, who had given Notice of the following Amendment:—

"That, having regard to great loss and injury sustained by the very large number of persons who hold small amounts of Stock, the interest on which is proposed to be reduced, and to the small annual reduction in the public burdens effected by the proposed conversion, this House thinks it inexpedient to make the change proposed,"

said, his object in intervening at this stage of the Bill was to insure that the position of the smaller and poorer holders of Government securities should be considered by the House, and should be fairly treated. Although he had some particular points to mention, he might say at once that he had no general hostility to the Bill. He thought that nothing could be so unfortunate as to dispose of the Bill without due consideration being given to the interests of the class of holders just mentioned. From the large number of communications which, he had received he found that a very strong, not to gay bitter, feeling prevailed on that subject; and he thought that the circumstances in which it was proposed to carry out the measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) ought in every respect to be fair, honourable, and considerate. That Bill would effect by far the largest conversion of Stock and lowering of interest that had ever taken place in this Kingdom, and he did not think that the interval of only a week allowed between the introduction of the measure and the second reading was sufficient for the purpose. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted as a precedent the course pursued in 1844, when about the same amount of time was allowed; but the circumstances connected with the earlier measure were entirely different from the present scheme. The amount of Stock then converted was not half as much as was now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to be dealt with. Now, he (Sir Charles Lewis) would ask the House whether there was not in recent times a general belief that the Three per Cont Stock bore a fixed and unalterable rate of interest? That impression had been confirmed by the term "annuities" which was applied to them. In answer to a Question yesterday as to the number of small holders in the different Three per Cent Stocks, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that there wore no fewer than 104,500 separate accounts not exceeding £1,000 in amount; that there were 13,000 other accounts between £1,000 and £2,000; and 10,500 accounts between £2,000 and £3,000. The maximum point of those small holdings only produced an annual income of £90. Nobody could be said to be passing rich with that amount; and it might be taken generally that those small holders belonged to the class where poverty was most distressingly felt—namely, those who were usually included in the lower middle ranks of life. Again, in addition to those persons who were direct holders of Stock, there were other classes who were also interested in small amounts of Consols. In one case, for example, which had been brought to his notice, a trustee of an estate in Consols stated that he had to divide the annual income among 15 different persons, the largest sum paid to any one of them being £56, and the smallest about £35. In fact, the sums held by trustees included the interests of a very large number of small holders. The investments also by the Court of Chancery were split up among a large number of persons, and represented a very great number of small interests. What effect would the Bill have upon this small class of holders? A person having £1,000 in Consols and receiving £30 a-year was asked to submit to a deduction of £2 10s. In the case of a person who lived upon a miserable income of £30,that reduction represented increased distress; and if they went up the scale to cases, say, of persons who were in the habit of receiving £90 a-year from their investments in Consols, the reduction in each case would be £7 10s. Thus the large class of persons who suffered from that direst of all distress, genteel poverty, would be ruthlessly deprived of an essential part of their daily income—he might almost say their daily bread. There were hundreds of those persons who had not yet appreciated what the consequences of the measure would be. He had received numerous letters upon the subject from various classes of holders. A poor old lady wrote that it was dire cruelty to reduce the rate of interest received by thousands of people who had nothing more to maintain them in their old age. It mattered little, she said, to those who had some hundreds of pounds a-year; but to those who, like herself, had only £1,000 invested, it was a serious matter. A clergyman writing from Yorkshire said that he was trustee for several small charities. In the case of one charity some old people received a weekly pittance of 5s. each, and the Bill would reduce this to 4s. 7d. or 4s. 2d., which meant that the old men would be deprived of their pipes and the old women of their sugar. He had received another letter from a gentleman who, in his official capacity, had to pay £1 3s. 4d. per week to a family, the father and mother being too old to work. To reduce this, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do, meant, the letter said, starvation in the House of a worthy but helpless couple. If people who had made investments in Consols had had fair play, if more time had been given for the consideration of the matter, hon. Members would have heard such expressions of opinion from their constituents as would have induced them to regard the Bill in a very serious light. What was the reason for the desperate hurry of the Government? The Bill would not come into operation until 1889; therefore the Government could reasonably have given more time for the consideration of the measure. In the case of poor people the Bill would be oppressive. With regard to that large class of persons who, as trustees, had invested money in Consols, and had no power to change the investment, the Bill provided for application to the Court of Chancery. The only remedy, therefore, which this class of holders had in the difficulty thus presented was an application to the Court of Chancery, at the expense of the estate. He thought that a better provision than this, by which such cases might be cheaply and expeditiously disposed of, should be made. Then, again, it would be impossible to get the consent in the Court of Chancery before the 12th of April of the vast number of persons whose money was in trust, so that, in point of fact, the provisions of the Bill would actually deprive those people who needed the bonus of the opportunity of getting it. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) yesterday asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Bill, provision would be made to protect trustees who had invested moneys in Consols to cover annuities under wills, or similarly to provide for ground-rents or rent-charges under wills where a distribution of the rest of the property had been legally made. The right hon. Gentleman replied that this was provided for by the Bill, and referred the hon. Member to Clause 19. In this answer the right hon. Gentleman had, in his opinion, carried the interpretation of the clause far beyond what it would really bear. It appeared to him that the proposal introduced a vicious-ness which required very serious attention. The conversion was not proposed on its own merits; but an inducement had been held out to bankers and brokers to employ their influence to induce persons to come in. It was no small matter, for he bogged to remind the House that they were dealing with £580,000,000 of Stock. He was told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that £68,000,000 of that amount was held by Government Departments; but the right hon. Gentleman would not say that all the holders had the power to make the conversion. That left £512,000,000. They were told that the scheme was already a great success, and that the bankers and brokers, especially in London, were loud in their declaration and promises of support. If so, the scheme was already virtually carried. Out of the£512,000,000 he (Sir Charles Lewis) estimated that the Government would have to pay brokerage upon £400,000,000.

The hon. Baronet is wrong in his figures. No commission is paid upon the £150,000,000 of the Now Threes, the reduction of which is automatic.

said, he would take it, then, that £250,000,000 would be dealt with, and that would amount for brokerage to about £175,000. That was a pretty big sum to pay for the launching of this scheme. It was worth a good deal of money to the bankers and brokers, and when they were told that the scheme had received the support of these two classes he put it to the House whether the £175,000 had not something to do with the proposal? They were not a large class, and £200 or £300 each, with the agency commission, had considerable influence in the formation of opinion. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Guilders) proposed his plan of conversion, he offered no such fee, and, though the terms of conversion were far bettor than those under this Bill, the brokers put their backs up and left the scheme rigidly alone; but now the assent of the great financial houses was bought with the conversion fee. There was another feature about the present scheme which was not very nice. Primarily sneaking, what ought the public to do as the debtor of the stockholders? What it ought to do was to say—"We are getting tired of paying you 3 per cent; we will not pay any more than 2¾ per cent; we will pay you off." But they did not do that. Assent was assumed; in that case dissent was not mentioned. That was not a fair way of dealing with the creditors of the State, who could not call upon the State to pay more, and were at the mercy of the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, would not take the responsibility of saying honestly—"We will pay you off." He said—"We are equal to the occasion." How? By the sinister provision in Clause 1, second paragraph, which declared that all holders of New Three per Cent Stock who signify their dissent—"Shall be paid off in such order and at such time and in such manner as Parliament may direct." Thus it was proposed to keep the sword hanging over the unfortunate stockholders. Mr. Goulburn did not go out of his way to offer the inducement of a commission; he allowed his scheme to float upon its own merits.

said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but the 5s. would not apply to the New Threes. He had strictly followed the precedent of Mr. Goulburn, and the New Threes represented a smaller sum than that which was converted by Mr. Goulburn.

said, that the way in which the scheme affected the smaller class of fundholdors was very remarkable. These people were not subject to Income Tax, but any relief which the scheme might afford to the taxpayers would be confined entirely to the Income Tax payers. Nobody pretended that the expected saving of £1,400,000, which was about equal to ¾ d. in the pound of Income Tax, was to be applied in altering any other tax. The effect of it would be, therefore, to lighten the burden of the Income Tax payers. In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to take ¾s. in the pound of the burden off the Income Tax payer, and to levy 20 pence in the pound upon the unfortunate small holders who did not pay Income Tax at the present time. Mr. Goulburn did no such thing as that. They wore told to fool great delight at the improved credit of the country. It was said we could borrow now at 2½ per cent, whereas formerly we could only borrow at 3 per cent. He did not say that the public credit had not something to do with it, but it had very little. Had the decrease of foreign loans nothing to do with it? Had the depreciation of landed securities nothing to do with it? Why, if they looked through the returns of the large Insurance Companies, who had millions to invest, they would find that their great resort was to go into land. Would they go into land now? He was sorry to see these Communistic views cropping up on that side of the House as well as on the other. Whereas there used to be millions invested by the Insurance Companies in land, they now fought shy of it. Had that not something to do with the increase in the price of Consols? Had the badness of trade—the vast amount of money withdrawn from trade and commerce—nothing to do with investing in Consols and running the price up to what they had recently seen it? In 1844, when the capital of the country was much less, they had £100,000,000 more of public debt, because from that time to this the decrease in the National Debt exceeded £100,000,000. He ventured to think that the reasons he had given were sufficient to account for the cup running over so "brilliantly. He was rather amused to hear one sentence of the right hon. Gentleman. He said in his enthusiasm that he wanted to see this new Stock become the champion Stock of the future. He would like to see the champion Stock giving fair play, full consideration to a vast number of poor people who would be so seriously injured by this scheme. He had not wished to say it himself, but he had seen that it had been remarked, that there was a slight flavour of the Plan of Campaign about the scheme—only a slight one, but one he would have been glad to see absent. In this very serious matter, the conversion of nearly £600,000,000 of Stock, they ought to have had not only more time, but more equitable provisions. He was told the measure was a great success. The last fact he saw showing that it was a great success was that the provincial bankers had asked for more plunder out of it. They said 1s. 6d. was not enough for them and they wanted an increase. But he had no doubt it would be thrust through. He hoped they would not see what was witnessed after the conversion of 1844, a great rush of public investments and public Companies. It was after that they had the railway mania, from which some of them were still smarting. He asked the House to consider the case of the poor people who could not help themselves, many of them women who had little influence; and before sitting down he would read an extract of a letter from a clergyman. He wrote—

"His benefice was at one time worth.£265; now, through agricultural depression, it only brought in £82. He had investments in Consols or he should not be able to live at all, and his income was so small that a reduction of £10 or £15 per annum"—

it might be supposed that he had £3,500 in Consols—

"would materially affect his financial position."

The loss, he said, would be nothing to an opulent manlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was almost ruin to him. The next paragraph in the letter he should like to read sotto voce to his hon. Friends near him, but that was impossible. The rev. gentleman said—

"That at the last General Election he advised his parishioners to vote for the Conservative Party, because they were not likely to interfere with the rights of property."

"That argument," wrote this clergyman, "I can no longer adduce;" and he concluded by saying "that confidence in their leaders had been utterly extinguished." [Laughter.] He heard some hon. Friends laugh. If they would wait a month he thought they would find there was more in it than they supposed. They could not remove the impression by simply pooh-poohing it. He thought the case required serious consideration, and he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) that the question was one which deserved the serious consideration of the House, but the test which they must apply to the proposals before them was, whether the Government, having regard to the present state of the money market and the credit of the Government, was in a position to go into the money market and operate a given sum of money at a rate of interest paying 2¾ per cent for 15 years, and then 1½ per cent for 20 years longer—practically meaning £2 12s. per cent for a period of 35 years. Although they might feel the sincerest sympathy with some of the cases to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, still it must be admitted that no large scheme of this kind could be carried out without inflicting a considerable amount of suffering on large classes of individuals, yet as trustees of the public purse and representing the public debtor and the House of Commons, the Government would not be justified in paying one shilling more than the market value on account of the National Debt. In discharging his duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had simply to make a perfectly fair and equal bargain between debtor and creditor. He took it that that was the first sound principle to apply to this Bill. The market must not be in any way prejudiced by the resources which the Government of the day might possess, and there should not be the shadow of a shade of suspicion of a stock-jobbing transaction. Justice ought to be done to both sides. The precedent of 1844 was not applicable to this case, and could not be a guide to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the course which he now proposed to take. Mr. Goulburn's proceedings were taken on firm ground, which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did not stand upon. Mr. Goulburn proposed to reduce Three-and-a-Half per Cents to Three-and-a-Quarter for a period of 10 years, and then to Three per Cents; but he had behind him £500,000,000 of Three per Cent Stock. With that large body of a lower Stock behind him, the operation was a perfectly safe one. We had no such standard now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly said that it was not fair to quote the present value of the Two-and-Three-Quarter per Cents, because the amount was so small. Nor was there any indication, by means of the figure of its value, to speak as to the value of the new Stock, which a grateful Stock Exchange had denominated "Goschens." But there were two side-lights in the money market with respect to this Bill. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there had been a general fall in interest, and that there was an enormous amount of money seeking investment. Every year a large amount of trust and insurance savings had to be invested; and there was a general disinclination on the part of the great insurance and other Companies to invest in mortgages or land. Of that the public ought undoubtedly to reap the benefit. But there was another side-light to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not refer on Friday. He quoted many precedents of conversion; the precedent of 1822, the precedent of Lord Althorp in 1834, and that of Mr. Goulburn in 1844. But the right hon. Gentleman did not give the precedent of January, 1888, or inform the House of the terms upon which the latest loan of the English Government was raised. And yet that would have been the safest indication of the present state of the money market. What was the opinion of the Bank of England and the other banking authorities as to the rate of interest at which the Government could borrow? In January, 1888, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued £37,000,000 of Local Loan Stock at 3 per cent, irredeemable for 25 years. That Stock could not be redeemed until 1913. The first operation under which that Stock was issued was an equivalent exchange of £7,400,000 of other Stocks. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had asked the right hon. Gentleman what was meant by "equivalent," and the reply was—"the same amount, Stock for Stock." In January, 1888, knowing he was about to propose a conversion of existing Stock to Two-and-Three-Quarters and then to Two-and-a-Half, the right hon. Gentleman exchanged this Stock, pound for pound, for Three per Cent Stock, not to be redeemed for 25 years. There was a small sale of £600,000 immediately afterwards by the Government brokers. The people who held that Local Loan Stock were to be congratulated on their good fortune. On January 10 an advertisement was issued inviting tenders for this new stock at a minimum of £101 15s. Consols and £101 5s. Reduced or New Threes per £100 of the new Stock. On January 18, the tenders were opened. What was the opinion of the City on January 18? On the 18th of January, they offered to the Government for £100 of these Three per Cents, £101 16s. 7d. Consols, and £101 5s. 11d. Reduced. The tenders were—Consols, £2,466,000; Reduced, £1,117,000. These were the Stocks on which no conversion could take place without 12 months' notice. But of the Now Threes, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could deal with at any time, the tender was £6,575,000. Therefore, at that date, the New Three per Cent Stock, liable to be reduced to 2¾ and 2½, was exchanged to the extent of £6,500,000 at a premium of 25s. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that no portion of this Stock was taken by a Government Department. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bank of England was a Government Department, and would also ask him to deal with the report which was current that the Bank of England was taking £7,000,000 of that Stock out of £18,000,000.

said, he would explain that the Bank of England had some of the Stock before. There was no question of taking £7,000,000 out of £10,000,000.

said, that was not his point, whether the Bank of England was taking £7,000,000 out of £10,000,000; but that the Bank was taking £7,000,000 altogether of this Stock at 25s. premium. To get rid of £18,351,000 Three per Cents the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave £18,200,000 Three per Cents, irredeemable for 25 years, thereby only effecting a saving of £4,500 a-year. But what about the other £18,000,000? The right hon. Gentleman had only given the figures of £18,000,000, whereas he counted £37,000,000. He was not going to criticize whether this was a wise or unwise operation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no statement to the House, and they were pledged to express confidence in the right hon. Gentleman that the course taken was the best for the country, but, tried by that test two months ago, it was not the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the country could borrow at 2¾ per cent, or why did he then make a 3 per cent loan irredeemable for 25 years. He must draw a distinction between the compulsory and the optional parts of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing compulsorily with only one kind of Stock. The holders of that Stock had no grievance whatever. That was a pure matter of negotiation as between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Money Market. The holders bought the Stock, with the knowledge that after a certain date it might be redeemed at any moment at par. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had complicated his scheme by the introduction of an optional conversion, as well as a compulsory conversion, and the very fact of its being optional almost implied a fortiori, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not make it compulsory. Therefore, there must be some terms which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought would be sufficient to tempt the people into accepting this option. Every man must judge for himself. Even the poor holders must appreciate the possibilities of foreign complications and trade revival, and all the circumstances which might disturb the Money Market in the next 12 months, and they must act accordingly. They were told that this optional part of the scheme met with the cordial approval of the City, and especially of the bankers; and the late Lord Mayor loudly cheered that statement. What he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) wanted to know was why the bankers of to-day were so strong in the support of an optional system, whereas they wore so steadily opposed, to the optional system which his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) proposed in 1884. A Governor of the Bank of England pronounced an opinion that his right hon. Friend's scheme was detestably bad. The House of Commons had a right to know why it was unsound, unfair, and detestably bad in 1884 to accept the terms of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and why it was now the height of prudence and financial wisdom to accept a less favourable proposal when it was brought forward by one of his Successors. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if there was a precedent in the whole history of the British Treasury for the Treasury paying a commission of the nature of that which was now proposed? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question at once.

Yes, sir.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what it is?

When I reply.

I will admit the Suez Canal may be brought in; but there was no precedent in 1844 in the case of Mr. Goulburn.

There was no optional conversion.

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that was in his favour; but to his (Mr. Henry H. Fowler's) mind it aggravated the objection. What was proposed amounted to a payment to the agent of a creditor by the debtor to promote the interest of the debtor, and till such debt was legalized by the Bill, he had no doubt that it would be an illegal payment, and was so at that moment. He would undertake that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon 1s. 6d. per cent bribe offered to brokers and bankers. The phrase "recognized agents" was new in English law and Acts of Parliament. Were the bankers and the Bank of England to receive this commission as "recognized agents?" Why were the poor stockholders to be kept out of this commission? The greatest demoralization in our modern commercial system was produced by this giving of commission. If his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. R. W. Hanbury) had had an opportunity the other night of calling the attention of the House to a case of misconduct at Woolwich, this question would have been raised. How could we prevent people from taking commissions, when we gave commissions to bankers and other recognized agents? As he said, he would undertake that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of expressing a definitive opinion upon this subject. He would now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he was going to do with the Sinking Fund? The whole theory of our Sinking Fund was that the money put into Terminable Annuities could be replaced by Consols at par. There were, however, no provisions in the present Bill for dealing with that. Again, there was the whole question of the Savings Bank, upon which he wished for some information. The bulk of the money was held by the Post Office Savings Banks, and we could not continue to pay the interest which we were paying now after an operation of this sort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them nothing about that large item of the National Debt, consisting of upwards of £13,645,000 which was payable to the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, and upon which the interest of 3 per cent was payable. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to interfere with that rate of interest, to reduce it to 2¾ per cent or continue the present 3 per cent interest? Those were questions which he thought the House ought to consider. The hon. Baronet assumed that the proposed reduction of interest would be a relief to the taxpayer. It would be nothing of the sort, because under Sir Stafford Northcote's Act, a certain fixed sum was appropriated as the charge of the National Debt, and the whole of the £2,800,000 must be borrowed. Hon. Members, therefore, must not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to repeat his operation of last year, and to again interfere with the repayment of the National Debt. His own impression was that the right hon. Gentleman had done well in grappling with, the New Three per Cents, and had he confined his proposed operation to them, he would have received the cordial and united support of the whole House. He, however, could not help deploring the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to bring about this optional conversion of Consols and Reduced, not upon its own merits, but by means of a commission to the agents of the holders of those stocks. He doubted whether that attempt would succeed; but whether it succeeded or failed, he thought the mode in which that part of the transaction would have been carried out, would not be one which would reflect much credit upon either the right hon. Gentleman or upon the Government of which he was a Member.

said, the House was aware that by the financial economy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and by the Sinking Fund of Sir Stafford Northcote, the public Debt had been diminished. Since the proposals of the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Guilders), as was well known, the rate of interest on investments had become less and less, until the time had arrived when the Chancellor of the Exchequer might expect to make a more advantageous bargain for the country than could have been made four years ago. That was the reason why the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been more successful than his Predecessor. He sympathized with the clients of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis), the holders of Stock whose income would be reduced owing to the proposed conversion of the National Debt; but, at the same time, he did not think that this was a matter which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the House could take into account. It seemed to him that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the best bargain he could for the country, and now that he found the interest on the Debt was higher than it ought to be, he was simply doing that which would tend to the discharge of the Debt ultimately, by bringing in a measure which would reduce the rate of interest. Much as they might sympathize with those who were in the position referred to by the hon. Baronet, he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing no more than was right in looking rather to the position of the taxpayer than to the holders of Public Stock. They had to look not simply to what might be the verdict of the House, because he could not think that the House would reject this measure of his right hon. Friend, but to the verdict of the Money Market; and considering the very high price which the Public Funds had reached, and that all other Stocks stood at a premium, he said they had in those facts the strongest evidence that in the Money Market the proposal of his right hon. Friend had met with approval. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was therefore, in his opinion, not only justified but bound to introduce this Bill. He had simply risen to thank his right hon. Friend for the lucid statement which he made to the House when the Bill was brought in, and to say that the measure would have his cordial support. He had received a letter from a solicitor, one of his constituents, who said that there did not appear to be in the Bill any provision for fixing the amount of new Stock which would be deemed equivalent to the old Consols, and that this was a matter of importance with regard to some mortgages on estates, which provided for the sale of an equivalent amount of Consols. His right hon. Friend would probably refer to that point in his reply, and also say whether some provision could not be made to supersede the necessity of going to the Court in the case of certain small funded amounts held in trust. By way of illustration he might take the case of a fund of say £500, which on the death of a widow had to be divided by the trustees among 20 grandchildren. It was obvious that it would be most expensive to go to the Court in a case of this kind, and he thought the point was one which his right hon. Friend should consider.

said, he was sure that all hon. Members would sympathize with those who would suffer owing to the scheme before the House, but at the same time he thought they must agree that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the best bargain in his power for the public. Moreover, the change could hardly have been unexpected. For many years, with those who advocated payment of the National Debt, he had urged that in addition to other advantages it would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the rate of interest and thus diminish the burden on the taxpayers. He would not occupy the attention of the House for many moments, but he might perhaps be permitted to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the care with which he had prepared his plans, and also for the lucid and interesting speech in which he had explained them to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) appeared throughout his remarks to be anxious to find as much fault as he could, but he did not think he had succeeded in pointing out any real flaw in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, The right hon. Gentleman said that the conversion would be of no advantage to the taxpayers, on the extraordinary ground that when the conversion had taken place the saving of interest would probably go in reduction of the amount of the National Debt. But the amount payable for interest would be very much less. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that it was an. advantage to the country that a larger amount should go in reduction of Debt. The right hon. Gentleman also said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only dealt with the New Three per Cents, he would have given him his cordial support, but that he could not help deploring the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to bring about this optional conversion of Consols and Reduced by offering a bribe to the holders of stocks. But it had always been the opinion of most of those engaged in financial operations that there should be one large Stock, and he was sure that he was expressing the general opinion in thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for carrying out that arrangement as far as he could. He, also, thought the right hon. Gentleman had used a wise discretion in not increasing the nominal amount of the Debt, but in taking a rate of interest at which he could borrow money at par. The time given for consideration also seemed to him to hit a happy medium, inasmuch as it allowed a fair time for consideration, and yet did not imperil the conversion by unduly postponing the completion. The hon. Member for North Antrim seemed to think the time allowed was too short, but he (Sir John Lubbock) believed that every one interested would receive fair notice of what was to be done. At the same time it had always seemed to him that Mr. Goulburn had adopted a rather arbitrary course in assuming the consent of those who did not dissent. Moreover, in the case of 1844 the time allowed was extremely short. But it was then urged that this was less material than it might seem, because the terms were so good that everyone was sure to accept them. This plan required, in fairness, that the terms offered should clearly be such as it was desirable to adopt. At the same time he was not sure that the precedent was a good one, because it might be adopted by a less scrupulous Government without the other circumstances which constituted its justification. They were all very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was confident in his expectation that, notwithstanding the melancholy event of last week, no foreign complications would endanger the success of his plan. At the same time, he should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had left himself some latitude as to the terms until the last moment. The margin was certainly not large, and a fall of even 1 per cent would seriously endanger his scheme. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not think this was necessary, it was not for him to press it. It was a curious commentary on the depression of which we had heard so much that the savings of the country should enable us to reduce the interest on the National Debt. It could not be said that this was owing to capital being taken out of business, because the volume of business was as large as ever—it was the profits that were reduced. Nor was it owing to capital being removed from other invest- ments, because in that case other investments would have fallen; and, on the contrary, as the right hon. Gentleman had shown, other investments had also risen. We must then recognize that, though no doubt some classes had suffered greatly, still the national savings, as a whole, had been so large as to raise the prices of all good securities, and thus render possible the reduction of interest. There were one or two points on which he would like to have some information. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether when Consols or Reduced stood in the names of two or more trustees the assent of all or a majority of them would be required, or whether one would be sufficient, as in the case of dividends? It often happened that one might be absent; it would frequently be difficult to get all the consents; and the amount standing in the name of trustees was so immense that the question was one of importance. Then there was another point which had caused some doubt and anxiety, on which he should like to know the view of the right hon. Gentleman. It had happened in a great many cases—indeed, in thousands of cases—that annuities had been left by will, and the trustees had purchased enough Government Stock to provide the annuity, and had then parted with the residuary estate. But when the conversion was made the Stock would be no longer sufficient to provide the annuity. Suppose, for instance, an annuity of £100 had been left—which was a very common amount—and the trustees had purchased £3,333 Stock. This sum would, of course, no longer produce the amount of the annuity; and, therefore, he asked on whom would the loss fall? The estate might have been wound up; would, then, the trustees be personally liable? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say a word on this point, and consider whether he would not introduce into the Bill words, if necessary, to settle the difficulty. Before sitting down he might just say that while the last conversion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh did not effect all that he had hoped for, it was only due to him to recognize that his proposals had materially helped to facilitate the operation now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had been very severe on the clause with reference to recognized agents, and, he thought, also somewhat unjust to bankers. He seemed to imply that they would advise their clients to take Stock, which otherwise they would not do, for the sake of the small commission which would be paid. But in the case of small amounts it was obvious that a commission of 1s. 6d. was a meagre temptation, and when large Stocks were dealt with the holders of them were quite able to judge for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman objected to commissions altogether. It was not commissions that were objectionable in matters of business, but the secret commissions; commissions placed in Act of Parliament were known to everybody; and he thought it was going rather out of the way, under those circumstances, to express so large an amount of indignation. Bankers would not advise their customers to assent to the conversion unless they did so themselves. Moreover, what did it amount to? Supposing the 1s. 6d. commission were not offered, every holder of Consols or New Threes who wished to convert would certainly have to pay his agent some slight amount for the trouble of conversion. This was the more desirable because so much was held by trustees, who might well be prevented from converting if it involved a payment which it might be difficult for them to make. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was simply saying that the expense of conversion should not fall on the holder of the Stock, but upon the Government.

said, he must congratulate his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reception which had been awarded to his proposal. At the same time, he feared that under the measure as it now stood, not only great inconvenience but in some cases actual injustice might result from the scheme; first to those who saw in their investment in the Funds as they thought an unvarying income without any trouble of collection. To that class, perhaps, no consolation could be given, but there was actual injustice in the case of those whose incomes were derived from interest on trust money when that money had been invested, under special limitation, in the Funds only. This he believed was a very common case where moneys had been left for charitable purposes. Indeed, there were two cases in which he himself was trustee of such money, and where he knew the investment of the money was limited to the Funds on purpose to secure an unvarying income for annual distribution. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would either bring in a Bill, or insert a clause in the present measure, to authorize trustees whose powers were limited to the Parliamentary Stocks or Public Funds to invest in what were known as "Authorized Trustees' Securities," and in that way save those persons whose incomes, as far as they arose from investments limited to the Funds, from a hardship which would amount to no less than a permanently increased Income Tax of 1s. 8d. in the pound, to be increased after a certain number of years, and that, too, in many cases where Income Tax was not now demanded.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) might have treated the bankers differently than he had done in supposing that they would recommend small holders of Stock to come into the conversion scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sake of a commission of 1s. 6d. per cent. They were all aware that difficulty and hardship would arise from the lowering of the interest; but the fact that the bankers had agreed to the change appeared to him to have shown that the time had come for the change, and that there was little or no choice in the matter. It seemed to be forgotten that the bankers were the largest holders of the Stocks now to be dealt with, and would be the largest losers by the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. Those Members who had examined the accounts of Joint Stock Banks would have found that those banks, independently of the Bank of England, must hold upwards of £50,000,000 of the Stocks now to be changed. The result would be, if they got 1s. 6d. commission, that they would lose something like £110,000 or £120,000 a-year, and in a very short time £225,000 a-year. It might, of course, be said that they could afford to lose the money; but did not the fact show that, at all events, the bankers accepted the change, and that any Chancellor of the Exchequer who protected the interests of the country was bound to act according to that financial thermometer, which bankers were considered to be. If they remembered that the bankers hold assets of £400,000,000 it would be seen that it was of importance to get outlets for the money; dividends had to be earned, and it was, therefore, absolutely necessary to find the best investments they could, and they did not want to see every good investment going up, as had been the case during the last few weeks. The hon. Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock) referred to the fact that while the volume of trade was increasing, we found, at the same time, so much money unemployed that this great Conversion Scheme could be carried out successfully, as there was no doubt it would be. There were several reasons which pointed to the solution of this fact. The great development of the Railway and Telegraph systems, almost more than anything else, had been the means of bringing distant countries into rapid and direct communication, and business organizations which required large amounts of capital only a few years ago could now be earned on with a comparatively small amount of capital. The vast increase, too, in joint stock enterprize had very much tended to lessen the general value of investments. In these days the bankers with those enormous deposits were obliged to find investments, with the result to those engaged in trade that they were able to lend at a cheap rate of interest merely because there was no other outlet. Even in trade itself money could be obtained very cheaply—indeed, at 1½ or 2 per cent. Surely, then, this country, with the best security any Empire of the world had over held, ought not to be put in a worse position than the ordinary traders. At present there was no doubt that the scheme of his right hon. Friend could be carried out. The present value of money was such that he saw no difficulty in its being carried out successfully. At the same time, he did not think that the House should sanction the scheme if it felt that we were living in a time when money was only abnormally cheap for the moment. On the contrary, looking forward to the future, we had every reason for expecting that the best securities would command higher prices and pay less interest. At the present moment, the Stock of the London and North-Western Railway was at a price which paid scarcely 3 per cent. When the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was before the country, matters were, indeed, different; the rate of interest obtained on such securities was then 3¾ or 4 per cent; but during the last four years a great change had occurred. And why had the present change come about? Because the communication between country and country had tended to make business to be carried on at the least possible profit, and that resulted in money being lent to trade at the smallest possible rate of interest. So that, whether in mercantile or in other matters, they found that there were very few people or countries who were ready to borrow money except at a considerably less rate of interest than they could do a few years ago. The financial condition of moat foreign countries, and also of our Colonies, had immensely improved; and there was no reason to suppose that there would be such a change—unless it arose from some frightful calamity—as would put either the Colonies or foreign countries back so that they would have to borrow at a much higher rate of interest. As one who had been connected with business, he could not see that there was a prospect of seeing, for some years to come, our best securities very materially lower. Therefore, he felt strongly that no Chancellor of the Exchequer could have neglected the present opportunity. He felt that to have done so would have been an error on the part of the financial agent of this great country, as the right hon. Gentleman might be called, representing not only the Government and the country, but also representing those who were now stockholders, and who ought to be considered in every possible way. The hon. Baronet who proposed this Amendment was also a man of business, and might often be in a position in which he would have to negotiate loans for clients and otherwise; and if he employed an agent to obtain a loan, and afterwards found that it could have been obtained at ½ or ¼ per cent less interest, the hon. Baronet would probably think that the agent ought to have raised the loan at the cheapest rate. Then the taxpayers of the country had a right to the same ad- vantage; and if they found a great railway obtaining money at a low rate of interest, they had a right to demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should obtain money for thorn at the same rate or cheaper. For that reason, he rejoiced that the scheme had been brought forward. He regretted to hear an hon. Member say that it would not effect a saving to the taxpayers; but he thought that it would effect a very material saving. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) introduced a Conversion Scheme, Mr. Hume expressed a hope "that they would also hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some scheme for the reduction of taxation." If that result followed from the scheme they were now discussing, they need not be afraid, as the hon. Baronet had suggested, that the Conservative Party would be held up to odium in the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might be equally held up to odium, because they had tried to do the same thing, although it was not their good fortune to carry their scheme through. It would be a great piece of good fortune if it were carried through now, and he rejoiced to think that it had been reserved for one who had been early connected with the City of London to bring forward that present scheme with every chance of success; and although some might suffer a little from the change proposed, he believed that in the future it would be felt that this Parliament had done a great work, and that 20, 30, or 40 years hence it would be found that it had led to great and very satisfactory results.

Sir, I do not think that on the whole I can complain of the reception which the plans of the Government in regard to the conversion of the National Debt have met with from the House. I have now to allude to some general remarks that have been made, and to some particular and special questions that have been raised; but I should like first to make this preliminary observation. I am glad to think, from the absence of comment on this particular point, that in substance the terms that are offered in regard to the number of years and the progressive reduction from 2¾ to 2½ per cent interest have commended themselves to the House and the country; because, while objections have been taken to particular parts of the scheme, the general basis upon which it rests has not been assailed in the speeches to which we have listened. I think there is a general agreement in the House that it was the duty of the Government, if it saw its way to be able successfully to convert a large portion of the National Debt, to act and take that conversion in hand. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) agrees to that proposition. It is agreed to generally by right hon. Gentlemen opposite; and I may say that the public generally are, I believe, convinced that the step is one which it is the bounden duty of the Government to take. For I do not think that there are many who will agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis), who moved the Amendment, however painful the position of many annuitants and others may be, that the fact that £120,000,000 of the Debt is held by persons possessing Stock below £2,000 is sufficient ground for our not proceeding with this scheme. Painful as that may be, the question is really this—is it the duty of the Government of this country to continue to pay a higher rate of interest than that at which it can borrow, because a reduction of the present rate of interest would fall hardly on a large class of smaller fundholders? Surely that is not a proposition which can be maintained by argument. I say that it would be better, if the case of these persons be hard—and no doubt it is hard—to supplement their incomes out of a Vote of money by this House—if we look at the matter simply from a charitable point of view—than to allow the present state of things to continue, and to make the country pay 3 per cent when it can borrow at a cheaper rate of interest. I think it is very likely that the hon. Baronet really overstated the number of persons who are in the situation that he described; because he assumed it as a general fact that if a person has £2,000 in Consols, that is his chief or only source of income. Now, it is within the personal knowledge, I am sure, of hon. Members that many persons who have sums below £2,000 in Consols are per- sons who have got other sources of income besides, and that you cannot treat them as if the whole or a large proportion of that class are simply dependent on their revenue from Consols. But even if that were so, I fail to see that it would be the duty of the Government to continue to pay those persons a higher rate of interest than is necessary, because it might be hard for them to forego any part of their present income. The hon. Baronet said it was a general belief of society that the Three per Cents were inflexible, and that they never would be dealt with. But after the previous measures of conversion which have been repeatedly carried out, it is scarcely possible to see how such an idea could be reasonably entertained; and I do not, therefore, think that I need labour that point or press it any further, except to say that, however hard may be the case of individuals, I do not think that would be a sufficient justification to arrest us in the course that we have taken. The hon. Baronet alluded to those persons who have invested in Consols through the Savings Banks. They will still receive 2¾ per cent, which is a higher rate of interest than that which is paid in the Post Office Savings Banks, and I should be very glad that if they should still continue to invest in Government Stocks, they should receive a higher interest than is paid by the Post Office Savings Banks. I may add that every means is being taken to circulate full information among all depositors in Savings Banks on these matters. This leads me to a further point—namely, the question of celerity. The hon. Baronet asked why they should act in that rapid way. Now I think that most hon. Members will agree that if this matter is to be dealt with at all it must be dealt with rapidly, and that out of regard for all the great interests concerned. As I have said, every step will be taken to circulate all possible information, and every opportunity will be given to persons to ascertain precisely what is going on; but in a large operation of this kind it would be most detrimental to the credit of the country, and lead to fluctuations in all kinds of securities, if it should be kept long hanging over people's heads. It is unfortunate, but it always happens at any time of doubt, that there is a great deal of speculation; and the sooner Consols can settle down again and people can know precisely what they are, the better it will be for all parties. I can assure the hon. Baronet, in regard to applications to the Court of Chancery, that arrangements will be made to relieve persons from the difficulty which he pointed out—namely, that they will have to apply to the Court of Chancery before April 12, and also in respect to costs. To-morrow morning there will be on the Paper, and placed in the hands of hon. Members, a certain number of Amendments dealing with these subjects. The large correspondence I have had and the suggestions which have been made to me by many hon. Members have put me in a position to make some further proposals for meeting what I may call the legal and technical difficulties of the case. As to annuitants, there will be a clause giving power to trustees to sell Consols and to invest in what are called Chancery securities; and ample power will be given to the Lord Chancellor to deal with the difficulties that arise in these cases. A question was put to me as regards the number of Trustees. The hon. Baronet the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock) asked whether the assent of all the Trustees would be necessary? There will be a clause providing that a majority of the trustees may signify their assent or dissent, as the case may be. I will now address myself to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, who has frequently addressed us on this side in a somewhat threatening tone. But I trust I shall give no offence to him when I say that it is more in manner than intention. The right hon. Gentleman called me rather severely to account both in his direct statement and more frequently by innuendo. I will give him a full explanation with regard to the Local Loans Stock. I will frankly admit to him that I looked, to a certain extent, to this Local Loans Stock as giving a kind of test as to what securities might be worth in the Market. He will remember the real reason why the Stock was created. I believe it was a reason which commended itself to his judgment. It was to establish a Local Loan Fund which should be separate and different from the general indebtedness of the country. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that in January I was prepared to deal with the conver- sion of the National Debt, and to create Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cent and Two-and-a-Half per Gent Stocks. I may Bay that I had come to no such conclusion in January, and I had not at that time a sufficient indication as to whether the operation was feasible or not. The House will remember that the Local Loans Stock was substituted for an equivalent amount of Three per Cent Stocks and for an open debt of about £10,000,000 due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners; and the £36,000,000 or £33,000,000—the amount lies between the two—was put in the hands of the Trustees for the Savings Banks and the Post Office Savings Banks in lieu of the £37,000,000 which they held otherwise. That Stock was held by them in substitution of the Stock that was cancelled. The National Debt Commissioners held the Local Loans Stock for these two funds, which were under their control. The position was this—among their investments they held £37,000,000 of this new Stock, rightly described as running for 25 years at 3 per cent. Now, what was the value of that Stock? I think the right hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently just to say that past operations must not be looked at entirely from the point of view of the price at present, when conversion is within sight. No ex post facto judgment would be entirely fair in such a condition of things. In the beginning I always thought that the creation of this Stock would be a valuable indication of the Market. But I am bound to say that at the commencement—not because it was not a valuable Stock, but because it was a small Stock—the great operators of the Market did not look upon it with any favour, The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if the only test of the value of the Stock was the rate of interest at which it operates. That is entirely a mistake. It is the ready convertibility of the Stock which gives it in the Market a very great advantage, and many persons would prefer a Three per Cent Stock which was thoroughly current in the Market, but liable to conversion, to a Three per Cent Stock of a new character with which they were not familiarly acquainted. The consequence was that in the beginning there was a reluctance on the part of the Money Market to look with favour at the Stock. A high financial authority stated at the time that he did not believe he would be able to place £2,000,000 of this Stock. It was a somewhat serious matter to have £37,000,000 of Stock in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners which was not marketable and not rapidly saleable, and therefore the great object was to diminish the amount of the Stock. A good deal has been said of the fact that it exchanged Stock for Stock; but at the time it was considered that Consols were better than this new Stock, and some institutions of very high standing refused to exchange Stock for Stock. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners took a different view of the matter. They saw that the Stock guaranteed for 25 years answered their purpose admirably, and they were content to make an exchange Stock for Stock; and—looking to the fact that I was contemplating conversion—it was a great object, which I secured, to get by degrees the Stock into the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. Another transaction was made with the Bank of England, Stock for Stock, but not without difficulty; and as soon as persons heard that others had taken the Stock, then they suddenly began to grumble and say that they had not a chance of doing so. As soon as I understood that there was a desire for the Stock, I immediately gave instructions that it should be sold, and that the market value should be taken. Considerable transactions took "place, not in very large amounts; but it was the object of the Government broker to distribute the Stock among as many persons as possible, so that the public might become familiar with it. Considerable transactions took place, and when the Stock reached a good price I offered £10,000,000 of it by tender. The price was not so high as might have been anticipated. Why was this? It was not on account of the value of the Stock itself, but partly because people would not believe that conversion was possible. That vitiates the test which the right hon. Gentleman applied, because the real market value could not be ascertained until it was certain that conversion would come. Consols were not at their proper position, and the value gave no indication, and the Local Loans Stock did not give sufficient indication, either because the bankers and the Market generally were against it, and it was a small Stock which could not compare with Consols. I trust that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House will make an ex post facto judgment of this matter, nor hold that either the Stock has been thrown away or that it has been improperly dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman asked what has become of the remainder. The remainder, some £18,000,000, is held by the National Debt Commissioners, and upon that they will be able to realize the full benefit of the high price at which the Stock now stands. Then I come to the side-light of the right hon. Gentleman upon the present operation. The right hon. Gentleman did not show us what that light was. He applied it; but he was so intent upon dwelling upon the way in which the Local Loans Stock was treated, that he did not draw his moral, and say that the price was too high or too low for conversion. I do not think that I have gone wrong in fixing the price at which the conversion now takes place. In an extremely difficult matter like this, it is very hard to say whether the terms are too high or too low; but I venture to think that no general attack has been made upon the terms. The right hon. Gentleman raised another point with regard to agency commission, and he put it—I hope I am not using too strong a phrase—somewhat offensively when he said that the agency commission was a bribe offered to bankers in order to induce them to advise their clients in favour of the conversion. One or two hon. Members have already exposed the unfairness of such a contention. But the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he says all the banks are with me. I can assure him that four of the most influential banks in London have been those most opposed to the conversion scheme which I have in hand. These banks deal very largely in Consols, and one of them is likely to lose £10,000 a-year, which will afterwards be £20,000 a-year by the scheme. I do not think that the commission will be such as will in the slightest degree or in any degree mitigate that loss. I am extremely anxious that this matter should be properly understood. I have heard of one bank in London where they have had to take on 20 additional clerks to deal with the work arising out of the conversion, and that the cost in labour and correspondence will absorb the commission. But we have not to deal with bankers; those whom we have mainly to do with are the stockholders; and the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the stockholder ought not to get the commission of 1s. 6d. himself. If he were, he would have to pay, not that sum, but possibly a higher amount to the broker or banker to convert it into Consols; and the object of this commission is to give the conversion clear of any cost to all the small fundholders and all the others as well. A question was asked as to the position of the solicitor whose client, a fundholder, writes to him, and asks him for advice. As he would be entitled to receive this commission, he will give this advice gratis; and, far from admitting the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it, this is practically limiting the expense that will be put upon the stockholders, for it is very possible the stockholders would have to pay a higher commission and brokerage if this limit were not inserted in the Bill. It is, perhaps, too much to expect that the brokers, or the solicitors, or the bankers would act gratis for their numerous clients; and I do not think that, out of goodwill to the Government, they would forego all commissions or agency expenses upon these transactions. The amount, no doubt, is large when it is added up; but then the transaction altogether, of course, is upon a very large scale. I should be quite prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman in argument with regard to this matter; but I regret the tone he took and the manner in which he wished to put it before the House, as if the great banking establishments were to be bribed to give judicious advice to their clients by this small commission upon their Stocks. Well, then, I have replied to one or two points.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the precedent which he promised to mention?

I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have remembered the precedent in which there was paid a commission, not of 1s. 6d., but of £2 10s.

Who by?

In the case of the Suez Canal. Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not ask me whether they were good or bad precedents, but he said it had never been done.

I said there was no precedent of the English Government offering a financial agent a commission to advise his clients to accept terms offered by the Government. That was a question of the purchase of shares on which the Government paid a brokerage of enormous amount.

The right hon. Gentleman has now placed two parts of his argument together. He was properly answered by another hon. Member, who showed the enormous difference between the secret commission of which he spoke and the open agency commission which is embodied in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman, though he spoke of this being a commission to advise, as he says, where does he find that it is a commission to advise?

Because it is not paid unless the advice is successful. Unless the client accepts the conversion the advice will not be paid for.

Well, I must say that is an unworthy argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he reminds me that a great deal of advice may be given without being successful at all; but the right hon. Gentleman says—and there he must be in error—the agents are paid in order to advise. Now, can the right hon. Gentleman stand by that? He must know that that is not the reason why they are paid; they are paid because of the large trouble involved, and unless this trouble is paid for as we suggest the cost in a large number of cases will fall on the stockholders themselves. I do not regret being met fairly in argument; but I do regret the aspersions conveyed in the speech and in the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be no relief to the taxpayer. Upon that point, too, he has been answered. Whatever happens, it is a relief to the taxpayer. Whether the whole of this money saved by this scheme is applied to the reduction of the National Debt, or whether a portion only of it is applied, whether the money is divided between relief to the immediate taxpayers and the payment of the National Debt, or whatever takes place, it is clearly a relief to those whose financial interests are concerned. It is a relief to the people of this country, and it really seems to me as if the right hon. Gentleman throw out that remark in order to remove any impression of the value of this operation. He said, in effect, to the taxpayers—"You will not be the gainers by it. The scheme is not worthy of consideration by the public at large, because it will not assist the taxpayers of the Kingdom." I am bound to say I did not find that encouragement to the general plan of the Government which was accorded to it so fully and generously by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) at an earlier stage of these proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman further asked, What are you going to do with the Bank of England and the £13,000,000? Well, it was not necessary to speak of a threatening measure. It is perfectly clear that the Bank of England cannot continue to receive 3 per cent interest upon her debt when the credit of the country is put down from 3 to 2¾ per cent. It will clearly be necessary to make fresh arrangements, and the Bank is perfectly aware that it will be necessary so to do. And that reminds me to say that the value of this measure does not consist only in the amount actually saved. If the credit of the country once settles down at 2¾ instead of 3 per cent, whenever we may be called upon to borrow, whatever operations may be necessary, we shall have the full advantage of the fall, and it is that consideration which makes it to such a degree the duty of the Government to proceed with this matter. A question was raised as to whether the 5s. bonus should be treated as capital or as income. I think a very good argument may be made as to whether it ought to be treated as capital or income. I have well weighed this matter, and, on the whole, I am inclined to think, personally, that it is rather capital than income; but the inconvenience of investing 5s., or 10s., or 15s. is so great that Trustees would be in a very disagreeable position if they were directed to treat the bonus as capital; and so, in order to facilitate transactions of this character, Trustees may treat it as income if they think fit. I trust the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for East Wolverhampton will use his great authority to persuade those who would spend this money in an injudicious manner to add it to their capital, because they will be fully at liberty to take that course. In conclusion, I must apologize if I have not touched on various points, some of them of a legal character. I can assure the House every possible attention will be paid so as to make this measure work smoothly and remove those difficulties from which it is not free, and from which no conversion of the Public Debt can possibly be free.

I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes, but I am anxious to follow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) at once. I wish to say that the scheme which he has proposed should, in my opinion, be pronounced, on the whole, to be a good one, and that no consideration of what happened three or four years ago—when it fell to my lot to carry through a Bill for the conversion of the National Debt which was not as successful as I hope his will be—will have the smallest influence upon my mind in discussing this. I must, in the first instance, refer to some words which fell from hon. Gentlemen on both sides as to the treatment which the scheme of 1884 received from certain bankers, as compared with that which the present scheme has received. What I wish to remind the House of is that in 1884, when many of their customers applied to certain bankers for advice whether they should accept the plan of that year, they were told—"No; you will get better terms." I am receiving many letters from persons repeating to me how hard their case is; that when they applied to know whether they should accept the scheme of 1884 they were told they would get better terms; whereas now, when the terms offered by the Government are no less than 6½ or 7 per cent worse, the same persons are told by their bankers that they had better accept the terms. To this I have simply replied that bankers are not infallible. I hope in that way I have done no harm to them and no harm to my right hon. Friend. I do not agree with the view of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis), who opened this debate. We ought, I admit, to be as tender as possible to small holders, taking care that they have sufficiently good notice and not put to any disadvantage. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) said, our duty is primarily to the taxpayers. It is our business to see that the country does not pay more interest to its creditors than the state of the Money Market requires; and if, therefore, such a scheme can be carried through with the assistance of the Money Market, it is our business to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer all the assistance in our power. I hope he will be able to carry the scheme through. Beyond these general remarks I should like to say a few words. In the first place, I observe that my right hon. Friend has been asked to adopt some measures under which persons who now hold Consols and other Government Stocks under settlements should have these powers enlarged, so that they may invest in Railway Debentures, Corporation Stocks, or Colonial Loans. But I hope he will resist this, and, at the outside, only sanction investments in what are called Chancery Funds. [Mr. GOSCHEN assented.] I am glad to see that he agrees with me. Again, as to the recent issue of Local Loans Stock, my right hon. Friend has told us in the course of his speech that in January, although he did not know the details of the plan he would bring forward in March, still, as a matter of fact, he did then contemplate conversion, so that when he issued his Local Loans Stock he must have had conversion in view. What I wish to ask him is why, under these circumstances, he did not, as was suggested here, strengthen the Two-and-a-Half per Cents? At any rate, would he not have done better to postpone the issue of the Local Loans Stock until after the contemplated conversion? I think he ought to give us his reasons for having omitted to do what would have saved a considerable amount of money—namely, held his hands for six weeks, and then, after laying his conversion scheme before the country, manipulated—using the word in its correct sense—the Local Loans Stock. Again, as to the commission of 1s. 6d. per cent, my right hon. Friend said that there was a precedent in the Suez Canal commission paid to Messrs. Rothschild.

It had been said that there was no examples of a commission. I merely dissented from that particular proposition. There is absolutely no parallel whatever.

Why, then, did he interject the remark? Surely, the Suez Canal transaction was, in Iris own opinion, pessimi exempli. But my right hon. Friend argued that it was an object to obtain the goodwill of the bankers.

I never said anything about obtaining the goodwill of the bankers. I said they were put to actual expenses for their clients, and that unless they were paid in the way suggested in the Bill they would charge it to their clients.

Surely it is obvious that the bankers will not receive this commission unless they give advice in one direction. If they give advice not to accept the Government's offer, of course they will receive nothing. In each case they will have correspondence and trouble. Finally, I should like my right hon. Friend to say whether he proposes to alter the total sum applied to the interest and redemption of the National Debt? If not—and I hope he will leave the present arrangement untouched—something will be done to counteract the mischievous reduction of last year in the amount of the Sinking Fund, as the new Sinking Fund will gain by whatever is saved in interest. In conclusion, I have only to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to criticize his proposals in any spirit of hostility. On the contrary, I think them, on the whole, very wise and judicious proposals, and if he will kindly explain the points to which I have referred I shall be satisfied.

With regard to the Local Loans Stock, the right hon. Gentleman says that it would have been an advantageous arrangement to wait to the present moment, but then he forgets that since the time that the first arrangement was made a conversion scheme has become possible, and by no possible foresight could I be able to judge of the effects so long in advance. I was anxious to strengthen the position of the National Debt Commissioners, and, before the conversion came on, to withdraw a certain amount of Stock from the Market, so as to have in my possession saleable Stocks available for any emer- gency, instead of unsaleable Stocks, as was the case then. As regards the second point, he asks why I did not take Two and-a-Half and Two-and-Three-Quarter Stock. I consider that I have been better advised in following the course I have adopted rather than that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It was desirable to see the difference in the interval between the different Stocks, and some time was required to make that out; but at the present moment I consider that the power is established to a certain extent. But the argument involved in this question is a larger one than I can venture upon. The right hon. Gentleman asks me what is to become of savings. I prefer not to answer that question until I know what the saving is. It is well not to count your chickens before they are hatched. I would rather, therefore, with the indulgence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not make a premature statement. As to the third question, relating to the Bank of England, I am quite aware of the situation in which the matter is left. The relations between the State and the Bank of England will have to be re-adjusted. I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the courtesy and friendliness with which he has spoken. I hope we may get the second reading to-day, as in the Committee there will be ample opportunities for discussing the more technical points of the question.

said, he should like to make a few remarks before the Bill was read a second time. He was not at all surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given any explanation of what he was going to do with the advantage which resulted from this operation. Twelve months was a long time to look forward to; but he must express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not use the advantage so gained to diminish or take away from the amount in reduction of the National Debt. He thought that every year required more and more the maintenance of Sir Stafford Northcote's maximum, and that they should not alter the amount that went in reduction of the Debt. The right hon. Gentleman had followed the precedents that were applicable to this operation, and he congratulated him and the country on the pros- pect of complete success. The difficulty had always been in respect of Consols where 12 months' notice had prevented the action of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. It was asked why the scheme of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was not successful when it was brought forward four years ago, and why the Local Loan in the month of January did not secure better terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had replied to inquiries made of him, that bankers were not infallible. The same view had been expressed in a coarser way in the expression—"There are no such fools as the Three per Cents." That proverb had been verified four years ago, and he might say also by the conduct of those who had declined to take the Local Loan Fund. The right hon. Gentleman offered 5s. as a bonus if holders would accept conversion. But what did that amount to? He presumed his right hon. Friend would not deal with the question of the Debt or Conversion till next year. He must wait 12 months before he could affect the holders of Consols; and if they did not accept conversion they received 3 per cent, so that there was no advantage in that 5s. bonus. Here came in, then, the part of the scheme which he confessed he did not much like—namely, the 1s. 6d. payable to bankers. He happened to be a Trustee, and when the scheme of 1884 was brought in the bankers left him alone; but now he had already been served by a friendly banker—one of the first in the City—with a notice which was awaiting his signature. It was a singular circumstance that the bank sent round these circulars, whereas they did nothing four years ago.

The matter is so important that I must interrupt my hon. Friend. I cannot accept the proposition that I should have to wait another year. If the conversion is perfectly successful, there will be nothing to hinder Parliament from immediately giving notice to the other two classes.

said, his object in rising was not simply to show the position of the holders of Consols and Reduced, but to bring out the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Chancellors of the Exchequer had usually held that they were blocked by the immense masses of the Consols. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, in his great Budget Speech of 1853, referred to this great mass of Consols, which was greater then than now. It had been held that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not attack that great amount; he could not attack it in the total, but he could do so in detail. Notices need not attach to the whole, but could be applied to part in sums of not less than £500,000. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman felt himself courageous enough to give notice that he would pay off £20,000,000 if the holders did not come in; when the books were closed, it would be easy to arrange the whole amount of Consols in groups of £20,000,000, and to draw lots for the amounts to be paid off. There would be no need of special notice if the bonds were to be paid off in that way, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to secure the redemption on as good terms as he now secured the reduction of the other Stock.

asked of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could inform hon. Members from Ireland what would be the effect of the scheme on the fund of a million and one-third appropriated for the pensions of national school teachers. He had used his best endeavours to ascertain how that fund would be affected, but had been unable to gather any information on the subject.

Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put the Question to me on another day, between which and the present time I will have the matter thoroughly examined.

asked if any other Business than the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken on Tuesday?

said, that no Business of a contentious character would be taken.

said, that before the Resolution was put, he should like to make some remarks on a matter which had been the subject of several Questions put by him to the Leader of the House. He was bound to say that the answers of the right hon. Gentleman had appeared to him to be evasive and contradictory, and if his treatment of the Civil Service was in correspondence with those answers it was perfectly impossible that the members of it could have any confidence in the administration. He asked whether the Board of Inland Revenue had last year addressed to the civil servants a letter containing these words—"You cannot be permitted to lecture on, or publicly speak on, or take any public part in the discussion on Home Rule;" and whether Sir Alfred Slade was at that time a prominent member of the Primrose League? He wished to disclaim any intention of making a personal attack on Sir Alfred Slade, and he was perfectly prepared to admit that he was a man of high character and a valuable public servant. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that the words quoted were used by the Board of Inland Revenue, and that they expressed the rule which obtained throughout the Civil Service with regard to all shades of politics; he admitted that Sir Alfred Slade was trustee for a certain portion of the funds of the Primrose League; but as such he considered that he could not be regarded as a prominent member of the League. Now there was in that answer the statement made, at any rate by implication, that Sir Alfred Slade was not a prominent member of the Primrose League. But what was the fact? As the right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted Sir Alfred Slade, the Receiver General of Inland Revenue, was not only a custodian of some of the funds, but he was actually one of the highest officials of the organization. He was Chairman of the General Purposes Committee, and on the Finance Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that this was so. He was asked, further, whether that brought him within the departmental rule against being a member of any political organization, and his answer was that he was trustee of some of the funds of the Primrose League, and as such he was ex-officio member of the Committee, but that he had abstained from taking any part in the proceedings of the League which would lead to an infringement of the rule laid down by the Board of Inland Revenue for its officers—namely, that they were to abstain from taking any part in or speaking at any political meeting. They had the further statement that Sir Alfred Slade was acting within his rights in belonging to a political organization, provided only that he did not take part in or speak at any political meeting. Now, he proceeded to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman, as to whether the members of the Civil Service were at liberty to belong to any political organization?

, in rising to move the following Resolution:—

"That this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown, holding the Office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail in the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government as contrary to Constitutional usage and precedent, as liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home, and as calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with Foreign and friendly countries,"

said, he hoped that it would be unnecessary for him to disclaim any desire to treat it from a personal or even a Party point of view. The action which he ventured to criticize was so novel—it was admitted by the First Lord of the Treasury to be absolutely without precedent—and it would, if drawn into a precedent, involve such serious consequences that he hoped it might be discussed, as every Constitutional question ought to be discussed, in an impartial spirit. Before approaching it, however, he desired, having held the Office of Judge Advocate General for more than five years, and having a very decided opinion as to its duties, to dispel, if he could, some singular popular misconceptions which had grown up as to its character. There were some persons who believed that military law was like martial law—in other words, that it was no law at all. But every officer knew, and every lawyer ought to know, that that was an entire mistake—that, in fact, military law, though administered by different tribunals, was in reality more precisely denned than civil law, the fundamental distinction being, as he took it, that the Queen, who was the head and fountain of justice in both cases, in one case delegated the administration of the civil authority to the Judges of the land, and in the other case, that of military law, retained it herself as part of her Prerogative. But on the principle that the Queen could do no wrong it was necessary that she should have at her hand a Constitutional Adviser to counsel her on matters relating to military law. That Constitutional Adviser was the Judge Advocate General, who was responsible to the Sovereign on the one hand and to Parliament on the other for the due administration of military law, and who was, therefore, necessarily a Privy Councillor as well as a Member of the House of Commons, and had, he believed, the privilege, which no other Minister except the Prime Minister enjoyed, of asking for a personal interview with the Queen whenever his duties required it. He would merely add that anyone curious as to such matters would find the doctrine he had laid down stated almost in the same words in the 27th chapter of Clode's Military Forces of the Crown, the standard authority on the subject. Now it followed from this that the Judge Advocate General was not merely a Crown Advocate, like the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, but for all practical purposes a Judge; indeed, in his Letters Patent he was called a Judge—

"The Judge Marshal of all our Land Forces, both horse and foot"—

and those Letters Patent contained this provision—

"And our express will and pleasure is that all officers and soldiers of our Land Forces obey him, the said Judge Marshal in that behalf constituted as aforesaid."

When he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was Judge Advocate General the express point arose. He had set aside the conviction of a soldier, on the ground that the evidence did not support the finding. The Adjutant General disputed his ruling and insisted that the matter should be referred to the Law Officers. He replied that while he had the greatest respect for the opinion of the then Attorney General (Sir Henry James)—whom he did not now see in his place, and whose attendances at the House, he was sorry to say, were becoming, like angels' visits, few and far between—the matter was one for his (Mr. Osborne Morgan's) decision, and not for that of the Attorney General, and that it might as well be contended that a decision of the Queen's Bench should be referred for review to the Solicitor General of the day. He added that if such a course were taken, he should insist upon the matter being referred to the Cabinet, and that if the Cabinet decided against him, he should at once resign Office. He need hardly say that he heard no more of the matter, and that from that day to the day he resigned Office the judicial ruling of the Judge Advocate General on legal matters was never again questioned. He mentioned the matter for two reasons. First of all, that the Secretary of State for War, whose absence he also regretted, should understand what a grave Constitutional change he was seeking to introduce in abolishing this ancient Office and what grave consequences it might involve both to officers and soldiers, for at present the Judge Advocate General was the only man who stood between the soldier and an unjust or illegal convic- tion, and he could not help thinking, therefore, that it would be a bad day for the British soldier when that Office was abolished. But his other and principal reason for mentioning this was because he was always under the impression that the fact of his being a Judge disqualified the Judge Advocate General from taking private practice, it being a universal and most salutary rule of English jurisprudence that no Judge was allowed to practise at the Bar. As to the fact itself, there was until lately, he apprehended, no doubt. Indeed, it was admitted to the fullest extent by the First Lord of the Treasury, who said, in answer to a Question, that before 1885 there was no precedent of a Judge Advocate General practising in the Courts of Law, though he drew a distinction, which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) confessed he did not understand, between Courts of Law and Courts of Arbitration. There were at present two ex-Judge Advocate Generals in the House, who would, he hoped, if they took part in the debate, confirm this. He could only speak for himself. When he was made Judge Advocate General it was made a sine quâ non that he should retire from the Bar. He accordingly, at considerably personal sacrifice, returned all his briefs, and had never put on his wig and gown since. He might mention that at the time he had a conversation with the late Sir George Jessel, perhaps the highest authority on the subject, who treated the mere suggestion that the Judge Advocate General should practise as a barrister as something almost too absurd to be argued. When, therefore, the Prime Minister said, as he was reported to have done, that this controversy was of a legal character, and—

"That there was no harm in the present Judge Advocate General taking the business now in question, as well as other business, it being a well-understood rule that the Legal Advisers of the Crown are entitled to increase their business so long as it does not interfere with their official duties,"

he made, if he might venture to say so, a somewhat rash assertion, to say the least of it. But he was told that before the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the Government the benefit of his services, he made a special bargain with the Prime Minister that he should be allowed to retain his private practice, and he was told that he fortified himself by the opinions of several most distinguished lawyers, to which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was bound to defer, although he could not agree with them. He did not, therefore, rest his objection to the course taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman merely upon that high Constitutional ground, but upon another ground which he hoped would be intelligible to the House—namely, that "a man cannot serve two masters." A Minister did not get £2,000 a-year from the country for doing nothing, and the rule he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had stated applied equally to every Member of the Government, except, of course, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, who from their position were required to practise at the Bar. Did the present Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), one of the ablest advocates who ever practised at the Bar, or the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), who was Solicitor General for eight months, or the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket), who was Irish Solicitor General in a former Government, find time to practise at the Bar? Then, why should the Judge Advocate General do so? For he defied any man who attended during official hours in the Office of Judge Advocate General in Great George Street to find time for practice at the Bar. All he could say was that Mr. Mellor, who succeeded the present Judge Advocate General in 1886, told him, two days ago, that he found the duties of the Office combined with his Parliamentary work so onerous and exacting that he was virtually compelled to cease from private practice while he held Office. He knew that the Office had been called a sinecure. Of course any office might be made a sinecure, if its holder devolved its duties on his subordinates. It was not part of his case to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did that; he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) did not for a moment suggest it, remembering the able services rendered by him in his able Report on Woolwich Arsenal, which he was glad to acknowledge; but he must express his surprise that he had found time to go out for a lengthened period to an inaccessible country like Egypt, to so distant a place as Cairo—rather a singular mode, by the way, of "taking a holiday," when at any moment his presence might have been required in Westminster to decide a question involving the life or liberty of a British soldier, or the honour of a British officer. He should be the last man to cavil at a Minister taking a holiday; but when he held the Office and went away for a short holiday he always kept within call. But it was right that the House should know in what sense this Office was a sinecure. It revised all general and district courts martial, and occasionally regimental courts martial. All these were sent to him, except those in India, as well as some regimental courts martial. These courts martial in 1881 amounted to 7,474; in 1882, to 6,513; in 1883, to 6,026; in 1884, to 6,108; a total in four years of 26,121. No doubt, many of these cases were of the simplest description, but others, especially courts martial on officers, involved the most anxious attention and took him several days to decide. In 1881 he set aside wholly or partially 246 convictions, or about 4 per cent—not an inconsiderable percentage of injustice or illegality, especially if looked at from the point of view of those who were unjustly convicted. The total number of convictions set aside or modified between 1881 and 1885 was 746. But these courts martial did not constitute the whole work of the Office, which was greatly increased when in 1881, at the request of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), then Home Secretary, the Office took over the duties of Legal Adviser to the War Office, formerly performed by Mr. Clode, thus saving the country £1,600 a-year. He had made a calculation of the number of letters and opinions sent out from the Office when he held it, nearly all of which came under his personal notice, and found they averaged, not 100, as Mr. O'Dowd, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, was no doubt erroneously reported to have said, but 800 in one year. All that showed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of taking his holiday in Egypt, had remained at home he would have found plenty to do. But that was only a small part of his indictment. His case was that by going out to Egypt as a distinguished Member of the British Government, with the prestige and glamour with which the title of Her Ma- jesty's Judge Advocate General would necessarily impress the Egyptian mind, he got far better terms for his client than he could have done if he had gone out as a private individual. And even if that were denied, and he had no doubt it would be, the mere fact that he held a highly paid and important Ministerial post under the Queen ought ipso facto to have disqualified him from acting as the paid agent and advocate of a foreign Prince. True, the First Lord of the Treasury said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was counsel to Ismail before he was Judge Advocate General. What possible difference could that make? When a man had two conflicting duties thrust upon him, his duty was clear—he was bound to elect between the two, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was bound either to throw up his retainer, or to decline Office. But then they were told, further, that he did offer to place his resignation in Lord Salisbury's hands before going to Egypt, and that the resignation was not accepted—at least, that no reply was given to the offer. That might diminish the responsibility of the Judge Advocate General, but it seemed to increase that of the Prime Minister, for, rightly or wrongly, the impression had got firm hold of the public mind, both in England and Egypt, that Lord Salisbury, intending to abolish the Office, kept it alive in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to go out to Egypt as the Judge Advocate General of his Government. And he was bound to say that the language of Lord Salisbury gave colour to that conjecture, for he was reported to have said—

"The matter was practically settled, not by the Egyptian Government, but by the Egyptian Government acting through the medium of Sir Edgar Vincent. On the other hand, I believe it was really a great advantage to the country that Mr. Marriott was the counsel of the ex-Khedive, and it was fortunate that the interests of the ex-Khedive were committed to the charge of an Englishman."

He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could not dive into the mind of Lord Salisbury—God forbid that he should try. But he must be pardoned for saying that these words exhibited a most extraordinary confusion of thought. The Prime Minister had obviously confounded the duties of a counsel with the duties of an English Minister. The duty of a counsel, as every lawyer knew, was to do the very best he could for his client, even if he happened to be the very meanest criminal that ever stood at the bar of the Old Bailey. The duty of an English Minister was to do the very best he could for his country. He could understand the argument if right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out as the Emissary of Great Britain, as his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) lately went out to America on that great Mission for which he deserved so well of his country. But the Judge Advocate General did not go out to Egypt carrying the commission of the British Government in his pocket. He carried in his pocket the retainer of the ex-Khedive, Ismail Pasha. He did not go out as the Emissary of Great Britain. He went out as the advocate, the paid advocate, the highly-paid advocate, of Ismail Pasha. Now, what was our present position in Egypt? It was a very peculiar, a very delicate, and a very responsible one. We occupied the country with our forces, and for all practical purposes we governed it. At any rate, it was certain that the Egyptian Government would think twice before it resisted the pressure of Lord Salisbury's little finger. Surely, under these circumstances, it was clear that we ought to abstain not only from such pressure, but from all appearance of such pressure, except for the best possible reasons. Now, what kind of idea would an Egyptian Prime Minister be likely to form of the powers and jurisdiction of Her Britannic Majesty's Judge Advocate General. We had seen that the English Prime Minister had formed a very hazy idea of those powers; but what impression would the title make upon the Oriental mind? An Egyptian could hardly understand that—as was once said in that House—that functionary was neither an advocate, nor a Judge, nor a General. If he thought anything at all about it, he would probably surmise, on the principle of Omne ignotum pro magnifico, that he combined all three characters in himself—that he was an advocate to urge his client's claims, a Judge to decide them, and a General to enforce them—that being the Oriental idea of government. At any rate, one thing was plain—it was certain that when the Judge Advocate General made his ap- pearance in Cairo, the resistance of the Egyptian Government to Ismail's claims fell down like the walls of Jericho before the trumpet of Joshua. And now he came to the transaction itself. Now, of course, he was not behind the scenes. He had to get his information from sources open to everybody. Indeed, the matter was arranged in such a hole-and-corner way—so "squared," if he might make use of the term—that it was very difficult to get at the real facts; but there were hon. Friends to follow him in the debate, who know more of Egypt than he did, and who would supplement any deficiencies of which he might be guilty. One thing he must say; he did think it was rather hard that the Papers in the matter had not been laid before the House earlier, but had been kept to the last moment—in fact, he very much doubted whether, but for the persistence of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), they would have been laid before the House at all, or, at least, whether they would not have been sprung upon them in the course of the debate. He repeated that he did not think that quite fair; for he considered that when a man brought forward a Motion of that kind, he should have a few hours' notice of the documents on which the Government intended to found their case in reply. Was that a course worthy of the Government? Even now there were only five or six copies in the Library, and that fact necessarily placed the House at a considerable disadvantage. It was a mere accident that he saw the Correspondence at all, and he could only say that, having read the Papers, he found the case much worse than he had anticipated. They all knew who Ismail Pasha was. He was the deposed Sovereign of Egypt, and, to say the least, a Sovereign not deposed for his virtues. He did not like to speak against an absent man; but Ismail Pasha had an able advocate in the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton. Most Oriental Sovereigns in such a position were only too glad, to be able to escape with their heads on their shoulders; but Ismail Pasha was fortunate enough to get from the country he had misgoverned a Civil List amounting to £86,473 annually. According to those Papers, of that sum £40,000 was payable—he was quoting from The Times of the 10th February—to Ismail himself and his three wives and the remainder to his five sons and two daughters. The contention of Ismail, according to The Times, was that all those pensions were his, to be disposed of as he liked after his death. The contention of the Egyptian Government, on the other hand, was that upon the death of the recipient they fell into the general Civil List of the Kingdom. But the case was not put nearly so high by Sir Evelyn Baring, who, in his despatch of the 14th of February, says—

"The allowances were, no doubt, of a temporary character as regards those who were in actual enjoyment of them. The Khedive could, it is believed, from a strictly legal point of view, at any moment have revoked the allowances paid to Ismail Pasha or any other member of the family. But he could not have devoted the amount thus saved to the expenditure of the Administration."

That was to say, he could have applied them in payment of his own Civil List, and could, to that extent, have relieved the burdens on the Egyptian Exchequer. It was important to note this, for it disposed of the main justification set up for the bargain made by the right hon. Gentleman. But it was further contended by the Egyptian Government—and this, though not mentioned in the official Papers, was really the strongest and most important part of the case—that they had a counter claim against Ismail, and that he, by his fraudulent conduct, had forfeited his pension altogether upon aground stated by The Times Correspondent in The Times of the 5th of January—namely, that

"Since the arrangement by which Ismail ceded his lands as a tardy and partial recompense for a misappropriation to a large amount of State funds to his personal use, there is some reason to believe, it is said, that other properties of considerable amount were substracted from that cession by means of their nominal transfer to third parties. It was alleged, in fact, that since his deposition he (Ismail) had received large sums for the sale of property, the cession of which to the State he evaded by means of fictitious registrations."

Well, under those circumstances, it was not surprising that Ismail should have desired to commute these annual payments for a sum down. Independently of other considerations, a Turk at 58, with three wives, was not exactly what an insurance company would call a "first-class life." He accordingly pro- posed to the Egyptian Government that, in exchange for these annuities, they should pay him the very modest sum of £4,500,000 sterling. Now, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would do the right hon. and learned Gentleman the justice to say that he refused to lend himself to what Sir Evelyn Baring, in his despatch of February 14, had called "a preposterous claim;" but the claim which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did put forward was—if the Government would forgive him saying so—almost as preposterous. What he put forward was that Ismail Pasha and the members of his family should have their pensions, which were dependent, the House would understand, upon the will of the Khedive, commuted upon the basis of 20 years' purchase. That would give Ismail about £1,700,000. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman contended that £500,000 should be paid in satisfaction of an annuity of £20,000 claimed by Ismail on the death of his mother, but the right to which was altogether disputed by the Khedive. He also claimed £150,000 in consideration of the standing crops as well as three palaces—and putting the various items together, the sum actually demanded came to something a little short of £2,500,000. That would show what was the cost of the transactions to the Egyptian Government—that unfortunate sponge which it seemed that every needy adventurer had only to squeeze in order to get out of it what he liked. Well, this claim was presented to the Egyptian Government, but, it was hardly necessary to say, was, according to Sir Evelyn Baring, by them declared to be quite inadmissible. The Egyptian Government, according to The Times, offered to commute the pensions at 12 years' purchase; but it appeared from the Papers just published that the Judge Advocate General got the amount raised to 14 years' purchase—that was to say, Ismail got for himself, his younger sons, and daughters, Domain lands valued at £1,210,000, to be selected by himself, his own proporationte share being £560,400, with the option to the Princes to take £180,000 in cash. But, whereas two-thirds of the lands of the younger Princes were to be entailed on the recipients and their heirs, in the case of Ismail one-half was to be at his own absolute disposal. In addition to that, the Egyptian Government was to pay £100,000 in cash for the growing crops—£50,000 to Ismail and the rest to his family. But that was not all. Three palaces, one on the Bosphorus and two in Cairo, with the plate and furniture they contained, the whole stated in The Times of March 10 to have been valued by Ismail himself at £550,000, were ceded to him. Now, let the House look at the cost of this transaction to the Egyptians. First, the lands to be coded had to be cleared from mortgage, to the great advantage of the bondholders, who would be paid off at par. For that purpose a loan, as announced by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday, must be raised, the cost of which to Egypt was put by The Times Correspondent at £1,400,000. Of course, there would be some nice little pickings to be got out of the loan; but these pickings would, unfortunately, not go into the pockets of the Egyptians. He could not enter more fully into the matter. He would leave that to his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). Then there was the £100,000 cash, the three palaces, furniture, plate, &c. Talk of spoiling the Egyptians! But the most extraordinary thing was that Members of the House were now called upon, as in the case of Warren Hastings, to admire the moderation of the ex-Khedive and his advisers, and Sir Evelyn Baring actually went the length of saying that—"

"The great advantage of the present arrangement to the Egyptian Government is that it will relieve them from the necessity of administering Domain lands to the value of more than £1,000,000."

Why, a man who robbed another man of his estate might as well say that he relieved him of the necessity of keeping an agent. But Sir Evelyn Baring went on to say that the cession of three palaces was rather advantageous than otherwise to the Egyptian Government, because they cost so much to build; and then he wound up with a magnificent peroration about the ability, fairness, and moderation displayed by Sir Edgar Vincent and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But he thought the House ought, in fairness, to hear the pæan pronounced over the right hon. and learned Gentleman by The Times Correspondent, who said—

"The one man who never lost hope was Mr. Marriott. If he could not command success, he was determined to deserve it. It is a pity that professional etiquette should seal his lips as to the circumstances of a negotiation, the details of which would make an interesting chapter in legal history. What he does fully admit is the consummate ability with which Sir Edgar Vincent conducted the negotiations on behalf of the Egyptian Government, and the unvarying tact and good sense with which Sir Evelyn Baring played the part of 'honest broker.' It is not difficult to see why the arrangement has been accepted with equal satisfaction by all parties, or why Mr. Marriott should be blessed both in his outgoing from Cairo and in his incoming to Constantinople. Nor is it necessary to seek for any explanation of the effusive cordiality and good will which apparently prevailed between the recent disputants. It is sufficient to pray that it may last and survive the cash payments. If I were tempted to look ahead I should be inclined to prophesy that within a not remote period about £496,000 of the Domain lands will again be in the market, and that some years later a question will arise as to the probability of making some further provision for indigent descendants of Ismail. But 'sufficient unto the day is both the good and the evil thereof.' "

Poor Egyptians! They had not even now got rid of this Old Man of the Sea. But now let him read to the House a short paragraph from another newspaper, which he had reason to believe represented the opinion of a considerable number of persons in Egypt, and which gave a very different account of the impression left by the transaction. [A MINISTER: What paper?] It was from The Egyptian Messenger, and it said—

"With or without reason, the Egyptian Government believed that Mr. Marriott was the mouthpiece of Lord Salisbury, and terms were offered which would never have been offered but for that. Ismail was told that in satisfaction of all claims, the Egyptian Government would commute his civil list at 12 years' purchase. But Mr. Marriott has driven a still better bargain.… Once more—let us hope for the last time—Ismail has spoiled the Egyptians; but it is not pleasant to remember that he has done so with the aid of the British Judge Advocate General, and presumably, therefore, with the concurrence of the British Government."

That impression might be right or wrong, but there it was and there it would remain. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) might be able to show that his Colleague failed to obtain for his client his full pound of flesh, and that the terms which he obtained fell short of those which, by greater persistence in his advocacy, he might have exacted. If he did, it would not weaken his case. In these cases, they must look not only to what was actually done, but to the impression made on the popular mind. Meantime, he would not pay the Judge Advocate General the very bad compliment of suggesting that he did not do the very best he could for his client. He did not blame him for that—as an honest advocate he could do no less. But what he did blame him for was for doing that which no man had a right to do—for accepting an equivocal position, for going out to Egypt in a double capacity, and for using—it might be unintentionally, it might be even unconsciously—his position as a Minister of the Queen in order to further the pecuniary interest of his personal client. It was that action which, he asked the House to condemn upon the three grounds stated in his Resolution. That it was without precedent, had been already admitted by the Leader of the House; that it had been and was liable to grave misconstruction, he hoped he had shown; that, if followed on future occasions, it would lead to serious complications, it would, he thought, be a waste of words to contend. In any case, he should wait with some interest to see whether in the course of this debate a single Member of this House, be he Conservative, Liberal, or Liberal Unionist, would rise in his place and declare that this whole transaction formed a fitting precedent for the conduct of any man who, by his position, was necessarily charged with the duty of maintaining the high interests of the British Empire and the spotless honour of the British Crown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

said, that personally he had nothing to take exception to in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). If the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had taken the course which ordinary men in his position might be expected to take, the House would probably not have been troubled with much that that speech contained. The right hon. and learned Gentleman belonged to the same Profession as he did—he was his Predecessor in the Office of Judge Advocate General—and he had had the honour of his acquaintance for something like 15 or 20 years; and most men in that position, before they proposed a Vote of censure, would have gone to the Minister against whom that Vote was directed and have asked for information with regard to the circumstances of the case. Since his return from Egypt, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not addressed one word to him. He had seen the right hon. and. learned Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, and had noticed him now and then casting an eye upon him something like the eye that a boa constrictor in the Zoological Gardens casts on the rabbit he is about to devour That was all the communication they had had. However, he did not find fault with the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing forward this Motion; on the contrary, he thanked him with all sincerity, because, that Motion being founded on an entire delusion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had afforded him an opportunity of stating to the House, and through the House to the country, the circumstances under which he acted for the ex-Khedive—Ismail Pasha—and of also stating what were the real facts of the settlement effected. The right hon. and. learned Gentleman went into two matters. He first of all discussed the position of the Judge Advocate General, and certainly he greatly magnified the Office. That Office had been attacked on several occasions within the last few years. His right hon. and learned Friend was himself Judge Advocate General in 1885, when a Motion on the subject was brought forward by Colonel Alexander, and a great disinclination was then manifested on the part of the House to pay the salary of £2,000 a-year attached to the Office. It was illustrative of the strong Party feeling in the House that the attack came from the Conservative, and not the Radical Benches. The great advocate of economy, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who was now busily taking notes, did not say a word against the Office and the salary then, nor did a much regretted Member of the House—the late Mr. Peter Rylands, who was a most ardent economist, almost more rigid than the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, however, took part in that debate. He made a long speech, at the end of which he said—

"He thought he had shown that the Office of the Judge Advocate General was not a sinecure; but that it was one in which a vast amount of work was carried on."—(3 Hansard [297] 1883.)

And the impression conveyed to the House was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as Judge Advocate General, had a vast amount of work to do. He (Mr. Marriott) had made Inquiries, and he found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attendance at the Office was excellent. He came down about 11 o'clock, or half-past 11 o'clock, and remained till 4 o'clock, when the House sat. But he had also made inquiries from which it appeared that there was in his time about the same amount of work that there was now, if anything rather less. He had not yet had an opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee on Civil Service Establishments; but he had offered to give evidence, and he might yet be called. He did not think he would be guilty of any breach of privilege if he explained that when he became Judge Advocate General in 1885 he found there a Deputy Judge Advocate General who was a lawyer, and two Deputy Judge Advocates General who were military men. The first received in all £1,000 a-year, and the two latter £700 a-year each. They were also there in the time of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The work of the two Deputy Judge Advocates General amounted to two or three hours a-day, and of the other Deputy Judge Advocate General about an hour, or an hour and a half, and occasionally to two hours. He thought the Office was over-manned, and when a vacancy occurred in the Office of the military Judge Advocates General he declined to fill it up, and thus £700 a-year was saved. The work which had been done by three was now done by two, which gave them about four hours a day each, which, as Public Offices went, was, a fair amount of work. The amount of work required of the Judge Advocate General was hardly ever more than one hour's work a day. When last year the Office was attacked he admitted at once that there was room for great economy, and, as a matter of fact, he placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister, and explained that he had no desire to stand in the way of any change that might be considered desirable by the War Office. There were some curious coincidences in regard to the holding of this Office. He was first offered it in 1885, and soon afterwards the Ministry went out. He was again offered it in 1886, and he accepted it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was first offered the Office in 1880, and he held it until 1885. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was offered that Office again in 1886, but he did not take it; he took instead what some might consider the inferior Office of Under Secretary for the Colonies. And why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not then take the Office of Judge Advocate General? He (Mr. Marriott) took it because he had much greater faith in his constituents than the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in his. In consequence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's not having taken the Office it was given to a very able lawyer at the Common Law Bar, who was the leader of his Circuit and had a large practice, and who, but for his political opinions, he should be glad to see again in that House. Mr. Mellor became Judge Advocate General in the Liberal Government. Now, by some coincidence, Mr. Mellor had written a letter which appeared in that very day's papers in regard to the Office of Judge Advocate General. In that letter Mr. Mellor said that some time ago the opinion of the Attorney and the Solicitor General was taken on that question as to the Judge Advocate General, and they were of opinion that the holder of that Office was not a Judge. The first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Judge Advocate General was a Judge, and his nest that, being a Judge, he should not go to Egypt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had protested, against the Judge Advocate General practising. Now, when the Office was offered to him (Mr. Marriott) in 1885 by Lord Salisbury, he at once said that he could take it only on one condition. He was not in the happy position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not see the good of giving up his practice at the Bar for an Office which he might only hold for a few weeks or months. Well, Mr. Mellor became Judge Advocate General and Lord Herschell was Lord Chancellor, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was Prime Minister. Mr. Mellor continued to practise at the Bar as he had done. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head. He retired from his Circuit; but it often happened that when a gentleman at the Bar had got a large practice and some other gentleman wanted it, the moment he got an official position his comrades gave him a dinner, which was a sort of hint that he was not to come there again. But he had seen Mr. Mellor's name as practising in the Divorce Court and other Courts during and since the time when he was Judge Advocate General. The present Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Chancellor, the present Attorney and Solicitor General, and he presumed the late Attorney and Solicitor General also, were all in favour of the Judge Advocate General continuing to practise at the Bar; and, therefore, he (Mr. Marriott) did not think it presumptuous to put their combined authority against that of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite, although he happened to have been Judge Advocate General. Therefore it might, he thought, be taken for granted that the Judge Advocate General was allowed to practise at the Bar. Turning now to the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend, it said—

"That this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown, holding the office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail."

He (Mr. Marriott) presumed that by "advocate" his right hon. and learned Friend meant "counsel." Now, as a matter of fact, he did not as Judge Advocate General accept any retainer from the ex-Khedive. When he was made Judge Advocate General he was his counsel. His right hon. and learned Friend admitted that he had stipulated, when appointed Judge Advocate General, that he should carry on his private practice; and among his clients was that very terrible man Ismail Pasha. There was no stipulation that the ex-Khedive should be excluded from the number of his clients. There was no acceptance on his part as Judge Advocate General of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive, and therefore the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was inaccurate as to the facts. Then the Amendment went on to say—

"In the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government."

He presumed that his right hon. and learned Friend there referred to what he did when he went to Cairo both in October and at Christmas last. Now, he did not go to Egypt to prosecute a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government. As his right hon. and learned Friend had gone into the claim of Ismail Pasha, he was bound more or less to follow him, but he would do so as briefly as possible. It was in the month either of March or February, 1885, that he was first retained to act for the ex-Khedive. At that time he was not only not in Office, but there was no prospect of the Conservative Party coming into Office in that year. At that time what was this claim? In 1878 a certain loan was raised in Egypt called the Domain Loan. On that occasion not only the Khedive Ismail but all the members of his family gave up every inch of land that belonged to them in Egypt. They gave up something over 450,000 acres of land for the security of that loan. They gave it up of their own free will, and the loan of £8,500,000 was raised on that property. In return for that a sum was to be allocated for the Khedive Ismail's family The sum fixed upon was £360,000 a- year. A certain amount of that sum was to be paid to the reigning Khedive and certain other amounts were to be paid to the different members of the family. At the same time a document was given to each of the members of the family, and he would invite the attention of the House to the words of that document, the date of which was October, 1878. The words were—

"Each of those members is to receive during his or her life a pension which shall be appropriated to him or her; and after his or her death this pension will continue to be paid to his or her family, children, and grandchildren,"

and so on, for ever. That land was given up; Egypt had the benefit of it, and also the loan; and in return for that sacrifice every member of the family was told that, whatever was his or her pension, they should enjoy it, and after their death their children, grandchildren, and their descendants for over should enjoy it also. It was what he had no doubt the hon. Member for Northampton would object to—a perpetual pension so long as there was a lineal descendant left. On the 24th of June, 1879, some nine months after the document that he had quoted was promulgated, Ismail Pasha ceased to be Khedive of Egypt. On the 1st of July a Decree was promulgated which gave certain moneys out of this £360,000 to him, to the reigning Khedive £80,000 a-year, to the three Princesses £36,000 a-year, and other sums to other people. The words of the Decree were—

"To be paid per annum, and which will be paid to you regularly by the Government, and will be transmitted in ordinary succession to your children and grandchildren and descendants for ever."

When that Decree was promulgated Ismail was not on the throne, and yet the Council in their decree used the very same words that were used in the document promulgated when the land was given up in 1878. In 1880 the Law of Liquidation was passed. That law, no doubt, made very great changes, but the first charge of £360,000 was not altered in the least, and it had been decided over and over again by the Law Officers that none of that money could go to the Stats, as it had been set aside under an international guarantee for the members of the Khedivial family. But in 1880 the allowances paid to the Khedivial house were reduced. Instead of £50,000 only £40,000 was allowed, and the £36,000 for the Princesses was wiped out. Therefore, in 1880 and the following years, Ismail Pasha received £46,000 less than the sum allowed him by the Council. The action which he brought in 1883 was to recover the accumulated difference between the allowances granted in 1880 and those decreed in 1879. The action also had reference to the palaces, which had been confiscated and their contents, and to the money which had been spent by him and his family on the seed which had been handed over to the State in 1878. The case was supported by the opinions of the present Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) and of the late Attorney General—the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell)—who both advised that the claims were well founded. These were the claims which were put before him (Mr. Marriott) in March, 1885, when he advised that, whatever were the legal rights of Ismail Pasha, it would be absolutely impossible to get the money from the Egyptian Government, and that the revenues of Egypt could not bear any extra burden. The advice was taken; but in 1886 an incident occurred which revived the old claims to a certain extent. Among the sums allocated was one of £20,000 a-year to the Grand Princess, the mother of Ismail Pasha, and when she died this sum ought to have gone to him. It was, however, distributed among the different members of his family by the present Khedive, the contention of the advisers of the present Khedive being that he had an absolute right to dispose of the £360,000 which had been appropriated to the Khedivial family. This advice placed Ismail Pasha and every member of his family absolutely at the mercy of the present Khedive in respect of pecuniary matters. The question was submitted to him, and he advised that three arbitrators should be appointed—Lord Selborne, Lord Bramwell, and Lord Herschell; and Ismail Pasha pledged himself to pay the costs of the arbitration and to abide by the result. Correspondence was carried on for some time, and in August last the Egyptian Government decided that it would not do to have an arbitration presided over by an English Judge. He then saw his client, who asked whe- tber he would conduct the case in the Egyptian Courts—the mixed Courts—and he declined absolutely. The fact that he (Mr. Marriot) held the post of Judge Advocate General at the time influenced him in some degree to refuse, but he also took into consideration the fact that the only languages spoken in the Courts were French and Italian, and that his accent in expressing himself in those languages might be disadvantageous to the interests of his client. He might say, in passing, that the ex-Khedive expressed his horror at the prospect of seeing the whole family disputing in a Court of Law as to the distribution of a sum which it was admitted belonged to them. His right hon. and learned Friend had charged the Prime Minister with knowledge of his visit to Egypt, but he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) certainly did not know that he was going to that country, and he did not believe that any Member of the Ministry knew it. He certainly did not ask the permission of the Prime Minister. Having informed the ex-Khedive that he would not act as his counsel, he offered to represent him as agent or arbitrator on the understanding that his appointment would be acceptable to all the members of the family. After Parliament had risen in September he travelled to Italy and Greece, and then to Egypt. This case had been going on more or less for five years, and he was told that those who were concerned would be only too glad of a settlement, no was asked to stay then, but he could not. He only took his allotted holiday, and he was back in London in November. Up to the 22nd of December he was within call every day at his Office in Great George Street to transact the very important business to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had referred. He did not know what the practice was on the other side of the House; whether right hon. Gentlemen there—when they were in Office—asked leave of the Prime Minister to go abroad, but on his side they did not, because they had more freedom and had that faith in the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister had in them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian shook his head, and he was glad to see that the custom was the same on the other side of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he went out, not as Mr. Marriott, but as Judge Advocate General, and he asked what could awe the people of Egypt more than those three terrible words when they heard them. This was the whole basis of the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Egyptians were frightened, not at the name of the Judge Advocate General, but at the three names combined. He had no doubt that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out himself he would have awed them. As a matter of fact the name had not the slightest effect. He only saw two individuals in this case, and they were Sir Evelyn Baring and Sir Edgar Vincent. Sir Evelyn Baring was a genuine Liberal, but he was a man of such strength of will that nobody—not even the Judge Advocate General—could awe him. Then, with regard to Sir Edgar Vincent. He had known many Chancellors of the Exchequer and many Secretaries of the Treasury, and he was aware how difficult it was to screw a farthing or a halfpenny out of them for anything; but he knew of no Chancellor of the Exchequer who was so firm in this direction as Sir Edgar Vincent. That gentleman had been a perfect guardian of the finances of Egypt, and he would only ask the House to look at the finances of Egypt when Sir Edgar Vincent went to that country and then to consider what they were now. Sir Edgar Vincent was an Egyptian Minister, and he had been a most careful Chancellor of the Exchequer. No Egyptian could have guarded the Egyptian finances better than he had done. Those were the two gentlemen whom he had to overawe. He might have tried, but he was sure that he did not succeed, and he did not think that he tried. It was true that he asked for 20 years' purchase; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman—if he had good ground rents in the City or a property which he thought was his own and which descended to his children—would, no doubt, have asked 25 years' purchase. That would have been the period in an ordinary compensation case; but there were reasons why 20 or 40 or 60 years' were not given. They were obliged to be content with 14 years, and the loan was fixed, not at 5 per cent, but at 4½ per cent, by the Egyptian Government, showing how good the security was. The arrangement made was the best which he with his feeble powers could bring about. He acted for the best and not against the Egyptian Government, and he quoted the evidence of the parties who were really interested as against that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Khedive himself, in his own name and in the name of all the members of his family, thanked him (Mr. Marriott) for having made an arrangement which prevented them from appearing as a public spectacle in the Law Courts. Ismail Pasha also gave him his thanks in an equally warm and hearty manner. He valued those thanks because they came from the parties who knew the circumstances, and he thought it would be seen that the Amendment was founded absolutely on a misconception of the facts.

said, he thought that the best proof that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in going out to Egypt in any kind of capacity was the speech he had just made from the Front Bench as a Minister of the Crown. That speech had shown that he went there absolutely as the professional advocate of Ismail Pasha. It was a scandal that the Judge Advocate General should have undertaken this business. He did not think that it was necessary to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman into the discussion of the duties of the Judge Advocate General. He would simply state that he moved a reduction of the salary attached to the Office when he discovered how little the holder of the Office did for the money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Judge Advocate proposed that the Office of Deputy Judge Advocate General, of the value of £700 a-year, should be abolished, but that he himself should keep his salary of £2,000. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that, after the debate on this matter, he offered his resignation to Lord Salisbury. Were they to be humbugged by these offers of resignation which were never accepted? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt that he was occupying a sinecure, as was shown by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and had no right to the £2,000, he should not merely have offered his resignation but should have insisted upon Lord Salisbury accepting it. He looked upon the Judge Advocate General as a sort of odd man in the Government who was sent to address meetings, and he fancied that that was how the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought he was earning his salary. In his opinion, the blame for allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go to Egypt and the blame for not accepting his resignation should rest upon Lord Salisbury. He presumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman received a fee not for acting as arbitrator but for taking the side of the Khedive. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not receive the fee after he was Judge Advocate? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, he did not accept a retainer from the ex-Khedive after he was Judge Advocate General. But he did not receive a fee from the ex-Khedive after he accepted the Office? [Cries of "No!"] Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny it.

said, the question of fees was a serious matter, but as a matter of fact he did not accept the retainer while he held the Office of Judge Advocate General; he had accepted it long before.

said, that they who were not lawyers considered that they had not got a fee until they had it in their pockets. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was playing on the difference between a general retainer and a particular fee. Practically, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that while he had the retainer before he accepted Office he received a special fee for a particular service rendered while he was Judge Advocate General. Whether the claim upon the Egyptian Government was hostile or not depended upon its character. So far from the annuities being perpetual and hereditary, Sir Evelyn Baring spoke of them as allowances of a temporary character; and the assumption that there could be no reduction of them was disposed of by the fact that they had been twice reduced already; while a further renunciation, such as had been made by the present Khedive, would I have meant a great saving to the Egyp- tian Exchequer. The sum of £1,400,000 would not be borrowed at 4½ per cent; it would have to be raised at 5 or 5½ per cent; for this was not a preferential loan, nor was it a loan with, a special hypothecation, and in all probability it would cost 6 per cent. That would be £84,000 per annum; but even at less than that it was an exceedingly bad bargain. Fresh burdens had been imposed upon the Egyptian taxpayers this year; they were no longer allowed to cultivate tobacco without paying a heavy tax; and this tax raised an additional £100,000. The last despatch of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff told us that the burdens on the Egpytian people were excessive, and that there would never be peace and quiet in the country until those burdens were reduced. Far from making this heavy perpetual charge on the country we ought to have reduced the heavy charges for the Khedivial family. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the ex-Khedive's 480,000 acres which he had given up; but they were simply stolen from the Egyptian people, and Ismail was going to receive £1,400,000 as an allowance for giving up this stolen property, and a debtor and creditor account between the Khedive and the Egyptian people would show a balance in their favour. But apart from all these questions, he protested against the right hon. and learned Gentleman going out as a paid advocate. It was known that he was a Member of the British Administration, and that if he insisted upon the Egyptian people being bled they would be bled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not see an Egyptian Minister. Precisely, and that was what was complained of. He saw Sir Evelyn Baring and Sir E. Vincent; and they arranged between them this little plan of taking from the Egyptian people the sum of £1,400,000. It was a scandal that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have gone out for such a purpose. Lord Salisbury must have known it; but certainly if he did not know it at the time, he ought since to have instructed the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of coming to the House of Commons to brag of the part he had played in Egypt, to humbly apologize for what he had done, so that it might be understood that no Judge Advocate General or Minister of the Crown would ever make such a gross mistake again.

said, he did not wish to enter into the personal questions raised in this debate; but the House would probably think that something should be said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and especially of the Foreign Office, which was largely concerned in the affairs of Egypt. First, with regard to the Papers, some copies of which had been that day placed in the Library, it had been said it was unfair to keep back the correspondence from the introducer of such a Motion as this. Undoubtedly, had a Notice been given touching the character and merits of the settlement which had been arrived at on the ex-Khedive's claim, the complaints made would have been pertinent; but it never occurred to him that they were pertinent to the Motion of which Notice had been given, which had exclusive reference to the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown of duties of a professional character. The Motion was indirectly a censure upon Her Majesty's Government for allowing him to do so; and there was no hint of any intention to discuss the character of the settlement. There had been no withholding of Papers, and the last despatches that had been published had not been long received. The point to I which he would first ask attention was the position of the Judge Advocate General in this matter as it affected Her Majesty's Government. It had been stated that he retained his liberty to practise, and that this liberty was enjoyed by his immediate Predecessor. It was hardly necessary for the House to consider the convenience of that arrangement; it had not been stated that the public interests had suffered from the enjoyment of this liberty by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his Predecessors. The circumstances of the present case were unique. Such a thing had certainly never happened before, and in all probability it would never happen again. Before his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Marriott) took Office, he held a commission on the part of the ex-Khedive Ismail. Her Majesty's Government; had altogether declined to enter into any controversy arising out of the claims of the ex-Khedive against the Government of Egypt, which had, fortunately, very competent advisers, and the arrangement which had been come to had been a very successful one. It must be recollected that the claims of the ex-Khedive concerned other countries besides ourselves, and that many delicate and dangerous points might have arisen if those claims had been allowed to come into court, or before a mixed tribunal. The terms which were agreed upon had not imposed any fresh burden upon Egypt. He had prepared a short table which he believed would make the terms agreed upon intelligible to the House. He was aware that the claims of the ex-Khedive were manifestly excessive; but at the same time there was some foundation for them. The original claim for the value of crops on the Domain lands when given up was £364,000, in respect of which £100,000 had been allowed. For arrears of allowances, £1,050,000 had been claimed, in respect of which nothing had been allowed. For palaces and lands adjoining them, £3,030,000 had been claimed, in respect of which one palace with, its precincts at Constantinople and two palace in Egypt without the adjoining lands had been allowed. With respect to the latter, he might observe that the cost of maintaining these palaces exceeded their actual value. The result of the arrangement was that £4,500,000 of claims had been extinguished by the payment of £100,000 and the cession of three palaces which were worthless to the Egyptian Government. In addition to this the ex-Khedive and certain members of his family enjoyed yearly allowances to the amount of about £300,000. Of this sum necessarily paid to the ex-Khedive and the Princes and Princesses concerned, £36,500 had been capitalized and commuted into a grant of Domain lands at a probable future cost to the Egyptian Government of from £65,000 to £70,000 per annum, thus effecting a yearly saving of from between £15,000 to £20,000. It would be seen from these figures that there need be no fear that any increased taxation would be thrown upon Egypt in respect of the arrangement that had been entered into. As to the propriety of the arrangement having been brought about by the Judge Advocate General, that was a matter of opinion; but he thought that the House would think that in the circumstances of the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman was justified in the course which, he had taken. The course which had been pursued was, under the circumstances, exceptional, and he might admit that primâ facie it was not desirable. That the results had been eminently successful, he thought, could not be denied. It was due to his right hon. and learned Friend to say that in his conduct of the affair he had advantages which probably no other gentleman would have had. [Ironical Opposition Cheers]. Hon. Members were pleased to think that that was ambiguous—[Cries of "Not at all!"]—but it might be taken in this way, that he was able to give advice to his client which would be accepted as that of hardly any other man would not have been. He did not think it was any imputation upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman if his professional standing and good advice induced the ex-Khedive to accept terms which were favourable to Egypt and reasonable in. themselves, and calculated to avoid the evils which a dangerous and protracted litigation might produce; and this being so, he thought he might leave the case in the hands of the House.

said, there could not be a doubt in the mind of any hon. Member that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Marriott) was in a much better position to give advice than anybody else who went out on behalf of the ex-Khedive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not only in a position to give advice to his client in the sense the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) had just mentioned, but he was in a position to give advice to the Government of Egypt which no other official personage would have been able to give. What was the main fact connected with this transaction, and which nobody in the course of the debate had attempted to explain away or deny? It was that these claims had been pressed upon the Egyptian Government through five long years, and that the ex-Khedive, Ismail Pasha, had not succeeded in getting a single shilling from the Government of Egypt until a Member of the present Conservative Ministry went out to Egypt. It was then that a ransom of £1,400,000 was paid by the people of Egypt, a ransom which even the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) admits that primâ facie it would be desirable they were not obliged to pay. Any person who took the trouble to follow the Papers relating to Egyptian affairs would bear him out when he said that this was not a proper claim, that it wag not a just claim, and that it was not a legal claim against the people of Egypt, and that the reason why, after five years' fruitless endeavour, the ex-Khedive had eagerly grasped at one-fifth of his demand was the reason stated by Sir Evelyn Baring in the Memorandum which they had dragged out of the Government to-day—namely, that the best legal authorities had advised the Egyptian Government that there was not the remotest danger of any tribunal in Egypt giving a judgment against the Government. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General wasted the time of the House by treating it with what seemed to him (Mr. Dillon) to be very unseemly and unsuitable jokes about the Judge Advocate General impressing and browbeating the people of Egypt, he did not in the least improve his position, but, on the contrary, made his position in the face of the House and the country very much worse. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he went out to Egypt not as the counsel of the ex-Khedive, but as his agent—agent was the word used. They had, therefore, this condition of things, and no amount of argument, however plausible, would displace it from the minds of the people of England, that here was a claim enforced by every kind of pressure against the Government of Egypt for five years, here was a claim which during those five years the ex-Khedive and his counsel never dared to bring into the Courts of Egypt, because the counsel could not speak Italian or French. He thought there was probably some other reason besides his want of knowledge of the French and Italian languages, which induced the right hon. and learned Gentleman to advise his client to hesitate before bringing his claim before a Court of Law. The fact could not be displaced from the minds of the people of England that the claimant dare not bring his claim before the Courts of Law, that for five years he was unsuccessful in enforcing it, and that he was given £1,400,000; but not until he had succeeded in paying a Minister of the Crown of England to act as his agent in Egypt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) did not attempt to deny that he took a large fee for his pains. No one in this country knew how large the fee was. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman was receiving £2,000 a-year from the taxpayers of Great Britain, he took a large fee for acting as the agent, not the counsel, of a foreign Prince, and for enforcing the claims of that Prince upon the people of Egypt, and enforcing them successfully. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be in a very jocose and frank humour. It would be very interesting, and certainly germane to the subject, if he took the people of England into his confidence as to the exact amount of his fee. The right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) who spoke on behalf of the Government, said that the Government had always scrupulously abstained from interfering in this matter, or from interfering with Egyptian finance at all. Such a statement might pass muster with hon. Members who took no interest in Egyptian affairs, but it certainly would not with those who took the trouble to read the Egyptian papers. He was perfectly astounded at the courage of the right hon. Baronet in making such a statement. He assorted that in the face of the Papers laid before the House he was entitled to say, in reply to the right hon. Baronet, that no single move was made in Egyptian finance that was not laid before the Foreign Office in London, and approved or disapproved of by that Department. The English Government had planted in Egypt Sir Evelyn Baring, who overrode the Egyptian Ministry on every occasion on which his judgment went contrary to theirs, and who was responsible to the English Foreign Office. An attempt bad been made to persuade Members of the House of Commons that this arrangement was a good arrangement for the people of Egypt. He regretted exceedingly that the time given for the discussion of these complicated affairs of Egyptian finance was so short that it was absolutely impossible for anyone to bring the matter with fulness before the House. As the time allowed to them was so short he would as briefly as he possibly could endeavour to let hon. Members understand that not only had this claim, which he believed was a bogus and unjust and illegal claim, been enforced through the agency of a Minister of the Crown, but that it was a claim which would weigh heavily upon the people of Egypt; that so far from the arrangement being a gain to the people it was a great loss, and that in two ways. The figures were so jumbled up in the Despatches that it required a considerable degree of care to understand how the problem was worked out; but he understood that at the present moment the family of the Khedive, Tewfik Pasha, had a Civil List of £300,000, out of which he allowed £86,000 to the ex-Khedive. Ismail Pasha, and that the payment of that £86,000 he could, according to the best authorities, stop any moment; but such was the law of Egypt that he could not, supposing he stopped it, surrender the money for the Civil uses of the Government of Egypt; it must remain part of the Civil List of himself and family. As he (Mr. Dillon) understood the operation of the arrangement under consideration, the claim of Ismail Pasha was to be bought off by a present to him of £1,210,000 worth of the lands of the Domain, and by an additional grant to him of £100,000 in regard to property on his lands when he surrendered his estates. This £1,310,000 would have to come from the Domain lands, and a loan would have to be raised in order to redeem from the loan which now covered it that portion of the Domain which was to be given to Ismail Pasha. What would be the result? They would have this fresh burden thrown on the Government of Egypt. They would set free £65,000 of the Civil List, but it would not be available for civil government, but would be hypothecated and kept by the law on the Civil List of the present Khedive. Therefore, he could not see at all how it could be shown that the whole of this burden would not fall on the unfortunate taxpayers of Egypt, and that the whole of the interest on the loan which would have to be raised would not have to be put on the shoulders of the taxpayers in the shape of extra taxation. He objected to this arrangement because it would be made the pretext and excuse for raising another Egyptian loan, and they had noticed that whenever there was to be a loan, raised in Egypt they were told that the finances of Egypt were in a most flourishing condition. The next thing they heard, after receiving such an assurance, was that £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 was going to be raised on loan. Would hon. Members notice this fact, that the whole of the operation of redeeming the claim of the ex-Khedive was covered by £1,310,000. He saw it stated in The Times newspaper that the amount of the new loan was fixed at £2,400,000. What was the balance between that sum and £1,310,000 to be devoted to? Yesterday, he asked the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) whether the House would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the loan before it was issued, and the reply he got was that the issue of the loan was no business of Her Majesty's Government. He should like to know whether Sir Evelyn Baring would not be consulted before the loan was issued? He objected to this transaction for three reasons; firstly, because a Minister of the Crown had been paid by the ex-Khedive to procure for him the admission of a claim which he utterly failed to procure through the means of any other agent; secondly, that the admission of that claim would throw an additional burden on already overburdened taxpayers of Egypt; and, thirdly, because the arrangement had been made the excuse for the raising of another Egyptian loan. They never yet heard of an Egyptian loan which did not swell in the hands of the operators. As soon as there was a question of a loan, every department of the administration in that country discovered that there were small arrears and little sums left over from past years which required to be met, and the consequence was that a larger loan than originally contemplated was raised. He maintained that this operation was iniquitous, both in its inception and in the way it was carried out. It would increase the burdens upon the taxpayers of Egypt, and at a time when they were told that Egyptian finances were in a condition of thorough soundness it gave an excuse for another resort to the miserable system of borrowing money.

said, he should hardly have intervened in the debate but for the extraordinary observations of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). A more mis- taken idea of either the original or the present position of the matter could not possibly be conceived. In the most emphatic language the hon. Member declared this to be an entirely bogus claim of the ex-Khedive, and that he never was able to exact one penny of it until he had obtained a paid agent from the Government. If these were the sentiments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should hope some hon. Member who had been responsible for the government of Egypt would endorse them. So far from this being a bogus claim, as a matter of fact, the ex-Khedive and the members of his family were receiving £112,000 per annum out of a total sum of £300,000 called the Civil List. Nobody had ever suggested that any part of that £300,000 could go to the taxpayers of Egypt, or could go otherwise than to the family of either Ismail or Tewfik. His right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General had quoted the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and the present Lord Chancellor when at the Bar, to the effect that there was no doubt that that £300,000 was solely a charge applicable to the members of the Khedivial family, and therefore the position was this—whatever might be the merits of the case—that Ismail Pasha and the members of the Khedivial family were in receipt of £112,000 per annum. So far from its being a bogus claim, right hon. Gentle men opposite knew perfectly well that to their knowledge that money was being paid. About the beginning or some time in the year 1887 the mother died, and there arose the question of £20,000 beyond the £112,000, and the claim then made was this. The ex-Khedive said—

"According to my rights, that,£20,000 should come to me, not as a mere distribution of the £112,000, hut in addition to the £112,000;"

but Tewfik said he had a right to decide to whom that £20,000 should go. It was true that there had been reductions in the actual amount paid to Ismail Pasha, but those reductions had afforded no saving whatever to the Egyptian people. He wanted to know what was the good of the hon. Member for East Mayo talking about this as a bogus claim. This £40,000 had been regularly paid, and the Egyptian Government would only have been able to say that somebody other than Ismail Pasha was entitled to receive it.

explained that the bogus claim he spoke of was the claim of the civil Government of Egypt to redeem a payment which had been made by Tewfik Pasha of his own free will.

said, nobody had over suggested that Ismail Pasha had not a claim upon this fund. The only question was between him and Tewfik and other members of the family as to whether he should receive a larger payment than he had received in the past. So far from it being possible to suggest that this bargain was a bad one, the result showed that there was a saving of £20,000 or £30,000 a-year to Egyptian finance by reason of this arrangement which had been made. If the hon. Member for East Mayo would read the Papers he would find that, whereas there had been previously a total payment of £300,000 per annum to Towfik and to the other members of the Khedivial family, out of which £112,000 wont to Ismail Pasha and the members of the family other than Tewfik, this settlement relieved the £300,000 from the payment of £80,000 per annum. The position was this—that the £300,000 was practically reduced to £200,000, and that the benefit would ultimately come to the Egyptian taxpayer. For 14 years' purchase a perpetual annuity of £86,000 had been redeemed. It was true that the hon. Member for East Mayo drew a distinction between the capitalized value of this and the annual payment, but for the purposes of the Egyptian revenue that made no difference. In a very few years there would be a relief in aid of the taxes of Egypt. He thought he was justified in pointing out how little this matter had to do with the Vote of Censure which had been brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). He agreed with the Judge Advocate General that before a member of his own profession made such a charge he might have had the common fairness to ascertain what the real facts were. To the speeches of the Members for Northampton and East Mayo it was necessary for the Government to reply in order that the misleading statements in regard to the settlement might not be allowed to go uncontradicted. He did not suppose that anybody on the Front Opposition Bench or in any part of the House would suggest that his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General had not stated truthfully the position of the matter. Speaking as the holder of the Office which he had the honour to fill, he was as jealous as anybody could be of the principle that nobody who had to advise Her Majesty's Government or who represented Her Majesty's Government, should appear in the position of an advocate for anybody who was supposed to be acting against Her Majesty's Government. After the House had heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, which had been known to many of them, and which might have been known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire, if he had thought fit to make inquiries, what was the position? It was quite clear that Ismail Pasha had made very extravagant claims; it was quite clear, and it was not disputed on the other side of the House, that before 1886 Ismail Pasha had availed himself of the advice of the Judge Advocate General with regard to these claims. It was not true that Sir Evelyn Baring had ever said that there was no chance of such claims being enforced. What Sir Evelyn Baring had said was—

"If he obtained a decision in favour of his claims—a result of which the highest legal authorities declare that there is no danger, but which, in the proverbial uncertainty of legal matters, must be taken into consideration—a complete financial breakdown must inevitably ensue."

The hon. Member for East Mayo had not completed the quotation. It must be remembered that they were not dealing with the arbitration of Lord Herschell, Lord Br am well, or Lord Selborne, which Ismail Pasha was prepared to accept but which the Egyptian Government were not prepared to accept; they were dealing with mixed tribunals, and would any one in that House have the courage to say that there was certainty as to the result of these claims? He did not think that anyone who had any experience of Egyptian affairs would suggest that for a moment. The claim for £5,000,000 was an extravagant claim; but having regard to the fact that the share which Ismail Pasha and his relatives would get out of the £300,000 amounted to £112,000, nobody could seriously suggest that 14 years' purchase was not a most advantageous settlement for the people who had to pay. But there was another matter. It had been suggested that when a gentleman filling the position of Judge Advocate General, whose duties were not directly or indirectly connected with Egypt, who knew no more about Egypt than any other Member of the House of Commons or of Her Majesty's Government, but who happened to be able to have influence over Ismail Pasha, wag allowed to advise him in connection with the question of what was a just settlement of his claim, that was some breach of his duty as Judge Advocate General. For his own part, he asserted that not only had there been nothing inconsistent with the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that it was right and proper that he should continue to advise Ismail Pasha as to the settlement he could fairly make. But there was another position to be considered—one of the alternatives of this dispute, which, was not denied by any one on those Benches. The arbitration of Lord Herschell, Lord Selborne, and Lord Bramwell had been offered by Ismail Pasha. Did any one suggest that, presuming that that arbitration had been held, and had taken place in this country, there would have been anything inconsistent in the Judge Advocate General then appearing as counsel for Ismail Pasha because the question was a claim against the Egyptian Government? He was certain that any right hon. Gentleman opposite who was prepared to approve the Egyptian Government submitting to that arbibration would have been only too glad to know that Ismail Pasha's claims were to be represented and urged by a leading member of the Bar, though he was Judge Advocate General. The position of things was this—the right hon. and learned Gentleman had previously advised Ismail Pasha; claims were being made, and it was little wonder that the Egyptian Government were only too glad to know that Ismail Pasha's claims were to be adjusted by a man of prudence and position, and that there would be none of the ordinary incidents of the conduct of litigation in the mixed tribunals, with all its risks and uncertainties. This Motion had been urged upon the ground that some utterly improper position had been assumed by the Judge Advocate General with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; and it had been suggested, without a shadow of foundation, that the position of Judge Advocate General had been allowed to be made use of for the purpose of advocating the claims of Ismail Pasha. Those suggestions were made without one fact to substantiate them. Whether or not it had been a prudent thing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to engage in this matter, from his own personal point of view was another matter; but that he was thoroughly justified in continuing to advise Ismail Pasha—whose adviser he had been long before he had been in Office—as to what was a fair settlement with the Egyptian Government, he thought nobody could deny. That settlement had resulted in a bonâ fide gain to the Egyptian people. Nothing could alter this fact—that a claim of £86,000 in perpetuity had been reduced to 14 years' purchase. He asked the House, as this Motion was a direct Vote of Censure, to come to the conclusion that, whether with reference to the conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, or with regard to anything which had been referred to, nothing had been done directly or indirectly on behalf of Her Majesty's Government which they had the least cause to be ashamed of or to withdraw.

said, the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) seemed to have made the case, from the point of view of the Government, a great deal worse than it was before he spoke. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson), with that diplomatic fact and experience which he was known to possess, felt he had a bad case, and desired to apologize for the conduct of the Government on the ground that the circumstances were very exceptional and peculiar. The right hon. Baronet said the circumstances were unique and would not occur again. If the Government had chosen to leave the matter there the House might perhaps have asked the Government to have given them an explicit assurance that they would never so act again, and they might have been satisfied with such an assurance. But the Attorney-General, as if he were arguing a case before a common jury, must needs try to brazen the matter out and endeavour to justify the conduct of the Government and of the Judge Advocate General. The Attorney General said that no one would deny that the Judge Advocate General was perfectly justified in advising Ismail Pasha. They did deny it on the Opposition side of the House. They denied it because the position the right hon. Gentleman occupied towards Ismail Pasha was absolutely incompatible with the position he occupied as a Minister of the Crown. The Attorney General spoke of the merits of the settlement; but that was not the question before the House, and he (Mr. Bryce) did not intend to debate it. The Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was—

"That this House disapproves the acceptance by a Minister of the Crown holding the Office of Judge Advocate General, of the duties of professional advocate to the ex-Khedive Ismail in the prosecution of a hostile claim against the Egyptian Government as contrary to Constitutional usage and precedent, as liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home, and as calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with foreign and friendly countries."

The hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan).

said, he was present and heard the whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He had been present during the whole of the debate, and he thought that when the Attorney General rose he would have felt it his duty to address himself directly to the terms of the Resolution before the House. He (Mr. Bryce) asked the House to consider whether the phrases in the Motion were borne out. He maintained that the action of the Judge Advocate General was contrary to Constitutional usage. No precedent for it had been cited. They had challenged the Government to point to any case like it, but the Government had been unable to do so. No case like it could be quoted. It was a strong thing for a Member of the Government to undertake any work whatever except the work he undertook to do for Her Majesty. There was an exception made in the case of the Attorney General and of the Soli- citor General, and the Judge Advocate General had tried to ride off, and so had the Attorney General, by calling this a case of practice. It was not a case of practice. When a Law Officer was allowed to retain his practice he was allowed to appear before the Courts of his own country. But what had the Judge Advocate General done? He had gone out, not as the counsel—the Judge Advocate General admitted that he did not go as counsel—but as the confidential paid agent or Attorney of the ex-Khedive Ismail, receiving a fee, the amount of which he had not stated, but which, from his silence, they knew must have been a very large one. It was an exceptional thing that a Member of the Government should undertake practice. It certainly was an unheard of thing for a Member of the Government to undertake legal business against a foreign Power. He would like to be told of any case whatever in which a Member of Her Majesty's Government had been allowed to practice in the Courts of a foreign country, still more to practice in Courts of a foreign country against the Government of that country. But the case went further than that. The Judge Advocate General had not merely acted against a foreign Government, but against a foreign Government which was practically dependent upon our Government—against the Government of a country whose territory we were occupying and which we were advising, and which took no important stop of any kind without the consent of Her Majesty's Government. He could not conceive any case in which it was more desirable to scrupulously guard against any action of this kind than the present case. Now the motion of his right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that the action of the Judge Advocate General was "liable to serious misconstruction Abroad and at Home." Had the Government denied that? He (Mr. Bryce) happened to be in Cairo at the time the news of the Judge Advocate General's coming arrived, and he remembered the universal feeling of surprise and astonishment among official Egyptians and the upper classes in Cairo generally with which the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's mission was regarded. There was no secret about the matter at all. If any Member of the House referred to the telegrams of The Times correspon- dent, which appeared in the The Times of the 5th of January, and which represented the first impressions of the matter on the part of the Egyptians, he would see that his (Mr. Bryce's) words were fully borne out. He himself was asked with amazement by Ministers in Egypt whether it was true that a Member of Her Majesty's Government was coming out to prosecute this claim against them. He had no doubt in the world that the Judge Advocate General, when he came out, made it his business to explain that he was not officially representing Her Majesty's Government. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that clear to the Ministers of the Khedive, but what must the outside public, the people of Egypt, have thought of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mission? They saw that a deported tyrant, whose memory was detested, and deserved to be detested, was represented by a Member of Her Majesty's Government in an attempt to got more money out of the country he had oppressed and plundered. They did not know what particular office the representative held, and they did not know what a Judge Advocate General was; but they knew that he was a Member of the Government of England, and they naturally inferred that in coming out, he came to support the views of Her Majesty's Government. They knew there were many advocates in England—Queen's Counsel and others—who would be glad to come out and press the claim of Ismail Pasha for half the fee the right hon. and learned Gentleman received, and they asked why was the right hon. and learned Gentleman chosen unless it was because he was a Member of Her Majesty's Government. His right hon. and learned Friend's Motion also declared that the Judge Advocate General's action was—

"Calculated to introduce undesirable complications into our relations with foreign and friendly countries."

He agreed that this was so, and for the very reason that it was the Constitutional practice of Her Majesty's Government in all its intercourse with foreign Powers to be represented by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by him only. He defied the Government to produce a ease in which the Government of England had allowed any one of its Members to go out to make representa- tions to a Foreign Power except under the guidance of the Foreign Office. They were told that Lord Salisbury did not interfere with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mission. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Forgusson) had said he thought it would be very undesirable that Her Majesty's Government should mix itself up in matters of this kind. He (Mr. Bryce) entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be very undesirable for the Government to do that, but they maintained that by allowing the Judge Advocate General to go out to Egypt the Government did mix themselves up in the case. It was impossible for the Government to wash their hands of responsibility in this matter. What was to be gained—what object was there—in allowing a Member of the Government to proceed to Egypt on this errand? It was a wanton breach of usage and propriety on the part of the Government. He did not make this a personal charge against the Judge Advocate General, though he thought that a man more sensitively delicate than the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not, perhaps, have undertaken the duty. If Her Majesty's Government, in whose hands the guardianship, the honour of the country, and the character of the Executive rested, chose to do exceptional and improper things, he did not greatly blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for doing what the Government allowed him to do. It was the Government they blamed. It was the Government they asked the House to censure, he did not enter at all into the question whether this was a favourable settlement or not; but he was bound to say a good deal had been advanced to show it was a highly favourable settlement for Ismail, considering what the previous character and conduct of the ex-Khedive had been. Indeed, he recommended anyone who had a more than doubtful claim to prosecute to employ the Judge Advocate General. He recommended the Irish landlords, for instance, to employ the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Why should Ismail Pasha be treated with special indulgence? Why should he have any compensation at all? As a matter of fact, he was very fortunate in being allowed to leave Egypt with such an extravagant Civil List. If he (Mr. Bryce) were to draw the House aside from the main issue, he thought he could meet the contention of the hon. and learned Attorney General with regard to the merits of the settlement; and could show that the settlement was unfair to the people of Egypt; but he did not desire to do that. He was willing to assume for the purpose of argument that the settlement was a proper one; but what he asked the House to do was to assert that nothing of this kind should happen again, and to warn the Government that they could not with impunity allow themselves to be doubly represented at Foreign Courts, and to appear to exercise an unfair and coercive influence over a dependent Power.

said, he would not detain the House more than a very few moments. He had listened to the whole of the debate, and he could not refrain from making one or two observations. He had recently visited Egypt; since, indeed, the business under review was concluded; and he had had an opportunity of seeing and conversing with all the parties concerned in the negotiations—the Khedive, Tewfik Pasha; Sir Edgar Vincent, Sir Evelyn Baring, and several of the Native Pashas. Without desiring to enter into the complicated question as to whether it was right or wrong that the settlement arrived at ought to have been come to, he felt he ought to inform the House that, so far as he could judge, the people of Egypt were well satisfied with what was done. He was not clever enough to enter into the argument as to whether the settlement was a just one or not, but possibly if he had had any hand in the negotiations, the arrangements would have been a little different. [Cheers.] He never liked to be cheered by hon. Members opposite, but, after all, that was all he had to say upon the subject.

said, that if he understood the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) aright, the right hon. Baronet suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Marriott) had not directly communicated with the Egyptian Minister, had not made the claim a matter of argument with the Egyptian Minister himself, but had done what he had done through Sir Edgar Vincent and Sir Evelyn Baring.

No, I said quite the reverse. I said that Her Majesty's Government had declined to interfere in the matter at all, and had said that if the claim was to be preferred, it must be preferred by the ex-Khedive to the Egyptian Government.

said, he was sorry if he had misunderstood the right hon. Baronet. He certainly understood that that was the contention of the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General himself. What was clear from the Papers was—

My contention was that I had only dealings with Sir Edgar Vincent, who is an Egyptian Minister. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Finance Minister of Egypt, and has acted very well in the interest of Egypt.

said, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say now that such arguments as he addressed were addressed to Sir Edgar Vincent. The Papers showed that not to be correct.

It is absolutely true.

said, that unfortunately the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote differently, for he wrote to Nubar Pasha—"Faisant suite à notre conversation."

Nubar Pasha is one of the Ministry. Sir Edgar Vincent is one of the same Ministry. They meet in council, and when I talked to Sir Edgar Vincent I presumed I talked to the whole Ministry.

said, that that did not correctly represent the statement in the Papers. It was clear from the Papers he held in his hand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General made a larger claim on behalf of the ex-Khedive to the Egyptian Ministry than the Egyptian Ministry were disposed to accept. It was dear from the Papers that the claim was urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as advocate for Ismail Pasha upon Nubar Pasha personally. [Mr. Marriott dissented.] Then it was clear the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote what he did not mean. It was clear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that their conversation did not mean conversation with the man with whom they talked, but meant conversation with someone else. There were negotiations with Nubar Pasha quite separate from the negotiations with Sir Edgar Vincent. He would show that the statement of the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General was incorrect. In Sir Evelyn Baring's despatch to the Marquess of Salisbury it was said that at the commencement of the present year the Judge Advocate General arrived in Egypt charged by Ismail Pasha and other members of the ex-Khedivial family to arrange a settlement of their claims against the Egyptian Government, and Sir Evelyn Baring added that this claim put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman differed very considerably from the preposterous claim hitherto advanced by Ismail Pasha and his family. Sir Evelyn Baring went on to say that—

"Mr. Marriott's proposed settlement of the claim was presented to the Egyptian Government and was declared by them to be quite inadmissible;"

and then he spoke of the negotiations which took place between Sir Edgar Vincent and the Judge Advocate General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his own letter, dated the 23rd of January, addressed to Nubar Pasha, and replied to by Nubar Pasha separately, referred expressly to the conversation he had had with Nubar Pasha himself. All he (Mr. Bradlaugh) could say was that he knew English, and that when he was in Prance he fancied he knew French. If what he read in the Papers did not mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General talked personally to Nubar Pasha on the subject and discussed the claim with him, the language had no meaning whatever. The right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General did not say in his letter, "referring to the negotiations with your Government," he did not say—"referring to the representations made by me to Sir Edgar Vincent," but he said "faisant suite à notre conversation" and that could only mean that he had had a conversation with Nubar Pasha. Contradictions were valueless in face of the record in writing of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote for it, and by his vote mean—

"That in the opinion of this House no Member of Her Majesty's Government ought to have acted as the Advocate of a dethroned Prince presenting a claim to a Government which had been rejected by that Government; that especially in view of the position in which we stand towards Egypt no Member of Her Majesty's Government ought, even as a labour of love, still less for personal gain, to have gone behind the backs of the public and of the Ministry to prefer such a claim as this."

He should vote for the Amendment for the purpose of showing to the world that there was, at any rate, one man who repudiated the notion of English authority being used by the lips of a Minister to give credence to a claim—not a claim for £86,000, as it was asserted to be by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), but a most preposterous claim, a claim, reduced it was true, but still of a high amount, rejected for years by the Egyptian Government, and only allowed at last in consequence of the moral pressure of English authority.