Sitting of 1 May 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR WATER AND IMPROVEMENT 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."
  MR. MAURICE HEALYrose to move—
  "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a provision in the Bill amending the provisions of 'The Rathmines and Rathgar Improvement Act, 1885,' relating to the qualification to vote at the elections of township commissioners so as to make the provisions of 'The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act. 1869,' applicable to such qualification."
  He said the Amendment was intended to set right a defect which existed in the Bill at the present time. As regarded the merits of the Bill, he did not think there would be any difference of opinion; and he apprehended that the principal argument against the Amendment which he was moving would be that it was not right or proper that such questions should be raised and decided upon Private Bills such as that before the House. As a general rule, on questions relating to particular municipalities, it was not proper or desirable that the broad question of electoral representation should be raised; but he would remind the House that the Irish townships were very different in respect of those matters from places in other parts of the Kingdom. In Dublin the whole electoral law had been regulated, not by Public, but by Private Statute. Private Acts were in operation in the half-dozen townships scattered around Dublin. In the case of Rathmines the original voting system was carried out under the Statute which constituted the townships. Six years ago, in dealing with a Private Act, the
  1604
  House introduced electoral clauses into it; and he was not aware that there was any objection to any provision being included in a Private Bill so long as it did not encroach in any way on any general Statute. So much, he might say, for the argument to which he had referred as likely to be urged against the Bill. Another reason which he would urge for the adoption of the Amendment was that, being furnished with a suitable opportunity, the House would see that they had here a striking example of the necessity of local control. The Bill was introduced in consequence of a gross blunder made by the Governing Board in the township, involving a question of expenditure—the expenditure of a sum of from £80,000 to £85,000. The Commissioners had promoted a Bill for the purpose of erecting water works. They got into litigation, and the case was before the Irish Courts, and afterwards before the House of Lords, and the decision went against them. Had such a blunder, involving such an expenditure, been committed by a body of Nationalists, the Kingdom would have rung with the facts, and it would have been suggested that those were the kind of people they in England were asked to grant the control of their own affairs. They had an example of the kind from the other side in the promoters of the Bill before the House. He did not propose to do anything very exceptional or very abnormal. There was nothing of that character in the Motion that he had before the House. All he asked was that they should extend to this township the law that at present existed throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. He need not go in for the question of compound householders of Great Britain; but he held that the provisions of the Statute of 1869 should be extended so far as it related to this particular municipality. The franchise at present existing was one established by a Private Act of 1885, by which it was provided that all male persons rated for poor rate were entitled to vote. Primâ facie, that should qualify everyone who was so rated; but, in consequence of a general enactment in premises under £4, the owner was rated and not the occupier, so that large numbers were excluded from benefits which they were entitled to enjoy. He said that the occupier

  1605
  should have a municipal vote just as he had one in the case of the Parliamentary franchise. He understood that the hon. Gentleman who represented the division of Dublin County in which Rathmines was situated intended to oppose this Bill. How could the hon. Gentleman defend the proposition that those who were qualified and competent to return him to the House of Commons were not competent and should not be qualified to vote for the return of a Commissioner to the Local Board? Putting the matter that way before the House, was, in his opinion, showing the necessity for the Bill. There could be no kind of logic in arguing as he had suggested. He could understand the logic under the old law—that a man should not be allowed to give a municipal vote unless he paid a municipal rate. That would be logical enough; but it was a fact that in this municipality a great many who were paying taxes had no votes, and many who were not paying had votes. There was no reason why the payment of the assessment of the poor rate should be taken into account in this way. The £4 rating, he would point out, meant a rental of £7 or £8, so that really the law had the object of setting up a rental franchise of £7 or £8. It would be said, no doubt, that his proposal would mean the creation of an anomaly; but he did not attach weight to that view, for, as a matter of fact, the Irish municipal franchise law was full of anomalies. They had various sorts of franchise. Ten places had one sort of franchise; Belfast and Dublin had franchises differing from each other; other towns had a £5 franchise; others, again, a large number, were under the Towns Improvement Act of 1854. The Dublin townships are all governed by franchises of their own. It was clear, therefore, that the argument of anomalies fell to the ground. He might further point out that in this very township of which he was speaking there was in force a law that existed in no other part of the United Kingdom—that was, the municipal vote was conferred after four months' occupation. It could not, on the whole, be fairly urged that there was reason to talk of anomaly, for, as they saw, there was an anomalous condition of affairs in existence already. He asked them to simply look at the law as it at present stood
  1606
  throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain as regarded the question of the franchise. He did not want to detain the House; but he could say that the grievance of which he had to make complaint was very keenly felt. There were 4,500 houses, and less than 2,000 of the occupiers had votes. Surely those who could vote for Imperial purposes, sending Representatives to that House, were entitled to vote on the local issues involved in municipal questions? He trusted the House of Commons would redress this glaring grievance by adopting the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. H. PLUNKETTsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) need have apologised to the House for taking up its time, for, speaking as Member for the constituency with a portion of which the Bill proposed to deal, he would like to tell the House that the question was one of very serious importance. He thought it his duty, as Member for the division, to put the case as it had been stated to him—to put himself in the position of the ratepayer, and to state the case for the ratepayer fairly. Before replying to the Member for Cork, he could not do better than give the House a true history of the Bill under consideration. The primary object of the Bill was to legalise certain changes that had taken place and that were found to be necessary, but which led to litigation. The Member for Cork spoke of the matter as a gross blunder, and he justified his Amendment in that way. All he had to say about it was that the Commissioners had not spared the expense necessary to secure the services of the best water engineer available; and if there had been a blunder—he believed it might be a pardonable miscalculation—it was simply a technical blunder on the part of the engineer. The litigation arose from the fact that the works were constructed in a manner at variance with the provisions of a previous Act of Parliament. Certain mill-owners felt aggrieved; they felt that their interests were affected, and they brought this action before the Master of the Rolls in Dublin, who decided against the Commissioners. The case was then taken before the Court of Appeal in Dublin,

  1607
  where four Judges unanimously decided in favour of the Commissioners and against the judgment of the Master of the Rolls. Then it was carried to the House of Lords, where throe Judges decided against the Commissioners and two in their favour. So that they had four Judges against the Commissioners and six in their favour. In the end the Commissioners entered into negotiations with the mill-owners, and the result was that the claims of the mill-owners were adequately conceded, and certain changes in the water-works—in their coustruction—were made; and this Bill was mainly for the purpose of legalising those changes. He could say that the action of the mill-owners in this matter had been very generous and patriotic. They could have put the Commissioners to an expense of £30,000; but, if the Act were passed, the expense would probably not exceed £25,000. The improvements were to be carried out by the 30th of August of the present year, and, unless the Bill was passed by that-time, the people of the township would be left without water. He ought to mention that there were subsidiary objects in the Bill, such as the acquirement of a certain open space, the acquisition of additional public buildings, a town hall, and other matters for the improvement of the township, which would involve an expenditure of £20,000. No objection had been raised by anybody to the objects contained in the Bill, and it was taken for granted that in accordance with precedent any objection to the Bill would have been taken at an earlier stage. The present Motion was entirely out of Order as being beyond the scope of a Private Bill, and there was no precedent for inserting at that stage a provision which was foreign to the objects of the Bill, and which was covered neither by the Preamble nor by any of the Parliamentary Notices. He was aware, however, that there were two precedents. The first arose in 1885, when, owing to the action of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, the existing £4 franchise was incorporated in the Rathmines Township Act. This, however, was done at a much earlier date in the progress of the Bill, and the reason of the right hon. Baronet for taking that course was that as Chairman of a Royal Commission on Municipal Franchises
  1608
  certain facts had been brought to his notice which rendered such a change in the Bill imperative. The hon. Member for North Kerry, speaking in 1887, bore testimony to the excellent manner in which that change had operated. There was a second precedent on which the hon. Member who introduced this Motion no doubt relied, and that was the Belfast Drainage Bill of 1886, and the importance of that was due to the fact that it cited the action of the House in the Rathmines Bill as a precedent. He wished, however, the House would bear in mind the criticisms of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the question as to whether it was convenience to introduce Motions, such as that of the hon. Member for Cork, upon the last stages of Private Bills; the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if broad questions of policy were to be allowed to be raised in this way on Private Bills it would have the effect of throwing the whole Business of the House into confusion by allowing miscellaneous questions of a public character and of immense importance thus to be brought on for discussion. There were peculiar circumstances in the Belfast case, too, which did not apply to the present Bill, for it was alleged that the Belfast Bill had been put forward stealthily. On the occasion of its discussion, the Rathmines case was admitted to be a bad precedent by the Government; and now, if they were to make a now precedent on the lines of the Motion of the hon. Member, he believed it would make matters a thousand times worse. They would be introducing an entirely new practice into the House, and he maintained that there was absolutely no precedent for introducing a Motion of the kind at the stage at which they had arrived. It was impossible to see what the limits of such a practice would be. For instance, he could not see what was to prevent the hon. Member grafting a Local Veto Motion on the Bill. He would ask the hon. Member to remember that this Bill had been introduced for a specific purpose, and that it was the wish of the ratepayers that it should become law. The hon. Member who proposed this Motion did not pretend that be had any support behind him whatever, and he could not point to a single Petition or Resolution against the Bill.
  MR. M. HEALY: I am not opposing it.
  MR. PLUNKETT: If the Bill were amended in the manner proposed by the hon. Member its entire scope would be changed. He was not arguing that the franchise ought not to be changed. The Irish franchise was full of anomalies, which would have to be dealt with sooner or later by a Public Act; but that was no reason why they should now take action which would endanger the whole Bill and would put the promoters to additional and unnecessary expense.
  MR. BODKINsaid, he wished to point out that the precedent of Belfast was a much stronger precedent than the case now before the House. The hon. Member who spoke last was right in saying that there was a broad distinction in the two cases; but the distinction was this—that in Belfast the franchise was regulated by Public Statute, and a change was sought to be effected by means of an Amendment in a Private Bill, whereas in the present case the franchise was regulated by Private Statute, and an Amendment of the Statute was proposed in the only legal, logical way—namely, by an Amendment on a Private Bill. It seemed to him, under those circumstances, that the quotations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer fell to the ground, for now it was proposed to amend the franchise in the same way that the franchise was created. He did not think any consideration ought to prevent them doing a thing if it was a good thing to be done, and if no practical inconvenience would be created by doing it. The hon. Member who last spoke admitted it would be a good thing to amend the franchise in the direction they suggested.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I said nothing about the direction of the proposed Amendment. All I said was that the question of the franchise would have eventually to be dealt with.
  MR. BODKINsaid, that, of course, he accepted the hon. Member's statement; but surely he was entitled to assume that, as so able an advocate had not a word to say against the proposed Amendment, its principle was a good one. The Bill would not necessarily be delayed if this Motion were adopted. It would create no real grievance to the Rathmines Town Commissioners, and the addition which it would entail to the Bill would be very
  1610
  slight indeed. He ventured, therefore, to submit that the Amendment was a proper one to be made.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he wished to adduce a few reasons in support of his argument that this was not a right thing to be done. In the first place, the hon. Member who made the Motion before the House was not proposing to remove an anomaly, but he was seeking to create one, and in doing so he was also creating confusion. It was a very strange and most inconvenient proposal. As his hon. Friend had shown, this matter had not come before the House through any mismanagement on the part of the promoters of the Bill. They had done everything in their power to perfect it, as was proved by the long course of litigation through which he went and the fact that six out of the 10 Judges before whom the case went decided in favour of the Commissioners showed that they had very strong reasons for their action. It was not accurate to say that this was a proposal to assimilate the municipal franchise of Rathmines to any franchise that existed in this country. Quite the contrary, for it was proposed to introduce into this Bill a municipal franchise which existed nowhere in England or Ireland or anywhere at all. The franchise in Rathmines at present was the normal franchise in Ireland. There were 117 municipalities in Ireland, and of these 90 had a £4 franchise—the franchise which existed in the present Bill—two had a lower franchise, and the remainder exceeded £4; and yet on the Third Reading of this Bill it was proposed to completely alter the franchise. That was a startling proposition which he believed neither the Commissioners nor the ratepayers could consent to; and he argued that if it was inserted in the Bill in its present form it would be fatal to it. He might be asked what was the franchise in the neighbouring townships. The reply was that it was a higher franchise, and yet they were to be invited to specially interfere in the case of Rathmines, and to give it a lower franchise than its neighbours. He hoped that the House would not introduce this extraordinary new franchise with a four months' qualifying period, seeing that it existed nowhere else, and Rathmines was not now suffering from any grievance.
  MR. FLYNNdenied that any attempt had been made by the last speaker to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Cork. It was admitted that a change in the franchise in the direction proposed in this Amendment was desirable and necessary. It was not contended that the Rathmines Commissioners were a model body; indeed, their proceedings in regard to providing waterworks proved the contrary, as they had gone to work in the most expensive way possible, and were seeking to introduce a costly and impure system. Had they been sensible men they would not have acted in that manner, nor would they have dared to act so if the franchise had been lower. In the case of Belfast, his hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had, in consequence of the magnitude of the problem involved, to make an entirely new proposition to the House. In the present case it would be quite in Order to insert a provision respecting the franchise in the Bill; and no delay would occur in the passage of the Bill if this were done. All that was proposed was that the entire body of the ratepayers in the township should have a voice in the expenditure of a large sum of money. It was, no doubt, the ease that the Commissioners took a vote upon the Bill; but the advertisement calling the public meeting at which the vote was taken appeared only in a newspaper which had a very limited circulation in Dublin, and none at all among the class of people who claimed the franchise. Under these circumstances, he appealed to the Liberal and Radical Members to give effect to the principle of the extension of the franchise, so that all those who paid rates either directly or indirectly should have a voice in the election of the Commissioners.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the question could be put into a nutshell. In the first place, it was an extraordinary thing that the opposition to a Private Bill concerning the suburbs of the City of Dublin should come from the Counties of Cork and Roscommon.
  MR. FLYNN, interposing, said, he knew Rathmines very well, and was deeply interested in its prosperity.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member's statement did not at all affect the remark he had just made. Although
  1612
  the City and County of Dublin had six Members, not one of them had raised his voice against the Bill. The matter was not one of Party politics at all. Indeed, hon. Members had received a Whip in favour of the passage of the Bill in its entirety, signed by some of the leading Nationalists of Rathmines.
  MR. M. HEALY: We are not opposing the Bill.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Whip had been issued in opposition to the opposition of the hon. Members. The question of the merits of the Bill was a very simple one. The Rathmines Town Commissioners, some time ago, erected waterworks at a cost of £150,000. The final Court of Appeal had decided that those waterworks were not constructed according to contract, there having been a conflict on the point for something like two or three years. The mill-owners, who sought and obtained an injunction against the Commissioners, had now come to terms on this Bill, and hon. Members opposite were asking the House to prevent the carrying out of a perfectly reasonable settlement which had been arrived at by the parties to the litigation. As to the question of the extension of the franchise, he himself, since he had entered the House, had voted at every opportunity for the extension of the municipal franchise, and he had been the first Member to support the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) in his proposal to extend the franchise in Belfast. That proposal, however, was made in the form of a separate Bill, so that it was really no precedent for the present Amendment. It was not a very convenient course to amend Private Bills in the way proposed, and he held that the House of Commons ought not to put difficulties in the way of a public body conducting the affairs of a prosperous township when they came forward with a proposal like that which was embodied in the Bill.
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): This is not a measure on which the Irish Government, as such, has any view, or is in any way involved. But a considerable number of representations have reached me about it, and perhaps the House will not be sorry if I state the course which I think my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr.

  1613
  M. Healy) might most advantageously pursue. I agree with him entirely in the principle he desires to establish. I am entirely with him in the desire to see the franchise extended in the direction he indicates, and I have not been very much impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Horace Plunkett) as to the question of precedence. I do not think that, the argument that there is no precedent for re-committing a Bill originating in the Lords carries us very far. At the same time, I am bound to say that practical inconvenience of the gravest kind will almost certainly follow the adoption of this Amendment. I know the Instruction is intended to he of a permissive character, and that the Committee might decline to accept the proposal it embodies; but we cannot deny that a great deal of time would be taken up by the proceedings which would have to take place, and we cannot hide from ourselves that it is perfectly possible that, were the intentions of hon. Members carried out and a provision for the extension of the franchise inserted in the Bill, the measure would have to go again to another place where it is not very hard to foretell the fate which would be in store for it. The result would be that the Bill would not pass the two Houses by the 1st of August, which is the latest date at which the measure can come into operation if the Instruction is to be complied with. I do not think it would be fair to leave the 25,000 people of Rathmines in the condition in which I think they would be left if the measure did not pass, and I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he should withdraw the Instruction.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR, York, W.R., Sowerby): As Chairman of Ways and Means, I am the Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee before which this Bill was brought. In case this Instruction is carried, and after the speeches which have been addressed to the House to-day, I do not think anybody could regard the Bill as altogether unopposed. I, therefore, think it will be my duty to scud it before an opposed Bill Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time; verbal Amendments made; Bill passed with Amendments.

QUESTIONS

  THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF TRINIDAD.
  MR. JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during the five years ending March, 1892, charges were repeatedly made by Petition and otherwise, from the inhabitants of Trinidad and Tobago, against the Chief Justice of those Colonies, of interviewing and advising intending litigants; encouraging speculative litigation and fraudulent conduct in Court; using intemperate language on the Bench; and illegally dispensing with the Statute Laws; why the charges that were made were never brought against the Chief Justice by the Governor in Executive Council in the usual course; what steps have been taken, or are proposed to be taken, to provide for a speedy and effectual method in the future for dealing with similar charges; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the late Report of the Trinidad Judicial Inquiry Commission?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BOXTON,): The late Chief Justice, whose conduct was impugned, has died, and the Court has been entirely reconstituted. No special arrangements are necessary for dealing with similar charges in the future. There are certain well-defined and well-recognised modes of procedure under which action can be taken in the Colony, and it is not desirable that the Secretary of State should interfere where recourse has not first been had to the usual constitutional action. The Report will be laid on the Table; but, as it is very bulky, it seems undesirable to incur the expense of having it reprinted.

INDIAN SERVICE PENSIONS.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is possible to arrange that the regulation for monthly payment of pensions to the retired mem-

1615
bers of the Indian Services resident in this country could be extended to those who receive their pensions in the Colonies?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The paymasters abroad have instructions to issue the pensions monthly to all officers who make application to be so paid.

INDIAN STAFF CORPS GRIEVANCES.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has now considered the statement of the grievances of the Indian Staff Corps officers, arising from their constant supersession by officers junior to them in the British Army; whether Lord Roberts made any suggestions to the Indian Government for remedying the anomalies and injustices complained of; and what, if any, resolution has been arrived at with reference to this matter?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The suggestions made by Lord Roberts and the Government of India have been under the consideration of the Secretary of State, whose views have been communicated to the Government of India. The question is still under consideration. No decision has been arrived at, as yet.

CLONGOREY WATER SUPPLY.
MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland are aware that the public health has been endangered at Clongorey, County Kildare, owing to the action of the agent of certain evicted farms there excavating a sheep bath, within 12 feet of the public pump, for the cure of sheep scab by poisonous dressing; whether he is aware that this pump formed the water supply of the Clongorey evicted tenants as well as an adjoining school; whether the Guardians of the Naas Union twice directed the agent to have the sheep bath removed, and what answers did they receive; whether he is aware that the Guardians, unable without litigation to have the nuisance removed, closed the pump, leaving the evicted tenants and school children without a proper water supply; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
*THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): It is a fact that baths for dipping sheep have been erected within a few feet of the public pump at Clongorey; but these baths, I am informed, have never yet been used for the purpose mentioned. Notice was served by the Guardians upon the agent to close the baths; but he declined to do so, and the Guardians were advised that a prosecution under the Public Health Act would not succeed, inasmuch as the baths had not been used. The Local Government Board are in communication with the Guardians on the subject of the existing water supply, which, it appears, is open to improvement irrespective of the baths in question.

IRISH CLERKS OF THE PEACE.
MR. MACARTNEY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Clerks of the Peace, appointed under the provisions of 1 George IV., c. 27, and who now hold office during good behaviour, and are entitled to special pensions under the County Officers and Courts Acts, Sec. 24, are included in the Schedule and amended Clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill, dealing with the position and pensions of Irish Civil Servants and other officials; and, if not, in what manner he proposes to deal with their interests?
*MR. J. MORLEY: The Clerks of the Peace in Ireland are not Civil Servants. They are county and not Government officers; they are paid partly by fees and partly by salaries fixed by the Grand Jury Acts, paid out of the county cess, and presented by the Grand Juries, as is also the special pension under Section 24 of the County Officers and Courts Act, 1877. The Bill, therefore, does touch these officers.

CORN ADULTERATION IN THE PUNJAUB.
MR. BALDWIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the statement in paragraph 18 of the official Report on the Material Progress of the Punjaub during the decade 1881–91, that in some parts of India the leading Euro-

1617
pean dealers grind up clay and mix it with their wheat in order to get the full benefit of the allowance for refraction; and whether any steps have been taken or will he taken by the Indian Government to prevent the continuance of a practice which is described as not only unfair to the Punjaub trade but demoralising to the cultivator?
*MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (l)The passage quoted has been seen by the Secretary of State for India. (2) Papers presented to Parliament (Nos. 5,702 and 5,760) in 1889 show that steps were taken by the Home and Indian Authorities to remedy the evil under notice. Some improvement has already taken place. The Secretary of State has requested the Government of India to consider plans for procuring the establishment of grain elevators at some of the chief grain marts. If this is done, it will conduce to the export of cleaner grain. It is not intended to propose a Wheat Frauds Act. The real remedy lies in the hands of the European exporting firms. If they demand cleaner grain the exporters will find it necessary to supply it.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY ESTATES.
*MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it appears from the published reports and accounts of the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty that they have in recent years invested large sums in the purchase of ground routs and reversions on long leases in various places; whether the Statutes under which Queen Anne's Bounty is administered contemplate the purchase of real estate by this Ecclesiastical Corporation for the purpose of making additions to glebes, but not for the purposes of investment; whether he is aware that in every case in which the Commissioners have purchased ground rents and reversions on long leases, and notably at Newton Abbott, the leaseholders in possession were and are anxious and willing to purchase the freeholds of their holdings, but were prevented from doing so by the purchase of the Commissioners; and whether he will suggest to the Commissioners the desirability of selling the ground rents and reversions to the leaseholders in
1618
possession at prices sufficient to prevent any loss as contemplated in similar cases in the Report of the Town Holdings Committee?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): It is true that the governors have from time to time invested part of their capital in the manner stated in the first paragraph. Out of a total capital of some £5,000,000 about £540,000 are so invested. I understand that the governors have been advised on the highest legal authority that their procedure in this respect is within their legal powers. As to the third paragraph, I am informed by the governors that in no case except that of Newton Abbot has any desire been expressed to them by leaseholders to purchase the reversions or their leases. The case of Newton Abbot was peculiar, the reversions purchased by the governors being that of a building estate which had been laid out as a whole with special regulations as to roads, buildings, and sea-views. Out of 300 lessees only 10 wished to purchase the freeholds, and except in one case (that of the college) the governors did not feel justified in the interests of the estate as a whole in selling. As 1o the last paragraph, the governors are a statutory authority with an independent discretion in the matters referred to by my hon. Friend, and I have no right to suggest to them the particular way in which their discretion should be exercised.
MR. COBB: Am I right in understanding that if a large number of leaseholders at Newton Abbot wish to buy their freeholds, the application to do so will be favourably considered?
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say that definitely. I know that out of 300 only 19 have so applied.

VOLUNTEER EQUIPMENT.
MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of any Volunteer battalions which in the year 1890–1 were below the number of their authorised establishment, but have, subsequently to that date, increased in numbers without any increase in establishment; whether in such cases the War Office declines to grant the equipment allowance in respect of the

1619
additional men, though the grant originally made was limited to the members serving at the time it was made; whether any provision is made in the Estimates for the current year, or will be made by Supplementary Estimates to meet such cases, or whether it is intended that battalions who have in the meantime made themselves more serviceable by such increase in their numbers should be deprived of the benefits which it was the intention of this House, as expressed by its vote, should be provided for them; and whether he will take care that the Volunteer Vote shall be brought on at a reasonably early period of the Session, so that further attention may be given to this matter?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): The special grant for great-coats and equipment made in 1891 provided for all Volunteers enrolled up to the 31st of March in that year, so that no more expenditure for these men should be necessary for several subsequent years. Men enrolled later have been expected to be provided for by their annual great-coat and equipment allowances. Those who in 1891 received the special grant for great-coats do not for a few years receive the annual greatcoat allowance; but the equipment allowance is given to all. There is no further provision for this service in the Estimates. I shall be glad if the Volunteer Vote can be brought on at a convenient time of the Session, and I hope the hon. Member, by expediting Public Business, will contribute to this object.
MR. TOMLINSON: Then do I understand that where the number of the establishment has been increased there is no provision for equipment allowance for the additional men?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What I said was that those who received the special great-coat allowance in 1891 will receive nothing more for great-coats for some years to come. The equipment allowance is given to all.

FIREARMS IN PROCLAIMED DISTRICTS IN IRELAND.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Donnaher, a returned emigrant
1620
just landed from America, who was charged at the Queenstown Petty Sessions on the 23rd April with having firearms in a proclaimed district, and fined 20s. and costs; whether he is aware that Donnaher, who has resided in the United States since he was a boy, stated that he was quite ignorant of the law relating to firearms; and has his attention been called to the fact that in certain parts of the North of Ireland large numbers of revolvers are in the possession of individuals not licensed to carry them; and, if so, will the Constabulary Authorities take steps to enforce the law relating to illegal possession of firearms?
*MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that when Patrick Donnaher landed at Queenstown he was distinctly asked by the Customs official if he had with him tobacco, cigars, spirits, firearms, or ammunition—such being contraband. Donnaher said he had not; but when his box was opened it was found to contain a quantity of cigars and spirits, and on his person was concealed a small revolver. He was prosecuted by the Customs officials for smuggling, and by the police for having a revolver in a proclaimed district. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, it is believed that there are numbers of revolvers in possession of unlicensed persons belonging to all parties and creeds in the North of Ireland, and when such are discovered prosecutions invariably follow.

WAR OFFICE CLERKS.
MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of promotions of Second Division Clerks in the War Office to Staff appointments and to the higher grade of the Second Division, which have been made in accordance with his promise of 11th March; and whether, if these promotions have not yet been made or approved, the delay is attributable to the War Office or to the Treasury?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no alteration in my intentions since March 11, when I stated that I was endeavouring to obtain for some of the Second Division Clerks certain advancement. The necessary details, however, are not yet completely settled.

1621
It would be unusual and irregular in such a case to disclose the nature of the communications with the Treasury.

FREE EDUCATION.
MR. HUGH HOARE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the managers of a village school have any right to claim payment from parents for books or school materials as a condition of their children's admission to school, or whether the parents have had since September, 1892, the right to absolutely free schooling if they choose to demand it?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): Managers of schools in receipt of State aid, whether free schools or not, have no right to claim payment of any kind from parents for books or school materials as a condition of their children's admission to school. All children have a right to absolutely free education. But the Department cannot compel the managers of a school which has the right to charge fees under the Act of 1891 to admit children free. If in consequence of such a right being exercised by the managers, any children in a school district cannot obtain free education, the Department will cause free accommodation to be provided in accordance with the Act.

THE APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES IN IRELAND.
MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Catholic holding the Commission of the Peace for the County Leitrim is resident in the Petty Sessions district of Kinlough; has a Nationalist Magistrate ever adjudicated in the Court of Kinlough Potty Sessions district; has a Catholic Nationalist, resident in the district, Mr. Patrick Fergus, P.L.G., been recommended by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for appointment to the Commission of the Peace for the County Leitrim; has the Lord Chancellor made the appointment; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds his Lordship has declined to appoint Mr. Fergus a Magistrate for the County of Leitrim; how many persons at present hold the Commission of the Peace for the County
1622
of Leitrim; how many of these are Catholics, and how many are Nationalists; and will the Lord Chancellor of Ireland act on the precedent established by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and make the Magisterial Bench in the County of Leitrim in some degree representative of the state of public; feeling in that county?
MR. CARVILL: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the appointment of Magistrates in Ireland, the Lord Chancellor acts only on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county; whether the Lord Chancellor, so far without any result, has pressed for such recommendation of certain gentlemen in Ulster whom his Lordship desired to have appointed; and whether he will take stops to induce the Lord Chancellor, in such cases, to exorcise his statutory-powers as to the appointment of Magistrates?
*MR. J. MORLEY: There is no Catholic Magistrate resident, I believe, in the district of Kinlough; but I have no information as to the political opinions of the Justices adjudicating there. The name of Mr. Patrick Fergus has been suggested to the Lord Chancellor for appointment to the Commission; he has not, however, been appointed. There are 71 Magistrates for Leitrim, and of these, so far as can be ascertained, nine are Catholics. I propose, when the opportunity arises, to make a statement as to the whole system of the appointment of County Magistrates in Ireland, and the action which the Lord Chancellor will be prepared to take. Until then I think it would be inconvenient to enter fully into the subject. I trust the hon. Member for Newry will also accept this answer.
MR. MAC NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the precedent set by Lord O'Hagan in appointing Magistrates after the various Lords Lieutenant had refused to nominate persons whoso names had been submitted to them?
*MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; we are well aware of the precedent set by Lord O'Hagan.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Return relative to the Irish Magistracy

1623
can be printed and circulated to Members of the House before Friday next?
*MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir; I am afraid that this Return, much as I desire it, cannot be ready by Friday next. The Return was ordered on the 14th February last, is a voluminous one, and, from the nature of the information required, must necessarily take a considerable time in preparation.
SIR THOMAS LEA: Are we to infer the right hon. Gentleman will make his promised statement next Friday?
MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say the opportunity would come next Friday, but if it does I shall be ready for it.

CLONAKILTY POSTAL SERVICE.
MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a resolution which was unanimously passed by the Guardians of Clonakilty Union, requesting that the same mail train service be given to Clonakilty as that already granted to the towns of Skibbereen and Bantry, and what steps he intends to take in the matter; and whether he is aware that the Dublin and English mails arrive in Cork before noon each day and are not sent on from Cork before 3 p.m., and that a goods train leaves Cork for West Cork each day at noon, arriving in Clonakilty at 2 p.m., and if arrangements could be made to despatch the mails by this train and thereby have them delivered in all the districts of West Cork three hours earlier than at present?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I have received the resolution referred to, and, on inquiry, I find that the circumstances are not the same in the two cases mentioned in the question. There is already an excellent night mail service by road to and from Clonakilty, and no trains are running by which accommodation equal to it could be provided. As regards the day mail, it appears that Clonakilty, even now, has a more convenient service than either Skibbereen or Bantry, and it is not practicable to make use of the goods train leaving Cork at 11.30 a.m. (not 12 noon) for conveying the Clonakilty mail.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY RATES.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the charge for conveying fish from Peterborough to Bourn by the Great Northern Railway, a distance of about 16 miles, is the same as that charged by the Midland Railway from New Milford, a distance of over 200 miles; and whether he can intervene to prevent these charges?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am informed that the facts are not as stated. There has been a mistake in the terms of consignment which has now been corrected. I will show the hon. Member the letter I have received on the subject.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Was the mistake made by the Railway Company?
MR. MUNDELLA: I think not. I will show the hon. Member the correspondence.

TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how soon the Report of the Board of Trade inquiry into the management of the Tralee and Dingle Railway will be published?
MR. MUNDELLA: I am informed that I may expect to receive the Report referred to by the hon. Member in the course of a few days. I will then carefully consider what action shall be taken with regard to it.

H.M.S. "THUNDERER."
MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the satisfactory run of H.M.S. Thunderer to Madeira and back, alluded to in the explanatory Statement of the Navy Estimates, issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty, was made on the old or on the reduced scale of engine room complements; and whether any Reports condemning the reduction in engine room complements have been received at the Admiralty from responsible Naval Officers?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The Thunderer's run to Madeira was made on the old complement, which gave her two stokers less

1625
than the revised complement now in force. A Report unfavourable to the reduction of the number of engine room artificers in complements has been received, and will be duly considered when sufficient experience has been gained of the new system.

ANTI-HOME RULE PETITIONS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a poster, printed at Wath-on-Dearne, Yorkshire, in which it is stated that a Petition against the Home Rule Bill can be signed at the Victoria and National Schools, Wath, from 10th April to 10th April inclusive, between the hours of 12 and 1 (noon) each day; and whether, if National Schools are to be used for such political purposes, Her Majesty's Government will take the first favourable opportunity of giving legislative effect to the unanimous Resolution of the House, passed 26th February, 1892, in order that political Parties may have equal privileges in the use of National Schools?
MR. ACLAND: My attention has been called to the poster in question. I think it is to be regretted that schools in receipt of Parliamentary grants should be used for political purposes of this sort if it can be avoided. With regard to the use of schools for public meetings, a Bill on this subject has been drafted, and will on the first favourable opportunity be submitted to Parliament, though I doubt if it will be possible in the course of this Session.

NEGLIGENT COMPANY DIRECTORS.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Hawkins in a recent trial in which he states that there is no Criminal Law which will punish a Director who scandalously neglects his duty, though he takes his money; and whether, in the public interest, the Government contemplate legislation to amend the law, as stated by Mr. Justice Hawkins to be necessary?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes; but I agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who, in answer to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on Friday last, stated that he did not think that Parliament could be called on to undertake at the present time so comprehensive a revision of the law as would be necessary to deal with this matter. In the meantime, the matter will be considered by the Attorney General.

JARMONBARRY LOCK.
MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a notice of the Board of Works in Ireland that the Lock at Jarmonbarry, on the Shannon, will be closed from the 28th of April to the 5th of June for the purpose of repairs; will he make inquiries whether such closure will for that long period stop the entire traffic on the Shannon between the towns of Carrick-on-Shannon and Athlone (which traffic has grown more considerable and important by reason of the increase of the railway rates); and whether, with due preparation, the necessary repairs could be completed in a much shorter period?
*MR. J. MORLEY: No formal notice as to closing the lock has been issued, but communications on the subject took place with the Grand Canal Company, and it was decided on the 27th April that no closure should take place for the present in order that arrangements might be made for expediting the works of repair, so as to cause as little interruption to the traffic as possible.

THE PORTSMOUTH COUNTY COURT JUDGE.
MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether it has been brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor that there have lately been pending, both in the local Courts under the administration of the County Court Judge of the Portsmouth district, and that there are now pending in the High Court of Justice, several petitions in bankruptcy against the learned Judge himself; that his honour has on more than one occasion acted judicially in one

1627
of his own cases, and is personally indebted to officers of his Court and to practitioners practising before him; whether he is aware that in administering the winding-up of the Portsea Island Building Society in the Portsmouth County Court his honour has caused the Sheriff's Officer of the county, one Moore, to sell the society's properties by public auction, and the Clerk of the Portsmouth County Court to collect the rents of the society for reward; that the relative of one of his honour's largest creditors, by his honour's instructions, is employed as counsel on behalf of the liquidators of the society, and his honour's private London solicitors, who were not otherwise interested or engaged for any client in the matter of the winding-up of the society or otherwise, have been appointed by his honour to represent a class of parties interested in the winding-up; and whether he will cull the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar): As to the first paragraph, I have spoken to the Lord Chancellor, who has not heard of what is suggested. He will, however, cause inquiries to be made into these statements, and also as to those set forth in the second paragraph.

MILITARY PRESIDENTIAL COMMANDS.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Despatch from the Governor General of India of the 2nd November, 1892, and of the opinions expressed in this House on the 17th February, 1891, he will introduce legislation to abolish the separate Military Presidential commands in Madras and Bombay?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend has probably not observed that ill accordance with the intimation I gave on the 10th March as to the intention of Her Majesty's Government, a Bill for this purpose has been introduced in the House of Lords by the Secretary of State for India.

THE INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Committee on Indian Currency may be expected; and what is the cause of
1628
the delay in the production of that Report?
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps, at the same time the hon. Gentleman will say whether he is aware that very great inconvenience and embarrassment to the financial calculations and policy of the Indian Government has been caused by the protracted delay in the production of the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee on Indian Currency; and whether, in the event of that delay being still further protracted, the Indian Government will be instructed not to wait for this Report so as to cause financial embarrassment?
*MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: As has been already stated by the Secretary of State in another place, the Committee appointed to advise the Secretary of State upon the proposals of the Government of India is now approaching the termination of its labours, and its Report may soon be expected. Owing to the great difficulty and complexity of the subject of inquiry, and to the amount of evidence submitted, the deliberations of the Committee have unavoidably extended over a considerable period of time. Her Majesty's Government do not think it expedient that the Government of India should be allowed to take measures in anticipation of the Report.

STANDING ORDERS.
DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, considering that the Standing Orders were, on a recent occasion, suspended to enable a Railway Bill to pass the First Reading in this House, and, notwithstanding this, was afterwards thrown out by the Standing Orders Committee in the House of Lords, will the Government consider the propriety of appointing a Joint Committee of both Houses to secure simultaneous action as to the compliance with Standing Orders in both Houses with regard to such cases?
MR. MUNDELLA: This is a matter over which I have no control. There may have been good and sufficient reasons for not suspending the Standing Orders in the House of Lords in the instance referred to. So large a change in Private Bill procedure cannot be accomplished without fresh legislation.
DR. MACGREGOR: Surely the right hon. Gentleman thinks this unnecessary waste of the public time ought to be remedied. I am sure it would be in the interest of all parties.

THE COMPTROLLER OF STAMPS AT DUBLIN.
MR. W. REDMOND: In the absence of the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that Mr. Phelps, Comptroller of Stamps at Dublin, is about to retire from the service of the Inland Revenue; if so, will he state the number of years Mr. Phelps has been in the service, and whether his contemplated retirement is on the ground of ill-health or of abolition of office, and if on neither of these grounds, then on what grounds is he about to take his pension; whether he can state, in case of Mr. Phelps' retirement, what arrangements are contemplated for the discharge of his duties as Comptroller; and whether he will see that the selection is made from amongst the officials in the Dublin Post Office?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Mr. Phelps, Comptroller of Stamps, retires on the 1st June next. He has served between 35 and 36 years. He retires in consequence of a re-organisation in the Dublin Inland Revenue Offices. The general superintendence of the business of the Comptroller's Office has, as a temporary arrangement, been, on the recommendation of the Board of Inland Revenue, assigned to their Inspector resident in Dublin.

BORSTAL CONVICT PRISON.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the night watchmen at Borstal Convict Prison have been deprived of the leave hitherto given in lieu of the fortnightly half-holiday granted to the day officers; and why the night watchmen are not relieved for one-fourth of the night, as sanctioned in the Directors' last annual Report?
MR. ASQUITH: Inquiries are being made on the spot by the Visiting Director, who has gone down to Chatham expressly for the purpose. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to repeat his question in a few days.

THE OLD HEAD OF KINSALE.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have made any recommendations to the Commissioners of Irish Lights with a view to having a new lighthouse light and fog signal placed at the Old Head of Kinsale, as recommended by the Irish Chamber of Commerce, &c.; what the reply of the Commissioners of Irish Lights has been; and whether the correspondence will be published?
MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir. The law requires that any recommendations that are necessary should be made by the Lighthouse Authorities to the Board of Trade, and not by the Board of Trade to the Lighthouse Authorities. The initiative in these matters of new lighthouses and fog signals rests with the Commissioners.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Have the Board of Trade communicated with the Board of Irish Lights?
MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir.

GWYTHERIN POSTAL SERVICE.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether repeated applications have been made for a post office by the inhabitants of Gwytherin, in Denbighshire, which is a centre for a considerable rural population, and has a largely attended school; whether he is aware that the nearest post offices are at Llanrwst, five miles distant, and Llangernyw, four miles distant; whether the Memorials addressed to the Department on the subject from time to time have set forth the serious inconvenience both personal and in business transactions to which the residents are put by the want of postal facilities in the locality; and whether, in view of these facts, he can see his way to authorise the establishment of a post office and savings bank at Gwytherin?
MR. A. MORLEY: I received an application of my hon. Friend on this subject in February last; but I find no record in the Department of any Memorials or previous applications from inhabitants of the district. I am glad to say that it will be possible to open a post office in the village, which appears to be only two and a-half miles from Llaurwst. The

1631
circumstances do not admit of money order and savings bank business being transacted there except under guarantee; but if a guarantee is forthcoming the matter will be attended to.

SUPERANNUATION OF IRISH LEGAL OFFICIALS.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the report in The Law Gazette as copied into The Irish Law Times of 15th April, 1893, stating that the Lord Chancellor was bringing pressure to bear on officials of the Supreme Court of Judicature over the age of 65 years to enforce their retirement under the Order in Council dated the 15th August, 1890, he would state if the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is bringing similar pressure on the officials of the High Court of Justice in Ireland who are also over the age of 65 years?
*MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Chancellor has seen the article referred to in the question. The Act of 1879, referred to by Lord Herschell, does not apply to Ireland; but the Lord Chancellor of Ire-land considers it desirable that whatever regulations may be ultimately applied to the legal establishments in England should also be applicable to the legal establishments in Ireland.

THE STRAITS SETTLEMENT.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that the military contribution of the Straits Settlement is much heavier per man than that of any other Colony, and is now one-fifth of the whole Revenue; and whether, since the contribution was raised in 1890 from £50,000 to £100,000, the Colony has had to absorb almost the whole of the fund hitherto specially maintained against times of special emergency, and has had to discontinue the necessary and ordinary public works?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The question of the amount of the military contribution to be paid by this Colony is about to be reviewed by the Departments concerned, and in these circumstances the hon. Member will see that it is not advisable to give a detailed answer, many of the points referred to being the subject of controversy.

WAR CHARGES UNDER HOME RULE FOR IRELAND.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table before the House goes into Committee on the Bill for the better Government of Ireland the proposal which the Government have in view to secure, so far as direct taxation is concerned, a fair proportion from Ireland of the Imperial charges in case of war?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I must preface my answer by stating that we shall not be able to go into Committee on the Irish Government Bill on Thursday, and therefore we propose to put it off until Monday. With respect to any proposal which we shall have to make with regard to the details of finance, I am not able to say that we can put them on the Table before going into Committee; but the Government will take care that ample and convenient notice is given to the House.

ZEBEHR PASHA.
MR. COHEN: In the absence of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Zebehr Pasha was nominated by the late General Gordon, in the year 1884, Vice Governor of the Soudan, and promised by him the restitution of his property in the Soudan; whether this nomination was rescinded at the instigation of the English Government of the day; whether, shortly afterwards, Zebehr Pasha was seized and sent without trial to Gibraltar, and confined there for over two years; whether, since his release at the end of 1887, he has repeatedly asked that he might be brought to trial, or have his property restored to him; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support his demand for a tribunal to try his case?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My personal knowledge with regard to Zebehr Pasha is principally of old date, and no communications have taken place with respect to him since the present Government came into Office. I have, therefore, applied to the Foreign Office for information, and I will read a letter which I have received from my noble Friend

1633
Lord Rosebery. The substance of the letter is that Zebehr Pasha was appointed by General Gordon in 1884 Sub-Governor of the Soudan, and that he subsequently made a claim upon the Egyptian Government of £E.974,000 for loss of property. Her Majesty's Government declined to sanction Zebehr Pasha's mission to Khartoum, and he was arrested at the request of Lord Wolseley, then General Officer commanding in Egypt, for military reasons, and was sent to Gibraltar, where he was detained until August, 1887. Zebehr Pasha asked to be allowed to return to the Soudan, or to be paid his claim for loss of property. Before leaving Gibraltar he signed a paper undertaking to live at whatever place the Egyptian Government might select, and it was arranged that he should receive £E.3,000 a year and should abandon all claims upon the Egyptian Government. This arrangement having been entered into between Zebehr Pasha and the Egyptian Government, Her Majesty's Government have not thought it to be any part of their duty to interfere.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
To Mr. Villiers, for one month, on the ground of ill-health.—(Mr. Anstruther.)
LONDON EQUALISATION OF RATES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I have to ask the leave of the House to bring in a Bill for the equalisation of rates in the Metropolis. The Bill is only carrying out the unanimous Resolution passed by the House on February 24 in the present year—a Resolution which the Government pledged themselves to give effect to. The scheme is one which cannot be critically examined until all the details are before the House, and no advantage can be gained by having a Second Reading discussion on the First Reading. The principle upon which the Bill proceeds is to ask Parliament to levy, or rather to ask the County Council to levy, throughout the whole of the Metro-polis a uniform rate of 6d. upon the rateable value of London, and to distribute that rate amongst the Sanitary Authorities of the Metropolis
  1634
  according to the respective numbers of their population. I think the House will see, when it has the details before it, that the relief is given where it ought to be given, and burdens imposed where burdens ought to be imposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the equalisation of Rates as between different parts of London."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  *MR. WHITMOREsaid, that, in view of the opinion expressed by the House on February 24, it would be a waste of time to debate the principle of the Bill now; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand that on the Second Reading they would have to critically examine the details. While most hon. Members on his side of the House were in favour of further equalising the rates in London, they reserved to themselves full liberty of discussion upon the details, and of considering very critically the means by which it was proposed that the principle should be carried out, it being desirable that the responsibility and independence of the existing Local Authorities should not be unduly diminished.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Walter Foster.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 332.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  EGYPTIAN AFFAIRS.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE)said, he rose to call attention to the course pursued by. Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egyptian affairs; and to move—
  "That the time has come when effect should be given to the declarations of successive Administrations as to the Government of Egypt."
  It might not be necessary to go into the history of the military interven-

  1635
  tion in Egypt. The present military occupation of that country was not necessarily the consequence of the military intervention itself. On the history of that military intervention in the year 1882 the two sides of the House had never agreed—there had never been agreement between them as to the circumstances which had brought about the military occupation. The view of the Liberal Government, which was very often stated in the House and in the country, was that the first Control—the Control established by the late Lord Derby—although one which the Liberals could not oppose as a Party—being a financial Control which did not amount to an intervention by the Government in the general affairs of Egypt—was, nevertheless, a somewhat dangerous experiment which had to be watched with a great deal of attention, and that view was expressed with almost prophetic force by the present Prime Minister in an article which he wrote on the Egyptian Question during the time of the first Control. The first Control was a financial Control. It arose out of the mission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen). The Controllers were not nominated by their Governments, and they were, at all events nominally, the servants of the Khedive of Egypt. A change occurred in the situation at the end of 1879. In November, 1879, there was sot up a second Control, which had been known as "The Salisbury Control." That Control constituted a direct intervention in the affairs of Egypt, and, in his opinion, military intervention after that was only a question of time. The second, or "Salisbury" Control was very sharply opposed by very many Liberal Members who still had seats in the House. They foresaw and tried to get others to foresee many of the evils that had since happened. The Cotrollers occupied seats in the Government of Egypt. They were nominated by their respective Governments, but they were no longer servants of the Khedive—they represented in the Councils of Egypt the actual voice of the foreign Governments by whom they were nominated. The very natural result of this sharper form of Control was that Egyptian national feeling began to be excited against the foreigner. Lord Salisbury was beaten in March, 1880,
  1636
  but the Liberal Administration which followed did not reverse the policy of the Control, although they set themselves to reversing the policy of their predecessors in almost every part of the world—notably in India, where it was necessary to withdraw the Viceroy.
  An hon. MEMBER: He resigned.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, that at all events the policy of the Control was not reversed—the incoming Government accepted it with all its consequences. It would have been difficult and dangerous, only three months after the Control had got into working order, to have changed the whole system. However justly and severely they might have condemned Lord Salisbury's Control of November, 1879, they must remember that it had only become an actual fact in Egypt from February, 1890, and, it would be admitted, considerable trouble was likely to ensue in an Oriental country from a sudden reversal of policy. But after the creation of the Salisbury Control and the revolutionary acts of the Arabists, the Joint Note was probably unavoidable. He was himself prepared to take his share of responsibility for the Joint Note, although it had been issued by a Cabinet of which he was a mouthpiece, not a Member, and, oddly enough, without his previous knowledge: for, although he was in the Foreign Office service at the time, he was abroad on Government business and did not see the draft. After the Joint Note the Cabinet, of which he was still at that time not a Member, thought armed intervention necessary, though they deplored the earlier engagements which had in their opinion, and in that of the then Tory Leaders, though not of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, nor in that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, made it necessary. The intervention, supported by the two Front Benches, was a matter as to which there was a difference of opinion. As regarded a majority in the country, intervention in the East was always judged by subsequent events, although these events did not affect the principle. In 1860 the intervention in Syria was not only, like that in Egypt, generally popular at the time, but, unlike that in Egypt, remained popular. It made the fame of Lord Dufferin. It was

  1637
  as popular in France, which found the troops, as in England, which found the Commissioner. War was averted and the troops withdrawn. The Bedouin might easily have made of the Syrian intervention the partial failure which the Soudanese made of the Egyptian. The principle in each ease was the same. The occupation which followed the intervention had not been a necessary consequence of the intervention. It would have been possible to come away a few months after the expedition, when Sir Evelyn Wood had reported the Egyptian Army, with its British officers, fit to stand alone. Personally, he himself could take only his share of a collective responsibility that we had not come away at that moment. The time had not arrived—would only come after the death of all concerned—when it would be possible to distribute the blame, if blame were due, or praise for the troops remaining there. In the meantime, all must be content to take any blame that might have to be allotted, merely pointing out that the Government had been going to leave Egypt when the obstinacy of the Native Government, against their advice, caused the Hicks disaster and led to the general uprising of the frontier tribes. To stay in Egypt was contrary to the settled policy of this country. Lord Palmerston had expressed it in these words—
  "We do not want to have Egypt. … We do not want the burden of governing Egypt."
  It had been contrary to the promises made at the time we went there. In October, 1882, the then Sir Evelyn Baring, now Lord Cromer, had written most powerfully against a protectorate and in favour of evacuation; and, although he now held a different view, Lord Cromer could not easily undo the effect of his own reasoning, which had greatly influenced him (Sir Charles Dilke) and others. No positive step of withdrawal had been taken before February, 1883. On the 15th of that month Sir Stafford Northcote, in the Commons, complained, with a sneer, that the Government
  "Held forth a prospect of withdrawing the Force in six months or in half-a-century."
  Lord Hartington, in reply, had said that Sir S. Northcote
  1638
  "In the first period of time he suggested, has stated with probable accuracy the length of time that it may be necessary to keep our troops in Egypt "
  —that was six months. In August, 1888, his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had quoted these words of the present Duke of Devonshire, and had quoted also a promise by the then and present Prime Minister, and asked if there was any change. The right hon. Member for Midlothian, in reply, introduced the word "stable" as representing the state of things which we desired to leave behind us, and from that time forth fairness bade him carefully point out that it had figured in all the promises. The promises, however, were very strong. As early as March, 1883, Lord Dufferin had pointed out
  "That the permanent military occupation, … being contrary to the repeated declarations of Her Majesty's Government, was not an idea to which he could give the slightest encouragement."
  On the 9th November, 1883, the order for the evacuation of Cairo had been given, and the Prime Minister, naming it, called it
  "A subject for congratulation which will offer a new testimony to the world that we have been in earnest in the declarations that we have repeatedly made."
  All the Powers at that time believed our promises, but Austria was in the habit of asking us from time to time when they would be kept; and we replied to her in January, 1884, disavowing not only the idea of annexation, but also of protectorate. In February, 1884, Lord Derby, speaking for the Government, said—
  "From the first our … intention has been to withdraw our force as soon as circumstances allow. Lord Hartington spoke a year ago of hoping we might do it in six months. He was sanguine … but do you doubt that he was sincere? We know why the intended evacuation was delayed. The war in the Soudan is the sole, the sufficient cause.… We wish to help Egypt out of her troubles, but we do not wish to turn Egypt into a British Dependency. … We have always looked forward to the time when our powers should be at an end."
  On the 15th February the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle declared that annexation (but he would not deny that his then argument applied to even a long continuance of occupation) "would be giving hostages to France;" and he went on to say, "Fare-

  1639
  well the blessing of the silver streak!" Four days later Lord Hartigton explained that some Conservatives desired
  "The substitution for the Dual Control of a single British Control, for which permanent military support would be necessary. … The administration of all departments of importance by Englishmen. …Their system would build up nothing … prepare nothing. When at any time our military support … was withdrawn that system must necessarily fall."
  The present Duke of Devonshire went on to taunt the Conservative Party with being, in fact, unwilling to accept the policy of protectorate put forward from the Radical Benches by Mr. Cowen, whose speech they cheered. Sir Stafford Northcote, in reply, said on the same day—
  "Our interest in Egypt is not to expand our territory, not to annex that which does not belong to us, not to extend the boundaries of our Empire."
  On the l5th of June, 1884, France had explained her policy. She pronounced the condominium to be dead, and said she spoke only for the collective interests of Europe. The Government of the Republic was willing to come under an engagement never at any time to occupy the country. Its declarations were
  "Inspired by the confidence that Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate on their side to confirm distinctly "
  their declarations that they would
  "Evacuate the country when order should be re-established."
  Lord Granville, in reply, on the next day, declared that—
  "Her Majesty's Government … are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888."
  Her Majesty's Government would
  "At or before the expiration of the occupation, propose to the Powers and to the Porte a scheme for the neutralisation of Egypt on the basis of the principles applied to Belgium."
  On the 11th August the right hon. Member for Bristol made a pronouncement upon the question—
  "I do not think that anyone who has considered this question imagines that we could act in reference to Egypt otherwise than in accordance with our Treaty obligations and the general opinion of Europe, and I should be very glad to see the day arrive when it might be no longer necessary for a single soldier to remain in Egypt."
  1640
  In 1884 and 1885 we induced France to enter into conferences with regard to Egyptian finance and the Suez Canal, by means of the proposal that, on the termination of our occupation, there should be this "neutralisation of Egypt, on the basis of the principles applied to Belgium." Early in 1885, when our troubles with the Arabs had been at their height—even at that most difficult of all moments—the promises had been renewed. On the 26th February, Lord Derby had said—
  "We do not propose to occupy Egypt permanently. On that point we are pledged to this country and pledged to Europe, and if the contrary policy is adopted it will not be by us."
  On the same day Lord Derby had said that—
  "If he thought the Opposition agreed in the policy of terminating our responsibilities in Egypt as early as possible, and if the House believed the Opposition could better accomplish that purpose, he would gladly resign his seat."
  Taking up the phrase "stable Government," he ridiculed the idea of a Government more stable than that existing being set up, unless it were, in fact, a British Government. He asked if the Conservative Party intended to take up the position that—
  "he sacrifices of England entitled her to claim exclusive influence in Egypt. … Is that your proposition?"
  Some noble Lords on the back Benches said "Yes," and Lord Derby replied—
  "We went to Egypt having made the solemn declaration to Europe that we did not intend to do what you now ask us to do. We made that declaration in the name of the English Crown and with the authority of the British Parliament."
  After describing
  "the sacrifices which a permanent occupation of Egypt would entail upon us,"
  he wont on—
  "For my part, I adhere firmly to the declaration which the Government made when they first entered Egypt."
  On the next day Lord Kimberley, speaking for the Liberal Party, said that there was no difference between the Parties.
  "Any Government would endeavour to … secure our interests in Egypt, and as early a retreat from it as may be possible."
  So much for the period when the Liberals were in Office. When the Conservatives

  1641
  came in they at once sent Sir Henry Wolff to Constantinople on the Special Mission of August, 1885, on the Egyptian Question. The very first thing they did was to enter on fresh negotiations on this subject. They, indeed, worked hard at it until they concluded a Convention, which, refused as it was by the Turks and the French at the time, could now, he thought, be obtained if it were pleased. The first promise of the Conservatives had been taken word for word from those of their Predecessors. It was dated the 26th August, 1885—
  "Her Majesty's Government had no idea of annexing Egypt, or of establishing a Protectorate."
  In October, 1885, there had been concluded a preliminary Convention, the terms of which pointed towards evacuation; and the matter then somewhat slumbered until Sir Drummond Wolff's Mission was taken up again in November, 1886. On the 4th November Her Majesty's Government delivered a Note to Turkey, in which they reiterated their assurances, rehearsed the terms of the Convention, suggested concessions from the other Powers, which
  "will render the termination of the British occupation practical at a comparatively early date,"
  and concluded by saving that the above proposals were made with a sincere desire to render the British occupation as brief as possible. On the 9th of November Lord Lyons explained what the French Government had said to him in reply to what they had heard as to our intentions. The French Prime Minister was willing to consider the necessity of a provision for the temporary return of our troops in the event of disorders. On the 13th November the French Ambassador declared that his Government were "prepared to accept it," meaning the stipulation as to return. On the 17th December Lord Lyons informed the French Government that—
  "Her Majesty's Government were anxious to be relieved of the burden which was entailed upon them by the occupation of Egypt."
  The Home Government then declared their intention of discussing the details of
  "Arrangements to be made prior to the withdrawal of the British troops with a view to … putting them in the shape most likely to be acceptable to the Powers."
  1642
  In January, 1887, the Government wrote fully on their views. They desired to retain
  "An adequate number of British officers in positions of command in the Egyptian Army."
  Subject to this, they declared
  "The object which the Powers of Europe have in view, and which it, is not less the desire of Her Majesty's Government to attain, may be generally expressed by the phrase 'the neutralisation of Egypt.' But it must be neutralisation with an exception designed to maintain the security and permanence of the whole arrangement."
  This was the right of re-entry, which they had obtained from France, and of which Lord Salisbury wrote—
  "There is no danger that a privilege so costly in its character will be used unless the circumstances imperatively demand it. … Her Majesty's Government are very far from intending to use such a power, if it should be reserved to them by Treaty, for the purpose of exercising any undue influence or creating a Protectorate in disguise; still less for unnecessarily renewing an occupation which has already imposed so many sacrifices upon Great Britain."
  These sacrifices had not diminished since that time. The sacrifices imposed by the occupation of Egypt on this country had increased and were likely to grow. The monetary sacrifices to which Lord Salisbury alluded were considerable. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to them on the grounds of economy to save money on every side. The right hon. Gentleman well knew that the occupation of Egypt was a very costly matter to this country, and that the amount of money which Egpyt repaid towards the charge for the British troops was very different from the sum they cost, and was ridiculously small compared with the full cost as borne by India in the case of India. On the 4th March, 1887, Sir Drummond Wolff declared on behalf of the Government—
  "We consider the time arrived when a permanent settlement of the country could be fixed which would give to no one Power any undue preference.… Our only national interest is to keep the highway clear."
  We had handed to the Turks a Memorandum, in which we explained to them what was meant by neutralisation, and quoted the case of Belgium. In April we had agreed to fixing a term for the conclusion of our occupation, a term which Sir Drummond Wolff thought should be shortened, and he pointed out the great cost to the British Government

  1643
  of the maintenance of the troops in Egypt. The Austrian Government had also been pressing our Government to come to an absolute conclusion of the occupation, and had informed our Ambassador at Vienna of that which was still true—
  "That the Egyptian Question was the one obstacle to the establishment of perfect confidence in England on the part of the Sultan."
  Sir Drummond Wolff was directed to inform the Turks—and did so in the same month—
  "That it in no way enters into the views of Her Majesty's Government to establish themselves permanently in Egypt."
  The Convention was then signed, and Sir Drummond Wolff, in explaining it, made some important remarks, which were approved by the Government at home. He declared that—
  "The drain on the military and financial resources of England rendered it most desirable that an end should, as soon as possible, be made to a position of so delicate and dangerous a character. … As to the policy of annexation, … the objections are, to my mind, overwhelming. It would have been a violation of the traditional policy of England, of her good faith to the Sultan, and of public law. In time of peace it would have exposed her to constant jealousy and danger. In time of war it would have been a weak point, entailing a perpetual drain on her resources."
  This language of Sir Drummond Wolff was the language of the Government, for it was approved in the usual form, and the approval laid before Parliament; and after the ordinary approval it was again approved, for Lord Salisbury, on the 22ud July, declared on the whole correspondence that the negotiations had
  "Had important results in defining formally the character of the British occupation of Egypt, and the conditions which are necessary to bring it to a close."
  On the 10th June Lord Salisbury had defended the Convention in Debate—the same Convention which the present Government might have had, he thought, from both Turkey and France. Lord Salisbury said that—
  "It was not open to us to assume the protectorate of Egypt, … even supposing … that such a course … would be consistent with International Law and the interests of this country. It was not open to us, because Her Majesty's Government had over and over again pledged themselves that they would not do so."
  These words of the Conservative Prime Minister were his case. The matter had
  1644
  slumbered for a time after the Turks had failed to ratify the Convention, which at the present moment they would be willing to ratify. On the 20th December, 1888, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had again repeated our assurances—
  "We are pledged before Europe not to occupy Egypt permanently. I say distinctly that we do not look upon the occupation of Egypt as strengthening the position of this country."
  This was the position, then, of two Liberal Governments and of two Conservative Governments in succession: that we ought to leave a stable condition of affairs behind us, but that our occupation must be brought to an end, both because we were pledged, and because the occupation was a burdensome weakness to this country. On the 20th August, 1889, Lord Carnarvon brought the subject to the notice of the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury replied—
  "To say that, in despite of all we have said, … we will … declare our stay in Egypt permanent" would show "an insufficient regard to the sanctity of the obligations which the Government of the Queen have undertaken and by which they are bound to abide."
  This concluded the list of official or Government pledges so far as he should quote them. If ever a country was committed to bringing a temporary occupation to an end, this country was committed in the Egyptian case. As to the views of the present Government there could be no doubt. The first reference to the matter during the Election period was that by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland at Cambridge, in which he rightly traced to the occupation every evil which affected the country in the conduct of foreign affairs. He asked what was "the cost, the whole cost in weakness? England in Egypt is a vulnerable England"; and he spoke of "the bootless disadvantages and dangers to which it exposes us." Then came the speech at Newcastle of the present Prime Minister, in which he alluded to our occupation of Egypt as an embarrassment and a weakness; and the organ of the Liberal Party, in commenting upon that speech, exclaimed that it was a "noble thing to govern Egypt as we govern her. But it is a still nobler thing to keep our word." Up to the present time we had not kept our word, but we had not broken

  1645
  it. Such a state of things could not long continue; and it might have been more prudent, after joining with the Conservatives in declaring the occupation to be a weakness, to have, at the commencement of the acts of the Administration, done that which in somewhat similar circumstances of delicacy Lord Granville did in 1880—made our own proposals in our own way to the Powers. The last official statements which had been made upon the question were those of the 10th February 1892. Lord Kimberley, speaking as the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords, spoke of the occupation of Egypt as
  "Fraught with great advantages to that country, the long; continuance of which is, however, fraught with great disadvantages to our Empire."
  Lord Salisbury had replied that Lord Kimberley's speech constituted
  "A sound and orthodox statement of the view that has always been held upon both sides."
  That was the latest utterance of Lord Salisbury on this question. The present Prime Minister possessed a considerable advantage in dealing with this question over any other living statesman who could be named. He had always been guided by principle in regard to it; while too many others were, for one reason or another, open to the reproach that they had been at times animated by considerations of mere expediency. The plan which was suggested was that which had been admirably expressed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington in the following words:—
  "I advocate the placing of Egypt under the guarantee and guardianship of United Europe, so that, no one single Power shall be able to exercise there superior influence to another, so that collective authority shall restrain individual ambition. In a word. I plead for the real emancipation of an historic land and the true freedom of an ancient race."
  In the same speech, curiously enough, the noble Lord had quoted the prophetic words which had been written by the present Prime Minister in 1877 to the effect that an occupation of Egypt meant a farewell to all cordiality of political relations between England and France. The noble Lord also had protested in eloquent language, upon purely British grounds, against a military occupation "by the already over-burdened Forces of
  1646
  the British Crown." The case for negotiation was overwhelming, and had been overwhelming from the moment when the Government came into Office. Their Predecessors might say—"We tried, all but succeeded, and failed through French obstruction." The present Government could make no such plea, because they might have had the same Convention which had previously been refused, or a better one if they could have drawn one better. He was far from saying that it would have been possible for anyone to complain if in settling this question the Foreign Secretary had insisted on dealing at the same time with other outstanding questions in which the late Government, instead of going right, as they had on this one, had gone wrong; such questions as Newfoundland and Madagascar. But negotiation, cither by itself or to include other outstanding questions, was an obvious duty which he thought had been too long neglected. It was for us to make our own propositions—not for us to wait for France. The present reply, made by many, was to admit everything—to admit the pledges, to admit the burdensome weakness of our position, the drain and danger to the Empire, but. to plead (hypocritically in some cases, he much feared,) our duty to the Egyptians. Now, it was a curious thing that there was nobody in Egypt who wanted us. The late Khedive was an admirable, cautious, wise, prudent, timid man; absolutely dependent, as it would seem, on us. But he did not want us to stay. The present Khedive was as different as one man could be from another. He was a man of very considerable power, perhaps somewhat rash. He did not want us to stay. The late Ruler saw no difficulty in maintaining himself under the arrangements that were proposed in the Wolff Convention. The present Ruler saw no difficulty. The statesman that we had placed at the side of the present littler, our own man, Riaz Pasha, who had had more experience of governing Egypt than almost any other man, was anxious that we should be gone. In all Egypt there was nobody of weight that wanted us except our own officials. Some maintained that the peasantry would be oppressed, whatever the influence of Europe, if we should leave. It was the actual presence of our troops that, was

  1647
  necessary for their protection. But the peasantry themselves did not think so; and all who knew the circumstances were of opinion that they preferred Rulers of their own. If negotiations were not soon entered on, this matter would be brought to a pretty definite test. We had insisted on the adoption of Liberal institutions, the formation of a National Assembly, but we had never called this Assembly together for the purpose of acting on its advice. It was the intention of the Khedive and Riaz to let it meet. Could anyone doubt what would be the opinion of that Assembly when it met? What were we going to do when the Khedive, and the Prime Minister that we had given him, and the National Assembly declared their course? Were soldiers to be sent to arrest the Khedive in his bed, or was the National Assembly to be turned out by British force? Some said that the Dervishes would give trouble. But their best leader, the man who had destroyed Hicks, had marched on Egypt with his picked men; he had been met by the Egyptian Army commanded by British officers, before the British troops came up, and he had been destroyed at Toski. Toski showed that Dervishes died of hunger and thirst like other people, and that they were unable to reach the Egyptian frontier in formidable force. Some quoted the opinion of Lord Cromer, but Lord Salisbury had that opinion before him and deliberately decided not to stay; and it was hardly necessary to point out that an opinion given in the country—in Egypt, on local grounds—could not take into consideration those International sources of weakness of which the Prime Minister had spoken. The one argument which had something in it was that Egyptian Stocks were sensitive and that Egyptian Funds would fall. But, on the other hand, France had also immense interests in Egyptian Stocks, and this very fact would make it certain that any Government of France would not desire to see rash steps taken to bring about an inconsiderate evacuation. When we were told that we could come out when the work was done, he must point out that it was as much done as it ever would be. As a great official in Egypt that he could not name—for he was referring to a private conversation—had said to him—"If you
  1648
  want us to go you must give us different orders." In other words, everything had been done, in spite of our language, to make going difficult, to keep the late Khedive in leading-strings, to impose our will upon the present Ruler. The last consideration that he would name would be his own conception of the extent to which the occupation hampered our policy. Newfoundland, Madagascar, Heligoland, the lost "British road from south to north" in Africa along the lakes, were the evidence of the dead weight of the Egyptian occupation. He had given some consideration to the strategic problem. Our pledges were pledges, and no doubt it was our duty to come out even against our clearest interest; but he should have let somebody else propose it, as far as he personally was concerned, if he had not been as convinced as Lord Salisbury was that in a military and strategic sense the occupation was a burdensome weakness. Egypt was strategically an island. It was ours in war if we retained our command of the seas. If the command of the Mediterranean was lost our force in Egypt was locked up and thrown away. There were some who were indiscriminate in these matters, whose one idea was to grab all and keep all; but he himself was not averse to an extension of Imperial responsibilities when good ground was shown. He had fought, even against the Navy, for the retention of Port Hamilton, and he had fought with the Indian Authorities against the Government at home for the retention of the Pishin Valley, just as he had fought against the Indian Authorities and with the Government at home for the evacuation of Kandahar. These questions could not be solved by any general rule. Each must be considered on its merits, and the merits were against the Egyptian occupation. If negotiations were not begun he should have to ask himself what course he himself, and any who might agree with him, should take when, in the future, Divisions were taken on the Votes for men in Egypt, and on the Agent's salary. He thought that it would be a grave mistake to come out of Egypt suddenly and without due International preparation; but when he considered what were the dangers of staying there he must retain his freedom to vote for

  1649
  the least dangerous solution, that of instant evacuation if reasonable negotiation could not be secured. His own policy, however, was that of the two last Liberal and of the two last Conservative Administrations. He attached no importance to any particular word. The word "neutralisation" had been that of Lord Granville in 1884, suggested, he thought, by himself and others who, perhaps, had now changed their minds; it had been the word of Lord Salisbury in 1887; and when he was told by some hon. Members of the House, who had also changed their views, that we must stay, in the interests of the Egyptian people, he replied that it was our duty, with due regard to our pledges, to look first to our own interests—that our position was too dangerous for us to do aught else; that it was against our interest to stop in Egypt, as had been shown by Lord Salisbury and Lord Kimberley, by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, and by the Prime Minister; and that in our own interest it was our duty to secure Lord Salisbury's Convention, with the power of re-entry given by it, or some equivalent arrangement. Lord Rosebery in his recent Despatch, and towards the end of it, had used a phrase which declared that under certain circumstances it would be necessary for us to call a Conference. If we were not to have the Wolff Convention a Conference would be necessary. But he feared that the policy of the Despatch was to wait until circumstances of danger arose, and then to propose it. It surely would be far better, without waiting, at once to suggest the Conference. He would urge upon the Government the expediency of not waiting for other people—of not waiting until proposals were made to us by France: but to put forward our own policy was the best course in redemption of our pledges and in the maintenance of our interests. He concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That." to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the time has come when effect should be given to the declarations of successive Administrations as to the Government of Egypt,"—(Sir Charles Dilke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): My right hon. Friend docs not require to offer any apology to the House for the very interesting and lucid review which he has given us of the history of the Egyptian Question, or for the extent to which he has gone in citing and pressing upon the attention of the House the many and singularly accordant declarations of principles which have proceeded from responsible Ministers and others on both sides of the House in respect to our present occupation of Egypt and the character of that occupation. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has not found any cause to object to what has been actually said and done by the present Government, while he wishes them to say and do what they have not yet done. He has discussed the recent declaration of Lord Rosebery, and I think I can say with perfect safety that there is no foundation for the apprehension, which he did not seem to entertain, that the declaration was intended to convey the sense that it would be a wise policy on our part to wait in Egypt until circumstances of danger and difficulty arose, and then to make those circumstances, and those circumstances alone, the ground for proceeding to arrange the necessary measures for evacuation. That construction, I can assure my right hon. Friend, may be entirely laid aside as not having entered into the mind of anyone who has been called upon, so far as I know, to take in view this important and very grave question. I cannot do otherwise than express my general concurrence both in the historical outline and also in the declarations of principles which have been cited in the speech we have just heard from so many sources, that the occupation of Egypt, viewed with respect to the interests of this country, is in the nature rather of a burden and difficulty, and in given circumstances a risk; that the permanent occupation of that country would not be agreeable to our traditional policy, and that it would not be consistent with our good faith towards the Suzerain Power,

  1651
  while it would be contrary to the laws of Europe. All these declarations adopted by my right hon. Friend are declarations which I do not think will be seriously contested in any quarter of the House. At any rate, my right hon. Friend has supported them with a mass of evidence very difficult indeed to deal with by those who wish to set up an opposite view. My right hon. Friend has anticipated that the answer would be made to him—and I suppose he meant an answer on the part of the Government—that a duty to Egypt has arisen the effect of which is virtually to cancel those declarations.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not go so far as that. I did not speak of the Government. I gathered the opinion from conversation with hon. Members of the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think that might be inferred from the speech; but I wish, at any rate, to combat that inference. I certainly shall not set up the doctrine that we have discovered a duty which enables us to set aside the pledges into which we have so freely entered. I do not at all disguise that the burdens and the risks attending upon this occupation have been accompanied by one great compensation, and that great compensation has been the enormous benefit which has been conferred upon Egypt, not only by the maintenance of peace and tranquillity, but especially, I hope I may say, by the unmeasured improvements which have been introduced into its law and finance. I will not now argue how far that consideration ought to enter into our view; but an indefinitely prolonged occupation has passed out of our view—I do not say out of our competence as a Naval and Military Power, but out of our competence as a State bound to observe and set an example of honour in respect of its engagements to other nations. Of course, it would be quite within our rights to invite the Powers of Europe to a Conference, together with the Suzerain Power, and to lay before those Powers—if it be really our opinion—the change of circumstances which has taken place, the great benefits which have arisen from our practical intervention in the government of Egypt, and, consequently, the sense which we entertain that a new arrangement ought to be made, and that
  1652
  Egypt should remain, if not permanently, yet without any strict limit of time, under tutelage, instead of being restored to anything like her independent action subject only to the relation she holds to the Suzerain Power. We might do that with perfect honour; but the thing we cannot do with perfect honour is either to deny that we are under engagements which preclude the idea of an indefinite occupation, or so to construe that indefinite occupation as to hamper the engagements that we are under by collateral considerations, and so virtually to relieve us from them altogether. Beyond that our course is free and open, in an assembly of the Powers of Europe, to recommend—and to act on the recommendation as far as our title goes—that which we believe to be best for the welfare of this country. So far, therefore, I am able to travel with my right hon. Friend; but when I come to regard the question of his Motion upon other grounds, I am bound to say that I venture even to hope that he does not himself propose to force it upon the consideration of the House with a view to a definite opinion, and to lay down the grounds, which I think are very clear, which show that such a Motion ought not to be adopted by the House. We have to consider not only Egypt, but the rights and the peculiar position of the Suzerain Power, and we have to consider also the position of the five other Great Powers of Europe. It is a very nice matter to determine what and when and how any steps should be taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. My right hon. Friend has given his opinion that we should probably have acted with more wisdom if we had produced a plan of our own upon entering Office rather than that we should have waited even for the most limited period to sec what communications would be made to us. But I think that he has omitted to take into view this rather important fact: that the subject was already open, and that the British Government under our Predecessors were in what I may call a more passive condition—that they had ceased to be the actual proposers of any plan, as they had been in the case of the Drummond Wolff Convention, and that they were receiving from time to time overtures or communications from

  1653
  the Turkish Government, and were also in communication with France upon the matter. There is no special title on the part of France to intervene on this subject. Her rights are no different from those of others, but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that we have had practically a great many communications with France upon the subject, and that rudely to break off from any recognition of the special part which France has taken in the Egyptian negotiations would not be quite consistent, I think, with our friendly relations with that country, and undoubtedly it would not be a step politic in itself. I give great credit to Lord Salisbury and his Government for the Drummond Wolff Convention; but here is a point on which I am afraid that I am not quite at one with my right hon. Friend. He says that it is in our power to revive and extend that Convention. That, as an announcement from him, is one of great interest; but I am bound to say that I have never heard from any quarter—certainly not from any quarter of authority—that the reasons which induced Franco to obtain through Turkey the rejection of that Convention have ceased to operate in such a degree and manner that Franco is ready to withdraw that objection and to allow of the ratification of the Drummond Wolff Convention. That is a point of great importance, and in regard to which I am inclined to think—I am bound to say—there are strong presumptions leading to the belief that the Drummond Wolff Convention is, in its actual form and not in the principle underlying it, a thing of the past, and cannot in that form be satisfactorily revived. It would be a very strange step on our part, without any intimation from any quarter, to assume that the attitude adopted some time ago by. the Suzerain Power and by France had been altered. I am bound to admit that the state of things after the rejection of the Convention is identical with what it was before the rejection; and it seems rather that—if the movement were practical—some modified form of that Convention should be devised in order to hold out the hope of a successful and satisfactory issue. I think, considering the nature of this case, and the multitude of parties who are to be called upon to act, either independently of one another, or at least having a considerable power of action as if they were
  1654
  independent—it is quite clear that the position is a delicate one; and the House will feel, as I assume they will feel, that it will be unwise to bind the hands of the Government by any preliminary declaration. By all means let us gather from the declarations of hon. Gentlemen who are competent all the light we can obtain, so as to be enabled to estimate carefully and accurately our means of action. But, Sir, there is a circumstance to which my right hon. Friend has not alluded, and which appears to me to have a very important bearing upon the question whether any expression of opinion should be sought from the House of Commons at the present moment. It is true that there has been no important step taken by the Government bringing within near view the evacuation of the country; it is true that. France made a friendly overture, through M. Waddington, so long ago as the end of October or beginning of November, wishing to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to enter into friendly negotiations with France on the subject; it is also true that the answer to that communication was that if Franco had suggestions to offer they would be received in the same friendly spirit in which they were tendered. When any communications are received through the Turkish Ambassador, my right hon. Friend may rely on it that there will be no indisposition on our part to extend to them our friendly consideration. But surely we cannot speak in this matter without taking the view of abandonment at some future date. There was a time when there was in Egypt a man in power in whom the British Government, as well as other Governments, placed complete confidence. But in January last—I do not remember the exact date, but in January at all events—on the ground of ill-health, he was summarily dismissed, and a gentleman was designated in his stead as Prime Minister in whom the British Government were not able to repose the same confidence. While we continue in Egypt there is no satisfactory method to pursue except a harmonious and cordial co-operation with the existing Government. But that event of January, brought about in a moment of haste—it is not necessary to impute anything worse than haste—led to serious misapprehension with respect to

  1655
  the maintenance of public order in Egypt; and, as Lord Rosebery has pointed out, our position with regard to public order in that country is one of the greatest difficulty and delicacy. We are responsible, not only to the people of Egypt, and to our British subjects in Egypt, but likewise to the subjects of other Powers. Occurrences might arise which, in the event of disturbances following them, might assume a most embarrassing aspect. It was from no wish to further complicate our position, but from a very serious consideration of the military condition of affairs in the country, and upon advice which we received from military as well as political authorities, that we considered it necessary to increase the British garrison. Only three months, practically, have passed since that was done; and I put it to my right hon. Friend and to the House that after the danger of last January, and after the stops we took upon it, you must allow a certain moderate interval of time to elapse before you can assume that we have returned to the normal position in which we stood before these events happened, and to the condition of affairs at the time when the communications took place. My right hon. Friend did not advert to that; but upon a question of this kind he will see that it is very far from an indefinite resort to the argument of inconvenience when I say that there is an inconvenience of a character of an important difficulty involved in this matter. For a period those occurrences of January made it the first duty—I go so far as to say the exclusive duty—of the British Government to consider the means to be adopted for preserving, not merely from infraction, but from menace, the security of the position of Egypt. That being so, I hope my right hon. Friend will not be inclined to push me further. The British Government has been the willing recipient of any communications addressed to it on the subject of affairs in Egypt. I am not aware that a time has come or circumstances have occurred which make it our duty to depart from our attitude, and certainly we have done nothing to repel or discourage any friendly communications upon a question which we all own to be simplicis juris a question of European law, and upon which we have no rights which we can
  1656
  set up against the rest of the world. There is no reason to look forward with misapprehension as to the future, or for anyone to say that we shall rue our action in the matter. The only condition precedent in Egypt to render communication possible is that there shall be no misapprehension that the immediate and permanent condition of the country is one of peace and security. I should not be doing justice to the question if I were not to say something upon the character of the late Khedive. I believe him to have been honourable, honest, unselfish, and without any prepossession or prejudices whatever. It was that spirit which enabled the British Agents to conduct their negotiations, and I am also open to say he was a man of great competence to discharge his duties and to take a sound and courageous view of the situation; and we may expect from the Prime Minister, as from the Khedive, all that may be necessary to enable us to fulfil our duties in the future. Now, having said this, in justice to all parties, I again venture to impress upon the House that we must be most cautious to avoid any proceedings which might by any possibility tend further to complicate the situation against those who are necessarily your Representatives under the circumstances in regulating a matter which, as all must see, calls for the exercise of the utmost vigilance and circumspection. It is the more easy to make that appeal, because I think it would be impossible to refer to any matter which has been so many years before the public, and in which the substantial declarations of responsible persons have been so much in accord. The position is one depending upon a multitude of points of which advantage might be taken, were there any disposition to take that advantage in a hostile spirit, and if that accord did not prevail among us. I do not at all want to preclude the full expression of views—though some of those views may not be identical with our own—as to what is politic for Egypt; but nothing but mischief could result from unduly pressing us in regard to this matter at the present time, or, on the other hand, that any unfortunate regulations should prevail to complicate and embarrass further communications.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime

  1657
  Minister fully recognised that they were bound in honour to make their occupation of Egypt a temporary one—that it would be contrary to their interests it should be anything else. He recognised the desirability of, as soon as possible, allowing Egypt to be free from English control. He referred to the Wolff Convention, and he spoke of proposals which, if they were made by other Governments, would be favourably considered. But the right hon. Gentleman, above all, recognised that they were bound in honour to leave Egypt as soon as possible. He said, however, that the present moment was inopportune for their withdrawal, owing to the recent disturbances at Cairo. Now, the lesson to be learnt from those disturbances was, he believed, that the sooner they left Egypt the better it would be in their own interests. They gathered from those events that the whole country was opposed to their remaining—that they were remaining against the wishes of all the leading politicians—["No, no!"]—and against the wishes of the fellah population. [" No, no!"] No! What proof was there that these classes wished them to remain there? [Laughter.] If there were a French force remaining in this country, would it be a question for laughter whether the English people desired them to remain? Every nation desired its own independence, and the Opposition seemed to think it right in Englishmen and Europeans to have that aspiration; but when it came to Orientals, then the Opposition seemed to think they were made to be governed, and it was a crime on their part to think of governing themselves. No doubt the Administration of Egypt was infinitely better than it was when they went there; but it was understood that they went to build up some Native Government, and that as soon as they had done that they should go. But they could not teach persons to rule themselves by keeping them under tutelage, by nominating the Khedive's Ministers and Governors, by maintaining a vast network of European officials. They heard a good deal about the National Assembly; but how often had it been called together? Had they in any way encouraged it to act? They appeared to consider that they were to be a Parliament to the Khedive, and that they were to dictate everything to him,
  1658
  and, if he did not approve of then advice, he would probably be turned out of the country. Very different views were adopted when the Liberal Party were in Opposition. On one occasion, on the Vote for the number of men in the Army, he moved that the total should be reduced by the exact number of the Army kept in Egypt; and every Liberal in the House voted with him, with the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) at their head. He did not recollect, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman spoke in favour of reduction.
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, no!
  MR: LABOUCHERE: He did not speak, but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to controvert anything he had said, but went into the Lobby with him. Surely, after that, he might say that if the Liberal Party had a single principle in foreign affairs, it was committed on this point.
  MR. H. LAWSON: I did not vote for it.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, everyone who was in the House at the time voted; perhaps his hon. Friend was not there, or, Gallio-like, he did not care, and kept away. To the best of his recollection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer honoured him with a vote. On such occasions he always kept his eye on the Front Bench, and he knew the Prime Minister was not present, but all his lieutenants trotted into the Lobby on that occasion. When the present Government came in he rejoiced greatly; he said they were not only going to have Home Rule and some of the reforms in the Newcastle Programme, but they were going to get a Radical, anti-Jingo foreign policy, and the first step would be to make it clear that they were going to withdraw from Egypt. The Prime Minister now said they were awaiting proposals from France and from Turkey; but, supposing neither France or Turkey made any proposals, were they not to make proposals themselves? The Prime Minister admitted that they were bound to bring their occupation to an end, and that dangers were involved in their remaining. Then, what was to be done? What action was to be taken if no proposals were made by France or Turkey? He could understand the Governments of

  1659
  France and Turkey saying—"We await the proposals of the British Government." He sincerely hoped the present Prime Minister and his Government would remain in power during the full term of that Parliament, six years; but he could not help knowing that accidents sometimes occurred, and a Government did not remain in power for six years. It was humanly possible the present Government might not do so. What would happen if the Prime Minister went out of Office leaving Egypt as it was now? What could then be urged against the Conservatives continuing the same policy? He admitted that all on the Ministerial side were not agreed about this occupation of Egypt; but, speaking generally, it was a strong view of the Liberal Party, in and out of Parliament, that the occupation should be brought to a speedy end. It would be playing into the hands of those who desired not only to continue the occupation of Egypt, but also to make further annexations in Africa, if a Liberal Government remained in Office a certain time and went out without taking any action towards withdrawing from Egypt. His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Dilke) would do right not to take a Division. [Laughter.] Well, what was to be gained by a Division after the assurances given by the Prime Minister? This Debate had elicited from him the most solemn assurances that it was their duty and interest to leave Egypt as soon as possible; that he was far from adopting the views of some hon. Gentlemen, who thought that because they had got there they ought to violate their own words and remain for ever, because they thought it was to their own interest or that of Egypt that they should do so. It was clear that their policy was not one of continuous occupation of Egypt, and that they would withdraw as soon as they could.
  *SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) had carefully avoided referring to anything that would tell against the case he had presented to the House; but it could be proved that the situation was not exactly what he had represented it to be. The right hon. Gentleman had not referred to the responsibility they had incurred, and to the compulsion that rested upon them to
  1660
  remain until they had carried into effect all that they had undertaken. How did the occupation come about? In 1879, when they had a Conservative Government in Office, measures were taken for removing Ismail Pasha from the Throne of Egypt. He ventured at that time to point out what the result would be—namely, that by taking the action the Government did they would make themselves responsible for the government of Egypt. This was not admitted at the time by the late Sir Stafford Northcote (afterwards Earl Iddesleigh); but afterwards Sir Stafford Northcote said to him personally—"You were right and I was wrong; and the action taken has involved us in responsibility for the government of Egypt." How did that come about? They had been obliged to take upon themselves the duty which in 1879 he ventured to indicate would fall on the English people. In January, 1883, Lord Granville, in a despatch to the Foreign Powers, said the position in which Her Majesty's Government was placed threw upon them the duty of "giving such advice as would secure the elements of stability and progress." Consequently, they were under no obligation to leave Egypt until the elements of stability and progress were assured. On January 4. 1884, a similar statement was made in a despatch addressed to Sir Evelyn Baring. At that time the greater part of the foreign population of Egypt were pressing upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of accepting the suzerainty. We declined, however, to do so, because we were not anxious to add to our dominions. At the same time, we took on ourselves the responsibility of remaining in Egypt until the object with which our troops had been sent there was thoroughly accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) had taken care to avoid all reference to what they had done for Egypt during the last 10 years. After four years spent in overcoming French opposition, foreigners had been made liable for House Tax just as the Egyptians had always been. The equalisation of the Stamp Duties, which was also proposed by Her Majesty's Government, had also been opposed by France, and had had to be abandoned in consequence of the opposition of French and other

  1661
  residents in Egypt. Turning to finance, everyone would remember that the Law of Liquidation was passed in 1880, Egyptian finance having become simply impossible. Day after day loans had been raised at usurious rates of interest, the result being that Egypt had been brought to the verge of bankruptcy. By the Law of Liquidation interest was reduced, and for a time an endeavour was made to place the finances of Egypt on a permanent footing. Not very much was accomplished for a year or two, but later on a most magnificent harvest of prosperity resulted. Lord Cromer, in the Report laid before Parliament in March last, stated that the Revenue of Egypt in 1892 was £10,364,000 and the Expenditure £9,595,000, showing a surplus of £769,000, which was larger than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to show for England itself. This fact alone was enough to prove what a difference British administration had produced in the Egyptian finances. It had been brought about by honest administration, and by the reduction of the burdens upon the people. There were two things which used to cause the fellaheen to suffer beyond all endurance. One was the exactions of the tax-gatherers and the other was the corvée. The first had been stopped and the second had been abolished. They had so maintained the credit of Egypt that they were able in 1890 to convert her Debt. Indeed, our administration had been of the greatest benefit to the Egyptian people without costing the English people as much as the right hon. Gentleman had alleged. A large fund had accumulated in consequence of the economies of former years. It amounted to £3,391,000, the General Reserve Fund being £1,958,000, the Special Reserve Fund £777,000, and the Conversion economies £656,000. The reason why this fund had not been spent in ways useful to Egypt was that France had made it a condition of her consent to the conversion of the Debt that there should be no expenditure of the fund without her consent. The only thing her consent had been given to had been the payment of £110,000 towards the cost of the abolition of the corvée. He was justified in saying, therefore, that Egypt was suffering not in consequence
  1662
  of English action at all, but because of the interference of other countries in her financial arrangements. What had they done for Egypt? They had reduced the tax upon salt, which was a necessary of life to the poor people, and which was a Government monopoly, by 40 per cent. They had abolished the tax on sheep and goats, and the licence-tax on trades and crafts. By these means they had conferred the greatest benefits on the people of Egypt. At the same time the Revenue had been increased by placing a House Tax upon foreigners, reducing excessive salaries, and reforming the accounts. As far as possible the tax - gatherers had been prevented from oppressing the people and the officials had been taught to perform their duties honourably. A still greater thing had been done. Egypt had had a series of crops utterly unknown in former years, the reason being that Egyptian agriculture depended on the question of the supply of water at the proper season of the year. If the canals, the storage, and the barrage were neglected, the difficulties of the supply would be increased a thousand-fold, and many of the poor people of Egypt would be deprived of water for their crops. They had not only secured a steady and regular supply of water at the proper time, but had increased the amount of storage, added to the number of the canals, and altogether re-established the barrage, the result being not only to reclaim thousands of acres which had become unproductive, but to entirely re-establish the prosperity of the people in the Delta. The railway receipts had also increased in a most astonishing manner, one reason being that the Administration was honest, and the other that moder-European facilities had been introuduced. Whereas in 1890 the railway receipts wore £1,400,000, in 1891 they were £1,630,000, and in 1892 they were £1,680,000. The various improvements which had taken place in Egypt were much to the credit of the small band of Englishmen who had undertaken the responsible task of endeavouring to re-organise the Government of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Dilke) had talked about £500,000 a year as being the cost to them of keeping troops in Egypt. As a matter of fact, however, they had received from the Egyptian Government more than the cost of maintaining

  1663
  the troops in Egypt; and, as they had not increased our standing Army, they had really gained rather than lost by the transaction. He thought he knew the English people well enough to say that they would have been prepared to bear a small burden, if necessary, in order to confer such great benefits on the Egyptian people, and to maintain the great highway to India, which was, after all, the source of much of England's greatness and prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Dilke) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) pressed for an immediate withdrawal of the troops from Egypt. If their wishes were carried out, the result would be that the laborious system of Government they had established would be almost completely overthrown. They must remember that there were in Egypt many people who belonged to the old governing classes, who had been removed from Office, and who, formerly, were a source of corruption. These classes were ready to return, and to pursue their ancient methods. We had turned these people out of Office, and had brought in better men, who had done their duty to the people of Egypt. If we now retired from Egypt what would be the result? A return of corruption would follow. Works for water storage, canal construction, and similar undertakings had been carried out under great difficulties, and were still in progress owing to English enterprise. All this would be brought to an end were we to retire. He did not think the Khedive desired to see the present admirable system of administration departed from. It would not be to the interest of the Egyptian people, and the English people would not desire anything of the kind. As to the question of our obligation, as he had pointed out, it had been stated in a Despatch of Earl Granville that we should never leave Egypt unless we had established a stable Government, with a prospect of permanent success. We had not done that yet completely. The present difficulties in Egypt it would require years to get over. He did not think that Lord Cromer was active in interfering in Egyptian affairs. Lord Cromer was only in the background, contenting himself with giving his advice when it was necessary: but a knowledge of the fact
  1664
  that he was there would be a source of strength and not of weakness to Egypt. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet had made out his case that, as a matter of obligation, it was our duty to retire from Egypt when we had not yet completed our work, nor had he shown that we had promised any European Power that we would do so. He had, therefore, heard with pleasure the declaration of the Prime Minister that he would not undertake to do more than he had promised. No one could say when the day would arrive when it would be our duty to retire, but, in his opinion, it would not be for years; and, therefore, the right hon. Baronet must make up his mind to see for many years the English hand still strong on the Egyptian rudder.
  *SIR R. TEMPLEthought that, before the Debate closed, something should be said from those (the Opposition) Benches. He earnestly hoped that the House would cordially support the Prime Minister. He would not say a word as to the right hon. Gentleman's speech lest he should impair its effect. But the right hon. Gentleman might be assured that hon. Members on the Opposition side had listened with respectful attention to the statesmanlike dicta which he had delivered that evening. In the very few remarks he (Sir R. Temple) intended to address to the House, he would endeavour to confine himself to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke). No one would dispute the effect of the very elaborate series of quotations which the right hon. Gentleman had presented to the House. No doubt Members of both Front Benches had declared that Egypt should be evacuated as soon as we had done our duty to that country, but not sooner. So far they were all agreed, and the real question was as to the time of such evacuation. As to this, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not think it disrespectful if he said that, whatever might be the validity of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech as to obligations to ultimately evacuate, the second part was altogether inconclusive—namely, as to time and mode of evacuation. With regard to the time of evacuation, there were many matters worthy of consideration, such as British interests, our grow-

  1665
  ing trade with Egypt, the vast amount of capital embarked in the country, and the sacrifices which had been made there by the British Government. These were all British interests of importance, but these alone would not decide the question. Then, as to the military question, there was much to be said on both sides. The right hon. Baronet thought that, in the event of war, the retention of Egypt would involve us in peril. But it must not be forgotten that we held possession of such strategic posts and coaling stations as Gibraltar, Malta, and Cyprus, all stepping-stones to Egypt. A Power, therefore, like ourselves, virtually masters of the seas, ought to be able to occupy Egypt in the event of war. if it ever came to pass that, with our great Possessions in the Mediterranean, and with our Fleet, we could not command the route to Egypt, then we, ourselves, were in danger, and our Empire must be tottering to its fall. If we could command Egypt as a halfway house, no one who knew India would doubt that the possession of Egypt in the event of war would be a great advantage to us. But, again, it was not the military consideration which would decide the question. He ventured, with all respect to the Prime Minister and to other parties in the House, to say that the real question was, What is our duty to Egypt itself? We were bound, no doubt, to vacate Egypt when we had placed the Egyptians in a position to govern themselves for the future. The right hon. Baronet had hardly adverted to this question, although it was the cardinal point. The right hon. Gentleman had touched only the fringes of this cardinal and vital question. He was, surely, bound to have some regard to the achievements, both administrative, judicial, and fiscal, which had raised the name of England throughout Europe, and it also behaved him to consider how far the reforms we had introduced had gone, and had placed the administration of Egypt in a suitable position for future self government, and bow far yet further reforms were needed. To not one of these subjects had the right hon. Baronet given any consideration, though these were the points on which the whole matter turned. The right hon. Baronet had
  1666
  said they were to depend for the future government of Egypt upon a National Assembly which was hardly yet full fledged, which had not yet tried its wings, and which might turn out to be broken-winged. He fully admitted it was most essential that we should endeavour to develop this Local Institution of a representative character, but we must give them a few years' trial before we could form an opinion as to the future of self-government. Had we yet done our duty towards the people of Egypt? We had done our best, and that best had proved fruitful of reforms for which, no doubt, we were blessed by the mass of the people of Egypt. There were probably some leading statesmen in Egypt who desired to be quit of British control; but when any hon. Member ventured to say that the fellaheen, the peasantry, the toilers on the soil, desired that our occupation should cease, he desired to express his entire disbelief. He altogether discredited any such notion. If the British occupation were now to cease, these people would be in lamentation and despair. Doubtless, they looked upon all Governments as more or less trouble some; but they regarded their own native government as oppressive, and they looked to us for reform, peace, prosperity, safety, and protection. To tell him that these people wished us to evacuate the country was to tell him something which he could not, for a moment, believe. Until such time as we had fulfilled our task in Egypt before the world and under Providence, we ought not to evacuate it. He desired to put this broad, plain, and prominent consideration before the House. He was confident that, apart from all diplomatic and juristic considerations, the plain duty which we had undertaken towards an interesting, increasing, extensive, and growing population would induce hon. Members to reject the Motion now before the House by an immense majority.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that if we had not yet done our duty to Egypt, as the hon. Baronet said we had not, it was high time we left that country. If, as it was said, we had been in Egypt for 11 years and had not done our duty, it was time for us to leave the people of

  1667
  Egypt to govern themselves. He was not going to reply to the catalogue of benefits that the hon. Member for St. Pancras had read out to them. But the hon. Member could not say what benefits would have occurred to the country if it had enjoyed the benefits of Parliamentary government. We did not know what would have been the state of things if the British Army had not crushed the Egyptian Forces and had not crushed the Parliament that then was doing duty. It was said that the cost to England of the occupation was very little, and that Egypt defrayed the expense of sending the troops there. Sir H. Drummond Wolff had estimated the cost at £415,000; but the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) would not be far wrong in his estimate, because we had many more soldiers in Egypt than we had at the time Sir H. Drummond Wolff had made his estimate.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: We have fewer.
  DR. CLARKdid not know what the proposition was, but he believed that at the present time we had a larger number of soldiers in Egypt. It was said that we charged Egypt the extra cost of sending out our troops; but if we charged Egypt the same price per soldier that we charged our Colonies—Ceylon and India and the Straits Settlements—it would be much nearer £1,000,000 than £500,000. He could not agree with those who said, "We want a certain number of soldiers; and it is a matter of no importance whether we have them in garrison at home or in Egypt, so long as we have them somewhere. Besides, a certain portion of the necessary expense is saved to us by sending troops to Egypt." He very much regretted to hear the statement of the Prime Minister; but he was not surprised, because he had often seen the Liberal Party out of Office adopt one position and then take up another position directly they crossed the floor of the House. A certain event had occurred; and that event, instead of inducing the Government to leave Egypt before disaster happened, seemed only to make them inclined to remain. The policy of the Prime Minister with regard to Egypt seemed to be entirely one of drift. He did not seem to have anything like a clearly-defined and definite policy. It was to his (Dr. Clark's) mind a moral obligation on the right hon. Gentleman to develop some policy. He had taken
  1668
  us into Egypt in 1885, and he had afterwards admitted that he had made a mistake. The two great crimes of the century against liberty had been the crushing of the Roman Republic by the French Republic and the destruction by England of the attempt to establish Parliamentary government in Egypt. It was considered advisable to support the control—that was to say, to have Englishmen to look after English interests, and Frenchmen to look after French interests. Well, the Chamber of Notables demanded the right to vote the money of the country, and they took upon themselves the right, whereupon occurred the intervention that Mr. John Bright had described as "a sin against God and man." We had been in Egypt for 11 years, and our stay might be indefinitely prolonged unless the advice of the right hon. Baronet were taken. It was said that we were doing good work in Egypt; but so far as the opinion of all classes in Egypt could be ascertained, they did not thank us and did not want us. But we were in Egypt; the crime had been committed; thousands of lives had been lost, and millions of money spent, and the question was, what were we to do? The Prime Minister had no policy but that of drifting, and the end of it would be that the Powers would interfere, or trouble would arise from French intrigues, and we should leave Egypt, perhaps, after ignominy and disaster. What ought we to do? What ought the Liberal Party to do, taking into consideration the position it had adopted throughout this question? If they believed what they then stated—if the Government believed what they had said in Opposition, they would call the Powers together and say, "We said we would leave Egypt when order was established, and would take nothing for ourselves. Order is now established, but we ask permission to stay in Egypt for another 10 years"—that was, if they meant to develop self-government. The Chamber of Notables had taken upon itself larger powers, perhaps larger than the Khedive desired it to have. What had occurred since? The Chamber of Notables had practically ceased to exist, and the Chamber established by Lord Dufferin had collapsed; and, unless the Powers were consulted if we left, the result would be that the old Pashas would govern the country, or somebody

  1669
  else would. If the Powers were consulted, no doubt in the end Egypt would be neutralised, its independence would be recognised by the great Powers, and we should have five or seven or 10 years to develop self-government in the country. It was to be regretted that the Prime Minister had not declared a programme, and he hoped and trusted that the present policy of drift would not end in disaster.
  MR. USBORNEdesired to say a few words on this question, as, perhaps, the last Member of the House who had visited Egypt, and as one who had been in the habit of visiting that country for the past four or five years, and who had some means of getting information there as to the wishes of the natives and the largo commercial community at Alexandria. The only remark of the last speaker to which he would refer was the statement that if we had failed to govern Egypt successfully during the past 11 years, the sooner we left it the better. One remark would be sufficient to answer that. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) had said, and said very truly, that the Egyptians were anxious for our departure; and, no doubt, the Egyptians, like every other people, were anxious to be free; but he had spoken to many of them, and they had always said that they did not desire that freedom to come at the present moment. The British rule had done two things for Egypt which had not been alluded to. Our occupation had had the effect of improving the administration of the law and improving the system of education. His friends in Egypt told him that the people who used to govern Egypt before our occupation, and who governed it so badly both legally and officially, owing largely to their want of education, were still lurking about the country, ready to assert themselves again as soon as the occupation ceased. He would, therefore, urge that British influence ought not to be withdrawn until those people whom we had been educating had grown up and were able to get the power of government into their hands. That would be the time when Egypt could become a free nation. These were the views he had gathered from his residence in Egypt.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONwas sorry to have to occupy the time of
  1670
  the House at all, but as he understood that the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) did not intend to press the matter to a Division he (Mr. Morton) considered it only right to say a few words as to his opinion. If the right hon. Baronet had intended to go to a Division he (Mr. Morton) should have voted with him, as he had always hold a strong opinion that we had no business at all in Egypt, and that the sooner we got out of it the better for ourselves and for everybody else concerned. We were showing a bad example to the rest of the world in interfering and taking possession of territory which did not belong to us. The Radical Party were anxious to see Egypt evacuated; but that was not the policy of the Tories, or of some Jingoes on the Ministerial side of the House. Their policy was to retain possession of Egypt, and to that policy he, for one, objected. He had been sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister say to-night that France had no more right in Egypt than any other Power. He could not overlook the fact that the French people had constructed the Suez Canal. This country had opposed the construction of the Canal; but in spite of our opposition, the French people persevered, and had brought the undertaking to a successful issue. Therefore, although is was said that we had gone to Egypt to protect the Canal, the French had more right to protect it for themselves and for the rest of the world than we had.
  *SIR J. GOLDSMID: Eighty-seven per cent. of the shipping that passes through the Canal is British.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that proved nothing except that we had had the good sense at last to see that the French were right in constructing the Canal. The people who had the most right to protect the Canal were the people who risked their money to make it. There were two reasons why we should get out of Egypt: One reason was, that the occupation cost a lot of money, and he did not think that we ought to spend our money in foreign countries when there were so many people at home wanting aid and assistance. The other was, that as long as we remained there our relations with the French Government could not be cordial. He was aware that some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House did not wish

  1671
  to be on good terms with the Republican Government of France. If there was a Monarchy or an Empire there, they would wish to be on good terms with France, but they disliked the Republic. He was sure their feelings were not shared by the British people. The people of this country—the democracy—were anxious to be on good terms with the people and the Government of France. There were difficulties with France constantly cropping up, which could not be settled because of our policy in Egypt; and one notable example of them was the French shore difficulty at Newfoundland. It was well-known that that difficulty could not be settled in consequence of the Egyptian Question. The hon. Member for St. Pancras seemed to forget that all we had been attempting to do with the people of Egypt was to rob them. We and other countries had lent them on paper about £120,000,000; at least, they were supposed to be that amount in our debt, but all the money we had ever handed over to them had been about £50,000,000. We had assisted to rob them of £70,000,000, and that fact alone was sufficient to account for the difficulties into which the country had fallen. Why, such a loss would even bring a country like England into difficulties. Egypt had been brought to the verge of bankruptcy, and that was all we had done for her. We had done it for the benefit of British adventurers and company promoters on the London Stock Exchange and elsewhere. Instead of concentrating our efforts upon an endeavour to establish good government at home, we were wasting energy and money on Egypt. Surely the Egyptians had as much right to come over here and endeavour to establish good government in Ireland, and to make the Irish people contented, as we had to go to Egypt for similar purposes. Even if the Egyptians could not govern themselves as well as we could govern them, surely their own endeavours would be more palatable to them than those of the foreigner. When were we to know that Egypt was capable of governing itself? The very moment it showed a disposition towards self-government we stepped in and interfered. We had done that in the Spring of this year. He was afraid there were numbers of people in this country who desired that we should take possession of Egypt altogether, and
  1672
  he was afraid that we should drift into that policy. He thought, therefore, the best thing we could do would be to get out of Egypt as fast as we could. There was some reason to believe that the majority of the Liberal Cabinet were Jingoes, who could not be kept down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He could not say how many they numbered, as he had not been in the Cabinet: but it was necessary that those Radicals who acted up to their election pledges should keep a careful watch upon the Liberal Government and keep them up to their mark in regard to their foreign policy. They would not be able to do that by moving Resolutions and not voting for them, because, of course, what Her Majesty's Government feared was not so much talk as Divisions. He trusted, however, that the Debate would do some little good, and that it would have some effect on the Liberal Government. He hoped, also, that the result of the Debate would be to let the Government know that there were a largo number of Radicals in the House who intended to stick to their pledges, and were anxious not only to do justice to the people of Ireland, but to the people of Egypt as well. Above all, let these people have an opportunity of governing themselves. He desired to see this plundering all over the world put an end to. The people of the West End of London no doubt were favourable to this policy, as it gave their class something to do, and provided them with pensions. Let these people, however, start in the future working to get an honest living. The country would be all the better, as well as the world generally. He protested against going into foreign countries for the purpose of destroying people at the expense of the British taxpayer, and hoped that ere long we should, like the United States of America, see the wisdom of settling all disputes by arbitration.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing before it a subject superior, perhaps, to any other in the Imperial policy of this great country; but he thought that when the Debate was read—as it would be read throughout the whole of Europe—a cer-

  1673
  tain amount of disappointment would be felt at its lame and impotent conclusion. The facts stated were not disputed by the Prime Minister; the inferences drawn from these facts by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean were every one of them adopted by the Prime Minister, and yet the right hon. Gentleman entirely ran away from the conclusion the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean would have him to draw. The House was asked to affirm that the time had come to fulfil the most solemn and oft-repeated engagements entered into by both sides of the House and by successive Governments, but the Prime Minister replies, "The time is not come," for, like the lady in the Arabian Nights, the right hon. Gentleman finds him a new story why he should not be beheaded on that particular morning. The last time the right hon. Gentleman was challenged why he did not come out of Egypt he gave as his reason the existence of cholera. Now, when he was again challenged, he said certain things had occurred in January which prevented him coming out. It seemed, therefore, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, that cholera, or "events in January," were sufficient reason why no attempt should be made to carry out the engagements which successive Governments had entered into in regard to Egypt. He could not help feeling that it was a little hard on the Prime Minister to be called upon to reply to a Motion dealing with foreign affairs. The right hon. Gentleman was First Lord of the Treasury, and not Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Possibly, the right hon. Gentleman had not fully acquainted himself with the mind of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and might not, therefore, feel himself fully able to deal with the subject. But the right hon. Gentleman's own mind had long been made up on the question of Egypt. As long ago as 1887 the Prime Minister saw to the fullest extent the dangers of our going to Egypt, and the dangers of our continuing there. The right hon. Gentleman denounced the project of going to Egypt—not in a speech which might be delivered without care or attention—but in an article in The Nineteenth Century. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out in that article that it was traditional with Russia to make over Egypt to our
  1674
  mercies, and by implication he drew the inference that what it was traditional with Russia to wish us to do was a thing we ought not to do. He went on to say—
  "My belief is that the day which witnesses our occupation of Egypt will bid a long farewell to all cordial political relations between France and England,"
  and the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman was—"I, for one, am inclined on prudential grounds to say, 'Hands off!'" But, notwithstanding these solemn declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, he was the first man, in defiance of the moral law and the law of nations, to send a Fleet to Alexandria to bombard it, to occupy Egypt, to upset the Parliamentary Government of Egypt, on the ground that it wanted to vote its own Budget, and to start that occupation of Egypt which had continued ever since. But the first question that arose on the Motion before the House was—"What is our present status in Egypt?" Undoubtedly, an impression was entertained by many people throughout the country that we were in possession of Egypt; that Egypt was ours to use as we wished, and that it would be very foolish to give it up. He did not wonder that that impression prevailed. The engagements with regard to Egypt had been so involved and so departed from by successive Governments that it was perfectly comprehensible that the simple voter should have rather mixed ideas on the subject. But we were in Egypt under certain conditions. We were there under the conditions that no settlement of the Egyptian Question should be come to without the assent of all the Powers of Europe; that our occupation was to be purely temporary, and not permanent; and that we should never seek for any advantage, diplomatic, territorial—or otherwise—through our presence in Egypt that the other Powers were not entitled to. We were in no better position in Egypt than any other Power in Europe, except that we supplied the occupying Army. But he came to the real practical question—"What good had our occupation of Egypt done to anybody?" Undoubtedly, when the occupation first took place in 1882, it rescued the usurers, the Egyptian bondholders, from a most embarrassing position—a position he should have been glad to leave them in. It might be said that we

  1675
  were bound—and he would admit it for the moment, if necessary—to rescue the bondholders from that position; but from 1882 to the present time Egyptian Bonds had constantly risen in value, and if in 1882 we had obligations—moral, or immoral—towards the usurers, those obligations were long ago discharged, because anytime during the last 11 years they could have sold their bonds at a rise. Then it was said our occupation had done good to the Egyptians. He would not deny that a certain amount of good had been done to the Egyptians. Undoubtedly, corruption had been stopped in high places; but it had not been stopped altogether. It was one of the evils of our occupation of Egypt that, whilst Englishmen who went to India made India their home, learned the language, sympathised with the natives, and desired to work for them, the Englishmen who went to Egypt went there only for a temporary purpose: did not, as a rule, learn the language, and, consequently, did not come into direct contact with the natives, communicating with them only through the Syrians and Armenians, who acted as interpreters. The result was, that the Englishmen in Egypt, though extremely well-intentioned and desirous of doing their duty to the best of their power, were unable to deal with the Egyptian races in the admirable, effective, and successful way the native races of India had been dealt with by Englishmen. We sought to impose on Egypt for its good Western methods. Western notions of law and Western plans of administration were very good for Western people, but were entirely un-suited for Orientals. Lord Salisbury, writing in August, 1885, said truly that the cause of true progress in Egypt had been arrested by the efforts to induce the Eastern populations to accept reforms conceived in the spirit of Western civilisation. It had been established by a question he asked in the House a few days previously that the system of enforced labour, which was considered one of the great grievances under which the Egyptians laboured, had not been abolished, but was in full existence at the present moment. He was aware that the kourbash had not been abolished. Anybody who had been to Egypt and who had seen the way government was carried on, and had the candour to describe what he had observed, must be aware that the
  1676
  kourbash still existed. The fact was, that the conditions under which we were in Egypt rendered it impossible that any good government could be carried on there. Again, we were told to look with admiration at the fact that a larger sum had been raised in taxes in Egypt than had ever been raised before. He believed that at no time since the days of Pharaoh had a larger amount of taxation been raised in Egypt than at the present day. But that was not a thing to be proud of, for it was not to the advantage of Egypt. If he wished to prove that good had been done to the Egyptians he would like to be able to say that the taxes had been halved, or at least reduced; but, instead of that, the taxes had been increased, and they were asked to believe that that was for the benefit of the people of Egypt. The effete so called, the incapable Government so called which preceded them, conquered and kept the Soudan and the Equatorial Provinces, which were most important Provinces for the welfare and prosperity of Egypt. They were of enormous strategical and material advantage to Egypt, inasmuch as it was recognised that they commanded the affluents of the Nile. The men who were masters of Khartoum were the masters of the prosperity of Egypt. When this country said they had done good by their occupation of Egypt they must remember that, as regards the Soudan and the other Equatorial Provinces, they had inflicted the greatest possible injury upon Egypt, for those Provinces which had been previously won and kept they had lost and abandoned. But even admitting to the full the claim that benefit had followed upon our occupation, he contended that it was not to the point. It was not the mission of this country to go about governing other people whether they would or would not. If that be our mission he could point out many other countries, even in Europe, where we might beneficially intervene. The important question for us to consider was not whether we had done good to the Egyptians, but rather what good, if any, had the occupation of Egypt brought to this country. Financially, so far from gaining 1d. by the occupation, undoubtedly, at this moment, to follow the calculation of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, the mere expense of the British

  1677
  soldiers that were kept there was £360,000 a year. Out of that Egypt paid £87,000, leaving a net expenditure on the British Army of Occupation of £273,000 a year. Then, commercially, we should carry on exactly the same trade through Egypt as we did now if our Forces were withdrawn. Strategically, Egypt was so situated that it was approached by navigable seas on two sides; the remainder of its frontier was desert, across which Armies could not march. This was the governing factor of the strategical situation in Egypt, for it led inevitably to this conclusion—that Armies were incapable of action upon Egypt, whereas Navies wore capable of coercing it at any moment. That had been proved over and over again. It was proved at the end of the last century, in 1798, when the greatest captain of the age, Napoleon, with the finest Army that had ever trod the soil of Europe, the Army of Italy, conquered Egypt, governed it, and England drove him out, not with Armies, but with nothing but ships; and so to this day Egypt was always safe from Armies and always must be the slave of Navies. So long as England commanded the sea, Egypt would be always at her mercy; although there might not be an English soldier on her shores. All the nations of Europe might occupy Egypt, yet England, with the command of the sea, would have no more difficulty than then in driving them out; and, therefore, he said that strategically there was no advantage whatever to be gained by this country from the military occupation of Egypt. Coming to the Canal, no doubt it had been of great advantage to us, and in time of peace, and still more in time of war, might be of great advantage to this country. But in time of peace no one would over interfere with the use of the Canal, and in time of war we had given it up by the Convention we had signed, to the effect that in time of war the war and merchant vessels of all nations should, like us, use it. So in time of war, with England in the occupation of Egypt, they came to this result—that, assuming we were fighting Russia for the possession of India, and Russia desired to send an expedition throughout the Suez Canal to attack our Indian Possessions, positively the English soldiers would have to allow
  1678
  the expedition to pass through the Canal, and would have indirectly, if not directly, to assist in the passage of that expedition to our Indian Possessions. But, assuming for the moment that this crazy and insane Convention were abolished and that we had to fight for the Canal, the fight would take place not in the Canal itself, but in the approaches to the Canal, either in the Bed Sea or between Crete and Port Said, or between Port Said and Gibraltar. The winner of that action would have full, complete, and unfettered control of the Canal. Then they were told that if we withdrew from Egypt Franco would enter it. The first answer to that was the answer of 1798. France at that time did enter Egypt, and was driven out by England without soldiers, practically with nothing but ships. His second answer was the declarations of M. Waddington and M. Freycinet, on the part of the French Government, that it was not their intention to occupy Egypt. With regard to the effect of the occupation of Egypt upon our diplomatic relations and our reputation for justice, he would undertake to say that the English Ambassador at Constantinople never went into the presence of the Sultan or the Grand Vizier without being reminded in some form or another that England had taken one of the Sultan's Provinces, and that England had ranged herself on the side of those Powers who sought to despoil the Sultan of his dominions. It was not the Sultan alone who felt this, for there wore 40,000,000 Mussulmans in our Indian Possessions who looked up to the Sultan as the head of their faith, and who would think that England had lost her sense of justice. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that we should leave Egypt, but he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that the negotiations of 1887 for neutralising Egypt were still open. The reason which caused the Wolff Convention to fall through was nothing more nor less than, as was said in one of the despatches in July, 1887, "the persistent threats of Russia" and the great opposition of France. The persistent threats of Russia they could understand. It had always been the policy of Russia to embroil England with France by getting England to occupy Egypt. Russia did not oppose

  1679
  our remaining in Egypt; she was delighted to see us there, and all our enemies had the same feeling, because they knew the injury it did us. But the Convention of 1887 was, he thought, very fairly opposed by the French. They opposed it on the ground that the right of re-occupation which it gave to England was such that it practically divided the sovereignty of Turkey between England and the Sultan. Under these circumstances, it was natural that not only Russia and France, but the Sultan himself, should have refused to sign the Convention. Those objections still subsisted. If that Convention of 1887 were again to be proposed, the same objections would be felt to it, if not by France or Russia, at any rate by the Sultan; and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean was wrong when he said that at any moment they might have the Convention of 1887. As to the neutralisation of Egypt, that, in his opinion, was the worst, the most unsatisfactory, and the most incomplete solution of all. Instances of neutrality were known, and be defied any hon. Member to mention a single instance of neutrality which had served its purpose. In 1802 the neutrality of Malta was guaranteed by the Treaty of Amiens; but that neutrality had fallen through, because this country had retained Malta ever since. The neutrality of Switzerland, which was guaranteed by Treaty in 1815, was violated in 1848 by the Prussian occupation of Neuchatel; and how long that neutrality would last if the struggles between Germany and France were renewed no one could say. The neutrality of Belgium was guaranteed by the Powers by Treaty in 1830; but in 1870, when a period of stress came upon that neutrality, it was felt to be impossible to rely on the guarantee that existed under the old Treaties, and this country found it necessary to make a new Treaty with France on the one hand and Germany on the other to the effect that whichever of these two Powers violated the neutrality of Belgium would find England ranged against her. The integrity of the Danish Monarchy was guaranteed by Treaty in 1852, but they all knew what occurred in 1864. The Black Sea Treaty, also one of neutrality, prohibiting, among other things, the building of warships, resulted
  1680
  in the Conference of London, and in the yielding of every point to an empty affirmation of an infructuous principle. In 1856 there were Treaties which guaranteed the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire; they knew what was the result, and he submitted that these instances were enough to show that no European guarantee of neutrality would be of the slightest effect with regard to Egypt, unless backed up by some Power ready at any moment to take up arms in defence of neutrality. What, then, was his solution of the difficulty? It was the same solution as that which England readily afforded to this same problem at a time when she still possessed statesmen. It was the solution of 1801, following on the action of 1798, when we restored Egypt to its rightful Sovereign, the Sultan. For the benefit, credit, and future of England, there was no better solution to be obtained than that. The Sultan was all-powerful in Egypt, not merely from his political position and his power, but also from the fact of his being the head of the Mussulman religion. He was the only Power that could govern Egypt as it should be governed, or, at any rate, as it desired to be governed; and the Sultan would never fail to meet whatever requirements they might make upon him in reason and justice with regard to the territories of Egypt. The true word of this Debate, the word which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had suggested, the word which the Prime Minister had not dared to utter and adopt, and the true moral was, "Come out of Egypt."
  *MR. BURNIEsaid, he would not have intervened in the Debate but for the reason that they were not likely to be able to show by their votes in what direction their sympathies were. He was one of those who looked upon our action in this Egyptian Question as a huge mistake. He thought the origin of our disasters dated from the Dual, or Salisbury, Control, for, as a natural consequence, immediately difficulties arose in Egypt we had to intervene, at a great cost of life and money. He would take this opportunity of pleading for the release of Arabi Pasha, who headed the revolt of the Egyptians against oppression, corruption, and persecution. It might be said of the whole history of our interference

  1681
  in Egyptian affairs, "Twere long to tell and sad to trace," and the sooner we could get rid of the ignominy of remaining in Egypt as conquerors of a people struggling to be free the better. It was our duty to our interests, pledges, and traditions as a liberty-loving people to retire from the position in which we were now placed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
  MR. HANBURYrose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments. Having pointed out that there was nothing of a Party nature involved in the question, he stated that in the year 1886 a Royal Commission was appointed by the late Government to inquire into the Civil Service generally, partly for the purpose of ascertaining how far the organisation under the Play fair scheme was working successfully, and how far the numbers and cost of the Civil Service generally might be reduced without any loss of efficiency to the Public Service. In September, 1888, the Commission issued its second Report, in which they made certain recommendations. The first was that means should be taken to ascertain with regard to each Department what the normal establishment of that Department should be; that power should be given to revise the strength of that Department from year to year, giving the Treasury or some body in the future the power to reduce these establishments as well as to check their growth, which latter was the only power the Treasury up to that time possessed. The second recommendation, briefly stated, amounted to this—that instead of having a large Upper Division and a Lower Division not very much larger, in future, in all Departments where there was a necessity for an Upper or First Division at all, it should be very much smaller, and that the great gulf hitherto fixed either by regulation or by practice between the first and second, or Upper and Lower Division, should be swept away once and for all, and that Lower Division clerks should have every opportunity of rising to a Higher Division, and that promotion should take place by merit only. Another recom-
  1682
  mendation was that there should be uniform regulations and rules governing the administration of all these Departments, and one reason for making that recommendation was in order to facilitate transfers which would have the effect of opening out greater chances of promotion for really efficient servants and enabling redundant clerks to be transferred from one Department to another. The Royal Commission, looking to the fact that in the first place the system of pensions was a very costly one indeed, and in the second place that under the existing system there were very few opportunities of removing from the Public Service servants who had either ceased to be competent or who had risen to a rank in the Service they were not fitted to occupy, felt that some means should be enforced by which these officers could be retired from the Service, and that at the same time there should be a system of pensions which, whilst doing justice to the valuable servants of the State, should cost something less than the system which had hitherto done so much to swell the Non-effective Vote. The first step which the Royal Commission suggested, in order to carry out their recommendations, was to appoint a body which, acting under the Treasury, should have more power to control the Public Service and the various Departments than had been the case up to the present time. The two main faults in connection with the Treasury control over the other Departments of the Civil Service were these:—It had hardly sufficient touch with the other Departments, and it was not able to take the initiative in reforming those other Departments, which he was inclined to think was somewhat aggravated by the fact that instead of the Treasury being a strong body drawing some of the more efficient servants from other public Departments to itself, whenever a good appointment was going in any other Department it sent away one of its own clerks, and so weakened the Treasury, which ought to be a strong controlling body in public administration. The object of the Report of the Royal Commission was to inaugurate a body which should be able to initiate reform; which should be more in touch with the rest of the Departments than the Treasury had been hitherto; and which would not merely be able to prevent any excess in

  1683
  numbers and salaries, but should always be able, when occasion arose, actually to reduce the numbers in a given Department. In order to do that, the Royal Commission recommended that every Department should at once be called upon to draw up a scheme showing exactly how many men would be required to form the Department and what salaries they should receive. He was sorry to say that that recommendation had not been carried out by all the Departments. The opinion of the Royal Commission was that all the Departments of the Civil Service should be treated as a whole, that they should all be subject to the same rules and regulations, and that there should be no privileged Departments. He hoped in future the Government would see that such was the case. There was one Department there was no excuse for—namely, the Foreign Office—which had actually refused to listen in any way to the Government or the Royal Commission, and had not formulated any scheme such as had been suggested. If there was one Department which wanted looking into, and thoroughly to have the public eye brought upon it, so that it should be treated in the same way as other Departments, it undoubtedly was the Foreign Office. There was another Department which had not formulated any scheme—namely, the India Office. He knew perfectly well that the India Office stood in a somewhat different position to the other Departments, because it was not paid for by the English ratepayers, but by the people of India. But he did think, in common justice to the people of India, although that Department could not be brought under the purview of the Royal Commission as not being paid for by the taxpayers of England, there was no reason why it should be treated differently to the other Departments, and the India Office ought to be forced to comply with the new regulations laid down for the Civil Service. This normal establishment, when once it could be formulated, was to be inquired into at once, and periodically. There was also to be a permanent Committee, consisting of an officer of the Treasury and the heads of four other Departments; and this new Committee was to be formed for the purpose, as was stated, of suggesting reforms, securing uniformity of regulations, and facili-
  1684
  tating transfers. The proceedings of this Committee were to be recorded. He did not find any Order of Council dealing with that permanent Committee; or that any steps had been taken to insure that its proceedings should be recorded or its recommendations put on record. He thought that record was an important matter, in order that they might see how often the Committee sat, what evidence was brought before it, and what recommendations were actually made. Nor was he able to see that in the future this permanent Committee was to have any initiation at all; but, as far as he could see, it was only to be called into action when the Treasury consulted it. The great complaint hitherto had been that the Treasury had no initiative, and, therefore, reforms in the Civil Service could not be regularly carried out; but if the Treasury, having no initiative itself, was to call into action a permanent Committee which in itself had no initiative, he was afraid they would be no nearer reform than they were before. He believed it was the fact that neither the Treasury nor the permanent Committee would in the future, any more than in the past, have any power to cut down numbers. That was very important indeed, because not only was it desirable to prevent establishments growing, but occasions might arise when it was quite possible, and indeed desirable, to reduce the numbers in a particular Department. He would pass to the second head of the recommendations of the Commission. The idea was that there should be a small Upper Division and a much larger Second Division, and that promotion from the bottom to the top should be by merit alone, and not by seniority, because he ventured to say that the great curse of the Civil Service up to this time had been that the good and bad had gone up to the top together, and there had been no proper moans of promoting the meritorious and keeping down those who did not deserve to rise. He recognised that at the present time—and it might be for some years—it would be difficult to give promotion to many a man who merited it. Although there was this gulf between the Upper and Lower Division, still there were at the present moment, and might be for some years, many redundant clerks whom it was impossible to transfer to other Departments, whom

  1685
  it would not be fair to other Departments to transfer, and whom it would be ruinous in the interests of economy to pension out and retire from the Service on the present terms for retirement, which were very expensive, and even then the advantages to the Second Division clerks would for some time be small, because they had to face the fact that the Upper Division had got to be smaller in the future; therefore, as a matter of fact, there would be fewer vacancies to be filled by those Lower Division clerks. While promotion by merit involved that the meritorious should rise, it was essential, in order to produce a state of things under which the meritorious should rise, that they should keep down and even turn out of the service those who were really inefficient. If they were going to keep down the inefficient members of the Civil Service it was most essential to do it in the earlier years of their service, as it was more difficult to do it later on. One of the most important recommendations of the Commission, he was sorry to say, had not been carried out. They recommended that with every public servant the first year should be a year of real probation. In that year it should be ascertained whether he was thoroughly fit for the Public Service, because many a man might pass by examination who might not have the qualities fitting him to be an efficient servant of the Crown. He regretted that this valuable recommendation had been taken no notice of whatever.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham)said that the one year's probation was already enbodied in an Order in Council dated 12th February, 1876.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that, at any rate, it was shown to the Commission that that probation was never insisted upon as it ought to be. He passed from that to another test of the efficiency of a public servant which the Commission thought it necessary to insist upon, and that was that during the first six years of a public servant's career in the Lower Division his annual increment should never be granted to him unless he had a certificate issued by his superiors saying he was a person well qualified to have promotion and increased pay. That he knew had been done, but
  1686
  the certificate had not been recorded; and unless certificates of this kind were recorded good-natured superiors were only too ready to regard incompetent public servants with more laxity than if they knew their certificates were to be placed on record, so that if a man they had certified as competent turned out to be inefficient they would be called to account. There was one great evil the House would have to deal with. Before the Commission witness after witness stated that, often when they tried to keep down the inefficient members of the Public Service so that the efficient should be promoted, some Member of Parliament went to the Department and threatened to raise a difficulty in the House if promotion were not given to a particular man. It was the London Members especially who were complained of; and if one of these clerks happened to be a Member's constituent it was more than the life of the head of a Department was worth to refuse the promotion that ought to be withheld on public grounds. This was a thing that, in the interests of the Public Service, all hon. Members ought to protest against. It was deteriorating to the Public Service. He did not say hon. Members were not entitled to speak on general grounds: but they ought not to go to the head of a Department and terrorise him into giving promotion to any individual who did not deserve it. Another thing that ought to be dealt with more vigorously than had been done by Order in Council was the prohibition of private work in office hours and the holding of offices connected with public Companies, which, diverted public servants from their official duties during office hours. A public servant ought not to be serving as a Director when he was required to be in his office, and in his office he ought not to engage in private work. He would point out that it was to the interests of the public servants themselves that they should give their whole time, because if they did not they were not qualified to receive their pensions; therefore, in their own interests, they should be compelled to comply with these conditions. The Commission strongly urged that the rule on this subject should be rigidly enforced, and they then quoted a very admirable regulation of the Colonial Office which, he was sorry

  1687
  to say, was the only office that carried out a strict regulation of this kind. What had the Order in Council done? He thought, to a certain extent, it did really endeavour to carry out the recommendation on this subject; but it was so loosely worded that it failed to effect its object in one or two particulars. In the first place, the Royal Commission did not limit this employment to Companies, but it extended to work of any kind. The Order in Council only limited it to work in connection with the management of Companies. He was told there were several public servants acting as auditors and doing the work in office hours, and, as this was not considered to be management, the regulation was evaded. Then, again, he said that all public servants, both past and future, whether they had been Directors of public Companies in the past, or whether they intended to be in the future, should be prohibited doing work of this kind. But the Order in Council did not carry out the object aimed at. It did not say that Directors were not to be allowed to be Directors of public Companies, but it said they were not to be allowed to accept directorships. It did not, therefore, touch the case of those who were Directors of public Companies at the time this Order was carried into effect. He hoped it would be laid down that during office hours no public servant should be allowed to act as a Director of a public Company. Outside office hours, of course, they had the right to dispose of their own time, but during office hours all public servants, high and low, should be expected to be in their places. The Royal Commission recommended that in every Department of the Civil Service there should be an attendance book, and that every member in the office should be obliged to sign, thus showing when he entered the office, when he left for luncheon, when he came back, and when he left the office for the evening. That rule was to be equally applied to both the Higher and the Lower Divisions. It was no excuse to say that in the Higher Divisions work was sometimes done at home. The influence of example was so great and the efficiency of a Department as a whole so bound up with this discipline that the regulation ought to be strictly enforced instead of being loosely framed and
  1688
  evaded as it was now in several cases. With regard to the Lower Division, the Order in Council was most explicit and, to his mind, most satisfactory. To his mind there should be no distinction. It was not ordered in the Higher Division that the attendance book should be signed. There was no such attendance book in the Higher Division.
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The regulation is that an attendance book should be kept in every Department for recording the times of arrival and departure.
  MR. HANBURYwanted to know why there was this difference in the wording of the regulation? In the Lower Division it was required that the clerks should sign the book. In the Upper Division the clerks were not required to sign the book, and, as a matter of fact, they did not sign it. Why was not the regulation enforced in both Divisions? The attendance book lay on the table, but how many of the Upper Division clerks signed it? There was a distinction which the Royal Commission did not sanction, and which he held was thoroughly unfair. Again, the holidays of the Higher Division were much longer than those of the Lower Division.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Second Division.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes; Second Division. They should endeavour to make a distinction; but it should not be one that gave an air of superiority to one Division. The interruption reminded him that they wished to change the names of these divisions from Upper and Lower to First and Second Divisions. That was the intention—to put them all on au equal footing. These Second Division men were most meritorious, and many of them were quite qualified to rise into the Higher Divisions of the Service of the State. But these superior persons of the Upper Division were not to be called clerks, but "officers;" the term "clerks" was only for the Lower Division. He thought that was really ridiculous. As he was saying, the Higher Division had longer holidays than the Lower Division. Under 10 years' service the Upper Division had 36 days holidays, while the Lower Division men had only 14 days. Over 10 years it was 48 days and 21 days, respectively.

  1689
  There was another recommendation both in the interest of merit and of economy, and that was that all the services ought to be treated as a whole, so that every clerk should be liable to serve, not only in his own Department, but in any other Department if necessary. In order to carry out that recommendation, it was necessary to warn persons entering the Public Services that they were so liable, and he should like to know whether that had been done? Again, if those changes were to be effective, there must be attendance books, and the hours should be the same; at present, the First Division clerks were only called upon to serve six hours, while the Second Division clerks were required to serve seven. The idea was that the latter should not be called upon to serve the seven hours without extra remuneration. It might be doubted whether they had power to require them to do so. He was sorry that that kind of distinction had been drawn, and more favour shown to the Upper Division than to the Lower. What was happening at the present moment? All the clerks in the Lower Division were serving seven hours; and those who were promoted before 1889 were to get a small addition to their salaries; an addition which was hardly an equivalent—£16 he thought it was.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: £15.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that was not an equivalent. He did not see why favour should be shown the Upper Division clerks in this matter, and he, therefore, thought they ought to be called upon to serve seven hours as the others did. He was for having the same regulations guiding both Divisions. Another thing was that if they were going to have a system of transfer from one Department to another they should retire all public servants at one age. Sixty-five was the ago fixed by the Royal Commission, and he regretted that there were several Departments which refused to be guided by that rule. The Treasury, however, ought to enforce retirement at a certain age. He had only another remark to make; he would not go into details, as he understood that would be done by those following him. He wished to say a word as to the system of pensions. There were two ways of dealing with them. If properly managed
  1690
  they could be used to secure retirement even before the age of 65 in the case of inefficient or supernumerary servants; and they could be used to effect great economies in cutting down the Non-effective Votes. Up to recent times pensions had been calculated on the last three years of service. The Royal Commission recommended that the calculation should be based on the salary of the last 10 years; and when a Royal Commission, which had gone so thoroughly into the matter, made such a recommendation, as being just and at the same time conducive to economy, no Government ought to disregard that recommendation, and take five years instead of 10 years as the basis for calculation. He was sorry to say that the Government——
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The late Government.
  MR. HANBURY: He was not referring to one Government more than another. He was sorry to say the late Government was much to blame. This was no Party question; and he brought it up to enforce upon this Government, and any other that might come, that the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners should be carried out. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear this in mind. He had only two objects in view. One was to make it much more possible in the future to reward merit in public servants than it was now—it was impossible to reward merit unless the inefficient servants were got rid of in some way—and the second object was to promote economy. As to the reward of merit, he was sure he would be borne out by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who sat on that Royal Commission, and who had seen numbers of the Second Division clerks and heard the evidence respecting them, when he spoke of the efficient aid which their examination gave to the Public Service. The examination was undoubtedly one of the best in the interests of the Public Service, and numbers of the men were, in his opinion, qualified to hold the highest offices, and, indeed, to his knowledge, some of the present heads of Departments had risen from the lower grades of the Service. If an opportunity were given to these Second Division clerks of rising by

  1691
  steady degrees, the country would be as well served as it had been in the past, and no country had been better served than this country by its Public Departments.
  Earl COMPTONsaid, he ventured to intrude upon the House to urge that the claims of the Civil servants, to whom reference had been made, should be considered without further delay. He was glad to hear the hon. Member who spoke last stating that this was no Party question. The claims of these servants of the State deserved a patient hearing, and he trusted they would be heard, and the claims dealt with by Her Majesty's present Government. He hoped sincerely the Government would be willing to listen to what they had to state. As to the Second Division clerks, the proposal brought forward involved no question of additional expenditure. It was not a matter of expense. He was anxious to do what he could in the direction of economy; but, as he had said, there was no additional expenditure involved in this case. The hon. Member who opened the discussion had alluded to the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to the necessity of opening the door to the Second Division, so that they might be able to rise up to the First Division. Well, paragraphs 8, 48, and 115 of the Report showed that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it was necessary that this door should be opened. If that were the case, and there were meritorious clerks whom they all desired to see promoted, then, he asked, why was it that they had competitive examinations? Was it because they wanted, in the First Division, men of different education, and of a different class, to the men in the Second Division? From an answer which had been given to a question in the House, it would seem as if only 18 appointments had been made from outside during the past five years. But if 18 vacancies had been filled from outside, that had been distinctly to the detriment of those who had waited for promotion. As to the appointments made from the inside during the last five years, he did not think there had been more than about 50 promotions from the Second Division to the First Division. The
  1692
  large majority of these promotions had been in the Inland Revenue Office. None of them had been made while the Royal Commission sat, and the men in the Second Division were waiting in the expectation that something would be done to advance their interests; but they had been disappointed. In the Legacy Duty Office this year there had been an open competitive examination. At that time eight Second Division clerks who had been trained in the Office were promoted, and 11 clerks entered by competition. But. what happened? Why, notwithstanding that the eight who were promoted had been working in the Office and were familiar with all its routine, they were made inferior to the 11 who were brought in from outside. Over the heads of the eight were placed men who had no experience of the office or of the duties, and those who were familiar with the Department would know that these Second Division clerks who had been promoted, and who had frequently had to do First Division work before their promotion, were set to teach their duty to those who came in from the outside and who were placed over their heads. What he wished to know was, why it was necessary that there should be any competitive examination? Was the reason because the Department required men of a different social status in the First Division, and of higher education to the men in the Second Division? If that were so, why wore not the Second Division clerks allowed the chance of entering into the competitive examinations with outsiders? At any rate, they should be allowed that chance. Moreover, the Second Division clerks were anxious to have some answer to the numerous requests they had preferred. They had a right to know what it was that disqualified them from taking the vacancies which now and then occurred instead of having those vacancies filled up from the outside. He was sure the Treasury was anxious to do what was right in the matter, but he thought that many just claims had been overlooked.
  *MR. COHENsaid, he desired to address the House for a short time on this matter, because he had more than once brought under the notice of the House the flagrant disregard of the recommendations of the Royal Commis-

  1693
  sion of which the Civil Service complained, and of which they were the victims. The particular class whose case he wished to bring under the notice of the House were the Second Division, and this because their case was one than which it would be impossible to conceive one more hard or more unjust. Nor was there, so far as he was aware, a show of justification or excuse for those broken promises—because promises they were, as he would show the House. He recollected the remarks only last week of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to increase of salaries in the great Government Departments, and he deprecated as much as any hon. Member the pressure which he was told was put on candidates to use their influence to make the State more generous, and to redress grievances which were sometimes wholly imaginary. No such pressure had been put on him, and he would have paid no attention to it if it had been tried. But the case of the Second Division in the Civil Service involved no extra cost to the State. On the contrary, if the just aspirations of the Second Division were satisfied the State would be pecuniarily a gainer, and a system of promotion from the Second to the First Division would be established which would be conducive to the interests of the Service, and which would be in harmony alike with the principles of justice and policy. The Second Division constituted the great bulk of the Clerical Establishments of the Public Offices, and now had considerably over 8,000 clerks. The majority of these had given over 10 years' service, and many over 17 years. They acquitted themselves creditably in the discharge of their duties, and the Ridley Commission, the Treasury, the permanent heads of Departments, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had successively paid high and well-merited tributes to the qualifications of the men who composed the Second Division. Nevertheless, the avenues of promotion had been, and, as far as could be seen, were likely to remain, closed against this meritorious class, and this in spite of a letter from the Treasury in 1884 stating that their Lordships looked forward to the First Division being largely replenished from the Second Division. "Looked forward." Yes;
  1694
  and so did the Second Division clerks themselves. And they were still looking forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War told him that afternoon that his intentions which he announced to the House on 11th March remained unaltered. But was it not time to get beyond the stage of "looking for-ward" and of good intentions? The Ridley Commission in paragraph 8 of the Second Report reported—
  "We think the door of promotion to all the upper posts should be opened to any clerk who has shown that he possesses the necessary qualifications"
  He ventured to submit that this recommendation contained only the rudimentary principle on which any business establishment would be conducted. In such establishments the heads, in their own interest, would desire that the responsible and higher posts should be filled by those whose acquaintance with their work had been matured by long service in their various offices; and surely such expectations of advancement, if not known to be entirely illusory, constituted of themselves a valuable stimulant to industry and zeal, which were in themselves the highest and best contribution to efficiency and good organisation in any office. In paragraph 118 of the same Ridley Report the Commissioners reported—
  "The essence of their proposal is to assign a greatly-increased share of work to the Second Division, and in connection with this object to improve their standard of pay, and to attach to their class certain specific staff appointments for which they are specially qualified."
  Not only had that recommendation not been acted upon, but it had been flagrantly disregarded.
  Mb. JACKSON: No, no!
  *MR. COHENsaid, the statistics would prove that he was right. He believed that the whole of the vacancies in the First Division during the last four years, instead of being awarded to experienced Second Division clerks, had been given to young men outside the Service who were without any previous training or experience, but were placed by a stroke of the pen above the heads of the older Civil servants. When these young men were imported into the Service over the heads of the Second Division clerks it was the Second Division clerks that trained the new arrivals. The

  1695
  Ridley Commission recommended that the doors of promotion should he open to all deserving clerks. When he stated that, with the exception of the Admiralty, the Chief Secretary's Office, and the Board of Trade—and even there the exceptions were extremely limited—no promotions to the First Division from the Second Division had been made in any Department presided over by Cabinet Ministers, it would be realised that the prospect of promotion held out to the Second Division clerks had been completely illusory and deceptive, and that the recommendations of the Ridley Commission on this head had been flagrantly ignored. But not only was the course taken unjust and unnatural, but it was extravagant, for the salary of a new arrival placed in the First Division started at £150 or £200 a year; if, on the other hand, a Second Division clerk was promoted to the First Division, a vacancy in the Second Division would be created, and the person appointed to fill it would begin with a salary of £70 a year. He did not believe such a system as he had described, unjust and extravagant as he had shown it to be, was approved by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite any more than he believed it was by the House. Indeed, he thought it would not exist if only right hon. Gentlemen could spare the time to look into the matter a little for themselves, instead of leaving it entirely to the permanent Heads of their Departments. It was with this object that he had ventured to make these remarks, and not, he assured the right hon. Gentleman, from any spirit of insubordination amongst the Second Division itself. In the interest of economy and justice, he commended the subject to the right hon. Gentleman; he hoped it would receive his early attention, and in that case he was confident that a grievance which was unjust, and which arose from unfulfilled engagements and unredeemed promises, would not any longer remain unredressed.
  *Sir J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he had to thank the hon. Member who had introduced this question for the very fair and candid manner in which he had dealt with the question. He could say the same with regard to the observations of the other speakers. This was not a Party matter, or one affecting the present
  1696
  Government alone. It was a question as to whether the recommendations of the Ridley Commission had been faithfully and fairly carried out. Looking at the importance of these recommendations, he might say that they had been carried out faithfully to a large extent, though he was quite prepared to admit they had not been carried out completely. This was, however, no reason why they should not be carried out more completely in the future. The difficulties of the case were very great. The late Government, through the Treasury, had to deal with the difficulties, and he thought that anyone who looked at the question with an open mind would admit that those difficulties had been dealt with very fairly by the Treasury. He did not say that in every instance the Treasury carried out the recommendations of the Commission, for, of course, they had to encounter difficulties which the Commission were not aware of. He thought he could show the House how far the recommendations had been carried out. One recommendation was that a normal establishment of each Department should be formulated. No doubt that should be done, but the Treasury had no power to deal with the establishment of the House of Lords nor with the India Office, and very little power to deal with the establishment of the House of Commons. The Foreign Office was not included in the Second Report of the Ridley Commission. It was dealt with separately by the Royal Commission in their fourth Report. The only other Department that had not formulated a scheme was the Admiralty, and there was good reason why the Admiralty had not prepared one. It was owing to the large numbers of the Upper Division in that Department. Those numbers were being largely reduced; and as soon as they were brought down to a certain number, the Admiralty were quite ready to bring forward a scheme. In every Department other than those named schemes had been formulated. The next question raised was that of a permanent Committee, upon which point the Treasury did not agree with the recommendation of the Ridley Commission, and had, in his opinion, good reason for not carrying it out. The Treasury felt that, as long as they were responsible, they were the

  1697
  people who ought to decide as to the constitution and revision of the staff of any Department. They had appointed from year to year a Committee to deal with disputed questions of establishments. At the commencement of each calendar year a Consultative Committee, consisting of five members, was appointed. The names of the gentlemen composing that Committee this year were as follows:—Mr. Milner, of the Inland Revenue Department; Mr. Meade, of the Colonial Office; Sir Evan Mac-Gregor, of the Admiralty; Sir Reginald Welby, of the Treasury; and Mr. Courthope, of the Civil Service Commission. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hanbury) had referred to the reduction of the numbers in the Departments.
  Mr. HANBURY: I asked if there was power to reduce the establishments.
  Sir J. T. HIBBERT: There is power.
  MR. HANBURY: Who can do it?
  *Sir J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the Treasury could reduce them. Reductions had already taken place in several of the Departments, but the work of carrying out the Commission's recommendations required time, and none of them would like to do anything harsh with respect to either the Upper Division or the Second Division clerks. The hon. Member opposite said there should be uniform rules and regulations for all Departments. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) quite agreed that this was a desirable object to have in view, but he did not think it would be practicable, in view of the positions occupied by the two Divisions, to have the same rules in both of them. Hon. Members were aware that the lengths of the holidays were not the same in each Division, although sick leave was the same for both. As to hours, both the Upper and the Second Divisions were being gradually brought under the seven-hours system. An additional payment of £15 had been made to Second Division clerks for the extra hour's work, and he believed that in all the Departments the Second Division clerks now attended for seven hours, and in all Departments, except the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the Colonial Office, the rest of the establishment also gave seven hours attendance. It had not been thought,
  1698
  however, that those in receipt of the higher scales of salaries were entitled to an increase of pay for the seventh hour. With reference to pensions, the Commissioners had no doubt recommended that the whole system of pensions should be revised, and the late Government brought in a Bill on the subject. Owing to circumstances with which he was not acquainted, not having been in the House at the time, that Bill was not placed on the Statute Book. He quite admitted the force of the reasoning in favour of the re-introduction of that Bill at as early a period as possible. The present Government had their hands full for the moment, and he could not undertake that it should be brought in during the present Session, but he sympathised so much with the objects of the measure that he should use his influence to obtain its re-introduction, if possible, at a later period. Until that Bill had been carried into law it could not be said that the whole of the recommendations of the Commission had been satisfactorily dealt with. Everyone had spoken very warmly of the Second Division clerks. He himself had every sympathy with the Second Division clerks, and he quite admitted that they were well qualified for the work they had to do, and even for the work they might be called upon to do if they were promoted to a higher position. Here a difficulty at once arose. They could not be promoted until there were vacancies; it was necessary to wait until the large number of First Division clerks had been reduced. At the same time, a considerable amount of promotion had taken place during the short time that had elapsed since the Commission had reported. As many as 28 clerks had been transferred from different offices to other offices since the Report was issued, and the promotions of Second Division clerks had been much more numerous than hon. Members fancied. His noble Friend (Earl Compton) had asked why Second Division clerks should not be allowed to compete for the higher appointments like people outside. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) did not see any objection to their being allowed to compete for the higher appointments. He thought they ought to have just the same opportunity of doing so as young men from the

  1699
  Universities, and they had, in fact, the same opportunity.
  Earl COMPTON: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I first of all suggested that there should he no competitive examination at all. If there must be an examination, of course they ought to be allowed to compete.
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he would deal with the question of open competitive examination presently. The number of appointments of Second Division clerks to the Upper Divisions and to higher posts since the Re-port of the Commission had been as follows—namely, Admiralty 17, Board of Trade 3, Bankruptcy Department 6, Patent Office 1, Chief Secretary's Office (Ireland) 4, Customs 2, Fishery Board for Scotland 1, Inland Revenue 50, Irish Land Commission 2, Local Government Board (England) 5, Local Government Board (Ireland) 1, Public Works Office (Ireland) 7, Science and Art Department 1, Secretary for Scotland's Office 1, Valuation Office (Dublin) 6, War Office 1, Woods and Forests Office 1, or a total of 109. During the same period the number of appointments which had been made from outside by the scheme of examination, known as Class I., was only 18. He did not think the comparison between the two sots of figures was at all unfavourable as far as the Second Division clerks were concerned. As to what had just been said by his noble Friend (Earl Compton), he should like to draw attention to the view expressed by the Ridley Commission in their Report. The Commissioners said—
  "It is desirable to secure young men of more liberal education for those posts in the Service which are not simply clerical, but demand a wider and more cultivated view of public affairs than can, as a rule, be expected from youths entering by the lower examination. The Commissioners agree with the Playfair Commission that the best preparation for the Upper Division is not to be found in the purely clerical routine of the ordinary clerkships, though there may be exceptions."
  In face of that Report, he did not think the Treasury were to blame for allowing the limited competition which had been permitted during the last four and a-half years. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had said the Treasury was not in touch with other Departments, and that it weakened itself by sending away
  1700
  its men. He did not think this was at all a true account of the way in which the Treasury acted. He did not think the Treasury were disposed in any way to place themselves in a superior position to other Departments, or to press forward their own members against the interests of other Departments. In conclusion, he had only to say that if time were allowed for carrying out the recommendations of the Ridley Commission, they would be carried out not only with justice, but with advantage to all parties concerned, but at the same time with due regard for considerations of economy. The question would be dealt with in full sympathy with those who would be influenced by the changes recommended by the Commission. His own sympathies were entirely with those who wished to raise themselves to higher positions, and all he desired to insist upon was that they should be capable of carrying out the duties they undertook faithfully and well. The Civil Service of our country was an efficient body, and one which he believed would bear favourable comparison with the Civil Service of any other country in the world. He thought the country was most fortunate in having such a body of men at its disposal, and he trusted that, whatever changes were made, the result would be to strengthen and not to weaken the Service in any one of its Departments.
  Mr. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, that, as he was a member of the Royal Commission, he should like to say a few words on the subject. The Commission were entirely of opinion that it would be to the advantage of the Service that every recruit who joined the Civil Service should feel that he carried the marshal's baton in his knapsack, but, at the same time, they felt it to be most important that all promotions from the Lower to the Upper Division should be fully justified by the qualifications. Whilst they thought that in the larger number of cases such promotion was most desirable, they took the view that there would always be a large number of posts for which liberal education and very high training would perhaps afford a better qualification than could be gained by mere clerical work in a Public Office. The hon. Member for Preston had spoken as

  1701
  to the desirability of having uniform rules in the Service. That sounded very well, but the suggestion would prove very difficult to carry into effect, because the work of the various Departments differed very materially; and though the rules framed might recommend themselves for favourable consideration on the ground of uniformity, they would be more frequently honoured in the breach than in the observance, and would lead to inconvenience and frequent appeals to a higher authority. And so, again, a uniform seven hours rule had a very catching sound. He, however, preferred the old system, so far, certainly, as the Upper Division clerks were concerned, for under that system they had a loyal body of men who attended their offices prepared to work, if necessary, any number of hours, and staying with the utmost cheerfulness so long as there was anything to be done. He was afraid that, by fixing a limit of hours, they would do away with that esprit de corps which in former times had carried Civil servants through hard work and great difficulties. The hon. Member for Preston had dilated upon what be termed the extravagant charge for technical pensioners. He complained that these men were brought into the Service late in life, and became entitled to a pension after a very short period. But he omitted to mention that they obtained their special knowledge and training at very great cost to themselves, and that what they earned in the Public Service they could more than command outside. Consequently, it was hardly just to them to suggest that they were too heavy a charge on the State in respect of pensions, seeing that they sacrificed much while they were in the Public Service. A good deal had been said about eliminating unfit men from the Service, but it was the House itself that was to a large extent responsible for the retention of such men. The permanent head of a Department might advise the Minister to get rid of certain public servants, and the Minister might be convinced of the wisdom of the recommendation, but political pressure was brought to bear on him, and it became extremely difficult for him to act on the only advice to which in such matters he ought to pay any attention. He hoped hon. Members would take heed of this, for great injury
  1702
  to individuals and to the Public Service was often done, through their interference, out of kindness of heart, on behalf of men for whom they were pressed to use their influence.
  *SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he had been a little disappointed with some of the observations of the last speaker (Mr. Freeman-Mitford), who had qualified considerably some of the recommendations of the Commission to which he himself was a party, especially by his references to the claims of higher education and to appointments from outside the Service. One of the recommendations of the Ridley Commission was as follows:—
  "We think the door of promotion to all the upper posts should be open to any clerk who has shown that he possesses the necessary qualifications for discharging them efficiently."
  He thought, in these days of general education, that these advantages, combined with official training, constituted quite as good a qualification as mere general instruction, and he was sure the majority of those who had been appointed to the higher posts had justified the training of which they had bad the advantage in their various Departments. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury—as to whose good intentions he entertained no doubt—bad not completely proved his case on a most important subject—namely, the business organisation of the State Departments. He had declared that the Government had faithfully carried out the recommendations of the Commission "to a very large extent." In dealing with the Employers' Liability Bill, frequent observations had been made about the duty of the State to become an example of the best employer; but what, he ventured to ask, would be said of a private employer who, in dealing with his employés, was able, after a considerable term, only to say that be had performed his obligations "faithfully to a very large extent?" What were the figures the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned? He had told them that 109 appointments had been made from within the office and 18 from outside. He failed entirely to see why those 18 appointments should have been made, at any rate, without the competition of

  1703
  existing Civil servants. The Government had carried out their obligations, but only to a partial extent, and the Civil Service was still asked to "wait." How long? He had some time since the advantage of presiding over a meeting of Civil servants, which was likewise attended by many hon. Members of Parliament of all shades of political opinion, and what they heard there convinced them that the Civil servants were labouring under a very considerable amount of injustice; and although the sense of the meeting was very temperately expressed, the importance of its influence was not to be ignored. Hope deferred made the heart grow sick, and the absence of hope of promotion in the Service was productive of a feeling of despair which could only have most unfortunate results. The absence of prospects of promotion among the Second Division clerks was such as to prevent them hopefully and helpfully rendering to the State a full measure of service, such as would be given when the State recognised its reciprocal liability. He based the claim of the clerks of the Second Division on the ground of justice. A very large amount of stagnation in the way of promotion had been proved, and without the hope of promotion no really good work could be done. He further based the claims of the Second Division very strongly upon the advantage of the State itself. It was a distinct disadvantage when a large portion of the Service felt that the door to promotion was to a very large extent barred; and he was certain that if in private establishments a policy obtained which prevailed in the Civil Service, the work would not be so efficiently done as now in those establishments. He desired, further, to complain of the political disabilities and restrictions which were placed upon Post Office and some other Civil Service clerks and employés in regard to the right of public meeting and conference. The franchise had been conferred, and its usual incidents ought to accompany it, including all ordinary civic rights. For, he ventured to assert it was a distinct danger to the State when effective criticism through such means was denied to those to whom the franchise had been given. Otherwise
  1704
  even the franchise itself might become a danger to the State, owing to the refusal of a right, the exercise of which would secure criticism and sound views. He trusted that these limitations would be removed, especially in the Post Office, where complaint was the loudest, upon which he appealed to the Postmaster General, who was present, and that some of the just causes of complaint which had been proved would be redressed more rapidly than had been indicated by the Treasury.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. Fowler,): As a member of the Royal Commission whose recommendations have been so ably explained to the House by the hon. Member for Preston, I wish at once to say I cannot admit that those recommendations form a contract with anybody whatever. The hon. Member had suggested that they form the basis of a contract between the Treasury and the Civil Service. That seems to me to be an absolute misapprehension of the real facts. The Crown empowered a certain number of gentlemen to inquire into the whole domain of the Civil Service, but it was perfectly understood that the Government had an absolute right to reject or to accept their recommendations. So far as the general scope of the recommendations is concerned, the Government have acted perhaps as liberally as most Governments do; but I must repeat my protest against the suggestion that those recommendations are to be taken as forming the basis of a contract. I concur in the recommendation about the promotion, of the Second Division clerks, but I must at the same time point out that the Commission also said they had no doubt it would always be necessary to introduce a very limited number of men by means of a higher examination to fill directly some of the more important posts of the Public Service; and if importance is to be attached to one recommendation, weight must also be given to the other. The fact that only 18 appointments have been made from outside, as against 109 from inside, shows that the authorities are acting on the recommendation. As to the position of Civil servants generally, I say that taking them man for man, post for post,

  1705
  pay for pay, there is no Department in the Kingdom—bank, Railway Company or manufacturing establishment—that pays anything like the Government of this country to its permanent Civil servants, so far as the Second Division clerks are concerned; and when the hon. Member speaks of hope being dead, and suggests that the absence of hope prevents the proper discharge of duty, I think he totally misconceives the position of the Civil servants, the salaries they receive, and the admirable manner in which they perform their public duties. No class of men discharge their duties with greater industry and greater ability, or contribute more to the smooth working of the machinery of departmental government. After the pledge which my right hon. Friend has given on behalf of the Treasury, that the recommendations of the Commission will be still further considered, I hope the hon. Member will rest satisfied with the result obtained from the Debate, and not prolong it.
  *Mr. PERCY THORNTONsaid, he had been immensely impressed by the strong feeling among the Second Division clerks. Representing as he did a constituency in which many of them resided, he had come to the conclusion that that feeling was perilously close to despair. He had no desire to press the matter too closely, but he did say that the Ridley Commission held out hopes that a bridge would be built across the abyss which stopped promotion. The Government, no doubt, when they put up the bridge had a perfect right to place upon it a gate which could be locked, but his contention was that they were not justified in locking it and placing the key in the tomb of "all the Capulets" at Whitehall. He was, however, very glad to have heard what had been said that evening from the Treasury Bench, for it would encourage the clerks to take a more hopeful view of their position. They would feel they had at the helm a man, in the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who sympathised with them in their difficulties, and, that being so, the Debate would not have been in vain.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL SHIPS.
  *Admiral FIELDsaid, he wished again to call attention to the existing system of training poor boys in reformatory and industrial school ships for service at sea as being both extravagant and wasteful in its results, and he trusted that he would receive from the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department a more encouraging answer than he obtained three or four years ago when his own political friends were in power. He made no excuse for bringing the matter forward; its importance spoke for itself, and anything that tended to enhance the efficiency of our reformatory and industrial schools and ships should be supported, as it would improve the tone of our Mercantile Marine and ensure for our Navy a better reserve in time of war. He intended on that occasion to confine his observations to the ships and not to deal with the land schools, and in whatever he said he wished it to be understood that he had no intention to reflect upon the staff of Home Office inspectors. That staff was able and competent, but inadequate to cope with the work which they had to perform, and he contended that, it ought to be increased, and that a Naval Inspector ought to be appointed to inspect the school ships in the place of a landsman. A Colonel in the Army, however distinguished, and an ex-officer of Dragoons, was hardly the right person to inspect boys who were being trained to become seamen, If he were told to inspect a troop of Horse Guards, what would hon. Members think of the matter? Yet he knew something about a horse, and could jump a fence, but he doubted if a military man who came aboard a school ship would trust himself aloft, while if he did he certainly would not know whether the sails were properly reefed or furled. The present system of inspecting reformatory and industrial school ships was a farce, and he had had numerous letters from officers commanding such vessels—men of ripe experience at sea—protesting against it. One of them wrote—

  1707
  "I don't care who inspects me. Let the Home Office send on board a boatswain's mate, and I will receive him with respect, because he is a sailor and knows his work, but I do object to being inspected by landsmen who can know nothing of what they are called upon to inspect or in regard to the training of boys for seamen."
  He did hope that the Home Office would hear this in mind, and that they would have Naval Inspectors and a more efficient staff of instructors for each ship. He would be glad to see more Members take an interest in the subject.
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  TREASURY CHEST FUND BILL.—(No. 321.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I hope the hon. Member will not insist on his Motion. I am quite willing to give any explanation of the Bill which may be desired.
    Mr. HANBURYsaid, he must persist with his Motion.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 327.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Sir W. HARCOURT: I wish to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen who desire to express their views upon this Bill, and what I have to suggest is that the Second Reading should be agreed to this evening, and the Committee stage taken to-morrow. The Bill will be placed as the first Order tomorrow, and this will allow discussion on the details of the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)
    MR. BONSORthought it was hardly respectful for the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, to ask the House to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill at such a time of the night. For the last six years an expectant country had been awaiting the advent of the right hon. Gentleman to the office he now occupied. They had been told that when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer great reforms in the finances of the country would take place, and that-all in equalities in taxation would be removed. But in the result, all they had got was the "penny in the slot" proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. In all seriousness he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. The hour was late, and there were two Amendments on the Paper of great importance relating to the abolition of the Tea Duty and the increase of the Income Tax, which could not be adequately discussed in Committee. He moved the adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Bonsor.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: I feel the force of what has been urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question really depends on whether the House generally desires to have further debate on the Second Reading. My hon. Friends can bring the questions of the Tea Duty and the Income Tax forward in Committee and have them discussed. I do not remember a case, however, when a Bill of this description has been taken at such a late hour; but, on the other hand, I have not heard that any considerable number of Members wish to speak on the Second Reading. If there are only the two points referred to for discussion they might be discussed fully in Committee.
    *Mr. BARTLEYsaid, although his own particular Motion on the Paper would be placed at a great disadvantage, as only part of it could be moved in Committee, he should not oppose the Second Reading, on the

    1709
    understanding that the Bill would be put down as the first Order to-morrow, and that an opportunity should he given for discussing the important questions to he raised at a proper length. This would show his great desire to push forward the Government Business.
    Mr. BROOKFIELDconsidered that the questions of the proposed abolition of the Tea Duty and the increase of the Income Tax could not be properly discussed in Committee. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would persist in moving the adjournment of the Debate, and he would support him.
    *Mr. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, they must not forget that this demand was made on them by a Government which had secured the whole time of the House. He therefore thought they should not be asked to abandon all debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he hoped the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate would not be withdrawn.
    Commander BETHELLsaid, he thought they should allow the Second Reading to be taken, and reserve discussion till the Committee stage of the Bill. If they did not do that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try to corner them in some way. If they did not allow the Second Reading to be taken that, night, the right hon. Gentleman would probably put down the Committee stage at a time when proper discussion could not take place, whereas, by allowing the Second Reading to be taken, they had the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee stage would he put down as the first Order to-morrow.
    Viscount CRANBORNEobjected to discussing an important Budget at that hour of the night. They were in the presence of grave financial difficulties—a falling Revenue and a despairing Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question of the Tea Duty was exceedingly important, because it affected the whole question of the Customs in relation to the Government of Ireland Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman knew that a very strong feeling had been aroused in the country by his proposal to make good the deficiency in the Revenue by throwing an extra 1d. on
    1710
    the Income Tax. For these reasons he did not think the House should be asked to proceed with the Second Reading of so important a measure at that late hour of the night.
    *Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that undoubtedly much inconvenience would be caused to hon. Members if the Second Reading were taken that night. He suggested that the Second Reading should be put down for to-morrow, when they would undertake not to discuss the Bill at an unreasonable length.
    MR. FARQUHARSONsupported the Adjournment, and asked the Speaker as a, point of Order whether it was not the fact that in Committee discussion was not allowed to be so ample as in a full House?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I am no judge of what takes place in Committee.
    Sir W. HARCOURT: As opinion seems to be divided even on the Benches opposite, I will assent to the Second Reading being taken to-morrow. I can not, however, undertake that it will be the first Order, but it will be taken at a reasonable hour.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Original Question put, and negatived.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PRISON OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 325.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    Viscount CRANBORNEasked the Home Secretary for some explanation of its provisions.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Asquith,): This Bill, which I trust hon. Members on both sides will agree to, merely amends a clause in the Prisons Act of 1887. Under that Act a number of prisons were taken over from the Local Authorities and transferred to the Prison Commissioners. Provision was made in that Act that the services of prison officials in connection with the prisons under the Local Authorities should count for the purposes

    1711
    of superannuation and pension under that Act. In fact, it established continuity of service, before and after the Act. Owing to the wording of the Act, it was found that a gentleman who was employed as an Inspector of Prisons was not within the wording of the clause. The result is that, although the gallant officer, an Admiral, has served for a great many years before the Act as Inspector of Prisons and was taken on in the same capacity by the Prison Commissioners, his services before the Act cannot count, and he is deprived of a very large amount of the pension which he has honourably earned by his services to the State.
    Mr. HARTLEY: Is that all the Bill does?
    Mr. ASQUITH: That is all, subject to this—that it provides that in the cases of prison officers who have been in the Army and Navy there shall not be a reduction of naval or military pensions on account of their services under the Prison Commissioners.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  MOTIONS.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Hoard of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Castlehaven, Deal, Sandown, and Southwold, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 328.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 8) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary districts of Barking Town, Coventry, Devonport, Folkestone, Honley, Linthwaite, Reddish, Slaithwaite, and Tonbridge, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 329.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 9) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Hoard relating to the urban sanitary districts of Ashton-in-Makerfield, Brighton, Burnley, Llandudno, Newton-in-Makerfield,
    1712
    Rhyl, and Smethwick, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 330.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, under "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890." relating to the urban sanitary district of Plymouth, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 331.]

    DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL.—(No. 312.)
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL. (No. 83.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. (No. 298.)
    Read the third time, and passed.

    SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 140.)
    Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 3rd May read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.
    Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.

    SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    "Bill to amend 'The Shop Hours Act, 1892,'" presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 333.]

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 318.)
    Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 17th May read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION (IRELAND).

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  *THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid, their Lordships would allow that he was making no incorrect statement when he said that they had had very considerable experience of the reluctance invariably displayed by noble Lords opposite since 1886 with regard to the discussion of subjects connected with Ireland. But he ventured to say the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on Friday last entirely eclipsed any former reticence that they had displayed in discussing Irish affairs. A Motion bearing on the Evicted Tenants Commission was raised on Friday last—a Motion of such importance that, although the state of Business in the House of Commons was very heavy, a day was devoted to the discussion of the Report. The Motion in their Lordships' House was moved and supported by two noble Lords opposite, in speeches of singular ability, in which they criticised and discussed the most important items in connection with that Commission in speeches which occupied an hour and a half—and those speeches were not one moment too long—and what was the action of the Representative of the Government on that occasion? The noble Lord (Lord Acton)—and he spoke of him with a feeling of great respect—dealt with those arguments and criticisms in the briefest possible manner, and he never attempted to answer them. If he did he would have found the task a most difficult one. The noble Lord read an answer in words put down on a sheet of paper, in a very few lines, in all probability written in the Irish Office. It would have done just as well if he had had the answer on Monday, when notice was given, as on Friday last when the Debate took place. If the matter had not been so serious, if it had not been so important, the action of the noble
  1558
  Lord would have been comical and ludicrous. He ventured to say that never in the annals of political history had a Member of a responsible Government been put up to defend the Report of a Commission of so extraordinary, so monstrous, a character. Anybody who had any acquaintance with Ireland could have but one opinion with regard to that Commission—namely, that although ostensibly called a Commission to re-instate tenants, it was in reality a Commission dictated and commanded by the authors and promoters of the Plan of Campaign to re-instate them in the good opinion of their unfortunate dupes who, beguiled by their promises and overcome by coercion—for there was coercion in the Plan of Campaign as he would shortly show their Lordships—now found themselves homeless and penniless, and, in the eye of the law, less than fraudulent bankrupts. On these grounds the issuing of that Commission was nothing short of a public scandal. In the first place, the mere fact of issuing the Commission was giving effect to the Plan of Campaign, for he was certain that none of their Lordships would contradict him when he said that if the Plan of Campaign had never been set on foot the Commission never would have been issued. Secondly, the issue of that Commission proved that if only criminality was persisted in, its object would be enforced by those whose duty it was not to promote, but to punish crimes. In the third place, the issue of that Commission was most pernicious and demoralising to honest tenants, who in many cases had had great difficulty, but who had endeavoured to meet, and had succeeded in meeting, their just obligations. It was demoralising to see a Commission appointed simply to reward men who were not only dishonest, but were guilty of criminality. In the fourth place—and this was the strongest objection of all—to remove a Judge from his legitimate functions in London to give effect to what was practically a criminal conspiracy was very much like making that Judge an instrument in the aiding and abetting of crime. In the view he had taken of the matter and in calling this a criminal conspiracy, he was supported by far stronger authority than his own. The Irish Judges had not hesitated to describe the Plan of Campaign as illegal, and the Pope of Rome

  1559
  had declared it to be immoral. He would ask noble Lords opposite to answer one of two questions. Did they or did they not agree with the opinions of the Judges of the land and of the Pope of Rome? If they did not agree with those opinions it was their bounden duty to say why they disagreed. If they did agree with those opinions, why had they not denounced—why did they not denounce—the Plan of Campaign? If their Lordships could read the hearts of noble Lords opposite they would know the reason why. They would know that if noble Lords opposite denounced the Plan of Campaign they would not long be sitting on those Benches. Noble Lords opposite knew full well that they were kept in power by the authors and promoters of the Plan of Campaign, who were nothing less than the patrons of the present Government. The Prime Minister had gone somewhat further than noble Lords opposite; he had put forward extenuating circumstances in favour of this criminal conspiracy. Mr. Gladstone did not hesitate to say in 1886 or 1887, at Hampstead, that the origin of the Plan of Campaign was due to the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone said that to please his Irish followers, but a more inaccurate statement was never made. Mr. Gladstone should have known that if Mr. Parnell's Bill had been passed, on the four largest estates upon which the Plan of Campaign was put in force—the Massereene, the Luggacurren, the Coolgreany, and the Vandeleur estates—not one-third of the tenants on those estates would have benefited by the provisions of the Bill, and the remainder would have had to pay into Court under that Bill more than the landlords demanded. The real origin of the Plan of Campaign must have been known to Mr. Gladstone and to noble Lords opposite, because they had been told it by their own followers. Mr. Redmond in 1886 stated that it was originated simply for the purpose of making the government of Ireland under the ordinary law impossible. The noble Earl who introduced the subject (Lord Camperdown) quoted authorities to show that it was started as a great political engine to fight coercion, but he did not quote the words of its real author and originator (Mr. Harrington), who stated that the Plan of Campaign had been started as a political
  1560
  engine, and not as an agrarian one. It was really to whitewash the authors of the Plan of Campaign that the Commission was granted and held, and he reiterated that to originate a Commission for such a purpose was nothing more or less than a public scandal. He had no desire to enter into the constitution of the Commission, and would simply remark that he doubted whether any public Commission was ever before issued and held on which one of the parties interested was not represented. As to the action of the Judge who presided over this Commission, he thought it was a significant fact that Mr. Justice Mathew read his opening remarks from a paper before him. Was that of itself a usual proceeding? Why were those remarks written beforehand, and read? It proved at once that Mr. Justice Mathew had made up his mind long before he came into Court that he would prejudge and condemn Lord Clanricarde. He appealed to the learned Lord on the Woolsack to say whether there was any precedent for such a course of action, and whether he could defend that action. It had been the habit of the members of the National League and of the Plan of Campaign to disparage Lord Clanricarde as a harsh and rack-renting landlord. Though he had no personal acquaintance with Lord Clanricarde, he had some knowledge, derived during the time he had the honour to represent Her Majesty in Ire-land, in reference to the management of his property, and he desired to take that opportunity of directly contradicting the disparaging statements referred to. Lord Clanricarde's property was singularly low let—lower let than that of any other landlord in the West of Ireland; and this assertion was corroborated by the fact that although a Fair Rent Court was established to enable the tenants to get their rents reduced, very few of them went into that Court, and those who did obtained trifling reductions. But whether Lord Clanricarde was a harsh landlord or not, he had a right to demand justice and fair treatment at the hands of the Commission, especially when that Commission was presided over by one of Her Majesty's Judges, and neither justice nor fair treatment did Lord Clanricarde get on that occasion. The evidence, on the contrary, was entirely one-sided, and was given mainly in the

  1561
  interests, as he had said, of the authors and originators of the Plan of Campaign. This was the case with the evidence of Mr. Roche, who was not a. tenant of Lord Clanricarde's, but a professional agitator. Mr. Carson, as the representative of Lord Clanricarde, asked to be allowed to cross-examine this witness, and was told by the Commissioners that he might do so after luncheon. But when the Court resumed and Mr. Carson rose to cross-examine, he was at once prevented from doing so. What had happened during that luncheon time? At any rate, cross-examination was refused, and thus the whole of the evidence, which, it should be remembered, was not given on oath, was rendered useless and unfair, for it would not be difficult to show that in many instances another complexion would have been put on the evidence if cross-examination had been allowed. A week afterwards, on 14th November, 1892, Sir James Mathew alleged that cross-examination was utterly inapplicable to such an inquiry, and had never been permitted in cases which afforded a precedent for that inquiry, and that counsel knew they had no right to it. That remark of Sir James Mathew was supported by Mr. John Morley on the 8th December at Newcastle, who said that the action of the President in this respect
  "Was in accordance with every precedent to be found, and that counsel upon such Vice Regal Commissions were only allowed to intervene, if at all, as friends of the Court, and not to attack or protect witnesses."
  He would challenge the Government to show a single instance in which cross-examination had ever been refused in the case of any Vice Commission in Ireland. As an illustration of the value of some of the evidence, he would remind their Lordships that two of the witnesses brought before Sir James Mathew were two of the men known as the Salford boycotters, who were convicted at Manchester, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for following and boycotting at Salford a man who had been forced to conic across from Ireland to sell his cattle. If cross-examination had been allowed, it would have been shown that they were convicted and sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment for boycotting. If Sir James Mathew had been particularly anxious to get a representative of Lord Clanricarde's evicted tenantry
  1562
  to give evidence before him, there was a prominent man, a Mr. Lynam, who could have given him that evidence. But probably the evidence would not have been acceptable to Sir James Mathew or to Mr. John Morley, or to Messrs. O'Brien and Dillon, for this man had publicly stated
  "That he was not afraid to stand in the city and accuse Mr. J. Dillon and Mr. W. O'Brien of being guilty of the greatest treason that men were ever guilty of to the body of evicted tenants on the Clanricarde estate."
  He went further, and said that
  "No body of men had been treated so badly as those men had been by Messrs. Dillon and O'Brien; that they were traitors to the men they led into action and then deserted, and traitors to the country as well."
  He then went on to denounce Mr. Dillon for having betrayed him, and finished by saying that
  "John Dillon was the biggest traitor that stood on the soil of Ireland that day. He led them into danger, and then ran away."
  That was a witness whom Sir James Mathew might have called had he chosen, but he preferred the evidence of professional agitators who had never been tenants of Lord Clanricarde. Mr. Lynam spoke in those terms of Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien because he was one of those unfortunate dupes who were either persuaded or intimidated to join the Plan of Campaign. Speeches of a persuasive and beguiling character, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, to induce these poor men to embark on the Plan of Campaign had been made by many people besides Members of the Irish Party, among others, by no less a person a few years ago than Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. But, desiring to be as brief as possible, he would go on to a more important-matter, showing that coercion was actually used to force these tenants to join the Plan. In a speech delivered in 1887 Mr. Dillon, who had then heard that a number of the tenants were disgusted with the Plan of Campaign and were anxious to pay their debts honestly and to remain in their homes, said—
  "I am alluding now to the combination among the tenants known as the Plan of Campaign. Let me say that if there be a man in Ireland—I do not believe there is—base enough to back down, to turn his back in the tight, now that coercion is passed, I pledge myself in the face of this meeting that I will denounce him from public platforms by name, and I pledge myself to the Government that, let that man be

  1563
  whom he may, his life will not be a happy one either in Ireland or beyond the seas, and I say this with the intention of carrying out what I say and without the slightest fear of the interpretation which will be put upon my words by the Tory newspapers."
  That was a specimen of the coercion by which unfortunate tenants were forced into the Plan of Campaign. The noble Earl opposite (Lord Spencer) know well what it meant to a man in Ireland to be told that his life "would not be a happy one." The man would be stringently boycotted, his stock would be wounded, perhaps destroyed, and he would be fortunate indeed if his house was not attacked at night and himself beaten, possibly shot, before his wife and family. Yet, although they knew all this, noble Lords opposite had never denounced this vile conspiracy called the "Plan of Campaign," or the intimidation that had been exercised by Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien. That was disgraceful conduct on their part, and the Prime Minister's attempt to prove extenuating circumstances in favour of the promoters of the Plan for such horrors and outrages was specially disgraceful. People in England, when they heard that there were many unoccupied evicted farms in Ireland, might be apt to think that that was due to the action of the unfortunate Irish landlords; but it was not. It was due solely to the action of Mr. Dillon and the promoters of the Plan. Speaking at Galway, when the Commission was actually sitting in Dublin, Mr. Dillon said that the authors of the Plan of Campaign had organised a system of keeping the evicted farms unoccupied, and that that was the greatest weapon that was ever placed in the hands of the Irish people, and he hoped that "Long might the day be distant when the Irish people would forget that lesson." That explained at once why farms were unlet. Of the 10 recommendations of the Commissioners, three were objected to by Mr. Morley himself, and one—the most important of them all—was altogether passed over by Mr. M'Hugh, who called attention to the subject in the House of Commons from the Nationalist point of view. This was the seventh recommendation, which proposed that Boards of Guardians should have the power of raising money for the purpose of stocking evicted farms. Mr. M'Hugh passed that over because, like a sensible man, he knew
  1564
  full well that such a plan would be repudiated by every solvent farmer in the neighbourhood of an evicted farm, for they would never tolerate anything like increased taxation. Yet unjust, immoral as was that recommendation, the remaining nine depended upon it, for they could not be effective unless it was acted upon. What would it avail to put a broken-down farmer into an evicted farm without a single head of cattle, and without a shilling in his pocket? Within six months the man would be ruined, and would have to be evicted again. Mr. Dillon, in his evidence before the Commission, stated that £234,000, money due to the landlords for rent, had been paid over to him by the tenants, but he absolutely declined to account for £14,000–1–13th—of that sum. This was in keeping with the well-known financial capabilities of the heads of the Nationalist Party—capabilities displayed in the mismanagement of The Freeman's Journal and in the complete failure of New Tipperary, where they spent a large sum in building without first getting a title to the land. The late Mr. Parnell evidently gauged their financial capabilities aright, when he said with regard to the Paris Fund—
  "I am not going to have it squandered and wasted by a parcel of idiots, who spent from £15,000 to £20,000 upon building operations in the town of Tipperary, and after they had spent it discovered that they had no title to the land on which the houses had been built."
  Yet those were the men to whom the Government and noble Lords opposite proposed to hand over the wealth, the industry, the prosperity, and the resources of Ireland. Well might Mr. Gladstone say that the Liberal Party had never descended so low as in their attempt to carry Home Rule! A truer remark the Prime Minister never made! The Liberal Party had, indeed, descended low. They had sunk to a depth of degradation never before attained by that or by any other Party, for they had been returned, and were at the present moment, only supported and maintained in power by a body of men who had promoted a criminal conspiracy, to reward whom Her Majesty's Government were now proposing nothing less than the repeal of the Union. By all who studied the Report of the Commission only one conclusion could be arrived at—namely, that Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien

  1565
  commanded Mr. Morley to issue this Commission, and that they directed him in regard to its constitution and action. In no other way could Sir James Mathew's conduct be explained. He had the greatest, admiration for the patience, the ability, the toleration, and the impartiality of Her Majesty's Judges, but he ventured to say that the action of Sir James Mathew in his management of this Commission had struck a blow at the confidence reposed in them from which it would take Her Majesty's Judges a very long time to recover.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, the noble Marquess has complained of the attitude of the Government last week when this Debate was initiated, and I myself have been charged on previous occasions with being reluctant to discuss Irish questions in this House. On this occasion the noble Marquess will not be able to bring such a charge against me. Unfortunately, I was prevented by absence from England from being present when this Debate began. To-day I think it right that I should rise at once and offer some remarks upon this subject; but as I was not present on the first day of this discussion, I do not propose to deal in detail with all the arguments which were then brought forward, or all the statements that were then made. I wish to state shortly what are, and what were, the views of Her Majesty's Government when this Commission was issued. I wish to do this without any strong language and without any heat of Debate. I will say why I consider this subject of vast importance to Ireland, and I wish to say what I have to say with calmness and with deliberation, and to endeavour to enlist your Lordships on the side of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this matter. It has been argued from the other side that this proposal was made by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of a political Party with whom, I fully admit, Her Majesty's Government are now in sympathy with regard to Home Rule. It has been argued as if this question was entirely one in the interest of Irish tenants. I altogether deny that. I consider this question of great importance to all interests in Ireland. I consider it of great importance to the maintenance and establishment of social order; and last, but
  1566
  not least, I consider it of great importance to the landlords themselves. I am not going to make any attack on the land-lords of Ireland. I have never done so. So far as I know, the landlords of Ireland have often done many generous things for their tenants, and, although in some cases they have been to blame and have, some of them—to some extent, at all events—brought about the existing unfortunate condition of things between landlords and tenants in Ireland, I do not wish for a moment to attack them, but rather to offer some suggestions on their behalf. This question of the Commission has been mixed up by all those who have spoken against it with various Organisations in Ireland—with the Land League, with the National League, and with the Plan of Campaign. I do not blame noble Lords opposite for doing that, but I repudiate altogether the statement of the noble Marquess that this Commission was instituted to whitewash the Plan of Campaign. The noble Marquess said it was a scandal that the Government should attempt to do so. I altogether repudiate any such intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in appointing this Commission. It has been my lot often to come into contact with these different Organisations, to oppose them, and frequently, since I left Ireland, to condemn their action and what they have brought about. The noble Marquess has declared that none of us have denounced the Plan of Campaign or the actions of those Organisations in Ireland. I altogether deny that that has been the case. My Colleagues and I have frequently urged strong reasons against the Plan of Campaign, and have objected to the principles on which it acted. I have on more than one occasion, in speeches which have been quoted in another place, denounced the unfortunate language often used by members of the National League in Ireland. I am quite ready to admit that the unfortunate circumstances in which some of the tenants in Ireland have been placed have been brought about by the action of some of these Organisations, which have not found favour either with my Colleagues or with me. Now, my Lords, having said that, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the actual state of affairs in lreland. We have to deal with existing facts, and I think we shall only

  1567
  do harm by raising all those points of controversy that are so often raised when any Irish question is before the House. We gain nothing by doing so. We only irritate and excite public feeling; and if we wish to put an end to a serious difficulty, we must deal calmly and dispassionately with the actual state of facts which we find before us. What are the facts? We find that in many districts, unfortunately, there have been bitter controversies between landlords and tenants, which have ended very often in widespread evictions. I know that in some of those cases matters have been settled, and those very men, those tenants whom the noble Marquess has depicted and denounced in such strong terms, have been put back.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I did not denounce the tenants. I called them poor dupes only, and denounced their leaders.
  EARL SPENCER: I accept what the noble Marquess says. He certainly has denounced our endeavour to deal with these difficulties between these men and their landlords. We considered that those difficulties ought to be dealt with by us; and it has been our endeavour and the endeavour of Parliament to help these men and their landlords. We find that the tenants in various parts of Ireland had been evicted. Unfortunately, I have myself had some experience of this when in Ireland; and I find a very good description, as it seems to me, of the condition of these tenants in the Report now before us. In paragraph 16 it is said—
  "The evicted tenants, in many cases, have been living in huts in the vicinity of the estates provided by some of the Associations formed for their defence, or have gone to reside in the neighbouring towns or villages. They have been, and are now, maintained by weekly grants from funds raised by public subscriptions. The present condition of the evicted farms on many of the estates is deplorable. The land has gone to waste. Fields once cultivated and fairly productive are now covered with furze and weeds. Tracts reclaimed by the industry of the tenants from bog or mountain are returning to their original condition. The former tenants, with little or no occupation, hang about their old farms, and never have relinquished the hope of re-instatement. It is not surprising that, in view of this condition of things, the authorities have considered the presence of an additional police force on many of the estates advisable."
  I do not think anybody in this House will deny that that is a truthful picture
  1568
  of the state of things in many parts of Ireland at the present time. Such a condition of things is to be deplored, not only on account of economic waste, but on account of the serious effect it has on social order. When I was last in Ireland the exceedingly disturbed state of many districts came under my notice, arising out of the quarrels between landlords and tenants. In numerous cases disturbances followed evictions; but if the differences were arranged in any district, immediately that district became peaceable and orderly. Time after time have I seen that occur. Well, my Lords, I consider that a very grave and serious condition of affairs. It is not a state of things that passes away rapidly. It may be said that if time is given, the districts where there have been evictions will settle down, and that the proper relations between landlords and tenants will be resumed; but my experience is that a very long time is required. When I was in Ireland in 1882 some estates were in a condition of unsettlement and disquietude. One I particularly recollect—the Maroo estate of Lord Cloncurry. That estate was in a state of great disquietude in 1882, and the difficulties on that estate have not been settled up to the present time. This Commission was issued to deal with cases like that, which arose long before the Plan of Campaign was heard of. That, I think, is a conclusive argument against what the noble Marquess said as to whitewashing the Plan of Campaign. It is of the utmost importance, whatever Government is in power, to settle these difficulties if possible. Every case in which such difficulties exist, from whatever cause they arise, is a fruitful source of disorder in Ireland. The late Government introduced a clause into their Act of 1891 which certainly had for its object the arrangement of disputes between landlords and tenants. I do not deny for a moment that the arrangements aimed at were voluntary; but that shows how important this matter was in the eyes of the late Government. That Clause 13 was not without privileges conferred upon these tenants. The original Act dealt only with tenants in possession, but that clause gave special power to tenants not in possession to obtain the benefits given by the Act to other tenants. Therefore, I maintain that the late Government

  1569
  went actually out of their way to try and make some arrangement. I do not for a moment say that the arrangements were like those proposed by this Commission; far from it. But it shows that the late Government desired, if possible, to bring about some mode of accommodation in those districts; and that, I maintain, was the sole reason why the present Government proceeded in the matter. They wanted to gather together facts to be laid before Parliament as has been done time after time, and as was done by Lord Bessborough's Commission in 1881 and by Lord Cowper's Commission, both of which preceded legislation. Therefore I maintain, in proposing this Commission, the Government have only followed precedent in getting the facts in order, by legislation if possible, to meet a very grave state of affairs. I should like to explain, shortly, the exact position of the Government. The Government have been challenged on this matter, and have stated that they do not at the present moment intend to introduce a measure founded on the recommendations of the Commission. What they have said most distinctly (as was acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord the other night, and it has been distinctly stated in the other House) is that they were ready to vote for the general principle of the measure dealing with this matter introduced by an Irish Member in another place. But in making that statement the Chief Secretary made some very important reservations. He reserved power in Committee to make alterations in four very important points. First of all, he objected to the present Land Commission being used as a Court of Arbitration; secondly, he objected to the Court of Arbitration set up by the Bill having no discretion, and being obliged compulsorily to re-instate tenants; thirdly, he objected to the proposal to postpone the payment of certain instalments in case of purchase; and, lastly, he criticised in a hostile spirit the proposal for the compulsory expropriation of settlers who had no substantial interest in the holding.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Those were recommendations of the Commission.
  EARL. SPENCER: I do not deny that; but they were not all the recommendations of the Commission. Those were suggestions in the Irish Member's Bill introduced in the other House, and
  1570
  I am only speaking of the suggestions contained in the Bill, and trying to make clear the exact position of the Government. What happened? Unfortunately, the Bill was talked out by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Debate was adjourned. But the Bill still remains. It may come on again; and when it comes on, the Government will be prepared to deal with it in the manner indicated by the Chief Secretary. My Lords, I have tried as calmly as I can to give the reasons why Her Majesty's Government attached great importance to this Commission. They still attach great importance to it, and they desire, if possible, to find a just solution of the difficulty. They consider it of the greatest possible importance to do this in the interests of Ireland—in the interests not only of the tenants, but of the landlords of that country. I confess I regret that the question has been raised more than once with great warmth, and in a spirit, I might almost say, of violent opposition. I had sincerely trusted that we might have met with some support even from Irish landlords. [Laughter.] Noble Lords opposite may laugh, but I should consider it of the greatest importance, if I were an Irish landlord, to get this fruitful subject of controversy and disorder set at rest. I regret, therefore, to find the spirit in which it is met; but I sincerely trust a more conciliatory spirit may yet prevail, and that the solution of what I consider to be a question of very great interest to everybody in Ireland may yet be found.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I desire, in the first instance, to call your attention to the manner in which the Government appear to feel themselves entitled to decline to give explanations which are demanded of them as to their policy upon important matters in this House. On Friday last my noble Friend, in a very able and temperate statement, called attention to the action of the Government in the appointment of the Commission which we are discussing, and to the proceedings of that, Commission, and he very naturally concluded by inquiring what steps the Government proposed to take in consequence of the Report presented by that Commission. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government appeared to consider it was sufficient to

  1571
  state that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. That answer, although so far as I know it was perfectly accurate as far as it went, did not cover or profess to cover the scope of the inquiry which had been addressed to the Government, because the noble Lord must have been perfectly well aware that in the other House the Government had announced their intention of voting for the Second Reading of a Bill introduced by a private Member with the object of carrying out the greater part of the recommendations of the Commission; and the noble Lord not only abstained from stating, but absolutely declined to state, what were the intentions of the Government with regard to that Bill. My noble Friend who has just spoken has not added much to the information of the House with regard to the action which the Government propose to take. He has no doubt admitted that the Government have signified their intention of supporting that Bill, but I think we want to know a little more. We want to know what steps they intend to take in regard to that Bill—whether they consider that they have redeemed the pledges which they have given to their Irish supporters; whether they consider that they have given satisfaction to the expectations which they have raised by giving only the academical support to that Bill which they have already offered to it in the House of Commons; or whether they intend, as it is in their power to do, to take practical steps in order that that Bill should become law; whether they intend to find time for its discussion, and to press it forward in a way which shall enable the judgment of both Houses of Parliament to be given upon the proposals of that measure, embodying as it does the recommendations of the Report? I admit, with the noble Lord who has just sat down, that the matter is of the utmost importance to Ireland, probably of much greater importance to many classes and interests in Ireland even than the measure which appears likely to absorb the greater part of the time of the other House of Parliament. We were told, what we already know, that in a large number of cases where evictions on a large scale had taken place voluntary settlements have been arrived
  1572
  at. If more of these voluntary settlements have not been arrived at it is to a great extent in consequence of the expectation which is still entertained by a large number of the tenantry that some legislative proposal for their re-instatement will make it unnecessary for them to enter into voluntary arrangements with their landlords. It is a matter of the very utmost importance and urgency not only to know what the opinions of the Government on this matter may be, but what their practical intentions are. I have, perhaps, a more recent experience of the other House of Parliament than most of your Lordships, and I venture to express my strong conviction that such reticence on the part of the Government on a subject so important and so vital to great interests in Ireland would not be tolerated in the other House. It is not necessary for me to add much to what has already been said in the form of criticism and condemnation of the action of the Government in the appointment of this Commission and of the proceedings of the Commission. I do not deny that a great social evil exists in Ireland in consequence of the eviction of large numbers of tenants, and their continued residence in proximity to their old homes in a state of idleness, turbulence, and disaffection. Neither do I deny that it is a great social evil that a largo part of many estates should be left as they are at present in an almost derelict condition. I do not deny for a moment that the Government had great difficulties to deal with in regard to this matter, but I am bound to say those difficulties were very largely caused by their own action. Their political exigencies compelled them, during the period they were in opposition, to say many things in palliation—in excuse, if not in actual direct encouragement—of the Plan of Campaign. The noble Lord who has just sat down says that he has never expressed any approval—on the contrary, that he has expressed condemnation of that measure. But that has not been the attitude of some of the noble Lord's Colleagues, who, I am afraid, exercising a more important and a more powerful influence over the proceedings of the Irish Members than does my noble Friend himself. I can recollect the Prime Minister over and over again stating that the Plan of Campaign was

  1573
  entirely due to the action of the late Government and the late Parliament in rejecting Mr. Parnell's Bill; whereas it has been proved many times, and again to-night by the noble Marquess, that the adoption of that Bill would not have affected more than a small fraction of the evicted tenants. I appeal to your Lordships whether, perhaps with the single exception of the noble Earl who has just spoken, there came from any Member of the present Government during the late Parliament any direct condemnation and disavowal of the policy embodied in the Plan of Campaign. The Bill introduced by Mr. O'Kelly, which in their political exigencies they supported, has been rightly described as one of the most audacious proposals ever submitted to the House of Commons. The action of the present Government in regard to that Bill added to the difficulties which they were preparing for themselves and lie-came an additional obstacle to those voluntary arrangements between landlord and tenant which alone could put an end to the disastrous condition of things existing. In the circumstances, I am in the least surprised that the Government should have thought it desirable to resort to the appointment of a Royal Commission. I am not surprised that they should have eagerly grasped at the suggestion of arrangement which was contained in the 13th section of the Land Act of 1891. But the Instructions given to the Commission altogether ignored the only practical, the only equitable, the only just, and, in my opinion, the only possible means of solving this difficulty. The Government did not say one word about a solution by voluntary arrangement—not one word about a solution by equitable arrangement. The Instructions to the Commission were evidently understood by the Commissioners to be Instructions to devise a plan by which the evicted tenants could be universally re-instated totally irrespective of the circumstances which had led to their eviction. The Government had before them the proposal contained in the Act of 1891, and they paraded that precedent in season and out of season. The Commissioners really could not have interpreted their Instructions in any other way than they did. The tenants had acted in an illegal manner, the landlords had acted entirely within their legal
  1574
  rights; but, nevertheless, the first proceeding of the Commission was to issue a document which was very naturally understood to be an invitation to every evicted tenant to lay before them a claim for re-instatement, and an intimation of the terms on which he was willing to be re-instated. One of the documents contained in the Appendices to the Report actually bears upon its face the words "Claim made by an evicted tenant for re-instatement"—that is to say, a tenant who had no locus standi whatever, who had forfeited all rights under any Act of Parliament, was invited to bring in a claim against his landlord, who had in no degree violated any of the conditions upon which be had let his land. It is proposed in the recommendations of the Commission that a tribunal should be constituted which is to settle the terms upon which certain persons who were lately tenants, but who are not now tenants, are to be put into occupation of holdings occupied at the present time either by the landlords themselves or by their lawfully-appointed tenants; and it is proposed that this tribunel shall decide the terms upon which the legally-ejected tenants may have power to eject the legal occupiers whether they be owners or tenants. It is proposed to confer upon this tribunal rights of enormous extent and of a most arbitrary character—rights which could only be justified on the clearest evidence and the existence of moral right overriding legal or technical right. The noble Earl who sits near me (the Earl of Camperdown) showed that, so far from these special rights having been established before the Commission, there is nothing contained in the Blue Book containing their Report to justify the compulsory re-instatement of the evicted tenants. The statements that were made on their behalf were mere partisan, onesided statements, unsifted by the Commission or by anyone on behalf of those against whom they were directed. The only foundation for the recommendation of the Commission in favour of re-instatement appeal's to be that certain landlords have acted in what the Commission regard as a harsh manner. But I ask your Lordships to consider the period at which recommendations of this kind have been made by the Commission. We are about to be invited, in defiance of all past

  1575
  experience, to trust the power of final legislation on the Land Question to an Irish Parliament. It is proposed to sanction the principle that a landlord is not entitled to the possession of his land in case of the failure of the occupier to pay the rent which he has contracted to pay, or which he has been ordered by a judicial authority to pay. That is the only principle recommended by the Commission on which they suggest that legislation can be justified. It appears to me a somewhat strong proceeding for Parliament deliberately to legislate upon Irish land on the principles which were referred to by my noble and learned Friend near mo (the Earl of Selborne). It will be a strong measure to sanction another re-opening of the Irish Land Question as a whole; but it appears to me a still stronger and more objectionable proceeding by an ex post facto law to restore tenants to privileges which they have deliberately lost in consequence of their own misconduct; and, without any full or thorough examination of the principles which ought in future to guide the tenure of laud in Ireland, to make this mischievous exception in favour of certain tenants whose only claim is that they have deliberately violated the provisions of the law. I think the circumstances fully justify the attention which has been brought to this subject in your Lordships' House, and I hope that even now, before this discussion closes, some further information may be obtained from Members of Her Majesty's Government as to what are not only their theoretical opinions, but their practical intentions in regard to this subject of most vital importance to Irish interests.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that Lord Spencer had very truly pointed out, that important economic questions, as well as questions important to the landlords of Ireland, were mixed up in this matter; but he desired to impress upon their Lordships that the recommendations in the Report were not the proper method of settling those economic questions. The principle there laid down, as had been urged again and again, was simple compulsory re-instatement, which the noble Earl seemed to think would lead to a settlement of this question. As one who had known Ireland for many years, he ventured to say that so far from compulsory re-instatement bringing about
  1576
  a settlement, it would lead to an entire re-opening of the land difficulty. He was not one of those who objected to the settlement, of the Land Question by some proper mode of purchase and sale; in fact, he was one of its earliest advocates; but the principle of compulsory sale was one which it was impossible for those who had to sell to accept; and he favoured an extension of the 5th section of Lord Ashbourne's Act as the most hopeful method of settlement. That section provided, that the Land Commissioners might purchase the whole of an estate, whenever they were reasonably satisfied that four-fifths of the tenants would re-purchase their farms, which number might even, provided the Treasury consented, be reduced to three-fourths. He thought that the Laud Commissioners might be authorised to purchase an entire estate if they were satisfied that a sufficient number of holdings on a particular estate had been sold to give them a just idea of what was the value of the land, and without reference to the question whether they could or not immediately re-sell it to the tenants. If some proposal of that sort were given effect to, the money already voted by Parliament for that purpose would be absorbed within a, reasonable number of years. The whole question now before the House had been so thoroughly gone into, and the case of the landlords had been so completely stated by Lord Selborne, that he would not trouble their Lordships with further observations.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that he had paused for a moment before Lord Belmore rose to address their Lordships in the hope that they would have heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack some reply to the very weighty and powerful observations made by the noble and learned Lord the Earl of Selborne on the first night of the Debate; for no one could regard the few trifling words then uttered by Lord Acton as an answer to anyone, either as lawyer or statesman, in reference to the character of this Commission. He should have been glad to be spared taking part in this Debate, but, considering the position he lately held in their Lordships' House, he felt it would not be proper for him to remain silent. Of the able and learned Judge who presided over the Commission he could

  1577
  speak from a life-long knowledge. He was the last man in the world consciously to do anything unfair. But, having said that, he felt bound to add, on the other hand, that this Commission in its essential nature was obviously unfair; and if he had to criticise, as he hoped one old friend might, the action of another, he should say this—that the learned Judge never ought to have accepted a Commission bound down by such restrictions as was this Commission. It was idle to suggest that the section of the Act of Parliament to which its defenders, and even the learned Judge himself, referred, formed any precedent for such a Commission. There were two essential particulars in which it was wholly different. Of these one had not yet been referred to. The section of the Act of Parliament contemplated voluntary arrangements, but it also contemplated dealing with vacant land, whereas this Commission proposed to deal compulsorily, and to deal with land occupied by existing tenants. He would assume that the Commissioners acted within the ambit of their jurisdiction, and that they intended to carry out the purpose of the Commission with which they were entrusted. It was obvious that the Reference of the Commission as understood, and, as he thought, rightly understood, by the Commissioners contemplated a general putting back of every one of the evicted tenants, however gross their dishonesty, however frandulent had been their con-duet towards their landlord. No such Commission ought ever to have been accepted by an English Judge. He now turned to what was done by the Commission, and be would say that where serious matters were at stake, where character was involved, it was not a question of technicalities, it was a question of principle which transcended all technicalities, and the person against whom the charges were made ought to have been brought face to face with their accusers and be allowed to ask questions. It was no matter if a man was said to be a bad Irish landlord, if he was said to have neglected his tenants and never to have spent anything on his estates. He did not care one farthing whether such imputations were true or not; but if they were permitted to be made, it was a matter of the merest justice that he or his counsel should be
  1578
  allowed to cross-examine. It was not, denied that the Commission had power to ask such questions as would show the relations of the witness to the landlord. It was not denied, further, that it would have been desirable that the Commissioners should inform themselves as to the means of knowledge of a witness apart from any question as to his character. It was enough to say that in every part of the volume, whose bulk was its own protection against the sort of criticism he would like to apply to it, what wag called evidence was a mass of the most violent partisan accusations and the merest hearsay testimony. It was the duty of the Commission, therefore, to take such means as might be most effectual for sifting that evidence and ascertaining what it was worth. The Commissioners were to have before them
  "any proposals for settlement which have been made or which may be made by landlord or tenant with a view to re-instatement."
  That was not a proper thing to be laid before such a tribunal. It would have been very proper indeed that arbitrators should have such matters before them; but to say that compulsorily, and against the will of one of the parties, the Commissioners were to have settlements framed with a view to peaceable arrangements laid before them would be a blow to the chance of any kind of settlement, because there might be admissions on one side or the other to the prejudice of the person who had put forward conciliatory proposals. On one estate the abatements offered by the landlord would have been accepted only that he refused to re-instate two tenants as a punishment for having acted as leaders. It was surely a reasonable thing for the landlord to decline to re-instate such men. What chance of peace or happiness would there have been on the estate if the two tenants responsible for the original quarrel had been re-instated against the will of the landlord? But the important question with which their Lordships had to deal was why was the Commission appointed? Was it intended that all the evicted tenants should be re-instated? He understood that the Chief Secretary had repudiated any such idea. If so, the Government repudiated both their own Commission and their own Commissioners. For what was the Commission

  1579
  to do? The Commission was instructed to see
  "What means should be adopted to bring about settlements and the re-instatement of the evicted tenants."
  He did not find any limitation of the discretion of the Commissioners. Therefore, persons who were now strangers to the estate, hut who had once been tenants, were to be re-instated, and tenants who were in possession were to be got rid of, and if that could not be done the Commission were to buy land and allow men who had been evicted for fraudulent misconduct to have laud provided for them at the public expense in order to establish peace and harmony in Ireland. If in any other country in the world—if in England—the doctrine was preached that if people were sufficiently riotous and so dishonest as to disregard their just obligations land would be provided for them, they would soon have a labourers' question quite as likely to produce social disturbance as in Ire-laud. The important question now, however, was not the Commission itself; the Commission was dead, and its recommendations were repudiated. The important question was the precedent. If that precedent were to be followed, a weak Government, dependent upon a particular majority, might issue a Commission which might set at naught the principles upon which the social condition of this country was maintained. But if, instead of the Irish landlord being the victim, some other industry than the laud were concerned, if it was a commercial question between employers and employed, the whole sense of the country would repudiate such interference with our social relations. This had been done because it was a comparatively feeble interest which was dealt with; but what Government would venture at this moment, when labour questions were rife, to issue a Commission in the language of this one directing the Commissioners to inquire under what circumstances employers and labourers should be compelled to re-establish the relations between them? What was the difference, except that both those classes were much too powerful, and that in their case no Government dare do it? There was absolutely no precedent for the Commission or the character of its proceedings, and he should like to hear some justification
  1580
  from the Government for the course of procedure adopted in this remarkable case. The word "Constitutional" had not, he supposed, been relegated to the distant planets, and there was still such a thing as recognising the right of people by law to have their property respected, and not to have, in such a country as Ireland, this kind of "evidence" published in respect of individuals. Their Lordships were almost entirely without information as to what was going to be done as the result of the Commission. On Friday the noble Lord opposite (Lord Acton) when asked the question, curtly replied that the Government were not going to bring in a Bill. The noble Earl (Karl Spencer) had to-night gone a little beyond that, but he did not tell the House the attitude the Government were going to take upon this question, though he admitted it to be a most important and burning question. Was it to be left by the Government without treatment on their part? Were they going to leave the matter in the hands of a private Member, and a Member, too, who was identified with no very moderate views on the Irish Question? From Friday night up to the present time they had been vainly endeavouring to get an answer to this question. The Government had not even told them whether they approved or disapproved the recommendations of the Commission. It was true that the noble Earl opposite quoted the view of the Chief Secretary—that he objected to some of them. But surely that was not such an answer as the House had a right to expect on a subject of such importance. Probably he should fail, as other speakers who had preceded him bad failed, in procuring from the Government a straight answer to a straight question. But it was the duty of their Lordships to put the question to Her Majesty's Government whether it was answered plainly or not. How many or what portions of these recommendations were to be adopted by the Government? Would they state in plain terms what they meant to do? Did they intend to deal with the matter at all, or to leave it in the hands of a private Member, and allow it to slumber until it could in due course come on? There were some Members of the House of Commons quite as curious on those points as he was, and who did not belong

  1581
  to his Party. Unless something was done to satisfy the curiosity of those hon. Gentlemen he was afraid the noble Earl opposite would find that they had the means of enforcing an answer to their questions which he himself did not possess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I should have been delighted to hear any criticisms from my noble and learned Friend upon what I have to say, but considering that one subject of this Debate has been an attack not only upon Her Majesty's Government, but upon the conduct of one of Her Majesty's Judges who presided over the Commission, I thought it was only just and right that I should hear all that was to be said upon that subject before addressing the House upon it. I wish to make one observation with regard to a remark that has fallen from my noble and learned Friend before I address your Lordships on the main subject. My noble and learned Friend said—
  "Whatever you are going to do with regard to this matter is of the utmost importance, because whatever you are going to do will be regarded, and must be regarded, as a precedent for what you may be called upon to do in consequence in England."
  That seems to me to be a strange and dangerous observation as coming from my noble and learned Friend. I should like to ask whether the noble Marquess, when he introduced and carried through Parliament the Act of 1887, would have liked to be told, or would have admitted, that because, in the circumstances of Ireland he deemed such a measure necessary, it followed that it was legislation which he might be justly called upon to introduce into England? I think, my Lords, those who read this Debate will be struck by the absence of any allusion, until my noble Friend, Earl Spencer, spoke, to the circumstances which led to the issue of this Commission. I understand, however, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) admitted there is a question at issue, that there is a difficulty to settle, a problem awaiting solution, although he naturally did not approve of the milliner in which the Government seeks to deal with it. The noble and learned Lord (the Earl of Selborne) had maintained that the issue of this Commission was an unconstitutional act—the most unconstitutional act which the country had witnessed since the reign of James II.
  1582
  That proposition was strongly stated; but I cannot but think, when one looks back at the Constitutional questions which were raised during the last century, and remembers the language employed by eminent Constitutional lawyers, Predecessors of the noble and learned Earl and myself on the Woolsack, that the noble Earl would feel there was some lack of proportion in representing the issue of such a Commission as this as a more unconstitutional act than any of those denounced during the reign of George III. What is this Commission? It is a Commission merely of inquiry, which touches no man's rights. No man need have attended it unless he pleased, and if he desired he might have been heard as a witness before it. It is a Commission of Inquiry to obtain facts for the information of Parliament, in order that Parliament may be able to judge whether any or what legislation is required to meet the difficulty that exists. It passes my comprehension to understand how a Commission of that description, with powers so limited, can be termed unconstitutional. In substance it does not differ from the Bessborough and Cowper Commissions, which inquired into the Land Question. Those Commissions inquired into the action of the landlords and how they had exercised their rights, with a view to ascertain whether there was harsh and unreasonable exercise of those rights, and whether it was necessary for Parliament to interfere. The noble and learned Earl bases his allegation that the Commission is unconstitutional mainly on the statement that—
  "It is a Royal Commission to inquire into the exercise of the property rights of individual members of the community, with a view to overrule those rights and to undo that which had been done in the due and regular process of law."
  But does the noble Earl mean to assert that there can be no such exercise by landlords or landowners of their rights of property as to make it necessary, in the public interest, that there should be inquiry and even restraint applied? Supposing the whole of the landlords in Ireland combined to evict their tenants and to allow their land to run to waste, would the public have no right to interfere? If the noble Earl means to suggest that Parliament has never inter-

  1583
  fered with the exercise of the property rights of individuals, he is forgetful of an Act passed by the Government of the noble Marquess—the Act of 1887. In that Act power was expressly given to the Court, where land had been recovered under judgment, where execution was complete, and where the tenant had ceased to be the tenant, to stay that execution within three months after the passing of the Act, to set it aside, and to restore the tenant to his holding.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know whether I am regular, but the noble and learned Lord is quoting an Act of Parliament; while I was speaking of the unconstitutional character of a Royal Commission, not sanctioned by Parliament, and without the character and powers which it, ought to have.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That, if I may respectfully say so, is really no answer to the argument I was addressing to the House. The noble Earl was maintaining that this Commission of Inquiry was unconstitutional, because it, was to frame a scheme for dealing with that which Parliament would never of itself contemplate dealing with. If Parliament has done this under particular circumstances, what can there be unconstitutional in making inquiries with a view to putting Parliament in the possession of facts to see whether in this case the same action is necessary? I do not understand why it should be improper to inquire into a matter which it is proper for Parliament to consider and possibly to legislate upon. The noble Earl used strong expressions about the conduct of the Commission in inquiring into the question of the exercise of their rights by landlords. What, then, let me ask, does the noble Earl think of the conduct of an Executive that not only inquired into the dealings of a landlord with his tenants, but refused to that landlord the use of the civil force for the purpose of enforcing his legal rights? I will read to your Lordships a description of what was done, not within the last century but within the last ten years, and by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. The description was given by a learned Judge from the Bench, who said—
  "The Chief Secretary had intervened and had gone so far as to refuse the forces of law, when by the law he was bound to supply these forces in order to carry out the behest of a certain landlord."
  1584
  That was a refusal by the Executive itself—a refusal contrary to law, because they regarded as harsh the action of the landlord towards his tenants. I am not attacking the conduct of the Chief Secretary of the late Government in taking that course; but I am entitled to cite that as an example of conduct far more unconstitutional than that of the present Government in merely issuing a Commission of Inquiry into the relations between landlords and their tenants, if, indeed, this was unconstitutional in any degree, which I deny. It is said that the Commission was not impartial, and the noble Karl who opened this Debate pointed out "that four out of the five gentlemen appointed held Nationalist opinions." Well, I have known Commissions composed of Members all of whom wore in political sympathy with the Government who appointed them, and yet these Commissions were held up as perfectly impartial bodies. The only conclusion at which I can arrive is that when all the Members of a Commission profess the views of the present Opposition they form an impartial tribunal, but that when they do not do so they are not an impartial tribunal. In my opinion there is no ground whatever for maintaining that because the majority of those who formed the Evicted Tenants Commission shared the political opinions of the Government the Commission is to be regarded as partial or packed. If it was packed, I have known Commissions which very much more deserved that description. The next objection made is that the terms of Reference contain a misstatement as to the policy of the Act of 1881. Here, again, I cannot admit that there is any ground for the objection. It is, perhaps, more a matter of language than anything else; but what was the policy of Section 13 of the Land Purchase Act, 1891? Its essence appears to me to have been this—that it was held to be expedient that the tenants who were then evicted and out of their holdings should, if possible, be restored to them. It is true that the scheme of the enactment was to restore them by voluntary agreement, but the root of the policy was the expediency of their restoration. Whether it is by voluntary arrangement or by compulsion that the re-instatement of the tenants is to be brought about, the policy is precisely the same—namely,

  1585
  that these tenants shall, as far as possible, regain possession of their holdings, and that the land shall no longer remain without occupants. It has been said by noble Lords who have criticised the Commission that the terms of Reference assume that all the tenants are to be reinstated. I do not read the words in that sense, nor do I think that anyone who approaches the subject with an unprejudiced mind would do so. My noble and learned Friend, however, declared that the Commissioners did so read them; but in that my noble and learned Friend was mistaken, inasmuch as the Commissioners have not recommended that all the tenants should be re-instated. They have, as a matter of fact, recommended that whenever an evicted holding has come into the possession of a bonâ fide new tenant, no compulsion should be used against that tenant. In such holdings, then, there would be no re-instating of the evicted tenants. It should be borne in mind that when a Royal Commission is appointed, it is not customary to frame the terms of Reference with the accuracy of an indictment, for the Reference is not expected to be subjected to the kind of criticism which has been brought to bear upon the document under your Lordships' consideration. It is usual to indicate in the Reference the general aim and purpose of the Commission, and to leave the mode of effecting that purpose largely to the Commissioners. Then, with regard to the objection as to procedure and that cross-examination would not be allowed, I am not going to defend these proceedings on the ground of precedent, although that does not mean that there is no precedent, upon a Commission of this description, for counsel not being heard in cross-examination. But, putting that question aside, I would point out that the Commission was not designed as an attack upon the landlords or as a defence of the action of the tenants. It had a practical purpose and object—namely, to try to discover a scheme by which the unhappy difficulties existing might be healed, by which peace might be restored, and by which the dangers arising out of the existing condition of things might be diminished or made to disappear. But a learned counsel appeared and claimed to cross-examine on behalf of a particular landlord, who had informed the Commis-
  1586
  sion that he did not intend to offer them the slightest assistance, and who had addressed to them a letter, treating them in a very contemptuous fashion. I am very strongly of opinion that if counsel had been permitted to cross-examine, a vast amount of time would have been absolutely wasted. The Commissioners, however, did not say that the questions which it was desired to put should not be asked; on the contrary, they stated that they were willing to have questions suggested to them with a view to their being put to witnesses. When it is said that procedure of that sort must render an inquiry of this kind unsatisfactory, I may remind your Lordships that in courts martial the only questions permitted to be put are put in the manner which the Commissioners said they would adopt. Do noble Lords mean to say that courts martial are tribunals which do not conduct proceedings in such a way that justice can be done because questions are permitted to be put in that way without cross-examination? I am sure they will not. The course the Commission proposed to adopt was this, and it seems to me to have a great deal to recommend it. They said—"We will hear statements made about a particular estate, and we will hear any answer which it may be desired to make." Suppose the owner of a particular estate had come and said—"Those are the facts that you have before you. I have nothing to say and no alteration to make." If in such a case counsel had been previously allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, it would have been nothing more than a waste of time, because the facts would have been admitted to be as the first wit ness stated them. The Commissioners said—"We will permit questions to be put in the first instance, and then when we have heard one side we will hear the other; and if there are differences in the evidence on the one side or the other we are quite prepared to consider the question of cross-examination." Such a plan was much more business-like and satisfactory than the plan which my noble and learned Friend apparently advocates. It saved a vast amount of time being wasted, and did just as much justice as if cross-examination had been permitted in the first instance. The noble Marquess asked whether there

  1587
  was any precedent for the opening remarks of the learned Judge.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I said written remarks. These were remarks written out beforehand.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, with regard to that I am not in a position to say; but whether they wore written or orally delivered does not seem to me to make any great Constitutional difference. But, on the face of it, it is obvious that the remarks were not written, because some of them followed immediately upon interruptions by counsel.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sorry to interrupt again, but up to the point where the procedure of the Commissioners was attacked the remarks were written
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can do is to read what is in the Blue Book, and I can find no trace upon the Report of the learned Judge having said before lunch that he would allow cross-examination. When counsel stated that he did, the learned Judge stated that he said nothing of the kind. There must have been some misunderstanding, for if noble Lords will read the observations made by the learned Judge as to the conduct of the case they will see that they are absolutely inconsistent with any such statement. It is said that the learned Judge prejudged the case against a certain landlord. No one can, I think, read his observations without seeing that, in the first, place, they were dictated by a desire, if possible, to obtain the attendance of the landlord referred to; and I am certain that nobody who knows the learned Judge would imagine that because he made these observations he had in the slightest degree prejudged the case. The facts connected with the estate of this particular landlord were common property. They were already in the possession of the Commission. It was not dealing with hearsay in the least, because another learned Judge had stated that the responsible officer of the Crown had refused the forces of the Crown unless Lord Clanricarde, who had refused the supplications of his tenants and their pastors, consented to give an abatement such as other landlords gave. It was not the learned Judge who presided over this Commission who on any hearsay was
  1588
  discriminating in that particular case, but he had a statement before him made by a learned Judge on the Bench.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: There is no evidence of that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Has my noble and learned Friend ever been on a Commission? Is he not perfectly aware that a Royal Commission possesses itself at once of all the information it can got? It was only natural, having regard to the publication of the words to which I have referred, that application should have been made to Lord Clanricarde to come forward and give whatever information was in his power; but he treated the application with contempt. Would it not have been idle to invite the writer of such a letter as Lord Clanricarde wrote to the Commission to come forward and give evidence? Lord Clanricarde was represented by counsel, and when counsel found the opportunity they did what I have known counsel do before, when, perhaps, they thought it the more expedient course, they gracefully retired from the case. No one who knows Mr. Justice Mathew would suppose that if the noble Lord referred to, or any other landlord, had come before the Commission his evidence would not have received the fairest consideration. I am convinced that the learned Judge would have given all due heed and consideration to any such evidence. The late Lord Chancellor of Ireland has said that the whole of the evidence on which the Commission reported was hearsay. Before a Commission of this description a great deal of the evidence must be hearsay. It is impossible to carry on an inquiry of this kind by adhering to the strict rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence puts them in a position to obtain more direct and positive evidence. In this connect ion, your Lordships will remember that constant reference has been made to the statements of a witness called at the commencement of the inquiry with regard to a particular estate. Anyone would have thought that was the only witness who gave evidence about that estate; but no one can look through the Blue Book without seeing that a number of witnesses were called with reference to that particular estate, who had a personal knowledge of the circumstances. Then complaint is made that the evidence was

  1589
  all one-sided. If it was, it was because those who could have put the other side forward did not choose to do so. I venture to say that in the Report no trace of any unfair dealing with the evidence can be found, or of any reliance placed exclusively on such statements. The Government has been, if not attacked, twitted with not being prepared to adopt all the recommendations of the Commission. When has it ever been held that it is the duty of a Government to adopt all the recommendations of a Commission? They are appointed to inquire, not to come to conclusions which the Government is bound to adopt. Lord Cowper's Commission recommended that rents should be revised every five years instead of 15; but the noble Marquess who appointed that Commission refused to adopt their recommendation. It has been asked what course the Government proposes to take, and objection has been made that no explanation has been given of that course. It appears to me that, so far as is proper and legitimate, the explanation asked for has been amply given. It is surely something now, when the Government has stated that they do not intend to proceed by legislation, but has expressed their intention of seeking to engraft Amendments on a Bill dealing with the subject pending in another place, that your Lordships should be invited to discuss the course which the Government proposes to take on the measure so pending. The Government are under no obligation to inform your Lordships' House of the course they propose to take upon a Bill pending in the other House. I should like to ask some questions, in return, of the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire). What is the attitude which the noble Duke and his friends will exhibit towards that Bill if it should be brought forward? Will they accept it, and try by Amendments to make it a means of settling this question; or will they endeavour to waste time in inducing the House of Commons to reject it, and, if unsuccessful there, will they invite your Lordships to throw it. out in this House? I know the noble Duke is under no obligation to answer me; but when he expresses such great anxiety and eagerness to have the Bill brought on, I am entitled to draw my own conclusions as to whether it is a real disinterested thirst for knowledge that
  1590
  induces the noble Duke's question, or whether there may not be other considerations behind. The Debate has, no doubt, been interesting; whether it has been a very profitable one I have more doubt. Its object, of course, is obvious. It is thought that the discussion will damage the Government, but I am not very much alarmed at the effect it is likely to produce in that respect, because the observations that have been made will, for various reasons, be a good deal discounted by the general public outside. I think it is unfortunate that a question of this description should be approached in the spirit of combat and heat which has been displayed during the Debate. When the Commission was first announced, the names were not received in a hostile spirit by the Irish landlords; but, unfortunately, their political friends on this side of the Channel took a different view, and then the Commission was so vehemently attacked that there was little hope of it succeeding in its objects. But, my Lords, notwithstanding this discussion, the question still remains. I wish I could believe that the matter might be brought to a speedy settlement by voluntary agreements, but the evidence seems to be the other way. There are a few unreasonable landlords who are not prepared to take the course which the majority have taken, and they may continue to be the cause of a condition of disquiet and disorder which will be prejudicial, not only to the unreasonable landlords themselves, but to the many who have acted reasonably and equitably. The Government have not the slightest desire that there should be an inequitable or an unfair settlement of the question. They do not regard it as a matter in which they, of a Party, are specially interested. The noble Marquess and others who sit by him have predicted that very soon the Government will disappear from the scene, and that they again will resume the reins of power.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Lord say that I predicted that? I certainly do not remember it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The predictions have come so often from the Benches in the noble Marquess's neighbourhood, that perhaps I am wrong in supposing that the noble Marquess himself has assumed the gift of prophecy.

  1591
  But, whether that time is near or more distant, I should think that it is to the interest of any Government that these difficulties in Ireland should cease. Whatever has been the cause, whoever deserves the blame—and I do not deny that in very many cases the tenants have been deserving of blame—that does not alter the critical condition of affairs. I believe it to be to the interests of landlords and tenants and for the benefit of the country at large that an end should be put to the state of things now prevailing, which is not to the benefit of either tenants or landlords, and that the question should be settled on fair and equitable terms.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appears to me to have relied for his defence principally upon the well-known Parliamentary figure of tu quoque; but I think the tu quoque to be effective ought to have some substantial similarity between the acts that are appealed to and the acts that are defended. The noble and learned Lord appealed to the Cowper Commission and to the Act of 1887. He defended the proposal for re-instating the evicted tenants who have been for several years out of their holdings by referring to a clause in an Act which enabled a Judge to stay execution for a short time, and I think he wound up his system of parallels by invoking the protection of martial law and showing that whatever might be said of Sir James Mathew's proceedings, at all events they could not be said to be more despotic or more summary than those of a court martial. I think that is very likely true, but I believe that more care is taken to secure an impartial president of a court martial than appears to have been taken in the present instance. In listening to the long, laboured, and very uncomfortable defence of the noble Lord, I could not think that he really appreciated or desired to appreciate the nature of the objections which we bring against what the Government have done. On the question of the selection of President I do not wish to dwell. It has already been touched upon by those who, from their legal training, are fitter to deal with it than I am; but I will say this—that if you appoint a Judge to execute a non-judicial duty you
  1592
  should be very careful that it is one in regard to which he is not known generally to be actuated by strong prepossessions or proclivities. Everybody knew Sir James Mathew's special disposition on this Irish Question, and it seems to me that it was not fair on him, that it was wanting in consideration for his undoubted merits as a Judge, and still more wanting in consideration for the position and prestige of the Judicial Bench in England, to ask him to undertake a work in which he would be at every moment compelled, if he acted justly, to renounce his own sympathies and push his own partialities in the background. But it is not the character of the Judge to which I think we have a right to take exception. The noble Lord was much scandalised because my noble and learned Friend opposite designated this Commission as unconstitutional, and he advanced in defence that there have been other Commissions which examined into the manner in which the existing law worked in reference to private rights. Of course, there have been other such Commissions, and it is the ordinary function of a Commission to perform that work. But what is absolutely new is that a Royal Commission should be appointed to investigate a quarrel between two private individuals upon a matter which has no public bearing whatever. The individuals were marked. It was the evicted tenants that were to be dealt with. There were only evicted tenants upon certain estates. It was a Commission evidently, as it proved to be, to examine into the conduct of Lord Clanricarde, Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Cloncurry, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and a certain number of other land proprietors in Ireland. That, we say, is an entirely unprecedented action, and one which, if it is to form a precedent, may be most injurious to the liberties and rights of Her Majesty's subjects in the future. But if this extreme and exceptional step was taken—a step which I cannot think could in any circumstances be defended—at all events the very utmost care should have been taken at the same time that the private individuals who were being assailed in this manner should have the fullest security that their case would be entirely and impartially heard, and that no prejudice or prepossession inter-

  1593
  fered with its being properly decided. But what was done? The noble Lord entered into an elaborate defence of the refusal to permit cross-examination. The best thing he could say was that the same thing was done at courts-martial. I think he told us that cross-examination, after all, was a very dangerous proceeding, because it often happened, after the cross-examination was over, that a witness came up who showed that all the cross-examination had been in vain. I do not know whether he is prepared to apply that principle in reforming the procedure of of the English Courts. I should not treat this matter as a question of procedure, or as a question of law; I should treat it as a matter of common equity that any Englishmen ignorant of the law would apply in dealing with their neighbours. If you had to deal with the accusation which one servant made against another, you would not refuse that other servant the right of asking questions. What was the practical result here? The ordinary laws of evidence were set aside. Hearsay was freely accepted. The evidence opened with an account of what the late Lord Clanricarde did in 1872, given by a man who had never seen him, and the result was, as my noble and learned Friend says, this so-called evidence was no evidence at all. Sir James Mathew was sent upon an expedition for the collection of malevolent gossip. It was nothing but gossip, and most of it malevolent gossip, which found its way into this Blue Book. Of course, if it had been buried in the breasts of Sir J. Mathew and of his two Nationalist Colleagues, it would not, perhaps, have done any very great harm. I dare say neither Lord Clanricarde nor any of the other landlords attacked cared very much what opinion was entertained of them by those Commissioners; but it was done in open Court, and it was done in the presence of reporters. Every word that was said against these landlords by strongly-prejudiced witnesses, even on the strength of hearsay evidence, was printed and circulated throughout the country. No opportunity was given for testing it by cross-examination, and for two months no opportunity was given for testing it by counter-statement. This is not a question of law, it is a question
  1594
  of common justice, and what we complain of is that common justice was violated for a political purpose. The end and object of the Government was to fulfil in some sort of shadowy manner the reckless pledges which they had given in Opposition. They had practically promised their sympathy and assistance to these evicted tenants; they must give them something to satisfy them. The Commission, at all events, was better than nothing, especially if it was a Commission unfairly constituted, and certain to contain in its Report injurious evidence against the landlords. And that same policy the Government are pursuing now. We have not been able, though many of us have tried, to extract any definite statement from the Government of what they are going to do in this matter. What they have told us is this—that they will not bring in a Bill in regard to the Report of the Commission. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us practically—at all events he has let us see between the lines—that he would exceedingly dislike to bring in a Bill that should support the recommendations of the Commission; but that though the Government will not bring in a Bill, they will vote for the SECOND READING of a Bill that contains what they object to enact. They, knowing that the Second Reading of this Bill will not come on for a very long time, and that there will be no possibility of its over getting into Committee, are confident that they will not be called upon to declare more distinctly than they have yet done what enactments they are prepared to approve, or to what principles they are prepared to give their adhesion in reference to dealing with the land. In dealing with this question every speaker on the other side always uses language as if there was a definite claim on the part of the tenants and a definite grievance which it was our duty to redress. The tenants of these evicted estates have no grievance. They engaged to pay their rent or to give up their farms; they declined to do either. Many of them are perfectly capable of paying their rents; they decline to do so. It is not even a pretence that their resistance is duo to any agrarian motives. We have Mr. Dillon's statement, made in November, that their action is entirely political, and is not

  1595
  prompted in any way by a regard for the tenants. He said—
  "The organised system of keeping evicted farms unoccupied is the greatest weapon ever placed in the hands of the Irish people, and long may the day be before the Irish people forget the lesson."
  My Lords, I will not detain the House now on a subject upon which your Lordships have dwelt for a long time; but I do earnestly protest against this being considered as a tu quoque question, or as a question of the merits of one Government or another. The burning question that should press upon our minds is—What will be the effect produced on the future government and, social condition of Ireland by the policy which the Government are pursuing with respect to these evicted tenants? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells us that he is in favour of conciliation, that the sore will remain if we take no measures now, and he urges upon us that it will be our responsibility if the conciliation does not take place. It is the responsibility of the Government, because they will not take up a definite line and state their definite policy on the subject. As long as they keep their intentions under a cloud and allow these unhappy tenants to believe that if they hold out long enough, and refuse to come to terms with their landlords, the Government will, in the long run, come to their relief—as long as that idea is allowed to have currency, so long will the sore remain open, and they will not make arrangements with their landlords. And the line which has been pursued to-day, the studied ambiguity and reticence, the careful abstinence from any clear declaration of intention on the part of the Government will have the effect of enabling agitators and agitating priests in Ireland to keep up in the minds of the tenants hopes which are fatal to any prospect of renewed peace, or industry, or prosperity upon the evicted estates. The lesson, as Mr. Dillon, in effect, says, you have taught them and are teaching them is: that those who defy the law shall be taken care of, and those who obey the law shall be neglected. You divide the landlords of Ireland into two classes. Those landlords who have been the subject of this fraudulent conspiracy you propose to
  1596
  hand over to a Commission who shall deal as they will with their property, and impose upon them any terms which they choose to demand. You are telling the tenants that if they stick together, that if they listen to the agitator, that if they obey the priests, that if they refuse to settle separately with the landlords, and that if they disregard all the obligations which are imposed upon them either by their own agreements or by the decisions which they have obtained in the Land Courts—then they will be the subject of constant attention on the part of legislators and statesmen, that their condition will be declared a great problem, and that persons whose rights they are invading will be exhorted to give up one-half of them in order to show their love of equity; and that if the exhortation fails, compulsory powers will be applied in order that the plunderer may have the whole of his booty and that the victim may have no redress.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Marquess used some words which seemed to me incorrectly to describe the issue at stake when he said this was a private quarrel between two individuals. That is the aspect in which this question apparently presents itself to the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite. If it were a quarrel between two private individuals, I agree that it would be unjust and unfair to issue a Commission to inquire into the facts between them; but does anyone who has followed this question really believe that the question of the condition of the evicted tenants in Ireland and the condition of the estates which remain derelict in Ireland, and the condition of the districts which are disturbed and unquiet in consequence of that state of things, is merely a quarrel between two private individuals, and not a matter of great and paramount public interest? It was upon that ground that Her Majesty's Government issued this Commission. Throughout this discussion it has been found extremely convenient to confuse and confound the terms of the Commission issued by the Government, and for which they are responsible, with the recommendations of the Commission. Of course, those are not the same by any means, though I know some of those who

  1597
  have spoken think it was. The late Lord Chancellor—for whose acuteness I have the greatest respect—and other noble Lords have argued that the terms of the Commission implied that there was to be a re-instatement of all the evicted tenants; but I cannot understand how the terms of Reference can be said to bear any such interpreration. The Commission was to consider—
  "What means should be adopted to bring about settlements and the re-instatement of evicted tenants, and thereby give effect to the policy of the late Parliament indicated by Section 13 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."
  Well, I never had any education in the subtleties of law, but I think any person of ordinary common sense—I am not in the least imputing any want of common sense to the noble and learned Lord—would suppose that that meant that the cases of all the evicted tenants were to be inquired into, but that it did not mean that the Commission was necessarily to recommend the re-instatement of every one of the evicted tenants. Of course, a Commission of that kind is not drawn like a Bill in Chancery, but it is supposed to be read by plain men and to be interpreted according to the manner in which we interpret plain English; and, whatever may be the possible construction put upon this paragraph, it certainly never was the intention of the Government that the Commission should be bound to recommend the reinstatement of the whole of the evicted tenants. No such notion ever entered their heads. The evidence has been characterised as hearsay evidence, and some of it as malevolent gossip.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; I said much of it was.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: At all events that a great deal of it was hearsay, and a great deal of it malevolent gossip. A great deal has been said, for example, about the evidence relating to Lord Clanricarde's estate. I should like to mention that there were called two witnesses who had had negotiations with Lord Clanricarde's agent and 12 tenants. That being so, I do not know in what way the Commissioners could have endeavoured better to discover what were the allegations made in regard to the management of that estate. The noble Marquess, as well as others, insisted very strongly upon the monstrous injustice of
  1598
  giving a preference to the tenants who had violated the law, and who, therefore, are now considered to be deserving of no consideration. Does he remember nothing of what was said at the time of the passing of the Act of 1891—the declarations of Members of his own Government admitting that it was for the interest of the country that a clause should be introduced in order that the evicted tenants might be re-instated in their holdings—that whatever may have been the terms of the voluntary agreements to be made that certain privileges were most distinctly given by law to those tenants who had violated the law?
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They were advantages given to the landlords. Undoubtedly they included the tenants when purchase was contemplated, but a main object was to enable the landlords to purchase.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I must say that I hear the declaration of the noble Marquess with blank astonishment. Docs he remember nothing of what was said when that Bill was passing through Parliament? Why, the declarations of Members of his Government teemed with assertions that it was for the interest of the country that this clause should be passed, in order that the evicted tenants might be re-instated in their holdings. It was never represented by them as a mere landlord's question. I do not remember the words—I wish I had them here—but I know they were words of a very pregnant and very decisive character showing great sympathy with the tenants, and a very wise desire that, in the interests of the country, they should be replaced in their holdings. When I say that favour was shown them, I mean in this way: that an Act was passed enabling public money to be advanced to those tenants whose acts we are now told have disqualified them for receiving any consideration. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has dealt so fully with the question of precedents for this Commission that I need say very little about that; but I find in that Act exactly what is stated in this Commission—namely, that it was an indication of the policy of Parliament that, in the opinion of Parliament and of those who promoted the Bill, it was a matter of public policy to endeavour to re-instate

  1599
  those tenants in their holdings. That policy having been so indicated, we thought it was our duty to endeavour to find some means whereby that policy could be carried into full effect. I admit there was nothing but voluntary arrangement under the Act of 1891; but voluntary arrangement had failed, and therefore it was natural we should consider whether any new arrangement could be made which would be more successful. But, as to the recommendations, did anyone ever hear before that a Government was bound to accept the recommendations of a Commission?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think any of us have said that: what we have said is that Her Majesty's Government were bound to express some opinion with regard to them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I heard a great deal more than that. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Halsbury) spoke of our repudiating the recommendations of the Commission.
  LORD HALSBURY: The noble Earl has somewhat misunderstood me. I said that they had repudiated the interpretation which the Commissioners had placed upon their own instructions.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not know that the recommendations of the Commissioners were an interpretation of anything. It really seems to mo that, in order to please noble Lords opposite, we should have indicated to the Commissioners what their recommendations should be. When the Commissioners have heard the evidence and made their Report, it then becomes the duty of the Government to consider whether the recommendations, or any of them, are such as ought to be adopted. As to our intentions, I almost despair of satisfying noble Lords opposite. Our intentions were authoritatively and plainly stated by our Colleague, the Chief Secretary, in the other House upon the occasion of the Bill which has been so often referred to being brought in by Mr. McHugh. He said—
  "We assent to the fundamental principle of the Bill, and we will do the best we can to promote its becoming law at the earliest possible moment."
  That is quite explicit: we assented to the fundamental principle—
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What is the fundamental principle?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should think the noble and learned Lord would be able to find that out from the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt the fundamental principle is most apparent to every Irish landlord and tenant, and it is the fundamental principle which noble Lords opposite have been denouncing for two nights.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am asking for information; I should really like to know what is the fundamental principle?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any further answer. I have given him the answer which was made in the other House, and I refer him to the Bill for the principle of the Bill. I see nothing extremely amusing in that. It is a perfectly plain statement, and I can only tell noble Lords that, not with standing all their smiling, I have not the slightest doubt they perfectly understand what it means. With regard to our intentions I have only one word to add. The statement of my noble Friend (Lord Acton) was that it is not our intention to bring in any Bill at the present moment. That is all I have to say with regard to the intentions of the Government. As to the matter itself, I altogether protest against this question being treated as an altercation between two hostile parties to a litigation, each trying to do the other as much harm as possible, and so endeavouring to envenom the existing sore. That is the very best way to perpetuate the evils from which Ireland has suffered so long. Possibly the Government erred in thinking that the landlords of Ireland might have seen that it was better to try to settle the long dispute and have been willing to give a helping hand in devising some arrangement. I know it has been said the landlords were denied the right to cross-examine: but have they conciliated anyone by their action; have they proved to anyone that their case is a good one by the course they adopted? They left their case unstated and lost the opportunity, which, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, would not have been denied them, of cross-examining upon any points which might have been material. I do not think they are to be congratulated upon the issue of the course which they adopted. I dare say noble Lords opposite will manage to keep this question open, and that they

  1601
  will find it very useful for political purposes; but I cannot think that they have been well advised in this matter, and in the interests of Ireland I must say I deeply regret the course they have taken. I will finish with what the noble Marquess so much protests against—a tu quoque, but it is a tu quoque upon which I feel keenly. I will put to him, when he denounces this Commission as unjust to individuals and unconstitutional, whether he remembers the Parnell Commission, which I hold to be one of the most unjust and unconstitutional Commissions that over was appointed by any Government.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: The Parnell Commission was a Parliamentary Commission appointed by Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes, and being a Parliamentary Commission it could compel any person to come forward and be subjected to cross-examination, whether he liked it or not. If this had been a Parliamentary Commission it would have been an inquiry into private rights and entirely unjustifiable, because it would have compelled persons to come before it and be examined. On this particular occasion I believe a Parliamentary Commission would not have been justifiable.
  The subject then dropped.

COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 34.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Since I spoke upon this matter the other day I have succeeded in finding the clause which I could not find before. What had happened was that the clause with respect to escheats which had been put in as a species of compensation in the first Act was divorced from the clause to which it belonged, and banished to a distant part of the Bill where I failed to find it. I have, however, found it since.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I asked the noble Marquess what he desired with regard to this Bill. It is simply a Consolidation Bill, and is not intended to make any alteration in the law. A Joint Committee has been appointed by this and the other House to
  1602
  consider all measures which are merely Consolidation Bills; and, of course, if, in going through this House, a Bill is found not to be simply for consolidation, it will have to be dealt with. Of course, it must undergo rigorous examination, and there can be no objection to referring it to the Committee.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I find anything which seems to be objectionable, I reserve the liberty to mention it at a later stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I move that the Order be discharged.
  Moved, "That the Order be discharged; and the Order of Thursday last, committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, vacated."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to.

  SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL. (No. 60.)
  Reported without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 57.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.—(No. 36.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 77.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 78.)
  House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.