said, he hoped that the House would allow him to say one word by way of a personal explanation. He thought that after what had fallen from the Prime Minister he would not be justified in raising a debate upon the Egyptian Question while negotiations were going on. At the same time, he thought that the Government had taken a great responsibility in the course which they had adopted. He would leave them with that responsibility, which he understood to be that they would not allow the scope of the Conference to be enlarged beyond the question of the financial position of Egypt, and that they would also lay any arrangement to which they might come with France on the Table of the House previously to going into the Conference at all. On that understanding he would not trouble the House by bringing on a debate.

I do not wish to limit the concession made by the hon. Member, but only to advert to what I think was not perfectly accurate in his statement. We have spoken, not of laying an arrangement with. France, but of laying an arrangement with the Powers, before the House at a date anterior to the meeting of the Conference.

asked the Prime Minister, whether any arrangement with France could be valid unless acquiesced in by the Powers?

I do not like to put it in the sense of making an arrangement which is not to be valid; but what we contemplate as the first stage is merely a preliminary arrangement which will naturally take the form of communications with France.

I quite feel that the Prime Minister, in the statement he has made, has met this House in a very fair and open spirit; and if I may take this opportunity of making two or three observations, it will not be at all with a view of putting the Government to torture, or trying to extract information which cannot be given to the public without disadvantage, but because I think it important that before separating for the Holidays we should understand exactly how we stand with regard to Egypt, and that we should give full expression on this side of the House to our views. I believe that the Egyptian Question is at this moment in its most critical phase. The Prime Minister has told the House that he, on his responsibility, is prepared to assure us, when we have before us the whole Papers, that Parliament will have no reason to complain of the way the Government has treated it. I fully and absolutely accept that statement of the Prime Minister. I do not believe the Government contemplate in the least, directly or indirectly, doing anything which the House can regard as a breach of its Privileges. What I am concerned with, however, is not the Privilege of the House of Commons, but the position of this country in Egypt. I am utterly unable to understand how it is possible for us to enter into any arrangement, either with France alone, or with France and the other European Powers, which shall not have for one of its essential objects the limitation of the English control over Egyptian affairs. The powers of dip- lomacy do not exist which shall make arrangements which shall not have that effect. Even if the object of Europe were a purely financial one, even if we were to hand over to the Conference only the management of finance, we should be handing over to them a large measure of the control of the affairs of Egypt. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) will be able to tell us of his own experience in Roumelia, where he was the financial Representative of the Government in the matter of finance, that those who have the control of finance practically have control of the policy, and it is impossible it should be otherwise. Therefore, if the Government hands over to the European Powers the financial control of Egypt, they hand over the control of Egypt.

The Law of Liquidation is the limitation of the scope of the Conference. I do not say there may not be collateral questions that may arise; but that is the subject of the Conference.

If nothing whatever is modified but the Law of Liquidation, the control of Europe will be very great; but there is something besides Europe—there is France. Now, the Prime Minister has told us that the Conference is confined to money matters; but his statement, on the face of it, implies that the negotiations with France deal with other matters. These other matters must have relation to the length of our stay in Egypt, and any arrangement must have the effect of limiting our freedom of action in that respect. I express for myself, and I repeat it for a large number of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, the strong conviction that any limitation of our power in Egypt is a thing to be, at all hazards, avoided. After all, it is we who have fought in Egypt; it is we who have spent blood and treasure in Egypt; and it is intolerable that we should now be called upon to hand over the results of our sacrifices to others. Rut I do not wish to rest my case solely or chiefly on the interests of this country. I believe if we are to carry out the great duty we have taken upon ourselves in the face of Europe, and in the face of the Egyptian population, we can only do so with any hope of success if we do so absolutely uncontrolled. The Dual Control, in the opinion of the present Government, is altogether unworkable. A European Control would be ten times as unworkable. If they—the Government—cannot drive a coach and pair without coming to grief they certainly would very soon fall into the ditch if they tried to drive six-in-hand. I do not wish to press the Prime Minister with Questions; but I do wish to put on record my strong opinion that if the results of the present negotiations are either that our stay in Egypt is to be limited, or our remaining in Egypt is to depend on France; or on any other Power or combination of Powers, such a course would be deeply injurious to the interests of this country, and not less injurious to the interests of those whose welfare we have taken in charge. I think the Prime Minister has dealt openly with us; but I think it is only fair to the Government to explain to them, in return the feeling that we entertain with regard to the probable results of the pending negotiations with France.

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the replies of the Prime Minister to the many Questions which had been put to him, because he had in his recollection that they had had such things to deal with as secret Treaties which had been entered into by a Government of this country under conditions which necessarily hoodwinked the House of Commons and deceived the people. He was glad to think that, in regard to the present negotiations, Her Majesty's Government had not the slightest idea of taking any steps which would prevent the House of Commons from exercising a legitimate influence upon the position of the Government before it was finally determined by any actual arrangement on the part of the Powers of Europe. He ventured to say that if the result of any arrangement were to materially limit the administrative influence of England in Egypt, such arrangement would be very offensive to the public opinion of this country. He did not believe in the desirability of "scuttling out of Egypt." He entirely agreed that when they bombarded Alexandria, and crushed out the only possible Government in Egypt, and the only chance there seemed to be of any national movement or self-government, they took upon themselves a great responsibility to administer Egypt, and to bring it into a condition when it might be left to the safe and good government of the Egyptian authorities. That might be at a remote period; but he was satisfied that if, after all the sacrifices which this country had made, after all the blood that had been shed and all the property that had been destroyed, they were to give up in favour of some system that would lead to difficulty and disputes the fruits of their exertions and sacrifices, it would meet with condemnation in the public mind of the country. He did not say this from any want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. He had not the slightest reason to believe that they were going to take the course which he ventured to protest against. But he felt very strongly that if we were brought into complicated partnership with other Powers, it might well happen that, arising out of that complicated partnership, we might have disputes and misunderstandings, and, possibly, war. He did not wish the Government to say one word beyond what the Prime Minister had already said. He believed they would strictly avoid the precedent set by the former Government, and would not involve the country in obligations of which the country was not aware, and which would lead to a large amount of difficulty, and, perhaps, of disaster.

said, it was quite delightful to hear that veteran of philanthropy and economy, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), coming out as a real, rampant, roystering Jingo. The hon. Member spoke of British sacrifices in Egypt. What were they? England had destroyed the principal cities of Egypt, and made Egypt pay for the destruction. It had slain Egyptians by the thousands at the loss of only dozens or scores of its own men. He was afraid that on the present occasion the silence of Her Majesty's Opposition boded no good for the Egyptian people; and he was afraid, further, that there were only too many Members of the Liberal Party prepared to make common cause with the Gentlemen who presided over bondholders' meetings and demanded that strong measures should be adopted in regard to the people of Egypt. The hon. Member also observed that on both sides of the House there was the greatest amount of indignation at the suggestion of Europe being al- lowed to interfere in the affairs of Egypt. So far as he (Mr. O'Donnell) had been able to discover, the mind of Europe was pretty well made tap on the matter; and he found a general concurrence and determination that France, Germany, and Russia should have a very effective voice in the settlement of the Egyptian Question. They were promised that the conclusions arrived at would be laid before the House previous to the meeting of the Conference; but could it be imagined for a moment that there was any pith and solidity in an assurance of that kind? Nothing could be more certain than that these communications would practically be final. The Prime Minister had said that the Government desired to enter into a European arrangement for the management of Egyptian affairs; but the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if it was found that Europe—using the word in its generally accepted sense—and not Great Britain would have the predominance in the Conference; and, in that case, he should like to know whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to go to war with the dissenting Powers? He should also like to know if it was true that the Government had engaged 15,000 Turks to pacify the Soudan; but it would be surprising to find the unspeakable Turk and the eloquent Premier going arm and arm to complete the work of Lord Wolseley. Another and very delicate question to be considered was the position which Russia would take in regard to the Conference. There could be no doubt that the suggestion of the Conference came from Russia; and France and Russia between them held the key of the Egyptian situation. They held this country in the jaws of a vice and on the horns of a dilemma—the one horn being France and the other Russia. It would be a matter of indifference to Russia whether she embarrassed England in Egypt, or whether she took advantage of our complications in Egypt to advance in Central Asia. He wished to impress upon the House his sense of the utter helplessness of the British Empire at the present juncture. Before many weeks they would be required to recognize that neither the bondholders represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), nor those represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), but Europe at large, would decide upon the position of Egypt and the policy of this country.

said, he was not in the least surprised that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should urge the Government not to withdraw from Egypt; but he was surprised that he should be followed in the same strain by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and that those two Jingoes almost shook hands over his head. What was the meaning of all that his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley had urged with regard to economy? How were they to expect reduction in the National Expenditure if his hon. Friend was to propose such a Jingo policy to Her Majesty's Government? His hon. Friend said that he spoke for a large number of Members on the Liberal side of the House. His hon. Friend spoke for himself certainly; but he did not know for whom else he spoke, except it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, he observed, applauded him. Those two "corner men," as they were called, probably formed a Party of their own; but it would be an error to suppose that all on the Liberal side of the House agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley in thinking that we had rights in Egypt. We acquired no rights by bombarding Alexandria or destroying Egyptians. What would the hon. Member for Burnley say if someone was to break into his house, slay the hon. Member, and then imagine that he had acquired a species of fee-simple and right to remain there? When this country went to Egypt, we had no rights. We went to Egypt, not in the interests of England, but of Europe. We had been urged to remain there in the interests of Egypt, and because we had assumed certain responsibilities towards Europe. However, now that it appeared that other Powers objected to our regarding Egypt as an integral part of the British Empire, we were told that we had acquired rights, and the argument of our responsibilities towards Europe disappeared. He hoped the Government would continue the policy they had adopted; and, as he understood it, that policy was to withdraw from Egypt as soon as it was possible to withdraw from it, and not to recognize any of those assertions of rights which were made by irresponsible Gentlemen like his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and Members opposite. we had not acquired rights, and we had not the right to remain one day more in Egypt than was absolutely necessary.

said, that it was very desirable to know whether the sentiments of the hon. Member were the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government; and if they could only get an answer to that question, it would clear up the subject very considerably. What they really wanted to know was, what would be the relations of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the administration of Egypt? If the sentiments just enunciated by the hon. Member were to be followed, then the sooner this country renounced all responsibility for the future the better. But the views of the hon. Member were not those which had hitherto been enunciated by Her Majesty's Government. They had from the first told this House that we had rights in regard to Egypt. Nearly two years ago the President of the Local Government Board admitted that when he said that we were in Egypt by reason of our position in respect to India, and for other reasons. An additional reason had now been afforded by the events of the last two years. One of the alarming considerations with respect to the negotiations that were now going on was that they might have been just as logically initiated a year and a-half ago as at the present time. Everyone who had watched events must come to the conclusion that had these negotiations been initiated 18 months ago this country would now be in a far better and more powerful position, because no one could conceal from himself that, whether negotiations were to be carried on by Diplomatic Correspondence or in a Congress, the weakness of the Government would be much greater than at the period to which he bad adverted. Of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman he had very little complaint to make, because he had felt all along that with respect to the negotiations and the Conference the House must be at the mercy of the Government. It would be unreasonable to ask the Government, while negotiations were going on, to state from day to day what the results of these negotiations were. But that was no reason why they should not feel extremely uncomfortable about the matter, particularly when recollecting the exact state of things as presented to the House that day and on former occasions by the right hon. Gentleman. A disposition, had been shown in some quarters to mix up the questions of the Conference; and the negotiations; but nothing could I be more distinct. One of the strong points which the Government had relied upon when they had been attacked in. I connection with the Conference was that I it was limited to the consideration of the Law of Liquidation. That was a point which the House ought to bear in mind, and to which the Government ought to be held. But the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the negotiations that were going on did not relate to the same subject as that which was to be submitted to the Conference; and, therefore, it was clear, from what had been said that day, that the House I would find itself in this position—that these negotiations with France would go on, and that they would be submitted i diplomatically to the Powers of Europe before the Conference met. The result; was that far more important questions than any which could possibly be discussed in the Conference would be settled, with France in the first place, and then with Europe, without any knowledge on the part of that House of what was being done. He had understood the Prime Minister to say that when the negotiations were concluded; they would be submitted to Europe, and then possibly to the Conference.

No. There is no idea whatever of their being submitted to the Conference.

Well, the House would see that the hon. Member for Hertford spoke very truly when he said that a very critical point had been reached, because the result of the steps taken by the Government would be that while all questions relating to the future administration of Egypt might be submitted to France and to Europe, the House would know nothing of what was going on until the conclusion of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would take care that the rights and Privileges of the House should be regarded. He did not understand what, according to the right hon. Gentleman, those rights and Privileges were, because the other day the right hon. Gentleman seemed to say that the House would be consulted if any financial arrangements which would require the assent of the House were come to in connection with Egypt. It followed from that that all questions, with the exception of finance, might be discussed without any conclusive expression of opinion by that House.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that does not follow.

He was glad to hear it; but he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when the negotiations were concluded the rights and privileges of the House would be respected. If that wore so, then all the important questions relating to the administration of Egypt could be settled before the House should have had au opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them. He believed that the Government were within their right in taking up that position; but that did not make the House and the country less nervous about the future. There was no question connected with the financial administration of Egypt that was not quasi-political. He could imagine no more prolific source of differences between England and other Powers than questions connected with the caisse de la dette. Other Powers might insist upon having Representatives upon the Board, and that might cause great difficulties. He trusted that the Government would not consent to any arrangement which could lessen our power in Egypt and the influence which we exercised upon the Government of that country. If the Government sincerely meant what they had always said—namely, that they bad gone to Egypt for the sake of good government—the sooner the control exercised in any Egyptian Department by other Powers than ourselves and Egypt came to an end the better. If, however, we were to go on being interfered with, not trusting to what we considered to be the best way of administering all Departments in Egypt, we could not leave that country too soon. He hoped that the Government would not forget during the negotiations that the House of Commons would never consent to an abdication of the position which we now occupied in Egypt. His object was not to embarrass the Government, but to increase their power; and he felt certain that if they would declare that they were deter- mined to maintain the interests which they had stated over and over again to be the interests of England, and to accomplish the object for which they went to Egypt—namely, the establishment of good government—and that they would allow nothing to interfere with them in carrying out that object, they would receive the support of the House of Commons and of the country.

said, the Prime Minister's statement, as far as it went, was satisfactory; but there was some ambiguity about it which he would like to have cleared up. He understood the matter to stand thus. The Government had invited the Powers to attend a Conference respecting the Egyptian Debt, and that Conference was to deal with nothing but the Debt. The Government, however, were also engaged in negotiations with France, who had, like England, special interests in Egypt. These negotiations might eventuate in an arrangement between the two countries; but this would not become operative without it had the sanction of the other Powers. The Prime Minister promised that their arrangement with France should be submitted to Parliament before it was shown to the other Powers. Thus far the matter was clear. But it was not clear whether the arrangement had to be submitted to Parliament before it was ratified. The Prime Minister said he would engage that the Privileges of Parliament should not be infringed by anything that was done. That was well enough, but the Privileges of Parliament were very elastic; and, as far as Treaties were concerned, all the privilege that Parliament had was to discuss them. The House of Commons could not make a Treaty. The making of it rested with the Sovereign, acting through Her Ministers. Members, however, could dismiss a Ministry that made a Treaty they disapproved of. Now, what he would like to have from the Government was a distinct statement that, before any engagement with France was made, Parliament should be consulted. It was the opinion of Gentlemen sitting near him that the Prime Minister had already given such an engagement; but he scarcely thought so. They seemed to think that the arrangement with France would require to be ratified in the same way as that about the Suez Canal. The Government made the latter bargain with the Suez Canal Company; but before it was completed the House of Commons expressed an adverse opinion, and the agreement was never carried out. Would the Ministers say that the same thing would be done with, respect to the arrangement with France about Egypt? They had not said so yet. He had no wish to continue the discussion; but, like the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), he wished to put on record his opinion that the Government had not so far made such an arrangement with the House. One other remark he wished to make, and that was that if the Members of the Cabinet believed they could surrender the advantages that England had purchased in Egypt at such a sacrifice of life and treasure, either to France or any other country, they were greatly mistaken. The opinion of the English people on some points of the Egyptian Question might not have been very clearly expressed; but they would be unanimous in demanding that the Government should not throw away the position we had earned by our own sacrifices.

The question of Egypt involves matters of the most serious consequence. We have been told that we are not to abdicate the position which we hold in Egypt at present, and we were told by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that we were not to lose the fruits of the sacrifice we have made or the privileges which we were entitled to. I must say, Sir, that I do not see the fruits which we should be so anxious to monopolize, and I do not see the privileges which we are so entitled to. I confess I never felt more anxious as to the future of the country, and as to the position which we appear to be drifting into. When we see a Parliament returned with the almost distinct mission to put a stop to aggressive measures calculated to add to the great responsibilities and duties which this country has already undertaken—when we see, in spite of a Government, one of the most powerful we have over had, and headed by a Minister also the most powerful of this century, and known to be opposed to undertaking greater responsibilities than those which I venture to think this country already has the greatest difficulty adequately in fulfilling, unable to prevent such dangerous undertakings, I must say I do think that there is great danger that this country has reached the point which has been reached in other nations when they have undertaken difficulties and responsibilities beyond what it is in their power to perform, and thus begun the decline and fall of the Empire. And really it is very curious to notice either the want of knowledge or the want of candour with which some statesmen speak on this subject. They speak as if this country had peculiar interests in Egypt and the Suez Canal which were not possessed by the other Powers of Europe, whereas it is exactly the contrary. This country has only a common interest and a common right with the other Powers in Egypt and the Canal. That Canal inflicted the greatest blow upon the supremacy of England—especially its maritime supremacy—and are we then to take the whole burden and difficulty of this Egyptian Question upon our shoulders? I am not now speaking of those difficulties and responsibilities which we have undertaken towards the people of Egypt from what has already been done. That is a question so difficult that I do not venture to speak about it, but will prefer to leave it to those who are much wiser and more experienced than myself. But as a merchant and shipowner I can understand, and I do say, that the interest of the Mediterranean Powers in Egypt and the Suez Canal is in some respects special beyond that which we possess, and is in other respects the same as we possess, and that, therefore, we have no right or duty to claim the monopoly of this question of Egypt and the Suez Canal, and have no right to throw upon this country the enormous sacrifices which, if we insist on remaining permanently in Egypt, we must entail upon this country. I am speaking not of what is said in public, but of what is said in private. In private it is often said—"Oh, let us remain now that we are there;" but I venture to say that the people of this country will eventually not allow you to stay there. I venture to call the attention of the House to the fact that the most intelligent part of our working classes have become, or are becoming, more and more opposed to wars, especially wars of aggression. You may have the country with you for a time, and so long as everything goes on prosperously in a course of aggression, and they will naturally applaud the valour of our sol- diers; but when trouble comes, as trouble will in these things, you will find the Democratic feeling in this country will not support you, or carry you through the blunders in which you may be involved. And, therefore, after having entered into those great undertakings and pursued them, unwisely, you will have to abandon them with discredit and disgrace. I feel very strongly on this subject; but I do not say we ought to abandon at once the work we have undertaken in Egypt. But when we come to speak as if we were permanently: to demand and maintain the special and exclusive charge of Egypt and responsibility for it, then I say we are attempting to do what we are not able to do. We are adding another place to garrison and defend when we already have an; Empire sufficiently large for our resources. And remember this is not a financial question alone. If it were I should look upon it with much less anxiety. The question is the blood tax you are imposing upon this country. There is no natural boundary between Alexandria and Capetown; and if you remain in Egypt you will be led on step by step, as in India, to make still further encroachments, and get further responsibilities, until the blood tax will be too heavy for the nation to bear, and you will, as I have already said, have to retire with discredit and disgrace.

said, he thought the hon. Member's views were probably in harmony with those of the peace-at-any-price Party, and were more suitable for a Radical meeting than for discussion in the House. The hon. Member, however, did not realize that our obligations with regard to Egypt were daily increasing, and that the necessity of keeping the route to India in our own hands was becoming more and more imperative. The question was, whether the rights of this country regarding Egypt should be handed over to the arbitration of other Powers whose interests were not identical with our own, and whether the obligations of England should be submitted to the consideration of Parliament. However explicit the words of the Prime Minister appeared to have been, he ventured to think that on one point, at least, those explanations were not explicit enough. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the communications which might pass between this country and France prior to the Conference would be submitted to the House; and he went on to say that, as far as he could give any assurance, the question to be submitted to the Conference would be one of finance. The question which might be submitted to the Conference might be one of finance; but it did not follow that the question between France and England was one of finance. He had asked tins Prime Minister, supposing the control of Egypt was in future to be not a Dual Control, but a Multiple Control, whether that question would be submitted to the House, not after it had been discussed by France and England, and made the basis of negotiations which should be continued at the Conference table, but prior to any arrangement entered into between the Governments of the two countries? That question had not been answered by the Government. An hon. Member had referred to certain rumours as to the negotiations that had taken place between the Government and the Porte relative to a joint expedition of Turkish and English troops to the Soudan and Upper Egypt. He had intended asking the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs two Questions on this subject. He had given the noble Lord private Notice of the Questions; but he had received a note stating that in regard to Questions of this character longer Notice was necessary. It had been impossible for him, under the circumstances, to give longer Notice, and it had been equally impossible to postpone the Questions. Those Questions materially affected the negotiations which would take place at the Conference. They were so important that he maintained the House was entitled not only to an answer, but to an opportunity of considering them. It was alleged, and it had not yet been contradicted, that the Turkish Government had accepted the English invitation to the Conference on the condition that neither the annexation nor the Protectorate of Egypt should be discussed at the Conference, and that Turkey had further said that in the event of a question being raised as to the annexation or protection of Egypt the Turkish Representative at the Conference would leave the meeting. This, he submitted, was a question of the gravest importance. Considering the rights which England had acquired over Egypt by the expenditure of her blood and treasure, and by the obligations which she owed to her Indian Empire to preserve that road open, it was of the utmost importance that the House should be informed by the Government whether or not they went into that Conference cramped and confined by obligations entered into with the Turkish or any other Government. Again, the question had been raised by an hon. Member as to whether or not it was the fact that the Government had entered into negotiations with Turkey for the purpose of using Turkish troops in the Soudan and Upper Egypt. That question had not been denied. The Prime Minister had said that Notice must be given of it; but what did this mean? Surely the Foreign Office was in a position to say "Yes" or "No" as to whether this was really the case or not. This uncertainty, however, was another example of the dangers into which they were being driven. He urged upon the House that the Government were bound to consider the paramount duty imposed upon them, and not to try and escape from the responsibilities which their acts had driven them to incur. They were also bound to consider how they should best consolidate the power of the Empire which had been confided to them.

said, great injustice had been done by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He had listened to the speech of that hon. Member, and he was gratified to hear coming from him sentiments in harmony with the general feeling of the country. He had been denominated a Jingo; but he thought those persons who made this charge were guilty of a remarkable thinness of humour and paucity of intelligence. If Jingo had any meaning at all, it meant a Party that was fond of military adventures, and that involved the country in unnecessary wars. The history of the past four years showed that the Liberal Ministry had exceeded all other Governments in their useless and discreditable military operations. Hon. Members opposite would, he hoped, be a little more careful how they used these senseless epithets in the future. With regard to the question of the Conference, he thought it would be evident to the country that the Prime Minister had distinctly retrograded from the satisfactory statements he made a few days ago. Two points came out prominently from the discussion that afternoon—one that negotiations were going on with France, negotiations which were; to be submitted to the Powers, and which, if accepted by them, would form, a fresh basis for the Conference. ["No, no!"] If that was not the case, then what was the object of those negotiations? Were they being conducted as a blind to France? If those negotiations had any point whatever, their point was to widen and extend the scope of the Conference. If it was the case that this country, under any conditions, was going to submit its position in Egypt, its political influence in Egypt, and its paramount interests and supremacy in Egypt to France, or to the control of Europe, such a course would be highly dangerous and unsatisfactory. The policy of a Multiple Control was one utterly unsatisfactory, and would be, if persisted in, disastrous to the interests of the country. Turning next to the question of General Gordon at Khartoum, he asked the Prime Minister whether the Government were prepared to state to the House that some preparations had been made to organize an expedition for the relief of General Gordon? Ministers made statements on the 3rd of April which subsequent information had proved to be misleading and inaccurate, and now the Government took refuge in a policy of silence. But this much was known—that a Special Envoy of the Queen at Khartoum had; been for six or seven weeks cut off from; all communication with this country. They know he was hemmed in by savage and cruel fanatics; they knew that he was in danger from enemies without and from treachery within the town. Notwithstanding that all these facts had been for a long time in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, they were not even now in a position to make a statement on the subject, and to assure the country that steps were being taken to send out an expedition for the relief of that chivalrous man. Her Majesty's Government alleged military reasons as an excuse for not telling the country what they were doing; but the real fact was that they feared to commit themselves to any decided course of action. The Government were taking no steps to relieve General Gordon; and how was he to rescue the garrisons and accomplish the object of his mission except by mili- tary support? The heartless despatches which the Government had sent to that gallant man were positively worse than useless. Let the Government simply state to the House and the country that an expedition was now being actually prepared for the relief of General Gordon, and the mere announcement of the fact would effect wonders for his safety. He hoped, therefore, for the sake of General Gordon, if not for the satisfaction of the country, that Ministers would be able to make a definite statement that an expedition was in active preparation.

said, he rose to call attention to a subject that was more nearly connected with the Motion of Adjournment than that which had been under discussion. What he wished to do was to complain and protest against the Adjournment being taken as it had been. He did not do so because of being angry with the Government; but he wanted a Government, so well disposed towards Scotland as this Government was, to understand what was likely to be the effect on Scotland. As the House were well aware, he had secured this evening for the discussion of a subject of great interest to Scotland. No doubt there was difference of opinion among the Scotch Members as to the terms of his Motion; but as to its importance there was none. For a long time there had been a burning question in Scotland — an agrarian agitation. With a view of putting an end to that, a Commission was appointed, and that Commission had recently reported. Well, when that Commission was appointed there was a very wide-spread suspicion—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but I am bound to say that if he proposes to refer to the Report of the Crofters' Commission he will be out of Order. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) has given Notice that he will refer to it this day four weeks; and I understand this is the same subject which the hon. Gentleman would propose to take to-night; but, both on the ground that he could not anticipate his own Motion and the Notice of the hon. Member for Carlow, he will be out of Order in alluding to the Crofters' Commission.

said, he was perfectly well aware of the Rule referred to, and he had withdrawn his own Motion on the subject; and he was aware that the Notice of the hon. Member for Carlow debarred him from entering into the subject. He did not intend to discuss the Report of the Crofters' Commission. He had simply referred to it. When the Commission was appointed, and had reported—[Cries of "Order, order!"] He was not discussing the Report. When the Commission was appointed a widespread suspicion was entertained that it was for the purpose of shelving a disagreeable subject. He did not entertain that suspicion, although it was intensified when the composition of the Commission was made known. Still, he was quite willing to believe that the Commission would be a fair and painstaking body. He thought the Report showed that that had been the case. An opportunity had been obtained of discussing its Report, and now that opportunity had been taken away by the action of the Government in moving the Adjournment just before the Sitting at which the Motion referring to the Report was to be discussed. He did not believe the Government did this on purpose to avoid the discussion; but people in Scotland would very naturally entertain that opinion. He said he did not believe it; but he mentioned the matter now in order to give the Government the opportunity of setting themselves right with the country. The people of Scotland might be forgiven if they thought that Commissions and inquiries were too often granted for the purpose not of promoting, but of shelving inconvenient reforms, and especially might they consider that in connection with some of the matters dealt with by this Commission. Some time ago he had brought before the House the question of the appointment of Public Prosecutors in Scotland, and called attention to the fact that they were allowed to engage in private practice and act as land agents. The Government voted against his Resolution, and it was lost. But what had occurred previously? Some years ago his hon. Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser Mackintosh) proposed a clause in a Bill then before the House. That clause was to the same effect as his Motion. When it was discussed the present Government were in Opposition, sitting on the other side of the House; and among those who voted for the clause were the present Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Judge Advocate General, and the Secretary to the Treasury. All these Gentlemen voted for it when they were in Opposition; but when he (Dr. Cameron) brought it forward when they were in power they all voted against it. They all turned their backs upon their former vote. Not only did they vote against it, but they did so when the Report of this Royal Commission was in their hands. That, he thought, was an example of action that was calculated to arouse the suspicion of Scotland as to their sincerity to deal with, the question. The Land Question was another of these subjects. Forty years ago Sir John M'Neill gave a Report that was quoted as the gospel of everything that could be said on the subject. He suggested an improvement in the condition of the tenure of land in Scotland; but nothing was done on that Report. Then there was the Agricultural Holdings Act, which was passed in 1876. That gave tonants-at-will in England a right to a year's notice to quit; but that Act was not applied to Scotland. Last year another Agricultural Holdings Act was passed. In its application to England it gave, to a limited extent, right to a notice to quit of 12 months; but in the case of Scotland, although a similar length of notice to quit was proposed to be inserted, that was contested, and ultimately the matter was compromised by giving the Scotch tenants-at-will right to a six months' notice. But when that came into operation, what did they find? This—that owing to the legal construction of the Act, that six months' notice did not come into effect until after the first term at which evictions should have taken place. He did not know if that was the legal construction of the law. A most eminent English counsel had given an opinion that it was not; but the Lord Advocate said that it was the construction which should be put upon the Act. The Law Courts could decide between them; but the point to which he wished to call attention, was that the Minister of the Crown, who was intrusted with the charge of the Bill, and who drafted and arranged the clauses, had given it as his opinion that the meaning was that it should not come into operation until after a date at which evictions could take place. The publication of the Report of the Crofters' Commission had aggravated the situation. Matters were bad enough before; disturbance and resistance to the law had occurred in various Highland districts.

I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to my ruling. He is discussing the Report of the Crofters' Commission in an indirect way, which is entirely out of Order.

said, that, of course, he bowed to the Speaker's ruling, and would speak to another branch of the subject. Well, there existed at this moment, in consequence of the interpretation which had been put upon the Act of last year, some 85 processes of eviction, pending in one single district, involving the fate of a number of persons said to range between 400 and 600. That was a serious state of matters; and as the people of Scotland sympathized with those who were so affected, it was most imprudent, and likely to be most disastrous to Her Majesty's Government, if they were to take any course of action that would rouse suspicion as to their being not anxious to deal with and remedy acknowledged evils in Scotch affairs. The people of Scotland were loyal in their Liberalism, and they were long-suffering; but, unless they saw that some more earnest spirit was manifested than was shown by the withdrawal of an opportunity of bringing up an important subject, simply in order to allow Members to get away for the holidays 12 hours earlier—unless they showed greater earnestness in dealing with Scotch affairs, it appeared to him, not that the people of Scotland would deviate from their Liberalism, but that they would return a very different class of Liberals to the House from those who represented them in it at present. They would return men who would insist upon some very much more radical reforms than were likely to approve themselves to the Government.

I suppose I ought to say something upon the very miscellaneous invective which my hon. Friend has addressed to Her Majesty's Government. I do not think language of that kind ought to be left without some kind of answer. The hon. Gentleman has chosen to say that everybody had a suspicion that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government was exceedingly unfair. [Dr. CAMERON: No; I said I had not.] Well, everybody in Scotland except the hon. Member had a suspicion that the Government were dealing very unfairly and with a want of sincerity and earnestness with regard to these questions. He promised us—which I very much regret—a totally different class of Representatives from Scotland from those who at present exist. As I have a very great respect and admiration for the present class of Representatives from Scotland, I should be very sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow has already determined that the whole of that class is to be changed. But, with regard to the conduct of the Government, all I have to say is that a Report has been presented by the Commissioners of very great importance, containing recommendations unquestionably of a novel character requiring careful examination; that these are founded upon very voluminous evidence, constituting four thick volumes, which, I am ashamed to confess, I have not had time yet to read. As for the notion of embarking on legislation of this character, and announcing the intention of the Government on an afternoon before the Whitsuntide Holidays with reference to matters of such importance, I do not think that is a reasonable demand. Therefore, if Members had been here in greater numbers the Government would have said nothing but what they now say, that it is their duty to examine the recommendations of that Report extremely carefully—especially to examine the evidence upon which it is founded, and how far the evidence bears out these recommendations. It is perfectly impossible, even if the Government had nothing else to do, that they could have made that examination before to-day. I do not know if the hon. Member for Glasgow is prepared to say that he has read the evidence through. If he has, I am prepared to say that he is the only man in this House who has done so; and if that be so, I do not see how the Government can have exposed themselves to the severe censure which he has passed upon them for not having been able this afternoon to announce the resolution at which they had arrived.

said, he did not understand the hon. Member for Glasgow to expect the Government to announce to-night the legislation which they proposed. He understood that what his hon. Friend had complained of was that the Government, by their action with regard to the hour of proposing the Adjournment, had deprived him of the advantage which he had gained by the ballot with respect to his Motion. Before the Easter Recess the Prime Minister had expressly arranged his Motion for the Adjournment, so that it should not prevent an Evening Sitting. He maintained that the people had a substantial grievance in the fact that the Government, to save a couple of hours' inconvenience, had so arranged the Motion for Adjournment as to preclude the hon. Member from discussing a question of the highest importance to the tenants of Scotland, and of the deepest interest to the people generally. His hon. Friend had not made any complaint of the Government having refused to lay down a Land Bill for Scotland; he had not expected anything so rapid from Her Majesty's Government on that subject. The Government had not at any time shown very much anxiety to deal with and reform the Land Law of Scotland. Even the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act of last year had been so framed as to admit now of an interpretation highly detrimental to the people. The Lord Advocate was answerable for the doubtful framing of that Act, which, instead of being a relief and a protection to the people, was now proving very detrimental to the people of Scotland. They were being evicted after 40 days' notice, in spite of the Act, which said that from the 1st of January they were entitled to six months' notice. He had taken the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), which, he believed, the Lord Advocate himself would allow stood as high as that of any Member on the Government Bench, and that opinion was distinctly, contrary to that of the Lord Advocate. He was afraid that when eminent legal authorities were in direct conflict, the people of the West of Scotland were likely to fall between two stools. He was, however, of opinion that they had not lost much by being deprived of the discussion that evening, because, from the remarks of the Home Secretary, they would not be likely to receive much comfort from the Government at present on the subject. He desired, however, to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the fact that Scotch Members had a very substantial grievance—namely, that the Government, to save a few Members three hours' inconvenience, had so arranged the adjournment as to preclude the hon. Member for Glasgow from bringing on his Motion for the benefit of the crofters.

said, he desired to express his opinion with respect to the crofters. He was not going to refer to the Report of the Commission; but he thought the position of the people in those parts of the country towards the law was a very unsatisfactory one indeed. The administration of the law in the Western Islands was extremely unsatisfactory, and caused great dissatisfaction to the people there. The Procurator Fiscal, a public official, was also land agent to the proprietor who owned the whole of the country; and the poor crofters frequently did not know when he was acting in the one capacity and when in the other. The consequence was a general want of confidence on the part of the people in the impartiality of the administration of justice; and the Government might expect, in consequence, serious results. He thought it was now the duty of Scotch Members to bring the state of affairs fairly and fully before the Government. If they had a Minister for Scotland they would have someone responsible for redress of the grievances complained of. But as they saw the Government were dealing with this question of a new Minister for Scotland in a very unsatisfactory way, he considered that Scotch Members were perfectly right in complaining. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to reply as he did to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but the Government need not be surprised if the people of Scotland should not prove so docile as heretofore, and if their Representatives showed themselves determined in having more attention paid by Government to Scotch affairs. His object in rising was to call the attention of the Government to the state of things existing in the West of Scotland, and to the expectations entertained by the people of Government action on the Report of its own Commissioners. He hoped the Home Secretary would devote some of his attention to the Report of the Commission during the Holidays, and that after the Recess the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be in a position to intimate what the Government intended to do on the Report of the Commission.

said, that he wished to call attention to the position of affairs with respect to the Merchant Shipping Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made an able and very lengthy speech on the second reading, and had advanced what he no doubt believed to be valid and satisfactory charges with respect to the conduct of certain shipowners. It had been impossible, at the late hour at which that speech had been concluded, to give anything like an answer to the statements and allegations made. Many of the statements, he was sure, could be disproved, or, at the least, materially modified; and he asserted, on the part of the shipping commerce of this country, that they were entitled to a very early opportunity of resuming that debate. He ventured to say that the onus of any loss of life, if it was true that loss of life did occur from preventible causes arising from delays in passing the Bill through the various stages, must not be laid upon the Representatives of the seaports, but on the Government, unless they took steps at once for the resumption of the debate. Not one of the shipowning Members of that House had been a party to the negotiations concerning the Amendments proposed in the Bill; and until they had seen the new clauses they were not prepared to say what position they were going to take. They must have an opportunity of expressing their views and those of their constituents.

said, he did not rise to continue the discussion on the Report of the Crofters' Commission. He only desired to point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and to the other Members who echoed the complaint he made, that they were entirely mistaken in supposing that the action of the Government in moving the adjournment of the House at the Morning Sitting had in, any degree prejudiced their position. If the Motion for the adjournment of the House had been made at the Evening Sitting it would not have enabled the hon. Member for Glasgow to bring forward his Motion, because the discussion they had at 2 o'clock this afternoon would have been resumed at 9 o'clock, and would have anticipated the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, so that the prospect of bringing forward that Motion would have been very slight indeed. In reference to the point that had been raised by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), he had no doubt that on an early opportunity after the Recess his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would be able to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill. It was generally admitted by Members who spoke on. both sides of the House that a pledge had been given by the right hon. Gentleman that the fullest intimation respecting the communications going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France and other Powers should be laid before the House at the earliest opportunity, in such a manner as would afford hon. Members an opportunity of forming an opinion upon them. The protests which had been made by hon. Members on various sides of the House would bean assistance to the Government in forming an opinion on the difficult question they had under consideration. It had been generally admitted by those Members who had spoken that it was impossible for the Government to add anything, while negotiations were in progress, to the communication that had been made by his right hon. Friend. He now appealed to the House to allow the discussion on the crofters' question to come to a close, so as to enable his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make his promised statement on the proposed amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act.

said, he was sorry to interpose at the present moment; but he thought the House ought to consider the position in which it stood with regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill. Certain grave and serious charges had appeared in the newspapers in reference to the shipping interest and various shipowners, and among others with regard to Captain Hatfield, a respect- able constituent of his. Those charges had been made, it had been ascertained, without any kind of notice or kind of inquiry into the facts.

The hon. Member is clearly out of Order in referring to a previous debate of the present Session.

said, he was only referring to statements which had appeared in the newspapers.

The hon. Member was explicitly referring to what passed on a previous occasion, and therefore he is out of Order.

said, he was simply desirous to refer to a statement which had appeared in the newspapers; and although it was the same in all he could not say distinctly that it had emanated from the Board of Trade. Still, it stated, apparently with some degree of authority, that a certain speech was to be printed and circulated; and when one saw the same statement in all the newspapers one naturally had an assumption that it had been sent to those journals. He should like to point out to the House that whilst the proceedings in the House were privileged, and whilst it might be possible to make unjustifiable attacks upon individuals which might be believed outside, yet such libellous statements, if published in pamphlet form, would render their authors or publishers liable for the consequences. He felt, after the ruling of the Speaker, that he must not refer even to the newspaper reports of what was said on a previous occasion; but he now wanted to point out this—that this paragraph which had appeared in the newspapers with, so much apparent authority had since been contradicted; and it had come to his knowledge that one of the gentlemen who might have had recourse to legal proceedings against the Board of Trade would find himself in a difficulty, because of the withdrawal of what he thought really was the original intention. He would ask the President of the Board of Trade explicitly whether he did not at the present moment hold in his possession a formal request from Captain Hatfield to correct certain libellous statements which had been made, and whether he persisted in those statements, because he would take the liberty of saying that he knew Captain Hatfield to be an honest, straightforward fellow. He had lost certain ships, and he (Mr. Mac Iver) wished to know, with reference to these statements, whether it was not a fact—

The hon. Gentleman is distinctly reviving a past debate.

said he bowed to the Speaker's ruling, and could only express his regret that in his desire to say a word or two in justification of a man he knew well, and whom he thought had been unjustly attacked, he should unwittingly have called upon himself the intervention of the Speaker.

said, the hon. Member had asked him a distinct Question, and he would answer it distinctly in two or three words. The hon. Member asked him to state if he had received letters from Captain Hatfield to set him right in regard to certain statements he had made. He had not. The only letter he had received was one which had been published in the newspapers, and which was so offensive in tone, that he thought it quite unnecessary to take any notice of it. But there was another letter published by the same Captain Hatfield, in which he practically admitted that he had had 12 ships and lost 11 of them in seven years.

said, he respectfully contradicted the accuracy of the statement. He had in his possession a copy of the letter which was sent to the right hon. Gentleman.

It will be my interest and my duty to show my gratitude to the House for giving me this opportunity of making a short introduction to the proposals of the Government; and I shall not enter at any length, nor, perhaps, shall I directly enter at all, into the motives which actuated the Government in making these proposals. The pressure in the direction of an extension of facilities to tenants to purchase their holdings has come from two quarters. In the first place, there are the advocates of peasant proprietary, those who believe that there is supreme virtue in possession; that the sense of possession is a spur to labour, to thrift, to the quiet but continuous enterprize which is essential to make farming successful. Among these may be included those who look rather to the political than the economical advantages of the movement; and who hold that to be owner of his farm makes a man a good citizen, so that a large infusion of farming proprietors into the social system of Ireland would mean that there would be so many more contented and law-abiding men who could be trusted to remain such in any dangerous emergency. These ideas have been, comparatively speaking, of old standing, and one who held them most sincerely and warmly was the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). The Irish Church Act and the Land Act of 1870 both passed while he was connected with the Government; and both Bills contained an honest, and in the first case a successful attempt to promote the system which he had at heart. The same aspirations left their mark on the Land Act of 1881, and the hope that the Purchase Clauses of that measure would be among its most important provisions held a larger space in the minds of its supporters than, perhaps, they now remembered. But the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1870 have not succeeded, and the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881, in comparison with the hopes entertained, have failed. Only 870 tenants purchased under the Land Act of 1870 during the first 12 years of its operation, and it is doubtful whether all those could be classed as peasant or even farming proprietors. Under the Act of 1880 about 430 peasant proprietors have been created in the course of two years. If the two Acts between them have made one farmer in Ireland out of every 400 a possessor of his farm, it is the most they have done. Now, the Government believe, and earnestly believe, that the social and political state of Ireland and its agricultural conditions are such that there never was a country in the world in which it is more important that many of those who till the land should own it. They recognize that former legislative attempts to bring this about have not met the success that could be wished; and in the measure which I have the honour to lay before the House the Government have done their utmost in order to accomplish an end which, if it can be accomplished, I believe the whole House and the whole Kingdom would regard with satisfaction. And the other great class who urge an extension of purchasing facilities to tenants are those who, from private interests or on public grounds, view with anxiety the deadlock in the Irish land market. No one, I think, can deny that when the land of a country is practically unsaleable it is a great misfortune to the community and a great hardship to a very large class of individuals. And it certainly cannot be denied that such a state of things now holds in Ireland. In the year 1849 the land market in Ireland was in a state to which men look back as to a phenomenon. The distress among landowners, the burdens on property, the impossibility of realizing the value of it, was such that Parliament had resort to measures which, in considering the opinions of those days, must have seemed nearly revolutionary. And what was the state of things which induced a Parliament with the ideas of nearly 40 years ago to pass the Encumbered Estates Act? These estates were in the hands of Receivers, the rental of which was £750,000 per annum, and there were nearly 1,000 Chancery suits in which the rights of the parties had been ascertained, but in which it was impossible to realize the property. Well, Sir, at the present moment estates with a rental of £440,000 are in the hands of the Court Receivers, and there are at least 750 properties ready for sale, or ripening towards sale, if only the market were open, which cannot now be sold at all. The block in the land market of 1884 already bears comparison with the famous block of 1849; and another three years like the last would make it every bit as bad. For the state of things during the last three years has been exceptional to a degree that the public are hardly aware of. Between 1850 and 1858 the Encumbered Estates Court sold £23,000,000 worth of landed property. Between 1859 and 1879, inclusive, the Landed Estates Court sold £29,000,000 worth. The average annual sales of those 30 years were at the rate of £1,750,000 a-year. The average annual sales of the 20 years between 1859 and 1879, which it is fairer, perhaps, to take, because they represent the normal dealings of the country, were at the rate of £1,500,000 a-year. The average sales in the last three years have been as near as possible £250,000; and this does not represent the full strength of the case, for of the £750,000 of property sold in the last three years £300,000 was town and house property, and the quantity of agricultural property sold was about £150,000 in each year, as against £1,500,000 in ordinary years. The officers of the Court tell me that in an ordinary year they had about 200 estates awaiting sale. They now have, at least, 750. Between 1865 and 1881 the average of the agricultural property sold in no year fell below 20 years' purchase. In 1882–3 the little that was sold only fetched 18 years' purchase; and if sales had been pressed it is not easy to say to what figure it would have fallen. And even so, and at this price, out of 108 lots that were offered for sale in 1882, 63 remained unsold. Out of 165 in 1883, 123 remained unsold. In old days when a large estate was under the hammer the number of bidders would be such that auctions were held in the Round Room of the Rotunda or in the largest chamber at the Four Courts. Now, when auctions are held in the Landed Estates Courts, sometimes, including loungers, hardly 20 people are present. Sir, there is one cause of the deadlock which this Bill will undoubtedly remove. The Committee of the House of Lords have mentioned several obstacles in the way of the tenants purchasing; but they have not mentioned a principal one, which is that they are waiting for better terms. After so large and influential a Committee had once held out to the tenants the prospect of having the whole purchase money, it is certain that not a tenant will purchase until he knows what answer the Government would make to such a proposal. Until, as far as a Ministry can ordain it, finality is established in this matter—until the terms are clearly laid down up to which the Government will go, and up to which Parliament will follow it, the deadlock in Irish land will continue, and grow worse, if there is room for it to grow worse. And, therefore, the Government, in the measure which I beg leave to introduce, have gone to the utmost limits which the welfare of the State and the security of the Exchequer will permit; and if the Bill finds favour enough to become an Act, the Irish tenants will know the utmost which in this matter they are to expect from Parliament so long as Parliament is guided in any way by the present Government. In referring to the Exchequer, I cannot leave without mention the deep personal interest which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken in the furtherance of this question, the active initiative with which he has urged it from first to last, and the minute care which he has bestowed on the details of a scheme the unfolding of which would come more effectively from his lips. But he chooses to keep himself in the background, and I shall try to make up for my deficiencies in the only way I can—by the studied brevity which, in laying our scheme before the House, I shall endeavour to reconcile with as much clearness and lucidity of explanation as it is within my power to compass. The method I shall adopt is to state in succession the obstacles to the purchase of estates by the tenants, and the provisions by which this measure proposes to alleviate or to obviate them. These obstacles may be divided into two great classes—the legal obstacles, by which I mean the drawbacks of time, trouble, and costliness which are involved in the present state of the laws of purchase, sale, and title; and the administrative and financial obstacles, which consist in the insufficient attractiveness of the terms offered to the proposed purchaser, And, first, with regard to title. At present a tenant for life or other limited owner, if he wants to get the favourable terms of the Act of 1881, must sell to the tenants under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act by a process which does not give the purchasing tenant a complete and absolute title, and which lays on him a possibly very large and undefined cost, inasmuch as all the expenses of dealing with the purchase money, ascertaining to whom it is due, and distributing it to the right claimants, must be borne by the purchaser. This liability in itself renders it necessary for the purchaser to employ a solicitor, if it were merely to ascertain that the case was a safe and simple one; and where it is not perfectly safe and simple, no man in the rank of a plain farmer can be expected to venture to buy a property which has so serious a responsibility attached to it. To be responsible for the distribution of the purchase money under a complicated settlement, and then to have a title which may possibly be defective, is a prospect that may frighten the boldest. Well, Sir, this difficulty the Government measure will entirely obviate. That measure proposes to take advantage of the machinery of the Settled Estates Act of 1882, and enable a limited owner to make title, through the Land Commission, to the fee-simple of an estate, for purposes of sale, with as much freedom as if he were the absolute owner. We propose, likewise, that the Land Commission may give the purchaser an absolute statutory Parliamentary title. There will be no legal expenses to the purchaser, except such as may arise from his thinking it convenient to employ a solicitor to make his application, or represent him in his absence from Dublin—expenses of which the Court could not take cognizance. The stamp duty, a matter of one-half per cent on the purchase, is the most that he will have to pay. There will be little or no delay, for as soon as the seller has proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he is an owner competent to make title under this Act, a vesting order, in lieu of a conveyance, will then and there be made out in favour of the purchasing tenant, and he will not have to wait for his title until the rights as to the purchase money have been ascertained. The expense of making out his title will, of course, be borne by the owner who wishes to sell. The expense of investigating the title will be borne by the Land Commission. The tenant's part in the transaction, if he assents to the financial conditions I am going to describe hereafter, will be limited to marching off with his Parliamentary title in his pocket as clear and undoubted an owner of his farm as if he had purchased it in the Landed Estates Court. Another main difficulty at present is that the purchase-money, in the case of a settled estate, can only be invested in the Government Funds or other securities yielding a very low rate of interest, or in a fresh purchase of land, the very idea of which may be dismissed as beside the question while the present condition of things lasts. Of course, in an estate of which the settlements contained selling clauses this difficulty would not exist; but those estates are very few indeed in Ireland, so strong has been the attachment of the Irish landlord to landed property, and so profound in old days was the habit of providing for younger children by burdening the property instead of by selling it. The Committee of the House of Lords describe this difficulty in very forcible terms, and suggest a remedy which our Bill adopts. We propose to authorize investments in all the securities which are sanctioned by the Settled Estates Act of 1882—East India Stock and guaranteed railways, mortgages, Stock of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and other securities; and we give the Land Commission power to appoint trustees to buy, hold, and administer these securities. We have every hope that under these arrangements the former owner and those dependent on the estate will enjoy as large an income from the produce of the sale as will be consistent with their own security. Another difficulty connected with the landlord's title arises where the land is subject to a quit rent or to a chief rent, which, the Lords' Committee informs us, is said to be the case with one-third of the land in Ireland. There is now no power to apportion this burden, and the whole rent continues to be payable out of every holding into which the estate is divided. The Bill of the Government gives the Land Commission express power to redeem the chief rent, apportioning the price of it among the holdings in arranging the instalments of the purchase-money, and they are likewise to have all the powers of the Landed Estates Court with regard to the apportioning of quit rents and Crown rents in such a manner that, where the chief rent is not brought up, the new tenant proprietor will pay his share of it, and his share only. Sir, I will venture to say that such a complete and searching proposal for the simplification and cheapening of legal proceedings never entered the mind of man—[A laugh]—not even those of the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) and Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). I have listened to many speeches on the cheapening of law in this House; but I certainly have never heard one which exceeds this proposal, which, as soon as a primâ facie case for the ownership of land is established, enables the would-be purchaser to obtain an indefeasible title with no legal cost except that of the stamp duty; and I think I may call upon the hon. Member who laughs to tell me the means by which the transfer of land can be made cheaper than that. I will say a word to the English Members here, and state a fact which, I think, is a most interesting one, by which I think I prove conclusively that, besides being convenient, this plan of the Government is perfectly safe. It is impossible to abstain from a reflection of what this bugbear—the possible insecurity of landed property is—which has for generations frightened us from reforming our system of conveyancing in England. The system which I have described in principle is that which prevails in the Landed Estates Court and prevailed in the Encumbered Estates Court for a collective period of 30 years. In those 80 years £50,000,000 of property, one-fourth of the land of Ireland, has passed through the Court, and has come out with a Parliamentary title attached to it; and I am informed by the officials of the Court that there is not in their memory a single case of any rightful owner of an estate who, in the end, found himself robbed of his property. In one case the dividing line between one farm and another was in one of the Court maps drawn a few yards too much to the right or to the left, and, of course, that could not be altered, but will have to remain so until the Day of Judgment; but that is the whole sacrifice in the way of security to property which Ireland has made in order to have the ownership of one-fourth of her soil put outside the province of litigation and uncertainty. And now, Sir, I leave the legal side of the question and come to the administrative; and, without beating about the bush, I will go straight to the point, and inform the House what our proposals are. The present state of things, familiar to Irish Members, but, perhaps, not always so present to the minds of English Members, is this. Under the Land Act of 1881 the Land Commission may lend to the tenants three-fourths of the purchase money. It is lent at 3½ per cent. The tenant pays £5 a-year for 35 years for every £100 of the loan. This is the Sinking Fund, and at the end of that period accounts are wound up between him and the State. Now, Sir, I have forborne from quoting any part of the Blue Books which contain the result of inquiries into the land system of Ireland. If one once began one would never stop; for these inquiries have been conducted by highly competent men, who examine highly competent witnesses, and there is interest and instruction in every page. So now I will quote nothing in support of my assertion, but will say only that the evidence about tenants who have purchased under the various Acts goes with irresistible weight to prove this proposition — that of the tenants who have purchased their holdings, the most thriving and prosperous have been those who have paid down, out of their own resources, the margin of one-third or one-fourth which they did not borrow from the Government. The next class in prosperity are those who had credit to borrow that margin at a reasonable rate. The third, and too often most unprosperous class, are those who borrowed the margin at a high and even ruinous rate of interest—such men as those whom we are told of in the evidence of Mr. Murrough O'Brien before Lord Bessborough's Commission, who borrowed the margin at 20 per cent interest, and borrowed likewise the money to pay for the legal expenses of the conveyance and for the mortgage deed on their holdings. Now, Sir, the principle of our scheme is that we wish to have as many of the purchasing tenants of Ireland as possible in the first class, and none in the third. We hold very firmly by the belief that a man cannot invest his savings better than in the purchase of his home and homestead; and, on the other hand, we are determined that, if a tenant is fit to become a proprietor at all, he shall not have to become one by hampering himself with usurious interest. In order to induce the thrifty and saving tenants of Ireland to put a helping hand to the task of making themselves owners, the Treasury has consented to reduce the interest from. 3½ to 3¼ per cent in the case of those tenants who provide a fourth of the purchase money, and to extend the term of years—an extension which may safely be granted in the case of men who have given a sort of hostage to Providence by putting down hard cash of their own. Instead of paying £5 on every £100 for 35 years, they will henceforward pay £4 10s. for 40 years. If such a man at present pays £100 a- year rent, and purchases his farm at 20 years' purchase, his case will stand thus—he will pay on the £1.500 advanced by the Government £67 10s. The margin of £500, at £5 per cent, would come to £25. Then come the extra rates which, as a proprietor, he will henceforward have to pay. To this calculation I have devoted more hours than it will take seconds to give it to the House; and the House will, perhaps, take it on trust when I put it at 6 per cent on the rent—that is, £6; making a total of £98 10s. If such a man bought at 20 years' purchase, he would, if he provided a fourth of the money himself, become full owner of his farm at the end of 40 years, during which he would pay in interest, rent, and extra expenses somewhat less than he pays in rent now. But, besides giving an advantage to the tenant who is willing and able to contribute to the purchase, the Government desire to fulfil their object, and exempt every tenant from borrowing at usurious interest. To accomplish this end they propose two means; one very small, indeed, in comparison to the other, which I will describe in a single sentence. They propose to allow, in the case of a limited owner, that part of the purchase money may remain on mortgage on the farms which he has sold under the Act, so that arrangements may be made between tenant and landlord in a manner that would facilitate sales, give a good rate of interest to the one, and protect the other from the evils of usury. But the other proposal of the Government is indefinitely larger. The Government, after long and anxious consideration, have come to the conclusion that whatever they could be induced to do in the future they should do now and at once; and so they have arrived at the determination, under certain—as they think, sufficient—conditions and guarantees to advance to the tenant the whole purchase money. In the first place, the Land Commissioners must assure themselves that the price is a fair one, the security good, and the transaction one which will benefit the tenant and the community. When they have satisfied themselves of this they may advance to the tenant the whole of the purchase money, not, as at present, at 3½ per cent, but at 3¼. Paying £5 every year the tenant will be enabled to become full and absolute owner of his farm at the end of 33 years; and I maintain that such an offer has never been made by any State to any class or condition of its citizens. It is impossible to ask the taxpayers of the United Kingdom to show such confidence in the farmers of Ireland unless the taxpayers of Ireland evince that confidence themselves; and the liability of the tenants who have borrowed the whole sum from the State will have to be strengthened by a local guarantee which will not be required in the case of those who have borrowed only three-fourths. It is proposed—and here I must beg hon. Members to hear the whole of what I have to say before they make up their minds on a point—it is proposed to make the county cess responsible for the deficiency in the payments of the purchasers. Hon. Members must not think this very alarming, for I am glad to say that the experience of the Land Commissioners is that this liability is very small indeed. The Land Commissioners, under the unfavourable terms under which it has sold land, either itself, or as the inheritor of the Church Commissioners, easily and cheaply collects its instalments from purchasers by a very simple process of receivable orders, which I suppose are cashed in banks; and between March 1883 and March 1884 it has only increased its arrears of rent by £150 for the whole of Ireland. We may, therefore, believe that those deficiencies will be very small indeed. But where the Land Commission fails to collect these instalments—for it will continue to collect them in the case of the new loans as it has in the case of the old—the county cess will have to make them good. It would be manifestly unjust that, in an operation intended to benefit both landlord and tenant, the guarantee should fall upon a fund to which the tenant, in most cases, alone contributes; and in the payments which will have to be made in case of deficiency the cess will be divided between tenant and landlord. Again, it would be unjust that a district should be burdened with a liability which it had had no voice in accepting; and consequently each purchase scheme, after being approved by the Land Commission, will be submitted for approval or rejection, and only for approval or rejection outright to a local body. The composition of that body was a subject of long and nice discussion. At first the idea was to have a Board composed of representatives elected, half of them by the owners and half by the occupiers of the county; but this idea had to be abandoned on account of its expense and complexity. The proposal now is that a Board, not less in number than eight, not more than 16, shall be appointed in the following manner:—The elected Guardians of every Union, if, as in half the counties is fortunately the case, there are between four and eight Unions, shall elect each of them one person who is either an elected Guardian or a person qualified to bean elected Guardian by property situated within the county. [Mr. SEXTON: That is, each Union shall elect one?] Yes; that is the system we shall endeavour to adopt. To these the Grand Jury shall add as many more persons, whom they themselves shall nominate. If the Unions in the county are more than eight, as is the case in four counties, the Local Government Board will be responsible for grouping them. If they are less than four, as is the case in 12 counties, the Local Government Board will be responsible for making arrangements by which at least four representatives will be returned. The Board will be elected for three years. A casual vacancy among the representatives of the Guardians will be filled by election, in the case of the representatives of the Grand Jury by co-option; and no contract will be complete unless three-fourths of the members sign their names to it. This machinery, in default of any better existing, is a very cheap and ready method of getting, not only the opinion of the county, but the opinion of both classes in the county; not only the opinion of the county as a whole, but the views, the local knowledge, the local co-operation of every corner of the district which is affected. If this Board accept the liability it will be the business of the Grand Jury to carry it out, and the Grand Jury will have against defaulting tenants all the powers at present possessed by the Land Commission, powers which I am glad to say—for it speaks very well for the Irish tenant when he sees his way to an independent position—they have seldom and almost never been under the necessity of employing. And one more point. Many of those who have taken interest in the forma- tion of an Irish peasant proprietary, have seen in it an incidental means of providing thrifty Irish tenants with a handy and lucrative class of investment, which is at this moment so sorely wanted in Ireland. The Irish peasants who place their collective millions of savings in deposit banks which pay them, one year with another, little over 1½ per cent would be glad of an Irish security easily attainable, easily transferable, the interest on which was paid down at their door, and which, when paid, was well worth their while to take. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) urged the formation of such a security in his speech of last year, the re-reading of which has been a pleasant task; and Mr. Vernon, in his admirable evidence before the Lords' Committee, described the effect which such a security, if issued in small sums and payable in Ireland, would have in promoting saving habits and in encouraging attachment to the law. The Government, entering into these views, propose that the Treasury shall have power to pay the whole or part of the purchase-money in Three per Cent Debentures of the Land Commission, issued in small amounts, by the Bank of Ireland, the interest to be payable at the Bank of Ireland out of the instalments received by the Land Commission, with a Treasury guarantee at the back of them. In the opinion of the Government, bonds issued under those conditions would, to a large extent at any rate, stay in Ireland, and provide the Irish peasant with a form of national investment which small farmers on this side of the Channel will be inclined to envy him. The staff of clerks and inspectors which will be required for carrying out these duties will, in the main, be appointed under the 45th section of the Land Act; but power will be taken to provide the Land Commissioners with such skilled legal advisers as they may require to do the work of conveyancing. And there is one still more important personal change on which a few words must be said. The work of the Sub-Commissioners is going forward steadily and satisfactorily, as far as pace is concerned, and we begin to see daylight fast approaching through the cloud of arrears of applications to fix a fair rent. In a non-argumentative speech I make no remark on any other part of their work; but we see an immense quantity of arrears being removed. But it is quite another matter with, the appeals. There the work to be done has gone fast and far ahead of the means of doing it. The Land Commissioners have laboured as men have seldom laboured. They have worked hard, and have worked conscientiously. They have rejected, as we might be sure such men would reject, all the advice that has been offered to them to shorten their labour by giving off-hand and superficial decisions. In spite of all their exertions, the work has grown so upon them that the last Report shows that out of 15,700 appeals more than 10,000 remain to be dealt with. Seven hundred and sixty came on in the month of April, against 180 that were disposed of. It is impossible for the Government to leave such a condition of things any longer without a remedy, and the remedy they propose is this. The tenure of the fourth Land Commissioner, who is a layman, lapses in August. Lord Monck was appointed only until August, and has done his duty under very great disadvantages. The Government propose to appoint a fourth lay Commissioner for two years certain. Moreover, it is proposed that the Lord Lieutenant may select two Chairmen of counties to serve on the Appeal Courts of the Land Commission, and out of these materials two Courts of three members each may be constituted. Judge O'Hagan would preside in the one, and the next Judge appointed to the High Court — whoever he may be — in the other; and, till that appointment is made, Mr. Litton would act in his place. Each President would have a Chairman and a lay Commissioner as his Assessors. With this addition to their sorely overworked body the Land Commission could grapple with the mass of work before them; and, when a serious impression was made on that mass, the experience of other Courts of Law which have got into arrear, and afterwards recovered themselves, is that a good deal of what remained would melt away of itself. The Government earnestly trust that on this point hon. Members will make allowances for the difficulties that must beset every scheme, and will co-operate to remove an evil which all acknowledge, and which presses heavily on everybody concerned. And now, Sir, I have referred to the main points of the measure, with one exception. It is proposed to limit the amount of money lent by the State under this Act to £5,000,000 in any one year, and to limit the total amount to £20,000,000. The measure would not be justified if the possibility was even admitted that the Government could become at one and the same time the mortgagee of the whole of Ireland. And this brings me to the consideration of a proposal which has been made by influential deputations, and important public meetings, that the Government should lend money to Irish landlords at a low rate to consolidate their mortgages. Sir, the Government cannot see how any practical distinction can be made and kept between one class of charges on land and another. They believe that the loan would extend to all mortgages on land in the country, and these in the aggregate have been roughly estimated at £100,000,000; that it would be a financial operation gigantic beyond any precedent or conception; and that it would nullify the pecuniary limit which they have laid down in the Bill, and would end practically in making the State the absentee landlord for half the value of the land of Ireland. Nor does the Government discern how a distinction can be drawn between Irish landlords and other classes, whose incomes have been diminished, and their interests affected, by public legislation. Nor, again, is it easy to resist the claim of English and Scotch landlords who have suffered as much—in my belief, at least, as much—from economical causes as Irish landlords have suffered from legislation and economical causes combined, in a manner which it will be very hard for a practical political economist strictly to define and separate. The undertaking on which we are asked to embark is absolutely unlimited in its scope. The Government would have to cut itself free from the principle which has hitherto governed all loans from the State to individuals; and that principle is that loans shall be made for purposes of public utility, or that combine a large element of public utility—agricultural drainage, sanitary works, labourers' cottages; not the mere relief of the individual from pecuniary pressure, however undeserved and however lamentable. There is another principle from which the Government cannot depart. When loans are made from the State to individuals, they are made not for an indefinite period. They are terminable within a certain fixed number of years. And when the landlords found themselves unable to pay off their mortgages, when the interest is only 5 per cent, we do not see how they could pay 5 per cent to the Government, even if by doing so they could gradually recoup their principal. And now it only remains to meet the possible objections which may be made by those who think that the Government should have adopted other methods of attaining their purpose. It may be asked why we have not taken any of the ingenious plans for the institution of a land bank as intermediary between the tenants and the Government. Sir, my answer is that in all the plans I have seen the proposed bank would be virtually a Government Department, with a body of shareholders, who would be paid by Government for bringing in their capital. There is no profit to be made by a Corporation which everyone would regard as a part of the Executive, and which would be watched by its clients, and their Parliamentary Representatives, with a determination that the money which Parliament lent should pay not a penny of toll on the way. Prussia, which has been quoted in favour of land banks, is an instance to the contrary; for the banks of Prussia are all State banks, and the rates are so adjusted that the margin just covers the State expenses, and no more. I could say more, were it not that I believe that the hon. Members for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) and County Cork (Mr. Shaw) had brought in their proposal of a land bank because they considered that to be the form in which private Members could, with most propriety, make suggestions to Parliament, not demands on the Treasury; and that, if the object which they have so much at heart is served, they would be willing not to take exception to the precise method, even though it is not that which they might, if they had the first word in the matter, have preferred. A good deal has been written, and something said, in favour of giving over the working of the Purchase Clauses to the Landed Estates Court instead of the Land Commission. The Landed Estates Court and the Board of Works worked the Bright Clauses of the Land Act; but in 1881 it was thought best to alter this, and give the duty to the Land Commission; and I think the change was a right one. To carry out these clauses properly two kinds of work are necessary—work of an executive character, the making of advances, the consideration of the character of the security, the consideration whether the purchase is not improvident, and the negotiation of purchases. Then there is work of a quasi-judicial character, involving the making out the vesting order to the tenant, and the investigation of the landlord's title. The Land Judges are a branch of the High Court of Justice, and it would be a thing foreign to their functions to impose on them the duties of an executive kind just stated. The Board of Works could not exercise quasi-judicial functions; and it is manifestly convenient and conducive to expedition to intrust the conduct of the entire business to one body, and there is no body except the Land Commission qualified to exercise both executive and judicial functions. Well, Sir, that is the scheme; and the only thing that remains is to see whether it will be taken advantage of by those for whose benefit it is intended. I see that Mr. Davitt states that this Bill is introduced for no other purpose than to save some landlords from bankruptcy, and he advises the tenants to be very slow to avail themselves of its provisions. Sir, my belief is that in the course of time, if not immediately, the tenants will begin to see what a great boon is offered them; and then no advice in the world, coming from whatever quarter it may, will prevent them from taking the chance that is given them. By pledging the credit of this great and wealthy nation, we are enabled to offer to the Irish farmer such terms as no other Government in Europe has ever offered, or has, up to this time, been able to offer, or even to approach. And for the peace of Ireland, and the happiness of Ireland, it is earnestly to be hoped that tenant and landlord alike will lay to heart the conviction that the Government firmly believes that in this Bill it has gone as far as the nation, as a whole, is prepared to go, and that they will consent to regard this Bill and the Land Act of 1881 as constituting together, not a shifting and temporary arrangement, but a veritable and permanent land settlement for Ireland.

said, he did not wish to offer any criticism or any opinion whatever on the very remarkable and very important statement which had been made by the Chief Secretary very clearly, as he always made a statement. He did not intend to say one word on the matter, although some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly towards the close, invited warm criticism. At the time at his disposal, however, it would be impossible to enter into the matter; and he only rose for the purpose of impressing on the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill should be at once printed and circulated, in order that, whether they viewed the matter from the landlord or the tenant or the English standpoint, they might have an opportunity of forming a real and clearly satisfactory judgment on what he said to-day. He would suggest the Bill should be issued during the Recess.

said, he did not wish to detain the House by offering any criticism on this important matter; but it would require serious consideration. All he hoped was that the Bill would not be rushed through the House in the small hours of the morning, as the Tramways and Public Companies Act was.

said, that the Government would have the Bill printed, and circulated as rapidly as possible. Some of the clauses were already printed, and others required further consideration; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Bill would issue as rapidly as possible.

When?

said, he could not yet fix the day.

said, that nobody, of course, could be expected, nor would it be right, to express any opinion whatever on the weighty proposals in the Bill which had just been explained by the right hon. Gentleman. He would only say that he wished to direct special attention to the provisions in the Bill requiring a local guarantee for the whole money where the tenant did not advance any portion of the purchase money himself. That provision was of a most momentous character, and it was one which would have to be very carefully consi- dered, and its operation weighed, since it might entail consequences resulting from too high a price being paid for the land, which would be most unfortunate for the ratepayers of Ireland. As regarded the other proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not express any hasty opinion; but he would say that the constitution of the fresh Appeal Court which it was proposed to constitute was a most unfortunate one. It was proposed to bring into the Land Commission Court two County Court Chairmen; and he ventured to say that there were not three such officials in the country who were fitted to be intrusted with the impartial consideration of these contested land cases. The result would be, therefore, of a Court constituted as it was proposed to be by the Bill, that there would be a large increase in the number of final appeals, and a block still greater than existed at present in the progress of the Business, owing to the unfortunate decisions which had been given by the Land Commission already in existence. He would say nothing further in regard to the other proposals of the Bill than that they were, in his view, most important in their character, and that they would receive most candid consideration by Members representing Irish constituencies.