asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If there is any reason to believe that there is considerable neglect to take out game licences by persons who have only one or two days occasional shooting given them in the course of a season; and, whether, inasmuch as the shortest term for which a licence can now be obtained is for 14 days at a minimum cost of £1, arrangements could be made, with probable advantage to the Revenue, for the issue at post offices of single day or week licences for sums so moderate that the amount could not operate as a temptation to evade the law?

There is reason to believe that there are a certain number of cases of neglect to take out game licences. It is the fact that the shortest period for which such a licence can be taken out is 14 days, and that the cost is £l. The result of allowing licences to be taken out for a fortnight only has not been very encouraging, the number of such licences being only 5,000, as against some 60,000 for the longer period. This being so, I am not sure that much advantage to the Revenue would arise from issuing licences for even shorter periods at lower sums. But I will consider the matter. In no ease could anything be done with regard to it before the Budget of nest year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If replies have now been received from the Chambers of Commerce and other Commercial Bodies, to whom an invitation was addressed last year to indicate in what way Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers could best further the interests of British trade abroad; if any new Instructions have, in consequence, been issued; and if, in such case, they can be laid upon the Table of the House?

The replies of the Chambers of Commerce and other Commercial Bodies, together with the Instructions that were subsequently sent to Her Majesty's Representatives abroad, were printed and presented to Parliament in June, 1886, under the title of No. 16, Commercial, 1886, Parts 1 and 2. No fresh Instructions have been issued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House when he expects to lay upon the Table the Memorandum as to the steps taken, or to be taken, by Local Authorities to remedy the existing defects in the accommodation of prisoners awaiting trial?

Active correspondence is still proceeding between the Home Office, the Prison Commissioners, and about 150 Local Authorities, some of whom only assemble quarterly. I am afraid it will not be sufficiently advanced to enable me to lay a Memorandum on the Table of the House this Session; but the hon. Member may rest assured that there will be no unnecessary delay in proceeding with this matter, and I am able to state that in most cases the Local Authorities are prepared to comply with the wishes of the Home Office.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take steps to have the "Kew Bulletin" on sale at the gates of Kew Gardens in the same way as catalogues?

, in reply, said, he had given directions that the bulletin should be on sale at Kew Gardens in the same way as catalogues.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, When the Returns promised on the 27th June last, relative to the supply of ammunition remaining on board Her Majesty's Ships Sultan and Inflexible after the bombardment of Alexandria, will be laid upon the Table?

, in reply, said, the Returns would be laid on the Table tomorrow.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India have taken any steps with a view to the alteration of the Law as to enforcing cohabitation in the case of infant marriages?

No communication has been received from the Government of India on the subject; but the Secretary of State has reason to believe that the Government of India has issued a circular letter calling for the opinions of the local Governments.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed at a meeting of the Newport (Mayo) branch of the National League, held in the chapel yard, on Sunday, the 24th July, to Boycott the Protestant shop-keepers of Newport, because they did not join in a general illumination on the occasion of the nuns being installed in their new convent; whether, on the same Sunday evening, a mob assembled in the street, hooting, throwing stones, and smashing windows; and, whether this Boycotting of Protestants, as such, continues?

My attention has not been called to the particular Resolution mentioned; but there is, unfortunately, no doubt that Protestant shopkeepers at Newport are Boycotted. It is true that on the 24th of July a noisy mob assembled in the town and broke some windows in the house of a Mr. Newcombe; but I do not know that this circumstance had any connection with the Boycotting of Protestants.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the fact that the rock at the entrance to the only landing place at Roche, Adrigole, County Cork, endangers the lives of fishermen and others who are compelled to land there, he will take steps to have it removed?

Parliament has not placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade any funds for the purposes referred to by the hon. Member; and they are, therefore, not in a position to act in the manner suggested.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any Report in the Department of the Dublin Metropolitan Police regarding the arrest for drunkenness of a youth opposite the Chatham Street Police Station on the evening of the 2nd instant; whether, in such Report, it is stated that the youth, instead of being brought into Chatham Street Police Station, was dragged bleeding all the way through Grafton to College Street Station, and, owing to his resistance, was savagely batoned, and had his arms twisted; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police in this case?

, in reply, said, the Government would not grant the inquiry sought for, as no unnecessary force was used in the arrest of the prisoner, who resisted violently.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Sir James Allport's Commission have yet reported the result of their inquiry into the harbour accommodation of the Irish ports; and, if so, whether any recommendation has been made in favour of Sligo, considering the strong evidence laid before the Commissioners as to the necessity of better accommodation for those engaged in the fishing industry, and for the general improvement of the harbour; and, whether any portion of the £50,000 will be allocated to Sligo, or a loan granted by the Treasury for the very necessary improvement of Sligo Harbour?

, in reply, said, the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works had not yet reported on Irish Harbours. He was informed that the Commissioners were carefully considering the case of Sligo, about which they had received some valuable information, besides having made a personal inspection. No part of the grant alluded to in the Question would be allocated for harbour improvements.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that permission has been given to some military bands to play at the Manchester Exhibition, while similar permission has been refused to the band of the Royal Artillery; and, if so, why?

Permission was given early in the year for the band of the Royal Engineers to play at the Manchester Exhibition, and later the band of the Gloucestershire Regiment, which is stationed in the Northern District, has played there. For military reasons it has recently been found necessary by the Military Authorities to prohibit bands from playing out of their own districts without special sanction from headquarters.

Was permission given to the band of the 2nd Life Guards?

I have no information on the subject; but I will inquire.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that, in the naval exercises, the whereabouts of the hostile Fleet was ascertained by Commodore Fitzroy in consequence of the dense smoke emitted; what coal is used by the Admiralty for the men-of-war; what reason exists for not using best smokeless Cardiff coal; and, whether that coal is not equally efficient for steam purposes?

; said: The best South Wales steam coal is alone supplied at all Home ports and at the principal foreign Naval Stations to the Fleet. Especial care is exercised in selecting only good collieries from which to obtain supplies; and in revising the list this year we were afforded valuable information from the experience of the largest English Mail Steamship Companies. No Report has yet been received that enables us to account for the smoke reported to have been emitted from some vessels taking part in the manœuvres; but it is quite probable it arose from in perfect combustion caused by a vessel lying under a low head of steam suddenly endeavouring to force the fires and charging the furnaces too rapidly with fresh coal.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet decided that the rank of Lieutenant Colonel shall be given to Staff Paymasters after five years' service as Major?

In accordance with the promise made to my hon. and gallant Friend during the discussion of the Estimates, I have carefully considered this point; and it is now proposed to make Staff Paymasters eligible for the rank of Lieutenant Colonel after seven years' service in the rank, and in consideration of the responsible duties which it is proposed to assign to Chief Paymasters to confer on them the rank of Colonel.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that merchants and traders at Cork, when paying duty through the Custom House there, have to pay for each entry passed a tax of 1s., which is called "Entry Tax;" whether this tax was originally levied in several ports, but was subsequently abrogated as regards all these ports except Cork; whether is any reason why an exceptional impost should be continued in the single case of Cork, to the disadvantage of local traders; and, whether he can take any measures for their relief in this matter?

I find, on inquiry, that merchants and traders at Cork have to pay 1s. on passing each entry at the Custom House. The duty, however, does not go into the Exchequer, but to the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Trustees of the Cork Commercial Buildings. It is levied under a local Act of 1814. The Board of Customs are not aware whether any similar duty was originally levied at other ports. In these circumstances, the hon. Member will see that it is for the Local Authorities, and not the Government, to take steps, if thought desirable, for the modification, or abolition, of the duty. I have no means of knowing how far the Local Authorities may have contracted loans on its security.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that Hugh Matheson, cottar, Clashmore, Assynt, in the County of Sutherland, who was alleged to have been concerned in the deforcement of a Sheriff officer while serving writs for arrears of rent on 22nd April last, walked to Dornoch, a distance of 70 miles, to be tried at the Sheriff Court there, and at once reported himself to the authorities, expecting to be tried at the next diet of the Court; whether it is the fact that he was not so tried, though the only witness for the prosecution was easily available; whether, in consequence, Matheson had to walk back again the 70 miles; who is responsible for this unnecessary trouble and hardship to the accused; and, whether, seeing that the authorities did not bring Matheson to trial after he had come 70 miles to surrender himself, it is intended to depart from the charge against him?

Hugh Matheson, along with several others, was cited on the Sheriff of the county's warrant to answer to a charge of having been active in a mob that deforced an officer of the law, and burned a large number of writs which he had brought with him for service. The citation ordered the accused to appear on May 31. Hugh Matheson, who, I am informed, was specially active in the deforcement, did not appear to answer the citation against him. Had he done so, his case would have been at once disposed of. Another of the accused persons appeared, and was duly tried on that day. A new citation was issued to those who had failed to obey the previous citation; but they again failed to obey, they being thus in contumacy. Instructions were given that if any of them were brought before the Sheriff they should be examined, and the case reported to the Crown Office, that I might judge whether to order their trial by jury or not. Hugh Matheson delivered himself up on August 2, and was, accordingly, examined and committed for trial, but liberated on bail. Any trouble or hardship to which he has been subjected are the result of his disobeying the Sheriff's repeated citations. It is not intended to depart from the charge against him; and he and the others who refused to answer to the citation of Her Majesty's Court will be brought to justice. There is still one man who has not surrendered, and he will also be brought up for examination; and when the proceedings in these examinations are reported to mo, I shall consider whether these men, who have so long refused to submit themselves to the law, can be tried summarily, or whether it will be necessary to have them tried by a jury. I must decline to say what the action of the Government is, to prevent this continued defiance of legal process, as to do so might defeat the ends of justice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the total cost of the military expedition engaged in carrying out the recent evictions at Bodyke?

in reply, said, that the total cost to the public of the military employed at Bodyke was reported by the military authorities to be £190.

May I ask, has the right hon. Gentleman seen by the papers that one of the evicted tenants has gone mad?

Order, order!

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that some officers of the Inland Revenue, removed on complaint from one station to another, are allowed their expenses of removal out of the public funds; and, whether other officer of similar rank, and removed under similar circumstances, are refused any expenses; and, if so, why the Commissioners of Inland Revenue make such a difference in the treatment of their officers?

As a general rule, officers of Inland Revenue, when removed from one station to another on complaint, are not allowed their expenses of removal out of public funds. Each case, however, is dealt with on its own merits; and an exception to the rule is occasionally made in cases where it is considered advisable and in the public interest that an officer should be removed, although not actually guilty of any act calling for censure.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he could obtain, for the information of Parliament and the subscribers, a statement of the present position of the Military Funds of Madras, Bengal, and Bombay, with the result of the operation of these Funds since they were taken over by the Secretary of State, commencing with the assets and liabilities (annuitants, subscribers, & c.) of these several Funds as they were left by the respective managements, and showing the changes therein, as well as the effects of the beneficial arrangements granted by the Secretary of State, with the balance of assets and liabilities, & c. now remaining, and, if possible, an approximate statement of the results when liabilities are calculated to cease?

, in reply, said, he found, upon inquiry, that since the assets and liabilities of these Funds were taken over by the Secretary of State they had been treated no longer as in existence as separate Funds, but merged in the general Revenues of India. He was told it would now be impossible to give a statement of what would be the position of these hypothetical Funds, if they had continued to exist, without collecting at great cost a mass of information, some of which would have to be obtained, if at all, in India. When the assets were taken over the actual value of each subscriber was ascertained, and full settlement was at the time made.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, after the passing of the Arms Act in Ireland in 1881, a gun was taken from a man called M'Swiney, of Carrickshannon House, Falcaragh, County Donegal; whether the gun was duly registered under the provisions of the Arms Act; if he can state where the gun is now; and, if the owner, who has now left Ireland, can have it on application?

, in reply, said, the answer to the first part of the Question was "Yes." Ambrose M'Swiney was brought before a magistrate for carrying a gun in a proclaimed district without a licence, and the gun was forfeited. His father had a licence for a gun on his farm. The gun, being forfeited, could not now be returned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ambrose M'Swiney referred to is only a child nine years old?

I am not aware.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Ballag- haderrin, County Mayo, at the Petty Sessions on Monday the 25th July, a prosecution was brought by Patrick Shryane against Thomas Casey and John Brennan for assault; whether the former is a process server who served several ejectments for Lord Dillon, and the latter an employé of Lord Dillon's under agent; whether the only magistrate present was Lord Dillon's agent, Mr. Hussey; whether, in the course of complainant's evidence, Mr. Hussey asked his solicitor if he intended to call any witnesses, and, on being answered in the affirmative, immediately remarked that he should consider their evidence worthless, and without any application ordered all Shryane's witnesses out of Court; whether the assault complained was of a very serious character; whether Shryane's statement was corroborated by two respectable persons, who were witnesses of what took place; whether a doctor's certificate was produced in Court, to the effect that the wounds inflicted upon Shryane were of a very serious character; whether Brennan called no witnesses in his defence, and, notwithstanding this, Mr. Hussey dismissed the case; and, whether, if the above facts be true, he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of Mr. Hussey in trying cases in which he is personally interested?

, in reply, said, the Irish Government saw no reason why the attention of the Lord Chancellor should be called to the action of Mr. Hussey in the case; and, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, if any person felt aggrieved he could communicate with the Lord Chancellor on the subject.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the present condition of the churchyard of St. Margaret's, Westminster, caused by the structures made for Her Majesty's Jubilee; and, when steps will be taken to restore the churchyard to its previous state?

, in reply, said, his Department had no control over the churchyard of St. Margaret's, which was enclosed on Jubilee Day by order of the Churchwardens. He was glad, however, to see that steps had been taken for restoring the turf to its original condition.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, The cause of the delay of the Sub-Commissioners of the Land Court holding a sitting in the County Wicklow; and, whether they are likely to hold one soon, as any further delay will cause great hardship to a large number of tenants who have been kept so long waiting to have fair rents fixed?

, in reply, said, that no unusual or unavoidable delay had occurred in the hearing of land cases in Wicklow. The Sub-Commissioners sat in Wicklow in the September of every year since 1884, and would sit there again next September.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken with a view of stamping oat pleuro-pneumonia and other diseases in cattle in the City of Dublin and the surrounding parishes?

All cattle in the Dublin District are specially branded for purposes of identification. They may not be exposed in the Dublin market except for slaughter, nor exported to Great Britain, nor to the surrounding districts.

asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that in Glasgow-there are at least 20 post offices in licensed grocers' shops; if the custom is general in Scotland; and, if the granting of postal appointments to holders of licences is in accordance with the usual practice of the office?

There are not more than six post offices in licensed grocers' shops in the town and district of Glasgow together. The holding of such licences is not regarded as a disqualification, provided that liquor cannot be drunk on the premises.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the Rating of Machinery Bill excites much interest in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire; whether the Government can give any facilities for dealing with it this Session; and, whether they intend, in a subsequent Session, to take up the subject themselves?

I am aware that the Bill excites much interest in Lancashire; but I think my hon. Friend will also admit that it excites much opposition. To say the least of it, there is a great difference of opinion on the subject. Under these circumstances, if the Government had time to spare there would be very little chance of the Bill passing this Session, and the Government have no time to give for such a purpose. With reference to what will be done in a subsequent Session, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand it is not in my power to make any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with respect to the case of one William Shaw, who was alleged to have been dismissed without cause from his employment as fireman at the Park Mine, Tawd Vale Colliery, Skelmersdale, Lancashire, to the effect that he had directed the Inspector to make further inquiries into the case, Whether the Home Office have now received any further Report on the case; and, whe- ther he can communicate to the House the substance of such Report?

I have received a further Report from the Inspector; but it does not add much to my knowledge of the real circumstances of the case. Shaw denies that the erasure of the Report was made with his authority. On the other hand, another fireman declares that he erased the Report at the request of Shaw, three times repeated, Shaw saying that he had made a mistake as to the position of the gas. The Inspector is of opinion that the matter cannot be carried any further, and that no violation of the General or Special Rules has been committed. The examination of the mine reported by Shaw was made on a Sunday, and not before the commencement of any shift, and, therefore, was not required to be made by law. I shall be happy to show the Report to my hon. Friend if he wishes it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Clonmel, County Tipperary, Rural Petty Sessions, on the 18th day of February, 1887, after hearing a summons at the suit of John H. Jones, Secretary to the Conservators of Fisheries, Waterford District, against John Connolly, William Nagle, Edmond Hackett, and Michael Manning, charged with an offence against the Fishery Laws, the magistrates dismissed the said complaint against all the said defendants, and, by separate orders, ordered that the said complainant should pay to each of the said defendants the sum of £1 for costs; whether, on the magistrates accordingly issuing their warrants to the Constabulary for the levying of the said costs, the Constabulary refused to execute the warrants, although the said complainant is a man of substantial means; whether, in similar cases at the same Petty Sessions, the said complainant, when successful in prosecuting persons for breaches of the Fishery Laws, has been almost invariably awarded costs against said defendants; and whether, in such cases, the warrants have been levied by fine or imprison- ment; and, why the police in the present case have refused, or neglected, to levy the amount of the warrant against Mr. Jones?

, in reply, said, the facts were substantially as stated in the Question. The warrants were originally issued for the County of Tipperary; but Mr. Jones neither residing nor having any goods in that county, the warrants were submitted to the Inspector General of Constabulary for endorsement in the County of Waterford. The Inspector General felt himself unable to comply with the request, as, in his opinion, the magistrates had clearly exceeded their powers in awarding more than 20s. costs, seeing that the defendants had been jointly charged, and that costs were, therefore, incurred on only one summons. The magistrates did not re-issue the warrants, having a doubt as to their legality.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Sergeant Michael Cronin, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether Cronin served nearly 28 years in the Force, and was sergeant for 11 years, his record during the whole period being unimpeachable; whether, in July, 1886, he was called on by the Inspector General to retire from the Service, owing to an injury to his wrist sustained while on duty in February, 1886; whether he was recommended to the Treasury for a pension of £60 a-year, a Medical Board of three doctors having certified that the injury to his wrist should be considered in his retiring allowance; whether, acting on the opinion of one doctor who was attending Sergeant Cronin, the Treasury came to the conclusion that his retirement was owing to his general state of health, and not specially to the accident to his wrist, and only granted a pension of £54 12s., an amount to which he had become entitled by service nearly three years ago; whether his pension would have been £72 a-year after another two years' service; and whether there is any doubt that he could have served a much longer period than this but for the accident; whether Sergeant Cronin has since obtained medical certificates from four doctors, showing that, apart from the accident, his health was good and likely to continue so, and has offered to submit himself for examination to any doctor who may be selected; whether, in any case under the Constabulary Acts, his service might, for the purposes of pension, have been computed at 30 years, he having been compulsorily retired; and, whether, having regard to Sergeant Cronin's excellent record, and the fact that he has eight young children dependent upon him, his case will be reconsidered, with a view to having his pension increased to the amount recommended by the Pensions Board?

, in reply, said, that the retirement of Sergeant Cronin became necessary owing to his having been reported unfit for public service, because he was suffering from chronic bronchitis in addition to an injury to his right wrist. The pension awarded him was in accordance with the Rules of the Service The Medical Board had Reported that if Cronin were again placed on active service the bronchitis would again appear.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Government to lay upon the Table of the House any official or other Report of the recent Naval Manœuvres; and, whether any Return of the casualties to men and ships will be furnished, together with a statement of the opinion of the Board as to the cause or causes of any such casualties?

An official Report is being prepared for publication, and will be laid on the Table of the House. In this Report will be included a Return of casualties to men and ships, both of which are few, considering the number of men and ships employed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that six persons have suffered from the firing from the train by the Irish National Foresters, on Sunday last, along the line between Portrush and Ballymena; whether Archibald Beattie was shot in the thigh by a bullet, and James Campbell wounded in the hand; whether Mr. James Dowds, licentiate of the Ballymena Presbytery, has made the following statement: —

"The train came dashing along, and, when opposite us, I saw a hand stretched out of a first class carriage window, and immediately there was a loud report of a firearm, simultaneously with the report I felt wounded, and would have fallen to the ground had I not leaned up against the railings. …The bullet has not been extracted, and I have suffered great pain during the night. …We had a full view of the crowd from the moment the train approached…There was not a single stone or missile thrown from it at the passing train;"

and, whether a revolver was thrown from the train, and is in the possession of the Constabulary?

Four persons are known to have been wounded. The Government have no information as to a revolver having been thrown from the train. The other circumstances, I understand, are as mentioned in the Question.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the circumstances referred to in this Question were subject to the provocation given to the National Foresters at Portrush, which provocation took the form of an attack made by a mob of men who came from Coleraine to Portrush for the purpose of making that attack on the excursionist party: whether this is the substance of the official Report given to the Government; and I would also ask, whether the excursionists gave notice to the police of the time of the excursion with a view to the preservation of the peace, and that no shots were fired from the train until large stones were thrown at the train, and people in the train were wounded?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask if he has received a communication from Mr. Robinson, the magistrate in charge at Portrush, stating that no interference took place with the excursionists on their arrival, and that it was only upon their return from Portrush, when shots were fired, that any attack was made; also, that no Orangemen were implicated in the disturbance, which was wholly caused by the conduct of the excursionists?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the attack on the excursion party, although it did not take place on their arrival at Portrush, did take place on their return to Portrush, where the assailants had assembled in the meantime?

It is quite true that shots appear to have been fired from the train on the return of the party. It is not true that there was any provocation which would justify such conduct. The firing from the train preceded the throwing of stones at the train; and altogether the conduct of the Foresters appears to have been a most reckless proceeding.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen a statement to the effect that as the train approached a bridge a large number of women and children were waiting to see the excursionists pass; that a large number of whisky bottles and porter bottles were thrown from the train; that this enraged the people, and that stones were thrown; and that on the passing of the second train about 140 shots were fired from the train?

said, he had explained that the shots were fired from the train before the stones were thrown at the train.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that three shots were fired by the mob at the Poresters before they returned the fire at all?

As far as I know no shots were fired at any Foresters in any train.

There were.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received a Memorial from the Justices of Bath on the subject of the alleged want of appliances for '' hard labour "at Horfield Gaol; and, whether any steps have been taken to enable the sentence of "hard labour" to be duly carried out?

Yes, Sir. I have received such a Memorial; and I am informed by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners that he has instructed an Inspector of Prisons to report to him on the matter. It is not, however, a fact that there are no "cranks" in the prison, for I am informed that there are 19.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of assault by gipsies in Epping Forest on 11th July, for which assault several men were, on 29th July, sentenced by the Bench at the Epping Petty Sessions to various terms of imprisonment; whether he is aware that parts of Epping Forest are infested by gipsies, and that the above is not an isolated case of assault by them; and, what steps he proposes to take to render the Forest safe to visitors?

inquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the principal sufferers by these attacks were excursionists and Sunday school children; and that in the case mentioned a small school had incurred an expense of £30 in conducting the prosecution; and, further, as the prosecution was obviously undertaken in the public interest, he would consider the propriety of re-imbursing the necessary costs to the school?

I have received a Report from the Commissioner of Police, who informs me that the scene of the assault in question lies a considerable distance beyond the boundary of the Metropolitan Police District. I have accordingly written to the Chief Constable of Essex, calling his attention to the alleged state of the Forest, and asking him to favour me with a Report on the matter. I have no information as to any assaults other than the one referred to in the Question, on which occasion I understand that 12 out of the 15 gipsies who were summoned for the assault were convicted by the Epping Bench. I propose to communicate with the Conservators of Epping Forest, as well as with the County Constabulary, with a view of securing a more effectual protection of visitors. I shall be very happy to give consideration to the question of the prosecutors' costs.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the frequently recurring accidents at the Forth Bridge have been duly investigated and reported upon by the Procurators Fiscal of the county to the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, whether blame attaches to anyone in connection therewith; and, if any criminal or other proceeding are to be taken?

All the accidents which have taken place at the Forth Bridge have been investigated at once, either by the Procurator Fiscal of Linlithgowshire or the Procurator Fiscal of Fifeshire, according to the place of the accident. No case has occurred in which there has been any ground for instituting criminal proceedings.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Times of Tuesday, 9th August, that the new Hawaiian Ministry refuse to recognize as valid the loan of £2,000,000 recently contracted by Mr. Gibson's Ministry, and that Her Majesty's Consul at Honolulu has, inconsequence, threatened that he will ask for a naval force to compel the new Ministry to assume the debts of their predecessors; whether this report is substantially correct; and, whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate any action of the kind indicated in this report?

Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of such events. I observe that the Hawaiian Consul General, in a letter to The Times yesterday, has contradicted the report which had appeared in that newspaper.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information confirming the accounts which appeared in the public Press on Thursday 4th August, of a conflict between the Mussulman and the Armenian population of Amasin, arising out of the abduction of a Christian girl by Hassan Bey, the Turkish Governor, and of the danger of further attacks on the Christian population of the city; and, whether, if the facts turn out to be as stated, Her Majesty's Government will, in pursuance of the provisions of Article lxii. of the Treaty of Berlin, address representations to the Ottoman Government on the matter, with a view to the dismissal of Hassan Bey, and the prevention of outrages and conflicts, tending to imperil the peace of the East?

Her Majesty's Government have as yet no information in regard to the case referred to in my hon. Friend's Question.

Will Her Majesty's Government inquire into the matter?

I cannot think that it is the duty of the Government to make inquiry into a newspaper telegram from Constantinople, in which mention is made of a rumour. The circumstances described in the hon. Member's Question are stated in the paragraph in the newspapers to be according to one version of the report. I think if Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of such a paragraph in a newspaper, were to address a remonstrance to the Government of Turkey, and possibly ask the dismissal of an officer, it would be a very strong measure indeed.

The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my Question. Will he inquire into the facts from the Ambassador—whether there is any foundation for the rumour? I do not ask him to remonstrate until he has ascertained the facts.

We had better wait at least for the course of post.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statements in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 8th instant, that some of the vessels taking part in the recent Naval Manœuvres were undermanned; whether it is the fact that one of the gunboats of the D Flotilla, named the Mastiff, left Portsmouth Harbour for the manœuvres two stokers, one leading stoker, and one engine room artificer short; and, whether the whole of the engine room staff had, in consequence, to keep watch and watch during the progress of the manœuvres?

I have not seen the statement referred to; but arrangements were made that all the ships should be fully manned according to their complements. For some reason, as to the cause of which I have not yet received the Report, the Mastiff appears to have left Portsmouth three men short of her engine room staff, which necessitated watch and watch being kept during six days, of which period, however, the vessel was only under way for 60 hours, the remaining time being with banked fires. The complement was complete during the actual progress of the manœuvres, and the necessity for watch and watch ceased.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, By what firm of contractors H.M.S. Australia was built, and what was the contract price; whether this is the ship to which reference has been made by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, as showing the superiority of contract to Dockyard work; whether the ship has been sent to Chatham for completion, and what was the estimated cost of such completion; whether, on the examination of the ship for the purpose of the intended alteration, the Admiralty received a Report from their officers at Chatham as to the construction of the ship; what was the nature of such Report; whether an official recommenda tion has been made to the Admiralty to return the Australia to the contractors; and, what steps the Admiralty have taken, and intend to take, in reference to the Australia, in consequence of the Reports they have received?

The Australia was built by Messrs. Napier and Sons, of Glasgow, and the contract price for hull was £154,960, and for engines £63,375. I understand that this is the ship referred to by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). She has been sent to Chatham for completion; but the estimated cost for carrying out the work has not yet been received. The Report of Survey, which was received yesterday, states that the ship has been well and carefully built; but that a few of the minor fittings and internal arrangements require alteration. No recommendation has been made to the Admiralty to return the Australia to the contractors. The recommendations contained in the Report are now under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Constabulary Court of Inquiry was held at Glasslough, County Monaghan, on the 12th May, 1886, to investigate a charge made against Constable Kennedy by two brothers named M'Gonnell, for making use of party expressions; whether six witnesses of good character were called for the defence, and only three for the prosecution; and, why, in the face of the preponderance of evidence being in. favour of the accused, the Court found him guilty of the charge preferred against him?

, in reply, said, the facts were substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. The Court of Inquiry, after carefully weighing the evidence, considered the case proved; and the Inspector General found it necessary, in the interest of the Public Service, to order the constable's removal to another county.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board have yet arrived at any decision in relation to the dispute between them and the Board of Guardians of the Ennistymon Union, County Clare, arising out of their appointment to the Protestant Episcopal chaplaincy to the workhouse?

, in reply, said, the Local Government Board fixed the salary of the Protestant chaplain to the workhouse at £5 a-year, and the proposal of the Guardians was that he should be paid by fee; but the Local Government Board found that they could not legally sanction such an arrangement.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of Monday, 8th instant, that insults and annoyances to the Curtin family still continue in Kerry; that an outrage of a most daring character was committed only a few nights since; that a respectable farmer named Spring having bought a cow from Mrs. Curtin, the cow was driven off by a number of men in front of Spring's house and stabbed in several places and thrown into a ditch; also, that a cart, recently lent by Mrs. Curtin to Spring to draw turf, was smashed to pieces the same night by a number of men assembled for that purpose; and, whether there is any provision of the Crimes Act which will roach the case?

I am informed that the Curtin family are not now insulted and annoyed, the number of prosecutions instituted against persons so acting have had a good effect. It is true that Spring has suffered in the manner stated. The police, however, have reason to believe that the acts referred to have no connection with the Boycotting of the Curtin family; but are due to private malice towards himself. There is, at present, no evidence in. these cases against any person.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was not the opinion of the Curtin family themselves that the continual reference to the case in the House for election purposes——

Order, order!

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an officer of the Yeomanry can be transferred to a Cavalry Regiment on passing the requisite examination entitling him to a commission for service therein?

No, Sir. An officer of Yeomanry is not eligible, as such, for transfer to the Cavalry of the Line by merely passing an examination.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will communicate to the House the Lord Chancellor's decision respecting Mr. Newton before the Vote for the Metropolitan Police Magistrates is taken, in order to enable the House to form its own judgment upon the matter?

I will communicate the Lord Chancellor's decision to the House as soon as the Lord Chancellor thinks it possible to do so without prejudice to pending criminal proceedings. There is no Vote for the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, whose salaries are by law charged on the Consolidated Fund.

asked the hon. Member for Hanley, Whether it his intention to proceed to the Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women) Bill this Session?

, in reply, said, that he had naturally desired to take the sense of the new Parliament upon the question, and had been relying upon the promise, guarded and qualified as it was, of the First Lord of the Treasury to give him an opportunity. He now understood from the right hon. Gentleman that there was little chance of his being able to satisfy that expectation; and, under the circumstances, he thought he should be best consulting the convenience of the House by moving to-morrow that the Order for the second reading be discharged.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether a foreign cruiser is entitled by German law, not only to board a fishing vessel not engaged in fishing, and belonging to a fleet of smacks, whether within, or outside territorial waters, but also to fire ball cartridge at and run into her, when no offence has been committed; and, whether the German Government have offered any explanation as to the grounds on which the officer in command of the German cruiser took the Grimsby smack, Lady Godiva, into Wilhelmshaven, the captain of the smack in question having been acquitted?

, (who replied) said: Fishing boats within; territorial waters and in the North Sea, under the Convention of 1882, must heave to at the order of the commander of a cruiser, and if they disobey the; commander may compel them to do so. This provision is plainly implied in; Articles 26, 28, and 29. But the suspicion against the Lady Godiva, was of; fishing in the territorial German waters, on which ground the cruiser was in her right in requiring the smack to heave to. The master of the Lady Godiva was acquitted of the charge of illegal fishing; and the charge of resistance to the German cruiser was apparently not pressed, The full report of the trial has not yet I been received; when it reaches Her Majesty's Government they will carefully consider the facts of the case, and such action as may be proper will then be taken.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum proposed to be voted on the Supplementary Estimates for allowances and expenses in respect of the Newfoundland Fishery Negotiations includes any claim which the late Government refused to sanction?

(who replied) said: The amount paid to Sir Clare Ford is £545 18s. 4d., which is the sum sanctioned by the late Government, with the addition of travelling expenses, as to which no question has arisen. The amount paid to Mr. Pennell is £3 92 9s. 6d. This is for the expenses of further negotiations conducted by Mr. Pennell during May and June of last year, and the payment is at the rate sanctioned by the late Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was to understand that the decision of the late Government was to be reversed in a Supplementary Estimate?

said, he was not personally acquainted with the details, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would repeat his Question when the Secretary to the Treasury was present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Government expect to receive the Report of Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Grey with reference to the prevalence of the Hessian fly in various parts of the country; whether it is the fact that Mr. Whtehead submitted a full Report upon this subject to the Agricultural Department so long ago as October of last year; what action has been taken at any time since then by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of that Report; and, when did the Agricultural Department first become aware of the prevalence of that insect in the country during the present season?

also asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Questions on the subject had been frequently addressed to the Government since August last; and, whether the answer had been invariably made that the Government was fully alive to the importance of the subject; and, how it'. was that at the eleventh hour the Government were about to appoint a Commissioner to inquire into it?

Order! The hon. Member is arguing the point.

Mr. Whitehead's and Mr. Grey's Report is expected immediately. Mr. Whitehead's first Report was received in October, 1886, and was immediately printed and sent to all County Local s Authorities in Great Britain. Copies were laid on the Table of both Houses ' on the meeting of Parliament. Mr. Whitehead reported last February that the pupæ of the Hessian fly had been discovered by farmors in straw of corn just threshed out near Dundee A: Circular was sent to the Local Authorities in March with a notice as to the discovery of pupa cases, and suggestions to prevent their distribution. A copy of Mr. Whitehead's Report was sent during the present month to all the agricultural; papers. Mr. Whitehead is of opinion that all that can be done at present of practicable benefit in the circumstances will be to circulate methods of preventing this attack, and his suggestions are being widely circulated in all the agricultural districts. Copies of all the documents which have been issued on this subject will shortly be laid upon the Table.

asked, whether the Government or the Commisssioners had communicated with the Agricultural Department of the United States for the purpose of obtaining any Reports or other documents in the possession of the United States Government relating to the Hessian fly and the best method of dealing with it; and whether they would cause any such documents, and other information of value, to be published in a cheap and convenient form for circulation; whether the Government would extend their inquiries as to the presence of the Hessian fly in Scotland, especially the counties of Elgin and Nairn; and whether a Commissioner would be appointed to proceed at once and make investigations in these counties?

Yes, Sir. The Reports of all the branches of the Agricultural Department of the United States are received. Some of the Entomologists' Reports refer to the Hessian fly, and it will be considered whether any part of them can be usefully published. As regards the outbreaks in Scotland, Mr. Whitehead originally suggested that Inspectors should be sent to all the infected districts; but subsequently withdrew the suggestion, as unfortunately there is no longer any doubt as to the existence of the Hessian fly in the localities named.

asked whether the House was to understand that the Government had taken no further action in the matter since the first Report of Mr. Whitehead, and its circulation?

replied that steps had been taken by the Government to forward to every part of the country suggestions as to the best course to be adopted in order to destroy the fly.

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Duchy, for the Agricultural Department, having regard to the pressing—and he might say immediate—importance of the question, whether, if the Government had no sufficient powers to deal with the matter, he would undertake, either in this or the other House of Parliament, to introduce a short and simple measure, I which might be passed in two or three days, giving whatever powers might be necessary to deal with this growing evil, an evil which, if not arrested in time, he believed, might lead to the disaster, and complete the ruin of the corn-growing districts of the country?

I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Reports we have received point to this—that no Act of Parliament and no Bill that we could pass would be effectual for the purpose. All that can be done must be done by individuals themselves by the exercise of the greatest possible vigilance. We are circulating this information to the utmost of our ability. We shall get further Reports; and if we could see a way to exterminating this pest we should not lose a single day proposing this measure.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that no actual or effective steps could be taken for stamping out that pest precisely as was done in the case of the cattle plague some years ago?

said, that they were obliged to proceed upon the scientific information which they received. With regard to adopting effective measures in the case, those who were best capable of advising them upon such matters told them positively that it would be impossible for an Act of Parliament to stamp out that disease.

inquired as to the date of the information to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?

said, it was information they had received within the last three days.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it has come to his knowledge that it has been publicly alleged that the Midland Railway Company are filling up the places of their engine drivers now on strike with men, several of whom were discharged from their own service and the service of other Companies for drunkenness, physical incapacity, and neglect of duty, or in-competency for its proper discharge; and, whether, in the interest of the public safety, he will inquire into these allegations, and, if they are true, address a remonstrance to the Company on these matters?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to ask him whether his attention has been called to a statement that, on Sunday last, August 7th, a District Traffic Inspector was in charge of and driving au engine in steam from Nottingham to Peterborough, with a fitter as fireman, and that the Traffic Inspector had never passed an examination as being qualified to take charge of a train in steam; and, whether he will make any representation to the Midland Railway Company as to the danger to the public of such a proceeding?

asked whether, as a matter of fact, many of the men recently employed by the Midland Railway, but discharged, were now rapidly asking to be taken back on the old terms?

In reference to the Question on the Paper, I can only repeat the answer which I gave the other day, that the Board of Trade have no power to interfere in questions between Railway Companies and their servants; and for the same reason I am unable to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. With regard to the second Question, I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman is good enough to hand me any information bearing out the remarks he has made, I will cause investigation to be made; but for the reason I have given, I have no power to interfere between the Directors and their servants, and the Board of Trade have no power in the matter.

asked if the hon. Gentleman was able to ascertain the truth of the statement that engines had been burned—that was to say, that their tubes, &c, had been destroyed?

I can only say that the Midland Railway Company has not made any communication to me on the subject, and I am not empowered to ask.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will call for a Further Report on the Progress of the Sugar Trade, in continuation of that made to the Board in July, 1884, and will consent to a Return thereof, and of any further Papers which can be usefully laid before the House?

The Board of Trade have no objection to present a continuation of the Tables of production and trade in sugar given in the Report for 1884, if the hon. Member will move for them; but the Board are unable to furnish information such as that given in the latter part of the Return.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has received a letter from Mr. Herbert Burrows, of the Inland Revenue Department, in which he states that a "recorded caution" has been recognized by the Board for very many years as one of the Departmental forms of official punishment; and, whether he can now give the House any further information on the matter?

I have received a letter from Mr. Herbert Burrows, and have informed him that I cannot engage in a correspondence with him on the subject. "A recorded caution" has, I understand, never been recognized by the Board of Inland Revenue as a punishment. It entails no loss of pay, privileges, or prospects.' It is true that three successive "recorded cautions" are equivalent to an "admonition," which is a punishment, inasmuch as it prevents the promotion of an officer within 12 months, and stops his increment of salary over the same period. But a single "recorded caution" entails no loss whatever to the person cautioned. It may have—and is, of course, intended to have— an effect upon his mind. But it does not, of itself, impair his position and prospects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the evidence of Mr. J. S. Hepworth, solicitor, given at the hearing on Tuesday last, at the Marylebone Police Court, of a charge against Mr. Harry Inwood of assaulting Police constable James M'Cawley:—

"The prisoner implored someone to go and fetch a policeman, and when one arrived the prisoner asked him to take the prosecutor into custody, and I told him that M'Cawley was the one who should be charged, as I had seen it all;"

and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of this policeman in arresting Mr. Inwood instead of Constable M'Cawley?

, in reply, said, he understood that the case had been dealt with at the Marylebone Police Court that day, and the Report of the Chief Commissioner of Police would be made to him.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that the mail steamers from Portree and Stornoway generally arrive at Strome about 9.30 a.m.; that the mail train leaves at 11 o'clock, arriving at Dingwall 40 minutes after the north mail has left, and hence the mails are detained at Dingwall for nearly 24 hours; that the mail train from Strome to Dingwall is a very slow train, taking two hours and 30 minutes for a distance of 53 miles; and, whether he will either arrange for the train to start earlier, or to increase the speed of the train?

In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to state that the facts are substantially as set forth in his Question, except, perhaps, that the steamer from Stornoway frequently arrives at Strome Ferry before 9.30 a.m. But I am advised that any earlier departure than 11 a.m. of the mail train from Strome Ferry would, probably, give rise to public inconvenience in the working of the Steam Boat Service, and is therefore undesirable. An acceleration of the train from Strome Ferry would, as I have already stated to the House, involve expense which circumstances do not appear to warrant, there being no reason to believe that the Railway Company would effect an earlier arrival of the train at Dingwall, except for an. additional payment, which the amount of correspondence to be benefited would not justify.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government intend taking with a view of throwing open Windsor Forest to the public, and abolishing the locked gates which at present encompass a considerable portion of the Forest?

Windsor Forest is already practically open to foot passengers, and also to the carriages of residents in the neighbourhood, who under certain Regulations are able to obtain keys of the gates. Looking to the fact that there are deer in Windsor Park, it would be impossible, without great expense in the way of gatekeepers and lodges, to abolish the locked gates as proposed, and this extra expense the Government are not prepared to incur.

Will the Government take steps to abolish the deer?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the sum of £630 14s. 2d., named in the Report of the Select Committee on Perpetual Pensions as annual rents paid to the Duchy of Cornwall, is provided for in this year's Consolidated Fund; and, whether he can inform the House who is responsible for disregarding the Treasury Minute of 1839, which directed this payment to cease on the 15th of April, 1841?

I do not find the post groats payment is mentioned in the Report of the Perpetual Pensions Committee. The sum of £630 14s. 2d. is paid as it falls due out of the Cosolidated Fund, in accordance with 1 & 2) Vict. c. 12O. The Board of Treasury are responsible for neglecting to observe what I must contend were the illegal directions of their Predecessors.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, by Treasury Minute, payment of the sum was expressly directed to cease in April, 1841, and whether Sir Reginald Welby had not stated before the Committee on Perpetual Pensions that the Treasury had no authority to pay the sum since that date.

Yes, Sir; that is accurate. If I may say so, the Minute was passed without legal authority, and the Act of Parliament is absolutely binding. That is a contention as to which I believe there is no doubt whatever.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the whole subject early next Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the Commutation and Redemption of Tithe, with a view to future legislation on the subject?

also inquired, what course the Government proposed to take with regard to the Tithe Rent Charge Recovery Bill, which had already passed the House of Lords?

I shall state that on Monday. The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. H. Gardner) involves very large and serious questions with regard to numerous and wide-spreading interests, upon -which Her Majesty's Government could not come to a definite conclusion without much consideration.

I shall repeat the Question on Monday.

I shall not be able to give an answer on Monday.

said, the Report of Mr. Bridge, the Commissioner who inquired into the Welsh tithe disturbances was expected daily.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government propose, in view of the unanimous wish of the Scotch Members, to proceed with the Conveyancing Acts Amendment (Scotland) Bill?

I am not yet in a position to say when this Bill will be taken.

(for Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND) (Middlesex, Uxbridge) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the strong representations made to him on the subject, the limit of £50 will be altered to £30 in Clause 1 of the Post Office Savings Banks and Government Annuities Bill?

also asked, Whether, in the event of the Post Office Savings Banks Bill passing, the Government will extend to the Trustee Savings Banks the same facilities which they propose to give to the Post Office Savings Banks?

Before this Question is answered, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that in addition to the old debt incurred and being paid out of Revenue, amounting to £83,672 annually, there is a further loss to the National Exchequer, in connection with Trustee Banks, of over £9,000 yearly, for cost of management and excess of interest allowed by the National Debt Commissioners to such banks, over the amount produced by the sums deposited with them by the Trustees, he considers it safe to "extend to the Trustee Savings Banks the same facilities which they propose to give to Post Office Savings Banks," seeing that any such extension is sure to involve further and more serious losses to the Revenue; whether the increased facilities for deposit suggested by the Question will not increase the risks to depositors in such banks, as well as cause further losses to the Revenue; and, whether there is any Government security guaranteed to the depositors in Trustee Savings Banks?

, in reply, said, he would answer the last Question first. The figures quoted by the hon. Member in paragraph 1 were substantially correct. But an increase of money deposited with the National Debt Commissioners by the Trustees of Savings Banks would not increase the loss to the Revenue so long as the Commissioners could earn 3 per cent on their investments. On the other hand, an increase in the aggregate amount of deposits would naturally increase the risk of loss to depositors from. fraud or mismanagement. There was no Government security guaranteed to the depositors in Trustee Savings Banks, as the hon. Member was aware; the National Debt Commissioners being only liable to the Trustees for moneys remitted to them for investment. With regard to the Questions on the Paper, the Government had carefully considered this subject in the interests of the industrial classes. It had been urged that sufficient opportunity for saving was not afforded by the limit of £30; but, being met with the demand on the part of the Trustee Savings Banks to have the same power extended to them, it was open to this observation—that they might be tempted to give a larger rate of interest than could be afforded by the Post Office, or safely earned. The Government felt that it would be accompanied with some risk if they extended this increase of power to the Trustee Savings Banks. Under these circustances, and having regard to the opposition with which the Bill was threatened by the Trustee Savings Banks, unless they shared in the extension of the limit of deposit in any one year from £30 to £50, which, the Government felt they could not safely accede to, and looking to the period of the Session, the Government thought it best, on the whole, to abandon the proposal to increase the annual limit of deposit from £30 to £50, and to extend to Trustee Savings Banks the facilities for investment in Consols now enjoyed by the Post Office Savings Bank. They regretted the course they had been compelled to take; but they had no alternative at this period of the Session.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that in 1880 a Bill passed through Committee authorizing an extension of the limit of deposit to £100 a-year, and to £300 as a maximum?

said, he was aware that some legislation of that kind passed through Committee; but there were other considerations involved, to which he had not referred, which made them hesitate in concurring in any proposal which would largely increase the amount of deposits held by the Government.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the expediency of not proceeding with those clauses of the Revenue Bill which it was understood would disturb the existing machinery for the collection of Income Tax.

, in reply, said, it was an "omnibus" Bill, and dealt with several matters; but in it there would be clauses to carry out the principle of abolishing the payment of collectors and assessors by poundage. On that matter he had received representations from various parts of the country; and it had also been brought before him by deputations from Chambers of Commerce. The subject appeared to be one in which great interest was taken, and there was a fairly unanimous opinion that some change should be made. It would be with the greatest possible reluctance that he would be forced to abandon this proposal of the Bill; and he trusted the Income Tax Commissioners of the City of London would not meet the clauses with any strong opposition. The Bill would be circulated on Friday.

said, he understood it would be a convenience to the House that the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Law Bill, if there were any, should be taken to-morrow at a quarter past 4 o'clock. The Government were exceedingly anxious that the Amendments of the Lords should be considered with as little delay as possible, and be understood that no objection would be made to them in that House. It would be convenient, probably, that the Education Vote should be taken on Saturday. He should be glad, if it were possible, to take the Diplomatic Vote on Saturday; but he was afraid there would be no chance of doing so. He proposed, unless urgent Business intervened, to take it as the first Business after the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill had passed through Committee. That Bill stood for Monday, and he was anxious to keep an engagement entered into many days ago with the Members representing mining districts. He hoped the House would get through the Bill with fair rapidity. The Customs and Inland Revenue Estimates would be taken in their order, and their order was last.

said, if there was time the Scotch Education Vote would be taken on Saturday, following the English Vote.

said, the remainder of the Scotch Votes would be taken before the Irish Votes.

said, that he was under the strongest pledge to the House to take the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill de die in diem.

asked at what hour the Saturday Sitting would close?

said, he thought it would be for the convenience of the House that the Sitting should terminate on Saturday at 6 o'clock, and he should move that the Standing Order regulating Wednesday Sittings should also apply to Saturday Sittings.

, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, our relations with the Turkish and Egyptian Governments, and the Egyptian people, in regard to Egypt; and our relations with the French and Russian Governments with reference to the recently contemplated Egyptian Treaty with the Porte. The pleasure of the House not having been signified,

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having risen accordingly—

said, that very few Members could think he did wrong in moving the adjournment, considering that on this question the House had maintained, in the words of the noble Lord the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury), an "Egyptian silence" during the present Session, although much had occurred with which hon. Members did not agree. So far as we were concerned, there had been lately negotiated with the Porte a Treaty with regard to Egypt which would have involved us permanently in very heavy obligations, and in the Papers presented to the House there were statements made by Lord Salisbury to which it was necessary to call attention. If the subject were discussed on the Diplomatic Vote, the discussion would be reduced to a sham fight, and hon. Members would not be able to express their views fully. The Treaty, as the House was aware, had vanished, owing to the action of the Porte, who refused to ratify it. There were two important Despatches, Nos. 96 and 97, which were sent by Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and if we acted upon them, although Sir H. Drummond Wolff would have cost a great deal, he would have been almost worth the money. It was wrong to endeavour to negotiate a Treaty with the Sultan without first obtaining the views of those Powers with whom we had been concerned previously in, all matters affecting Egypt. A good deal had been heard about the European Concert, and it was never more necessary to maintain it than it was now. We knew how angry Europe was at the time that a Treaty respecting Cyprus was negotiated by Lord Salisbury. The House would also remember how indignant the people of England had been frequently when they thought that Russia was endeavouring to carry on diplomatic action in secret. This Convention was not secret, it was true; but if Turkey had not informed France and Russia of what was going on those countries would have known nothing about the matter. It was a fault to negotiate when we were aware that nothing could be valid without the assent of Europe, and to negotiate in such a way that the arrangements could not be assented to by Europe. Her Majesty's Government had frequently said that our occupation of Egypt was essentially one of a temporary character. Frequently, however, when the Government had been asked to state the term for our withdrawal they had always shrunk from doing so. It was true that in the Treaty Her Majesty's Government agreed to a term; but they insisted upon inserting a clause to the effect that England might go back without the assent of Turkey or Europe, and practically such stipulations had been made by the Government with regard to Egypt that we necessarily should have to return. The country was not left in doubt as to the opinion of Europe. In a despatch from Sir H. Drummond Wolff to Lord Salisbury they saw what were the views both of Russia and of France when those countries heard what England was going to do. Sir H. Drummond Wolff stated that in return for repeated visits he called upon the Russian and French Ambassadors. He went on to say—

"M. Nelidoff informed me that from the point of view of his Government the Sultan, by giving us the right of re-entry, had practically sacrificed to us a portion of his sovereignty. M. Nelidoff also objected to the want of definition as to the causes that would justify the re-entry. England might look on a movement of troops in Afghanistan as an external danger, and make this a pretext for occupying Egypt. His Excellency said that, speaking personally, he thought Russia might consent that England should be the one Power to whom should be confided the task of restoring order in Egypt; hut this must be done under restriction, and Commissioners of other Powers should accompany the English troops. Or he thought that the restoration of order might be effected by more than one Power. Such were his views, which having been to a great extent adopted by his Government, he opposed the ratification. M. de Montebello, with whom I had two interviews, took much the same line The right of re-entry was destructive to the Mediterranean equilibrium. France was determined never to accept it. As Article now stood, her non-acceptance of the right of re-entry would make our occupation of the country permanent."

There was an enclosure in the Despatch containing copy of a letter from the Count of Montebello to the Sultan, the language of which was exceedingly strong—

"In case the Convention should be ratified, the French Government will devote their attention to the protection of their personal interests, which will be injured by the destruction of the balance of power in the Mediterranean, and they will take with this object such measures as may in their opinion be necessary. As the disinterested policy of France can alone protect the Ottoman Empire against the encroachments and ambitious aims of England, the maintenance of this friendship will be considered by your Imperial Majesty as much more advantageous. If your Majesty does not ratify the Convention, the French Government will protect and guarantee you against the consequences, whatsoever they may he, that may result from the non-ratification."

He (Mr. Labouchere) presumed that that Despatch to the Sultan was circulated in Constantinople because it was telegraphed to a journal in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergussou) was asked whether he knew anything about it, and he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman said that he knew absolutely nothing about it. [Cries of "No, no!"] He said that he had received no information.

I will mention at once what I did say, because it is perfectly absurd to attempt to deceive the House in a matter of this sort, and I trust that I am not capable of doing so. I was asked as to the truth of a statement in the Daily News as to a certain Note addressed to the Sultan, and I said that—

"The Government are not in possession of the contents of the alleged Note. No such Note has been communicated to the Government, nor has any communication upon the subject been made to the French Government."

When I gave that answer on June 28 the Government were not in possession of the contents of the Note. They simply had a reference to it and to its purport in telegrams from Constantinople, which clearly were not of a reliable character. The text of the Note, as far as is known now, was not in our possession until the 2nd of July, and I may say that up to this moment we have not an authentic copy of the Note.

said, that the Note was sent home in a Despatch by Sir H. Drummond Wolff. He certainly did not intend to imply that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had any intention to lead the House into error, but he thought that the reply given was that no such note had been seen. But this was a matter of mere detail. What was far more important was that when Sir H. Drummond Wolff had been put in possession of this most menacing Despatch, by which Turkey was warned against the encroachments and ambitious aims of England, and told that if the Convention was not ratified the French Government would protect and guarantee the Sultan against the consequences, whatsoever they might be, that might result from the non-ratification, neither he nor Lord Salisbury could have supposed for an instant that the Convention, if ratified, would not injure this Country and put us into a false position with regard to Europe. It was therefore not only a criminal course, but a most stupid course to try and force the hand of the Sultan and induce him to sign this Convention, knowing that by so doing we should alienate France, and that the Convention would become the law of Europe without the consent of France and Russia, both of whom had protested against it in a strong manner. He was exceedingly glad that there was no Treaty. It had, however, left a painful impression on Europe, which always existed when Lord Salisbury was in power. He wished further to call attention to one or two statements made by Lord Salisbury in the despatches as to future policy. Writing to Sir H. Drummond Wolff, Lord Salisbury had said:—

"Her Majesty's Government have no intention of leaving Egypt without ample security that the social order which they have reestablished there shall not be endangered cither by external attack or internal trouble. Whether the Convention be ratified or not, they will adhere to that intention."

This practically meant that if Turkey did not sign the Convention we intended to remain in Egypt for ever. England had not organized the Egytian Army? How, then, could the Government say that they would only leave Egypt when that country was preserved by the Egyptian Army from internal danger? On Juno 4 Lord Salisbury made a further statement which was of importance. He said—

"Should the Porte refuse to ratify on the appointed day, Her Majesty's Government will be freed from their engagements to the Forte in regard to Egypt, and will remain free to take their own course."

What did this mean? He did not understand how the mere fact of the Sultan objecting to this Treaty freed England from previous engagements. If this were so, nothing could be more easy than to free ourselves from any Treaty in any country, and especially a country weaker than ourselves, Lord Salisbury was good enough to supplement these two statements of his by another at the Mansion House yesterday. Lord Salisbury said that the fact of our going to Egypt imposed obligations upon us, and that we should have ample security from internal and external attack. He had already dealt with the subject of internal attack and the statement that we should not leave the country until there was an army capable of putting down rebellion. But Lord Salisbury went on to say that we should not leave the county until it could pursue its course of prosperity itself. There had not been much prosperity in Egypt since England had been there. Lord Salisbury, continuing, said—

"It is pleasant to think that our sojourn in Egypt is accompanied by the greatest benefits to those among whom we dwell. …The foundations of future national prosperity are being laid broad and strong. …We may feel that we are pursuing an object which confers no immediate benefit on ourselves, but is subservient to the highest interests of philanthropy and humanity."

He had never heard a Minister talk about doing anything in the "interests of humanity and philanthropy" without having a very strong opinion that he was talking nonsense. It was only when a Minister was going to do something improper and unjust that he talked about "humanity and philanthropy." Sir H. Drummond Wolff was sent out to Egypt by the present Government, and this Country had spent a large amount of money upon him. Was the Government going to take his advice? Sir H. Drummond Wolff, writing to Lord Salisbury, said—

"I have the honour to call your attention to the abnormal condition of the financial system of Egypt, and the very great hardship it inflicts on the people of the country. It would be a blot on any permanent arrangement if some attempt were not made to alleviate the heavy burden entailed on the fellaheen of the debt which crushes their industry and of ten deprives them of their property and means of livelihood. In the schemes which have been put forward for the readjustment of the finances, this important point has always been overlooked. Attempts have been made to establish an equilibrium of Egyptian finance, in which the amount payable for the debt was an almost inevitable basis, and even when the sinking funds have been suspended, this course has been taken rather to sustain the external credit of the country than to better the lot of the people. If the debt had been run up by wars or extravagance sanctioned by the people, it might be right to continue saddling them with this intolerable load. But they had no voice in the matter. This evil has been recognized more than once; but no attempt has been made to diminish it, except on one occasion when Lord Northbrook recommended the diminution of the land tax by £450,000 annually. This measure has only been partially carried out. It is impossible to measure the political effect of this state of things on a population thus mortgaged to the creditors of former bad masters. It must always be the cause of a discontent, not less deep from not being manifest, and it would always render the fellaheen anxious to join any popular leader who would promise them relief. Such a condition does not exist and would not be tolerated elsewhere, and in a settlement which it is hoped may promote tranquillity throughout the country the present fiscal system is a danger that cannot be overlooked."

That was the testimony of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and with such a state of things was it to be expected that we should have tranquillity in Egypt? Would the Government act on that Despatch of Sir H. Drummond Wolff? He (Mr. Labouchere) feared they would not, and that Lord Salisbury had no idea of acting on Sir H. Drummond Wolff's advice, especially since Her Majesty's Government had taken over to themselves that very eminent Gentleman, who was the fons et origo of the Egyptian Debt—he meant the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had forged the chains which now bound the Egyptian people, would, no doubt, do his best to act with an unbiased mind; but his connection with the matter was of such a kind that it would probably be impossible for him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman went out as the Representative of the foreign bondholders and rivetted the chains on the Egyptians. It was clear that we had gone to Egypt and remained there for one object only, and that was for the I benefit of the bondholders. In 1864 the total Revenue of Egypt was £4,937,000, and Egypt then owed £3,392,000. That was a loan negotiated by the right hon. Gentleman, or by Frühling and Goschen. In the previous 10 years, from 1854 to 1864, Egypt made enormous progress and must have been fairly prosperous. In 1864 there was a second Goschen loan of £5,804,000. According to Mr. Cave, Egyptreceived£4,864,000, or£1,000,000 less. The loan was issued at 93, and the charge for issuing it was £554,000, or 11 percent. [Mr. GOSCHEN dissented.] Well, he did not know where the money went, but he knew that Messrs. Frühling and Goschen were responsible for that amount. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of the firm at that time, and therefore was as responsible as Mr. Frühling. They could not throw it all on Frühling. The profit was immense and led others who were as anxious to make profit to look upon Egypt as the land of Goschen, and they made a rush for it. Loan after loan succeeded for the next 10 years up to 1874, when the Funded Debt of Egypt was £68,000,000; but the entire sum paid to Egypt was £45,000,000, and the only available asset was £9,000,000 paid for the Canal. The rest disappeared in the enormous interest, which was something between 25 and 12½ per cent, according to Mr. Cave. Egypt could not pay, and hero came our first interference—we purchased the Canal shares. There had been a good deal of Conservative boasting because we had purchased those shares at £4,000,000. That was our first step in interfering in Egypt for the benefit of the Egyptians. Sir H. Drummond Wolff, writing to Lord Salisbury on the Suez Canal shares, says: —

"Your Lordship is aware that the price of £4,000,000 paid for the shares of the ex-Khedive by Her Majesty's Government was originally expended by him out of the money collected from the people In lieu of any profit on this head, they are now paying interest to Her Majesty's Government. Under the original concession 15 per cent was to go to the Egyptian Government. But this revenue of the net profits of the Canal was subsequently sold, thus depriving the Egyptian people of their last chance of obtaining any return for the sums expended out of their toil."

Our next step was sending out Mr. Cave, who found that the total Debt, including the Floating Debt, was £90,000,000. Mr. Cave made no reduction in the interest of the Debt, but he altered the incidence of the Floating Debt. The Egyptians paid a heavy land tax. It was agreed under the Moukabala arrangement that if the Egyptians paid for 12 years about 45 percent above the existing land tax, at the end of that time they should have to pay only half the original land tax. Mr. Cave, in reporting on the finances of Egypt, said that the arrangement was a ruinous one to the State. And so it was. In 1876 the Khedive abrogated the Moukabala and agreed to repay all the payments which had boon made under that arrangement. Unfortunately the proceeds of this Moukabala loan had been devoted to pay off the Goschen loan. On May 12, 1879, Messrs. Frühling and Goschon wrote to Lord Derby in these words—

"In accordance with the suggestion made by you in your conversation with the Right Hon. G. J. Goschen yesterday, we beg to enclose his short memoranda stating the case of the bondholders of the Egyptian Government loans of 1862 and 1864, which we issued to the public. We shall be greatly obliged if you will urge on General Stanton to support our protest. We accordingly venture to urge on your Lordship to grant us such assistance as you may see fit to render in excluding, as suggested by the Right Hon. S. Cave in his Report, the loan of 1864 from the operation of the decree just issued by the Khedive, and in securing some recognition of the prior claims of the holders of the loan of 1862."

Following upon this, Lord Derby, on May 19, wrote to General Stanton as follows: —

"I transmit to you copies of a correspondence with Mesers. Frübling and Goschen, who have requested the assistance of Her Majesty's Government to obtain the exclusion from the late decree of the Khedive of the loan of 1864 and to obtain some recognition of prior claims to the holders of the 1862 loan, and in accordance with the reply returned to them I have to request you to give such unofficial assistance as you possibly can to the agents of the parties interested."

"Coming events cast their shadows before," for it seemed that on that occasion the Conservative Government were exceedingly friendly to the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman had retorted by being exceedingly friendly to them. In the same year the right hon. Gentleman went out himself to Egypt along with Messrs. Joubert, who represented the French bondholders. Now, it was frequently supposed that the right hon. Gentleman went out in an independent position, as an eminent financier come to bless and to aid Egypt. As a matter of fact, he went out, after a meeting called by the Foreign Bondholders' Association, as the agent of the foreign bond holders, and as the agent necessarily of Messrs. Frühling and Goschen, and he was not an independent person at all. He would not have acted fairly to his constituents if he had not made it his first business to look after the interests of the bondholders who sent him. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? he took the loan and divided it into Preferred and Deferred Debt, and he re-established the Moukabala and insisted on it, thus renewing what Mr. Cave had called an unjust thing.

said, that, on the contrary, the Moukabala had been re-established against his wish, and that he objected to it as a bad tax, and as being entirely against his principles. It was re-established at the wish of the Khedive himself as a primary condition, and in deference to pressure put upon his Highness, and the decision was arrived at before he himself had reached Egypt. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would accept this statement, which was simply and absolutely correct.

said, of course, he would readily accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The right hon. Gentleman said it was entirely against his principles to re-establish the Moukabala; but he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman had sacrificed his principles then, as many on his (the Opposition) side of the House thought he had since. There was then in Egypt a Minister of Finance—a man of some eminence—Ismail Sadik — the right hand of the Khedive; this man was opposed to the establishmant of the Moukabala, and to the projects of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not treat with him. Ismail was at once arrested, taken to the Nile, and no one ever heard more of him. It was fully understood he was drowned. The right hon. Gentleman did more than establish the Moukabala; in his anxiety for Egypt he established a system of European control. We were not only to be behind the scenes to see that the Egyptians paid the bondholders, but we sent taskmasters there in the flesh to make them do it. The whole country was pervaded by a vast swarm of locusts. If the right hon. Gentleman was forced to consent to the re-establishment of the Moukabala by the Khedive, the locusts were his own idea. At any rate—although Egypt was admittedly overtaxed —these locusts received £378,000 per annum, and this was put as an extra task upon the Egyptians. From 1876 to 1879 there was one great and persistent attempt made in Egypt to enforce the payment of the taxes, so as to enable the country to pay the extortionate interest on the loans. The Khedive was stripped of his property and the people ruined. Well, despite all this, in 1877 there was difficulty in paying the July coupon; its payment did take place, but our own Consul General declared that this result had only been achieved by the ruin of the peasantry, the crops being hypothecated, and the taxes collected in advance. These interests were thus wrung from a peasantry already crushed by taxation. The British Government knew how the payment of the coupons was arrived at, and yet in 1879 our Consul General was found reminding his Highness the Khedive that — "Any change in the engagements which he had lately made would be mo3fc ruinous." At length the position became impossible. The European employés were paid, but the Egyptians were not. The Revenue was nearly £10,000,000; but after payment of the interest on the Tribute and the Canal shares only about £1,500,000 were left for the administration of the country, the rest was swallowed up by the bondholders. Even the loan agent felt it was a mistake to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, and therefore an International Commission was established, with Sir Rivers Wilson, who was sent out as President. The Commission came to the conclusion that a little more should be spent upon Europeans, and decided that there should be both a French and an English Minister to see that the Khedive fulfilled his obligations. The Ministers, however, did not reduce the Debt or the salaries of the Europeans; there were 2,500 officers, and they put them on half-pay and refused to pay off their arrears, which was certainly a novel way to keep the country quiet. They increased the land tax. At that time there were a number of the fellahs who were not subjected to the corvée, but it was determined that they must pay for exemption. Naturally there was disturbance, and: the Assembly of Notables was called together, and insisted on their country not being pillaged and ruined in this manner. The Khedive dismissed these Ministers, and tried to make two ends meet. We were indignant, and obtained a decree from the Sultan dismissing the Khedive from his position as Ruler of Egypt. Then we set up Tewfik, an innocent, quiet, harmless sort of person, and entirely our instrument; but even so we had found we could not get blood out of a stone, and that it was necessary we should do something to alter the incidence of taxation and reduce its burden. A Commission of Liquidation was then appointed, and the interest of the loans was reduced, but it still amounted to 10 or 12 per cent. The Moukabala was then again abrogated; but did we—who were represented on the Commission—act fairly towards the Egyptian peasantry? These poor men had paid over £17,000,000 sterling for it. They could not do so themselves how ever. They borrowed money at high and ruinous interest, and it might have been supposed that by any Commission of Liquidation in which we were re presented these men would have been paid back, and treated quite as well as the bondholders who had not paid the money. We looked after the bond holders; but we told the peasants that for 50 years it would pay 1 per cent, and at the end of the time the whole £17,000,000 would be swept away. But that was only the half. In 1882 the rebellion of Arabi took place——

asked the hon. Member to state the amount of interest that had been paid upon the loans, and in what way the International Commission had reduced the rate?

I think that it is my duty to interfere. The hon. Gentleman rose to move the adjournment of the House for the discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance. Although, the House has given its sanction, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman cannot be said to refer to a definite matter of urgent public importance, because he is going over the whole relations of this country with France, and proposes to do so with regard to Russia as well as Egypt; and I think it is an abuse of the Standing Order to take so wide a range.

said, that was his object. He complained that we were still remaining in Egypt, and that Lord Salisbury had stated in despatches and in his speech at the Mansion House that we had gone there to do good to the Egyptians. His object in moving the adjournment was to raise the point whether we ought to remain there instead of coming away, and to show that so long as we had been in the country we had been a persistent curse to Egypt. But he would not refer further to the finances. He thought, however, that he had said enough to prove his point. In January, 1882, General Gordon wrote of the Egyptians themselves—

"It is reiterated over and over again that Egypt is prosperous and contented. I do not think that it is altered at all, except in improving the finances for the bondholders. The prisons are as full of unfortunates as they ever were."

At the same time Consul Rowsell in his Report stated—

"The taxes are never collected without the aid of the kourbash, which, as a rule, is administered very freely, and without which the tax collection makes very little progress. Failing to pay, it also is a common occurrence for a man to be thrown into prison, when the kourbash is again brought into play, until the amount demanded is forthcoming. Beyond the kourbash and imprisonments, no other cruelty or torture attends the collection of taxes."

Owing to continuous protests, Lord Northbrook was sent out, and he recommended that the land tax should be reduced by £420,000. It had not been reduced by this amount, however. we had put an end to the corvée, which was worth £250,000, and the Egyptians were obliged to pay this amount because the corvée did not exist. Then there were further negotiations. In 1885 a discussion had taken place between the European Powers as to Egypt, and we guaranteed a loan of £9,000,000, which was absorbed by the payment of the Alexandria indemnities and of the interest on previous loans. It was also agreed that the coupons should be taxed for two years, but not longer without European investigation. But in March, 1887, this period of two years came to an end, and, at the time, the question. was raised in the House. Again, Egypt found it impossible to pay these coupons. What did we do? We agreed to pay them. There were certain mythical claims on the part of the Egyptians upon the British Exchequer "vamped up," and we paid them in order to enable the Egyptians to pay the coupons, and to save them from this European investigation. He thought he had shown that we were in Egypt for the bondholders, and that, far from doing good in Egypt, we were creating a situation which must—as Sir H. Drummond Wolff said — tend to create discontent and disorder. Beyond establishing gin palaces and brothels and taxing the people, he did not see what good we had done there. Far from introducing representative government into Egypt, we had done away with what there was of it, and had not sought to build it up again. A few months ago Questions were asked in the House as to two of our officers in the Army of Occupation. He cited the case in order to show the evils inherent in the system of having an Army of Occupation in a country like Egypt. These officers went out to shoot near the Pyramids. They tramped over the crops of the peasants of one of the villages in the neighbourhood. The peasants came out and, naturally, tried to stop them. The officers shot one of the peasants and wounded one or two others; thereupon, as was only natural, the peasants took the officers into the village and somewhat maltreated them. Then we got our instrument Tewfik to send down two gentlemen whom he called Judges, and we added an English Judge. These officials decided that the peasants were in the wrong; and we marched a British regiment into the neighbourhood, and the villagers were flogged by hundreds. Nothing more monstrous than this had ever been heard of, not even in the Franco-German War. On what grounds and under what law, Egyptian or English, were these men condemned to be flogged, and on what ground was a British regiment turned into an Egyptian village to act as executioners on the unfortunate inhabitants? We had spent millions of money in Egypt; we still had there an Army costing £134 per man per annum; and yet the country had not benefited either financially or politically. We had put ourselves in the wrong with Egypt, and had established a permanent sore with France. We had created an ill feeling with. Turkey, and no one believed for a moment what we said when we asserted that we were anxious to leave the country, and were only remaining there for the good of the Egyptians. The other Powers knew as well as we did that we were remaining there only for the good of the bondholders. But the House was told that it was necessary to remain in Egypt on account of our position in India. Nothing of the sort. It had been decided that in the event of war the Suez Canal should be neutralized and the Cape route utilized. We had the means of stopping all ships of war belonging to a country with which we were in conflict; and therefore it seemed to him that the idea of the necessity of the occupation of Egypt or of the occupation of the Suez Canal in order to secure our passage being free to India in case of war was entirely exploded. Lord Salisbury did not insist on the point at the Mansion House; he put our occupation solely on the ground of the good of Egypt. According to the Treaty negotiated by Sir H. Drummond Wolff we were bound to re-occupy the country if order was disturbed. But he would point out that there was no proposal in the Treaty to reduce the debt or the interest. Therefore, the House might assume that, as far as the Treaty was concerned, there was no intention to reduce it. He should like to show by figures that we made that Treaty with the deliberate intention and belief not only that we might go back, but that we should go back to the country. The Army at present cost £130,000. The Egyptians paid us £200,000, or a total of £330,000. But Moukhtar Pasha said that 13,000 men at least would be requisite in order to enable the Egyptian Government without us to maintain order and defend the country against external dangers. The cost of these 13,000 men would be £420,000. How was Egypt to provide the £90,000? It could not do so. The theory of Sir H. Drummond Wolff was that the Egyptians were paying too many taxes already. Unless we reduced that taxation, therefore, it would be absolutely impossible, according to the opinion of the best experts, for Egypt to maintain such an Army as would enable the people to preserve order and render it unnecessary for us to go back. It was said that if we left Egypt France would so there; bat, for his part, he did not believe it. There was a time when France threatened to do so; but then a great deal of the Egyptian debt was in the hands of the great houses of Paris. This was no longer the case. At present we might fairly make a bargain. France was most anxious that we should withdraw from Egypt. The other Powers did not care much about the matter. We might make this arrangement—that if we withdrew, and did not return without the consent of Europe, Egypt itself should be neutralized, and no Power should claim to go there because the Egyptian debt was not paid. The Egyptian debt should simply be treated like the debt of Peru, or of any other country. They might have some agreement about the neutrality of the Suez Canal and as to the Capitulations, which required modification. The financial question was the pressing question at this moment. As Sir H. Drummond Wolff told them, there could be no prosperity for Egypt if more than half its income was taken up for the debt and spent out of the country. He (Mr. Labouchere) had moved the adjournment of the House because he considered that the House had some right to call upon the Government to give them some sort of a pledge that they would not continue to spoil and harry the Egyptians on account of the bondholders, but would make the reductions which Sir H. Drummond Wolff said were necessary for the well-being of Egypt.

, in seconding the Motion, said he regarded the question as urgent on account of the condition of affairs existing between this country and France. He asked whether it was a decent, a fair, or a wise thing to cover with every form of insult and outrage a country like France, because we fancied that she was weak, and that we, as Lord Salisbury and Sir H. Drummond Wolff were never tired of saying, had the German Ambassador at our back. Lord Salisbury had said that when in future we were asked to answer the annoying and perpetual demands of France and Turkey for the evacuation of Egypt we should point to the non-signature of the ratification of the Convention as releasing us from all our previous declarations in re- gard to Egypt. Now, he would ask the Government to put their finger on any fact which had set them free from the pledges which had been made over and over again in that House and in official documents in reference to the evacuation of Egypt. The Convention was the result of negotiations conducted between our Representative and the Porte behind the back of Europe; and one of the conditions in it was that it was not to come into operation until all the Great Powers had signed it. The conduct of the French Government towards ours had been courteous, honest, and frank, and the moment they knew what was the nature of the Convention they said in firm and courteous language that they could not assent to it.

asked what the hon. Member was quoting from?

said, the report of the interview between the French Ambassador and Lord Salisbury. He could not quote in detail.

asked the hon. Member to quote one single interview between the French Ambassador and Lord Salisbury.

said, there were a number of them in those despatches. He could not find them then, but he was confident that anybody who looked into the matter would see that there were plenty. The language of France and Russia to Turkey was exceedingly plain; and where, he asked, was there an instance of a single word of insult or menace used against England, except, perhaps, towards the conclusion of the negotiations, where France was spoken of as being the only protector of the Sultan against the ambitious designs of England in Egypt; and that was after a considerable period, during which England intimated plainly that she was determined to go on with the Convention in spite of the objections of France, and put pressure on Turkey to make her agree to it? Any declaration on the part of this country of an intention permanently to occupy or annex Egypt would amount to a declaration of war against France. There was a tone of hostility in all the papers towards France which could not but create ill- feeling in that country. In fact, France was covered with insult. They were dealing here with one of the most delicate points, and it was not only France but Russia which was being outraged. He had no animosity to the German nation, but he thought it was an ill-advised thing to be always dragging the German Ambassador into this question of backing up England. Of course, he backed up England, because the object was to sow discord between England and France. The longer the occupation of Egypt was prolonged, the longer it was sure to last. The majority of the English people wished to see the last British soldier out of Egypt; but there were underground, back stair, and malign influences at work for financial purposes. That influence sought to defeat the British nation in this matter. There were a certain number of men interested in financial business who hoodwinked the people, and who would not leave Egypt alone until the last pound had been paid. This operation of constituting the British Army the tax-collectors and the police of the bondholders was expensive and disastrous to the British name. The indignation of the Egyptian people was increasing against England. There was not one in 10,000 who would not hail the day when the last English soldier departed. The occupation was a curse to Egypt, and he held that it ought to cease at once. What did the Correspondent of The Times say? He said that the withdrawal of the troops meant anarchy, and that this would be more true five years hence than now. The worst of it was that this Egyptian business might involve this country in a frightful war with France. The taxpayers of Egypt had been robbed of £200,000 a-year for two years in order that the coupons might be paid. It was clear that it was never intended that the coupons should be paid if it could not be done without continuing the special tax; and it was an infamous robbery that the fellaheen should be sacrificed in spite of the pledge which had been given to them. A bogus surplus had been created partly at the expense of the Egyptian tax-payers, who had been robbed in the manner stated, partly at the expense of the taxpayers of Great Britain by Votes passed in that House, and partly by drafts on the loan of £5,000,000 gua- ranteed in 1885; and this bogus surplus had been used to pay the coupons. A deficit bad really existed each year, and it had been made into a surplus in a dishonest way and for a dishonest purpose. In the month, of March last a Question was put in the House as to whether the taxes upon the coupons would be repaid or not, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government of Egypt were considering their financial position with a view to determining the point, while on the very same night the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said the amount of the surplus was known, and as it was more than sufficient for this purpose the Egyptian Government had given the necessary directions to carry out the arrangement that had been made. It was a nice condition when two Ministers made inconsistent statements on the same night. If we were to continue in occupation of Egypt the House ought to insist upon having every year a discussion on the finances of Egypt, in order that the people of the country might be protected from such a fraud as had been practised upon them. There was a small ring of men who had control of this question and who were responsible to nobody; and the figures were given in the despatches in such an involved way that it required study to get at the bottom of them. Amounts were stated sometimes in Egyptian and sometimes in English pounds. A regular discussion was necessary in order to turn the light of day on the subject, and to prevent the fraud, robbery, and oppression which were being practised on the people of Egypt.

said, that when the policy and proceedings of Her Majesty's Government were arraigned in that House it was desirable that a charge should be formulated, and that they should have to deal with something tangible. On this occasion the Government could not know beforehand what form the attack was to take, and many things had been brought up and put into a general bill of indictment. Most of them were not matters of to-day, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had chiefly directed their attention to what might be described as ancient history, his main object apparently being to make a personal attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the head and front of his speech. The House would desire to consider our present and future relations rather than matters which had been discussed over and over again and amply and fully disposed of. The late Convention was referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as a secret Treaty negotiated behind the backs of the other Powers of Europe. Surely there was no secrecy about a Convention which was negotiated between a special British Commissioner and a Minister of the Sultan, and which was contemplated by the Convention of October, 1885. When a Turkish Commissioner and a British Commissioner went to Egypt to inquire and report on the condition of the country with a view to a future arrangement it was manifest that an arrangement would be made, although it would be necessary afterwards to consult the other Powers. As to indignation about this so-called secret Treaty, he did not know in what quarter this indignation was to be found, and the Government had not heard of it. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: In France.] Undoubtedly there were great difficulties to be faced; it was impossible to be unmindful of the susceptibilities of the other Powers; and it had been the anxious desire of the Government to consider those susceptibilities from the first. He repudiated the statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that France had been covered with insults in this business; a more unfounded statement was never made. There was not the slightest foundation for saying that Her Majesty's Government had treated France with the utmost discourtesy. There had been, undoubtedly, features in the negotiations at Constantinople which had been unfortunate and unusual. It was unusual that an Ambassador of a friendly Power should present to the Sultan a note such as that which had been referred to in the debate. But that note was a very private note, and it had not the formality of many official Papers which were made known to the world. It would probably never be known how the note came to be published; but there were many subterranean ways between the Press and officials at Constantinople. As to the Government being charged with any want of courtesy and consideration towards France or any other European Power, it was impossible to bring any proof of such a statement. He rose at the beginning of the hon. Members speech to disclaim having concealed anything from the House that he could have stated, as having misled the House in the matter of the Memorandum. The Government had received by telegram a very brief account of a note, as it had been derived by hearsay by Sir H. Drummond Wolff. Its accuracy could not be relied upon. It had been received in a very indirect manner, and he would have incurred a very great responsibility had he admitted to the House that such a note had been submitted by the French Ambassador to the Sultan. It would be absolutely impossible to conduct the foreign affairs of this country with any safety if admissions were made without positive knowledge on the part of the Government. He stated with regard to this note that the Government were not in possession of the facts, and that the Memorandum had not been made known to them. It had not been made known to them officially up to the present day.

asked whether the note was not included in the despatches?

said, that he had already informed the House that it was made known indirectly to Sir H. Drummond Wolff that such a note had been presented. Sir H. Drummond Wolff mentioned in one of his despatches that what was known of the note was not in its original language, and could not be verbally relied upon. Then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that Lord Salisbury had declared that England was now free from her engagement with respect to the Porte. It was only in respect of the evacuation of Egypt that Her Majesty's Government were left free, in consequence of the non-ratification of the Convention. It was manifest that every engagement which England had made with Turkey must be absolutely adhered to, and he should like to know what engagement England could be charged with not fulfilling. Under the Convention of 1885, by which a certain portion of the loan was to be applied to the expenses of occupation, our position in Egypt was recognized as it had not been recognized before. But Turkey and other Powers were anxious that our occupation should not be unlimited; and therefore a strong desire was expressed that some limit should be fixed. He thought it would be seen that there were considerable inducements to name a time, with the view of securing the co-operation and consent of other Powers. With some reluctance, therefore, Her Majesty's Government consented to a time being mentioned at which, if circumstances permitted, the British troops and officers should be withdrawn. That engagement was entered into with some reluctance, because Her Majesty's Government had had experience in times past of the danger of fixing limits to our stay in Egypt. More than once Parliament had been told of the time at which the evacuation would take place; but the hopes under which the promises were given had been frustrated. The condition was therefore laid down that England would retain the right of re-entry if Egypt should be menaced externally or internally, and that evacuation should not take place at the time fixed if the state of the country did not warrant it. He ventured to say that the country would have been extremely dissatisfied if Her Majesty's Government had agreed to retire at three years or five years, or any other number of years, unless they had retained the contingent rights of finishing the work which they had undertaken and of safeguarding the interests over which they had made such great sacrifices. The engagement which they were free from—namely, that of leaving Egypt in five years—was dependent upon and coupled with other engagements in the Convention, which, not being ratified, fell to the ground. Sir H. Drmmond Wolff had done good work in calling attention to the wants of Egypt, and to the manner in which it could be relieved from embarrassment; and he protested against the argument that Her Majesty's Government and the British Agency in Egypt had not done their duty. The statement had been made that taxation in Egypt had not been reduced; and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been attacked with reference to the financial question. Taxation could not be reduced if Egypt fulfilled her engagements. It was extremely unfortunate that the taxation was heavy and that it could not be reduced. But was it desirable that the country, which they hoped to put upon its legs, and leave in a firm and prosperous condition, should commence by repudiating its engagements, as, perhaps, the hon. Member for East Mayo might be ready to suggest?

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to attribute anything of the kind to him. What he said by no means bore that interpretation.

said, that, at any rate, such a thing was not at all desirable, and would not be allowed by other Powers. Had this Government done anything to reduce the charges upon Egypt? Had anything resulted from the mission of Messrs. Goschen and Joubert to Egypt? Undoubtedly those gentlemen went to Egypt to endeavour to put the finances of that country on a better footing; and a regular system, in. the interests of economy, was established, which had not existed before. Following on that came various measures which reduced the capital and the interest. The rate of interest was reduced from 7 to 4 per cent, which was a lower rate than that of any other country in the world.

said, the present rate was 5 per cent.

said, that was so as regarded the Unified Debt; but the average of the debt was only 4 per cent. The charge for the debt of Egypt, which was £103,000,000, amounted to a little over £4,000,000. Therefore, great financial benefit had resulted to Egypt from the British occupation and the improvements which had been effected; and though the taxation might still be high, the people were able to bear it far more easily than before. The great proportion of the taxation of Egypt was derived from a Land Tax, and the incidence of that tax had been always pointed to as one of the heaviest burdens of the country. But would the House believe that last year only 36 persons bad been expropriated or evicted for the non-payment of the Land Tax, and in the year before 122? Whereas formerly this Land Tax was extracted from the people with many cruelties, that was no longer the case; and the hon. Gentleman had to go back five years for an instance of torture or corporal punishment used in the recovery of the tax. Such cruelties had been abolished, justice had been purified, the prisons had been turned from disgraceful and miserable dens into places of detention which might compare favourably with the prisons of more civilized countries, the officials did their duty well, and bribery, which was once so common among them, was now very rare. The Army, too, which had been so large and expensive, was gradually being reduced in numbers and cost, and service in the Army was no longer dreaded as it was before. The Egyptian, instead of being dragged from his home and forced to serve, often without pay, was now well paid, well fed, and well cared for by his officers. The hon. Member for East Mayo denied that there was a surplus. The fact was that there was a surplus which had been earned just as it was earned in any country by the Revenue exceeding the Expenditure. The fact was that the receipts for the last two years sufficed to repay the Five per Cent coupons, and, on the whole, there was a surplus for the two years of something like £40,000.

said, that it was stated in the Blue Book that the abolition of the corvée would cost £250,000, and then followed the words—"This sum is still paid by the people."

said, that the Government had promised the House Papers which would be in the hands of hon. Members shortly—he believed in about eight or 10 days—and which he trusted would satisfy them on that point. But the £250,000 became a charge on the year in lieu of the forced labour formerly exacted. For instance, the irrigation of the canals was performed by hired labour instead of taking people away long distances from their fields and compelling them to do the work, to their great injury and the injury of their country. Land actually went out of cultivation because people were taken away such distances from their fields. The best way that the burdens of the people of Egypt could be lightened was that relief should be given from this burdensome tax. He did not mean to say that the corvée for clearing the canals had been altogether abolished; it had been abolished to the extent of about 66 per cent. It had been abolished in its more severe and oppressive form where the people were taken away long dis- tances from their homes. The corvée on the canals was retained only where it was lightest, where the men did the work near their own land. But even that was in the course of being reduced, and he hoped in a few years we should see the end of it. As to the coupons, he gave the House in February the figures showing that there was a surplus left of nearly £300,000 more than the estimate. He stated last year, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) also stated, that there was no choice in the matter, and that we were bound to pay the Five per Cent coupons if the revenue sufficed for the purpose. It did suffice for the purpose, and we paid them. Hon. Members ought not to confound two things — the revenues of Egypt and the revenues assigned to the payment of debt. If the revenues assigned for the service of the debt were sufficient we were bound to pay. He told the House last February that the revenues were sufficient for the purpose, and if the estimates continued to be realized for the remaining part of 1886–7 the country would have a surplus on the two years. As to a Budget for Egypt, it would be a capital thing if there were no fear of disappointment; but the estimates might lead to disappointment. For instance, a rise of 1s. per cwt. on sugar made a difference to the Government of Egypt of £50,000 a year; and a rise of 1d. per lb. on cotton made a difference of £40,000 a-year on the produce of the State land, while it would put £1,000,000 sterling into the pocket of the producer. These things could not be foreseen, and there were complications also arising from the different times at which the accounts were made up, which rendered it more difficult than in this country to give an accurate forecast of the financial results of the year. Now, he must express his surprise that the hon. Member for Northampton should have thought it worth his while to pervert that unfortunate incident which occurred in March last of the accidental shooting of some Natives by English officers in order to found upon it a general charge against the attitude of the English to the Natives. The hon. Member did not state the facts with even approximate correctness. The officers were out shooting quails, and some men were travelling along on camels, when a careless discharge of a gun struck some of them slightly as they passed. There was great indignation on the part of the Natives, who made an attack upon the officers, and during the struggle a gun went off as it was being wrenched from the hands of one of the party, the shot I tilling one of the Natives. That was a very unfortunate accident, but it was hardly a matter on which to frame a general charge as to the attitude of the English to the Egyptians. Again, it was asked, "What good did we do in Egypt?" We had done much good. We had regularized the Administration, and lightened substantially the burdens of the people. The cultivated area had been largely extended, and year by year the country was being relieved by the scientific appliances which had bean introduced from the deterioration which previously it had undergone. "What good was Egypt to us?" If the hon. Member in putting that question thought that the gate to the East was of no value to a great commercial country with more than three-fourths of the whole traffic passing down the Canal belonging to it, then he could only say the hon. Member thought differently from every other nation in Europe. He did not think the people of this country would be so blind and foolish as to suppose that the highway for commerce to which all other nations attached such great importance was of none to us, whose commercial affairs were so immeasurably larger. The position of the Canal was one which ought to be secure to all nations. The Government desired no selfish aims in connection with it. They only desired Egypt to be protected from external danger, to keep open the Eastern highway, and to benefit the people of Egypt. Having undertaken a great responsibility in regard to that country, our partner, France, having declined to undertake such responsibility, were we to shrink from our duties and to be taunted with having insulted France because we had fulfilled those duties? Whose fault was it that France was not by our side? We invited France to join us in maintaining the Khedive on the Throne, on which we had assisted to place him and undertaken to protect him. The French Government were willing to go with us, but they failed to secure a majority in Parliament, and surely it was no insult to France that England went forward to do its duty alone. It did not lie in the mouths of a small minority in the House to say that the Government had acted contrary to the wishes of the people of this country when successive Governments had been maintained by the majority of the House and the voice of the people out-of-doors in fulfilling their engagements. We were still occupying Egypt, though the Government did not desire that the occupation should be prolonged; but he was sure the people of this country approved of the Government fulfilling the obligations they had entered into, and continuing to do their duty by the interests of this country, which we should never forget, and which were largely concerned in our mission to Egypt.

said, the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Motion had made interesting speeches and raised a great variety of interesting and important questions, although he could not help regretting that among those questions they should have thought it necessary to renew an old charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer which they would have been better advised to have lot alone. But they had also had a long speech from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Fergusson), which he must be allowed to characterize as very inadequate compared to the charges brought against the Government. It did not dispose of some of the most serious charges made, and gave no indication of the policy of the Government. As, however, the Government had now promised that they would give the first night after the Mines Regulation Bill for the discussion of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote, and as that Vote would bring up the whole question of our present policy in Egypt, together with the negotiations of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, he thought it bettor —and others on the same side, thought with him—to reserve criticism upon the conduct of the Government, as well as upon the very inadequate reply of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) would, perhaps, discover that it would have been better for him to have seized the present opportunity. He did not see that we had done anything to make the I Egyptians bear their burdens more easily. We had rather increased those burdens, no next referred to the despatches of Sir H. Drummond Wolff dated June 14 and 18, in which it was stated that the condition of Egypt was so bad as to cause discontent and to render the fellaheen anxious to join any popular leader who would promise them relief. In these despatches more damning accusations were made against the Government than any that had been made by the Opposition. But the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had tried to make them believe that, after all the money that had been spent by Sir H. Drummond Wolff in getting this information, he had misled them regarding the facts of the case. The House was told that our object in remaining in Egypt was to secure the Suez Canal for all nations. The Government might as well tell them that their object in remaining in Egypt was to secure that the sun should rise to-morrow morning. Everything that could be done to secure the Canal for all nations had already been done, and the only Power that had done anything to weaken the effect of the declarations and firmans that had been obtained was Great Britain. During the Franco-German War and the Russo-Turkish War each of those Powers respected the neutrality of the Canal; but during the Egyptian Expedition Great Britain broke the International Law.

asked, whether the speech of the hon. Member had any reference to the particular Question before the House? What had the Franco-German War to do with Egypt?

said, he was pointing out that neutrality of the Suez Canal had been secured long ago. He wanted to ask the Government for what reason we were going to remain in Egypt now? It seemed to him, judging from the words of Lord Salisbury in his Mansion House speech, and from other declarations, that the Government were trying to repudiate the self-denying ordinance on which we had occupied Egypt, and was preparing the way to make the occupation permanent. If the Government did not leave Egypt now, when it was free alike from external and internal troubles, and the Soudan was quiet, they would never leave it at all, and they would remain there under false pretences.

said, he was free to confess that if we were at liberty to establish a protectorate over Egypt, and it was expedient to do so, he would not have a word to say against the Convention. He thought it was a very good Convention, and was probably the best and cheapest way of establishing a protectorate. But it was impossible, owing to our obligations, to establish a protectorate in Egypt. He was lost in amazement, however, that the Government should expect the French Government to accept a Convention which was opposed to all their interests and our declarations. The result of the Convention had been that we had been snubbed by France in the most humiliating way. He found that the only result of this snub was that the Prime Minister mot it by emphasizing the declaration that we remained in Egypt until we could retire after having established the security of the country. He believed the Government were remaining in Egypt until conditions were fulfilled which he believed to be impossible of fulfilment. That appeared to him a most dangerous position, and one likely to load to serious complications with France. Moreover, he really did not see that the Government were trying honestly to bring about the conclusion of the present state of things. We were reducing the Egyptian Army to a point at which it could not defend the country, and in order to satisfy the bondholders. Apart from the question of the Army, there were two ways of dealing with the question—either to establish a strong man in the country or to establish something in the nature of Constitutional government. The direction in which we could get out of that Egyptian imbroglio lay in restoring that true understanding and entente cordiale with France, which had been so rudely and unfortunately interrupted by our policy in Egypt. He regretted, but was hardly surprised, that the French should try to play on a small scale in the New Hebrides the same game as we were playing in Egypt, saying that they went there to establish order and a Millennium, and would stay there until their work was accomplished. The French people, however, were unwilling to support their Government in foreign adventures which might lead to war; and he thought that if France was now approached in a friendly spirit, both sides agreeing to let bygones be bygones, an arrangement might be come to with her by which, a real autonomous Government would be established in Egypt, with great advantage both to that country itself and to Europe.

said, he thought he would be expected to say a word or two in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), although he had so often answered similar charges—he believed to the satisfaction of the House—that it was scarcely necessary for him to answer the personal attack which formed, if not the staple, at least the point of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Member had begun by making some suggestion as if upon one of the loans issued by the firm in which he (Mr. Goschen) was interested 24 years ago, that firm had made 11 per cent profit. Well, the most fabulous figures had often been put forward in many quarters as to the profits made on those Egyptian loans, and he confessed that he had not thought it necessary to refute such exaggerated and absurd statements. But in order, once for all, to induce even the hon. Member to refrain from repeating them—for he presumed that the hon. Member would accept his word—he might state that the aggregate earnings on the loan upon which the hon. Member said 11 per cent had gone into the pockets of the firm were not more than 1½ per cent. He confessed that it went against his inclination to say that much, but he had seen that at elections and on various platforms the most fabulous figures had been imported into the allegations put forward on that subject, and therefore he had now rather reluctantly made this statement.

I presume that the right hon. Gentleman would wish this matter to be fully elucidated. Perhaps he will be good enough to state whether he denies the amount of the loan as given by Mr. Cave and the amount received by the Egyptian Government; and whether he denies my statement as to the amount that ought to have been received on the issue price; and whether he will state to whom the difference of something like £400,000 or £500,000 went. His firm is responsible for that.

Our firm were the agents. The agents are not responsible at all.

To whom did the difference go?

said, the sums his firm received were paid over to the contractors of the loan, and it was not until 15 years afterwards that he heard the allegation that the sum mentioned by the hon. Member had been entered in the books of the Egyptian Treasury. He might, perhaps, be able to throw some light upon the matter. In 1876, when the accounts of the Egyptian Treasury were examined, it was found that the Egyptian Finance Minister—the Minister to whom the hon. Gentleman afterwards alluded as if he was one of the saviours of Egypt—had been deliberately cooking the Egyptian accounts, and that he had deducted some 10 per cent or more from the amounts paid over to the Egyptian Government. It had never been said before that the agents were responsible; but it was now alleged, and the hon. Member seemed to allege, that the money went into the pockets of the firm with which he (Mr. Goschen) was connected.

Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Was the loan underwritten or not?

As far as I can remember the loan was underwritten.

Then what were the terms?

How can I say now?

Ah!