I rise, Sir, to present to Parliament Papers which, on the one hand, are of great importance, but which, on the other hand, are not only incomplete, but contingent for their operation entirely upon what has already happened and may yet happen. My duty is to lay them on the Table in the usual course, and I have no doubt it would be convenient that I should make a very short statement which should be explanatory and not controversial, and which, I hope, having been made, will afford an opportunity to any Gentleman, in the House who may think it necessary to put any Questions which may arise upon it, or, if he think fit, to make any observations on the subject of that statement. At the same time, I would respectfully say that, although I shall endeavour to give the best summary view that I can of the essential contents of these Papers to the House, what I have to say on the subject is of secondary importance with regard to the authentic text of the documents which are now to be laid on the Table, and which well deserve the close attention, whether in a friendly or merely critical sense, of the House. The presentation of these Papers is altogether, as you will observe, an exceptional act. As the House is very well aware, the usual and necessary practice of an Executive Government is to make known transactions of this kind with foreign countries when they are completed, and then to refer to Parliament any matter requiring the authority of Parliament, and, of course, to leave to Parliament the power and the opportunity of passing judgment on the conduct of the Executive Government. In this instance, as I have stated, this proceeding, important as it is, is only a partial proceeding; but, undoubtedly, it is most important, because it embodies the views of the Governments of two great States in regard to the manner in which the complicated questions connected with Egypt ought to be disposed of, and it touches principles far more important than any interests directly involved in the question. Therefore, I do not for a moment disguise or attenuate the importance of the Paper. But the Paper is subject to this condition—that it can take no effect except in connection with financial arrangements yet to be made; and after those financial arrangements shall have received the sanction of the Powers of Europe, or, I perhaps ought rather to say, shall have been deliberated upon and adjusted by the authority of the Powers of Europe, it will then remain for Parliament to pass its judgment upon the entire transaction. Sir, we have proceeded in this very exceptional manner, and have done what has very rarely been done—I am not sure that I can quote a single instance analogous to it—in deference at what I may call, without offence, the impatience of Parliament. I use the term impatience in no disrespectful sense; it was an impatience at which we could not wonder, and of which we could not complain. We had felt for some time that the position could not be satisfactory in which we were compelled to meet not only inquiries, but charges and assaults, by negative replies. It has not been owing to any indecision on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we have been unable, down to the present time during this Session, which has now advanced so far, to give any further developed explanation of our policy in Egypt, but have been able to do little more than to refer to the statements— which were made in abundance at a much earlier stage of these transactions —which laid down that our policy was to withdraw from Egypt at the earliest possible moment, but to use our best endeavours, before withdrawing, to attain certain objects which we deemed to be essential for the welfare of that country. It was a state of facts, and not, as I have said, any want of decision on our part, which made it impossible on our part to add to those general explanations. There was a feeling that the time had arrived when either we ought to move forward, or that we ought to take measures in the direction of withdrawal from Egypt. Moving forward was precluded by the principle on which we had acted all along; and by moving forward I mean the adoption of intentions and measures which would contemplate either the permanent extension of our position in Egypt, or some great and strong measure in the direction of permanent retention. Move backward we could not, because if we had spoken in a definite manner, or had attempted to make a definite arrangement, with a view to our own withdrawal from Egypt, the question would necessarily have arisen in the mind of every Member of the House, and in the country generally, what was to follow our withdrawal? It would have been said—" However wise you may be, or whether you are wise or not, in seeking to put an end to your own sole action in Egypt, what security can you give us that your sole action is not to be followed by the sole action of some other Power?" We did not think that we could expect of Parliament or of the country that they would rest satisfied with the state of things which our ceasing to occupy the territory of Egypt with a military force should leave behind, a state of absolute uncertainty of what was to follow, and the possibility that sole action might be revived in an- other form. It is for that reason, as I have shown, that it remained until a comparatively recent period impracticable for us to give any development of previous declarations in the direction in which our convictions and policy had lain; whereas, of course, it was impossible for us to give any such development in a direction opposed to those convictions and to that policy. Sir, under those circumstances, a great change has been brought about, and we have been relieved from what we felt to be a great difficulty by the arrival of the moment when it became necessary and possible to deal with the subject of Egyptian finance. I need not say that in a country like Egypt it is not so easy nor so rapid a process to attain a clear and adequate knowledge of its financial position in a given time as is the case in a country like this, or like France, or any other country with a highly organized system of finance and account. And, moreover, the special and main causes which have brought about a crisis in Egyptian finance, are causes of which we have only at a comparatively recent time come to anything like the possession of full knowledge. The main causes, as the House is aware, are the claims for the payment of indemnities in connection with the incendiarism in Alexandria, and the development of large deficiencies —to some considerable extent unknown until quite recently—brought on Egypt by its attempt to hold and govern the Soudan. However, the time has arrived when— and, as the House is aware, several weeks have now elapsed since— Her Majesty's-Government found it to be their duty to invite the Powers of Europe to meet for Conference on the subject of Egyptian finance. The interval since that they have employed in making a thorough investigation of the case, and in preparing the plans which it will be their duty to place before the Conference. But in sending out these invitations to the Powers of Europe we received from the neighbouring and friendly Government of France expressions of a desire that previous to their entering the Conference — although it was not made an absolute condition in terms—there should be preliminary explanations between the two countries with respect to our general position in Egypt. It is probable that our resort to the Powers of Europe for a settlement of Egyptian finance must, in any case, have brought up the subject of our own position generally in that country. But if that position were to be brought up by one Power in particular, undoubtedly France was the Power most entitled in every sense to take the lead and to act, if I may so say, on the part of the rest. In giving that as an opinion I do not intend to enter into any argument; but I may, perhaps, say as much as this—that no person can form an adequate or a safe opinion with respect to the relations between France and Egypt who commences his study of the subject with the troubles that began to arise in the latter country two or three years ago. You must go back to the time about the beginning of the century, to the time of the Great Napoleon. You must go back to the time especially, and most of all, perhaps, of the year 1840, and to the efforts and sacrifices which were made by France at that time on account of Egypt; and you must also take into view the history of the formation of the Suez Canal, in order to understand, not what you are to allow to France in Egypt, but in order to understand the view which France may naturally and may fairly be entitled to take, and be led to take, of her own position in reference to that country. Well, Sir, this being so, the French Government invited from us explanations which we were not less ready and less desirous to render than she was to ask. We hailed the application which we received from the Government of France. That application has removed out of our way the barriers which formerly stood between us, and has enabled us to frame, and is now placing us in a condition to lay before the House, that of which you have the first and very important instalment to-day—that is, a plan of policy for Egypt—I am speaking of Egypt Proper and not of the Soudan —which I hope as to the Egyptian Question and our position in Egypt may, in some tolerable sense, be called a complete plan—a plan which is complete considered as a matter of action, and which will have this additional advantage, that it will not depend upon the mere judgment of the Executive Government, but absolutely must have, if it is to go forward, the distinct ratification and assent of Parliament. The French Government, as you will find in these Papers, made it their object, in the first instance, to remove, or to extinguish, two prejudices, as I think they are called, two erroneous suppositions, which lay in the way of a thorough conformity of opinion and views between the two countries with regard to Egypt. One of these suppositions related to the Condominium or the Dual Control. It had been understood that after that Dual Control ceased to be de facto the French Government was inclined to contend that it still existed de jure. That matter, important as it was, never, I think, became the subject of detailed correspondence between the two countries, and it is not at all necessary to examine now—and I am not sure that if we did attempt to examine we should have the power to bring our examination to a sure conclusion—how far that was or was not the case. At any rate, the impression prevailed in this country that France had made a claim for the revival of the Dual Control. That was one of the difficulties that obstructed us. The indication of France, which encouraged us to open our views, as the French Government opened its own views, included the unqualified assurance of the entire and final abandonment of the Dual Control. As far as that point is concerned I do not think the most jealous eye will find in these Papers anything to which objection can be taken. The other prejudicial opinion which the French Government sought to dispel was that which related to the-possible occupation of Egypt by French troops in the event of our retiring from that country, and upon this point, which is, perhaps, of even greater importance in the view of Parliament and of the nation, the assurances of the French Government are not less unequivocal. In fact, the phrase used by M. Waddington, in addressing Lord Granville, is "that France is ready to come under the most formal engagement upon that subject." Therefore, Sir, we were, by this voluntary tender on the part of the French Government, entirely set at liberty to determine our own plan of action, because I need not say that the assurances of the French Government, that in the event of our leaving Egypt she will not enter that country except by our consent, we considered as putting it in our power absolutely to extinguish and bring to an end all idea of the solitary action of any particular Power in Egypt. Well, Sir, that being so, to the French Government, on our part, we offered that we should be able to bring within the scope of a definite term and without any reserve, except those which prudence required, the now indefinite matter of the prolongation of our stay in Egypt, and what we offered was, that until that definite term arrived, we should, of course, retain the sole discretion to remain, or, if we think fit, to come away. [A laugh.] I am not so alive as the hon. Member to the comic side of the question, and I hope he will restrain himself, as the matter is one of extreme gravity, and because my desire is to convey clear impressions to the House. What we have offered is that we should retain sole discretion in our power until a certain term arrives—that is to say, that we shall be under no engagement to anybody to remain in Egypt should it be the desire of the Government and of the Parliament of this country to quit Egypt, that that term should be the 1st of January, 1888, and that, at that time, we should come under this engagement and no other— that we should agree not to remain in military occupation of Egypt beyond that term in case the Powers of Europe should declare that the state of the country was then such as to allow of our departure without peril to its peace and order. Well, Sir, these are the considerations which are expressed in the word "synallagmatique," as used by M. Waddington. These are the different considerations which may be said to have been exchanged between the two Governments, the offer of France and the offer of the Government of this country being such as I have described.

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the words again?

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that in general I am using my own words; but here I quote. So far, I think, I am correct in saying this—that the condition which would make it obligatory on us to withdraw will be the declaration of the Powers that the state of Egypt will allow of our departure "without risk to peace and order in the country." But, Sir, although what I have thus far stated disposes of a very important part of the question, clearly it does not dispose of the whole. There remains the question as to what modifications require to be introduced into those international arrangements to which Egypt is subjected; and I will describe as clearly as I can that which relates to the machinery now established of the Commission for the management of the Egyptian Debt that is generally called by the name of the Caisse. As I have stated, the Condominium which involved a general control over Egyptian finance is at an end. It is agreed between the two Powers that there shall, hereafter, be no general control over Egyptian finance, and the Budgets of Egypt will hereafter not be framed by the Commissioners of the Caisse. We have sought, and I believe France has sought not less than ourselves, in these arrangements to give every fair and reasonable scope that can safely be given for the development of that degree of independence which Egypt, notwithstanding her peculiar circumstances, may fairly claim, and which, as we hope, may prove to be for her future strength and happiness. But although there is to be no general control over Egyptian finance, and although the Budgets will not be framed by the Commissioners of the Caisse, yet there are to be, if this arrangement goes forward, defined and limited extensions of powers to the Caisse which we believe to be necessary alike for the welfare of Egypt, for the important financial interests of England that are now involved in the question, and likewise for the interests of the creditors of Egypt, whose fair claims we cannot put out of view. Sir, for these purposes, as I have said, the Caisse will receive a limited extension of its powers in order to prevent the recurrence of financial disasters and embarrassments so serious as those which have now arrived, and which, I need not say, unless an effectual remedy be applied to them, would not be financial only, but extremely menacing to the whole condition of the country. Those powers are described with accuracy and care in the despatches which I now lay upon the Table; and I will only say of them that they aim at two objects, and two objects alone—first of all, to make sure that the Commissioners of the Caisse shall be provided with sufficient information as to the financial proceedings of the Government of Egypt, and shall have the power of offering any useful suggestion in regard to it; secondly, that they shall have what we hope will be an effective power of preventing excesses beyond the limits of the Budget with a reserve in cases of actual peril to peace and order, and that, of course, must be allowed to stand, as we think, upon a special footing. Beyond this I have only now further to to say that the House is aware that the Commission of the Caisse is composed of four members, and that the President of that Commission is to be an Englishman. Now, Sir, even what I have now said, although it indicates generally a sketch of what will be found much more fully given in the despatches as to the future financial powers to be possessed and exercised in Egypt, yet it does not embrace the entire future condition of the country. We have endeavoured to look into the future as far as we can, and to consider how critical a point Egypt offers with respect to its political position, from geographical circumstances, from its connection with the great route of the world, from its military and political weakness, and from a combination of causes well known generally to the House. The two Governments, therefore, of England and France, desirous to avert those dangers for the future which have been found so formidable in the past, have agreed that we shall prepare and present a plan for the neutralization of Egyptian territory. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) put to me the other day a Question in regard to the neutralization of the Suez Canal. That, also, according to the views, not of this Government only, but of the two Governments, will be embraced in the proposals to be made; and in respect to the character of the neutralization of Egypt, Gentlemen will find in the Papers that reference is made to the general principles which were applied to the territory of Belgium; and for the Suez Canal reference is made to the despatch of the 3rd of January, 1883, in which the British Government declared its views upon this subject. I ought, however, to say, Sir, that this is a matter not for immediate settlement. Our opinion is that, first of all, it is obvious that there is quite enough to do in the present condition of Egypt and the Egyptian Question, and in the other matters which are to be opened; and, further, that the natural period for the operation of the plan of the neutralization of Egypt would arrive when the term of the British military occupation of Egypt is drawing near to a close. Our engagement, therefore, is to prepare and propose this plan during the term of our military occupation, and before it expires. I will not attempt to read these despatches to the House, because, although they are only in the form of a Blue Book of a few pages, they are certainly of great importance. Almost every word requires to be carefully weighed, and I am by no means sure that the listening to a single perusal, while it would be a tedious process, would be so effectual as a perusal of them by Members, when they can turn from one point to another, and return to any matter which appears to throw light on the other parts I have only to say further this, that, as I have already signified— and I wish that should it remain distinctly impressed on the minds of Members—this agreement, which is of the greatest importance, I think, on account of the parties who desire to make it, and on account of the principles on which it rests, is entirely contingent, in the first instance, upon what is to be done in Conference; and if, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of argument only, I suppose that the Conference arrives at no result, this agreement will entirely fall to the ground. Next, what is to be done in Conference will again be contingent on the approval of Parliament. The whole will depend upon that approval. A day is appointed for the first meeting of the Conference. It is to be Saturday next, and in order to save as much time as we can the figures of the plan which Her Majesty's Government will submit will be forwarded a few days before to the Powers severally, so that they may arrive in Conference with some degree of preparation for examining them. I need not say that that is but a short notice; but the truth is, that the framing of a plan of this kind, with all the assistance we could obtain from the great ability of Sir Evelyn Baring and the excellent indigenous assistance from Egypt, has been a work of great labour and difficulty, and it is only but recently that my right hon. Friend, to whose official labours this has made an enormous addition, has been in a position to bring it before the Cabinet in order to receive that sanction without which it could not go on. Now Sir, the only other engagement I have to mention to the House is this. As we can lay before the House nothing that is complete until the Conference has decided, our duty will be a double one in this respect. First of all, subject to the deference which the Powers of Europe are entitled to expect at our hands, it will be our duty to put forward and expedite to the best of our ability the proceedings of the Conference and lend it every aid in our power. Secondly, to give the House a pledge that when the Conference has arrived at its decision, not a day that we can help shall be lost in submitting it to Parliament, because we feel that this, at any rate, is no question of matters where it might be thought that discussion was at this or that moment unnecessarily raised. It is a question of arrangement which involves principles of the deepest moment, in my opinion, to the welfare and honour of this country, and, of course, to the welfare of Egypt. But these principles reach further yet. We do not shrink, we shall not shrink, from discussion with regard to them. We feel that the issues which will be raised are issues of the broadest character— that it will be the positive duty of Parliament to give a distinct and definite judgment upon them. That judgment we invite—that judgment, if I may say so, we challenge; that judgment we will do everything in our power to accelerate; for we believe that if our plans are accepted they will be favourable to the peace of Europe, to International Law, and to the civilization of mankind. We are the first to say that if they do not meet the judgment of Parliament, those who have framed these plans, and those who mean to adhere to them ought not for one moment longer to continue to be the Government of this country.

Sir, I am very sensible of the difficulties which lie in the way of any discussion of the proposals which have been made by the Government at the present stage of our information. At the same time, I feel that it is necessary, in order to guard the position of Members of this House, that a few words should be said as to the view we take of what has been said. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, that the course which he has taken in laying this statement before us is one of an unusual character; and we have, no doubt, to acknowledge the readiness and the desire of the Government to take the House into its confidence so far as it was able to do so; but, on the other hand, I must point out to the House that the fact of the Government thus calling us into council, as it were, and giving the House the opportunity of expressing its opinion on these proceedings, is to lay upon us a certain amount of responsibility if we allow the proceedings of the Government to go on without expressing an opinion of our own with regard to their nature. Sir, I may at once say that, even upon the sketch which the Prime Minister has given us, there appears to me to be very grave objections. I will not enter into discussion of the details of these proposals; but with regard to what we have been informed as to the limitation of the period of our occupation of Egypt, I am bound to say that that raises questions of a serious character deserving and requiring the judgment of the House as early as possible, even though we have not the complete plans of the Government before us. With regard to the financial proposals, we have not, of course, the means, without having the Papers in our hands, of discussing them, nor is it desirable that we should do so.

The proposals are not complete, and the Papers do not refer to that.

Well, then, we are even less prepared to discuss them. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks of a statement which has been prepared, and is to be forwarded to the Conference this very week, whether that statement is the same as one which was laid before the House some mouth or two ago, in which there was a summary of the financial position of Egypt, showing the large deficiency, and what was necessary to bring about an equilibrium?

That statement, Sir, was a statement of the financial condition of Egypt. In fact, it was like the account part of a Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, which shows the figures, and does not enter into the mode of providing an equilibrium. I am not aware that it has undergone any variation, certainly not any material variation.

Then we are to understand that the statement to be laid before the Conference goes beyond the mere account part—[Mr. GLADSTONE assented]—and contains proposals, at all events, for the consideration of the Conference with regard to the equilibrium? That proposal is not to be placed before us. Yet we are told that, whatever may come out of that arrangement, it will be submitted to Parliament before it obtains the final approval and sanction of the country; that is true, but it is not, as I understand, intended to give any power to Parliament of expressing any opinion upon these financial proposals until they have been submitted to the Conference. If that is so, I am bound to say it would be desirable and right that the House should insist upon having some further information on proposals which may seriously affect this country. I will not, at the present time, enter into any discussion of the general questions raised. I have indicated two points which I think are of a character very grave and deserving the consideration of the House as early as possible—namely, the question of fixing the terms for closing the occupation of the country, and the question of the financial proposals. I shall take an early opportunity, as soon as we have these Papers before us, and are able to do so, of calling for an expression of the opinion of Parliament. I conclude that when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Conference is to meet on Saturday, we can hardly suppose that it will be more than a formal meeting, or that they will proceed to discuss matters of this importance while Parliament is still considering the proposals laid before it. A time will, no doubt, be allowed us as early as possible for the discussion of the questions such as will enable Parliament to express its opinion before the Conference comes to a decision.

For fear of being misunderstood, I may be allowed to say, with regard to the closing sentence of the right hon. Gentleman, that what we think will be by far the best course for Parliament and for Egypt is that the proceedings of the Conference, which are connected with the most urgent state of things in Egypt at this moment, should be pressed forward with the utmost possible expedition, and that is the course we shall take.

I should like, Sir, to claim the indulgence of the House while I take some part in this preliminary canter over the course before the great gallop takes place, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition has given Notice. There are some points in the Prime Minister's statement which ought not to be left without immediate comment. The right hon. Gentleman stated in one part of his speech, in answer to a slight laugh which came from this side of the House, that he was not alive to the comic side of these proceedings. Well, Sir, perhaps if I may be permitted to find fault with so great a man as the Prime Minister, that, I should say, is his great defect. He is rarely sufficiently alive to the comic side of any question. For my own part, Sir, I must confess that while I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I did not not know whether to laugh or to cry; because anything more shamefully ludicrous, or anything more ludicrously shameful, I do not think any Prime Minister ever proposed to any House of Commons. I did not know whether to laugh at the folly of the Government, or to cry over the dishonour of my country. Well, Sir, the Prime Minister stated that it was not owing to any indecision of the Government that he had been unable to give these explanations to the House earlier. Before I came down to the House this afternoon I had the curiosity to turn to a former speech of the Prime Minister, from which I will make a small quotation, in order to dispose of the Prime Minister's defence against the charge of indecision. On the 9th of November, the Prime Minister, addressing the Lord Mayor and his guests, used these words—

"We have reached another stage in the progress of our work in Egypt. It is the progress of our work, and that alone, that determined the continuance of our armed force in Egypt. We are about to withdraw. The order has been given to withdraw the British force, and that withdrawal will include the evacuation of Cairo. I think that the country will feel that this is a subject for congratulation; it will lighten the burden imposed upon the Egyptian people; it will offer a new testimony to the world that we have been in earnest in the declaration we have repeatedly made; and, finally, I may say that that withdrawal from a large portion of the country of the display of British force will leave, as we trust, a free and open field and the power of a fair experiment to the Government of Egypt in the new career which we trust is opening to them."

That was the announcement of the Prime Minister on the 9th of November; but on the 23rd of June the Prime Minister conies down to this House and expresses his readiness to occupy Egypt for three years, and to enter into pecuniary liabilities with regard to the Egyptian Debt which must inevitably prolong still further the occupation of that country. In the face of a change of policy so unusual as that, in so short a space of time, the right hon. Gentleman gravely informs the House that the Government has manifested no indecision. The Prime Minister stated that he was in this position at the present moment, that he must either move forward or move backward, and he said that he could not move forward, and that he could not move backward. Why, that is just the position the Government have been in since they fought the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. They have declined to move forward or backward for any length of time consecutively. It has been a continual see-saw of backward and forward which has brought that unfortunate country into its present condition. "But now," says the Prime Minister, "fortunately for Egypt, we have arrived at the moment when it is necessary and possible to deal with the question of Egyptian finance." They have been two years in the country—two years undisputed masters of the country—and they say—" We have fortunately arrived at a moment when we are in a position to deal with Egyptian finance." Why, Sir, fortunate for the country? Why, Her Majesty's Government themselves have created that moment. And what are their peculiar reasons for dealing with Egyptian finance at this time, or for bringing it before Europe? In the first place, there was the bombardment of Alexandria; and then there was the campaign in the Soudan. But the bombardment of Alexandria, and the burden it would cast upon the Egyptian finances, were in the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government at the time the battle of Tel-el-Kebir was fought. The first thing that must have been present to their mind was the burden which would be thrown on the finances of Egypt. The very same thing must have been the case in regard to the campaign in. the Soudan. That commenced the moment you occupied Cairo; and the finances of Egypt, which are to be brought before Europe in consequence of those two events, have not yet been dealt with during the two years you have been in the country, nor have any steps been taken by you with reference to dealing with her liabilities; yet the Prime Minister calls Heaven to witness that this is a fortunate moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the Conference has been summoned, and that all the Powers gladly assented to attend it, including France; but he also stated—and this is a most remakable thing—that France intimated to Her Majesty's Government that she would like to have a preliminary interchange of views, without, however, making that a condition. So that the concession made to France seems to have been one of an extremely gratuitous character. The right hon. Gentleman told us that France, of all the countries in the world, was the one most entitled to take the load in expressing an opinion on Egyptian affairs. And why? Because of what she did in the time of the First Napoleon. The right hon. Gentleman went back for a reason to that piratical enterprise—an enterprise, too, that was baffled by this country—and he asserted that that was the great and peculiar reason which gives France an absolute title to dictate the conditions for the Conference. [Mr. GLADSTONE signified dissent.] Sir, the right hon. Gentleman denies it; but, undoubtedly, one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman said France was entitled to take the lead was on account of the piratical enterprise of Napoleon I. ["No!"] He certainly said that we must go back, if we wished to understand the question, to the time of the Great Napoleon, and he also stated that we must recollect the efforts which France made in the year 1840. I always thought that the check Mehemet Ali received, and the arrangement of affairs at that time, were as much the work of Lord Palmerston as of France.

The French were on the other side.

I am not inclined to admit, nor do I think any reader of history will admit for a moment, that what took place in 1840 gives France the smallest title to interfere, beyond any other Power, in the affairs of Egypt. But what is our position in that country? We have a title because the Prime Minister and his Colleagues have interfered in Egypt; they have been interfering there for two years, and their action has been the source of immense anxiety to Parliament and the country. They have made great military efforts to maintain their position there. Many English lives have been sacrificed, and £5,000,000 of English money spent in a great military expedition. Then they remained in Egypt during the time of the cholera, and more lives were sacrificed. They sent a great military expedition to Suakin, sacrificed more lives, and spent £250,000 more money. Surely all that made England the Power most entitled to take the lead in settling the future of Egypt; and are we who have made these efforts—which, no doubt, the follies of Her Majesty's Government made necessary—to assent to the Prime Minister's assertion that France is entitled to take the lead in settling the future of that country? [Mr. GLADSTONE again intimated dissent.] I maintain that that was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. ["No."] And if France is not entitled to the position which the Prime Minister, for the purpose of argument, assigned to her, why were all these concessions made to her? France was ready, the Government say, to come to the Conference without these concessions; but they went out of their way to make these concessions to her. "France desired a preliminary explanation," the Prime Minister said; but that was not an absolute condition. Ministerial cries of "No!"] Well, I can only put a plain English meaning upon the words. The Prime Minister has engaged to clear out of Egypt in three years' time; and, again, he has placed by far the more important part of its finances—namely, the revenues derived from the railways, from the Port of Alexandria, from the Customs, the Post Office, and the Telegraphs — in the hands of this new Board of Audit. These are the concessions made to France; and what has the Prime Minister got in return? He tells us that France has at last agreed to recognize the disappearance, the death, or the defunct character of the Dual Control. Curiously enough, to show the House the value of that splendid concession, I have, by the favour of a friend, received during the last few minutes a telegram from Paris of what the French Prime Minister said in the French Chamber on this very subject of the Dual Control. M. Ferry said it was absolutely impossible to resuscitate the condominium. Yet this beautiful arrangement, which M. Ferry declares with great candour cannot be restored, the right hon. Gentleman holds up before us as a most important concession. I laughed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and certainly it was enough to make anyone laugh. France, said the Prime Minister, considered that the Dual Control was in existence de jure; but that statement is directly traversed by the statement of M. Ferry, that it is impossible to resuscitate the Control. But I want to know, if that is such a great concession, who killed the Dual Control? France herself, and no other Power—France herself, who led you on in your Egyptian expedition; and the moment it became a question of employing ships and firing guns, scuttled away and left you in the lurch. It was France. No wonder M. Ferry had not got what I may call the brazenness to look upon the Dual Control as other than defunct. Then the Prime Minister says France has now made a promise of enormous value, and he told us that to get that promise was one of the difficulties that obstructed our progress. It was a promise, with the greatest amiability, not to send French troops to Egypt. How long the promise is to last the right hon. Gentleman did not say; but I suppose it is to last as long as the British occupation. Or is it to last after the British occupation has ceased? The right hon. Gentleman says—" I rely for the value of this pledge on a phrase of M. Waddington's." How many different Governments have held Office in France in a short space of time, and how many of them have considered themselves bound by the phrases of their Predecessors? Yet the Prime Minister thinks it enough to assure the House of Commons that he has a declaration not to send French troops to Egypt contained in a phrase of M. Waddington, a man who is here to-day, and who may be gone to-morrow. That, the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, is enough to hold up to this House as a sufficient counterpoise for the concessions which Her Majesty's Government have made to France. I do not value that assurance of the French Government one pin. I recollect how the Kroumirs were invented, and I know what the assurances of the French Government were about Tunis and about Madagascar and Tonquin. The assurance of the French Government not to send troops to Egypt is, to my mind, absolutely valueless—not worth a penny. This occupation by Great Britain is to last three years; therefore, we may take three years into our purview. Will any hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman opposite state to the House that it is a certainty, or even a probability, that the Republic will be in existence in three years? The Prime Minister says that he has engaged with France that our occupation shall terminate on the 1st of January, 1888. ["No!"] Yes; unless by the unanimous wish of Europe—[Cries of "Order!"]—and their opinion that the departure of British troops would endanger peace and order in that country. But, Sir, it appears to me that if you were to consult the Powers now, it is perfectly certain that it would be the wish of the Powers—and, more than that, the unanimous wish of Europe— that you should depart; and, more than that, it would be the unanimous feeling of Europe that your departure would not endanger the cause of peace and order, because during the three years for which Egypt has been in our possession there has been neither peace nor order. The Prime Minister did not give us any idea of how he was going to occupy those three years in Egypt. It is quite true that he has told us that the neutralization of Egypt is proposed; but on that point he did not give us sufficient information. He might as well have told us whether the neutralization of Egypt was a step which would be acceded to by the Government of Turkey.

I think I said we had undertaken to propose it to the Powers and the Porte. ["No!"] Then it was my omission.

A very nice work to undertake in three years—to propose to the Porte the neutralization of Egypt! But I doubt very much whether Russia or Austria are at all sensible of the benefit that would accrue to them from the neutralization of Egypt; and I imagine that during the three years during which the attention of the Prime Minister will be given to the carrying out of this extraordinary project the condition of Egypt will be allowed to remain very much as it is now. Then what guarantee have we, if the House agrees to the limit of occupation by British troops, that at the end of the time a strong and stable Government will be established in Egypt, and when are they going to begin that work? I observe from the report of M. Ferry's speech in the French Chamber, that the Prime Minister was the first to speak of the neutralization of Egypt; therefore, this brilliant idea to be accomplished in three years emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, is a work which may occupy a lifetime to be undertaken by a Government which will, probably, only have a short period of time to live? Then M. Ferry also went on to say that, with respect to the Egyptian Question, it was with this Government that France had the best chance of settling the question. I quite agree with M. Ferry; I think he appears to be a man of remarkable intelligence. We have seen statements in the French Press that it is of the highest importance that France should conceal as much as possible of the terms she asked. Now, I consider that the Prime Minister occupies the same position to the French Government as Charles II. occupied to Louis XIV. He is the political pensioner of France, and he is kept in Office by the French Government. ["Oh!"] I am only stating what M. Ferry says. He says that it is with the Prime Minister that France has the best chance of settling this question. How? In accordance with French interests. And now the Prime Minister states that this is a matter which deeply affects the welfare and honour of this country. Everyone will agree with me that if this arrangement or convention which the Prime Minister has sketched to the House to-night is accepted by the House, the welfare, the interests, and the honour of this country need very little longer occupy our attention. The Prime Minister states that it was the positive duty of Parliament to give a distinct decision and judgment upon this communication; but I would invite Parliament, before it gives a distinct judgment, to ask for a little more informa- tion. If the Prime Minister, with the limited information he has given us, asks to be allowed to meet the Powers of Europe in Conference without having given us any further information as to the nature of their financial proposals, then I am certain that if the House of Commons is not absolutely lost to every spark of independence, that is a position which the Prime Minister cannot be allowed to occupy. I shall be curious to see what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who has a fear of these things, has to say on this subject, for we cannot, to use an expression now well known, give a blank cheque to the Government. We know a little bit too much of Her Majesty's Government. We know what they have done as to the Soudan and as to Gordon, and we now know what enormous concessions they have made to get France to come to the Conference; and I wish to know what concessions they are going to make in conference to France to got her to agree to their proposals? We have heard rumours of a loan of £8,000,000, and I imagine that the Prime Minister will be obliged to give a little more detailed information to the House on this point. The Prime Minister now refuses to communicate anything. Is it fair to make a partial confidence? Is it fair to place the House in such a position, and at the same time to keep back an essential part of the information that is required? How do we know what the Prime Minister is going to propose, or what sum it is he proposes should be advanced — whether £8,000,000, or £20,000,000, or £30,000,000? On that point we have no information. What will be our position if the Prime Minister is allowed to remain in the position he occupies now —having made incomplete and partial confidence to the House, and having obtained the practical concurrence of the House? What will be our position when he comes down and brandishes an Agreement in the face of the House of Commons? I do not suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister will be allowed to remain in that position. The most foolish, and credulous, and silly person, can hardly be taken in by such transparent tactics. He says—"We now challenge the decision of the House." I suppose some arrangement will be made by which—to use a classic phrase which, after its use by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, has become Parliamentary—some "bonnet" of the Government will get up and propose a Vote of Confidence in them. The Prime Minister appeals to his followers, and says that Government have no right to retain Office without this being distinctly expressed. I appeal to some one of those who cheer so loudly to give Notice of a Vote of Confidence. The Prime Minister has appealed to those 300 or more who sit behind him, and says that, without their confidence, he cannot retain Office. I shall be anxious to see, after the events of this afternoon, the result of this appeal.

I desire to make a personal explanation. The noble Lord has stated that I said that France was entitled to take the lead in negotiations as to the affairs of Egypt. I never said so. What I said was that France was entitled to take the lead among the other Powers. The noble Lord has stated that I have asked for a Vote of Confidence without giving the smallest idea what the Government are going to do. I have done nothing of the kind; but I distinctly said that at the proper time the whole of our proceedings will come under the judgment of Parliament. It would be quite vain to go through all the other representations of the noble Lord.

This is not a personal explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is making another speech.

I will endeavour to shorten my explanation by saying that I disclaim every word of them. I did not say any one of the things which the noble Lord attributes to me.

The expression which has just fallen from my right hon. Friend, with regard to the Vote of Confidence, relieves me from the question I was going to put to him, because I did not understand the Prime Minister to say that he intended to challenge a Vote of Confidence before the Conference, and for this reason —we have not got the materials before us now to be able to come to a conclusion; we have not yet seen the Papers and the declaration made in the French Chambers; and, therefore, discussion at the present moment would be entirely premature. I rise mainly in consequence of an ob- servation which, I understood, fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, which seemed to me to contemplate action on the part of the House before the Conference meets. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that probably it will be his duty to give Notice of some such Motion on an early day, and to express a hope that the meeting of the Conference might only be of a formal character, so that Parliament might take some action before that date. Well, in that case I should like to know what would be the position of Parliament? We understand—the Prime Minister has assured us—that we are to retain the fullest possible liberty of action when the Conference has met; that no argument to the contrary will be used; but that the House of Commons will retain its entire freedom of action. That being so, I put it to the House whether it would not be placing itself in the most disadvantageous position by debating these questions before the Conference meets, and by binding itself without knowing what action is to be taken by the other Powers. I will put a case. Supposing the Leader of the Opposition were to introduce a Motion censuring that part of the Agreement which relates to the evacuation of Egypt by the troops of this country, and supposing he was beaten on that, what would be the position of this country? We should have committed ourselves by a majority to that principle without knowing whether the Conference would be satisfied with the arrangement. All the other Powers of Europe might remain unpledged through their Representatives, while this House would have committed itself to a principle. I feel the same with regard to the Multiple Control. Here, too, we can retain our liberty; and since the Government do not ask for a Vote of Confidence, why should we deliberately attempt to fetter our own liberty by coming to any premature conclusion on the subject? It is not for me to suggest any consideration to hon. Members opposite; but, from their own point of view, they may have an infinitely stronger case after the Conference has met than they can have now, when they must be acting in ignorance of the views of the Powers of Europe with reference to these matters. As we can have the Conference, and, nevertheless, maintain our freedom of action, it appears to me that it is not while the Representatives of foreign countries are meeting in Conference that it would be desirable to have heated speeches in this House in regard to the action, of Her Majesty's Government, which may be perfectly in place in the debate which is really to decide the question after the Conference has taken place, but which surely would be deplorable before we go into Conference. I venture, with all submission, to make these observations, feeling that my suggestion does not in any way lessen any fair opportunity hon. Members opposite may have of censuring Her Majesty's Government, or prevent any action they may wish the House to take.

I quite concur in the remark of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) that the House is not in a position at present to discuss the question brought before House by the Prime Minister. I shall, therefore, abstain from criticizing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the alterations he is about to propose in the Caisse, and I will refrain from inquiring whether they will not be the best means of keeping open in Egypt those jealousies and rivalries which the various Powers find it to their interest to keep open. I cannot agree as to the value of the concessions made by France. The concession with respect to the Dual Control amounts to nothing, because all Europe knows that the Dual Control has been dead for many years; and it was killed not only by the French Government, but by Her Majesty's Government, and we all know that the despatches written on the subject in name of the Khedive were, in fact, prompted by Her Majesty's Government. With respect to the financial arrangements we are to submit to the Conference, we are entirely in the dark; the proposals will be submitted, and we shall have no means of criticizing them. I will not inquire whether this is not a breach of the agreement entered into with Parliament, that the question for discussion at the Conference should be limited to finance. Nothing could be more distinct than the declaration to Parliament with respect to that, though now we find the whole of that plain engagement thrown to the winds, for the Conference is to have a far wider scope than that of financial considerations, and the whole question of Egyptian affairs is to be decided. But the fact of the matter is, I wish to record my protest against the course the Government have taken in invoking this Conference at all. After their miserable failure with respect to the Conference on the affairs of Egypt which took place in Constantinople a year and a half ago, I should have thought they would have allowed a long time to elapse before calling a second. In order that England should be at all powerful with respect to Egypt it is absolutely necessary that she should restore order in Egypt, and it is absurd to suppose that any alteration in the Law of Liquidation will put you out of your difficulties in that country. The Law of Liquidation, after all, must be said to be one of the only prosperous institutions in Egypt, and now Her Majesty's Government intend to tamper with that. The weakness of our position arises from the fact that we went to Egypt in defiance of the public law of Europe; we have shown the impossibility of our governing the country; and, therefore, it is not to be supposed that the Powers of Europe will give us their confidence. Under these circumstances, I protest in the strongest way against going into this Conference at all, and I believe we shall come out of it with less power than we take in.

I wish to correct one of the statements made by the right hon. Member. He alluded to what I had described as the concessions made by France. I never spoke of concessions made by France.

Before this question closes there is one point which it would be well to clear up. We were all told some time ago, when these negotiations were going on, that Parliament would have ample opportunities of pronouncing its judgment upon them before the Conference. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] It is no use for the Prime Minister to shake his head; there is not a shadow of a doubt about it; the Prime Minister stated that over and over again. The Prime Minister, in fact, if we are to believe that the Conference meets on Saturday, has been making a fool of the House of Commons. He made this statement with the greatest gravity—"Say what you think of it; on Saturday we are going into the Conference before you can fairly and fully discuss the subject." But there is another question on which we are entitled to have some information from the Government, even before this preliminary Conference; and that is if we are to be told anything, we must be told something about the whole plan. We are told that certain statements in the public Press have no foundation in fact. There is one matter which is stirring the minds of the people all over the country very materially; and that is, whether we are to be called upon for a loan, or gift, or guarantee for £6,000,000, £8,000,000, or £10,000,000 in order to carry out this arrangement? Now, the Prime Minister has said not one word on that matter; but he may depend upon this—that if it turns out, in the long run, that this £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 has been under the consideration of the Government, and had their consent, that they knew all about it when this statement of to-day was made, then all I can say is, it will be so much the worse for the Government. They may depend upon it the country will not submit to that treatment. I do not want to enter into the details of this question; but I think the country will, at all events, come to the conclusion that there have been negotiations with France, and that Prance has had the best of it. ["Hear, hear!" and " No!"] I think that is the feeling of the country. I do not desire to debate the point. We will see who is right, and who is wrong. All we know now is that France has been induced to come to the Conference, about which, at the present moment, we know nothing. France has made what I may call sham concessions, though that is hardly the word; at all events, concessions was the word used by the Prime Minister. ["No!"] Perhaps it fell from him inadvertently; but I took it down at the time myself. However, I will not quarrel about the particular expression used. As for England, we have given away a vast deal of that position which we obtained for ourselves and for the benefit of Egypt. The question I wish to ask the Premier is, whether any arrangement has been proposed, or is about to be proposed, which would involve this country in the payment of a loan of money, or in giving security for the payment of money, in any form or shape?

said, he did not wish to continue the discussion. They had not sufficient material before them to justify such a course. But, in compliance with the Prime Minister's intimation that he would be willing to answer any questions addressed to him, he would like to have an understanding on two points. First, would he explain the position of the new Caisse? At present, he believed that body consisted of four members—an Austrian, an Italian, a Frenchman, and an Englishman. It was to consist in future of the same number'; but an Englishman was to be President. What he wanted to know was, whether the President would have a casting vote? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] The other question was this. The Prime Minister had said that the English troops were to leave Egypt at the beginning of 1888, provided Europe was unanimous in desiring that that should be done. ["No, no!"] Well, that was what he understood the Prime Minister to say, and it was better to have the point cleared up. He thought the statement was to this effect—that if, at the end of 1887, order had been established, a stable Government had been formed, and the country was in a condition to permit of the English troops being removed, then they had to be removed if Europe unanimously desired that they should be. Now, what he wished to know was—If one Power or two Powers objected to their being removed, would that be a justification for their remaining?

said, that nothing had been said with reference to the interests of Egypt; and he should like to know whether the proposals that had been made between England and France were to be submitted in any shape or form to any of those representative or Constitutional Assemblies which had been devised by Lord Dufferin for the government of Egypt?

The Prime Minister has urged the extreme inconvenience of the House discussing the proposals until they have received the sanction of the Conference; but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty which will arise from that course. The Government have laid on the Table the concessions made to France; but we have no power to discuss them now if we wished to do so and give our verdict. If we allow them them to lie on the Table until after the Conference has considered them, and come to a conclusion, of course the Powers of Europe will assume that we assented to the proposition. That is the only possible conclusion they can draw—that we had these proposals before us for weeks, and had not criticized them or voted upon them. I think it will, therefore, be seen that if our observations are to be of any value they ought to be made as soon as possible. I do not mean that we ought to discuss them to-night. Anyone who has listened to the Prime Minister's statements must have been struck by two omissions. We have heard a great deal about what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the just susceptibilities of France, and also about international law, international justice, and the rights of Europe; but I heard nothing of the rights of the people of this country who have made all the sacrifices of blood and treasure. Nor have we heard anything of the rights of the Egyptian people who are going to be sacrificed in the name of international law and justice. The truth seems to be that the Government have put it in the power of Europe to turn us out of Egypt in three years. But does anyone suppose that in three years the task of the Government will be more than begun? It is our duty not to hand over our liberty of action, either to France or to international control, before we have accomplished the task which we have taken upon ourselves. The Government have from the first moment absolutely ignored the difficulties of the question they had undertaken to solve. In three years you can make no material progress in establishing a suitable and a permanent Government in Egypt; and I say we should be deliberately ignoring duties we have undertaken if we left it in the power of France or of Europe to say—"It is now time for you to leave the country."

I am surprised at the admonition the Prime Minister gave hon. Members that it would not be wise to discuss the question now. If that is so, why was any statement made by the Prime Minister at all? I remember just before the House rose for the Whitsuntide Recess I excited the ire of the right hon. Gentleman by asking for some assurance that the Government would not commit the country to any particular line of policy without the House being duly in- formed of it. My impression was that he did give that pledge; but how has that pledge been carried out? The Prime Minister now comes down with only half a statement—a statement with the important question of finance left out altogether—and we are told we are not to discuss it, because by so doing we should prejudice the Conference. That is precisely what we want to do—to prejudice the Conference—[Radical cheers.] — hon. Members should wait for the conclusion of the sentence—if the course to be pursued is one which is to be dictated to us by France. It is now evident that the country has to submit to the will of France. That is the fact, however it may be attempted to disguise it. We are now asked to submit to the demands of France, and then we may discuss the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman took an objection to the statement of the noble Lord that France was to have the lead over the other Powers in reference to this matter.

In speaking on that question I said nothing about the Conference. I referred simply to the preliminary demands for explanations.

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman strengthens my case, because it shows that the statement had really nothing to do with the Conference, and the whole statement of to-day shows how completely France has taken the lead. I have hoard many surprising statements made from the Ministerial Bench; but I have never heard any statement which has more surprised the House and will more surprise the country than that of the Prime Minister to-day, the effect of that statement being that in three years England is to leave Egypt unless the Powers should think fit to let her remain, having expended an enormous amount of blood and treasure in that country for reasons best known to the Government. I want to know on what grounds the Prime Minister is prepared to give up the advantages we have gained, and to abandon the road to India which we have by means of the Suez Canal, which forms part of our occupation of Egypt, and to allow that road to India to be occupied by any other of the European Powers. The neutralization of the Suez Canal would be fraught with immense danger, for it would mean that, instead of this country having command of Egypt as a means of getting to India, we should, whenever it became necessary for us to use the Canal, be at the beck and call of the Great Powers. I, for one, strongly object to this plan. I am anxious to maintain good relations with France; but I desire England to preserve a dignified and proper attitude, and I have no wish to see France playing Sir Lucius O'Trigger to the Bob Acres of the Prime Minister. The country is placing itself in a position of humiliation. [Radical cries of "No!"] Hon. Members say "No!" because it suits them to make patriotic considerations subservient to Party ones. That has been shown by recent Divisions. But there is, after all, a stronger tribunal than this House. We are certainly nominally the Representatives of the people; but the honour of this country is dearer to the people themselves than it seems to be to many of those who are returned to represent them.

said, he thought it was exceedingly unlikely, after what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that they should hear of any Vote of Censure. He was surprised at the some what scanty statement of the Prime Minister. He did not understand from it what the Conference was going to do in matters of finance. They had heard nothing about that £8,000,000 which he had always understood to form part of the scheme. They must, however, accept things as they were. They had had an ample statement of the political intentions of the Prime Minister, and he was not surprised that those intentions had been received with dissatisfaction by hon. Gentlemen opposite; for the Government had always said that they did not intend to remain in Egypt, and they were now doing their best to give effect to their intentions. The House had practically to choose between the Government and Gentlemen opposite; and they might judge what the policy of Gentlemen opposite would be by the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He presumed the noble Lord spoke with authority, for he was rapturously cheered by the Opposition. That policy would practically be a war with France. The noble Lord said he would decline absolutely to believe any statement made by the French Ambassador or by the French Government.

I said that particular statement.

Of course, if any other statement were put forward it would be "that particular statement;" if they said to a man—" I decline to believe you "

I said—" I set no value on their promises."

Well, when a man declined to set any value on a statement, he did not believe it. Then the noble Lord went on to say that the French Government could not bind the people of France to anything for more than three years, than which nothing more insulting could be said by a prominent Member of that House. There was nothing more stable in a Monarchy than in a Republic; and therefore it would be equally insulting for anyone in France to apply a similar observation to the Government of this country. The House had distinctly to decide between the policy which had been stated by the Government and the policy enunciated by the noble Lord, which would place this country in antagonism with France, if did not lead to war. His (Mr. Labouchere's) own view was that totally irrespective of Party they ought to stand by the Government in the present state of circumstances.

I should like to ask the Government whether we are to understand that the consent of England alone is necessary for the evacuation of Egypt in 1888, or whether the consent of the other five Powers will be necessary; and I would also like to know whether the Sultan of Turkey or the Porte have been consulted in regard to this remarkable proposal? Furthermore, I should like to know whether there is any arrangement, formal or informal, by which Her Majesty's Government have engaged to lend a sum of money necessary to meet the financial difficulties which have arisen? I wish also to put on record my protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the policy of the Conservative Party would tend to a war with France. I would remind him that the late Government, while maintaining the influence and honour of the country, was on far better terms with France throughout its tenure of power than the present Government has been.

asked if it would not be possible to put Parliament in a better position for dealing with this question by giving earlier information as to the financial part of it. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) that they could not form a judgment on the case while half of it, and perhaps the most important half, was kept from their knowledge. He thought the matter would present itself to the country, not as a Party question, but as making the best of a bad job. While he felt as strongly as ever against the policy which had led them into this predicament, he also felt that they might have no alternative. They were in the position of a garrison whose commander had allowed the enemy to occupy a height overlooking them, and who then had to call the garrison together to consider terms of capitulation. If he could gauge the opinion of the country, he should say that what it would most strongly object to would be that England should be for three years or longer in the position of a bailiff to collect taxes for the bondholders. That, no doubt, would be the tendency of the Ministerial control, disguise it as they liked, to make this instrument the instrument of squeezing taxes out of the unfortunate Egyptian tenantry. If this country was to advance £8,000,000, and incur the burden of maintaining tranquillity in Egypt for three years to come, the House ought to know the financial conditions under which we assumed this responsibility. Were they such as to hold out a hope for the regeneration of Egypt, or were they such as to make us a mere catspaw to draw the chestnuts out of the fire in the interests of the bondholders? He did not see why the financial proposals that had been matured in the minds of the Government, and which were to be submitted to the Conference, should not be communicated to the House at once. Otherwise the House was placed in a most unfair position. Either they should be obliged to discuss any Vote of Censure that might be brought forward, not knowing whether, if they knew the whole case, they might not be disposed to accept it as the best of a bad job; or, on the other hand, if they did not pass any Vote of Censure, they should be assumed to have accepted the responsibility, and would be precluded from passing a decision upon the proposals of the Government until they had become a fait, accompli. He did not suppose that the Prime Minister had any wish to indulge in any sharp practice with the House; but he must say the course adopted would have very much that appearance. The Conference was to meet on Saturday next, and these proposals were to be hurried through and decided upon before the Members of that House had an opportunity of knowing anything about the financial part of them. The point he wished to put to the Prime Minister was this —were there any insuperable objections to his explaining the nature of these financial proposals? If those proposals were laid before us we might pronounce an opinion upon them; we might say that we ought not to accept them at all, or else that we might accept them to a certain extent, in order to escape from this unfortunate scrape which we have got into. Why cannot the Government lay their financial proposals before us? They must know what those proposals are. It could not be construed as an insult to the other Powers if Parliament were to be taken into the confidence of the Government on this point. They could then either pass a Vote of Censure on the whole proposal, which would be much more complimentary to the other Powers than to deal with only half the question; or, on the other hand, they could, by expressing their approval, show to the Powers that if they chose to accept those proposals, the British Parliament was prepared to ratify them.

I wish to support the Question which the hon. Member opposite has put to Her Majesty's Government. I fail to understand why it is that the Government always choose to divide every important question into two parts, in the same way that they have divided the Franchise Bill from the Redistribution Bill. Now they tell us that one-half of this question belongs to the House of Commons, and that the other half of it is altogether outside their jurisdiction. In the course of his Mid Lothian speeches the Prime Minister asserted very strongly the right of the Crown to make Treaties without consulting Parliament; and perhaps the Crown would have a perfect right to go into this Conference without having first obtained the sanction of this House. No financial proposals, however, that could bind this country could be entered into without the consent of this House; and yet the Government pretend that they can bind this country by the other shameful and foolish proposals which they have made to the French Government without the consent of this House. I should wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any answer from the other Powers in reference to the questions to be submitted to the Conference; and whether it is true that Russia, Austria, and Germany have declined to give any opinion upon them until the Parliament of this country has discussed them? I am assured, upon the highest authority, that such is the case. [Ironical cheers.] I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is smiling; but why does he not answer the question instead of smiling? Perhaps, however, he may be in ignorance on the subject, because the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not to let their left hand know what their right hand does. There is, moreover, the further question with regard to the limit of the period of our occupation of Egypt. It was understood that we were to have an identical statement made in this House to-night with that which was made in the French Chamber to-day; but with regard to the validity of the objection of one single Power to our remaining in Egypt after the expiration of the three years, M. Ferry's statement, as it has reached us, is in direct contradiction to that of the Prime Minister. I saw a Gentleman on the Treasury Bench a short time ago who was very much aghast at the observation which was made by an hon. Member near me to the effect that implicit confidence could not always be placed upon the statement of French Ministers. If, however, we look into the past, and compare the protestations of French Ministers with the actions of the French Government in Algeria, we shall see that it is not unwise to accept such assurances with caution. The right hon. Gentleman now relies upon a mere phrase of an Ambassador, which has not even been reduced to writing, and of the bearing of which it is, therefore, impossible to judge. I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question—Who is to decide, at the end of the three years, whether the occupation by England of Egypt shall be prolonged? Is that question to be determined by the unanimous opinion of Europe, or merely by a majority of the Powers?

I do not understand the Prime Minister to state that he does not ask for the opinion of the House with regard to the agreement between France and England. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will wait until he can put before the House and the country the whole of the proposals to be submitted to the Conference, and that he will then ask the House to give a decided opinion upon the matter as a whole. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Ripon that we should be at present under a great disadvantage in discussing that agreement. We have been told, in the strongest possible terms, that if the Conference does not arrive at any result, the agreement will be so much waste paper. I should, however, like it to be thoroughly understood by the House and by the Government that, in postponing any expression of opinion, we are not to be supposed to be in favour of the agreement. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL dissented.] The noble Lord shakes his head; but if I am to understand that the Government who made those proposals said that no such opinion will be taken for granted, I shall pay much more attention to that than I do to the noble Lord's gestures, because the Government will be unable afterwards to say—they will be precluded from the possibility of saying—that by the fact that the discussion has been postponed the House of Commons has really practically sanctioned the agreement. There is another reason why I think that my right hon. Friend's suggestion deserves much consideration from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Undoubtedly, it would not be a very dignified position for the Representatives of the Great Powers and the House of Commons to be debating at the same time a matter which might not come to any result. I suppose we should be perfectly in the right in assuming that the Government will be perfectly candid with the Great Powers, and will say to them—"This is our proposal; but we have thought it right to tell the House of Commons what has been our negotiation with France; you are aware of it; you have seen it in the public papers; and the final consent of England to any proposal must depend upon the action of the House of Commons or of Parliament when the matter is brought before them." And I also understood this, which I think is of some importance, that the course which the Government are taking to-day, and the expression which my right hon. Friend has made, will preclude the Government from being able to state any argument to the effect—" Practically you must assent, because this is the declaration of the Powers of Europe." [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] With this clear understanding, I hope that all parties will be content that the discussion of these proposals shall be postponed. I also think that it would be desirable for the Government to state whether it is intended, if the Conference does not arrive at a result, that there shall be any international or general Treaty between this country and France entered into with or without the assent of the other Powers.

It has been suggested that it will be inconvenient to discuss the subject now, and that the House ought to postpone the consideration of the Papers and of the Prime Minister's declarations until the House is in a position to express its opinion on the result of the Conference. I admit that there is a certain amount of inconvenience in the discussion to which we are invited by the course taken by Her Majesty's Government; but whose fault is that? It is because the Government have been pleased to intercept and interrupt the Business of the country for the purpose of making a statement to which they attach so much importance. Unless the Government propose to ascertain the opinion of the House upon these Papers and declarations, I am at a loss to conceive what object they have in view. The right hon. Gentleman has said that some deference should be shown to the Great Powers of Europe which are about to enter into Conference on Saturday next; and the right hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that the Great Powers might deem themselves slighted if the House of Commons were to be discussing the questions raised by these Papers which have been presented to-night by Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me, however, that if we are to consider the feelings of the Great Powers who have been invited to Conference, they are equally likely to take offence by the course suggested by Her Majesty's Government and by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They might say—"We are called into Conference in London, and when all the Powers of Europe have arrived at a conclusion, then, and not till then, are we to know whether the opinion of the House of Commons will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the decision. "While admitting, therefore, that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government is an extremely inconvenient one, I do not see how the House of Commons can avoid facing that inconvenience. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the speech of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), declined to admit that he had made use of the word "concession" as applied to the agreement which England has entered into with France. If my memory is right the word was distinctly used; but as the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it, I do not press the matter further. It is significant, however, that the French Prime Minister undoubtedly made use of that word in the Chamber about the same time that the right hon. Gentleman was supposed to have made use of it. In the report which has come to us we read that—"M. Ferry then proceeded to explain the concessions of England." Undoubtedly England has made great and very serious concessions to France. I admit that until we have the Papers before us it would be indecorous to express any definite opinion upon those concessions; but that they are great and serious, I have no more doubt than M. Ferry had when he was addressing the French Chamber. That the demand made by the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) and also on this side of the House is a perfectly reasonable one I am prepared strenuously to contend. The Prime Minister himself, answering a Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) on the 28th of May, stated that the whole of the conclusions which resulted from the communications with France should be presented to Parliament before the Conference met. What did the right ton. Gentleman mean when he spoke of the whole conclusions that should result from the communications with France? I do not ask what the ingenious mind of the right hon. Gentleman might mean. But I ask what the right hon. Gentleman thought the House understood when they heard those words? Is it possible to understand anything short of this, that the whole scheme, including the financial proposals, would be submitted to the House of Commons before the Conference met? I regret the mode in which this communication has been made to the House; but as it has been so made, I do not see how we can avoid expressing an opinion upon it. If I am compelled in one sentence to express my view of the declarations which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, especially with reference to the proposed evacuation at the end of three and a-half years, I should say that the Government were addressing to the people of England that line of Virgil—

"Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oves."

For the people of England would stand very much in the position of people who had been fleeced for five years and a-half, fleeced in their blood, fleeced in their treasure; and at the end of that period they will be at the beck and call of the Powers of Europe, whether they are to remain in that country on which they have sacrificed that blood and that treasure, or whether they shall be still permitted to seek the consummation of that great work which was undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, as now appears without any due consideration of its magnitude and importance, but to which the people of England have shown that they attach the greatest value, and for the accomplishment of which they have shown that they are prepared to shrink from no sacrifices whatever. There are one or two other questions which I desire, in conclusion, to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain more clearly under what terms the Powers are, after 3½ years' occupation of Egypt by England, to say to her either "stay in," or "go out." I wish also to know whether that is to be done by one, two, or three Powers, or, if the Powers are equally divided, who is to decide whether England is to remain in Egypt, or to evacuate the country? I ask the Prime Minis- ter whether he will state distinctly to the House what is the conclusion at which he wishes the House to arrive on that subject?

Sir, I have no right to address the House and enter into argument upon this question, to which I only refer for the purpose of saying that I hope it will be understood that it is on account of the want of a right to speak that I refrain from noticing any of the arguments which have been made by the noble Lord, or others, in imputation against Her Majesty's Government. But it is commonly the practice of the House to allow answers to be made to Questions addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and I will give the best answers I can to the great number of Questions which have been put, curiously mixed up with reason and with invective. First of all, I will give an answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, and who has asked for the terms which are to govern the proceedings of England at the close of the period of three and a-half years. The best thing I can do is to draw the noble Lord's attention to a paragraph in a despatch of Lord Granville. It says—

"There is some difficulty in stating a fixed date for such withdrawal, inasmuch as any period so stated may prove in the event too long or too short. But Her Majesty's Government, in order to remove any doubt of their policy in this matter, and in view of the declaration made by France, are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order."—(Egypt, No. 23 [1884], p. 14.)

Those are the exact terms which have been used. Then the noble Lord asked whether it means one Power, or two Powers, or three Powers. Well, Sir, my answer to that is, that the phrase, "reference to the Powers of Europe," is one perfectly known to diplomatic practice and history. The European questions have been decided under shelter of that phrase for half a century and more; and nothing could be more invidious than to presume a division of the Powers into separate lobbies or separate parties in such matters. We think it our duty to take the phrase which is known to diplomacy, and we are perfectly confident in its operation. That, I think, is as much of a reply as it is possible for me to give, except that I may go one point further. I heard some persons say—"Would the dissent of England be of itself sufficient to neutralize the voice of the Powers'?" I must say that I think that if we thought of entering into negotiations so solemn and so important with Prance, and of undertaking to submit ourselves on certain conditions at certain times to the voice of Europe, having in our own minds the intention all the while to neutralize the action of the Powers of Europe by our own resistance when that time arrives, then I do think there would have been occasion to talk about the honour of this country. I cannot answer for the Government of that day when it arrives; but if the present Government are in Office, I have no hesitation in saying that they certainly would not plead the adverse opinion of England in the circumstances of the arrangement into which they have entered with France. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) asked whether any Treaty was intended. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that my right hon. Friend stated with precise and absolute accuracy the case between the Government and the House of Commons. I do not think there was one word which I would wish to alter or modify. With regard to a formal Treaty, I can only say this—that I am not aware that it will be necessary. My right hon. Friend knows that international compacts have been made in substance without a Treaty. I can conceive the Correspondence between France and England being perfect as an international compact, provided the conditions of its operation are retained. I mean that its not being in the form of a Treaty will not in the least influence the action of either Government. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) asked whether the President was to have a casting vote. My answer is this. It was not competent for England and France to determine that question, as he knows that the Law of Liquidation places the care of the Egyptian Debt under the control of a body in which four Powers are represented. Those four Powers, at any rate, according to the larger and juster view, are entitled to have a vote on the question. But, in point of fact, we intend to propose that the English President of the Commis- sion of the Caisse should have a casting vote; and I may say, so far as we are able to form a judgment, we think the reasons for the arrangements are so practicable and clear that no serious difficulty would arise on the part of the Powers. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) asked whether the consent of England will be necessary in 1888. That Question I have answered. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Sultan has been consulted. The Sultan has been consulted by communications of our intentions and views, and the proceedings of the Turkish Government have been marked by as much despatch as, perhaps, could be expected. It is to be remembered that the distance from Constantinople is greater for the transmission of despatches as compared with most other countries in Europe. If that be the measure of the Question, I have no doubt whatever that on the part of the Powers of Europe there is every disposition to pay regard to those rights which the Sultan enjoys. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) asked whether we can give the financial information at once. He says that Parliament cannot form an opinion without it. I do not think Parliament can form an opinion without it. That is my opinion. I have pointed to the time when the information can be given to Parliament, and I have in the most explicit terms said that until that time arrives Parliament would legally, morally, and in every other sense remain in absolute possession of its freedom. I cannot use any stronger words, and then my hon. Friend himself will see how impossible it is for us to do what he has suggested, to lay before the House at this moment the proposals which we intend to lay before the Powers. It is strictly in the nature of an answer to this reference of the financial proposals to the Powers, if I venture to think he is a little mistaken as to the nature of this reference of the financial proposals to the Powers. He appeared to think it was only a communication to them. If it was only a communication to them, and that was the sum and substance of our proposals, then I see no reason why we should decline to make known the financial proposals to Parliament. It is nothing of the kind; but an invitation to them to enter into counsel with us in a matter in which we take the initiative, and in which every one of them has just as good a right to be heard, to express an opinion, to procure, if they can, a modification of the proposals, as we have ourselves. Was it possible, in these circumstances, to bring out the proposals as of cast iron or steel and submit them to Parliament before going to the Powers? If we did so, supposing the Powers suggested something we believed to be an improvement and a change which ought to be made, what is to happen? The Conference may be absolutely deprived of all liberty, because we knew that the House of Commons had approved something different from it. It is quite plain that you cannot work the financial proposals in the Conference and in the House, and the whole meaning of this demand for the communication of the financial proposals is to put one of the greatest and one of the most responsible functions of the Executive Government into the hands of Parliament. Certainly the House is within its rights when it declines to be committed by what the Executive Government may do without its previous cognizance. But we have fully admitted that, and we have given the most solemn assurances that the liberty of the House will be preserved. I may add, among other reasons, that of the financial crisis in Egypt which we have lost no time in dealing with, and in which we have used our best powers. The financial crisis is of such a character that the casting of the subject abroad by bringing it into this House with prolonged debates, involving complicated points, which would extend from Monday to Thursday and from Thursday to Monday, would be accompanied by the most serious results in Egypt itself. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked whether Russia, Austria, and Germany have declined to give any opinion on this subject. No; they have not. They have not had time to deal with this subject. I am not prepared to say—I am not at all sure that it is necessary that they should give an opinion; but they have not declined to give any opinion on the subject.

asked whether the loan was to be £6,000,000 or £8,000,000?

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to enter upon the subject of the financial proposals. I have just given reasons against that.

Is there any truth in the statement that there will be a loan from this country?

If that were so, would not that be a financial proposal? Is it possible to answer such a question after what I have just said, that the Conference has a right to a perfectly free discussion of the whole of these proposals? We have a right to the use of our discretion, and we have a right to endeavour to make the best arrangements we can, even though they should involve modifications of our own proposals. It is just like a statement of a Budget. What would be our position if we could obtain a cast-iron agreement and say to the Powers—"Your function is reduced to 'Aye' or 'No.' You have no discretion except to take it in the lump or refuse it in a lump." We are not going to insult the Powers of Europe by being parties to any such agreement. Some Gentleman asked me whether these proposals were to be submitted to the Representative Assemblies in Egypt. I am not aware that anything has been devised or will be proposed by Her Majesty's Government which, according to the written institutions of Egypt, would require to be so submitted. I think I have replied to the different points which have been put to me, and I will not press myself further upon the time of the House by any attempt to argue the matters which nave been suggested in debate. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Papers do lie upon the Table.

, in rising to move, in page 2, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—

(Constituency to have claim on services of Member elected, and if absent for three months without leave may be summoned to attend, and on failure for one month more, new writ may be issued.)

"After any election shall have taken place under this Act, the electing constituency shall have a recognized right to claim the services in Parliament of the representative so elected; and in case of his non-attendance for three consecutive months of any Session, may petition the House setting forth the facts, and praying for redress on the ground that such absence is prejudicial to the interests of the constituency. On such petition being read from the Table, the House will appoint a committee not exceeding ten Members to inquire into the facts; and if they report to the House that such Member has been absent from the service of the House for three consecutive calendar months, without the leave of the House, and without any apparent sanction from the constituency, and that the petition has been signed by at least fifty duly qualified electors of the constituency, Mr. Speaker will thereupon send notice to the absent Member, by registered letter to his last known address, requiring him to appear in his place forthwith; and should such notice not be complied with before the expiry of one calendar month, should the House then be sitting, or on its re-assembling should the Member still be absent, Mr. Speaker will report to the House; whereupon on Motion duly made and carried, a new writ may be issued,"

said, the Amendment was one which the Chairman ruled could not be put in Committee as irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. Although he did not think the decision a right one, he had not questioned it, but had thought it right to put it on the Paper again. Sometimes, under the present condition of the law, a constituency was robbed of the services of its Representative by his failure to attend Parliament. In his own constituency they suffered from a misfortune of that sort which everyone deplored, and for which nobody could in the faintest degree be to blame. The constituency of Glasgow had been reduced for the last three years to exactly the same position as it held previous to the Reform Bill of 1868—that of having only two Members to represent it. A constituency of 68,000 electors had now only two Representatives in Parliament, the same as in an Irish county or in many quite small English boroughs; and as there appeared to be no remedy for the existing condition of things, he had attempted to suggest one by giving every constituency certain claims on the men it elected. He might mention the case of an Irish Member, who was connected with the Australian Legislature, who refused to give up his connection with the Colonial Legislature, but, at the same time, would not take any steps to vacate his seat as a Member of the British House of Commons; and so the matter went on until a General Election. Then, at the present time, one of the Members for Mayo had been absent for some years. By the present state of the law there was nothing to prevent any Member of that House going to the utmost ends of the earth, and remaining there as long as he pleased for his own pleasure, and thus entirely neglecting his constituency. The constituency had no redress except by calling upon the Member to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, and he could refuse to do that. In old times the call of the House would have remedied this evil; but that practically was now obsolete, and there now was practically no remedy, and, believing there ought to be one, he moved this new clause.

said, they all deplored the circumstances which deprived Glasgow of one of its Members; but he could give no encouragement to the clause of the hon. Gentleman. This Bill was one of enfranchisement, and they could not under it remedy all the evils which might exist. Under the clause, if a Member were ill for three months he would lose his seat. He asked his hon. Friend not to press his Motion, which in itself was not one the House could accept, while it was not relevant to the subject of the Bill.

rose to move the following clause:—

(Qualification by payment of Income Tax.)

"Every man who has resided within a county or a borough for a period of twelve months, but has not by reason of such residence a qualification to be registered as a voter in such county or borough may be registered as a voter, and may vote upon proving that he has, in the year for which he claims to be so registered, paid or had deducted from the income of any real or personal property accruing to him during such year income or property tax to the amount of not less than ten shillings."

That clause, he maintained, would enfranchise a class of capable citizens who had a fixed residence, but not of a kind that now gave them a vote; and he held that, having regard to the due representation of property, and to the principle that taxation and representation should go together, that class was well entitled to be included in a measure which proposed widely to extend the suffrage. He begged, therefore, to move the clause.

, in supporting the clause, maintained that by far the greater part of those who paid 1d. of Income Tax were more respectable than those who inhabited mud cabins in the wilds of Connemara at £1 a-year. He could not see why a young man who had means should be prevented from having a vote because he lived in his father's house. If the Government were sincere, which he very much doubted, in their search for capable citizens, they must in all conscience and honesty accept the clause.

said, that this question had already been discussed somewhat fully in Committee. The chief objection to this clause was that it would lead to the creation of fagot votes. Assuming the Income Tax to be at the same rate as now, anyone receiving a dividend warrant for £40 a-year would pay 10s. Income Tax. All that would then have to be done would be for anyone who wished to make votes to put a sufficient amount of stock in the hands of someone else for a year only, and, whether they were householders or not, they would have the right to vote. Government had already made concessions in the way of the property vote; but this was something different, as the vote was not to depend upon the possession of any real property.

, in moving the insertion of a clause to provide—

"That no disqualification or penalty with respect to voting shall hereafter attach, to any member of the Constabulary Force of the United Kingdom,"

paid a high tribute to the services which the police constables, a most deserving body of capable citizens, rendered to the public, and asked Parliament to remove the disability under which they now suffered.

thought there were grave objections to the proposal, among the strongest of which were that the proposal of the hon. Member would make guardians of the peace at political meetings and at election times in the polling booths political partizans; and that policemen would probably be appointed on account of the political views they were known to possess, both of them very objectionable circumstances in regard to men who ought to be above suspicion.

said, it was a pleasure to him to be able to agree with the Attorney General.

said, he rose to move the following new clause:—

(Disqualification of Criminals.)

"Any person who shall have been convicted and sentenced for felony or for indictable misdemeanour in any court of justice in the United Kingdom shall be incapacitated from voting in the election of a Member or Members to serve in any future Parliament, or from being elected to serve in any future Parliament, for a period not exceeding five years, at the discretion of the Judge adjudicating on the case."

He hoped the House would be more disposed than it was when the Bill was in Committee to accept the principle of the clause, which was less drastic than that he proposed in Committee. He offered not to move the clause on receiving an assurance that the next which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would be proposed and pressed to a Division.

, in moving the following clause:—

(Disqualification of persons convicted of felony or other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour.)

"No person convicted of felony or any other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or to be imprisoned with hard labour, shall he entitled to be registered as a voter, or to vote at any election for twelve calendar months next after the expiration of his sentence,"

urged that the House had manifested a strong feeling against imposing a disqualification for pauperism which did not attach to crime; and he therefore hoped the Government would meet the views which had been generally expressed by accepting this Amendment. So long as the principle of the clause was adopted he was not particular as to the form; and if the Attorney General wished to alter the wording of it he would have no objection. He contended that the criminal class should be excluded from the Register of voters as the pauper class was now excluded; and as a test whether a man belonged to that class or not deprivation for one year would not be unreasonable. If he remained for one year after the expiration of his sentence without being again convicted it might be not unreasonably presumed to have ceased to belong to the criminal class.

said, he was glad that the noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) had not moved his clause, because it gave a discretion to the Judge, and the House did not like the idea of a Judge having the discretion to pass a political sentence. That objection did not apply to this clause, which proposed a definite exclusion for a certain time. The question was discussed in Committee, and he stated some objections of both principle and detail. Under this clause a person convicted of assault would lose his vote, and the House would not wish such a consequence to follow. If the House accepted this clause, the conviction must be by a jury on indictment, and the sentence must be penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour. Many Members of the House expressed opinions different from those he advanced on behalf the Government; but, although they had a majority, he thought this was a matter in which they ought not to hold out with extreme pertinacity. Practically, he would point out that a man who was in prison for three months lost his vote because he lost that continuous occupation which was the qualification; he did not occupy his house continuously for the preceding 12 months. However, with the Amendment he had suggested, the Government were not disposed to object to the clause.

said, he must protest against this additional punishment being imposed upon a person who had undergone his legal sentence. Such a proposal was altogether foreign to the spirit of the Constitution, and he saw no justification for it, except the petty desire of some specialist to have his name associated in some way with the Bill, and who had no other road open to his ambition but to propose a fad of this description. It seemed to him a miserable and an unworthy proposal, contrary to the spirit of the Bill as well as to the spirit of the Constitution. It could not be argued that this exception provided any safeguard in sections, or had any important bearing upon the exercise of the franchise, except, indeed, the hon. Member who proposed it was prepared to say that the criminal classes largely abounded among his countrymen. It was true, indeed, that the convicted criminals represented only a small percentage of actual criminals. Those who were found out were punished sufficiently without a disability of this character, and it was unfair to give the exercise of the vote to criminals who had not been found out, and deprive those who had expiated their offences of the vote.

expressed his regret that the Government encouraged the imposition of this new disability. He was surprised the Government had given way.

thought that it would be shameful to say that the man who had accepted casual relief should be disfranchised, and yet that the ruffian who had beaten Ms wife to a jelly should be allowed to go to the poll directly he got out of gaol.

asked whether such men men as hon. Members on the Irish Benches who had been imprisoned were to be considered disqualified? He objected to the proposal, because it was so easy in Ireland to procure convictions.

said, he did not wish to see the restriction on the exercise of the franchise relaxed in the case of paupers; but persons convicted of crime might belong to a class which specially required representation in that House. Prisoners sometimes suffered injustice, and, therefore, might often stand very much in need of representation. He hoped some hon. Member would divide against the clause, and he would give him his support. The Attorney General's position was inconsistent with his position a few days ago. Of course, the main objection to the clause was that it proposed an addition to the sentence of the law.

said, he warmly supported the clause. Hon. Members, he said, spoke as though imprisonment with hard labour was an accident which might at any time overtake a well-meaning person. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who had suffered imprisonment, were there to speak for themselves as well-meaning persons, and he did not dispute their claim to the title. Their cases, however, were not such cases at all as were being discussed, for they were not sentenced under an indictment or convicted by a jury. How many of the 15,000 criminals who were convicted on indictment in this country in the course of a year were innocent persons, who had done things which the crooked law construed into offences? Such a representation was a gross caricature. He could not understand how his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could justify the disfranchisement of a pauper, and oppose the exclusion of a criminal. Sympathy for a pauper he could understand; but to include in the Register of voters men just released from imprisonment for disgraceful offences was an insult to every honest person on the Register. It was said a man would be taunted for the absence of his name from the Register; but a man who had been convicted of a gross offence might be, and probably deserved to be, reproached throughout his life for the offence for which he had undergone hard labour. If this clause were rejected, it would be something like a public scandal.

said, he thought the pauper would be punished by the proposal, inasmuch as he would be put on an equality with the criminal. This disqualification for the enjoyment of civil rights was in the nature of an additional punishment for the crime committed; but it should be left with the Judge to administer such punishment as he deemed right.

said, there was no use in an Attorney General if he could not change his convictions on every question which might be brought before the House. This excused the Attorney General for having changed his front in respect to the proposal before the House. He, however, regretted the change, and could not help blushing for his profession. Last Friday the Prime Minister made a speech in which he recognized the principle of English law that when a man had undergone his punishment he was a free man. The Division that occurred last week on this subject was the most genuine that had taken place during the whole progress of the Bill, for the Prime Minister had graciously given his poor, blind, deluded followers gracious permission to vote as they liked. When a man had undergone his sentence he had expiated his offence, and should not be under any disqualification.

said, he heartily thanked the Attorney General for assenting to the clause. It was only fair that if they punished a man for pauperism, they should punish him for crime. He did not think that any man who had spent some time in prison would feel being struck off the Register very much.

regretted the Attorney General had given encouragement to the clause. This was nothing more nor less that a proposed Amendment of the Criminal Law. When a sentence had been expiated, the criminal became a free man again, and this was a proposal to impose one uniform and unvarying additional punishment upon every case in which a man was convicted. He thought it extraordinary that a provision of that sort should find its way into a Franchise Bill. If a new provision of this kind was to be introduced into the Criminal Law, it would require great consideration and very careful definition, and he entreated the Government not to encourage the clause or endeavour to force it on the House.

said, the Attorney General had given a most extraordinary reason for changing his opinion on this subject. He had, in fact, said that he had changed his own opinion because there was a difference of opinion upon this clause. He would like to know whether there had not been a difference of opinion upon every other Amendment proposed? No doubt in foreign countries a man was sometimes deprived of his civil rights; but that was not the law in England, and as soon as he came out of prison he was purged of his offence. Then, again, how was it to be discovered whether a man had been in prison or not? The present Bill was an enfranchising Bill, and not a disfranchising Bill, whereas the proposed clause was disfranchising, and he trusted the House would reject it by a Division.

said, he was very glad Her Majesty's Government had seen their way to accept the principle of the clause. It did seem to him very unfair that a person should be disqualified because he had received a minimum amount of poor relief, while another person who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a serious offence against the law of his country might be put upon the Register. He thought this clause tended to remedy a great defect in the existing law.

thought the clause should be opposed not only upon Irish and Liberal, but also upon Conservative, principles. He had always voted with the Government throughout the Bill, whether they were right or wrong, on the particular question before the House; but the Government had changed front, and they could not expect their supporters to change front with them. He moved that the debate be adjourned.

wished to make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Motion, which was hardly consistent with his usual attitude of supporting the Bill. No doubt the clause constituted a departure, as far as it went, from the general rule upon which the Bill had been worked through Committee; but they had taken this course in deference to what they conceived to be the general wish on both sides of the House. The fact was, as had been already stated, that this was not a Party matter, and the Government did not desire any Member to vote against his convictions, as he was sorry to hear the hon. and gallant Member for County Galway had been good enough to do; but the Government simply desired that everyone should vote according to his convictions. After so full a discussion of the clause, he hoped the House would now be allowed to go to a Division.

said, he desired to have some explanation before a Division was taken.

said, that Her Majesty's Judges tried cases by juries more than half of which were trivial and trumpery. There was no magic in the words "by indictment," and he must protest against such legislation.

said, it was extremely difficult for the House, without Notice of the Amendment on the Paper, to deal with questions of this sort which the Government had thought fit to put before them. He did not know whether the Attorney General intended to confine the clause to persons sentenced to penal servitude, and, therefore, to move the omission of the words "or to be imprisoned with hard labour."

said, that he wished to mitigate the severity of the clause as it stood; but it would be necessary to re- tain the words "with hard labour." It would be difficult to exclude a man sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

said, he should oppose the Amendment.

said, that the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had proposed a clause which would lead to an inconceivable number of Amendments, and had given grave ground of objection to Irish Members. The Attorney General proposed to insert the words "by indictment." If that Amendment were carried the man Magrath, who had been convicted by a jury and sentenced by Judge Lawson on Saturday last to 12 months' imprisonment, without hard labour, for conspiracy to murder, would be entitled to be registered as a voter. Magrath was convicted of the same offence as the other men; but because the Judge, in his mercy—because he must attribute mercy even to Judge Lawson—did not sentence Magrath to hard labour because he was 70 years of age, Magrath would be allowed to be a voter. What greater absurdity could they have? A man of 69 years of age, who was a little more robust, would be prevented from voting because he had served a term of penal servitude. The proposal was, therefore, to refuse a vote to the man in good health, and to allow the person who was in a state of debility to exercise the franchise. Such was the absurd position to which they had been brought by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Beaumaris.

asked the Lord Advocate whether the words proposed to be inserted would apply to Scotland? If so, they would require another series of Amendments to make this clause applicable to the Scottish law.

ridiculed the notion that a person who had been sentenced to penal servitude for a seditious libel should be deprived of a vote. He would urge upon the Government the fact that this Amendment raised a very serious question in regard to the difference between persons sentenced to hard labour and those who were not. A Judge might sentence a man for a grave offence to imprisonment, without adding hard labour to it; whereas for a much less grave offence a sentence of four months' imprisonment was occasionally given which did not carry hard labour along with it; and, because hard labour was imposed in the one case, the man would not be entitled to exercise a vote; whereas, when released from imprisonment under the graver offence, he would be fully qualified to exercise the suffrage.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harrington) that the Question before the House is the insertion of the words "on indictment." The hon. Member, at the present moment, is not dealing with that Question.

said, the expression "on indictment" necessarily involved a sentence of hard labour, or no hard labour; and he was solely looking at the question from that point of view; not whether a prisoner was tried on indictment or not, but whether, being tried on indictment, he was sentenced to hard labour or not. He had no wish to detain the House; but he would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to whether the question of hard labour or no hard labour was one which caused so serious a distinction between crimes as would justify them in depriving one man of the vote and retaining it for the other; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would withdraw the clause altogether.

said, he should vote for the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend; but when it was softened down to an extreme point, and the Question put that the clause be added to the Bill, he should feel it his duty to vote against it. He was of opinion that when a man had served the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced, and had been discharged, he should be considered a free citizen and should have a vote.

said, he would call attention to the fact that the clause only affected those who had been in prison for a short time, and did not touch cases where a man had committed a heinous offence, and had been sentenced to penal servitude. He quite agreed that a man who had only committed a trifling offence should not be subjected to the additional penalty of losing his vote. An hon. Member, who spoke just now, alluded to the fact that there were 15,000 criminals; and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) commented upon the case of those who had suffered penal servitude. But, as he (Mr. Grantham) had pointed out, the case did not touch those who had suffered penal servitude, and was absolutely useless in that case; because no one who had suffered penal servitude could place himself in a position to be registered until, at any rate, he had been released for 12 months. The clause only affected the case of those who had been sentenced to slight terms of imprisonment, and who might otherwise have brought themselves within the terms of the Act. Therefore they were adding a far greater sentence upon those who had undergone a short term of imprisonment; whereas those greater criminals, who had been imprisoned for a series of years, were not affected in the slightest degree.

expressed a hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would answer the question which had been put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), and would say whether the Amendment would sufficiently harmonize with the existing requirements of the Scotch law?

said, he thought the Amendment which had been proposed would adapt the clause to Scotland; because the word "indictment" was the word now used in Scotland for the graver crimes.

, in moving at the end of the last Amendment, after the word "indictment," to insert the words "before a jury," said, it was quite possible for a man to be tried by court martial, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; and if the clause were passed in its present shape, unless some such words as those he proposed were introduced, the Clerks of Unions in Ireland would have to write to every garrison town contributory to the Union, and probably even to England, in order to ascertain whether any particular voter had ever been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour by court martial. He pointed that out as one of the effects which the clause would have. He believed that a man tried by court martial was indicted. He did not profess to have any considerable knowledge of legal terms; but, if he were correct in his view of the matter, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) and the hon. and learned Attorney General to take into consideration the expense which would be thrown upon Poor Law Unions, in carrying out the law, if it became necessary to obtain certificates from all the garrison towns. He wanted to prevent that by limiting the operation of the clause to the case of persons who had been indicted before a jury. That would confine the clause to the cases which occurred in the ordinary course of procedure, and would not affect cases which were brought before a court martial. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General might be induced to accept this Amendment.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) was labouring under a misapprehension, because, as a matter of fact, no person was indicted before a court martial; and, therefore, the case was not likely to occur of the Clerk of a Union writing to the military authorities in a garrison town, in order to find out whether a man claiming the right to vote had been convicted and sentenced by a court martial. He had not, however, the slightest objection to the insertion of the words proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend; but he would suggest that his hon. and. gallant Friend should substitute the words "by a jury," instead of the words "before a jury."

said, he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General.

said, he thought it would be far better to put an Amendment to this effect as a Proviso at the end of the clause, which would obviate some of the objections he entertained to it in its present shape. He would suggest that a Proviso should be added at the end stating—"Whereas this clause does not apply, &c., to certain specific cases." There was, however, one point upon which he desired information. He had not yet heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General how he proposed to find out whether a man had been convicted or not, and under what head would the expense be borne? If it became necessary for the Clerk of a Union to write to the Judges, or to the Clerk of the Crown in every county or borough in Ireland, in order to find whether a man had been convicted or not, how was it proposed that the expense which would be incurred should be borne? He thought he was entitled to have some explanation from the Government upon that point; and there ought also to be some explanation as to how the Register was to be prepared. Was it to be prepared by inquiry, directed to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, or by information received from some authority in England, in answer to an application to know whether a particular individual had been convicted or not? He certainly thought that the clause should not apply to convictions under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act.

said, there would be no duty cast by the clause upon the Clerk of the Union, or upon any Overseer, to make any such inquiry. The objection must come in the ordinary way. No one was called upon to make any inquiry; but the objection was made by a person serving the voter with a notice of objection. He believed the course pursued was, that a notice was served upon the voter, and it then became the duty of the Overseer to obtain any information he could.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would be aware that, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, it was a very common practice to ask an accused person whether he preferred to be tried summarily by the magistrates or by a jury. It would, therefore, be possible, if this Amendment were accepted, for the man himself to select whether he would resign his vote or not.

said, that, as the clause stood, the application to strike off the name of the voter must be made to the officer presiding at the polling booth. He considered that that was giving a power to the officer presiding at an election which would work very great mischief; because it provided that persons convicted of felony, or any other crime, and sentenced for the same to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour. Such persons were not entitled to be registered as voters, or to vote at any election, for 12 months after the expiration of a sentence.

said, it was not for him, to describe the duty of the officer in charge of the polling booth; but he believed that all the Returning Officer did was to ask the man claiming to vote—"Are you the person whose name appears upon the Register?"—and he was not able to exercise any other power.

said, he was in favour of the Amendment, because there was a disposition in some quarters to do away with juries altogether.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in trying to make the clause acceptable to the House, had put words into it—"convicted by jury"— which would have a very curious effect. In many cases which occurred at Sessions and Assizes, a prisoner, against whom a case was clear, and who was most probably an habitual criminal, pleaded guilty; and, if those words were inserted, persons pleading guilty would still be entitled to enjoy the vote, notwithstanding the fact that they were persons in regard to whose guilt there could be no doubt at all. They would be entitled the moment they came out of prison to vote; whereas a person who had been convicted by a jury for a less serious offence, and who might have been convicted by mistake, would be deprived of the vote.

trusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would give some answer to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was perfectly absurd, as his hon. and learned Friend had put it, that they should punish a person who had been convicted by mistake, and allow undoubted criminals to escape scot free. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would be content with the words, "on indictment."

said, the clause now ran—"No person convicted on indictment by a jury of felony or any other crime." He would now move a further Amendment to provide that it should be—" No person convicted on indictment, by a jury, or pleading guilty."

said, the words proposed to be inserted might affect a person who pleaded guilty to having committed a crime before the magistrates. It would be better to discuss the effect of such an Amendment later on.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had accepted the words "on an indictment by a jury" on the spur of the moment.

said, that the present Amendment would have a very different effect; because it might affect the case of a man who pleaded guilty before the magistrates.

said, he thought the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had very little weight, because the clause went on to say—"And sentenced for the same to penal servitude."

"Or to be imprisoned with hard labour."

said, he thought it would be convenient for the House to have before them the exact form of the Amendment which the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to substitute for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).

I must point out that before another Amendment can be proposed, it will be necessary to withdraw the Amendment now before the House.

said, that, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he would now propose an Amendment after the word "crime."

rose to Order, and remarked that he had an Amendment which came before that.

I think the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words, "or any other crime."

said, that was so; and he would be precluded from making that proposal if the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) were assented to.

said, that he also proposed to move an Amendment which would come before that of the right hon. Baronet—namely, to insert the words, "not being a political offence."

The Question is, "That the words "or any other crimes" stand part of the Clause."

, in moving a further Amendment to leave out the words "or any other crime," said, he thought the Amendment would require a little explanation. He was of opinion that, if these words were retained, they might entail considerable expense in order to ascertain whether a voter had been convicted of a crime or not. A great amount of trouble would be involved, and they would be, in point of fact, introducing another very great complication into Parliamentary Elections. He quite agreed with the object of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd); but it was opening out quite a new field, which had never yet been touched by the English law, and it would considerably increase the field of investigation, and add to the difficulty by imposing upon the election authorities the duty of finding out whether a man had been convicted of felony or any other crime. In some cases a man might have been convicted of some petty offence and sentenced to eight days' imprisonment, and it would be necessary to make inquiry even into convictions of that nature. The omission of the words "or any other crime" would diminish the difficulty, and render the clause less objectionable to a large section of the House. He would, therefore, propose that those words be struck out of the Clause.

said, he had intended to move the same Amendment, and his reason was this. He was astonished to find a lawyer of such eminence as the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) making use of such a loose expression as "any other crime." The law divided crimes into felonies and misdemeanours, and if the object of the clause was to punish misdemeanants in this way he should strongly object to it. For his own part, he would limit this obnoxious clause in every possible way. Although he did not disguise the fact that some misdemeanours were worse than certain felonies, yet, as a whole, felonies were graver crimes than misdemeanours. Therefore, he heartily supported the Amendment to omit the words "or any other crime." He protested against the introduction by a lawyer of objectionable phrases into an Act of Parliament.

said, he thought he was correct in asserting that the word "crime" was unknown to the law. In the Criminal Law, as it now stood, the word used was either "felony" or "misdemeanour;" and he would suggest the substitution of the words, "punishable as felony or punishable as misdemeanours." He thought it would be objectionable to strike out the words altogether, because perjury was not a felony, but a misdemeanour, and a man ought to be punished for perjury just as much as for larceny, and crimes of that class.

said, the difficulty he had in striking out the words "any other crime," was that the word "felony" was not known in the Scotch law; but the word "crime" was known in the Scotch law, and was sufficiently known in the English law to include misdemeanour; and the fact that penal servitude and hard labour were involved would be a sufficient indication that the crime in contemplation was a grave one.

said, he must confess that he was somewhat surprised at the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, because his observations went directly to show that he proposed to introduce a word which was to mean one thing in England, and another in Scotland. There was no wonder that Courts of Law experienced such difficulty in construing Acts of Parliament, when the head of his Profession in the House of Commons suggested that they should keep in words which he could not deny had no legal interpretation, and which would be construed differently in England and in the Sister Kingdom of Scotland. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.

regretted that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) gave the Judges so little credit for being able to interpret an Act of Parliament. As the clause stood, it must be either a felony or not a felony; but, at any rate, it must be a crime punishable by penal servitude or hard labour. He did not conceive there would be the slightest difficulty in making use of an English word that was commonly used and well known to both countries.

Yes; but in a different sense.

denied that the word was used in a different sense in each country. It meant a criminal offence, and that was the construction the Government put upon the word here, and that was how it would be construed by the Judges. He had not the slightest notion that any real difficulty or ambiguity would arise in regard to the interpretation of the clause with these words in it. On the contrary, he thought they were perfectly intelligible words.

said, it was quite evident that as they went on with the clause they got deeper and deeper into difficulty. He would therefore, in a friendly spirit, suggest to the Government that they should be content with the discussion which had taken place upon the clause, and not press it further. He had voted against the Amendment proposed on a former occasion; but he should now vote in favour of the present one, with the intention of by-and-bye voting against the entire clause in the hope that the House might be get out of the difficulty in which they were involved. He trusted the Government would say frankly that they had made a mistake, and that they meant ultimately to divide against the clause. He hoped that course would meet with the acquiescence of the House. They might pass with little or no discussion all the Amendments which were upon the Paper in reference to the clause, and then, when the Question was proposed that the clause be added to the Bill, he thought they would be able, by a considerable majority, to get rid of it altogether.

said, he was very reluctant to interpose between the eminent lawyers who had been engaged in discussing the question, and in endeavouring to explain how the word "crime" had a different meaning in Scotland and in England. In England, they were told, "crime" meant either a felony or a misdemeanour; but in Scotland the word "crime" meant an offence which was graver than a misdemeanour. In other words, the word "crime" in England included misdemeanour, whereas in Scotland it excluded it. He submitted that, if a different meaning were attached to the same words in the two countries, it was not desirable to insert them in an Act of Parliament. He did not, however, propose to discuss that point, but simply to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). It had given him several qualms of conscience to discuss the clause at all, and he doubted the propriety of persevering in a course which could only retard the progress of the Bill, and imperil its future fate. He therefore thought the Prime Minister would afford considerable relief to the ardent supporters of the measure, who desired to see it brought to a successful end, if he would get up and say that the Government were of opinion that, putting on the one side the advantages of arriving at a speedy termination of the Bill, and on the other the small advantage to be gained by passing the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), they would prefer giving up the clause, and making progress with the Bill.

supported the appeal which had been made to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He was of opinion that the further they went on with the discussion of the clause the greater their difficulties became. He was quite determined to vote against this Amendment. Not only had they lost two hours in discussing the clause, but if they continued moving Amendment after Amendment, the result would inevitably be that the clause would be left in such a shape that it would have to be struck out in the end.

said, he had gone into the Lobby in support of the proposal when it was first moved, and he had voted conscientiously; but he rose now to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He did so, because he cared a great deal more for the Bill than he did for this clause.

rose to Order. He wished to know from the Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy) to discuss the whole Bill upon an Amendment for the omission of one or two words?

The Question immediately before the House is the omission of the words "or any other crime."

said, he was going to speak to the Amendment. What he was going to propose was that those words, and even something beyond, should be omitted.

said, the hon. and learned Member could not do that.

said, he was not in the habit of troubling the House at any great length, or very frequently; and the only observation he would make on the subject of this clause was, that if it were a question of opinion involving any point of principle, and was supported by the Government, nothing would induce him to agree to the adoption of the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop-wood); but he thought that this was the only compromise that could be arrived at, if they were sincere in their desire to make progress in the Bill.

said, he hoped that the Government would not succumb to the attack made upon them from so many quarters in this matter. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would stand by the words of the clause. They were words that were perfectly intelligible, and they described, with substantial and sufficient accuracy, the matter to which the clause was intended to apply in this country; and it was impossible to supply any substitute for them that would be equally well understood. The adoption of this Amendment, and the striking out of these words, would reduce the clause to such a condition that it would be perfectly inoperative, and would have to be got rid of altogether. He thought it would be unfair to the House to take the course which was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). There was a strong feeling on the part of the House in favour of the clause, and in consequence of certain communications which had passed, the the hon. and learned Attorney General had signified his acceptance of the proposal to the House last night. The clause, as it was accepted, contained the very words which it was now proposed to leave out, and upon a Division the clause, as such, was accepted. To omit those words now, without substituting anything for them, would have the result of destroying the effect of the whole clause. If they left out these words, he did not think it was possible to invent words that would equally answer the purpose. Although it was perfectly true that the word "crime" did not appear in the Statute Book of this country, it was, nevertheless, a perfectly legal term; and crimes in this country were divided into felonies and misdemeanours, and included both. Therefore, when they described an offence as a "crime," punishable either by penal servitude or hard labour, they were describing a matter that was thoroughly intelligible to everybody. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, and insert it in the Bill.