sir Edmund Lechmere, Lord Moreton, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Duckham.)
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878 (DISTRICTS) BILL.

    [BILL 253.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HASTINGSsaid, he believed there was no opposition in any quarter to the Bill. Its object was simply to give to Quarter Sessions the same power as to detached or semi-detached portions of their counties, in regard to cattle disease, that they had possessed for a quarter of a century with regard to police.

    1203
    The names of five county Members were on the back of the Bill, and county Members, he believed, were unanimous in supporting it.
    Bill read a second time, and committed, for Thursday.

  TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS BILL.
  (Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Henry Allen, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Ince, Mr. Elton.)
  TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS BILL.

    [BILL 255.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. TOMLINSON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he believed there was no opposition to the Bill, and its object was well understood.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must ask the hon. Member to adjourn the debate. He did not now oppose the Bill; but it must be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown for examination. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Courtney,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Friday.

  LICENSING ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 248.]
  (Mr. Arthur Arnold, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Armitage.)
  LICENSING ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 248.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he believed there was no opposition to the Bill. Its object was a simple one. It was, in cases where a licence was illegally withheld, to make a copy of the licence available in cases of application for transfer of licence, as in cases where it was an application for a licence.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— National Debt (Conversion of Stock) (145); Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) * (146).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4)* (119); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9)* (120); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 10)* (121); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) * (122); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) * (123); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Waterworks)* (124); Fisheries (Ireland)* (77).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 15]; Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 14]; Bankruptcy Frauds and Disabilities (Scotland) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 16]; Metropolitan Police [47 & 48 Vict. c. 17]; Gas Provisional Orders [47 & 48 Vict. c. xxxix]; Land Drainage Provisional Orders 47 & 48 Vict. c. xl]; Water Provisional Orders [47 & 48 Vict. c. xl]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. xlii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) [47 & 48 Vict. c. xliii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. xliv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) [47 & 48 Vict. c. xlv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) [47 & 48 1 Vict. c. xlvi]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) [47 & 48 Vict. c. xlvii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) [47 & 48 Vict. c. xlviii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 8) [47 &

1043
48 Vict. c. xlix]; Commons Regulation Provisional Order [47 & amp; 48 Vict. c. 1]; Gas Provisional Orders (No. 2) [47 & amp; 48 Vict. c. li].

EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of fulfilling the promise made on my behalf last week. Your Lordships are already aware that in consequence of the bad state of Egyptian finance, owing to the burning of Alexandria by the troops of Arabi, owing to the cholera, and to the great expense in the Soudan, aggravated by the fall in the price of almost everything which Egypt produces, Her Majesty's Government came to the opinion that it was absolutely necessary to change the Law of Liquidation. They proposed to the Powers to meet in Conference to consider what should be done in regard to that change. Your Lordships are aware that Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia accepted the invitations. Prance accepted the invitation in principle, but desired to have an exchange of views before formally acceding to the proposal. I will now state to your Lordships what is the result of that exchange of views. I am afraid that it will be rather wearisome to your Lordships; but I think that the best way that I can state the result is to read to your Lordships two despatches that are to be found in the Papers that we are presenting to-night. On June 15, M. Waddington sent to us a despatch of which the following is a translation: —
  "London, June 15, 1884.
  "M. le Comte,—In our interview of yesterday we arrived at a complete agreement on all the preliminary questions raised by the proposal contained in your Excellency's circular despatch, dated the 19th of April last. The moment has therefore arrived to record in writing the terms of this agreement. In his despatch of the 29th of April, of which a copy was delivered to you by Count d'Aubigny, M. Ferry, after accepting- in principle the proposal of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, added the following considerations:—'The very character of this proposal indicates that the modifications upon which the Powers will have to deliberate involve the examination of certain questions connected with the Law of Liquidation which it is impossible not to take into account. Hence the French Government hopes that the Ministers of the Queen will not refuse to allow of these questions being made the object of a preliminary exchange of views, which is indispensable in order to determine accurately the mandate of the Conference and to insure the (successful) result of its labours.' The ex-
  1044
  change of views proposed by M. Ferry having been accepted by your Lordship, I hastened in our first interview on this subject on the 2nd of May clearly to determine the ground which the Government of the Republic intended to take as their standpoint from the commencement of our negotiations. It was of importance, in the first place, to remove two ideas, two prejudices, widely spread in the English Press, relative to the re-establishment of the condominium and to the alleged military projects of France in Egypt. Consequently I declared to you that the French Government had no idea whatsoever of furthering the re-establishment of the Anglo-French Control in Egypt. No doubt we retain the conviction that this control produced, while it lasted, good and salutary effects, and that under its influence Egypt was tranquil and its finances prosperous. But we are fully aware of the reasons which at the present time necessitate the rejection of any idea of a return to a system which events have overthrown. The condominium is dead, and we have no idea of rescusitating it. It is solely from the point of view of the collective interests of Europe, and of the share therein which we legitimately represent, that we shall henceforth consider Egyptian affairs. The other misunderstanding which it was expedient to remove had reference to the intention which English opinion has often attributed to us to substitute a French occupation for the English occupation at the date of the recall of their troops by the Government of Her Majesty. I declared to you that the Government of the Republic was ready to give the most formal engagements on this point. This determination was inspired by the confidence we have that Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate on their side to confirm distinctly the solemn declarations made by them on repeated occasions that they would do nothing to prejudice in any way the international situation in Egypt secured by the treaties and firmans, and would evacuate the country when order should be re-established. There would thus be, as it were, between the two Governments a synallagmatic engagement, embracing on the part of England a provision for evacuation at a fixed period, which could not be prolonged without a fresh consultation of the Powers, and on the part of France a formal engagement not to proceed, in any case, to an armed intervention in the Delta of the Nile without a previous understanding with England. After explaining the views of my Government on these two very important points, I pointed out to your Lordship that it would be just to stipulate in the interest of the creditors of Egypt, from whom you were going, perhaps, to demand great sacrifices, for certain guarantees calculated to insure the good management of Egyptian finance, and to prevent disorder in the administration, which might speedily bring about fresh embarrassments. Moreover, the future and the prosperity of the whole of Egypt depend on the wise and upright management of its finances, and the precautions which may be adopted for this object will be a source of strength for its government and, at the same time, a check upon it. You thought that it would be possible to find these guarantees in the extension of the attributions and power of the Commission of the Debt; an institution

  1045
  which has already worked for several years to the general satisfaction, and on which the principal Powers interested have each a representative. I replied that such was also the idea of the French Government. While taking note of my declarations, you were good enough to add that you were authorized by Mr. Gladstone and by your colleagues to tell me that they were very sensible of the friendly manner in which the communication had been made on our side; that they appreciated the disinterested character of the assurances which I had been charged to give you; and that they shared with the Government of the Republic the conviction that the good administration of Egypt was an object of general interest for Europe. In the interviews which followed, you, in your turn, developed the views of Her Majesty's Government, and you explained in concert with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what manner and to what degree you thought it possible to meet the views of the French Government. I now beg you, therefore, to be good enough yourself to draw up in their definitive shape the proposals which you addressed to me in the name of your Government.
  "Accept, &c.,
  (Signed) "WADDINGTON."
  My answer was sent on the next day—
  "Foreign Office, June 16, 1884.
  "M. 1'Ambassadeur,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 15th instant, relative to the preliminary understanding desired by your Government before accepting the proposal of a Conference to discuss the financial position of Egypt. Your Excellency states in that note the assurances and explanations which your Government are ready to give with regard to Egypt, and you request to be informed of the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the questions thus raised. Her Majesty's Government appreciate the importance of the declarations made by your Excellency on behalf of the French Government. The formal abandonment of any idea of re-establishing the condominium, and the assurances for the future that French troops would not enter Egypt without the consent of this country, have rendered practicable and greatly facilitated a full and frank exchange of views. Her Majesty's Government are glad to find that the two Governments are agreed as to the interests which Europe has in the good government and prosperity of Egypt. Nothing shows more clearly the views of Her Majesty's Government on that point than the circular which I addressed to Her Majesty's Representatives at the Courts of the Great Powers on the 3rd of January, 1883. That despatch was written three months after the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir had enabled the British forces to enter into occupation of Egypt. It was submitted to the Parliament of this country, and was communicated to the Powers and to the Sublime Porto. It met with general acquiescence. In it the statement was made that Her Majesty's Government were desirous of withdrawing the British forces as soon as the state of the country and the organization of proper means for the maintenance of
  1046
  the Khedive's authority would admit of it. To that declaration Her Majesty's Government have adhered and still adhere. It was with regret that they found that circumstances interfered with the progress of the measures taken with a view to that withdrawal; and it is equally matter of regret to them to feel that the time is not yet come when, with due regard to peace and order in Egypt, the English force could be taken away. There is some difficulty in stating a fixed date for such withdrawal, inasmuch as any period so stated may prove in the event to be too long or too short. But Her Majesty's Government, in order to remove any doubt of their policy in this matter, and in view of the declarations made by France, are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk of peace and order. They believe that there ought to be a reasonable hope of establishing during a period of three years and a-half the necessary guarantees for an order of things in Egypt which shall be satisfactory. But if this, unfortunately, should prove not to be the case, and if the British Government were then of opinion that some prolongation of the occupation would be necessary, it is not to be supposed that the European Powers would join in objecting to a measure required by the safety of Egypt, an interest which is common in different degrees to all. Her Majesty's Government readily acknowledge the importance for the well-being of Egypt that her finances should be managed in a sound and economical manner. It was for this purpose that in 1876 the Anglo-French Control was originally established. The Goschen-Joubert arrangement gave to the English Controller of Receipts a preponderating position over that of the French Controller, whose duty it was to audit the accounts of the Treasury; but on both of the Controllers important administrative functions were conferred. The Dual Control, as finally instituted in 1879, differed in two important points from the original Control of 1876. The English Controller was no longer intrusted with duties of a more important nature than those performed by his French colleague, and although the powers of investigation conferred on these two officers were limited to financial matters, at the same time the fact that they had a right to be present at the meeting of the Council of Ministers virtually gave to them the right of interference in all questions connected with the administration of the country. They were no longer, as before, purely financial officers. Important political functions were conferred on them. It is unnecessary to dwell on the advantages or the disadvantages and dangers of this system which has now been formally abandoned by the French as well as by the Egyptian and British Governments. It will be readily acknowledged that as long as Great Britain has to bear the burden and responsibility of the military occupation of Egypt it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to admit such interference with either the administration or the political government of that country as was allotted to the Anglo-French Control under either of the above arrangements; and Her Majesty's Government do not think that it would he wise or practical after

  1047
  the withdrawal of the British troops to renew any such system to be worked by a greater or lesser number of foreigners not under the authority of the Egyptian Government. But Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would not in any way interfere with the position which England should occupy in Egypt, and that it would he an advantage in itself that a limited extension should be given to the power of the Commission of the Caisse de la Dette Publique. Her Majesty's Government are ready to propose to the Powers that within a year of an alteration of the Law of Liquidation being brought into force the functions of the Caisse de la Dette Publique should be extended in the following manner:—The Commissioners of the Caisse would be consulted when the Budget for each year, commencing with that for 1886, is in course of preparation. The Budget would be based as far as possible on the provisions of the normal Budget, which Her Majesty's Government propose to exhibit to the Conference, due allowance being made for any altered circumstances of the country. The Budget for each year being so prepared, in consultation with the Commissioners, the latter would be empowered to veto during the year any proposed expenditure which would produce an excess on the Budget, except in cases of such emergency involving peril to peace and order. This power of veto would also apply to expenditure under the Budget of 1885, although that Budget would not have been settled in consultation with the Commissioners. After the withdrawal of the British troops the Caisse would have, in addition, the power of revenue inspection, so as to insure that the whole of the revenue really reaches the Treasury instead of being diverted to other purposes on its way. The President of the Caisse would be an Englishman. Her Majesty's Government will, at or before the expiration of the English occupation, propose to the Powers and to the Porte a scheme for the neutralization of Egypt on the basis of the principles applied to Belgium, and will make propositions with regard to the Suez Canal in conformity with those contained in my circular despatch of the 3rd of January, 1883. Her Majesty's Government received with satisfaction your Excellency's statement that these proposals are acceptable to France. I have to add that all the arrangements above described are subject to the satisfactory settlement of the financial arrangements which will be proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Conference.
  "I have, &c.,
  "(Signed) GRANVILLE."
  There is another despatch to M. Waddington. I do not think it necessary to read it to your Lordships, though I am quite ready to do so if your Lordships should wish. It is a despatch which is only a recapitulation of my statement—I admit in a more methodical form—and I think it would be, perhaps, wearisome to your Lordships if I were to read it now; but I am entirely at your Lordships' disposal if you wish
  1048
  me to do so. Your Lordships will remark there are five points raised in this Correspondence. The first is, the formal declaration of the French Government of the abandonment of any idea of reviving the condominium, and the engagement not to send French troops into Egypt, either before our withdrawal or for the future, without the consent of this country. M. Waddington might have gone further, for this principle has certainly been stated in many speeches both in and out of Parliament; and I think the noble Marquess, both in Parliament and certainly in a recent attack on Her Majesty's Government, stated in most distinct terms that a certain Power on our withdrawal would enter Egypt, and that there could be no doubt who that Power would be. Now, although I never thought it certain or even probable that the French would take this very grave step, yet I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that there is such a possibility, and this possibility is one that would create very great difficulties with regard to any plan of evacuation. The noble Marquess's argument might apply just as much to an evacuation 10 or 20 years hence as to an evacuation one or two years hence. This declaration on the part of the French Government removes this difficulty from our acting on our own policy; and this, as I stated in our despatch, greatly facilitates the way for a full and frank interchange of views with the French Government. My Lords, the next question is, that of our having consented to fix a date for the evacuation of Egypt. I think it was the noble Earl opposite who stated the other day that the report was incredible that we should have consented to any such thing, I cannot help remembering that from time to time we have been very much pressed by the opponents of the Government to fix a date for the evacuation, founded upon the idea that it would give us a greater hold upon the country. I think it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that, as far as military occupations of friendly countries are concerned, there always has been an inclination on the part of the occupying Power to seek for reasons for delaying the cessation of the occupation longer than seemed to others to be necessary, and proved to be the case after the result was known. I could mention, seve-

  1049
  ral cases, but I will merely speak of one — namely, when Lord Dufferin and Baron Gros went on a mission to Syria. Ten thousand troops were sent there for six months; but at the end of six months the French Government thought there was danger of disorder occurring if they retired, and they stayed on month after month; and it was only by diplomatic pressure, chiefly on the part of this country, that at last they were withdrawn 10 months after the time. Napoleon III. was then at the zenith of his power; and I am not aware that at that time there was any complaint raised or suggested that by yielding in that manner to a friendly representation from a friendly Power any insult was suffered or any injury was done to the honour or dignity of France. There is one point which I cannot entirely put out of sight. Up to this time the greatest confidence has been shown in the assurances and words of Her Majesty's Government. Austria and Italy have frequently repeated the confidence they felt in the pledges given by us; and the German Government, certainly not in the least jealous of any position we might have in Egypt, yet in the most friendly and useful way, more than once inculcated on the Porte the expediency of trusting to the assurances we had so formally made. When these despatches are discussed, I hope one answer will be given to the following point. Sixteen months ago we were debating in both Houses of Parliament Addresses in reply to the Queen's Speech, and in both Houses the Leaders of the Conservative Party made a complaint so similar that it appears to have been previously concerted—that there was nothing in the Speech to show when the troops were to be withdrawn. Now, if it were so wrong in us not to declare, four months after our occupation, gratuitously and without any condition, the precise date on which we were to leave the country, I cannot see how it can be wrong now for us, in return for such a very important and unusual declaration as that made by the French Government, and that most important proviso which I have read to your Lordships, to fix a date for coming out. My Lords, the next question is, what answer we gave to the not very unnatural question of the French Government as to what security would be given at the time when we were making
  1050
  application to the Powers for the good and economical management of Egyptian finance from the present time. The noble Earl said, the other day, that he who holds the purse-strings directs the policy. I have not a word to say against that maxim. I cannot equally agree with the noble Earl when he went on to say that all systems of financial control and audit have exactly the same effect. In this country the Chancellor of the Exchequer is theoretically omnipotent over the Estimates presented by each Department of the State. Of course, the great check upon him is an appeal to the Cabinet, and the ultima ratio of the resignation of the Head of the Department. Well, there is not the slightest doubt that the Treasury does exercise a very useful influence over the administration of this country by its audit check; but as to the Auditor General, he has not the slightest weight in regard to the policy of the country. What is quite clear is that, between these two extremes, there are to be found checks, wise and useful, in the financial sense, without being an interference with the political and administrative government of the country. Now, my Lords, Sir Evelyn Baring arrived in this country about seven weeks ago. He had long and important conversations with myself and other Members of Her Majesty's Government. One of the first questions was naturally the pressing one of finance; and on this he speaks with great authority, not only as a successful Minister of Finance, but as one who has combined the post of Controller under the dual system and that of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Representative under most difficult circumstances at Cairo. Now, the opinion of Sir Evelyn Baring, given to me before I had any sort of communication with M. Waddington on that question, was that it was very desirable, in the interests of the Egyptians and ourselves, while no interference with politics or administration should be allowed, that the Powers of the Caisse de la Dette Publique should be extended to a certain degree. I do not pretend to understand finance, and I do not intend to speak upon it; but I am assured that the powers given to the Caisse are of a practical character, and I believe that the opportunity of consulting the Commission of the Caisse, although they will have no votes and no power to decide, will

  1051
  strengthen our hands in checking unnecessary expenditure, and that the power of putting a veto on any expenditure in excess of the aggregate amount of the Budget will exercise a strong stimulus in favour of economy, and strengthen our hands in that direction. This does not appear to be an unreasonable amount of security to offer to the Powers who are called upon to agree to some sacrifice on the part of their subjects. It must be remembered, too, that this Commission is not a body entirely foreign to ourselves, for on it we have not only a member, but it is agreed, as far as France is concerned, that that member is to preside over the meetings. There is another subject which your Lordships will perceive that I have noticed in my despatch to M. Waddington, where I made an announcement which is hardly strictly connected with the matter in hand, and on which we received no requests for explanation on the part of the French Government. But we thought it a favourable moment for declaring our views on the subject to the Powers, and it was undoubtedly satisfactory to us to find that France was ready to endorse our opinions, which we also hope will not be unacceptable to others. It was the announcement that it was our intention, not now, and certainly not at the Conference, but either before or at the time of the evacuation, to propose the neutralization of Egypt on the basis of the principles which have been applied to Belgium, and also the adoption of that plan with regard to the Suez Canal which is contained in the Circular of 3rd of January, 1883. I do not think it necessary at this time to go into a discussion of the advantages of the neutralization of Egypt; and, with regard to the Suez Canal, I have only to say that, in the autumn of 1882, a very strong Committee was appointed to consider that question. There were Ministers, Heads of Departments, soldiers, sailors, and engineers on that Committee, and they were unanimously of opinion that the neutralization of the Suez Canal would be a detriment to the interests of this country, while the plan described in the Circular of January 3, 1883, would be of great use. This we recommended, and the Cabinet gave their sanction to it, thinking that it was sound in principle and advantageous to us without being detrimental to others;
  1052
  and it was communicated to the Powers. No objection was made by any Power; and, at all events, a step has been gained by the present formal adhesion of the French to our plan. Your Lordships will also remark that if, as I trust will not be the case, for it would be a great disaster to all concerned—that if we do not arrive in Conference at a satisfactory settlement of the financial question, we shall entirely regain our liberty of action, and we must consider the position in which we shall be placed. My Lords, I can say with truth that this interchange of views has been conducted on both sides in a spirit of conciliation and moderation, and, I believe, at the same time with a due regard to the respective interests of the two countries. I hope it will be found that other Powers do not object to what we have done; and I ground this expectation very much on the fact that the main principle upon which this agreement is based is a cordial acknowledgment that the Powers of Europe have in different degree an interest in the welfare of Egypt. I am afraid it will not be well accepted by those in this country who conscientiously think that a country is not bound by its pledges in an equally binding' manner as an individual is. It will not be pleasing to those who think that the country may take any temporary advantage in regard to them that it may think best for itself. It will not be pleasing to those who really wish for annexation under the disguise of a permanent Protectorate such as we exercise in India over some of the Indian Principalities, and who think such a plan both desirable and easy to carry out. I have been told that what Englishmen have done Englishmen can do, and I agree, within certain limits, to that proposition. I know that Englishmen in the interior of India, separated from Europe and from Europeans, and acting under a despotic Government by whom they are hardly controlled, and not being at all controlled by the Government at home, have, with the help of Native Ministers, very satisfactorily conducted the government of such countries. But I venture to think that the case of Egypt is absolutely dissimilar. Just consider the vicinity of Egypt to Europe, and the very large population of other Nationalities in Egypt, many of them far exceeding the English resi-

  1053
  dents in number. Remember the international institutions that have been established—institutions financial, judicial, industrial, and administrative. He-member that all these populations are most active and zealous in representing what seems to them the principal interests of their particular Nationalities. I do not think it is altogether immaterial to remember that there are newspaper correspondents of almost every nation established there. Remembering these things, I feel that the difficulties of a permanent Protectorate would be great indeed; but I cannot hope that the course which we have pursued in these communications will be acceptable to those who wish for annexation more or less disguised. My Lords, I venture to think that all those who do agree with what has lately been said by an ex-Ambassador with great force as to the immense strength of England over all the world in the perfect confidence felt in that which she has said; who agree with that Conservative Government, who during the great Napoleonic War were in full possession of Egypt and did not keep it; and who agree with Lord Palmerston in his repudiation, and with Lord Beacons-field in his still stronger repudiation, of the idea that the possession of Egypt could be an advantage to this country — I think that those who agree in those opinions, and who besides consider that it is not desirable for this country to give examples to be followed by and to justify others in a policy of encroachment and annexation, will think the course we have pursued has not been injurious to the interests, to the honour, or to the dignity of this country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY; My Lords, we have met to consider a matter of such gravity, and dealing with instruments so complicated in their character, that I should not at a moment's notice venture to express any formal or advised opinion upon the proposals which the noble Earl has laid upon the Table. I will not conceal from your Lordships that at the first blush they do not reassure me. They seem to contain much that is perilous to the interests of this country, and full of menace to the future peace of the world. But before I undertake either to meet some of the arguments which the noble Earl has raised, or to examine the detailed proposals which he has submitted,
  1054
  naturally I should wish to see them in print, and I do so the more because it is evident to me that the language in which the despatch is couched has been very carefully considered and polished again and again. All the difficult points appear to be covered by a studied ambiguity of language, which may be a convenient mode of evading present difficulties, but which will certainly not make the future more peaceful or more secure. There is the burning question of what is to be done supposing that at the end of three years we find the circumstances are not such as to permit of our evacuation. The language of the noble Earl's despatch seems to leave it in doubt by what machinery we are to submit—as I understand we are to submit—our wishes to the Powers, and leaves in doubt this question, Of how many of the Powers must we have the consent in order to justify us in remaining in Egypt? Again, there is that other burning question of the jurisdictions and functions of this new Multiple Control. My noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) said the other night—and it is a matter which anyone who has studied history knows — that he who has the power of the purse has power over the whole, and that our policy must be subordinated to financial considerations. But the language in which the Caisse is authorized or empowered to veto the particular articles of the Budget is again couched in language of studied ambiguity. Studied ambiguity means future controversy, and from that future controversy may spring consequences dangerous to the peace of the world. Again, the whole of this arrangement, so carefully elaborated, evades the main ground on which the whole of the negotiations were undertaken—it does not touch the financial portion, which was the question which led England to approach Foreign Powers. I do not understand on what ground, for the sake of what, for what considerations we have made these promises to France. We have got absolutely nothing: in return. But they are made dependent on the future deliberations of the Powers of Europe, before which proposals as to finance, as to the advances which, we are told, are to be made by England, and as to the limitation to be put upon the interest guaranteed to the foreign bondholders—proposals of which the form and dimensions are at present

  1055
  wholly unknown to us, and do not seem to have been clearly defined to the minds of the negotiators. It is on the reception that these proposals may meet with, not only from France, but from the other Powers of Europe, that will depend whether the whole of the labour of the last three weeks shall not be entirely thrown away, and whether these negotiations shall have any fruit at all. It does not seem to me, in. spite of the toil through which the negotiators have gone, that we have approached, by any perceptible space, to a definite solution of the controversy and discussion which England herself, without, I must say, any very pressing necessity, has brought on. But I will not discuss the matter farther now, and I will close with one question. I will ask the noble Earl whether there are any other engagements between England and France, especially whether there is any undertaking on the part of France to give us any other consideration than that shown in this statement for the concessions made by England?
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that there was no formal engagement between the two countries with respect to financial matters; but that Her Majesty's Government certainly expected a continuance of the same friendly disposition on the part of France.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Have any financial proposals with respect to Egypt, or the limitation of the interest of the Debt, been made by France?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The French Government and ourselves have agreed that it would not be respectful to other Powers that we should discuss financial arrangements preliminary to communication with the Foreign Powers, and their entrance into the Conference.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he had a Question on the Paper which had been answered by the noble Earl—namely, as to whether the Suez Canal was to be neutralized? As far as he could gather from the full but guarded explanation of the noble Earl, much more than this was to be conceded, and Egypt Proper was to be neutralized, and all that England had gained in return was the abolition of the condominium. He understood, however, that this was already dead and gone at the beginning of our occupation, and that the Dual Control was at an end
  1056
  at the time. It was true that France did not openly assent to this; but surely silence in such a matter implied consent? There was another point on which they would be very glad to have some information, and that was as to the loan of £8,000,000, which it was understood on good authority was to be guaranteed by this country to Egypt. He had seen by this morning's French journals that Her Majesty's Government had made proposals to all the Foreign Powers upon the financial affairs of Egypt, and yet Parliament was kept in absolute ignorance of them, and was not, it appeared, to be enlightened upon them until Foreign Governments had been consulted. This was in direct opposition to the pledges given by Her Majesty's Government of giving full information to Parliament, and not merely presenting meagre despatches. As to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, after what had happened he had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would have allowed the question to remain open for further consideration. Here was the highway to India, which might be barred against us at any moment. Independently of so important an Imperial interest in that undertaking, we had very great financial considerations at stake. The £4,000,000 sterling expended in the purchase of the Canal shares now amounted to £10,000,000. As to the Conference, he had understood that the first meeting was to take place on Saturday next. Were the Government to sanction its assembling before Parliament and the country had had an opportunity of considering the Papers which had just been issued? He sincerely hoped that the Government would be able to contradict such a hasty proceeding taking place.
  EARL CAIRNS: I think the noble Earl scarcely apprehended the nature of the Question put by the noble Marquess —so I gather from his answer. What we think it desirable to know is this. We have before us certain terms agreed upon between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France. The noble Earl referred also to several other matters, such as questions of finance. My noble Friend desires to know from the noble Earl whether there are any agreements between the Governments of England and France on this subject of finance? The noble Earl says

  1057
  it would not be courteous to the other Powers to have a discussion of terms not stated or made known to them. I do not wish to enter into the question whether there should be any discussion or not, or whether, having made one arrangement with the cognizance of the other Powers, it would be discourteous to them to make another agreement; but what we do wish to know is this. Will the noble Earl inform us, as a matter of fact, whether there is any agreement, or any other understanding, formal or informal, with the Government of France as to the financial arrangements to which the Government have agreed?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I thought I had made myself clear. There are certainly things about finance submitted to France, such as a change in regard to the Commission of the Caisse; but there is no formal agreement whatever with regard to finance.
  EARL CAIRNS: Is there any informal agreement?
  EARL GRANVILLE: There is no informal agreement.
  EARL CAIRNS: Any engagement?
  EARL GRANVILLE: There is no engagement. There are changes in the Law of Liquidation and in the Caisse. The changes in regard to the Caisse are clearly changes in the Law of Liquidation. But except what appears in the despatch which I have read there is no engagement with France on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is there an understanding as to the lowering of interest?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Noble Lords opposite are trying by a series of Questions to induce me to state what the financial scheme is which we are about to submit to the Conference. That I must firmly decline to do. The answer I have already given is the obvious answer to the Question?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that he thought the noble Earl was acting very discourteously to the House. The question of finance was so intimately mixed up with the Law of Liquidation that a change in the one must necessarily affect the other. He understood that the Government were going to propose a loan of £8,000,000 in order that the interest might be reduced. I think in such a case the House
  1058
  is perfectly justified in asking for assurances.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is, no doubt, a fact that there may be no indiscretion whatever in the Question, but there may be very great indiscretion in the answer.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, it seemed to him that the noble Earl had succeeded in taking England into the Conference with one hand tied behind its back. The noble Earl told them in the beginning of his speech that it was a great point to gain promises from France. He could not help recollecting that the noble Earl had had some experience of the promises of Foreign Powers. There have been some Russian, promises, for instance, which had not been fulfilled; and he did not know that there was any reason to think that the Egyptian promises of France would be kept any better. As far as he could gather, the English troops were to remain in Egypt to secure order in that country for three and a-half years, and at the end of that time Egypt was to be given over to all the harpies of Europe to get as much money out of it as they could. Yet this country was to be bound to abdicate her position. He protested very strongly against an agreement which gave us no security whatever, and which, in the long run, might prove disastrous to this country. The only consolation was that if Her Majesty's Government remained in Office and mismanaged the affairs of Egypt, as they had during the last two or three years, the Powers of Europe would be glad to see them remain there.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: Do the Government say that there has been no formal or informal agreement between this country and France on the question of finance?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The Question has already been put twice by the noble Marquess, and once by the noble and learned Lord opposite, and has been answered.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Will the noble Earl tell us whether the Englishman who is to preside over the Caisse is to have a casting vote? If he has not, I do not see what great advantage has been gained.
  EARL GRANVILLE: We shall certainly propose that he shall have a casting vote, as we consider it as most important.
  EARL STANHOPEasked whether the Conference would meet on Saturday?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am not perfectly certain; but I feel pretty sure that it will do so.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I understand that Her Majesty's Government have submitted the terms of their agreement with the French Government to various Powers of Europe, and that these terms will not be submitted to Parliament until they have received the replies of the Powers. I wish to ask whether any replies have been received from the Powers with regard to that agreement; and, if so, from what Powers?
  EARL GRANVILLE: We have had some communications from Austria and Italy on the subject; but no final reply has been received.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 77.)
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 77.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the subject was one of considerable importance to Ireland. At the time of the famine in 1822 a sum of £8,000 was invested in the Three-and-a-Half per Cents for the benefit of the Irish people. To that sum was added £5,000 sent from London, and subscriptions amounting to £2,000, making a total of £ 15,000. The money was invested for the purpose of encouraging coast fishery and the manufacture of linen and worsted for the peasantry. In time it was found that the manufacture of linen and worsted had to be abandoned, and the whole of the fund was then applied to the improvement of the fisheries of Ireland. The Trustees of the fund, believing that the Government could administer the money better than they were able to, came to the conclusion in 1879 to hand over the fund to the Board of Works. They proposed that the money should be administered in the same manner as the Reproductive Loan Fund, which had been doing much good in Ireland. That Reproductive Loan Fund, curiously enough, was the outcome of another Famine Relief Fund, and it applied to certain counties; but it did not apply to Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, Dublin,
  1060
  Louth, Down, Antrim, and Donegal. He, therefore, asked their Lordships to approve of the transfer of the fund of 1822 to the Board of Works, in order that it might be administered for the benefit of the counties he had named. The Government in 1879 could not see their way to take over the money; but they had now, he believed, agreed to do so, and it was for the purpose of transferring the sum from the Trustees to the Board of Works that he asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time. The Trustees suggested that their Secretary, after the transfer had been made, should have the position of a first-class Civil Service clerk; but the Government had declined to give him that position. Under the Bill, however, ample provision would be made for the Secretary, as it was proposed to make him over a sum of £500. The expenses in connection with the administration of the fund had been very great. In 1877 the loans granted amounted to £6,367, and the expenses to £743; in 1878, loans, £927, and expenses, £913; in 1879, loans, £2,001, and expenses, £686; in 1880, loans, £2,643, expenses, £611; in 1881, loans, £2,224, and expenses, £748; and in 1882 the expenses reached the enormous sum of £917, while the loans were only £4,125. The expenses during the seven years amounted to 25 per cent of the loans made. Such a state of things showed the necessity for the transfer. He believed the fund would be administered by the Government at far loss expense. Last year their Lordships agreed to pass a Bill for the improvement of harbours in Ireland, and this Bill proposed to benefit the fishermen by enabling them to get boats and tackle. The fund would be of immense advantage to Ireland, and their Lordships would be doing a great service to a most deserving class of men by reading the Bill a second time. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." — (The Marquess of Waterford.)
  In reply to Lord HARLECH,
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the Reproductive Loan Fund applied to certain counties, and the fund with which the Bill dealt applied to the counties which he had named. He did not propose to interfere with the Reproductive Loan Fund.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (PARK RAILWAY AND PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, now that the Preamble of the Parks Bill had not been proved, what course they intended to take respecting the improvement of Parliament Street? He hoped the Government would inform the House whether they proposed to take any action in the matter, or whether they had decided to wait for some private Company to come forward and carry out a great Metropolitan improvement.
  LORD SUDELEY: In reply to the noble Lord, I have to say that since the Preamble of the Parks Bill was thrown out, sufficient time has not elapsed to enable the Government to come to any decision as to what further steps should be taken in order to have the widening of Parliament Street carried out. It is perfectly clear that it is an improvement which must be made sooner or later; but while the Government are willing to afford every facility, and will take care that for the present none of their land on the Great George Street site is disposed of facing the street, they look upon it as purely of the nature of a Metropolitan improvement. Last autumn the First Commissioner of Works endeavoured to persuade the Metropolitan Board of Works to undertake the duty, and on behalf of the Government offered every facility for the sale of land on the Great George Street site, so that by setting back the street and obtaining new frontages the outlay would be recouped. The Metropolitan Board of Works did not then see their way to carry out the proposal; but it is possible they may now reconsider it. The noble Lord has made some very sarcastic remarks to the effect that the Office of Works were doing absolutely nothing. He must, I think, have forgotten the considerable improvements which have been already carried out, and the fact that the new War Office and new Admiralty are about to be erected. The nine competitors, whose plans were selected out of those of 129 competitors, have sent in their detailed
  1062
  plans for final competition; and it is hoped that before very long a commencement will be made in the erection of these buildings. The noble Lord must remember that he was Chairman of a Committee on this subject some years ago, and that after sitting some time, so great were their difficulties that they were unable to make any definite recommendation, and very little was carried out for four or five years afterwards. As regards Westminster Hall, the First Commissioner has already obtained the plans from the architect he consulted; and he hopes to make a statement on the subject before the close of the Session.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—YEOMANRY RIOTS AT LICHFIELD.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD, who had the following Notice on the Paper: —
  "To ask the Under Secretary of State for the War Department for information respecting the court of inquiry held in Lichfield to inquire into certain proceedings connected with the yeomanry in that city; particularly as to the constitution of the court and the matters to which the inquiry extended,"
  said, that after the announcement made in "another place "of the intention to hold a further inquiry into the matter, and being privately informed that a Commission to conduct that inquiry would meet on the following day, he thought it would be more courteous to all parties concerned to postpone the Question. He earnestly trusted the result of the inquiry would be such as to render his Question altogether unnecessary.

PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND) — NATIONALIST AND LOYALIST MEETINGS IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BRABOURNErose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in prohibiting the meetings in the North of Ireland of persons desiring to protest against the alleged disloyal sentiments of the so-called Nationalist Party, the Government desired it to be understood that such persons should rather meet at the same time and place as the Nationalists, move Amendments to their Resolutions, and test the real opinions of the people, or whether they simply

  1063
  wished it to be made known that to hold Loyalist opinions was henceforth to be a disqualification for the exercise of the ordinary rights of citizenship in Ireland? The noble Lord said he understood from private as well as from public sources that the excitement and irritation among the loyal population of Ulster could hardly be exaggerated. They had been restrained from overt action by wise and prudent advice; and it was infinitely to their credit and honour that during the recent visit of the Lord Lieutenant to Belfast, although smarting under a sense of intolerable injustice and wrong, inflicted upon them by the Executive Government, they had not allowed their feelings to diminish by one jot or one tittle the respect they felt to be due to the Representative of their Sovereign. Men who could so control themselves deserved the consideration they would receive from this House, even though they had failed to obtain it from the Government. As we were rapidly approaching the period of certain celebrations, which annually assembled the men of Ulster, under conditions sufficiently exciting in themselves, it was desirable, if not imperatively necessary, that there should be some authoritative statement which might explain, and if possible justify, the action of the Government, and allay the excitement that action, had produced. Let their Lordships consider the case as if they were historians dealing with the records of a past age. There was a Party in Ireland which called itself "Nationalist." Some persons might justify the title, whilst others would think that it could only be conferred upon the principle of lucus a non lucendo, and that no Party had done such damage to the nation which it assumed to represent. It was a Party which desired to deprive Ireland of her share in the glory and traditions of the Empire, and to tear her from friendly union with the sister countries of England and Scotland, and it ought to be designated the Party of isolation. The Leaders of this Party were the natural heirs and successors of the Land League, of which the Prime Minister had said that crime dogged its steps with fatal and painful precision, that its Leaders preached the doctrine of public plunder, and that the Party desired to march through rapine to the disintegration, and dismemberment of
  1064
  the Empire. Whether or no this Party was accurately described by the Prime Minister, it was beyond all doubt that at the meetings which it had held in Ireland, language had been held which bordered on sedition, England had been spoken of as an alien country, separation from England had been spoken of as the only panacea for every evil of Ireland, and doctrines were preached which would be tolerated in no other civilized country in the world. Nevertheless, unhappily for Ireland, in three out of the four of her Provinces this Party could with justice claim a majority; but in Ulster loyal principles had taken deep root. Men knew too well the advantages of the connection between the two countries to advocate a separation which could only be injurious to both, and the demagogue and sham patriot found his trade a failure. In vain was the Nationalist net spread in sight of the Ulster bird, although they adopted a different tone from that which they employed in Munster and Connaught, and talked, not of driving the Protestant garrison out, but of freeing the tenant from the yoke of the landlord. The loyalty of Ulster had not even been affected by the legislation of the Government; they, indeed, had forced through a Parliament imperfectly acquainted with its coming results a measure which dislocated the whole framework of society in Ireland, shook the foundations of property, robbed landlords of 25 per cont of the value of their estates, and encouraged every tenant to covet his neighbour's goods. In spite of all this, the landlords and tenants of Ulster remained united by the tie of loyalty in a common bond of union against disloyalty and crime. Ulster stuck in the throat of the so-called Nationalist Party; as long as it remained impregnable, it was impossible to boast that the whole of Ireland was on their side; therefore, it must be gained at all hazards; meetings must be held, with the concomitants of drums and banners, and other incentives to eloquence, so that it might appear to the world that in Ulster also the sympathy of the people was with the Party of isolation. In these circumstances, what were the Loyalists to do? They had, indeed, received advice from one, to whose authority every respect was due. The Prime Minister, speaking at Leeds, and allud-

  1065
  ing to the evils following the Land League, had said—
  "What would happen in this country if schemes of this kind were to go forth, and to become in any degree dangerous to the public peace? Why, what would happen would he this—that vast multitudes of loyal citizens would array themselves in support and in aid of the officers of the law. But no such thing is heard of, unhappily, in Ireland. I hope there will be a change in that respect. I am sure it is necessary."
  Well, the Loyaliats of Ulster acted on that advice, and assembled in support of law and order. The Loyalists called counter-meetings; if both were forbidden the Nationalists would be checkmated; if both were allowed the Nationalist demonstration would not be accepted as the true voice of Ulster. The invasion of Ulster failed; but the Government, some of whose Members had an unhappy sympathy with rebellion, whether in South Africa or Ireland, could not permit the triumph of loyalty, and the meetings of the Loyalists were forbidden. He could not understand the policy of the Government. It would have been intelligible if they had stopped the meetings of both Parties, so as to prevent collisions; or if they had stopped meetings of persons who had previously indulged in language of a seditious character. But the Government permitted and protected the Nationalist meetings, while it stopped the counter-meetings of those who were united in defence of law and order, because they were likely to be inconvenient to the Party of separation and sedition. It was as if a police authority, because there were thieves about, was to shut up and handcuff all the policemen; or as if a shepherd, because he knew a wolf was about to enter the fold, was to chain up all his watch-dogs in their kennel. He could not conceive any course which was more likely to give greater encouragement to disloyalty, and greater discouragement to law and order. The reason he put this Question to the Government was because he thought it ought to be known what they really wished the Loyalists to do. In England there was a recognized manner of dealing with disputed questions. We called public meetings, resolutions and amendments were moved, the opinion of the meeting taken, and people went quietly home. But he (Lord Brabourne) had always understood that this method of
  1066
  proceeding was unsuited to the warmer temperament of the Celtic population. If it were adopted, he was told that moral suasion might degenerate into physical conflict. But this might not be the opinion of the Government, or, being their opinion, they might think the time had come when the relative strength of Parties, moral or physical, had better be tried in open public meeting. It was impossible to know what the Government might think on the holding of public meetings, because their ideas were strange, and their ways were mysterious. But if this was their view of the case, it was only fair that the Loyalists should be told the reason why their separate counter-meetings were discouraged, and, moreover, that they should have the assurance that the military and police would not be called in to protect the preachers of public plunder. If the Loyalists of Ireland were not to meet because they were loyal in support of their principles, and that at a time when their principles were hourly called into question and menaced, then he thought the people of Ireland as well as the people of England would wish to know the reason why. During the last week he had often wondered what would be the answer he should receive. His noble Friend might meet him, as he had met him before, with the polite insinuation that he knew nothing about Ireland. He (Lord Brabourne) would retort by anticipation that it would be well for Ireland if his noble Friend had known less, or, at least, had legislated less, about her. His noble Friend had for years been the trusted adviser of Liberal Governments upon Irish matters. His supposed knowledge of Irish affairs, his high character and abilities, and those amiable qualities which had endeared him to so large a circle of friends, had all combined to give him great influence in directing legislation for Ireland. The courage of the Prime Minister had been supplemented, sustained, and supported by the knowledge of his noble Friend, and so it had come about that these two men, each with the best possible intentions, had brought legislative evils upon Ireland which it would take, centuries to undo. Then his noble Friend might take refuge beneath Lord Spencer's mantle, and complain that he (Lord Brabourne) was attacking his adminis-

  1067
  tration of Irish affairs. On the contrary, he gave the greatest credit to Lord Spencer's general conduct of affairs. He gave him so much credit that he did not believe that this particular act was of Lord Spencer's own conception and suggestion. But if men kept bad company they sometimes suffered for it, and the general excellence of Lord Spencer's administration must not deter thorn from the criticism of a particular error. Anyhow, he (Lord Brabourne) hoped his noble Friend would not attempt to answer him by eloquent platitudes upon the right of public meeting. The right of public meeting was, doubtless, a valuable right; but in what sense was it valuable if in any given district they only allowed people to assemble who were of one particular opinion? In that case, it was not so much a right which, they were conferring or allowing in these people as it was a wrong to all the other people in the district, who might hold different views, who might be in a large majority, and whom they thus compelled to allow a false impression to go abroad as to the feelings of their locality. And how were they to prevent Loyalists from attending and overpowering the seditious meetings which they were so anxious to protect? Were the people of Ulster to go about labelled? Were Loyalists to be earmarked, so that the watchful myrmidons of the law might be sure that no one who was not an enemy of the law might attend the law-protected meetings at which the law was to be denounced? The thing would really be laughable if it were not so deplorably serious in its nature. He thought the time had come when the Government ought to speak out on this matter. He hoped they would not use any language indicating a distinction between the Catholic and the Protestant party. Catholics, qua Catholics, were as loyal as Protestants. There was nothing whatever of a religious difference in this matter. A great portion of Ireland was, unfortunately, divided into two camps, the Loyalists and those who were not loyal. The people of Ireland understood that very well, and the people of England were beginning to understand it too. He should be sorry if Her Majesty's Government were the last to appreciate that fact. They had arrived at a time when loyalty and loyal men ought to be supported; and if the Government did not take this view the
  1068
  more openly they declared their opinion the better.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, as a resident landlord in Ulster, he begged their Lordships' permission to say a few words on the subject now before the House. He thought it could hardly be denied that the Loyalists of Ulster had received great provocation and unjust treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government during; the last three years. Meetings had been held in various parts of the Province, under the auspices of the Land League at first, and latterly presided over by persons calling themselves "Nationalists," which had propounded the doctrines of Repeal of the Union and abolition of the landlord class. These meetings were not taken very much notice of at first by the "persons described as Orangemen and Loyalists"—to use the words of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation—beyond certain remonstrances on behalf of some of the local magistrates in the districts where they were announced to be held. In January, 1881, some of the local magistrates at Downpatrick and its vicinity distinctly called the attention of the then Chief Secretary to some of the resolutions which were to be moved at a meeting to be held at that place, presided over by that eloquent, but unprincipled man, Michael Davitt, and which they considered of a revolutionary character. The only reply vouchsafed to their remonstrance was, that the Executive would take care that there should be no breach of the peace. No breach of the peace had been anticipated; but that which was feared did, to a certain extent, take place—namely, the people's minds were disturbed and poisoned by the doctrines enunciated at that meeting; and, in his opinion, a great change came over the tenantry in that part of the country from that date. The happy relationship which had hitherto existed between landlord and tenant assumed a different form, and a spirit of dissatisfaction had been introduced. Since that period several meetings in Ulster had been announced of a seditious character, and they were only prevented by counter-meetings organized by the Orangemen and Loyalists, when both meetings had been prohibited; in fact, the Orangemen and Loyalists had been the means of doing that which the Government ought to have done in the first instance. No-

  1069
  body objected to meetings of a legitimate character being held; but these meetings distinctly advocated principles of rebellion and separation from British rule. The last meeting, held at Newry on Sunday, June 1, pretty clearly illustrated the nature of these meetings; and it was not only acknowledged, but encouraged by the action of Her Majesty's Government. He would briefly allude to some of the resolutions which were passed at that meeting—
  "That here exercising one of the first rights of the people, freedom of public meetings and speech, we declare that we owe no thanks, and we give none, to the vacillating, unprincipled Whig Government, which, under the dictation of a pack of Orange landlords and their hired retainers, filched away our rights, and which has now at the eleventh hour, through the action of the men of Newry, been compelled in despair to abandon their unconstitutional conduct and strive to steer 'an even keel.' That self-government is our inalienable right as a nation; and, therefore, in accordance with that ancient and Constitutional right, we claim the privilege of managing Irish affairs by Irishmen on Irish soil, and that no concession short of this shall ever satisfy the demands of the Irish people. That the only hope for the country, as far as the English Parliament are concerned, lies in the active policy of the Irish Parliamentary Party. This policy we endorse, and to that Party we attribute any recent beneficial legislation; and we earnestly trust that at the next election, whether fought under the present or under an extended franchise, the leader of the Irish race, Mr. Parnell, will be supported by an earnest band of loyal, well-trained, and trusted Irishmen. That landlordism as an institution must be rooted out of this country, and that Ireland will not enjoy peace or prosperity until we have the land for the people."
  Now, he asked, was it to be expected that the loyal men of Ulster were to calmly sit still and take no action whatever, while such pernicious seeds were being sown broadcast throughout their loyal and prosperous Province? Surely it must be admitted that great forbearance had been shown by the loyal men of Newry and Belfast during the past three weeks in circumstances of very great excitement and provocation which deserved the greatest praise. Their Lordships could hardly conceive the amount of irritation and excitement which prevailed in the Northern Province when the letter to Lord Arthur Hill had been promulgated. The Loyalists naturally conceived that they were completely thrown over by the action of Her Majesty's Government, and it was only by reason of great exertions on the part of the more moderate Party that
  1070
  the Lord Lieutenant was accorded a respectful reception in Belfast, because it was no easy task to persuade the people that Lord Spencer visited Belfast as the Representative of the Queen, and not in a political capacity. He ventured to hope that the loyal conduct of the Orangemen and Loyalists in Ulster would receive the support and command the sympathies of their brethren on this side of the Channel.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTpointed out that the Lord Lieutenant had not prohibited all meetings. He had prohibited the holding of a second and counter-meeting at the same place as the one previously summoned. The noble Lord had denounced the Land Act; but the Land Act was a distinct recognition of the tenant's property, which was never recognized by law before.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he did not remember the particular circumstances regarding some of the meetings to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord de Ros) had referred; but the noble Lord appeared to be under an incorrect impression as to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government under the Crimes Act. The Lord Lieutenant had not power to prohibit all public meetings. The noble Lord spoke as if he thought that the Lord Lieutenant had an absolute discretion in the matter. The Lord Lieutenant's power in this respect was very carefully limited, even by this Act, which gave such exceptional powers to the Irish Executive. The Lord Lieutenant's power was limited by these words—" To prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe is dangerous to the public peace or public safety." These powers had been cautiously but firmly used. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne) had alluded to the Land Act and the condition of Ulster with regard to it. But he did not seem to have an inkling of the fact that the loyal men of Ulster were those whose minds had been most set upon obtaining the Land Act. The desire of the rest of the tenantry of Ireland for great reforms in their tenure, which he believed had urgently needed reform, was weakened and disguised by the agitation which fixed their minds on political and revolutionary objects. But the men of Ulster, who were attached to the Union,

  1071
  had no revolutionary or political objects. Their whole minds had been set on getting; a reform in the Land Laws. It might be well if the noble Lord grasped that fact. The noble Lord made no allusion to the Lord Lieutenant's letter in which he stilted the policy that he intended to follow in respect to meetings and counter meetings. The noble Lord had apparently not read that letter, which was at the root of the whole matter. That letter was not written in connection with the last meeting at Newry. It was written in consequence of what had happened some time before, and the action taken at Newry was taken in defiance and in the teeth of that letter. A meeting was announced to be held, and immediately a counter-demonstration was summoned. The Lord Lieutenant prohibited both these meetings. But he thought it his duty to cause the letter of the Under Secretary to be written in order to give notice to all parties. He did not resolve to prohibit all meetings; but he arrived at the conclusion that when one Party had called a meeting for a certain day at a certain place it was absolutely impossible that, with any regard to the public peace and safety, a second meeting of the opposite Party could be permitted to be held at that place and hour. The Lord Lieutenant had not forgotten the Rosslea meeting and the statement of Lord Rossmore that it was with the greatest difficulty that he and other magistrates prevented their followers from attacking the other meeting. Nor did he forget what took place at Dromore, when such an attack was made, and when a riot took place which led to the death of an unfortunate young man. The Lord Lieutenant did not forget these things; and he was of opinion that these counter-demonstrations could not be tolerated. The only question, therefore, was whether all public meetings ought to be prohibited. In the mind of the Lord Lieutenant undoubtedly the presumption was always in favour of permitting the holding of public meetings if possible. If the Lord Lieutenant had come to the conclusion that any particular meeting was not to be interfered with, and parties were allowed to take means to bring together a great body of adverse persons to the same place and at the same hour, it was quite evident that the responsible
  1072
  discretion of the Lord Lieutenant was at an end. All that the Lord Lieutenant laid down was that when he had given a decision he would not permit any counter-meeting, no matter what Party that meeting represented, to be held for the purpose of opposing the first meeting. That was the whole of what was con-tamed in the letter written by direction of the Lord Lieutenant; and it was in distinct defiance of that announcement that the second or counter-meeting prohibited the other day was to have taken place. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches seemed to think that the Lord Lieutenant was going to deprive the loyal inhabitants of Ulster of the rights of citizenship. He did not know what the noble Lord's views of the loyalty of the Lord Lieutenant were; but if he wanted any light on the subject he would refer him to a speech just made in Belfast. He did not think his noble Friend would succeed in introducing the passions of Ulster into their Lordships' House. It appeared to him deplorable that loyal men should for a moment put themselves in so false a position as the Orangemen had taken up; and he wag not without hope that they were already beginning to see that it was not a position that could be maintained as against the authority and judgment of the Lord Lieutenant. He thought they had shown pretty plainly, by their recent conduct at Belfast, that excitement had at first exaggerated their ideas upon this subject, and blinded them to the true nature of the Lord Lieutenant's action, and that they would soon come to recognize that Lord Spencer had no other object but that of impartially maintaining law and order in Ireland.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, he must complain of the answer of the noble Lord. He thought the noble Lord had rather burked the main Question of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. As far as he could understand the Question, it was whether, at a public meeting, the Loyalists of Ulster might meet and express their opinions?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): At a counter-meeting. That is the whole point.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, that not a word had been said by the noble Lord who introduced the subject about counter-meetings. If public meeting meant that one side only was to express

  1073
  its opinion, then public meeting was a farce. He reminded their Lordships that the Land League which the Government had prohibited was now flourishing again under the name of the National League. Inroads were made into the Province of Ulster, and the Loyalists of Ulster had resolved to hold counter-meetings, which would cancel and nullify the detestable doctrines of the Land League, and they felt that their Province was still firm and enthusiastic in its allegiance to the Crown and Constitution. Not only had they been free from sedition, but from the crimes and outrages which had disgraced the rest of Ireland. Ulster was the bright spot of Ireland, and during the period that crime stalked throughout the land, Ulster was the only Province which had kept its hands unstained. But what had been the rewards they had received from the Government? The Nationalists had been protected, and the Loyalists had been forbidden to hold counter-meetings. Their meetings were held for Constitutional purposes; but the Nationalist meetings were held to subvert law and order, and to promote sedition and outrage. The situation was a standing insult to the people of Ulster. In order to prolong their precarious life, the present Government had not hesitated to hand over the Loyalists of Ulster to the same system of crime and outrage which now characterized, unfortunately, the other three Provinces of Ireland. They had in this matter adopted a very unwise and mischievous policy, and had thereby raised up feelings of bitterness and animosity in the North of Ireland which might be most dangerous to the safety of the country, and which would certainly remain for many long years, and which would require a Government with a far greater regard for justice and honesty to eradicate.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had heard the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) with regret, not merely because of the matter of it, but on account of the position which he had formerly occupied in Ireland, and on account of the respect in which the noble Duke was justly and generally held, both for his public and private character, and for the moderate line which he had often taken on critical occasions. The noble Duke complained of the answer given by the Lord President to the question of the
  1074
  noble Lord on the Cross Benches, To him, however, the answer that had been given was very intelligible. The question asked was whether the Government, in prohibiting the meetings in the North of Ireland of persons desiring to protest against the alleged disloyal sentiments of the so-called National Party, had certain views? The first answer to that was, that the Government had not prohibited such meetings. The Lord Lieutenant, in the plainest possible words, had distinctly said that their desire had been to permit public meetings to which there was no legal objection; and he had only exercised his power of stopping them when there were no other sufficient means of preserving law and order. That power was conferred upon him by the Act of 1882, which said that he might prohibit any meeting which he had reason to believe would be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety. The Lord Lieutenant also said that in certain circumstances law and order might be threatened by meetings, and that they must then be prohibited; and that such circumstances arose when a counter-demonstration by a Party opposed to those who had called a meeting which the Lord Lieutenant saw no ground for prohibiting was proposed to be held in the same place and on the same day. No one could say that such a mode of holding a counter-demonstration would not have a natural and almost inevitable tendency to a breach of law and order; and, therefore, he could not suppose that the noble Duke was of opinion that such a demonstration ought to be permitted. But the Lord Lieutenant was careful to explain that a counter-demonstration would not be interfered with, provided there were no objection to it on other grounds, if held at a time and place which would not bring hostile bodies into close proximity. If those who called themselves Loyalists, and who, according to his belief, did sincerely intend to be loyal, should hold a meeting to make public their objections to the principles of the so-called Nationalists, and if there should be nothing connected with the meeting indicative of a violation of law and order, the Lord Lieutenant would allow the meeting to be held, and would not allow a counter-demonstration by Nationalists to be held at the same place. Anything more just, fair, and

  1075
  impartial it was impossible to imagine. What another part of the Question of the noble Lord seemed to ignore was, that the Loyalists could hold counter-demonstrations at any proper time and place; it seemed to suggest that the only alternative for them was, either to be silent altogether, or themselves to attend the meeting of their opponents and move resolutions at it. That part of the noble Lord's Question was said not to have been answered; but could anyone suppose it to be seriously intended? He should have thought it clear to everyone who knew anything-either of such matters generally, or of Ireland in particular, that if people who were opposed in views did not wish to break the peace and one another's heads they would not go in great force to the same meeting. Public meetings could hardly be looked upon as calm, deliberative assemblies, governed by such rules as obtained in their Lordships' House. Could such a description be given of them it would be a matter for rejoicing. With respect to the prohibition of the meetings of those who were called Nationalists, the Lord Lieutenant, on whom the responsibility rested, had in each case to determine whether, having regard to the terms of the Act of 1882, they could, or could not, be safely held. First of all, was there anything unlawful announced as the purpose of the meeting? The noble Duke might possibly take ou that subject a different view from the Lord Lieutenant. It was a very grave responsibility to define the precise limits of public discussion on political questions. The Lord Lieutenant had no kind of sympathy with the objects of the Party called Nationalists. He was sure he (the Lord Chancellor) had none, and he doubted whether there was any one of their Lordships who had. But, nevertheless, if no illegal purpose was declared, if the expression of opinions for which no lawyer would say that a man ought to be prosecuted was all the purpose which was announced, then he could not but think that the present Lord Lieutenant judged more correctly than the late Lord Lieutenant when he determined that in acting upon the law of 1882 he would take the legality or illegality of the meetings, not the political opinions likely to be expressed at them, as the test. Then there was the
  1076
  very important question whether a meeting was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Lord Lieutenant thought that when he had sufficient powers to prevent the occurrence of any breach of the peace, either at the meeting itself, or as a consequence of it, it was, generally, his duty to rely on them. The law must be applied impartially to both Parties—not to meetings of Nationalists alone, but also to meetings of Orangemen, where there was any chance of possibility of their loading to disturbance. If the Lord Lieutenant thought that Loyalist meetings were not likely to lead to any breach of the peace he would not prohibit them; and on the same principle and for the same reason he ought not to prohibit other meetings not likely to lead to a In-each of the peace. Taking into consideration the circumstances of Ireland, it was a question whether greater good or harm might be done by permitting the expression oven of objectionable opinions within the limits of the law. If that were permitted to one Party it must be permitted to the other. Their Lordships might possibly think that a different rule should be applied to Ulster from that applicable to the rest of Ireland. But this he must say—that the responsibility rested with the Irish Government and with the Lord Lieutenant as its Head. The present Lord Lieutenant and his administration of Ireland for the last two years had received strong and just approval from their Lordships. The policy which was now questioned was Lord Spencer's policy, and no person could seriously believe that Lord Spencer suffered his own judgment to be overruled by others for political objects. Lord Spencer thought the course he had adopted necessary in the discharge of his duty for the preservation of law and order; and the rest of his conduct, which had been so generally approved by their Lordships, entitled him in this matter also to their confidence and their favourable judgment.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the noble and learned Lord strangely forgot what had been the results of the Nationalist meetings, which had deluged Ireland with crime, and induced Parliament to give extraordinary powers to the Government of which he was a Member. The Prime Minister

  1077
  himself had clearly shown how crime and outrage followed in the footsteps of the meetings of these so called Nationalists. The people of Ulster held their meetings only when invaded by men not belonging to Ulster at all, and whose object was to excite the worst feelings. The Loyalists merely said— "You shall not reduce Ulster to the same condition as you have brought the rest of Ireland." It was easy to say that the policy in question was Lord Spencer's policy. The common belief was that it was adopted to catch votes. The Parnellite Party, by voting against the Government, reduced the Government majority to 26, and directly afterwards Lord Spencer was summoned to a Cabinet Council, where the common belief was that he tried to persuade Her Majesty's Government how injurious to Ireland those Nationalist meetings were, but that he was overruled, and that he went back to Ireland with a mandate from the Cabinet that he was to pursue a different policy.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound not to reveal Cabinet secrets; but I may say that there is not the least particle of foundation for that statement.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEobserved that it was the common belief in Ireland. Of coarse, they must accept the declaration of the noble and learned Lord; but he certainly should have liked to have been present and heard the discussion on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think that the subject had been ever mentioned in the Cabinet.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he could only express his surprise that such an important change of policy had not been taken cognizance of by the Cabinet Council, which he thought ought to bestow a little more attention on matters so serious. It was useless for the Government to hold out Lord Spencer as this, that, and the other. He did not think the noble Lord so immaculate a politician as was commonly supposed. He was a very amiable gentleman; but Irishmen could not forget that he was the Lord Lieutenant who gave his sanction to the first Land Act, and that he was a Member of the Cabinet when the second Land Act was passed, and that he did not support the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) and the late Chief Secretary, who went over to Ireland en-
  1078
  tirely unprejudiced, and yet who were compelled to resign. The Government, in dealing with Ireland, thought too much of the votes they could gain there, and too little of the peace and prosperity of his unfortunate country.
  EARL COWPERsaid, bethought that the conduct of the Orangemen of Belfast was worthy of the greatest applause. He could not agree with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches that they really had a very just grievance; but he knew that they thought they had. He knew also how independent they were. When he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he paid a visit to Belfast, and was received with the utmost loyalty by the Orangemen; and he could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which they conducted themselves. He might take this opportunity to remark that during the time he represented Her Majesty in Ireland the conduct of the landlords of all classes was very creditable considering the unfortunate position in which they were placed. They all knew that the landlords did not approve of the Land Act as much as some of their Lordships did. It was found absolutely necessary to put a stop to the practice adopted by some landlords of endeavouring by indirect means to get rid of tenants who had a certain right to be on the soil. But many landlords felt injured by the Act, and besides this they were reduced almost to starvation by the general strike against rents, and it was only natural that they should find fault with the Government. He was bound to say that although they abused the Government they did not for some time agitate in their own interests. After a while they did come forward in a very creditable manner and organized meetings in support of law and order. There were many most hopeful meetings organized by landlords before he left Ireland. He did not find fault with them for enlisting the services of the Orangemen. The Orangemen were, of course, responsible in former times for a great deal that was objectionable; but in the present day their chief aim and object was to denounce outrages and to maintain law and order. The Nationalists were, under another form, the Land League, and their going to Ulster placed the Government in a difficult position. It was painful to have to chide our friends and protect our enemies; but he was of

  1079
  opinion that no Executive would have been justified in allowing a body of Nationalists and a body of Orangemen to meet under such circumstances side by side, and he should himself have been inclined to stop both meetings; but the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had been well advised not to move a Vote of Censure on the Irish Executive. He certainly, for one, should have opposed such a Vote, on the ground that Lord Spencer must have had reasons for his conduct unknown to the public.
  EARL CAIRNSremarked that up to a certain time Earl Spencer prohibited meetings on both sides when they were announced to be held simultaneously; and he wished very much that that policy had been continued, as it would have given satisfaction in Ireland. He was quite willing to believe that Earl Spencer was placed in a difficult position, and that he acted as he thought best for the country. What he understood by the right of public meeting in this country was the privilege of all who were interested in the subject of the meeting to attend and express their views; but did any sane man think that kind of public meeting could be held in Ireland? Could there be a meeting on a burning question with the free expression of different opinions? The object of a public meeting was not that those who agreed should congratulate each other on their agreement; but it was the expression of divergent views in order to determine those that were predominant. Nothing was more common in the conduct of a movement or agitation in this country than for one Party to challenge another to hold a public meeting, and to test its opinion by resolution or amendment; but it was admitted that such a method of testing public opinion in Ireland was out of the question; if it were adopted there would probably be a free fight at the outset as to who should be chairman, to be renewed on every proposition submitted. Therefore, it was idle to say that these proceedings were in defence of the right of public meeting; they were based on quite a different principle—that of protecting a certain number of individuals who were all agreed, and who did not want any discussion or opposition. As there could not be what we regarded as free and open public meetings, he regretted that the Lord
  1080
  Lieutenant had not taken the course of prohibiting the meetings on both sides.
  THE EARL OF ANNESLEYsaid, he regretted the tone in which the Lord Chancellor had spoken of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Abercorn), whose position and services ought to have protected him from such an attack. He wished to ask the Government what the Loyalists were to do after the reproaches that were hurled at them by the Prime Minister? Were they to be told that it was not lawful for them to take the only step it was in their power to take — namely, to hold opposition meetings?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) seemed to be under an extraordinary misconception as to the general character of public meetings on questions on which there existed any considerable excitement in the public mind; as a rule such meetings were demonstrations on the part of one Party or of the other, and disturbers of the meetings were forcibly ejected. From the argument of the noble and learned Earl it would almost follow that Nationalists could not hold a meeting without Orangemen being present, or Orangemen hold a meeting without Nationalists being present. He could understand a state of things in which it might be necessary to prohibit all meetings; but he entirely denied that you were prohibiting public meetings in the true sense of the word because you would not permit the simultaneous gathering at the same place of Parties who were violently opposed. The answer to the question, What were Orangemen to do? was that there was no prohibition of counter-demonstrations at other times and places, and in conditions not likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The notion was preposterous that because Orange meetings and Nationalist meetings could not be held together, at the same time and place, that, therefore, Orangemen were to be precluded from holding as many independent meetings as they wished.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, there was reason to be grateful to Lord Spencer for the course he had followed up to a certain point; but what he was doing now was to insist on men being heard whose utterances would not be tolerated in England. This was a repetition of the mistake formerly made in permitting too long the disloyal manifestations

  1081
  of the Land League; and on that point he would say that Mr. Gladstone was entirely wrong in saying that there had been no counter-demonstration of Loyalists, for he himself presided over an influential meeting which protested against the illegal character of the Land League meetings. If the Government had stopped that agitation earlier they might have prevented some of the outrages and murders that followed. What the Lord Lieutenant now said to the disloyal agitators was—"No matter how strong may be the language you use, you must be heard." Lord Spencer had said that these men, no matter how disloyal their opinions might be, should be heard. For his own part, he protested against those meetings being held in any part of Ireland, especially when the opinions which were held by those persons forming the meeting were of such a disloyal character.

  UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make better provision for the superannuation of the officers of poor law unions in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 146.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.