Sitting of 5 August 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—Ramsden Estate, and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Manchester Ship Canal, * and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Registration Appeals (Ireland) * [259].
Committee—Police Enfranchisement Extension [219], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Federal Council of Australasia * [165]: Secretary for Scotland* [242], and passed.
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [233]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); East India (Army Pensions Deficiency) * [225].
Withdrawn—Universities (Scotland) * [115]; Factory Acts (Extension to Shops) * [23].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  RAMSDEN ESTATE BILL [Lords] (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 5, which authorized the expenditure of a sum of £50,000 in the purchase of land near Huddersfield, to be settled as part of the Ramsden Estates. He had called the attention of the House to this matter yesterday; and, therefore, it was not necessary that he should trouble it with more than a few words upon the subject now. Hon. Members would be aware that last year the House unanimously adopted a Standing Order, on his Motion, which provided that the Chairman of Ways and Means should, in the case of a Private Estate Bill being brought before Parliament, which involved any extension of the area of settled land, make such Bill the subject of a special Report. In regard to this Bill, the Chairman of Ways and Means had thought proper to make such a Report to the House; and, therefore, having regard to that Report, he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) felt it his duty to raise an objection to the measure, because he conceived that although the terms of the Report were somewhat vague, it was clear, from the fact that a Report had been submitted, that it was considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means to come within the Standing Order. By Clause 5 of the Bill power was given, under the authority of Parliament, to extend the area of land under settlement. There could be no question about that, or the Chairman of Ways and Means would net have felt it his duty to make a Report. Some hon. Members might not agree with the opi-
    1198
    nions he held on the subject; but, to his mind, any facilities that were afforded for the settlement of land were highly objectionable, and an evil which ought to be resisted in the interests of the people at large. He therefore proposed to take a division on the Motion now made, in order that he might emphasize, by all the means in his power, his objection to the settlement of land; and he trusted that he would receive the support of all who were in favour of land reform.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move to re-commit the Bill?
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Yes.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of Clause 5,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)said, he was not surprised that his hon. Friend should have taken the steps he had taken in regard to this Estate Bill, when it was remembered that it was at the instance of his hon. Friend that the Standing Order was passed last year, and that this was the first occasion on which that Standing Order had been put in force. He was not surprised, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should have taken the opportunity of calling attention to this provision of the Bill. But he hoped to be able in a very few words to dissipate all the apprehensions of his hon. Friend, and to show the House that there was no reason whatever why they should adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend, and re-commit the Bill. It was perfectly true, as his hon. Friend said, that the Bill proposed to tie up some land in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, which at present was not in the position of settled land; but his hon. Friend had omitted to state that in this instance the principle in regard to the settlement of laud, to which his hon. Friend had so often called the attention of the House, was not in any way violated by the provisions of the present Bill. The trustees of the Ramsden Estates had power at present to entail and settle certain lands, and to purchase and settle other land in the

    1199
    neighbourhood of the family estate, in the parish of Byram. And what was simply proposed to be done by this Bill was this. A sum of £50,000 had been authorized to be raised under an Act of 1867, and with that money were empowered to purchase land in connection with the Byram Estates. The Bill now before the House simply provided that this sum of £50,000 might be expended in the purchase of land in connection with the Huddersfield, instead of the Byram Estates. The land at Huddersfield did not exceed in any way in area the land which would have been purchased in connection with the Byram property. On the contrary, it was somewhat less, and therefore the area of land tied up under the provisions of the Bill would not in reality be so large as the trustees of the Ramsden Estates were already empowered to purchase at Byram. He sympathized very much with the object of the hon. Member in regard to the settlement of land; but there was one argument used by his hon. Friend, when the Bill was before the House yesterday, which, in his (Sir Arthur Otway's) opinion, was altogether bad. His hon. Friend alleged that as land at Huddersfield was of greater value than land at Byram for building purposes there was a very strong objection to such land being tied up. His answer to that objection was that his hon. Friend was labouring under a delusion, and that the Act already passed authorized the purchase by the trustees of the Ramsden Estates of a certain amount of land to be placed in settlement. The Bill was a Lords Bill, and had come down to him as a Lords Bill, which had not only been passed by a Committee of that House after careful examination, but had also been examined by the Judges. When it came before him, he required evidence as to the examination it had received, and he was told that the Bill had been thoroughly investigated before it received the approval of the Lords' Committee. Therefore, looking at the fact that it involved no extension of area whatever, that it simply enabled a certain sum of money to be expended in connection with one part of Sir John Ramsden's estate, instead of another, and that it had received the approval of a Committee of the House of Lords, and also of the Judges of the land, he asked the House
    1200
    not to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend, but to read the Bill a third time.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the point was simply this. The House was asked to agree to the settlement of land contrary to the view entertained last year, when the Standing Order was passed at the instance of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). It was, no doubt, the fact that the House some years ago allowed the trustees of Sir John Ramsden's estates to buy a certain amount of land in Yorkshire, with a view of bringing it into settlement; but that was before the House had fully considered the matter, and before the Standing Order on the subject was passed. The House was now asked to give to the trustees of the Ramsden Estates the power of buying land and settling it at Huddersfield. That was a matter altogether different, and he would certainly vote against the proposal.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 25: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Holland.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

    EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVEEXMEXT.
    MR. LABOUCHERE, in moving—
    "That this Bill should not be proceeded with until the Government has explained to the House the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt, and the condition under which the recent guaranteed loan was issued."
    said, that although he had not been a very staunch supporter of the late Government with regard to their Egyptian policy he had a general confidence in their administration of affairs, and thought it would compare favourably with that of the present Government. The views of the late Government in respect to Egypt were set forth in The

    1201
    Fortnightly Review, he thought in the year 1878, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and they practically amounted to this—that we should have nothing to do with Egypt. The House had since then been perpetually told that the Egyptian policy of the late Government was one of evacuation, that they were to leave Egypt as soon as possible, but there had always arisen something to prevent their leaving. At one time it was the rising under Arabi, at another it was some particular business in the Soudan, and so on; but the practical outcome of it all was that at the end of four years they were still in Egypt and had a larger army there than when the late Government took Office. There were two pleas put forward for that. The first was that the previous Government had entered into pledges to support the Khedive on the Throne; but he did not think they were bound to support Tewfik against the will of his own subjects. The second plea was that, being in Egypt, they ought to establish a sound Administration there and do something for the Egyptians. Now, it would, he believed, be admitted that the Administration of Egypt was not a whit better than when they went there; it was as rotten and corrupt as ever it was. All that they could say was that they had in some way improved the prisons—that they had, in fact, whitewashed the prisons; but that was hardly a sufficient reason for interfering with the rights of the Egyptians to rule themselves and to establish the form of Government which they preferred. They talked of having set up a Representative Assembly in Egypt; but he was unable to discover whether there really was any such body at all. Certainly the Chamber of Notables seemed not to do anything, nor was its advice ever asked for. There now existed in Egypt a special Oriental despotism tempered by a number of European officials, who did good if they could to Egypt, but who certainly did good to themselves by taking largo salaries. Just before they resigned Office, the late Government entered into a Convention with the European Powers for guaranteeing a loan of £9,000,000 to enable Egypt to pay the bondholders and loan-mongers. He did not see why we should give a guarantee in order that the loan-mongers should not
    1202
    suffer. The present Government, however, when they took Office, found that the Convention had been concluded, and no doubt the situation was a difficult one for them. They had determined to send out to Egypt the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). A Notice of Motion objecting to that proceeding had been given by an hon. Member. If that Motion had been made, he himself should not have voted for it. The Government had a perfect right to send out someone to see what was going on in Egypt and to give them advice; and he did not think they could have chosen a better man than the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, who had been brought up in the Diplomatic Service, and had distinguished himself in various ways in it. The right hon. Gentleman had acted in Bulgaria with great independence of judgment and not as a Party man, and was as good a man as could be sent out. But before Parliament broke up, the House ought to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to his Mission, and what were his instructions. Was the right hon. Member for Portsmouth going to give advice to Her Majesty's Government, and to tell them what their policy in respect to Egypt ought to be; or was he going to carry out any policy for them? For himself, he desired that the situation should not be compromised in any way, and that no fresh pledges should be entered into until the new Parliament met. He did not anticipate that they would withdraw from Egypt before the next Parliament assembled; but the House ought to have some assurance that the intention was to withdraw, to put Egypt under some sort of European guarantee, and to neutralize the country. That appeared to have been the intention of the late Government, although their intentions might have been carried out in rather an extraordinary way. Another point to which he wished to refer was the issue of the loan. A few days ago he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House whether, on assuming Office, he had learnt that it was the intention of the late Government to bring the loan out by tender. The right hon. Gentleman replied that that was the intention of the late Government, but that the present Government had altered that and had brought it out at a specific price.

    1203
    He supposed the reason of that alteration was that Prince Bismarck objected to the loan being brought out by tender, and he did not deny that there were, perhaps, reasons why the Government should yield on that point. It was stated in the Correspondence that Lord Rothschild informed the Government that applications by tender for loans were not known on the Continent. He thought he had a right, to ask why the price at which the loan was issued was so low? He did not blame Lord Rothschild in the least; he was perfectly right to make as good a bargain as he could; but it was somewhat curious that it appeared from the Correspondence that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Daniell, who, they were told, were consulted as to the price, came to the conclusion that 95½ was the price at which the loan should be issued. Why was that not done? Why was it afterwards brought out at 94¾? When the loan was brought out, it immediately went to 3 premium, and on a loan of £9,000,000 that meant no less a sum than £270,000. It was clear that if a loan brought out at 94¾, with the guarantee of the English Government, at once went to 3 premium, in the opinion of investors and bankers it was brought out too low. The House, therefore, had a right to complain that this money was taken from the Egyptians and given to other persons. A portion of it went to Germany and France, and a portion—a much larger portion—of it was distributed in the City of London. The profit on the issue of the loan was large and immediate, and the House ought to know into whoso pocket it went. They all knew the City of London was a thorough Conservative nest, and it appeared to him that one of the objects of bringing out the loan so low was not only that Prince Bismarck and his banker, Mr. Bleichröeder, might have their share of the plunder, but also that the Conservative nest in the City of London might have their share. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that Lord Rothschild only received £500 per £1,000,000 as commission for negotiating the loan. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: And reasonable incidental expenses.] He had at once asked the right hon. Gentleman whether brokerage was included in that sum, and it turned out that there was a brokerage
    1204
    besides incidental expenses, of ¼ per cent, or £22,000 on the whole loan. The house of Rothschilds gave ⅛ per cent brokerage to any broker who obtained applications from his clients; and he could not under stand on what grounds a broker, simply for sending in applications from his client, was to receive ⅛ per cent, unless it was felt that no loan could be brought out in this country when a Conservative Government was in power without giving the Stock Exchange some little sop in order to keep them sweet for the elections. No wonder, under all the circumstances, this loan, as announced by the Conservative organs, was a great success. The origin and source of our trouble in Egypt was loan-mongering, which had now reached a state of things which, in his opinion, constituted a public scandal. He contended that the Government was bound in honour to do for Egypt precisely as they would have done for any other Dependency. What would be said in India if a loan were brought out in this country for India 3 or 4 per cent below the price of Consols, and the market price immediately went up to Consols, all the premiums being distributed among a large number of City people? Any Government would be denounced if they did such a thing; but, simply because the cost was thrown on the wretched fellahs of Egypt, it was considered reasonable that City gentlemen should get as much out of them as they could. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this Bill should not be proceeded with until the Government has explained to the House the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt, and the conditions under which the recent guaranteed loan was issued,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton with regard to the Egyptian Loan, and hoped that some explanation would be forthcoming I from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When people in England first heard of the Mission of Sir Henry Wolff to Egypt

    1205
    they said—"Good heavens! how can the Government want more information?" But he must say that, under the present circumstances, he was inclined to agreed with his hon. Friend that they could not denounce the Government for sending out a man like Sir Henry Wolff to get more information, for hon. Members had for some time been astounded at replies given to their Questions about Egyptian affairs. The Foreign Office, indeed, seemed at the present time to be a blank in regard to what was going on in Egypt. He had asked the Under Secretary as to the autonomous institutions of Egypt, and as to whether, in regard to the loan, the requirements of the Egyptian law had been complied with, whether the Legislative Council had been called together as required, and as to whether the elected Members had really been elected according to law; and the answer of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was that he knew nothing about these matters. The hon. Member for Water ford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) inquired whether the abuses with which the late Government promised to deal were still in existence; and the reply was that the Foreign Office had no information whatever on the subject. This was astounding. What were we paying our agents in Egypt £5,000 or £6,000 a-year for if they gave the Foreign Office no information on such important points as these? He hoped that the Government would insist on obtaining substantial information with regard to what was going on in Egypt. It was certainly very desirable that before the House separated Her Majesty's Government should give some inkling of what their policy in Egypt was to be. He admitted that a fully developed policy in all its details could not at the present moment be expected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that Sir Henry Wolff was not going direct to Egypt, but would proceed first to Constantinople; and he added that Sir Henry Wolff's object in going to Constantinople had something to do with the defence of Egypt. It seemed as if Her Majesty's Government had some idea of calling in the aid of the Sultan for the defence of Egypt. That seemed to be an intelligible policy; whether it was a practicable one might be open to doubt. If that was the policy of the Government, he hoped they would
    1206
    take care that it was carried out in a way which would not work evil. The situation was really so bad that it could not be worse; it was a situation injurious to the country; and he, for one, would welcome almost any plan that would extricate us from our difficulties. Long ago, when we first went to Egypt, he had said that the effect of our going there would be that we should be the best-hated people in Europe by the Egyptians. And that had come to pass. We had piled up loan on loan, and had made no substantial reforms for the benefit of the country. He should be prepared to entertain even the plan of bringing in the Turks, though the moral sense of Europe would revolt against that being done without adequate safeguards for the autonomous institutions of Egypt. He did not object to the Turks as a people; he thought the Turks were an excellent people, and none the worse for being Mahomedans; but the Turkish Government was execrable. If autonomous institutions were given to the Turkish Provinces, it might be possible to give similar institutions to Egypt, and make that country an effective part of the Turkish Empire, employing Turkish troops for the defence of Egypt. But before anything was done in the direction of calling in the Turk the autonomous institutions of Egypt must be made a reality, so that Turkey might not be able to treat Egypt as it had treated Turkish Provinces hitherto. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not adopt the nonsensical view of the Sultan's power as Caliph and head of the Mahomedan religion throughout the world. It might as well be said that the Emperor of Russia was the head of the Christian religion. The present Sultan was inclined to exaggerate his semi-religious personal power, and this was the worst feature of the present Turkish Government. If Her Majesty's Government resolved to make use of the Sultan in Egypt, he should be treated, not as Caliph, but as head of a great political State and of a fine people. The condition of things in Egypt was so bad that almost any change must be for the better. He would not condemn by anticipation anything Her Majesty's Government might do; he believed they were desirous to do their best; they had succeeded to a most arduous task, and he, for one, wished them well.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that this was probably the last opportunity they would have of discussing those Egyptian matters; and as this year would be known as the £100,000,000 Budget year, it was due to the House and the country that it should be fully considered whether the Expenditure had been for the benefit of the people of this country or of any other country. The great bulk of the additional Expenditure had been incurred for slaughter in different parts of the world, or in preparations for slaughter. Some of the Members of the present Parliament would feel that they could not look back upon its proceedings with any great satisfaction. When the Liberal Party came into power it was understood that one of its great doctrines was that henceforth we were to respect the rights of nations, and that the weak nations were to be put on the same footing as the strong. Yet never had so many annexations been made as during the last live years, nor had there ever been a series of more unjust, wicked, cruel, contemptible wars. Whatever might have been the domestic policy of the late Government, their foreign policy seemed to have been nothing less than odious and revolting.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must recall attention to the fact that there was a specific Amendment before the House, which dealt exclusively with the policy of the Government in Egypt and the conditions of the loan. The remarks of the hon. Member were more appropriate to the general question of the third reading of the Bill.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was obliged to the Speaker for calling him back to the right path; but he objected to the whole policy that had given rise to the loan. What was the object of that policy? He supposed it was to uphold the Government of one of the most contemptible despots who had over appeared even in the East. We had brought all this evil upon ourselves by preventing people abroad from making efforts to be as free as we were. If the people of this country desired such a policy, he did not at all object to their paying £100,000,000 or £200,000,000 a-year for it. He trusted the present Government would not follow in the steps of their Predecessors. He would not say that he hoped they would not do worse, because that would be impos-
    1208
    sible; but he hoped they would not be equally bad. In his opinion the Government ought, before the House broke up, to state what was the object of the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff. It was said that he was going to confer with the Sultan. Well, no good could come of that, or of any intrigue to prop up his power. Then Sir H. Drummond 1 Wolff was going to the Khedive. That was to go from bad to worse; and he I could not have two worse counsellors. If Sir H. Drummond Wolff went out I with a definite purpose to do good to the people of Egypt his Mission would not be objected to. Arabi was the man who had the support of public opinion in Egypt, and by his restoration we should do more good to Egypt than had been done by all the battles, and loans, and manœuvres of the last few years.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would like to know whether it was the intention of the Government that some portion of the £4,000,000 of the loan that was to be of immediate application would be given to those who had suffered from the cruel burning of Alexandria? It must be remembered that the destruction of life and property in Alexandria was due to the fact that the late Government neglected to land troops immediately after the bombardment. No time should be lost in reimbursing those unfortunate persons who had been ruined by the action of the Government.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Messrs. Rothschild might not be able to obtain the £1,200,000 they had advanced out of the loan at the price of issue instead of in cash? because, if that was the case, they would be able to make a clear profit of £45,000, besides any previous commission.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course, it is not at all my intention to go back upon the question which was partly raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), although I think I may express, on behalf of the Government, my thanks to the hon. Baronet for the anticipation he has formed that our action in Egypt will not be worse than that of the Government he has supported. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: It cannot be worse.] It would not be at all desirable that we should on this occasion

    1209
    enter into any discussion of the past in Egypt. What I think the House has a fair right to ask for is some general statement such as I am about to make of our views with regard to the future, and especially with regard to the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and some explanation of the circumstances of the issue of the Egyptian Loan. With regard to the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, I was glad to hear the expressions of satisfaction, so far as the personal nature of that appointment is concerned, which have fallen from several hon. Members. I may venture to say, on behalf of the Government, I think there is no one in the country to whom we could look with greater hope for good service in this matter, having regard to the diplomatic abilities which he has displayed, to the experience he possesses, and to the great success which he has achieved in a similar undertaking in Eastern Roumelia. The House will recollect the duty which he undertook in that Province; and anyone who has followed its history will be able to realize how well Sir H. Drummond Wolff performed a very difficult and delicate task, and what great benefits he conferred upon the inhabitants of that country. We may look with great hope, indeed, to the services which my right hon. Friend may be able to render in negotiations with other Powers which are not less concerned than we are in the welfare of Egypt. Sir H. Drummond Wolff will be accredited as a Special Envoy to the Sultan. I hope the House will recognize what I and other Members of Her Majesty's Government have frequently stated in the past—that we fully admit, in the first place, that we have certain obligations with reference to Egypt, which have been increasing almost weekly with every step which has been taken by this country during the past five years in that part of the world, and which entail upon us duties that cannot be neglected in the way the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would wish them to be. Well, in the second place, we also recognize the fact that we do not stand alone in Egypt, but that other Powers besides ourselves have rights and interests there, and that it is not only our duty, but an absolute necessity, for us to endeavour to act in concert with them. Now, there is one Power which has especial rights there
    1210
    —that is, the Porte, which is recognized by the Treaty of Paris, in which all the European Powers concurred, as having sovereign rights over Egypt. Therefore it is that we think it essential to do what we can to secure that which I am afraid has been rather neglected in the past, the goodwill of the Porte in dealing with these affairs. Sir H. Drummond Wolff will, therefore, in the first place, go to Constantinople, and, being accredited as our Special Envoy in matters of this importance and delicacy, it is not in my power to state to the House the precise instructions with which he will be provided. But I may venture to say that the object of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission and of our policy in Egypt is this—to put the Egyptian Government upon a footing, with respect to the external defence of the country, to its finance, and to its internal administration, such as will gradually give security and freedom to its independent action in the future. That is a policy which I hope may recommend itself to this House. I will say nothing about the evacuation of Egypt. I think nothing could be more fatal to the success of our endeavours than to make any promises or references of that kind. We have a great task to perform, and we must endeavour, acting in the spirit I have described, to do that duty to the best of our power. Let me say one word as to the defence of Egypt. The House will, I think, be of opinion that nothing more unsatisfactory than the present conditions under which we have undertaken the defence of part of the Sultan's Dominions in that part of the world—namely, the port of Suakin, can well be conceived. Is it possible for us to enter into any arrangement with the Turkish Power by which, retaining to ourselves all necessary control, we may make such arrangements for the future as may be eventually more satisfactory to the country, and, at the same time, more in accordance with the rights of the Sovereign of that part of the world than those which exist at present? I throw that out as one of the points with which Sir Drummond Wolff will have to deal. Then with regard to matters of internal administration, in which, as we know, the hon. Member for Waterford has taken a great and philanthropic interest. We are as anxious as our Predecessors were to

    1211
    reform the internal administration of Egypt, and to make such changes as may be conducive to the real interests of the country. But we feel that this must be a work of time, and can only be done gradually, though I think it might be done rather more quickly than the progress already made would seem to indicate. The only way in which any progress can be made in this important work is to make it thoroughly well known to the world that we intend to remain in Egypt in order to perform it, and not to talk about immediate or early evacuation. Now, Sir, I think it will be admitted by all who have studied this question that the financial condition of Egypt is the key to the whole situation. How shall we deal with that matter? When we came into Office we found this country bound by the Convention which was practically ratified by the House in the Spring. That Convention provided for a loan of £9,000,000, to be raised on the security of an International Guarantee, for the present settlement, at any rate, of the finances of Egypt. That Convention was an inheritance from our Predecessors. We expressed our opinion as to the policy of it freely at the time. I do not wish to go back to past debates; but I see no reason to recede from the position we then took up. But when we assumed Office it had been accepted by Parliament, and this country was bound by it, and our duty was to do our best to carry it out. What was the position in which we found this matter? We found that, although the Act authorizing the English guarantee was passed in the early Spring, weeks and even months had passed, and no practical step had been taken towards issuing the loan. That was a serious state of affairs. The Government of Egypt was stated by the late Prime Minister, when pressing this Convention upon the consideration of the House, to be in the most imminent danger of bankruptcy. Before Easter we were even refused a few days' delay for the proper consideration of the subject on account of the imminence of that danger. The Egyptian Government was only saved from bankruptcy by monthly advances of a few hundred thousands made by Messrs. Rothschild on no legal security whatever, but simply on the faith of a private note from the late Foreign Secretary. That was not all. The pro-
    1212
    visions of the Convention for taxing the Coupons and suspending the Sinking Fund could not be carried out so long as the loan was not issued. The indemnities to which my right hon. Friend referred could not be paid. There was great distress suffered by those to whom these indemnities were owing, and constant pressure was being brought to bear on the Egyptian Government in order that these indemnities should be paid. I do not think anyone can doubt that the greatest dangers and difficulties must have occurred if the issue of this loan had been longer delayed. Why was it delayed so long? I am sorry that hon. Members are hardly yet in possession of the Correspondence issued by the Foreign Office on this subject. But they will find in No. 81 a despatch from Lord Granville to Sir Edward Malet, dated the 14th May, which shows the last offer made by Her Majesty's late Government to the German Government with reference to the issue of the loan. The question had arisen as to the mode in which the loan should be issued—whether it should be issued, as was probably originally intended, only in London, or whether it should not also be issued in Berlin and Paris; and this is the last proposal made to the German Government on the subject—
    "I have to inform you that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to meet the wishes of Prince Bismarck, as far as possible, regarding the mode of issue of the new Egyptian Loan, and are prepared to propose the following plan to the guaranteeing Powers:—(1.) To offer the whole loan to be tendered for simultaneously in Paris, Berlin, and London in pounds sterling, it being notified that the highest tenders, wherever they may be made, would be accepted to the extent of the required amount, not exceeding £9,000,000. (2.) The tenders to be accompanied by a deposit, which would either be returned in the event of the tender not being accepted, or retained in part payment of the first instalment. (3.) The tenders to be opened simultaneously at the three capitals, and the list of the applications received at Paris and Berlin would be sent by the banks at those places authorized to receive tenders to the Bank of England, the London list being similarly sent to the Paris and Berlin bankers; the Bank of England then to allot the loan to the highest tenderers irrespective of nationality, or the city at which the tenders were received. (4.) The Governments of France and Germany to indicate without delay the bank at which they would wish that tenders should be received (one at each capital), and the Bank of England to be instructed to communicate with them as to details. I have to request your Excellency to

    1213
    submit this plan to Prince Bismarck, unofficially, in the first place, for his concurrence. In the event of his accepting it, Her Majesty's Government will communicate it officially to all the Powers."
    I quite agree with, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that it would have been an advantage to the Egyptian Government if this loan could have been issued by tender rather than at a fixed price; and had it been possible for the loan to have been issued in the London market alone under such conditions as the late Government suggested to the German Government, undoubtedly the issue ought to have been by tender. But what was the reply of the German Government to that proposition? It is contained in No. 98 of the Papers just issued, and is a despatch, dated May 27, from Sir Edward Malet to Earl Granville—
    "Count Hatzfeldt spoke to mc yesterday on the subject of the proposal with regard to the mode of issue of the new Egyptian Loan contained in your Lordship's despatch of the 14th instant. He said that Prince Bismarck had taken advice on the matter, and that it appeared that the method proposed of offering the loan for tender was one unknown in Germany, and the result would not be that which he desired—that is to say, that a portion of the loan should be subscribed for in Germany. The Chancellor was anxious on the subject, because he believed that the Reichstag would not authorize the guarantee of the loan unless Germany had the opportunity of taking part in the subscription, and the proposal which he had put forward was made in the interest of the Convention. Count Hatzfeldt remarked that your Lordship's offer in no way met the wish that Berlin should be added to Paris and London for the payment of the coupon, or that a share of the loan should be issued at Berlin. Count Hatzfeldt added that it would be useless to present the matter to the Reichstag in its present form, and that the Chancellor was only seeking a means to make it acceptable."
    What did that reply really amount to? When the Convention had been agreed to by the Powers, to all appearances Germany was unwilling to be bound by it, and desired to re-open the whole question. What were we to do? We were face to face with the great dangers to which I have alluded. We felt that it was absolutely necessary that the loan should be issued at the earliest moment, and therefore we proposed to the other Powers that it should be issued at a fixed price in London, Paris, and Berlin, in anticipation of ratification by the Parliaments which had not ratified it, and that a statement
    1214
    should be made on behalf of those Powers whose Parliaments had not ratified it that the measure for procuring its ratification should be submitted to them on their re-assembling at the earliest possible moment. That proposition was accepted and the loan was issued. I do not think I need dwell, after what I have read to the House, upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton, that the loan should have been issued by tender. But the hon. Member also found fault with the price fixed for the issue of the loan. Of course, it is a very difficult matter indeed to settle the price of issue of a loan of this character. Any rumour of foreign difficulties might have momentarily disturbed the market, and led to the loan being received in a manner very different from the manner in which it was received. What appeared to us of great importance was that there should be no risk of the loan being a failure. It was not only all-important to meet the financial difficulties to which I have referred, but also to re-establish credit and freedom of enterprize in Egypt itself. Therefore we preferred to err, perhaps, on the safe side, rather than run the risk of failure. I do not hesitate to say that if circumstances had permitted emission by tender a higher price might have been obtained by the Egyptian Government. But I do not think we should have been justified, after consulting the high authorities named in these Papers, in fixing a higher price than 95½. It must be remembered that this loan is really depreciated rather than increased in value by the foreign guarantee. It cannot be considered in the same light as the English Funds or the Stocks of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It is a loan of small amount. It is a loan in which, being issued in bonds payable to bearer, trustees cannot invest; and all these circumstances together make it unreasonable to expect that it would command the same price in the market as our own funds. The hon. Member for Northampton has made some allusions to the gain which he seems to suppose Messrs. Rothschild may derive from the issue of this loan. Of course, reasonable profits must be made by a house which undertakes the issue of a loan involving, no doubt, some risk to themselves. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: What risk?] Surely the

    1215
    issue of a loan does involve some risk. The Egyptian Loan was entrusted to Messrs. Rothschild on commission on the same terms as it would have been entrusted to the Bank of England. It was impossible for them to repay the advance of £1,300,000 which they had made to the Egyptian Government by taking an equivalent amount of Stock firm, at 95½, as by the terms of the Convention of March 18 the first proceeds of the loan were to be devoted to the payment of the Alexandria indemnities; nor was there ever any suggestion of such an arrangement. Then the hon. Member suggested that the Messrs. Rothschild might make money by reserving a large part of this loan for themselves; but the applications for that portion of the loan reserved by agreement for the London market were on such a scale that, in order to make an allotment to the public on principles similar to those which Messrs. Rothschild have always adopted, and which, so far as I know, have given general satisfaction, they will be absolutely unable to retain any large amount of the loan, if any at all.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether Messrs. Rothschild had a right to retain their advances out of the loan at the price of 95?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF EXCHEQUER: No; they could not. Four millions were to go to the payment of these indemnities. I really do not wish to trouble the House with the different details; but we found it to be necessary, in the circumstances I have stated to the House, that this loan should be issued by a house closely allied with the two foreign capitals in which two-thirds of the loan were to be raised. We made arrangements with that house to issue this loan on the terms stated in the Papers. We made the best arrangements in our power with the best advice at our command. It may very likely be that, both with regard to the price of the loan and the sum paid for the issue of the loan, Egypt may be worse off than if we had had a perfectly free hand in the matter. But, bound as we were by the adoption of the principle of an International Guarantee to agree that the Foreign Powers should have a share of the loan, we were obliged to adopt the only arrangement by which this could have been carried
    1216
    into effect. The loan would not have been issued if we had merely adhered to the position taken up by our Predecessors, and the result would have been, eventually, a greater loss to Egypt than anything which can possibly occur from the arrangements which we have made. I must apologize to the House for the length of my statement. I have endeavoured to explain the reasons for our financial action. All I would add is this—that in our policy for the future we shall be guided by the principles which I have stated, in the hope that before long we may effect some real and important improvement in Egypt, now that this financial question has at last been settled to the benefit not only of the creditors of Egypt, to whom the hon. Member alluded, but, what is of infinitely greater importance, to the advantage of the inhabitants of the country.
    MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, he thought the Government had obtained exceedingly good terms in the matter of the loan. Three weeks ago British Consols had touched 94½, another war-scare would send them down to the same figure again. The contractors, therefore, in bringing them out, the Guaranteed Loan at 95 had incurred a real risk; and we, in the present position of foreign affairs, had really obtained a better bargain than could have been expected. Turning to the general question of Egypt, he could observe that this was now a dying Parliament; it was upon its death-bed, and he thought it was appropriate that in its last hours its conscience should be haunted by at least one ghost, one subject of bitter remorse, and that was the fate of Egypt. How splendid had been the opportunity we obtained there three years ago by the battle of Tel-el-Kebir! It was in our power to secure the most commanding position in the world from a political and military and a commercial point of view, a position coveted by some of the greatest nations ancient and modern. It was in our power to show to the world the spectacle of good government, liberty, and prosperity conferred by us upon a country which had been misgoverned, ground down, and plundered for ages. Such a result would have justified our interference there and vindicated our character before the whole civilized world as the champions of liberty, enlightenment, and progress, Instead of that we had

    1217
    bound additional burdens upon the Egyptian people, and their last state was worse than their first. He had not the heart to paint the picture of the actual condition to which we had reduced that unhappy country within three short years. As he had said, this Parliament was on its death-bed. It could not undo the past, but it could insist upon pledges as to the future—pledges from the present Government that they would do their very utmost to make what amends remained possible, and to use their power to reform abuses and establish good government. It was not even now too late. We had been constantly told that the bankrupt condition of Egypt was the reason why certain important reforms could not be proceeded with. That obstacle was now removed, and he had hoped that now at last existing abuses would be redressed; but he was bitterly disappointed at the reply to his Question on Monday. He had hoped that advantage would have been taken of it to declare an earnest intention on the part of the Government to grapple with the Egyptian difficulty with the steadfast purpose of solving it. It was duo to this Parliament, if Her Majesty's Government had such a purpose, to give it the consolation of this parting assurance; but they had had instead a reply of which no one could make head or tail. The right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench had again and again, while in Opposition, twitted the late Administration with concealing their purpose; but their utterances on the subject of Egypt were luminous as compared with those to which we were now treated. We were told that no Papers had been found in the Foreign Office bearing upon the abuses which it had been our business to remedy, and which the honour and good name of England were concerned in reforming. There existed, at all events, the able Report of Lord Dufferin on those abuses, and suggestions for their remedy. Last Session he questioned the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to whether any step had been taken to deal with the abuses of the forced labour system, and was told in reply that reform of those abuses must wait till the financial difficulty was removed. Well, now it was removed; but on appealing for information as to the intentions of the
    1218
    present Cabinet on that and similar subjects they were mocked with vain words. It would be impossible to travel over the whole field of misgovernment and mismanagement of the resources of Egypt; but he would like to point out with regard to that particular one of forced labour that it was not a mere question of the personal sufferings of the victims. It affected the productiveness and prosperity of all Egypt. The cruel waste of life and labour involved in requiring the victims to work without tools, or food, or shelter was a loss, and a very serious loss, to the country. With tools and food the work could be done by one-fourth the number of men, and the remaining three-fourths could be left to attend to their farms. No one who had not personally visited the farms of those Fellaheen who were absent on forced labour duty could have any idea of the loss in production caused by compulsory neglect of irrigation. The yellow blasted look of the crops spoke for themselves. But he must not take up the time of the House, and he could do no more than glance at this one item of misgovernment. But he appealed most earnestly to Her Majesty's Ministers to give now the assurance which they evaded giving the other day. If they did not intend to establish good government in Egypt, then it would be better to withdraw; but if we were now to march out of Egypt and leave it in its present lamentable condition we should deserve the scorn and contempt of the whole civilized world.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have no desire to speak at any length upon the subjects that have been brought forward in this debate, or to criticize in detail the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will only say of the statements that have been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), although they are very severe as a criticism of the late Government, yet they are of so vague and indefinite a character that it would be simply a waste of the time of the House to go into them. It is said that the condition of Egypt could not be worse. That is a statement which it is extremely easy to make, but it is not substantiated by any detailed argument. It may be

    1219
    admitted that the condition of Egypt is not so satisfactory as could be wished in many respects; but I absolutely deny it is so bad that it could not be worse under any circumstances. It might, on the contrary, be a great deal worse. What is the condition of Egypt? I am not aware that the position of Europeans in Egypt is in the slightest degree insecure; their property is safe, and they are pursuing their trades and avocations in safety. Their condition might be much less secure, and they might be far less certain of reaping the fruits of their industry. As to the condition of the people of Egypt, I cannot admit the contentions of my hon. Friends. Do hon. Members suppose there is heavier taxation or more misgovernment than before? Some hon. Members may assume that Arabi was an Egyptian patriot, possessing the confidence of the Egyptian people, and animated by nothing but the highest and most patriotic motives. It is quite competent to them to hold that opinion, and to believe that if we had allowed Arabi to become master of Egypt a better state of things would have been established. But in the opinion of the late Government he was nothing but a military adventurer, and his dominion would have meant insecurity for the life and property of Europeans and of Natives in Egypt. I say that if Arabi had been allowed to pursue his career unchecked a condition of things might have been brought about which would have been infinitely worse than anything which can be said of Egypt now. It is useless to attempt to discuss in detail charges of such a vague character which no attempt is made to substantiate in detail. I have no desire to follow in detail the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no complaint to make of the general statement of policy which he has made with regard to Egypt. I will only say that this statement does not appear to me to be much more precise, or to convey much more information to the House or to the country, than those statements of policy of the late Government which were so frequently and so severely criticized on this side of the House as wanting in accuracy, precision, and definitiveness. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has said that the present Government recognize that we have incurred great obligations in Egypt. He
    1220
    also admits that other Powers have responsibilities and rights in Egypt. These are statements which have been frequently made by the late Government; but they were found to be extremely unsatisfactory, and wanting in precision. I do not know in what respect the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the present Government has in the slightest degree assumed a more definite attitude than the attitude for which the late Government was so much attacked and complained of. I have no objection to the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, provided its character and scope are accurately understood and defined. I agree with all that has been said as to his personal fitness. I believe he has great knowledge of Eastern politics, and the result of his former Mission to Eastern Roumelia was greatly to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman. But I would remind the House that with regard to Egyptian politics Sir H. Drummond Wolff occupies a somewhat peculiar position. He is not only a person possessing great information, but he is also known as a Member of this House who has taken a definite and strong line in regard to Egyptian policy. He has made attacks somewhat exceeding the usual licence of debate, and he has associated himself with those who have not only attacked the policy of the present Khedive, but have also brought severe and grave charges against him. The right hon. Gentleman says that Sir H. Drummond Wolff is going to inquire and report and to advise Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to bring about a more satisfactory state of things in regard to both the external defence and the internal administration of Egypt. But an important part of the internal administration is the position of the Khedive himself. It is not desirable to have it supposed that Sir H. Drummond Wolff has been selected for this Mission on account of the attitude he has taken up towards the Khedive. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is not so.] I am glad the right hon. Gentleman says it is not so; but I think the House will see that something more than silence on this matter is required. Sir H. Drummond Wolff is known in former times to have been a very bitter enemy and a personal opponent of the administration of the Khedive. The Mission of Sir H. Drum-

    1221
    mond Wolff, without an explanation of his present position, is calculated to give rise to that which has always been one source of the difficulty of administration in Egypt—namely, political intrigue. There are intrigues in Constantinople, where he is going, and in Egypt, and in other parts of the East, the object of which is to upset the Khedive and to bring about some other form of government. The Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, without explanation, is calculated, in my opinion, to give encouragement and assistance to all those persons who desire, for personal reasons, to upset the Government of the present Khedive. I believe Lord Salisbury has stated in "another place" the intention of the Government to support the Khedive as he has been supported by us. It would have been desirable, on the present occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman undertook to give us an outline of the character of the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, when he stated that that Mission had relation to the internal administration of Egypt, that he should have said it was no part of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to upset the Government existing in Egypt, or to take any action against it. It is not for me now to defend the Khedive; it may be that events have taken place under his Government which have weakened the position he occupies and have rendered him an unstable Governor. I do not say that, in my opinion, that is the case; but, if it was, it would be the duty of the Government to make up their minds on the subject, and openly to announce to the Khedive and to Europe that his Government was no longer a stable one, and there was no reason why it should be any longer supported. If that is not the case; if it is the opinion of the Government that, in present circumstances, no better Ruler than the Khedive can be found, if it is their opinion we are bound to him by honourable obligations, it seems to me they should have availed themselves of this opportunity to show that the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff has no relation whatever to those former opinions which he has expressed respecting the Khedive, and that it is not their intention to countenance or give support to any underhand intrigues against the Government of Egypt. I will not enter into any discussion upon the subject of
    1222
    the loan. The Government have been in this matter guided by the best motives. It may be that in other circumstances better terms might have been obtained for the Egyptian Government; but I believe that we, in this House, have the most perfect and implicit confidence that questions of stock-jobbing, or of undue favour to any individual, never enter into transactions of this kind, to whatever Party the Government may belong. It is possible that in other circumstances better terms might have been obtained; but I have not the slightest doubt that the Government have done the best they could, and that nothing has been further from their intention than to favour any party whatever.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the explanation which had been asked by the noble Lord with reference to the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff was one which the Government ought to give, and which he could not but suppose they would be glad of the opportunity of giving. He did not wish to go into the past. The resources of bad government in Oriental countries were very great, and it was possible things might have been worse. But there was one matter in which this country felt great interest, and it would be difficult for its position to be worse. He referred to the question of slavery and the Slave Trade. Undoubtedly what had happened in the Soudan had caused a great number of slaves to be taken, and the slave market had been glutted by prisoners captured from the tribes which had been friendly to us. In addition to that there was every reason to believe, and he believed the Foreign Office were in possession of proof of the fact, that the Slave Trade and slavery were connived at by men of high position in Egypt itself. He could not give proofs of this, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was well aware, it would be impossible to produce the proof publicly without greatly endangering those who had furnished it. He did not, however, doubt that Her Majesty's Government would, through their Special Commissioner, see that this matter was carefully looked into. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated as to the earnestness of the Government to secure that the influence of this coun-

    1223
    try in Egypt should have some good effect and that reforms should be undertaken was, on the whole, satisfactory. The reason why he thought it satisfactory was that the present Government seemed to be aware that it was of no use pressing for reforms and immediately afterwards, or at the same time, saying that they intended to get out of Egypt. What did reforms mean, especially in Oriental countries? They must mean very considerable personal inconvenience, if not injury, to those who had thriven on abuses, and they would get no one to effect reforms and carry them out in anything like an effective or honest manner if he was under the belief that in a year or two he would be left to the mercy and revenge of those whom he had enraged by preventing them carrying on abuses. It seemed to him that it was utterly impossible that they could expect to get reforms on such conditions as these. Therefore he was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that the Government considered that if they were to do any good in Egypt there must be a clear understanding that they would see it actually done before they left. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke of negotiations with the Turkish Government with regard to Suakin. The difficulties there were no doubt immense. No one denied that; but he did trust that we should not add to our other disasters in Egypt the disaster of replacing the country, either Suakin or Egypt itself, under Turkish rule. He did hope there was no such intention as that, for he believed that it would be better for us to clear out of the Soudan altogether than to introduce under our sanction and responsibility the Turks as governors. He did not deny that the question was beset with difficulties; but he hoped the House would excuse him for having stated from his present knowledge what really appeared to be true.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE)said, the noble Lord opposite had expressed surprise at the fact that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no definite statement with regard to the support of the Khedive. The only reason why his right hon. Friend made no such statement was that he thought it was entirely unnecessary. The most definite
    1224
    assurances had been given by his noble Friend Lord Salisbury with regard to the support which it was the intention of the Government to give to the Khedive. There was no intention whatever on the part of the Government to withhold that support from the Khedive which he had always had from the British Government. There was one remark which he thought he might make with regard to the Mission of his right hon. Friend Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and that was that he was the one person in this Parliament who had from time to time pressed upon the late Government the importance of giving Parliamentary institutions to Egypt, and his desire to do so was recognized by the Prime Minister in the House. All he could say, in addition, was that the Government had every reason to believe that Sir H. Drummond Wolff would be welcomed by the Khedive in the most cordial manner; and with regard to His Majesty the Sultan, he had the highest authority for saying that the Sultan and the Porte were of opinion that the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff could not but facilitate the bringing about of a better state of things in Egypt, and the Sultan was ready, he believed, to give to his right hon. Friend that welcome which might be expected. He wished now to make one or two remarks with respect to the observations of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart). With regard to the remarks of the former, according to the Organic Law of Egypt, there were three Bodies to be brought into existence—namely, Provincial Councils, the Legislative Assembly, and the General Assembly. Of these three Bodies the only one that had come into being was the Legislative Assembly; and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) contended that it had been illegally constituted, because it was to be partly made up of delegates from the Provincial Councils, which had no existence. All he could say on the subject was that the circumstances which gave rise to the question occurred two years ago, and Her Majesty's present Government were in no way responsible for what took place two years ago. He was told, however, that although the Provinces had not been regularly represented in the Legislative Assembly, yet, at the same time, they

    1225
    had sometimes sent Representatives. There was no information at the Foreign Office on the subject, and therefore he could not go into it further on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) seemed to be disappointed with the answer he had given him as to the question of forced labour. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that these were questions which, no doubt, involved a complete change in the whole system of Egypt; and there was no use in giving expression to the aspirations and hopes of Her Majesty's Government upon them unless they were prepared to do their best to intervene by the suppression of such practices as were now prevalent in that country, and to stand by the persons who might help to put them down. As to the use of the kourbash, the late Government had often been interrogated on the subject, and they said they had reason to believe that its use had very much diminished in Egypt. So long as he himself held his present position, he should endeavour to avoid any answer that would mislead the House. If he had given an answer of the sort he had cited, it might very naturally have been said that the kourbash was not used. He was sorry to say that he could not. He had no doubt that the kourbash was abolished by law in Egypt; and although the late Government were right in saying that it was not used so much, yet he was quite certain that in out-of-the-way Provinces and in places where the present Administration could not reach the kourbash was used. He was not in a position to say that it was possible to abolish its use; they must first find out whether they could do so or not before making a statement to the House with respect to it. Then, as to the Slave Trade, when the present Government were in Office before they made very great strides towards its abolition; but they would have to begin that work all over again, and he had no doubt that the difficulties they would have to contend with now would be far greater than they were at that time; for it had been acknowledged by the late Government and by General Gordon that the abandonment of the Soudan must necessarily give an enormous impetus to the Slave Trade. He had no doubt the late Government took all that into con-
    1226
    sideration when they advised the abandonment of the Soudan. With regard to the loan, he did not think it necessary to add anything to the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he might make two observations. The Four per Cent Guaranteed Loan of 1855 was now at £104 per cent, which was equal to £78 per cent for a 3 per cent loan such as that now being issued. The price of £95½ per cent could not, therefore, be deemed inadequate. It would have been perfectly impossible for the loan to have been issued under the conditions proposed, very properly and very justly, by the late Government, for the result would have been that three different scrips of this loan would have been floating about the world, issued at different prices.
    MR. M'COANsaid, that when he first heard the announcement of the intended Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff he hailed it with hope as the sign of a new departure in our policy towards Egypt. He was well aware not only of the extensive knowledge of Egyptian politics possessed by Sir H. Drummond Wolff, but of his views as to what was a sound and just policy in relation to that country; and he ventured, therefore, to hope that any policy of which Sir H. Drummond Wolff was the active exponent would differ very widely and salutarily from the vacillating no-policy pursued by the late Government in Egypt. Notwithstanding the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the selection of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth as our Envoy to Cairo did not import any departure from the policy of the late Government towards the Khedive Tewfik personally, he still clung to the hope that this new Mission had a weighty and a valuable meaning from which they might augur the best results. He must express his liveliest satisfaction that Sir H. Drummond Wolff had been specially chosen for that work. On neither side of the House could so competent an agent have been selected for it. He would go with a reputation already made in the East; he was a persona grata to the great majority of the Native population of Egypt, and to nearly the whole of the Europeans there; and, whatever might be the personal feelings of the Khedive towards him, he would be welcomed by all classes in Egypt. For himself, he adhered to the

    1227
    notion that there were only two policies which were practically possible for this country in Egypt, although probably neither of thorn was now popular. The first and best of them would be the policy of establishing our direct Protectorate over that country. We had interests, rights, and claims in Egypt that were equalled by those of no other Power in Europe; and he thought that those rights and interests could be upheld and maintained only by our having absolute and paramount authority in that country. To this, he believed, the only alternative was the restoration of the late Khedive. Of all the Governors who had arisen in the East during the present century Ismail was by far the ablest and the strongest. His administration had admittedly been marred by grave defects; he had made great mistakes in regard to finance, and had allowed himself to be led away by loan-mongers and others, who had reaped fortunes out of those mistakes. But during his Reign a traveller might have journeyed with his pockets full of diamonds from Alexandria to Khartoum without an Arab spear being raised against him. Under him the Soudanese Chiefs, who had baffled the skill of English diplomatists and defied the power of English Generals, had been effectually managed and controlled; and from the Mediterranean to Khartoum peace and relative prosperity had everywhere prevailed, the Slave Trade was being gradually checked, and Egypt, on the whole, was never better governed than it was during his 17 years' Reign. He had been essentially a strong Governor, and strength in the East was the first necessary quality in a Ruler. Therefore, he said that if the first and best solution—namely, either the annexation of Egypt or the establishment of a direct Protectorate over it—was not accepted, the second was well on the cards, and that before many months were over they would probably see the restoration of Is mail Pasha brought within the sphere of practical politics. Turning to the new loan, the immediate subject of the Amendment before the House, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a complete answer to the objections of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The new Government had inherited that loan as a part of the legacy left by their Predecessors; and he could not see how they could well have done
    1228
    better than they had done in the matter. Perhaps a rather bettor price might have been obtained; but that was a point on which he could not speak with any confidence. Anyhow, he thought they had acted in a way that deserved the recognition of the House; and, therefore, he was not disposed to support the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Main Question again proposed.

  THE PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE VATICAS—SIR GEORGE ERRINGTON.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would like to draw the attention of the House as shortly as possible to a matter which had excited a great deal of interest in Ireland, and he believed it had also attracted considerable attention in England and Rome—he referred to the publication of a letter purporting to be, and as he thought he could show actually was, a secret communication between the hon. Baronet the Member for Longford (Sir George Errington) and Lord Granville, with respect to the hon. Baronet's mysterious Mission to the Vatican. His hon. Friends and himself were at first anxious to put a Question directly to the hon. Baronet, as to whether he was or was not the author of this communication. They were prevented by the Forms of the House from doing so, because, although it was now perfectly certain that the hon. Baronet was acting in Rome as the Agent of the English Government, and although, in point of fact, the late Government gave him his Baronetcy because of his services in that capacity, the Irish Members were unable to question him in the capacity. They all knew that the late Government, though they appointed the hon. Baronet to that position, found it necessary, for reasons of their own, upon all occasions to disown him, at least publicly, in that capacity, in deference to English opinion. As they could not put a Question directly to the hon. Baronet, they did the next best thing in order to clear up the question of the genuineness of this document. On Friday night he (Mr. O'Brien) sent a written Notice to the hon. Baronet that upon Monday, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Appropriation Bill, he meant to bring this matter before the House, so that he might have a full opportunity to either

  1229
  disclaim or avow the letter—if he did avow it, that he might be able to give the House any explanation in his power as to its contents. On Monday night the hon. Baronet did not put in an appearance; but he (Mr. O'Brien) was glad to perceive that to-day the hon. Baronet had changed his mind, and was now in a position to hear him, and f-peak himself on the subject. He could not help remarking that the hon. Baronet's course of conduct since the publication of this letter was, to say the least, singularly unsatisfactory, if not of a suspicious character. If the hon. Baronet never wrote a letter of that description nothing would be easier than for him to say so over his own name. Instead of that there appeared on Friday a communiqué in The Daily News. They all knew that was the official organ of the late Government which employed the hon. Baronet, and it was the paper which generally spoke with some authority; and he did not think it was too much to assume that though the voice was the voice of The Daily News, the inspiration was the inspiration of the hon. Baronet the Member for Longford. On Friday there appeared in The Daily News this very confident and precise announcement—
  "Sir George Errington has no knowledge of the letter published in United Ireland purporting to have been written by the hon. Baronet to Earl Granville on the subject of the Vatican and of the election of an Archbishop of Dublin."
  That beyond all doubt was a point-blank denial that any such letter was ever written by the hon. Baronet, and a point-blank statement that the letter was a bogus document. But upon the following day there appeared in The Daily News a paragraph of a very hesitating and timid character. It was not his business to account for the change of tone in the two declarations in The Daily News. He merely mentioned the fact that in the meantime his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had given Notice in the House of his intention to question the hon. Baronet and sift the matter, and in the meantime the paper in which the document had appeared had come to hand, in which it was stated that they—United Ireland—had the original letter in their possession, and that they were perfectly ready to submit it to any
  1230
  friend of the hon. Baronet's who wished to verify the handwriting. In The Daily News, as he had stated, a statement appeared to the effect that—
  "Sir George Errington had no recollection of having written such a letter."
  And then The Daily News went on to make some ridiculous speculations as to the manner in which the letter had been obtained. He would, however, leave the hon. Baronet to settle the matter with The Daily News. There had been, however, a change in the tone of The Daily News from day to day after it was announced that the Irish Members had evidence of the handwriting in their possession. As to the letter itself, he need hardly say that he was not going to make the smallest apology in the world for giving it to the public Diplomatists who went in for mean, dirty tricks like this ought to expect no mercy from the Irish Members. The idea of everything that was vital to the religion and liberties of the Catholics of Ireland being trafficked in and bargained for in this miserable way at Rome was most repulsive to all Catholics, and even to every decent Protestant in England. At all events, every effort had been made to smother up the truth concerning this Gentleman's doings at Rome. Every document was refused them and kept under lock and key; and he really regarded it as a dispensation of Providence which had enabled them to clear up the mystery. There was, he believed, no room for conjecture in this matter, for, as far as he was himself concerned, he was satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, of the authenticity of the letter before publishing it. He had submitted the letter to several hon. Members who were acquainted with the hon. Baronet's handwriting, and they at once recognized it as his. There had since come into his possession another communication in the undoubted handwriting' of the hon. Baronet, addressed to an hon. Member of that House; and he did not think that there would be one moment's hesitation in saying that both letters were in one and the same handwriting. This was the letter which he had felt perfectly secure would be maintained a perfect secret—
  "House of Commons, Friday, 15th May.
  "Dear Lord Granville,—The Dublin Archbishoprick (sic) being still undecided, I must continue to keep the Vatican in good humour

  1231
  about you and keen up communication with them generally as much as possible. I am almost ashamed to trouble you again when you are so busy; but perhaps on Monday you would allow me to show you the letter I propose to write. This premature report about Dr. Moran will cause increased pressure to be put on the Pope and create many fresh difficulties. The matter must therefore be most carefully watched, so that the strong pressure I can still command may be used at the right moment, and not too soon or unnecessarily (for too much pressure is quite as dangerous as too little). To effect this constant communication with Rome is necessary.
  I am, dear Lord Granville,
  "Faithfully yours,
  "GEORGE ERRINGTON."
  He could understand the hon. Baronet denying having written that letter; but how any man could forget the writing of that letter certainly exceeded the bounds of belief and credulity. The only fact with reference to the communication which made him doubt its genuineness was the extraordinary un-guardedness, levity, and cynicism with which it was written. The hon. Baronet was, he thought, usually regarded by his admirers as a model of Catholic piety. Yet here they had, in his own handwriting, a deliberate insult to His Holiness the Pope. It was almost inconceivable that a serious diplomatist, engaged in what were considered as delicate negotiations, should write such a letter. Upon second thoughts, however, he had come to the conclusion that this was an additional proof of the genuineness of the letter. The secrecy upon the matter which was maintained by the late Government gave the hon. Baronet a most perfect sense of false security. It might, at least, have been justly supposed by him that whatever he might write would never have been perused by the Pope or the people of Ireland. The consequence was that they had the hon. Baronet, from this sense of security, blurting out his mind in a manner that certainly, he thought, would not induce him to boast of his skill as a diplomatist in Rome. He would not try to make a point of the hon. Baronet's denial, that he did not recollect ever having written such a letter. He would, however, say that he did not manifest much skill as a diplomatist in writing such a letter. There was one thing which might be said in its favour. There was no mistake as to the meaning of it. The
  1232
  meaning of it was this. The hon. Baronet wished to inveigle the Pope into appointing the nominee of the late Government to the Archbishopric of Dublin. The hon. Baronet was empowered by the late Government to hold out certain promises, certain considerations to the Court of Rome; and what was worse was that these considerations and promises had evidently not been intended to be performed. Until the Dublin Archbishopric was decided he must continue at the Yatican—that was to say, that the Pope was to be amused, duped, and kept in good humour, and cheated with what he would not hesitate to call dishonest hints, that Lord Granville might open diplomatic relations with the Vatican favouring Catholicity in India and Malta. When the case with regard to the Archbishopric was decided there would be very little further care taken as to the humour which the Pope would be in. He did not like to trust himself to express his opinion about this miserable, unworthy intrigue on the part of an English Minister, and still more on the part of an English Catholic diplomatist. One thing they might congratulate themselves upon, and that was that the diplomacy broke down. The whole thing seemed to be similar to that kind of brilliant success which had characterized the diplomacy of the late Government in other matters. The plot had utterly failed. Lord Granville appeared to be the only person who was in the least imposed upon by the diplomacy of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet, at all events, got his I Baronetcy, but Dr. Moran did not get his Archbishopric. He congratulated the hon. Baronet upon having kept Lord Granville in good humour; but the Pope, whom he sneered at in private conference with Lord Granville, seemed to have taken the measure of the hon. Baronet in the whole transaction pretty truly. He aid not know how this matter was regarded by English public opinion; but he rather suspected, from the pains taken by the late Government to keep it from the public eye, that they had an uneasy feeling that it would not tend much to their credit among the constituencies at the next General Election. As far as the Irish people were concerned, they regarded it as a vile insult to the Papacy, as well as an outrage upon their own liberty and independence. People, he

  1233
  thought, must regard with humiliation and disgust the spectacle of the English admirers of Cavour and Mazzini sneaking over to the Vatican and endeavouring to get privileges in a miserable and Machiavellian manner. They would appreciate the attempt to invoke the temporal power of the Pope against the liberties and nationality of the Irish people. He ventured to say that after the hon. Baronet had been heard the House would have to admit that the document he had read was a perfectly genuine one, and that the meaning was perfectly clear on the face of it. It seemed to him that the present Government had no course open to them now except to publish every scrap of writing which was in the Foreign Office on this subject. If it was possible to disprove the disgraceful inferences which must be drawn from this letter, it could only be done by the publication of all the Minutes concerning the Mission of the hon. Baronet. Then, at all events, the English and Irish public would be able to appreciate both the religions professions of the hon. Baronet and the morality—the delicate political morality—of the late Government, who were so horror-stricken at the imaginary compact with the Representatives of Ireland, and who were now detected in an attempt to establish a secret, and, what was worse, a dishonest compact with the Pope.
  SIR GEORGE ERRINGTON: Before I say the few words I have to say—and they will be much more in the form of an explanation than any contribution to the debate—I wished at first to ask a little further information as to how the document or letter that has been alluded to got into the possession of the hon. Member for Mallow. On second thoughts, I think any such inquiry would be superfluous. One of two things must be absolutely certain. Either this document is not genuine—in that case it must have been forged—or, if it is genuine, it can only have been obtained by a most gross breach of the most elementary laws of honesty and of honour. In fact, Sir, it must have been stolen. I refrain from charging the hon. Member for Mallow with any direct complicity in either one or other of these two alternative transactions. It is enough for me to know this—that he is in possession of a document so obtained, and
  1234
  that he is endeavouring to use it in I this House so as to make it impossible for me to give any explanation whatever with regard to it. I received a few days ago from the hon. Member the following note:—
  "Sir,—I beg to give you notice that as the Forms of the House prevent me from asking you whether you are the writer of the letter to Lord Granville, published in this week's United Ireland, I mean to bring the letter before the House on the Appropriation Bill on Monday, so that you will then have an opportunity of avowing or denying the authority of the letter."
  I must say that on receiving this letter, even from the writer of it, such a citation as this appeared to me quite preposterous. My first impression was that not only I should not be called upon, but should not even have been justified in taking any notice whatever of it, or in coming down here. I thought it should be treated, as I always treat such attacks coming from such quarters, with the indifference and contempt they deserve. On consideration, however, I felt if I were absent I might appear wanting in that courtesy and deference which is due to you, Sir, and the House in general; and, on the other hand, I felt this—that there was no place where I could more effectively appeal to the best principles of honesty, honour, and self-respect than in this House, and no place where any infraction of those principles would be more thoroughly condemned. I owe no duty to make any answer or afford any information whatever to any inquirer or inquiry of this sort.
  MR. CALLAN: You owe it to the Pope.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR GEORGE ERRINGTON: If I were to answer to the extent of one word, I should be assisting the hon. Member for Mallow in the ultimate object which he has in view. I should be aiding him in entering upon a discussion in relation to matters the full responsibility of which I am willing to bear to all who have the slightest claim to call me to account. Therefore, taking this view of my position and responsibility, I prefer leaving such a weapon I as the hon. Member for Mallow says he has obtained, and seeks to use, unheeded in his hands.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to call attention to the inability of the hon.

  1235
  Baronet to deny the specific charges which had been brought against Mm by the hon. Member for Mallow. There was a literal document put forward which he had not the manliness either to acknowledge or disprove. He had no reasonable explanation to make for conduct which was utterly indefensible. His whole action in regard to the Vatican was of the most reprehensible character. He had deliberately attempted to mislead the Pope or the advisers of the Pope; but he was quite certain that they would not listen to him for one moment. He had endeavoured to influence parties whom he believed might indirectly communicate with the Pope. He, as a Catholic, certainly held that anyone who would act as the hon. Member for Longford did acted most improperly by that Church. He contended that the Parliament in this country, having refused to authorize the Government to send a properly accredited Representative of Great Britain to the Holy See, it was only the Catholic Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops of England and Ireland who had a right to communicate with the Vatican in reference to purely spiritual matters. He regarded the intriguing and under-handed action of the late Government with the Holy See as disgraceful, and as opposed to general English feeling; and he trusted that the result of the conduct of the Whig Party in this matter would be to place them in a minority at the next General Election. He thought that the present Government were bound to publish, in the form of a Blue Book, all the Correspondence that had passed in relation to this matter between Earl Granville and the hon. Baronet.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, that the hon. Baronet had virtually acknowledged having written the document in question; and it was interesting to compare that circumstance with some of the explanations and speeches of the late Prime Minister, wherein he conveyed to the House that his Government knew nothing of any communications carried on with the Vatican. He was not surprised, however, at now learning of the underhand way in which they had conducted negotiations at Borne. He regarded the action of the Government in this matter as thoroughly dishonest. The Irish Members, much as they condemned the Whig Government, did not
  1236
  deem them capable of descending to such measures as this. They had all a recollection of the pamphlets written by the Leader of the late Government, who had in a moment of exceptional candour condemned the Vatican. What, therefore, were they to think of the action of the Government in this matter? He certainly hoped that the present Government would disclose the whole of these negotiations which the document which had been read disclosed. He also hoped that the Vatican and the hierarchy would learn from this a lesson as to the value to be attached to any communication from a Whig Administration. Certainly the Irish people would not easily forget the class of men with whom they had had to deal in the case of the so-called Liberal Administration.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the recent appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the depression of trade and agriculture.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENinterposed, and, reminding the Speaker that the hon. Member was entering upon a new subject, asked whether it would not be for the convenience of the House that the discussion upon the last topic should be finished?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Salford was perfectly in Order.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, resuming, said, he desired to know what were the instructions which had been given to the Commission? There was considerable doubt as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government as regarded the great question of free importation as affecting the supply of cheap food for the people. Certain Members of the Government had taken part in a movement that would lead to dear bread, while others were in favour of restrictions upon the importation of live cattle from Germany, which would lead to dear moat. It was most unfortunate that the two Departments of Trade and Agriculture were in the hands of the two most reactionary Members of the Government—namely, the Duke of Richmond and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, though he

  1237
  did not say that since coming into Office the latter right hon. Gentleman had failed to carry out the Resolution of the House on this question. He was not surprised that the Party at present in place, but not in power, should seek to refer the investigation of these questions to Royal Commissions, who were not answerable to that House. Some years ago a Royal Commission was appointed by the Government of Lord Beaconsfield to inquire into the subject of agricultural depression, and that Commission cost the country £40,000. If it were intended to pursue the same course now, the investigation would cost an equal amount of money. Could anyone say that the Royal Commission on Agriculture had attained one of the main purposes for which it was appointed? It had utterly failed to promote the interests committed to its care; and from beginning to end of the Report there was not one word of reference to the use of the remarkable discovery of ensilage for the feeding of cattle. He had pressed for the names of the Gentlemen to whom this very important inquiry was to be entrusted, because, when it was known who were to be Members of the Commission, hon. Gentlemen would be able to form a judgment as to whether it was a body which was likely to command the confidence of the country. He was very much disposed to regard the issue of this Royal Commission as a quack remedy. Lately the newspapers had been full of announcements that persons, more or less distinguished, had positively declined to take seats on this Commission; and he assumed that the refusals must have arisen from a feeling in the minds of those persons that they had no adequate assurance of the policy which Her Majesty's Government intended to follow. He would like to remind Her Majesty's Government of what had been said by the two journals most capable of expressing an opinion on the subject of the Commission—namely, The Times and The Economist. The Times had given it the title of a Commission pourrire, while The Economist remarks—"We predicted that the Commission would be a failure; it is now a fiasco as well." Lord Iddesleigh had himself expressed, sympathy with the Free Trade policy of the country; but in one of his speeches he admitted that—
  1238
  "It is perfectly true that there are men in the Conservative Party who, with very great energy. and, I must say, with very great ability and considerable courage, have argued the question from the Protectionist point of view,"
  although his Lordship added that—
  "I am not aware that anyone has put forward the doctrine of Protection otherwise than as a pious opinion."
  But whatever might be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was persuaded that the great majority of the people regarded free imports as the best security for the supply of cheap food; and the question now was whether cheap meat and cheap bread were to be treated with respect by the present Government? That question would have to be faced by the Conservative Party at the approaching General Election. Referring to the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, which contained nothing of a revolutionary character, the hon. Member regretted the action of the Peers with regard to it, and mentioned the circumstance that Mr. Nicholson, who was Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, and also the Marquess of Salisbury's private solicitor, sent out a Circular to all stewards of manors throughout the Kingdom with the view of bringing about the rejection of that important measure by the House of Lords. It was impossible, he thought, that Mr. Nicholson could have issued this Circular unless he knew he was acting in a way which would give pleasure to the Prime Minister. He was very much shocked the other day to see evidence of an extraordinary internal dissension in the Conservative Party, especially with reference to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] Not long ago the noble Lord, when addressing a meeting in Lancashire, suggested that a tax should be levied upon all foreign imports, and said that it would be an easy thing in that way to raise £20,000,000 sterling, which, he proposed, should be devoted to the relief of the agricultural burdens. Many people in Lancashire, when they read those words, were of opinion that the noble Lord had no idea worthy of a statesman, because they saw that if taxation were imposed to the extent of £20,000,000 cut foreign imports that large sum could not be raised except by enormous taxation on the food of the people. The hon. and learned

  1239
  Member opposite exclaimed "Oh!" when he proposed to allude in passing to the internal dissensions of the Conservative Party. He had observed those dissensions with astonishment, for the noble Lord appeared to be a Member of that House who was of a frank and disingenuous character. He remembered an expression used by the late Lord Beaconsfield that Conservative Government was organized hypocrisy There was, however, no Member on the other side of the House who was less open to a charge of hypocrisy than the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. The noble Lord had given an explanation with reference to the Irish policy of the Government; but an explanation was really not required from him, but from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and from the First Commissioner of Works. He should like to know how it was possible for them, without being guilty of the charge of hypocrisy, to join a Government which had come to a distinct resolution on an important point of Irish policy before they had had an opportunity of examining the official documents relating to the subject? Gentlemen opposite had profited by the political nimbleness of the noble Lord, and it showed the greatest ingratitude on them to turn round upon him. He saw the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland smile. The right hon. Gentleman recently assured the House that the Government were not going into a line of unbounded gambling.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), interposing, said, he had never used such an expression.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, while accepting the repudiation of the words, said, his ears must have deceived him if he did not recently hear the right hon. Gentleman apologize for gambling; but, however that might be, it was certain that political gambling was the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the mass of the people had some fear of what might happen during the Recess, when there would be no control exercise able over the vagaries of Her Majesty's present Advisers.
  MR. ELTONsaid, he desired to express his regret that the House of Lords should not have found time to pass the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, which he considered, on the whole, a
  1240
  good, sound, working measure. With regard to Mr. Nicholson, whose name had been introduced in the discussion, he might remark that that gentleman had been almost the only official opponent of the measure during the four years it had been before the country.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am rather surprised no Member of Her Majesty's late Government has got up to take part in the debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). They are the persons whose conduct is chiefly called into account. The hon. Member for Long ford (Sir George Errington) plays in this as insignificant a part as in the other affairs of political life. The real point at issue is the attitude of Her Majesty's late Government to the Court of Rome, and to the appointments in the Catholic Church in Ireland. The hon. Member for the County of Long ford was sent to Rome in order to bring the pressure of the Vatican to bear upon the priesthood of Ireland. The hon. Baronet had no official position, and yet he was the Representative of the late Government at the Vatican. I wish to know whether the late Government had a right to employ an agent, and, while so employing him, had a right to deny all responsibility for his actions, and to give misleading answers in that House in reply to Questions having reference to the connection that existed between him and them. Now, this Errington Mission dates from a period long anterior to that from which my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow has started. It dates from the Chief Secretary ship of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). As the House is aware, the right hon. Member for Bradford had a large number of men in prison without trial. He boasted himself that he had all the murderers in Ireland under lock and key at the very moment when a murderous conspiracy was under his very feet and seeking his own life. But he found that the more men were put in gaol the more crimes were committed; and then, with characteristic cleverness, he arrived at this idea—that it was the priesthood of Ireland who were responsible for the crime of Ireland. Now, he did not think he could venture to imprison many of the priests of Ireland—he had imprisoned one, and he shrank before the storm thus created. Unable to exercise influence over the

  1241
  priests himself, he conceived the idea that he would bring the pressure upon them of their ecclesiastical superiors, thus he came to send Mr. Errington to Rome. Now, Sir, I wish to make two observations on this Mission. First—I congratulate the hon. Member for Long ford on his acceptance of the theory of the man who sent him—that the priests of Ireland were the men who preached and incited to assassination; and, secondly, I want to ask what is the position of the British Government, that took the position of calling in the Pope to assist them in ruling a British Dependency? I do not desire to make any uncomplimentary allusion to the share of the late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) in this transaction, as he is absent.
  MR. CALLAN: He said he knew nothing about it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: And, as he said, he had nothing to do with it. But the muse of history must have smiled as he recorded the fact that the author of Vaticanism and the other pamphlets was the very man to appeal to the Vatican to help him in doing his own work of governing Ireland. What was the main thesis of these pamphlets. What was the principal argument of those brilliant writings against the Pope if it were not that he was a foreign potentate interfering in the internal affairs of other countries; and yet here is the author of these same pamphlets calling on that same potentate to intervene in the relations between England and Ireland. With regard to the hon. Member for Long ford, I join my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mallow in congratulating him on the success with which he has got his part of the bargain. He has his Baronetcy. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am as unable to understand the type of man who yearns for a Baronetcy, as I am to understand the type of a man who wears stays; but as I have credible information that there are men who wear stays, I accept the fact that there are men who desire Baronetcies. The hon. Gentleman then has got his Baronetcy; but if he be as zealous a supporter of the Catholic Church as he professes to be, I think he ought to have some qualms of conscience as to the price he paid for it. What did he represent himself to be to the Pope? A Representative of Irish
  1242
  opinion. Why, Sir, if he so represented himself, did he take care to add that the last time that he visited his constituency he had to run away through the backdoor of his hotel? So exuberant and excessive was the enthusiasm of his constituents that he did not dare to trust himself to it lest he should be overwhelmed. Does he not know how that while he posed at Rome as a Representative of Irish opinion he could not give an account of his Mission on any platform in the County Long ford, with which I have some acquaintance, without requiring a large protective force? And what was his attitude to the vacant Archbishopric? One man was pointed out by the universal voice of Ireland for his great abilities, his spotless character, his profound learning, and, above all, by his known and undisguised sympathy with the national aspirations of his own country and his own people. Suppose the hon. Member for Long ford had succeeded in his purposes; suppose he had succeeded in getting some nominee of his and of the British Government appointed; and suppose, further, that this letter read by my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had been published after the appointment, what would have been the result? Suppose, after the appointment of the nominee of England instead of the nominee of Ireland this letter had been published, showing that the Holy See had been cheated, cajoled, humoured, and subjected to pressure from a Protestant Government, what would have been the result among the Irish people? This, that they would be convinced that the foremost See in their Church and in their country was not the reward of eminent piety and learning and character; but was the price of as corrupt a bargain as the lowest ward politician was ever responsible for. I leave the hon. Member for Long ford to strike the nice balance between his Baronetcy and the injury he thus sought to inflict on a cause he professes to hold sacred. With regard to the late Administration, I challenge them to give some explanation of this proceeding. I am not foolish enough, howover, to suppose they will take up the challenge. The other night their reactionary Leader (the Marquess of Hartington) gave to the Liberal Party their cry for the coming appeal to the English and Scotch constituencies. That

  1243
  cry was hatred and injustice to Ireland and the Irish people. If the noble Lord were not a Whig, and thug accustomed to rapid and violent changes of opinion, and to the treacherous treatment of Ireland, he might have thought that the Liberal Party was going in 1885 to the country on the same anti-Irish cry as the Party of Lord Beaconsfield in 1880. I wonder the Liberal Party does not adopt a "No Popery" cry also. The reason must be that they feel conscious of the use they, representing a Ministry of eminent Protestants, had attempted to make of the Pope and the religious feelings of the Irish people.
  MR. BOORDsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to the case of the widow of the late Sergeant Rance, who had been killed by the explosion of a live shell which was being tested with a peculiarly sensitive fuse at Shoeburyness in February last. The widow had been awarded a pension of only £10 12 s. 6d. per annum, and a gratuity of £44 in respect of her six children. He was well aware that the Government were tied by hard and fast rules; but it was quite competent for them to unmake the rules and replace them by others. About 10 years ago, when a similar explosion occurred, the attention of the Government was called to the rules, and some relaxation was promised; but nothing had been done. He would remind Her Majesty's Government that by the Treasury Minute the widow of Sergeant Rance was entitled to ten-sixtieths of her husband's pay. His pay was 31 s. a-week, and ten-sixtieths of that would be more than the amount which had been granted her. He hoped that the Government would relax these rules, and make special provision for the case of men who were engaged in exceptionally dangerous employment. It seemed absurd to award a sum of 3s. 10 d. a-week to a widow whose husband was killed in the service of the State.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he wished to join in the appeal which had been already made to the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the present condition of intermediate education in this country. In his opinion the pledges which were given by a Liberal Ministry at the passing of the Education Act with regard to voluntary schools had not been kept. On several occasions the late Prime Minister
  1244
  had expressed his sense of the great value of voluntary schools, and had promised that increased support should be given to them. Not one of the pledges given on this subject by a Liberal Government had been kept, and board schools supported from the rates were now sharing in the grant given for the purpose of voluntary schools. He submitted that the present system of education in this country was most unfair and unjust. The board schools, he might be told, were open to all. That was true in one sense; but it must be remembered that children in entering those schools had to give up their religion, or, at any rate, had to give up combining secular education with religious education. Then he wished to point out that expenditure on education was increasing enormously. This was a matter which ought to receive immediate attention. With regard to the proposition of Miss Helen Taylor that school pence should be dispensed with, he might remark that it meant the pauperization of the whole system of public education in this country. Whether that was a good thing or not it was for Parliament to consider. In his opinion the proposal introduced a principle of a very dangerous character. Looking at the general position of public education in this country he thought he was perfectly justified in asking that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into it.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that the hon. Member had supported an appeal which had been made on the Ministerial side of the House to the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Education Act. He could not disguise from himself the fact that this question was regarded with great interest in the country; and he might say that the Government had the greatest possible sympathy with the hon. Member, and with the object he had at heart. Although he could not say that the Government saw the necessity of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into that question, yet the subject in all its aspects would receive their most careful and fairest attention; and if they found that their information in regard to it was insufficient, they would not scruple to take the ordinary course which ought to be

  1245
  taken in those cases, and to ask for the assistance of a Commission.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he rose to complain of the manner in which the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had answered Questions which he had recently put in the House in regard to the non-execution of a warrant to enforce payment of the fine of £500 inflicted by the Irish Court of Queen's Bench upon the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)
  MR. BIGGARrose to Order, and observed that the hon. Member for Wicklow had already spoken in that debate.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member for Wicklow's previous speech was made on the Amendment.
  MR. M'COAN, continuing, remarked that while he quite recognized the fact that if a Minister of the Crown thought that to answer a particular Question put to him would prejudice the public interests he might, in the exercise of his discretion, refuse to reply to it, yet he held that it was due both to the whole House and to any independent Member of it who asked a Question that he should be treated with some respect. He was not there to whitewash the Members of the late Government; but if the ex-Attorney General for Ireland or the ex-Chief Secretary had failed to do their duty in respect to the execution of that warrant, that was no reason why their successors should also neglect theirs. He absolutely disclaimed all personal animus in this matter; but he held that the editor of an influential Nationalist journal ought not to have been suffered to snap his fingers at the law, either by the late or the present Government, and that such warrants as that against the hon. Member for Mallow should be executed without favour or affection, or regard to Party considerations of any kind. Instead, however, of receiving a civil answer to his Questions on the subject, the Chief Secretary had presumed to reply with a snub, which, however, being undeserved, recoiled on the head of the Minister who had so far forgotten his duty to the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he desired to express his gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for appointing a Commission to inquire into the depres-
  1246
  sion of trade and agriculture. It was a long series of years since an impartial inquiry had been made into the condition of the trade and agriculture of the country; and the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) seemed to have pointed him (Mr. Newdegate) out as one who desired an inquiry into the state of agriculture, and not that of trade. Now, seeing that he had not taken part in the debate on the subject, that seemed to be rather an unfair attack. He was under a deep impression that the system of free imports, to which this country had so strictly adhered, had placed her in such a position that other countries found that we had nothing to exchange for any advantages which they might offer. That was the case alike with Germany, France, and the United States of America. Well, he humbly conceived that that was a foolish position for any great commercial country to occupy. We were incapable of dealing with other nations, because we had nothing to offer them. We were precluded from doing so by our own action; and he trusted that the Commission would be composed of unprejudiced and impartial men, who would look upon this great national question in a spirit of perfect impartiality. He confessed that he was surprised at the hon. Member for Salford overlooking the question of the state of trade entirely. The hon. Member was the Representative of a large manufacturing town; and he (Mr. Newdegate) represented a large and populous manufacturing and agricultural county, where, during the last seven or eight years, the depression was almost unexampled. He held, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government were right in using the power of the Crown to inquire into the circumstances which had characterized that depression. That opinion he had long entertained; and he could not forget that, throughout the whole agitation in favour of establishing the system of free imports, its advocates had maintained that our example would lead to reciprocity on the part of foreign nations. That prediction had not been fulfilled; and he thought it time that the Government of this country should now take measures to inquire why the trade and agriculture of the country should have been for so long a period in a state of depression.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN: I think I am entitled to say a word or two upon the Errington Mission, on the ground that since any relative of mine has been known in Ireland they were either Pagan or Catholic. During the present debate we have heard several Gentlemen who ought to be in white sheets, with candles before them, repenting their past life, instead of teaching men of their persuasion the lives they ought to pursue. I speak of my hon. Friend the Member for Long ford, because, coming Election or no Election, the man is not worth his salt that does not stand up for his friend when his friend is subjected to bitter criticism. May I, as an older Member than he, offer my hon. Friend the Member for Long ford my opinion that he would have done better if, instead of making as he had a neat speech, he had contented himself with saying two things—"If this letter is a forgery, cœdet questio. If it is a robbery, in the House of Commons I decline to notice it." Hon. Gentlemen have made statements here as to what they owe to the Whigs, and what they have lost for them, and what they owe to hon. Gentlemen to whom they are at present allied. Should I be out of Order in asking whether two of the persons that supported, at the Court of Rome, the appointment of the learned, able, honest, and pious ecclesiastic, revered by the Irish people, were not the right hon. Members for Chelsea and Birmingham? Were I born in the days years ago, when the great question of veto was presented to the Irish people, I would be here, like O'Connell of that day, the antagonist of that veto. But what are hon. Gentlemen of the Irish Party to do with their new faith newly created, which was created from Protestantism or from Agnosticism, and the newspapers connected with it, making it necessary here, as a political arrangement, to drag through the mud a great faith, that will live when they are dead, and when, God knows, they will be forgotten. Sir, I see a noble Lord here to-day (Lord Randolph Churchill), and before this debate closes it may be well that one who properly is looked upon as the Leader of a great Party, because he has asserted himself, and sat upon those who are nominally believed to be the Conservative Party—this thorough Democrat—it may be well for him to add
  1248
  to the many things he has done in England to render himself distinguished by speaking. I forget the exact time—it was, I think, some 30 or 40 years ago—that Lord Eglinton prevented a diplomatic arrangement with the Holy See when the question was presented to the Legislature, although it occurred to me at the time that such an arrangement would conduce to the interests of peace—a course I was surprised at, seeing that Independents, Baptists, and other Nonconformists outnumbered Roman Catholics in the House—and knowing the High Church tendencies of the Conservative Party I did not expect such a proceeding from Lord Eglinton, who was one of their number. But at the present time we may hope that the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) may reverse the action pursued by Lord Eglinton. He, a member of a ducal family who, in former days, were rather doubtful in their politics! To-day they were followers of William, the day before they were followers of James. They have pursued their way not alone by means of the men of their families. They had a man who could conquer on the Continent, and whose name was a song to frighten children in the arms of their nursemaids; but then there was in England a woman who was of service. The Sarah of former days has passed away; but may there not be in the present time a great feminine descendant of the great dukedom of Marlborough, competent to occupy Sarah's vacant Throne? I am speaking in this way of one who is endeared to his friends. Why, I can see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with an affectionate look upon his face such as I have never seen upon it before. There is not a man who has an eye in his head who does not know that the hon. Gentleman who represents United Ireland and the town of Mallow in this House has been caught hold of by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and kissed upon both cheeks, and asked to assault those damned Whigs. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] Very well, I will withhold that observation in consideration of the feelings of hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. SPEAKER, interrupting, said, that the hon. Member was transgressing the latitude of speech allowed even on

  1249
  the Appropriation Bill. He must ask him to confine his observations to the Question before the House.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN: In deference to the ruling of the Chair, I will content myself with saying that I think the hon. Baronet the Member for Longford would be warranted in saying that, before he answered any attack made upon him with reference to documents which have appeared in the Press, the way in which those papers got into the hands of those who have used them should be explained.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to call attention to the necessity of advancing more public money for harbour purposes, and to the sources from which £60,000 or £70,000 could be obtained. He would suggest that the £8,000 a-year given to Irish harbours, which was discontinued since the passing of the Piers and Harbours Act, should be again given for that purpose.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to emphasize what had been said by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) in his interesting speech upon the condition of the voluntary schools of the country. He rejoiced at the encouragement already given to the supporters of those schools by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. But he hoped he would go a little further. Voluntary schools carried on their work without expense to the ratepayers, and he thought that there was excellent ground for the suggested inquiry. The School Board had been reckless in its expenditure; there was more than a suspicion of over-pressure upon teachers and scholars; and he would, therefore, once more urge upon the Government the necessity of considering the whole question, and, if need be, appointing a Royal Commission. He was sure that if his right hon. Friend could see his way to appoint a Royal Commission, much good would come of it.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYwished to tell the Vice President of the Council, as he had introduced that question, that it would not be wise for the friends of the denominational system to re-open the compromise. If they did re-open the matter, he could promise the right hon. Gentleman that they were in danger of losing the support of the friends of sectarian education which they now en-
  1250
  joyed, and further demands would be made in the direction of popular and elective control. It was not fit that an avowedly stop-gap Government should go to the expense of appointing a Royal Commission, when they would have to go hat in hand all over the country to got decent men to compose it, or that they should prejudge great and important questions of this kind as they had done—questions which would have to be decided by the great masses now enfranchised.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he hoped that before Parliament was prorogued the Government would say what they intended to do with regard to Aberystwith College.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that he had intended to refer at some length to a matter of considerable importance; but he thought that at that hour (5.35 P.M.) it would better suit the convenience of the House if he postponed his remarks until another occasion, as he had no desire to prevent the Appropriation Bill being read a third time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) HILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) HILL.

    [BILL 115.] SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS), in moving that the Order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged, said, he regretted very much that a Bill which he believed would have been of great use, and which was very much wanted in Scotland, should not have been allowed to pass. So far as he could learn, public opinion in Scotland was very much in favour of this Bill, and the persons who were opposed to it were small in number, and were becoming smallar and smaller. He, therefore, regretted that hon. Members opposite had pushed their objections to the Bill in the way they had. At that time of the Session, it was quite impossible that they could force the Bill through, and on the shoulders of those hon. Members who opposed it must fall the responsibility for its abandonment.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading1 be read and discharged,"—(Sir E. Asshston Cross,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill withdrawn.

  POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 219.]
  (Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Mr. Cowen, Lord Claud John Hamilton, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Reid, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. George Elliot.)
  POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 219.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that the Bill could not be fairly discussed at that period of the Session.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he was unwilling to talk the Bill out. But as the Motion for Adjournment had been made, and only one minute of time remaining, it was useless to take a division. He must, however, remind the House that when this matter was under discussion on a former occasion, it was felt that the police, in times of excitement, ought not to have political power, and the House resolved unanimously that they should not have it. On that ground alone he thought that an opportunity for discussing the Bill should be given.
    It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Works Loans* (234); Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) * (235).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Revising Barristers* (225), and passed.
Committee—Report—Telegraph Acts Amendment* (230); Expiring Laws Continuance (229).

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  (NO. 229.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
  LORD DENMAN, after presenting a Petition from ladies in Kensington in favour of extending the franchise to women, moved to insert in the Ballot Act an Amendment declaring that all women not legally disqualified, and who had the same qualification as the present electors, should have the right to vote at Parliamentary elections. With reference to the statement made by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) on a previous occasion, when a similar Amendment had been moved, he declared that it was a dangerous thing to lay down the principle that no alteration could be made in any of the Acts included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He submitted that if his Amendment were accepted it would set a difficult question at rest for ever. Both sides of the House, he thought, were agreed as to the justice of his demand, and he hoped to see women on the Parliamentary Register either this year or next.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 2 add the following clause:—
  "Provided that the Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33. continued as aforesaid, shall he hereby extended so as to admit all women not leglly disqualified
  1196
  who have the same qualification as the present electors for counties and boroughs to vote for the election of Members of Parliament for counties and boroughs."—(The Lord Denman.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)repeated that it was against every rule and practice to attempt to amend an Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It would be extremely injurious to legislation if anyone could, get up and move extravagant Amendments to existing measures. It would be adding new legislation to continued legislation; and if the principle were adopted it would lead to a great many hurried and faulty Acts being passed.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he looked upon the principle laid down by the noble Earl as most tyrannical, as if every continued Act were stereotyped, so a hundred bad measures might all be grouped, as was attempted in the Bankruptcy Bill of 1832. The new legislation of a retiring pension of £6,000 a-year might be carried, as was attempted by Lord Brougham, in a Bill for Bankruptcy, which had passed the House of Lords. As it was, however, the country had come round to his views on nearly every question upon which they had differed hitherto. He was now an old man, being 80 years of age, and he desired to see this measure of justice to females aimed at by the Amendment passed before he died.
  House adjourned at half past Two o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.