asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he intends this autumn to place as many of the seamen of the Naval Reserve as he can collect on board coast defence or other ironclad ships, for the purpose of being exercised in sea-going manœuvres in place of the present harbour and skeleton drill; and, further, to inquire how many torpedo boats, if any, he intends placing at the principal seaports of the United Kingdom for the purpose of instructing the men of the Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, and Coast Volunteers in the art of working them?

in reply, said, he had no power of placing Naval Reserve men on board sea-going ships, unless they volunteered for such service. It was not his intention to invite them this autumn so to volunteer, because the iron-clad ships in the Reserve had already been out for their annual cruise, and had completed it. With regard to the second Question, the defence of the commercial harbours was in the hands, not of the naval, but of the military authorities, and all the Admiralty had to do was to apply for the Votes necessary to enable them then to lay down torpedoes.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What conclusion he had arrived at respecting the Petition presented to the Admiralty by a large number of Commanders who have retired since the year 1870, praying that a step in rank may be granted to them, the privilege having already been conceded to Captains by Order in Council, 1870?

I have obtained an Order in Council to enable me to give effect to the prayer of the memorialists, and their names will appear in to-night's Gazette.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a statement from Mr. and Mrs. Fry of Andover to the effect that their infant child died from the direct effects of vaccination on April 25th, after five weeks of dreadful suffering, the child having been previously healthy and free from any constitutional taint; whether he has received a report on this case from the Local Government Board Inspector; and, if so, whether it is the fact that in conducting his investigation, the Inspector did not visit the parents of the deceased child, nor examine the child from which the lymph was taken, and which is alleged to have ''had a running sore in its arm, of a most offensive nature, for nine weeks;" and, whether in fact his report was founded merely on the cause of death as entered in the register?

in reply, said, he had heard from Mr. and Mrs. Pry, but not until after Notice of the hon. Gentleman's Question had been given, and they in reply to an inquiry stated that they believed their child died from the direct effects of vaccination. They did not, however, give any particulars. This was one of four cases which had been brought under his notice by a letter from Mr. Pearce, of Andover, dated 6th of May last; and by his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) directions a medical Inspector was sent down to make inquiry into the four cases reported to him. This was on the 25th of May. The general result of that inquiry had already been stated by him, in reply to a Question put to him by another hon. Gentleman—namely, that the cause of death was not in any of those cases attributable to vaccination. In reply to the second Question put to him by the hon. Gentleman, the Inspector, he might state, informed him that he did not, when making his inquiries, call upon Mr. and Mrs. Pry, because, as he had been informed, their child had then been one month dead, and because he had previously an opportunity of seeing the same child on the 7th of April, when he was making his usual tour of inspection. At that time the child appeared to him to be in excellent health, and the vaccination had been performed about 18 days. In reply to the third Question of the hon. Member, the Inspector informed him that he had not seen the cause of death on the register, but he understood from the medical attendant of the child that it died of bronchitis.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to recent proceedings for the suppression of the use of the Polish language in the Civil and Criminal Courts of the Grand Duchy of Posen, contrary to the 2nd and 118th Articles of the Treaty of Vienna? To explain the Question, he said that Article 1 of the Treaty provided that "Polish subjects of Russia, Austria, and Prussia shall have such national institutions as are judged in accordance with the polity of each of three Powers." Article 2 recognized Posen as united to Prussia. Article 118 incorporated and confirmed a separate Treaty of the 3rd of May. By that Treaty Russia and Prussia assured such institutions to the Polish subjects of each as shall preserve their nationality; and the Proclamation of Frederick William III., dated Vienna, 15th May, 1815, declared to the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy, parted from that of Warsaw, and incorporated with the Kingdom of Prussia, that their language should be used concurrently with German in all public acts.

I do not know exactly to what my hon. Friend alludes, but conjecture that he refers to a debate which occurred in the Prussian Parliament in June last on the subject of the Official Language Bill. This debate called forth strong speeches from the Polish Deputies, and a résuméof the debate was sent to Her Majesty's Government in the usual way; but I fail to see in what way the 2nd and 118th Articles of the Treaty of Vienna affect the question, because the 2nd Article merely defines the limits of the Grand Duchy of Posen, and the 118th Article merely enumerates and confirms the various other Treaties which were made in 1815, and are declared part of the arrangements of the Congress. Neither of these Articles makes any allusion to the Polish language. It is true that by a Proclamation issued by the King of Prussia on the 15th of May, 1815, the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Posen were assured that their language would, be used conjointly with the German in all public Acts; but the Proclamation was no part or parcel of the Treaty.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is intended to refer the unadjusted prize claims of Sir George Whitlock's force as regards the Kirwee Booty to the High Court of Admiralty; and, whether more prompt steps cannot be taken to settle these claims?

in reply, said, it was not intended to refer any question relating to the Kirwee booty to the High Court of Admiralty, or to reverse any decision that had already been arrived at; but the Secretary of State for India had communicated to the Indian Government his opinion that the account should be wound up, and any assets that remained distributed.

rose to move, as an Amendment, that—

"The action of the War Office with reference to Plumstead Common, in the county of Kent, and Wormholt Common, in the manor of Fulham, is such as to imperil the use of those open spaces for recreation by the people of the metropolis."

The hon. Baronet began by quoting as a precedent for the discussion even of general grievances on the Appropriation Bill, that of 7th August, 1875, when the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had asked for the release of the Fenian prisoners. The grievance that he (Sir Charles Dilke) had to put before the House was of an urgent nature, and he had exhausted all other means of obtaining discussion upon it since it had been placed in his hands by his constituents—the jury of the Court Leet of the manor of Fulham. Moreover, this was a case properly to be discussed upon the Appropriation Bill, inasmuch as it concerned money Votes in the Estimates, for the War Office called on the nation to pay annual rent to the commoners of Fulham and to the Lord of Plumstead. The hon. Baronet then went on:—I confess I think that I have so strong a case that the Home Secretary, after all his declarations of this Session, ought to help me against the War Office. I say 'War Office,' and not 'Secretary of State for War,' because some of the steps taken in this matter were taken by the late Government, and have only been continued and extended by the Government now in office. It may be remembered that in 1874 I asked the Secretary of State for War, whether steps were being taken by the War Office of a nature calculated to limit the use of Wormholt Common, or Wormwood Scrubbs, by the commoners or by the public. He replied that the common in question had long been used by the troops for drill.

"In order to secure the property it had been purchased, subject to the rights of the commoners. Negotiations were now going on with the commoners for the purpose of buying out their rights and giving them adequate compensation. There was no necessity at present to put in force the provisions of the Defence Act; but, if the commoners vexatiously interfered with the use of the place for drilling troops, it might be necessary to put those provisions in operation. As to the common being lost to the public, the object of the purchase was to keep it open."—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 230.]

With regard to this last remark, why, if the War Office want to keep the common open, should they buy up and extinguish all rights in it except their own? Why not have these rights existing? Why convert the common into freehold property? With regard, too, to an earlier portion of the answer, what is this 'vexatious interference' which is expected from the commoners? Their position has been all along a very intelligible one. They have begged only to be let alone. I may add that I was astounded at the admission of the Secretary of State that the putting in force of the Defence Act against the commoners of the manor of Fulham had been contemplated for one instant. The Defence Act is purely an Act for the defence of the Realm against the King's enemies. The Preamble recites the finding of the Fortifications Commissioners in favour of the building of fresh forts. It cannot be for a moment contended by any man who reads it that Parliament meant the War Office to compulsorily acquire under the Defence Act lands for the drilling of troops. Yet the War Office has threatened, and still threatens, to take this monstrous step. The War Office purchased for the sum of £28,000, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, their rights, as lords of the manor, over 140 acres of the common. Now, the lord of the manor of Fulham never had the right to break ground, and being prohibited from digging gravel, I venture to assert that the lord's rights were not worth purchasing, not worth one single penny. The sum of £28,000, paid for these rights by the War Office, has been thrown away! Not only thrown away! Worse than thrown away! The effect of a payment of this kind is to greatly raise the price of lords' rights in the case of all commons in the neighbourhood of London, and to force the Metropolitan Board, as representing the ratepayers of London, to pay unfair prices for the lords' rights in the case of all commons that they may wish, in the interest of the metropolis, to acquire. Wormholt Common is leased by the commoners to the War Office as a drill ground. It has long been much so used, without its use by the commoners' cattle and by the public being prevented. I really do not know why the Crown wants to acquire the freehold. The War Office, two years ago, offered a low price to the commoners for their rights. Now, the commoners do not want to sell at all, but if they are made to sell they want to get a proper price. This they ask, as I shall presently explain, not in their own interest, but in that of the poor. The present revenue from the common is between £400 and £500 a-year. Part of this is received from the War Office, under the lease to which I have just made allusion, £100 a-year comes from various Volunteer corps, £150 a-year is derived from the grazing rights, but this sum is not a real rent, and does not in the least represent the value of the rights, but something more like one-tenth only of the value. The grazing is a privilege of the commoners, and the sums received are only intended to check abuse and regulate the use of the privilege. If the grazing were to be let by the commoners to outsiders, not having rights of common, a vastly greater rent would be received. The commoners think that they have not only been harshly dealt with as to terms, but also as to the language in which the offers of the War Office have been made. After my Motion was placed upon the Paper the commoners were offered the sum of £10,000, and told that 'they need not expect one penny more,' as though their object was to extort money from the Crown. The commoners, I am entitled from my interviews with them to state, do not want the money. Their anxious wish is to be let alone in the exercise of their undoubted rights, and to spend their income in the future as they spend it now, not upon themselves, but upon the poor. But I look at this question not from the point of view of the commoners so much as from that of the metropolitan public. Pay the commoners what you will; I contend that you have acted most unwisely in paying £28,000 for the worthless rights of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and I would ask who advised the payment of that sum? Moreover, I ask, also, why do you wish to acquire the freehold at all, and what security have we that the common will not be built on. Your word? Yes; but how about your successors in 10 or 20 years? Nothing but the promise of a special Act of Parliament will suffice. Again, I hear that the commoners, frightened by your threats of putting the Defence Act in force, are withdrawing their opposition to a sale, taking less than their rights are worth. Who suffers? Not the commoners, but the Waste Lands Almshouse! Not the commoners, but the poor! I cannot see how the Alms-house, at present supported out of the revenues of the common, is to be kept alive. I have a list of the tenants of that Almshouse, from which I find that they are persons of exceedingly advanced age; indeed, there are 11 of them over 80, who, as far as I can see, will be turned into the streets if the commoners' rights are extinguished in this way. I come now to the equally shameful action of the War Office in the case of the east end common of Plumstead. This common and Bostall Heath contain together about 160 acres. Up to 1859, though troops were drilled there, the common was largely used for the purpose of recreation by the inhabitants of Woolwich, and used also by the commoners of the manor in the exercise of their rights of common. In 1859, Queen's College, Oxford, to which the manor belongs, began a high-handed course of action, with the view to crush the freeholders and build upon the common. In 1866 a suit was instituted in Chancery, at great cost, praying that the College might be restrained from inclosing. This suit was heard in 1870, when judgment was given against the College. That judgment was appealed against, and was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor in 1871. On this latter occasion the Lord Chancellor concluded his decision with the following memorable words:—

"The inquiry has been occasioned by a highhanded assertion on the part of the College, who seem simply to have said to those who have been exercising their rights for 200 years, 'You will be in a difficulty to prove that you have exercised them, so we will put you to that proof by taking possession of your property.' Now, that is what it really is when you come to an in closure done against those who have so long exercised the right to which I am thankful to be able to afford a legal origin."

After this happy decision we really thought that our money had not been spent in vain. Nothing took place until the end of 1873, when it was proposed to prepare a scheme for the management of the common in the interest of the inhabitants of the metropolis. It was then suddenly discovered that there was a lease, just made, from Queen's College to the War Office. We were forced to abandon our scheme. But what is the value of this lease? Who advised it? Queen's College could lease only what it had. What rights has it to lease to the War Office that can be worth to the War Office between £300 and £400 a-year rent? On the other hand, what of the poor commoners? What compensation have they received for their rights established at great cost in the suit? What of the unfortunate public? The common was always used for military drill, but since 1873 it has been cut to pieces and the turf entirely destroyed by artillery. It is now a very fair copy of the African Sahara. Had Queen's College the right as against the commoners to cut the turf to pieces by the use of artillery? Why, an injunction would have stopped such a course at once if it had been tried. But last week, when an injunction against the War Office was applied for, the Judge said—"Even if the Crown could commit a trespass, a subject could not sue for it." Is that Star Chamber doctrine still good law? May the artillery come and knock my private garden to pieces, and I be without the ordinary remedies of law? The whole of the advantages gained by the freeholders of the manor at a very heavy cost by the Chancery suit have been lost by the action of the War Office. Now, two years ago I asked the Secretary of State for War under what title the artillery cut to pieces the common. He replied that—

"The artillery enjoyed the same right to practice on Plumstead Common which had been enjoyed since 1745."—[3 Hansard, ccxxi. 1145.]

Now, I venture to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. If he rests his right on prescription, why does he pay between £300 and £400 a-year to Queen's College for a lease? If he rests it on the lease of 1873, why did he talk to me about ' the same right which had been enjoyed since 1745?' He might as well have said 'since the flood.' If it is a Parliamentary expression—no more disingenuous answer was ever made. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman himself of the offence. It was a clerk who wrote the reply for him, of course. I remember—it was before I was in the House, but I have read of it—when a Secretary of State for War rose in his place to give an answer to a Question about an escort. He read from the clerk's paper in his hand—'The escort consisted of 20 rank and file;' 'that is,' he added, 'of 40 men.' No doubt it is better for Ministers to avoid the errors and to say what they are told to say by clerks; but, in this case, the reply which I received was not a proper one. I am told that, since my Motion has been placed upon the Paper, the War Office has proposed a compromise. I shall be glad to hear what the details of the compromise may be. In that which I have heard talked of, the cloven foot again appears. It is suggested that the War Office should give up half the common, but acquire, by means of the Defence Act, the whole of the rights over the rest. This is a fatal policy which we cannot possibly allow in the case of any common, without taking steps to test the right of the War Office to put the Defence Act in force for purposes of this kind. I can only warn the Secretary of State that in acquiring any property of the kind he should acquire it by a special Act of Parliament, rather than by straining the Defence Act to include cases which it never was meant to meet.

wished to say a very few words in support of the Amendment. He complimented the hon. Baronet on the very lucid statement he had laid before the House, and also on the ingenious method he had chosen to escape from an embarrassing situation. He had succeeded in showing that the late Government were greatly to blame in this matter, and to make their fault appear less he had attempted to throw a still greater responsibility on the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. However that might be, the fact remained that by. Lord Chancellor Hatherley's decision it was evident that there were commoners, and that those commoners had, and exercised, rights of the usual description. But how were they situated now? It was impossible for them to use their rights in consequence of the action of the War Department. The condition of the common had been correctly described by the hon. Baronet as that of a desert. But behind the commoners there was a still more important body—the public—which was represented in that locality chiefly by the operatives employed in the Royal Arsenal. He (Mr. Boord) would not contend for one moment that the public as such had any clearly defined legal right of user of the common; but the desirability of preserving open spaces for public recreation being universally admitted, it was convenient to regard the rights of the commoners as a means to that end. An arrangement had been proposed by an able member of the Woolwich Local Board (Mr. Lloyd), and he trusted that it would receive due consideration at the hands of the Secretary of State for War. He would not occupy the time of the House by following the hon. Baronet through the details of his argument, but would simply appeal to his right hon. Friend to consider this matter fairly, and see if some arrangement could not be made whereby those who toiled in the arsenal might have the opportunity for the recreation they so much needed.

said, the hon. Member for Chelsea had taken a somewhat unusual course upon this question, because he had asked the House to come to a conclusion on the subject without placing any documentary evidence before them, and his Motion, if passed, would practically be a Vote of Censure not only on the present, but also on the past Government. He believed, however, that the hon. Baronet did not intend to press his Motion to a division, and that his real object was merely to elicit information on the subject, which he should be very happy to give him. The hon. Baronet had said that he (Mr. Hardy) had given a disingenuous answer when he spoke of the common having been used by the Artillery since the year 1740. Well, in reply to that, he could only say that he did not think that the Crown was bound any more than a private individual to disclose the nature of its title, especially at a time when other persons were seeking to set its rights aside, and that in this respect it was entitled to an equal protection of the law with a private owner. He would only make a few remarks as to the course taken with respect to these commons. With regard to Plumstead Common the facts stood thus:—Since 1740 the Crown had, without leave or licence from any person, used the common for practising the evolutions of artillery. His predecessor in office (Lord Cardwell) thought, however, it would be better to become possessed of the rights of the lords of the manor, so as to relieve himself from any opposition on their part. He (Mr. Hardy) quite admitted that the commoners also had rights over the common, and he would go further, and concede that the population of Greenwich had acquired certain rights of recreation in regard to it which ought to be respected. Negotiations, however, were now going on which he trusted would result in a satisfactory solution for all parties of the difficulty that had arisen; but he did not think that it would be prudent or desirable to state the stage those negotiations had reached to the House at the present moment. With respect to the rights of the Crown, the Master of the Rolls had most emphatically said it was impossible to get an injunction against the Crown, because it was itself the Fountain of Justice. No doubt the surface of the common was cut up to a greater extent by the heavy artillery, which required 8 or 12 horses to each gun, than it had been by the light artillery of former years; but that was a matter that could not be helped. It was in 1873 that his predecessor had obtained- a lease, and certainly up to that time no complaint had been made by the commoners as to the use of the common. But since then not only private individuals, but the local board of Woolwich, had been anxious to come to some terms with the Government. He desired that facilities should be given for the recreation of the people; but holding the office he did he had also to look to the military requirements of the country, and he was not prepared to give up the rights which the Government had exercised unless it could be shown that he was entirely in the wrong. He declined to go into the question of the negotiations that were going on. He did not at all despair of making arrangements which would be satisfactory at once to the locality and to the Government. The Defence Act had not been put into operation with regard either to Plum-stead Common or Wormwood Scrubbs; and if any question arose as to the force of that statute it would have to be determined, not by that House, but by the ordinary Courts of Law. With regard to Wormwood Scrubbs, Lord Cardwell had purchased the rights of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as lords of the common, for the Crown, which he had paid for out of the £3,500,000 voted by Parliament under the Localization Act. If an invasion of this country ever occurred Wormwood Scrubbs might become of great importance for the erection of fortifications, and his predecessor had purchased the freehold of 54½ acres of land adjoining the Scrubbs at a cost of £24,600, in order to secure a large space for the exercise of the Cavalry, and which might ultimately be thrown open for public recreation. There was no intention to interfere with the rights of the commoners or of the public over the Scrubbs, and indeed the former received a rent from the Government for the use that was made of it, which circumstance was a sufficient proof that no confiscation of their rights was intended. He wished to point out, however, that some scheme with regard to these open spaces should be adopted which would render the public use of them more advantageous and less obnoxious to the neighbourhood than was at present the case. He trusted the House would leave the whole matter in the hands of the Executive. It would be impossible for it to come to any satisfactory conclusion on the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.

said, he did not think it necessary to discuss this matter in a hostile spirit. The ground of complaint with respect to Plumstead Common was not so much the use of the common by the troops as its abuse. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the War Office had a right arising from long use to that common for military purposes. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: The Crown.] Well, the Crown. He should be glad to know if that right rested upon any bettor ground than the right of the public to use the common. He was afraid that it had no other basis. All that the hon. Member for Chelsea had asked of the Government was that further proceedings should not be taken in the matter until it was submitted to the decision of Parliament. The excessive use of the common had really rendered it totally unsuitable for the purpose of public recreation; and he had a memorial from people living in the neighbourhood to that effect. The public considered that the War Office was not the best authority to define the right of use of the commons as between that Department and the public. The obser- vations of the hon. Member for Chelsea had pointed to a scheme for the regulation of these commons under the Metropolitan Commons Act, and the suggestion was deserving of the attention of the Government.

said, he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea would be satisfied if the Government would give an assurance that the rights of the commoners would not be purchased until Parliament had considered the matter. If the Government would give that promise, and subsequently introduce a scheme of regulation, he believed that the object in view would be sufficiently met.

said, he had not the least objection to say this much—that he would conclude no arrangements before the beginning of next Session, so that there might be information before the House on the subject.

said, that before they went to that stage he thought the House would like to have some little information as to the state of the undertaking. He thought the thing might be said to have settled down, so far as the outside public were concerned, and to have assumed its normal condition. Most of the things had happened which they had expected. The money and the interest on the money at the exorbitant rate agreed on had been paid—all that was done with. Then they had obtained three votes on the Council of the Board of Directors. The Council had been increased to 24 from 21, and three of these places had been given to gentlemen who represented the Government. They had not obtained, so far as he was aware, the recognition of any votes at all in the General Assembly of the Company. He should be glad to know if that was correct? He should also like very much to know whether their Directors would be admitted to the General Assembly of the Company as well as to the Council? All these things it was very desirable should be known. The Khedive had pledged himself for the interest on the large sum advanced; but in this matter they had to rely on a Power which had declared itself unable to fulfil its pecuniary engagements, and he should, therefore, like to know whether there was any special agreement that we should be paid, at all events, or whether we should have to take our chance with the rest of his creditors; and whether in that case we should exercise any influence with the Khedive that we should be paid in full, when so many were not paid in full, or not paid at all? It would be very interesting to know all these things. He should further like to know, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated doing, what was often done in bankruptcy—namely, capitalizing the whole matter, and taking a dividend upon that? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take any particular amount of credit to himself or the Government for the fact that he had obtained three directorships in the Company; because, as was shown on the former debate when the Papers were laid on the Table, M. de Lesseps had been always ready—as early as 1871—to admit three Directors into the Council. M. de Lesseps was extremely frank upon the subject, because he said that would be the very way to preserve the Company under French influence. It would give the appearance but not the reality of power. Therefore, he did not expect much to be made of it. Then there was another point—the settlement of the question of the surtax—and he did not think that we could claim any great diplomatic victory in that matter either, because it had been shown by M. Lesseps that we did not gain by it anything more than he chose to give us. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in giving an account of the state of this undertaking, would steer clear of vague generalities, and that we should be paid no more with wind for our money. On former occasions when they asked what they had gained by this purchase, they had been told that it had strengthened the position of the Empire; and, if that statement were to be repeated, he should desire that the logical connection between the purchase and that result should be stated. They had been told that they had interests in the Mediterranean which they must and would preserve at all hazards; but how would the purchase of these shares enable us to preserve them? They were told that the great highway of India must be kept open. That was perfectly right; but how would the flinging of £4,000,000 into the lap of the Khedive, on which we should probably receive no interest for 19 years, help us to keep that highway open? Now that the first blush of the thing was over, and the glory had got rather stale, the Government might reasonably be asked to state how the matter really stood, and what real advantage we had gained by the purchase of these shares which we should not have had if we had not purchased these shares at all. He thought the House ought not to separate before hearing from the Government what good we were to get out of the enormous expenditure which we had made in this matter.

was anxious to know precisely the meaning and object of the purchase of these shares. At the time when the purchase was made the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Manchester, said there were considerations in the present case which took the transaction out of the region of our financial policy, and that it was not to be drawn into a precedent. He should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what those considerations were? So far as he was himself able to judge, the purchase of a portion of the Canal would leave this country in a much worse position than if we had not possessed any shares at all; because, in the event of any complications with foreign Governments, those Governments would naturally seek to have the right to navigate the Canal by vessels of war equally with ourselves, and we should not be able to prevent them, except by keeping a fleet of ships on the spot for the purpose, which might prove very inconvenient. He believed that Her Majesty's Government entered into this transaction without really knowing what the object was. What we ought to have done, if anything at all, was to have purchased the whole Canal, so as to obtain entire control over it, and in that event the Government would have received the support of the country. As it was, we were only in the position of ordinary shareholders. It was to be hoped we should some day acquire the whole property.

said, we had reserved the right to interfere whenever the interests of the Canal were at stake, inasmuch as we were proprietors of half the Canal, and that should be the first step towards redeeming the whole by a process similar to that by which the Sound Dues were redeemed. It was necessary to do something to enable us to lower the charges, which were very high, and often amounted to one-third of a ship's freight. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider the Treasury Minute, which was published on the 17th of July, with regard to the three directors by whom this country was to be represented on the Canal Company's Board, because that Minute was likely to raise very serious legal questions in France. Even although its terms were accepted by the Council of the Company, he did not think that it would hold good against third parties. The statutes of the Company laid down that each director must be the actual proprietor of 100 shares. Consequently, the Government said in that Minute that it had become necessary to provide each of those gentlemen with that number of shares; but he believed that the way in which that had been done would not give them the requisite qualification. If those shares had the coupons detached, they were clearly not qualfying shares; and although our directors were registered holders of shares, they were bound to give the profits to the Government, which gave them a fixed stipend, to include both their profits and their pay as directors. Therefore, they had no interest in promoting the future success of the Company. The Minute also directed an instrument to be executed by their nominees to the Council, binding them to return their shares to the Treasury in the event of their bankruptcy. But if these gentlemen were proprietors of shares, and yet returned a portion of their assets in case of bankruptcy, that bankruptcy would assume a very remarkable character. But in such a contingency which, of course, he did not anticipate, the French law would sequestrate these shares. It seemed to him that the arrangement was one which would lower the dignity of our representatives on the Board of Directors, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the Minute in question.

said, that most of the disadvantages attending the purchase has resulted from Parliamentary and public discussion. However much we might injure our own position, we could not lose the advantage we had acquired by the purchase. It was not to be expected that Ministers should say in so many words what a private Member like himself might say; but there was no reason why he should not say that, in certain contingencies, the property must be taken possession of by the fleets of this country, and no one could doubt that part ownership would strengthen our position in holding it. That purchase had given us the statusand a moral justification to interfere which we did not before possess. Great questions frequently arose upon which it was necessary to take public action, but in regard to which the Government could not discuss all the causes and all the "ins and outs" of the subject. That was the case at present; but what the Government had done would enable us with more justice, reason, and authority to assume a practical control over the Suez Canal when the emergency arose.

said, he could not regard the possession of the Suez Canal shares as necessary or advantageous. The holding of the shares would not alone keep open our route to our Indian Empire. The share certificates would not prevent a hostile fleet from closing the passage of the Canal in the event of an European complication; in one way only could that route be kept open, and that was by having a more powerful fleet than any that could be brought against us. Our fleet being swept away, what power was there in these £4,000,000 of worthless paper? Surely his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) did not suppose that the destinies of European nations could be determined by means of scraps of paper? No justification for the action which Government had taken could be based upon ground such as that. Then what security did the shares offer for the route to India, seeing that with or without the possession of the shares still the only safeguard was a powerful fleet? Looking at the transaction from a business point of view he would like to ask the Government whether they had conducted the purchase in a businesslike manner. In the first place, why was the transaction entered into at all? That was a question the importance of which demanded a fuller discussion than it had received, and the opportunity for that discussion should have been provided at an earlier part of the Session. The Bill before the House was first mentioned some months ago, and it was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time back, and now when the House was weary, when there was but a thin attendance of Members, and those anxious to get away, they were called upon to discuss this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) had challenged the Government to lay before the House the reasons which induced such a large expenditure of public money; he (Mr. Rylands) would not venture to attempt to add force to that appeal, for he felt sure that it would receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would content himself with taking lower ground, and looking at it merely as a business transaction he asked why did the Government purchase an article for £4,000,000 with a guarantee of 5 per cent when that same article could have been bought in Paris for £3,800,000, with a guarantee of 10 or 12 per cent? Unless in the reports which had reached him the truth was grossly misrepresented, £1,500,000 had been considered the full market value of the shares. Such was the statement which appeared in The Timesnewspaper, and he had seen no contradiction. But it was asked what guarantee was there that the Khedive would pay the 10 or 12 per cent when it was known that he was actually borrowing money for which he was paying 20 and 25 per cent, and people were not disposed to lend the Khedive money at any price. But that consideration applied equally to the guarantee of 5 per cent, and there was no reason why Government should buy the shares upon higher terms than they were offered at. Her Majesty's Government, however, met the Khedive with most unusual generosity; they thought they ought to deal with him handsomely, that it was a great international undertaking, and that the Khedive could not be treated in an ordinary business manner. There was an elevation of sentiment about this; but, still, he (Mr. Rylands) failed to see in it a justification for giving for the shares a price beyond what any other capitalist would have offered. The Government were led to suppose that other parties were negotiating for the purchase of the shares; but he was inclined to believe that the English Government were imposed upon in these operations. Then after paying £4,000,000 we were absolutely unable to qualify our directors upon the company, and to get out of this absurd position when three directors were appointed we were obliged to purchase shares for £8,000 more. And so it came to this—that our commercial interest upon the Board was represented by £8,000 worth of shares, and upon the power of that sum our representatives depended! Whether we were right in the question of the qualification or whether we were wrong he was not prepared to say. One question he would like to put, and that was, whether steps had been taken to secure compensation to Sir Daniel Lange, who lost the position he held with the Company owing to the action of the Government in publishing a private letter sent by him. That gentleman was closely connected with the progress of that great work, and he endeavoured to serve his country. Some satisfaction was due to him from the Government of this country, whose inconsiderate conduct had led to his dismissal. Turning to another matter he expressed his strong disapprobation of the way in which the salary of Mr. Rivers Wilson had been increased in consequence of his having been made a director. If the duties of his office were not sufficient to occupy his attention then let other work be provided for him; but he objected to his holding two positions with two salaries. The action taken by Her Majesty's Government in effecting the purchase of the Suez Canal shares had led to serious pecuniary losses being suffered by many persons owing to the state into which the market for Egyptian securities was thrown by the transaction, and much distress and privation had followed. A week before the Suez Canal purchase, Egyptian Stock stood at 54, and it gradually went up to 60, then a large purchase was made at 61—the price next day was 64, and the day after the announcement appeared in The Times of the Suez purchase, and the Stock went up to 74. Some parties, who were in the secret, had made large amounts by their transactions. After a time a reaction occurred, and the Stock fell. What did the Government do then? They commissioned a most important member of their own body to proceed to Egypt under circumstances which led people to believe that the fact foreshadowed a great policy—namely, the taking of Egypt by the hand by the Government of England. Then, again, Egyptian Stocks went up, and people held the bonds with some confidence. What happened then? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave) sent in a Report, and Egyptian Stock was very firm and rising; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government stated that the Report must not be published; and then what happened? Down went Egyptian Stock; and so it remained for some time. But on a certain Friday morning there were large orders for the purchase of the Stock from France. No one understood what it meant. The day passed. All the Stock that could be procured was purchased, and the Stock Exchange closed; but in the House of Commons, about half-past 1 o'clock on Saturday morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up in his place and said that they had received intelligence by telegraph that the Khedive assented to the Report of the right hon. Gentleman. What happened then? Why, the following morning up went the Stock. So that there were people who on Friday knew about the telegram, and that the announcement would be made, and the result was that those people in France or Egypt operated in the Stock, and they again made a large plunder; but when the Report came out and was found not to justify the expectations it had given rise to, down went the Stock again. In the same way, Mr. Rivers Wilson was allowed to proceed to Egypt, and that fact enabled the Stock-jobbers to operate, and the Stock again went up and down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London said that the Egyptian policy of the Government was a drama in four acts; but it differed from all other dramas in this—that the grand letting off of fireworks and the transformation scene came first, and now it was ending in a good deal of gloom and disappointment. He did not know how the Government could justify what had been done in the matter. Their policy was, he believed, in any case an unfortunate policy, and might lead to an involvment of this country in Egyptian affairs in a very serious manner. He believed that finally the purchase would not be of importance to this country, while the way in which the negotiations were carried on was a source of great loss to our countrymen. He felt sure that it would come to be looked upon as one of the greatest mistakes the Government had made.

said, he should gladly have waited until any other hon. Members who desired to address the House had done so, but the statement just made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was of so very serious a character, if he understood it rightly, that he was bound at once to ask an explanation of it, and at the same time to complain, as he did most seriously, that the hon. Member, if he had anything of the sort to say, had not mentioned it long ago, or given him notice of his intention to say what he had said. What he understood the hon. Gentleman to say was this—that upon the morning of a certain day, on the evening of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) read a telegram to the House stating that the Khedive had authorized the publication of the Report of his right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave), orders were sent for the purchase of Egyptian Stock from parties abroad with the knowledge that he was in receipt of that telegram, and was going to communicate it to the House.

Oh, I beg your pardon.

I certainly so understood the hon. Member.

I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say I meant to cast no personal imputation whatever upon him. It was the last thing that would come into my mind. I believe fully in the high honour of the right hon. Gentleman. What I stated was that some people knew that the telegram was going to be sent, and allowed it to be known, and on their own knowledge took means of operating on the market. They must have known in Cairo, or France, or elsewhere in the morning that it was to be sent in the evening.

was anxious that the matter should be made perfectly clear, because in the way the words of the hon. Member were used they involved a serious charge against himself. [Mr. RYLANDS: "Oh, no, no!" Several hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] He accepted, of course, the disclaimer of the hon. Gentleman, and he felt sure that every one would feel that it was impossible that such a thing could have occurred. He at once and frankly acknowledged that it was to him and his Colleagues matter of most serious anxiety, and had occasioned them the greatest regret, that, in consequence of the transactions that had been going on, there had been from time to time speculations on the Stock Exchange, and that, as they were informed, considerable sums of money had been won and lost on this matter. He hardly knew what one could say on such a matter. This, however, he confidently said, on the part of the Government—that no private information had ever been given or made use of, to the best of their belief, on the subject; and he earnestly entreated that, if there was any suspicion of that kind in any quarter, full inquiry might be made, so that, even at this late period of the Session, steps might be taken to ascertain that there was no foundation whatever for any imputation of that kind. He could believe that among all those different transactions some persons might have obtained some information, and there might have been reason to suppose this, that, or the other, and that some speculations that were very good and some that were very bad might have been made; but he wished to state the facts exactly as they occurred with respect to the publication or non-publication of his right hon. Friend's Report. When that Report was handed to them by his right hon. Friend, they communicated with the Khedive and informed him that they proposed to publish it. Well, the Khedive objected, in the telegram which would be found among the Papers. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in answer to a Question put soon after the receipt of the telegram, gave the answer that had been commented upon, and that answer, unfortunately, was misunderstood. His right hon. Friend intended to have said that the Khedive objected to the publication of the Report, not permanently, but in consequence of the then unsettled question of the financial relations of Egypt. His right hon. Friend adverted to what was in his mind at the time the communications were going on between this Government and the Khedive as to the appointment of a Commissioner from England, but it was understood by the public in another sense, and, unfortunately, that misunderstanding gave a blow to Egyptian credit which they very much regretted for the sake of the Khedive. The consequence was that his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) sent a telegram to the Khedive informing him that the non-publication of the Report was injurious to his credit. The Khedive thereupon sent a telegram to say that be was ready to agree to the Report being published. That telegram was received at the Foreign Office late at night, not earlier than between 11 or 12 o'clock. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was absent, the business was going on, and he thought he could not do better than, at the earliest moment he could, read the telegram to the House. What was done was done in the regular course of official business, and it had been matter of extreme pain and regret to the Government that any person should have been injuriously affected. As to what communication might have been going on between the Khedive and persons at Cairo or elsewhere he knew nothing; but of this he could entirely assure the House—that if the shadow of a doubt existed in the mind of any hon. Member, or if any hon. Member was aware that among any class in the country any impression or suspicion existed that there was anything in the matter, so far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, that ought to be inquired into, he implored them, he adjured them in the name of the honour of the Government and of the House, not to allow the matter to rest, but to bring it at once into a condition in which it could be fully inquired into. He would now endeavour to answer the different points which had been mooted in the course of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) asked what was their precise position with regard to this undertaking? Well, they had waited until the general meeting of the Company, which was to have been held in June, but was not held till July, in order to ascertain the arrangements the Company were prepared to recommend. The managing body recommended—M. de Lesseps especially—the increase of the number of directors to 24, and agreed that the new directors should be nominated by the British Government. The understanding was that they must be duly qualified and elected in the manner described by the statutes of the Company. M. de Lesseps gave the Government to understand that it was presumed they would not nominate persons who would be offensive on any grounds to the shareholders, but that if any such person was nominated it should, on the fact becoming known, be in the power of the English Government to name his successor. It was the impression of Her Majesty's Government that their duty was to nominate persons who should represent the interest, amounting to the value of 176,000 shares, which the Government had in the Canal; but M. de Lesseps pointed out that there still was a question, which had never been decided, as to the precise amount of right which these shares during the time their coupons were detached from them gave to the shareholders. It was competent for the British Government to have brought that question before a French Law Court for decision; but they thought that, looking to the whole spirit of the arrangement, and their desire to enter into this matter on the fullest terms of confidence and goodwill with the Company, it was not desirable to raise contentious questions, and that it would be better that they should see that the directors were qualified in accordance with the statutes of the Company. They did not abandon their claim to vote on account of their own shares, but they thought that the simplest way would be to purchase a certain number of qualifying shares, and place them in the hands of the gentlemen who might be the representatives of Her Majesty's Government on. the Council. This view was communicated to M. de Lesseps, and was considered by the legal advisers engaged on both sides of the question, the result being, as far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, a conviction that the course taken opened no legal difficulties as far as the final settlement of the question was concerned. If, however, it should appear hereafter that legal difficulties really existed, the step taken was one that could be retraced when occasion arose. These gentlemen did not go there to represent their own interests, they went there to represent the interests of the country which nominated them; and the Government were convinced, from their knowledge of the character and ability of these gentlemen, that they would represent effectively the interests of this country. It had been suggested that the mode in which they were appointed, or nominated, was one which implied humiliation as far as they were personally concerned; and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had gone the length of saying that one of them (Mr. Rivers Wilson) ought not, if appointed at all, to receive any payment for the duty additional to that which he at present received as a servant of the Government. The duties which Mr. Wilson at present discharged were highly important, but they did not occupy the whole of his time, nor was his salary by any means extravagant, and it was believed that he might very well give one day in a month to the Suez Canal business, with a small additional payment to recompense him for the work, and pay the expenses which he would have to incur. The question of the right of voting in meetings of the Company by the directors appointed by the English Government had been raised, and upon that question he could pronounce no authoritative decision; but in any case he thought the question was one of infinitesimal importance. The advantage which they had gained in respect of this matter was really that which was stated by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed)—namely, the moral position which they had acquired in dealing with these questions. The surtax arrangement was just one of the questions in point. Though the question was settled, at Constantinople, yet it was settled subject to certain pro- tests, and in a manner that always left you with the apprehension that the question might be re-opened, and re-opened in a very awkward manner. The Government should have insisted upon the matters that had been agreed to; but their object was to avoid the necessity of having to invoke the armed interference of the Khedive, or of the Turkish Government, or of our own Power. When hon. Gentlemen talked about keeping open the Canal by the power of our Fleet, of course we might; but the object was to avoid using force, and to put ourselves in a position where we would be able to deal with all these questions in a much more satisfactory manner. These were the general considerations which induced the Government to make the purchase, and nothing had occurred since to cause them to doubt their soundness. Colonel Stokes and Mr. Rivers Wilson had been in Paris, and had attended one of the meetings of the Council, and in their Report to him they stated, that they had been received in the most amicable manner; that they had been treated with the fullest confidence and in a spirit which promised that the best possible relations would exist between us and the managers of this great Company; and that they had been very much struck with what they saw of the administration and the general management of the undertaking. Every person who had read the Company's last Report would have seen that, as far as prosperity was concerned, the undertaking was in a very flourishing condition, for at the present time, when commercial affairs were not particularly bright, it showed that the receipts of the Canal were going on in a most satisfactory manner, inasmuch as last year the excess of receipts over expenditure had increased by about 17 per cent over that of the previous year, while at the same time the expenses had scarcely been increased at all. The question of surtax was still in this position—that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to adopt M. de Lesseps' proposals merely as for this country, as it was necessary to obtain the concurrence of other countries which were interested in the matter. Communications had been going on with the different Governments which would shortly be laid before Parliament, and they were, so far as they had gone, ge- nerally in favour of the arrangement which had been come to, which showed to the shipping interest with certainty what the duties would be that they would have to pay year by year. The right hon. Gentleman had asked questions with reference to the probability of the Khedive continuing to pay the £200,000 per annum; but he thought that those were questions which the right hon. Gentleman, to a certain extent at least, was as qualified to answer as he was himself. It was a very hard matter to say whether or not at some time or another a difficulty might occur in the payment of the money, but his own belief was that the money would be paid. It was paid on the last occasion, and he saw no reason why it should not be paid in future. In conclusion, he could only acknowledge and regret the lateness of the period when this matter had been brought forward—it certainly ought to have been discussed at a much earlier period of the Session. Her Majesty's Government, however, were waiting for the action of the Company and for the meeting to which he had referred and which had explained to the House the manner in which the undertaking was being carried on. In consequence of the mode in which the Business of the House had been transacted it was impossible to get time earlier in the Session for the discussion of the subject. All he could say was that so far as the Government were concerned, the reasons which induced them to make this purchase stood good, that his faith had not been shaken by anything that had taken place, and though there might have been some exaggeration in the minds of the people at the time when the purchase was announced, his own belief was that in making that purchase they had arrived at a good and sound conclusion.

disclaimed all intention of throwing imputations upon Her Majesty's Government in reference to this subject.

thought that there was some ambiguity in the expressions which had been used by the hon. Member that rendered it imperative upon him to offer the explanations he had done of the conduct of the Government in the matter.

heartily concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed). At first people were thoroughly pleased with what the Government had so well and boldly done. No doubt expectations were raised too high, but this was no fault of Her Majesty's Ministers. In the calm judgment of the mercantile constituency which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had the honour to represent the transaction was still approved, and in the port of Liverpool no sympathy was entertained for the carping objections that had been raised to this purchase by hon. Members opposite. The large trading communities took a broad view of the matter and did not regard it as a mere question of 5 per cent interest.

said, he did not think that portion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which referred to the moral advantages to be derived from the purchase was quite satisfactory, nor did he agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pembroke. The fact was simply this—that in case of a war it might be necessary and justifiable for England by force of arms to secure so important a channel of communication with the East as the Suez Canal; but he failed to see how the purchase of the shares gave the slightest additional power to the Government to adopt that course. As regarded the commercial aspect of the transaction, the shares having no coupons attached, we had no direct pecuniary interest in the good or bad management of the Canal at the present time, and any proposal on our part to reduce the rates or dues would be met by the obvious objection from the other shareholders, that while it would not affect the English Government, which had its five per cent guaranteed, it would seriously diminish their dividend. In his opinion, as far as our mercantile interests were concerned, we were in a better position before the purchase, as mere customers of the Canal, than we were when we acquired a number of shares which did not rank on an equality with the others. He hoped that the forebodings expressed in connection with the transaction would not be realized, but the action of our representatives on the Board of Directors would have to be watched very carefully. They might rely upon it that applications for money to keep the Canal in a proper state would soon be made, and the probability was that that money would have to be furnished by England. He sincerely trusted that the Government would instruct their representatives not to compromise the mercantile interests of the country by any premature action on their part.

in support of England's investment in the Suez Canal, considered it a sound one, politically and commercially considered. He could not admit that there was anything derogatory in the position of the English directors. Those gentlemen were placed on the direction to represent the Government, and a more honourable position he could not conceive. They were trustees of the English Government for the shares and acted on behalf of the Government in the management of this undertaking. They had declared themselves to be trustees in the same manner as was frequently done when family interests had to be represented in commercial undertakings; but they were present in the Direction, not as trustees, but as individuals perfectly free to act in the Direction, independent of any declaration of trust they had made. At the same time they represented a very powerful interest in this great partnership, and must exercise a preponderating influence over it. The possession of these shares to England was of great importance; and seeing that they might have got into adverse hands, he considered the arrangement made by Her Majesty's Government was one of great advantage to the country.

said, that sharing the general impression at the time of the purchase, he looked upon it as a bold stroke of policy which would place us in a better position in case of the occurrence of unforeseen difficulties. He had read the charter, and if the Company were to become bankrupt, the property in the Canal must fall into the hands of the French. This country had the guarantee of the Khedive, and, what was of far superior consideration, they had the guarantee of the Sultan; but, unfortunately, Turkey was in such a state at that moment that it was impossible to say how it would end. Looking at the matter from a commercial point of view, he agreed with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). First of all, we were told by the Government that it was not a commercial matter; then we were told by Lord Derby at Edinburgh that it was; next the Prime Minister spoke of it as a political transaction; and now, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a commercial one. If it were a commercial transaction, what he had done would be like coming to the rescue of a firm in difficulties and engaging to renew its bills without any guarantee, for amore insolvent State than Egypt did not exist; and if we got back our money it would be through our claim having an admitted priority. We had no greater control that we had before, but the capital we had invested in the undertaking must give a corresponding weight to our influence. He was afraid that considerable expenditure would be requred to keep the Canal in such order that it would be available for our own shipping, and that we should be called upon to find capital for the purpose. It would be better if the Government acknowledged the truth at once, and owned that the purchase of the shares was a political transaction, entered into with the view of keeping open our ocean highway to the East.

said, it was natural the Opposition should criticize a transaction of this kind, but it was refreshing to see the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) cast aside the trammels of Party and treat this as a great national question. As such he believed it would be viewed by the constituencies, who, if appealed to, would throw the carping criticism of the Opposition to the winds, and give their verdict that politically the purchase was a bold and a wise act. Had the Government not availed themselves of their opportunity, and not purchased those shares, he had no doubt the Opposition would then have criticized their omission to secure for England the interest she was entitled to possess in so great an undertaking. England possessed the largest number of shares in the Canal, and her interests, politically and commercially, in it would no doubt be well represented by the three directors whom she had appointed to watch over and represent them. Government had, in fact, recovered the position for England which Lord Palmerston had lost.

Until my noble Friend addressed the House I was under the impression that Members of the Opposition had criticized the measure submitted to the House by the Government. The noble Lord appears to be of opinion that the discussion which has occurred is not criticism, but carping. I do not think it much matters whether he calls it criticism or carping. We criticize the measures of the Government in the best way we are able, and I can assure him we shall not be deterred from that duty by the epithet he chooses to apply to that humble criticism. Although it is to be regretted in one sense that this debate should have been brought on so late in the Session, it is not altogether unfortunate, because of the instructive comparison that might be drawn with respect to the treatment of this subject between the opening of the Session and its close. At the opening of the Session the transaction was almost in the first blush of its prosperity and popularity. And the minimizing explanation, although it had, I believe, to a certain extent set in already, had not attained the full vigour and strength that it has now at the close of the Session arrived at. It would be extremely instructive, if we had time to make a comparison between some of the speeches delivered at the commencement of the Session and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night. All traces of high policy have now vanished from the speeches of the Government; their high policy remains, in a feeble and diluted form, in the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed). Nothing is now said about the high road to India and the chain of fortresses in which the Suez Canal was to form a link. This line has altogether vanished from the speeches of the Government, and we are told to look for the advantage of this transaction to the improved tone of M. de Lesseps. We are told that nothing can be more friendly than the communications betwen Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps. That is easy to be understood; but it may be doubted whether the improved tone of our correspondence is worth £4,000,000 of public money. The right hon. Gentleman can no doubt point to two results. He can point to the appointment of three directors on the Board, and he can point to the satisfactory and amicable arrangements come to between Colonel Stokes and M. de Lessepson the surtax. He says M. de Lesseps made a great concession in the matter of the appointment of directors. But that is the very thing M. de Lesseps wanted us to do five years ago. In the negotiations in 1871 it was stated that M. de Lesseps "recoiled with horror" from the idea of the management of the Canal passing into the hands of a foreign Power. He declared he never would be a party for the placing of the management of the Canal in other than French hands, but he trusted to see the introduction of English directors on a French Board. At the same time, this was only to "give an appearance of importance without its actual possession." These being M. de Lesseps' views in 1871, no doubt M. de Lesseps did not see any reason to change them; but these being M. de Lesseps' views, I do not think it was necessary to spend £4,000,000 to get M. de Lesseps to agree to what he desired in 1871. The negotiations on the surtax are said to have gone on smoothly; and they may have ended in a satisfactory result; but that result has been brought about not by concessions on the part of M. de Lesseps, but on the part of Colonel Stokes and the English Government. The surtax was to have terminated at an earlier date than that now fixed upon, and it is not wonderful that M. de Lesseps and the French Direction should show a conciliatory spirit, when all the concessions were made, not on the other side, but on ours. It is quite unnecessary to say what will be the effect in time of war. I doubt whether it will have any effect in time of war. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that by the influence we have acquired through these shares in the Canal we should have acquired the right in time of war to seize upon the whole, and to disregard not only our own rights, but those of our co-partners. It may be my own fault, but I am unable to follow that argument of my hon. Friend. It would be the same as if we should acquire an interest in the railways of a neighbouring State, with which we at some time might beat war, in order that we might have a moral right to take possession of those railways in case of an invasion of the country. I do not believe that this purchase will have any effect upon the possession of the Canal in time of war. What must happen in time of war must be decided by contin- gencies. It is impossible to foresee what can only be decided upon at the moment. What the House wants to know is what will be the effect on certain ordinary creditors in the Canal in time of peace. Many Members of this House who are competent to give an opinion think our position is not improved by anything that has taken place, and that our interests are not so simple and well-defined as before. Up to the present year the Government was the representative of a nation which made use of the Canal to a vastly greater extent than any other European nation. It had certain rights secured to it under the concessions, and at all events occupied a definite and well-defined position as the representative of the greatest trading nation of the world. Now the Government is not merely the representative of the customers of the Canal—it has become a co-partner in managing the Canal, and a co-partner under very different circumstances from the other shareholders. In that way it seems to me that the position of the Government is particularly complicated, and I fail to see that it is in any way strengthened. It appears to me, on the contrary, that the Government will be somewhat shy in future in embarking in these commercial enterprizes, or in interfering in the pecuniary affairs of other nations. It was impossible for hon. Members not to sympathize with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of the deep regret with which he had learnt of the Stock Exchange gambling transactions which had resulted from the action of the Government. The House was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have so warmly as he did repudiated the suspicion that the Government was in any way a party to transactions of this character; but it showed how extremely inconvenient, and how much to be deprecated, it is that the Government should have taken any part whatever in transactions such as those to which I have referred, and that they should have to trust to the right hon. Gentleman to rise and repudiate any idea of such a thing. There is no doubt that clever and unscrupulous persons, apparently acting in Egypt or in other parts of the world, have made use of the knowledge they acquired of the intention of the Government in this country to act on the Stock Exchange in London, Paris, and other places in a manner not creditable to the British Government. I do not think we can be proud of the part which the Government of England played on the Stock Exchange in Europe; but I do think it will be a lesson to the Government to avoid for the future being mixed up in such transactions.

Sir, there seems to be one fallacy that pervades all the remarks of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House on this subject, and that is the assumption on their part that our interest in an institution cannot be at the same time political and commercial. Take, for example, the National Debt. That is a political institution. It is so in a special degree, and never could have existed had it not been founded upon the most delicate of all political considerations—national credit. It depends upon political considerations. Its prosperity and its influence in the world depend upon political considerations. Yet I suppose hon. Gentlemen will hardly agree that it must not be considered a commercial institution, or the declaration of our dividends would not be met in due time with the same regularity and promptness as they are at present. For my own part, I never deviated—nor am I aware that my Colleagues ever deviated—from the declarations we made when we announced the purchase of these shares. We purchased them from high political considerations; and had it not been for those considerations we should never have entered into those negotiations. But having bought those shares, it became our duty to make every arrangement and take every precaution that the country should not be financially and commercially a loser. While, therefore, we thought we had accomplished a great political object, we were at the same time anxious to prevent the country from experiencing any loss. It seems to me the position is so clear that there cannot be any misapprehension that political and commercial principles can exist in the same institution, notwithstanding the unauthorized remarks of the noble Lord and others who preceded him. Nor do I think the noble Lord was particularly fortunate in his argument that M. de Lesseps, when he offered to consent to the appointment of three English directors some time ago, said that they would exercise no influence except as directors, if they were introduced into the Board on the part of the English proprietors. It is very true that in 1871 M. de Lesseps did make that remark, and insisted upon it. He said that the three English directors would be nothing more than three individuals who would exercise that influence which by their qualifications under the charter of the Company they might possess. But in 1871, when M. de Lesseps made that observation, England had not purchased half the shares in the Company. Therefore, all the arguments of the noble Lord based upon the remarks made by M. de Lesseps at that time go for nothing at all, and do not apply to the circumstances with which we have to deal at present. Nor is there anyone who can doubt the contrast between the two cases. Suppose that in 1871 English directors had been appointed in the manner referred to, and suppose that in the present case the English directors were appointed after the purchase of the Canal, is there any body of men either in this country or on any of those Stock Exchanges of Europe with which the noble Lord seems so familiar, who would hesitate to say which three individuals would exercise the greatest influence? Every man of sense must know that the three English directors now to be appointed would occupy a totally different position from the three individuals whose appointment in 1871 was suggested by M. de Lesseps. Then the noble Lord says my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely disregarded all political considerations, and founded his observations on commercial considerations. My right hon. Friend very properly, on a Bill of this kind, made observations which he argued out completely, so far as financial and commercial considerations can go. To-night my right hon. Friend, as I listened to his arguments, never for a moment deviated from the political position which the Government assumed with regard to this question. He argued in this way. He said one of the great advantages of this is that we obtain our object in an amicable manner, which otherwise might be obtained only by painful controversy, and probably by force. What is that but a political consideration, and of the high- est kind. What does that prove? That we obtain this object, not for financial and commercial considerations, though it is our duty not to neglect these financial and commercial considerations, but for our political considerations. Now, with regard to what the noble Lord says about the influence of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on the Stock Exchanges of Europe, all I can say is I am innocent in the matter. I have never allowed considerations of what would happen on the Stock Exchanges of Europe to prevent me from doing that in public which I think would be for the advancement of the welfare of this country. If we were to be arrested in our conduct of the high matters which are involved in the government of a great country like England merely, by considerations of what the effect of our words would be upon the Stock Exchanges of Europe, I think we should be in a position which, as a public man, I should feel to be utterly disgraceful. Sir, I hope this Bill will pass without any opposition. I feel sure myself that the feeling of the country is not changed as to this great enterprize. I cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) spoke with justice when he expressed the opinion of the powerful community in which he lives. I believe that the people of the country have not changed one iota the sentiments which influenced them at the commencement of the Session; that they look upon this act on the part of Her Majesty's Government as a political and patriotic act; and as such, if ever the matter is made a subject of controversy, and I am before my countrymen, I shall be ready to appeal to them with the utmost confidence.

said, he thought it only due to the Government to say that he, in common with many Members on that side of the House, did not concur with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in condemning the action of the Government in reference to the purchase of the Suez Canal shares, but he agreed with him in the regret he expressed that the purchase of the shares had led to so much speculation on the Stock Exchange. On that matter he, however, entirely acquitted Her Majesty's Government. He differed entirely from the hon. Mem- ber for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in looking upon this transaction as a commercial one. It was undoubtedly a bold step for the Government to take. Unfortunately this country had been placed in a false position in respect to the Canal during the Ministry of Lord Palmerston. The country had never approved of that policy; and when the opportunity presented itself to the Government to acquire a permanent interest in that great work, he, for one, considered that they were perfectly justified in doing so. The country had accepted the purchase as evidence of a far-seeing policy on the part of the Government, and he believed it would meet the approval of a large majority of the House. He hoped they would give a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill.

admitting that the Government were not to be influenced in their decision of important matters of State policy by consideration as to the effect that policy would have upon the Stock Exchanges of Europe, regretted that when the arrangement as to the purchase of the shares had been completed it had not been at once made known. It was admitted that immense speculation occurred in different Egyptian Stocks, not in consequence of knowledge acquired at this side, but of telegraphic communications from Alexandria, and these might have been prevented by immediate publication. It was, however, an unusual transaction, and the Government had no precedent to guide them; but, at the same time, he was strongly of opinion that operations of this kind ought to be at once made publicly known.

said, that as a matter of fact the transaction was made known when it was completed.

in reference to the supposition that this country was opposed originally to the construction of the Suez Canal, observed that that was altogether a mistaken idea. Had the opinion of the commercial community been taken on the subject, they would by a large majority have declared in favour of the enterprize as a great political and patriotic transaction, to use the words of the Premier. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of the day did not take that view, but the preponderance of opinion in the country was the other way.

in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), to the effect that Her Majesty's Government ought to have made the purchase of the shares known the moment the transaction was completed, said that what occurred was this —On first receiving an intimation that the Khedive was willing to offer the shares on certain terms, Her Majesty's Government made an offer in return by telegram, and it was not until that offer was finally accepted that they were in a position to publish anything. But when they received notice that the Khedive accepted the offer, they made the fact known that same evening. As to Mr. Stanton, the third of the three directors whom they had a right to nominate, he had been selected by the Government as their representative upon the interior Committee of Management, which only consisted of five members, and would reside in Paris, because the business was carried on there, and not in Egypt.

said, the Bill would give power to the Treasury to act in such manner as might seem to be necessary for the interest of the public. He thought it unadvisable either to raise or discuss at the present time difficulties that might never arise.

proposed that the House should go into Committee on the Bill on that day two months. He opposed the Bill because it would involve the Exchequer in an additional expense of £75,000 a-year. Of the persons concerned it was stated that 274 were merely learners.

explained that no person who had been employed as a telegraph clerk by any of the telegraph companies would receive superannuation allowance under this Bill, which was intended to remedy an irregularity in the appointment of the other telegraph clerks which prevented their salaries being passed by the Public Accounts Committee. In consequence of the irregularity to which he referred there were now 3,600persons in the Government service who were not entitled to be paid their salaries, and it would be a grievous injustice to them if the measure were rejected, inasmuch as they were no parties to the irregularity in question, and had taken their appointments on the faith that they were to receive superannuation allowances. The irregularity he referred to was these persons being appointed without having passed the necessary Civil Service examination, for which, however, another examination more suited to their offices had been substituted. Since the present Government had been in office these irregular appointments had ceased to be made. It was true that many of these persons had entered as learners, but they had subsequently become clerks.

believed that the several clauses he now proposed in connection with this Bill had been carefully considered by hon. Members. One of them was in page 6, after line 5, to insert—

(Amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts in relation to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal.)

"Whereas it is expedient to amend the constitution of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in manner hereinafter mentioned: Be it Enacted, That there shall be repealed so much of the fourth section of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' as provides that the ordinary judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (in this Act referred to as ' the Court of Appeal') shall not exceed three at any one time.

"In addition to the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal authorised to be appointed by' The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,'Her Majesty may appoint three additional ordinary judges of that Court.

"The first three appointments of additional judges under this Act shall be made by such transfer to the Court of Appeal as is in this section mentioned of three judges of the High Court of Justice, and the vacancies so created in the High Court of Justice shall not be filled up, except in the event and to the extent hereinafter mentioned.

"Her Majesty may by writing, under her sign manual, either before or after the commencement of this Act, but so as not to take effect until the commencement thereof, transfer to the Court of Appeal from the following Divisions of the High Court of Justice, that is to say, the Queen's Bench Division, the Common Pleas Division, and the Exchequer Division, such of the judges of the said Divisions, not exceeding three in number, as to Her Majesty may seem meet, each of whom shall have been a judge of any one or more of such Divisions for not less than two years previously to his appointment, and shall not be an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal, and every judge so transferred shall be deemed an additional ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal in the same manner as if he had been appointed such judge by letters patent. No judge shall be so transferred without his own consent.

"Every additional ordinary judge of the said Court of Appeal appointed in pursuance of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of sections twenty-nine and thirty-seven of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' and shall be under an obligation to go circuits and to act as Commissioner under commissions of assize or other commissions authorised to be issued in pursuance of the said Act, in the same manner in all respects as if he were a Judge of the High Court of Justice.

"There shall he paid to every additional ordinary judge appointed in pursuance of this Act, in addition to the salary which he would otherwise receive as an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal, such sum on account of his expenses on circuit or under such commission as aforesaid, as may he approved by the Treasury upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

"Each of the judges of the High Court of Justice who is in pursuance of this Act transferred to the Court of Appeal, by writing under the sign manual of Her Majesty, shall retain such officers as are attached to his person as such judge, and are appointed and removeable by him at his pleasure, in pursuance of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' and the officers so attached shall have the same rank, and hold their offices by the same tenure, and upon the same terms and conditions, and receive the same salaries, and if entitled to pensions be entitled to the same pensions, and shall as nearly as may be perform the same duties as if the judges to "whom they are attached had not been transferred to the Court of Appeal.

"Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, for the time being in force in relation to the appointment of ordinary judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, and to their tenure of office, and to their precedence, and to their salaries and pensions, and to the officers to be attached to such judges, and all other provisions relating to such ordinary judges shall apply to the additional ordinary judges appointed in pursuance of this section in the same manner as they apply to the other ordinary judges of the said Court.

"For the purpose of a transfer to the Court of Appeal under this section service as a judge in a Court whose jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court shall be deemed to have been service as a judge in any one or more of such Divisions of the High Court as are in this section in that behalf mentioned, and for the purpose of the pension of any person appointed under this Act, an additional ordinary judge of appeal service in the High Court of Justice, or in any Court whose jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court of Justice or to the Court of Appeal, shall be deemed to have been service in the Court of Appeal.)"

The particular object of this clause was to materially strengthen the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court of Appeal.

moved to leave out, in lines 11, 12, and 13—

"and the vacancies so created in the High Court of Justice shall not be filled up, except in the event and to the extent hereinafter mentioned."

Applications at Chambers had been, greatly increased in number under the new Acts, while there had been no corresponding increase in the number of Judges; and there was now almost as much difficulty in getting a case heard at the time appointed at Chambers as in getting a case heard at the time appointed in Court. On Circuit, owing to the paucity of Judges, Queen's Counsel sat and tried cases both at Nisi Prius and on the Crown side. To compel a prisoner to be tried before a Queen's Counsel, instead of one of the Judges of the land, amounted to something like a denial of justice. At quarter sessions Recorders and Chairmen sat, who had had much experience, to try minor offences; while on Circuit charges of the gravest importance were tried by Queen's Counsel, who had had no experience at all of criminal law. The inconvenience of appointing Queen's Counsel to try cases at Nisi Priuswas shown at the late Manchester Assizes, where an eminent Queen's Counsel having been appointed to try a case of compensation for injuries sustained on a railway, the counsel for the plaintiff refused to appear before him, the reason being that the commissioner was counsel himself for a railway company. He had no objection to the transfer of the three Judges, but he objected to transferring them without filling up the vacancies so created. In the face of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that there would be 1,000 remanets by the 1st of November next, in Middlesex and London only, it seemed an extraordinary thing to take away three of the Judges of First Instance and not fill up the vacancies so created in the Court below. He desired also to point out that the Court of Appeal sat during Circuit, and it seemed a strange way to strengthen the Court of Appeal to transfer to it Judges, who would be liable to go Circuit, and thus absent themselves for a considerable portion of the year. In the Court of Appeal also, the Judges, who went Circuit, could not sit on appeals from their own decisions on Circuit.

in putting the Question, observed that the hon. Mem- ber (Mr. Gregory) had an Amendment to propose in line 11, which must precede that of the hon. and learned Member for Salford.

said, he had hoped that the Attorney General would have made some statement as to the manner in which he proposed to work the new system which he would inaugurate. The Attorney General constituted another division of the Intermediate Court of Appeal by the appointment of three additional Judges, and for this purpose to abstract three Judges from the Court of First Instance. Whether this was wise or necessary was a matter of considerable doubt. There was a considerable block in the administration of justice — a very large arrear in the Common Law Courts and also in the Court of Chancery, which had been materially increased by the fact that that Court had to take vivá voce evidence. The obligation of the Court of Chancery to try out causes, instead of sending issues of fact to other Courts, greatly retarded the progress of business in the Chancery Courts, while the Vice Chancellors had not sufficient time to devote to matters which deserved their personal attention in Chambers; and, as was well known, there was also a block in the Common Law Courts. Under these circumstances, it certainly appeared to him that it was unwise to abstract Judges from the Courts of First Instance, without making any further provision for the business that was now so much in arrear; and he therefore proposed to leave it optional to take the Judges for the Court of Appeal from the High Court, instead of making it compulsory, by substituting the word "may" for the word "shall."

said, that large issues were raised by the clause and the Amendments, and sooner or later they must be discussed. When the Judicature Act came into operation last November, there were sham arrears, which were soon disposed of; but under the working of the Act it had been found that the Judicial Staff was not equal to the demands made upon it, and it was no exaggeration to say that a dead-lock had resulted. Those who were chiefly prejudiced were the suitors and others who desired to appeal to the Courts of Law. About six weeks ago attention was called to the number of cases then waiting to be heard. In the Intermediate Court of Appeal there were 54 cases in arrear, and in London and Middlesex alone there were between 500 and 600 cases awaiting trial at Nisi Prius. He believed that at the beginning of the new legal year there would be fully 1,000 Nisi Prim cases in arrear. Matters were in this position when Lords Justices James and Baggallay wrote a letter stating that it was impossible, in the present state of the Appellate Court, to get through the business. That letter was communicated to the 18 legal Members of the House, and the conclusion which they came to was embodied in the Amendments of the Attorney General. It was then suggested that it was necessary to do two things—to increase the strength of the Court of Appeal by adding to its numbers, and its stability by ceasing to borrow Judges from the Primary Courts. No one could doubt that the Appellate Judges should be Appellate and not Primary Judges. The question then arose whence this additional strength should be derived. Some thought that it would be better to add at once two or three Judges to the Court of Intermediate Appeal. Every unnecessary addition to the number of Judges was, however, objectionable on two grounds, because it made all the other Judges do less work than need be, and because it lowered the standard of judicial qualification. When, a greater demand was made on the Profession by creating 24 Judges where 12 used to be the number, a lower standard was inevitable. The best number of Judges was the number required to do the work, and no more. He considered that the additional strength required in the Court of Intermediate Appeal could be obtained from the Common Law Bench, where at present there was a great waste of judicial power. Why, for example, in Nisi Priuscases, should there be seen the spectacle of three Judges sitting with the greatest solemnity to hear cases which men of the most ordinary intellect would decide offhand in their counting-houses? In the Court of Chancery a single Judge was sufficient for such causes. Why, he asked, instead of having an increased number of Judges, should they not, by accepting the second Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, economize judicial strength without affecting the public interest? If one Judge could dispose of cases of vastimportance in the Court of Chancery, why should not one Judge sit in a Court of Law and dispose of cases there? He was bound to say that these views having been expressed by the legal Members of the House the Attorney General had promptly taken steps, by placing his Amendments on the Paper, to carry them into effect. He wished the Court of Appeal to be like the Court of Bankruptcy, with greater weight and greater effect. The Amendments to be proposed by the Attorney General would be most beneficial to the Bench and to suitors generally, and he hoped that Members of his Profession would assist the Government in carrying them into effect.

was ready to assent to the first clause proposed by the Attorney General, but in the interest of the public he could not support the second clause, by which, if it were passed, a Court of Law sitting in Bancowould consist of one Judge only. He asked, was the practice in Chancery so entirely satisfactory that they could make conformable to it their practice in Common Law? He compared the position of a Vice Chancellor in dealing with a case with the position of a Judge and a jury, and he said that a suitor who went away from a Court in Banco, whether the verdict had been for him or against him, went away with a more complete satisfaction as to the result of the case than a man who went out of the Vice Chancellor's Chamber. He understood that this Act was to do something for suitors, but it began by giving three weeks more vacation than they had formerly. While he assented to the first clause, he as completely dissented from the second.

said, it was admitted on all hands that the present Court of Appeal could not keep up with the business. It was also agreed that an addition must be made to the Court of Appeal, such as was now proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The only remaining question, therefore, was how this was to be done. There were only two ways in which it could be done; either by increasing the number of Judges, or else by distributing the work so as to enable 15 Judges to do the work now done by 18. Now, the former alternative was out of the question, inasmuch as the Government had declared that under present circumstances they would not increase the number. He thought, therefore, the proposal that they should sit separately was one which ought to be tried. For his own part, he preferred a Judge sitting alone to a Judge sitting with another, or with two other Judges. When alone, one Judge had a full sense of his responsibility, which, if not lost, was weakened by association with another Judge. If he went wrong he could be set right by the Court of Appellate Jurisdiction. There was another improvement which might be adopted with advantage—namely, to make venues local, inasmuch as the accumulation of business in London was in a measure the result of the abolition of local venues. He trusted the Amendments would be accepted.

thought that justice ought to be rendered to the Common Law Judges for the manner in which they had sought to fulfil their duties under the new system. He held that a great deal too much stress had been laid upon the working of the new system, with a view to its depreciation. It was not fair to say that the work had diminished, while the block had increased. The work disposed of now was far more important than under the old plan. The new system of pleading made it far more necessary to expose at once the ground of defence than was formerly the case, and these actions were brought to a speedier issue. A greater display of causes used to be made, because attorneys wished to make a show of the causes entered for trial, and the consequence was that many were entered which never were brought to a decision. He contended that the new system should have a fair trial. Many motions at Common Law of inferior importance might be made before a single Judge, and he would instance the example of cases brought before a Judge at Chambers to show how matters might be disposed of which would be considered of more importance if they were brought before a tribunal composed of more than a single person. As to the question of expense, he believed that the public would not grudge £10,000, or even £20,000 a-year for additional Judges, who would save enormous cost and delay to suitors. The Judicature Act was passed to produce a fusion of Law and Equity, so that the same Judge might be able to try all the questions connected with a case; but the system did not work in the way which had been expected, and Equity Judges now sent down issues to be tried at the Assizes by the Common Law Judges. It was not fair that one class of Judges should be able to relieve themselves at the expense of another, and he could easily understand that there should have been some feeling on the part of Judges who were helpless in the matter, because they had a loyal desire to finish the business of their Circuits, and were not men to "scamp" their work. In conclusion, he was sorry the measure could not be postponed till another year, when they might have more satisfactory legislation than that now before them.

felt, as a member of the mercantile community, that the operations of the Judicature Act, whatever might be the cause, had not given satisfaction to the public. Considerable alarm existed lest we should be placed under very serious disadvantages in our judicial procedure, consequent upon the new Acts. So far were the advantages promised to suitors from being realized that there was now almost as much difficulty in knowing what Court to apply to as ever there had been; the Long Vacation was longer than ever, and the suitors had none of the facilities for having their cases tried which they had so much reason to hope would be afforded to them. He could not disguise from himself the fact that out-of-doors it was asserted too frequently that the Judges had really not shown that anxious desire to accommodate themselves and the business of their Courts to the new system which might have been fairly expected from them. When the Act came into operation, counsel were refused information when they applied to the Bench for it, and one Judge boasted that he had not yet read the provisions of the Act. The Judges might have, by consultation among themselves, removed many of the difficulties which had arisen. They were salaried officers of the State, and it was their duty to regulate the business of their Courts, so that suitors might have the greatest possible facility in getting their rights adjusted.

said, that the Amendment which stood in his name was the result of the opinions expressed by the great bulk of the legal Members of the House, who ought to share the responsibility. It was admitted that the Intermediate Court of Appeal needed strengthening and improvement; and everybody admitted that the Bill would effect this object. Everybody agreed that to increase the number of Judges without such a step being necessary, would be the wrong thing to do. He would prefer that the new clauses which he had proposed should stand as they were on the Paper without being amended. If any further alteration were found necessary in the future they could be made with more confidence after they had gained the advantage of experience.

said, the late Lord Westbury had written to him expressing his deep regret that he was unable to appear in his place in Parliament to protest against the revolutionary, and, as he termed it, "most disastrous" scheme.

as one of the legal Members of the House, disclaimed being in any way responsible for, or favourable to, the Amendments that had been proposed. For his part he protested against Amendments effecting so important an alteration in our judicial system being introduced and discussed in a thin House at that period of the Session. The House should not suppose that the legal profession were in favour of the changes, for from all the learned Gentlemen and learned Judges he had consulted, with the exception of some hon. and learned Gentlemen in that House, he had not heard a single voice in favour of them. One main argument urged in their favour was that Judges sitting alone in the Equity Courts gave entire satisfaction, and, if so, it was asked, why should not Common Law Judges do the same? He denied that Equity Judges sitting alone did give satisfaction; but even if they did there was no analogy whatever between the cases upon which, as a rule, they had to decide and those that came before a Judge and a jury. How, he would ask, was a long legal argument to be satisfactorily conducted at Nisi Prius, and the time of the jury wasted in listening to what they were not expected to understand? And if the question were reserved for the subsequent consideration of a single Judge, and important interests depended upon it, it was contrary to all experience to suppose that the suitor against whom the decision was, would be satisfied with it, and, if not satisfied, he would be driven not as at present to the Court in Banco, but at a great increase of expense to the Court of Appeal. He ventured to prophecy that it would soon be found, if these Amendments became law, that the disposal of all business before a single Judge was neither "practicable" nor "convenient," and we should have to fall back upon the proviso empowering Divisional Courts to be held to replace the Courts in Banco. The proposal of the Attorney General was, in effect, to abolish the Court in Banco, and thus deprive the suitor of his First Court of Appeal. The inevitable result would be that the New Court of Appeal would be overwhelmed with the business which would flow into it, for that Court could only sit in two Divisions. To further subdivide it would be to diminish its authority, and if it consisted of but a few Judges it would have no greater weight than the existing Courts in Banco. Lord Westbury, to whom the hon. Member for Peterborough had alluded, once said that the reason why a certain Lord Chancellor generally called in one of his legal brethren to sit with him was, "that he was afraid to be left alone in the dark." The Attorney General proposed that for the future all our Judges should be left alone in the dark. It was, perhaps, a minor consideration, but not to be left entirely out of view, that, under our present system, our Judges acquired no inconsiderable portion of their education by sitting with their brethren in Banco. He hoped the Attorney General would hold his hand, and be content with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords.

said, with regard to the statement as to the disapproval of this measure by the Judges, that, he was afraid, was a statement that must be made with regard to every measure that ever had been or ever would be proposed for the reform of the law. Looking back over many years of legal changes, he could not see any measure which had received the approval of Her Majesty's Judges. He regretted that the last speaker was not present at the meeting of the Profession which recommended the clause with remarkable unanimity.

presumed it was a meeting of the members of the Bar, as he was not present; but he believed that he represented the views of one branch of the Profession (the solicitors) and the interests of the other. The object of his Amendment was simply to render the measure permissive, and to give time for the further consideration of the question.

remarked that constant efforts had been made to subordinate the Common Law to that of the Court of Chancery, and he believed that the effect of the clause proposed by the Government would be to intercept the proceedings at Common Law. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex rather than sanction a system of which all the Judges disapproved.

said that, as his Amendment to the Attorney General's new clause had been practically before the House, as well as that of the hon. Member for West Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and as he wihsed to economize time, he would not persevere with the clause which he had previously moved.

moved the following new clause:—

(Regulations as to business of High Court of Justice and divisional Courts of High Court.)

"On and after the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, every action and proceeding in the High Court of Justice, and all business arising out of the same, except as is hereinafter provided, shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, he heard, determined, and disposed of before a single judge, and all proceedings in an action subsequent to the hearing or trial, and down to and including the final judgment or order, always excepting any proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeal, shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, be had and taken before the judge before whom the trial or hearing of the cause took place; Provided, nevertheless, That divisional courts of the High Court of Justice, may be held for the transaction of any business which may for the time being be ordered by rules of court to be heard by a divisional court; and any such divisional court when held, shall be constituted by two judges of the court and no more, unless the president of the division to which such divisional court belongs, with the concurrence of the other judges of such division, or a majority thereof, is of opinion that such divisional court should be constituted of a greater number of judges than two, in which case such court may be constituted of such-number of judges as the president, with such concurrence as aforesaid, may think expedient; nevertheless the decisions of a divisional court shall not be invalidated by reason of such court being constituted of a greater number than two judges; and

" Rules of court for carrying into effect the enactments contained in this section shall be made in manner provided by 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' on or previously to the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, hut may afterwards be altered in manner provided by the said Act; and

"There shall be repealed on and after the eleventh day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, so much of sections forty, forty-one, forty-two, forty-three, forty-four, and forty-six of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act,1873,' as is inconsistent with the provisions of this section."

moved to omit from the clause the condition "so far" as is practicable and convenient," which he thought would render the clause valueless.

thought a hard-and-fast line was undesirable, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

moved the following Amendment to the clause, in line 22, after "shall be made," leave out to" said Act and," in line 25, and insert—

"On or before the first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and may be afterwards altered, and all rules of court to be made after the passing of this Act, whether made under 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' or this Act, shall be made by any three or more of the following persons, of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one—namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and four other judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to be from time to time appointed for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor in writing under his hand, such appointment to continue for such time as shall be specified therein."

strongly objected to the Amendment. He thought that when it was proposed to change the whole system of their jurisprudence, they should be guided by the best authorities in the course they were asked to take.

said, he had carefully considered the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh, and he must say he considered it an improvement.

moved the following new clause:—

(Power in certain events to fill vacancies occasioned in High Court of Justice by removal of judges to Court of Appeal.)

"Whenever any two of the said paid judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have died or resigned, Her Majesty may, upon an address from both Houses of Parliament, representing that the state of business in the High Court of Justice is such as to require the appointment of an additional judge, fill up one of the vacancies created by the transfer hereinbefore authorized, by appointing one new judge of the said High Court in any Division thereof; and, on the death or retirement of the remaining two paid judges of the said Judicial Committee, Her Majesty may, upon the like Address, fill up in like manner another of the said vacancies, and from time to time fill up any vacancies occurring in the offices of judges so appointed."

moved the following new clause:—

(Increase of allowance to retired Indian and Colonial Judges attending the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.—3 and 4 W. 4, c. 41, s. 30.)

"Whereas by the thirtieth section of the Act of the Session of the third and fourth years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-one, and intituled 'An Act for the better administration of Justice in His Majesty's Privy Council,' it is provided that an allowance of four hundred pounds a year may be made to two members of His Majesty's Privy Council, having held such office of judge as therein mentioned in every year during which they attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the said Council as an indemnity for the expense which they may thereby incur, and whereas it is expedient to increase such allowance, be it enacted that the said section shall be read as if the words ' one thousand pounds' had been inserted therein in place of the words ' four hundred pounds.'"

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to fear that the retiring allowance would not secure Judges in this department. If the retiring allowance was increased to £1,000 a-year, he thought there was a probability of their having too many applicants for the position.

opposed the clause. It was entirely inconsistent with our ordinary practice.

moved the following new clause:—

(Continuation until 1st January 1878, of s. 34 of 38 and 39 Vic. c. 77, as to vacancies in legal offices.)

"Whereas by section thirty-four of' The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' it is enacted that upon the occurrence of any vacancy in an office coming within the provisions of section seventy-seven of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, suspend the making any appointment to such office for any period not later than the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and may, if it be necessary, make provision in such manner as he thinks fit for the temporary discharge in the meantime of the duties of such office, and it is expedient to extend the said period as hereinafter mentioned: Be it therefore enacted as follows:

"The said section shall he construed as if the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight were therein inserted in lieu of the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven."

then moved the following new clause:—

(Appointment of deputy by district registrars.)

" A district registrar of the Supreme Court of Judicature may from time to time, but subject to such regulations as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time make, appoint a deputy, and all acts authorized or required to he done by, to, or before a district registrar may be done by, to, or before any deputy so appointed."

opposed the clause, and urged that the system of appointing deputies for the administration of justice was open to grave objection and abuse.

observed that the power of appointing a deputy-registrar would be open to very grave objection.

considered that the appointment of a deputy should not be made without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor.

thought that, under proper regulations, the appointment of a deputy might prove beneficial.

still urged his objections to the clause. This power of appointment was unlimited, and he hoped the clause would be reserved for further consideration.

moved in page 4, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—

(Enforcing payment of costs.)

"Where, in any appeal to the House of Lords, the House of Lords shall order or adjudge any costs to be paid by any party or parties to such appeal to any other party or parties thereto, the cause, matter, or other proceeding in which the said appeal shall have been had, shall, if so ordered by the House of Lords, be remitted back to the Court of first instance for the purpose of enforcing the payment of such costs, and such last mentioned Court shall in such case issue such process for the recovery of such costs as shall be necessary and in accordance with the usual practice of such Court in enforcing the payment of damages or costs ordered to be paid by an order or judgment of such Court."

believing the provision unnecessary, could not agree to its adoption.

moved the following new clause:—

(Writs of Assistance to be issued to all the Judges of the Supreme Court.)

"Writs of Assistance, under the Great Seal, shall be issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, commanding the attendance in the House of Lords of all the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to treat and give advice in Parliament in the same manner in all respects in which writs under the Great Seal have heretofore been issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, commanding the attendance of the Justices of either Bench, the Barons of the Exchequer and the Master of the Rolls, to treat and give advice in Parliament."

The hon. Member said, that it was purely owing to the historical accident that the Equitable Jurisdiction of the House of Lords was only 200 years old, while the Common Jurisdiction was coeval in its origin with the Constitution, that the Equity Judges were not summoned to advise the House of Lords. Now that Law and Equity were fused, it was important that the advice of the Equity Judges should be obtainable by the House of Lords. A similar clause to the one which he proposed was read a second time in the House of Commons on the Motion of Sir Edward Sugden (afterwards Lord St. Leonards) many years ago, and would be found in the Appendix to Sugden on "Property."

objected to the clause, on the ground that it was an interference with the procedure of the House of Lords.