said, he would beg to ask Her Majesty's Government, What is the result of the inquiry as to the formation of a bar across the Thames, below Barking, from the sewage of London?

replied that Mr. Rawlinson, the well-known civil engineer, had been instructed to inquire into the subject. He had made a preliminary inquiry, and had given notice of a public inquiry, which was to be held on the 21st instant. That inquiry would be prosecuted with all due diligence, and the Report, when made, would be laid upon the table of the House.

said, that it was impossible to pass this Bill during the present Session without submitting to compromise, and he was therefore disposed to agree to the Amendment.

said, this was a very serious question, though he thought it could not be properly discussed on the present occasion. For his own part, he confessed he could never see why a man should be able to seize the goods of A for the debts of B. Still, such was the law, and he supposed that as long as the law existed it must be administered.

said, that his Amendment did not relate to the state of the law. Whenever that came forward for discussion he should be prepared to show it was such a law as would never have been listened to if the landlords had not made it.

observed that the Scotch law was extremely jealous upon this matter of allowances; and although very great powers were given to the committee of inspection, yet the allowance could be granted only with the sanction of the creditors themselves. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he thought that the power of making an allowance should not be given to the inspectors but only to the creditors as a body.

said, the hon. Member proposed to put upon the bankrupt the obligation of paying interest on debts which by law did not carry it. It was very seldom indeed, that the bankrupt paid in full at all, and certainly in that extraordinary case they ought not to impose on him an additional burden beyond that to which he was legally liable.

was of opinion that it would be pushing things too far to enforce the interest as well as principal in full.

said, he quite agreed with all the hon. Member had said in respect to the necessity of caution in their legislation against overtrading or reckless trading. But the Amendment raised no less a question than whether they should abandon the Bankruptcy Law altogether. He was of opinion that any man who paid 10s. in the pound might reasonably be presumed to be— and in practice was found to be—an honest and straightforward man. Although the clause gave the debtor who paid 10s. in the pound the right to his discharge from the Court, his creditors would still be enabled to follow his estate, if any remained, until they received a settlement in full of their claims. He thought, however, it would be a very harsh enactment to empower the creditors to follow the bankrupt throughout his life and to seize upon his after-acquired property until their debts were paid in full. He thought that private arrangements, which wore after all the most dif-cult cases to reach, might be met in this manner—namely, that where a second bankruptcy look place, any previous privates arrangement might be made to come within the scope of the Court, and render the debtor liable to the extent of 10s. in the pound on both sots of debts.

said, that he thought mixing up the punishment of debtors with the payment of creditors was at the foundation of many mistakes. The object of the Bankrupt Laws was to collect and distribute the assets of debtors. If a man committed a criminal act he ought to be punished by the Criminal Law, and not by the Bankruptcy Law; and if the Criminal Law was defective in that respect it ought to be amended. The object of a Bankrupt Law was to induce a bankrupt to surrender as much of his estate as possible, and as soon as possible, for the benefit of his creditors, and such after-acquired property as might be declared liable by the Court. To suspend the order of discharge beyond the point fixed by the clause would drive a man to desperation, and entirely defeat the object for which Bankrupt Laws were passed—namely, to collect as much money as possible for the benefit of the creditors.

said, the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) went too far, and if the Committee decided on adopting it they had better abolish the Bankrupt Laws altogether. The provisions of the clause in the Bill were such that he felt certain it would be an inducement to a man to stop payment at a time when he was comparatively solvent. His future-acquired property would be liable to the full extent under an order of the Court, and. he (the Attorney General) considered that the Bill was the best solution of this difficult subject. It was now proposed to go farther against a bankrupt than the law had ever before gone, and he considered it was going far enough.

approved of the clause in the Bill. The proposal of a 10s. dividend was a great improvement on the present law, and he thought five years was not too long a period to give a man in which to recover himself.

admitted that he would regret the adoption of the Amendment if it: should prove fatal to the Bill; but, at the same time, was not surprised that the hon. Member for Liverpool had brought this question before the House. They had seen numerous instances where men made private arrangements under which they paid a small sum, and were, a short time afterwards, seen living in large houses and driving splendid equipages, with every appearance of great wealth. Previous legislation had dealt too compassionately with the debtor, and it was that that had done so much commercial harm. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool.

believed that he spoke the sentiments of the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, except Liverpool, when he objected to this 10s. line. They saw no virtue in 10s. as a guide to the integrity of a man in his dealings. Many of the Chambers re-commended 6s. 8d.;but, generally, they objected to have any sum stated. A man who was in difficulties might be below the 10s. line, and might go into the market and buy goods in order to place his assets above this line. He had given notice of his intention to move Amendments that the majority of the creditors should have power to discharge the bankrupt without any reason except through sympathy with him; that the Judge, when satisfied that the bankrupt's failure arose from unavoidable misfortune, should have power to discharge him; and that, in the absence of either of those conditions, the Court should be able to assess his future-acquired properly to such an extent as the justice of the ease might require. If they were to have a line, 5s. might be ample in one case, and 15s. not too much in another. Therefore, he proposed to leave it to the Court to say what amount of the future-acquired property should be appropriated in discharge of the liabilities of the bankrupt. In general, the remark of overtrading did not apply to the trade of England. The great staple trades of the country were based upon capital, and a majority of the traders who were brought down are more the objects of sympathy than of punishment. He objected distinctly to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, and suggested that The medium course proposed by him between the proposition of the Government, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool, was the proper one to adopt. The cases were constant and numerous in which kindly treatment, instead of a hard judicial bearing, was the best course to adopt.

said, that the Government really suggested a middle course between the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) and the proposal of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley). Representing the City of London, he did not think there would be a majority in favour of 20s. at the present time. It was a great step to take to make future-acquired property responsible at all. and the sum of 10s. was a fair line to take. Before the Committee on the question the line was proposed to be drawn at 6s. 8d. it was true that there was no principle in any line; but if it were left to the Court, and if the bankrupt should think that the Court was likely to let him off, he would fail to pay altogether. If he had only a choice between the proposals of the Members for Liverpool, and Bristol, he would prefer the former, because if the matter were left; to the Court, they would not arrive at the result they desired to accomplish by this clause.

approved of the clause as it stood in the Bill. The Amendments of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) if agreed to would introduce the greatest possible uncertainty in the administration of the Bankruptcy Laws, which would be very undesirable. The primary object of Bankruptcy Laws was protection to the bankrupt, but the main object was to collect as speedily as possible the estate, and distribute it amongst the creditors.

said, he voted for a discharge on the payment of a 6s. 8d. dividend, but he felt rather inclined to the proposition of the hon. Member for Bristol, that when a certain portion of the creditors wished to give the debtor a discharge they would thereby indicate their opinion that the debtor had acted honestly.

said, he should conceive it to be a great loss if the Bill did not pass. It had been said that to leave a man liable for his debts would destroy him altogether by preventing him from earning money in future. But in all matters of legislation, before we went to hypothesis we consulted experience; and in making inquiry of experience in England, we were told by the learned Attorney General that the reasons for the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) were altogether unfounded. But England was not the only commercial country in the world. What was the legislation of our great neighbours? Their legislation had been uniform. They had left the debtor to pay his debts, notwithstanding that: he was a trader; and he asked any hon. Member who knew anything of France or Belgium, whether it was true that a man who became a bankrupt ceased to exert himself? it was notorious that a Continental banker and financier, well known for his hospitality, used to state at his table—"I date my fortune from my third bankruptcy." And this was one of the richest men in Europe. But every one who heard him was aware that he had paid his debts. In France, Italy, Belgium, and the North of Germany the law was that bankruptcy did not discharge the debtor from the payment of his debts; the creditors were called together, and if a majority in number and a majority of three-fourths in value discharged him there from he was discharged, otherwise he remained nable for all time to the payment of the whole of his debts. The creditors, it was true, could not sue him, but the assignees could. But there was the experience of our own country to the same effect. England had been a commercial country for centuries. Our present law dated from 1842, which was comparatively yesterday. What was the law before 1842? Why, from the time of Henry VIII. to Queen Anne, bankruptcy did not discharge the bankrupt from his debts at all. It discharged the bankrupt from imprisonment only. But from the time of Queen Anne, by the consent of four-fifths of his creditors, a bankrupt was discharged from his debts. In 1842 the power of discharge from debt was given to the Court of Bankruptcy. The proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool would leave the bankrupt liable not to the penal consequences of bankruptcy, but only to the payment of his debts. In 1861, for the first time, the benefit or the disadvantage —he cared not which it was called—of bankruptcy was extended to the non-trading part of the community. Now what was the law. before 1861, as respected non-traders. Non-traders could only be relieved from imprisonment by passing through the Insolvent Court but were not relieved from their debts. It seemed to him contrary to morality, and good sense to excuse a non-trader from the payment of his debts. A great statesman said that misfortune was generally another name for imprudence, and that saying which applied to every career in the world was emphatically applicable to commerce. He believed the dishonest traders were in a small minority. The first object of the Bankruptcy Law was to distribute the property of the bankrupt among his creditors; the second, to discourage reckless trading. At present, however, the law offered a man a premium for recklessness. In Continental countries, and in England in former times, recklessness was not encouraged; but it had been encouraged by the legislation since 1842. He thought the clause was of the greatest importance, and that it ought to be accepted.

said, if he believed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would put a stop to reckless speculation and gambling in trade, he would support it. But, in past times, and in recent times, Parliament had legislated in a way to encourage those evils. It was by the Limited Liability Act that they had given rise to a sort of commercial gambling, which was disgraceful to the country, and which had been ruinous, not only to traders, but also to a number of unfortunate persons who had been led astray, to their own injury and that of others. Well, that being so, could he suppose that, by punishing the bankrupt and depriving him of all freedom unless he paid 20s. in the pound, we should prevent that bad state of things? He did not believe that by making the discharge very difficult, perhaps impossible, they would benefit the community at largo. Two courses had been proposed for adoption; one by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), which said to the bankrupt—"You shall not be free till you pay 20s. in the pound;" and the other by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), which would make it matter of chance whether the bankrupt paid anything. It appeared to him that the course which the Government had pursued was the wise course—the attempt to secure that the trader should not spend his very last shilling before he stopped, and speculate to the last. He should therefore support the provisions of the Bill.

said, that the tendency of the Amendment was to make the Bill as much in favour of the creditor as the past legislation of the House had been in favour of the debtor. He approved of a middle course. There wore often good reasons why a man could not pay 20s. in the pound; and to pursue him mercilessly in such a case was a step in the wrong direction. The Bill must be fair and just, in order that it might be carried out with the approbation of the country, and he Mould therefore support the proposition of the Attorney General.

said, that if one of the recent speakers, instead of crossing the English Channel, had crossed the Tweed, he would have met the same result as by travelling to France or Belgium. A majority of the creditors, and four-fifths in value, could give the bankrupt a release. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would shut out the bankrupt altogether from discharge, even though his creditors were perfectly willing that he should go free. He could not see any object in that, unless it were the punishment of the bankrupt. But why should the bankrupt be punished for an act of bankruptcy? They could not protect commercial morality when they were dealing with the question how to divide the assets of the bankrupt in the most rapid and effectual manner among his creditors. It appeared to him that the clause was framed upon a proper principle, and there was a valuable addition to it; which was that the bankrupt had five years in which to make up his 10s., so that they would neither shut him out from hope altogether, nor, on the other hand, would they have the scandal of having a bankrupt going about as if nothing bad happened.

said, there was really no hard and fast line whatever. Though 10s. in the pound was fixed, it rested with the creditors if they chose to take a lower amount; and, on the other hand, if the bankrupt had any property or reversion, the court might refuse his discharge.

said, he thought they had now come to the crucial question under that Bill. It was unwise to give the creditors power to make arrangements with the debtor, by deed, without the intervention of the court. Almost all the scandalous cases of which they had heard were cases of arrangement by deed, and not within the court; and they would never have a satisfactory Law of Bankruptcy, until they got rid of those arrangements by deed. When a man failed in business there ought in every instance, without exception, to be an inquiry into the cause of his failure. By the Bill, unless the debtor paid 10s. in the pound, he could not get. a discharge without the consent of his creditors. By giving the creditors power to let a man off, it, came to this, that each debtor had a different tribunal to deal with him; and creditors, he must say, were an irresponsible and capricious tribunal. Was it more expedient, for the interest of the whole community, that they should keep bankrupts with a millstone of debt for ever hanging about their necks, or that they should discharge them? He thought it would be more expedient that they should let the debtor off under proper restrictions—and the whole question before them was as to what were those restrictions. As the Bill stood, the court could not move without the consent of the creditors, which he did not think was a proper state of things. He could not support the proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), which would be seriously injurious to trade. The truth was, they had been too lenient for many years, and now they were in some danger of going to the opposite extreme of excessive severity.

said, that the Bill did not place the discharge of the debtor at the absolute will of the creditors, but only enabled them to discharge him if they passed a special resolution by the vote of three-fourths in value and a majority in number declaring that, in their opinion, the bankruptcy had arisen from unavoidable misfortune. He was quite alive to the evils incident to the system of assignments by deed, and some attempt to remedy them had been made in the Bill by providing that no deed of assignment should take effect unless, at a general meeting of the creditors, a trustee had been appointed. That would be, to some extent, a safeguard against the clandestine assignments that now so frequently took place. But the question of deeds of arrangement would arise at a later stage of the Committee, and he would not now anticipate the discussion upon it.

said, the only question immediately before them was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone). They had to decide a most important and most difficult point—namely, what were the circumstances under which a bankrupt was to be entitled to his discharge. While they talked of men being bound to pay 20s. in the pound, it should not be forgotten that recent legislation had occasioned a vast amount of the commercial distress which had prevailed. The Returns presented annually to the House showed in reference to the limited liability, or jointstock companies, either wound up, or in process of winding up, that their nominal capital was £136,000,000; their paid-up capital only £23,000,000; and their liabilities £74,000,000. In regard to bankruptcies, the Returns for the last year—which corresponded substantially with those of the previous four or five years — proved this — that there were about 9,000 bankruptcies, of which about 1,700 paid some dividend, nearly 6,000 paid none, and about 900 paid a dividend under 2s. 6d. in the pound, and that out of the whole number not more than 120 or 130 paid a dividend of 10s. or upwards. Well, in the face of these facts, would it be wise to insist, as the hon. Member for Liverpool proposed, that, unless the bankrupt paid the full 20s. in the pound, his discharge should be withheld? Would such a provision be likely to operate effectively in preventing reckless trading? There was, of course, no magical virtue in a limit of 10s.; but, all things considered, he thought it a reasonable one, and, taken in connection with the other provisions of the Bill, it would probably work very well. He should certainly vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool.

said, he thought it was clear that public opinion was not prepared for the Amendment, which therefore he was prepared to withdraw; but that which he proposed had been the law a long time in America, and it had been found to involve no hardship. As to the imputations made against Liverpool, he was not prepared to say it was free from them; but the grossest and the greatest number of scandals appeared in the metropolis. No doubt Englishmen were apt to carry out a new principle to a ridiculous extent; but it was unjust to charge everything to the principle of limited liability, when the greatest scandal of all had virtually occurred before the principle was applied to it.

said, that he thought it would be very desirable to introduce into England the practice observed in America—namely, that in the case of a first bankruptcy the debtor should be compelled to pay 50 per cent of his liabilities, and in the ease of a second bankruptcy 70 per cent of them, under pain of his having his order of discharge withheld. That would be a very good precedent for us to follow. The French practice was not one that we could very well follow.

said, that the Chamber of Commerce and the Trades Protection Society of Leeds believed the Government Bill best secured the interests of creditors.

pointed out that a hard and fast line of 10s. would press hardly on humble traders and debtors as compared with largo ones. If a man failed for £1000, and had assets worth £550, the necessary legal expenses would absorb more than £50 of that amount, and the debtor would consequently be excluded from the benefit of this Act. He knew that justice was aimed at, and vet injustice would be done.

remarked that a hard and fast line must always be a hardship on one side or the other. That could be obviated only by a sliding scale, which was impracticable.

expressed his belief that a hard and fast line would not work satisfactorily. He thought it would be well to postpone the clause for future consideration.

objected to the Amendment. At the same time he thought the clause might be amended by simply requiring the creditors to pass a resolution stating that, in their opinion, the debtor ought to have his discharge, instead of making them declare, as was now proposed, that his bankruptcy had been caused by unavoidable misfortune.

expressed a hope that the Attorney General would adhere to the clause as it stood.

said, he thought that the creditors would easily be able to determine what were and what were not unavoidable misfortunes, and the words being general would leave much more liberty to the creditors than they would otherwise have.

asked if there was any virtue in the words "unavoidable misfortune?" Was not the wish of the creditors in favour of a bankrupt's discharge when expressed by a proper majority to be sufficient?

said, he hoped that the clause would be retained.

said, he thought those words were right. The rule was that the bankrupt was not to be discharged unless he paid 10s. in the pound; but he might be discharged on paying 1s. or nothing at all, under certain circumstances—namely, the decision of the creditors that the bankrupt had suffered from unavoidable misfortune. He thought that the words were quite right.

said, he hoped the Attorney General would re-consider his opinion. He thought he might insert other words quite meeting his purpose, which would not leave the clause open to a very serious objection. The result of passing the clause as it now stood would be that 9,000 debtors would be thrown on the world, who could not by any possibility obtain their discharge, even though the creditors desired it, unless they could show that their bankruptcy was occasioned by what was called unavoidable misfortune. It would meet the difficulties of the case if the creditors, instead of saying that the bankruptcy had arisen from unavoidable misfortune, should pass a resolution in the effect that his bankruptcy had not arisen from any misconduct of his own.

objected to a bankrupt being allowed to obtain his discharge upon the simple; condition of paying 10s. in the pound. A dividend of 10s. might be as fraudulent as one of 1s.

pointed out that the question of the hard and fast line of 10s. had already been decided. The point now before the Committee was whether a bankrupt should be discharged when a majority of his creditors passed a resolution to the effect that his bankruptcy had arisen from unavoidable misfortune. They would no doubt put a liberal and common-sense construction upon the words "unavoidable misfortune."

was in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Walpole's) proposal.

said, that his experience was that every bankrupt attributed his difficulties to unavoidable misfortunes.

said, he thought that the negative form was preferable to that in which the clause now stood, and he would therefore move that, instead of having to decide that the bankruptcy had arisen from unavoidable misfortune, the creditors might pass a resolution that, in their opinion, it had not arisen from culpable misconduct.

preferred the words as they were, but he had no objection to their being altered to "misconduct;" the qualifying word "culpable" proposed by the right hon. Gentleman he could not agree to.

moved, in page 17, line 41, after "said Act" to insert—

"For the purposes of this section, creditors on bills of exchange or promissory notes shall be reckoned in value only for the balance after deducting all sums paid, on such bills or notes by ' persons liable thereon other than the bankrupt."

said, that the Amendment would destroy the commercial value of all bills of exchange, and contended that the creditor was entitled to hold his proof until he was paid in full.

said, he did not think the words necessary. Clause 29 answered all the hon. Member's purpose.

said, that the point was provided for in another clause.

said, he had no objection to strike out the clause provided there was a general wish to that effect.

objected to striking it out. It was based upon an old statute, and had hitherto worked well.

stated that, as there were a good many Amendments for striking out sub-section 1, he would avoid discussion by complying with them.

then proposed to move an Amendment of which he had given notice. On sub-section 2, in page 20, line 8, after "property" insert—

"Nevertheless if during the said period of five years the bankrupt shall not have paid to his creditors such additional sum, the Court in which the bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted, or any Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy in the place or district where the bankrupt resides shall, at any time during such period, until such additional sum shall have been paid upon the application of the trustee or of any creditor, summon the bankrupt to appear before such Court, and the Court shall examine and inquire into the affairs of the bankrupt, and the bankrupt shall produce such of his books, and file such accounts, and make such disclosure of his affairs, and in such manner as the Court might require; and if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Court that the bankrupt, since the date of his bankruptcy, has acquired property and, regard being had to debts or liabilities incurred by him since such date, that he is able to pay a further dividend, the Court shall order such after-acquired property, or so much thereof as it shall see fit, to be applied to the payment of such further dividend; and upon the making of such order such after acquired property, or so much thereof as aforesaid, whether the same shall consist wholly or in part of things in action or otherwise, and the trustee shall exercise in respect thereof, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act, as if the same had been the property of the bankrupt at the date of the bankruptcy; all costs of such application as aforesaid shall be borne by the trustee or creditor by whom the same was made unless the Court shall make such order as aforesaid."

considered that the adoption of the Amendment would altogether defeat the Bill; but he was prepared to reduce the time allowed to the bankrupt to recover himself from five years to three years. The bankrupt could not recover himself if it were in the power of any creditor at any time to put the court in motion against him. All his credit would be destroyed, and any chance of recovering himself would be also destroyed.

said, that if this were done the whole principle of the Bill would be destroyed. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

in rising to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the great excess of cost in prosecuting the War with Abyssinia over the Estimate submitted to Parliament, said, in a discussion which took place in this House on the 26th July, 1867, it appeared from the speech of the noble Lord the then Foreign Secretary (Lord Stanley) that the possibility of a war with Abyssinia had become somewhat dimly visible to the House and the country. The necessity for a warlike demonstration became more apparent to the minds of the then Government in the early part of the month of August in the same year, and so far had the probability of war advanced that in November the Government of the day thought it expedient to call the House together to communicate their policy to the country and to ask for the necessary Supplies for prosecuting a warlike demonstration against the King of Abyssinia. When the House met in November he believed he was correct in saying that there was a general concurrence of opinion in favour of the Expedition. He (Mr. Candlish) at least was one who concurred in the propriety of it; and the House at large, almost by a formal vote, more than tacitly, acquiesced in its policy, for it granted the necessary Supplies. It was easier to acquiesce in the policy of that Expedition than it was in the policy which made the Expedition necessary. It was casier to justify a warlike enterprise to release Consul Cameron and our countrymen who were detained prisoners in Abyssinia than it was to justify the; polity which Sent Consul Cameron there. He apprehended that if we had learnt nothing move from that Expedition, we had at least learnt this—that it was unwise for any civilized Government to attempt to establish consular or diplomatic relations with a semi-barbarous power. A nation at the head of civilization could in no degree deflect from the principles of truth, honour, and integrity; and could not with propriety, as he conceived, have any diplomatic intercourse with a nation which did not even understand the meaning of these terms. But the policy which sent Consul Cameron to Abyssinia, and the policy of the war which was un- dertaken by this country for his release, were not questions before the House tonight. The main question raised by the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper was the cost of that war in comparison with the estimate of expense which had been laid before the House. He should have very little to say on that question beyond quoting the language used in that House by the statesmen concerned in despatching the Expedition, for that language was shorter and clearer than any he could himself command. On the 26th of November, 1867, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, then filling the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, after detailing the decision of the Government and the progress made in preparing the Expedition, asked for a Vote of £2,000,000 towards defraying its expenses, and used these words—

"It will now be my duty to explain the probable cost, as far as we can ascertain, of the war in which we may have to embark, and for which we have to a great degree prepared, and also to explain why I have fixed upon £2,000,000 as the amount which it is, on the whole, wisest and best to vote under the present circumstances. The Committee is entitled to the fullest confidence in this matter, and I do not know that I can proceed in a manner more satisfactory to the Committee, as well as to the Government, than if J place before them all the information that we have upon the subject, and state what we believe will be the complete cost of this war if it should commence and be pursued not only to its probable but to its possible termination. The Estimates before us, I need hardly remind the Committee, cannot be prepared with the precision with which Estimates are usually laid upon the table of the House, because they refer to expenditure taking place in a distant country, and they must therefore be described as "rough Estimates;" but I wish the Committee to understand that though I avail myself of an epithet in common use and call them rough Estimates, they are not careless Estimates. They have been submitted to as severe an investigation as was possible under the circumstances, to much criticism and to the judgment of most experienced men, and they have led to considerable inquiry, even in the distant places where the expenditure must to a great degree take place. We offer them, therefore, with as much confidence as we have a right to feel, and that confidence is by no means slight. Assuming, then, that the war commences, and is carried on until the end of the month of April, about which time it would be expedient that our troops should leave Abyssinia, we believe it will be necessary that we should incur an expenditure of £3,500,000. That amount will no doubt be increased if we are called upon to replace the forces of the Indian Government that are now assisting Her Majesty in this enterprise; but the increase will not, comparatively speaking, be considerable—I say comparatively speaking, because I have seen the most ab- surd Estimates on that head in the public papers. In case we have to replace the forces which the Indian Government now lend to Her Majesty, there will be an increase in the Estimate of £300,000, more or less. That is the whole amount which we believe would he required, and would give a total expenditure of £3,800,000; but the Government would contemplate the possibility of an expenditure, in round numbers, of £4,000,000, if we have to replace those troops. Now, of this £3,500,000, £2,000,000 alone will be payable by the Home Government during the present financial year—that is, the year ending on the 31st, of March—that is to say, £2,000,000 to meet the advances and make the allowances on account to the Indian Government, which would become due before that day, and to make good those advances which have been supplied by the services at home from the appropriated Votes. It certainly will not exceed the sum of £2,000,000 in the course of; the present financial year; and Her Majesty's Government are therefore of opinion that it is unnecessary to trouble the Committee of Supply for a greater amount than that. There is also another reason—though I think I have already given a sufficient one—why it is convenient not to contemplate at the present moment a greater expenditure than £2,000,000; for as far as we can calculate it will take exactly that sum to place our complete force upon the soil of Abyssinia. I think that General Napier may find himself with his army completely equipped and ready for action in Abyssinia, at a cost of £2,000,000. I do not wish to indulge in any sanguine expectations; but we ought not to be blind to this contingency, that after these great preparations, and after the invasion of Abyssinia by disciplined troops, it is possible that the future horrors of war may be spared."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 191–2.]

This was spoken on the 20th November, and two days afterwards the statement was confirmed, if confirmation was needed, by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Stanley) in the most definite and precise terms, and the House received it with that implicit confidence which it was bound to exercise on an occasion of an official statement made under circumstances so grave and with such particularity and definiteness. The House re-assembled in February, and rumours being prevalent that an increase of expenditure would be necessary, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire if the Estimates for the war were likely to be increased. The reply was—"I have no reason to believe that the Estimates for the Abyssinian Expedition have been exceeded." This was on the 20th February, 1868, and when further pressed on the subject by Mr. Darby Griffith, then a Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"I thought my previous answer was sufficiently explicit, and I can only say I have no reason what- ever to believe that the general Estimate I put before the House has been exceeded."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 989.]

On the 16th March the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire, Mr. Hunt) a similar question. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said—

"I think it has been usual for this House to be content till the Budget has been brought forward in order to learn whether the Estimates have been exceeded or not. …. I do not decline to answer the question. The public mind has been made uneasy by exaggerated statements as to the expenditure going on in Abyssinia. …. My right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown (Mr. Disraeli) staled in November last that it was estimated that if the expedition lasted, as was anticipated, to the end of April, the expenditure would amount to £3, 500,000, and in certain eventualities it might extend to £4,000,000. From the last means of information at my disposal, I am able to state that I believe, up to the time I am speaking, the expenditure in Abyssinia will be covered by the lower of these two amounts."— [3 Hansard, cxc. 1684.]

The present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers) followed up this reply with these more pointed words:— "Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the expense to the end of April had not been exceeded?" and the reply was that—

"If the Expedition lasted till the end of April the expense would amount to £3,500,000, and might extend to £4,000,000), but, that I believe that the whole of the expenditure up to the pre-sent time would be covered by the lower of the two amounts—namely, £3,500,000."—[Ibid.]

Up to this time the House will perceive that no hint was given that the Estimates had been exceeded. Nothing further was communicated to the House till the 23rd April, when the Budget speech was delivered; and in that speech it was stated that the supplies to be obtained from the country were much less than had been anticipated, and that in consequence supplies had to be obtained from a distance, and that the Estimates would be increased on that account to about £600.000 a month. Sir Robert Napier anticipated that he would be on his way home on the 20tlv of April, and that if there were any further charge it would be small in amount, and would probably be defrayed by the Indian Government. The expenses up to the end of May would thus be about £5,000,000. This was a statement made to the House when the late Government must have been in possession of full information on the subject. It was made ten clays after the fall of Magdala, and the welcome news of its fall was within two days of these shores. The calculation as to the time when this event would take place and the prisoners be liberated was fid-filled to the letter. It was in the month of April. Magdala was reached on the 10th; on the 13th it fell; the Abyssinian army was scattered to the winds; and on the 18th the British army was on its homeward march. "Within 100 days Sir Robert consummated his mission—released the prisoners and destroyed the fortifications of Magdala. So that in point of fact there was nothing to increase the Estimates. On the 4th of March the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) said—

"What the House has a right jealously to look at is the information that was supplied to it when it was called upon to vote money."—[3 Hansard, cxciv. 636.]

When the £2,000,000 was asked for by the Government the estimate was £3,500,000. On the 23rd of April another £3,000,000 was asked for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the estimate was thus increased to £5,000,000. So, according to his own test, the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was fair to quote the remarks at the time to which he had referred. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Hear, hear!] Now, what had been the cost of this war? On the 4th May last the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said the expenditure was £6,800,000 in India. £461,000 by the War Office at home, £4,262,000 by the Admiralty, £250,000 by the India Office; making a total of £8,773,000. In other words, the actual expenditure was shown to be £5,300,000 in excess of the original Estimate, and £3,800,000 in excess of the second and corrected Estimate which was submitted to the House at the time the Vote was given. These facts, he submitted, amply justified the proposition which he had placed upon the Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he believed, far from objecting, in point of fact, invited this inquiry. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Hear, hear!] While inquiry was pending, it was not for him to make charges against any person; but obviously there must have been grave and serious mistakes somewhere. He would assume that the representations made to the House were honestly made, accord- ing to the information which at the moment had reached the authorities. Mr. Turner, who supervised the expenditure on the part of the Government, wrote to say—

"These totals, making altogether £5,000,000, will doubtless prove to be considerably under the actuals when brought to account rather than otherwise."

And Major General Jameson said—

"Provided the Expedition terminated on the 31st of May, it would not be safe to ask for less than £3,000,000 "

in addition to the £3,000,000. In the opinion of the gallant officer £3,000,000 would be a safe amount for which to ask, and if the Expedition lasted beyond the 31st of May a further charge of £600,000 would be requisite for every month beyond that day. Sir Robert Napier reached the coast with his forces in June; at that date, therefore the Expedition might fairly be taken to be at an end, but it might, perhaps, be necessary to allow another month for the removal of materials. In seeking an investigation into the expenditure of all this money the House was engaged in a strictly constitutional work. Public money was voted freely for any object of which the House approved; and it would always maintain the honour of the country by making good an outlay, whether wisely or unwisely incurred, reserving to itself at a later period the right of full inquiry. In answer to the objection which might be possibly urged, that this Motion came too late, and that the Committee, if appointed, could not report during the present Session, the hon. Gentleman said that there had been no early opportunity of raising the question with effect, as, even yet, the official information was hardly complete; and the Committee, though unable to report, would at least be able to lay upon the table the evidence which they had taken, and ask to be re-appointed next Session.

After the speech to which we have just listened I can hardly be doing wrong in seconding the Motion, which I am quite as anxious to see adopted as the hon. Gentleman. I desire this—first, upon general grounds, for I think that the ground which the hon. Member has taken is a perfectly sound and legitimate one, and that if the course which he proposes on the present occasion was more frequently adopted in cases where a large expenditure for a particular object has been sanctioned and then exceeded, it would conduce very much to economy, and would have a beneficial effect upon the Executive Government in keeping them up to their duty in these matters. We know very well that, excuse or disguise it as we may, war will always be a very wasteful business; and everybody knows that on occasion of a war there is generally a great deal of public enthusiasm excited, which enables the Government to obtain the sanction of Parliament for entering into it; and that while a war is going on the Government have it entirely in their own hands, and have only to come down to the House and deprecate discussion on the subject, and the patriotism and feeling of the country would always prevent their being hampered. Then, after the war is over, there is too often a tendency to make the best of a bad business—to say—"The money is gone, and now there is nothing to do but to pay the bill." And so one great expenditure after another gets hushed up and slurred over, in a way not for the public interest. I think the hon. Gentleman—if I may say so— has acted very discreetly and entirely in conformity with that which ought to animate the Members of this House in bringing forward this Motion at the time and in the manner in which he has done. He has avoided saying anything which could give any offence whatever: and I thank him, on the part of my late Colleagues and myself, for the language in which he has couched the remarks which he has just addressed to us. I can assure him that we warmly reciprocate his desire to have this matter entirely cleared up. That is one reason why I support the Motion. Another is, that I am confident, when this Question is examined into before a Select Committee, and comes to be really probed by the examination of documents and of witnesses, it will be found that, although if may, perhaps, be said we were to a certain extent to blame for using language which may have given the House and the country an impression of greater certainty on our parts than we ought to have felt; yet it will, I believe, appear that throughout we acted perfectly bonâ fide, and that the information which we laid before the House, and the grounds upon which we ourselves acted were grounds such as would have justified any Ministers in our position in taking the course which we actually adopted. I hope, moreover, and I believe it will appear, that the excess which was unfortunately incurred was an excess for which we were not responsible, and for which the circumstances of the war will fully account. I admit that when the hon. Member says we mentioned £3,500,000 or 4,000,000 as the probable cost of the Expedition, supposing it would last till April, and when at a later period we named £5,000,000 as the probable amount, and that when some eight or ten months afterwards it turns out that the estimate has been exceeded by the amount stated by the hon. Member, that is a matter which, primâ facie, requires explanation and defence. But I would ask him to bear in mind that the House and the country were perfectly aware that these Estimates were necessarily of a very rough and uncertain character. It was part of the case urged against us by some hon. Gentlemen that we should not have entered into this war at all, because we were undertaking an expedition at short notice into a wholly unknown country, where it was impossible to say beforehand what means and appliances we should meet with—whether we should find the ordinary supplies of provisions, whether we should find any means of transport, whether we should even find a proper supply of water. We knew that we should also be pressed for time, and that if the Expedition did not come to a conclusion by the end of April or the beginning of May we should lose a whole season. We knew that the health of the troops would suffer, that great misfortunes might be apprehended if they were compelled to remain in the country for another season, and that during the whole time they were there the difficulty in supplying our troops with provisions in that unknown country would be very great. Under these circumstances, not having time to communicate as rapidly as we could have wished to do with the base of our operations at Bombay and the country of Abyssinia in which the operations were to carried on, and knowing how long it would take to send out supplies from this country, it was necessary to give a considerable latitude to those upon whose judgment we relied and to whom we entrusted the safety of the Expedition. The principal directions we gave to General Sir Robert Napier and also to the Government of Bombay, who were charged with the organization of the Expedition, were— "Take care, whatever you do, that you do not incur any disaster. Take care that you do not compromise the safety of the British troops or the honour of the British name. Ask for what you require. Do the matter as economically as you can; but do not let it fail for want of proper provisions and supplies." In that way, we in England necessarily put; ourselves to a great extent in the hands of those who had to organize the Expedition—the Government of Bombay and Sir Robert Napier. We endeavoured, as well as we could, to form an estimate of what the expenditure would be. We knew the force of men that was required, and with the aid of the Admiralty and the War Office we endeavoured to calculate the cost of the supplies that it would be necessary to send from this country, and the cost of the transport. By the aid of officers who had had experience in the Persian and other campaigns we formed as good an estimate as possible of the probable cost of the force while it was under arms. But we had no estimate supplied to us from the seat of war or from Bombay that we could lay upon the table of the House, or to which we could refer as representing the expenditure for which we held the Government of Bombay responsible. I may say that I mentioned this to the House at the time that the second Vote was asked for. I laid upon the table a Return, from which I quoted some passages in March last; and in regard to which I said that the information it contained was not so full or so accurate as we could wish, but that we hoped and believed that the sum we were asking for would be sufficient. It now turns out that we were considerably under the mark, because we under-estimated the expenditure that had already occurred, and because we had not foreseen certain events that occurred after the period at which we reckoned on the termination of all expenditure. When I say that we put ourselves in the hands of the Government of Bombay and of General Sir Robert Napier in regard to the expenditure, I desire to say most explicitly that I am not attempting or desiring to throw any blame upon the Government of Bombay or the Commander-in-Chief on account of the extra- ordinary cost of the Expedition. I should call it very discreditable on the part of the Home Government if we attempted to shift on the Government of Bombay any of the responsibility that properly belonged to ourselves. I wish further and besides to bear my testimony in the most emphatic manner—and the more so because I think that hitherto very scant justice has been done to the Government of Bombay—to the excellent manner in which they performed the very difficult service that was pressed upon them. Perhaps I may be allowed, as an evidence of the difficulties with which the Government of Bombay had to contend, to read a few passages from a letter which Sir Seymour Fitzgerald has addressed to me in reference to the debate that took place in this House in March last—

"The charges appear to be that the Government of Bombay has committed the country to an expenditure 'monstrously' differing from their estimate; that they have failed since the close of the Expedition to send a proper account of the actual cost; and that the expenditure has been reckless and extravagant. As regards the first point, I wish to say that at no time have I ventured to give any estimate of the probable cost. The preparations bad not been commenced a month before it was obvious to everyone here that it was impossible to form even an approximate estimate; and if I had been required to give one I should have declined. We were called on to make provision for 40,000 men and 30,000 animals, and it was necessary that this should be done at once and without the least delay, to insure the early departure of the Expedition. A sudden call of this magnitude deranged the prices in a. way to defy calculation, so that we were driven to have recourse to the most distant markets. Further, from the complete ignorance that existed as to the country whither the force was sent, everything bad to be provided, not only food for the troops and followers, but hay for the animals, and even firewood for the men. Even at home, where there is nothing that cannot be procured from manufacturers accustomed to supply the ordinary demands of the market, our task would not have been an easy one. But here articles had to be provided the manufacture of which was unusual and almost unknown. For instance, when the preparations for the Expedition were commenced, there were but thirteen spare water tanks in the dockyard. We had to provide, and did provide, in an incredible short space of time a sufficient number to carry more than 4,000,000 gallons of water, though I was told at first by the contractors that so unusual was the manufacture that no contract could be taken for the supply of more than forty, or at the utmost, fifty per week. From our ignorance of the country no one could say whether the Expedition would last two months or two years, and under such circumstances no one in the House or out of it could at that time have understood that any 'estimate,' properly speaking could pretend to be, or was put forward as a calculation upon sufficient and reliable data. As regards the delay in rendering an account, even if there had been delay, the circumstances I have referred to would have been, I think, a sufficient explanation. The expenditure had been made, it may almost be said, at every port east of Suez— Bombay, Kurrachee, Calcutta, Madras, Aden, Bushire, Muscat, and a dozen places in the Red Sea, and made, too, under different authorities acting independently. The number of vouchers already examined exceeds 25,000, and the net charges actually audited and reported to the Imperial Government amounted to,£6,618,000. These have been regularly sent home month by month as fast as the audit was completed. These figures, T think, not only disprove any charge of delay: but I believe I may challenge the production of any instance of a similar expenditure being so quickly and completely rendered."

I mention these facts in order to show the pressure put upon the Government of Bombay, and to explain why we could not receive the information as rapidly as was necessary to enable us to lay trustworthy Estimates before the House. It was impossible to receive these accounts so as to enable us in March to know what the real amount of the expenditure would be. It may be said that this was a very bad and unbusiness-like transaction; but all I can say is, that if you examine the circumstances of any other war you will find that precisely the same tiling has occurred on all former occasions. And if we consider, in the case of the Abyssinian Expedition, the great hurry in which the thing was done, and the wide area from which the supplies wore, drawn, I think it is very much to the credit of the Indian and Bombay Governments, that they have been able to present so complete an account within so short a time as ten months after the conclusion of hostilities. I believe I am right in stating that this has been done, and that the total amount falls within the Estimate given in March last. All these matters, however, will be well sifted before a Committee, and upon their Report Parliament will be enabled to pronounce a judgment. I do not complain of the time in which the hon. Member has brought forward his Motion, or of the deductions which he and others have drawn from the facts as they are now before us. All I ask is, that the final decision of Parliament should be suspended until the matter has been completely inquired into. And although the Committee will be unable to finish its labours this Session, much useful work may be done in ascertaining what information is required, and the quarters from which it may be best obtained, and in framing questions to be sent out to India and answered before another Session. There will also be an opportunity, no doubt, of personally examining officers who may be able to throw light on the subject. I believe that Mr. Turner is now in this country, and others connected with the various War departments may either be in this country or may be invited to come over to give evidence. I am aware it may be said that my Colleagues and myself might have begun to make our arrangements at an earlier date. All that I can say is that we hoped against hope up to the last moment, and until political events happened in Abyssinia of such a character as to leave us no alternative but to commence operations. No doubt by beginning so late, the accidents of the season, and the absence of particular officers, made the preparations more hurried than we could have wished, and hurry in such a case means increased expenditure. It was found that time was running very close; and, although it was calculated that the campaign would be finished by the end of April or the beginning of May. it was impossible to tell what, would occur, and whether the force might not have to remain there during the whole year. It was, therefore, necessary to order largo supplies to be sent out. Supplies, which would have been necessary if the campaign had been prolonged, were to a great extent wasted or had to be brought back at a time when the monsoon was adverse to navigation, and thus in various ways unlooked-for expenditure was incurred at the close of the Expedition. The late Government court inquiry; they are prepared to take any blame that may be fairly found to attach to them. At the same time they enter upon the inquiry with considerable confidence that the verdict will be one upon the whole very decidedly in their favour, and creditable to the Government of India, and particularly that of Bombay, as far as they had the management of those operations.

said, he was sure the House would be as content as he was that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) anticipated him in rising to second the Motion; but he would have been better satisfied—and he was sure the House would have been better satisfied—if the right hon. Baronet had not, in the latter part of his speech, elaborately defended and excused the lavish expenditure to which we have been subjected. It appeared to him that much of the defence the right hon. Gentleman had put forward was not exactly founded upon fact, for the circumstances which were supposed to have caused the extraordinary expenditure were all known and calculated upon beforehand, and it was anticipated that the campaign would finish when it did. It was said that the original estimates were of a rough and uncertain character, and that we had no estimates from Bombay or from the seat of war; but the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) in submitting them, said—

"They have been submitted to as severe an investigation as was possible under the circumstances, to much criticism, and to the judgment of most experienced men, and they have led to considerable inquiry, even in the distant places where the expenditure must to a great degree take place. We offer them, therefore, with as much confidence as we have a right, to feel, and that confidence is by no means slight."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 191.]

Moreover, the statement that these were rough Estimates could not apply to the 23rd of April, when the war was actually finished. In military and commercial circles the Abyssinian War was regarded as a great scandal, and the expenditure as having exceeded, almost all precedent. He did not wish to cast reflections upon the late Government, nor upon the gallant officer in command of the army; but there was fault somewhere, and it was but right that a Committee should immediately investigate the matter, not only that, the country might have the satisfaction of knowing what had become of the extra £5,000,000, but that it might also prevent such extravagance in the future. If we were to be again involved in war, it would probably not be a little war with some barbarous prince, but it might be a great war with some civilized nation; and the question was whether in such a case we were again to waste all our resources at the very outset, and so involve the country in immense expenditure and risk. It was well known there was the grossest mismanagement in Abyssinia; that the army sent there was out of all proportion to the work to be done; and that the freights surpassed anything ever known in this country. He had it on the authority of contractors that such things as these occurred—a ship was chartered to take out compressed hay at so much the voyage and at so much per day demurrage; when the captain arrived out with his cargo he was kept waiting for months, charging demurrage, the mules on shore dying meanwhile; he was then ordered away to an Indian port, where he was kept waiting for months; he was then ordered out to sea to throw the cargo overboard; that order being countermanded, he was told— "We don't want the hay; take it away, and do what yon please with it;" and he, knowing where he could find a good market, went and sold it and brought home the proceeds to his owners. Numbers of vessels had been kept lying for months under demurrage in Annesley Bay and off Bombay, and the captains had then been ordered to throw their precious freights overboard. At the close of the war 6,000 mules and horses, which had been collected at Suez at an enormous cost, were given away for an old song; and, as another instance of the wasteful and extravagant expenditure, he might mention that 500 women Mere taken from India to grind corn for the Sepoys in Abyssinia, but that it was afterwards found they had never ground corn in their lives. Men who had seen something of the wars of the last quarter of a century in India, America, and Italy, and who had been with the Austrian army and with the Danish army, said they never witnessed such extravagance as they saw in Abyssinia. It was a war of gold, and altogether a disgrace to us, reflecting the greatest discredit upon those who had the organization and management of it. Under these circumstances it was only right that an inquiry should take place into the matter, and until that inquiry should have terminated he hoped that the House would suspend its judgment, and would not come to the conclusion for which the right hon. Gentleman had contended— that everything was done that could be done, that all things ought to be made pleasant, and that the waste of money could not be prevented. In justice to the British tax-payer he urged investigation.

said, he had hoped that the debate would have terminated with the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), who made such a satisfactory statement. As it had been continued, and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had preferred such strong charges, he would say he felt certain of this that, should the matter be referred to a Select Committee, the zeal and energy displayed by the Bombay Government would receive a more full acknowledgment than it had yet received. He believed that only those who had been concerned in such a task could fully appreciate the labour of organizing an Expedition which comprised 15,000 fighting men. Of course, the markets of Bombay were not able to supply the required stores, and there- fore it was necessary to send to other parts of the world to get thorn, and we were simultaneously buying mules in the Dardanelles, Spain, and Africa, and horses in St. Petersburg. When so many demands were being met, was it possible to form any just estimate of the expenditure? It was utterly impossible, and tin-Government would have been justified in declining to publish any estimate. The Bombay Government and Sir Seymour Fitzgerald devoted all their time and energy to keeping' down the expenses: but many things occurred which it was quite impossible to foresee. The Government had no doubt acted wisely in selecting for the command the best officer they could find, and then leaving to him the conduct of the operations. The force had originally been fixed at 12,000 men; but Sir Robert Napier had asked for 2,000 more, and it was impossible to comply with that demand without a large additional expenditure. Again, the original estimate had been for six months' stores, and it was thought afterwards better to increase that amount to twelve months' stores. When the campaign terminated earlier than had been anticipated a vast amount of stores remained on hand, and it would have been better and cheaper to have left them at Annesley Bay than to have removed them, because it was not possible to sail transports without steamers; indeed, after some vessels had remained for several weeks, it was found to be the cheapest course to throw their cargoes into the sea. When all these things come to be considered, it would certainly be found that there was no reason to impute blame to the authorities: on the contrary, they would receive much greater credit than had been given to them by the country.

observed that it had been left to Sir Robert Napier to determine the strength and composition of the force, and he believed no one was prepared to say that he took too large a force. He did not know what resistance or physical difficulties he would have to encounter, and if he had failed, having had full discretion left him, it would not have been enough for him to say that he had miscalculated the campaign. Was the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), then, in error to leave it entirely to Lord Napier to determine the strength of the forces? He thought not. It was impossible for him to calculate the difficulties that lay in the way of the enterprise, and the only thing he could do was to trust the commander, and give him freedom to select what force the nature of the enterprise might require. Sir Robert Napier merely said to the Government of Bombay—"I want so many thousand men; put them down in Abyssinia and give me the means of moving them there." It rested with the Government of Bombay to provide transport and carriage in Abyssinia. Whether they had provided it at a reasonable rate, or whether they had incurred needless expenditure, was a point which required minute inquiry; £4,230,000—nearly half the entire cost —was spent in sea transport; including coals, the cost of the transport was nearly £5,000.000. That did appear to him an excessive sum, and he could not but think that inquiry would show it was a lavish and needless expenditure. On this point inquiry was urgently needed. Pending that inquiry, he received with some reservation the assurance of the right hon. Baronet that the Government of Bombay deserved the thanks of the country for the manner in which it had conducted the necessary preparations for the Expedition.

said, the Expedition had from the first occasioned surprise on both sides of the House. It originated with three Members on the liberal side, who advocated it on the ground of the insulted dignity of Great Britain, Her Majesty's representative having been imprisoned by a barbarian. Two of those Members were no longer in the House; the third was still a Member. The other side, then in power, took it up as a capital card, thinking that a great deal of credit might be got out of it by redeeming the honour of the country, They certainly deserved great credit for placing their confidence in the ability and judgment of Lord Napier. But unhappily, the Expedition had occasioned very considerable expense indeed—far beyond what had been anticipated by the Government themselves. At an early period of the year, when discussing the subject, he stated that he had a list of the transports employed in his hand, and the cost per month would amount to 40 lacs, or £400,000. If the expedition lasted six months there would therefore be £2,400,000 for transports, alone, and if twelve months, £4,800,000. That was independent of coals. The Government had the same? sources of information which he possessed—namely, information from Bombay, and they should have known this fact as he know it. Neither in policy nor justice should the tax-payers of the country have been called on to bear such an amount of taxation — approaching to a sum of £10,000,000—for what? A phantom— the redemption of the national honour, and the maintenance of the prestige of England in India. He denied that the honour of England was compromised because Mr. Cameron, who had no business in Abyssinia at all, had been taken prisoner by the King. The whole affair might have been managed by native agency for £30,000 or £40,000, or even much less. As for prestige—he had some knowledge of India, having seen a good deal of it, and of its different nations, and he might say there was not one in a million there that ever heard of Abyssinia, So far as the military operations were concerned, nothing could be more satisfactory or effective. The manner in which General Napier had depots provided along his line of march till he got to Magdala did him infinite credit, lint how had all this money been spent, the expenditure having terminated before the time anticipated by the Government? In July, 1868, a gentleman, who had resided for six months at Zoulla, came to him and said he had seen transports from Suez loaded with hay collected in Syria, and others from Bombay. What became of it? These transports lay in Annesley Bay, and some never delivered their cargoes at all. Then the quantity of coal supplied at an increased price was very large indeed. He had asked the late Government for a Return of the number of ships which brought hay to Annesley Bay; of the price paid for the hay; of the quantity left in Abyssinia, and of the quantity never unshipped. The Under Secretary for India had informed him that the order for the Return was sent to Bombay on the 20th of August last, but the required statement had not yet been received. The order had been repeated, and when produced he had no doubt it would, to a great extent, explain the increase of the estimate, without at all, m his opinion, affecting the character of the Bombay Government, and certainly not of Lord Napier. Another cause of waste had been the purchase of mules in Syria, where they cost £40, and in Spain, where they cost £80 per head; while in Abyssinia they might have been had for £4 or £5. What became of those mules? Many thousands of them had been left on the coast of Abyssinia when we came away. With, regard to all beyond the mere military expense of the Expedition, he thought it was quite necessary that an inquiry should be instituted, and the country would thank the Government and the late Minister for India for having consented to it so readily.

said, that the case was that a number of their fellow-countrymen were unfortunately detained at a long distance from this country, and in order to rescue them the country had spent £10,000,000, though a much smaller sum would have sufficed for the purpose. Under these circumstances it behaved the House to inquire into the causes of that unnecessary expenditure.

observed, that unquestionably there had been a great excess of expenditure over the estimate, and that circumstance formed a proper subject for inquiry. Therefore it did not seem desirable to enter now into a discussion of every matter which had been referred to that evening; and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had concluded his remarks with the expression of his desire that the House should suspend its judgment until the Committee made its Report the debate might then have ended. However, after stating that there were three departments connected with the expenditure of the Expedition—the Home Government, the Government of Bombay, and the department of the Expe- dition under Lord Napier—the right hon. Gentleman went on to declare his satisfaction -with the economical proceedings of each, and to express his conviction that the result of the inquiry would prove entirely creditable to the late Government. Now, prophecies with regard to Abyssinia had not been very fortunate on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; but he trusted that the proposed inquiry might verify to some extent his hopes. The statements made in the House that evening showed that a strong impression existed in the country that there had been a lavish and unnecessary expenditure in connection with the; Abyssinian Expedition. That was a necessary subject for inquiry, and the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had the entire concurrence of the Government.

said, he would have been glad if the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion (Mr. Candlish) had also proposed to inquire into the causes of the Abyssinian War. Charges had been made of great hurry and great expenditure in connection with that Expedition; but- his knowledge of war led him to believe that on the occasion in question hurry meant economy. He would be very glad to sec the result of that inquiry, and he was sure that when the result was known. Gentlemen on the other (the Ministerial) side of the House would regret the acerbity with which they had pressed that Motion.

said, he was sorry to notice the tone in which his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) had granted the Committee. he was glad that it was to be granted: but he did not think from the tenour of the observations of the hon. Gentleman that the Government would approach the inquiry in any spirit of fairness. He wished, however, that the whole Abyssinian question should be referred to that Committee. Let them go to the heart of the business and see how the Abyssinian War began. he thought Mr. Cameron, who had suffered greatly, had been foully attacked in the course of the discussion, and in justice to him they ought to investigate the whole of the matters that had led to the Abyssinian War. In reference to the observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), who said that Abyssinia was full of mules, he must observe that though there were mules enough there for a shooting party or a small number of persons, yet lie believed that for the supply of a single regiment with the necessary mules the resources of Abyssinia would be absorbed in a single day. With regard to expenditure, he had always noticed that as soon as shipowners and manufacturers had grown rich on warlike expeditions they immediately began to grumble when the bill came to be paid. The Abyssinian Expedition had shown that the arm of this country could reach any part of the globe, and by adding to the prestige of the nation, would tend in future to save British tax-payers from expenditure for similar expeditions. He moved that the whole Abyssinian question be referred to a Select Committee.

suggested that, as there was much important business before the House, the discussion might now be allowed to close. It was not the desire of the Government to say one word to prejudge the inquiry. The duty they had to undertake with regard to this Expedition was very simple, though very onerous —it had only been to pay the demands made on them during the last three months for the expenses incurred under the arrangements made by the late Government; and the few questions they had had to consider had been, simply with reference to the allocation of the charges between the British Exchequer and the Government of India. The Government had not imbibed any feeling of prejudice in the question; they only desired that the Committee should approach the subject with an impartial mind, and a full determination to do justice to the motives and conduct of the late Government. He hoped the House would not be drawn into an interminable debate on the origin and progress of the Abyssinian War.

said, that though the House had been told a great deal about enormous charges for freight, the charges made were not extraordinary at- all. They amounted, as a rule, for sailing ships, to about £1 per register ton per month, and that at a time when there were but few ships in the market. If the required number of ships had not been obtained in consequence of not giving a fair price for them, and any disaster had occurred as at the Crimea, the Government would then have been accused of bungling and mismanagement.

said, he would not press the Amendment of which, he had spoken.

in reply, disclaimed the imputations of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), and said he was not aware that there had been any asperity in the debate or any attack on Consul Cameron. He thanked the Government for their acquiescence in the Motion.

rose to move an Address for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into the endowment and administration of Endowed Schools and Hospitals in Scotland. The question was one which had been much neglected in recent inquiries into the state of education, but it was too vitally connected with that great question, upon which Parliament would shortly be called to legislate, to be altogether passed over. The problem of dealing with educational endowments in England was one which had been the subject of inquiry after inquiry. It was one of a most large and difficult character; for while, on the one hand, they were bound to respect the wishes—almost the caprices—of the founders, they had also to regard the interests of the public, and to take measures for the effective administration of these institutions. In England the question was ripe for legislation. In Scotland it was far otherwise. The public knew little or nothing of the property or administration of these institutions—there was a comfortable sort of feeling that they did a great deal of good. Even as to their funds very little was known, except that their value was probably much undervalued. In the neighbourhood of Edinburgh in particular, there were large endowments, partly for the purposes of education and partly for purposes analogous to the charitable institutions of this country. At the head of these was one which gave tone to the rest. He meant Heriot's Hospital. The revenues of these institutions were very large, and it was most desirable to ascertain that they were justly administered and applied in the most beneficial manner. "What he desired was to know something definite as to the existing resources of Scotland in this respect. The case of Scotland was peculiar: educational means were swept away at the Reformation. The difficulty had existed ever since, but more in the towns than in the country districts. The Education Commissioners had pointed out in their Report upon burgh and the middle class schools that the working classes found more difficulty in obtaining good education for their children at a reasonable rate in towns than they did in the rural districts. The difficulty arose not because the working classes in towns were less anxious for education than elsewhere, but because the means of obtaining it were less available in towns than in the rural districts. The information which Parliament now possessed in regard to these institutions was derived chiefly from scattered notices in the Reports of the Scotch Commissioners on Education. The existing educational endowments necessarily came under the inquiries of the Commissioners, but unfortunately not as a primary and special duty. They were—

" In particular, to report your opinion as to whether the funds voted by Parliament are applied to Scotland in the way most beneficial for the interests of the people, and to make any suggestion in regard to the application thereof, or in regard to the state of the said schools and the management and emolument thereof, which may appear to you calculated to improve the education of the people in Scotland."

Although thus only incidentally mentioned, the question was not to be ignored, and there were important passages in the assistant Commissioners' Reports which bore on the subject, but it was almost entirely ignored in the General Report of the Commissioners. It was, in fact, only forced upon them in connection with, the financial question. In the Report of the Assistant Commissioners there is the following passage:—

" There is yet another source from which aid might be obtained, to which we have referred both in our general and special Reports—namely, hospital funds and endowments. Could any portion of these be made available for the encouragement of the higher or secondary education, the question of funds would be very much simplified, and the demands either on local rates or the public purse would be greatly reduced. But the whole subject which this opens up is one on which our information is as yet so incomplete and inexact, that it is impossible to form even an estimate of the aid that might be expected from such endowments. There is no doubt, however, that the hospital revenues and mortifications throughout Scotland are of enormous value. Some of them, as at present administered, are of little use, and the number of persons that they benefit, when compared with their pecuniary value, is ridiculously small;"

And they cite the case of Stirling, where there were hospital funds to the amount of £5,400 a year. The third Report of the Commissioners makes this recommendation, that—

"Without prejudice to the present powers of the trustees of hospitals, it shall be the duty of the General Hoard to examine the statutes and rules of their foundations and, subject when necessary to the approval of Parliament, to make alterations therein, with a. view to the extension of education."

Inquiry was thus shadowed forth by a high authority, and whether it was to be conducted by an independent Commission or not was of little consequence. There were many allusions in the assistant Commissioners' Reports in proof of the importance of the inquiry; but they all showed that the Commissioners themselves laboured under the impression that the question did not come under the special reference. Mr. Lawrie, one of the Assistant Commissioners, summed up his Report with some striking1 general remarks. He said—

"They are not based on perfunctory observation, or the result of hasty inference. Since I received your instructions, the question of the hospital system has never been out of my thoughts. I have been led to conclusions even much larger and more antagonistic to the present constitution of things than I have felt myself hero at liberty to record. These conclusions, too, have been reached in spite of the fact that the funds are so well administered and the hospitals as a whole are so faithfully and anxiously conducted as to defy animadversion from the most hostile. I have confined myself, however, to such recommendations as tend in the right direction, and do not involve changes which might stir opposition by exciting alarm."

And when Mr. Lawrie was consulted on a kindred point—namely, the existing means of maintenance) for schools in burghs—he said—

"It will one day probably be a question to what extent the large funds mortified for hospital purposes may be turned to the general use, without detriment to the interests of the persons whom the founders specially intended to benefit."

In the case of many of these institutions, especially with regard to bursaries, there was a difficulty owing to their being in the hands of private patrons; and it was no disparagement to say that they were slow to move, and required the influence of public opinion to encourage change. The boys were not stimulated as the day scholars were in burgh schools, by extended competition and the study of subjects which were of their own selection, but were isolated by a kind of monastic life. With very little effort a scholar of the hospital was sure of a bursary. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take the question into their serious consideration, and that some action would be taken in the matter.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. He most heartily concurred in the proposal, and believed that if a Royal Commission were appointed great good would result. The hon. Baronet had made allusion to the great institutions in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh—particularly in reference to Heriot's Hospital. Some of the points in connection with that institution were not fully understood. Connected with Heriot's Hospital there were out-door schools, which were supported from the surplus funds of that hospital, under an Act of Parliament obtained thirty-one years ago. There were altogether nine schools, attended by about 3,300 children, and their education was entirely free. It might be supposed that this led to a system of waste, but the fact was that the children got an excellent education at the rate of £1 7s. 6d. a year; and the governors of the local institution had refused to accept Government aid for the erection of the schools, or for the payment of any part of the expenses. Then there was 186 boys within the walls of the hospital receiving not only their education, but their food and their clothing, and when they left the institution, apprentice fees for live years in order to maintain them until they were able to support themselves. Besides these advantages, all the boys who were fit for a University education received £30 a year as bursars. Heriot's Hospital was founded on the model of the Blue Coat Hospital in London; and he would venture to say that if they would inquire into the expenses of the two institutions, they would find that one master in the Blue Coat School would, get move money than all the masters in Heriot's Hospital, and that, the average espouse of educating the boys would be more than double, He stated these things not to find fault with the Motion, but to prevent the impression that there was a latent fund existing which might be made to a large extent available for other purposes. No doubt if the Bill of the Lord Advocate; were passed some good would be effected. The Acts of 1853 and 1856, which enabled the Charity Commissioners to reform those institutions that applied for changes, did not extend to Scotland, and up to this time there never had been an inquiry into these institutions. Another point he desired to mention with reference to Heriot's Hospital free schools is as to whether an entirely free education was a good thing or not. It had been said that the poorer classes of Scotland did not value anything unless they paid for it—that they despised education which was entirely free, and that the children consequently did not attend so well those free schools as schools for which they would have to pay. He had taken sonic trouble to test that allegation. It had been made for twenty years, and no statement was ever made more totally destitute of foundation. The facts were directly the opposite. The attendance at the Heriot schools, day by day, where no fees are charged, is about 85 percent of those on the roll. Over the schools in Edinburgh, where weekly fees of 2d and 3d. are charged, the average percentage of attendance is less. The explanation was this—If a boy was absent, the teachers made inquiry, and if he was absent three times without any good reason, he was dismissed from the school; and the privilege of getting an excellent education free of expense was so highly valued, that they dare not stay away.

said, he was far from denying the general importance of the subject which was dealt with by the Motion of his hon. Friend. There could be no doubt that the endowed institutions of Scotland were very large and very extensive, and that the rules under which many of them are administered were not in accordance with the present state of society, he entirely agreed that these foundations were not beneficial to the public to the extent intended by the founders— and, indeed, he believed that in some cases their effects were decidedly mischievous. The hon. Baronet had thrown some blame upon the Commissioners for Education in Scotland, and seemed to think that they had not properly inquired into this part of the subject committed to them. He (the Lord Advocate) did not think they were at all liable to that censure. Their main duty was to inquire into elementary education in Scotland. That was the matter for which they were appointed, and was a matter into which they did most carefully inquire; but they thought it was their duty not to relinquish the inquiry altogether until they had made some investigation into the middle-class education of Scotland. That was not the main subject upon which they were appointed, but they thought that their Report would be imperfect unless to some extent they dealt on that matter. Accordingly assistant Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the state of the burgh schools, and into the general state of middle-class education, and they had furnished a very elaborate and useful Report. But it appeared to the Commissioners—and it truck him (the Lord Advocate) very strongly indeed—that until you had settled the question of elementary education—until you had decided on what foundation the education of the country was to be built—it was premature to proceed to deal with the question of middle-class education. It was for that reason, and not because the Commis- sioners were not conscious of the importance of the question, that the Royal Commissioners did not go at length into the question of middle-class education, or into the question of these educational endowments. On the other hand, he was strongly impressed with the importance of having all information upon the matter, and for that purpose the Government had proposed to introduce into the Bill now pending in the other House a clause enabling the Education Board, appointed under that Bill, to make inquiries into and to deal with these endowments. But the trustees of some of the most important of these institutions made a representation that a measure might be introduced by which they might be enabled to reform themselves. This seemed a very reasonable and creditable proposal; and, accordingly, the Government have introduced a Bill, which is now before the House, and has been read a second time, and would probably come on for discussion in Committee on Thursday. His hon. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) now interposes the proposal for a Royal Commission. He (the Lord Advocate) thought this was premature. What he proposed was that the debate should be adjourned to Thursday, when the Endowed Schools Bill would come on, when they could discuss the provisions of the Bill he had himself introduced as well as the general question. It might be that the Education Board would be found capable of conducting the inquiry satisfactorily.

said, he would assent to this proposal.

, in moving the Motion of which he had given notice, said, that at the close of the last war with France arrangements were made that English, subjects, resident in France, whose property had been confiscated during the war, should have compensation given to them out of funds vested for that purpose in the hands of certain Commissioners. The position of the British Government in the matter had been defined as that of a trustee, and the object of his Motion was to exhibit the manner in which the fund had been distributed, with reference especially to some matters deserving the attention of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he and those who bore the same name with himself had been acquainted with these claims for many years, and that honesty as well as policy required that they should be examined by a fair and impartial tribunal. This was the fifth time the question had been brought before the House; and he complained of the manner in which it had been dealt with by successive Governments, who had met it, not by one, but by six different answers. The Government justly took credit for doing an act of justice to Ireland, and he trusted that they would not refuse it in the present case, because it was an individual who was concerned.

could assure the House that if this were really a Motion for Papers in order to give information to the House he should be only too happy to comply with it; but the Motion was the first stop towards establishing certain claims upon the public Exchequer, and it was his duty to oppose that first step. It was, in fact, an attempt to revive a question which had been settled by the proceedings of that House many years ago. It was, further, a claim upon a fund that had now no existence. At the Peace of Paris certain funds wore placed at the disposal of a Mixed Commission which sat in France. After a few years that Commission was put an end to, and the funds were placed at the disposal of the British Government by a Commission to be appointed by the Crown for the satisfaction of certain claims then unliquidated. An Act of Parliament was, at the same time, passed under which the funds were appropriated in discharge of the claims, until, in 1848, a Minute of the Treasury was laid upon the table which described the point at which the proceedings had then arrived. To that Minute he might refer as a standpoint in this transaction. From that document it appeared that the balance, after providing for actual appropriations, was about £21,000. and that there remained a sum of £16,000 to be disposed of by the Commission in making a, pro ratá payment of the claims which were admitted. In accordance with that Minute, Dr. Phillimore, the Commissioner, proceeded to make an apportionment, the particulars of which were given in his final Report, dated May, 1852. Every sixpence of the indemnity fund, he might remind the House, had long ago been appropriated to specific claimants, and every claimant had been paid, except a few. whose demands amounted to £277 14s. 8d., which sum still remained in the Treasury. With this exception the fund had been disposed of, and, consequently, it did not matter who had a claim against it. The House would see, therefore, how useless it would be for the Government to consent to the production of Papers for the purpose of establishing claims against the fund. But misapprehension on this subject pervaded the minds of some gentlemen who would not read the Papers which had been laid upon the table, and who persisted in imagining that there were enormous sums locked up in the Treasury out of which their claims might be paid. It was assumed that the sum in the hands of the Treasury had never been appropriated to the satisfaction of the claims, and that it had been accumulating with interest down to the present time. One gentleman, indeed, rose up in the French Chambers and inquired of the French Government, whether it was true that Her Majesty's Government had 64,000,000 of francs which were appropriated for the payment of claims, but which had not been applied to that purpose; and. if so, whether Her Majesty's Government ought not to be called upon to give the money back to the Emperor of the French. Again, while the fund was in the Exchequer it was used for public purposes, being re-funded as soon as it was required, and ultimately distributed among the claimants. Nevertheless the claimants spread abroad the idea that their money had been spent in building Buckingham Palace. He need hardly add that that was a mere fiction. Whatever decision might have been arrived at whether rightly or wrongly, as to any particular claim, was now of no practical importance, because the cases could not be re-opened. He hoped the House would not agree to the Motion, and that nothing more would be heard of these claims.

said., the hon. Gentleman's reply had not satisfactorily disposed of the question. If, as had been stated, there was an impression in Franco, as well as in this country, that there was a sum not yet disposed of, he did not think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman would be calculated to re-move that impression. If the Return were presented, and if the House decided that there was a substantial case for investigation, the allegation that there were no funds might perhaps then be the best answer that could be given to the Motion.

agreed in thinking the hour too late for the discussion of this important question, and moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. A Bill of this kind had passed the Commons four times, after deliberate discussion: whereas the principle of the Amendment had never been discussed at all. The Bill was brought forward to meet a great practical grievance. It might not be thoroughly logical and consistent; but neither were many other Acts of the Legislature. He hoped the Bill would be passed.

urged the advisability of not pressing forward the Bill at that late hour.

appealed to his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill to yield to the power of the minority. They had done enough to assert their opinion.

suggested that they should get a Morning Sitting to discuss the Bill.

ultimately agreed to the Motion.